JUDGMENT K.C.Bhanu - This Criminal Appeal, under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2006 in Sessions Case No.451 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, whereunder and whereby the appellants/A.1 to A.4 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, maybe stated as follows; The accused are residents of Konithiwada village. One Injeti Ramarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was also resident of the same village. A.1 is father of A.2 and A.3. A.4 is stepfather of A.1. P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the father, of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was performed in the year 2002 with one Dundi Teja of Mandapaka village. The deceased lived with his wife for two years only, and later, disputes arose in between them and wife of the deceased left the deceased and went away to house of her parents. Thereafter, the deceased developed illegal intimacy with one Chinni of his village. A.1 and the deceased quarrelled with each other in one marriage function with regard to said Chinni. Elders of the village intervened, separated them, and admonished them. The deceased left the place saying that the accused would kill him and apprehended danger in their hands. Due to fear, the deceased went to house of his parents-in-law in Mandapaka village to safeguard his life. Three months thereafter, the deceased came back to his house from Mandapaka, and joined in Video shop of one Reddy of Konithiwada village. The deceased used to attend his work and came back to his house and did not go outside due to fear of the accused. On the date of the incident at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased went to the house of P .W.3 for the purpose of receiving phone and sat at the house, at that time, A.1 invited the deceased to the statue of Ambedkar to talk something. When the deceased reached to the Ambedkar statue along with A.1, A.4 hacked the deceased with a knife. A.1 hacked the deceased with a vegetable cutting knife. When the deceased reached to the Ambedkar statue along with A.1, A.4 hacked the deceased with a knife. A.1 hacked the deceased with a vegetable cutting knife. A.3 and A.4 beat the deceased with sticks. The deceased fell on ground in pool of blood. The deceased was having life at that time. P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the spot where, they found the deceased in a pool of blood. While P.Ws. 1 and 2 were going to the Ambedkar statue, the accused came in opposite direction, and when due to fear, P.Ws. 1 and 2 prayed them by raising hands not to do anything to them, A.1 to A.4 threatened them that they would also kill them. P.Ws. 3, 4, 7 and some others witnessed the incident all the witnesses informed to P.W.1 that A.1 to A.4 hacked the deceased and went away. P.W.1 found the deceased having breathing in the pool of blood. P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.15-Village Sarpanch and informed about the incident to him. P.W.15 came to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased in a pool of blood and telephoned to police. Police came to the scene of occurrence at 8.00 p.m. and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Bhimavaram in Auto rickshaw. The deceased was alive and not conscious. Doctor started treatment and the deceased died at 9.00 or 10.00 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave report to police. P.W.19-the then Sub Inspector of Police of Veera Vasa ram police station, received death intimation of the deceased from Government Doctor, Bhimavaram at 9.45 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.19 and P.W.1 went to the Veera Vasaram police station and after receipt of Ex.P1-report from P.W.1, P.W.19 registered case in crime No.100 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. under Ex.P24-First Information Report. P.W.20-the then Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited hospital and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and2. He Also examined A.1 and recorded his detailed statement in another case in crime No.99 of 2003. He visited the scene of offence and seized material objects under Ex.P15. He conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13. He got photographed the dead body of the deceased through P.W.11, and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He visited the scene of offence and seized material objects under Ex.P15. He conducted scene of offence panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13. He got photographed the dead body of the deceased through P.W.11, and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He arrested A.2 to A.4 on 21.11.2003 at 2.00 p.m. at Nowduru Bhimavaram Road in the presence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 and recorded their confessional statements. He arrested A.1 on 26.11.2003 and recorded his confessional statement before mediators. P.W.17-the then Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bhimavaram, on requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 21.11.2003 at 5.00 p.m. and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries on his body and haemorrhage and shock. After completion of investigation, P.W.20 laid the charge sheet. 3. The trial court framed the toll owing charge against the accused. “That you A.1 to A.4 on 19th day of November, 2003, near Ambedkar statue situated near the Special Elementary School, Harijanapet of Konithiwada village and in furtherance of your common intention, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of one Injeti Ramarao (deceased) by way of A.1 of you hacked the deceased with a long knife (cheruku knife) indiscriminately on his face and body; A.2 of you beat the deceased with a male bamboo stick on his head and body; A.3 of you beat the deceased with a casurina stick and also with an axe on his body; and A.4 of you hacked the deceased with a curved knife on the body of the deceased; and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.” When the charge was read over and, explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, 4. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P27, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 17. 5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No evidence, either oral or documentary, is adduced on behalf of accused. 6. 1 to 17. 5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No evidence, either oral or documentary, is adduced on behalf of accused. 6. The trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7, found the appellants/A.1 to A.4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them as above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A1 to A4. 7. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellants/A.1 to A.4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside or modified? 8. The learned counsel Smt. A.Gayathri Reddy appearing for the appellants contended that, the trial Court relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 to base the conviction against the appellants, but, admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and that presence of P.W.7 at the time of the incident is very much doubtful and he is not a truthful witness and that his house is not shown in Ex.P15-scene of observation report; that, there is evidence on record to show that if P.W.7 was present inside the house, the scene of occurrence would not be visible, and if really P.W.7 came out from the house after hearing the galata and witnessed the incident as stated by him, he would have been examined by police during inquest, as, admittedly, he was present during inquest; that, except the evidence of P.W.7, there is no other evidence to show that the accused are the assailants; that A.1 sustained serious injury and even according to the case of prosecution, A.1 was admitted as in-patient in the hospital for about 7 days, but, still, the wound certificate of A.1 were not brought on record and the prosecution failed to explain the serious injuries sustained by A.1 during the course of same transaction; that, a joint confession allegedly made by A.2 to A.4 leading to recovery of M.Os. 7 to 9 would not come within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that, there is abnormal delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court and the same has not been explained; that, the manner of giving Ex.P1-report is Also doubtful; that Ex.P1 was brought into existence just before the time and, date as mentioned in Ex.P24-F.I.R.; that due to previous disputes between the accused and P.Ws. 1 and 2, the accused are falsely implicated; that, the independent witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, whose houses are located in and around the scene of occurrence, did not support the case of prosecution, and therefore, in these circumstances, it is not safe to base a conviction basing on the solitary testimony of P.W.7, and hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that, though P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the scene of occurrence after hearing galata, their evidence is very clear that the accused were running away from the scene of occurrence with weapons; that, their evidence coupled with the evidence of P.W.7, who came out from the house and witnessed the incident, would clearly go to show that A.1 to A.4 are the assailants of the deceased; that, there is no other reason for P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 to foist a false of this nature against the accused; that, the injuries on A.1 are not shown to have been caused during the course of same transaction; that the Doctor has categorically gave opinion that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries; that the presence of P.W.7 at the time of the incident is quite probable and convincing; that, if the presence of P.W.7 is probable and he has no grouse or enmity against the accused to implicate them falsely, reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.7 in order to base a conviction; that, the trial Court upon elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 to base the conviction, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.4/A.4died and therefore appeal against him is abated. 11. P.Ws. 10. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.4/A.4died and therefore appeal against him is abated. 11. P.Ws. 12 to 15 are the inquest mediators who were present when P.W.20 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P16. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. 12. P.W.17 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries. 1. An incised wound present on the scalp and skull bones exposing the brain, extending from the left temporal aspect to Rt. Parietal aspect of the skull passing through the valut of the skull frontal aspect size 24 cms x 2 cms x 8 cms length, width and depth; 2. An incised wound present on the left temporal region extending to left eye brow size length 6 cms width 1 cm x 2 cm depth; 3. An incised would present on the left side of the face of the left cheek extending to the left ear lobule size length 4 cm x 2 cm width 5 cms depth. 4. An incised would present on the left margin of the mandible and neck at its middle size 2 cms length 2 cms width 3 cms depth; 5. Lacerated wound present on the left side of the chin transverse in direction size 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cms; 6. An incised would present on the left side of the face near the left angle of the mouth vertical in direction size length 8 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm length, width and depth respectively; 7. An incised would present on the right eye brow, transverse in direction size length 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm length, width and depth respectively; 8. An incised would present on the left shoulder extending from the anterior aspect to the posterior aspect size 9 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm length, width and depth respectively; 9. A pressure abrasion present by the side of the wound No.3 length 8 cm x ½ cm width on the left shoulder; 10. An incised would present on the left superior iliac spine oblique in direction size length 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm width and depth respectively; 11. A pressure abrasion present by the side of the wound No.3 length 8 cm x ½ cm width on the left shoulder; 10. An incised would present on the left superior iliac spine oblique in direction size length 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm width and depth respectively; 11. An incised would present on the left middle ringer at its middle size length 4 cm x 2 cm x ½ cm width and depth respectively; 12. An incised would present on the dorsum of the left palm on the prodominal aspect of the ring finger, size length 1 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm; 13. A contusion present on the left side of the intercostals spaces, transverse in direction size length 3 cm x 2 cm. He gave opinion that the deceased died as a result of multiple fractures and injuries and finally due to haemorrhagic shock. He issued Ex.P22-post mortem report and after receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 29.12.2003, he opined that the deceased died of multiple injuries on his body and emerging shock. He issued Ex.P23-final report. The report of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body .of the deceased and the opinion as spoken to, by him, are not seriously challenged. As a matter of fact, the accused are not disputing about the deceased sustaining the injuries. From the above evidence, homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Similarly, there is no dispute about the scene of occurrence. P.W-12 scribed Ex.P15-observation report, which would clearly go to show that the scene of occurrence is at Ambedkar statue near Special Elementary School in Harijanpet of Konithivada village. Police seized incriminating articles from the scene of occurrence and sent the same to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. So, from the evidence of P.Ws.20 and 12, it is established that the incident had taken place near Ambedkar statue of Konithiwada village. 14. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, who are said to be eye-witnesses to the incident and who are neighbourers residing in and around the scene of occurrence, have given a complete go-by to their earlier version. Therefore, prosecution sought permission to cross-examine them. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in their evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 15. Therefore, prosecution sought permission to cross-examine them. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited in their evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 15. The trial court relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 to base the conviction. P.Ws.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the father, of the deceased. Their evidence would go to show that the deceased had some dispute with his wife and therefore wife of the deceased left to house of her parents at Mandapaka village; then, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with one Chinni of the same village, and that a quarrel ensued between A.1 and the deceased in one marriage function in the village with regard to said Chinni; that, at that time, elders separated both A.1 and the deceased and admonished them; that, apprehending danger at the hands of A.1, the deceased went to the house of his parents-in-law at Mandapaka in order to safeguard his life. It is their further evidence that three months prior to the incident, the deceased came back to his village and joined in Video shop of one Reddy of Konithiwada village; that, on the date of the incident at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased went to the house of one Kompatthula Vijaya Lakshmi (P.W.3) for the purpose of receiving a phone call, and when the deceased sat at her house, A.1 invited the deceased to the statue of Ambedkar to have a talk, and the deceased went to the Ambedkar statue along with A1, and it is at that time, A.4 hacked the deceased with a knife, A.1 hacked the deceased with a vegetable cutting knife and A.3 and A.4 beat the deceased with sticks, as a result, he fell down. 16. P.Ws.1 and 2 narrated the happenings as if the incident had taken place in their presence. On their own showing, it is very much' clear that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eyewitnesses to the incident because they stated that while they were going to Ambedkar statue, the accused were coming in opposite direction and that P.Ws.3, 7 and others informed them that A1 to A.4 hacked the deceased and went away. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Their evidence that A.1 took the deceased from the house of P.W.3 to the Ambedkar statue Also cannot be accepted, because, admittedly, at that time, they were present in their house. Their evidence is Also clear that when they were present in their house, the deceased left the house to the house of P.W.3 to receive a phone call. Therefore, what had transpired at the house of P. W.3 ma y not be known to P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 exaggerated the version and stated before the Court as if they were eyewitnesses to the incident. Further more, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the accused coming in their opposite direction and threatening them to kill, Also cannot be accepted, as there was no reason for the accused to threaten these two witnesses. 17. According to P.W.1, on the same day at about 9.00 p.m., he went to Veeravasaram police station and narrated the incident, but police did not obtain her signature on any paper. According to her, she gave a report to police at Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. But, P.W.19-Sub Inspector of Police stated that after receipt of death intimation Ex.P21, himself and P.W.1 went to Veeravasaram police station, and he took Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered the case. So, the report said to have been given at Government Hospital, Bhimavaram has been suppressed by the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming from P.W.19 with regard to receipt of report from P.W.1 at Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. Further more, P.W.1 Also stated that she got drafted Ex.P1 at 3.00a.m., whereas, according to P.W.19, he received Ex.P1-report at about 11.30 p.m. This discrepancy would clearly go to show that the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the incident. The earliest report said to have been given by P.W.1 has been suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, from these circumstances, it is clear that there is possibility for the prosecution to put forth a distorted version of the case so as to implicate the accused. 18. It is a fact that the deceased was having enemies because Madiga community people imposed a fine on the deceased as he was allegedly having illicit contacts with one Chinni. Therefore, from these circumstances, it is clear that there is possibility for the prosecution to put forth a distorted version of the case so as to implicate the accused. 18. It is a fact that the deceased was having enemies because Madiga community people imposed a fine on the deceased as he was allegedly having illicit contacts with one Chinni. P.W.2 Also stated that Ex.P1 was drafted in the panchayat office and after reading over contents of Ex.P1, P.W.1 signed the same. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear that after hearing commotion at Ambedkar statue, they might have received information about the deceased sustaining the injuries and when they went there, they found their son (the deceased) in a pool of blood. P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not state that when they saw the accused coming in opposite direction or that they were armed with any weapons. P.W.2 did not even state that the accused were coming in their opposite direction. Mere the accused coming in opposite direction of P.Ws. 1 and 2, cannot said to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused. Therefore, the trial Court is not correct in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to base the conviction against the accused. 19. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not eyewitnesses to the incident, the only evidence remains on record is the evidence of P.W.7. Admittedly, P.W.7 is the resident of Konithiwada village. It is his evidence that, on 19.11.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was present in the house, he noticed that some galata was going on near school at Ambedkar statue and church, and that he noticed from his house that A1 and his two sons A.2 and A.3 brought the deceased from the house of P.W.3, and that he Also noticed A.4 hidden by the side of Ambedkar statue, and that, in the mean time, A.4 caught hold of hands of the deceased and put the hands of the deceased on his back, while so, A.1 hacked the deceased with vegetable cut knife; A.2 and A.3 beat the deceased with sticks and A.4 Also hacked the deceased with knife. According to him, P.Ws. According to him, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there at the time when the deceased was struggling for life, and P.W.15-Sarpanch of the village came to the scene of occurrence within five minutes and telephoned to police station. 20. Admittedly, the distance between gate of house of P.W.7 and front door way of his house is about 20 feet. Ambedkar statue is situated at a distance of 1S meters from his house. Admittedly, when he was present inside his house, there was no scope or possibility for him to see what was going on, near the Ambedkar statue. If he comes out from the house, then only there was a scope for him to witness the incident provided his house is very near to the scene of occurrence. As seen from Ex.P15-scene of observation report, there was no mention about the existence of house of P.W.7. According to the evidence of mediators and P.W.20 investigating officer, the scene of occurrence was minutely observed. In such a case house of P.W.7 would have been shown near the scene of occurrence because names of owners of some of the houses which are near the scene of occurrence were mentioned in the observation report. It is not the case of P.W.7 that he came out from the house after hearing the galata or commotion at the Ambedkar statue and witnessed the incident. On the other hand, when he was examined by police, he admitted that he observed the entire incident from his house, which is quite improbable. Further, if really P.W.7 is an eye-witness to the incident, he would have been examined by P.W.20-investigating officer during inquest. P.W.14-who is one of the inquest mediators, categorically admitted that P.W.7 was present at the time of holding inquest on the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. If that is the case, name of P.W.7 would have been figured in the inquest report as an eye-witness to the incident. On the other hand, P.W.20 stated that two days after the incident, he examined P.W.7. He has not given any explanation as to why he did not examine P.W.7 during inquest when, admittedly, P.W.7 was present at the time of inquest. Therefore, this raises any amount of doubt as to whether P.W.7 is a witness of truth or not. 21. On the other hand, P.W.20 stated that two days after the incident, he examined P.W.7. He has not given any explanation as to why he did not examine P.W.7 during inquest when, admittedly, P.W.7 was present at the time of inquest. Therefore, this raises any amount of doubt as to whether P.W.7 is a witness of truth or not. 21. If really P.W.7 is a reliable witness and his presence at the scene of occurrence is probable, then there is no difficulty in placing reliance on his solitary testimony to base the conviction. According to him, A.1 and A.4 hacked the deceased with their respective weapons. It is not his case that A.1 and A.4 hacked the deceased several times causing number of incised injuries. His evidence would go to show as if A.1 and A.4 caused one injury each with their respective weapons. But, P.W.17-Doctor found as many as 10 incised injuries all over the body of the deceased. According to the Doctor, he found only one lacerated injury, one contusion and one abrasion. Therefore, when the prosecution failed to explain the other eight incised injuries on the body of the deceased, the evidence of P.W.7 has to be viewed with suspicion. It is not the case of P.W.7 that the deceased Also sustained some incised injuries before his arrival to the scene of occurrence. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.7 alone to base the conviction. 22. P.W.S was examined to show that while he was passing through the house of P,W.1, P.W.1 was weeping over dead body of the deceased and on enquiry P.W.7 informed him that A.1 to A.4 hacked and beat the deceased and left the place. His evidence is a hear-say one because P.W.7 did not state that he informed to P,W.S about A.1 to A,4 hacking and beating the deceased, to P.W,S, Therefore, placing reliance on the evidence of P,W 8 by the trial Court is unsustainable. 23. The prosecution Also relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to arrest of A.2 to A.4 and seizure of M.Os, 7 to 9 in pursuance of their confessional statement. Admittedly, it is not a confession given by anyone of the accused. 23. The prosecution Also relied upon the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to arrest of A.2 to A.4 and seizure of M.Os, 7 to 9 in pursuance of their confessional statement. Admittedly, it is not a confession given by anyone of the accused. A common confession was given and in pursuance of the said confessional statement, it is stated that all the accused produced weapons M,Os. 7 to 9. The evidence is silent with regard to which weapon is produced by which of the accused. Therefore, arrest of A.2 to A.4 and seizure of M.Os. 7 to 9 under Ex.P15, would not come within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Similarly, at the instance of A.1, police seized M.Os. 10 and 11. That cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused, because firstly, M,O.11 is not a weapon of offence used by anyone of the accused in the alleged incident, and secondly, the vegetable cutting knife like M.O.10 would be available in almost all the villages especially to be used by women folk for cutting vegetables, etc. and unless it is shown that M.O.10 was the weapon used in commission of the offence, recovery thereof cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance against A.1. None of the witnesses stated that A.1 was armed with M.O.10. Similarly, the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased did not state that weapon like M.O.10 would cause anyone of the incised injuries on the body of the deceased. 24. It is not in dispute that A.1 sustained severe injuries. Admittedly, A.1 was sent to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram through P.C.909 as escort. According to the evidence of prosecution, crime No.99 of 2003 of Veeravasaram police station for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. was registered basing on Ex.P27 statement of A.1. Though the prosecution filed documents to show that A.1 was admitted as inpatient in the hospital for 7 days, police suppressed filing of wound certificate or case sheet relating to A.1 when he admittedly sustained injuries during the course of same transaction. No doubt, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on A.1 when they are superficial and minor in nature, but, when A.1 was admittedly admitted in hospital as inpatient for 7 days, he must have sustained severe injuries. No doubt, the prosecution is not obliged to explain the injuries on A.1 when they are superficial and minor in nature, but, when A.1 was admittedly admitted in hospital as inpatient for 7 days, he must have sustained severe injuries. In these circumstances, suppression of documents with regard to the injuries sustained by A.1 is for obvious reasons best known to the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the incident. The origin and genesis of the occurrence has been shrouded in misery. 25. Further more, improvements and omissions are elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7, and the improvements or omissions made by P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 would Also go to the root of the prosecution case. The omissions or improvements, as admitted by P.W.20-investigating officer are that, P.W.1 did not state before him -that the deceased left the place by saying that the accused would kill him and apprehend danger in their hands; that the deceased accompanied with A.1 reached Ambedkar center a1ong with A.1, at that time, A.4 hacked the deceased with knife, A.1 hacked the deceased with vegetable cut knife and A.3 and A.4 beat the deceased with sticks; that, while they were going to the Ambedkar center, A.1 to A.4 came opposite direction, due to fear they raised their hands and prayed the accused not to do anything; that, All the witnesses informed her that A.1 to A.4 hacked the deceased; that, P.W.7 present at the time of incident. Similarly, P.W.2 did not state before P.W.20-about the previous incident of ensuing quarrel between A.1 and the deceased; that the deceased went to house of P.W.3 to receive a phone call; that believing the words of A.1, the deceased went Along with A.1 to Ambedkar statue and that A.1 to A.4 hacked the deceased with knives. Similarly, P.W.2 did not state before P.W.20-about the previous incident of ensuing quarrel between A.1 and the deceased; that the deceased went to house of P.W.3 to receive a phone call; that believing the words of A.1, the deceased went Along with A.1 to Ambedkar statue and that A.1 to A.4 hacked the deceased with knives. Similarly, P.W.7 did not state before P.W.20 - that he noticed from his house that A.1 and his sons A.2 and A.3 brought the deceased from the house of P.W.3; that he noticed A.4 hiding by the side of Ambedkar statue; that A.4 caught hold of hands of the deceased and put the hands of the deceased on his back, while so, A.1 hacked the deceased with vegetable cut knife at the Ambedkar statue, and that A.2 and A.3 beat the deceased with sticks, A.4 hacked the deceased with knife; that A.1 to A.4 threatened the persons present there. These improvements made by P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 cannot be said to be trivial in nature. They cannot be brushed aside lightly. They are material omissions, which merit consideration. They would clearly go to show that P.W.7 witnessing the incident is very much doubtful. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the trial Court. 26. For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants/A.1 to A.4 for the offences with which they were charged. 27. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment dated 05.12.2006 in Sessions Case No.451 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, against the appellants 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. are set aside. The appellants 1 to 3/ A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the charge framed against them and they are accordingly acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellants 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 shall be refunded to them. They shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. As regards the appellant No.4/ A.4 is concerned, appeal against him is abated as died. Fine amount paid by A.4 shall be refunded to his legal representatives. 28. They shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. As regards the appellant No.4/ A.4 is concerned, appeal against him is abated as died. Fine amount paid by A.4 shall be refunded to his legal representatives. 28. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in respect of the appellants 1 to 3/ A.1 to A.3, and the appeal against the appellant No.4/A.4 is abated.