JUDGMENT : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. 1. Accused Nos.1 to 8 in Sessions case No.225 of 2008, on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 374 of the code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Challenge in the instant appeal is to the judgment dated 09.04.2013 rendered in the said Sessions case. By way of the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months each and also found A-2, A-3, A-5 to 8 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 159 IPC and found A-3 and A-5 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the learned Judge also found A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 149 IPC. The learned Judge also found A-1 to A-8 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is as follows: All the accused, deceased and the injured witnesses/P.Ws-5, 6 are the residents of Vaddigudem Village, Pedapadu Mandal. The deceased and the injured had previous differences with the accused, in connection with auction and produce of fish tank and the accused took a decision to do away with the lives of other group and in furtherance of the said common object at about 4:30 P.M on 19.09.2005, they formed into an unlawful assembly with lethal weapons like Axes, Knives, Sticks and Crow bars in the house of A-1 and they attacked the deceased Nos.1 & 2 and injured i.e., P.Ws-5 & 6, beat them indiscriminately, caused severe injuries intentionally which resulted in death of deceased No.1/Bale Venkatesawara Rao in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru at 7:15 P.M on the same day. P.W-1, L.W-5, L.W-7, L.W-8, L.W- 15 & L.W-21 shifted the deceased and injured to Government Hospital and P.W- 1(L.W-1) gave a statement of occurrence to the O.P Police at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. P.W-1, L.W-5, L.W-7, L.W-8, L.W- 15 & L.W-21 shifted the deceased and injured to Government Hospital and P.W- 1(L.W-1) gave a statement of occurrence to the O.P Police at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. On the basis of the hospital intimation and statement of P.W-1, P.W-16/Station House Officer, Pedapadu Police Station registered Crime No.128 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC. L.Ws.12 & 13/P.Ws-5 & 6 and deceased No.2-Mungara Nagaraju, who sustained injuries were admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. P.Ws-5 & 6 and deceased No.2 took treatment at Global Medical Centre, Vijayawada and deceased No.2 was discharged there from on 27.11.2005 and eventually on 11.03.2006 at 7 P.M, deceased No.2 died at his house. P.W-14 conducted autopsy on deceased Nos.1 & 2 and issued Exs.P-9 and P-10 post-mortem reports. 4. After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused-appellants herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws-1 to 20 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-20, apart from M.Os-1 to 11 and on behalf of the defence Ex.D-1 to D-10 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment convicted the accused in the manner indicated supra. 5. Assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal came to be preferred. 6. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and Smt.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.6, apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. 5. Assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal came to be preferred. 6. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and Smt.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.6, apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel representing appellants that the judgment impugned in the appeal is highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 10 are full of contradictions as such the same cannot be the basis for convicting the accused; that there was no proximate or immediate motive for all or any of the accused to attack the deceased; that the scene of offence had been deliberately shifted to suit the prosecution case; that all the accused belonged to one family and they had been falsely inflicted after due deliberations; that the earliest report given by P.W-1 to Head Constable was supressed; that the medical evidence would falsify the evidence of the eye witnesses; that according to P.Ws-1, 3, 4, 5 & 7, deceased No.1-Bale Venkateswara Rao was hit with a knife by A-4 on the head but P.W-14/Doctor did not find any cut injury on the body of the deceased; that the deceased No.2 died after several months and according to the doctor/P.W-14, who conducted post-mortem deposed that the death was due to cirrhosis of liver and the death must have occurred due to alcoholism or by infection. In support of their contentions and submissions, learned counsel for the appellants take the support of the judgment in Amar Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 165 and at Para Nos.19 to 22 , 26 to 28 and 32, it was held as follows: “19. The unnatural conduct of Parminder Singh PW-1 and Amar Singh PW-11 the two brothers of the deceased which we have noticed from record is that though they claim to be present at the time of occurrence no attempt was made by them to save their brother from assault. Though PW-1 has tried to explain in his examination in chief that when they tried to intervene and save their brother Devinder Singh @Ladi all the three accused persons aimed their weapons at them and threatened that in case they intervened they would also be killed. Though PW-1 has tried to explain in his examination in chief that when they tried to intervene and save their brother Devinder Singh @Ladi all the three accused persons aimed their weapons at them and threatened that in case they intervened they would also be killed. It may be relevant to notice that Amar Singh PW-11 neither in statement in chief nor in his cross-examination by the prosecution after being declared hostile stated about any efforts made either by him or by PW-1 Parminder Singh to save their brother Devinder Singh @ Ladi when he was attacked. On the contrary PW-11 stated in his examination in chief that he was not able to run because of his spinal injury. In the cross-examination he categorically stated that he never told the police that when they tried to rescue Accused Inderjeet Singh brandished the knife and accused Amar Singh and Shiv Charan brandished hockey towards them threatening to kill anyone who comes to rescue Devinder Singh @ Ladi. He also denied in the cross-examination having ever being given any statement to the police that he had identified the culprits or accused Inderjeet Singh has stabbed with knife and accused Amar Singh gave hockey blows and the front portion of the hockey had broken because of assault and the 3rd accused Shiv Charan also gave hockey blows. 20. The assailants were only armed with hockey sticks and a knife and not with any fire arms. It seems very unnatural that two brothers present on the spot will not even make slightest attempt to intervene and try to save the other brother being assaulted, merely on the threat extended by the assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife. This unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witness on the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover the facts stated by PW-1 Parminder Singh in this regard, as already discussed above, has not been corroborated by the other brother Amar Singh PW-11. 21. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW-1 and PW-11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the spot extremely doubtful. Moreover the facts stated by PW-1 Parminder Singh in this regard, as already discussed above, has not been corroborated by the other brother Amar Singh PW-11. 21. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW-1 and PW-11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the spot extremely doubtful. There was a medical clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj just nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two brothers would have been to take injured brother to the clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid fro m the clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj. Admittedly, according to the statement of Parminder Singh PW-1 PCR Van arrived after about 15 minutes. During this period no effort was made to either take the injured brother to the clinic or to call Doctor Bhardwaj for some first aid. This is totally against normal human behaviour. 22. Further no effort is alleged to have been made to either shift the injured to any hospital or even inform the police. It is highly unnatural that two real brothers made no efforts to save the life of third brother who was severely injured if they were present at the place of the incident. The PCR van is stated to have arrived after 15 minutes on the basis of information given by some unknown person regarding a person lying injured in front of Qumayun Hotel. PW-20 lady constable Renu in her evidence stated that on the fateful night she was posted at PCR Van when at about 10:27 PM an unknown person made a call to inform that one man was lying unconscious near Qumayun Hotel, Defence Colony which was registered as DD No.- 493. It was on the information given by an unknown, the PCR Van reached at the site of the incident and shifted the injured to AIIMS where he was declared brought dead. 26. Further, there is material discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence. Post-Mortem on the dead body of the deceased Devinder Singh @ ladi was conducted by Doctor M. S. Sagar PW-21. On external examination following anti mortem injuries were noticed:- 1. Multiple contusions and abraded contusions over both forearms, both arms and dorsum of both hands. 2. CLW on right periauricular region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm. 3. On external examination following anti mortem injuries were noticed:- 1. Multiple contusions and abraded contusions over both forearms, both arms and dorsum of both hands. 2. CLW on right periauricular region of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm. 3. Contusions right mandibular region extending to neck of size 6 cm x 3 cm. 4. Incised wound on the right side of forehead 1 cm below hairline of size 1.5 x 1 cm superficial. 5. Incised wound left upper limb vertically placed of size 1.5 x 1 cm x muscle deep with clean cut inverted margins. 6. Incised wound left knee of size 5 cm x .5 cm x bone deep with clean cut inverted margins. 7. Incised wound left forearm round elbow of size 1 cm x 1 cm margins clean cut and everted. 8. Incised wound left forearm placed 6 cm below elbow joint of size 2.5 x lx bone deep, with clean cut inverted margins, with cut impressions present on the olecraenon. 9. Incised wound left forearm anteriomedical aspect placed 5 cm below cubital fossa of size 1.5cm x 1cm x muscle deep with clean cut inverted margins underline subcutaneous tissue and muscle clean cut. 10. Incised wound right side of abdomen placed 10 cm below coastal margins in mid axillary plane 3 cm x 1 cm into muscle deep obliquely placed, margins clean cut, not penetrating the abdominal cavity. 11. Stab wound right side of chest anterior axillary plane obliquely placed of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm, 22 cm below cavicular with clean cut everted margins passing through 7th intercoastal plane entering into left lower lobe of lung going into pericardium with presence of hemo- pericardium and incised wound left pentricle around apex of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm x whole thickness of ventricle. 12. Stab wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x skin deep placed transversely 8 cm below injury no. 11. 13. Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm with clean cut inverted margins placed 2 cm lateral and 1.5 cm below injury no. 12. 14. Stab wound left side of abdomen in posterior axillary line placed 25 cm below clavicular margins of size 4 cm x 1 cm going into abdominal cavity producing multiple incised wound of small and large intestines. 15. 12. 14. Stab wound left side of abdomen in posterior axillary line placed 25 cm below clavicular margins of size 4 cm x 1 cm going into abdominal cavity producing multiple incised wound of small and large intestines. 15. Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1.5 cm in left side of abdomen 6 cm below and 2 cm medial to injury no. 14. Internal examination of the deceased revealed:- There were homo-thorax on left side with about 500 cc of blood being present. There was stab wound of left lung lower lobe of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm. Hemo-cardium was also present with 400 cc of blood and blood clots. There was stab wound of heart over apex of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm x whole thickness of left ventricular wall with cutting of cordae- tendenae. In the abdominal cavity, there was hemo-periteneum about 400 cc of blood and blood clots with multiple incised wound of small and large intestines. It was opined that cause of death was shock as a result of multiple antemortem injuries produced by sharp edged weapon. Injury no.11 and 14 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively. 27. Thus, there are total 15 injuries inflicted by three assailants, two having hockey sticks and one knife as per prosecution story. Parminder Singh PW-1 emphatically stated that whole incident barely lasted five minutes. It would be practically impossible to inflict 15 injuries of the type by three assailants simultaneously attacking the deceased within a short span of 5 minutes particularly when the victim being a normal healthy person naturally must have offered resistance. Inflicting 15 injuries on the body of the deceased by three accused persons would require a considerable amount of time. This itself suggest that three accused had sufficient time at their disposal to conduct the crime and the entire incident could not have taken place within five minutes as stated by eye witness Parminder Singh PW-1. This fact coupled with the fact that two brothers of the deceased remained a mute spectator when the third brother was being assaulted is clear indication of the fact that PW-1 Parminder Singh was not present on the spot and not an eye witness of the incident. 28. Dr. This fact coupled with the fact that two brothers of the deceased remained a mute spectator when the third brother was being assaulted is clear indication of the fact that PW-1 Parminder Singh was not present on the spot and not an eye witness of the incident. 28. Dr. M.S. Sagar in his Post-Mortem report has opined that the cause of death was due to shock due to multiple ante mortem injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 11 and 14 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined in his statement that injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon and since no weapon was shown to him, he has not given any opinion. Admittedly the tip of knife which was recovered on the disclosure statement of accused appellant Inderjeet Singh was broken and it was not pointed but blunt. Whether the type of stab and incised wound found on the body of the deceased could have been inflicted by a knife with a broken tip, is in our opinion, extremely doubtful. The opinion of the Doctor has not been obtained as to whether such injuries could have been caused by knife with a broken tip by showing him the same. 32. The conviction of the appellants rests on the oral testimony of PW-1 who was produced as eye witness of the murder of the deceased. Both the Learned Sessions Judge, as well as High Court have placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1 and ordinarily this Court could be reluctant to disturb the concurrent view but since there are inherent improbabilities in the prosecution story and the conduct of eye witness is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature we do not think it would be safe to convict the appellants upon the incorroborated testimony of the sole eye witness. Similar view has been taken by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu. Wherein on an appreciation of evidence the prosecution story was found highly improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of human nature concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below was set aside.” 8. Similar view has been taken by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil Nadu. Wherein on an appreciation of evidence the prosecution story was found highly improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of human nature concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below was set aside.” 8. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends vehemently that there is no error nor there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment as such the same warrants no interference of this Court under section 374(2) of code of Criminal procedure; that by adducing cogent and convincing evidence the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 7 eye witnesses, coupled with medical evidence clinchingly prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; that P.W-15/Doctor categorically stated about the treatment initially given and shifting to Vijayawada; that P.W-2, an independent witness categorically stated about the scene of offence and stated that the deceased were found in the house of accused No.1 and P.W-17 and Investigating Officer also stated so. It is further contended that since it is a case of direct eye witness, there is no need to prove the motive; that no contention of exercising private defence is permissible in the absence of such suggestion. 9. It is further contended that contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, if any are minor in nature, as such they are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that all the witness are local villagers only and as such their presence cannot be ruled out. 10. To booster his submissions and contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. (2018) 8 SCC 127 2. 2023 SCC Online 355 3. (2008) 3 SCC 855 11. In the above background, now the points that emerge for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the prosecution, could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the judgment referred by the learned Sessions Judge warrants any interference of this Court under Section 374 (2) of the code of Criminal procedure? 12. In the above background, now the points that emerge for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the prosecution, could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the judgment referred by the learned Sessions Judge warrants any interference of this Court under Section 374 (2) of the code of Criminal procedure? 12. According to the prosecution, the law swung into action with Ex.P-1 complaint dated 19.09.2005 lodged by P.W-1 at about 8:30 P.M. and as per the prosecution case, one Sri B.S.Prakasarao, Head Constable recorded the same as Crime No.128 of 2005. The fact remains that the prosecution did not examine the said Head Constable. According to Ex.P-1, there were disputes between Moru Venkatesra Rao and village elders with regard to the Gram Panchayat and on 19.09.2005 at about 04:30 P.M., Moru China Subbaraju (A-1), his younger brother Moru Nagaraju (A-2), their younger brother, Moru Kondalu (A-3), their sons Moru Venkata Raju (A-4), Moru Krishnam Raju (A-5), Moru Rangaraju (A-6), Moru Satyanarayana (A-7) and Moru Seetha Ramaraju (A-8) waited on the way and beat Moru Nagaraju-deceased No.2, Moru Yedukondalu/P.W-6, Bale Venkateswara Rao, deceased No.1, Bale Rangarao/P.W-5, Mungara Keshalu/P.W-7 and Chakali Venkateswarlu (who was not examined), when they were returning from panchayat meeting, with Axes, Knives, Sticks and Crowbars and caused injuries to them. Ex.P-1 further states that P.W-1, Bale Ratnaraju, Bale Sobhanadri, Mungara Ramakrishna, Mungara Suribabu and Bale Srinu took the said four injured, who were with blood injuries to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru and doctor treated them and admitted them in the hospital and police enquired P.W-1 and recorded his statement. No reason is forthcoming as to why the Head Constable who recorded Ex.P-1 and the persons who accompanied P.W-1 (as mentioned supra) to the hospital were not examined. 13. According to the prosecution, the following are the overt acts attributed against the accused: “Accused No.1 inflicted injuries on deceased No.1 with a crowbar. Accused No.2 inflicted injuries on deceased No.2 with an iron rod. Accused No.3 inflicted injuries on P.W- 5/injured eye witness with iron rod. Accused No.4 inflicted injuries on deceased No.1 with knife. Accused No.5 inflicted injuries on P.W-6/injured eye witness with a stick. Accused No.6 inflicted injuries on One Mr. Chakali Venkateswarlu (not examined) with a stick. Accused No.7 inflicted injuries on P.W-7/injured eye witness with a stick. Accused No.8 inflicted injuries on deceased No.2 with a stick. Accused No.4 inflicted injuries on deceased No.1 with knife. Accused No.5 inflicted injuries on P.W-6/injured eye witness with a stick. Accused No.6 inflicted injuries on One Mr. Chakali Venkateswarlu (not examined) with a stick. Accused No.7 inflicted injuries on P.W-7/injured eye witness with a stick. Accused No.8 inflicted injuries on deceased No.2 with a stick. According to the prosecution P.W-1/Mungara Ramesh, is an eye witness to the offence. P.W-1 stated that there were some disputes between Moru Peda Subbaraju/ex-sarpanch and his elder brother/Moru Venkateswar Rao, in connection with fish tank’s income and that the One Moru Rama Raju, who is the younger brother of Moru Peda Subba Raju and Moru Venkateswara Rao and that the said Moru Rama Raju used to support Moru Peda Subba Raju, and accused used to support, Moru Venkateswara Rao. P.W-2 further deposed that on 09.09.2005, a meeting was held in the presence of a member of parliament, member of legislative assembly and some cinema actors and the meeting was organised by the village committee and the deceased were active in making arrangements and after that meeting neither Moru Venkateswara Rao nor the accused attended meeting and the Gram Sabha as scheduled at 04:00 P.M was cancelled due to the absence of the accused. P.W-1 further deposed that after cancellation of meeting, when he along with others were proceeding on the way and when they reached the premises of the house of accused No.1/Moru China Subba Raju, on the road, he attacked the deceased No.1 with a crowbar on his head and forehead and thereafter accused No.4/Moru Venkata Raju, S/o Nagaraju, did hit deceased No.1 with knife on his head and Moru Nagaraju/Accused No.2 attacked deceased No.2/Mungara Nagarajau, with iron road on head, forehead and left eye. P.W-1 further deposed that Moru Venkata Seetha Rama Raju/A-8 did hit deceased No.2/Mungara Nagarajau with a stick on his back and that accused No.3/Moru Yedukondalu attacked Bale Rangarao/P.W-5 with an iron rod on head, left eye and wrist of his hand. P.W-1 also stated that the accused No.5/Moru Krishnama Raju beat Mungara Kondalu/P.W-6 with a stick on head, left cheek and right knee and that Moru Rangaraju/A-6 beat Chakali Venkateswarlu with a stick on left cheek but the fact remains that the said Chakali Venkateswarlu was not examined. P.W-1 also stated that the accused No.5/Moru Krishnama Raju beat Mungara Kondalu/P.W-6 with a stick on head, left cheek and right knee and that Moru Rangaraju/A-6 beat Chakali Venkateswarlu with a stick on left cheek but the fact remains that the said Chakali Venkateswarlu was not examined. P.W-1 also stated that accused No.7/Moru Venkata Satyanarayana beat Mungara Kasulu/P.W-7 with a stick on head thrice and the reality is that his wound certificate was not produced by the prosecution. P.W-1 deposed further that as the accused were with deadly weapons, due to fear they stayed back and watched the incident and P.M.P doctor of the village by name Gopi/ P.W-2 came there and after taking permission from accused No.1/P.W-2 attended on the injured and he gave some injections and first aid and thereafter P.W-2 went to the gathering at Anjaneya Swamy temple and informed the village elders who did not choose to come, due to fear, to the scene and advised P.W-2 to speak with accused No.1 and to communicate about seriousness of the injuries and the necessity to treat the injured and on that P.W-2 went back to the scene and requested A-1 and shifted the injured/deceased in mobile van to Government Hospital, Eluru and the rest of the injured were brought behind to the hospital. P.W-1 also stated that after 15 minutes of taking deceased No.1, he was declared dead by the hospital authorities and the rest of the injured including deceased No.2 were shifted to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada.” 14. In this context, it may be appropriate and apposite to refer to certain aspects which will have bearing on the adjudication of the issues in the present case. During the course of chief examination, P.W-1 categorically and in clear terms stated that the house of accused No.1 is situated on the main lane and accused No.1 attacked deceased No.1, when they reached the house of A-1 with a crowbar and that A-4 attacked deceased No.1 with a knife. Further, during the course of cross-examination P.W-1 stated about the location and the house of the accused No.1 on a soil lane. In fact, Ex.P-16 rough sketch clearly indicates the existence of the house of A-1 in a by-lane. In the chief examination, P.W-1 stated that deceased/injured was shifted in a mobile van to the Government Hospital, Eluru and the rest of the injured were brought behind to the hospital. In fact, Ex.P-16 rough sketch clearly indicates the existence of the house of A-1 in a by-lane. In the chief examination, P.W-1 stated that deceased/injured was shifted in a mobile van to the Government Hospital, Eluru and the rest of the injured were brought behind to the hospital. Whereas, in Ex.P-1 statement of P.W-1, it is stated that P.W-1, Bale Nagaraju, Bale Sobhanadri, Mungara Ramakrishna, Mungara Suribabu, Bale Sunil took the four injured, who were with blood injuries to the Government Hospital, Eluru. It is also required to be noted that in the cross-examination, P.W-1 stated that the injured namely Bale Venkateswara Rao and Mungara Nagaraju were taken to the hospital on Tata mobile by P.W-1, Bale Sobhanadri, Bale Raghavulu, Mungara Suri babu and Srirama Chandrudu in a Tata mobile. P.W-1 in the crossHACJ examination categorically deposed that in the incident no axe was used as stated in Ex.P-1. P.W-1 also stated that the knife which was used is of arms length and it is not of a sickle shape and it a straight knife. But Ex.P-17 RFSL report at S.No.14 indicates one curved knife labelled as Cr.No.128 of 2005 of Pedapadu P.S. Ex.D-1 contradiction in the 161 CRPC statement of P.W-1 indicates that “with an intention to get revenge on the group of Moru Ramaraju.” But, during the course of cross-examination, P.W-1 stated that he did not make any statement to the police that accused bore grudge against Ramaraju and he also stated that he does not have any knowledge about the disputes with regard to village fish tank. But, peculiarly Ex.B-3 contradiction in 161 statement mentions that there is a dispute between surpanch and his elder brother/Moru Venkateswara Rao with regard to the lease of fish tank. 15. Having regard to these contradictions, mentioned supra, it is not advisable nor it is appropriate to place complete reliance on the evidence of P.W-1. P.W-3 is one Sri Bale Raghavulu, who is no other than the elder brother of deceased No.1. He also spoke practically in the same lines as P.W-1. During the course of cross-examination, he categorically and clearly deposed that at the time of P.W-2 giving first aid/treatment to the injured, he was at Anjaneya Swamy temple along with P.W-1. He also stated that he did not state before the police that he was at the house of A-1. He also spoke practically in the same lines as P.W-1. During the course of cross-examination, he categorically and clearly deposed that at the time of P.W-2 giving first aid/treatment to the injured, he was at Anjaneya Swamy temple along with P.W-1. He also stated that he did not state before the police that he was at the house of A-1. He also stated that when they were going back to their houses, after Grama Sabha, they did not turn into the lane of the house of A-1. 16. In this context, Ex.P-16 rough sketch gains significance, which in clear and unequivocal terms discloses that the distance between the place of incident and Anjaneya Swamy temple is approximately 80 yards. The said rough sketch also shows that the house of A-1 is situated in the by-lane and even according to P.W-3 he and P.W-1 were at Anjaneya Swamy temple, but not at the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W-2 therefore falsifies the version of P.W-1, about the presence of P.W-1 at the scene of offence. 17. P.W-4 is one Sri Moru Venkanna and he also spoke in line with P.W-1. But curiously neither P.W-1 nor P.W-3 stated about the presence of P.W-4 along with them. P.W-5 is one Sri Bale Ranga Rao, who is an injured eye witness and he stated that he did not receive any injury on left wrist. He also deposed that when he tired to protect himself with hand, A-1 hit on the left hand and due to which his hand got fractured and A-1 also inflicted injury on left cheek with iron rod and that the iron rod got traversed through his cheek and also effected his tongue and he immediately lost his conscious. But Ex.P-12 wound certificate does not indicate that P.W-5 fell unconscious. Even according to P.W-5, one cannot see the house of A-1 which is located in the lane of black soil pathway from the compound wall of Pedda Subba Raju. P.W-6 is one Mr.Mungara Yedukondalu, who is injured eye witness. But P.W-6 did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile and he spoke against the case of the prosecution and he stated that he did not see P.W-1 at the scene of offence. P.W-7 is one Mr.Mungara Kasulu, injured eye witness. According to him, he did not observe P.W-3 even at the time of occurrence. But P.W-6 did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile and he spoke against the case of the prosecution and he stated that he did not see P.W-1 at the scene of offence. P.W-7 is one Mr.Mungara Kasulu, injured eye witness. According to him, he did not observe P.W-3 even at the time of occurrence. He also stated that in order to reach his house, he need not cross the house of A-1. Though P.W-7 said about the user of axe for commission of offence, no axe was marked nor any wound certificate was produced by prosecution. Coming to the evidence of P.W-2/Danduboina Gopi Janardhan S/o Sreeramamurthy, according to P.W-2 he is a P.M.P Doctor by profession and he does not have any knowledge about the disputes over the village fish tanks and he further stated that on 19.09.2005 at about 04:00 P.M. when he had gone for rounds in the village for treating the patients and when he was proceeding from Ramalayam towards Anjaneya Swamy temple and when he reached the house of A-1, he saw A-1 with mud stain clothes along with sticks and when he asked A-1, he told that Mungara Nagaraju/deceased No.2, Mungara Yedukondalu/P.W-6, Bale Venkateswara Rao/deceased No.1, Bale Ranga Rao/P.W-5 came to him for beating him and on that he resisted and beat them. He further deposed that at the instance of A-1, he gave first aid, Tetanus injections to the injured and at that time deceased Nos.1, 2 were not in conscious stage. It is not the evidence of P.W-2 that he saw the commission of offence by accused. According to P.W-2 he found injured on the soil lane, in front of the house of A-1. 18. Admittedly, One Mr. Chakali Venkateswarlu on whom A-6 alleged to have inflicted injuries was not examined. The prosecution also failed to produce any wound certificate of P.W-7. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, A-6 & A-7 are entitled for acquittal. The evidence of P.W-2 in clear and unequivocal terms indicates the place of occurrence of the incident. 19. Absolutely, there was no occasion for the deceased and the injured to come into the by-lane, where the house of A-1 is located. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, A-6 & A-7 are entitled for acquittal. The evidence of P.W-2 in clear and unequivocal terms indicates the place of occurrence of the incident. 19. Absolutely, there was no occasion for the deceased and the injured to come into the by-lane, where the house of A-1 is located. Therefore, the facts and circumstances would clearly indicate that when the deceased and injured went to the house of A-1, there was altercation and due to the sudden provocation the offence took place. Therefore, the rest of the accused A-1 to A-5 and A-8 are entitled for the benefit of Part II of Section 304. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 09.04.2013 in Sessions case No.225 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru to the extent of Accused Nos.6 & 7 and they shall be set at liberty if they are not required in any other case and to the extent of accused Nos.2 to 5 and A-8, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the said judgment. However, the same is modified as one under Part II of Section 304 IPC and accused Nos.2 to 5 and A-8 are convicted under the said provision of law and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and the fine amount imposed is also confirmed. Since the accused Nos.2 to 5 and A-8 are on bail, they should surrender before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru forthwith. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.