JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Accused Nos.1 to 14 in Sessions Case No.422 of 2013 on the file of learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty as appellants herein. They were tried for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); secondly accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; thirdly, accused Nos.4, 8 to 16 for the offence punishable under Sections 149 read with 302 of IPC and fourthly, accused No.6 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. 3. The learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment, dated 09.11.2015 sentenced accused Nos.1 to 14 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ‘Life’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; accused Nos.4, 8 to 14 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ‘Life’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the offence punishable under Section 149 read with 302 of IPC; accused No.6 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The sentence of imprisonment imposed against accused Nos.1 to 14 were directed to run concurrently. Accused Nos.15 and 16 were found not guilty for the above charges and were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of IPC in the same Judgment. 4. The substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 18.07.2011 at about 7.00 a.m., in Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Muppalagutty village of Peddavaduguru Mandal, Anantapuramu District, accused Nos.1 to 16 formed into unlawful assembly, armed with knife and sickles, with a common intention to commit murder of Neeruganti Sivaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) due to village supremacy between two castes and monetary disputes between the deceased and some of the accused. Accused Nos.1 to 7 attacked the deceased with deadly weapons inside the temple, resulting his death, the remaining accused stood guard at outside carrying cudgels and stones and accused No.6 beat A.Nagamani (P.W.2) as she obstructed the accused from killing the deceased. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) P.W.1 is nephew of the deceased and P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1. The deceased used to do cultivation and also lending money on interest. The deceased lent money to accused Nos.8 and 9 prior to the date of offence. The deceased demanded them to repay the amount. Accused Nos.8 and 9 along with accused No.1 went to the house of deceased under the pretext of discharging the amount. They asked the deceased to bring promissory notes executed by accused Nos.8 and 9. When the deceased brought the promissory notes, the accused took and torn the same and ran away. The deceased raised alarm. P.W.1 and others rushed to the place. There was an altercation between the accused, P.W.1 and others. In that connection, cases were filed in Peddavaduguru Police Station by both sides against each other. After sometime, the village elders intervened and compromised the matter. Accused Nos.8 and 9 did not repay the amount as promised in the compromise. On the other hand, accused Nos.1, 8 and 9 instigated other debtors of the deceased not to repay the amounts borrowed. Two days prior to the date of offence, the deceased informed the elders that he would give report to police against accused Nos.1, 8 and 9. (ii) After two days i.e., on 18.07.2011 at 7 a.m P.W.1 went to Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated in the village; P.W.2 was present at the temple. The deceased also came to the temple while he was offering prayer in the temple, accused Nos.1 to 7 armed with sickles and daggers came to the temple. The remaining accused stood on guard outside the temple carrying cudgels and stones. Accused No.1 with a sickle, hacked the deceased on the head and left palm. Accused No.3, with a sickle, hacked on the back of the head and near left hand wrist of the deceased. Accused No.6 with a sickle hacked the deceased on right shoulder and neck. Accused No.2 with a dagger stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest and also on right hand near elbow. Accused No.3, with a sickle, hacked on the back of the head and near left hand wrist of the deceased. Accused No.6 with a sickle hacked the deceased on right shoulder and neck. Accused No.2 with a dagger stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest and also on right hand near elbow. Accused No.5 with a dagger stabbed the deceased on his back. Accused No.7 with a dagger, hacked the deceased on stomach and right thigh. (iii) P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to rescue the deceased. Accused No.6 raised sickle against P.W.2 and kicked her repeatedly. The accused A7 to A16 armed with sticks and stones outside the temple, were shouting in support of the accused. On hearing the same, the villagers and relatives of the deceased started coming to the temple. On seeing them the accused ran away. (iv) P.W.1 along with A.Siva Sankar (L.W.3), A.Maddileti (L.W.4) and N.Narayana Swamy (L.W.5) shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Gooty, in an auto. On the way to the hospital, an ambulance came at Peddavaduguru village, the deceased was shifted to the ambulance, and taken to the Government Hospital at Gooty. The Doctor in Government Hospital at Gooty, examined the deceased and declared that the deceased was brought dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with N.Narayana Swamy (L.W.5) went to police station at Peddavaduguru village. P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1 report to Sub- Inspector of Police (P.W.9). He registered the same as a case in Crime No.45 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 147, 323, 302 and 149 of IPC. Ex.P.8 is the FIR. Thereafter, he dispatched Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.8 to the learned Magistrate Court. Further investigation in this case was taken up by Inspector (P.W.10). (v) On receiving the copy of FIR, P.W.10 visited the Government Hospital, Gooty and found the dead body of the deceased in Mortuary Room. On the same day, at about 12.00 p.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives, P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4, which is placed on record as Ex.P.2. During the course of inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of the above witnesses. During the course of scene observation, he seized the blood stained clothes of deceased (M.O.11). During the course of inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of the above witnesses. During the course of scene observation, he seized the blood stained clothes of deceased (M.O.11). After conclusion of inquest, he sent the dead body of the deceased for Post-Mortem Examination at 3.00 p.m., and sent P.W.2 to the Government Hospital, Gooty for treatment. (vi) P.W.7, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Peddavaduguru village conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 18.07.2011 and issued Ex.P.6, Post-Mortem Certificate. The Doctor noticed about 29 external injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died due to hypovolemic shock due to head injury and damage of body organs like liver, lung, brain matter and time of death is about 8 to 10 hours prior to Post- Mortem examination. (vii) P.W.10 examined and recorded the statements of M.Rangaswamy (L.W.8) and Mukkila Nagaraju (P.W.3). He surprised the house of accused and found them absconding. On 28.07.2011 P.W.10 on reliable information, arrested the accused at A.Thimmapuram village bus stop in the presence of mediators Talari Ravikanth (P.W.6/Village Revenue Officer) and recorded the confessional statements and seized M.Os.3 to 9 weapons basing on the disclosure statement of the accused, he also seized burnt clothes near a hillock of A.Thimmapuram village (M.O.10) under Ex.P.5 Mediators Report. Later, he sent the seized material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and received Ex.P.10 report. He received Wound Certificate of P.W.2. After completing the entire investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as PRC No.4 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty. 6. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents, as required under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.,’) were supplied to them. As the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu District for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 7. On appearance of all the accused, charges as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. 7. On appearance of all the accused, charges as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In support of case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and M.O.1 to M.O.10. After completion of 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. D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined on behalf of the accused and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 and Ex.X.1 (Aadhar Card of D.W.1) were got marked on their behalf. Dr.B.Madhava Krishna, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Gooty was examined as C.W.1 as Court witness and Ex.X.2 was marked in his evidence. 9. Believing the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, which according to the learned Sessions Judge gets corroborated from the medical evidence, convicted the accused Nos.1 to 14 for the offences referred to earlier, and acquitted accused Nos.15 and 16. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by accused Nos.1 to 14. 10. During arguments of the present appeal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court that the accused No.12 died on 29.01.2022 and accused No.13 died on 24.02.2018. Copies of the letter addressed to the Public Prosecutor by Station House Officer, Peddavaduguru PS, dated 01.12.2022 with copies of death certificates of accused Nos.12 and 13 were submitted. 11. Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsels for the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 14 mainly submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to convict the accused. According to him, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were planted witnesses to testify that they witnessed the incident occurred at Anjaneya Swamy Temple on 18.07.2011 at 7.00 p.m. He submits that as claimed by P.W.1, he shifted the deceased in an auto to the Government Hospital at Gooty. As per the evidence of P.W.7, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 18.07.2011 at 3.45 p.m., he noticed as many as 29 internal and external injuries which include laceration and stab injuries. As per the evidence of P.W.7, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 18.07.2011 at 3.45 p.m., he noticed as many as 29 internal and external injuries which include laceration and stab injuries. P.W.10, who investigated the case and claims that he conducted inquest in the hospital in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other witnesses, admitted that he did not find any blood stains on the clothes of P.W.1. Therefore, absence of blood on the clothes, belies the prosecution case that P.W.1 was present at the time of incident and shifted the injured to the hospital. He further submits that the case of the accused is that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 attended NAREGA works from 6.00 a.m., to 10.00 a.m., on that day, it is established by the evidence of P.W.4, who worked as Field Assistant under NAREGA Scheme of Muppalagutty village at the time of incident, same was corroborated by D.W.1, who also attended NAREGA works at same time along with P.W.1 to P.W.3 and others. 11.1. The learned defence counsel would further submit that P.W.2 claims that she was present in the temple at the time of incident and when she went to the rescue of deceased, accused No.6 repeatedly kicked her, she sustained injuries. P.W.10 deposed that he sent P.W.2 for medical examination after conclusion of inquest. P.W.8, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon examined P.W.2. He deposed that on 18.07.2011 at about 5.40 p.m., he examined P.W.2 and found blunt injuries all over the body. As per Ex.P.7, Wound Certificate, age of said injuries were 0 to 2 hours prior to his examination. The alleged incident was occurred at 7.00 a.m., P.W.2 was examined at about 5.40 p.m., on that day. P.W.8 deposed that age of injuries is 0 to 2 hours prior to his examination. But the learned Sessions Judge committed grave error ignoring this vital aspect and relied on her testimony. 11.2. The learned defence counsel further submit that the evidence of P.W.6 would establish that partial food particles were present in the stomach of the deceased, at the time of Post-Mortem examination. P.W.1 admitted that the deceased was devotee of Anjaneya Swamy and that deceased was in the habit of not taking any food everyday till he completes prayer Anjaneya Swamy temple. P.W.1 admitted that the deceased was devotee of Anjaneya Swamy and that deceased was in the habit of not taking any food everyday till he completes prayer Anjaneya Swamy temple. Therefore, it disproves the case of the prosecution that deceased was attacked at 7.00 a.m., in the morning resulting his death. He further submits that the defence of the accused is that on 17.07.2011 night, the deceased went to Anjaneya Swamy Temple and participated in Bhajana (prayer) event and on that night something was happened, and on the next day i.e., on 18.07.2011 P.W.1 to P.W.3 after returning from NAREGA works came to know about the dead body of the deceased lying in the temple and then they presented Ex.P.1 report with a fabricated story. 11.3. The learned counsel for defence further submits that the learned Trial Judge committed grave error in appreciating these facts and came to an erroneous conclusion that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were present in the temple at the time of incident. The learned counsel for defence vehemently contended that P.W.7 evidence would show that originally in Ex.P.6 time of death was mentioned as 15 to 18 hours. But, it was subsequently altered to 8 to 10 hours. If the time as 15 to 18 hours found in Ex.P.6 is taken into consideration, the time of death would be on 17.07.2011 night. The Court has examined Doctor working in Community Health Centre, Gooty as C.W1. He deposed that in Out-Patient Register against Serial No.576/OP No.576, dated 18.07.2011 it is noted that a person by name Sivaiah, S/o.Thimmappa, aged 40 years, male of Muppalagutty village was brought dead in 108 ambulance at 8.15 a.m., on 18.07.2011 with a head injury. Ex.X2 is the photocopy of the said entry. He further deposed that the carbon copy of Ex.P.6 would be available in Post-Mortem Register brought by him to the Court, but on verification he further deposed that it is not available in Post-Mortem Register and that it appears, it was removed. He does not know when it was removed. Post-Mortem Register will be under the custody of Superintendent of Hospital and a third-party cannot meddle with. 11.4. He does not know when it was removed. Post-Mortem Register will be under the custody of Superintendent of Hospital and a third-party cannot meddle with. 11.4. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.7, who conducted Post-Mortem and issued Ex.P.6, in the cross-examination has deposed that the time appears to be corrected as 15 to 18 hours, though he mentioned it as 8 to 10 hours, but the prosecution did not examine the Superintendent of the hospital, in whose custody the Post-Mortem Register is available to say, whether the time was mentioned initially as 8 to 10 hours or 15 to 18 hours and how the carbon copy was removed from the register. The evidence of P.W.7 would show that partial digested food was present in the stomach of the deceased and evidence establish that he was in the habit of visiting temple without taking any food before offering prayers, and therefore, the time of death as 15 to 18 hours would support the case of the defence rather than the case of the prosecution. But, the learned Sessions Judge committed another grave error by opining, without any evidence, that the accused will be benefited by making corrections and removing carbon copy of the Post-Mortem Register, as if the act of correction and removal of carbon copy was made by the accused. There is every possibility for the prosecution side also to correct the timings to create the same in its favour, by removing the carbon copy from the register. If two views are possible on the same evidence, then the views in favour of the accused must be preferred. In support of his argument, he relied on a decision Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SCC 687 11.5. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.3 deposed that he was sitting at Dastagiri Katta, near Anjaneya Swamy Temple at about 7.00 a.m., on the date of incident and he witnessed the accused Nos.1 to 7 entering into the temple and other accused standing in front of the temple, armed with sticks and stones, shouting in front of the temple. He did not make any attempt to call the villagers immediately on seeing the accused armed with weapons entering into the temple. This circumstance would create a doubt about his presence at the time of incident. He did not make any attempt to call the villagers immediately on seeing the accused armed with weapons entering into the temple. This circumstance would create a doubt about his presence at the time of incident. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 and D.W.1, establish that he also attended NAREGA work from 6.00 a.m., to 10.00 a.m., on that day. The evidence of P.W.5 establishes that Dastagiri katta is located at a distance of 20 feet away from the temple, and the happenings at temple are not visible. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be believed. 11.6. The learned counsel for defence further submits that motive for murder is financial disputes between the deceased and accused Nos.8 and 9. In that connection, both sides presented reports to the police earlier to the incident and later, elders in the village interfered and compromised the matter. But, accused Nos.8 and 9 did not discharge the amount and on the other hand, instigated the debtors of the deceased not to discharge the debts and then, the deceased informed to elders that he would report to police. Therefore, the accused attacked the deceased and killed him. The learned counsel submits that it is falsified by copies of reports marked in the evidence of P.W.10 during cross-examination placed under Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9. These reports do not disclose anything about the alleged financial disputes. In view of the material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, a doubt arises about their presence at the time of alleged incident. The learned counsel would further submit that it is a fit case, where benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. The learned counsel for defence in support of his arguments relied upon the decisions in Marudanal Augusti vs. State of Kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 submitting that omission to mention names of eyewitnesses in FIR would throw serious doubt on prosecution case. Deficiencies and contradictions in prosecution evidence will create serious doubt on the prosecution case. 12. Per contra, Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends, that P.W.2 is an injured eyewitness, and therefore, her presence at the scene cannot be doubted. He further submits that presence of P.W.1 also cannot be doubted in view of the evidence of P.W.2. Deficiencies and contradictions in prosecution evidence will create serious doubt on the prosecution case. 12. Per contra, Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends, that P.W.2 is an injured eyewitness, and therefore, her presence at the scene cannot be doubted. He further submits that presence of P.W.1 also cannot be doubted in view of the evidence of P.W.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the discrepancies pointed out between ocular evidence and medical evidence would not go to the root of the matter. The discrepancy, if any, in the medical evidence cannot be looked into, since it is only opinion evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits merely because the name of P.W.3 was not mentioned in FIR and inquest report, the same cannot be excluded from consideration, if his evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 to that they are speaking falsehood. In view of the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court requires no interference. 13. The point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against them, beyond all reasonable doubt?” 14. POINT:- It is not in dispute that the case rests on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. It is now to be seen whether P.W.1 to P.W.3 evidence can be believed. The contention of the defence is that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were not present at the temple on 18.07.2011 at 7.00 a.m.. According to the prosecution, P.W.2 is an injured eyewitness. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 when she went to rescue of the deceased, accused No.6 kicked her repeatedly. P.W.10 evidence shows that he sent P.W.2 for medical examination after conclusion of inquest. Indeed, the inquest report shows that P.W.2 was examined at the time of inquest. P.W.8 evidence would establish that on 18.07.2011 at about 5.40 p.m., he examined P.W.2, found blunt injuries all over the body. He issued Ex.P.7, wound certificate. P.W.10 evidence shows that he sent P.W.2 for medical examination after conclusion of inquest. Indeed, the inquest report shows that P.W.2 was examined at the time of inquest. P.W.8 evidence would establish that on 18.07.2011 at about 5.40 p.m., he examined P.W.2, found blunt injuries all over the body. He issued Ex.P.7, wound certificate. When the prosecution case is rested on the testimony of witnesses’ claims to be an injured in the incident and injury is proved, the onus is on the accused to prove that the injury sustained by the injured is either self-inflicted or sustained in some other incident or long before or after incident in question. In the crossexamination, it is elicited that age of said injuries is 0 to 2 hours prior to his examination. If it is true, the evidence of P.W.2 that she sustained injuries at 7.00 a.m., shall be disbelieved. P.W.10 in the cross-examination deposed that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not state before him that P.W.2 received injuries on that day. Therefore, it creates doubt about the presence of P.W2. 15. Further, P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that on 18.07.2011 she went to Anjaneya Swamy Temple at about 6.45 a.m., and after sometime P.W.1 came to there and later, deceased came to the temple and offering prayers at the temple. Then, accused Nos.1 to 7 came to the temple armed with sickles and daggers and attacked the deceased. She also deposed that earlier deceased lent money to accused Nos.8 and 9 and later, they along with accused No.1 went to the house of the deceased on the pretext of discharging the debt and asked the deceased to bring promissory notes and when the deceased brought the promissory notes, they took away the same and torn them and then, deceased shouted and then, she and others went to there and there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased and in that connection, filed cases against each other. As already stated above, the defence produced the copies under Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.9, covered by Crime Nos.82 and 83 of 2009 does not disclose the story as deposed by P.W.1 to P.W.3. Furthermore, P.W.10 admitted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not state to him about their presence at the time of tearing the promissory notes and on hearing the cries of the deceased they went there. Furthermore, P.W.10 admitted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not state to him about their presence at the time of tearing the promissory notes and on hearing the cries of the deceased they went there. In the light of the above fact, the question is whether P.W.1 to P.W.3 speaking truth about the incident in the case occurred on 18th? 16. P.W.1 in the cross-examination admitted that the deceased was in the habit of visiting temple every day. But, he conveniently deposed that he does not know whether deceased was in the habit of visiting temple everyday morning without taking food before offering prayers. The evidence of P.W.7 shows that undigested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. Ex.P.6, Post-Mortem Certificate was issued by him. In the cross-examination he deposed that time of death is appearing as 15 to 18 hours in Ex.P.6 Post-Mortem Certificate. He made an attempt to say that the time of death mentioned by him was 8 to 10 hours and it appears that it was corrected as 15 to 18 hours. But it is not known who corrected it and when it was corrected. P.W.9 in his cross-examination admitted that P.W.1 in his Ex.P.1 report did not state that he went to Anjaneya Swamy temple at about 7.00 a.m., and by that time P.W.2 was present at the temple and deceased came there soon after he entered into the temple. It appears that the deceased was devotee of Lord Anjaneya Swamy and was in the habit of visiting the temple everyday morning to offer prayers before taking food. If it is true, undigested food would not be available in his stomach. The contention of the accused is that the deceased died on the night of 17.07.2011, and his body was kept in the temple and later, P.W.1 to P.W.3 after returning from NAREGA work, noticed the dead body, presented Ex.P.1 report by implicating the accused due to village rivalry. The prosecution did not explain how undigested food is found in the stomach of the deceased when he was in the habit of visiting temple in early hours to offer prayer even before consuming food. 17. C.W.1 evidence establishes that Post-Mortem Register would be in the custody of the Superintendent of the hospital and third-party cannot meddle with the Post-Mortem Register. 17. C.W.1 evidence establishes that Post-Mortem Register would be in the custody of the Superintendent of the hospital and third-party cannot meddle with the Post-Mortem Register. It also establish that the carbon copy of Ex.P.6 should be available in Post-Mortem Register, but it is not available. P.W.10 in the cross-examination admitted as under: “Ex.P.6 Post-Mortem Certificate which was received from Medical Officer, was forwarded to the Court and he did not make any corrections or alterations in Ex.P.6 Post-Mortem Certificate and he obtained a photocopy of the same before forwarding to the Court and Ex.P.6 and photocopy available in their case diary are identical without any changes.” Therefore, his evidence is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.7, who deposed that he mentioned the time initially as 8 to 10 hours and it appears that it was corrected as 15 to 18 hours at a later point of time. In those circumstances, there is a possibility for the prosecution also to correct timings subsequently, in Post-Mortem Certificate as 8 to 10 hours from 15 to 18 hours, and to remove carbon copy to say that death occurred at about 7 a.m. In that view of the matter, if two views are possible on the same evidence, then the view in favour of the accused must be preferred. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh & Ors Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 held as under: "7. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court but a Judge made guidelines for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided." 18. Therefore, we are of the considered view that opinion of the learned Sessions Judge that accused may be responsible for correction in PM certificate is without any legal evidence. Therefore, he committed a grave error by preferring the view favourable to the prosecution, though two views are possible on the same evidence as discussed supra. 19. Therefore, we are of the considered view that opinion of the learned Sessions Judge that accused may be responsible for correction in PM certificate is without any legal evidence. Therefore, he committed a grave error by preferring the view favourable to the prosecution, though two views are possible on the same evidence as discussed supra. 19. It is the case of prosecution that soon after the incident P.W.1 shifted the deceased in an auto to the Government Hospital at Gooty. On the way to hospital, 108 ambulance came and then they shifted the deceased to ambulance and went to the hospital. 20. In fact, the prosecution did not examine the ambulance driver to speak if deceased was alive or dead, when he was shifted to the ambulance from the auto. 21. P.W.10 in cross-examination deposed as under: “I did not notice any blood stains on the clothes of P.W.1 when I examined and recorded his statement.” 22. It is an admitted fact that P.W.10 examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of inquest and recorded their statements. The evidence of P.W.7 discloses that as many as 29 external bleeding injuries were found on the body of the deceased. P.W.1 was present at the time of incident, and he shifted the deceased in an auto and later shifted the deceased to an ambulance on the way to hospital as per the case of the prosecution. If it is true, P.W1’s clothes would certainly contain blood stains. Therefore, the absence of blood stains on the clothes of P.W.1 shall be explained by the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming from the evidence of P.W.1 or any other witnesses in this regard. In that view of the matter, it creates a serious doubt about the presence of P.W.1 at the time of incident and shifting the deceased to the hospital. Further, P.W.10 in the cross-examination deposed that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not state before him that P.W.2 received injuries on that day. He also deposed that P.W.3 did not state about the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the temple at the time of offence and that, P.W.3 also did not specifically state that he was sitting at Dastagiri Katta. 23. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for defence, P.W.4 deposed that he used to mark the attendance of the persons, who attended the work under NAREGA scheme. 23. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for defence, P.W.4 deposed that he used to mark the attendance of the persons, who attended the work under NAREGA scheme. P.W.5 deposed that happenings inside the temple will not be visible clearly from Dastagiri Katta, as it is at a distance of 20 feet. This creates doubt about the presence of P.W3. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.8 to 16 were standing outside and guarding the other accused in the temple, and they were shouting. Upon hearing the same, the nearby residents and people belonging to the group of deceased came to the temple and on seeing them, the accused ran away from the temple. The prosecution did not choose to examine any person to testify that they have noticed the accused running away from the temple and accused outside the temple were shouting. No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution why said witnesses were not examined. 24. It is the contention of the defence that a person by name Kondanna is working as Priest in the temple. P.W.5 deposed that Kondanna will take beetle nut leaves arranged at Anjaneya Swamy temple on festive days to all the houses in the village and collect grains from the villagers and would clean the temple. P.W.10 deposed that he did not examine Pujari/priest of the temple stating that there is no Pujari/priest for the temple. Therefore, P.W.5 evidence would establish that there is a priest for temple. But P.W.10 did not choose to examine him for the reasons best known to him and it creates a doubt that prosecution suppressed truth about the incident. 25. In the light of above facts and circumstances, which goes to the root of the matter, they creates a reasonable doubt about the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 at the time of incident, we feel that it is not safe to rely on their evidence, and also not a fit case to base a conviction relying on the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are admittedly inimical to the accused and appears to be planted witnesses. Hence, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 323 of IPC, and as such, the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set-aside. 26. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty vide Judgment, dated 09.11.2015, in Sessions Case No.422 of 2013 against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 11 and 14 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 323 of IPC, is set aside. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 11 and 14 shall be released forthwith, if they are no longer required to be detained in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 11 and 14 shall be refunded to them. 27. The case against appellants/accused Nos.12 and 13 stands ‘abated’ since died. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is Allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.