JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short, 'the trial Court'), are the appellants in the present criminal appeal before this Court. Originally, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following three charges: I charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; II charge was under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC against accused No. 5; and III charge was under Section 212 IPC against accused No.5. 2. Substance of the charges is that on 24-12-2009 at about 10.45 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 attacked one Garudaiahgari Peddireddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') with axes and a boulder in Akulolla Subrahmanyam Orange Garden at Korrapadu Village, Muddanur Mandal, causing his instantaneous death and in the said process, accused No. 5 gave shelter to accused Nos. 1 to 4 being aware of the fact that accused Nos. 1 to 4 committed murder of the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 120-B and 212 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 5 of both the charges. 4. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses is thus: All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Korrapadu Village whereas accused Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of Gangadevipalli Village and accused No. 5 is resident of Kodigandlapalli Village. P.W.1 is close relative and P.W.2 is wife of the deceased. The deceased was affiliated to Congress Party and he was President of Single Window Society and also Director of APCOB. His wife was President of Korrapadu and Gangadevipalli Panchyat. The deceased was running a stone crusher plant and the accused demanded money towards their commission, for which the former refused stating that his wife was Sarpanch of the Village. This incident took place about 10 days prior to the date of incident. His wife was President of Korrapadu and Gangadevipalli Panchyat. The deceased was running a stone crusher plant and the accused demanded money towards their commission, for which the former refused stating that his wife was Sarpanch of the Village. This incident took place about 10 days prior to the date of incident. The deceased was awarded with a contract of laying new railway track and road. The accused demanded the deceased to take metal from their quarries, for which the deceased refused. Keeping in mind, the accused were waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased as he became obstacle to their political career. While so, on 24-12-2009, the deceased along with P.W.1 proceeded to the plant belonging to the deceased which is located at Gangadevipalli Village. Both of them went to the plant situated near Malakonda on a motorcycle belonging to P.W.4. They remained at the plant for some time and thereafter, at about 10.45 a.m. while the deceased and P.W.1 were returning to their village Korrapadu and when they reached near garden of the accused, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came across the motorcycle and obstructed them. Accused No. 1 demanded money from the deceased and threatened him with an axe. Saying so, accused No. 1 hacked on the head of the deceased with the axe. Accused No. 2 pushed down the deceased from the motorcycle and accused Nos. 1 to 4 chased the deceased to the garden of Akulolla Subrahmanyam. When the deceased was trying to escape through the said garden, accused Nos. 1 to 4 chased him and attacked him with axes. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 hacked on head and other parts of the deceased. When P.W.1 intervened, they threatened him to kill. When the deceased fell down on ground, accused No. 4 hit the deceased with a big boulder-M.O.5 on his head. In the meanwhile, P.W.3 and Vennapusa Chenna Reddy (L.W.5) came to the scene of offence and on seeing them, accused Nos. 1 to 4 ran away towards Obulapuram Village. Immediately, P.W.1, P.W.3 and L.W.5 went to the house of the deceased and informed P.W.2 about the murder committed by accused Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Muddanur Police Station and gave Ex.P1-report to police. 1 to 4 ran away towards Obulapuram Village. Immediately, P.W.1, P.W.3 and L.W.5 went to the house of the deceased and informed P.W.2 about the murder committed by accused Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Muddanur Police Station and gave Ex.P1-report to police. P.W.10-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Muddanur Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at about 2 p.m. On the basis of the said report, P.W.10 registered a case in crime No. 164 of 2009 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P26. Immediately, P.W.10 informed about the incident to the Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Circle-P.W.11. Having received information, P.W.11 collected copy of FIR and instructed P.W.10 to send available staff to the scene of offence to maintain law and order. Thereafter, P.W.11 went to the scene of offence and reached there by 3 p.m. P.W.11 found the dead body in the fields of Akulolla Subrahmanyam. P.W.11 deployed two police constables to guard the scene of offence. On the next day i.e. on 25-12-2009 at about 7 a.m., P.W.11 got the scene photographed through P.W.6. Photographs were marked as Exs.P2 to P19. P.W.11 also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P27 at the scene of offence. P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and another-mediator. Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P21. P.W.11 seized bloodstained earth and control earth-M.Os.12 and 13 at the scene of offence. P.W.11 also seized M.O.8-chappals, M.O.9-motorcycle, M.O.14-chappals of one of the accused, M.O.6-shirt, M.O.7-pant and M.O.15-belt of the deceased at the scene of offence under a cover of panchanama. P.W.11 also recorded statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 and others. Later, P.W.11 sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. On the same day at about 11 a.m., P.W.7-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Community Hospital, Jammalamadugu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock due to head injury. P.W.7 also opined that the injuries might have been caused due to blunt force. P.W.7 accordingly issued Ex.P20-post mortem certificate. On 13-01-2010, P.W.11 received information about surrender of accused No. 1 before the Court. P.W.11 obtained accused No. 1 to police custody. On confession of accused No. 1 under Ex.P22, P.W.11 recovered M.O.1-bloodstained axe near Paidipalem Reservoir. P.W.7 also opined that the injuries might have been caused due to blunt force. P.W.7 accordingly issued Ex.P20-post mortem certificate. On 13-01-2010, P.W.11 received information about surrender of accused No. 1 before the Court. P.W.11 obtained accused No. 1 to police custody. On confession of accused No. 1 under Ex.P22, P.W.11 recovered M.O.1-bloodstained axe near Paidipalem Reservoir. On 22-01-2010, P.W.11 arrested accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the presence of P.W.9 and another. On the confession of accused Nos. 2 to 4, P.W.11 recovered bloodstained axes-M.Os.2 to 4 and bloodstained shirts of accused Nos. 3 and 4- M.Os.10 and 11 under a cover of panchanama. During the course of investigation, P.W.11 sent M.Os.1 to 4, 10 and 11 for chemical analysis. After receipt of Ex.P20-post mortem certificate and Exs.P30 and 31-R.F.S.L. Reports, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P31 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 evidence but however got marked Exs.D1 to D9. 7. Sri D.Purnachandra Rerddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4, would strenuously contend that P.Ws.1 to 3 were not at all eyewitnesses to the incident and they were planted by the prosecution; that though the incident took place at about 10.45 a.m., P.W.1 gave Ex.P1-report at about 2 p.m. and as such, there is an unexplained delay of 3.15 hours in giving Ex.P1-report and that though the Court is situated at a distance of 24 K.Ms., FIR reached the magistrate at about 9.57 p.m. on the same day and as such, FIR was prepared after due consultations and confabulations. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeevan and another Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355 and a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in D.Venkaiah and others Vs. State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, 1996 SCC OnLine AP 1307. Learned counsel further contends that though P.W.1 was proceeding along with the deceased being pillion rider, he did not receive any bloodstains on his clothes and that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.W.7 did not corroborate with the ocular version spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. Learned counsel further contends that though P.W.1 was proceeding along with the deceased being pillion rider, he did not receive any bloodstains on his clothes and that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.W.7 did not corroborate with the ocular version spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. He therefore prays to allow the criminal appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3 at the time of incident and they witnessing the attack cannot be doubted; that the incident took place at about 11 a.m. and the report was lodged by P.W.1 at about 2 p.m. on the same day and the distance between the scene of offence and the police station is 24 K.Ms. and therefore there is no scope for false implication in the present case; that the accused are in the habit of demanding commissions from people and to that effect, the prosecution examined P.W.5 who specifically stated that when the Government acquired his land of Ac. 3.00 cents for construction of Gandikota Reservior and paid compensation, the accused demanded commission from him; that as the deceased was murdered by the accused for the sake of money, question of faction does not arise and if really there are factions between the prosecution party and the accused group, the latter will not go to the extent of demanding money from the opponent and that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.11 and the medical evidence of P.W.8, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore sought for dismissal of the criminal appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. It is P.W.1 who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1-report before P.W.10. In Ex.P1 itself, P.W.1 specifically stated about the manner in which the attack took place. In Ex.P1, the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.5 has also been stated by P.W.1. Right from the beginning, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is consistent till the date of evidence. In Ex.P1 itself, P.W.1 specifically stated about the manner in which the attack took place. In Ex.P1, the presence of P.W.3 and L.W.5 has also been stated by P.W.1. Right from the beginning, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is consistent till the date of evidence. P.W.2-wife of the deceased also stated in her evidence that at about 11 a.m. on 24-12-2009, P.Ws.1 and 3 and L.W.5 came to her and informed that accused Nos. 1 to 4 killed her husband. As such, right from the beginning, the prosecution version is consistent. Even in Ex.P21- inquest report, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and L.W.5 was mentioned as they witnessed the incident. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is consistent and there is nothing to disbelieve their version. Though P.Ws.1 and 3 were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. 10. P.W.11 in his evidence stated that during the course of investigation, he arrested accused Nos. 2 to 4 on 22-01-2010 and on their confession, he recovered M.Os.2 to 4-bloodstained axes and also shirts worn by accused Nos. 3 and 4 which were marked as M.Os.10 and 11 respectively. During the course of investigation, P.W.11 sent M.Os.2 to 4 and M.Os.10 and 11 to R.F.S.L. for chemical examination. R.F.S.L. Reports were marked as Exs.P30 and P31. We have carefully perused the reports of R.F.S.L. In the R.F.S.L. Reports, it is clearly indicated that M.Os.10 and 11-shirts worn by accused Nos. 3 and 4 contain human blood. The blood group is also indicated as 'A' and the same is tallied with the blood group of the deceased. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the bloodstains on the clothes of accused Nos. 3 and 4 as that of belonging to the deceased. 11. In Rajeevan (1st supra) case relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393 , wherein the delayed filing of FIR and its consequences are discussed as under: “First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police is respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 12. In another ruling in D.Venkaiah (2nd supra) relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that in a faction case, there is every possibility of false implication after due consultations and confabulations. As such, delay places vital role in faction cases. 13. Coming to case on hand, it is not a faction case and the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 killed the deceased as the latter did not pay commission demanded by the former. If really both of them are having faction, question of demanding the deceased by the appellantsaccused Nos. 1 to 4 does not arise. So far as the delay is concerned, it is indicated in FIR itself that due to fear of the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4, P.W.1 reported the matter at about 2 p.m. before P.W.10. Further, with regard to delay in reaching FIR to the Court concerned, it is stated that as there were severe agitations going on for separate Telangana State, it took some time in reaching FIR to the Court concerned. As such, the delay cannot be taken serious note of in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The above rulings relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4, therefore, do not render any assistance to his case. 14. Considering all the above circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused Nos. The above rulings relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4, therefore, do not render any assistance to his case. 14. Considering all the above circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with the medical evidence adduced through P.W.8 and also R.F.S.L. Reports-Exs.P30 and P31. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by judgement dated 24-10-2016 in S.C.No. 124 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. By order dated 16-05-2024 in I.A.No. 1 of 2024, this Court granted interim bail to appellant No. 1- accused No. 1 on medical grounds from 17-05-2024 to 16-08-2024. Appellant-accused No. 1 is therefore directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Open Air Jail, Anantapuramu, in terms of the order of this Court dated 16-05-2024. In case appellant No. 1-accused No. 1 does not surrender, the trial Court is directed to secure his presence by issuing warrant. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.