JUDGMENT : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. Feeling aggrieved by judgment dt.15.4.2011 in Sessions Case No.377 of 2010 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, at Tenali, the accused therein filed this appeal. By the said judgment, the Court below has convicted the accused - appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 IPC; to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of such payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each and in default of such payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 149 IPC and in default of such payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the default sentences were directed to run consecutively. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused - appellants and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Peddavaram Village, Nagaram Mandal, of Guntur District. About 15 years back from the date of the incident, on one occasion, P.W.1, followed by his supporters, attacked one Batchu Gopalakrishna accused No. 2/appellant No.2 causing grievous injuries. Since then the appellants were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against P.W.1 and his son Vallabhadasu Suresh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). While so, accused No.3, who is the son-in-law of accused No.1, met with an accident involving an unknown car and the same was reported in Cherukupalli Police Station on 26.07.2009 and a case in Crime No. 101 of 2009 under Section 337 IPC (hit and run) was registered. Accused No.3, having suspected the hand of the deceased in the accident and worried over the suspected misdoings of P.W.1 and the deceased towards the accused, all the accused gathered together and decided to do away with P.W.1 and the deceased. In pursuance of their common object, they were watching the movements of P.W.1 and the deceased. 3. Accused No.3, having suspected the hand of the deceased in the accident and worried over the suspected misdoings of P.W.1 and the deceased towards the accused, all the accused gathered together and decided to do away with P.W.1 and the deceased. In pursuance of their common object, they were watching the movements of P.W.1 and the deceased. 3. That on 15.10.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased left home on a motor cycle to collect payment for the earth transported to the villagers of Ilavaram, followed by P.W.2-his brother-in-law, and PWs.3 and 4, who are the coolies on the tractor. Having collected the amount at about 8.45 a.m. at Ilavaram, the deceased asked P.Ws.2 to 4 to come to the village. While the deceased was going along the road in Ilavaram village by name Chairmangari Veedhi to his native place at about 8.45 a.m. and P.Ws.2 to 4 were following him in the tractor, accused Nos.1 and 2 intercepted the deceased by placing their cycles across the road preventing the passage of the deceased on his motor cycle and made him fall down and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 4. Meanwhile, accused Nos.3 to 9, who were nearby, rushed and joined accused Nos.1 and 2. First, accused No.1 attacked the deceased with a knife on his head, accused No.2 attacked him with a knife near his right eye, accused No.3 knifed the deceased on his right armpit, accused No.4 knifed him on his rear side head, accused No.5 knifed him on his left shoulder and accused Nos.6 to 9 surrounded the deceased and knifed him indiscriminately to death. P.Ws.2 to 4, who witnessed the brutal attack, went running to the rescue of the deceased, but all the accused frightened them by showing the knives. PW-2 to PW-4 informed the entire episode to P.W.1, who went to the Police Station, Bhattiprolu, and gave a report. P.W.13 the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as Crime No.115/09 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC on 15.10.2009 at 12.00 noon and P.W.14 the Inspector of Police, Repalle, took up the investigation. 4. PW-2 to PW-4 informed the entire episode to P.W.1, who went to the Police Station, Bhattiprolu, and gave a report. P.W.13 the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as Crime No.115/09 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC on 15.10.2009 at 12.00 noon and P.W.14 the Inspector of Police, Repalle, took up the investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, P.W.14 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 11 mediators on 15.10.2009 at 1.00 p.m. and seized the bloodstained earth together with its control earth, one Hero Royal cycle and one Raleigh cycle, under a cover of a mahajar duly attested by P.Ws.9 and 11 and also got the scene photographed by P.W.5 photographer and also prepared a rough sketch of the scene. P.W.14 also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 15.10.2009 from 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. in the presence of P.Ws.9, 11 and LW 19 panchayatdars at the spot, that during the inquest he has examined the kith and kin of the deceased and the witnesses - P.Ws.1 to 4 and L.Ws.2 and 3, recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC and sent the dead body for autopsy. After the inquest, P.W.14 also examined P.Ws.5 to 8, 10, L.Ws.10 to 13 and L.W.16 and recorded their statements. P.W.14 arrested the appellants on 25.10.2009 at 12.30 p.m. at Penumudi Bridge in the presence of P.W.11 and L.W.20 mediators, and based on the confession of the appellants, the knives used in the commission of the offence were seized from the hayrick of Tatavaripalem Village at 1.15 p.m. under a cover of a separate mahajar duly attested by P.W.11 and L.W.20 and later he sent them for remand to the Court. P.W.12 the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Ex.P.8 - post mortem certificate opining that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs, i.e., brain. L.W.22 Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are direct witnesses, under Section 164 CrPC. The bloodstained knives together with the blood stained earth and its control earth, blood stained clothes and weapons were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur. L.W.25 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tenali verified the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 5. The bloodstained knives together with the blood stained earth and its control earth, blood stained clothes and weapons were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur. L.W.25 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tenali verified the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 5. As the plea of the appellants was one of denial, they were made to stand trial. The lower Court has framed the following charges: Firstly: That all of you by showing common intention on or about the 15th day of October, 2009 after 7.30 a.m. in Chairman bazaar of Ilavaram village A-1 and A-2 of you obstructed the motor cycle of the deceased Vallabhadasu Suresh with your cycles and you A-1 of you hacked the deceased with sword on his head and A-2 of you hacked him with sword on the left eye of the deceased, A-3 of you hacked with sword on his right arm, A-4 of you caused injury with knife on the rear side of head near left ear and A-5 of you caused injury with knife on the left shoulder and A-6 to A-9 surrounded the deceased and kicked him indiscriminately all over his body and you had committed murder intentionally causing the death of Vallabhadasu Suresh and that you thereby committed an offence p.u.s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly: That all of you showing common intention on or about the same day, time and place and during the course of same transaction mentioned in the above charge formed into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting and that you thereby committed an offence p.u.s.147 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Thirdly: That all of you on or about the same day, time and place and during the course of same transaction mentioned in the above charge No.1 were a member of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of the assembly to commit murder of deceased Vallabhadasu Suresh and attempted to commit murder of him and committed an offence of rioting and at that time were armed with a deadly weapon (or with something which when used as a weapon of offence was likely to cause death) and thereby committed an offence p.u.s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Fourthly & Lastly: That all of you on or about the same day, time and place and during the course of same transaction mentioned in the above charge, were a member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object i.e. to do away with the life of deceased Vallabhadasu Suresh and committed murder under sec. 302 which offence you knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, you are thereby committed an offence p.u.s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code guilty of causing the said offence p.u.s. 302, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked and M.Os.1 to 16 were produced. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 was marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has disposed of the case in the manner as referred to above. 7. Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 was marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has disposed of the case in the manner as referred to above. 7. Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, made the following submissions. (i) That there is an unexplained delay of 4 hours in giving Ex.P.1 report; (ii) that the prosecution failed to establish who is the author of Ex.P.1 Police report and that this, coupled with the fact that there is long delay in registration of the First Information Report, shows that the prosecution has falsely implicated the appellants; (iii) that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive (iv) that the conduct of P.Ws.2 to 4 is highly unnatural, in that, if they were present at the scene of offence they should have informed the Police immediately after the offence was committed, which they did not and PW-1 would not have failed to refer to their presence in Ex.P-1; (v) that the motor cycle on which the deceased allegedly went to Ilavaram, where the offence allegedly took place, was not seized; (vi) that Ex.P.10 rough sketch of the scene of offence did not show either motor cycle or cycles allegedly belonging to the deceased and the appellants, respectively; (vii) that P.Ws.1 and 2 being the father and brother-in-law and P.Ws.3 and 4 being the close associates of the deceased, they are highly interested witnesses and therefore their evidence cannot be taken on their face value; (viii) that P.Ws.2 to 4 are projected as eyewitnesses though the evidence disclosed that they are planted witnesses; (ix) that the credibility of Ex.P.7 - recovery panchanama is highly doubtful in view of the testimony of P.W.11 and therefore the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of knives is highly doubtful; (x) that Ex.P.11 the Forensic Science Laboratory report identified the blood group only on M.Os.3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 and in the absence of any specific evidence as to which appellants has used which of these weapons, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellants; (xi) that the very time of the death is highly doubtful in the face of the equivocal opinion given by P.W.12 the Doctor that the death must have occurred within 24 hours, though the post-mortem was conducted not beyond 7 hours of the time at which the offence allegedly took place. 8. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Public Prosecutor (AP), has stated that in Ex.P.1, the earliest document, the names of all the appellants have been mentioned and in Ex.P.5, a portion of the inquest report P.Ws.2 to 4 were shown as eyewitnesses and therefore their presence at the scene of offence cannot be doubted and that the medical evidence clearly supports the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 regarding the overt acts. The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 in support of his submission that trivial and insignificant omissions and contradictions cannot be given undue weight-age while appreciating the evidence. He has accordingly urged to confirm the judgment of the lower Court. 9. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the evidence on record. 10. We shall first deal with the submission relating to delay in the registration of F.I.R. The contents of Ex.P1 Police Report show that on 15-10-2009, the deceased left his house at Peddavaram Village at 7 A.M. In the charge sheet filed by the police, it was mentioned that the attack on the deceased took place at about 8.45 a.m. while he was proceeding on "Chairmangari Veedhi". P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that after the accused fled away from the scene of offence on completion of the attack, they went near the deceased and thereafter immediately went to P.W.1 and informed him about the occurrence and returned to the scene offence along with P.W.1. PW-1 in his evidence deposed that he was informed about the murder of his son at 9.30 A.M. P.W.13, who registered Ex.P9 F.I.R., deposed that at about 12 noon, P.W.1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 Report. As per the evidence of P.W.11-Village Revenue Officer, he went to the scene of offence at 10.30 a.m. Ex.P6 Mediatornama was prepared between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. As per the deposition of P.W.13, the distance between Ilavaram and Bhattiprolu where the police station is located is 4 kilometers. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he was an accused in the murder case of Vandi China Raghavaiah and accused No. 2 was also an accused along with him in that case, wherein the trial Court convicted P.W.1 for life but he was acquitted by this Court. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he was an accused in the murder case of Vandi China Raghavaiah and accused No. 2 was also an accused along with him in that case, wherein the trial Court convicted P.W.1 for life but he was acquitted by this Court. He further deposed that in the year 1977, again on the report made by accused No. 2, he was sentenced to imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It is thus clear that there are serious factions between the group led by P.W.1 and the group of the appellants-accused. 11. (a) In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 H.R. Khanna, J, has highlighted the importance of the FIR in a criminal case. It was held that FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and that the importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused, that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence and that delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. It was further held that on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and that it is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained. It was further held that on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and that it is therefore essential that the delay in the lodging of the FIR should be satisfactorily explained. (b) In State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu, 1993 Crl.LJ 3684 the Supreme Court held: "Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussions, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted report, as one would not know where the police officer would have stopped to fabricate evidence and create false clues. ............. when the bona fides of the investigation has been successfully assailed, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of these witnesses either in the absence of strong corroborative evidence of a clinching nature, which is found wanting in this case." (c) In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 the Supreme Court held that with a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks; one of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate; if this report is received by the Magistrate late, it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course, the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate and that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. 12. 12. In the instant case, the time lag of at least about two and half hours after P.W.1 and his group came to know about the murder of the deceased, was sufficient for them to confabulate and plan false implications before Ex.P1 Report was formally given to the police. 13. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that the deceased left his house at 7 a.m. on his motorcycle for collecting the money towards supply of earth in Ilavaram and that he was followed by his brother-in-law-Namana Ranganath (P.W.2), Viswanadhuni Nagaraju (P.W.4) and Kota Murali Krishna (P.W.3) on tractor. Ex.P1 has made a graphic description as to how the deceased was attacked suggesting as if P.W.1 witnessed the occurrence. Even according to the prosecution, P.W.1 is not an eyewitness but P.Ws.2 to 4 narrated the alleged incident to him. Significantly, in Ex.P1, P.W.1 has not stated that he was informed by P.Ws.2 to 4 about the accused attacking and killing the deceased. He has also not stated in Ex.P1 the purpose for which the deceased asked P.Ws.2 to 4 to follow him. 14. The prosecution case is heavily rested on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. The defence however strongly pleaded that they are planted witnesses. We have to therefore consider whether their evidence is credible. 15. In his evidence, P.W.2 deposed that at 7 a.m. on 15-10-2009, the deceased instructed him and P.Ws.3 and 4 to take the load of earth to Ilavaram behind the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 also came out with the similar version in their depositions. It was suggested to all these witnesses that they did not state before the police that they have taken the tractor load of earth to Ilavaram and that they did not see the deceased at Radham Center in Ilavaram. It was also suggested to all these witnesses that on 15-10-2009, the deceased did not go to Ilavaram in the first instance; that they did not subsequently go on tractor to the said place and that they were deposing falsely that the incident occurred at Chairman Bazaar which suggestions were of course denied by these witnesses. The most significant contradiction elicited from P.W.2 marked as Ex.D-1 is a part of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Magistrate which reads as follows: "Early morning at 7-00 a.m., my brother in law took money from us in Ilavaram. The most significant contradiction elicited from P.W.2 marked as Ex.D-1 is a part of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the Magistrate which reads as follows: "Early morning at 7-00 a.m., my brother in law took money from us in Ilavaram. My brother in law told us to come hurrily for distribution of money to coolies." It is thus clear that while it is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws.2 to 4 accompanied the deceased in the tractor with a load of earth for being supplied at Ilavaram, P.W.2 stated before the Magistrate that they were instructed by the deceased to follow him for distribution of the money to coolies at Ilavaram. Added to this material contradiction, P.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has no idea as to the order in which accused Nos. 3 to 9 surrounded the deceased and he cannot say which accused held which of M.Os. 6 to 14 knives. He also admitted that the police did not conduct identification of the knives with reference to each of the accused. 16. The evidence of P.W.14-Investigating Officer is also significant in this regard. He admitted that P.Ws.2 to 4 did not state before him that the occurrence has taken place at 9.30 a.m. He also admitted that P.W.2 did not state before him that the deceased requested him and others to take earth in tractor to Ilavaram and that they took the tractor load to Ilavaram and saw the deceased at Radham Center and that P.W.1 did not state before him that the deceased received injury on the center of his head and that he only stated before him that the deceased was injured. He further admitted that P.W.2 did not state that he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40 to 50 yards and that accused Nos. 3 to 9 came from behind the wall and surrounded the deceased. He further admitted that P.W.2 did not state before him that he went near the deceased who was in a pool of blood and that he can identify M.Os.6 to 14. 3 to 9 came from behind the wall and surrounded the deceased. He further admitted that P.W.2 did not state before him that he went near the deceased who was in a pool of blood and that he can identify M.Os.6 to 14. Similarly, with respect to P.W.3, PW-14 admitted that the said witness did not state that the tractor was loaded with earth in Peddavaram and taken to Ilavaram along with P.Ws.2 and 4, that he saw the deceased at Radham Center, that the tractor load was unloaded at Ilavaram and that on the promise of the deceased that he will pay the amount later, they started to go to Peddavaram. He further admitted that P.W.3 did not state before him the descriptive particulars of the knives used by accused Nos. 1 and 2, that accused No. 5 using a big long knife and accused No. 6 hacking the deceased on his fingers with a long knife. He also admitted that P.W.3 did not state that accused Nos. 7 to 9 surrounded the deceased, that they shouted from the tractor not to kill, that they went to the deceased after his death, that he can identify M.Os. 4 to 14 and that the deceased was in a pool of blood. Similar omissions from the evidence of P.W.4 were also extracted from P.W.14. 17. P.W.8 is also a crucial witness. He deposed that he is a resident of Ilavaram and that the deceased supplied soil to him. He further deposed that one month prior to his death, the deceased supplied 10 tractor loads of soil to him; that at 8.15 a.m. on 15-10-2009, the deceased came to his house for recovery of the money payable for supply of soil and that he did not pay any amount and 30 minutes thereafter he came to know that the deceased was murdered in Chairman Bazaar. 18. When we closely examine the case of the prosecution, we find a ring of artificiality. The deceased as well as P.Ws.1 to 4 are residents of Peddavaram. While the purpose of the deceased to go to Ilavaram was to collect the money payable by the recipient of the soil i.e. P.W.8., in normal course, there was no necessity for P.Ws.2 to 4 to accompany the deceased. Ex.P1 did not state the purpose for which the said witnesses accompanied the deceased. While the purpose of the deceased to go to Ilavaram was to collect the money payable by the recipient of the soil i.e. P.W.8., in normal course, there was no necessity for P.Ws.2 to 4 to accompany the deceased. Ex.P1 did not state the purpose for which the said witnesses accompanied the deceased. While Ex.D-1, the earliest version spoken to by P.W.2 before the Magistrate, reveals that he and others were asked to come to Ilavaram for distribution of the money to labourers, there is a complete change in this version when he deposed before the Court. As per the changed version, P.Ws.2 to 4 accompanied the deceased in the tractor along with the load of earth. Neither these witnesses have specified to whom they supplied the earth nor the prosecution examined any such person as a witness to prove the presence of PW-2 to PW-4 at Ilavaram along with the tractor and trailer. On the contrary, PW-8 did not speak about his receiving earth on 15-10-2009 or his noticing the tractor and trailer or seeing PW-2 to PW-4 accompanying the deceased. It is the specific case of PW-2 to PW-4 that when they were following the deceased in the tractor, all the accused have obstructed the deceased who was travelling on the motor cycle with sickles and attacked him and that they were watching the said attack from a distance of 40 to 50 yards from the tractor. In Ex.P-10 rough sketch of the scene of offence, the existence of tractor and trailer in the vicinity has not been noted. Even PW-8 and PW-10, the independent witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution have not referred to the presence of PW-2 to PW-4 or the tractor near the scene of offence. These omissions coupled with the admission of P.W.2, that he did not notice which accused held which weapon and the sequence in which accused Nos. 3 to 9 surrounded the deceased, creates a serious doubt on the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 at the scene of offence. These omissions coupled with the admission of P.W.2, that he did not notice which accused held which weapon and the sequence in which accused Nos. 3 to 9 surrounded the deceased, creates a serious doubt on the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 at the scene of offence. Apart from this fact, very crucial omissions in their statements were elicited from PW-14, such as PW-2 not stating that the deceased received injury on the centre of his hand, that he has witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40 to 50 yards, A-3 to A-9 coming from behind the wall and surrounding the deceased and PW-2 going near the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The omissions from PW-3s evidence regarding their going to Ilavaram on tractor with a load of earth etc., are also material. P.W.2, being the brother-in-law of the deceased, is a highly interested witness and P.Ws.3 and 4 appear to be closely associated with the deceased and P.W.2 in connection with the activity of loading and unloading the soil. These witnesses are thus highly interested witnesses. The conduct of these witnesses also arouses serious suspicion. They claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from about 40 to 50 yards away from the scene of offence. P.W.2 being no other than the brother-in-law of the deceased, he is not expected to be a mute spectator especially when he was not all alone. None of the alleged eyewitnesses tried to intervene when a brutal attack was taking place. Added to it, none of the witnesses tried to go to Bhattiprolu Police Station, which is just 4 kilometers away from the scene of offence to lodge a report or at least make a phone call to the police station informing about the incident. 19. As noted hereinbefore, P.W.1, in Ex.P1 did not state that these witnesses informed him about the occurrence. All these circumstances would create any amount of doubt on the claim of the prosecution that P.Ws.2 to 4 witnessed the alleged incident. Therefore, it is quite obvious that P.Ws.2 to 4 are planted witnesses and not eyewitnesses. 20. The next aspect to be considered is whether the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses exudes credibility and trustworthiness. PW-1 is the father and PW-2 is the brother-in- law of the deceased. As observed above, PW-3 and PW-4 have close contacts with the deceased in connection with supply of earth. 20. The next aspect to be considered is whether the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses exudes credibility and trustworthiness. PW-1 is the father and PW-2 is the brother-in- law of the deceased. As observed above, PW-3 and PW-4 have close contacts with the deceased in connection with supply of earth. PW-1 is not the eye-witness though the narration in Ex.P-1 suggests as if he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-1 had information about the murder of his son by 9.30 a.m. as spoken to by him in his chief-examination. In his evidence, PW-1 however stated that at about 9.30 a.m. he was informed about the murder of his son by PW-2 to PW-4. As his evidence is hearsay, the same is not of any significance. As regards PW-2 to PW-4, a finding was already rendered that they are planted witnesses. In their chief-examination, they however attributed specific overt-acts to all the accused. Their testimony in this regard corroborates with each others. But, as noted hereinbefore, in his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he has no idea as to the order in which A-3 to A-9 surrounded the deceased and that he cannot say which accused was holding which of M.Os.6 to 14. PW-2 having graphically narrated as to which of the accused has attacked the deceased and on which part of the body of the deceased, is expected to remember as to the order in which A-3 to A-9 surrounded the deceased, also. PW-2 also admitted that identification of M.Os.6 to 14 was not conducted by the Police though the parts of the body of the deceased on which the accused were stated to have attacked as spoken to by PW-2 to PW-4, match with Ex.P-8 post mortem examination report. 21. We shall now consider whether the nature of injuries spoken to by PW-2 to PW-4 with reference to M.Os.6 to 14 correlate with that found on the body of the deceased as spoken by PW-12-Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination and issued Ex.P-8. PW-12, in her evidence, deposed that she found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. A stab injury of about 8x4x6 cm on right side of head. Fracture of skull bones meninges & Brain exposed. 2. A stab injury of about 7x5x5 cm on left side of head meninges & Brain exposed. 3. PW-12, in her evidence, deposed that she found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. A stab injury of about 8x4x6 cm on right side of head. Fracture of skull bones meninges & Brain exposed. 2. A stab injury of about 7x5x5 cm on left side of head meninges & Brain exposed. 3. An incised injury of about 5x2x1 cm on left ear, left auricle is cut. 4. A stab injury of about 5x2x1 cm on left ear left auricle is cut. 5. A stab injury of about 4x1x3 cm on left side of forehead. 6. Fracture of Ramus of mandible on left side. 7. A laceration injury of about 2x3x1 cm on left side of root of nose. 8. An incised injury of about 4x2x1 cm on chin. 9. A stab injury of abut 10x7x5 cm on upper part of back on left side. 10. A stab injury of about 7x4x7 cm on upper part back. 11. An incised injury of about 5x3x2 cm on upper part of back on left side behind the left shoulder. 12. A contusion wound of about 5x3 cm on left shoulder. 13. A lacerated injury of about 7x5x3 cm in front of fingers of left hand. Fracture of phalanges of middle and ring fingers. In her chief examination, PW-12 stated that the time of death was approximately within 24 hours. While the murder has allegedly taken place at around 8.45 A.M., the post mortem was held at 4 P.M. Therefore, there was only a gap of seven hours between the death as per the version of the prosecution and that of post-mortem examination. The opinion of PW-12-the Doctor, throws some doubt on the version of the prosecution as regards the time of occurrence. Be that as it may, in her chief-examination, PW-12 opined that stab injury is possible with the sharp tip of M.Os.6 to 14. She has further added that the curved portion of M.Os.6 to 14 can cause incised or lacerated injuries and that contusions are possible with the blunt portions of M.Os.6 to 14. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not note the margins of the injury, that margins will be irregular if the injuries are caused by the blunt portion of the weapons and that she did not find oval shaped injuries. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not note the margins of the injury, that margins will be irregular if the injuries are caused by the blunt portion of the weapons and that she did not find oval shaped injuries. She has further deposed that if an injury is caused with the pointed tip of a sickle, the injury need not be a tip or pointed one, that the injuries caused on the head are depressed injuries and that in Ex.P-8 she did not specifically mention the depressed injury. She further admitted that there are no crescent shaped injuries on the dead body and that contusions are possible with the blunt surface or objects like wall or floor. PW-12 also admitted that the weapon shown to her is like a big sized sickle. She admitted that M.Os.6 to 14 are heavy cutting weapons but denied the suggestion that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P-8 are not possible with those weapons. She further admitted that the incised wounds can be caused if a sharp weapon is used on the muscle portion of the body, that injuries 1 to 7 are present on the face and head of the body. She further deposed that cut and lacerated injuries can occur on the scalp with a sharp edged weapon. 22. If we notice the nature of injuries, injury Nos.1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 are stab injuries. As noted above, the Doctor PW-12 has stated that the weapons shown to her were like big sized sickles. In Ex.P-7 mediators report, the nature of M.Os.6 to 14 was described. It is stated therein that four knives were of a length of 20 inches, which includes wooden handle of 4 inches; that each knife blade has a width of 1 inches with a curve at the end, and that the remaining five knives are pointed and were of a length of 18 inches each, including the wooden handle of length 4 inches with blade of the knife being 1 inches having sharp edge inside and the tip having a curve. In Ex.P-11 FSL report, item Nos.6 to 14 thereof, corresponding to M.Os.6 to 14, have been described as long curved knives. 23. In Ex.P-11 FSL report, item Nos.6 to 14 thereof, corresponding to M.Os.6 to 14, have been described as long curved knives. 23. In Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, by Jaising P. Modi, Twenty-fifty Edition, 2016, the nature of injuries with a curved weapon, like scythe or sickle is described as under: A curved weapon, such as a scythe or sickle, first produces a stab or puncture and then an incised wound; sometimes the intervening skin may be left intact. Describing the Punctured or Stab Wounds, the author stated as below: These are popularly called stabs and are termed penetrating wounds, when passing through the tissues, they enter a cavity of the body, such as the thorax or abdomen. These wounds are produced by a long piercing or stabbing instrument, such as a pin, needle, knife, scissors, bayonet, spear, dagger, pickaxe, and arrow. The point of the instrument may be sharp or blunt. 24. As noted above, the combination of stab and incised injuries is not present in any of the injuries found on the body of the deceased. All the injuries are either stab injuries or incised or lacerated injuries without the combination of each other. Moreover, PW-12 clearly admitted that if sickles are used, they will not cause deep or pointed injuries. Injury Nos.3, 7 and 10 are incised injuries. PW-12 admitted that she did not find oval shaped or crescent shaped injures. It is common knowledge that a weapon with curve at its end/tip generally cause oval or crescent shaped injuries. None of the 12 injuries were of either of the said two shapes. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that either stab injuries or incised injuries mentioned in Ex.P-8 could have been inflicted with the weapons like M.Os.6 to 14. 25. Injury Nos.6 and 12 are lacerated injuries on the side of the root of the nose and in front of the fingers of left hand, respectively and injury No.11 is a contusion wound on the left shoulder. PW-12 stated that the lacerated injury can occur on the scalp with a sharp edged weapon, but injury Nos.6 and 12 were not caused on the scalp. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that with M.Os.6 to 14 it is not possible to cause lacerated injuries. PW-12 stated that the lacerated injury can occur on the scalp with a sharp edged weapon, but injury Nos.6 and 12 were not caused on the scalp. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that with M.Os.6 to 14 it is not possible to cause lacerated injuries. PW-12 has also deposed that on bony part of the body, usually laceration wounds would occur and that they can also be caused with blunt objects. Considering the parts of the body, and in the light of the evidence of PW-12, it is not possible to believe that with heavy cutting weapons like M.Os.6 to 14, laceration injuries are possible. As regards injury No.11 contusion, PW-12 stated that contusions are possible with blunt portions of M.Os.6 to 12. None of the witnesses spoke that the deceased was attacked with blunt portions of M.Os.6 to 12. Therefore, this injury cannot be attributed to any of the M.Os. produced by the prosecution. 26. It is of significance to note that PW-11, the VRO, who was declared as hostile witness and who is a panch witness who allegedly drafted Ex.P-4 scene of offence observation report and attested the inquest report, and Ex.P-7, Mediator Report under which M.Os.6 to 14 were allegedly recovered, stated in his evidence that the wooden handles of M.Os.6 to 14 appear to be new. Though this witness was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he did not confront the witness on this statement. Added to this, both the attestors of Ex.P.7 - Mediator Report are VROs. PW-11 stated that on 25-11-2009, the Inspector of Police called him and Y. Rathaiah, VRO of Surepalli and they went to Bhattiprolu P.S., he further deposed that they were taken to Penumudi bridge, that they found nine persons standing at the entrance of the bridge, that those nine persons stated that they are the residents of Peddavaram and confessed about the offence, that they informed the Inspector of Police that they would show the weapons used in the commission of the offence, that in the presence of the mediators and the C.I. and S.I. of Police, the accused led them to Tatavaripalem agricultural fields, that A-1 took out nine knives (M.Os.6 to 14) from a haystack, and that thereafter Ex.P-7 mediators report for seizure of the said weapons was prepared. While denying the suggestion that Exs.P-4 and P-7 were prepared in the Police Station, PW-11 admitted that separate confessional statements were prepared with the signatures of the mediators. He has further deposed that he does not know A-1 to A-9 and that he never saw them earlier. At this stage, PW-11 was declared as a hostile witness. In the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, PW-11 stated that whatever he has stated in his chief-examination on 17-1-2011 is correct and that he has no reason to depose that he never saw A-1 to A-9. In the further cross-examination by the defence, PW-11 stated that he cannot give the names of A- 1 to A-9 and that he saw them in the Court only and that prior to that he did not see them. 27. PW-11 was heavily prevaricative in his evidence. He retracted his statement as regards his not seeing A-1 to A-9 prior to his seeing them in the Court during his cross-examination by the defence but however when he was cross-examined by the prosecution he tried to stick to his earlier version in the chief-examination. In the further cross-examination, PW-11 further vacillated and reiterated that he saw A-1 to A-9 only in the Court and that he has not seen them earlier. The evidence of PW-11 is therefore untrustworthy. The prosecution, having treated this witness as hostile, we do not find any reason for its failure to examine the other attestor to Ex.P-7, namely, Y. Rathaiah, who was also a Government servant being another VRO. Ordinarily, a Government servant not supporting the prosecution is a rarity. Therefore, it was all the more necessary for the prosecution to have examined the other attestor to Ex.P-7-mediatornama. Though PW-14, the Investigating Officer, spoke about the recovery of M.Os.6 to 14, his testimony stood uncorroborated. Added to this, the alleged seizure has taken place in a hayrick belonging to the property of a third party. Interestingly, on behalf of all the accused, A-1 alone has allegedly took out all the weapons from a hayrick. Besides this highly unconvincing evidence on the recovery of weapons, non-tallying of the nature of the injuries on the dead body with reference to M.Os.6 to 14 led the Court to the conclusion that M.Os.6 to 14 were not actually used in the murder of the deceased and that these are planted items. 28. Besides this highly unconvincing evidence on the recovery of weapons, non-tallying of the nature of the injuries on the dead body with reference to M.Os.6 to 14 led the Court to the conclusion that M.Os.6 to 14 were not actually used in the murder of the deceased and that these are planted items. 28. As regards Ex.P-11-Forensic Science Laboratory Report, it is stated that the blood group of the blood stains on 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 12 and 14 was of A-Group and the blood group on the other items could not be determined. Items 3 and 4 are the wearing apparel of the deceased and items 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 are long curved knives. Out of the nine weapons, the blood group of the blood stains on six of them could be determined and on the remaining three weapons, no blood group could be determined. When weapons were not seized individually from each of the accused and their separate identity was not maintained, it is not possible to know as to which of the accused has used the weapons on which the blood group of the blood stains matched with that of the deceased. In the absence of credible evidence about the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence, their conviction under Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained. The Court below without considering the aforementioned serious defects and deficiencies in the case of the prosecution has erroneously convicted the accused. 29. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Judgment under appeal is set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. As the appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender themselves before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, for completing the formalities for their release. 30. The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.