JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. Originally, three accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”] against A.1 and Section 302 r/w. Section 114 IPC against A.2 and A.3 in S.C.No.250 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. As A.1 absconded pending trial, the case against him was separated vide S.C.No.346 of 2005. Later, A.3 absconded after commencement of trial. His case was separated vide S.C.No.59 of 2007. Hence, A.2 alone faced trial in S.C.No.250 of 2001 and he was acquitted. Against the acquittal of A.2, the State preferred appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2013 before the High Court, which came to be dismissed at the admission stage on 25.04.2013. 2. Subsequently, A.3 faced trial and vide judgment dated 04.12.2014, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for Life. Against the conviction and sentence imposed against A.3, the present appeal is filed. 3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 07.12.1999 at about 4.00 p.m. near Palmyra trees, situated in the fields of Brundavan Nagar, Kavali Town, A.2 and A.3 abetted A.1 to commit murder of Mannemala Venkateswarlu Reddy and in the course of the same, A.1 is said to have stabbed the deceased on the instigation of A.2, while A.3 caughthold of the deceased to facilitate A.1 in stabbing the deceased/Mannemala Venkateswarlu Reddy. 4. The facts, in issue, are as under:- (a) P.Ws.1 to 4, who are residents of Kavali Town, know the accused and the deceased. On 07.02.1999 at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. P.Ws.1 to 3 and others were returning to Kavali from their work and when they reached Brindavan Colony, Kavali, the accused, deceased and one Y. Ramakrishna and I. Srinu were quarrelling. They noticed A.3 catching hold of the deceased Venkateswarlu Reddy, while A.2 pointing out his hand towards the deceased. At that time, A.1 took a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the abdomen, as a result of which, his intestine came out. When P.Ws.1 to 3 and others tried to go near the accused, all of them ran away from that place. At that time, A.1 took a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the abdomen, as a result of which, his intestine came out. When P.Ws.1 to 3 and others tried to go near the accused, all of them ran away from that place. The friends of the deceased namely Y. Ramakrishna [P.W.9] and I. Srinu [not examined] also ran away from the said place. The deceased requested P.Ws.1 to 5 to take him to hospital. They carried the deceased in their hands, up to the main road, from where they took him in an Auto Rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Kavali. On the way, they met P.W.6, who is junior paternal uncle of the deceased, who also got into the Auto and accompanied them to the hospital along with P.Ws.1 to 5. The doctor at the hospital examined the injured and declared him brought dead. (b) P.W.1 set the law into motion by lodging a report on the very same day at 8.00 p.m. P.W.11-the then Head Constable, Kavali I-Town Police Station received the death intimation from the injured under Ex.P5. P.W.11 rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 and thereafter registered a case in Crime No.15 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P6-First Information Report. Further investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.12-Inspector of Police, who on receipt of F.I.R. at 10.15 p.m, visited the Government Hospital and recorded the statements of family members of the deceased. On the next day morning, at about 7.30 a.m., he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased near Mortuary at Government Hospital, Kavali, in the presence of mediators. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. He then visited the scene of offence at 12.00 noon and prepared a panchanama of the scene under Ex.P2. After completing the inquest, the body was sent for Post Mortem examination. (c) P.W.10, who was working as Woman Assistant Surgeon in Government Community Hospital, Kavali, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4-Post Mortem Certificate. According to the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and injury to the abdomen, which is possible with a knife and that the said injury is sufficient to cause death. On 16.02.1999 all the accused surrendered before P.W.12. According to the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and injury to the abdomen, which is possible with a knife and that the said injury is sufficient to cause death. On 16.02.1999 all the accused surrendered before P.W.12. After completing the investigation, P.W.12 filed a Charge Sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.23 of 1999 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. As the offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore 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, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.Os.1 and 2. Out of thirteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.9 did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated as hostile witness. 8. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied. However, he did not adduce any evidence except Ex.D1-Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 in support of his plea. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, who were examined as eye witnesses to the incident, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that in view of the acquittal of A.2 and the appeal filed by the State against A.2 being dismissed at the admission stage, the present appeal filed by appellant/A.3 also has to be allowed. He further submits that even accepting the entire case of the prosecution to be true, the appellant/A.3 is alleged to have caughthold of the deceased and A.1 stabbed the deceased. He further submits that even accepting the entire case of the prosecution to be true, the appellant/A.3 is alleged to have caughthold of the deceased and A.1 stabbed the deceased. This act of A.3 cannot lead to an inference that he was aware about A.1 being armed with a weapon and that he is likely to stab the deceased, more so, in the absence of any evidence of any prior meeting of minds to do away the deceased. Hence, pleads for scaling down of the offence. 10. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposed the same contending that the role of A.2 is different from the role of A.3 and the acquittal of A.2 does not automatically lead to acquittal of the A.3. He submits that the act of A.3 in catching hold of the deceased and facilitating A.1 to cause death of the deceased is sufficient to show that he shared common intention to do away with the deceased. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is sufficient to hold that the accused is liable for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 114 I.PC or in the alternative Section 302 r/w. Section 109 I.P.C. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.114 I.P.C or Section 302 r/w. Section 109 I.P.C? 12. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that as per the averments in the Charge Sheet, the motive for the commission of the offence is an incident which took place on 05.02.1999 between A.2 and the deceased, when A.2 abused the deceased after consuming alcohol. It is said that in that connection, the deceased grew wild and beat A.2 indiscriminately with hands and legs. In retaliation to the said incident, A.2 with the help of A.1 and A.3 is said to have caused the death of the deceased. But, one fact which has been noted here that P.Ws.1 and 3, who were present at the time of incident that occurred on 05.02.1999, did not speak about the same while giving their evidence. In retaliation to the said incident, A.2 with the help of A.1 and A.3 is said to have caused the death of the deceased. But, one fact which has been noted here that P.Ws.1 and 3, who were present at the time of incident that occurred on 05.02.1999, did not speak about the same while giving their evidence. It may be true that in F.I.R. given by P.W.1, there is a reference to the said incident that took place on 05.02.1999, but when the witness who gave the F.I.R. does not speak to the same, nothing turns out on such averment as Ex.P1 as it is not a substantial piece of evidence. Therefore, the motive part relied upon by the prosecution in our view is legally not proved. 13. In order to appreciate the case on hand and the arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence available on record. Firstly, as stated earlier, A.2 was acquitted by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the High Court. The case against A.1, who stabbed the deceased, was separated as he is absconding. Coming to the role of A.3, P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on 07.02.1999 at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. while he was returning from his work [collection of toddy] along with P.Ws.2 to 5, he found the accused and the deceased and three more persons were quarrelling each other near Brundavan Colony, Kavali, when P.W.1 reached near to the accused, he noticed A.3 catching hold of the deceased Venkateswarlu Reddy. Then, A.1 is said to have taken out a knife and stabbed the deceased Venkateswarlu Reddy on the left side of the abdomen. A.2 was showing his hand towards the deceased. When all the prosecution witnesses tried to go near the accused, the accused ran away from the place. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital. 14. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that he did not mention the name of the A.3 as he does not know his name, but however, referred to him as a Mechanic belonging to Muslim community. He further states that as he does not know the correct name of A.3, he did not mention in Ex.P1 and he came to know that the correct name of A.3 later. He further states that as he does not know the correct name of A.3, he did not mention in Ex.P1 and he came to know that the correct name of A.3 later. This circumstance was highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that A.3 is not the same person who was actually present at the scene, which we are not inclined to accept in view of the fact that P.W.1 identified the accused No.3 as the person who present there at the scene of offence. 15. P.W.2 also deposed on same lines as that of P.W.1. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that though he does not know the name of A.3, but he can identify him. 16. P.W.3 is another witness, who in his evidence deposed about A.1 and the deceased quarrelling and A.3 catching hold of the deceased while A.2 pointing out his hand towards the deceased, then A.1 is said to have stabbed the deceased on the left side of the abdomen. According to him, they could not catch hold of them as they were at some distance. 17. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, it was elicited that though he does not know the name of A.3 even today, but he can identify the said person. It was further elicited that it was A.3 who used to take toddy for him and others from him. Therefore, the evidence of these three witnesses in our view does not in any way doubt the presence of A.3 at the scene of offence. 18. Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he, in his chief-examination categorically states that he identifies A.3 in the Court Hall and also states that he knows him. According to him, about ten years prior to the date of giving evidence at about 5 or 5.30 p.m., while himself along with P.Ws.1 to 3 and another were returning from the fields of Musunuru after tapping the toddy, they found one Ramakrishna and Seenu of Chakali community and Venkateswarlu Reddy [deceased] on one side and A.1 to A.3 on the other side altercating with each other, which was near Brundavan colony. They claim to have chastised as to why they are altercating and asked them to go away. Both the parties were pushing each other. Then, A.2 had shown his right hand towards the deceased and then A.3 went and caughthold of the deceased. They claim to have chastised as to why they are altercating and asked them to go away. Both the parties were pushing each other. Then, A.2 had shown his right hand towards the deceased and then A.3 went and caughthold of the deceased. At that point of time, A.1 removed a knife and stabbed on left side of Dokka of the deceased, as a result, the intestine came out from his stomach. When the deceased fell down, all the accused ran away towards Kavali side. The two persons who were near the deceased Ramakrishna and Seenu also ran away. P.Ws.1 to 5 along with others carried the deceased up to the by-pass road and thereafter to Government Hospital in an Auto where he died. 19. In the cross-examination of P.W.4, it was elicited that he does not know the name of A.3 and when he was examined by the Police, A.3 was referred to as a Muslim boy. It was further elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.4 that initially the deceased, Ramakrishna and Seenu came for the purpose of consuming toddy and subsequently A.1 to A.3 also came there. On the said date, the deceased did not consume the toddy. All the other suggestions given with regard to identity of the accused were denied. 20. P.W.5, who is resident of Tufan Nagar, Kavali was present along with P.Ws.1 to 4 on the date of offence. According to him, he knows A.3, as he used to come to his shop for consuming toddy. According to him, on 07.02.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. P.Ws.1 to 5 were returning after tapping toddy. On the way, they noticed A.1 to A.3 on one side and the deceased and two others on other side, pushing each other. On seeing them, P.W.1 rushed towards them and separated them. Seeing P.W.1 alone separating them, the others also proceeded towards P.W.1. At that point of time, A.2 stated to A.1 and A.3 that the deceased was the person who came upon him on the previous day and asked them to kill him. Then, A.1 stabbed on the left side of the dokka of the deceased while A.3 caughthold of the hands of the deceased from behind. After the deceased fell down, the others left the place. 21. Then, A.1 stabbed on the left side of the dokka of the deceased while A.3 caughthold of the hands of the deceased from behind. After the deceased fell down, the others left the place. 21. P.W.5 was also cross-examined at length disputing his presence and also the manner in which the incident took place, but all the suggestions given were denied. 22. P.W.6 is a very close relative of the deceased, who met P.Ws.1 to 5 while they were taking the deceased to hospital and then accompanied the injured to the hospital. Nothing turns on his evidence except he disclosing the information furnished to him by P.W.1 about the incident in question namely P.Ws.1 to 3 on one side and the deceased and two others on the other side quarrelling and according to him one among three stabbed the deceased with a knife. 23. P.W.10 is the Post Mortem doctor, who in her evidence states that on 08.02.1999 at about 1.45 p.m. she conducted autopsy and according to her the cause of death was due to injury on abdomen. Strangely, no cross-examination was done by the defence counsel. 24. From the evidence adduced above, the incident in question cannot be doubted. In fact, in the appeal filed by the State against A.2 against the acquittal, this Court while holding that an incident in question which took place, but however, A.2 did not participate in the commission of offence. The finding of the trial Court that A.2 cannot be convicted by invoking Section 114 of I.P.C. was upheld. 25. Now, the question is, whether the appellant/A.3 can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 114 of I.P.C? 26. It is to be noted here that the evidence on record and the findings given by the High Court in the appeal filed by the State against A.2 clearly indicate that no evidence has been placed on record to show that there were prior disputes, in which, the deceased is said to have beat A.2. Further, the evidence on record nowhere speaks about meeting of minds to do away with the life of the deceased. Further, the evidence on record nowhere speaks about meeting of minds to do away with the life of the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.4, who was there along with P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 categorically states that when they arrived at the scene, they noticed A.1 to A.3 on one side and the deceased and two others on the other side pushing each other. It is his evidence that P.W.1 went towards the accused and separated them. During the course of said process, A.2 is said to have instigated A.1 and A.3 to stab the deceased as he was the person who was responsible for the incident on the previous day. Though, this fact was not spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3, but the evidence of P.W.4 is otherwise. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.4 establishes that both the parties were pushing each other. 27. When the motive to commit the offence namely incident on 05.02.1999 was not established as it was not spoken to by witnesses and when there was no prior meeting of minds to do away with the deceased, is it permissible to convict A.3 by invoking the Section 114 of I.P.C? 28. It is also to be noted here that there is no evidence on record to show that the weapon carried by A.1 was to the knowledge of A.3 or that A.1 displayed the weapon prior to attack on the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence of witness shows that he removed the weapon from his pocket and then stabbed on the left dokka of the deceased. Hence, from the narration of events, it follows that A.3 was not aware about A.1 being armed with a weapon coupled with the fact that there was no prior meeting of minds to do away with the deceased. In the course of a quarrel, which take place on the road and on A.2 pointing out of his finger towards the deceased stating that the deceased was responsible for the incident on the previous day, A.3 is said to have gone towards the deceased, caught hold of him and then A.1 stabbed once on the dokka of the deceased. 29. To make a person liable under Section 302 r/w.114 I.P.C, there must be abetment. 29. To make a person liable under Section 302 r/w.114 I.P.C, there must be abetment. Abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C. To invoke Section 107 I.P.C., there must be instigation or intentional aiding of doing a thing. Here, the instigation appears to be from A.2, but he is acquitted. Pursuant to the act of A.2, A.3 is said to have caught hold the hands of the deceased from his back side, by which can to be said that, he facilitated A.1 to stab the deceased. Things would have been different, had A.3 was aware that A.1 was armed with a weapon and that they came there to do away with the deceased. Situation here as we said earlier is different. 30. Firstly, it is to be seen whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 114 I.P.C? The Section 114 I.P.C, is as under:- “114. Abettor present when offence is committed.—Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.” 31. Section 114 I.P.C. provides for the punishment of what is known in English Law as Principal in the second degree. This section applies to a case where a person abets the commission of offence sometimes before it takes place and happens to be the person when the offence is committed. It is not applicable to a case where abetment is at the time when the offence takes place and abettor helps in committing the offence and not merely by abetment. As held by Gujarat High Court in Ranchhodbhai Manjibhai Chovatia and other vs. Pravinbhai Kalubhai Italiya and other, (2016) 1 GLH 268 ; “13. Section 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 provides for the punishment of what is known in English Law as principal in the second degree. A person may remain absent at the place of occurrence and yet may abet the offence. He becomes liable under Section 109. He may again abet such offence and remains present at the place of occurrence. He becomes liable under this section. A person may remain absent at the place of occurrence and yet may abet the offence. He becomes liable under Section 109. He may again abet such offence and remains present at the place of occurrence. He becomes liable under this section. The principle is that if the nature of the act constitutes abetment then if the abettor remains present he is to be deemed to have committed the offence although another man has actually committed it. In other words, a person present abetting an offence will be deemed to have committed the offence. If a person instigates the principal offender to commit murder he abets the murder. If such abettor is away from the scene when the offence is committed he is charged under Section 109. If he is present he is charged under this Section. Section 114 is only brought into operation when circumstances amounting to abetment of a particular crime have first been proved, and then presence of the accused at the commission of that crime is proved in addition.” 32. A reading of the provision of law coupled with the judgment of Gujarat High Court makes it clear that Section 114 I.P.C. can be invoked or can be brought into operation when the circumstances amounting to abetment of a particular crime have first been proved, and then presence of the accused at the commission of offence is proved. 33. The Gujarat High Court relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathurala Adi Reddy vs. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 177 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “18. A conspectus of the above referred case-law makes the position very clear that Section 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 is a provision which is only brought into operation when circumstances amounting to abetment of a particular crime have first been proved, and then the presence of the accused at the commission of that crime is proved in addition. The section is evidentiary not punitory. Because participation de facto may sometimes be obscure in detail, it is established by the presumption juris et de jure that actual presence plus prior abetment can mean nothing but participation. 34. However, to bring a person within Section 114 I.P.C., the abetment must be complete apart from the mere presence as an abettor. The section is evidentiary not punitory. Because participation de facto may sometimes be obscure in detail, it is established by the presumption juris et de jure that actual presence plus prior abetment can mean nothing but participation. 34. However, to bring a person within Section 114 I.P.C., the abetment must be complete apart from the mere presence as an abettor. It is necessary first to make out the circumstances which constitute abetment, so that, “if absent”, he would have been “liable to be punished as an abettor” and then to show that he was present when the offence was committed. Further the words “his presence when the act or offence…is committed” are also significant. The mere presence as an abettor of any person will not render him liable for the offence committed. He must be sufficiently near to give assistance, and there must be a participation in the act. If an abettor of an offence is on his account of his presence at its commission, to be charged under Section 114 as a principal, his abetment must continue down to the time of the commission of the offence. Further, the words “he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence” are also significant. The effect is that the person present is to be treated in the same way as if he had committed the offence. The facts which are prima facie to be established to invoke the Section 114 I.P.C. is abetment prior to commission of offence and abettor’s presence at the time of commission of offence. 35. In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no evidence on record to show earlier acts of abetment. In fact, the Division Bench of this High Court while dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2013 filed against the order of acquittal of A.2 in this case held that the section applies only when the above two ingredients are satisfied. 36. That being so, conviction under Section 302 r/w. Section 114 I.P.C. would be improper? 37. At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no bar to convict the accused by invoking Section 109 I.P.C, as no prejudice would be caused in doing so. 36. That being so, conviction under Section 302 r/w. Section 114 I.P.C. would be improper? 37. At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no bar to convict the accused by invoking Section 109 I.P.C, as no prejudice would be caused in doing so. From the narration of evidence available on record, the presence of A.3 stood established and he is said to have caught hold of the hands of the deceased, when A.2 pointed out deceased as the person responsible for the previous incident. Therefore, we feel that appellant can be convicted by invoking Section 109 I.P.C. as no prejudice is caused to the appellant, more so, when one of the ingredients to invoke Section 114 I.P.C. is to establish the presence of accused at the scene. 38. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant pleads that having regard to the manner in which the incident took place, it may not amount to an offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 109 I.P.C. As observed earlier, there was no prior meeting of minds to do away with the deceased; the presence of deceased was noticed at the time of quarrel between the two groups; A.2 after identifying the deceased as the person responsible for previous incident, pointed out his flee towards him and stated to A.1 and A.3; A.1 is said to have received a knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased. 39. In Chandrakant Somnath Kudale and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 107, the Hon’ble apex Court held as under:- “4. While the evidence regarding the murderous attack on Papa by Appellants 1 and 2 in the manner set forth above was clear and clinching, the Sessions Judge formulated a theory of his own to conclude that the offence committed by the two appellants would only constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not murder itself. While the evidence regarding the murderous attack on Papa by Appellants 1 and 2 in the manner set forth above was clear and clinching, the Sessions Judge formulated a theory of his own to conclude that the offence committed by the two appellants would only constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not murder itself. The Sessions Judge, without there being any basis in the evidence for it, proceeded to act on surmises and conjectures and presumed that a heated altercation must have ensued when Papa went to collect the money, that Papa must even have had a tussle with Appellant 1 and caused the abrasions found on him and that in the heat of the quarrel Appellant 1 must have stabbed Papa under grave and sudden provocation and as such he cannot be held to have caused Papa's death with an intention to cause death or to cause such injuries as would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. By means of such specious reasoning, the Sessions Judge brought down the offence committed by Appellant 1 to one under Section 302 Part II IPC and the offence committed by Appellant 2 to one under Section 304 Part II read with Section 109 IPC and awarded RI for seven years and two years respectively besides imposing fine amounts on them. 5. The High Court after subjecting the evidence to a careful scrutiny and noticing the manner in which the appellants had attacked Papa after asking him to come home to collect the money claimed by him and the nature of the weapon used and the serious nature of the injuries caused on him by Accused 1 repeatedly stabbing him and Accused 2 effectively abetting the commission of the offence by keeping a tight hold on his hands till all the stabs were inflicted, came to the conclusion, and in our opinion very rightly, that the offence committed by the two accused clearly amounted to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.” 40. From the above, it is clear that there was intention to kill the deceased and everything happened only on noticing the deceased at the scene. Further, the appellant may not be knowing about A.1 armed with a weapon apart from the fact that there was a quarrel between both the groups prior to the incident. 41. From the above, it is clear that there was intention to kill the deceased and everything happened only on noticing the deceased at the scene. Further, the appellant may not be knowing about A.1 armed with a weapon apart from the fact that there was a quarrel between both the groups prior to the incident. 41. Having regard to the above, and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant/A.3 is modified from Section 302 r/w. Section 114 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-II r/w. Section 109 I.P.C. Hence, the sentence of Imprisonment for Life imposed under Section 302 r/w. Section 114 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.59 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, is scaled down to Seven [7] Years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II r/w. Section 109 I.P.C. 42. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.