Judgment : LNR, J. This is one more case, that emanated from the faction ridden District of Anantapur. It has all the characteristics of a faction case. Naturally, quite large number of persons figured as accused and witnesses. P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the mother of Pulla Sivaiah of K.K. Agraharam Village, B.K. Samudram Mandal of Anantapur District. Sivaiah and his brothers figured as accused in a case pertaining to the murder of one Mr. K. Busappa. On account of the fact that there are serious disturbances in the village, a police picket was also arranged at a place that is known as “Peerla Chavidi”. On 20.05.2004, Sivaiah is said to have come to his house and sat under a neem tree in front of the house with bleeding injuries. When enquired by P.W.1, he is said to have informed her that when himself and one Pulla Nallappa, P.W.3, were sitting on the Rachha Banda near Peerla Chavidi, A.1 to A.14 came there, armed with rods and sticks and attacked him indiscriminately, and that he escaped from the place. He is said to have asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to take him inside the house, and thereafter, to shift him to the hospital. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have gone to P.W.4 and requested him to arrange a cart and he is said to have promised to bring a cart. They are also stated to have requested P.W.5 to accompany them. It was stated that when P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 were taking Sivaiah in a bullock cart to Anantapur for treatment and when the cart reached the house of one Mr. B. Narayana Swamy, A.1 to A.14 asked them to stop the cart, and when it was stopped, A.15 to A.20 came in opposite direction armed with sickles and rods and indiscriminately attacked Sivaiah. He is also said to have been dragged from the cart to the ground. When P.Ws.1 and 2 sought to intervene, A.19 hit them with the handle of a sickle on the abdomen and head and caused injuries, and thereafter, all the accused left the place. It was further alleged that when P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 were proceeding further with the seriously injured Sivaiah, L.W.5, one Mr. When P.Ws.1 and 2 sought to intervene, A.19 hit them with the handle of a sickle on the abdomen and head and caused injuries, and thereafter, all the accused left the place. It was further alleged that when P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 were proceeding further with the seriously injured Sivaiah, L.W.5, one Mr. Sreenath and two persons, by name, Prasad and Ramaiah, came on motor cycles and L.W.5 promised to arrange a jeep, and when they reached Chennampally cross, a jeep is said to have come there and Sivaiah was shifted into it and they reached the hospital. Sivaiah was declared dead, by the doctors at the hospital. P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P.1, to P.S. Bukkarayasamudram at 5.30 p.m. Crime No.76 of 2004 was registered, alleging the offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, against all the accused. The police visited the site, prepared scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and post-mortem, and undertook further investigation. P.Ws.1 and 2 are also said to have been treated for the injuries suffered by them. A detailed charge sheet was filed before the Court. After committal, the case was registered as S.C.No.327 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur. The trial Court framed as many as nine charges against the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was conducted, in which, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were filed. M.Os.1 to 9 were also taken on record. On behalf of defence, D.1 was cited. Through its judgment, dated 28.10.2009, the trial Court acquitted A.1 to A.14, but convicted A.15 to A.20 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 149, 148 and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC. Punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, was imposed. A.15 to A.20 (for short ‘the accused’) filed Criminal Appeal No.1662 of 2009. A.15 to A.20 (for short ‘the accused’) filed Criminal Appeal No.1662 of 2009. P.W.1, on the other hand, filed Criminal Revision Case No.1057 of 2010, feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of A.1 to A.14. Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there is any amount of inconsistency between the version presented by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1, on one hand, and in his deposition, on the other hand. He submits that the attack and the criminal acts are said to have been resorted to, at as many as three places, namely, the first at Rachha Banda, the second at the house of B. Narayana Swamy, and the third at the house of L.W.5 and while for the first attack, P.W.3 was cited as an eyewitness, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 are said to be eyewitnesses for the second attack. He submits that there is any amount of uncertainty, as to how the dead body of the deceased reached the hospital, or when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the hospital for treatment. According to the learned counsel, Ex.P.8, the certificate issued by the hospital, as to the reaching of the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, reveals that one Mr. Prasad and Ramaiah brought it, but none of them were examined, and there is no reference to P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5. Learned counsel further submits that according to P.W.8, the deceased was brought in a cart, whereas almost all the witnesses stated that the dead body was taken to the hospital in a jeep, arranged by L.W.5. He contends that while according to Ex.P.8, the cart itself reached the hospital at 5.00 p.m. on 20.05.2004, Exs.P.6 and 7, the wound certificates in respect of P.Ws.1 and 2, reveal that they reached the hospital and were examined at 3.00 p.m. itself. It is also argued that though the certificates mentioned that P.Ws.1 and 2 were brought to the hospital by P.W.3, none of them i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2, have referred to the presence of P.W.3 in the hospital. Other inconsistencies and improvements are also pointed out by the learned counsel. He, ultimately, submits that the case is one of highly volatile faction, and though the trial Court found that the first alleged attack at Peerla Chavidi was not proved, it has convicted the accused for the alleged second attack. Other inconsistencies and improvements are also pointed out by the learned counsel. He, ultimately, submits that the case is one of highly volatile faction, and though the trial Court found that the first alleged attack at Peerla Chavidi was not proved, it has convicted the accused for the alleged second attack. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the eyewitness account of quite large number of witnesses was presented before the Court, and the matter was so dispassionately examined that one part of the allegation was not believed and it resulted in acquittal of A.1 to A.14, and it is only on finding that there is cogent evidence in relation to the accused, that the conviction and sentence were handed out. Sri K. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the Criminal Revision Case, submits that there existed adequate evidence, in the form of eyewitness account of P.W.3, for the attack by A.1 to A.14, and the trial Court ought not to have acquitted them. K.K. Agraharam is a highly faction ridden village, on political lines. The incident, that took place on 20.05.2004, was proceeded by the murder of K. Busappa in that village, that too, on faction lines. The record discloses that the deceased and his brothers and certain others figured as accused, in relation to the murder of K. Busappa. During the pendency of S.C.No.327 of 2006 i.e., the present case, the brothers of the deceased were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, in relation to the murder of K. Busappa. A series of three attacks is said to have taken place on 20.05.2004. The first attack was said to be, when the deceased and P.W.3 were sitting on the Rachha Banda near Peerla Chavidi. Incidentally, there was a police picket at that very place. P.W.1 gave the hearsay account of what happened at that place. The deceased is said to have come to his house and sat under the neem tree in front of the house in a serious injured condition, and on being asked, he is said to have stated that when himself and P.W.3 were sitting on the Rachha Banda, A.1 to A.14 attacked him, and somehow, he escaped and came there. However, P.W.3 has a different account of this. However, P.W.3 has a different account of this. He stated that when himself and the deceased were sitting, A.1 to A.14 came, and at the first instance, A.1 attacked the deceased with a rod, and thereafter, A.2 with a stick. This witness is said to have intervened, and in the meanwhile, a police constable, P.W.7, who was in the police picket, came there and shouted at them. The deceased is said to have gone away from that place. P.W.7 has a different version all together. According to him, as part of the police picket, he was within the area of Peerla Chavidi, and when he heard some commotion, he came out and just found the deceased running, and that nobody else was seen. These three versions are at variance, with each other, and naturally, the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to A.1 to A.14, in this behalf. On finding that the deceased was in a serious injured condition, P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have approached P.W.4 for arranging a bullock cart and it was so arranged. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 are stated to have started for Anantapur, by taking the deceased in the bullock cart. On the way i.e., at the house of B. Narayana Swamy, A.1 to A.14 are said to have asked them to stop the cart, and when it was stopped, the accused i.e., A.15 to A.20 came in opposite direction and indiscriminately attacked the deceased. No acts are attributed to A.1 to A.14, on this occasion. In her deposition, P.W.1 stated that the accused had dragged the deceased from the cart to the ground, after attacking him, and that they left after giving certain blows to her and P.W.2. This, however, was not stated in Ex.P.1. All the accused are said to have fled away from the scene, by announcing that they would take care of Sreenath, L.W.5. After the cart, together with P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 proceeded up to a place, by name, Chennampalli cross, L.W.5 and two persons, by name, Prasad and Ramaiah, are said to have come on motor cycles and met P.W.1. While P.W.1 narrated to L.W.5 what has happened to them near the house of B. Narayana Swamy, the latter is said to have informed her that he too was attacked by a bomb, by one of the accused. While P.W.1 narrated to L.W.5 what has happened to them near the house of B. Narayana Swamy, the latter is said to have informed her that he too was attacked by a bomb, by one of the accused. After leaving Ramaiah with P.W.1 and others, L.W.5 is said to have gone to Anantapur along with Prasad for fetching a jeep to take the deceased to the hospital. When P.W.1 and others were proceeding in the cart, the jeep is said to have met them at Venkatapuram cross, and from there, they proceeded in the jeep to the hospital. This is stated not only in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but also in Ex.P.1. However, this does not receive support from other evidence on record. Ex.P.8 is the certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Anantapur. It reads: “Pulla Sivaiah, aged about 28 years, S/o Pedda Kasanaiah, K.K. Agraharam Village, is brought dead to cot (obviously, cart), at 5.00 p.m. on 20.05.2004 by M. Prasad and P. Ramaiah. O.P.No.6095.” There is no mention of the jeep in this document. Further, the two persons, who were said to have brought the deceased to the hospital, are Prasad and Ramaiah, and none of them were examined. On the other hand, there is no reference to P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5. The time at which, the deceased reached the hospital, is mentioned as “5.00 p.m.”. Nowhere in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it was mentioned that they reached the hospital, before the dead body of the deceased was brought there. They, too, are said to have been treated for the wounds. However, there is nothing on record to disclose that the police referred them to the hospital for treatment. P.W.3 stated that he took P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital for treatment. The wound certificates, Exs.P.6 and P.7, reveal the same. However, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state that they have been taken by P.W.3 to the hospital. One important aspect to be noticed is that in Exs.P.6 and P.7, it is mentioned that both P.Ws.1 and 2 were first examined at 3.00 p.m., and thereafter, at 9.00 p.m. It only means that P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the hospital, before the dead body of the deceased was brought there. The time at which Ex.P.1 presented, or the information about the incident, was given to police, is another aspect. The time at which Ex.P.1 presented, or the information about the incident, was given to police, is another aspect. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 have proceeded from the village to Anantapur. The village is within the jurisdiction of B.K. Samudram P.S., and the police station is on the way to Anantapur. None of the witnesses have chosen at least to give information to the police station, which is on the way. Added to that, there was police picket in the village itself. No steps were taken to inform the police officials in that village. Even P.W.7 was not put on information about the events that are said to have taken place. If we take into account, the existence of serious factions, the fact that not only the deceased, but also his brothers were tried for the offence of committing the murder of K. Busappa, and the same resulted in their conviction; and the substantial variations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; the inescapable conclusion is that the delay in submission of Ex.P.1 was utilized for deliberations to implicate the political opponents, to the extent, possible. We find that the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court against the accused cannot be sustained in law. Further, we do not find any basis to interfere with the acquittal of A.1 to A.14. We, therefore, allow the Criminal Appeal, and the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellants/A.15 to A.20, in S.C.No.327 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, through judgment, dated 28.10.2009, are set aside. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed with reference to any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.