JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Sessions Case No. 426 of 2012 are the Appellants herein. They were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 [against A1], 302 read with 34 [against A2 to A4] and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. for attempting to kill PW1. By its Judgment, dated 29.06.2015, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and A2 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, all the four [04] accused were also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten [10] years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The substance of the Charges against the accused is that, on 21.04.2012 at about 6.30 a.m., A1 to A4 in pursuant to the earlier plan, went in a auto to Chimudu/Peethalavagu, where A1 dashed against the cycle, in which A. Kameswara Rao ['Deceased'] and PW1 were travelling and killed the deceased by driving the auto over the body of the deceased, after he fell down from the cycle. 3. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses, are as under: i. Prior to the incident, at about 5.00 p.m., while PW1 was in his fields, the father of the accused drove the cattle into the fields of PW1, which were scared away. Thereafter, the father of the accused came and questioned about his cattle, to which PW1 replied that he was not aware. The said person told PW1 that, if the cattle does not reach his house, he will see his end. There was a quarrel between both of them, in which the said Chinnaiah-father of the accused, beat him with the reverse side of the axe and left. According to PW1, there were some previous disputes and at the intervention of the elders, they compromised the matter. ii. There was a quarrel between both of them, in which the said Chinnaiah-father of the accused, beat him with the reverse side of the axe and left. According to PW1, there were some previous disputes and at the intervention of the elders, they compromised the matter. ii. On the day of incident, i.e., on 21.04.2012 at about 6.30 a.m., PW1 and his brother [deceased] were proceeding to Udayagiri Government Hospital on a cycle and when they reached Peethulavagu Gadda, A1, who was driving the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road. A2 to A4, who were sitting in the auto, came out stating 'kill that fellow' and chased PW1 by showing axes. On seeing them, PW1 ran away due to fear. iii. According to PW1, Al ran his auto over the body of the deceased. On seeing PW2 and PW3 and one Venkateswarlu coming in opposite direction, the accused returned back, got into the auto and left the place. PW1 came back to the place where the deceased was lying and thereafter, they called for an ambulance. On arrival of the ambulance, the body was shifted to Udayagiri Government Hospital, along with PW2 and PW3. On reaching the hospital, the doctor declared him dead. According to PW1, he also received a fracture injury to his right wrist due to fall. PW1 claims to have narrated the incident to one Prasad, who drafted the report and read over the contents to him. After affixing his thumb impression, on the report, PW1 proceeded to Duttaluru Police Station and presented Ex. P1 report. iv. PW12-the Sub-Inspector of Police received the report [Ex. P1] from PW1 and basing on the said report, registered a case in Crime No. 16 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 302 read with 34 I.P.C. He informed about the registration of the crime to the Circle Inspector of Police. Ex. P11 is the First Information Report. v. PW13-the Circle Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in the matter, proceeded to Duttalur Police Station and obtained a copy of the First Information Report. At the police station, he recorded the statement of PW1. Ex. P11 is the First Information Report. v. PW13-the Circle Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in the matter, proceeded to Duttalur Police Station and obtained a copy of the First Information Report. At the police station, he recorded the statement of PW1. After securing the mediators PW7 and another, PW13 proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex. P2. At the scene, he seized Hero Zet Cycle-M.O. 3 and other material. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex. P12. From there, PW13 proceeded to Government Hospital, Udayagiri, and in the presence of PW8 and another, conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex. P3 is the inquest report. During inquest, he recorded the statements of Ande Bala Chenamma, Ande Mallikarjuna, Nelapati Chinnarayudu and Nelapati Macherla. He also claims to have recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. vi. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW14-Inspector of Police, who on 25.04.2012, visited Narrawada Village and examined PW1 to PW6, Nakka Venkateswarlu & Maruboina Nageswara Rao and recorded their statements. On the very same day, A1 surrendered before the court, pursuant to which, an application came to be filed for police custody of A1. vii. On 28.04.2012, PW14 arrested A2 to A4 at Chintalavari Chapta, near S.C. Colony, Narrawada, in the presence of PW9 & another and recorded the statements of A2 to A4 [Ex. P4], which lead to discovery of three [03] axes. The same were seized under Ex. P5. Thereafter, A2 to A4 were remanded to judicial custody. After collecting all the necessary material, PW14 filed the charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 07 of 2012 on the file Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, Charges, as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. P1 to P13, besides marking M.Os. 1 to 16. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. The accused got examined DW1 [Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Nellore Government Medical College] and marked Exs. D1 to D3 in support of their defense. 6. After considering the necessary material available on record, more particularly, the evidence of PW1 to PW3, learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 7. Sri. P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the Appellants would contend that, there are many circumstances to indicate that the incident did not happen, in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. Though, PW1 to PW3 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident, but, their own admissions show that, PW2 and PW3 were not present at the scene of incident. Insofar as the evidence of PW1 is concerned, he would contend that, the same is full of embellishments. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also submits that, an adverse inference should be drawn, on the failure, on the part of the prosecution, in not examining the scribe of Ex. P1, coupled with the fact that there was abnormal delay in FIR reaching the Court. He would also contend that, no investigation has been done to find out, as to who the owner of the auto [crime vehicle] is. If really the owner of the vehicle was traced and relevant documents relating to the said vehicle were seized, definitely, it would have established the involvement of the vehicle in the crime. When the number of the vehicle was mentioned in the F.I.R., every effort should have been made by the investigation officer to find out the owner of the vehicle. He further pleads that, the evidence of post-mortem doctor vis-à-vis the evidence of DW1-the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nellore, would show that the incident did not happen, in the manner, spoken to by the witnesses. He further pleads that, the evidence of post-mortem doctor vis-à-vis the evidence of DW1-the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nellore, would show that the incident did not happen, in the manner, spoken to by the witnesses. According to him, if really the deceased was killed, in the manner suggested by the prosecution, there should have been some tyre marks either on the clothes seized or on the body, apart from crush injuries on the chest region. In the absence of the same, he would contend that, a doubt arises, as to the manner in which the deceased died. 9. The same is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that, the evidence of PW1 establishes his presence at the scene, having regard to the injuries sustained by him. When presence of PW1 stands established, there is no reason to disbelieve his version. In other words, he would contend that, even if the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 is rejected, still the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to convict the four [04] accused. Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor also contends that, the evidence of post-mortem doctor amply corroborates the version of eye witnesses in all aspects, though, the evidence of DW1 is at variance, pleads that, the evidence of post-mortem doctor can be made the basis to hold that the same corroborates the version of PW1. He further pleads that, non-examination of scribe of the report; not tracing the owner of the vehicle and seizing documents relating to the said vehicle, do not go to the root of the matter and the same should not weigh with the court to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 11. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced by the prosecution, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses. 12. PW1, who is the brother of the deceased, was examined as an eye witness to the incident. He set the law into motion by lodging the First Information Report at 9.30 a.m., on 21.04.2012. 12. PW1, who is the brother of the deceased, was examined as an eye witness to the incident. He set the law into motion by lodging the First Information Report at 9.30 a.m., on 21.04.2012. His evidence is to the affect that, a day prior to the incident i.e., on 20.04.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., while he was in his fields, there was a quarrel between him and father of the accused, by name, Chinnaiah, with regard to scaring away of his cattle. The said Chinnaiah is said to have warned PW1 of dire consequences if the cattle does not reach his house. He further pleads that, previously also there were some disputes between him and the accused, which were compromised at the intervention of elders. 13. Coming to the incident proper, according to him, on 21.04.2012 at about 6.30 a.m., himself and his brother-deceased were going to Udayagiri Government Hospital on a cycle. When the said cycle reached Peethulavagu Gadda, A1, who was driving the auto, with A2 to A4 sitting in the back seat of the auto, dashed against the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. On seeing A2 to A4 coming out with axes, PW1 started running. He further deposed that the auto ran over the deceased leading to his death. 14. In the cross-examination of PW1, it has been elicited that PW3 is a resident of Gundimadagala Village and the distance between his village and Gundimadagala is about 25 kilometers. According to him, PW3 used to come frequently to his father's brother house and is also a friend of PW2. It was further elicited that, PW2 was at Atmakur village at the time of incident. It was further elicited that, there was no guntas (ditches) on both sides of the road, where the auto came and hit. There was no japan babul tree on both sides of the road. He further admits that, in the morning hour's people usually move in that area to answer calls of nature. 15. At this stage, it is to be mentioned that, in the First Information Report given by PW1, he refers to existence of a pit by the side of the road and that they fell in that pit due to hit. But, however, while giving evidence in court, he deposed that he does not remember whether he mentioned the said fact in the report. But, however, while giving evidence in court, he deposed that he does not remember whether he mentioned the said fact in the report. He further admits before the doctor that one auto hit his brother. According to him, when he went to hospital for treatment, the doctor advised him to go to police station and lodge a report. He was not given any treatment, at that point of time. Further he got scribed the report and it took about 15 minutes for him to draft the report. He further admits that, he studied upto 6th class and he knows the auto number, but, he does not know English words. He admits to have told the Prasad (scribe) the auto number in Telugu only, who, in turn, read over to him in Telugu. It was also elicited from him that, he started from Udayagiri Hospital at 8.30 a.m., and secured the stamp pad from the hospital staff. He also states that, he along with his brother fell down on the road side margin and not on the road. According to him, he ran to a distance of 15 meters when the accused were chasing him. According to him, when both of them fell down, he received a fracture injury and both of them received simple injuries. Thereafter, the auto ran over the body of the deceased. 16. In the later part of the evidence, PW1 admits to have told the doctor that he received injuries in a auto and cycle accident. To a suggestion that, he received injuries in an accident and that the accused are not responsible for the same was denied by him. However, he admits that, accused had no intention to kill his father. It has been further elicited from him that, he does not know reading and writing English and he does not know the words in English. 17. From the evidence of this witness, it is pellucid that, a auto hit the cycle, in which, himself and deceased were traveling and then they fell down, A2 to A4 came out of the auto armed with axes and proclaimed to kill him. Hearing the cries, PW1 started running, while the accused 2 to 4 chased him. A1 who was driving the auto is said to have ran over the auto over the deceased leading to his death. Hearing the cries, PW1 started running, while the accused 2 to 4 chased him. A1 who was driving the auto is said to have ran over the auto over the deceased leading to his death. Thereafter, on seeing PW2 and PW3 coming in the opposite direction, the accused left. 18. In the cross-examination, there are few admissions, which go to the root of the matter. Firstly, PW1 categorically admits that, he knows the auto number, but, he does not know English words. It would be useful to extract the said admission, which is as under:- "It is true I do not know reading and writing English. I do not know the words in English". 19. But, however, in Ex. P1, he mentions English words i.e., AP26-Y-1464. Be that as it may, one other circumstance, which is worth referring to is that he could not have seen A1 running over his auto on the deceased, for the reason that, even according to him, he was running for his life being chased by A2 to A4. Seeing it from another angle, if really, the said version is correct, A2 to A4 who got down from the auto and proclaimed to kill PW1, would not have left PW1, after chasing him for 15 meters, more so, when PW1 was unarmed. 20. Further, PW1, while giving evidence, stated that, he gave a report to one Prasad while he was in hospital. He further admits that, he has no acquaintance with the said Prasad and he does not know why the said Prasad was in hospital. Strangely, the said Prasad was not examined even during the investigation, leave alone examining him in court. While giving evidence, PW1 also admits to have got prepared the report with the help of his relative, which is reflected in Ex. P1. This evidence of PW1 is required to be tested with other oral evidence and medical evidence. For the present, it can be said that, there are variations in the evidence of PW1, vis-a-vis Ex. P1, about the presence of PW2 at the scene; the person with whose help PW1 got the report scribed; seeing the auto ran over the deceased. 21. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he in his evidence deposed that, on the date of incident, he got down at by-pass road Naravada. He along with PW3 were walking from Naravada by-pass road. 21. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he in his evidence deposed that, on the date of incident, he got down at by-pass road Naravada. He along with PW3 were walking from Naravada by-pass road. Meanwhile, an auto driven by A1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the cycle, in which the deceased and PW1 were proceeding. According to him, after PW1 and deceased fell down, A2 to A4 got down from the auto and tried to chase PW1, saying 'champandi raa nakodukuni'. Meanwhile, A1 ran over the auto on his brother [deceased]. He claims to have telephoned to 108 ambulance and thereafter, shifted both of them to Udayagiri Government Hospital, where the doctor declared the deceased dead. The doctor is said to have informed PW1 to first lodge a report, before subjecting him to treatment. He also speaks about the previous day's incident. 22. PW2 was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination, wherein, he admits that, the doctor did not advise PW1 to first give a report. He further admits in the cross-examination that, he stated before the police that, due to disputes between both the families of the deceased and accused and keeping the incident of 20.04.2012 in their mind, the accused hatched a plan to kill the deceased and the same came to be known to him. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:- "It is true that, I stated before the police that, due to disputes between both the families of the deceased and accused, keeping the incident of 20.04.2012 in their mind, the four accused with a plan to hit the deceased and the same came to known by me". 23. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW1, wherein, he admits in cross-examination as under:- "That LW3-A. Ravi (PW2) was at Atmakur Village at the time of incident of auto". 24. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, a doubt arises as to whether really PW2, who is the brother of PW1, was present at the scene. 24. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2, a doubt arises as to whether really PW2, who is the brother of PW1, was present at the scene. Therefore, the two circumstances, namely, [1] the admission in the evidence of PW1 that PW2 was in Atmakur village on the date of incident; and (2) though, he is aware about the number of the auto, failed to disclose to police; throws any amount of doubt, as to whether, really he was present at the scene. 25. At this stage, it is also to be noticed that, PW2 failed to mention before the police about the auto coming from back side, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the cycle. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "It is true that I have not stated to the police that one auto came from my back side in a fast and hit the cycle". 26. Had he been really present and witnessed in the incident, he would not have failed to mention these crucial facts. 27. Coming to the evidence of PW3, it is to be noted that, he is a very close associate of PW2, who is the brother of the deceased and he is also a resident of Gundamadakala Village of Vinjamudu Mandal. His evidence-in-chief toes in line with the evidence of other witnesses. But, he does not give any reason as to why he came to Naravada Village, which is at a distance of 25 kilometers from his house, on that day morning at 6.00 a.m. The answers elicited in the cross-examination, creates doubt with regard to his presence at the scene and accompanying the deceased to the hospital, for the reason that, he claims to have been there in hospital till 12.00 noon, but, he pleads ignorance of the presence of PW1. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "The PW2 was present with me till the C.I. came at about 12.00 noon. I do not remember whether the PW1 was also there upto 12.00 noon by taking treatment". 28. Being a close friend of PW2, PW3 was set up to speak about the incident. Hence, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. 29. I do not remember whether the PW1 was also there upto 12.00 noon by taking treatment". 28. Being a close friend of PW2, PW3 was set up to speak about the incident. Hence, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. 29. PW4 was not a direct witness to the incident and he came to know about the accused dashing the cycle in which the deceased and PW1 were traveling. His information was about the involvement of five persons in the incident, which is contrary to the case of the prosecution. 30. PW5 is not an eye witness to the incident, but his evidence assumes lot of importance. According to him, while he was taking tea at Vengamma Temple at Narravada Village, he came to know that son of Bodaiah dashed the deceased with a auto, due to which, he died. Pausing here for a moment, it is to be noted that, his information was that, son of Bodaiah dashed the deceased with an auto. But, the father of A1 is not Boadiah, but, Chinnaiah. This circumstance indicates involvement of some other person, in the accident. It is to be noted here that, he was not treated hostile by the prosecution. His evidence shows involvement of some other person, namely, son of Bodaiah, in the incident. The relevant portion is as under:- "I came to know that son of Bodaiah dashed the deceased in a auto, due to that he died". 31. PW6 is also not an eye witness to the incident. According to him, while he was grazing cattle, his wife came to him and informed that, one auto dashed the deceased, due to which, he died. But a reading of the evidence of PW6, as a whole, shows that, he knows not only the deceased, PW1 & PW2, but, also A1 and A2. The information received by him was, one auto hit the deceased, due to which, he died. Neither the evidence of PW5 nor the evidence of PW6 refer to PW1 receiving injuries or A2 to A4 chasing PW1. Their information was only to the affect that, [one auto driven by son of Bodaiah] dashed the deceased. 32. The information received by him was, one auto hit the deceased, due to which, he died. Neither the evidence of PW5 nor the evidence of PW6 refer to PW1 receiving injuries or A2 to A4 chasing PW1. Their information was only to the affect that, [one auto driven by son of Bodaiah] dashed the deceased. 32. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW6 portrays two version, while, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 was to the affect that, it was A1 to A4 who were involved in the accident, but, the evidence of PW5 shows involvement of the son of one Bodaiah. These Appellants are not the sons of Bodaiah, but, sons of Chinnaiah, and it is not the case of the prosecution that, Bodaiah is also known as Chinnaiah. Further, the evidence of PW6 is that, he came to know the involvement of one auto dashing the deceased, due to which, he died. His evidence is also silent with regard to accused chasing PW1. When he knows A1 and A2 and if really A1 and A2 involved in the commission of offence and when the incident has occurred in a small village, their names would have been mentioned by PW6 or the person who informed him would have definitely given the names of at least A1 and A2. Hence, as stated earlier, two versions are on record, with regard to the manner/persons involved. 33. The next question is, whether it is a case of hit and run by an unknown person; or by the son of Bodaiah; or whether really it is a case of murder by the accused? 34. Before going into the said aspect, it is to be noted that, information about the incident was given at 9.30 a.m. Pursuant to the said report a crime was registered and immediately, thereafter, F.I.R. was sent to Udayagiri Magistrate Court. This fact was reflected in the General Diary. The same was also elicited in the cross-examination of PW12, which is as under: "It was taken 15 minutes time for registering online F.I.R. Immediately we sent the F.I.R. to the Udayagiri Magistrate Court and it was mentioned in the General Diary also". 35. This fact was reflected in the General Diary. The same was also elicited in the cross-examination of PW12, which is as under: "It was taken 15 minutes time for registering online F.I.R. Immediately we sent the F.I.R. to the Udayagiri Magistrate Court and it was mentioned in the General Diary also". 35. The endorsement of the Magistrate on the said report shows that, it was received by him at 5.30 p.m. When the F.I.R., was registered at 9.30 a.m., morning, and it was dispatched, immediately, within 15 minutes, as stated by PW12, there was no justification as to why it was received at 5.30 p.m. At this stage, one another anomaly, which requires to be noted is that, while the evidence of PW12 is to the effect that, F.I.R., was dispatched within 15 minutes of registration of crime, but, strangely, there is an endorsement in the F.I.R., to the effect that it was dispatched at 12.00 noon. The witness tried to explain the same stating that by mistake it was mentioned as 12.00 noon, in-stead 9.30 a.m. It is not as if, it was written by pen, but, it was typed, and this endorsement was made after the signature of the Inspector of Police in the F.I.R. There is no proper explanation for the delay in dispatch of the F.I.R., to the court. Further, if really it was dispatched at 12.00 noon, the version of PW12 and contents of F.I.R. that it was registered at 9.30 AM and dispatched within 15 minutes would be false. If it was registered at 9.30 a.m., why it should take such a long time to reach court, when the distance is only twenty five kilometers, more so, when the investigation officer admits that, it takes only 20 minutes to reach Udayagiri where the Magistrate Court from Duttalur Police Station and that buses and autos ply between the two places. 36. Further, one glaring defect, which requires to be noticed is the difference with regard to the contents in the F.I.R., and the General Diary. While in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that A2 to A4 were armed with sticks; the General Diary, the contents of which are elicited through Investigation Officer, show that they were armed with knives. It is well known that both these weapons cannot be same and they are different. While in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that A2 to A4 were armed with sticks; the General Diary, the contents of which are elicited through Investigation Officer, show that they were armed with knives. It is well known that both these weapons cannot be same and they are different. Further, while in the F.I.R., it is mentioned as if A1 ran over the auto on the deceased, but, the same is absent in the General Diary. In-fact, in the General Diary, it was not even mentioned that the F.I.R., was dispatched to the court and PW1 was sent to hospital. Therefore, on an over view, it is clear that all is not well with regard to the manner in which the F.I.R. was registered and sent to the court. Hence, the argument of the counsel for the Appellants that the incident did not happen, in the manner, suggested by the prosecution, and the accused were subsequently implicated cannot be brushed aside. 37. At this stage, we intend to refer to the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem and also the Doctor, who was summoned as a defense witness. 38. PW11 is the Doctor, who in his evidence states that, he noticed six [06] external injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as under: 1) "Contusion and abrasion over the occipital area of head size above 5 x 5 c.m. 2) Left side frontal area of head incised injury size 3 x 1x1 c.m. 3) Contusion abrasion over the below of left eye size above 3 x 3 c.m. 4) Incised lacerated injury on the right side of Chin 4 x ½ x ½ c.m. 5) Contusion over the right cervical 3 x 3 c.m. 6) Neck chest wall and abdomen:-No external injuries. Upper Limbs:-Right pam 5yn finger abrasion. 3 x ½ c.m. abrasion over the palm 3 x 3 c.m., lower limbs. Lower Limbs:-Right thing anterior abrasion 4 x 4 c.m." 39. All the injuries are only abrasions and contusions. According to him, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock, due to multiple grievous injuries. 40. In the cross-examination, he admits that, it may be a case of hit and run and the vehicle running over the body of the victim. He further says that, if the auto runs over the body, number of injuries is possible. According to him, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock, due to multiple grievous injuries. 40. In the cross-examination, he admits that, it may be a case of hit and run and the vehicle running over the body of the victim. He further says that, if the auto runs over the body, number of injuries is possible. To a specific question, whether the injuries are possible when the auto runs over the body, namely, on chest, ribs, lungs etc., the Doctor admits that it may be possible, depending upon the body. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "Answer: May be possible depending upon the body". 41. He further admits that, PW1 informed him that the deceased received injuries in a cycle and auto accident. He was recalled for further cross-examination by defense counsel, wherein, he admits that, Inspector of Police visited the hospital at 3.00 p.m., which, in our view, makes the evidence of PW13 suspicious. He further admits that, there may be possible of tyre marks over the body if the vehicle runs over a person. Mud or sand may be available when the vehicle ran over the body. He further admits that, he has not noticed any tyre marks over the body. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "There may be possible of tier marks over the body if the vehicle ran over a person. Mud or sand may be available over the vehicle ran over injuries. I did not notice any tyre marks over the body". 42. He was again recalled and sworn in, pursuant to the order of the court in Crl.M.P. No. 102 of 2015, dated 23.02.2015, wherein, he states that, injuries mentioned in Ex. P8-post-mortem report are only possible if the auto ran over a person. According to him, the injuries on PW1 are only possible if the vehicle hits the person; and that the abrasions are possible if a person is dragged on a hard surface; and contusions are possible when he was hit by a blunt object. The incised wound on the body of the deceased is possible if a sharp edge weapon is used. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "It is true that the injuries mentioned in Ex. The incised wound on the body of the deceased is possible if a sharp edge weapon is used. It would be useful to extract the same, which is as under:- "It is true that the injuries mentioned in Ex. P8 PME report are only possible if a auto ran over an a person. It is true that the injuries on PW1 is only possible if a vehicle hits a person. It is true that abrasions are possible if a person dragged on a hard surface. That contusions are possible when a hit caused by the blunt object. It is true that incised wounds are possible with sharp edge weapon". 43. Insofar as the injuries on PW1 are concerned, PW11 noticed two abrasions on right leg and right thigh, and fracture of radius and ulna of right wrist. Ex. P9 is the Wound Certificate of PW1 issued by him. His evidence is silent with regard to the age of injuries of PW1. According to the doctor, the injuries mentioned in Wound Certificate of PW1, are possible if an auto hits a person, and then he fells down in ground. But, the version of prosecution witness is to the affect that, the vehicle first hit the cycle, pursuant to which, they fell down and thereafter, PW1 started running. None of the witnesses deposed about the auto hitting a person at the initial stage. The relevant portion in the evidence of PW11 is as under: "The injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are possible if a auto hit a person fell on the ground those injuries are possible". 44. The evidence of this doctor does not conclusively establish that the injuries on the deceased were due to a vehicle running over the body, since, no tyre marks were found on the body, leave alone crushing injury. Further, injury number 2 and 4, which are incised injuries on the frontal area of the Head and right side of the Chin, could not have been caused by a running over of a vehicle, as the doctor in his cross-examination admits that, they are possible only by a sharp edge weapon. All the other injuries, namely, injury no. 1, 3 and 5, are in the upper portion of the body and not anywhere on the trunk portion of the body. 45. All the other injuries, namely, injury no. 1, 3 and 5, are in the upper portion of the body and not anywhere on the trunk portion of the body. 45. At this stage, we would like to refer to the evidence of DW1, who was working as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nellore, at that relevant point of time. He in his evidence-in-chief deposed that, the injuries mentioned in Ex. P8 and Ex. P9, which are the post-mortem certificates of deceased and wound certificate of PW1, respectively, are possible in a road accident, and that it may be possible if a vehicle hits and dashed the person. 46. According to him, injuries in Ex. P9 must have been caused due to a vehicle running over a person. But, at the same time, he admits that, if an auto runs over a person, the injuries should be different than mentioned in Ex. P8 and Ex. P9. According to him, there will be some fractures and crush injuries. He also admits that, if a vehicle runs over a person, there will be tyre marks. It would be useful to extract the evidence-in-chief of the said witness, which is as under:- "The injuries mentioned in P8, P9 only are possible in a road accident. It may be possible if a vehicle hit/dash. As per Ex. P9 the injuries must not have been caused due to ran over of the vehicle. It is true that if a auto ran over on a person the injuries must be different than mentioned in Ex. P9 & P8 and there must be fractures and crush injuries. It is true that if the vehicle ran over on a person there must be tyre marks". 47. In the cross-examination, he admits that, even if an empty auto runs over, there must be imprint of tyre marks. However, he denies the suggestion that, if a auto runs over, contusions are possible. The relevant portion, is as under:- "Witness adds that even if empty auto ran over there must be in print of tyre marks". 48. Therefore, according to him, it is a case of hit and run and if the vehicle runs over the body of a person, there should have been an imprint of tyre marks, irrespective of the weight of the vehicle. 48. Therefore, according to him, it is a case of hit and run and if the vehicle runs over the body of a person, there should have been an imprint of tyre marks, irrespective of the weight of the vehicle. A comparative reading of the evidence of these two doctors would make it clear that, it is a case of hit and run, as the injuries found on the body of the deceased would be different, if the vehicle runs over the body. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether really the deceased died due to a vehicle running over his body. Though, PW1 claims to have seen the incident, but, his own evidence show that, he was running for his life when A2 to A4 were chasing him. He never had an opportunity of seeing the vehicle running over the deceased. 49. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, PW1 was first taken to a doctor, wherein, he only stated that, the injuries sustained by him were in a road accident. He never deposed that, somebody intentionally hit their cycle. The same is reflected not only in the evidence of PW1, but, also in the evidence of the doctor, who was examined as PW11. 50. One another circumstance, which requires to be noted and which goes to the root of the matter is, the police failed to trace the owner of the vehicle. When they were aware of the number of the vehicle involved in the incident, every effort should have been made to examine the owner of the vehicle and seize the documents relating to vehicle. It is not as if the vehicle was at the spot when the police went there. It is also to be noted here that, though, the number of the vehicle was mentioned in the F.I.R., but the vehicle was not present at the scene when police went there. On the other hand, the said vehicle was alleged to have been discovered pursuant to the statement made by A1, leading to its discovery from a forest area under Ex. P7. When it is the case of the prosecution that, A1 is not the owner of the vehicle, they could have verified the same from the R.T.O., as to who the owner was and then try to connect it with the crime. P7. When it is the case of the prosecution that, A1 is not the owner of the vehicle, they could have verified the same from the R.T.O., as to who the owner was and then try to connect it with the crime. Without examining the owner, the prosecution failed to explain as to how the said vehicle came into possession of A1. There is no evidence on record to show that A1 committed theft of vehicle and used it in the commission of offence. Had the owner been examined, the truth would have come out. 51. Having regard to the above circumstances, namely, abnormal delay in F.I.R. reaching the court; no conclusive evidence with regard to death of the deceased due to vehicle running over him; the wound certificate being silent with regard to the age of injuries on PW1; the evidence of the doctor showing that the injuries received by PW1 are due to hit by a vehicle, which is not the case of PW1; presence of PW2 at Atmakur Village at the time of incident; the evidence of PW1 being full of improvements from stage-to-stage; PW3 being a doubtful witness; evidence of PW5 and PW6 disclosing the involvement of some other persons i.e., son of one Bodaiah in the incident; prosecution failing to trace the owner of the vehicle, which would have connected him with the crime and the motive, which is a double edged weapon, we feel that the evidence adduced upon by the prosecution does not establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we feel that, it may not be safe to convict the appellants/accused for the Charges levelled. Accordingly, we are inclined to acquit the appellants. 52. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/accused No. 1 to 4 in the Judgment, dated 29.06.2015, in Sessions Case No. 426 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C., is set-aside and they are acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellants/accused no. 1 to 4 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused no. Consequently, the appellants/accused no. 1 to 4 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused no. 1 to 4 shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs. 53. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.