Judgment :- BCK, J. This appeal has been filed by the sole appellant challenging the Judgment dt. 31.3.2006 in S.C.No.59 of 2001 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and it was also ordered that the sentences awarded under both counts shall run concurrently. The appellant will be referred as to 'the accused' for the sake of convenience. The specific charge against the accused is that on 14.4.2000 at about 11.30 p.m. he committed the murder of Pechetti Appa Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), in front of the shop of one Paradesi Krishna (Pw.5) situated in Satyanarayana Swamy Temple Complex, Tadepalligudem town by stabbing the deceased on left side below chest and also inflicting several cut injuries on the face of the deceased with a knife used for cutting water melons. The 2nd charge against the accused is that at the same time when Peravali Ravi (Pw.1) intervened and came to the rescue of the deceased, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to him with the same knife. As seen from the evidence let in, the prosecution case in brief is as follows: The accused Thummala Lovaraju was the Vice-President of Tadepalligudem Town Chillra Pandla Varthaka Sangham (hereinafter referred to as 'Sangham'), Patyala Bhaskara Rao (Pw.6) is the President of the said Sangham, Boddu Saibaba (Pw.7) is the Vice-Chairman of Tadepalligudem Municipality, Petchetti Venkata Lakshmi (Pw.8) is the wife of the deceased. Vepadi @ Yapadi Manikyam (Pw.2) is a fruit vendor and he was paying Re.1/- to the said Sangham towards membership fee. As there was no much fruit business at Tadepalligudem in the month of January, 2000, he left Tadepalligudem and did business in another village and thereafter he again started doing fruit business at Tadepalligudem from April, 2000, on his push cart. As there was no much fruit business at Tadepalligudem in the month of January, 2000, he left Tadepalligudem and did business in another village and thereafter he again started doing fruit business at Tadepalligudem from April, 2000, on his push cart. In the 1st week of April, 2000, the accused, who was the Vice-President of the Sangham, asked Pw.2 to pay the arrears of subscription to the Sangham or else not to do fruit business in the Town and thereupon Pw.2 replied that number of persons, who committed default in paying the subscription to Sangham, were doing business and those persons should also be asked to stop their business and that the said matter can be decided in Sangham. Then Pw.2 informed the deceased about the demand of the accused and the deceased stated that he would enquire with the accused. On 14.4.2000 at about 11.30 p.m. while Pw.1, Pw.2 and the deceased were talking together near the shop of the accused at Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Tadepalligudem, the deceased questioned the accused as to why he asked Pw.2 not to do business in the town and then accused replied that since Pw.2 did not pay the subscription amount payable to the Sangham for three months, he asked him not to do fruit business, thereupon, the deceased told the accused that there were number of other fruit vendors, who were doing business without paying the arrears of subscription to the Sangham and therefore Pw.2 should be allowed to continue his business. Then an altercation took place between the deceased and the accused and the accused caught hold the color of the deceased and pulled him. Then Pw.1 intervened and separated the accused and the deceased and intended to take away the deceased from that place. In the meanwhile, the accused picked up a knife from the push-cart belonging to Pw.5 and stabbed the deceased in his left chest near the nipple and also hacked on the head and face of the deceased with the same knife. Then Pw.1 intervened by raising his left hand and the accused caused cut injury on the dorsum of left palm of Pw.1. Pw.1 raised cries that the accused was killing the deceased. Then Pw.1 intervened by raising his left hand and the accused caused cut injury on the dorsum of left palm of Pw.1. Pw.1 raised cries that the accused was killing the deceased. On hearing the cries of Pw.1, Pws 3,4 and one Nalla Appa Rao (Lw.5) who were on the other side of the road at that time, came running and found the deceased lying unconscious and the accused keeping the knife on the carriage and leaving towards Modern Caf. Thereafter Pw.1, Pw.3, Pw.4 and Nalla Appa Rao took the deceased in an auto to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment, but the doctor declared that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. The President of the Sangham Patyala Bhaskar Rao (Pw.6) came to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem and then proceeded to the police station and lodged report in Ex:P.2. The SI of police, Tadepalligudem M.R.L.S.S. Murthy (Pw.13) who was in the police station on the intervening night of 14/15.4.2000 at about 1.30 a.m. received the report from Pw.6 and registered a case in Cr.No. 81 of 2000 and issued FIR Ex:P.12 to the J.F.C.M. Tadepalligudem, who received it at 7.30 a.m. on 15.4.2000. However, in the meanwhile the Head Constable 1184 who was on night duty received death intimation from the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem and also hospital intimation about the admission of Pw.1 in the hospital. After registering the case and after receiving hospital intimation, Pw.13 proceeded to the Hospital. V.Vijayakumar (Pw.14), the Inspector of police, Tanuku who was also the incharge Inspector of Tadepalligudem circle, received a copy of express FIR on 15.4.2000 at 2.30 a.m. and then he reached Tadepalligudem by 6 a.m. He secured the presence of Pw.10 and other mediator and observed the scene of offence, situated opposite to Ramu Sweet Home Kharkahana located in Stayanarayana Swamy Temple Complex, prepared observation report of the scene of offence in the presence of Pw.10 and other mediator in Ex:P.5. He also seized blood stained earth M.O.5 and control earth M.O.6, two rubber chappals, one Hawai Chappal (M.O.3), two blood stained gunny bags (M.O.4) and one Titan Quartz watch (M.O.2), got photographed the scene of offence by Pw.9. Exs:P.3 and P.4 are the photographs of the scene offence. He also seized blood stained earth M.O.5 and control earth M.O.6, two rubber chappals, one Hawai Chappal (M.O.3), two blood stained gunny bags (M.O.4) and one Titan Quartz watch (M.O.2), got photographed the scene of offence by Pw.9. Exs:P.3 and P.4 are the photographs of the scene offence. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence in Ex:P.13 and also secured the presence of Irlapati Vinod Kumar (Pw.10) and Bazavada Rambabu and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above mediators. Ex:P.6 is the inquest report. Then the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. During course of inquest, Pw.14 also examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1,3, 4, 6. Then he also recorded the statements of Pw.5, Pw.7 and Pw.9 on the same day and handed over the remaining investigation to the regular Inspector of police. Pw.11 Dr.M.Padma who was the Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found eight external injuries on the person of the deceased. She opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injury to the heart by a sharp edged weapon and that the deceased appears to have died about 12 to 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. She also deposed that the injuries found on the deceased are possible with M.O.1 knife. On 19.4.2000, Pw.15 on reliable information arrested the accused at 4.30 p.m. and recorded the confessional statement of the accused in the presence of Goparaju Subba Rao (Pw.10) and another mediator. In pursuance the confession, the accused led the police and mediators to by-pass road and brought out M.O.1 the knife from the dried water weeds and a panchanama in Ex:P.8 was prepared. The accused also led Pw.15 and the mediators to his house at Sanamvari street and produced blood stained biscuit colour shirt with, 'Ramu Tailors' mark and the same was seized under Ex:P.9. The material objects were sent to FSL and Ex: P.14 is the FSL report. After completing investigation, Pw.15 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. Charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied the same and claimed to be tried. After completing investigation, Pw.15 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. Charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied the same and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 15 and got marked Exs:P.1 to P.16 and M.Os 1 to 7. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused but Ex:D.1 was marked in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavri at Eluru found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him, as indicated above. The learned Counsel for the accused Smt.Shesharajyam submitted detailed arguments as follows: The accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Pw.6 who lodged Ex:P.2 report failed to mention as to who informed him about the incident. The alleged eyewitnesses did not give any report to the police. Though the police enquired and obtained their statements, FIR was not issued on the basis of such statements and thus the earliest version in this case has been suppressed. Ex:P.2 cannot be treated as FIR since it was recorded during the course of investigation. The case of the prosecution is that Ex:P.2 was presented to the SI of police on 15.4.2000 at about 1.30 a.m. whereas Pw.6 deposed that he went to the police station at about 5.30 a.m. and presented Ex:P.2 report. Pw.6 is not the scribe of Ex:P.2 and he got it prepared Ex:P.2 by Saibaba (Pw.7). Admittedly the Head Constable received hospital intimations about the death of the deceased and also about the injuries sustained by Pw.1 much before Ex:P.2 was presented to the police and those hospital intimations have been deliberately suppressed and the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the incident. The learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that Pws 1,3 and 4 are planted witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence is doubtful. Pws 1,3 and 4 are residing at a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the scene of offence and they are chance witnesses. Her next submission is that the scene of offence has been shifted in this case. Pws 1,3 and 4 are residing at a distance of 1/4th kilometer from the scene of offence and they are chance witnesses. Her next submission is that the scene of offence has been shifted in this case. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that Pw.6 admitted that the scene of offence is at Vijaya Talkies and that the hospital intimation also shows that the scene of offence is at Vijaya Talkies and that the prosecution has conveniently shifted the scene offence near to Satyanarayana Swamy Temple to suite its case. She further contended that Pw.1 did not sustain the injuries in the incident as claimed by him but he sustained injuries at some other place in some other incident. She further contended that according to the doctor who conducted post mortem examination, the injury No.1 had clean cut edges and to cause such injuries, the weapon must have sharp edges on either side and that the M.O.1 is sharp on one side and blunt on other and its tip is also broken and therefore the injury No.1 sustained by the deceased is not possible with the weapon like M.O.1 and some other weapon was used in the commission of the crime. The learned Counsel for the accused further contended that the evidence of Pws 1, 3 and 4 is not trustworthy since their evidence is contradictory to the medical evidence. She also argued that according to Pw.6, Pw.1 informed him about the incident at about 3 a.m. that some galata was taking place at Vijaya Talkies centre and this shows that no incident occured near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple as stated by Pws 1, 3 and 4 and that one Kongalla @ Nalla Appa Rao, who was cited as an eye witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also argued that by 10 or 10.30 p.m. all the business would be closed and the presence of pushcart vendors i.e. Pws 1, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence at about 11.45 p.m. is doubtful. It is also argued that even before the accused was arrested, the Inspector of police visited the house of the accused, but he did not find any incriminating material in his house and therefore the subsequent recovery of blood stained shirt, from the house of the accused becomes doubtful. It is also argued that even before the accused was arrested, the Inspector of police visited the house of the accused, but he did not find any incriminating material in his house and therefore the subsequent recovery of blood stained shirt, from the house of the accused becomes doubtful. The learned Counsel for the accused further submitted that as Pws 1,3 and 4 are supporters of Pw.6, they have concocted a story and implicated the accused in this case. She further argued that the prosecution has not come out with true version and therefore the accused should be given benefit of doubt. It is also contended that the name of Valli Sreenu is struck off in Ex:P.2 and this itself shows that after deliberations and consultations, Ex:P.2 was prepared citing the names of alleged eye witnesses who are amenable to the prosecution. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that Pw.1 is the injured witness and that he along with Pws 3 and 4 brought the deceased to the hospital immediately after the incident and their version cannot be disbelieved. He further argued that the push cart vendors would continue to do their business till midnight and therefore the presence of Pws 1, 3 and 4 at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. It is also argued that from the beginning the prosecution case is that the scene of offence is near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple and therefore the question of shifting of scene of offence does not arise. It is also contended that the police registered the case at about 1.30 a.m. and it shows that the FIR was lodged without any delay with all the details and that merely because that there are some minor contradictions, the prosecution case should not be thrown out. It is also submitted that the doctor categorically deposed that the injuries are possible with M.O.1 and that M.O.1 was recovered at the instance of the accused in the presence of mediators which contains human blood as per the report of FSL and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt? The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt? According to Pw.1 that on the date of offence at about 11.30 p.m. he was near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple talking with the deceased and the accused and nobody was present there and that altercation took place between the accused and the deceased with regard to the issue of allowing Pw.2 to do business and during that altercation, the accused caught of the color of the deceased and that he intervened and separated them. Pw.1 further deposed that the accused took out a knife from the watermelon cart of Pw.5 and stabbed the deceased on the chest near nipple and hacked him on the head and face and that when he intervened by raising in left hand, the accused cut on the dorsum of his left palm near his left thumb with the same knife and when he raised cries that the accused was killing the deceased, Pw.3 and Pw.4 and Nalla Appa Rao, who were on the other side of the road came there running. He further deposed that the accused left the place on his cycle keeping the knife on the carriage of his cycle and went towards Modern Caf, then he along with Pws 2, 3, 4 and one Nalla Appa Rao shifted the deceased in a rickshaw to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem and that he was also treated for the injury sustained by him. He further deposed that Pw.6 came to the hospital and he informed him about the incident and thereupon Pw.6 went to the police station and gave a report to the police. He admitted that his house is at a distance of 1/2 KM from the scene of offence. Pw.2 Repadi Manikyam is a fruit vendor. He has not witnessed the incident. However he speaks about the motive. He stated that he stopped doing business on pushcart in Tadepalligudem about three months pror to March, 2000 and that in the last week of March, he started doing business and that the accused demanded that (Pw.2) should not do fruit business in Tadepalligudem unless he pays the subscription to their Sangham. It is also his case that then he informed the deceased. It is also his case that then he informed the deceased. He further deposed that about 10.30 p.m. on 14.4.2000 he along with Pw.1, deceased and one Chakrapani were talking near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple and that in the meanwhile one Yejji Venkateshwar Rao came thereand then the deceased asked him to go along with the said Yejji Venkateshr Rao and accordingly he went to his house along with the Yejji Venkateshwar Rao. He further deposed that at about 1.00 a.m. in the mid night when he was at his house, Pw.3 came to his house and informed about the incident and then he went to the hospital and by the time he went to the hospital, the deceased died. Pw.3 Rowthu Somaraju is also a fruit vendor. According to him, on the date of incident at about 11.45 p.m. he along with Pw.4 and Nalla Appa Rao were talking on the road opposite to Satyanarayana Swamy Temple and that the deceased, Pw.1 and the accused were talking on the road, in front of the shop of the accused by the side of Satyanarayana Swamy Temple. He further deposed that there was an heated altercation between the accused and the deceased with regard to payment of subscription by Pw.2 and that Pw.1 separated the accused and the deceased, but the accused had taken a knife from the watermelon shop of P.Krishana (Pw.5) and stabbed the deceased with the said knife on his left chest and hacked the deceased on his head and face and when Pw.1 intervened, the accused slashed Pw.1 with the same knife and caused injury on the left thumb of Pw.1 and that the accused kept the said knife M.O.1 on the carriage of his cycle and left the place towards Modern Caf hotel. He further deposed that himself, Pw.4 and Nalla Appa Rao shifted the deceased in a rickshaw to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem. He also stated that the doctor on examining the deceased declared as brought dead. Pw.4 Bonda Sreenivasrao also deposed that he is also a fruit vendor and that on the date of incident at about 11.45 p.m. he along with Pw.3 and Nalla Appa Rao were talking near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, at that time, the deceased and Pw.1 were talking near the shop of the accused at the Temple with regard to subscription amount payable by Pw.2 to their union. He further deposed that during conversation, there was heated altercation between the accused and the deceased and that they pushed one another and then Pw.1 intervened and separated them, but the accused picked up a knife, from the push cart placed nearby a fruit shop and stabbed the deceased on his left chest and hacked him on the face of the deceased. He further stated that when Pw.1 intervened, the accused caused cut injury with the same knife on his left thumb. He further deposed that Pw.1 raised cries that the accused was killing the deceased and thereupon he along with Pw.3 and Nalla Appa Rao ran to the place and by that time, the deceased fell down on the ground in unconscious state and that the accused went away on his cycle by keeping the knife on the carriage of his cycle towards Modern Caf. It is also his case that then they shifted the deceased to the Government hospital where the doctor after examining the deceased declared that the deceased was brought dead. He identified the knife as M.O.1. Pw.5 Paradesi Krishna is not an eye witness. However he deposed that on the next day morning at about 7.30 a.m. he did not find the knife which was used for cutting watermelons on his cart and that he identified the knife as M.O.1. Pw.6 Patyala Bhaskararao is the President of the fruit vendors association during the relevant period. According to him, on the date of incident while he was sleeping in his house at about 3 a.m. Pw.1 came to his house and informed him that some quarrel was taking place among the members of their association near Vijaya Talkies Centre. He further deposed then he went to the house of Boddu Saibaba (Pw.7) and he along with Pw.7 went to Vijaya Talkies Centre and there they came to know through Pw.3 that the deceased was shifted to the hospital and then they went to the Government hospital and that the doctor informed them that the deceased died and by that time it was 5 a.m. Then he along with Pw.7 went to the police station and on the information furnished by Pw.1 got prepared the report in Ex:P.1 by Pw.7 and presented the same to the police. Pw.7 Boddu Saibaba deposed that on the date of incident at about 11 p.m. while he was at his house Pw.6 came to his house and informed that the deceased was stabbed by somebody and that he was taken to the hospital, then he along with Pw.6 went to the hospital on his motor cycle and that Pw.1 was present in the hospital and by that time they enquired the persons gathered at the hospital as to what happened and then prepared the report as per the information furnished by Pw.1and at the request of Pw.6 he drafted the report Ex:P.2. Pw.8 Pechetti Venkatalakshmi is the wife of the deceased who deposed that after coming to know of the incident, she went to the hospital and saw the dead body of the deceased in the hospital. Pw.9 Vujjina Pardhasaradhi is the photographer who as per the instructions from the Inspector of Police had taken the photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased. Pw.10 Goparaju Subbarao the V.A.O. of Tadepalligudem was present when the Investigating Officer observed the scene offence at Satyanarayana Swamy Temple along with one Vinod Kumar and Manohar and that he signed the observation report prepared at the scene of offence. He is also a witness at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased in the hospital. He is also a witness at the time of arrest of the accused. He deposed that the accused made a confessional statement and lead them to Eluru Canal and picked up M.O.1 and the police recovered the same. He has also deposed that the accused lead them to his house and produced M.O.2 blood stained shirt. Pw.11 Dr.M.Padma is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1. An elliptical shaped stab injury on the left side of the chest 2x1x4 inches depth. 2. An incised wound 1 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch over the scalp. 3. An incised wound 3 x 1 inches on the scalp. 4. An incised wound over left cheek 3 x 1/2 inch. 5. An incised wound 3 x 1 inches on the left side of the angle of the mouth. 6. An incised wound 4 1/2 x 1/8 inches over right cheek. 7. 3. An incised wound 3 x 1 inches on the scalp. 4. An incised wound over left cheek 3 x 1/2 inch. 5. An incised wound 3 x 1 inches on the left side of the angle of the mouth. 6. An incised wound 4 1/2 x 1/8 inches over right cheek. 7. An incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/8 inches on the right side lower jaw. 8. An incised wound 2 x 1/4 in behind the right ear. She opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injury to the heart by a sharp edged weapon and that the injuries are possible with M.O.1 knife. Ex: P.10 is the Postmortem Certificate. Thus the evidence of Pw.11 proves that the death of the deceased is homicidal death. Pw.12 P.T.K.Devika Rani is another doctor who examined Pw.1 at 1.10 a.m. on 15.4.2000 and found one incised wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 1/4 inch on the left thumb of Pw.1 and he opined that the said injury found on Pw.1 could be caused by M.O.1.Thus, the evidence of Pw.12 also proves that Pw.1 sustained injury on the intervening night of 14/15th April, 2000. The stand of the accused is that he is innocent and that he is unjustly implicated in this case. It was suggested to Pws 1,3 and 4 that there was bitter enmity between them and the accused. Now we have to see whether the evidence of Pw.1,3 and 4 who claims to have witnessed the incident is reliable and whether the prosecution has suppressed the earliest version as argued by the learned Counsel for the accused and whether the scene of offence has been shifted and whether the injuries on the deceased are possible with M.O.1 knife and whether the grain can be separated from the chaff. A reading of above evidence prima facie gives an impression that the evidence of Pws 1,3 and 4 can be accepted. But a close scrutiny of entire evidence creates a reasonable doubt about their version and genesis of the prosecution case. In the instant case, Pw.1 admitted in his cross-examination that by the time they shifted the deceased to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem, it was midnight and the police came to the hospital by 12.45 hours. But a close scrutiny of entire evidence creates a reasonable doubt about their version and genesis of the prosecution case. In the instant case, Pw.1 admitted in his cross-examination that by the time they shifted the deceased to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem, it was midnight and the police came to the hospital by 12.45 hours. The prosecution case is that Pw.6 presented Ex:P.2 report at about 1.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 14/15.4.2000 and that the Head Constable 1184 received hospital intimation by 1.30 a.m. Ex:P.2 original FIR was received by the J.F.C.M. Tadepalligudem at 7.30 a.m. Admittedly, the hospital intimation is not exhibited by the prosecution though the same is available with the postmortem certificate in the file. Now it has to be seen whether Ex:P.2 was presented at the police station by 1.30 a.m. on that day or whether it was brought into existence during the course of investigation. The evidence on record shows that it was brought into existence during the course of investigation therefore it cannot be treated as FIR. According to Pw.6, on the intervening night of 14/15.4.2000 while he was sleeping in his house, Pw.1 came to his house and informed him that some quarrel was talking among the members their association near Vijaya Talkies Centre and then he along Pw.1 went to Boddu Saibaba (Pw.7) and they all went to Vijaya Talkies Centre where they had learnt that the deceased was shifted to the hospital through Pw.3, then they reached the hospital and it was 5 a.m. by then. He further stated that he along with Pw.7 went to police station Tadepalligudem and there he got prepared the report Ex:P.2 through Pw.7 and presented it to the police. The specific version of Pw.6 is that Ex:P.2 was got drafted at the police station at 5.30 a.m. He admitted in his cross-examination that Pw.7 Saibaba contested to the post of Chairman of Tadepalligudem Municipality and that he is running a Bar at Tadepalligudem. Pw.6 further stated that he used to inform the affairs of the association to Pw.7 and therefore he, himself and Pw.1 went to the house of Pw.7 and informed about the quarrel that took place between the members of their association during that night. Pw.6 further stated that he used to inform the affairs of the association to Pw.7 and therefore he, himself and Pw.1 went to the house of Pw.7 and informed about the quarrel that took place between the members of their association during that night. In his cross-examination Pw.6 admitted that they came to the Center at about 3 or 3.30 a.m. The specific case of Pw.6 is that Ex:P.2 report was lodged at 5.30 a.m. Thus the above admission of Pw.6 goes to show that no report was drafted till 5.30 a.m. Pw.1 admitted that the police came to the hospital at about mid night and even the case of the prosecution is that the police received the hospital intimation at about 1.30 a.m. It has to be seen that the distance between the scene of offence and the Government hospital is 1/2 KMs and the distance between Government hospital and police station is 1/4 KMs. Pw.3 also admitted that while he was in the hospital, police came there at about 1 a.m. and that he was in the hospital till 1.30 a.m. Pw.1 further admitted that after the police came to the hospital i.e. at about 12.45 p.m. he was enquired and his statement was reduced into writing but his signature was not obtained on it. It is surprising to note that when the injured Pw.1 was very much available in the hospital and when the SI of police enquired with him and recorded his statement FIR was not issued on the basis of the said statement of injured eyewitness. It is not known what prevented the police from registering a case basing on the statement of Pw.1. It has to be seen that Pws 3 and 4 who are said to be the eyewitnesses were also available in the hospital but the police did not take a report either from Pw.3 or from Pw.4. Pw.4 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he himself and Pws 1 and 3 and Nalla Appa Rao stated to the police, in the hospital, as to what had happened. Thus the specific information about the occurrence had been furnished by the injured eyewitness and other eyewitnesses but no FIR was issued. Pw.4 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he himself and Pws 1 and 3 and Nalla Appa Rao stated to the police, in the hospital, as to what had happened. Thus the specific information about the occurrence had been furnished by the injured eyewitness and other eyewitnesses but no FIR was issued. In case between Ramesh Babu Rao Devaskar vs. State of Maharastra [2008 (2) ALT (Cri) 1] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for a valuable piece of evidence although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason for insisting of lodging of First Information Report without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had been committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons which had been used as also the names of eye-witnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of First Information Report always considered to be vital." Lodging of FIR is very important step, which sets the investigating agency into motion for prosecuting the persons responsible for the commission of an offence. In the case between B.Subba Rao vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.2 and in the case between Hazari Lal vs. The State (Delhi Admn.,)3, the Supreme Court held as under: "Where the original FIR has been suppressed and in its place some document has been substituted and the original diary was not produced in the court, the entire prosecution case becomes suspicious". In the case of State of A.P. Vs. In the case of State of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu (1993 Cri.L.J. 3440) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "When the Investigating Officer has deliberately failed to record the FIR on receipt of information regarding commission of a cognizable offence and had prepared FIR after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations ad discussions, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate the evidence and create false clues." Section 154 Cr.P.C. mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an Officer In charge of Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and when it is given in writing, the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such Officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Prompt first information eliminates the chances of embellishment and false implication of accused persons. It diminishes the chances of tutoring the informant. Prompt first information gives assurance of the correctness of the prosecution version. When the first information report is not issued at the earliest point of time and the Police Officer after visiting the scene of offence and after making some investigation registers a case certainly it causes delay and ultimately it may result in disbelieving the version of the witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise reliable. The delay may defeat the justice. The deliberate delay may result in burying the truth. Where in a case FIR is not issued on the information furnished by an eyewitness. The spontaneity is lost and if the FIR is issued after 5 or 6 hours on the ground of ascertaining the fact, the informant may not be able to explain the delay and his version may be viewed with suspicious eye. Therefore the Section 154 Cr.P.C. mandates the necessity of registering the case as soon as the information of a cognizable offence is furnished. The spontaneous version gives an assurance that it may be true. If the first information report is an outcome of investigation, the same cannot be treated as FIR and it always create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. The spontaneous version gives an assurance that it may be true. If the first information report is an outcome of investigation, the same cannot be treated as FIR and it always create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the FIR was not at all prepared at the time alleged by the prosecution i.e. at about 1.30 a.m. In deed, in the instant case, the FIR was not the basis for the investigation as it should be. From the above discussion and from the facts and circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Ex:P.2 was prepared after the police started investigation and therefore, Ex:P.2 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The earliest version of the case without any embellishment and improvements should be placed before the court, which inspires confidence of the court. Since the earliest version is suppressed in this case, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that after due deliberations, the FIR was brought into existence to suite the case of the prosecution. It has to be seen that the police waited till the arrival of Pw.6 who is the President of the Sangham. The evidence of Pw.6 reveals that he did not give any report to the police but went to Pw.7 who contested for the post of Chairman of Tadepalligudem Municipality and who is running a Bar and got Ex:P.2 drafted through Pw.7. Thus it is clear that only after consulting Pw.6 and Pw.7, Ex:P.2 was brought into existence. Therefore, it is clear that there no spontaneous report in this case. When the FIR is brought into existence after due consultations, it gives scope for naming the interested persons as eyewitnesses and may also give scope for implicating innocent persons in a criminal case. In this case, Pw.1 is the injured witness and Pws 3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses, who witnessed the incident. Their evidence which may otherwise inspire confidence and which appears to be trustworthy, has to be looked suspiciously, in view of the above-mentioned lacunae in the prosecution case. Admittedly, the name of one Valli Sreenu was shown as an eyewitness but subsequently it was struck off. This supports the allegation of defence counsel that the names of witnesses were chosen and mentioned in Ex:P.2 who were obliged to prosecution. Admittedly, the name of one Valli Sreenu was shown as an eyewitness but subsequently it was struck off. This supports the allegation of defence counsel that the names of witnesses were chosen and mentioned in Ex:P.2 who were obliged to prosecution. The second important circumstance against the prosecution is that according to the prosecution, the incident occurred near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Tadepalligudem. Vijaya Talkies is not shown in the rough sketch prepared by the police. Therefore, it is not clear as to what is the distance between Vijaya Talkies and Satyanarayana Swamy Temple. Pw.3 admitted that he was selling fruits near Vijaya Talkies soon before coming to the scene of offence, which is near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple. This means, Vijaya Talkies Centre is at some other place. According to Pw.6, Pw.1 came to his house at about 3 a.m. and informed that some quarrel was taking place among the members of their association and asked him to come to Vijaya Talkies centre where the quarrel had taken place and then he along with Pw.1 went to the house of Pw.7 woke him up and they all went to Vijaya Talkies centre. His further evidence is that Pw.3 informed about the incident and also told that the deceased was shifted to the hospital and by the time they went to the hospital, the deceased died. The above statement of Pw.6 creates a doubt as to whether the scene of offence has been shifted from Vijaya Talkies Center to the place near to Satyanarayana Swamy Temple. In case of shifting of scene of offence, the prosecution case has to be thrown out, the same being highly doubtful. The next important circumstance in this case appears to be the nature of injuries received by the deceased and the description of M.O.1. Pw.1 admitted that M.O.1 has sharp edge on one side and the other side is blunt and its tip is broken. In the above circumstances, the evidence of Pw.11 the doctor who conducted postmortem assumes importance. She admitted that the sharp edged weapon can only cause clean-cut edges and that injury No.1 had clean-cut edges. She further admitted that for causing injury No.1 the tip of the weapon need not be sharp but the said weapon should have sharp edges on either side. The doctor admitted that only one side of M.O.1 is sharp. She admitted that the sharp edged weapon can only cause clean-cut edges and that injury No.1 had clean-cut edges. She further admitted that for causing injury No.1 the tip of the weapon need not be sharp but the said weapon should have sharp edges on either side. The doctor admitted that only one side of M.O.1 is sharp. This circumstance also creates a doubt as to whether the injuries on the deceased were caused with M.O.1 and whether the prosecution is coming with true genesis of the case. The learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that even in the hospital intimation, it is mentioned that the scene of offence is at Vijaya Talkies and that the deceased was taken to the hospital by one Govind Rao and not by Pws 1, 3 or 4. It is also her submission that the hospital intimation contained the particulars as to 'brought by whom', 'the place of incident', 'whether caused by a known or unknown offender'. Admittedly, the hospital intimation is not marked in this case and this circumstance also creates a doubt with regard to the genesis of the case. In the hospital intimation, normally the above-mentioned particulars would be mentioned. There appears to be some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused that since either the name of Pw.1 or the names of Pws 3 and 4 are not shown as the persons who brought the deceased to the hospital, the hospital intimation appears to have been suppressed. Similarly the place where the incident seems to have occurred is shown as something different in the hospital intimation. A perusal of the hospital intimation shows that the name of one Govind Rao is shown as the person who had brought the deceased to the hospital and the scene of offence is shown as at Vijaya Takies. In the circumstances, the hospital intimations appear to be vital documents and the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused cannot be brushed aside. It has to be seen that according to Pw.1 he along with others had taken the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital. The head of the deceased was supported by him. The deceased had sustained cut injury on his face. Pw.1 himself had a cut injury. It has to be seen that according to Pw.1 he along with others had taken the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital. The head of the deceased was supported by him. The deceased had sustained cut injury on his face. Pw.1 himself had a cut injury. In the circumstances, his clothes must have been stained with blood, because he had taken the deceased to the hospital which is at a distance of 1/4th KM from the scene of offence. Admittedly, Pws 1,3 and 4 did not give any report to the police. Admittedly no FIR was issued on the basis of the statements given by Pws 1, 3 and 4. According to Pw.5, he had witnessed the occurrence, but Ex:P.1 shows that he stated before the police that he is an eye witness to the occurrence. Thus, the allegation that only selected persons have been chosen as eyewitnesses lends support from the above-referred circumstances. Admittedly, Pw.1 is residing ½ KMs from the scene of offence and Pws 3 and 4 are residing at a distance of 1/4th KMs from the scene offence. The alleged incident took place at about 11.30 p.m. Normally, the presence of the witnesses at the scene of offence at the relevant time appears to be doubtful. There is another circumstance, according to Pw.14, he had seized chappals of the accused from the scene of offence. No efforts were made to connect the accused with those chappals. There are other contradictions in this case. According to Pw.1, Pw.6 himself came to the hospital and he informed Pw.6 about the occurrence but according to Pw.6, Pw.1 came to his house at 3 a.m. (early morning) and informed him about the incident. According to Pws, 1, 3 and 4, the incident occurred near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple but according to Pw.6, Pw.1 informed him that the incident occurred at Vijaya Talkies and then he along with Pw.7 went to Vijaya Talkies where Pw.3 informed them that the deceased was shifted to the Government hospital, Tadepalligudem. According to Pw.6, himself and Pw.1 went to the house of Pw.7 but according to Pw.1 and Pw.7, Pw.1 did not accompany Pw.6 to the house of Pw.7 and informed about the incident. According to Pw.6, himself and Pw.1 went to the house of Pw.7 but according to Pw.1 and Pw.7, Pw.1 did not accompany Pw.6 to the house of Pw.7 and informed about the incident. According to Pw.6, he was informed about the incident at about 3 a.m. that some galata was taking place at Vijaya Talkies Centre, whereas Pw.7 says that Pw.6 came to his house at about 11 p.m. and informed about the incident and then himself and Pw.6 went to the hospital where Pw.1 was present and he enquired Pw.1 as to what had happened. Thus, it appears that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to their movements immediately after the incident. As far as recovery of M.O.1 is concerned, Pw.10 the mediator himself admitted that the place where from M.O.1 was taken out is visible from the main road. Pws 3 and 4 admitted that M.O.1 was shown to them by the police in the police station. Pw.10 admitted that wooden portion of M.O.1 is new one. According to Pw.5 he was using M.O.1 since two years prior to the date of incident. According to Pw.14 the Investigating Officer that he visited the house of the accused on 15.4.2000 and noticed no incriminating material in the house of the accused. However, Pw.15 another Investigating Officer says that on 19.4.2000 the accused led them to his house and produced blood stained shirt M.O.7. According to Pw.10, the blood stained shirt was hanging to a hanger in the house of the accused. It appears to be unnatural and improbable to say that the accused would keep the blood stained shirt to a hanger even after four days after the date of offence, though the police visited his house three days before the seizure of M.O.7 from his house. The G.D. entry, which the police should have made after receipt of hospital intimation, is also not produced before the court. All these circumstances create a reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should go to the accused. It is settled law that even if two views are possible on analyzing the evidence, the version favorable to the accused should be adopted. All these circumstances create a reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt should go to the accused. It is settled law that even if two views are possible on analyzing the evidence, the version favorable to the accused should be adopted. In the case between Shingara Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004 Crl.L.J. 828), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "Where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the one that favors the accused must be accepted". The learned Sessions Judge had not considered the above facts and circumstances and erred in convicting the accused. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the evidence of Pws 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court has to be aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against the appellant. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case.