Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. In relation to the death of one Sri Dheesetti Chakradhararao, resident of Ramachandrapuram Village of East Godavari District on 16.08.2007, the two accused, by name Kamisetti Veera Vishnu and Kamisetti Venkata Padmaraju @ Peddaraju, were tried by the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. The complaint, Ex.P1, in relation to the incident was submitted by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, at 2.30 p.m. on 16.08.2007 before Kirlampudi Police Station. He stated that his original native place is Gollaprolu, he has two brothers and a sister and while his elder brother is at Hyderabad, the deceased was at Gollaprolu along with the parents and that himself was given in adoption to one Sri Satyam Setti Raghava of Ramachandrapuram Village. After the death of their natural father, the deceased and their mother are said to have come to Ramachandrapuram and started living in a rented house. 2. The deceased is said to have started business in supplying rice and that he used to visit the house of one Kamisetty Katakam Swamy, father of A1, frequently. In the process, the deceased is said to have developed illicit intimacy with Surya Kumari, daughter-in-law of Katakam Swamy i.e. the wife of A1. About three months prior to the date of submission of Ex.P1, the deceased is said to have been found in the company of Surya Kumari and that the mother of A1 locked the door when both of them were inside. After A1 reached the house, he is said to have opened the door and admonished the deceased and sent away Surya Kumari to the house of her parents. It was alleged that A1 looked for an opportunity to liquidate the deceased. 3. P.W.1 further stated in Ex.P-1 that he has taken the land of one Sri Ramakrishna for cultivation and on 16.08.2007, when himself and his paternal uncle, P.W.2, were proceeding on a bicycle towards the field to cultivate it and that the deceased was coming towards Ramachandrapuram, on a motorcycle. At a place where the three of them met, A1 and A2 are said to have emerged from the neighbouring coconut garden, owned by Sri Venkateswara Rao, and A1 attacked the deceased indiscriminately with knife. Apart from P.Ws.1 and 2, two persons, by name Veerababu and Durgayya, were said to be present at the scene of occurrence. At a place where the three of them met, A1 and A2 are said to have emerged from the neighbouring coconut garden, owned by Sri Venkateswara Rao, and A1 attacked the deceased indiscriminately with knife. Apart from P.Ws.1 and 2, two persons, by name Veerababu and Durgayya, were said to be present at the scene of occurrence. On seeing P.Ws.1 and 2 and the two persons named above, A1 and A2 are said to have run away. He made a request to take necessary action. 4. The Station House Officer, Kirlampudi Police Station registered Crime No.75 of 2007 under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and took up the investigation. He visited the scene of offence, prepared a panchanama thereof, caused inquest and sent the body for post-mortem examination. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed alleging that A1 and A2 committed the murder of the deceased. 5. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that ensued, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 11 were also taken on record. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 was marked. Through its judgment, dated 19.02.2010, the trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month was imposed. 6. Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the accused submits that there are several lacunae in the case of prosecution and ignoring the same, the trial Court convicted the accused. She contends that though several persons, such as LWs 3, to 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 were cited by the prosecution as the persons, who, either were alleged to have seen A-1 and A-2 committing the offence, or have knowledge about the incident, none of them were examined as witnesses in the Court, and the trial Court did not take such an important aspect into account. She submits that the very version of PWs 1 and 2 that they were proceeding on a bicycle to do cultivation of land became shaky, once they failed to establish that they have taken the land on lease. She further submits that in Ex.P-1 itself, no role as such, was attributed to A-2, and still, the trial Court convicted him. She submits that the very version of PWs 1 and 2 that they were proceeding on a bicycle to do cultivation of land became shaky, once they failed to establish that they have taken the land on lease. She further submits that in Ex.P-1 itself, no role as such, was attributed to A-2, and still, the trial Court convicted him. Learned counsel submits that the narration in Ex.P-1 about the incident is so dramatic that A-1 and A-2 were said to have hidden at a place anticipating that PWs 1 and 2 coming from one direction and the deceased coming in the opposite direction on a motorcycle, would meet at that very place. It is also urged that in Ex.P-1 no mention was made to the effect that A-1 and A-2 have stopped the motorcycle, on which the deceased was said to be travelling. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though the prosecution examined quite a good number of listed witnesses, in the course of investigation, PWs 1 to 6 were examined in the Court, and their evidence is cogent and corroborative of each other, and the trial Court was convinced that the prosecution has proved the case, pleaded by it. She contends that the accused, and in particular A-1, has a specific grouse against the deceased, on account of the illicit intimacy developed by the deceased, with the wife of A-1. She contends that the various aspects pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants are not so important, once the eye witness account of the occurrence was placed before the trial Court. 8. One of the brothers of the deceased, PW-1, submitted a complaint, Ex.P-1, about the occurrence. A detailed account of the state of affairs in his family, the factum of the deceased undertaking business in supply of rice, and in the process his visiting the house of A-1; was mentioned. It was alleged that the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the wife of A-1, and on one occasion, the deceased was found in the company of the wife of A-1. PW-1 further alleged that A-1 sent his wife to the house of her parents and was waiting for an opportunity to attack the deceased. 9. PWs 1 and 2 are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence on 16-08-2007. PW-1 further alleged that A-1 sent his wife to the house of her parents and was waiting for an opportunity to attack the deceased. 9. PWs 1 and 2 are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence on 16-08-2007. It was stated by them that they were proceeding on a bicycle towards a field, taken by them on lease. Even according to them, the land was owned by one Ramakrishna, and that it was taken on lease. Neither any lease deed was filed, nor Ramakrishna was examined as a witness. When defence seriously doubted the very statement made by PWs 1 and 2, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to have supplemented their case, by examining Ramakrishna. 10. PWs 1 and 2 further stated that when they were proceeding on the bicycle, the deceased was coming in the opposite direction from Ramachandrapuram on a motor cycle, and at a place when those three people met, A-1 and A-2, emerged from the coconut garden, owned by Sri Venkateswar Rao, and A-1 attached the deceased indiscriminately with a knife. It is important to note that in Ex.P-1, no act was attributed to A-2. Even in his chief-examination, PW-1 did not allege that A-2 had attacked or caused injuries to the deceased. The only role attributed to A-2 is that he stopped the motor cycle of the deceased. 11. PW-2 admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that PW-1 raised sugarcane crop in the land, said to have been taken on lease. In the cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say as to whether A-1 was holding the knife in his right hand or left hand. It was suggested to him that the deceased was suspected of committing theft of gold in the house of one Mr.Kanchumarthi Raghava and committing rape of a minor girl in that family, and that initially the Police suspected the said Raghava of committing the murder of the deceased. PW-2 stated that he chased the accused to someplace, and that no such effort was made by PW-1. 12. The evidence of PW-3 is of no use, since he just happens to be the owner of the motor cycle, which was said to have been taken by the deceased. The evidence of PW-4 is somewhat strange, and in a way, the prosecution has weakened its case by examining that witness. 12. The evidence of PW-3 is of no use, since he just happens to be the owner of the motor cycle, which was said to have been taken by the deceased. The evidence of PW-4 is somewhat strange, and in a way, the prosecution has weakened its case by examining that witness. She stated in her chief-examination that she heard some galata near the house of A-1, and she saw A-1 holding a knife and threatening the deceased, and at that time, the mother of A-1 caught hold of him and prevented him from attacking the deceased. In the very first sentence of the cross-examination of PW-4 it was elicited from her that she did not state before the Police, what she stated in the Court. Rest of her evidence is of no significance. PW-5 did not state anything specific, about the incident, vis-à-vis the accused. She has also stated that she has no knowledge about the differences between the accused and the deceased. PW-6 did not support the case of the prosecution, and he was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor. 13. From the discussion undertaken above, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 does not appear to be so trustworthy. Assuming that the aspects pointed out in the discussion are not so crucial, certain important aspects need to be taken into account. 14. In Ex.P-1 itself, it was mentioned that in addition to PWs 1 and 2, two persons by name Veerababu and Durgayya, who are cited as LWs 3 and 4 were present at the place of occurrence. PW-1 is the brother and PW-2 is the uncle of the deceased. Since they happen to be the interested witnesses, one must look for some corroboration to that. Once two independent witnesses were named in Ex.P-1 and shown as LWs 3 and 4 in the memo of evidence, filed along with the charge-sheet, failure of the prosecution to examine them is certainly fatal. 15. During the course of investigation, the prosecution is said to have come across several persons, who had knowledge of the incident and have corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. These persons include LWs 3, to 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. However, all of them were given up, at the instance of the Public Prosecutor. These persons include LWs 3, to 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21. However, all of them were given up, at the instance of the Public Prosecutor. It is not necessary to emphasise the effect of the non-examination of such large number of independent witnesses; on the interested version of PWs 1 and 2. 16. The second aspect is about the very manner of occurrence. The incident is said to have taken place at a spot where PWs 1 and 2, on the one hand, and the accused, on the other hand, met. It has already been mentioned that while PWs 1 and 2 were said to be proceeding towards their field, and the deceased was coming in the opposite direction on a motor cycle. In Ex.P-1, it was mentioned that both the accused stopped the motor cycle of the deceased and attacked him, whereas in their evidence, PWs 1 and 2 stated that A-2 stopped the vehicle, and thereafter A-1 attacked the deceased. The prosecution failed to explain as to how A-1 and A-2 expected the deceased to pass through that place. 17. The injuries that are said to have been caused by A-1 on the deceased, mentioned in Ex.P-1, are said to be on the neck, head and throat region of the deceased. Except these three injuries, no other injuries were mentioned in Ex.P-1. In the chief-examination, PW-1 repeated this by stating, “A-1 caused injuries to the deceased with a knife on the head, neck, and on the throat of the deceased”. In addition to this, A-1 is said to have caused two more injuries, which, of course, were not mentioned in Ex.P-1. However, PW-2 stated as under: “A-1 inflicted an injury on the back of the deceased with a knife. A-1 also caused an injury on the back of the neck. The Accused No.1 also caused an injury on the left palm of the deceased. A-1 also caused an injury on the throat of the deceased with the knife” 18. According to this witness, four injuries were caused by A-1. The post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P-8, disclosed that there were as many as eight injuries. All are very deep in nature, and caused with sharp object. A-1 also caused an injury on the throat of the deceased with the knife” 18. According to this witness, four injuries were caused by A-1. The post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P-8, disclosed that there were as many as eight injuries. All are very deep in nature, and caused with sharp object. The prosecution failed to explain the discrepancy between Ex.P-1 and the depositions of PWs 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Ex.P-8, on the other hand. 19. When the prosecution has given up almost 3/4th of the listed witnesses, and the injuries found on the deceased do not accord with the version presented in the complaint, Ex.P-1, and depositions of PWs 1 and 2, the so-called eye witnesses, it is not at all safe to convict the accused. Added to that, the non-application of mind on the part of the trial Court is evident from the fact that A-2 was convicted though it was not even alleged that he has caused any injuries to the deceased. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.276 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, dated 19-02-2010, against the appellants-accused, are set aside. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.