R. KANTHA RAO, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both the appeals arises out of the same judgment and filed by two different sets of accused, they are disposed of jointly with the consent of both sides. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 1 to 4 in Crl. A. No. 294 of 2008 and Sri Jalagam Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused no. 5 in Crl. A. No. 489 of 2008 and learned public Prosecutor for the State. ( 3 ) THE learned III Additional Sessions judge, Nandyal, Kurnool Sessions Division, convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 392 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and further sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. A-6 to A-9 were found not guilty for the offences with which they were charged and accordingly they were acquitted. ( 4 ) ASSAILING the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred the present appeals. ( 5 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is like this: the appellants are residents of manchalakatta Village of Gadivemula mandal of Kurnool District, and the deceased chinna Gundam Anki Reddy and the material witnesses for the prosecution also belong to the same Village. A-1 to A-5 are close relatives. There was political rivalry between A-1 and the deceased. On 5-6-2005 at about 7. 30 p. m. A-1 to A-9 assembled in the thrashing floor of A-1 in Manchalakatta village and A-3 started conversing with a-1, A-2, A-4 to A-9 to pass information about the movements of the deceased from the village, the same was witnessed by p. W. 6 - Bidugu Munaiah and v. Venkateshwara Reddy - L. W. 7. On 8-6-2005 P. W. 1, Anil Kumar Reddy came from Talamudipi Village to Manchalakatta village and stayed in the house of the deceased- Chinna Gundam Anki Reddy in order to collect lease amounts from the farmers. On 8-6-2005 P. W. 1, Anil Kumar Reddy came from Talamudipi Village to Manchalakatta village and stayed in the house of the deceased- Chinna Gundam Anki Reddy in order to collect lease amounts from the farmers. On 9-6-2005 at about 9 a. m. the deceased and p. W. 7- Mulla Mahaboob Basha inone motor cycle and P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 - Meghanatha reddy in another motor cycle left manchalakatta Village to Nandyal in order to see the dead body of one Telugu Sivaiah of manchalakatta Village who had committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and whose body was kept at Government hospital, Nandyal. The deceased was driving the Suzuki motor cycle bearing AP 21 D8106 while P. W. 7 sat in the rear seat. On 9-6-2005 at 10 a. m. the deceased and P. W. 7 in the motor cycle went ahead of the motor cycle of p. Ws. 1 and 2 leaving them at a distance of 200 feet after crossing Gadigarevula village. In the outskirts of Gadigarevula Village on the road, A-1 to A-4 in the contessa car bearing No. AP9 U 6355, A-5 on Yamaha motor cycle came from Gadivemula crossed the motor cycle and hit on the back of the motor cycle driven by the deceased with the car. As a result of which the deceased and p. W. 7 fell down, A-1 to A-4 got down from the contessa car while A-5, who came in the motorcycle joined them. On seeing the accused, the deceased got up and tried to escape, A-1 beat the deceased with an iron rod, A-2 dealt blows on the deceased with knife, A-3 to A-5 surrounded the deceased and threatened P. Ws. 1 and 2 not to come near to the deceased or else, they would be met with the same fate of the deceased, A-3, a-4 and A-5 brought hunting sickles, kept in the contesa car took one each and hacked the deceased and the deceased fell down in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries. The deceased was struggling for life and P. W. 7 also fell down. A-1 to A-5 threatened P. W. 7 not to disclose the incident to any body or else. A-1 to A-5 fled away from the scene of offence. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 witnessed the incident. P. Ws. The deceased was struggling for life and P. W. 7 also fell down. A-1 to A-5 threatened P. W. 7 not to disclose the incident to any body or else. A-1 to A-5 fled away from the scene of offence. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 witnessed the incident. P. Ws. 1 to 3 who found the injured P. W. 7 on the road in unconscious state while the deceased with number of injuries was still breathing, shifted them to the Government hospital, Nandyal. But, the deceased succumbed to injuries. On 9-6-2005 at 12. 00 hours P. W. 1 presented a written report to p. W. 19, the SI of Police of Gaddivemula police Station, who went to the Government hospital Nandyal. On the strength of the said report, P. W. 19 registered a case in Crime no. 40 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC and issued express FIR and investigated into. P. W. 20 - Inspector of Police, Nandyal I-Town Circle initially conducted investigation on 9-6-2005 and it was taken over by P. W. 21 the Inspector of Police, Panyam Circle on the same day. P. W. 21 visited the scene of off ence, prepared observation panchanama, seized the material objects under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators p. W. 12 and another, interrogated A-1 to A-5 and recorded their confessional statements and after completing investigation, he filed the charge sheet. ( 6 ) THE prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined P. Ws. 1 to 21, marked Exs. P-1 to P-24 and M. Os. 1 to 17 before the trial Court. On behalf of the appellants D. Ws. 1 to 12 were examined, exs. D-1 to D-57 and Exs. XI to X. 23 were marked. ( 7 ) THE learned senior counsel contended that the delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate clearly indicates that there is also delay in registering the FIR and in view of the fact that the prosecution party and the accused belong to different rival groups in a faction ridden village, it is quite unsafe to convict the appellants relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5, who are interested and partisan witnesses. He would further contend that the version at the earliest point of time which is contained in Ex. 1, 2, 4 and 5, who are interested and partisan witnesses. He would further contend that the version at the earliest point of time which is contained in Ex. P-1 - report lodged by p. W. 1 has been improved from stage to stage and the appellants have been falsely roped in the grave charge only due to political faction, and therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside and the appellants are to be acquitted. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor for State would submit that since p. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have spoken to their witnessing the incident, even though they are partisan witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside and the conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court being proper, needs no interference in this appeal. ( 9 ) WE have perused the depositions of the witnesses, judgment of the trial Court and all other material papers available on record and thoroughly considered the submissions made by both the counsel. ( 10 ) BASING on the rival contentions, the following points would arise for consideration before us in this appeal. 1. Whether any reliance can be placed on the evidence of the eyewitnesses viz. P. Ws. 1,2,4 and 5 having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of their evidence? 2. Whether the oral evidence comes into conflict with medical evidence thereby rendering testimony of the eyewitnesses undependable? 3. Whether the investigation conducted in the present case is perfunctory and whether it vitiates the entire case of the prosecution? 4. Whether the delay in FIR reaching the magistrate leads to an inference that there was also delay in lodging the same and if there was delay in lodging the FIR, whether it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. ( 11 ) INDISPUTABLY there are two political factions in Manchalakatta Village. The prosecution party belongs to one political party, and the appellants belong to the other. In the first place, we would like to refer to the material averments contained in Ex. P-1 report lodged by P. W. 1 with P. W. 19 - S. I. of police of Gadivemuola Police Station. In ex. The prosecution party belongs to one political party, and the appellants belong to the other. In the first place, we would like to refer to the material averments contained in Ex. P-1 report lodged by P. W. 1 with P. W. 19 - S. I. of police of Gadivemuola Police Station. In ex. P-1, P. W. 1 stated as follows: "on 9-6-2005 morning at about 9 O'clock his uncle Anki Reddy and mulla Mahaboob Basha on one motor cycle and P. W. 1 and Meghanadha reddy on another motor cycle have started to Nandyal to see the dead body of Telugu Sivaiah (not the deceased in the present case) of the said village in the Government Hospital at Nandyal. At about 10 O'clock they crossed gadivarevula and proceeded to some distance, he and Meghanadha Reddy were 200 feet behind the motor cycle on which the deceased Anki Reddy was proceeding. At that point of time, his uncle Anki Reddy was going in front of them, one white colour contessa car crossed them and went further. Soon after that Manchalakatta Bhupal Reddy on a Yamaha motor cycle crossed them. The contessa car, which was proceeding in front of them dashed the motor cycle on which his uncle Anki Reddy and mehboob Basha were proceeding. On that both of them fell down. Immediately, the car was also stopped and then Vangala Sreenivasa Reddy, vangala Muralidhara Reddy, Vangala venkateswara Reddy, Vangala chandramohan Reddy got down from the said car. On seeing them, the deceased started raising from the ground, Srinivasa Reddy was beating him with the iron rod and Muralidhar reddy hacking with knife and the remaining persons surrounded them and watching to avoid any body's interference. Venkata Reddy directed them to go away and threatened them to kill otherwise. Thereafter all of them (prosecution party) went back and stayed 15 minutes near Gadigarevula pial and went near to their uncle Anki reddy and found him in last breathing and Mahaboob Basha fell unconscious. " ( 12 ) IN Ex. P-1, though the presence of A-3 to A-5 is mentioned, it is only restricted to their watching to avoid anybody's interference in the attack. P. W. 1 also did not state in Ex. P-1 that A-3 to A-5 were armed with any weapons. Further more, in the 161 cr. P. C. statements also, the eyewitnesses viz. P. Ws. P-1, though the presence of A-3 to A-5 is mentioned, it is only restricted to their watching to avoid anybody's interference in the attack. P. W. 1 also did not state in Ex. P-1 that A-3 to A-5 were armed with any weapons. Further more, in the 161 cr. P. C. statements also, the eyewitnesses viz. P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 did not state about a-3 to A-5 hacking the deceased with hunting sickles. This material omission is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case which renders the testimony of the eyewitnesses unrealiable. ( 13 ) SURPRISINGLY, P. W. 7 who was said to have followed the deceased as a pillion rider did not support the prosecution version. He was said to have sustained injuries according to the prosecution. Being an eyewitness, according to the prosecution, p. W. 7 did not support the prosecution version. However, merely because a witness did not support the prosecution version, the testimony of the said witnesses, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, cannot be said to be false. It may also be on some occasions true. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not take in to consideration the evidence of p. W. 7 on either way. ( 14 ) P. W. 15, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem over the body of the deceased, noticed the following injuries: external injuries: 1. Two incised injuries of sizes 18 x 2 cms x brain deep 15 x 2 cms x brains deep with 1 cm gap in between the two injuries are present extending from 1" back to the left ear towards area 2" from right ear horizontally placed. 2. Vertically placed incised wound of 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep in between two parietal bones extending onto occipital bone upper end merging with injury No. 1. 3. An obliquely placed incised would of 4 x 1 cm x bone deep elliptical in shape with clear cut edges and tapering ends. 4. An incised wound elliptical shape size 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep tapering ends and clear cut edges present below the naps of the neck obliquely placed. 5. An incised wound elliptical shaped size 5 x 2 cm x muscle deep, with clear cut edges and tapering ends placed on the upper part of right shoulder. 6. 4. An incised wound elliptical shape size 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep tapering ends and clear cut edges present below the naps of the neck obliquely placed. 5. An incised wound elliptical shaped size 5 x 2 cm x muscle deep, with clear cut edges and tapering ends placed on the upper part of right shoulder. 6. An incised wound of 7. 5 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep elliptical shaped with clear cut edges and tapering ends placed on right should below and lateral to above mentioned injury. 7. An elliptical shaped incised wound of 5 cm x 1 cm x skin deep present on the dorsum of left had above the knuckles of 2nd and 3rd finger edges are clear cut with tapering ends. 8. An incised wound of 7 cm x 1 cm muscle deep, elliptical shaped present on the ulna side of left hand on palmer aspect with clear cut edges and tapering ends. 9. An incised wound elliptical shaped size 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on neck on left side with clear cut edges and tapering ends. 10. An incised wound elliptical shaped, size 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present over the upper part of the right scapula with clear cut edges and tapering ends. A contusion mark red in colour semicircular shape present on the right tapering and at size 4 cm length. 11. An incised wound elliptical shaped size 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm placed on the back of right shoulder with clear cut edges and tapering ends with red contusion mark of semicircular shape length 4 cm from the right tapering end. 12. An incised wound elliptical shape of 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm placed on area medical to left scapula with tapering ends and clear out edges with red contusion of semicircular shape about 6 cms length from the medical tapering end towards right side. 13. An incised wound of elliptical shape of size x cm skin deep present lateral to above mentioned injury with clear cut edges and tapering ends with red contusion of 8 cms length from medical tapering end towards right side. Internal Examination:Head: on opening the injury No. 1 bone between the two injuries is mutilated, depressed fracture in to wound. 13. An incised wound of elliptical shape of size x cm skin deep present lateral to above mentioned injury with clear cut edges and tapering ends with red contusion of 8 cms length from medical tapering end towards right side. Internal Examination:Head: on opening the injury No. 1 bone between the two injuries is mutilated, depressed fracture in to wound. Some bone fragments are missing exposing the brain matter on deep dissention, brain is lacerated. On opening injury No. 2: fissure fracture of occipital bone present. Chest: on opening injury No. 10 right scapula bone is fractured. Neck: Neck structures are normal rib cage is normal lungs: normal, Heart: chambers are empty. Abdomen: stomach: partially digested food materials about 300 cc present. All is normal. Liver: normal appearance c/s pale. Kidneys: normal appearance. C/s slightly pale. Spleen: Normal, Incestines: Distended with gas. Bladder and bowel are empty. Long bones normal. Time of death: 6 to 12 hours prior to P. M. examination. The deceased would appears to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ i. e. brain probably due to sharp edged weapon. ( 15 ) AS per the version in the first information report, the first accused beat the deceased with an iron rod on the head, whereas the second accused hacked with knife. No other overt acts against the deceased have been attributed to remaining accused. However, in the evidence P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 apart from stating that A-1 beat the deceased with iron rod and A-2 stabbed the deceased with knife also stated that A-3 to A-5 hacked the deceased with hunting sickles. Though the first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is a vital document to know about the investigation and it is very much useful to find out the earliest version basing on which the investigation commenced. The entire evidence of the eyewitnesses is contra and distinct to the averments made by P. W. 1 in the first information report. There was no injury, which was supposed to have been caused with an iron rod repeatedly on the head of the deceased. Further, the evidence of the eyewitnesses before the court comes into conflict with the version in the first information report and is also at variance with the police statements made by the said witnesses. There was no injury, which was supposed to have been caused with an iron rod repeatedly on the head of the deceased. Further, the evidence of the eyewitnesses before the court comes into conflict with the version in the first information report and is also at variance with the police statements made by the said witnesses. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt whatsoever on the aspect that the medical evidence comes into conflict with the oral evidence, more particularly, as there was no injury, which was supposed to have been caused on the head of the deceased with an iron rod. This leads to an inference that either the eyewitnesses were not present at the place of occurrence or that they are not giving correct version about the incident. ( 16 ) UNDER these circumstances, we feel that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, who are interested and partisan. ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the first information report was registered by P. W. 19 - S. I. of police basing on the written report of P. W. 1. P. W. 20 conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of some witnesses, thereafter it is the version of the prosecution that P. W. 21, who was the Inspector of Police took over the investigation from P. W. 20. Curiously in this case, the defence came forward with the version that on 9-6-2008 at 5. 00 p. m. P. W. 21 was in Athithi Hotel at hyderabad On official duty and he claimed ta and DA also for his visit to Hyderabad. On 10-06-2005 he reached Nandyal at 5 p. m. and therefore his taking over investigation from P. W. 20 on 9-6-2005 is absolutely false and the entire investigation is tainted for that reason. The prosecution examined d. W. 5, who is the Administrative Officer in the District Police Office and D. W. 6 who is the receptionist of Athithi residency, hyderabad to prove the said fact. P. W. 21 stated in his evidence in the cross-examination as follows:- "on 9-6-2005 first time I received the information in the crime at about 4. 30 p. m. when I was at my office in Panyam. I received the information through my cell phone bearing No. 9440795534. I received a call to the above phone from o. S. D. Nandyal. 30 p. m. when I was at my office in Panyam. I received the information through my cell phone bearing No. 9440795534. I received a call to the above phone from o. S. D. Nandyal. O. S. D. told me over phone that a murder took place in the limits of Gadivemula P. S. and it was investigated by P. W. 20. I was on other duty on that day, therefore, the O. S. D. directed me to go to Government Area hospital, Nandyal and to take up the investigation from P. W. 20. On that day I was on other duty, I was investigating in Cr. No. 32 of 2005 of panyam P. S. u/s 302 IPC. I was in my office from 4. 10 p. m. before receiving the information. I went to Hyderabad to investigate into Cr. No. 32 of 2005. I left for Hyderabad at a 3 a. m. on 9-6-2005 to investigate into Cr. No. 32 of 2005. I reached Hyderabad approximately at 8 a. m. Again I started from Hyderabad at 11 p. m. for Panyam. I reached Panyam from Hyderabad. Thereafter, I came to Nandyal. No information was received from the SHO gadivemula before I had a talk with osd and left for Nandyal. I went to hyderabad with my constables but no other person accompanied. In cr. No. 32 of 2005 no charge sheet was filed nor did I arrest the accused in that case. I do not remember whether I stayed in a Hotel byname Athithi residence near Ramakrishna Theatre, abids. I do not remember whether I have claimed any T. A. on 9-6-2005 as I went to Hyderabad. The witness perused a certified copy of the T. A. Bill and deposed that he does not remember whether he submitted such a bill. I cannot say whether the T. A. bill contains my signature or not. I cannot say the letter showed to me was issued by the office of the Superintendent of police, Kurnool. I do not remember whether I had drawn the T. A. claim from sub treasury. Normally T. A. claims will be submitted to the office of s. P. of Kurnool. I do not know the procedure after the approval of the T. A. Bill. I do not remember whether I had drawn the T. A. claim from sub treasury. Normally T. A. claims will be submitted to the office of s. P. of Kurnool. I do not know the procedure after the approval of the T. A. Bill. I do not know how to get a T. A. Bill and to encash for approval from the office of the S. P. " ( 18 ) IN the further cross-examination of p. W. 21, the carbon copy of the T. A. bill signed by him and presented to the superintendent of Police was marked as ex. X-7. Iri the first instance the witness stated that Ex. X-7 does not contain his signature. But thereafter, he admitted that his signature is on the second page of Ex. X-7, his office staff prepared Ex. X-7 and that by oversight he signed in Ex. X-7. He also admitted that he cannot deny the genuineness of the contents of Ex. X-7. He stated that he does not remember whether he withdrew the amount under the T. A. Bill Ex. X-7 and added that if at all he received any amount under Ex. X-7, he was ready to remit the same on verification. He further admitted the fact that there was no provision provided in the first page of the TA bill for the signature of the claimant. Thus, from the answers given by him in the cross-examination, it can be safely concluded that Ex. X-7ta bill was presented by him and, he withdrew that TA Amount under the said bill. ( 19 ) HE further deposed in the cross-examination that he does not remember whether he stayed in the Athithi Hotel on 9, 10-6-2005. According to the defence, he occupied Room Nos. 107 and 207 in Athithi hotel, Hyderabad and paid the rent vide receipt No. 602 dated 10-06-2005. A lawyer's notice dated 4-4-2007 was sent to him. When a photostat copy of the bill dated 10-6-2005 was said to have been issued to him by the management of Athithi residence shown to p. W. 21, he stated that, unless he peruse the original, he cannot say whether the Xerox copy contains his signature of not. The Xerox copy of the said bill is marked as Ex. D-48. P. W. 21 curiously stated that he did not remember whether he stayed in the Athithi hotel or not. The Xerox copy of the said bill is marked as Ex. D-48. P. W. 21 curiously stated that he did not remember whether he stayed in the Athithi hotel or not. ( 20 ) D. W. 5, at the relevant time who was working as Administrative Officer, District police Officer, Kurnool stated in his deposition that P. W. 21, the Inspector of Police submitted the TA bill in the month of June, 2005 which is Ex. X-7. As seen from Ex. X-7 on 9-6-2005, p. W. 21 started from Panyam at 4 p. m. to go to Hyderabad and on the same day he reached Hyderabad at 10. 30 a. m. He started from Hyderabad on 10-6-2005 at 10 a. m. and reached Nandyal at 5. 00 p. m. The relevant entry in Ex. X-7 is marked as Ex. X-19. ( 21 ) D. W. 6 is a receiptionist in Athithi hotel in Hyderabad. He stated in his deposition that as seen from bill No. 602, dated 10-6-2005 Rooms were in the occupation of one V. Jayachandrudu, who was the CI of Police, Kurnool. He further stated that the CI of Police (P. W. 21) stayed in one room for one day. He occupied rooms at 10. 00 p. m. on 9-6-2005 and vacated at 10. 00 a. m. on 10-6-2005. He also stated that P. W. 21 booked room Nos. 107 and 207 in his name, out of two rooms, room No. 107 was occupied by P. W. 21 and his wife and another room no. 207 was occupied by the driver and constable. He also stated that P. W. 21 sighed in Ex. X-20 when he vacated both the rooms and he mentioned the date as 10-6-2005. He paid Rs. 900/- towards rent and luxury tax of rs. 42/ -. This witness stated that he knew p. W. 21, who was regular to their hotel and ex. . X-20 also contains the signature of D. W. 6. ( 22 ) BOTH the witnesses supported the defence theory on this aspect and by examining these witnesses and also from the vartha newspaper in which the material objects were parceled etc. The same said to have been provided by P. W. 1 and the M. Os. reached the Magistrate on 5-7-2005. This shows that there is a gap of about 25 days. It has not been properly explained. The same said to have been provided by P. W. 1 and the M. Os. reached the Magistrate on 5-7-2005. This shows that there is a gap of about 25 days. It has not been properly explained. ( 23 ) ANOTHER important aspect is the material collected by P. W. 21 that has been wrapped in the newspaper and sealed for the purpose of sending it to the magistrate and that newspaper also brought on record, which contains the date as 30-6-2005. From the above, it is clear that, if really the inquest and the collection of the material from the scene of offence was made on 10-6-2005 itself, if really was seized on the same date and sent to the magistrate, the question of packing the material in the news paper of 30-6-2005 does not arise. The said news papers in which the material was sealed was marked as Ex. D-28 to D-31. So, this fact also falsifies the version of P. W. 21 that he collected the material from the scene of offence on 10-6-2005 itself. ( 24 ) THE most important aspect that borne out from the record is that D. W. 5 himself admitted that the T. A. claims will be received through constables, P. W. 2l's signature cannot be seen in the 1st page, but his signature can be seen in 2nd page of Ex. X-7, the original t. A. claim is submitted to Treasury for onward transmission to Accountant general. It is denied that Ex. X-7 is not a replica of the original T. A. bill. ( 25 ) ANOTHER astonishing feature of the investigation conducted by P. W. 21 which falsifies the entire version of P. W. 21 is the seizure of M. 0. 6-motor cycle, M. O. 12-Broken indicator pieces, M. O. 13-Pair of Chappals, m. O. 14-Blood stained earth and M. O. 15-Broken pieces of Car Number plate bearing no. AP9u 6355 under Ex. P-4 observation and seizure panchanama at 5. 30 p. m. in the presence of P. W. 12 and one Ramalinga reddy, the mediators. 6-motor cycle, M. O. 12-Broken indicator pieces, M. O. 13-Pair of Chappals, m. O. 14-Blood stained earth and M. O. 15-Broken pieces of Car Number plate bearing no. AP9u 6355 under Ex. P-4 observation and seizure panchanama at 5. 30 p. m. in the presence of P. W. 12 and one Ramalinga reddy, the mediators. It is the evidence of p. W. 12 before the trial Court that on knowing about the murder of Anki Reddy through a police constable, he proceeded to the police station where he saw Ramalinga Reddy, thereafter at the instance of the police he, ramalinga Reddy and two police constables proceeded to the scene of offence on two motor cycles and they reached the scene of offence at5. 15p. m. Atabout5. 30p. m. P. W. 21 inspector of Police, Panyam Circle and p. Ws. 1 to 3 also arrived at the scene of offence. While observing the scene of offence p. W. 21-S. I. of Police seized M. O. 6 and m. Os. 12 to 15 under cover of Ex. P-4 observation and seizure panchanama. The said material objects were wrapped in newspapers and identification slips were affixed on the newspapers and after fixing the identification slips, he and the other mediator attested. According to this witness, all the material objects were packed with newspapers. The version of this witness as well as the prosecution story is that M. Os. 6 and 12 to 15 were seized by P. W. 21 on 9-6-2005 at the scene of offence. It is also the version of P. W. 21 that the newspapers in which the above mentioned material objects were packed, were marked as Ex. D-28 to d. 31. The newspapers contained the date 30-6-2005. Though, P. W. 12 did not admit in the cross-examination that in fact, Ex. P-4 was scribed on 30-6-2005 in the police station and he signed on Ex. P-4 as well as on the slips oh which M. Os. 6 and 12 to 15 were packed, exs. D-28 to D-31 disclose that the said material objects were packed in the newspapers dated 30-6-2005. This is an important piece of evidence elicited by the defence, which falsifies the version of P. W. 21 that he conducted investigation on 9-6-2005 in the present case. 6 and 12 to 15 were packed, exs. D-28 to D-31 disclose that the said material objects were packed in the newspapers dated 30-6-2005. This is an important piece of evidence elicited by the defence, which falsifies the version of P. W. 21 that he conducted investigation on 9-6-2005 in the present case. ( 26 ) FROM the evidence of P. W. 21 in the cross-examination which was detailed in the foregoing paragraphs and also from the evidence of P. W. 12 and the dates contained on Exs. D-28 to 31 the defence could be able to positively prove that P. W. 21 did not at all investigate into the offence on 9-6-2005, who falsely claimed to have investigated into the offence and adduced false evidence in respect of the observation of scene of offence as well as seizure of M. O. 6, and. O. 12 to MO. 15 though in fact, P. W. 21 was not present at all at the scene of offence on 9-6-2005 as mentioned in Ex. P-4. ( 27 ) THIS apart D. W. 11, who was working as receiptionist in Sidhartha Hotel stated in his evidence that A-1 stayed in the said hotel from 1. 20 p. m. on 8-6-2005 till 10 a. m. on 9-6-2005 in room No. 422. The relevant bill containing the signature of D. W. 11 as well as a-1 is marked through this witness as Ex. X-18. ( 28 ) SIMILARLY, D. W. 12, who worked as general Manager, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of medical Sciences, Vijayawada at relevant time deposed that A-3 was admitted in the said hospital on 9-6-2005 as inpatient No. 8512 and was discharged on 10-6-2005. The receipt issued by D. W. 12 is marked as ex. D-7, which contains the signature of A-3 also. ( 29 ) FROM these two witnesses and from the documents produced by them, it is made out that A-1 and A-3 were not present at the time when the offence was allegedly committed and they were also not present in their village. D-7, which contains the signature of A-3 also. ( 29 ) FROM these two witnesses and from the documents produced by them, it is made out that A-1 and A-3 were not present at the time when the offence was allegedly committed and they were also not present in their village. However, irrespective of the fact that whether these accused established the alibi pleaded by them or not, the fact remains that P. W. 21 the Inspector of Police, who is the investigating officer in this case without conducting any investigation on 9-6-2005 as well as 10-6-2005 falsely claimed that he conducted the investigation and as pointed out by us that the defence could be able to successfully establish that he did not conduct any investigation at all as claimed by him. Since P. W. 21 did not in fact, conduct any investigation on 9-6-2005, his evidence that while he observed the scene of offence p. Ws. 1 to 3 were present there cannot at all be believed. So also the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 on the said aspect. Further, the overt acts mentioned by P. W. 21 in the statements of p. Ws. 1 to 3 recorded by him under section 161 Cr. P. C. are apparently not genuine and the said overt acts were not in fact stated by P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 21, but they were merely incorporated by P. W. 21. ( 30 ) WE are aware that on account of the latches on the part of the investigation agency, the evidence of entire prosecution, if appears to be genuine, cannot be thrown out. But in the present case, the most agonizing factor is that P. W. 21 did not in fact, conduct any investigation but claims to have conducted the investigation and falsely speaks about the various steps he had taken in the investigation process. Therefore, it is not the case whether the investigation suffers from certain defects or latches, but the situation in the instant case is that P. W. 21 - the investigating officer without conducting investigation created a record as if he conducted investigation and took various steps in the process of investigation. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the investigation in this case totally vitiates the prosecution. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the investigation in this case totally vitiates the prosecution. ( 31 ) FROM the above evidence, it is clear that the investigation initiated at the first instance by P. W. 20 had not been passed on to by P. W. 21 on 9-6-2005 and also it is obvious that that P. W. 21 in fact did not conduct any investigation in this case at all, but falsely stated that he conducted the investigation and thus the entire investigation is tainted and it appears that he became instrument in the hands of the prosecution party. Thus, the above conduct of P. W. 21, the investigating officer is highly reprehensible and basing on such false and fictitious investigation the appellants cannot be convicted. ( 32 ) IN this regard, it has to be remembered that the village is a faction ridden village and such circumstances narrated above there is very possibility for the faction groups to implicate the innocent persons and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence is required. If that be the case, this Court is not prepared to accept the version of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5, as it is quite unsafe arid likely to result in conviction of innocent persons. ( 33 ) ADMITTEDLY, the first information report reached the Inspector of Police at 2. 15 p. m. through PC 268, whereas it reached the magistrate through the same PC 268 at 7. 00 p. m. When the office of the Circle Inspector and the residence of the Magistrate are at one and the same place, it is not known as to why the delay occurred in reaching the F. I. R. The investigating agency tried to focus that the first information report was lodged soon after the incident. ( 34 ) THE above circumstances falsifies the version of the investigating agency, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the delay in reaching first information report assumes importance in this case and on account of the said delay, we have to necessarily held that on account of delay there is every possibility for implicating innocent persons of the opposite faction and also introducing a false and distorted version. ( 35 ) IF there are latches or lapses on the part of the investigation, we are aware that on that score, the testimony of the eyewitnesses, if it is trust worthy, cannot be discarded. But here is a case wherein the entire investigation conducted by P. W. 21 is found to be false and the evidence of eyewitnesses, which consists of material inconsistencies is also highly undependable. Therefore, we have to hold that the entire version of the prosecution must be rejected. ( 36 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the judgment passed by the trial Court against the appellants is set aside. ( 37 ) IN the result, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment, dated 19-2-2008 in Sessions Case No. 309 of 2006 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kumool at nandyal is set aside and the appellants-accused 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. Accused 1 to 5 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, aid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Appeals are allowed