JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri. S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for Appellant/Accused No. 1 and Sri. T. Nageswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant/Accused No. 3 to 8. As these Criminal Appeals arose from one sessions case, they are disposed of together through Blue Jeans video conferencing app. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 1211 of 2015 is filed by Accused No. 1; while Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2016 is filed by Accused No. 3 to 8. Accused No. 2 died pending trial and, as such, the case against him was abated. Challenging the sentence and conviction imposed against these Accused in Session Case No. 109 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, these two present Appeals came to be filed. 3. All the eight Accused were originally tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 302, 302 r/w. 149; Accused No. 5 to 8 were further tried for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. By its Judgment, dated 07.12.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused as under:- (i) Accused No. 1, 3 to 8 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two [02] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three [03] months for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C., and were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [01] month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five [05] days for the offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. (ii) Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six [06] months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [01] year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two [02] months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. (iii) Accused No. 5 to 8 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two [02] months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. (iii) Accused No. 5 to 8 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six [06] months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. They were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one [01] year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two [02] months for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 4. The substance of the charge against the Accused is that, on 26.09.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., near Panasapeta-Buradapeta gravel road, all the Accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in pursuant thereto killed one Gurugubilli Ramanaidu @ Rama Rao ['Deceased'] and in the course of same transaction, wrongfully restrained PW1, apart from causing grievous injuries to the deceased. 5. The facts, in issue, are as under: i. The deceased and PW1 are brothers. PW2 is a resident of Vasudevapatnam village, Santhakaviti Mandal, who does not know the Accused and PW1. PW3 is the wife of the deceased, while PW4, PW5 and PW6 are residents of Gujjannapeta Village, Santhakaviti Mandal. Accused No. 2, 6 and 7 are brothers. A5 is the son of A3. The Accused were also residents of Gujjannapeta Village in Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. ii. The deceased was doing contract work and was also the President of Water Body Society. It is said that, while the Accused belong to Congress Party, the deceased and PW1 belong to Telugu Desam Party. There were disputes between PW1 and Accused in respect of Ac. 0.07 cents of land situated behind the house of A3. In respect of the above, A3 filed a case against all of his brothers including the deceased. A galata also took place, when a tamarind tree, which was situated in the above extent of land, was being cut. Criminal cases came to be filed against the deceased and others, which ended in an acquittal. iii. In respect of the above, A3 filed a case against all of his brothers including the deceased. A galata also took place, when a tamarind tree, which was situated in the above extent of land, was being cut. Criminal cases came to be filed against the deceased and others, which ended in an acquittal. iii. On 26.09.2010, PW1 and deceased went to the in-laws house of the deceased at Tolapi village on T.V.S. Victor motorcycle around 12.00 noon or 1.00 p.m. and stayed there till 4.30 p.m. Thereafter, both of them started returning home on a motorcycle. It is said that, the deceased was riding the motorcycle, while PW1 was the pillion rider. At about 7.30 p.m., when they reached between Buradapeta and Panasapeta Village, all the Accused came upon them from the sides of the bushes and attacked them. It is said that, Accused attacked PW1 and deceased with knives and sticks. Seeing the same, PW1 hid himself in the bushes and saw the Accused beating the deceased, with the aid of the head light of the motorcycle. iv. According to PW1, A1 beat the deceased with a knife, while A2, A3, A4 and A5 beat the deceased with iron rods and A6, A7 and A8 beat the deceased with sticks. After the deceased fell down, on hearing the sounds of some persons, the Accused ran away from the scene. It is said that, after the incident, PW1 came home and informed about the incident to his father and his junior paternal uncle. In the night, the Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police came to the house of PW1 and asked him to come to the police station. PW1 claims to have gone to the police station in the early hours at 4.30 a.m. and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex. P1. v. It is to be noted here that, on 26.09.2010 at about 9.00 or 9.30 p.m., PW9-Sub-Inspector of Police, received information from PW2, that the dead body of the deceased was found lying dead at Narayanapuram canal. Immediately, PW9 informed the same to Inspector of Police and thereafter, himself along with staff went to the scene of offence and in the light verified the scene of offence and found the dead body with head injuries. After posting a guard at the scene, they went to Gujjannapeta village. Immediately, PW9 informed the same to Inspector of Police and thereafter, himself along with staff went to the scene of offence and in the light verified the scene of offence and found the dead body with head injuries. After posting a guard at the scene, they went to Gujjannapeta village. PW9 claims to have informed the relatives of the deceased and asked them to lodge a report, but, they informed him of giving a written report in the morning. As such, a police picket was posted in the village. vi. According to PW9, on the next day morning, PW1 came to Santhakaviti Police Station and presented Ex. P1 report, basing on which, a case in Crime No. 58/2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Ex. P17 is the First Information Report. vii. The information about the incident in question was informed to PW10 at 11.00 p.m. On receiving the information, PW10-the Inspector of Police along with Sub-Inspector of Police [PW9] went to Narayanapuram canal bund, where the dead body of the deceased was found. They noticed some injuries on the head and body of the deceased. Three Constables were posted to guard the scene of offence and from there; himself and PW9 went to the house of the deceased and found the family members including PW1 in the house. It is said that, PW1 informed PW10 that the deceased is his elder brother and after seeing the incident, he ran to the village from that place. Though, PW10 requested the family members to come to the police station and give report, but they seems to have informed him that they will not come in the night due to fear and that they will come in the morning. Accordingly, Ex. P1 report came to be lodged at 5.00 a.m. on the next day. viii. After receipt of First Information Report, PW10 along with mediators proceeded to the scene of offence, where the dead body was present, and in the presence of PW7, prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence. PW10 also got prepared a rough sketch, which is placed on record as Ex. P18. He also observed the scene and prepared a scene observation report-Ex. P4. PW10 also got prepared a rough sketch, which is placed on record as Ex. P18. He also observed the scene and prepared a scene observation report-Ex. P4. During the observation of the scene, he seized M.O. 2 to M.O. 7 [also seized cell phone from the shirt pocket of the deceased]. PW10 then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 8.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. Ex. P5 is the inquest report, Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital, Rajam, for post-mortem examination. ix. PW8-the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Rajam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 27.09.2010 and issued Ex. P15-post-mortem report. According to him, the cause of death was 'due to head injury and hemorrhagic shock due to trauma". Ex. P16 is the final opinion issued by PW8. x. After examining all the witnesses and also after arresting the Accused and making recoveries pursuant to their statements [27 recoveries], a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 19 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Rajam. 6. On appearance of the Accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished to them. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same 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. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P21, beside marking M.O.s. 1 to 16. After completion of 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 pleaded not guilty, but, however, no oral evidence was adduced in support of their plea. 8. Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. The counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that, there is no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. 8. Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. The counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that, there is no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to them, the solitary testimony of PW1 is full of embellishments, and, as such, the same cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. It is pleaded that, PW1 was not present at the scene, and if really he was present and witnessed the incident, his conduct would have been different. Apart from that, it is also urged that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case and in the absence of any other evidence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court warrants interference. 10. Sri. K. Srinivas Reddy, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. According to him, PW1 along with his brother [deceased] were returning home on a T.V.S. motorcycle from Tolapi village, when the incident in question took place. He further pleads that, the delay in lodging the First Information Report was only due to fear in the hands of the accused and nothing more than that. In other words, his plea is that, in a case of this nature, delay by itself may not be fatal to disbelieve the entire case. Hence, pleads that the judgment of conviction, passed by the trial court, requires no interference. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 12. As seen from the record, the entire case rests on the evidence of PW1, who is no other than the brother of the deceased. His evidence-in-chief shows existence of some disputes between the Accused and their family. Criminal cases came to be filed leading to arrest of the deceased and, thereafter, the said cases ended in one way or other before the trial court. Therefore, disputes continued between the family of the deceased and the accused. 13. His evidence-in-chief shows existence of some disputes between the Accused and their family. Criminal cases came to be filed leading to arrest of the deceased and, thereafter, the said cases ended in one way or other before the trial court. Therefore, disputes continued between the family of the deceased and the accused. 13. Coming to the incident proper, PW1 in his evidence deposed that, on the date of incident, i.e., on 26.09.2010, himself and his brother went to the house of in-laws of the deceased in Tolapi Village at 12.00 noon or 1.00 p.m. They stayed there till 4.30 p.m., and then started their return journey. At about 7.30 p.m., when they reached between Buradapeta and Panasapeta villages, all the accused armed with weapons pounced upon them from both sides of the bushes and attacked them with knives and sticks. It is said that, while they were beating the deceased, PW1 hid himself in the bushes and saw the accused beating the deceased with the aid of the head light of the motorcycle. 14. In the cross-examination, PW1 admits that, people used to go through the road till 10.00 or 11.00 p.m., during agricultural season and the date on which the incident took place was also during agricultural season. To a suggestion that there are no bushes on either side of the road was denied. He admits that, he gave Ex. P1-report to the police. To a suggestion that he did not mention in Ex. P1-report nor stated before the police of all the accused coming upon him from the bushes, was denied. He further states that, soon after they fell down from the motorcycle, he hid himself behind the bushes and as such nobody attacked him. To a suggestion as to whether any of the accused has seen him, he says he does not know. He admits that, he has not questioned the accused, as to why they were killing his brother, due to an apprehension that they would kill him if he questions them. According to him, the incident occurred for about 20 minutes and during that period he was in bushes. According to him, the motorcycle fell down and the engine was running. The motorcycle fell down in the middle of the road and he does not know whether the headlight of the motorcycle was broken or not. According to him, the incident occurred for about 20 minutes and during that period he was in bushes. According to him, the motorcycle fell down and the engine was running. The motorcycle fell down in the middle of the road and he does not know whether the headlight of the motorcycle was broken or not. He admits that, even-after all the Accused left the place he did not go near the body of the deceased. According to him, on that night, he went to his village and informed about the incident to his father and junior paternal uncle, but none of them went to the scene. He also admits that, he is having a cell phone with him and that the Santhakaviti police station is at a distance of 14 or 16 kilometres and that one can reach police station from his village in an auto rickshaw or motorcycle in about 15 minutes. He admits that, he did not try to telephone to police with his telephone as he was in fear. When police came to their village in the night, he informed them about the incident, but he did not give any report though asked by the police. He further states that, he got mentioned the name of one Hanumanthu Kiran Kumar as one of the person who attacked and killed the deceased. But, to a suggestion that the said Hanumanthu was in Hyderabad, on that day, as he was attending an interview, for the post of security guard, was denied by him. He also denied the suggestion that the name of Hanumanthu was deleted by Circle Inspector of Police. He admits that, knives, sticks and iron rods shown to him in the court are available in agricultural families, being used as agricultural implements. 15. From the evidence-in-chief of PW1, it is evident that, when the attack took place, he along with his brother was returning on T.V.S., motorcycle. Though, all the eight accused have beaten them, but, strangely, he did not receive any injuries. According to him, immediately, after the attack, he fell down and thereafter, hid himself in the bushes. It appears that, neither he received a scratch when fell down nor the Accused attacked him. According to him, after himself and deceased fell down, he ran into the bushes, hid himself and saw the incident from the said place. According to him, immediately, after the attack, he fell down and thereafter, hid himself in the bushes. It appears that, neither he received a scratch when fell down nor the Accused attacked him. According to him, after himself and deceased fell down, he ran into the bushes, hid himself and saw the incident from the said place. In the cross-examination, he admits that, after the Accused left the place, he never went towards the deceased to find out whether the deceased was dead or alive. On the other hand, he claims to have gone to home and informed his father and his junior paternal uncle, but none reacted to the information of death of their son. Though, PW1 was having a cell phone, he never informed about the incident to anyone, or made any effort to call the police, as well. Though, PW1 deposed about the accused being armed with knives and sticks, but, his evidence is silent as to the place, each of the accused beat the deceased. 16. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW1 is to the effect that, on the night of 26.09.2000, PW9 and PW10 came to his house and requested him to come to police station for lodging a report. But, strangely, none of the family members made any effort to give a report to police. It is not be necessary that one should go to the police station to give a report, but, when PW9 and PW10 came to the house of the deceased, nothing prevented them from giving a report to the police, at that time. On the other hand, the version of PW1 is to the effect that, they informed the police stating that they will come to the police station on the next day morning and give a report, which in our view, appears to be slightly doubtful. The reason given for not going to the Police Station is fear in the hands of the accused. If that was the reason, then they could have given a report when the police came to their house. Further, PW1 or his family members are not going to Police Station alone, the Police were taking them. Therefore, the reason given for not giving the report immediately cannot be accepted. 17. If that was the reason, then they could have given a report when the police came to their house. Further, PW1 or his family members are not going to Police Station alone, the Police were taking them. Therefore, the reason given for not giving the report immediately cannot be accepted. 17. Further, if really PW1 was present at the scene along with the deceased and when he witnessed the accused attacking the deceased, there is every possibility of PW1 receiving some injuries, more so, when eight [08] people attacked both of them, while they were travelling on a T.V.S., motorcycle. Strangely, not even a scratch was found on the body of PW1. Further, PW1 admits that, it was dark on that night and claims to have seen the incident through the head light of the motorcycle. It is not as if that the vehicle was parked with the light glaring at the Accused or the deceased. On the other hand, his evidence shows that, both of them fell down along with the motorcycle and the motorcycle was on the ground. When the vehicle was lying on the ground, definitely, the headlight would not be projecting upwards enabling PW1 to see the incident and also the persons present at the scene. 18. The second circumstance to disbelieve the presence of PW1, at the scene, is his conduct after the incident. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, he witnessed the incident by hiding himself in bushes, at-least he would have gone and seen his brother [deceased], after the Accused left the scene. According to him, he never went towards his brother, even after the Accused left the scene. This, in our view, would not be the normal human conduct, more so, when there were disputes between both the families and cases are pending before the court. The reason and fear given is only to explain as to why a report could not be given immediately or as to why he never went to see the deceased after the Accused left the place, which cannot be accepted. 19. The third circumstance to disbelieve that presence of PW1 was that though he informed his parents about the incident, but, there was no reaction from them. 19. The third circumstance to disbelieve that presence of PW1 was that though he informed his parents about the incident, but, there was no reaction from them. If really PW1 had informed his father and junior paternal uncle about the incident, at-least some effort would have been made by them to find out whether their son was still alive. It is not as if the deceased was a stranger to them. In-fact, even after the arrival of the police, at the house of the deceased, in the night, they did not enquire as to the health condition of the deceased. The entire gamut of their conduct would only lead to an inference that they came to know about the death of the deceased after the arrival of police and later lodged a report implicating the accused. 20. The fourth circumstance to show that PW1 was not present along with the deceased, on the date of incident, is the evidence of PW2. According to him, on 26.09.2010, himself and one Gedela Narayanarao went to Waltair in connection with a marital dispute. After settlement of dispute, they were returning to their village between 7.00 to 8.00 p.m. While he was driving his motorcycle, Gadela Narayanarao was the pillion rider and when they reached Buradagedda village, they found a body of a person. On seeing and identifying the body, as that of the deceased, they went away from that place and reached the house of Mula Ramachandrarao, the then M.P.P., of Muliayyapeta village and from there, telephoned to Santhakaviti police station. However, in the cross-examination, PW2 admits that, himself and the deceased used to telephone each other and used to meet daily in connection with politics. According to him, they both met at A.P.G.V. Bank, Santhakaviti, two days prior to the incident. On that day, the deceased came to the bank along with one woman to open a account in her name and that, he does not know her name and village. He does not know whether there was any illicit relationship between the deceased and the said lady, by name, Anasuyamma. But, according to him, there were rumours about the illicit relationship between them. On the date of incident, between 2.30 or 3.00 p.m., the deceased telephoned to him and informed that, he would come to Tolapi Village and then to Waltair, from there, both would return together. But, according to him, there were rumours about the illicit relationship between them. On the date of incident, between 2.30 or 3.00 p.m., the deceased telephoned to him and informed that, he would come to Tolapi Village and then to Waltair, from there, both would return together. The deceased informed to PW2 that he alone came to Tolapi Village, but failed to go over there. 21. From the evidence of PW2, it is clear that, when the deceased spoke to him, he never disclosed about the presence of a third person. If really PW1, who is the brother of deceased, was present with the deceased, the deceased would not have informed PW2 that he will come to Waltair at 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. alone. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that, even before a report came to be lodged, basing on some information, i.e., from the telephone call of PW2, the police set the law into motion and proceeded to the scene of offence, examined dead body, posted a guard at the scene and thereafter, went to the house of the deceased. Therefore, the report given by PW1 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., and as such, the argument of the learned counsel that no credence can be given to the contents of the First Information Report cannot be brushed aside. 22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the Doctor-PW8 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Rajam, who on receiving requisition from PW10, on 27.09.2010, conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased from 2.30 p.m., to 4.30 p.m., and found the injuries, which are as under: i. A lacerated injury of size 5 x 2 inch x bone deep present horizontally over the middle of the occipital area. ii. A lacerated injury of size 3 x 1 inch x bone deep present above the injury No. 1. iii. A lacerated injury of size 1 x ½ x ½ inch below the injury No. 1. iv. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm medial side. v. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm laterally. vi. An abrasion of size 5 x 1 inch on right leg laterally. vii. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on right leg shin. viii. iv. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm medial side. v. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm laterally. vi. An abrasion of size 5 x 1 inch on right leg laterally. vii. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on right leg shin. viii. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on the right leg laterally. ix. An abrasion of size 2 x 1 inch on the right ankle laterally. x. An abrasion of size ½ x ½ inch on right dorsum foot. xi. Fracture of skull present over the occipital area in the region of injury No. 1 and 2 which is of depressed in nature." 23. It is relevant to note few of the admissions in the cross-examination of the Doctor-PW8, which are as under. "I have not found sharp edged cut injuries on the body of the deceased. The lacerations i.e., injury Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be possible with the sharp edge of knife. The abrasion injuries are caused with stout sticks with heavy force there will be corresponding stick marks. I have not found the stick marks on the body of the deceased". 24. Coming to the inconsistency between the oral evidence and medical evidence, it is to be seen that, though PW1 claims to have seen the incident from close quarters, but, did not attribute any specific overt acts to the accused, except stating that A1 beat the deceased with a knife, while A2, A3, A4 and A5 beat the deceased with iron rods and A6, A7 and A8 beat the deceased with sticks. That being so, the medical evidence, which is to the effect that some of the injuries on the body of the deceased were affected with sharp weapon like knife, creates doubt with regard to the attack on him by the Accused, who were not armed with any sharp weapon. Though, A1 was armed with knife, he is said to have attacked the deceased along with others, but, the Doctor-PW8 in his cross-examination admits that, injury Nos. 1 to 3, which are lacerated injuries on the body of the deceased are not possible with a weapon like knife. Though, A1 was armed with knife, he is said to have attacked the deceased along with others, but, the Doctor-PW8 in his cross-examination admits that, injury Nos. 1 to 3, which are lacerated injuries on the body of the deceased are not possible with a weapon like knife. Furthermore, PW8 admits that, he did not find any stick marks on the body of the deceased, whereas, the evidence of PW1 is that, all the Accused also attacked and beat them with sticks. 25. In Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi (NCT of Delhi): (2012) 8 SCC 21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:- "In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 26. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and the evidence of PW1 being not corroborated with any material particulars, as his presence at the scene itself is doubtful, having regard to the circumstances stated above, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, basing on the solitary testimony of PW1, who according to us is an unreliable witness, warrants interference and accordingly, the appeals are liable to be allowed. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellants in the Judgment, dated 07.12.2015 in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 302, 302 r/w. 149 and Section 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. [Accused No. 5 to 8] is set-aside and they are acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the Appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellants/Accused shall be refunded to them. (ii) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.