JUDGMENT M.S.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. The respondents 1 to 14 were arrayed as A.1 to A.14 in S.C.No.160 of 2004 on the file of the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, arising out of Crime No.37 of 2003 of Vempalli Police Station. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 302, read with Sec.149 I.P.C. During the pendency of trial, Tupakula Gangi Reddy A.2 and Asam Mallemkondu Gangireddy A.12 died and the case against them abated. Through its Judgment dated 28.07.2008, the trial Court acquitted the accused, of all the charges. Hence, the State preferred this appeal. 2. Facts in brief are as under: The Inspector of Police, Pulivendula filed the charge sheet, stating inter alia, that on 6.7.2003, T. Nadipi Munireddy PW-2 was distributing kerosene in the village, T.Gangireddy PW.1 went to the house of PW.2 and at that time Tupakula Yerrapureddy PW.4, who is the son of PW.2 was assisting in the distribution of kerosene, A.1 came to the house of PW-2 and picked up a quarrel alleging that PW.2 was distributing the quota of kerosene of the earlier month, but putting the date of issue as 6.7.2003. A-1 left the place, but returned along with A-2 to A-5, armed with sticks and pestle and started beating PW-2. PW-1; Tupakula Eswar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and T.Nagamuni Reddy (PW.5) intervened. All the fourteen accused and the five prosecution witnesses formed into two groups and started hurling stones on each other. A-12 (since dead) beat the deceased with pestle on his head and temple region and caused bleeding injuries. When the deceased fell down, A-3 and A-7 beat the deceased with sticks and the other accused beat PWs.1 to 4 with stones and caused injuries. On a false alarm given by some one, that the police have come, both the groups disbursed. This is said to have taken place at about 6.00 p.m. on 6.7.2003. Thereafter, PWs.1 to 5 and the deceased went to Vempalli P.S. (which was at distance of about 20 KMs.) and gave Report, Ex.P.1 to the S.I. of Police (PW-11), who registered the case and issued F.I.R. PWs.1 to 5 and the deceased were sent to the Government Hospital, Vempalli and since the condition of the deceased was precarious, he was sent to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupathi, where he died at 0220 hours on 12.07.2003. On 7.7.2003, PW-11, the S.I. of Police, visited the scene of offence and seized stones (M.O.8). On 12.7.2003 inquest panchanama (Ex.P.5) was prepared and at that time the clothes on the person of the deceased were seized, and post-mortem was conducted by PW-10, who issued post mortem certificate, Ex.P.14, opining that the cause of death was due to consequences of Trauma to head. On 29.7.2003, the Inspector of Police (PW12), arrested Accused Nos.1,3 and 5 to 14. On 10.8.2003, A-4 was arrested and he confessed of having committed the crime, and the same lead to the recovery of pestle (M.O.No.9). PW-9, the Medical Officer of Govt. Hospital, Vempalli, who treated PWs.1 to 5 issued the wound certificates-Exs.P.6 to P.13, opining that the injuries sustained by PWs.1 to 5 are simple in nature. On the basis of the above investigation, PW-12 filed the charge sheet. 3. The trial Court has framed the following charges against the respective accused: (i) A-1, A-3 to A-11 and A-13 and A-14 are charged with offence punishable under Sec.148 IPC. (ii) A-1, A-3 to A-11 and A-13 and A-14 are chaged with the offence punishable under Sec.324, read with Sec.149 IPC. (iii) A-1, A-5, A-6 A-8 to A-11, A-13 and A-14 are charged with the offence punishable under Sec.302, read with Sec.149 IPC. 4. The accused denied the charges. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and filed Exs.P.1 to 19 and MOs. 1 to 9. When examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the evidence on record, and on their behalf, Exs.D-1 to D-23 are produced. 5. The learned trial Judge held that the evidence on record does not establish the case of the prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence they were acquitted. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Judge erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which is cogent and reliable, that on the basis of trivial contradictions on in-significant aspects, the accused have been acquitted even though they have committed the offences alleged against them and therefore the impugned Judgment be set aside and the respondents/accused be convicted of the charges alleged against them. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that even according to the case of the prosecution in between the groups of the prosecution party and the accused, there are long standing disputes and political rivalry. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that even according to the case of the prosecution in between the groups of the prosecution party and the accused, there are long standing disputes and political rivalry. He submits that both the groups have had a free fight in which several of the accused were injured, and except the interested and partisan testimony of PWs.1 to 5, the prosecution has not produced any other independent witnesses. According to him, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is full of contradictions and improvements, as is evident from Exs.D1 to D.16, and the wound certificates, Exs.D-17 to 20 shows that the accused sustained injuries and in fact the prosecution party was charge sheeted, as is evident from Exs.D-21 and 22, the certified copies of FIR and charge sheet in Cr.No.38/2003. He contends that the interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 5 is at variance with the earliest complaint, Ex.P.1, and their statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., and that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the case of the prosecution is not proved. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting interfere with the Judgment of acquittal? 9. Point – The undisputed fact is that the incident in question, which took place on 06-07-2003, is the off-shoot of political rivalry among the two groups in Muthukuru village. The immediate cause for a free fight between the two groups is said to be a trivial altercation in between PW.2 and A.1 in the matter of distribution of kerosene by PW.2, who is a fair price shop dealer. The incident led to the death of the deceased – Tupakula Eswar Reddy, injuries to PWs.1 to 5, and four out of the 14 accused. A.1 and A.12 died during the pendency of the case. 10. The incident took place at about 6.00 p.m., in the midst of several residential houses. PWs.1 to 5, who are the injured witnesses, belonged to Tupakula family. Excepting for PWs.1 to 5, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to speak about the incident. Other than the official witnesses, the only evidence that is adduced is that of PWs.6 and 7, who are the panch witnesses. That, however, does not throw much light on the incident proper. Excepting for PWs.1 to 5, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to speak about the incident. Other than the official witnesses, the only evidence that is adduced is that of PWs.6 and 7, who are the panch witnesses. That, however, does not throw much light on the incident proper. PWs.8, 9 and 10 are the Medical Officers and PWs.11 and 12 are the police officials. 11. It is apparent that there is no independent corroboration to the interested and partisan testimony of PWs.1 to 5. It is not as though that the evidence of a witness is liable to be discarded merely because it is interested or partisan. However, if there were longstanding disputes, factions or divergences of political affiliation, the evidence of such persons has to be scrutinized with utmost care and caution in view of the fact that there exists strong animus and hostility between the groups with one group trying to implicate the other with all vengeance at its command. Different parameters of appreciation of evidence of the interested testimony of the witnesses are to be applied when the incident took place at a place where no person other than the members of one group had an opportunity of witnessing the same and the other where the incident took place at prime location of the village, particularly at the time when almost all the occupants of the residential houses will be available. When the incident takes place at about 6.00 p.m., in a residential locality, wherein about 20 persons indulge in rioting and hurling of stones on each other, such an incident is bound to be witnessed by many locals. When the prosecution fails to produce the eye-witnesses, version of a single independent witness, the version emanating from the interested witnesses can form the basis for determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused, provided the same should be cogent, convincing, consistent and inspiring the confidence of the Court. Where there are material omissions, improvements or suppression of facts, such evidence cannot form the basis for deciding the culpability of the assailants. 12. Where there are material omissions, improvements or suppression of facts, such evidence cannot form the basis for deciding the culpability of the assailants. 12. In EKNATH GANPAT AHER AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( 2010 (6) SCC 519 ) the Supreme Court observed as under:- “It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault. In such situations, the Courts are called upon to be very cautious and sift the evidence with care. Where after a close scrutiny of the evidence, a reasonable doubt arise in the mind of the Court with regard to the participation of any of those who have been roped in, the Court would be obliged to give the benefit of doubt to them.” 13. Applying the above test to the evidence on record in the instant case, what is noticed is that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is inconsistent, discrepant and contrary to their previous statements. Exs.D.1 to D.16 are the relevant contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. This very fact affects the credibility of the evidence of the interested witnesses. The accused also produced oral and documentary evidence to show that four of them sustained injuries in the hands of the prosecution witnesses and this aspect has been suppressed by the prosecution, which leads to an inference that the genesis and the origin of the occurrence has not been presented truly. 14. Ex.P.1 is the complaint which is a statement recorded by the police official from PW.1 on 6-7-2003 at about 9.30 p.m., i.e., within about three hours after the incident. The relevant portion insofar as the specific overt acts are concerned is to the following effect:- “Then all of them together bet junior paternal uncle, then myself, Thupakula Eswara Reddy (deceased), Tupakula Naga Munireddy (P.W.5), came across them, and they have also bet us indiscriminately with sticks. Meanwhile their men and our men formed as a mob and hurled stones each other and the stone hurled by Peram Chinna Krishna Reddy (A.6) caused bleeding on the head of Tupakula Rami Reddy (P.W.3). The stone hurled by Pedda Rami Reddy (A.7) caused severe bleeding injury to my right knee. Meanwhile their men and our men formed as a mob and hurled stones each other and the stone hurled by Peram Chinna Krishna Reddy (A.6) caused bleeding on the head of Tupakula Rami Reddy (P.W.3). The stone hurled by Pedda Rami Reddy (A.7) caused severe bleeding injury to my right knee. The stone hurled by Asam Rama Munireddy (A.8) caused bleeding injury on the lip of my junior paternal uncle Yerrapureddy (P.W.4). Then Asam Yellaiahgari Rama Gangireedy (A.4 and Tupakula Gangireddy (A.2), S/o.Pedda Venkata Reddy bet my cousin Eswarareddy on his head and temple with pestle and caused bleeding injury and immediately he fell down and caused severe bleeding injury. Including the above persons, Tupakula Bala Gangireddy (A.9), S/o.Bala Gangireddy, Asam Chenchireddy (A.10), S/o. Ramasubbareddy, Asma Rama Krishna Reddy (A.11), S/o.Rama Subbareddy, Asma Mallemkondu Gangireddy (A.12), S/o.Bala Chenna Reddy, hurled stones indiscriminately against us. Peram Chandra Gopal Reddy (A.14), S/o.Ramachenna Reddy was also hurled stones along with them.” 15. When it came to the evidence, the complainant – PW.1 gave the following version as against what he stated in his complaint - Ex.P.1:- “A.5. beat Tupakula Nadipi Munireddy (P.W.2) on his head with stick. He received bleeding injury. Meanwhile, A.6 and A.8 to A.14 also came there. While A.5 was beating Nadipi Munireddy, myself, the deceased Eswarareddy, Tupakula Ramireddy (P.W.3), Tupakula Yerrapureddy (P.W.4) and Nagamunireddy (P.W.5) went to the rescue of Nadipi Munireddy (P.W.2). A.2. beat the deceased Eswarareddy with pestle on the right side of his head. A.4 beat Eswarareddy with pestle on the left side of his head. Eswarareddy fell down on the ground. A.3 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on his right shoulder. A.7 beat Eswareddy with a stick on the back side of his head. A.14 shouted to kill us. A.6 and A.8 to A.14 are holding stones. The accused hurled stones on us. The stones hurled by A.7 hit my right knee and I received bleeding injury. The stone hurled by A.8 hit Tupakula Yerrapureddy (P.W.4) on his mouth and his teeth were broken. The stone hurled by A.6 hit Tupakula ramireddy (P.W.3) on his head. The stone hurled by A.3 hit behind the shoulder of Tupakula Nagamunireddy (P.W.5).” 16. The other eye-witness PW.2 gave his version about the incident as under:- “A.5. beat me on my head with stick and caused me bleeding injury. A.6, A.8 to A.14 came there. The stone hurled by A.6 hit Tupakula ramireddy (P.W.3) on his head. The stone hurled by A.3 hit behind the shoulder of Tupakula Nagamunireddy (P.W.5).” 16. The other eye-witness PW.2 gave his version about the incident as under:- “A.5. beat me on my head with stick and caused me bleeding injury. A.6, A.8 to A.14 came there. Tupakula Ramireddy (P.W.3), Yerramunireddy (P.W.4), Gangireddy (P.W.1), Eswarareddy (deceased) came to my rescue. A.2 beat Eswarareddy with a pestle on the right side of his head. A.4 beat Eswarareddy with a pestle on the left side of his head, Eswarareddy fell down on the ground. A.3 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on his right shoulder. A.7 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on the back of Eswarareddy. A.14 shouted to kill us. The accused pelted stones on us. P.W.1, Tupakula Ramireddy (P.W.3), Tupakula Yerrapureddy (P.W.4) and T.Nagamunireddy (P.W.5) received injuries.” 17. P.W.3, the other eye-witness gives his own version about the incident as under:- “A.5. beat P.W.2 with a stick on his head and caused him bleeding injury. Myself, Eswarareddy (deceased), P.W.1 and Yerapureddy (P.W.4) went to the rescue of P.W.2. A.2 beat Eswarareddy on the right side of his head with pestle. A.4 beat Eswarareddy with pestle on the left side of his head. Eswarareddy fell down on the ground. A.3 beat Eswarareddy on his left shoulder with a stick. A.7 beat Eswarareddy with stick on the back of his head. A.14 shouted to kill us. The other accused also came there while Eswarareddy was being beaten. The accused i.e., A.6, A.8 to A.14 hurled stones on us. The stone hurled by A.6 hit my head and I received bleeding injury.” 18. According to P.W.4, the specific overt acts are given as under:- “A.5. beat P.W.2 on his head with a stick and caused bleeding injury. P.W.2 went aside (Prakkaku poyadu). We went to the rescue of P.W.2. Meanwhile, A.6, A.8 to A.14 came there. They were also holding pestles and sticks. A.2 beat Tupakula Eswarareddy (deceased) with a pestle on his head. A.4 beat Eswarareddy on his head with a pestle. A.3 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on his shoulder. A.7 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on the head of Eswarareddy. Eswarareddy fell down on the ground. A.14 instigated other accused to kill us. A.8 beat me with a stone and broke eight of my fore teeth. A.4 beat Eswarareddy on his head with a pestle. A.3 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on his shoulder. A.7 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on the head of Eswarareddy. Eswarareddy fell down on the ground. A.14 instigated other accused to kill us. A.8 beat me with a stone and broke eight of my fore teeth. A.1 beat me with a stone on my right plank.” 19. P.W.5, the last eye-witness of the prosecution gave the account of the incident as under:- “A.5. beat P.W.2 with a stick on his head and caused him bleeding injury. A.2 beat Eswarareddy 9dcd) on his head with a pestle. A.4 beat Eswarareddy with a pestle on his head. Eswarareddy fell down. A.3 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on his left shoulder. A.7 beat Eswarareddy with a stick on the back side of head of Eswarareddy. A.6 and A.8 to A.14 came there. A.3 beat me with a stick on the left side of my back and also on my left plank. PWs.1, 3 and 4 were also beaten by the accused. After A.6, A.8 to A.14 came there, A.14 instigated the other accused to kill us.” 20. The evidence of the injured witnesses is conflicting with each other insofar as the specific overt acts are concerned. Likewise, the oral evidence also do not accord with the earliest complaint – Ex.P.1. In the evidence of P.W.1, Exs.D.1 to D.5 are marked, which are the portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Even though, he gave such a statement, as asserted by the Investigating Officer, he denies having stated so. 21. Similarly, P.W.2 made significant changes from his previous statement and he denied having stated before the police as in Exs.D.6 and D.7. Exs.D.8 to D.10 are the relevant portions in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 which he resiled during the course of his examination in the Court. Exs.D.11 to D.13 are the portions marked in the Section 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.4, which he denied having stated so before the Investigating Officer. Exs.D.15 to D.16 are the relevant portions in the Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, which he denied though gave such a statement before the Investigating Officer. 22. The medical evidence on record is at variance with what the eye-witnesses deposed. According to the Doctor (PW.9), he found only one lacerated injury on the middle of parietal area of the deceased. 22. The medical evidence on record is at variance with what the eye-witnesses deposed. According to the Doctor (PW.9), he found only one lacerated injury on the middle of parietal area of the deceased. Significantly, after perusing the x-ray report (Ex.P.7), the Doctor opined that the injury sustained by the deceased is simple in nature. Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate issued by him. The deceased, however, died more than 5 days after the incident. The Doctor (PW.9) also examined PW.1 and found a reddish lacerated injury over right anterior knee which was not a bleeding injury. This is contrary to what PW.1 claims that he sustained a bleeding injury. This injury was also certified to be a simple injury as per the wound certificate Ex.P.9. As per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is A.5 who heat with a stick on the head of PW.2. However, the doctor (PW.9) found ‘four’ lacerated injuries on the person of PW.2 which were all simple in nature. Similarly, the Doctor found a simple lacerated injury on the left parietal area of PW.3, who claims that a stone hurled by A.6 hit on his head and he received a bleeding injury. With regard to the other injured – PW.4, he claims that A.8 beat him with a stone, due to which he lost ‘8’ teeth. The Doctor (PW.9) found a lacerated injury on the right upper lip and ‘2’ other injuries, but he did not say that PW.4 has lost ‘8’ teeth as claimed by him. 23. According to PW.5, it is A.3 who beat him with a stick on the left side of his back and also on his left plank. But the Doctor (PW.9) found tender contusion over left supra scapular area and left loin. 24. What is manifest from the above is that there is substantial discrepancy in between the ocular and the medical evidence on record. 25. The omissions, contradictions and improvements are so glaring and on material aspects which affect the trustworthiness of the witnesses, who as already stated above have an axe to grind against the accused who are their opponents. 26. It is no doubt true that in this incident, one person lost the life, 5 persons of the prosecution party and 4 persons of the accused party sustained the injuries, though simple in nature. 26. It is no doubt true that in this incident, one person lost the life, 5 persons of the prosecution party and 4 persons of the accused party sustained the injuries, though simple in nature. Unfortunately, the nature of evidence is such that it leaves no room for any option other than giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. 27. The learned trial Judge has meticulously perused the material on record, noted the material omissions and contradictions and assigned cogent reasons, in support of his findings, leading to acquittal of the accused. We see no reason to interfere with the said findings warranting any interference. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.