JUDGMENT (Per P. Durga Prasad, J.) The Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2009 is filed by A-1 and Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2009 is filed by A-4. Both the appeals are directed against the conviction and sentence by a common judgment against A-1 in S.C.No. 359 of 2007 and A-4 in S.C.No. 667 of 2005 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on 27-5-2008. 2. The appellants herein are A-1 and A-4 and they along with A-2 and A-3 were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, A-4 is the father of A-1 to A-3 and they are residents of Kondapur village. The deceased and P.W.1 are the caste elders of their village. About 22 years ago, Government has acquired six acres of land from one Guda Lachavva of Kondapur village and distributed the same to the members of S.C. community in the village. A-1 to A-4 are among the beneficiaries of the said land. The beneficiaries constructed their houses in their allotted plots and residing therein. But a piece of land located in the centre of the village was spared for construction of Ambedkar Sangam building. The said piece of land became prime one since its location is in the centre of the village. A-1 and Bakkaiah occupied the said land and erected huts. The members of the S.C. community and other villagers raised objection in that regard. But A-1 and Bakkaiah did not care them. The villagers could not dare to remove their huts from the land due to fear and the criminal background of A-1. A-1 was previously involved in a dacoity case along with his brother A-2 of P.S. Velgatur. He also used to beat the villagers and harass them jrequently without any valid reason and create terror in the village and A-2 is also a habitual offender. The village elders, P.W. 1 and the deceased Enagandula Ramaiah approached the MRO for redressal of the land but their attempts failed to vacate the land. Finally P.W.1 and the deceased approached the District Collector and S.P., Karimnagar. As per the instructions of the superior officers, P.W.11 visited the village and conducted an open enquiry. The village elders, P.W. 1 and the deceased Enagandula Ramaiah approached the MRO for redressal of the land but their attempts failed to vacate the land. Finally P.W.1 and the deceased approached the District Collector and S.P., Karimnagar. As per the instructions of the superior officers, P.W.11 visited the village and conducted an open enquiry. In the said inquiry A-1 and Bakkaiah admitted that they have been allotted the house plots in the land and they are in possession of the same and occupied this piece of land allotted for the Ambedkar Sangam building and agreed to remove their huts and accordingly they removed their huts. Since them A-1 bore grudge against P.W.1 and the deceased. On 23-2-2004 at 21.00 hours A-1 along with his associate namely Enagandula Yellaiah beat the deceased and P.W.1 with sticks and warned them not to interfere in his activities and not to report to the police. On the complaint filed by the deceased, a case in Cr.No. 21 of 2004 under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at P.S. Velgatur and the same is pending in the Court as C.C.No. 50 of 2004. A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and P.W.1 for lodging the complaint against him and again assaulted him and beat with sticks with the help of his associates on 26-4-2004, which is subject matter of Cr.No. 31 of 2004 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, of Velgatur police station and the said case is pending in the Court as C.C.No. 288 of 2004 and in other the cases A-1 is avoiding his arrest and charge sheets were filed showing A-1 as absconding. In the meantime the members of Ambedkar Sangam passed a resolution and started construction of Ambedkar Sangam building in the piece of land but A-1, who is still in a plan to grab the said piece of land, hatched a plan to .do away with P.W.1 and the deceased. Accordingly he discussed with A-2 to A-4 and all of them decided to kill P.W.1 and the deceased in order to grab the said piece of land. On 17-10-2004 at about 17.00 hours while P.W.1 and the deceased were chitchatting near a public hand bore in front of P.W.1's house, A-1 to A-4 attacked on them with pestle, sticks and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill. P.Ws. On 17-10-2004 at about 17.00 hours while P.W.1 and the deceased were chitchatting near a public hand bore in front of P.W.1's house, A-1 to A-4 attacked on them with pestle, sticks and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill. P.Ws. 2, 4 and others, who are present there, witnessed the incident and tried to save the deceased and P.W.1. But A-1 to A-4 beat P.W.4 and another Durgaiah and threatened others. When P.W.1 and deceased fell on the ground with severe bleeding injuries, A-1 to A-4 let the place under the belief that P.W.1 and the deceased were dead. When P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were tried to shift the deceased and P.W.1 in an auto, A-1 to A-4 intercepted and warned them not to shift P.W.1 and the deceased to the hospital or police station stating that they should die in the village and threatened them that they would kill them if they would shift them to the hospital. However, P.W. 5 and others managed to shift P.W.1 and the deceased to the police station, Velgatur in a circuit's way via Jagadevpet village. The deceased while undergoing treatment at Government hospital, Karimnagar was referred to MGM hospital, Warangal where he succumbed to injuries on 21-1-2004 at 14.05 hours. On the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W. 8 has registered the case in Cr.No. 96 of 2004 under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued the FIR and he took up the investigation and examined P.W.1 and the deceased and recorded their statements and sent them to Government hospital, Karimnagar for treatment. P.W. 9 has referred the deceased to the MGM hospital, Warangal for further treatment as his condition was serious. Meanwhile, P.W. 8 received the telephonic information from MGM hospital, Wararygel about the death of the deceased on 21-10-2004 at about 14.05 hours, on receipt of the said information he altered the Section of law from 324 read with Section 34 of IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sent the express alteration memos to all the concerned and subsequently he visited the MGM hospital, Warangal, examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and got the dead body photographed and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 6 and another and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 2 to 5 and recorded their statements and got the dead body photographed and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 6 and another and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W.10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to head injury. P.W.9, the doctor, who treated P.W. I, furnished the wound certificate stating that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by P.W.11. He examined some more witnesses and visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W. 7 and another and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized blood stained clothes of P.W. land the deceased and thereafter, sent them to the RFSL, Warangal for opinion and report. On 31-10-2004 at 14.40 hours P.W. 11 arrested A-1 armed with pestle and A-4 at their paddy field and interrogated them and in pursuance of their confession seized the pestle from the possession of A-1. Thereafter, they were sent to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, P.W.11 has filed the charge sheet. 4. Originally the charge sheet was filed against A-1, A-3 and A-4 by showing A-2 as absconding and the same was registered as PRC No. 36 of 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli and the said Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar Division which was numbered as S.C.No. 667 of 2005. During the pendency of the same, A-1 absconded and the case against him was separated as S.C.No. 359 of 2007 and similarly the case against A-3 was separated as S.C.No. 779 of 2006 and on the apprehension of A-2, separate charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as PRC No. 56 of 2007 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar and the same was numbered as S.C.No. 749 of 2007. The charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and 506 read with 34 of IPC were framed against A-4 in S.C.No. 667 of 2005 and similar charges were framed against A-1 in S.C. No. 359 of 2007 and similar charges were framed against A-2 in S.C.No. 749 of 2007 and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. Subsequently S.C.No. 359 of 2007 and S.C.No. 749 of 2007 were clubbed with S.C.No. 667 of 2005 and a common trial was conducted against A-1, A-2 and A-4. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges against A-1, A-2 and A-4, examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, got marked Exs. P-1 to P-14 and M.Os. 1 to 5. No oral evidence was produced but ExD-1 was marked on behalf of the accused in defence. 6. Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found A-1, A-2 and A-4 guilty for the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, further convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC, further convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and further convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506 read with 34 of IPC. 7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A-1 and A-4 therein have preferred the present appeals and A-2 therein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2009 and the said appeal was disposed of separately as abated as A-2 died during the pendency of the said appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Section 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and 506 read 34 of IPC against A-1 and A-4 beyond reasonable doubt? Point: 9. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Section 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and 506 read 34 of IPC against A-1 and A-4 beyond reasonable doubt? Point: 9. Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy appearing for the appellants has pleaded that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and forwarding the same to the Magistrate and the delay creates a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident in view of the enmity between the accused, P.W.1 and the deceased. She further pleaded that there is a delay in recording the statements of witnesses and it also creates a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. She further pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 is contradictory to each other and as such their evidence cannot be relied upon to hold that the accused are committed the offence. She further pleaded that the weapon as pestle, which was said to have been used by A-1, was not stated by the witnesses in their statements under Section 161 of CrP.C. before the police. She pleaded that the conviction and sentence passed against A-1 and A-4 is liable to be set aside. 10. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, h;1s pleaded that there is no delay in lodging the complaint and immediately the FIR\Mas sent to the Magistrate and there is no delay in recording the statements of the witnesses as P.W. 8 after registering the case has recorded the statements of the witnesses and subsequently P.W. 11, the inspector of police, examined them but not recorded their statements and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent with regard to A-1 to A-4 attacking on the deceased and P.W.1 with sticks and pestle and causing injuries and the medical evidence of P.W. 10, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, establishes the death of the deceased as homicidal and the evidence of P.W. 9, the doctor, who examined P.W.1, shows that P.W.1 has sustained grievous injuries and thereby the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the above said charges. 11. 11. According to the prosecution, accused, deceased and P.W.1 are residents of Kondapur village and the Government has acquired land in the village and distributed the same to the members of S.C. community in the village and the beneficiaries constructed their houses in their allotted plots and residing therein and a piece of land located in the centre of the village was spared for construction of Ambedkar Sangam building and A-1 and one Bakkaiah illegally occupied the said land and erected huts. P.W.1 and the deceased, who are the elders of the SC community of the village, approached the MRO, District Collector and S.P., Karimnagar for getting them vacated from the said land and when P.W. 11 conducted enquiry, A-1 and Bakkaiah admitted that they have occupied this piece of land allotted for the Ambedkar Sangam building and agreed to remove their huts and accordingly they removed their huts. Since then A-1 bore grudge against P.W.1 and the deceased and attacked them on 23-2-2004 at 21.00. On the complaint filed by the deceased, a case in Cr.No. 21 of 2004 under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered at P.S. Velgatur and the same is pending in the Court as C.C.No. 50 of 2004. A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and P.W.1 for lodging the complaint against him and again assaulted him and beat with sticks with the help of his associates on 26-4-2004, which is subject matter of Cr.No. 31 of 2004 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Ire, of Velgatur police station and the said case is pending in the Court as C.C.No. 288 of 2004 and thereafter the members of Ambedkar Sangam passed a resolution and started construction of Ambedkar Sangam building in the said piece of land but A-1 discussed with A-2 to A-4 and all of them decided to kill P.W.1 and the deceased in order to grab the said piece of land. In pursuance of their plan on 17-10-2004 at about 17.00 hours while P.W.1 and the deceased were chitchatting near a public hand bore in front of P.W.1's house, A-1 to A-4 attacked on them with pestle, sticks and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and others witnessed the incident and tried to save the deceased and P.W. 1. But A-1 to A-4 beat P.W.4 and another and threatened others. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and others witnessed the incident and tried to save the deceased and P.W. 1. But A-1 to A-4 beat P.W.4 and another and threatened others. When P.W.1 and deceased fell on the ground with severe bleeding injuries, A-1 to A-4 left the place believing that P.W.1 and the deceased were dead. When P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were tried to shift the deceased and P.W.1 in an auto, A-1 to A-4 intercepted and warned them not to shift P.W.1 and the deceased to the hospital or police station stating that they should die in the village and threatened them that they would kill them if they would shift them to the hospital. But P.W. 5 and others shifted them to the hospital. But P.W. 5 and others shifted them to the police station in another route, where P.W.1 lodged a complaint and they were referred to Government hospital, Karimnagar and from there the deceased was shifted to MGM hospital, Warangal where he succumbed to injuries on 21-10-2004 at 14.05 hours. 12. The motive for the commission of the offence by the accused is that they occupied the land meant for construction of the Ambedkar Sangam building and P.W.1 and the deceased are resisting their activities and trying to evict them and made efforts for construction of the Ambedkar Sangam building in the said land. 13. P.W.1, who is the injured, has stated that about six months prior to the incident, they made an application to the MRO for construction of the building in the name of Ambedkar Sangam in the site belonging to Harijanwada. The MRO advised them that they can take possession by evicting the persons occupied. A-1 raised a hut, A-2 placed his cow dung, one Bakkaiah raised one room in the site. On the advise of MRO, himself and other caste elders took a decision and removed the hut and house for the purpose of construction of Ambedkar Sangam building. Thereby A-1 and others attacked him and the deceased and in that connection they lodged a complaint with the police of Velgatur. In the cross-examination he has stated that the MRO has not issued any proceedings for construction of the Ambedkar Sangan behavan. Thereby A-1 and others attacked him and the deceased and in that connection they lodged a complaint with the police of Velgatur. In the cross-examination he has stated that the MRO has not issued any proceedings for construction of the Ambedkar Sangan behavan. He further admitted that either in EX.P-1 or in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he did not state the fact that the MRO has advised them to remove the hut and take possession of the land for construction of Ambedkar Sangam behavan. He further admitted that the site -was vacant and the elders of the community did not give any notice to the accused on behalf of Ambedkar Sangam. 14. P.W.2, who also said to be an eye witness to the incident, even though turned hostile to the prosecution, in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, admitted that there were disputed between the accused, P.W.1 and the deceased as the deceased and P.W.1 asked the accused to remove the cow dung and hut and since they did not remove, P.W.1 and the deceased removed the same and thereby the differences arose in between them. In the further cross-examination, he admitted that the Government has allotted sites for the construction of houses, house site was also allotted to him and a part of the place left for construction of the Ambedkar bhavan. Therefore, all of their caste people have removed the hut raised by A-1. The deceased was the president of Ambedkar Sangam and in that connection A-1 was disputed with the deceased. In the cross-examination by the accused, he admitted that he does not know what was the extent given to Ambedkar bhavan and he is not aware as to whether any written order was given by MRO for Ambedkar bhavan. 15. P.W. 3, who is the wife of the deceased, has also stated that her husband was elected as president of Telangana Ambedkar Sangam by all the villagers. A-1, A-2 and Bakkaiah occupied the site proposed for the construction of the building of Ambdkar Sangam. Therefore, her husband approached the MRO and the MRO issued notice for removal of the same. The huts of A-1, A-2 and Bakkaiah were removed and thereby all the accused bore grudge against her husband. A-1, A-2 and Bakkaiah occupied the site proposed for the construction of the building of Ambdkar Sangam. Therefore, her husband approached the MRO and the MRO issued notice for removal of the same. The huts of A-1, A-2 and Bakkaiah were removed and thereby all the accused bore grudge against her husband. Two or three months thereafter A-1 beat her husband stating that he is responsible for removal of his hut and in that connection her husband lodged a complaint with the police. In the cross-examination she admitted that the site nearby the Ambedkar Sangam is a Government land and Government allotted the same for Sangam. They delivered the documents to the police. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that MRO has issued notice of eviction. She admitted that MRO did not remove the structures but they removed the same. She admitted that the resolution of the sangam was reduced into writing. 16. P.W. 4, who is also one of the eye witnesses to the incident, has stated that as P.W.1 and the deceased removed the encroachments of the accused in the site proposed for the construction of Ambedkar Sangam building, the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and the deceased and attacked them. In the cross-examination he has stated that the MRO granted permission for construction of the building. He admitted that the huts of the accused were removed under the supervision of the MRO and MDO. 17. P.W. 5, who is another eye witness to the incident, has also stated that the accused occupied the site allotted to Ambedkar Sangam and since they have removed their encroachments, the accused bore grudge and attacked on P.W.1 and the deceased, P.W.4 and another. In the cross-examination he admitted that P.W.1 is aware of the fact that whether any patta or permission was granted by the MRO for the construction of the Ambedkar Sangam building. Notices were issued by the MRO for removal of the encroachment and since the accused did not remove the huts, they were removed under the supervision of the MRO. 18. Therefore, according to P.Ws. 1 to 5, the dispute between the accused, and P.W.1 and the deceased is with regard to the removal of the encroachment on the land allotted for the construction of Ambedkar Sangam building. 18. Therefore, according to P.Ws. 1 to 5, the dispute between the accused, and P.W.1 and the deceased is with regard to the removal of the encroachment on the land allotted for the construction of Ambedkar Sangam building. In the complaint Ex.P-1 also, P.W.1 has stated about the previous quarrels with regard to Ambedkar Sangam building and thereby the accused beat them indiscriminately and from the above evidence, it is also established that there are disputes between the deceased and P.W.1 on one side and accused on another side with regard to the land of Ambedkar Sangam bhavan and A-1 attacked the deceased prior to this incident in that regard a criminal case is also pending against A-1 and others. Thus, from the above evidence, the prosecution could establish the motive for the accused to commit the offence. 19. According to P.W.1, who is the injured and the complainant, on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. himself and the deceased, Chinna Bheema Lingaiah and P.W.4 were talking together at Harijanwada, A-1 armed with a pestle, A-2 to A-4 armed with sticks attacked on them. He was beaten on the left and right side of the head, right hand fingers, over the forehead and he sustained a bleeding injury on the head. His wrist was fractured. They also attacked the deceased on his head. Then they fell down with bleeding injuries. The two other persons present along with them tried to prevent them but they were beaten. Thereafter the accused left the place. P.Ws.2 and 5 took them to the Velgatur police station. On his information, one Home Guard present in the police station drafted the complaint and he affixed his thumb impression and he presented the same in the police station and he admitted that Ex.P-1 is the said complaint given by him. 20. P.W. 3, who is the wife of the deceased, has also stated about herself, P.W. 5 and another were taking the deceased and P.W.1 to the police station and P.W.1 lodged the complaint with the police. 21. P.W. 5, who shifted the injured and the deceased to the police station, has supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to his shifting the deceased and P.W.1 to the police station and P.W.1 lodging the complaint with the police. 22. 21. P.W. 5, who shifted the injured and the deceased to the police station, has supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to his shifting the deceased and P.W.1 to the police station and P.W.1 lodging the complaint with the police. 22. P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued the FIR on the complaint Ex.P-1, has stated that on 17-10-2004 at 10.15 p.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a. written report Ex.P-1. He registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 96 of 2004 under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and took up the investigation and EX.P-5 is the FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned and he also examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and others in the police station, who came to the police station and forwarded the injured to the hospital. 23. As per Ex.P-5, the FIR, even though it was registered on 17-10-2004 at 10.15 p.m., it was dispatched to the Magistrate Court on 18-19-2004 at 10.30 hours. As per the endorsement made by the Magistrate, it was received by him through PC-1535 of Velgatur police station on 19-10-2004 at 11.00 a.m. Moreover, the alleged incident has taken place on 17-10-2004 at 5.00 p.m. but the complaint was lodged at 10.15 p.m. and the same was dispatched on the next day to the Court and it was received by the Magistrate on the next day of dispatching the said FIR. Thus, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and sending the FIR to the Court. 24. The appellants counsel has pleaded that in view of the delay in registering the FIR and sending the same to the Court creates a suspicion with regard to the occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. She further pleaded that there is a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, "- as such the investigating officer has foisted a false case involving the accused. She further pleaded that there is a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, "- as such the investigating officer has foisted a false case involving the accused. In support of her contention, she relied upon the decision reported in Gauesh Bhavau Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra (1) AIR 1979 SC 135 , Rajeevau and another v. State of Kerala (2) 2003 SCC (Cri.) 751 and Boya Pedda Madduleti and others v. State of A.P. (3) 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 714 (D.B.) (A.P.) = 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 568 (A.P.). 25. In Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, referred 1st supra, the Apex Court has held that "the inordinate delay in registration of F.I.R. and further delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story." 26. In Rajeevan and another v. State of Kerala, referred 2nd supra, the Apex Court has held that "the fact is further buttressed by the delayed placing of FIR before the Magistrate, non-satisfactory explanation given by the police officer regarding the blank sheets in Ext.P-30, counterfoil of the FIR and also by the closely written bottom part of Ext.P-1, statement by P.W.1. All these factual circumstances read with the aforementioned decisions of this Court lead to the conclusion that it is not safe to rely upon the FIR in the instant case. The delay of 12 hours in filing FIR in the instant case irrespective of the fact that the police station is situated only at a distance of 100 metres from the spot of incident is another factor sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the FIR. Moreover, the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain the delayed lodging of the FIR with the Magistrate." 27. In the above said decision, the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier decision rendered in Tulia Kali v. State of T.N. [ (1972) 3 SCC 393 ], wherein it was held that "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report call hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The importance of the above report call hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police ill respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances ill which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. " 28. In Boya Pedda Madduleti and others v. State of A.P., referred 3rd supra, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "In the absence of any explanation for delay in FIR the version of the prosecution is weakened. Though mere delay is not fatal in every case, but delay has to be satisfactorily explained. FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the evidence adduced at the time of trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain prior permission regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them and the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is the creature of an afterthought." 29. The delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is the creature of an afterthought." 29. In the present case, as already observed above, the offence took place on 17-10-2004 at 5.00 p.m. and the complaint was lodged on the same day at 22.15 hours and as per the endorsement made on the FIR in column No. 15, it was dispatched to the Magistrate Court on 18-10-2004 at 10.30 hours and as per the endorsement made on the said FIR Ex.P-5, it was reached the Magistrate's Court on 19-10-2004 at 11.00 a.m. Thus, there is delay of five hours in lodging the complaint, thereafter there is a delay of about two days in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate's Court and P.W. 8, who has registered the crime and issued the FIR, did not give any explanation for the said delay and he simply stated that after registering of the FIR he has forwarded the original to the Court and copies to all concerned. Therefore, in view of the above referred decisions, the unexplained delay in registering the case and sending the FIR to the Court creates a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused and the presence of the witnesses said to have witnessed the incident. 30. With regard to examination of the witnesses, P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of police, has stated that after registering of the case, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. P.W.1, the complainant has stated that after lodging the complaint, himself and the deceased were examined by the police and recorded their statements and thereafter they were sent to the Government hospital, Karimnagar. P.W.2 has stated that he was not examined by the police. P.W. 3, the wife of the deceased, in her cross-examination has stated that four days after lodging the complaint her husband has passed away and she was examined by the police only after the death of her husband. P.W. 4, who is said to be the other eye witness to the incident, has also admitted in the cross-examination that five days after the incident he was examined by the C.I. of police. P.W. 5 also stated in the cross-examination that he was examined by the Inspector of police after the death of the deceased Ramaiah. P.W. 4, who is said to be the other eye witness to the incident, has also admitted in the cross-examination that five days after the incident he was examined by the C.I. of police. P.W. 5 also stated in the cross-examination that he was examined by the Inspector of police after the death of the deceased Ramaiah. According to P.W.8, he received the death intimation of the deceased on 21-10-2004. Thus, the deceased died after four days of the occurrence of the incident. Therefore, from the above evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, they were only examined after four or five days of occurrence of the incident and according to the Inspector of Police, P.W. 11, he took up the investigation on 22-10-2004 and he has examined P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 but he has not recorded their statements as their statements were already recorded by the S.I. of police. But according to P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, their statements were recorded after four or five days after the death of the deceased. According to P.W.1, after lodging the complaint the police have recorded his statement and the statement of the deceased and P.W.3 also admitted that after lodging of the complaint, her husband and P.W.1 were examined by the police and thereafter referred to the Government hospital, Karimnagar. Even though the statement of the deceased, recorded by the police would amount to dying declaration, the same was not produced before the Court and no explanation is forthcoming with regard to non-production of the said statement of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses and the suppression of the statement of the deceased, creates a doubt with regard to the occurrence of the incident at the time, place and involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution has to be doubted. 31. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, according to the prosecution, on 17-10-2004 at 5.00 p.m. when P.W.1 and the deceased were chitchatting at hand bore of the village, A-1 to A-4 attacked them with pestle, sticks and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill them. P.Ws. 31. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, according to the prosecution, on 17-10-2004 at 5.00 p.m. when P.W.1 and the deceased were chitchatting at hand bore of the village, A-1 to A-4 attacked them with pestle, sticks and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill them. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 witnessed the incident and tried to save the deceased and P.W.1 but A-1 to A-4 attacked P.W.4 and another and threatened others and thereafter the accused left the place. 32. P.W.1, the injured, has also stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. himself, the deceased, Chinna Bheema Lingaiah and P.W. 5 were talking together at Harijanwada, A-1 armed with pestle, A-2 to A-4 armed with sticks attacked on them and he was beaten on the left and right side of the head, right hand fingers, over the left forehead and he sustained bleeding injuries on the head and his wrist was fractured. They also attacked on the deceased on his head, then they all fell down with bleeding injuries. The two other persons present along with them tried to prevent them but they were beaten. After the accused left the place, P.Ws. 2 and 5 shifted them to the Velgatur police station. In the cross-examination he admitted that in EX.P-1 and also in the statement recorded by the S.I. of police, he did not state about the incident that happened six months back and that A-1 was armed with a pestle. P.W. 2, even though has cited as an eye witness, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he only stated about his com into the spot un hearing the cries and found the deceased and P.W.1 with bleeding injuries and in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he has stated before the police on that day P.W.1 and the deceased were talking near boring and at that time A-1 to A-4 armed with pestle and sticks attacked them with an intention to kill and he witnessed the incident as he stated in Ex.P-2. 33. P.W. 3, the wife of the deceased, has also stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. she returned from coolie work and at that time P.W.1 and he husband were talking near boring. 33. P.W. 3, the wife of the deceased, has also stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. she returned from coolie work and at that time P.W.1 and he husband were talking near boring. A-2 to A-4 armed with sticks and A-1 armed with pestle attacked P.W.1 and her husband and beat them. Her husband received injuries on the head, on the back and P.W.1 received injuries on either side of the head. Her husband fell down with injuries, then herself, P.W.2, P.W.1 and others shifted them to the police station and from there no the hospital. In the cross-examination she admitted that the boring is located in Harijanwada. There are about 40 houses and about 20 persons gathered at the scene. The distance between her house and boring is about one furlong. She was at her house after returning from coolie work. She came out of the house on hearing the altercation and then they were attacked. She denied the suggestion that she did not get it mentioned in EX.P-1 and also in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that A-4 carried M.O.1 chutney pounder. 34. P.W. 4, the other eye witness to the incident, has stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. he was at his house and the daughter of the deceased came to his house and informed him about the altercation going on at the boring, then himself, his brother Durgaiah rushed to the boring and found A-1 to A-4 beating P.W.1 and the deceased with sticks and pestle. When himself and his brother Durgaiah Intervened, he was beaten by A-2 with a stick on the left side of the head. His elder brother Durgaiah was also beaten by A-2 with a stick on the left back of the head. P.W.1 and the deceased received injuries on their heads. Then they ran away from the place out of fear. In the cross-examination he admitted that at about 4.45 p.m. he was informed by the daughter of the deceased, immediately himself and his brother rushed to the scene by the time they went there about 15 persons were gathered including P.Ws. 2 and 5. 35. Then they ran away from the place out of fear. In the cross-examination he admitted that at about 4.45 p.m. he was informed by the daughter of the deceased, immediately himself and his brother rushed to the scene by the time they went there about 15 persons were gathered including P.Ws. 2 and 5. 35. P.W. 5, the other eye witness to the incident, has stated that on the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.1 and the deceased were talking near the boring in Harijanwada and A-1 to A-4 armed with pestle and sticks attacked P.W.1 and the deceased. They beat them on their heads. The deceased was beaten on his head and his shoulders and other parts of the body. He was also present at that time. P.W.4 and Durgaiah were also present and they were also attacked by the accused. In the cross-examination he has stated that there were about 10 to 15 persons at the time of incident. 36. Therefore, according to the above evidence, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 have witnessed the incident of A-1 to A-4 attacking on the deceased and P.W. 1. According to them, A-1 was armed with pestle and A-2 to A-4 were armed with sticks, but as admitted by P.W. 1, he did not mention in Ex.P-1 or in his statement under Section 161 of CrP.C. that A-1 was armed with a pestle. 37. P.W. 8, the investigating officer, also admitted that as per the contents of Ex.P-1, P.W.1 and the deceased were talking near boring, all the accused armed with sticks and attacked them. It is not mentioned in Ex.P-1 or in statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that A-1 armed with a pestle and he further admitted that P.W.1 stated to him that himself and deceased were talking at the boring and P.W.1 did not state to him that himself, P.Ws. 2, 5 and the deceased were talking at the boring.- He further admitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 did not state before him that A-1 was armed with a pestle and attacked the complainant and the deceased. 38. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 along with them at the time of incident is an omission in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and an improvement made before the Court. 38. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 along with them at the time of incident is an omission in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and an improvement made before the Court. With regard to A-1 holding pestle was not mentioned by him and P.W. 3, even though stated the same in her evidence, she has not stated that same in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said version of P.W.3 with regard to A-1 holding the weapon in an improvement made before the Court. 39. Moreover, according to P.W. 11, he arrested A-1 and A-4 on 31-10-2004 at 4.40 p.m. and interrogated them in the presence of Lingampally Narsaiah and Sunke Lanchaiah and seized one pestle, M.O.l, from the possession of A-1 and according to him Ex.P-9 is the confession of A-1 and in pursuance of his confession, he recovered M.O.1 from the possession of A-1. In EX.P-9 it is only mentioned that A-1 was shown the pestle to them stating that it is the pestle, which was used by him. As admitted by P.W. 11, the accused was arrested at the outskirts of Kondapur village on 31-10-2004. The incident has taken place on 17-10-2004 and A-4 was arrested after 14 days of occurrence of the incident at the outskirts of Kondapur village. It is highly doubtful after 14 days, the accused was carrying with him the pestle, which was used by him in the commission of the offence along with him. Moreover, the said pestle M.O. 1 was not sent to the RFSL for examination. Therefore, the above circumstances clearly show that the pestle was not used in the commission of the offence by A-4. Admittedly, the other sticks said to have been used by the accused were not seized by the police. In view of the omissions in the statement of P.W.1, it is doubtful whether P.W. 5 was present at the time of incident. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased and according to her, she came to the house after attending to the coolie work and her house is at a distance of one furlong from the scene of offence and she was at her house after returning from coolie work and she came out of the house on hearing the altercation, then they wee attacked. Thus, the presence of P.W.3 at the time of incident is also doubtful. The evidence of P.W.4 shows that the daughter of the deceased came to him and informed him about the incident and then himself and his brother Durgaiah rushed to the spot and found A-1 to A-4 attacking on P.W.1 and the deceased and when he tried to intervene, A-2 beat him and his brother with a stick on his head. Admittedly, P.W.4 did not go to the hospital for treatment and there is no evidence to show that P.W.4 has sustained any injury in the said incident. Moreover, according to him, by the time he rushed to the spot, 15 persons including P.Ws. 2 and 5 were already present there. When number of persons were present at the time of incident except P.W.4 and his brother Durgaiah, none others have prevented the accused from attacking the deceased and P.W.1 and in Ex.P-1, the complaint, it was mentioned that at the time of incident, Chenna Bheema Lingaiah, P.W. 2, Enagandula Ramaiah, P.W.5 and Enagandula Lachavva, P.W.3 witnessed the same. Prior to beating them, they also beat Lingampalli Gouraiah, P.W. 4, and Lingampalli Durgaiah. Therefore, as per the complaint before attacking P.W.1 and the deceased, the said P.W.4 and his brother Durgaiah were beaten by the accused but it is not the case of P.W. 4. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that P.W.4 has sustained any injuries in the said incident. Therefore, his presence at the time of incident is doubtful. Moreover, he was informed by the daughter of the deceased. Admittedly, P.W.3 was also at her residence but the daughter of the deceased without informing P.W.3 and she was not examined before the Court. According to P.W.5, at the time of incident he was along P.W.1 and the deceased but P.W.1 did not speak about the same before the police. Therefore, in view of the above contradictions, it is doubtful whether P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were present at the time of incident. In view of the omission in EX.P-1 or in statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. with regard to use of pestle and other weapons i.e. sticks, which are said to have been used by the accused were not seized by the prosecution, the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution, is highly doubtful. 1, 2 and 3 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. with regard to use of pestle and other weapons i.e. sticks, which are said to have been used by the accused were not seized by the prosecution, the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution, is highly doubtful. 40. According to the prosecution, when P.W.3 and 5 tried to shift the deceased and P.W.1 in an auto A-1 to A-4 intercepted and wanted them not to shift them either to the hospital or to the police station stating that they should die in the village and also threatened them {hat they will kill if they shift P.W.1 and the deceased. 41. P.W.1, the complainant, did not state anything about the interception made by A-1 to A-4 obstructing for shifting of the deceased and P.W.1 to the hospital or police station in the chief examination and also in the complaint Ex.P-1. 42. P.W.2 has stated that immediately both the injured were being shifted in an auto but they were prevented by the accused at the bus stand saying that the injured should die the itself. 43. P.W.3 also stated that when herself, P.W.2 and others attempted to shift her husband to the hospital in an auto, they were prevented by A-1 to A-4 near the bus stand and they came against her abusing and then she told them that they will not allow them to take her husband to the hospital and her husband should die there itself. 44. P.W.5 has stated that while they were shifting the injured in an auto, the accused stopped the auto in the centre stating that the injured should die. 45. But the Investigating officer, P.W. 8 in his cross-examination admitted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not state before him that when they attempted to shift the injured to the hospital, they were prevented by the accused near the bus stand and did not allow them to take the injured to the police station by stating that the injured should die there itself. 46. Therefore, the said factum of A-1 to A-4 obstructing P.Ws. 3 and 5 while they are shifting the deceased and P.W.1 to the hospital was not stated either in EX.P-1 complaint or in the statements of P.Ws. 46. Therefore, the said factum of A-1 to A-4 obstructing P.Ws. 3 and 5 while they are shifting the deceased and P.W.1 to the hospital was not stated either in EX.P-1 complaint or in the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 given to P.W. 8 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. P.W. 5 is the person, who has only spoken about the accused obstructing them while they are shifting the injured to the hospital at the centre of the village. When other witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not state about the same, who were also present at the time of shifting of the deceased to the hospital, the evidence of P.W. 5 in that regard cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to establish about the accused obstructing them from shifting the deceased and P.W.1 either to the hospital or to the police station from the scene of offence. 47. From the evidence of P.W.10, the doctor, who identified the signature of the doctor L. Vinod Kumar, Professor of KMC, Warangal, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, that the deceased died due to head injury. P.W. 6, who is the mediator for the inquest also stated that the panchayatdars have opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him. As per the evidence of P.W.10, the deceased has sustained three injuries and as the deceased died due to head injury, the prosecution could establish that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death. 48. From the evidence of P.W. 9, the doctor, who examined and treated P.W. 1, the prosecution could establish that P.W.1 has sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries. Thus, even though the prosecution could establish that the death of the deceased is homicidal and P.W.1 has sustained grievous injuries, they could not establish that the accused are responsible for causing the said injuries to the deceased and P.W.I. Moreover there is a delay in registering and sending the FIR to the Court and in view of the delay in examining the eye witnesses by the investigating agency, it is highly doubtful whether the incident as alleged by the prosecution has occurred or not. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, we hold that the prosecution could not establish the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 49. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, we hold that the prosecution could not establish the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 49. In the result, the criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence by a common judgment against A-1 in S.C.No. 359 of 2007 and A-4 in S.C.No. 667 of 2005 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on 27-5-2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 324 and with 34 and 506 read 34 of IPC, is hereby set aside. The appellants/A-1 and A-4 are acquitted for the said charges and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.