JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant herein was tried by the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad in S.C.No.410 of 2008. The basis for initiating the proceedings was a complaint, Ex.P1, dated 16.06.2008, submitted by PW.1. It was stated that PW.1 is the wife of one Mallaiah, who was employed in Singareni Collieries, and took Voluntary Retirement about 10 years ago, and out of the retirement benefits, Mallaiah gave a sum of Rs.30,000/-to the accused on loan. She further stated that since the amount was not paid for quite a long time, the accused handed over one acre of land to them in lieu of the amount, and it is under their cultivation, but, there existed disputes between the accused and Mallaiah in relation thereto. On 16.06.2008, at 7.00 a.m., Mallaiah and his friend Duguta Lingaiah are said to have gone to a place known as MVK-III, and they were followed by the accused. At about 8.00 a.m., a person from MVK-III area, is said to have telephoned PW.1 and informed that the accused killed Mallaiah and Lingaiah (for short ‘D1 and D2”). Soon thereafter, PW.1, her son and PW.2, i.e., the second wife of Mallaiah are said to have gone to the place and found D1 and D2 with injuries caused with axe. The neighbours in the locality are said to have informed PW.1 that the accused killed D1 and D2, by beating them with an axe. Crime No.9 of 2008 was registered under Section 302 IPC. The police have drawn the scene of offence panchanama and arranged for the inquest and postmortem. After recording the statements of the Listed Witnesses, and taking the accused into custody, they filed the charge sheet. The trial Court farmed the charges and on denial of the same by the accused, took up the matter for trial. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined and Ex.P1 to P23 were filed. MOs. 1 to 14 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 29.06.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- . Hence, this appeal. Sri S.J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the trial Court convicted the accused, though there did not exist any reliable evidence. Through its judgment, dated 29.06.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- . Hence, this appeal. Sri S.J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the trial Court convicted the accused, though there did not exist any reliable evidence. He submits that the version of PWs.1 and 2 did not tally with that of the other witnesses, and the so called eye witnesses were not consistent in their statements. He contends that the medical evidence of the case did not support the other evidence, and conviction cannot be sustained in law. He further pleaded that PW.1 failed to prove the facts stated by her either in Ex.P1, or as a witness, particularly, in relation to lending of money or giving of land in lieu thereof. He advanced other contentions also. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though PW.1 did not witness the occurrence of the death of her husband, D1, there is eye witness account of PWs.3 and 4, supported by the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, and the trial Court has arrived at correct conclusion. She submits that the accused has a clear motive to kill his brother, D1, and since D2 came in the way, he killed him also. D1 was an employee in Singareni Collieries, and he took Voluntary Retirement. Both his wives PWs.1 and 2 stated that he was doing money lending business after retirement. The difference in their evidence, however, is that while PW.1 stated that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to the accused with interest @ 2% p.m. PW.2, the second wife, stated that money was lent to the accused, without interest. Neither PW.1 nor PW.2 were the eye witnesses. Both of them stated that the information about the death of D1 and D2 was furnished by someone. Their evidence is not clear as to who that person was, and as between them, who received the information. Further, though PW.1 stated that her son also visited the scene of occurrence, he was not examined. Another aspect is that no one complained of anything about the death of D2. It is only the son of his wife through another person that deposed as PW8. He did not state as to how he came to know about the death of the D2. Another aspect is that no one complained of anything about the death of D2. It is only the son of his wife through another person that deposed as PW8. He did not state as to how he came to know about the death of the D2. The prosecution cited PWs.3 and 4 as eye witnesses. Both of them are women and are said to be residents of MVK-III locality, residing in huts. PW.3 stated that she knows D1 and D2, and she saw both of them proceeding from in front of her hut at 8.00 a.m., and the accused attacking D1 first, and latter on D2 with axe. At that time, she is said to have passed through the scene of occurrence in the process of dropping her son at school. On getting frightened with the incident, she is said to have gone inside the house and came out only after the police arrived. In the cross examination, this witness stated that the accused caused only one injury to D1, and then she immediately went inside the house. She has also stated that she did not see anything further and again stated that the accused attacked the deceased with an axe. The postmortem report of D1 discloses that as many as six injuries were noticed on the body of D1. It is also important to note that injuries 3 and 4 were caused by stabbing, and both of them are 5” long 2” wide. Those injuries cannot be said to have been caused by an axe. The right little finger of D1 was also found cut off and right ring finger was partially cut of. Injury No.6 was on the skull. On D2 also there were two serious stab injuries almost similar in size to those found on the D1. Apart from that, the nostril bone was found fractured. In all, there were six injuries. PW.4 stated that the accused attacked the deceased with an axe and she found both the D1 and D2 falling on the ground. She spoke to the presence of PW.3. She is said to have raised hue and cry, and thereupon, the accused left from the scene. In the cross examination, it was stated that when she came out of the house, she saw the deceased person lying on the ground, and except that, she did not see anything. She spoke to the presence of PW.3. She is said to have raised hue and cry, and thereupon, the accused left from the scene. In the cross examination, it was stated that when she came out of the house, she saw the deceased person lying on the ground, and except that, she did not see anything. Obviously because this statement was sufficient to prove that he is not the eye witness, and no further cross examination was made. PWs.5 and 6 are also said to be of the same locality. PW.5 stated that the accused killed D1 and at that time PW.3 was taking her child to the school. She further stated that she observed the accused going from the scene of offence, but not when he beat D1 and D2. She has also stated that the accused threatened her before the date of her deposition. A suggestion was made to her disputing what she stated about the accused. PW.6 stated that she heard cries when she was feeding her baby, and on coming out, she observed the dead bodies of D1 and D2. She is said to have heard cries of PWs. 3 and 4, whereas, those witnesses did not speak about it. She too stated that the accused was going from the scene of offence, with an axe in his hands. In the cross examination, she admitted that she has no acquaintance with the accused and that she cannot give the description of the weapon. She admitted that she cannot state the exact dates on which she has seen the accused. She fumbled in answering the question as to whether she has seen the accused from front side or back side and she said both. The evidence of PW.7 is not of much importance. PW.8 is the step son of D2, did not attribute any motive to the accused for killing D2. Other witnesses are examined in relation to the procedural steps in the prosecution. From the discussion under taken above, it is clear that PW.1 was not truthful in her evidence, and she did not substantiate any facts pleaded by her. Though it was pleaded by her that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to the deceased by D1 with interest @ 24% p.a., no papers pertaining thereto, were filed. From the discussion under taken above, it is clear that PW.1 was not truthful in her evidence, and she did not substantiate any facts pleaded by her. Though it was pleaded by her that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to the deceased by D1 with interest @ 24% p.a., no papers pertaining thereto, were filed. Another contention that an extent of one acre of land was given in lieu of that amount was not proved. Not a single document in relation thereto was filed. Her failure to name the persons from whom she is said to have received the information, that too, on a cell phone, raised any amount of doubt about the truth of her statements. PW.2 married D1 even when his marriage with PW.1 was subsisting. The affection, which the deceased had towards PW.2 is evident from the fact that he is said to have named her as the dependant, in the service records. Though she stated that she saw the accused going with an axe in angry mood right in front of their house, she did not accost him or inform the same to others. The evidence of PW.1 did not support this. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 cited as eye witnesses, is not only inconsistent but also turned out to be very weak. The salient features thereof have already been mentioned. The same is the case with the PWs.5 and 6. The non-filing of a complaint by PW.8 or non-examination of that witness, by the police, for quite a long time, are the factors, which need to be taken into account. Injuries that are reflected in the postmortem reports of D1 and D2 are not explained by the prosecution, and the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, does not fit into the medical evidence. The net result is that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.410 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad, dated 29.06.2009, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.