JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the State, assailing the judgment, dated 11.10.2011, in S.C. No. 158 of 2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Through the said judgment, the trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 therein i.e. the respondents. The case of the prosecution was that A2 obtained a loan of Rs. 500/- from the deceased, by name Rafi, by pledging a cell phone on 18.12.2010, imposing a condition that the monthly interest shall be paid promptly. Rafi is said to have cautioned A2 on that day itself in this behalf. A2 felt insulted and is said to have informed A1, his relative, about the same. On 20.12.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., Rafi and his brother P.W.1 were said to be proceeding to Rahath Cinema Theatre to see the picture 'Yogi' in second show. A1 and A2 are said to have waylaid them and it is stated that A1 accosted Rafi as to why he cautioned A2 in the context of payment of monthly interest. Thereupon, Rafi is said to have slapped A2 and A1 is said to have become wild at once and started stabbing Rafi and when he fell down, A2 is said to have held his hands. It was also alleged that A1 sat on the chest of the deceased and indiscriminately stabbed with M.O.1. On the cries of P.W.1, several persons including P.W.6 are said to have arrived there at and on seeing them, both the accused are said to have fled away. 2. P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, to Kadapa I Town Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No. 229 of 2010. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer, P.W.10, prepared the scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. He submitted a charge sheet, after conducting the investigation into the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. against the accused. 3. Before the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were filed. M.Os.1 to 9 were also given the marking. The trial Court took the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is not in consistent with the complaint, Ex.P1, and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P14, and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. 3. Before the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were filed. M.Os.1 to 9 were also given the marking. The trial Court took the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is not in consistent with the complaint, Ex.P1, and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P14, and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has acquitted the accused just on the basis of the trivial discrepancies, which are not at all material in nature. She contends that the presence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted and his version as an eyewitness ought to have been taken into account. She further contends that the arrival of P.W.6 was also not doubted and the trial Court has expressed doubt about his presence only on the ground that the Investigating Officer has examined that witness 10 days after the incident. Other grounds are also urged. 5. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submits that a totally false and baseless case was foisted against the accused and the trial Court has acquitted them after close scrutiny of the evidence on record. He submits that the motive attributed to the accused was so unnatural that no prudent person would treat the facts pleaded by the prosecution as provocation enough, for committing a murder. He submits that there was delay of two hours in filing the complaint and that was utilized for planning to implicate the accused. He submits that the evidence of P.W.6 did not accord with the evidence of P.W.1. It is also pleaded that while according to P.W.1, himself and the deceased have taken non-vegetarian food at around 8.00 p.m. on the day of the incident, Ex.P14 disclosed that there was undigested vegetarian food in the viscera of the deceased. 6. The trial Court framed charges referable to Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The gist of the case of the prosecution has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is an eyewitness to the incident, whereas P.W.6 arrived at the spot at a later stage. In a way, P.W.6 is also branded as an eyewitness. 7. Firstly, it needs to be examined as to whether there was any probable motive for the accused to commit the offence of murdering the deceased. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is an eyewitness to the incident, whereas P.W.6 arrived at the spot at a later stage. In a way, P.W.6 is also branded as an eyewitness. 7. Firstly, it needs to be examined as to whether there was any probable motive for the accused to commit the offence of murdering the deceased. The only link that is sought to be established or proved between the accused and the death of the deceased is that A2 is said to have obtained a loan of Rs. 500/- from the deceased on 18.12.2010 by pledging cell phone and the latter warned the former that interest must be promptly paid every month. There is nothing unnatural about it. Such things occur almost in every loan transaction. Even if what is alleged is true, it may, at the most, be an appeal or warning for the loanee to be prompt in payment of interest. The occasion for any altercation or difference of opinion would have arisen if only the event for payment of interest occurred and there was default on the part of the loanee. In the instant case, within two days from the date on which he took loan, A2 is said to have planned to do away with the deceased by taking the help of A1, one of his relatives, and the incident has accordingly, taken place as mentioned above. Even if what is pleaded by the prosecution is true, it is just impossible to treat any motive or mens rea for A2 to do away with the life of the deceased. 8. It may be noted that if the prosecution is able to establish that A1 and A2 have committed murder of the deceased, the triviality of the motive can even be ignored. Here itself, it has to be observed that Ex.P1, the complaint, was submitted two hours after the incident. It has also been elicited from P.W.1 that the deceased was a rowdy-sheeter and had a criminal record. The incident is said to have occurred at around 9.00 p.m. in a busy commercial locality. The smallest of the altercations would attract many people. The trial Court noted that P.W.1 did not sustain any injuries much less any blood stains were present on his body. Any person, strong or weak, would not remain a silent spectator if his brother is being attacked brutally. The smallest of the altercations would attract many people. The trial Court noted that P.W.1 did not sustain any injuries much less any blood stains were present on his body. Any person, strong or weak, would not remain a silent spectator if his brother is being attacked brutally. In the process of protecting the blood relation, he is bound to sustain injuries or at least get the blood stains. A1 and A2 are said to have fled away only on seeing P.W.6 and others. Of the several persons, who are said to have arrived at the scene of offence on hearing the cries of P.W.1, only P.W.6 was examined. The record discloses that P.W.6 was examined by the Investigating Officer ten days after the incident. In case P.W.6 was present at the scene of offence, his name ought to have figured in the inquest panchanama itself. The delay of 10 days would certainly have its impact. Further, there is inconsistency in the versions of P.W.1 on the one hand and P.W.6 on the other. 9. The trial Court took note of one serious inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1. In his chief-examination, P.W.1 stated that himself and the deceased took non-vegetarian food at around 8.00 p.m. before proceeding to cinema hall. However, post-mortem report, Ex.P14, disclosed that the viscera of the deceased contained undigested vegetarian food. This serious inconsistency remained unexplained by the prosecution. 10. Even from the brief discussion we have undertaken in the preceding paragraphs, it becomes clear that; (a) there was delay in filing Ex.P1, which was capable of being utilized to implicate the persons of the choice of the complainant; (b) there, was no motive worth its name which could have prompted any person in the place of A1 and A2 to commit a serious offence like murder; (c) there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 who are said to be the eyewitnesses; and (d) P.W.6 was examined by the Investigating Officer ten days after the incident. 11. When such is the state of affairs, it would not at all be safe to convict A1 and A2. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. 12. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.