JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. All the eight accused in S.C.No. 28 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the trial Court'), filed the present criminal appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, accused Nos. 2 and 8 are reported to have died and therefore the appeal against accused Nos. 2 and 8 is dismissed as abated. All the accused were tried by the trial Court under the following five charges: I charge was under Section 147 IPC against all the accused; II charge was under Section 148 against all the accused; III charge was under Section 341 IPC against all the accused; IV charge was under Section 324 IPC against all the accused; and V charge was under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused. 2. Substance of the charges is that on 28-02-2011 at about 8 p.m., all the accused armed with deadly weapons, with the common object, formed into an unlawful assembly and intercepted one Chiramana Haribabu @ Hari (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in front of the shop of P.W.4 while he was going on a motorcycle and hacked him with axes and knives causing his death and in the said process, the accused caused injuries to P.W.1, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. 3. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period a period of six months, for the offence under Section 147 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period a period of six months, for the offence under Section 148 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, for the offence under Section 341 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows: All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kanuparthipadu Village, Nellore Rural Mandal. Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 are brothers and accused No. 1 is their cousin. Accused No. 3 is son-in-law of accused No. 7. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are sons of accused No. 7. The deceased is junior paternal uncle of P.W.2. P.W.3 is brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.6 is wife and P.W.7 is brother of the deceased. The accused and the prosecution party belonged to CPM Party and there are two groups among them in Kanuparthipadu Village. One group led by the deceased and the other group led by accused No. 4. In the year 2010 during Vinayaka Chaviti procession, there was a quarrel between the deceased and one Mekanuri Venkata Ramanaiah who is younger brother of accused No. 1 and they beat each other. On the next day, the deceased hacked leg and hand of the said Ramanaiah. According to the prosecution, since then, the accused nurtured grudge and enmity against the deceased. On the next day, the deceased hacked leg and hand of the said Ramanaiah. According to the prosecution, since then, the accused nurtured grudge and enmity against the deceased. While so, on 28-02-2011 at about 7 p.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went to the shop of one Siddaiah on motorcycle to buy coconuts as the son of the deceased was sick. Two or three minutes later, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to cross-roads on their bike on personal work. After purchasing coconuts while the deceased and P.W.1 were returning home, P.Ws.2 and 3 said to be following them on their bike. When the deceased reached near the shop of P.W.4, the accused way laid and pulled the deceased from the bike. The deceased fell down. Immediately, accused No. 1 hacked the deceased on his left side of head with Moddu Katti and on all parts of the body. Accused No. 2 hacked the deceased on his left ankle, elbow and left knee with an axe.Then, all the accused hacked the deceased with knives and beat him with rods and axes. P.Ws.2 and 3 raised cries and on hearing the same, the accused left the scene towards their houses uttering 'Chachadura Nakoduku'. P.W.2 was weeping and remained at the scene while P.W.3 went to house of relatives and informed about the incident. One of the relatives called 108 Ambulance and P.Ws.1 to 3 and others shifted the injured to Government General Hospital, Nellore. The deceased died on the same day at about 11.30 p.m. On the dictation of P.W.2, his uncle Damodara Joshi, who was not examined, drafted a report at Government General Hospital, Nellore. P.W.2 went to police station and presented the report. P.W.11-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, received Ex.P2-report from P.W.2 at about 11.30 p.m. and registered a case in crime No. 62 of 2011 of Nellore Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P7 is copy of FIR. Having received the information, P.W.16-the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, rushed to the hospital at about 1 a.m. Later, P.W.16 went to Kanuparthipadu Village to maintain law and order. On the next day i.e. on 01-03-2022 at about 6 a.m., P.W.16 secured the presence of P.W.17 and another-mediators and prepared Ex.P12-scene observation report. Ex.P7 is copy of FIR. Having received the information, P.W.16-the then Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Circle, rushed to the hospital at about 1 a.m. Later, P.W.16 went to Kanuparthipadu Village to maintain law and order. On the next day i.e. on 01-03-2022 at about 6 a.m., P.W.16 secured the presence of P.W.17 and another-mediators and prepared Ex.P12-scene observation report. P.W.16 also prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.16 also took photographs-Ex.P14. During observation, P.W.16 seized M.Os.1 to 3 under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, P.W.16 went to Government General Hospital, Nellore, and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 8 and 10. P.W.16 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. P.W.16 sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.9-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, D.S.R. Government General Hospital, Nellore, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found 11 injuries. P.W.9 opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Accordingly, P.W.9 issued Ex.P6-post mortem certificate. P.W.12-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, D.S.R. Government General Hospital, Nellore, examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P8-wound certificate. On 09-03-2011, on credible information, P.W.16 arrested accused Nos. 2 to 8 at about 2 p.m. at Palicherlapadu Road in the presence of P.W.14 and another. The accused said to have confessed that they committed the offences. They led P.W.16 and mediators to Sarvepalli Canal at Kanuparthipadu Village, wherefrom the weapons were seized. The panchanama was marked as Ex.P11. On 30-03-2011, P.W.16 arrested accused No. 1 in the presence of P.W.17 and on confession of accused No. 1, P.W.16 recovered M.O.15-Moddu Katti under Ex.P16. Thereafter, P.W.16 sent the material objects to R.F.S.L. for chemical analysis. R.F.S.L. Reports were marked as Exs.P17 and P18. After completion of investigation, P.W.16 laid charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 15. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence but however got marked Ex.D1. 7. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 4, Sri H.Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence but however got marked Ex.D1. 7. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 4, Sri H.Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. As already stated supra, since the appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 8 are reported to have died during pendency of the criminal appeal, the appeal against them is dismissed as abated. As such, the present criminal appeal is considered only with regard to the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. P.W.1, who is said to have accompanied the deceased to the shop of Siddaiah wherefrom the deceased purchased coconuts, did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. The independent witnesses-P.Ws.4 and 5, in front of whose shops the incident took place, also did not support the case of prosecution. So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned, she is wife of the deceased and she came to know about the incident through P.W.3. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution. P.W.7 is brother of the deceased and he also did not witness the incident. P.W.7 never stated about the disputes between the accused and the deceased. P.W.8 is inquest panch. P.W.9 is doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.9 to 17 are official witnesses. Now, the only evidence remained is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. As already pointed out, the deceased is junior paternal uncle of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is brother-in-law of the deceased. As such, they are closely related to the deceased. 11. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that on 28-02-2011 at about 7 p.m., the deceased along with P.W.1 went to the shop of Siddaiah to get coconuts for his son as he fell sick. He further stated that his house is adjoining the house of the deceased. Two or three minutes after the deceased left the house, P.Ws.2 and 3 also went to crossroads on motorcycle on their personal work. While they were returning home after completion of their personal work, they saw the deceased and P.W.1 returning. He further stated that his house is adjoining the house of the deceased. Two or three minutes after the deceased left the house, P.Ws.2 and 3 also went to crossroads on motorcycle on their personal work. While they were returning home after completion of their personal work, they saw the deceased and P.W.1 returning. When the deceased reached near the shop of P.W.4, all the accused way laid the motorcycle of the deceased and pulled him from the motorcycle. After the deceased falling down, accused No. 1 hacked the deceased, accused No. 2 also hacked the deceased and all other accused hacked the deceased with knives, iron rods and axes. Hearing the cries of P.W.2, all the accused left the scene uttering 'Chachadura Nakoduku' and proceeded to their houses. P.W.2 further stated in his evidence that he started weeping and remained at the scene of offence and that one of the relatives called 108 Ambulance and they shifted P.W.1 and the deceased to Government General Hospital, Nellore. In cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he went to crossroads to the house of Venkata Sesha Reddy for borrowing money as he was in the habit of borrowing money from him but the prosecution did not choose to examine the said Venkata Sesha Reddy. 12. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that two or three minutes after the deceased and P.W.1 left the house, P.W.2 and himself went to crossroads on motorcycle to attend their personal work and that after completion of their personal work and while they were returning home, they saw the accused attacking the deceased in front of the shop of P.W.4. P.W.3 in his cross-examination admitted that they did not see the departure of the deceased along with P.W.1 on motorcycle. P.W.3 also admitted in cross-examination that both of them were not aware of the purpose of the deceased going to crossroads but, in evidence and in Ex.P2-report, P.W.2 stated the purpose for which the deceased went to the shop of Siddaiah. 13. Both these witnesses stated different reasons for their visit to crossroads at the relevant point of time. As already pointed out, both P.Ws.2 and 3 are very closely related to the deceased and they belong to the group of the deceased. Apart from relatedness, they are also interested witnesses. 13. Both these witnesses stated different reasons for their visit to crossroads at the relevant point of time. As already pointed out, both P.Ws.2 and 3 are very closely related to the deceased and they belong to the group of the deceased. Apart from relatedness, they are also interested witnesses. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 in their evidence stated that they were following the deceased on a motorcycle from crossroads to the village, they did not give the particulars and number of the motorcycle. There are lot of improvements in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 from stage to stage. Though the incident took place at about 8 p.m., P.W.2 gave report at about 11.30 p.m. i.e. nearly about four hours after the incident. As such, there is any amount of delay in giving report to police as there are factions in the village. Though Ex.P2 was drafted by one Damodara Joshi, the prosecution did not choose to examine him. In such circumstances, the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time is highly doubtful and they were planted by the prosecution at a later stage. Ex.P2-report was also prepared after due deliberations and confabulations. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 does not inspire confidence of this Court as to they witnessing the incident. At one stage, P.Ws.2 and 3 tried to shift the scene of offence to suit to their convenience to show that as if they were following the motorcycle of the deceased. 14. The prosecution also failed to examine Siddaiah-owner of the shop wherefrom the deceased purchased coconuts. Further, the investigating officer-P.W.16 did not choose to examine the said Siddaiah. P.W.16 also did not choose to seize the motorcycle of the deceased on which he was going at the relevant point of time at least to find out any bloodstains were there on the motorcycle. P.W.16 also did not choose to collect the details of motorcycle on which P.Ws.2 and 3 were following the deceased. As the village is highly faction-ridden village and as the prosecution is not coming forward with true version, we are not inclined to rely on the case of prosecution. As already pointed out, except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other evidence on record. As the village is highly faction-ridden village and as the prosecution is not coming forward with true version, we are not inclined to rely on the case of prosecution. As already pointed out, except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, there is no other evidence on record. Further, as already held, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is shaky and the same does not inspire confidence of this Court. 15. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by judgement dated 18-10-2016 in S.C.No. 28 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are acquitted of all the charges. As the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 01-11-2021 in terms of the order dated 02-11-2016 passed by a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, they are directed to surrender themselves before the concerned jail authorities for completing the formalities for their release. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.