JUDGMENT : The judgment, dated 09.02.2009 in Sessions Case No.304 of 2007, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2, who were the Accused Nos.1 and 2, in the above said Sessions Case. 2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3) The Sessions Case No.304 of 2007, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.3 of 2007, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Turni, relating to Crime No.5 of 2007 of Tuni Rural Police Station. 4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet as above, is as follows: (i) A.1, A.2 and A.4 are residents of Seethayyapeta, h/o Velama Kothuru Village of Tuni Mandal. They are own brothers. A.3 is resident of Mukundarajupeta Village of Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He is a cousin to A.1, A.2 and A.3. One Gorla Veerraju S/o Satyanarayana (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”), was resident of Seethayyapeta, h/o Velama Kothuru Village of Tuni Mandal. The defacto-complainant-Gorla Babji (L.W.1) and another injured Gorla Nageswara Rao (L.W.2) are own brothers. They are the sons of deceased. The deceased was having two wives viz., Satyavathi and Gorla Appalakonda- L.W.3. He got two sons and one daughter to his first wife- Satyavathi. Five years ago, Satyavathi passed away. Later, the marriage of her daughter and elder son Gorla Srinu (L.W.9) was performed by the deceased. Marriage L.W.9 was performed with L.W.10-Gorla Arjamma, who is no other than the own sister’s daughter of the deceased. Arjamma is own sister of A.1, A.2 and A.4. (ii) On the eve of Pongal festival, L.W.9-Gorla Srinu, the son of the first wife of deceased, went to his in-laws house along with his wife Arjamma. On 16.01.2007 afternoon, he had a quarrel with his wife, during which he beat his mother-in-law with a stick when she intervened in the middle. Then A.1, A.2 and A.4 being the brother-in-laws of L.W.9 assaulted him. Then L.W.9 threatened them that he would take care of them by bringing his father and brothers and left the house of his in-laws and went to the house of the deceased. Then A.1, A.2 and A.4 being the brother-in-laws of L.W.9 assaulted him. Then L.W.9 threatened them that he would take care of them by bringing his father and brothers and left the house of his in-laws and went to the house of the deceased. He raised a dispute with the deceased on the ground that the deceased and the sons of his second wife are not supporting him, due to which he became lenient among his brothers-in-law. During the said conversation, the deceased beat L.W.9. (iii) A.1, A.2 and A.4 with A.3 were waiting at the end of the street expecting that the deceased and his sons would support the cause of L.W.9. So, they raided the house of the deceased at 3-00 p.m., armed with sticks and picked up quarrel with the deceased for sending his son L.W.9 to draw Swords against them. Then a verbal altercation took place between A.1 to A.4 on one side and the deceased on the other side. In that quarrel, A.1 and A.2 indiscriminately beat the deceased with sticks on his head. When on seeing this, L.W.2 intervened to rescue the deceased, A.3 dealt two hefty blows on his head and right hand elbow. Then L.W.1 intervened and then A.4 beat him with a stick on his head and left side of the neck. They caused bleeding injuries to him. During that struggle A.1 and A.2 also received injuries in the hands of their adversaries. On seeing the incident and when the neighbours gathered, A.1 to A.4 fled away from the spot with their sticks. The deceased, L.W.1 and L.W.2 were referred to Government Area Hospital, Tuni by their family members on the same day. On 16.01.2007 at 5-35 p.m., the deceased died while undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Tuni. (iv) On the basis of the hospital intimation and the statement of L.W.1, L.W.19-Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2007 under Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. L.W.20-Inspector of Police took up investigation. During the scuffle A.1 and A.2 were beaten by L.W.1 and L.W.2 and a counter case in Crime No.6 of 2007 has been registered. L.W.20-Inspector of Police visited the Government Hospital, Tuni on 16.01.2007 and recorded the statements of L.W.1 and L.W.2. During the scuffle A.1 and A.2 were beaten by L.W.1 and L.W.2 and a counter case in Crime No.6 of 2007 has been registered. L.W.20-Inspector of Police visited the Government Hospital, Tuni on 16.01.2007 and recorded the statements of L.W.1 and L.W.2. On 17.01.2007 he visited the scene of offence along with L.W.12-Penumutchu Sri Ramamurthy and L.W.13-Botta Gangaraju, mediators, observed the same and prepared observation report. He also seized some material objects. He got photographed the scene of offence by L.W.11-Sarepalli Srinivasa Rao, Photographer. He drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence. He got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.W.12, L.W.13 and L.W.14-Gorla Babji. He further examined at the time of inquest L.W.3-Gorla Appalakonda, L.W.4-Murukurthi Lakshmi, L.W.5-Neeladri Vijaya Kumar, L.W.6-Eepi Peda Lovaraju, L.W.7- Mekala Venkata Ramana and L.W.8-Gorla Sanyasirao @ Tatababu and recorded their statements. He forwarded the dead body on 17.01.2007 for postmortem examination. He further examined and recorded the statement of L.W.11 Photographer. (v) On 18.01.2007 L.W.20 arrested the accused and pursuant to the confession, he seized three sticks, which were used by the accused in attacking the deceased. The seizure was effected in the presence of L.W.12 and L.W.15-Palivela Latchanna, the mediators. After that, he forwarded the accused for remand. L.W.16-Dr. S. Annapoorna, the medical officer, conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. She issued postmortem report opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple fractures of skull bones. L.W.17-Dr. A. Venkata Ramana, another medical officer, treated the injured L.W.1 and L.W.2 and issued wound certificates opining that the injuries received by L.W.1 and L.W.2 are simple in nature. Material Objects seized were forwarded to R.F.S.L., Vijayawada. Hence, A.1 and A.2 are liable for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and further A.3 and A.4 are liable for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. causing injuries to L.W.1 and L.W.2. 5) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, took cognizance under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and further Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) the case in P.R.C.No.3 of 2007 was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, took cognizance under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and further Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) the case in P.R.C.No.3 of 2007 was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions numbered it as Sessions Case and made over to the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. 6) On appearance of the accused (A.1 to A.4) before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, charges under Section 302 of I.P.C. against A.1 and A.2, Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against A.3 and A.4, Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.3 and A.4 and Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.2 and A.4 and further Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.3, were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7) In order to establish the guilt against the accused, during the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and further got marked M.O.1 to M.O.5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same. 8) During the course of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination, A.1 gave his statement as follows: (a) He (A.1) called his brother-in-law Srinu on the eve of Kanuma festival. His sister (sister of A.1) asked her husband the money to go to thirdham (religious event). Srinu had only Rs.20/-. His sister demanded Rs.100/-. His brother-in-law Srinu and his sister quarreled with each other. They asked them not to quarrel at their house. Therefore, he sent out his brother-in-law, Srinu to his parents’ house. After that they heard cries from the house of Srinu. Then, he along with A.2 went there. They found Veerraju (deceased) and his children quarrelling and he along with A.2 supported them. Then P.W.2 beat him (A.1) with a stick and P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick. During the struggle, Veerraju (deceased) fallen from the steps on the cement road. Then he along with A.2 went to the police station and complained against P.W.1 and P.W.2 as they beat them. Then P.W.2 beat him (A.1) with a stick and P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick. During the struggle, Veerraju (deceased) fallen from the steps on the cement road. Then he along with A.2 went to the police station and complained against P.W.1 and P.W.2 as they beat them. They were sent to the hospital. They were in the hospital for three days. After three days, they learnt that Veerraju died. Police took them to the police station. In the meantime, Srinu his brother-in-law came to the police station and told to the police that A.1 and A.2 have nothing to do with the death of Veerraju (deceased) and Veerraju received injuries from his people i.e., P.W.1, he himself (Srinu). They were implicated falsely. A.2 during the course of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination, gave his statement that he is adopting the statement of A.1. They further revealed that they have defence witnesses. (b) In furtherance of their defence evidence, they got examined D.W.1, the Medical Officer and D.W.2 another Medical Officer. Further A.1 and A.2 examined themselves as D.W.3 and D.W.4. They further got examined their brother-in-law Srinu as D.W.5. So, during the course of defence evidence, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined. During the course of cross examination of P.W.2 Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked. Through P.W.3 Ex.D.3 was marked. Through P.W.4 and P.W.5 Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.6 were marked. Further during the course of cross examination of P.W.11, the investigating officer, Ex.D.7-the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.6 of 2007 was marked. Through the chief examination of D.W.1 to D.W.3, Ex.D.8 to Ex.D.10 were marked respectively. 9) The learned III Additional Sessions Judge on conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as against the original charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. and further found A.3 and A.4 guilty for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and acquitted the accused of other charges. After questioning them about the quantum of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 and A.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. After questioning them about the quantum of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 and A.2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Further the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced A.3 and A.4 to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1 and A.2 as above, filed the present Criminal Appeal. There is no cross appeal filed by the prosecution as against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution did not make out the case under Section 302 of I.P.C. against A.1 and A.2. 10) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution proved that on 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m., A.1 and A.2 indiscriminately beat Gorla Veerraju with sticks on his head and caused his death as alleged by the prosecution? (2) Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. against A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt? (3) Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT NOS.1 TO 3:- 11) P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and son of the deceased Veerraju. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 and another son of the deceased Veerraju. P.W.3 is the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.4 is a witness who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.5 is a witness to speak about the quarrel that took place at the house of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Photographer who took photos of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is a mediator for observation of the scene of offence and consequent things and also about the recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accused pursuant to their disclosure statement. The prosecution examined P.W.8 to speak about the injuries received by P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.9 is another medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 having received the medical intimation from the hospital. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police, who investigated the matter. 12) The accused examined D.W.1 to prove the injuries on the person of A.2. P.W.9 is another medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 having received the medical intimation from the hospital. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police, who investigated the matter. 12) The accused examined D.W.1 to prove the injuries on the person of A.2. D.W.2 is to speak injuries received by A.1. D.W.3 and D.W.4 are A.1 and A.2 respectively. D.W.5-G. Srinu is the brother-in-law of A.1 and A.2. 13) Turning to the evidence of P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, he knows A.1 to A.4. A.1, A.2 and A.4 are the children of his paternal aunt. A.3 is brother-in-law of his step brother Gorla Srinu. His father Gorla Veerraju has two wives. His mother Appalakonda is the second wife of his father. Gorla Satyavathi is the first wife of his father, who died about five years go. The children of Gorla Satyavathi are Nagamani, Srinu and Shiva. His mother Appalakonda got three children viz., Laxmi, Nageswara Rao and he (P.W.1). His step brother Gorla Srinu married Arjamma. A.1, A.2 and A.4 are the brothers of Arjamma, who is the wife of Gorla Srinu. His step brother Gorla Srinu used to attend tailoring work at the house of A.1, A.2 and A.4, since two months prior to the incident. On 16.01.2007 his step brother Srinu came to them and complained that A.1, A.2 and A.4 beat him and that his father (deceased) was not helping him in resolving the problem. He does not know the reason as to why A.1, A.2 and A.4 beat Srinu. His father beat his step brother Srinu as to why he went to his brothers-in-law house and picked up a quarrel with them. Then his brother Srinu fell down. Then all the accused came there armed with sticks. A.1 and A.2 beat his father with sticks on the head. His father fell down. Then his brother Nageswara Rao tried to interfere to save his father, but he was attacked by A.3. A.3 beat his brother Nageswara Rao with a stick on the head and right hand. Then Nageswara Rao fell down. When he tried to save his father and his brother Nageswara Rao, A.4 beat him with a stick on his left side forehead and on neck and also on his back. Then he fell down. A.3 beat his brother Nageswara Rao with a stick on the head and right hand. Then Nageswara Rao fell down. When he tried to save his father and his brother Nageswara Rao, A.4 beat him with a stick on his left side forehead and on neck and also on his back. Then he fell down. A.1 to A.4 after attacking his father, his brother Nageswara Rao and himself (P.W.1) left the place with weapons. L.W.5-Neeladri Vijaya Kumar, Gorla Arjuna Rao, his mother Appalakonda, his sister Laxmi, L.W.6-Eepu Lovaraju and L.W.8- Gorla Sanyasi Rao were present at the time of incident. L.W.13- Butta Ganga Raju shifted his brother Nageswara Rao and his father to the Government Hospital. His mother and sister also came to the hospital. They reached there at 4-00 or 4-30 p.m. His father died about 5-00 or 5-30 p.m. Police came there and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P.1. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were the sticks used by the accused in the attack. 14) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1 and son of the deceased, his evidence with regard to the incident in question is that on 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m. Srinu came to their house from his parents-in-law and picked up a quarrel with his father saying that he was not taking care of him when brother-in-laws beat him. Then his father felt angry and beat Srinu with a small stick on the back of the head of Srinu. In the meanwhile, A.1 to A.4 came to their house and found fault with his father saying that he was instigating Srinu to quarrel with them. A.1 beat his father on his head with a Kondakarra. A.2 beat his father with a Bamboo stick on the head. His father fell down with heavy bleeding. He lost consciousness. He, P.W.1, his sister Laxmi and his mother Appalakonda were present there. When he tried to rescue his father, A.3 beat him with a Bamboo stick on his right elbow and on his head and he fell down. He and his father were shifted to hospital by his mother and his sister. He cannot say whether his brother P.W.1 was also attacked by the accused and his brother was also brought to the hospital. Later, he came to know that his father died in Government Hospital, Tuni. He and his father were shifted to hospital by his mother and his sister. He cannot say whether his brother P.W.1 was also attacked by the accused and his brother was also brought to the hospital. Later, he came to know that his father died in Government Hospital, Tuni. He and P.W.1 were discharged from the hospital on 17.01.2007 early hours. 15) P.W.3, the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the incident, deposed that on Kanuma festival day i.e., 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m., Srinu and his wife Arjamma both came to her father deceased. Her step brother Srinu found fault with her father as to why he was not interfering when his brother-in-laws quarreled with him and beat him. Then his father got angry and beat his step brother Srinu with a small stick saying that he was unnecessarily picking up quarrels on the festival day. Then her step brother Srinu fell down. Then all the four accused came there and attacked her father saying that he was beating their brother-in-law unnecessarily. A.1 beat her father with Kondakarra on the head. Thereafter, A.2 beat her father on the head with Bamboo stick. Her father fell down with heavy bleeding and lost consciousness. She raised cries. P.W.1, P.W.2 and her mother, were there at that time. P.W.2 went to rescue of her father and A.3 beat P.W.2 on his right elbow and on the head with a Bamboo stick. Her brother P.W.1 also went there to rescue of their father and he was beaten by A.4 with a Kondakarra on the left side of the head and on the left shoulder. All the four accused left the scene along with the sticks. On hearing her cries and cries raised by her mother and others, Mekala Venkataramana (L.W.7) and Neeladri vijaya Kumar (L.W.5) came there. Botta Gangaraju (L.W.13) also came to their house and with his help, she and her mother shifted her father, P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the Government Hospital, Tuni. Her father died while undergoing treatment. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were also shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. 16) P.W.4 witness to the occurrence deposed that on 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m., he found Srinu and his father was quarreling with each other. At that time, he was at his house. On hearing the quarrel, he went out. Her father died while undergoing treatment. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were also shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. 16) P.W.4 witness to the occurrence deposed that on 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m., he found Srinu and his father was quarreling with each other. At that time, he was at his house. On hearing the quarrel, he went out. Srinu found fault with his father saying that there are some quarrels between him and his brother-in-laws and his father is not giving any support to him. The deceased told that Srinu was all the time finding fault with his parents-in-law whenever he visits him i.e., deceased and in the same way, Srinu found fault with the deceased. The deceased saying so, beat Srinu with a small stick on the head. Srinu fell down with bleeding injury. All the accused were there at the house even by the time Srinu and his father were quarrelling with each other. A.1 and A.2 beat the deceased on the head with sticks. They each caused one injury to the deceased. The deceased fell down with heavy bleeding. P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to rescue their father. A.3 beat P.W.2 and A.4 beat P.W.1 with sticks. 17) The evidence of P.W.5 is that about one year ago on Kanuma day, Gorla Veerraju died. At 3-00 p.m., on coming to know about the quarrel and on hearing the cries, he came near the house of the deceased. He found the deceased fell on the ground. He also found P.W.1 and P.W.2 lying on the ground. He found A.1 and A.2 near the house of the deceased. By that time several people gathered there. He wanted to know A.1 and A.2 what happened there but they left the place. 18) P.W.6 is the Photographer, who took photographs of the scene of offence and later the dead body at Government Hospital, Tuni and according to him Ex.P.2 is the photographs relating to the scene of offence and the dead body. 19) P.W.7 was the mediator for observation of the scene of offence and he supported the case of the prosecution. According to him on 17.01.2007 at 7-00 a.m., Inspector of Police examined the scene of offence in his presence and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P.3. It was done between 7-30 a.m. and 8-30 a.m. Ex.P.3 is his signature on the observation report. One Botta Gangaraju also signed as a mediator. According to him on 17.01.2007 at 7-00 a.m., Inspector of Police examined the scene of offence in his presence and prepared scene observation report under Ex.P.3. It was done between 7-30 a.m. and 8-30 a.m. Ex.P.3 is his signature on the observation report. One Botta Gangaraju also signed as a mediator. He was also present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital. On 18.01.2007 at 2-30 p.m., at request of police he went to the office of Inspector of Police, Tuni and he was present at the time of interrogation of A.1 to A.4 by the police and accused confessed the offence. Pursuant to the confession, police seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 the sticks. Ex.P.6 is the mahazarnama. 20) The prosecution examined P.W.8 to prove the injuries on P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to him, he examined P.W.1 and found multiple contusions over the left shoulder with abrasions. Patient is not able to lift the left shoulder. He found a contusion over the right wrist of P.W.1. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. With regard to the injuries on P.W.2, he deposed that he examined P.W.2 and found a swelling with contusion over the right forearm, an abrasion about 1x1 cm over the right wrist, a contusion with abrasion right arm, a laceration scalp deep occipital region (2x1 cm), a laceration scalp deep right parietal region (3x1 cm) and a laceration scalp deep in the left parietal region of scalp (2x1 cm). Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate of P.W.2. 21) P.W.9 is the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. She spoken in detail as to the state of the dead body at the time of postmortem. With regard to the injuries, she found oblique sutured laceration of size 6 cm. over left franto parietal region. Heamatoma of 0.5 cm thickness extending over left temporal, parietal, occipital and right parietal region. She found left parietal bone fractured into pieces. Occipital bone was fractured obliquely and near occipital parietal junction, she found oblique facture of right parietal bone extending to frontal and temporal bones. Ex.P.9 is the postmortem report. The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of multiple fractures of skull bones and intracranial haemorrhage. She found left parietal bone fractured into pieces. Occipital bone was fractured obliquely and near occipital parietal junction, she found oblique facture of right parietal bone extending to frontal and temporal bones. Ex.P.9 is the postmortem report. The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of multiple fractures of skull bones and intracranial haemorrhage. 22) P.W.10 spoke to the fact that on 16.01.2007 at 5-15 p.m., while he was present in the police station, he received MLC intimation from Town Police Station under Ex.P.10. He proceeded to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.1 statement from P.W.1. Further he also received death intimation of the deceased Gorla Veerraju which is Ex.P.11. Basing on Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.1, he registered Crime No.5 of 2007 under Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Ex.P.12 is the F.I.R. He telephoned to the Inspector of Police about the registration of F.I.R. Later at 7-00 p.m. while he was present at police station, he received information about the injuries sustained by A.1 and A.2. He recorded the statement of A.2. Basing on it, he registered Crime No.6 of 2007 under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The Inspector of Police took up investigation in Crime N.6 of 2007 also. A.2 stated before him that he sustained injuries in the hands of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 23) P.W.11 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 16.01.2007 at 6-15 p.m., he received phone message from P.W.10 about the offence in Crime No.5 of 2007. Then he reached Rural Police Station, Tuni and collected a copy of F.I.R. He visited the Government Hospital, Tuni and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In the meantime, P.W.10 registered Crime No.6 of 2007 under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against P.W.1 and P.W.2 basing on the statement of A.2. Since the case in Crime No.6 of 2007 is a counter case, he took up investigation both in Crime Nos.5 and 6 of 2007. On 17.01.2007 he secured P.W.7 and observed the scene of offence. He prepared rough sketch. He got photographed the scene of offence. He seized blood stained earth and controlled earth from the scene. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Gorla Veerraju in the Government Hospital, Tuni in the presence of P.W.7, B. Gangaraju and Gorla Babji. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and three others. He prepared rough sketch. He got photographed the scene of offence. He seized blood stained earth and controlled earth from the scene. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Gorla Veerraju in the Government Hospital, Tuni in the presence of P.W.7, B. Gangaraju and Gorla Babji. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and three others. He got photographed the dead body through P.W.6 Photographer. Later, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. On 18.01.2007 A.1 and A.2 were discharged from the hospital, Tuni and they were produced before him by the police. Then he secured the mediators P.W.7 and Palivela Lachanna. By then, A.3 and A.3 were also produced before him. Then he interrogated all the accused. He prepared mahazarnama as per the confession of the accused and all the accused lead them to Seethaiah peta Village, near the scene of offence and searched the bushes near the water tank and produced three sticks before him. Three sticks were seized by him under Ex.P.5. He forwarded the accused for remand. On 19.01.2007 he examined Gorla Srinu and Gorla Arjamma and recorded their statements. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada. After receipt of postmortem report and wound certificates, he filed charge sheet. He referred the case in Crime No.6 of 2007 as mistake of fact and a final report was also filed to that effect. During the course of cross examination of P.W.11, certified copy of FIR in Crime No.6 of 2007 was marked as Ex.D.7. 24) There is no dispute about the registration of FIR in Crime No.6 of 2007 basing on the statement of A.2. The accused got examined D.W.1 to speak about the injuries received by A.2. According to D.W.1, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tuni, on 16.01.2007 at 5-55 p.m., he examined Eepu Naga Satti Babu (A.2) and found a laceration of about 3x2 c.m. bone deep over the frontal aspect of the scalp and a laceration of about 2x ½ cm bone deep over the right side of the face over the right eye brow. Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate of A.2. 25) According to the evidence of D.W.2, on 16.01.2007 at 6-00 p.m., he examined patient by name Eepu Lovaraju (A.1) and found complaining pain and tenderness over right wrist. On examination moments normal swelling present. Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate of A.2. 25) According to the evidence of D.W.2, on 16.01.2007 at 6-00 p.m., he examined patient by name Eepu Lovaraju (A.1) and found complaining pain and tenderness over right wrist. On examination moments normal swelling present. He complained of pain over back of left elbow joint and a small abrasion of size 1x1 inch over back of right scapula. He issued Ex.D.9 wound certificate of D.W.2. 26) Coming to the evidence of D.W.3, who is no other than A.1, he speak about the relation between him and the prosecution witnesses especially the deceased and his sons, etc., and all those facts are not in dispute. His evidence with regard to the defence is that on Kanuma day in 2007 i.e., 16.01.2007 his brother-in-law Srinu and his wife Arjamma quarreled with each other as Srinu demanded Rs.100/- from his sister, Arjamma. He asked Srinu and his wife Arjamma to go to the house of Srinu as they were quarrelling with each other on the festival day at their house. About half an hour later, he heard some galata from the house of Srinu. He and A.2 went to the house of Srinu. P.W.1 and P.W.2, the deceased and Srinu were quarrelling each other and they were armed with sticks. The deceased Veerraju gave a blow with a stick on the head of Srinu and he fell down. He tried to stop them from quarreling with each other. He separated the deceased Veerraju, Srinu and Nageswara Rao. At that time P.W.2 beat him on his head with a stick. P.W.1 beat him with a stick on his left hand. Then A.2 intervened as the deceased Veerraju and others beat him. P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick on his head. In that quarrel, the deceased Veerraju fell on the road from Arugu (pial). In that incident, the deceased sustained a head injury coming into contact with the cement road edge. He and A.2 went to Tuni Rural Police Station and complained to the police about the attack made against them by the deceased and his sons. Then they were taken to the hospital. They were treated as patients for three days. On 17.01.2007 he learnt that Veerraju died and then they were brought to the police station. After that they were discharged. Then they were taken to the hospital. They were treated as patients for three days. On 17.01.2007 he learnt that Veerraju died and then they were brought to the police station. After that they were discharged. Srinu, son of Veerraju informed the Inspector of Police that he and other accused have no connection with the death of the deceased and the deceased sustained injuries in the quarrel took place among the deceased, P.W.1, P.W.2 and he (Srinu). Basing on the statement recorded by police, they registered Crime No.6 of 2007. Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.6 of 2007. There is no truth in the allegations of the prosecution against him and other accused. 27) Turning to the evidence of D.W.4, his evidence is similar to that of the evidence of D.W.3. 28) Coming to the evidence of D.W.5, who is Gorla Srinu, his evidence on crucial aspect is that about two years ago on Kanuma festival day, he was at his parents-in-law house. He asked Rs.100/- from his wife for his expenditure. His wife agreed to give Rs.50/-. He insisted for Rs.100/-. In that connection there was quarrel took place between him and his wife. His parents-in-law found fault with him, when he quarreled with his wife and asked him to go to his house. Then he and his wife left the house of parents-in-law. After coming to his house, he found fault with his father that just because of him, he had no respect either at his house or at the house of his parents-inlaw and his father was not taking care of him. At that time, P.W.1 who was present there found fault with him saying that he is abusing his father and both of them quarreled with each other. Then his father beat him (D.W.5) with a stick on his head. Meanwhile, A.1 and A.2 came there and tried to separate him and P.W.1. Then P.W.2 beat A.1 with a stick on the head. P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick on his head. A.1 and A.2 suffered bleeding injuries. Then A.1 and A.2 left that place. Then his father beat him (D.W.5) with a stick on his head. Meanwhile, A.1 and A.2 came there and tried to separate him and P.W.1. Then P.W.2 beat A.1 with a stick on the head. P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick on his head. A.1 and A.2 suffered bleeding injuries. Then A.1 and A.2 left that place. Later he, P.W.1 and P.W.2 quarreled and in that quarrel his father wanted to beat him with a stick and in that quarrel P.W.1 sustained injury in the hands of his father i.e., deceased and in that quarrel his father fell down on the ground from Arugu which is at the height of 5 feet from the ground. His father fell on the cement road. His father sustained head injury. Then he went to private hospital. He came to know that his father was shifted to G.G.H., Tuni. P.W.1, P.W.2, Appalaknoda and others were there in the hospital. He was kept at the hospital along with A.1 and A.2. He was examined by a Journalist of newspaper and he stated before them that the accused have no connection with the death of his father. 29) The learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ramakrishna. A, would contend that the prosecution party and the defacto-complainant party were admittedly interrelated with each other as on the date of offence. Gorla Veerraju (deceased) had two wives. Appalakonda, the second wife of the deceased, was mother of P.W.1. Gorla Satyavathi was the first wife of the deceased, who died about five years ago prior to the offence. The children of Gorla Satvathi were Nagamani, Srinu and Shiva. The children of Gorla Appalakonda were Lakshmi, Gorla Nageswara Rao (P.W.2) and Gorla Babji (P.W.1). Gorla Srinu was given in marriage with the sister of A.1, A.2 and A.4. Gorla Srinu was no other than the step brother of P.W.1 and P.W.2. On the eve of Kanuma festival, A.1, A.2 and A.4 brought their sister and Gorla Srinu to celebrate the festival in their house. On account of a quarrel between Gorla Srinu and his wife- Arjamma in connection with certain petty amounts, A.1, A.2 and A.4 asked Gorla Srinu and their sister not to create quarrel at their house at the time of festival and asked them to go away. Then, Gorla Srinu along with his wife went to his parents’ house. On account of a quarrel between Gorla Srinu and his wife- Arjamma in connection with certain petty amounts, A.1, A.2 and A.4 asked Gorla Srinu and their sister not to create quarrel at their house at the time of festival and asked them to go away. Then, Gorla Srinu along with his wife went to his parents’ house. After some time, accused heard cries from the house of deceased, as such, they went there and then they found deceased Veerraju and his children were quarrelling. Then A.1 and A.2 separated them from quarrelling. Then P.W.2 beat A.1 with a stick and P.W.1 beat A.2 with a stick. There was a quarrel, as such, during struggle, Veerraju fallen from the steps on the cement road. Thus, A.1 and A.2 received injuries in the hands of P.W.1 and P.W.2. They went to the police station and presented a report which was registered as a case in Crime No.6 of 2007. The police did not investigate the case properly and referred it as a mistake of fact. So, A.1 and A.2 received injuries in the hands of P.W.1 and P.W.2. A.1 and A.2 were not at all responsible for the death of deceased Veerraju. To prove the injuries on the person of A.1 and A.2, they examined D.W.1 and D.W.2, the medical officers. They further examined themselves as D.W.3 and D.W.4. Apart from this, they examined the crucial witness, Gorla Srinu, as D.W.5. The prosecution did not explain the manner in which the present appellants received injuries. In the absence of the same, inference to be drawn is that prosecution deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the decisions in (1) Lakshmi Singh and others, etc., vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 and (2) Babu Ram and others vs. State of Punjab, 2008 CRI.L.J. 1651. 30) Learned counsel would further contend that according to the evidence of P.W.1 in cross examination, firstly they went to the police station from where they were referred to the hospital. Therefore, the report or the statement given by P.W.1 at the police station was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. On the other hand, Ex.P.1 which was leisurely recorded in the hospital was pressed into service. Hence, the suppression of F.I.R. is evident from the probabilities of the case. Therefore, the report or the statement given by P.W.1 at the police station was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. On the other hand, Ex.P.1 which was leisurely recorded in the hospital was pressed into service. Hence, the suppression of F.I.R. is evident from the probabilities of the case. When it is the case of the prosecution that A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased Veerraju with sticks, there were multiple injuries on the head of the deceased which the prosecution failed to explain. There would have been two injuries, if the case of the prosecution is true and the multiple injuries found on the head of the deceased, goes to prove that the prosecution further suppressed the manner in which the deceased received injuries. During the course of cross examination, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6, the respective Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses were recorded which probabalize the defence theory. The contention of the appellants is that in that quarrel that took place between the deceased and his sons while attacking A.1 and A.2, deceased fell down from the steps and received injuries. The evidence of P.W.4, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, is not at all believable and he is not a direct witness to the occurrence. The investigating officer did not investigate the case properly. The accused by getting examined D.W.1 to D.W.5 proved about the injuries received by them at the same place, same time and same date. Admittedly, the Crime No.6 of 2007 was registered basing on the statement of A.2 and the statement of A.2 is no other than Ex.D.7 and even the investigating officer admitted about the registration of the counter-case. His evidence that he referred the case as the accused party was the aggressors is not at all tenable. Failure to explain the injuries on the person of A.1 and A.2 is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The investigating officer did not bring the real facts on record. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to allow the appeal. 31) In alternative, he would contend that if this Court is going to dismiss the Criminal Appeal for any valid reason, the Court may reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants because the dispute was only a family quarrel. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to allow the appeal. 31) In alternative, he would contend that if this Court is going to dismiss the Criminal Appeal for any valid reason, the Court may reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants because the dispute was only a family quarrel. 32) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that A.3 and A.4 were also convicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for causing injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they were let off with fine and they did not file any appeal challenging the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge. The scene of offence was no other than the house of the deceased. The house of the accused was located in a different lane. The presence of A.1 and A.2 at the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence is not in dispute. The accused party were the aggressors. The defence of the accused before the prosecution witnesses was not adhered by the accused at the time of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination. They brought into picture a different story. The evidence of D.W.5 on crucial aspects was not supporting the theory of A.1 and A.2. In fact, D.W.5 witnessed the occurrence, but he deliberately came to aid the defence of the accused case, he was no other than the brother-in-law of A.1, A.2 and A.4. The evidence on record proves that the injuries received by A.1 and A.2 were trivial in nature and as the scene of offence was at the house of the deceased, appellants were the aggressors and the contents in Ex.D.7, the statement of A.1 is self-explanatory as if accused party and the prosecution party beat with each other and investigating officer duly considered the circumstances and came to a conclusion that the accused party were the aggressors, as such, he referred the case appropriately for which the accused party did not file any protest petition, etc. The evidence on record would goes to prove that A.1 and A.2 targeted the head of the deceased causing fractures. The injuries received by the deceased were corresponding to the overt acts. There were no multiple injuries and the medical officer described the fractures in detail. The evidence on record would goes to prove that A.1 and A.2 targeted the head of the deceased causing fractures. The injuries received by the deceased were corresponding to the overt acts. There were no multiple injuries and the medical officer described the fractures in detail. He would further contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found guilty of the appellants for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 33) The evidence on record depicts that the prosecution party consisting of P.W.1, P.W.2, deceased and his family members and the accused party were interrelated with each other. There is no dispute that the deceased Veerraju had two wives. P.W.1, P.W.2 and others were the children of the second wife and D.W.5 i.e., G. Srinu and others were the children of the first wife. There is no dispute that D.W.5-G.Srinu is no other than the step brother of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no dispute that A.1, A.2 and A.4 were the brothers of Arjamma, who was given in marriage with Gorla Srinu. Thus, the relation between the parties is not in dispute. 34) The specific case of the prosecution as evident from Ex.P.1 is that on 16.01.2007 at 3-00 p.m., Gorla Srinu, son of first wife of the deceased came to the deceased and complained that at his in-laws house, his in-laws and brother-in-laws quarreled with him and that the deceased is not taking care of him. In the meantime, accused and their relative Mekala Narasinga Rao came there with sticks and questioned the deceased as to how he supported Gorla Srinu and while saying so, A.1 and A.2 attacked his father with sticks on the head and he received bleeding injuries. When his elder brother Nageswara Rao tried to rescue, A.4 beat him on the head and right elbow and when he (defacto-complainant) intervened, A.3 beat him on his head. Again he beat him on his left neck and he received swelling. This is the sum and substance of Ex.P.1. 35) During the course of evidence as pointed out, P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination on behalf of the accused, P.W.1 deposed that he and his brother did not try to interfere when his father beat Srinu. This is the sum and substance of Ex.P.1. 35) During the course of evidence as pointed out, P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed in support of the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination on behalf of the accused, P.W.1 deposed that he and his brother did not try to interfere when his father beat Srinu. He denied that immediately after his father beat Srinu, he (Srinu) beat his father on his head with a stick. There are sticks in front of their house. A.1, A.2 and A.4 came from their house and A.3 came from his parents-in-law house. They came to their house within no time when his father beat Srinu. All the accused were armed with sticks. A.2 was armed with Kondakarra and A.2 and A3 were armed with Bamboo sticks. A.1 beat his father with a stick on his head and later A.2 beat his father on his head. His father received only two injuries i.e., one in the hands of A.1 and another in the hands of A.2. There was no struggle between him and the accused. Accused did not sustain any injury. He denied that he and his brother Nageswara Rao tried to attack Srinu and then accused came there to rescue Srinu and in that incident, he and his brother Nageswara Rao beat the accused and that he beat A.1 with a stick on his head and his brother Nageswara Rao beat A.2 with a stick. He denied that in the said quarrel, his father fell on the cement road and sustained injuries on his head. 36) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 during cross examination, he denied that he beat A.1 and P.W.1 beat A.2. He further denied that his step brother Srinu beat his father (deceased) on his head, as such, his father fell on the cement road and sustained injury. He denied that his father sustained injury in the hands of his step brother Srinu and the accused are implicated. 37) Turning to the evidence of P.W.3, the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.2, during cross examination denied that her step brother Srinu beat her father when he found fault with him as to why he is picking up quarrel with his brother-in-laws. 37) Turning to the evidence of P.W.3, the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.2, during cross examination denied that her step brother Srinu beat her father when he found fault with him as to why he is picking up quarrel with his brother-in-laws. She further denied that P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to beat her step brother Srinu, when he beat his father and in that incident A.1 and A.2 tried to save Srinu, as such, they received injuries. 38) Turning to the evidence of P.W.4 during cross examination, he denied the defence theory. 39) Now, as evident from the defence of the accused, the contention of the accused is that the deceased beat Srinu on his head with a stick and then Srinu beat the deceased with a stick on his head. There is no dispute about the statement of A.1 which was recorded by the police which was the basis for the registration of Crime No.6 of 2007. The substance of Ex.D.7, the copy of the statement of A.1 is such that he never whispered in Ex.D.7 that Gorla Srinu beat the deceased on his head. On the other hand, it runs that the prosecution party and the accused party beat with each other. Thus, the defence set forth by the accused before P.W.1 to P.W.4 that Gorla Srinu i.e., D.W.5 beat the deceased on his head has no basis at all. Crucially, when it comes to Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination of A.1, he never whispered that Gorla Srinu, D.W.5 beaten the deceased with a stick on his head and caused injuries. Likewise, it is never the evidence of D.W.3 and D.W.4 that Gorla Srinu i.e., their brother-in-law (D.W.5) beaten the deceased with a stick on his head. Therefore, the defence set forth before P.W.1 to P.W.4 that Gorla Srinu beaten the deceased with a stick on his head was not adhered to by A.1 and A.2 during Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination. On the other hand, when they examined themselves as D.W.3 and D.W.4, they did not stick on to that version. 40) Now, I would like to deal with as to whether the contention of the appellants that there were more injuries on the head of the deceased, as such, the prosecution suppressed the manner of the deceased receiving injuries is tenable or not. 40) Now, I would like to deal with as to whether the contention of the appellants that there were more injuries on the head of the deceased, as such, the prosecution suppressed the manner of the deceased receiving injuries is tenable or not. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, their evidence is that both A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased i.e., they caused one injury each. It is reiterated by P.W.1 in cross examination. 41) Now, coming to the evidence of medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, as P.W.9, her evidence in substance with regard to the injuries noted on the dead body of the deceased is that there was oblique sutured laceration of size 6 cm over left franto parietal region, hematoma of 0.5 cm thickness extending over left temporal, parietal, occipital and right parietal region. Left parietal bone fractured into pieces. Occipital bone fractured obliquely and near occipital parietal junction, she found oblique fracture of right parietal bone extending to frontal and temporal bones. During cross examination, he deposed that there were multiple fractures of skull bones. The fracture of skull bones may be possible by fall from a height on a hard surface. 42) It is to be noticed that the fracture that was found on the head of the deceased was corresponding through frontal parietal and occipital region. So, the injury received by the deceased can be ascribed to the overt acts attributed against A.1 and A.2. When the allegations were that they attacked the deceased on the head with sticks, there would have been multiple fractures on the skull of the deceased. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the prosecution suppressed the manner of attack. I do not find any iota of merits in the contention of A.1 and A.2 that there were more injuries found on the body of the deceased as against the overt acts attributed against A.1 and A.2. The said contention is not at all tenable. 43) Coming to the contention of the appellants that the police suppressed the original statement or the report presented by P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 categorically deposed in the cross examination that firstly they went to the police station directly and thereafter from there they went to the hospital. Police directed them that they should be shifted to hospital immediately. 43) Coming to the contention of the appellants that the police suppressed the original statement or the report presented by P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 categorically deposed in the cross examination that firstly they went to the police station directly and thereafter from there they went to the hospital. Police directed them that they should be shifted to hospital immediately. Therefore, it is very clear that the immediate attention before the police was to provide proper medical aid. When a particular party approached the police with injuries, the police cannot be found fault firstly for referring the injured to the hospital. It is not elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during cross examination that he presented any report or his statement was recorded by the police at the police station. Therefore, there is no basis for the appellants to contend that the investigating officer suppressed the original statement or the report. 44) In a case of this nature, when there were report and counter report, locating the scene of offence is of prime criteria. In a case and counter, scene of offence is of any importance to decide as to who was the aggressor. Absolutely, there is no dispute that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the deceased were residing at a particular place, the houses of A.1 and A.2 were located in a different street. There is no dispute that in fact the children of the deceased through his first wife and second wife were residing along with the deceased in two separate portions. D.W.5 was residing adjacent portion of the deceased. Hence, the residences of A.1 and A.2 are far away from the residence of the deceased, P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.5. The presence of A.1 and A.2 at the scene of offence at the time of occurrence was not at all in dispute. Thus, it is quietly admitted by the appellants that they were physically present at the time of offence alleged against them at the house of the deceased. So, the scene of offence is located at the house of the deceased. It is also quietly evident from the rough sketch prepared by the investigating officer under Ex.P.13. 45) The evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P.1. P.W.1 deposed in tune with the contents in Ex.P.1. Evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 literally. It is also quietly evident from the rough sketch prepared by the investigating officer under Ex.P.13. 45) The evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P.1. P.W.1 deposed in tune with the contents in Ex.P.1. Evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 literally. Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether their evidence is believable and is inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. To attack the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as not trustworthy the defence sought to rely upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 were marked by the learned defence counsel before the Court below by way of necessary confrontation with the respective prosecution witnesses. 46) Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.11, the investigating officer, he deposed that P.W.2 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2, P.W.3 stated before him as in Ex.D.3, P.W.4 stated before him as in Ex.D.4 and P.W.5 stated before him as in Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6. Now, this Court has to see as to whether Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 goes to the very root of the matter. Ex.D.1 literally runs that when P.W.2 and his younger brother interfered, Eepu Srinu beat his younger brother with a stick on his head and on left side of the neck. Ex.D.2 runs that thereafter his mother, his sister, Neeladri Kumar, Gorla Arjuna Rao, Eepu Peda Lova Raju, S/o of Sanyasi, etc., came there and separated them. In my considered view, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 would not contradict the evidence of P.W.2 in any manner. Therefore, in my considered view, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 is of no use to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 especially his presence along with the deceased, P.W.1, Gorla Srinu and the presence of A.1 to A.4 were not at all in dispute. 47) Coming to Ex.D.3 i.e., contradictory statement of P.W.3, it runs that subsequently his mother, he, Neeladri Kumar, Gorla Arjuna Rao, Eepu Peda Lova Raju, S/o Sanyasi and others came there and separated. It does not mean that P.W.3 did not witness the occurrence. Similarly, coming to Ex.D.4, it is the contradictory statement of P.W.4, which runs that she and the second wife Appalaknoda of Veerajju, their daughter Lakshmi and others went there and separated them. It is of no use to the case of the appellants in my considered view. It does not mean that P.W.3 did not witness the occurrence. Similarly, coming to Ex.D.4, it is the contradictory statement of P.W.4, which runs that she and the second wife Appalaknoda of Veerajju, their daughter Lakshmi and others went there and separated them. It is of no use to the case of the appellants in my considered view. Turning to Ex.D.5 i.e., portion of Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, it is to the effect that he went to the house of Veerraju and found the sons of Eepu Rajulu by name Eepu Lovatalli @ Lovaraju, Eepu Nagasathi Babu, Eepu Srinu and their brother-in-law by courtesy Mekala Narasinga Rao beat Gorla Veerraju and his second wife’s sons Nageswara Rao and Bujji with sticks. Eepu Lovatalli @ Lovaraju and Eepu Naga Sathi Babu beat Gorla Veerraju with sticks on his head. Ex.D.6 is to the effect that when he and some others interfered, the sons of Eepu Rajulu and Mekala Narasinga Rao run away with sticks. 48) It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.5, his evidence is that he found P.W.1 and P.W.2 lying on the ground and the deceased fallen on the ground and found A.1 and A.2 and they left the place. So, he did not depose that A.1 and A.2 attacked the deceased and that A.3 and A.4 attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2, etc. Looking into the evidence of P.W.5, Ex.D.5 and Ex.D6 are of no use to the case of appellants. 49) P.W.1 and P.W.2 are no other than the injured, as they received injuries in the hands of A.3 and A.4 for which A.3 and A.4 were convicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Throughout the defence, the presence of both the accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not in dispute. Apart from this, the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 was also quietly established by the prosecution. P.W.4 was an independent witness whose evidence remained unshaken during the cross examination. There is no dent in the cross examination of P.W.4 so as to disbelieve the case of the prosecution with regard to the overt acts attributed against A.1 and A.2. 50) It is a case where the incident in questioned was happened when D.W.5 questioned his father as to why he was neglecting him when the in-laws of D.W.5 were quarrelling with him. The incident was happened on 16.01.2007. 50) It is a case where the incident in questioned was happened when D.W.5 questioned his father as to why he was neglecting him when the in-laws of D.W.5 were quarrelling with him. The incident was happened on 16.01.2007. As this Court already pointed out, the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no definite stand. Their allegations in Ex.D.5 were not adhered to before P.W.1 to P.W.4 during cross examination. On the other hand, they alleged that D.W.5 attacked the deceased with a stick on his head. It was not adhered to during Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. examination of A.1 and A.2. 51) As seen from Ex.P.1, the statement of P.W.1, before the police while he was taking treatment, it was recorded on 16.01.2007 at 5-45 p.m., at Government Hospital, Tuni. As seen from Ex.D.7, it was the statement of A.2 and it was recorded by the police at Tuni Police Station on 16.01.2007 at 7-30 p.m. So, undoubtedly, the statement of P.W.1 was earlier in point of time. Basing on the statement of P.W.1, the FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Basing on the statement of A.2, the FIR under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. was registered. It is not the case of the accused that police filed any charge sheet supporting the allegations in Ex.D.7, the statement of A.2. There was a whisper in the charge sheet that the police referred the FIR registered on the statement of A.2, as investigating officer opined that the accused party are the aggressors. 52) Coming to the evidence of P.W.11, the investigating officer, he spoke about the receipt of copy of FIR in Crime No.5 of 2007 and his recording the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 during the investigation. He testified that P.W.10 registered Crime No.6 of 2007 basing on the statement of A.2 under Section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and he conducted investigation in both the crimes. He spoke about the investigation conducted pertaining to this case and his filing of charge sheet. He further spoke about the arrest of A.1 and A.2 after they were discharged and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3 pursuant to the disclosure statement. During cross examination, he deposed that he closed the case in Crime No.6 of 2007 with the finding that the accused herein were the aggressors. He further spoke about the arrest of A.1 and A.2 after they were discharged and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3 pursuant to the disclosure statement. During cross examination, he deposed that he closed the case in Crime No.6 of 2007 with the finding that the accused herein were the aggressors. He denied that he was not competent to give finding that the accused are aggressors and that he referred the case as a mistake of fact in Crime No.6 of 2007. He denied that Crime No.6 of 2007 would reveal the true facts. 53) As evident from the above spoken by P.W.11, he referred the Crime No.6 of 2007 as the accused party herein are the aggressors. The accused herein did not challenge the findings of the investigating officer. It is not the case of the appellants that challenging the findings of the investigating officer in Crime No.6 of 2007 whether they filed any protest petition objecting the final report or whether they filed any private complaint alleging the offences against P.W.1 and P.W.2 herein. Thus, the undisputed facts are that the investigating officer could not find anything against P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the allegations of A.2 herein in Crime No.6 of 2007. It is not a case that this Court is dealing with any situation that the statement of A.2 was resulted into filing of any charge sheet by the police. Therefore, according to the investigating officer, the accused herein are the aggressors, as such, Crime No.6 of 2007 was referred. Therefore, the allegations of A.2 pertaining to Ex.D.7 were not found favour by the investigating officer, as he came to a conclusion that the accused were the aggressors. 54) As evident from the answers spoken by D.W.1 and D.W.2, A.1 and A.2 were found with injuries when the medical officer examined. The so-called injuries received by A.1 and A.2 were simple in nature. According to D.W.1, a laceration of about 3x3 cms., bone deep over the frontal aspect of the scalp of A.2 and a laceration of about 2x ½ cm. bone deep over the right side of the face over the right eye brow of A.2. Insofar as A.1, A.1 complained pain and tenderness over right wrist and moments were normal. Swelling was present. bone deep over the right side of the face over the right eye brow of A.2. Insofar as A.1, A.1 complained pain and tenderness over right wrist and moments were normal. Swelling was present. A.1 complained pain over back of left elbow joint and he was found with a small abrasion of size 1x1 cm over back of right scapula. 55) Now, basing on the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 coupled with the wound certificates of A.1 and A.2, their contention is that the prosecution did not explain as to how A.1 and A.2 received injuries, as such, the prosecution deliberately suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the non-explanation of the injuries received by them by the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also the contention of the appellants in the grounds of appeal that P.W.1 did not explain as to how the accused received injuries and P.W.1 received injuries when the accused exercised the right of selfdefence. 56) In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in Lakshmi Singh’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the prosecution did not explain the injuries received by the accused facing trial under Section 302 of I.P.C. In the above said case, the allegations were under Section 302 of I.P.C. The medical officer examined the accused and found a compound fracture of the fibula bone and further incised wound and punctured wound on the accused and injury No.1 was grievous in nature and further the rest of the injuries were said to be serious as they were caused with by a sharp cutting weapon. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court looked into AIR 1975 SC 1478 also where it was held that there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injures by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court looked into AIR 1975 SC 1478 also where it was held that there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injures by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the above principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. 57) In Babu Ram’s case (2 supra), the facts were that the accused caught hold of the deceased in the street and inflicted injury on his chest. The accused took a plea that the deceased came armed to the house of the accused, abused and inflicted injuries to accused and his wife and the prosecution did not explain the injuries. Hence, in both the above cases the facts were that there were serious injuries on the person of the accused and further the deceased in Babu Ram’s case (2 supra) came armed with and inflicted injuries to the accused and his wife. 58) Coming to the present case on hand, as this Court already pointed out, accused were said to be the aggressors. The offence in question was happened in front of the house of the deceased. Apart from this, the injuries received by A.1 and A.2 were simple in nature. A.1 and A.2 had no business to go to the house of the deceased especially when they having vexed with the attitude of D.W.5, sent him to go to his house. In such circumstances, A.1 and A.2 by just hearing the cries would not have ventured to go to the house of the deceased. On the other hand, their presence at the house of the deceased can only be possible when they rushed to the house of the deceased with an intention to attack the deceased suspecting that the deceased was supporting D.W.5. The evidence on record in this case discloses that the deceased so as to admonish D.W.5 for his picking up quarrels with his in-law, beat D.W.5 with a stick. In the meantime, A.1 and A.2 came there suspecting that the deceased was supporting the cause of D.W.5, as such, they attacked the deceased. The evidence on record in this case discloses that the deceased so as to admonish D.W.5 for his picking up quarrels with his in-law, beat D.W.5 with a stick. In the meantime, A.1 and A.2 came there suspecting that the deceased was supporting the cause of D.W.5, as such, they attacked the deceased. As the accused are the aggressors in this case, they cannot contend that the prosecution did not explain the injuries on their person. 59) It is to be noticed that in my considered view, the contention of the appellants that they appears to have caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2 in self-defence is not at all tenable. It is not the case of the prosecution that A.1 and A.2 caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2. On the other hand, A.3 and A.4 caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.2 for which they were convicted when that is the situation, the contention canvassed in the grounds of appeal as if A.1 and A.2 appears to have exercised their right of private defence is not at all tenable. 60) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Bai Fatima and others, AIR 1976 SSC 1478 dealt with as to the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused and held that it all dependents upon the facts of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even failure to explain the injuries on the person of the accused may result into one situation that it does not affect the prosecution case at all. 61) Therefore, as to whether the case of the prosecution is affected in any way for failure to explain the injuries is a matter to be considered looking into the facts and circumstances of each case by looking into the defence of the accused. Here is a case that A.1 and A.2 are the aggressors in my considered view. They have no definite stand throughout. They changed their defence from time to time right from Ex.D.7 through the stages of trial. Under the circumstances, it is not a case where the Court can draw any adverse inference against the case of the prosecution. In fact, in my considered view that the right of private defence, if any, was available only to the prosecution party. The accused were the aggressors even according to the evidence let in by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, it is not a case where the Court can draw any adverse inference against the case of the prosecution. In fact, in my considered view that the right of private defence, if any, was available only to the prosecution party. The accused were the aggressors even according to the evidence let in by the prosecution. The accused had no right or business to go to the house of the deceased especially prior to the incident they sent out D.W.5 and his wife to go to their respective houses as they quarreled at the house of accused on the eve of Kanuma festival. In my considered view, the very defence of the accused before the prosecution witnesses that D.W.5 attacked the deceased is not at all tenable. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that non-explanation of the injuries on the person of A.1 and A.2 is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. 62) As evident from the Photographs relating to the dead body of the deceased marked under Ex.P.2, the injuries received by the deceased on the head are nothing but deadly. The nature of injuries received by the deceased is quietly evident from the evidence of P.W.9, medical officer coupled with the postmortem examination. Though the evidence on record does not disclose that the accused had intention to kill the deceased, but they have every knowledge that the attack made by them would result into death of the deceased as they targeted the head of the deceased. 63) There is consistency between the evidence of P.W.7, the mahazar witness and P.W.11, the investigating officer, with regard to the seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused. According to the testimony of P.W.7 after the accused were brought to the police station from the hospital, the investigating officer enquired them and they made a disclosure statement as regards M.O.1 to M.O.3 and they took the police to water tank in the outskirts of Seethayyapeta, A.1, A.2 and A.4 picked up three sticks from the bushes and produced before the investigating officer. During cross examination he denied that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused. There is no dent in the cross examination of P.W.7 and P.W.11 in this regard. P.W.7 had no reason to depose false. During cross examination he denied that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused. There is no dent in the cross examination of P.W.7 and P.W.11 in this regard. P.W.7 had no reason to depose false. Apart from this, there is a whisper in Ex.P.5, mahazar with regard to traces of dry blood marks on M.O.1 to M.O.3. P.W.11 deposed that he sent the material objects to R.F.S.L. and Ex.P.15 is the R.F.S.L. report. As evident from Ex.P.15, R.F.S.L. opined that on item Nos.7 to 9 apart from other items blood was detected. So, the prosecution further establishes that pursuant to the disclosure statement, M.O.1 to M.O.3 were recovered at the instance of the accused. It further fortifies the case of the prosecution. 64) As evident from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge though it is brief, but he duly taken into consideration the outcome of the investigation in Crime No.6 of 2007 and the presence of accused and the prosecution witnesses and with appropriate reasons, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found favour with the case of the prosecution insofar as the offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. is concerned. In my considered view, the evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt proves the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal and it is the appellants who attacked the deceased with big sticks with a knowledge that it will result into death of the deceased, as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C., culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 65) Turning to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in case of dismissal of the appeal, the Court may reduce the term of imprisonment imposed against A.1 and A.2, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge i.e., 5 years against each appellant is not at all harsh. 66) Having regard to the above, I do not find any tenable reasons to reduce the term of sentence imposed against the appellants. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 09.02.2009 of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in S.C.No.304 of 2007, is sustainable under law and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 09.02.2009 of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in S.C.No.304 of 2007, is sustainable under law and facts and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 67) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, as such, the judgment, dated 09.02.2009 of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in S.C.No.304 of 2007 shall stands confirmed. 68) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court on or before 14.09.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence by issuing a Non-Bailable Warrants against the appellants and to report compliance to this Court. 69) The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the judgment to the trial Court as above without fail on or before 14.09.2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.