JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The sole accused, who is the appellant herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, “I.P.C.”], for causing the death of one M. Devarajulu on 22.04.2014 at about 9.30 P.M. 2. Vide Judgment dated 17.06.2016, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- [Rupees Five Hundred only], in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Two Months. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under:- (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased while P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of P.W.1. The other witnesses are residents of the said village and they were known to the accused and the deceased. One Anjali, is said to be the wife of the accused. She was residing three houses away after the house of P.W.1. It is said that since seven years prior to the incident, the said Anjali was having illicit intimacy with the husband of P.W.1. P.W.1 claims to have advised the deceased not to indulge in the said affair, but to no avail. About one year prior to the incident, the said Anjali came to the house of P.W.1 armed with a knife, to kill the deceased. But, the neighbours prevented her from doing so and sent her away. (b) Two days later, the accused brought the assailants from Gudiyatham to kill her husband. Then, P.W.1 took her husband to her parents’ house and stayed there for ten days. Thereafter, the matter was reported before the caste elders, who chastised the accused. (c) While things stood thus, on 22.04.2014 at about 7.00 P.M. one Kumar of Pathapeta Village, requested the deceased to come to Eswara Temple at the village to attend TDP Party meeting. Her husband went there. At about 9.30 P.M. her neighbour/Govindamma informed that her husband was hacked by the accused at Eswara Temple. P.W.1 went to the said temple and saw her husband lying in a pool of blood. By that time her husband was dead. She observed hack injury on the right jaw and head and left side of the chin. The people gathered there namely P.Ws.3, 4 and 8, who claimed to have informed P.W.1 that the accused hacked her husband and killed him. By that time her husband was dead. She observed hack injury on the right jaw and head and left side of the chin. The people gathered there namely P.Ws.3, 4 and 8, who claimed to have informed P.W.1 that the accused hacked her husband and killed him. She then narrated the incident to one G.Ashok/P.W.6 in Tamil language, who reduced the same in Telugu language and then he read over the contents in Tamil. P.W.1 handed over the said report at Baireddipalle Police Station. Ex.P1 is the Report which bears the signature of P.W.1 and also that of P.W.6. Basing on the said report, P.W.12/Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P18-First Information Report. Further, investigation in this case was taken up by P.W.13. (d) According to P.W.13/Inspector of Police, at about 10.15 P.M. he received a phone call from the Sub- Inspector of Police, Baireddipalle with regard to crime. He then left his office and proceeded to scene of offence at 11.00 P.M., received a copy of F.I.R and took up investigation. Later, he along with Sub- Inspector of Police proceeded to scene of offence and found the dead body in pool of blood with severe injuries, in front of Eswara Temple. He examined the dead body under the street lines and got photographed the scene. Anticipating law and order problem, he shifted the body to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and posted a guard at the scene and mortuary. (e) On 23.04.2014, P.W.13 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators P.Ws.7 and 9 and prepared a scene observation report which is placed on record as Ex.P5. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P19. He then left the scene of offence, visited Government Hospital, Palamaner and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.9, 10 and L.W.16-S. Rajesh. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. During the inquest, he seized blood stained clothes of the deceased under M.Os.1 to 4. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4, L.W.3-M. Ramaswamy and L.W.6-S. Nagaraju and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. (f) P.W.11, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Madanapalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P17- Post Mortem Report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4, L.W.3-M. Ramaswamy and L.W.6-S. Nagaraju and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. (f) P.W.11, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Madanapalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P17- Post Mortem Report. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, due to multiple injuries and the time of death being 24 to 36 hours prior to his Post Mortem examination. (g) P.W.13-Inspector of Police, who continued with the investigation, arrested the accused on 25.04.2014 at 10.30 A.M. On arrest, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Ex.P14 is the Confessional Statement. The relevant portion of Ex.P14 is marked as Ex.P20. Pursuant to the confession made, the accused took them to the tamarind tree situated near Eswara Temple and from there to bushes where he picked up bill hook which is used in the commission of offence. The same was seized under Ex.P15. He also prepared a sketch at the place of offence, which is marked as Ex.P21. 4. After collecting all the necessary documents, PW.13- Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.31 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to him. As the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was taken on file by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.1 to M.O.9. 8. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.O.1 to M.O.9. 8. After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied. While denying the offence, the accused got examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D1 and D.2 to show that at the time of offence, there is no electricity at the scene. But, however, believing the evidence of eye witnesses coupled with the motive that the accused committed offence, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 9. Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant/accused mainly submits that though the prosecution tried to project P.Ws.4 and 5 as eye witnesses to the incident, but there are number of circumstances to be indicate that they have not seen the incident and that they were set up at a later stage. He also relies upon the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 to show that there was no electricity at the scene of offence. In view of the above, he would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 10. On the other hand, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed for the reason that they are not the competent persons to depose as to whether there was electricity at the relevant point of time. The news items published in News Paper cannot be made admissible in evidence unless the said fact was spoken to by a person from the concerned Department. In so far as the evidence of eye witnesses are concerned, he would submit that the trial Court gave cogent and convincing reasons, which warrants no interference. 11. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 12. As seen from the record, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. Out of five witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile witness. 12. As seen from the record, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. Out of five witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile witness. Therefore, the case now rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She in her evidence deposed about the illegal relationship between the wife of the accused and the deceased and the attempt made by the wife of the accused to kill her husband, which was prevented by the neighbours. Her evidence also speaks about the accused bringing assailants from Gudiyatham to kill the deceased. According to her, on an information received, she took the deceased to her parents’ house and stayed there for ten days. It is said that the matter was reported to Caste elders by name Krishnappa and Mani. Though, Krishnappa and Mani were examined as P.W.7 and P.W.8, they did not support the case of P.W.1. Therefore, the motive suggested by the prosecution, which was sought to be established from the evidence of P.W.1 was not supported by P.Ws.7 and 8, who acted as mediators for the alleged dispute raised by P.W.1 before the Caste elders. 13. Coming to the incident, it is the case of the prosecution that on 22.04.2014 at about 7.00 P.M. one Kumar telephoned to deceased, requesting him to come to Eswara Temple to attend TDP Party meeting. At about 9.30 P.M. her neighbour Govindamma came and informed P.W.1 that her husband was hacked to death at Eswara Temple. Strangely, neither Kumar nor Govindamma were examined by the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the Govindamma, who informed about the incident at the earliest point of time to P.W.1, was not examined. 14. However, on receipt of information about the death of her husband, P.W.1 claims to have gone to the scene of offence and noticed the body lying with the injuries. At the scene of offence, P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 were present and they informed P.W.1 about accused hacking her husband and killing him. Her version also discloses that she narrated the said fact to P.W.6 in Tamil language who reduced the same into Telugu language and prepared a report which was lodged before the Police. 15. At the scene of offence, P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 were present and they informed P.W.1 about accused hacking her husband and killing him. Her version also discloses that she narrated the said fact to P.W.6 in Tamil language who reduced the same into Telugu language and prepared a report which was lodged before the Police. 15. Though, P.Ws.4 and 5, who are related to P.W.1, informed about the incident to P.W.1/disclosing the name of the assailant of her husband, but, P.W.1 who gave a report failed to mention the names of the eye witnesses in the F.I.R. Though, she refers to the information given by Govindamma about the accused hacking the deceased, but for reasons best known, she did not refer to the names of P.Ws.4 and 5 as persons who witnessed the incident. It is well established that when P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident and when information about the incident was given to her, disclosing the commission of offence committed by the accused, the same would be uppermost in our mind and she would not have failed to mention the same in the F.I.R. But, as stated earlier, the F.I.R. is silent about the same. There is no reference to P.Ws.4 and 5 about the F.I.R. 16. Further, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that she gave a report on 22.04.2014 at 9.45 P.M. This, in our view also appears to be quite doubtful, for the reason that according to her, she received information about the incident from one Govinadamma at 9.30 P.M. while she was in the house, from there she goes to the scene of offence, meets P.Ws.4, 5 and 8 and thereafter goes to the house of P.W.6, who reduced the oral report given by P.W.1 into writing and thereafter, claims to have gone to the Police Station which is at a distance of 5 KMs. from the house of P.W.6 and lodges a report. Whether all these were possible within fifteen minutes? Even assuming that she has lodged a report at 10.15 P.M, as spoken to by P.W.13, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the entire exercise could not have been done within forty five minutes. from the house of P.W.6 and lodges a report. Whether all these were possible within fifteen minutes? Even assuming that she has lodged a report at 10.15 P.M, as spoken to by P.W.13, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the entire exercise could not have been done within forty five minutes. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that a report was prepared subsequently by ante-dating it, as a result of which, it reached the Court on the next day evening at 5.45 P.M. cannot be brushed aside. Even in the report alleged to have been prepared at a belated stage, there is no reference to the names of P.Ws.4 and 5 as eye witnesses to the incident. 17. One other circumstance which assumes great importance is the inquest report. The evidence on record would reveal that the inquest was conducted on 23.04.2014, between 8.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. In the said inquest, P.Ws.4 and 5 were shown as eye witnesses to the incident. This report reached Magistrate at 4.00 P.M. on 23.04.2014 i.e. much prior to the F.I.R. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is every possibility of F.I.R. being ante-timed and the prosecution creating a story implicating the accused, cannot be ruled out. The reason for implicating the accused was suggested to P.W.1 which is to the effect that immediately on coming to know about the death of the deceased, the accused is said to have gone to P.W.1 and requested her to hand over an amount of Rs.40,000/- due by the deceased to him or else execute a promissory note. It is the case of the accused that because of the demand made by him, he has been implicated in this case. Of course, the said suggestion was denied, but no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution as to why it took nearly twenty hours for the F.I.R. to reach the Court, more so, when the inquest which was over by 11.00 A.M. on 23.04.2014, reached the Court within few hours i.e. by 4.00 P.M. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that all is not well in the case and every effort was made to connect the accused with the crime cannot be ruled out. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent on material aspects. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent on material aspects. While stating that she gave a report on 22.04.2014 at 9.45 P.M., also states that she also went to Police Station at 12.00 noon and gave a report. Probably, to overcome the laches in the report given on the previous day night, a story is sought to be introduced by her by stating that she also lodged a report at 12.00 noon. The said report obviously was prepared after the inquest projecting P.Ws.4 and 5 as eye witnesses to the incident. Viewed from any angle, we feel that the prosecution has not been proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the Judgment dated 17.06.2016 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2015 on the file learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.