ORDER : 1. Criminal Appeal No. 2081 of 2011 by special leave is directed against the judgment and final order, dated 20.4.2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1995, whereby the High Court acquitted the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 and thus reversed the order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The State of Maharashtra has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 2082 of 2011 questioning the very same judgment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. The incident has taken place between two political groups one of Rajaram Bhosale and another of Tukaram Bhokare, in a village, on the day of immersion of Ganesh idol. Both the groups had practice of installing the statue of Ganesh during the Ganpati festival. In the night at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. the procession of Ganesh idol immersion reached near Gram Panchayat in the village. All the accused persons attacked the procession, and some of them were armed with axes, while others were armed with the sticks. Because of this attack on the procession, the people ran helter-skelter. 5. The appellant who is the original complainant (P.W.1) and an injured eye witness, his father Bandu and his uncle Rajaram (deceased) were also in the procession. They started running towards their house. The accused persons followed them, came near and assaulted the deceased with axes and sticks. Rajaram received bleeding injuries on various parts of his body and started falling down. P.W.1 intervened and tried to catch hold of Rajaram. However, he was also beaten by accused persons by means of sticks. Some other persons were also injured in the said riot as they were beaten by the accused. Due to such assault, the complainant also received some injuries and fearing greater harm at the hands of the accused he left the spot, leaving his severely injured uncle in the pool of blood. Rajaram died on the spot. It is to be noted that the complainant did not immediately go to the police station to lodge a complaint. It was on the next day morning, when the police arrived on the spot and started enquiring, that the complaint of complainant (P.W.1) was recorded treating it as first information report. 6. Rajaram died on the spot. It is to be noted that the complainant did not immediately go to the police station to lodge a complaint. It was on the next day morning, when the police arrived on the spot and started enquiring, that the complaint of complainant (P.W.1) was recorded treating it as first information report. 6. The trial Court, out of the 20 accused persons, had acquitted 16 persons and convicted the remaining 4 persons i.e. A1, A2, A5 and A7. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, A2 had died and the appeal against A2 stood abated. 8. A1, A5 and A7 were acquitted by the High Court vide impugned judgment. 9. The High Court, while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and the judgment of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the failure on the part of PW1 in disclosing such serious incident and death of his uncle to the police immediately, casts a reasonable doubt on the veracity of his evidence. It is to be noted that there was considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police and registering a first information report. Apart from PW-1, there was no other eye witness to the actual incident of assault on the deceased. Similarly, PW-4, a Police Patil has not properly reported the matter to the concerned higher authorities and has not brought the real facts to the notice of the police. 10. We are of the considered opinion that in such circumstances, there being no evidence to establish the case of the prosecution, it was not possible to sustain the conviction of the accused. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.