JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant Nos.1 to 10 and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. Originally, Accused Nos.1 to 10 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Section 302 read with 149 of IPC for causing the death of one Kambhampati Ramesh (hereinafter referred to ‘deceased’) on 04.10.2012 at 9.30 a.m., at the shop of one Kolikipudi Bhaskara Rao of Lingapuram village. 3. Vide its Judgment, dated 13.08.2015, the learned Sessions Judge at Guntur in Sessions Case No.60 of 2014 found Accused Nos.1 to 10 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year. He also found Accused Nos.2 and 6 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 and 7 to 10 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for ‘life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under: (i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, while P.W.2 is a very close relative of the deceased. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased, while P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and other material witnesses are closely related to the deceased. (ii) There were two factions in the village, one lead by Kambhampati Kallaiah and another by Kambhampati Chandraiah. One group own allegiance to Congress-I party, while the other group to Telugu Desam Party. The prosecution party belongs to Kambhampati Kallaiah group, while the deceased belong to the group of Kambhampati Chandraiah. There were number of disputes/quarrels between both the groups, which lead to registration of number of criminal cases right from 1988 to 2003. However, in respect of some of the disputes, compromise was affected and the cases were disposed of by recording compromise. Thereafter, there were no incidents between two factions. (iii) Since, a year prior to the date of incident, differences crept up between both the groups, which lead to the incident in question. However, in respect of some of the disputes, compromise was affected and the cases were disposed of by recording compromise. Thereafter, there were no incidents between two factions. (iii) Since, a year prior to the date of incident, differences crept up between both the groups, which lead to the incident in question. (iv) It is said that, on 03.10.2012 the deceased (Kambhampati Ramesh) along with one Kambhampati Vidyadhar (P.W.7) were sitting on the cement bench at Kallaiah’s shop, accused nos.2, 3, 6 to 8 came there and they also sat on the same bench. On that, the deceased and P.W.7 left that place. By that time, the accused questioned them as to why they are sitting there, since the centre belongs to them. The deceased informed about the said incident to P.W.1. (v) On the next day morning i.e., 04.10.2012 at about 9.30 a.m. P.W.1 purchased some sundries from the shop of one Bhimaiah (not examined) and was returning home and when he reached the shop of Bhaskara Rao (not examined), he noticed accused Nos.1 and 4 catching the shirt-collar of the deceased stating that even though he was warned earlier, he did not realize and attacked him. On that, accused Nos.2 and 6 hacked the deceased with axes on his head, as a result of which, he received bleeding injuries and fell on the ground. Then, accused Nos.3 and 5 assaulted the deceased with stout sticks on his knees. Accused Nos.7, 8 and 9 also beat the deceased with hands and legs. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.5 went there, raised cries, and requested the accused not to beat. On that, all the accused left that place with axes and sticks through the mud road beside the house of Kasaiah. P.W.1 left that place weeping and brought his father (P.W.3) to the place of incident. P.W.1 and P.W.2 carried the injured (deceased) in an auto belonging to P.W.8 to go to Amaravathi Government Hospital. On the way, they came across an ambulance and accordingly, shifted the deceased into the auto and took him to Amaravathi Hospital, where, he was advised to take the injured to Government Hospital, Guntur. The injured was admitted at 1.30 p.m., at Government Hospital, Guntur. (vi) P.W.14, who was working as Head Constable in Lalapet Police Station, received a requisition from Causality Ward at 3.00 p.m., about the admission of the injured in Causality Ward. The injured was admitted at 1.30 p.m., at Government Hospital, Guntur. (vi) P.W.14, who was working as Head Constable in Lalapet Police Station, received a requisition from Causality Ward at 3.00 p.m., about the admission of the injured in Causality Ward. Ex.P.11 is the requisition. On receipt of Ex.P.11, he visited the Causality Ward, identified the injured and recorded the statement. The said statement is Ex.P.12. He read over the contents of the statement of P.W.1, which he admitted to be true. (vii) P.W.15/Sub-Inspector of Police, received the said statement and basing on the said statement, he registered a case in Crime No.210 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC. This was on 04.10.2012 at 9.30 a.m. Ex.P.13 is the First Information Report. After registering the crime, P.W.15 proceeded to Government General Hospital, Guntur and found the injured in ‘Coma’. He examined P.W.1 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements. The father of the injured (deceased) handed over blood stained clothes of the injured to P.W.15. (The said shirt is marked as M.O.1). (viii) On the next day morning i.e., 05.10.2012, P.W.15 proceeded to the scene of crime, where, he, in the presence of P.W.10, prepared a Panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P.2. he also drew a rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators, which is marked as Ex.P.14. At the scene, he seized blood stained earth, which is marked as M.O.2. He recorded the statements of P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and added Sections 147, 148 read with 149 of IPC. Ex.P.15 is the altered FIR. On 30.10.2012, he received intimation from Government General Hospital, Guntur about the death of the injured. Ex.P.16 is the death intimation. Basing on the same, he altered section of law to Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC. Ex.P.17 is the altered FIR. Copies of FIR were dispatched to the concerned Magistrate. (ix) P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer. He speaks not only about the investigation done by him prior to the death, but also holding of inquest at the Mortuary of Government General Hospital, Guntur. Ex.P.3 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and recorded their statements. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. He speaks not only about the investigation done by him prior to the death, but also holding of inquest at the Mortuary of Government General Hospital, Guntur. Ex.P.3 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and recorded their statements. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. (x) P.W.13, who was working as Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P.10 postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to head injury. (xi) On reliable information, P.W.16 proceeded to Vadlamanu Junction along with his staff and noticed ten (10) persons trying to skulk away in a jeep. They were detained and were questioned. All the ten (10) persons were arrested in the presence of P.W.12 and their confession came to be recorded, which lead to discovery of the weapons used in the commission of the murder, from the house of one Chilaka Veeraiah at Lingapuram village. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 are the Mahazars to that effect. The weapons seized were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) and after obtaining necessary reports from RFSL, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sattenapalli. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and since the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, charges, as referred to above, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and Ex.X.1, besides marking M.O.1 to M.O.6. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but, however, no defence evidence was adduced except got marked Ex.D.1. 7. Relying upon the evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the statement of the injured, which was treated as dying declaration, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. 7. Relying upon the evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the statement of the injured, which was treated as dying declaration, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. It is against this conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. (i) Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contends that because of earlier disputes between both the groups in the village, the accused, who are innocent, have been roped in. He further submits that the statement of the deceased recorded by P.W.14, which is placed on record as Ex.P.12 is a doubtful document. According to him, when Ex.P.16, which is Death Intimation Letter, speaks about admission of the injured on 04.10.2012 at 4.30 p.m., it is strange as to how P.W.14 could have recorded the statement prior to the said time. In other words, his argument is that, the evidence of P.W.14 would indicate admission of the injured at 1.30 p.m., while the evidence of P.W.14 speaks about his admission at 3.30 p.m. Therefore, recording of the statement, prior to admission at 3.30 or 3.00 p.m., leads to any amount of doubt with regard to Ex.P.12. (ii) Coming to the requisition, which is placed on record as Ex.P.11 and which is marked through P.W.14, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, a perusal of the same would show that the injured was brought to the hospital by P.W.3 and the injuries were alleged to have been caused by known persons. He further submits that, in many of the columns in the intimation, were not filled. He further submits that on the reverse side of Ex.P.11, there is an endorsement that the statement was sent to Station House Officer, Amaravathi Police Station at 3.00 p.m., on 04.10.2012 itself, meaning thereby that everything happened prior to his admission in hospital. He further submits that when the evidence of P.W.15 shows that, on that day at 9.30 p.m., when he visited the hospital, the injured was in ‘coma’, recording his statement at 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., by P.W.14 has to be viewed with suspicion. He took us through Ex.P.12 to show that there are number of circumstances to doubt the said document. (iii) The other argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that, a false case has been foisted by bringing into existence Ex.P.12 and thereafter, every witness was made to speak on those lines. He took us through Ex.P.12 to show that there are number of circumstances to doubt the said document. (iii) The other argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that, a false case has been foisted by bringing into existence Ex.P.12 and thereafter, every witness was made to speak on those lines. In any event, he would contend that, since the deceased died 25 days after the incident, as there is no material on record to show the nature of the treatment given to the injured during that period, possibility of he dying due to improper treatment cannot be ruled out. Hence, pleads for scaling down of the offence, if the Court is not inclined with his argument on Ex.P.12. 9. (i) Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the same contending that there is absolutely no delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate. He further submits that the statement of the injured was recorded at the earliest point of time by the Head Constable, a reading of which, would clearly reveal the participation of all the accused in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the oral evidence adduced corroborates the medical evidence and there are no reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case. He took us through various judgments to show that the evidence of an injured witness (or the dying declaration) stands on a much better footing than any other witness. He further submits that since the death was due to injury on the head, the time taken for the injured to die is immaterial. In view of the above, he would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court requires no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?” 11. POINT: Learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on a decision in Vakil Quraishi and others vs. State of C.G., 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 347, after referring to the case of Dharnidhar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 SCC 759 , the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the ambit and scope of the appreciation of evidence of an injured witness and observed as under: “There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will ‘always’ depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan vs. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p.213, paras 23-24) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such-evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 12. Further, in Ram Bharosey vs. State of U.P., (2010) 1 SCC 722 the Hon’ble Apex Court stated the dictum of law that “a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” 13. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above, we shall now proceed to deal with the matter. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by both side counsel, it will be just and proper to refer to the evidence available on record and the documents marked in support of the same. 14. As stated earlier, the entire argument of the learned Senior Counsel is on Ex.P.12, which is the statement of the injured, was brought into existence implicating the accused in this case. 14. As stated earlier, the entire argument of the learned Senior Counsel is on Ex.P.12, which is the statement of the injured, was brought into existence implicating the accused in this case. According to him, while Ex.P.12 indicates recording of the statement of the injured at 3.30 p.m., on 04.10.2012, but, on the reverse side of the intimation, which is marked as Ex.P.11, would show that by 3.00 p.m., itself the statement was sent to the Station House officer, Amaravathi P.S., meaning thereby that everything happened prior to the incident and that, the statement which was recorded earlier, has been suppressed and a new statement is created at 3.30 p.m. According to him, it is being a faction case every aspect of the matter has to be given importance, since implicating the accused in the case cannot be ruled out. 15. In order to appreciate the above argument it will be appropriate to refer the evidence of P.W.14. P.W.14, who previously worked as Head Constable in Lalapet Police Station, Guntur and working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P.S. In his evidence he deposed that on the date of incident at about 3.00 p.m., he received a requisition from Causality Ward, Government General Hospital, Guntur, informing the admission of an injured at Causality Ward. Ex.P.11 is the said requisition. He visited the Causality Ward, identified the injured and then recorded the statement. Wherein, he narrated the manner in which the incident in question took place and also the faction between two groups. Ex.P.12 is the statement of the injured recorded by him. In the cross-examination, he admits that in Ex.P.12, he did not obtain any endorsement of the injured in English that the contents of the statement were read over and he admitted to be true and correct. Further, no preliminary questions were put to the injured as to his capability to give a statement. Further, the signature of the declarant was also not obtained on the first page of the declaration. There is no endorsement of the Doctor on the said statement, evidencing that the deceased was conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give the statement. Further, in Ex.P.11, the column provided to “note the time of dispatch to the Magistrate and police”, is left blank. Further, in the column, “to provide the nature of injury” is also left blank. Further, in Ex.P.11, the column provided to “note the time of dispatch to the Magistrate and police”, is left blank. Further, in the column, “to provide the nature of injury” is also left blank. Even, the “place where the incident occurred” is also kept blank. In fact, Ex.P.11 does not also indicate that the injured was admitted in Causality Ward. However, on the reverse side of Ex.P.11, there is an endorsement, which indicates that the Admission Intimation (ADI) along with his statement was sent to SHO, Amaravathi P.S., at 3.00 p.m., on 04.10.2012. It is argued that due to difference in timing of half-an-hour in recording the statement vis-à-vis Ex.P.12 recorded by P.W.14, no credence can be given to the said statement, more so, when Ex.P.16 Mortuary Register shows admission of the injured in the hospital at 4.31 p.m., on 04.10.2012. It is no doubt true that there is a variation with regard to admission of injured in the hospital and recording of statement of the injured by the police. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that no effort was made to get the Dying Declaration recorded by a Magistrate. Insofar as the statement recorded by the police, which formed the basis for issuing the First Information Report is concerned, it is to be noted that the endorsement on the reverse side of Ex.P.11 would show everything was over i.e., sending of intimation of admission and the statement of injured prior to 3.00 p.m., but whereas the record shows that Ex.P.12 was recorded by the police at 3.30 p.m. In the said statement signature of the injured was not taken in the first page of the statement and though the injured was in hospital, no effort was made to take the endorsement of the Doctor with regard to the fitness of the injured to make such statement. This aspect, in our view has to be given some importance as P.W.15 (Sub-Inspector of Police) visited the hospital at 3.30 p.m., it was informed to him that the deceased was unconscious and in ‘Coma’. Whereas, on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.15 shows that when he visited the hospital on 04.10.2012 at 9.30 p.m., it was informed to him that the injured was in ICU at that time, and is in ‘Coma’. Whereas, on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.15 shows that when he visited the hospital on 04.10.2012 at 9.30 p.m., it was informed to him that the injured was in ICU at that time, and is in ‘Coma’. Having regard to the above, coupled with the endorsement in the Register maintained at the Mortuary by the hospital with regard to admission at 4.30 p.m., a doubt arises as to whether the deceased made any statement, involving the accused in commission of the offence. 16. Coming to the evidence available on record, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 as eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that there are two factions in his village, one led by Kambhampati Kallaiah and another by Chandraiah, whose surname he cannot tell. According to him, the prosecution witnesses belong to the faction of Kallaiah and there are quarrels between two groups against whom criminal cases were registered. Though, compromise was effected between these two factions with regard to criminal cases, but there are no incidents after the compromise. But, since a year prior to the incident, quarrel ensued between the two faction groups. He, in his evidence deposed about the incident which took place a day earlier to giving Ex.P.1 report to police, namely that, while his brother, the deceased and others were sitting on a bench at the shop of one Kallaiah’s, accused Nos.2, 3, 6 to 8 came there and sat on the same bench. On that, the deceased and P.W.7 left the place. There was an oral altercation between them. On the next day morning, the incident in question took place at 9.30 a.m., wherein, role has been attributed to each one of the accused with regard to attack on the deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence further states that after seeing the incident, he left the place, went to his father, brought him to the scene of offence and from there, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Amaravathi. On the way, an ambulance came, to which the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Amaravathi and from there, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Guntur. It is his case that the injured was brought to the hospital at about 1.30 p.m. Nurses gave some injection to the injured. He categorically states that the injured was taken into emergency ward and operation was done. It is his case that the injured was brought to the hospital at about 1.30 p.m. Nurses gave some injection to the injured. He categorically states that the injured was taken into emergency ward and operation was done. At about 10.30 p.m., police of Amaravathi reached to hospital and examined him and his father. Twenty six days later, the injured died. He also speaks about inquest that was conducted on the next day. 17. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that his deceased brother was an accused along with one Suresh and Veeraiah in the case filed by Kambhampati Sandeep, which was pending for trial at that point of time. He also admits that there is a case filed against Kambhampati Kiran, Babu and Ashok by his deceased brother and his father, which was also pending at the relevant point of time. Various other suggestions were put to P.W.1 with regard to his statement before police at the earliest point of time and also the disputes that was existing between them, but all those suggestions were denied. 18. But, these suggestions given to P.W.1 and denied by him, were put to P.W.16, the Investigating Officer. It will be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.16, the Investigating Officer on this aspect and the same is as under: “It is true P.W.1 had only said that she learnt but not said Ramesh having stated to hear that the incident occurred on the previous day to the present incident involving A.2, A.3, A.6, A.7 and A.8. It is not true to suggest P.W.1 had not stated to me that when she came at the shop of Bhaskararao, she witnessed the incident. It is true P.W.1 had not specifically stated to me that it was on the knees of Ramesh, A.3 and A.4 had assaulted with sticks. It is true P.W.1 had not stated to me that P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.5 raised cries not to beat her brother, and after stating so all the accused left that place. It is true P.W.1 did not give time being at 1.30 p.m., her brother was admitted in G.G.H. Guntur. She also did not state to me at the hospital deceased Ramesh was vomiting and the nurses in Government Hospital were giving injection to him. It is true P.W.1 did not give time being at 1.30 p.m., her brother was admitted in G.G.H. Guntur. She also did not state to me at the hospital deceased Ramesh was vomiting and the nurses in Government Hospital were giving injection to him. It is true P.W.1 only said to me that Guntur Police came and recorded the statement from Ramesh but she did not state to me that at that time police reached to the hospital and asked them to stay aside and then enquired Ramesh, the police recorded what all the said and that she was also hearing and that Ramesh signed on the statement. It is true P.W.1 had not stated to me the doctor has then started giving treatment. It is not true to suggest P.W.1 had not stated to me as she said before the Court that the death of Ramesh was due to the assault made by the accused.” 19. Apart from that, it would also be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, who also recorded the statement of the eyewitnesses. In his cross-examination, he admits that P.W.1 failed to state many crucial aspects when his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It will be appropriate to extract the same as under: “It is true P.W.1 had not stated to me he saw A.1 and A.4 caught hold of the shirt-collar of the deceased. It is true he also not stated to me A.3, A.5 specifically having assaulted with stout sticks on the knees of the deceased. P.W.1 had also not stated to me that A.7 to A.10 having assaulted the deceased with legs. It is true P.W.1 had not specifically stated to me that P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 that they raised cries stating not to beat her brother on which the accused left the place (the stress is upon while raising cries they have not further said not to beat his brother).” 20. From the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16, it is clear that various crucial facts which go to the root of the matter were not spoken to by P.W.1 in his earlier statement. 21. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he was also examined as an eyewitness to the incident. From the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16, it is clear that various crucial facts which go to the root of the matter were not spoken to by P.W.1 in his earlier statement. 21. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he was also examined as an eyewitness to the incident. While his evidence in chief disclose the manner in which the incident has occurred, but, in the cross-examination, various omissions came to be elicited to show that he along with other accused were the accused in a criminal case filed by Kambhampati Yohan the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He also admits that he along with other prosecution witnesses were cited as witnesses in a case filed against accused No.7, which is pending in the Court of Sattenapalli. He admits that when he was first examined by a police official, he did not state about the faction and the incidents that occurred between the two factions since fifteen years ago. He further admits that he was not personally aware about the previous day’s incident. 22. P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, who is said to have recorded the first set of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in his cross-examination, admits insofar as the omissions of P.W.2, which are as under: “It is true P.W.2 did not state before me particular that he saw a group at the shop of Bhaskararao. (The stress is upon is not mentioning he saw a group). It is true P.W.2 did not state before me that A.1 and A.4 caught hold of the shirt-collar of Ramesh abusing him and that he has not minded their caution given several times and that A.1 and A.4 shouted to attack him. It is not true to suggest P.W.2 did not state to me that after receiving injuries Ramesh fell on the ground. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that A.3 and A.5 having assaulted Ramesh on the knees of the deceased with sticks. It is not true to suggest P.W.2 did not state to me that it was after all the accused had assaulted Ramesh, he fell on the ground. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that Ramesh has fallen on the ground at two times. P.W.2 stated to me as in Ex.D.1. It is not true to suggest P.W.2 did not state to me that it was after all the accused had assaulted Ramesh, he fell on the ground. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that Ramesh has fallen on the ground at two times. P.W.2 stated to me as in Ex.D.1. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that the accused while leaving stated aloud that Ramesh is dead. P.W.2 did not state to me that P.W.1 left the place by weeping to inform to her father. P.W.2 did not state to me that after P.W.3 arrived along with P.W.1, he enquired with them what had happened and he narrated to him the incident. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that it was at 1.30 p.m., Ramesh was admitted in Government Hospital, Guntur. It is true P.W.2 did not state to me that the Doctor of Government Hospital, GGH, called the police, police arrived and examined Ramesh about the incident, he narrated to the police about the incident giving the names of 10 accused and police obtained his signature and that after Ramesh was taken to operation theatre thereafter sometime he left the place.” 23. Similarly, P.W.16 in his cross-examination admits as under: “It is true P.W.2 did not state before me that after P.W.3 arrived as brought by P.W.1, P.W.3 enquired with them what happened and they narrated to him the incident. It is true P.W.2 did give the time being at 1.30 p.m. Ramesh was admitted in GGH, Guntur. It is true P.W.2 only said that police came and recorded statement from Ramesh but not that the Doctor, Government Hospital, Guntur called the police, police arrived and examined Ramesh about the incident, he narrated to the police about the incident giving the names of ten accused and police obtained his signature and after that Ramesh was taken to the operation theatre and after some time left that place.” 24. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he also in his earlier statements fails to mention the vital factual aspects. It may not be necessary to extract the evidence in chief, but suffice to refer to the omissions as stated by P.W.15 in his cross-examination, which is extracted as under: “P.W.3 did not state to me he asked his son Ramesh not to enter into any quarrel about the prior day incident. It may not be necessary to extract the evidence in chief, but suffice to refer to the omissions as stated by P.W.15 in his cross-examination, which is extracted as under: “P.W.3 did not state to me he asked his son Ramesh not to enter into any quarrel about the prior day incident. It is true P.W.3 did not state to me on the next day early morning his son left home to have breakfast at a hotel and that after sometime P.W.1 came to him and informed that Chandraiah faction people killed his son. It is true P.W.3 had not stated that after his arrival to the scene, having enquired with P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 nor they themselves had narrated to him that A.1 and A.4 caught hold of the shirt-collar of Ramesh, cried aloud to assault on which a.2 and A.6 hacked over the head of his son with axes, then A.3 and A.5 assaulted his son on his knees with sticks, then A.7 to A.10 assaulted his son with hands and legs. It is true P.W.3 had only said when he went to the scene, he has seen his son lying on the ground, but not that he was lying in a pool of blood. P.W.3 had not stated to me that at GGH, Guntur police came to the hospital and enquired with his son Ramesh and on his narration a statement was recorded and his signature was obtained and after that he was taken to operation theatre.” 25. Similarly, P.W.16 in his cross-examination admits as under: “It is true P.W.3 had not stated before me that Guntur police obtained the signature of Ramesh in the statement.” 26. Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he was also examined as an eyewitness to the incident. He too failed to mention the factual aspects in his earlier statements. In the cross-examination, various omissions came to be elicited to show that he was personally not aware about the incidents and quarrels and the compromise that was effect between the two factions said to have occurred fifteen years ago. He too failed to mention the factual aspects in his earlier statements. In the cross-examination, various omissions came to be elicited to show that he was personally not aware about the incidents and quarrels and the compromise that was effect between the two factions said to have occurred fifteen years ago. He admits that he does not remember that he had not stated to the police officer when he was examined at first instance that what he deposed in his chief-examination that Ramesh raised cries and fell on the ground, then A.3 and A.5 beat him with sticks on his knees and that A.7 to A.10 beat Ramesh with hands and legs. 27. P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination admits the omissions of P.W.4, which are as under: “P.W.4 did not state to me that the quarrels that were occurring before were 15 years ago. It is true P.W.4 did not state to me that A.1 and A.4 caught hold of the shirt-collar of Ramesh and by that time P.W.1 and P.W.2 had arrived and that A.1 and A.4 having cried aloud while uttering the words that he has not minded though he was beaten earlier. It is true P.W.4 had not stated to me that it was after Ramesh has fallen on the ground, A.3 and A.5 beat him with sticks on his knees and A.7 to A.10 beat him with hands and legs. It is true P.W.4 had not stated Ramesh has raised cries before he fell on the ground. It is true P.W.4 had not specifically stated to me that the four persons went to the group nor pleaded not to assault Ramesh (the stress is upon pleading with the accused). P.W.4 did not state to me he went to GGH, Guntur to enquire.” 28. Similarly, with that of evidence of P.W.5, as he also failed to mention the crucial facts. In the cross-examination, various omissions came to be elicited. With regard to the omissions in the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, admits as under: “P.W.5 did not state to me that he saw Ramesh was rounded up by a group of people. It is true P.W.5 did not state to me that Ramesh has raised cries after assault and then fell on the ground. P.W.5 did not state to me A.3 and A.5 having assaulted Ramesh with sticks on his knees. It is true P.W.5 did not state to me that Ramesh has raised cries after assault and then fell on the ground. P.W.5 did not state to me A.3 and A.5 having assaulted Ramesh with sticks on his knees. It is true P.W.5 did not state to me P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 were already present by the time he went there and interfere. P.W.5 did not state to me he is having gone to GGH, Guntur in the evening and saw the injured.” 29. With regard to the omissions in the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.16, the Investigating Officer admits as under : “It is true P.W.5 did not state to me that he went to Guntur Hospital, he saw the injured there.” 30. P.W.6, who is one of the eyewitness to the incident, he too in his earlier statement fails to mention the vital factual aspects. It may not be necessary to extract the evidence of P.W.6 in chief, but suffice to refer to the omissions as stated by P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, which is extracted as under: “P.W.6 did not state to me that he saw Ramesh going to the centre. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that A.1 and A.4 having cried aloud and attacked him. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that A.3 and A.5 having assaulted Ramesh with sticks on his knees. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me it is on the hacking of A.2 and A.6 Ramesh fell down. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that the accused uttered Ramesh died. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me after the arrival of P.W.3 they all narrated to him.” 31. Similarly, P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, with regard to the omissions in the evidence of P.W.6, admits as under : “It is true P.W.6 had not said it is the centre he saw Ramesh was going. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that A.1 and A.4 have cried aloud. It is true P.W.6 had not stated to me the accused while leaving uttered the word that ‘Ramesh died’. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that after the arrival of P.W.3 they all had narrated the incident to him.” 32. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that A.1 and A.4 have cried aloud. It is true P.W.6 had not stated to me the accused while leaving uttered the word that ‘Ramesh died’. It is true P.W.6 did not state to me that after the arrival of P.W.3 they all had narrated the incident to him.” 32. From the evidence of these witnesses, which we have referred to above, it is very much clear that in their earlier statements the witnesses failed to mention the participation of accused Nos.1 to 6 viz., accused Nos.1 to 4 catching hold of the shirt-collar, accused Nos.3 and 5 beating the deceased with a stout stick, accused Nos.2 and 6 hacking the deceased and also accused Nos.7 to 10 beating the deceased with hands and legs. In fact, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination admit that P.W.5 did not state about the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 at the scene. Though, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to contend that in view of the consistency in the evidence of the witnesses in their evidence in chief, while deposing in the Court, the omissions in their earlier statements may not be given much credence. He placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy alias Rama Krishna Reddy and others, (2018) 7 SCC 623 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.11 held as under: “The principle of ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not been accepted in our country. Even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness. Minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony of a witness.” 33. We are not in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel. Undoubtedly, a crime was committed in the village and there is no dispute that the deceased and the accused belonged to opposite factions. There is also no doubt about the situs of the crime. We are not in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel. Undoubtedly, a crime was committed in the village and there is no dispute that the deceased and the accused belonged to opposite factions. There is also no doubt about the situs of the crime. But, from the answers elicited in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it appears that in their earlier statements, witnesses have not stated about the role played by accused Nos.1 to 10 viz., accused Nos.1 to 4 catching hold of the shirt-collar, accused Nos.3 and 5 beating the deceased with a stout stick, accused Nos.2 and 6 hacking the deceased and also accused Nos.7 to 10 beating the deceased with hands and legs. 34. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.15, who recorded the first set of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., would show that even the participation of accused Nos.2 and 6 was not mentioned by P.W.3 and P.W.6 and the same came to be elicited through the evidence of Investigating Officer. Therefore, it appears from the record that the witnesses have developed their case basing on Ex.P.12. It may be true that the First Information Report, as we said earlier, was on the basis of Ex.P.12 statement recorded by P.W.14, which we earlier observed as suspicion for the reasons stated therein. 35. From the above, it is clear that in the initial set of statements recorded by P.W.15 number of material facts were not mentioned by witnesses in the earlier statements and the same was came to be improved when P.W.16 recorded their statements again. Even in the statements recorded by P.W.16, also as discussed above, we find improvements in their version which go to the root of the case. Therefore, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, a doubt arises as to whether the incident has occurred in the manner suggested by the prosecution. For the aforesaid reasons, criminal appeal filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 10 is allowed. 36. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting-aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Judgment, dated 13.08.2015 in Sessions Case No.60 of 2014 against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302 read with 149of IPC. 36. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting-aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur vide Judgment, dated 13.08.2015 in Sessions Case No.60 of 2014 against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302 read with 149of IPC. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 10 shall be released forthwith if, they are not required to be detained in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 10 shall be refunded to them. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.