JUDGMENT : (C. Praveen Kumar, J.) The present appeal came to be filed by A.3 and A.4 against their conviction in a Sessions Case No.712 of 2012 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. 2. Originally, A.1 to A.4 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 364 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”]. As A.1 and A.2 died, the case against them was abated. A.3 and A.4 were found guilty under both the counts and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten years and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. They were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C, in default of payment of fine amounts imposed as above, they were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Two years. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under:- (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased while P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are residents of Nallapareddipalli Village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR District. A.1 is none other than the brother-in-law of P.W.1 while the other accused are also relatives of A.1. The father-in-law of P.W.1 was blessed with three children. The deceased was second one, while A.1 was the elder child. The family members got separated and were living independently. Each of them were found to be in possession and own 2 ½ acres of land. There were disputes regarding the properties between the three brothers. (b) On 11.05.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. A.2 and A.3 came to the house of P.W.1 while A.1 and A.4 were in Sumo. A.2 and A.3 knocked the door of the house and on hearing the sound, P.W.1 put on the light and opened the door. The deceased questioned A.2 and A.3 why they came, for which, A.2 and A.3 replied that they came for a panchayat regarding the property. The deceased informed A.2 and A.3 that at this late night, he is not coming out for a panchayat. At that point of time, A.2 and A.3 forcibly took away the deceased in a Sumo belong to P.W.6. The deceased informed A.2 and A.3 that at this late night, he is not coming out for a panchayat. At that point of time, A.2 and A.3 forcibly took away the deceased in a Sumo belong to P.W.6. (c) It is said that all the accused abducted the deceased in a Sumo towards Nagireddipalli side. As her husband did not return till next day morning, the family members informed P.W.4 at 6.00 a.m. and then all of them proceeded to Kadiri to enquire as to whereabouts of the deceased, with the Sumo driver/Phani Kumar, who was examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 disclosed that A.1 to A.4 beat the deceased and after killing the deceased, the accused sunk him in Maddileru Vanka. According to P.W.6 due to fear he ran away in a jeep to his place. Having regard to the information furnished by P.W.6, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 proceeded to Police Station where to the dictation of P.W.2, a report was drafted. (d) P.W.15-Inspector of Police, who received the report and registered the same as a case in Crime No.26 of 2011 under Section 364, 302 r/w.34 I.P.C. Ex.P11 is the F.I.R. After registering the crime, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Maddileru Vanka and noticed the dead body in the canal. He summoned the relatives and with the help of villagers, the dead body was removed and placed on the bund. At the scene, he prepared a rough sketch of the scene which is marked as Ex.P12. He then conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch witnesses. Ex.P5 is the inquest report. During the inquest, the witnesses opined that the A.1/Nagesh had disputes with the deceased, as he took the ancestral property by misguiding their father in his favour and since then quarrels were taking place. It is said that A.1 with the help of A.2 to A.4 planned and on 10.05.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. took the deceased from his house and thereafter killed him. After conducting the inquest, the body was handed over to P.C.No.1944 with a requisition to the Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Kadiri to conduct autopsy over the dead body. It is said that A.1 with the help of A.2 to A.4 planned and on 10.05.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. took the deceased from his house and thereafter killed him. After conducting the inquest, the body was handed over to P.C.No.1944 with a requisition to the Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Kadiri to conduct autopsy over the dead body. (e) P.W.14-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Kadiri conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death as due to asphyxia due to pressure over air passage in the neck and accordingly issued Ex.P10-Post Mortem Certificate. (f) P.W.15-Inspector of Police, who continued with the investigation, arrested the accused on 18.05.2011. 4. After collecting all the necessary documents, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.04 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302 r/w.Section 34 I.P.C. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them. As the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1 to M.O.4. 8. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused [A.3 and A.4] were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied. However, they did not adduce any evidence except marking Exs.D1 and D2 in support of their plea. Out of sixteen witnesses examined, P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile. 9. However, they did not adduce any evidence except marking Exs.D1 and D2 in support of their plea. Out of sixteen witnesses examined, P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile. 9. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by A.3 and A.4 only as A.1 and A.2 died and the case against them stood abated. 10. Smt. D.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellants/A.3 and A.4 mainly submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed having regard to the conduct in keeping quiet after the incident till next day morning though they were apprehend that some harm would be done to the deceased. It is further pleaded that though the F.I.R. is said to have been registered at 11.00 a.m. but for reasons best known, it reached the Court at 9. 00 p.m. when the distance between Police Station and the Court is only about 5 Kms. In other words, her arguments appear to be that the F.I.R. was brought into existence after due confabulations with others, more particularly with the elders of the village. It is further submitted that the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Investigation Officer clearly shows that the entire case has been built after the body was traced. 11. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State, would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would amply establish not only motive, but the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased and as such these two circumstances are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime, more so, when the medical evidence corroborates the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be said to be unnatural and there is no delay in lodging the report for the reason that on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m. they went and informed P.W.4 and along with him went to the house of P.W.6, enquired as to what happened, who disclosed the manner in which the incident took place. Having regard to the above, the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial Court requires no interference. 12. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 13. In order to appreciate the same, we may have to look into the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the doctor who conducted Post Mortem examination and the Investigating Officer, who were examined as P.ws.14 and 15. As seen from the record, P.W.1 and the prosecution party as well as the accused are related to each other. P.W.1 is none other than the sister-in-law of A.1 [wife of the deceased, who is the brother of A.1] while the other accused are related. 14. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that there were some disputes relating to property between three brothers. But, her evidence does not indicate filing of any case or holding of panchayats in respect of disputes relating to property. Be that as it may, her evidence in chief shows that on 11. 05.2011 between 10 to 11 p.m. A.2 and A.3 came to her house while A.1 and A.4 were in Sumo. A.2 and A.3 knocked the door of the house; on hearing the same she put on the lights and the deceased along with P.W.1 opened the door and came out. The deceased is said to have questioned A.2 and A.3 as to why they came to his house. To which, they replied that they both came for panchayat regarding property. The deceased informed A.2 and A.3 that he has no interest for panchayat at that point of time. At that time A.2 and A.3 forcibly took away the deceased in a Sumo, driven by P.W.6 towards Nagireddipalli Village. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that as her husband did not return till next day morning, he along with P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and one Sampathi Subbamma went to Kadiri and enquired P.W.6, who disclosed as to what happened towards the deceased. The information furnished by P.W.6 is to the effect that A.1 to A.4 beat the deceased with the stones, the testicles were squeezed and the neck was pressed and A.1 to A.4 sunk the deceased in the water. On seeing the same, P.W.6 ran away from the scene. The information furnished by P.W.6 is to the effect that A.1 to A.4 beat the deceased with the stones, the testicles were squeezed and the neck was pressed and A.1 to A.4 sunk the deceased in the water. On seeing the same, P.W.6 ran away from the scene. On the information furnished by P.W.6, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Police Station and to the dictation of P.W.2, the information was drafted and P.W.1 put her Left Thumb Impression on the information, which is placed on record as Ex.P1. Her evidence also shows that the Police took them to scene of offence where they found the dead body which was identified. They noticed three external injuries on the body. This in substance is the evidence of chief of P.W.1. 15. It is to be noted here that the information was furnished to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 by P.W.6, who did not support the prosecution case. He never deposed about disclosing this information to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Therefore, the source of information for P.W.1 in lodging the report is P.W.6, the driver, who did not support the prosecution case. 16. It is also to be noted here that P.W.1 admits in her cross-examination that one has to cross 50 houses to go to main road from her house and there were no disputes between them and the neighbours in the village. They did not make any galata while the accused were beating the deceased, they did not think of giving any information to the Police when the accused took the deceased by force. P.W.1 claims to have entertained a doubt that something will be done to her husband, but did not try to chase or cross the said Sumo though tried to obstruct the same. She further admits that she did not take any steps to inform her relatives or Police and they did not try to search for the deceased in the midnight. It is further admitted that in the F.I.R, there is no reference to the Sumo number nor the name of the driver of the Sumo. To a suggestion that there were seventeen cases against the deceased was denied by her. It is further admitted that in the F.I.R, there is no reference to the Sumo number nor the name of the driver of the Sumo. To a suggestion that there were seventeen cases against the deceased was denied by her. But, however it was elicited that the deceased and one Gangamma stayed in Ahobilam and after her death, the deceased brought her son to their home where spent for some time and later went back to his uncle home. 17. It was further elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that there are no disputes between them and A.2 and A.3. She further admits that she does not know the contents of Ex.P1 report. She volunteers to say that her son has drafted and she put her Left Thumb Impression on it. She further states that Police never examined her. It was further admitted by her that on the information of Police between 7.30 to 8.00 a.m., she and her relatives went to Maddileru Vanka and saw the dead body. She further admits that after they reached the place of the dead body, the Police came and wrote the scene and conducted inquest over the dead body. It was further elicited that she did not inform to anyone that A.2 and A.3 came to their house and the remaining accused were in the jeep and A.2 and A.3 knocked the door and P.W.1 opened the door and there were street lights and A.2 and A.3 took her husband to the jeep and A.1 to A.4 took away him. Witness volunteers that she is an illiterate and does not know whether she deposing first time before the Court. All the suggestions given denied by P.W.1; that she did not go to Kadiri and enquired P.W.6 and then went to Police Station; the names of other witnesses were deposed for the first time in the Court; the accused were not connected with the murder of the deceased; and the accused did not come to their house nor took away the deceased and there were disputes between one Vengamuni and A.1. 18. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that there are number of inconsistencies with what she has stated in her evidence in chief. [Her entire version in the evidence in chief that her husband did not return till 8. 18. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that there are number of inconsistencies with what she has stated in her evidence in chief. [Her entire version in the evidence in chief that her husband did not return till 8. 00 a.m., they went to Kadiri along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and enquired P.W.6 the driver, who disclosed about the offence and thereafter all of them went to Police Station and lodged a report before 11.00 a.m. The F.I.R. show that the report was received in the Police Station at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter Police took them to the scene where they noticed the dead body of her husband]. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, a total different version is elicited which is to the effect that on the information given by the Police between 7.30 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. P.W.1 and her relatives went to Maddileru Vanka and saw the dead body and that the Police reached there after P.W.1 and others reached the place of dead body. It was further elicited that she does not know the contents of Ex.P1 report and that it was drafted by her son/P.W.2, to which, she attested by lending her Left Thumb Impression. Further, P.W.1 categorically admits that she has not disclosed about A.2 and A.3 coming to their house and then taking the deceased from her house etc. to anyone. Apart from that all these things, she admits that there are no disputes between them and A.2 and A.3. This version of P.W.1 being inconsistent and cross-examination is required to be tested with the evidence of other witnesses for the reason that having regard to the nature of inconsistency, it may not be safe to rely on the evidence of this witness to draw inference that it was A.1 to A.4, who caused the death of the deceased. 19. P.W.2 is none other than the son of P.W.1. He also states that there were some property disputes between the two families, but, does not given any details about the said disputes. According to him, on 10.05.2011 all the accused came to his house in a Sumo and knocked the doors of their house [According to P.W.1 A.2 and A.3 came to their house and A.1 and A.4 were in Sumo]. The deceased, P.W.1 and himself opened the doors and switched on the lights. According to him, on 10.05.2011 all the accused came to his house in a Sumo and knocked the doors of their house [According to P.W.1 A.2 and A.3 came to their house and A.1 and A.4 were in Sumo]. The deceased, P.W.1 and himself opened the doors and switched on the lights. A.2, A.3 and A.4 asked the deceased to attend panchayat as to sharing of the property [According to P.W.1 only A.2 and A.3]. When the deceased refused to go along with them at late night and will attend the panchayat on the next day morning, A.1 proceeded towards the Sumo and thereafter A.2 to A.4 forcibly made the deceased board into the Sumo [According to P.W.1 only A.2 and A.3]. It is said that though P.Ws.1 and 2 obstructed the Sumo, the accused pushed them and went away. On the next day morning they went to the Car Stand at Kadiri and made enquires with PW.6 the driver of the Sumo, who told them about A.1 to A.4 beating the deceased with stones and the body of deceased was drowned in the water/mud. Thereafter all of them went to Police Station and informed the Police and the Police took them to the scene of offence where they noticed the body with injuries. P.W.2 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, in which number of issues came to be elicited, which throw any amount of doubt in his version in chief. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admits that though he entertained a doubt at 4.00 a.m. about the accused causing some harm to the deceased, but did not inform to Police or tried to find out where the deceased was. He further admits that the Police did not make any investigation on that aspect namely sharing of property. 20. P.W.2 further states that he does not know whether any record is available as to disputes relating to property between A.1 and the deceased. P.W.2 also admits that by the time they reached the scene of offence, the Police were there, which is contrary to his version in chief examination wherein it is stated that after they went to Police Station, all of them proceeded to scene along with Police. P.W.2 also admits that by the time they reached the scene of offence, the Police were there, which is contrary to his version in chief examination wherein it is stated that after they went to Police Station, all of them proceeded to scene along with Police. Further, the above answers also lead to an inference that even before a report was lodged and even before P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 prepared the report, the Police were aware about the incident and also the place where dead body of the deceased was. Further, P.W.2 admits that Ex.P1 report was drafted to the dictation of P.W.1 and that he did not read over the contents and explained the same to P.W.1. 21. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that the version in the F.I.R. which was lodged at 11.00 A.M. is something different to what is stated in the Court. Before dealing with F.I.R, one crucial fact which has to be noted here is, while P.W.1 speaks about the incident at 10 to 11 P.M. on 11.05.2011, P.W.2 speaks about the incident on the intervening night on 10/11.05.2011 at 1.30 A.M. Further, in the report given by P.W.1, it was stated that there were disputes between the deceased and A.1 for the last twenty years and that some quarrel took place between them. On the intervening night of 10/11.05.2011 at 1.30 A.M., A.1 and the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and her distant relatives A.2 to A.4, came in a Sumo and took her husband highhandedly and they also requested P.W.1 to come there. On the next day morning, P.Ws.1 and 2 and some of the relatives went to Kadiri to the house of P.W.6, the driver of Sumo, who disclosed that A.1 to A.4 took the deceased to Nagireddipalli Village, beat him indiscriminately, killed him and then sunk the body at Maddileru Vanka. At that time, due to fear P.W.6 returned to the village. According to P.W.6, the said incident took place at 4.00 A.M. The F.I.R. also shows that P.W.1 along with her son went to the Police Station and narrated the same by giving this report. This report was given at 11.00 A.M. in the Police Station. From the F.I.R, it can be seen that the version is different and inconsistent with what she spoken in the Court. This report was given at 11.00 A.M. in the Police Station. From the F.I.R, it can be seen that the version is different and inconsistent with what she spoken in the Court. P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that on 11.05.2011 at about 10 to 11 P.M. A.2 and A.3 came to their house, the remaining accused [A.1 and A.4] were in Sumo. Apart from that this report was received in the Police Station at 11.00 A.M. and reached the Court on that day evening at 9.00 P.M. A perusal of the report vis-à-vis the evidence would clearly indicate that the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they went to Police Station after the information about the incident was furnished by P.W.6 and then disclosed commission of offence by giving a report appears to be doubtful, more so, when the version of P.W.2 is that to the dictation of P.W.1 he drafted the report. Thereafter, P.W.1 put her Left Thumb Impression. If that was so, then her version before the Police and in the Court should have been consistent, which does not appear to be so. 22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the inquest report, which is placed on record as Ex.P5. The said inquest proceedings were held on 11.05.2011 at 12.30 noon. P.Ws.1, 2 and others were examined at the inquest. In Column No.15 of the inquest report, it was mentioned as if two persons came to the house, wearing Police Uniform. The said contradiction is marked as Ex.D.2. This version of the witness, examined at the time of inquest, more particularly, that of P.Ws.1 and 2, shown that they gave a go-bye to the said version and instead A.2 and A.3 were added as the persons who came to the house and knocked the door. Though, this circumstance at first blush appeared to be very minor in nature, but taking an overall situation of the case, it assumes significance for the reason that the version which was available with the prosecution at the time of inquest was two persons amongst the names mentioned in the inquest report came to the house of the deceased, wearing Police Uniform, which is not the case in the F.I.R. given. If really the F.I.R. was given prior to the inquest, the said information should have been in the inquest also. If really the F.I.R. was given prior to the inquest, the said information should have been in the inquest also. Having regard to the above, a doubt arises as to whether really things have happened in the manner narrated by the prosecution witnesses, more so when the F.I.R. and the inquest report reached the Magistrate at 9.00 p.m. 23. While dealing with the evidence of P.W.4, one other factor which requires to be noted is that according to him that on 10.05.2011 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1 informed him that A.1 to A.4 came on previous night at 1.30 a.m. and took away the deceased in a Sumo, for a panchayat for partition of the property. Immediately, P.W.4 along with P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 went to Kadiri and enquired about the deceased. It is to be noted here that P.W.1 in her evidence never deposed about A.1 to A.4 coming to her house at 1.30 a.m. Her version is that A.2 and A.3 came to her husband on 11.05.2011 between 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. But, the evidence of P.W.4 is P.W.1 informed him about the accused coming to her house at 1.30 a.m. and A.1 to A.4 together took the deceased in a Sumo for a panchayat. While the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that only A.2 and A.3 came and took the deceased. 24. When the evidence of these witnesses is tested with the evidence of Investigating Officer/P.W.15, he in his cross-examination admits that all the witnesses were examined by him at the time of inquest. He further admits that in the complaint it was mentioned that two unknown persons went to the house of the deceased styling themselves as Police Constables and brought the deceased. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion, which is as under:- “All the witnesses I examined are examined at the time of inquest. It was revealed in the complaint that two unknown persons went to the house of the deceased personifying themselves as Police Constables and brought the deceased.” 25. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer/P.W.15, it reveals a different story. The F.I.R. which is placed on record does not refer to two unknown persons. If the version of Investigating Officer is to be accepted, then the situation would be still worse, as all the accused were known to P.W.1. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer/P.W.15, it reveals a different story. The F.I.R. which is placed on record does not refer to two unknown persons. If the version of Investigating Officer is to be accepted, then the situation would be still worse, as all the accused were known to P.W.1. She could not have mentioned as two unknown persons came to her house in the night, styling themselves as Police Constables. 26. Apart from that, P.W.15 admits in the cross-examination that P.Ws.1 and 2 never disclosed to him during the course of investigation, about P.Ws.3 and 4 and other relatives following them. P.W.15 further admits that P.Ws.1 and 2 never disclosed to him that A.1 to A.4 tapped the doors of the deceased house. He further stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state before P.W.15 that they tried to obstruct Sumo. These are all the improvements which are now made in the Court. 27. Having regard to the above circumstances referred to above namely “the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, they went to the Police Station, lodged a report and from there the Police took them to the place where the dead body is located, being, contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 itself, who in their cross-examination admit that on an information furnished by the Police they went to the Police and by the time they reached the scene, the Police were present at the scene. This, as observed by us earlier, is false for the reason that the entire case is based on the information furnished by P.W.6, but it appears to be otherwise, as the Police were aware even before P.Ws.1 and 2 would inform them about the incident and that the Police reached the scene after informing P.Ws. 1 and 2, which is not the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. 28. Further, there is any amount of doubt as to contents of Ex.P1. Even assuming that the said report was drafted by P.W.2 to the dictation of P.W.1 and thereafter P.W.1 put her thumb impression, but the contents of the said report are at variance with the evidence on record. More so, in view of Ex.D2 and the admission of the Investigating Officer wherein he states that the report discloses two unknown persons taken the deceased which is contrary to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. More so, in view of Ex.D2 and the admission of the Investigating Officer wherein he states that the report discloses two unknown persons taken the deceased which is contrary to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, having regard to the above, we feel that all is not well in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, which is full of glaring contradictions, touching the root of the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, benefit of doubt has given to the appellants/A.3 and A.4. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A.3 and A.4 in the Judgment dated 13.08.2015 in Sessions Case No.712 of 2012 on the file learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for the offences punishable under Section 364 and 302 r/w.34 I.P.C, are set aside and they are acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellants/A.3 and A.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/A.3 and A.4 shall be refunded to them. The case against A.1 and A.2 is already abated as they died. M.Os.1 and 2 are ordered to be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.