Judgment : A1 to A6 in S.C.No.305 of 2003 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 07-01-2004 wherein they were convicted and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304 Part-II r/w. 149 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts in brief are that on 19-11-2001 at about 07.30 p.m., PW-1 along with other villagers was watching a documentary film on child labour at the Gram Panchayat Office. While so, A1 to A6 arrived there and started quarrelling with PW.1 and tried to attack him. However, PW.3 village kawalakar who happened to be present there intervened and pacified them by sending A.1 to A6 towards kindikeri side. After some time all the accused beat the deceased-Srinivas at the house of Ananthamma in connection with Gram Panchayat elections. PW.1 preferred a complaint with the Yalal Police Station on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. Basing on which, a case in Cr.No.54 of 2001 was registered by the Station House Officer( PW.9) against all the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. On their pleading not guilty, A1 to A6 were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 on its behalf. Whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked except Ex.D.1 on behalf of A1 to A6. 6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and more particularly taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and the other material on record, the learned Sessions Judge found A1 to A6 guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 304 Part-II r/w 149 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as has already been stated in Para No.1 supra. Aggrieved thereby, A1 to A6 preferred the present criminal appeal. 7. Aggrieved thereby, A1 to A6 preferred the present criminal appeal. 7. It is the case of the appellant-accused that the trial court erred in believing the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 who were highly interested witnesses. Moreover, there are discrepancies in their evidence, inasmuch as PW-1 has stated in Ex.P1-complaint that all the accused tried to pick up quarrel with one of the villagers, of which PW-3 village Kawalakar intervened and pacified them. 8. PW1 has testified that he witnessed the incident. One Srilatha a close relative of all the accused had contested the Panchayat elections against his wife-Shantamma, and that his wife was elected as Sarpanch of the village. He further stated that he saw all the accused beating the deceased with hands at the house of Ananthamma. However, in his cross-examination he has stated that Ananthamma witnessed the incident along with other villagers but she was not cited as prosecution witness and she was not examined by the prosecution. PW-1 testified that he tried to rescue the deceased when all the accused beat him with hands. 9. It is in the evidence of PW-2, who is no other than the wife of the deceased, that she was present at the Gram Panchayat Office along with her husband when the accused were abusing and trying to attack PW1. However, the prosecution case is that when all the accused started abusing and trying to attack PW.1 it was PW-3 village kawalkar who intervened and pacified them and not the deceased. Thus, there is variation in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as to the presence of PW.2 at Gram Panchayat Office just before the incident. It is further in the evidence of PW.2 that all the accused, deceased and PW.1 went together on their being pacified at the house of Ananthamma. The deceased is alleged to have been assaulted to death by hands by all the accused. Whereas it is in the evidence of PW1 that after hearing the galata from the house of Anathamma he went there. PW-2 has also stated in her cross-examination that PW1 did not try to rescue her husband but other witnesses tried to rescue him. Therefore, the version of PW1 that he went to the rescue of the deceased stands falsified. 10. PW-2 has also stated in her cross-examination that PW1 did not try to rescue her husband but other witnesses tried to rescue him. Therefore, the version of PW1 that he went to the rescue of the deceased stands falsified. 10. It is in the evidence of PW3 that when all the accused were pacified and sent them towards kindikeri, in the meanwhile, the deceased came there and asked the accused why they quarrelled with PW1. That all the accused beat the deceased with hands indiscriminately and as a result thereof, he fell down and became unconscious and when he was taken to doctor in an auto rickshaw he was declared dead. PW-3 did not say that PW.1 came there and tried to rescue the deceased and he was beaten by the accused in the process, and as such, the evidence of PW.1 stands falsifies that he witnessed the incident and while he tried to rescue the deceased he was also beaten by the accused. 11. PW.3 has further testified in his cross-examination that the deceased was not present at the Gram Panchayat when the accused came there, which goes to falsify the evidence of PW.2 that she was present at the Gram Panchayat Office along with her deceased husband. He further stated in his cross-examination that after the accused were pacified and sent them away towards the house of Smt. Ananthamma, PW.1 remained at the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it is doubtful as to the presence of PW.1 at the place of incident. He further stated that the accused did not beat PW.1 at the house of Smt. Ananthamma and that he came to the spot from the Gram Panchayat after the deceased had fallen down on the ground. 12. It is in the evidence of PW.5 that the accused were pacified and pushed towards kindikeri till the house of Smt. Ananthamma and in the meanwhile the deceased came there and tried to pacify them and A1 to A6 beat the deceased indiscriminately and he fell down and became unconscious. He further deposed in his cross-examination that he stated before the police that while the deceased and PW.1 were talking, A1 to A6 came there and quarreled with PW.1. However, the same is not to be found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. 13. He further deposed in his cross-examination that he stated before the police that while the deceased and PW.1 were talking, A1 to A6 came there and quarreled with PW.1. However, the same is not to be found in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. 13. In the above circumstances, it is contented that in view of the above discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, it cannot be said that there is sufficient material on record to warrant conviction of any of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court erroneously came to a perverse conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case as required by law. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that the evidence of PW.6, medical witness, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-4 discloses that no internal or external injuries were found present and that the cause of death was due to neurogenic shock as stated in Ex.P-5 final opinion. It is contended that the evidence of PW.5-medical witness in certain particulars is vague and his evidence is not in the context of the matter. Therefore, it is contended that the death of the deceased was not due to assault by any of the accused. 14. It is to be seen from the evidence of PW.8, the then Station House Officer, who registered the crime, that PW.1 did not state before him that when he tried to rescue the deceased, he was also beaten by the accused. 15. PW.9, the Investigating Officer, testified that the scene of offence was in front of the house of Smt. Ananthamma, but she was not cited as a prosecution witness. On behalf of the accused, referring to Ex.D-1, a portion of the statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is contended that the accused had done her husband to death and one of the villagers viz., Ananthaiah as responsible for the incident. PW.9 admitted in his cross-examination that his successor, PW.10 -Circle Inspector of Police, had mentioned in the memo of evidence that PW.2 was a circumstantial witness. PW.2 did not state before him that her deceased husband followed the accused till the house of Smt. Ananthamma. 16. The contention of the prosecution at this stage is that the witnesses had corroborated the evidence of each other. PW.2 did not state before him that her deceased husband followed the accused till the house of Smt. Ananthamma. 16. The contention of the prosecution at this stage is that the witnesses had corroborated the evidence of each other. Of course, due to lapse of time, there are minor discrepancies which are not material and also not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 17. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court after considering and appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 in the proper perspective and in the light of the facts of the prosecution case has come to the right conclusion in finding A1 to A.6 guilty for the offences as has already been stated in Paragraph No.1 supra. 18. In the circumstances and in view of the inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as has already been stated hereinabove, this court is of the view that benefit of doubt may be extended to A1 to A6 and the same is hereby is extended. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 to A6 in S.C.No.305 of 2003 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District is set aside.