JUDGMENT : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1. The appellants in the present appeal are convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Session Trial No.19 of 2011 on 30th of November, 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of a fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. All the appellants were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 447 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. All the appellants were also directed to suffer imprisonment for life on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The appellants are questioning their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by preferring the present appeal. (A) FACTS OF THE CASE:- 3. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as under:- Deceased is Yogendra @ Raju s/o Anandrao Jadhav. The date of the incident is the midnight hours of 31st of December, 2010. The first informant is Balaji Jadhav, the brother of the deceased. 4. When Dinkar Asaram Thosare (PW 12), Police Inspector, was discharging his duties at Police Station Mahagaon, that time Balaji Jadhav (PW 1) submitted a written report in the Police Station. The written report is at Exh.124. The said report was lodged at 7.30 a.m. on 1st of January, 2011. Dinkar Thosare (PW 12), on the basis of the said report, registered a Crime against the appellants vide C.R.No.1 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Printed FIR is at Exh.125. After registration of the Crime, Police Officer Shri Thosare went to the agricultural field where incident has occurred. The Printed FIR is at Exh.125. After registration of the Crime, Police Officer Shri Thosare went to the agricultural field where incident has occurred. The said field is situated at village Hingni, which was shown by PW 1 Balaji Jadhav. Shri Dinkar Thosare (PW 12) prepared panchanama of the spot of occurrence in presence of panch witnesses, Shri Sudam Gaikwad and Shri Sahebrao Pawar (PW 3). He also seized simple as well as blood smeared soil from the spot and the cotton plants having blood stains under Seizure Memo (Exh.148). Before adverting to the further progress of the investigation, it will be useful to have a glance at written report lodged by PW 1 Balaji Jadhav. 5. A party was arranged on account of 31st night in the agricultural field. A dinner was also arranged there. Said party was attended by the friends of the deceased from village Hingni as well as from village Morath. After 12 O'clock in the night, the guests dispersed after having their dinner. Only the first informant, deceased Yogendra, one Avinash Sudam Gaikwad and Namdeo Dipak Khadse were present in the agricultural field. That time, accused no.5 Sunil Dhage, accused no.6 Vilas Pandhare and accused no.3 Kartik Maske came there in an Auto rickshaw and made enquiries with the first informant and others regarding thieves. On getting negative reply, they went away. After sometime, i.e. at 12.30, these three accused persons along with the remaining four accused again came to the agricultural field, that time accused no.1 Mangesh challenged deceased Yogendra on account of teasing his cousin sister due to which an altercation was ensued. At that time, accused no.3 Kartik and accused no.4 Bandu Dhage caught hold the hands of deceased and accused no.1 Mangesh gave axe blow on the head of the deceased. Similarly, accused no.2 Satish gave a sickle blow on the hands of the deceased and at that time remaining accused Shridhar Deokate, Sunil Dhage and Vilas Pandhare were exhorting the others to kill the deceased. The first informant, Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse tried to intervene in the said fight, however, they were also assaulted. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. The injured was brought to Zopadpatti and thereafter, in an Auto rickshaw, he was brought at Government Hospital, Sawana where he was declared dead. 6. The first informant, Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse tried to intervene in the said fight, however, they were also assaulted. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. The injured was brought to Zopadpatti and thereafter, in an Auto rickshaw, he was brought at Government Hospital, Sawana where he was declared dead. 6. Reverting back to the investigation, it is seen that after the spot panchanama of occurrence was drawn, Dinkar Thosare (PW 12) asked Dineshchandra Shukla (PW 13), API, to go to the Government Hospital, Sawana for conducting inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, Dineshchandra Shukla (PW 13) went to the Government Hospital at Sawana. He issued summonses to Pradip Maske and Prakash Bhusekar (PW 5) to act as apanch for inquest proceedings. In presence of these two persons, inquest was done on the dead body and inquest panchanama (Exh.166) was drawn. Police Inspector Shri Dineshchandra Shukla gave a request letter (Exh.179) to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sawana for conducting Post Mortem. Post Mortem was conducted on the dead body. In the meantime, on 1st of January, 2011, Police Inspector Shri Thosare arrested all the accused persons under arrest Memos (Exhs.269 to 275). 7. When Dineshchandra Shukla (PW 13) was incharge of the investigation, on 3rd of January, 2011 accused no.1 Mangesh Maske gave his disclosure statement (Exh.154) that led to recovery of an axe from the agricultural field which is spot of incident and owned by Anandrao Jadhav (PW 2), who is also the father of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav and the deceased. The recovery panchanama is at Exh.155. Accused no.2 Satish Maske after giving his disclosure statement (Exh.156) shown the spot where sickle was lying and the recovery panchanama to that effect (Exh.157) was drawn. Similarly, disclosure statement (Exh.158) of accused no.3 Kartik Maske was also recorded in presence of panchas by Inspector Shukla and consequent to that, an iron rod was seized under recovery Memo (Exh.159). Similarly, a memorandum statement of accused no.7 Shridhar was recorded at Exh.160 and consequent to that a stick was seized under seizure Memo (Exh.161). According to the prosecution, accused no.5 Sunil agreed to show the place where the Auto rickshaw was parked by him. His statement is at Exh.162 whereas seizure memo of Auto rickshaw is at Exh.163. Similarly, a memorandum statement of accused no.7 Shridhar was recorded at Exh.160 and consequent to that a stick was seized under seizure Memo (Exh.161). According to the prosecution, accused no.5 Sunil agreed to show the place where the Auto rickshaw was parked by him. His statement is at Exh.162 whereas seizure memo of Auto rickshaw is at Exh.163. PW 11 Pramod Dongre, Police Inspector, recorded the supplementary statement of Balaji Jadhav and he filed the charge sheet. Statements of some witnesses were recorded by Dinkar Thosare and some were recorded by Dineshchandra Shukla. Needless to state that seized muddemal was sent to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad. 8. The learned Magistrate in whose Court final report was presented by the Investigating Officer found that case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, he passed committal order. After said order, the case was registered as Session Trial No.19 of 2011 and was allotted to the file of learned Additional Session Judge, Pusad, who vide Exh.93 framed a charge against all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, r/w 149, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed that they be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses. Various documents were also relied upon which were proved during the course of trial. The accused persons were also examined by the learned Judge of the Court below under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also examined one defence witness Datta Dagadu Maske. The accused persons claim that they are falsely implicated in the Crime. After evaluation of the prosecution case the Court below was of the view that the prosecution was successful to establish the charge against the accused persons and accordingly, he passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction giving rise to the present appeal. (B) RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:- 9. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri R.M.Daga and Shri Adwait Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused persons. Shri M.J.Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the prosecution case. With able assistance of these learned counsel, record and proceedings, notes of evidence, various proved documents were also perused by this Court. (B) RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:- 9. We have heard Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel, Shri R.M.Daga and Shri Adwait Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused persons. Shri M.J.Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the prosecution case. With able assistance of these learned counsel, record and proceedings, notes of evidence, various proved documents were also perused by this Court. The gist of submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants is as under:- (i) The evidence of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav, who claims to be an eye witness, is not reliable at all. It is the submission of the learned counsel that he being the brother of the deceased is an interested witness and therefore his evidence is required to be discarded. (ii) It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the investigation conducted in the present case is suspicious at every stage. (iii) According to the defence version, the discoveries of the weapons at the hands of the accused persons are highly suspicious and in any case those recoveries cannot be accepted looking to the fact that the place was already known to the Investigating Officer, recoveries are from open place and none of the accused persons were having any exclusive control over the place from where the muddemal articles were seized. (iv) They further submit that FIR is lodged belatedly giving rise to the suspicion in respect of the truthfulness of entire prosecution story. They further submit that noticing blood stains on the clothes of accused is also a highly suspicious circumstance if the prosecution case is closely scrutinized. They relied upon the following reported cases:- (1) Devendra @ Bittya Bhausaheb Padale and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2016 All MR (Cri) 2397. (2) Syed Ibrahim vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 2908 (3) State o Rajasthan vs. Teja Singh and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 147 and one reported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2013 with connected appeals (Dinesh Mahadeo Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra), decided on 20th of April, 2016 to buttress their submissions. They prayed that appeal be allowed. They ultimately submitted that appeal be allowed. 10. Per contra, Shri M.J. Khan, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted that there is no reason to discard the otherwise inspiring testimony of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav merely because he is close relative of deceased. They prayed that appeal be allowed. They ultimately submitted that appeal be allowed. 10. Per contra, Shri M.J. Khan, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted that there is no reason to discard the otherwise inspiring testimony of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav merely because he is close relative of deceased. He submitted following cases. 1. Yunis @ Kariya vs. State of M.P. (2003) 1 SCC 425 2. Ponnam Chandraiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 Law Suit (SC) 1034 3. Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 155 4. S. Sudershan Reddy and others vs. State of A.P. (2006) 10 SCC 163 5. Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 . He also submitted that the evidence in the case is cogent one. He therefore closed his submissions by making a prayer that the appeal be dismissed. (C) CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE:- 11. P.W.7 is Dr.Sharad Tatewar. On 31st of December, 2010 he was discharging his duties as a Medical Officer at Rural Hospital Sawana. On 31st of December, 2010 his duty hours were 8.00 am to 8 a.m. on the next day i.e. on 1st of January, 2011. In the intervening night of 31st of December, 2010 and 1st of January, 2011 Yogendra @ Raju (deceased) was brought to the hospital at Sawana at about 3.30 a.m. He examined him. He found that he is already dead. He accordingly informed to the Police Station Mahagaon by letter (Exh.178). He conducted autopsy over the dead body of Yogendra. Dead body was identified by Prakash Bhusekar (PW 5) and Laxman Balekar. He noticed following external injuries while performing Post Mortem. 1. Incised wound over parito occipital lobe over head on left side admeasuring 12 cm. x 1 cm. X deep up to brain. 2. Incised wound over parito occipital lobe on left side ameasuring 8 cm. x ½ cm. x 1 cm. deep. 3. Incised wound over parito occipital lobe left side admeasuring 7 cm. x ½ cm. x 1 cm. deep. 4. Incised wound over parito occipital lobe left side admeasuring 9 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. deep up to brain. 5. Incised wound over occipital lobe on center, admeasuring 5 cm. x ½ cm. x 1 cm. deep. 6. Incised wound over left shoulder joint admeasuring 7 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. deep. deep. 4. Incised wound over parito occipital lobe left side admeasuring 9 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. deep up to brain. 5. Incised wound over occipital lobe on center, admeasuring 5 cm. x ½ cm. x 1 cm. deep. 6. Incised wound over left shoulder joint admeasuring 7 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. deep. 7. Crushed injury over left hand fingers, thumb and index finger. All the injuries, according to doctor, were caused due to sharp cutting edge object. According to doctor, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to brain due to incised wound over head. Above all injuries were antemortem. Fractured skull over parietal and occipital bone on left side and centrally over occipital bone were found. The brain was pale. He proved the Post Mortem Report (Exh.180). In view of the evidence of Dr.Sharad Tatewar, Post Morten report and the injuries as mentioned in the Post Mortem report, there is no hesitation in our mind to reach to the conclusion that nature of death of Yogendra was homicidal one. 12. Consequently, the Court is required to examine the evidence as brought on record by the prosecution during trial to see as to whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the present case, the prosecution has examined in all thirteen witnesses. Out of these thirteen witnesses, PW 11 to PW 13 are the Police Inspectors who has conducted the investigation at one time or other. Two doctors are examined. They are PW 7 Dr.Sharad Tatewar and PW 10 Dr.Ashish Kadam. Dr.Ashish Kadam collected the blood samples of all accused persons. PW 9 Kisan Rathod, a Police Constable, is a Carrier who carried muddemal property to Chemical Analyzer. PW 3 to PW 6 are the panch witnesses. PW 3 Sahebrao Pawar is panch on spot panchanama (Exh.130) and also seizure Memo (Exh.148) for the articles which were seized from the spot. PW 4 Sk.Hasan Sk.Farid is a panch on recoveries and memorandum statements of accused persons. This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. PW 5 Prakash Bhusekar is a panch on inquest panchanama (Exh.166) whereas PW 6 Datta Bhusekar is the panch on seizure memos (Exhs.169 to 175) in respect of the clothes of the accused persons and they acted as panch for inquest. This witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. PW 5 Prakash Bhusekar is a panch on inquest panchanama (Exh.166) whereas PW 6 Datta Bhusekar is the panch on seizure memos (Exhs.169 to 175) in respect of the clothes of the accused persons and they acted as panch for inquest. Both these panchas are relatives of the deceased. 14. PW 2 is Anandrao Jadhao. He is father of deceased. He was present with PW 1 Balaji Jadhav, the first informant, at hospital and at the time of lodging of the report. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution to give the ocular account of the incident. They are PW 1 Balaji Jadhav and PW 8 Namdeo Khadse. Namdeo Khadse has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution at all. 15. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the testimony of sole eye witness PW 1 Balaji Jadhav. For securing conviction, the number of witnesses is not the criteria. The criteria is the quality of the evidence of witnesses. 16. Undisputedly, PW 1 Balaji Jadhav, the first informant, is the brother of the deceased Yogendra. As such, he is close relative of the deceased and interested one as branded as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. One of the limb of the submissions on the part of the counsel for the appellants is that his evidence needs to be discarded in view of the character as relative and interested witness. In our view, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State was right in making submissions that merely because PW 1 Balaji Jadhav is brother of the deceased that by itself is not sufficient to discard his evidence. 17. We are of the view that merely because Balaji Jadhav is brother of the deceased and as such interested in the prosecution case, merely on the said, his evidence could not be viewed with the tainted glasses. Merely because he is relative of the deceased that does not earn disqualification from this Court for the consideration of his evidence. 17. We are of the view that merely because Balaji Jadhav is brother of the deceased and as such interested in the prosecution case, merely on the said, his evidence could not be viewed with the tainted glasses. Merely because he is relative of the deceased that does not earn disqualification from this Court for the consideration of his evidence. The evidence of such witnesses has to be analyzed by the Court with a great care and caution and if the other evidence that is available on record corroborates his version and has a tendency to support the evidence of such prosecution witness then, even on the basis of evidence of such sole eye witness, the conviction can be secured and maintained. 18. Keeping this principle in mind, let us analysis and scrutinize evidence of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav. He is first informant. He has lodged a written complaint with the Police Station Mahagaon at 7.30 am on 1st of January, 2011 as can be seen from Exh.125, the Printed FIR. PW 1 Balaji Jadhav not only claims in his first information Report and his evidence that not only he was present at the time of incident but he was also assaulted by the accused persons by giving kick and fist blows. If his evidence is to be believed, at the time of incident along with him one Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse were present with the deceased. According to the First Information Report and the evidence of PW 1 Balaji Jadhav, these two persons were also assaulted by the accused persons when they tried to intervene in the attack on the deceased. Namdeo Khadse, who was examined as prosecution witness No.8 has turned hostile. Avinash Gaikwad is not examined by the prosecution as its witness. Not only that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly stated that even his statement during investigation was not recorded by any of the Investigating Officers. There is no explanation whatsoever coming on record for not examining Avinash Gaikwad either during the course of the investigation or not citing him as a witness. Evidence of Balaji Jadhav discloses that he, Namdeo Khadse and Avinash Gaikwad have received injuries. His evidence in his words is reproduced herein below:- We cannot forget that Yogendra was assaulted by the accused persons by means of deadly weapons in their hands. Evidence of Balaji Jadhav discloses that he, Namdeo Khadse and Avinash Gaikwad have received injuries. His evidence in his words is reproduced herein below:- We cannot forget that Yogendra was assaulted by the accused persons by means of deadly weapons in their hands. According to Balaji (PW 1), he and two others tried to intervene in the said attack. If that is so, normally they would also receive injuries of the weapons. Evidence and the First Information Report is completely silent of the attack on them by means of weapons but according to evidence of PW 1 Balaji, he and others received fist and kick blows. However, If the evidence of this witness is to be believed, surely he was having some injuries. According to the prosecution, Balaji went to the Police Station to lodge his report. PW 12 Dinkar Thosare who has registered the First Information Report of PW 1 Balaji is a senior Police Officer therefore it would not miss from his notice about the injuries received by Balaji or others. Further, had Balaji received injuries, as claimed by him, normally he would not miss in mentioning and pointing the said injuries to the Police Officer at the time of lodging of the report. No such thing has happened in the present case. On the contrary, Shri Thosare (PW 12), the Investigating Officer is candid enough in admitting during the course of his cross-examination that he had not sent Balaji, Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse for medical examination in order to verify the truthfulness of the incident. 19. According to Balaji, after the incident Yogendra was taken to hospital at Sawana in an Auto-rickshaw by him, Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse. In that behalf, it would be useful to extract the following portion from the evidence of PW 1 Balaji. “It is true to say that when we were taking my brother in an auto rickshaw my clothes, clothes of Namdeo Khadse and clothes of Avilnash Gaikwad were stained with blood.” It is quite natural that when a person, who was attacked with deadly weapons and suffered numerous grave injuries will having the blood oozing. In fact, the said fact is admitted by Balaji in his examination-in-chief. If these three persons are carrying injured in state of having grievous injuries oozing blood, naturally their clothes would be stained with blood. In fact, the said fact is admitted by Balaji in his examination-in-chief. If these three persons are carrying injured in state of having grievous injuries oozing blood, naturally their clothes would be stained with blood. Not only that, even according to the evidence of Balaji, in fact, his and two others persons' clothes were stained with blood. Inspite of such, the Investigating Officer did not seize the clothes of Balaji, Avinash Gaikwad and Namdeo Khadse who were stained with blood. Seizing of clothes stained with blood would have corroborated the claim of Balaji about his presence. 20. Another unusual thing which we noticed while scrutinizing the evidence of Balaji is that when they were proceeding in an auto rickshaw along with injured at Sawana, they noticed a police patrolling vehicle at Dhaba and though Balaji claimed that he has seen that vehicle he did not reach to the said vehicle and informed to the police about the incident or made any request for help. The evidence shows that he has given an explanation that since they were taking his brother to hospital therefore he did not think to go to the police. Though at appearance this explanation appears to be probable but if the situation is analyzed in its true perspective then, in our view, the conduct of Balaji in not going to the police immediately and not informing them about the incident is most unnatural. PW 1 Balaji and others had witnessed the gruesome attack on Yogendra just immediate before noticing the police party. The trio must have been in a state fear. At that time, if they noticed the police it would have been most natural on his part to go to the police and narrate the incident. Further, the police were in the patrolling vehicle whereas Yogendra was being taken to the hospital in an auto rickshaw. Till Yogendra was brought to the hospital it was not known to Balaji or others that Yogendra is dead. If that be so, it would have been most natural reaction on the part of the brother to see that his injured brother is reached to the hospital as quickly as possible and therefore, he would have taken the help of police vehicle rather going in an auto rickshaw. 21. It is established on record that the spot of the incident in question is situated in between Sawana and Mahagaon. 21. It is established on record that the spot of the incident in question is situated in between Sawana and Mahagaon. It is brought on record through the evidence of PW 12 Investigating Officer Shri Thosare as under:- “One has to go to the spot of the incident from Government Hospital Sawana via Mahagaon.” His evidence also shows that there is a Primary Health Centre at Mahagaon. Further, having hospital at Mahagaon is fortified through the evidence of PW 7 Dr.Sharad Tatewar, who has conducted autopsy. He has stated in his evidence about the said aspect as under:- “There was regular doctor in Rural Hospital Mahagaon in the year 2010 specifically on 31/12/2010 and 1/1/2011.” It is noticed that while taking injured to hospital at Sawana from the spot of incident one has to go through Mahagaon where Rural Hospital existed, then not taking the injured by Balaji to the said hospital appears to be unnatural. Even Balaji has stated as under:- “I was know that there is Government Hospital at Mahagaon even though I have taken my brother to the Government Hospital at Sawana inspite of taking my brother Government Hospital at Mahagaon.” This particular conduct creates doubt as to really whether Balaji was accompanying injured as claimed by him. 22. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there is a delay in lodging First Information Report. As per the evidence of Balaji at 3.30 a.m. he got knowledge about the death of his brother. Prior to that he made a phone call to his father PW 2 Anandrao Jadhav and narrated the incident. Anandrao Jadhav (PW 2) also states in his evidence that at 1.30 am. He received a phone call on his Cell phone from Balaji informing about the entire narration of the facts. According to Anandrao, thereafter he and his two brotherinlaws namely; Datta and Prakash (Pws.5 and 6) along with others went to Sawana at about 2 am. to 2.30 a.m. in the night. As per evidence of Balaji he along with his father went to Police Station and lodged the report. Now, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why from 2.30 am till 7.30 am. the report was not lodged. It is not the claim of Anandrao that due to night hours they could not reach to the Policed Station. As per evidence of Balaji he along with his father went to Police Station and lodged the report. Now, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why from 2.30 am till 7.30 am. the report was not lodged. It is not the claim of Anandrao that due to night hours they could not reach to the Policed Station. From his evidence it is clear that he was having vehicle with him. In that context, the suggestion given to Balaji that after a discussion by his father with Home Guard Shri Wankhade and Madhukar Gaikwad, a report was lodged in the police Station. From the cross-examination of Balaji it is clear that though he is not aware about the time when Wankhade, Home Guard, came to the hospital at Sawana that postulates his presence at Sawana. 23. According to the prosecution, the reason behind the attack on Yogendra was a teasing of cousin sister of accused no.1 Mangesh. In fact, it is so stated in the First Information Report (Exh.125) and in the substantive evidence of PW 1 Balaji. The Investigating Officer Dineshchandra Shukla, who was in charge of the investigation in the Crime from 25th of June, 2010 to 7th of January, 2011, has stated that he has not made any investigation in respect of the motive of the crime. Further, other Investigating Officer did not make any investigation in that behalf. If really that was a motive behind the ghastly incident such an important lead as given by the first informant would not have been missed by any of the Investigating Officers. Therefore, the motive behind the crime remained to be solved. Even Shri Thosare (PW 12) has also admitted that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded told him that, who is the cousin sister of accused Mangesh or where she lives or resides. 24. The another important aspect in the evidence of Balaji, if it is to be highlighted, is that he has admitted that his statement dated 1st of January, 2011 was not recorded by the police as per his say. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of his evidence herein below:- “It is not true to say that my statement dated 01/01/2011 was recorded as per my say by the police. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of his evidence herein below:- “It is not true to say that my statement dated 01/01/2011 was recorded as per my say by the police. When I read my statement, that time I came to know that the police has not recorded my statement dated 1/1/2011 as per my say. It is true to say that I came to know about my statement that said statement is incorrect after I read it after taking copy of my statement from the Court. I have taken the copy of my statement prior to starting of my evidence. It is true to say that I did not make complaint against the police when I came to know that my statement was not recorded as per my say.” In that view of the matter it would be unsafe on the part of the Court to rely upon the testimony of PW 1 Balaji. 25. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the prosecution case viz-a-viz evidence of PW 1 Balaji, there is no hesitation in our mind that it would be rather unsafe to rely on his testimony for maintaining the conviction. 26. The another aspect which weighed in the mind of the learned Court below is the recovery of the weapons at the behest of the appellants and the blood stains on the clothes. 27. Chemical Analyzer report is at Exh.104. That shows that there was a human blood on weapons, axe and Koyta. Dr.Sharad Tatewar (PW 7) has stated in his evidence that Article 18, an axe and Article 19, a Koyta were referred to him for query by the Investigating Officer. He has admitted in his evidence that when those weapons were sent to him, at that time, those were not stained with blood or cut hair were not found on the weapon. Exh.192 is the requisition to Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad by the Investigating Officer. The perusal of the said document shows that sickle (Koyta) and Kurhad i.e. an axe were having the seal of Sawana Hospital. Now, doctor who had sealed, has stated that when these weapons were sent to him, those were not stained with blood. Inspite of that, having such established position noticing blood on these two articles in C.A. report (Exh.104) indicates a grave suspicion over the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 28. Now, doctor who had sealed, has stated that when these weapons were sent to him, those were not stained with blood. Inspite of that, having such established position noticing blood on these two articles in C.A. report (Exh.104) indicates a grave suspicion over the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 28. An axe is recovered at the behest of appellant Mangesh after he made a statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act in presence of panchas to the police. The said statement is recorded on 3rd of January, 2011 in between 8.15 to 8.45 am. By the said, he agreed to show the place where he has thrown the axe. Similarly, the sickle is recovered on the memorandum statement of appellant Satish. His memorandum Statement is recorded on 3rd of January, 2011 in between 10.05 to 10.25 am. in the Police Station. He also agreed to show the place where he has thrown sickle. Ultimately these two led them to place where they threw the weapons. The recovery panchanamas (Exhs.155 to 157) show that the place is a agricultural field of Anandrao, namely; the spot of incident. According to PW 12 Dinkar Thosare, after registration of the Crime he went to the spot of the incident and from there he seized articles which are mentioned in Exh.148. Shri Thosare has admitted in his evidence as under:- “I had made investigation of the spot of the incident and during the investigation of the spot I did not find any weapon.” Now, when the spot was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Officer on 1st of January, 2011 and no weapon was found there, then it is really hard to believe that after two days the police party could notice the weapons at the place of the incident. That creates serious doubt about the recovery of weapons. 29. Further, the weapons and Auto rickshaw, which were seized at the behest of other accused, were not in exclusive possession of those accused persons. The place was open to sky. Similarly, the place from where the sickle and axe is recovered on 3rd of January, 2011 were not in exclusive possession of appellants Mangesh and Santosh. In that view of the matter, we are not ready to believe the prosecution version in that behalf. 30. The another incriminating circumstance that is used by the prosecution is noticing the blood stained clothes of the accused persons. In that view of the matter, we are not ready to believe the prosecution version in that behalf. 30. The another incriminating circumstance that is used by the prosecution is noticing the blood stained clothes of the accused persons. The accused persons are arrested by PW 12 Thosare on 1st of January, 2011 itself under arrest panchanamas (Exhs.269 to 275) Exhs.169 to 175 are the seizure memos in respect of the seizure of the clothes of all the appellants. The date of seizure is 3rd of January, 2011. The clothes of the respective appellants were seized from their persons. Now, according to the evidence of Shukla (PW 13) the accused persons were taken to Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Mahagaon for Police Custody Remand (PCR) on 2nd of January, 2011. Chemical Analyzer report (Exh.104) shows that there is human blood on the clothes of accused Mangesh. It is really unbelievable that when Mangesh was produced before the learned Magistrate for PCR on 2nd of January, 2011 the police will produce him with a clothes stained with blood. There is no explanation whatsoever coming on record as to why the blood stained clothes of the accused were not immediately seized. In that view of the matter, we are not ready to give much importance to the Chemical Analyser Report which even otherwise is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If the core of the prosecution case has not remained intact then only on the basis of such evidence the conviction cannot be made. 31. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion leads us to pass following order. ORDER Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 447 r/w 149 and under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence for which they were charged and convicted. The appellant nos.1, 2 and 4 be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The bail bonds of appellant nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall stand cancelled.