Judgment :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. (1) All these criminal appeals and the criminal revision case are filed against the judgment in SC No.378 of 1998, dated 28-11-2008 passed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at Gooty. (2) The Accused A-1 to A-4, A.6 to A-8, A-10 and A-11 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148 and 302 IPC. It is relevant to mention here itself that A-5 and A-9 who were also charged along with the accused had died before the trial. Substance of the charge against the accused was that all the accused conspired to commit murder of deceased Shiva Prasad Reddy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy committed murder of deceased Shiva Prasad Reddy by hacking him with hunting sickles indiscriminately all over his body resulting in his death on the way to Government Hospital, Gooty. The plea of the accused is one of denial and they claimed to be tried. In order to connect the accused with the crime and bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, PWs.1 to 12, marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-15 and produced Nos.1 to 16. The accused examined D Ws.1 to 4 as defence witnesses and marked documents Exs.D-1 to D-10. (3) The Sessions Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by the judgment impugned in these cases, held that A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 were not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC and accordingly acquitted them of the said charge. It was also found that A-6, A-7 and A-8 were not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC accordingly they were acquitted of the charge. However, the Sessions Court found A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. (4) Assailing the said conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Court, Crl. Appeal No.1616 of 2008 is filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4, Crl. Appeal No.1603 of 2008 is filed by Accused No.10, Crl. Appeal No. 1502 of 2008 is filed by Accused No.11. Crl. (4) Assailing the said conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Court, Crl. Appeal No.1616 of 2008 is filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4, Crl. Appeal No.1603 of 2008 is filed by Accused No.10, Crl. Appeal No. 1502 of 2008 is filed by Accused No.11. Crl. Appeal No.54 of 2010 is filed by the State against the acquittal of Accused Nos.6 to 8 of the offence under Section 302 IPC and also against the acquittal of the Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 and 11 of the of fence under Section 120-B IPC Mr. Y.Sharabha Reddy, (PW-1) filed Crl.RC No.83 of 2010 against the acquittal of Accused Nos.6 to 8 of the offence under Section 302 IPC and also against the acquittal of the Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 and 11 of the offence under Section 120-B IPC. It is relevant to note while investigation was in progress a petition was filed by A-10 and A-11 by taking the plea of alibi. (5) Thus the charge sheet was filed only against accused A-1 to A-9. The case was taken on file against A-1 to A-9 as PRC No.47 of 1997 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty. The case was committed to the Court of Session, Anantapur and numbered as SC No.378 of 1998 against A-1 to A-9. After the chief examination of PW1, the Public Prosecutor filed Crl.MPNo.136 of 2004 under Section 319 Cr.PC to add A10 and A-11 as accused in the case. The said petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by this High Court. However, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.689 of 2007, dated 10-5-2007, A-10 and A-11 were added as accused along with A-1 to A-9. (6) Before dealing with the contentions urged in these appeals, the case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows:- (7) Yeddula Sarabha Reddy (PW-1), Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy (LW-2) and Yeddula Siva Prasad Reddy (short, 'the deceased') are brothers. Deceased Siva Prasad a Reddy was practising advocate at Gooty. PW-1 and LW-2 Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy are agriculturists. The deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy along with his brothers was residing in Peddavaduguru Village. Deceased Siva Prasad a Reddy was practising advocate at Gooty. PW-1 and LW-2 Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy are agriculturists. The deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy along with his brothers was residing in Peddavaduguru Village. The deceased used to go to Gooty for practising as an advocate every day from Peddavaduguru village to Courts at Gooty on his motor cycle. The deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy contested for the post of President of Water Users Association of Peddavaduguru village against Tatireddigari Maheswara Reddy (A-2). However, A-2 won the elections. That in that elections A-1 and other communist party leader by name Rami Reddy helped A-2. That two months after declaration of election results, Excise Police raided the house of A-2 and seized illicit brandy and the Excise Police accordingly booked cases against A-2 under the provisions of the Excise Act. That A-2 being under the impression that the deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was responsible for seizure of said brandy, bore grudge against the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy. (8) That a public meeting was convened by Congress Leaders in Pedda vaduguru village 20 days prior to 26-7-1997 and the said meeting was attended by Congress party leaders. In the said meeting, the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy was elected as convener of Congress party. That on the same day, Excise police seized illicit brandy from the house of A-1 and the Excise police booked cases against A-1 under the provisions of AP Excise Act, A-1 was also reeling under the impression that the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy was responsible for the raid conducted by Excise officials. Thus A-1 and A-2 bore grudge against the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy and the popularity and the political growth of the deceased in politics also became eye sore to A-1 and A-2. (9) That on the fateful day i.e. 26-7-1997, the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy left Peddavadguru village between 9-00 to 9.30 am and went to Gooty to attend Court work at Gooty, on his motor cycle. That after completion of work at Gooty, the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy left Gooty to go to Peddavadguru village to his house. On the same day, Yeddula Sarabha Reddy (PW-1), Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy (LW-2), Dudekula Imam Sab (PW-2) and Yeddula Krishna Reddy (PW-3) went to Pamidi. They all left Pedda Vaduguru village in between 12-00 to 12.30 noon went to Pamidi looked after their work till 5-00 pm. On the same day, Yeddula Sarabha Reddy (PW-1), Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy (LW-2), Dudekula Imam Sab (PW-2) and Yeddula Krishna Reddy (PW-3) went to Pamidi. They all left Pedda Vaduguru village in between 12-00 to 12.30 noon went to Pamidi looked after their work till 5-00 pm. Thereafter, PWs.1 to 3 along with Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy (LW-2); boarded lorry at Pamidi got down at Miduturu cross road and were waiting for conveyance to go to their village Pedda Vaduguru. That in the meanwhile, the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy came from Gooty side on his Hero Honda motor cycle. While negotiating a curve at Miduturu cross road at about 6-00 pm, PW-4 Kunti Ravindra requested the deceased to stop his motor cycle by raising his hand and on seeing him the deceased stopped his motor cycle. (10) That at that time, A-1 to A-9 and three others armed with hunting sickles came from the nearby bushes raised cries to hack the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy. A-1 to A-9 along with three others attacked and hacked Siva Prasad Reddy indiscriminately on various parts of his body. That PWs.1 to 3 who were waiting for a van to go to their village rushed towards Siva Prasad Reddy to save him. Accused 1 to 9 and three others then threatened PWs.1 to 3 and LW-2 Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy to kill them. PWs.1 to 3 and LW-2 Yeddula Suryaprbhakar Reddy then ran towards Miduturu village side for about one furlong. Thereafter, PWs.1 to 3 stopped and rushed back to the scene and found Siva Prasad Reddy in pool of blood, That PW-1 gave glass of water to Siva Prasad Reddy and all of them, that is, PWs.1 to 3 and Yeddula Suryaprabhakar Reddy (LW-2) shifted Siva Prasad Reddy in a van to Government Hospital, Gooty. The Medical officer present in the Government Hospital, Gooty, examined Siva Prasad Reddy and declared as brought dead. (11) That Sri S.Naganna (PW-12), the Inspector of Police, Gooty, on coming to know that Siva Prasad Reddy was attacked at Miduturu cross road and that while he was being shifted to Govt, Hospital, Gooty, died on his way, proceeded to Government, Hospital, Gooty. PW-1 presented to PW-12 a written complaint regarding the incident which he had witnessed. (11) That Sri S.Naganna (PW-12), the Inspector of Police, Gooty, on coming to know that Siva Prasad Reddy was attacked at Miduturu cross road and that while he was being shifted to Govt, Hospital, Gooty, died on his way, proceeded to Government, Hospital, Gooty. PW-1 presented to PW-12 a written complaint regarding the incident which he had witnessed. PW-12 having received Ex.P-1, written complaint, from PW-1 made endorsement on Ex.P-1 directing Station House officer, Peddavadugur Police Station to register FIR and to send a copy of the same for investigation. PW-11, SM Dowla, was the Head Constable of Peddavaduguru Police Station during the relevant period 1996 to 1999. On receipt of Ex.P-1-complamt, he registered a case as Cr.No.48/97 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC of Peddavaduguru Police Station and sent original FIR to the Court of Judicial magistrate of I Class, Gooty. PW12 (Investigating Officer) during the course of investigation visited the scene of offence, examined the scene of offence, found motorcycle (MO-6), one pair of Chappals, one leather chappal (MOs.11 and 12),Coolingglasses (MO-13) and pool of blood. Due to dark ness, PW-12 could not further examine the scene of offence. On 27-7-1997, PW12 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-7 and another from 7-00 am to 10.30 am at Government Hospital Mortuary room, Gooty. PW12 has seized MOs.1 to 5 belonging to deceased at the time of conducting inquest. PW12 also recorded the statements of PWs.1, to 3 after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, PW-12 sent dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. PW-9 Dr.Ranganna, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy and issued Ex.P-7 post-mortem certificate. PW-12 again visited the scene of offence and seized MOs.6, 11 to 13, blood stained earth MO-14, controlled earth MO-15 from the scene of offence of offence. Ex.P-9 is the observation mahazamama of scene of offence. Rough sketch of the scene prepared by him is Ex.P-10. PW-12 also examined PWs.4 to 6 and others and recorded their statements at Peddavaduguru village. (12) On 11-8-1998, PW-12 on reliable information arrested A-1 to A-4 and seized MOs.7 to 10 sickles under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-6. A-1 to A-4 were remanded to judicial custody. That PW-12 sent material objects seized to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. PW-12 also examined PWs.4 to 6 and others and recorded their statements at Peddavaduguru village. (12) On 11-8-1998, PW-12 on reliable information arrested A-1 to A-4 and seized MOs.7 to 10 sickles under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-6. A-1 to A-4 were remanded to judicial custody. That PW-12 sent material objects seized to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. Ex.P-11 and P-12 are the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory reports. PW-12 filed requisition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gooty, for issue of production warrant against A-8 and A-9 who were lodged at Sub-Jail, Gooty in Cr.No.48/97 of Pedda Vaduguru Police Station. After taking warrant, A-8 and A-9 were also produced before the Court and were remanded to judicial custody. (13) That on 5-9-1997, PW-12 arrested A-5 to A-7 and A-5 confessed the commission of the offence. Ex.P-14 is the confessional-cum- panchanama of A-5. In pursuance of confession A-5, Mo.16 sickle was seized from the possession of A-5. Thereafter A-5 to A-7 were also sent to Judicial custody. (14) That after receipt of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Report and after receipt of Post-mortem examination report and on completion investigation, PW-12 laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-9 deleting A-10 and A-11 in view of the enquiry report of DW-1. But A-10 and A-11 were added as accused along with A-1 to A-9 pursuant to the petition made by the Public Prosecutor which was ultimately allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing inclusion of A-10 and A-11 as accused in the case. As noted above, after framing of charges, A-5 and A-9 died and therefore the proceedings against them abated. (15) After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-4, A-6 to A-8, A-10 and A-11 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution. A-1 to A-4, A-6 to A-8, A-10 and A-11 denied their involvement and pleaded not guilty. Further A-10 and A-11 took the plea of alibi. (16) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses PWs.1 to 12 and marked documents Exs.P-l to P-15 and produced Mos.1 to 16. The accused examined DWs.1 to 4 as defence witnesses and marked documents Exs.D-1 to D-10. Further A-10 and A-11 took the plea of alibi. (16) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses PWs.1 to 12 and marked documents Exs.P-l to P-15 and produced Mos.1 to 16. The accused examined DWs.1 to 4 as defence witnesses and marked documents Exs.D-1 to D-10. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and it is also case of the accused that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry between the two groups. (17) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-accused, has contended strenuously that the evidence of PW-1, brother of the deceased, is wholly unreliable to connect the accused with the crime as he is an interested witness and falsely implicated accused including A-8 and A-9 who were actually in judicial custody at the time of the offence, and as he has falsely implicated A8 and A-9 in the case, there is no guarantee that the witness deposed truth about the involvement of other accused in the offence. Learned counsel also stated that PWs.2 and 3 did not speak about the participation of A-8 and A-9 in the crime. Learned counsel submitted that the Sessions Court having disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as to the involvement of A-6, A-7 and A-8, erred in convicting the other accused on the same evidence. Learned counsel further stated that the crucial witnesses being factionists and there was political rivalry between the two groups, the Sessions Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of interested witnesses PWs.1 to 3, as among them two were brothers of the deceased. It is also stated that there is no evidence to the effect which injury caused the death of the deceased and by which assailant. Learned senior counsel has further contended that there is delay in filing of FIR and, therefore, the genuineness of the FIR is doubtful. It is contended that the blood stained cloths of the persons who took the deceased to hospital were not seized by the Police. Learned counsel lastly drawing our attention to Section 11 of the Evidence Act submitted that there was ample evidence to support the plea of alibi of accused A-10 and A-11 which was not considered in its proper prospective. (18) Sri Mohd. Learned counsel lastly drawing our attention to Section 11 of the Evidence Act submitted that there was ample evidence to support the plea of alibi of accused A-10 and A-11 which was not considered in its proper prospective. (18) Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has argued that the mere fact that PWs.1 and 3 are related to the deceased, is not a circumstance to doubt their testimony. It is further stated that when there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established and mere fact that some witnesses are relatives of the deceased, cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also stated that though PWs.5 to 7 were declared as hostile, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto and that their evidence to the extent it is corroborated in regard to the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and one Suryaprabhakar Reddy at the scene of offence and that they shifting of the deceased in mini van to Government Hospital, Gooty, after the attack by the assailants, has to be acted upon. He further contended that the Doctrine "FALSUS IN UNO FALUSE IN OMNIBUS" (false in one thing, false in everything) is not fully adopted by the Indian Courts. The correct position is that even if major portion of the statement of a witness is found to be deficient, the remaining statement, if supported by other evidence, can be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused, therefore their conviction can be maintained. It also submitted that in view of the conclusive evidence of PWs.1 to 3 against accused A-10 and A-11 and they did not even enter the witness box to depose that at the relevant time they were elsewhere, the plea alibi was also rightly disbelieved by the Sessions Court. (19) Sri Masthan Naidu Cherukuri, learned counsel for appellant-PW-1 in this case, contended that in the light of the cogent evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the evidence of PW-10 as to the conspiracy hatched by A-1 to A-4, A-8 and A-9 to kill the deceased, the Sessions Court ought not have acquitted A-6 to A-8 of the charges under Section 148 and 302 IPC and all the accused ought to have been convicted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC. (20) In the light of the above contentions, the controversy is not as to the deceased had died homicidal death, the real controversy is as to who caused the death of the deceased. (21) It may, however, be noticed that PW-12 Inspector of Police on receipt of information proceeded to the Government Hospital, Gooty, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-7 and another on 27-7-1997 from 7-00 am to 10-30 am. Ex.P-5 is the inquest panchanama. PW-9 Dr.M.Ranganna, Civil Assistant Surgeon, at Government Hosptial, Anantapur, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased stated that on 27-7-1997 he received a requisition from PW12 to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy. Accordingly at about 10-45 am on the same day he commenced the post- mortem examination and noticed the following external injuries on the person of the deceased:- " 1. An incised injury across the scalp of the scull underlying bone is also cut size about 6" X " bone deep. 2. An incised injury on the left side of the face extending from the angle to angle of mandible transcessly towards the nape of the neck size about 6" X 3" X 3" on probing the following structures carotid vessels. Stermo Mastered muscles mandible. Shierna jugular sheeth and vessels. 3. An incised injury 1" X " X 1/4 " muscle deep on the left side. 4. An incised injury on the left fore arm size about 5" X 3" bone deep ulner bone cut. 5. An incised injury running across the base of the al fingers on the plamar aspect size about 4" X " X bone deep on the left hand. 6. An incised injury running across all the fingers on the dorsal aspect size about 4" X X bone deep. 7. An incised injury size about 3" X " muscle deep over the left wrist on the flexer aspect. 8. An incised on the middle of the chin size about 2X X X bone deep. 9. An incised injury on the right cheek vertically 3" X " X bone deep. 10. An incised injury size about 3" X " X muscle deep platlsmes-sterno-mustood muscle on the right side of the neck. 11. A semi circular incised injury size about 4" X 2" X muscle deep right shoulder. 12. 9. An incised injury on the right cheek vertically 3" X " X bone deep. 10. An incised injury size about 3" X " X muscle deep platlsmes-sterno-mustood muscle on the right side of the neck. 11. A semi circular incised injury size about 4" X 2" X muscle deep right shoulder. 12. An incised injury on the right bone forearm on the medial aspect size about 3" X 1" muscle deep. 13. An incised injury on the middle phanges involving in the little and ring finger size about2" X X muscle deep right hand. 14. An incised injury size about 2" X X muscle deep on the nape of the neck. 15. An incised injury size about 5" X 2" X bone deep (Bone cut) on the left renal angle (12th rib). 16. An incised injury size about 5" X 2" X muscle deep on the back of the left thigh." and on internal examination he noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-"Thorax and stomach opened, stomach contains semi-digested rice particles, colon contains paceal mater. Bladder empty. Liver and spleen both kidneys all are normal congested. Heart and Jungs normal cut section conjected. Head and Neck; Hyod bone normal on reflection sclap there is small haemotoma on the skull oault out 2 cm X 1 cm 1 cum thick. On opinion skull is fractured corresponding to Injury No.1 was extending deeper involving both the table of the valt of the skull and meneges and into the brain substances for amount ". Rest of the brain surface is covered in a thick film of the blood cut section conjected. Base of the skull normal no fracture. Vertibra colomn normal spinal card normal." (22) According to the opinion of the Doctor PW-9, the deceased died because of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and died 17 to 20 hours prior to his examination. All anti-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased were incised wounds and they can be caused by a sharp edged weapon like hunting sickles like MOs. 7 to 10 which are sufficient to cause death of a person. Nothing has been elicited to disprove the post mortem report of PW-9 during the course of his cross examination. Ex.P-7 is post-mortem certificate. 7 to 10 which are sufficient to cause death of a person. Nothing has been elicited to disprove the post mortem report of PW-9 during the course of his cross examination. Ex.P-7 is post-mortem certificate. PWs.1 to 3 who are eye witnesses to the incident, PW-1 stated that deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy was hacked by A-1 to A-11, whereas PWs.2 and 3 stated A-1 to A-7, A-10 and A-11 hacked the deceased with hunting sickles, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to Government Hospital, Gooty. PW-12 Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-7 and another. PW-7 at the time of conducting inquest found anti-mortem injuries and those injuries were noted in the Inquest panchanama. Ex.P-5 is Inquest Panchanama. The Panchayatdars opined that the deceased-Shiva Prasad Reddy died due to multiple injuries inflicted on him. From the evidence of eye witnesses, PWs.1 to 3, the punch witness PW-7 and the medical evidence under Ex.P-7 given by PW-9, it is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death. (23) We now proceed to scrutinise the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, oral as well as documentary, so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with crime and bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? (24) The accused are not strangers to the material witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy as they belong to adjoining villages. It has come in evidence that A-1 was Mandal Convener of Communist Party, A-2 is the Mandal leader of TDP and worked as President of Water Users Association, A-1 is the brother-in-law of A-2. A-2 is the brother of A-8. A-2 and A-3 are related to each other, (25) As noted above, the deceased contested for the post of President of Water Users Association, Peddavaduguru against A-2 who won the elections with the help of A-1 who is his brother-in-law. It has come in evidence that there were raids by the Excise Police on the houses of A-1 and A-2. The authorities seized illicit brandy and booked cases against them. The accused suspected that the deceased was responsible for the seizure of the brandy from the houses of A-1 and A-2 and, therefore, bore grudge against him. It has come in evidence that there were raids by the Excise Police on the houses of A-1 and A-2. The authorities seized illicit brandy and booked cases against them. The accused suspected that the deceased was responsible for the seizure of the brandy from the houses of A-1 and A-2 and, therefore, bore grudge against him. It has further come in evidence that the deceased become eye sore for the accused as he was gaining popularity in the village; twenty days prior to the death of the deceased, he was elected as Convener of Congress Party of Peddavadugur village. Thus the accused became jealous of the deceased and were waiting for an opportunity to settle old score with the deceased. Thus the accused had motive to commit the crime. (26) The manner in which the deceased was attacked and killed on the fateful day was spoken to by the eye witnesses (PWs.1 to 3) who were present at the scene of offence. (27) It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that he is the younger brother of deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy. That he is an agriculturist and resident of Peddavaduguru village, his family lived jointly along with his brothers. That his brother Siva Prasad Reddy was a practicing Advocate at Gooty was murdered about 7 years back. Earlier to his death, he was a practicing Advocate for the last 7 years. That the deceased contested for the post of President of Water Users Association of Peddavaduguru village against A-2. But A-2 won the elections with the help A-1 and others. Six days after the election results, when A-2 was selling Karnataka Brandy (Illicit brandy) in his house, Excise Police booked case against A-2 and he was under the impression that deceased was responsible for the seizure of brandy, therefore, A-2 bore grudge against his deceased brother. That twenty days prior to his brother's murder, Congress leaders conducted a public meeting in Peddavaduguru village and elected his brother-Siva Prasad Reddy as Convener of Congress Party. On the same day, Excise Police seized illicit brandy from the house of A-1 and A-1 was also under impression that his brother Siva Prasad Reddy was responsible for the seizure of illicit brandy. On the same day, Excise Police seized illicit brandy from the house of A-1 and A-1 was also under impression that his brother Siva Prasad Reddy was responsible for the seizure of illicit brandy. That as deceased was growing in politics and that his brother was responsible for the seizure of brandy from the houses of A-1 and A-2, they got vengeance against his brother Siva Prasad Reddy. (28) That on 26-7-1997, Saturday, his brother was murdered. His brother used to go to Gooty at 9-00 to 9.30 am from his village to attend to his court work on his motor cycle, he used to return to the house between 5-00 and 6-00 pm. On the that day i.e. 26-7-1997 the deceased started from the house in between 9-00 and 9-30 am to go to Gooty. That PW-1 and his brother Suryaprabhakar Reddy intended to go to Pamidi to purchase Gunthakoyyalu. Krishna Reddy (PW-3) and Imam Sab (PW-2) also told that they would come to Pamidi along with them. That they all started in between 12-00 to l2.30 noon. That they were at Pamldi till 5-00 pm and boarded a lorry at Pamidi and got down at Miduturu cross roads and were waiting on left side of National High Way No. 7 taking tea and chit chatting. That at that time deceased-Siva Prasad Reddy was coming from Gooty side proceeding towards Peddavadugur village on his Hero Honda Motor cycle and when Siva Prasad Reddy was negotiating a curve and took turn to go to Peddavaduguru village at about 6-00 pm, he witnessed Kunti Ravindra (PW-4) requesting his brother Siva Prasad Reddy to stop his motor cycle by raising his hand. That his brother Siva Prasad Reddy stopped the motorcycle, when his brother Siva Prasad Reddy stopped the motor cycle, A-1 to A-9 and three others armed with hunting sickles raised cries to hack his brother. When A-1 tried to hack the deceased, he raised his left hand to ward off the blow, however he received a hack injury on his left elbow dorsum part. A-2 hacked his deceased brother on his head. When Yeddula Krishna Reddy tried to hack the deceased, he raised his left hand to ward off the blow. Yeddula Krishna Reddy then hacked on left hand wrist and on the left hand fingers of his brother. A-2 hacked his deceased brother on his head. When Yeddula Krishna Reddy tried to hack the deceased, he raised his left hand to ward off the blow. Yeddula Krishna Reddy then hacked on left hand wrist and on the left hand fingers of his brother. Sarath Reddy (A-11) hacked on the left hand below wrist on the dorsum part. Sarath Reddy also hacked on hi slips. Putluru Rami Reddy (A-10) also hacked his brother on his left side neck and after the blow given by Putluru Rami Reddy his brother fell down to his right side and the vehicle fell down towards left side. Narayana Reddy (A-3) hacked his brother on his left side below hip. A-3 also gave blow on left side buttocks. Anjineyulu (A-4) hacked on left side of his back and remaining persons also hacked his brother. That PW-1 and others ran towards his brother to save him, but the accused also threatened to kill them and chased them to kill, but they ran towards Miduturu village. That when they turned back to the scene of offence, they found accused were proceeding towards east and his brother was in a pool of blood and blood was oozing, he gave some water to his brother. That they shifted Siva Prasad Reddy into a van to take him to the Government Hospital, Gooty. That Doctors at the hospital stated that Siva Prasad Reddy died and he was brought dead. That PW-1's father's brother's son Hanumantha Reddy (cousin brother) came to the hospital and on his dictation he drafted the complaint Ex.P-1 and he signed on it. That when PW-1 and his brother were about to go to Peddavaduguru Police Station to give the complaint the Inspector of Police, Gooty (PW-12) came to the hospital and there he gave the complaint (Ex.P-1) to the (PW-12). That PW-12 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9-00 am to 12-00 noon on the next day in his presence in Government Hospital, Gooty. MOs.1 to 5, wearing apparels of deceased were seized at the time of inquest and the Motor cycle of deceased also was seized marked as MO-6. (29) In the cross examination of PW-1 nothing adverse was elicited as to the involvement of the accused in the crime. MOs.1 to 5, wearing apparels of deceased were seized at the time of inquest and the Motor cycle of deceased also was seized marked as MO-6. (29) In the cross examination of PW-1 nothing adverse was elicited as to the involvement of the accused in the crime. It has come in his cross examination that he knew A-4 to A-7 since their childhood and they were residents of adjoining village Chinna Vaduguru village. That he did not hand over his blood stained cloths to the Police. That his cousin brother Hanumantha Reddy came to the Hospital immediately after they reached the hospital. That ten minutes after the doctors declared his deceased brother dead, the complaint (Ex.P-1) was prepared on his dictation by the said Hanumantha Reddy as he (PW-1) studied upto II class and Hanumantha Reddy, the scribe of Ex.P-1, studied upto 10th class. PW-1 stated that A-8 and A-9 were not present at the scene of offence at the time of offence. It was also denied that he falsely implicated them in the case. It was denied that A-10 was in Police Station from 5-00 pm onwards on the date of the offence talking with Sl of Police at Peddavaduguru Police Station and thereafter he was in the Panchayat office till 6-30 pm. It is also denied that A-10 came to know the murder of the decease when a news reporter brought this fact to the notice of SI of Police. It was also denied that A-11 was in the hostel of the College on the date of the offence at Chikbalapur of Karnataka State. He denied the suggestion that A-11 was occasionally coming to Peddavaduguru village during festivals. Right from lodging of Ex.P-1, the version of PW-1 is consistent regarding the participation of A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 in the commission of the offence. PW-1 has stated the names of A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 specifically in Ex.P-1 complaint. (30) PW-2 is an independent witness and that he was also a resident of Peddavaduguru village and a Tailor by profession. PW-2 stated that deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was resident of Peddavadugur village and was a practicing Advocate at Gooty. PW-1 and Yeddula Surya Prakash Reddy (LW-2) are brothers of deceased Siva Prasad Reddy. Prior to the incident there was enmity between the deceased on one hand and accused on other hand. PW-2 stated that deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was resident of Peddavadugur village and was a practicing Advocate at Gooty. PW-1 and Yeddula Surya Prakash Reddy (LW-2) are brothers of deceased Siva Prasad Reddy. Prior to the incident there was enmity between the deceased on one hand and accused on other hand. That the deceased belonged to the Congress party and A-2 belonged to the Telugu Desam Party, A-1 belonged to the Communist party but all the accused belonged to one group. That prior to offence, election was held for Water Users Association in which the deceased and A-2 contested for the post of President of Waters User Association. That A-1 and A-10 supported A-2 who defeated the deceased in the said elections. That seven days after the elections, Excise police raided the house of A-2 and seized illicit liquor from the house of A-2. That A-2 developed grudge against the deceased as he was suspected to be responsible for the raid by the Excise police. That there was a Congress Party public meeting at Peddavaduguru village and leaders from Congress party attended the meeting and in the said meeting the deceased was elected as President of Peddavaduguru Mandal Congress party. That on the same day, Excise police raided the house of A-1 and found illicit liquor manufactured in Karnataka State at his house. That for the above reason accused hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. That the offence took place on 26-7-1997 and on the date of offence, at 12 noon he boarded the bus to go to Pamidi. PW-1, LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy and Krishna Reddy (PW-3) also boarded the bus to go to Pamidi and they all went to Pamidi. That in the evening at about 5-00 pm, he, PW-1, LW-2 Suryaorabhakar Reddy and PW-3 Krishna Reddy boarded a lorry at Pamidi and reached Miduturu cross at about 5-30 pm, then they all went to Tea hotel at Miduturu cross, took tea at the hotel and after taking tea, they were waiting to go to their village. That in the evening at about 5-00 pm, he, PW-1, LW-2 Suryaorabhakar Reddy and PW-3 Krishna Reddy boarded a lorry at Pamidi and reached Miduturu cross at about 5-30 pm, then they all went to Tea hotel at Miduturu cross, took tea at the hotel and after taking tea, they were waiting to go to their village. That at that time, deceased Siva Prasad Reddy came on his motor cycle and turn towards Peddavaduguru road at Miduturu cross and at that time Kunti Ediga Ravindra (PW-4) signalled the deceased to stop motorcycle by raising his hand and the deceased stopped motor cycle and at that time 10 persons came from thorny bushes on the north em side of the road carrying hunting sickles and attacked the deceased. They are A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-10 and A-11. That A-1 went upon the deceased and tried to hack him but the deceased raised his left hand and blow fell on the left hand of the deceased, A-2 then hacked the deceased on his head with hunting sickle, one Yeddula Krishna Reddy hacked the deceased with a sickle on his left elbow, A-11 hacked the deceased on his mouth, face, A-10 hacked the deceased on his left side of the neck. Then A-3 hacked the deceased on his thigh below the left buttock. A-4 hacked the deceased on his back and when the deceased fell down on the road, the other three accused along with above accused hacked the deceased indiscriminately with their weapons. That PW-1 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy rushed to the deceased requesting the accused not to kill the deceased. Then all the accused went upon PW-1 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy in order to attack them, PW-1, LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy and PW-3 Krishna Reddy ran towards Miduturu village. Then all the accused ran away from the scene of offence. Thereafter himself, PW-1 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy and PW-3 Krishna Reddy went to the deceased and a glass of water was given to the deceased by PW-1, but he was unable to speak, then LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy stopped 407 van which was going towards Gooty side and shifted the deceased into the van and took him to Government hospital, Gooty at about 6-30 pm. Doctors examined and declared that deceased was brought dead. Doctors examined and declared that deceased was brought dead. That the Inspector of Police, Gooty (PW-12) came to the hospital within 40 minutes and PW-1 gave written complaint to the Inspector of Police at the hospital. (31) In his cross examination PW-2 stated that he knew all the accused as they used to come to his tailoring shop for stitching purpose and he knew their names since 10 years prior to the offence, he met PWs.1 and 2 and LW-2 in the bus accidentally and he went to Pamidi for purchasing stitching material. That he met PW-1 and 2 and LW-2 at Pamidi again and boarded a lorry and got down at Miduturu cross road. Nothing contrary was elicited in the cross examination of PW-2. But the only difference in the version of PW-2 from that of PW-1 is that PW-2 did not speak of the presence of A-8 and A-9 at the scene of offence and their involvement in the offence. (32) Another eye witness to the incident is PW-3. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 that he is the resident of Peddavaduguru village and living on cultivation. That there were disputes between the deceased and the accused prior to the date of the offence. That on 26-7-1997 the offence took place and on that date he boarded the bus and saw PW-1, PW-2 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy in the bus. That they all went to Pamidi in the bus. That he went to Pamidi to purchase agricultural implements and after completing the work, again they all boarded a lorry at 5-00 pm and got down from the lorry at Miduturu cross to go to Peddavaduguru. That all went to a tea hotel at Miduturu cross and took tea and they were talking together at the hotel. At that time they saw the deceased was coming on Motor cycle. When he turned towards Peddavaduguru road, one Ediga Ravindra (PW-4) raised his hand to give signal to the deceased to stop the motor cycle. That even before the deceased stopped the Motor cycle, ten persons hiding behind the bushes suddenly came out armed with hunting sickles. That they are A-1 to A-7, A-10 and A-11 and one Krishna Reddy. When he turned towards Peddavaduguru road, one Ediga Ravindra (PW-4) raised his hand to give signal to the deceased to stop the motor cycle. That even before the deceased stopped the Motor cycle, ten persons hiding behind the bushes suddenly came out armed with hunting sickles. That they are A-1 to A-7, A-10 and A-11 and one Krishna Reddy. That A-1 hacked the deceased on left hand wrist of the deceased with a hunting sickle, then A-2 hacked the deceased on his head, Krishna Reddy hacked the deceased on his left hand, A-11 hacked the deceased on his face and A-10 hacked the deceased with a sickle on his left side of neck. That the deceased fell down from the Motor cycle, A-3 then hacked the deceased below his left buttock and A-4 hacked the deceased on his back with a sickle. That all the above ten persons hacked the deceased simultaneously when he fell on the ground. That when he, PW-1, PW-2 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy went to the rescue of the deceased, the accused came upon them to attack them due to which they ran towards Miduturu side, the accused chased them for some distance. Thereafter they saw the accused going towards Peddavaduguru village side. That again when they went to the deceased, five or six persons also came there, the deceased was not able to speak, but he was breathing, they gave water to the deceased. That the deceased was shifted into 407 van which was passing towards Gooty side to take the deceased to the Hospital. That they took the deceased in 407 van to Government Hospital, Gooty, and the Doctor after examining the deceased pronounced him dead. (33) In the cross examination of PW-3, he stated that the deceased is his brother by relationship. He denied the suggestion that he never went to Pamidi and never saw the offence. That his cloths were stained with the blood of the deceased here and there as the deceased was shifted into 407 van from the scene of offence to the Govemment Hospital, Gooty. Nothing contrary was elicited from the cross examination of PW-3 than what he has stated in his chief examination. That his cloths were stained with the blood of the deceased here and there as the deceased was shifted into 407 van from the scene of offence to the Govemment Hospital, Gooty. Nothing contrary was elicited from the cross examination of PW-3 than what he has stated in his chief examination. Here also the only difference in the version of PW-3 from that of PW-1 is that he did not speak of the presence of A-8 and A-9 at the scene of offence and their involvement in the offence. (34) It is to be noted that PWs.4 to 6 did not support the prosecution case and the Public Prosecutor declared them hostile. But their evidence is relevant and may briefly be noted here. (35) It has come in the evidence of PW-4 that he is the resident of Peddavaduguru village and he is doing business in Cool Drinks at Peddavaduguru village. That A-1, A-3 and A-4 and A-10 belong to his village i.e. Peddavaduguru and A-2 belongs to Chinna Vaduguru village. That the deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was murdered on 26-7-1997. That on that day he went to Anantapur to under go Computer training course at Anantapur. That he went to Anantapur on that day at 10.30 am and returned from Anantapur after undergoing training and he got down at Miduturu cross at about 5.50 pm to go to his village by some conveyance. That he was effected by Polio in his child hood and could walk with the help of walking sticks. That at that time, the deceased came from Gooty side on his motor cycle and the deceased after seeing him at Miduturu cross told him that he could not sit on the motor cycle and when the deceased went to some distance, four unknown persons came upon the deceased and hacked him indiscriminately. They came from Vaduguru side road due to which the deceased fell from the Motor cycle. That he did not go to the rescue of the deceased and that he could not identify the four assailants who attacked the deceased. (36) It has come in the evidence of PW-5 that he is the resident of Miduturu Village and running a tea stall. That the deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was resident of Peddavaduguru village and the offence took place about 10 or 11 years ago at about 500 or 5-30 pm. (36) It has come in the evidence of PW-5 that he is the resident of Miduturu Village and running a tea stall. That the deceased Siva Prasad Reddy was resident of Peddavaduguru village and the offence took place about 10 or 11 years ago at about 500 or 5-30 pm. That on that day he heard shouting of people at Vaduguru road, then he went to the place and found deceased with injuries. Ten to fifteen persons gathered at the scene. The relatives of deceased took the deceased in a mini van from there to Goofy side. That PWs.1 to 3 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy shifted the deceased in the van. That prior to the offence on that day, PWs.1 to 3 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy came to his tea stall for taking tea and he told them that tea was not available, therefore they went away. (37) It has come in the evidence of PW-6 that he is the native of Miduturu village and running tea hotel at Miduturu cross. That PW-5 is his brother-law he was also having tea hotel by the side of his hotel. Deceased Siva Prasad Reddy who was practicing Advocate, was a resident of Peddaavaduguru village. The offence took place about 11 years back at about 6-00 pm. That he was at his hotel at that time and he heard shouting at scene of of fence that some body was hacked. That out of fear he remained in his hotel only and some time later he went out to the scene of offence and found deceased lying with bleeding injuries, the deceased was alive by then. That a mini lorry came from Pamidi side and the deceased was taken to Gooty in that mini van by the brothers of the deceased and others. That on the next day he came to know that deceased died. (38) The other witnesses are: PWs.7 and 8, the panch witnesses, PW-9 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem certificate Ex.P-7, PW-10 was examined to prove the conspiracy and the meeting of A-1 to A-4, A-8 and A-9 one week prior to the offence, he heard A-8 and A-9 telling to A-1 to A-4 that they would go to jail in connection with the warrants issued against them and they must draw a plan to murder the deceased. But in the cross examination PW-10 stated that he did not disclose the said information to anybody. PW-11 is the Head Constable who registered the FIR and PW-12 is the Investigation Officer. (39) The contention of the learned senior counsel is that the eye witnesses are chance and interested witnesses and due to political rivalry falsely implicated the accused in the case. It is now settled proposition of law that if a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim/deceased it is not a ground to discard his evidence if it is otherwise credible. The Apex Court in Maranadu v. State by Inspector of Police (1) 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 404 (SC).=2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 766 (SC) dealt with the aspect of evidence of a witness related to the victim/deceased and, held:-"Merely because the eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot perse be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to effect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false allegation is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. "We may also observe that the ground that witness being a close relative and consequently a partisan witness, should not be relied upon has no substance this theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh's Case (supra), in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed In the minds of the members of the bar that relatives are not independent witnesses. " "The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victim often results in criminal justice going awry." (40) In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao v. State (2) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 107 (SC) = 2009 (1) SCJ 760 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 955 (SC), the Apex Court at paras 29 to 34 held thus:-"29. " "The over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victim often results in criminal justice going awry." (40) In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao v. State (2) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 107 (SC) = 2009 (1) SCJ 760 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 955 (SC), the Apex Court at paras 29 to 34 held thus:-"29. It is by now well-settled mere relationship of the witnesses cannot be the sole basis to discard or disbelieve their evidence if it is otherwise found to be believable and trustworthy. However, when the court has to appreciate the evidence of any interested, witness it has to be very careful in weighing their evidence. In other words, the evidence of an interested witness requires greater care and caution while scrutinizing his evidence. The Court has to address to itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such a witness; whether the evidence is reliable and trustworthy and whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such an incident is probable or not. If the evidence of any interested witness or a relative on a careful scrutiny is found to be consistent and trustworthy, free from infirmities of any embellishment there is no reason not to place reliance on the same (see Arjun Marik and other vs. State of Bihar (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 372). (41) In Meharaj Singh v. State of UP (3) 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 23 (DN), the Supreme Court held that testimony of interested witness cannot be rejected on the sole ground of interestedness but should be subjected to close scrutiny. (42) In Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 5 SCC 679 =2004 (5) ALT 25.5 (DN SC) = 2004 ALD 297 (SC), the Supreme Court again reiterated and re-emphasised that the testimony of related witness, which after deep scrutiny, was found to be otherwise truthful and credible, could not be discarded on the sole ground of interested witnesses. (42) In Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 5 SCC 679 =2004 (5) ALT 25.5 (DN SC) = 2004 ALD 297 (SC), the Supreme Court again reiterated and re-emphasised that the testimony of related witness, which after deep scrutiny, was found to be otherwise truthful and credible, could not be discarded on the sole ground of interested witnesses. Again, in Bhimapa Chandappa Hosarnani and others v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 238 (SC) = 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 777 (SC) = 2006 (11) SCC 323 , it has been held that credibility of the witness is to be tested by reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on that basis. (43) In S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P. 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 245 (SC) = (2006) 10 SCC 163= 2006 ALD 226 (SC), the Supreme Court further held that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation as to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (44) In Salim Sahab v. State of MP; 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 124 (SC) = (2007) 1 SCC 699 , the Supreme Court held that mere relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. (45) In D. Sallu v. State of A.P., (4) 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 239 (SC) the Apex Court while dealing with evidence of interested witnesses, at para 11, held thus:- "11. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible." (46) In yet another case in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (5) AIR 1953 SC 364 the Apex- Court while considering the testimony of relation of the victim held thus:-"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enimity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts". (47) It is true that PWs.1 and 3 are related to the deceased. PW-2 is an independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. No motive is suggested to PWs.1 to 3 that they are deposing falsehood against the accused. There is no enimity in between PWs.1 to 3 and accused. PWs.1 to 3 witnessed the incident and their evidence is consistent in all material particulars. There appears no need for them implicate the accused and depose falsehood against the accused. No motive is suggested to PWs.1 to 3 that they are deposing falsehood against the accused. There is no enimity in between PWs.1 to 3 and accused. PWs.1 to 3 witnessed the incident and their evidence is consistent in all material particulars. There appears no need for them implicate the accused and depose falsehood against the accused. It is common understanding and of ten it happens that the eye witnesses are either related or have some interest common with the victim/deceased. This is so because normally strangers are not likely to be found at the scene of offence. For example, if an attack is made on a person in his house, naturally witnesses would be his parents or brother or sister and if he is married, his wife or children, and in such situations how can one insist on independent witnesses by dubbing the naturally available witnesses as interested witness. The safeguard in that situations is that the Court has to be cautions and careful in relying on the evidence of such eye witnesses. On the ground of witnesses being related their testimony cannot be rejected as unreliable when their evidence is otherwise trustworthy. (48) The evidence of PWs.4 to 6 who turned hostile establishes beyond all reasonable doubt as to the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and LW-2 Suryaprabhakar Reddy at the scene of offence and shifting the deceased in mini van to Government Hospital, Gooty. Their evidence also establishes the place and time of occurrence of the offence and the deceased receiving lethal injuries by the assailants. The Supreme Court in R.Prakash v. State of Karnatak (6) 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1408 = 2004 (4) ALT 5 .3 (DN SC) observing that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be ignored in to to, held, at para 7, thus:-"7.The High Court has rightly acted on the evidence of PW-3 and other eyewitnesses. We find no infirmity in their evidence. The Supreme Court in R.Prakash v. State of Karnatak (6) 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1408 = 2004 (4) ALT 5 .3 (DN SC) observing that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be ignored in to to, held, at para 7, thus:-"7.The High Court has rightly acted on the evidence of PW-3 and other eyewitnesses. We find no infirmity in their evidence. Even though PWs.1 and 8 had resiled from the statements made during investigation to some extent, their evidence does not get wiped out in toto, as the evidence of such witnesses does not get washed off." (49) In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that as PWs.1 to 3, are eye witnesses to the incident and they were present at the place and time of the occurrence, their statements cannot be rejected for the reason PWs.1 and 3 are brothers of the deceased. (50) Now we have to evaluate the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 in connecting the accused with the crime alleged against them. In Ex,P-l complaint PW-1 stated that A-1 to A-4, A10 and A-11 and three others attacked the deceased. But when it has come to his evidence, he has made slight improvement in his version and included A-5 to A-9 as the assailants. It is on record that A-5 and A-9 died. The Sessions Court has acquitted A-6 to A-8 and convicted A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11. In Ex.P-1 complaint, PW-1 did not name A-5 to A-7 as the assailants of the deceased. He stated that A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 and three others were involved in the attack on the deceased. Ex.P-1, the translated version in English from Telugu reads thus: "To The Hon'ble Sub-Inspector of Police Peddavadugur Police Station, Peddavadugur. Sir, I, Yeddula Sarabha Reddy (PW-1), S/o. Yeddula Adinarayana Reddy resident of Peddavadugur beg to submit the following as follows: The elections of HLC Society was held last year in our village. In the said elections my elder brother Siva Prasad Reddy (deceased) and Maheswara Reddy (A-2) of Chinnavadugur village contested. Maheswara Reddy was got elected in the said elections. My elder brother was defeated in the said elections with low majority. Since then the said Maheswara Reddy, and CPI and TDP group people who supported said Maheswara Reddy bore grudge against my elder brother that my brother developing his influence in our village. Maheswara Reddy was got elected in the said elections. My elder brother was defeated in the said elections with low majority. Since then the said Maheswara Reddy, and CPI and TDP group people who supported said Maheswara Reddy bore grudge against my elder brother that my brother developing his influence in our village. Last few days my elder brother Siva Prasad Reddy elected as President of Mandal Congress Committee. Maheswara Reddy, CPI group people i.e., Surya Narayana Reddy, President Kami Reddy, Narayana Reddy s/o. Venkata Reddy and their supporters bore grudge against my elder brother that he is developing his political influence in the village. Further they bore grudge against my brother that my brother is responsible for closing the brandy shop of Maheswara Reddy, riding of police and seizure of cheap liquor from the house of said Maheswara Reddy and also responsible for seizing of cheap liquor bottles from the house of Surya Narayana Reddy hence they decided to kill my brother. On 26-7-1997, Saturday at about 10-00 am my brother usually went to Gooty Court. My brother Suryaprabakar Reddy, my senior paternal uncles son Krishna Reddy, Dudekula Imam Sab and myself went to Pamidi to purchase agricultural implements (Guntaka Koyyalu). After completing our work at Pamidi we all boarded the lorry and got down at about 5.30 pm at Miduthuru cross in order to go Peddavadugur village and waiting. At about 6.00 pm my elder brother Siva Prasad Reddy came in his motor cycle from Gooty in order to go Peddavadugur and he take turn at Miduthuru cross. Then 1. Yeddula Suryanarayana Reddy (A-1) s/o. Chlnna Sarabha Reddy 2. Maheswara Reddy (A-2) s/o. Chinnavadugur Narayana Reddy 3.Rami Reddy (A-10) s/o. Putluru Hanumantha Reddy 4.Narayana Reddy (A-3) s/o, Gudipati Venkata Reddy 5. Anjineyulu @ Anji (A-4) s/o.Boya Narayana, 6. Y.Krishna Reddy s/o. Y. Surya Narayana Reddy, followers of Maheswara Reddy (A-2) 7. Sarath Reddy (A-11) and 3 others came from the thorny bushes situated towards north with hunting sickles and attacked my elder brother. Among themselves Yeddula Surya Narayana Reddy hacked my brother on left hand shoulder, immediately Maheswara Reddy hacked with hunting sickles on the head of my brother. Again when my brother raised his hand to avoid blow, Y. Krishna Reddy hacked left hand fingers and wrist of my brother with hunting sickle. Again Sarath Reddy hacked my brother with hunting sickle on his wrist and lips. Again when my brother raised his hand to avoid blow, Y. Krishna Reddy hacked left hand fingers and wrist of my brother with hunting sickle. Again Sarath Reddy hacked my brother with hunting sickle on his wrist and lips. Rami Reddy s/o. Putluru Hanumantha Reddy hacked my brother with hunting sickle on left side, neck, Narayana Reddy s/o. Gudipati Venkata Reddy hacked on left side below buttock of my brother with hunting sickle. Then my brother fell down from the motor cycle. Anjineyulu @ Anji s/o.Boya Narayana hacked on the back side of my brother with hunting sickle The remaining three persons also attacked my brother with hunting sickles and hacked indiscriminately. All the above persons with an intention to kill my brother, killed him. Then they were going by living my brother, observed us and came on us saying 'kill' them with hunting sickles then we ran inside the Miduturu village. Then they return back. After some time they left from there, we went to my brother and observed my brother was struggling with life. Then we stopped a van which was coming from Ananthapur side, we shifted my brother to the Government Hospital, Gooty in the said van. Doctor came and saw my brother and said that he was dead. Therefore, I request the SI of police to take action against the above said accused and save our life and do justice. Yours faithfully, Sd/-xxxxx Sarabha Reddy Endorsed to S.I. Peddavaduguru P.S, to register a case U/sec.147,148, 302 r/w. 149 IPC and send a copy of FIR to me for further investigation. Sent through PC 1886 of Gooty PS to Peddavadugur PS. Sd/-xxxxx S.Naganna, CI, Gooty 26-7-1997 at 8-00 pm 26-7-1998 I registered the same as Cr.No.48/97, U/sec. 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 IPC of Peddavadugur PS and submitted the express FIRs to all concerned officers. A copy of FIR to CI or Police. Gooty for further investigation and sent through PC of Peddavadugur PS. Sd/-xxxxxx HC 29 Peddavadugur PS 26-7-1997" (51) It has come in evidence that A-8 and A-9 were in Sub-jail Gooty in connection with Cr.No.48 of 1995 of Peddavaduguru PS as on the date of the incident. PWs.2 and 3 eye witness did not speak about the presence of the A-8 and A-9 at the scene of the offence. Sd/-xxxxxx HC 29 Peddavadugur PS 26-7-1997" (51) It has come in evidence that A-8 and A-9 were in Sub-jail Gooty in connection with Cr.No.48 of 1995 of Peddavaduguru PS as on the date of the incident. PWs.2 and 3 eye witness did not speak about the presence of the A-8 and A-9 at the scene of the offence. This is the only contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 when compared with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. A-6 and A-7 are not named in Ex.P-1 as the assailants. In this view of the matter acquittal of A-6 to A-8 recorded by the Sessions Court is well founded and based on evidence. (52) In so far the conviction recorded against A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11, is concerned, learned senior counsel stated that when once the evidence of PW-1 is accepted as false in respect of A-8 and A-9 in implicating them in the case, though they were in jail, his evidence cannot be considered to convict other accused. The Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (7) 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 137 (SC), while dealing with doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, at relevant portion of the order held thus:- "Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non-acceptance of evidence tendered by some witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus " has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh). Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab). The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all aspects as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reasons that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ugar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar). The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reasons that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ugar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar). An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from false hood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Balaka Singh v. The State of Punjab). As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kaikf, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar." (53) The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision Gangadhar Behera's case (7 supra) is that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, conviction can be maintained. (54) Normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. The variation or exaggeration is bound to happen when the incident is narrated by the witness in this case ten years after the offence. The variation or exaggeration is bound to happen when the incident is narrated by the witness in this case ten years after the offence. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. When the prosecution is able to establish its case, the accused can be convicted even if the co-accused have been acquitted on the ground that the evidence led was not sufficient to fasten guilt on them. It is fairly settled position of law that even if part of the evidence is discarded, that cannot be a ground to discard the evidence more particularly that part of the evidence which is cogent and credible and the Court has to examine the facts of each case independently. (55) There is no conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence of the witnesses in this case. The evidence of PW-8 goes to show that A-1 to A-4 were arrested on 11-8-1997 and at their instance MOs.7 to 10 sickles were seized under Ex. P- 6 confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-1 to A-4. The weapons used in the commission of the offence were seized at the instance of A-1 to A-4. Ex.P-11 and P-12 FSL reports indicate that the blood detected on the wooden handles of hunting sickles is of human origin. Mere non-seizure of blood stained cloths of the persons who took the deceased to the hospital by the Police, is itself not fatal to the case of the prosecution, which is otherwise cogent and consistent. (56) From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has established the presence and participation of A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 in the commission of the offence. (57) At this stage, it would be appropriate to examine the plea of alibi taken by A-10 and A -11 and the contentions advanced in regard thereof. (58) Learned senior counsel contended that in the light of ample evidence to accept the plea of alibi put forth by accused A-10 and A-11, the Sessions Court failed to consider the same in proper perspective. (59) Before adverting to this contention of the learned senior counsel, it would be relevant to refer to law on the plea of alibi. (58) Learned senior counsel contended that in the light of ample evidence to accept the plea of alibi put forth by accused A-10 and A-11, the Sessions Court failed to consider the same in proper perspective. (59) Before adverting to this contention of the learned senior counsel, it would be relevant to refer to law on the plea of alibi. Our High Court in Pesara Sangamma v. State of AP (8) 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 212 (A.P.) (A learned single Judge) observed thus:-"The burden of proving the defence of alibi is on the accused. The proof of alibi as defence need not he beyond any reasonable doubt. The probability in such a defence itself might be sufficient to raise serious doubt about the presence of the accused at the time of the occurrence. It can be established both from the independent evidence of the defence and also from the probabilities available in the evidence of prosecution and from the totality of the circumstances available on record". (60) The nature and meaning of alibi was considered by the Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (9) 1997 SCC Crl. 133 at paras 22 and 23 of the judgment held thus:- "22. We must bear in mind that alibi is not an exception (special or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context: "The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant." 22. The Latin word alibi means " elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. It is basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused had adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the Court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, beenfitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi." (emphasis supplied). (61) It is unnecessary to refer to all the judgments cited on this point, as the principle is obvious and well settled. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case viz., that the accused were present at the scene of occurrence and participated in the crime and that the deceased died of the injuries inflicted by them. When once this burden is discharged, it is incumbent on the Court to consider the plea of alibi set up by A-10 and A-11. There can be no doubt that the burden is heavy on the accused. (62) To prove the plea of alibi DW-3, Constable, and DW-4, Sub-Inspector of Police, both working in Peddavaduguru Police Station on the date of incident, were examined to prove that A-10 was in the Police Station, Peddavadguru, at the time of incident. There can be no doubt that the burden is heavy on the accused. (62) To prove the plea of alibi DW-3, Constable, and DW-4, Sub-Inspector of Police, both working in Peddavaduguru Police Station on the date of incident, were examined to prove that A-10 was in the Police Station, Peddavadguru, at the time of incident. It has come in the evidence of DW-3 that on 26-7-1997 at about 5-00 pm, A-10 Rami Reddy who was Sarpanch of Peddavadguru Village came to the Police Station and was in the Police Station for about half-an-hour with the accused of some other case till 5-30 pm. DW-3 further stated that one Chennama Naidu also came to the Police Station to enquire about the arrest of his brother and along with the said Chennama Naidu A-10 went into the chamber of SI of Police. That thereafter A-10 and Chennama Naidu left the Police Station and went to Panchayat Office which is adjacent to the Police Station. He added that at about 6-00 pm a News Reporter of 'Eanadu' came to Police Station and spoke to SI of Police about murder that took place at Miduthuru Cross Road, that he has seen A-10 and the Police officials leaving the Police Station on motor cycles by standing in front of the Panchayat Office. DW-3 denied the suggestion that he was not on duty on the relevant date. That he and the SI of Police went to other villages by 3-00 pm on 26-7-1997 in connection with the investigation of other cases. DW-3 denied suggestion that he gave statement due to pressure of DW-1, the Dy. Superintendent of Police. The oral testimony of DW-3 cannot draw support from his own statement before the enquiry officer, marked as Ex.D-9. D W-4 SI of Police, Peddavaduguru Police Station stated about the presence of A-l0 on the lines narrated by DW-3. Ex,D-7 is the copy of statement of DW-4 given to PW-12. It is relevant to notice that A-10 did not enter into witness box; though of course he has a right of silence, no independent evidence is led to show that the presence of A-10 in the Police Station, at the relevant time and that he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it was extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. The said persons Chennama Naidu who is alleged to have come to the Police Station in connection with some other criminal case and the reporter of the Eanadu news, were also not examined. Except the statements and evidence of official witnesses, there is no independent evidence to prove alibi of A-10. (63) To prove the case of alibi of A-11, DW-1, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri, was examined. The case of A-11, who is the son of A-1, is that he was studying final year B .Tech in Jagadguru Chandrasekhar Nath Institute of Technology, Chikkaballpur, Karnataka State and attended college on 26-7-2007 and he was present in the college at the relevant time from 5-00 pm to 6-00 pm. It has come in the evidence of DW-1 that during course of enquiry, he examine d D. Siva Reddy and C. Ravindra Reddy who were room mates of A-11. C. Ravindra Reddy was also examined as DW-2. DW-2 stated that he was classmate of A-11 and that on 26-7-1997 he and A-11 were in college upto 7-30 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was speaking false to help A-11 who is his friend. DW-2 stated that DW-1 examined him in the college by calling him to the principal room and recorded his statement and he singed it, which is marked as Ex.D-8. No reliable evidence is produced to show A-11 was present in the college on the relevant date and that his presence at the scene of occurrence would be highly improbable. A-11 did not enter the witness box to support his plea of alibi, while of course he has a right to silence. (64) PW-12 Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in this case himself made enquiries in regard to the alibi plea put forth by A-10, Surpanch of Peddavadguru village. The application pleading alibi of his son (A-11) was filed by A-1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tadpatri by report dated 4-11-1997, stated that his discreet enquiries into the matter revealed that the plea of alibi taken is true and accordingly requested the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, "to eliminate them from the charges and proceedings may be issued accordingly and to file charge sheet in the case". It is to be further noticed that pursuant to these reports of the SDOP in respect of A-11 and the report of PW-12 Investigating Officer in respect of A-10, the Addl. It is to be further noticed that pursuant to these reports of the SDOP in respect of A-11 and the report of PW-12 Investigating Officer in respect of A-10, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, issued proceedings dated 18-3-1998 to act upon the reports of these officers and delete the names of A-10 and A-11. (65) On a careful reading of the material placed on record, it is to be observed that most important defence witnesses are police officers and it cannot be expected that they would depose against the orders of deletion of names of A-10 and A-11 passed by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur. Further, the prosecution ought to have placed the material evidence adduced by A-10 and A-11 to prove the plea of alibi to decide the truth or otherwise of the said plea instead of dropping the prosecution and giving them clean chit. (66) The learned Sessions Judge considered the following factors for disbelieving the evidence adduced by A-10 and A-11 in support of the plea of alibi. Paras 28.1 to 28.13 of the judgment, read thus:- "28.1. PW-12 stated about enquiry of alibi petition submitted by A-10 and A-11 and consequent reports submitted by him to Superintendent of Police and basing on the enquiry report of alibi petition, Superintendent of Police directed to delete the names of A-10 and A-11. Evidence of PW-12 thus indicate that he himself enquired into alibi petitions and submitted report. It is most unfortunate that in the present case the Investigation Officer (PW-12) himself was entrusted to enquire into alibi petitions. In my view PW-12 being Investigation Officer in this case ought not to have enquired into alibi petitions. As seen from Ex.D.6 report submitted by PW-12, PW-12 has placed reliance on the statements of SI of Police, Peddavaduguru and also statement of HC 29 Dowla (PW-11) and statement of Khader Basha PC. PW-12 did not visit the place where A-11 was studying and did not choose to collect the concerned record about study of A-11 during the period when incident took place. 28.2. Evidence of DWs.1 to 4 examined on behalf of A-10 and A-11 in my view is not sufficient to accept the plea of alibi set up by A-10 and A-11. 28.3. DW-1 is N.Subba Reddy. He worked as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri. 28.2. Evidence of DWs.1 to 4 examined on behalf of A-10 and A-11 in my view is not sufficient to accept the plea of alibi set up by A-10 and A-11. 28.3. DW-1 is N.Subba Reddy. He worked as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Tadipatri. Ex.D-8 is the certified Xerox copy of report submitted to Superintendent of Police, dated 4-11-97 by DW-1. As seen from Ex.D-8 report, he examined BV Subba Reddy, Neela Kanteswara Reddy, Koukuntla Ramachandraiah, owner of the house, Baadugu Hussalni Yadav, worker and Sri Soyanna, M.L.A., Cantonment, Secunderabad. The statements of those persons examined are not placed before the Court. Equally those persons are not examined before the Court. No record of sweet meet shop situated in Karkana Area, Secunderabad allegedly worked on 26-7-1997 at 5-00 P.M. is collected and produced before the Court. 23.4. DW-1 further stated that he enquired into alibi petition tiled by A-11. During course of alibi petition he enquired D.Siva Reddy and C. Ranvindra Reddy who were room mates ofA-11. Those statements of Siva Reddy and Ravindra Reddy are not placed before the Court Mere recording statements of Ravindra Reddy and Siva Reddy are not sufficient to accept the plea of alibi set up by A-11 without producing relevant college record to establish that A-11 attended college on 26-7-2007 at 5-00 P.M. to 6-00 P.M. and that A-11 at Chickbalapur on 26-7-1997 in between 5-00 P.M. to 6-00 P.M. That being the case, evidence of DW-1 and his report Ex.D-8 are not helpful to A-11 to substantiate to his contention. 28.5. DW-2 Chintakunta Ravindra Reddy. He stated that he was class mate of A-11l and on 26-7-1997 he and A11 were in College up to 7-30 pm. In the cross examination of DW-2 by Special Public Prosecutor, DW-2 admitted he did not bring any certificate to the Court to show that A11 was in the College on 26-7-1997 and he was in room along with him. DW-2 denied suggestion as A-11 was not in the college in the entire month of July, 1997 and that he is speaking false to help A-11, who is friend. DW-2 did not choose to produce any record indicating that he was student of college during relevant period and that A-11 was his class mate. Therefore I am not inclined to give credence to oral evidence of DW-2. 28.6. DW-2 did not choose to produce any record indicating that he was student of college during relevant period and that A-11 was his class mate. Therefore I am not inclined to give credence to oral evidence of DW-2. 28.6. DW-3 S. Khadar Basha stated that on 26-7-1997 at about 5-00 P.M. A-10 Rami Reddy who was Sarpanch came to the Police Station and was in the Police Station for about an hour. A-10 informed the SI of Police that he will bring Accused in some case for surrendering before the SI of Police. A-10 was in the Police Station till 530 P.M. Chennama Naidu came to the Police Station, Peddaavaduguru to enquire about the arrest of assailants of his brother. Along with said Chennama Naidu, A-10 also went into the Chamber of SI of Police. For about 10 to 15 minutes they were in the Chambers of SI of Police. Thereafter A-10 and Chennama Naidu left the Police Station and went to Panchayat Office. At about 6 P.M., a News Reporter of 'Eanadu' came to Police Station and talked with SI of Police about murder took place at Miduthuru Cross Road. He has seen A-10 observing the Police Officials leaving the Police Station on motor cycles by standing in front of the Panchayat Office. He gave statement to . PW12, Ex.D-9 is certified copy Xerox copy of said statement of DW-3, 28.7. DW-3 did not produce any record indicating that he was on centry Duty on 25-7-1997. He cannot say about the persons visited on 25-7-1997, 25-7-1997 and 27-7-1997 to Peddavaduguru, Police Station, DW-3 denied suggestion that his statement that he was on centry Duty from 7-00 pm of 25-7-1997 to 7-00 pm of 26-7-1997 is false. DW-3 denied suggestion that he and S.I. of Police Sri Mahaboob Basha went to other villages by 3 P.M. on 26-7-1997 in connection with the investigation of the cases. DW-3 denied suggestion that he gave statement due to pressure of DW-1 and that contents of Ex.D-8 and D-9 are not true and correct. DW-3 denied suggestion that 'Eanadu' News Reported did not visit Police Station at 6-30 p.m. 28.8. Except oral testimony of DW-3 and his statement marked as Ex.D-9 that there is no other record indicating DW-3 is on centry Duty on the date of incident and that Chennama Naidu also visited Police Station. DW-3 denied suggestion that 'Eanadu' News Reported did not visit Police Station at 6-30 p.m. 28.8. Except oral testimony of DW-3 and his statement marked as Ex.D-9 that there is no other record indicating DW-3 is on centry Duty on the date of incident and that Chennama Naidu also visited Police Station. It is important to note that Chennama Naidu and Eanadu Reporter are not examined as defence witnesses. Therefore I am not Inclined to place reliance of oral testimony of DW-3. 28.9. DW-4 Syed Mahaboob Basha who worked as SI of Police, Peddavaduguru, Police Station also stated in his chief examination in conformity with the evidence of DW-3. Ex.D-7 certified Xerox copy of statement of DW-4 given by him to PW-12. Ex.D-7 statement indicate that D.W.4 has put a date underneath his signature. The date appearing in Ex.D.7 underneath his signature is 15-10-1997. The date in Ex.D-7 is 18-10-1997. The date variation creates doubt. Thus there appears to be doubt about date as to when statement of DW-4 was recorded by PW-12. 28.10. As already observed by me in absence of examining Chennama Naidu, Bala Krishna Reddy and Eanadu Reporter no reliance can be placed on the statements of DW-4, Ex.D-7. Similarly, Ex.D-8, Ex.D-9 are not helpful to the A-10 and A-11 to substantiate their contention. 28.11. A11 submitted written statement at the time of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. along with it he also submitted bona-fide Certificate of Board of Intermediate Certificate and Study Certificate issued by Sri Jagadguru Chandrasekharanatha Swamiji Institute of Technology. 28.12. A-10 and A-11 did not choose to enter into witness box as defence witnesses in support of their alibi plea. The said conduct of A-10 and A-11 is also important. 28.13. No person is examined on behalf of A-11 to prove study certificates issued by college where A-11 studied. Study certificates will not improve defence of A 11. No college official is examined in support of plea of alibi set up by A-11. I am therefore constrained to reject the plea of alibi set up A-10 and A-11." (67) We may observe that when the Investigating Officer learnt of the plea of alibi taken by A-10 and A-11 during investigation, he should have been placed the material gathered in support thereof along with other evidence before the Court as essentially it relates to appreciation of evidence. It is for the Court to decide the correctness or otherwise of the plea. The manner in which the prosecution had taken upon itself to decide the plea of alibi and giving clean chit to A-10 and A-11 before filing charge sheet, is in our view, a very relevant circumstance to discredit the plea. The approach of the defence witnesses who are police officers clearly shows that they are interested witnesses and want to save A-10 and A-11. The evidence in support of the plea of alibi, placed before the Court, does not inspire any confidence. In this view of the matter and after giving careful consideration to the matter, we affirm the conclusion reached by the Sessions Court on this point. (68) The contention of the learned senior counsel that there is no evidence as to which of the injuries caused the death of the deceased is also to be rejected for it has come in evidence of the PW-9 Doctor that the deceased sustained incised wounds caused by a sharp edged weapon and such injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of death. When each of the injury caused by the accused is capable to causing death, the enquiry into the circumstance as to which of the injuries caused death of the deceased would be futile and prosecution is not bound to prove which specific overt act was done by which accused more particularly when the attack is made by a group of assailants. (See AnnaReddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 286 (SC) = 2009 (4) SCJ 488 = AIR 2009 SC 2661 ). (69) There is also no delay in filing the FIR and making over the report to the concerned Magistrate and the alleged delay is quite natural and in course of process and there is no abnormal delay in this case to entertain doubt. (69) There is also no delay in filing the FIR and making over the report to the concerned Magistrate and the alleged delay is quite natural and in course of process and there is no abnormal delay in this case to entertain doubt. It has come in the evidence of PW-12 that he has received Ex.P-1 complaint from PW-1 when he went to the Government Hospital, Gooty, and he endorsed the same, sent to the PS Peddavadugur at about 8-00 pm based on Ex.P-1, PW-11 registered as case in Cr.No.48 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w. Section 149 and Section 120-B IPC and FIR was prepared by 11-30 pm on the same day and entrusted to PC 2089 to make over the report to concerned Magistrate, but it has come in evidence that as there was no conveyance, the same reached the Magistrate at 7-45 on the next day i.e. 27-7-1997. The distance from the Peddavadguru PS to the residence of the Magistrate at Gooty is stated to be 16 Kms. The delay appears to have occurred mainly due to non-availability of conveyance to go to the residence of the concerned Magistrate at that night after 11-30 pm. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao v. State(10) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 107 (SC)=2009 (1) SCJ 760 = 2008 (1) ALD (Crl.) 944 (SC) while dealing with effect of delay in sending F.I.R. to the Magistrate at Para 21 held thus:- "We have earlier pointed out that in the present case there was delay of about 16 hours in sending the FIR (Ex.P5) to the Magistrate, but the explanation recorded by the trial court that majority of police personal were deputed In village Uddandarayulipalyam for maintaining Law and Order situation which was too sense in view of murder of three men of the village on the same evening, we do not find any cogent and convincing reason for doubting the correctness and truthfulness of the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged in the police station at about 9 pm in relation to murder of deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 at about 7-30 P.M. on the next day i.e. 19-7-1996 after a good deal of consultations and confabulations with the leaders of rival group of the accused and particularly after observing injuries on the dead body of deceased No.1. He categorically stated that he recorded the statement Ex.P.1 made by P.W.1 between 9 P.M. to 10 P.M. on 18-7-1996 and on confession thereof, the same was sent through P.C.No.2896 to the Police station for registration of the F.I.R. and after registration of the same constable brought the copy of the F.I.R. to the scene of occurrence at about 12 midnight and there after P.W.11 took up further investigation......" (70) In State of HP v. Gain Chand (11) 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 54 (SC) = 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 869 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay and, if offered. whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the persecution. However,ifthedelay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court it cannot be itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. (71) The decision relied on by the learned senior counsel Rajeevan v. State of Kerala (12) 2003 (3) SCC 355 = 2003 (5) ALT 17 .2 (DN SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case there was a delay of 12 hours in filing the FIR irrespective of the fact that the Police Station is only situated at a distance of 100 metres from the spot of the incident and under these circumstances the genuineness of the FIR was doubted. The contention that the blood stained cloths of the deceased or the eye witnesses who took him to the hospital are not recovered, is not fatal to the prosecution case and it is not tenable, as PW-12 after preparing the scene of observation report, at the scene of offence, seized motor cycle of the deceased MO-6, one pair of black chappals MO-11, one chappal MO-12, cooling glass MO-13 and blood stained earth MO-14, controlled earth MO-15 from scene of observation report Ex.P-9. The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, 1997 (2) ALD Crl. The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, 1997 (2) ALD Crl. 236 at para 13 held thus:-"The trial Court which declined to place reliance on him noted some flaws in his testimony: One such flaw is the failure of the police to collect the clothes worn by Harpal Singh which wee smeared with blood during the rescue operation. We are unable to appreciated the said approach. If the clothes worn by the injured or the victims were not recovered by the investigating team that perhaps would have provided a handle to the defence to attack the prosecution case. But no investigating agency would normally take the trouble to seize the clothes worn by witnesses at the time they saw the occurrence merely because their clothes too had collected stains of blood during any post event activities. At any rate, the said omission on the part of the investigating agency is not a flaw of that type to invite the consequence of jettisoning his testimony." (72) It is true that there is variation in the evidence of PW-11 (Head Constable) as to the sections of law under which the case was registered, but that by itself is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Supreme Court in Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (13) 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 286 (SC) = 2009 (4) SCJ 488 = AIR 2009 SC 2661 observed that omission to frame specific charge, would not be a ground to set aside conviction in the absence of prejudice to the accused. The omission on the part of PW-11 at the most may be considered as an irregularity. The lapse committed by PW-11 is no ground to reject the case of the prosecution. This High Court in Sahik Saidq Hussain @ Sadiq v. State of AP (14) 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 77 (DB) held thus:- "The mere fact that Investigation Officer committed irregularities and illegalities during the course of investigation, would not and does not cast doubt on prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on the ground. Thus defective investigation can not be made basis for acquit the case." (73) The contention of the counsel for the appellant (PW-1) in criminal revision case that the accused liable for punishment under Section 120-B IPC also cannot be sustained. Thus defective investigation can not be made basis for acquit the case." (73) The contention of the counsel for the appellant (PW-1) in criminal revision case that the accused liable for punishment under Section 120-B IPC also cannot be sustained. As rightly observed the Sessions Court, PW-10 examined to prove the conspiracy and the meeting of A-1 to A-4 and A-8 and A-9, it has come in his evidence that he did not inform any one about the conspiracy hatched by the accused, which according him was planned one week prior to the date of the offence. In his cross examination he stated that he has not seen whether A-1 to A-4 were present along with A-8 and A-9 when the conspiracy to kill the deceased was hatched. That apart in Arulvelu v. State the Supreme Court (15) (2010) 1 SCC (Crl.) 288 observe that in case of reversal of acquittal, unless the judgment of trial Courtis perverse, appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own view and reverse the judgment of acquittal. (74) On the above analysis of the case, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Session Court in SC No.378 of 1998 against A-1 to A-4, A-10 and A-11 being based on evidence is sustainable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. (75) In the result, Crl. Appeal No.1603 of 2008 filed by A-10, Crl. Appeal No. 1502 of 2008 filed by A-11, Crl. Appeal Nos.1616 of 2008 filed by A-1 to A-4, Crl. Appeal No.54 of 2010 filed by the State and Crl.RC No.83 of 2010 filed by PW-1 are all dismissed.