JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) This Criminal Appeal, by the appellant/defacto complainant (P.W.1), is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.342 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapuram, whereby respondents/A.1 to A.13, A.16 to A.18, A.20 to A.27 and A.30 were found not guilty of the charges leveled against them and are accordingly acquitted of the said charges. 2. Originally, charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.29. Subsequently, during the course of trial, as per Order dated 23.10.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2009, A.30 was added as an accused. During pendency of the case before the trial Court, A.14, A.15, A.19, A.28 and A.29 died and hence the learned Sessions Judge abated case against them. 3. The substance of the charges framed against the accused is that on 25.06.2004 at about 6.00 AM in Gotkuru village, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, entered into house of the Challa Sreenivasulu (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), intentionally or knowingly beat him with sticks, stones and sickles indiscriminately, resulting in his instantaneous death. In furtherance of their common object, all the accused beat P.Ws.1 to 6 and thereby caused injuries. All the accused committed mischief by causing wrongful loss to the property of the deceased of a value of Rs.1.00 lakh and further destructed the building which was ordinarily used for place of worship for human dwelling or custody. 4. The deceased and the accused belong to Gotkuru village. The deceased belongs to Telugu Desam party and the accused belong to Congress Party. There was political rivalry between them and they were waiting for a chance to attack each other. Accordingly, on 24.06.2004 at about 6.00 PM, one Nagabhushanam of TDP was attacked by the followers of A.1 and a case in crime No.37 of 2004 was registered by Kuderu police in connection with the said attack. On 25.06.2004 at about 6.00 AM, while A.1, A.4 and A.21 were going in Gotkuru village, they were attacked by the deceased, his wife and brother of Nagaghushanam, causing bleeding injuries. On coming to know about the said incident, A.1, A.4, A.21 and other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of attacking the deceased and others. On coming to know about the said incident, A.1, A.4, A.21 and other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of attacking the deceased and others. Accordingly, they went to house of the deceased, armed with sticks, stones and sickles, and on seeing the mob, the deceased went inside and bolted the door from inside. On that, some of the accused went on to the terrace of the house and made a hole in the roof, whereas some other accused forcibly broke open the door, trespassed into the house of the deceased, dragged him out of the house and attacked him. On the instigation of A.21, A.1 took a big stone and hit the deceased on his head due to which brain matter came out of the skull, which caused instantaneous death of the deceased. When P.W.1, 19 and 11 intervened, the accused attacked them causing bleeding injuries. Some of the accused entered house of the deceased, damaged household articles, set fire to agricultural produce and thus caused damage to a tune of Rs.1.00 lakh. Thereafter, the accused divided into five groups and raided houses of Dudekula Lalu Sab, Chakala Surappa, Dudekula Pedda Mahaboob Peera and K.Hanumanthu and beat L.W.6-K.Ramudu, L.W.7-K.Jayappa, L.W.8-Lalu Sab, L.W.9-D.Mahammad, L.W.5-Haji Peera with sticks and stones and caused bleeding injuries. A.1 to A.6 trespassed in the house of L.W.8-Lalu Saheb, L.W.16-C.Jayanna, L.W.9- D.Mahammad, L.W.5-Hajipeera and L.W.19-K.Hanumanthu and damaged their household articles. L.Ws.12 to 14-Police Constables, who were on bandobast duty, reached the scene of offence, but they were also attacked by the accused with stones causing bleeding injuries. On coming to know about the rioting in the village, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuderu police station along with staff reached the scene of offence and don seeing them, the accused absconded. L.W.27-Sub Inspector of Police recorded statement of P.W.1 and sent the injured to the Government General Hospital, Ananthapuram for treatment, proceeded to the police station and registered the case. L.W.28-Inspector of Police took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to postmortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was due to crane cerebral injury. The investigating officer arrested the accused and recovered the material objects. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was due to crane cerebral injury. The investigating officer arrested the accused and recovered the material objects. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 427 and 436 IPC against A.1 to A.29; under Section 302 IPC against A.1; under Section 302 read with 149 IPC against A.2 to A.29; under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against A.1 to A.5; under Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A.6 and A.7; under Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A.8 to A.10; under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against A.1, A.3, A.9, A.12 and A.13; under Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A.4, A.6 and A.21; under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against A.1 to A.6; under Section 427 read with 149 IPC against A.1 to A.6; under Section 427 read with 34 IPC against A.7, A.8, A.9 and A.10; under Section 436 read with 34 IPC against A.7, A.8, A.9 and A.10; under Section 324 read with 149 IPC and 427 read with 149 IPC and 436 read with 149 IPC against A.11 to A.20; under Section 324 read with 149 IPC, 427 read with 149 IPC and 436 read with 149 IPC against A.21 to A.25; under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and 427 read with 34 IPC and 436 read with 34 IPC against A.25 and A.26 and under Section 427 read with 34 IPC against A.26 to A.29. When the respective charges were read over to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 25 and got marked Exs.P1 to P41 on its behalf, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 25. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D7 were got marked. 7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D7 were got marked. 7. After adding A.30 as one of the accused and pursuant to the Order dated 03.03.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2016 filed by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges punishable under Sections 449 read with 149 IPC against all the accused, and charges under Sections 148, 452, 427, 436, 302 read with 149, 324 read with 149 on 6 counts and 427 read with 149 on four counts; under Sections 439 read with 149 IPC on two counts, were framed against A.30. When the respective charges were read over to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Both parties reported no additional evidence. 8. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the respondents/A.1 to A.13, A.16 to A.18, A.20 to A.27 and A.30 not guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred. 9. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondents/A.1 to A.13, A.16 to A.18, A.20 to A.27 and A.30 for the charges framed against them beyond all reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge ? 10. Heard Sri N.Harinath, Advocate representing Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 19 and 20, who are injured witnesses, is consistent with regard to the attack by the respondents/accused and their evidence has not shaken in cross-examination. He further submits that medical evidence corroborates with ocular testimony and there was motive for the respondents/accused to do away with the life of the deceased. He submits that basing on surmises and conjectures, the trial court found the respondents/accused not guilty, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict and sentence the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. 12. He submits that basing on surmises and conjectures, the trial court found the respondents/accused not guilty, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order of acquittal and convict and sentence the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. 12. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appearing for the respondents/accused contended that the evidence of material prosecution witnesses PWs.1, 19 and 20 does not inspire confidence and they are all interested witnesses, being close relatives of the deceased; that P.W.1 kept changing her versions in her evidence given before the Court and hence she cannot be placed in the category of a ‘wholly reliable witness’. He further submits that there is any amount of ambiguity with regard to lodging of Ex.P1-report itself and in view of political rivalry in the village, the accused have been implicated. He submits that the material prosecution witnesses changed their version with regard to manner of attack and gave a different version than in Ex.P1, only to suit the medical evidence; that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular testimony on material aspects; that there are material contradictions and improvements in the evidence of material prosecution witnesses and hence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that, the trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the respondents/accused, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 13. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 14. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 , wherein it is held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on ‘compelling and substantial reasons’ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193 : ( AIR 1952 SC 52 ); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418 : ( AIR 1953 SC 459 ). The use of the words, ‘compelling reasons’ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words ‘compelling reasons’. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on ‘compelling reasons’ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 15. In the case on hand, all the injured witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. In the case on hand, all the injured witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. P.W.1, who is wife of the deceased, supported the version of the prosecution when she was examined in-chief, and pursuant to her evidence, A.30 was added as an accused. Thereafter, after lapse of four years, P.W.1 was cross-examined wherein she gave a complete go-by to her earlier version and stated that at the instance of political leaders, she stated as against the accused. Thereafter, again, when she was recalled and examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she again supported the version of the prosecution. It is settled proposition of law that when there is divergence of evidence available on record, it is essential that there has to be some corroboration to prove the guilt of the accused. It is pertinent to refer to a judgment in Harchand Singh and another v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 344 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that when there are two sets of evidences which contradict each other, conviction is not sustainable. In Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1976 SC 1489 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when one part of the prosecution is doubtful and the second part is dependent, the version is not to be believed. 16. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased is her husband and A.1 to A.29, who are present before the Court, along with A.30 came to their house, armed with deadly weapons, sticks, stones and sickles and caused death of her husband. She further deposed that one day prior to the incident, there was an altercation wherein one Nagabhushanam, who is supporter of TDP, received injuries as Congress people beat him. In fact, the deceased went to Ananthapuram on that day and returned at about 8.30 PM. P.W.1 informed about the incident to the deceased for which he stated that on the next day, he would see about it. In connection with that case, the injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapuram. On the next day at about 6.00 or 6.30 AM, when P.W.1, the deceased, P.Ws.11, 19 and 20 were present in front of house, all the accused came there. On seeing them, the deceased went inside due to fear and closed the doors. In connection with that case, the injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapuram. On the next day at about 6.00 or 6.30 AM, when P.W.1, the deceased, P.Ws.11, 19 and 20 were present in front of house, all the accused came there. On seeing them, the deceased went inside due to fear and closed the doors. Some of the accused broke open the doors, windows and some of them got on to the top of the roof, made holes to the roof, threw dried coconut leaves, chillies into the house and set fire with kerosene. After the doors were broken by some of the accused, A.1, A.30, A.2, A.8, A.9 and all the accused went into the house, dragged the deceased out of the house and beat him with hands and legs. When P.W.1 tried to interfere, A.6, A.7, A.11 beat her and caused injuries. When P.W.19 intervened, A.8 and A.10 beat her and caused injuries. A.8 beat with stone on forehead of P.W.19. When P.W.20 tried to intervene, A.30 caught hold of her hand and pushed her aside. When the deceased tried to stand up, A.1 to A.5 and A.30 surrendered him and on the instigation of A.20 to kill him, A.1 took a big boulder and threw it on the head of the deceased causing his instantaneous death. Later, all the accused damaged household articles and raised slogans that they would see end of their colony people, and saying so, they left the place. Two months prior to the incident, assembly elections took place in the village, in which A.1 supported Congress party and the deceased supported TDP, due to which grudges arose between them. P.W.1 stated that she cannot identify the weapons that were in the hands of the assailants at that time. During cross-examination, it has been elicited that she cannot identify A.1 to A.29. She further stated that she cannot say who belongs to TDP and who belongs Congress party. 17. P.W.1 further stated that she signed in examination-in-chief and she is in the habit of signing and she never affixed her left thumb impression. Whereas, on a perusal of the complaint Ex.P1 shows that thumb impression of P.W.1 was affixed, which is marked as Ex.P2. 17. P.W.1 further stated that she signed in examination-in-chief and she is in the habit of signing and she never affixed her left thumb impression. Whereas, on a perusal of the complaint Ex.P1 shows that thumb impression of P.W.1 was affixed, which is marked as Ex.P2. She further stated that she does not know contents of Ex.P1 and her husband’s dead body was lying on cement road which is at a distance of 45 yards from the house. At that stage, the prosecution sought permission to declare P.W.1 as hostile and to crossexamine her for the reason that she stated that she did not witness the incident and she does not know who beat her husband. She further stated that at the instance of a political group and due to village political enmity between the groups, she deposed so against the accused in her examination-in-chief. During cross-examination by the APP at a later date, she supported the version of the prosecution. 18. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased. P.W.19 is sister of the deceased and P.W.20 is daughter of the deceased. P.W.11 is mother of P.W.1. P.Ws.1, 19, 20 and 11 are injured witnesses. Apart from them, P.Ws.2, 6, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 13 and 16 also received injuries during the course of the incident, and properties of P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 10 were damaged during the attack. Except P.Ws.1, 19 and 20, other witnesses did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. P.W.13, police constable, and P.W.16, Head Constable, who are said to have attended bandobust duty in the village, also did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. There is no legal evidence as to who were the assailants. 19. There are number of discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy for the reason that she kept changing the versions during the course of her evidence before the Court. There are number of discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 19. It is pertinent to mention here that there is discrepancy as to who caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.19. The versions given by them are inconsistent and the same cannot be relied upon. According to P.W.1, it is A.8 and A.10, who beat P.W.19. There are number of discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 19. It is pertinent to mention here that there is discrepancy as to who caused injuries to P.W.1 and P.W.19. The versions given by them are inconsistent and the same cannot be relied upon. According to P.W.1, it is A.8 and A.10, who beat P.W.19. A.8 beat with stone on the forehead of P.W.19. Whereas the version of P.W.19 is that A.5 and A.6 beat her with stones and pushed her aside. P.W.20 deposed that when herself and P.W.19 tried to interfere, accused beat them and pushed aside. P.W.1 deposed that A.30 caught hold of P.W.20 when she tried to interfere and pushed her aside. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that P.W.19 or P.W.20 did not depose presence of P.W.11, who is mother of P.W.1, at the time of the incident and receiving the injuries, and only P.W.1 deposed that when P.W.11 tried to interfere, A.6, A.7 and A.11 beat her and caused injuries. According to P.W.19, she received injuries in the hands of some unknown persons. Therefore, there is any amount of ambiguity with regard to presence of P.Ws.19 and 20 and receiving injuries, as deposed by them, as they gave inconsistent versions. 20. P.W.23-Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.14 and others. P.W.14 did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. During inquest, P.W.23 seized wearing apparel of the deceased M.Os.1 to 3. According to P.W.23, he concluded inquest by 2.15 PM and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Anantapuram for autopsy. P.Ws.1, 11, 19 and 20 were present when the inquest was being conducted by P.W.23. The injured witnesses were sent to Medical Officer after sending the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for autopsy. 21. P.W.15-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Anantapuram examined P.Ws.1, 11, 19 and 20 on 25.06.2004. P.W.20 was not examined by the Doctor though she received injuries during the course of the incident. During cross-examination of P.W.15, who is an independent witness and Doctor, it is elicited that as per the information given by P.W.19, he mentioned that she received injuries due to hit by sticks by some unknown persons. P.W.20 was not examined by the Doctor though she received injuries during the course of the incident. During cross-examination of P.W.15, who is an independent witness and Doctor, it is elicited that as per the information given by P.W.19, he mentioned that she received injuries due to hit by sticks by some unknown persons. Contusion as well as lacerated injuries are possible by fall on rough surface. It is apparent from the evidence on record that all the injured were found absconding from the Government General Hospital by 4.00 PM on the said date. 22. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that she is a signatory. Even in the deposition, she signed before the Court. But, as seen from the report Ex.P1, there is thumb impression of P.W.1. She admitted that she does not know names of the respective father of the accused. But, a perusal of the recitals in Ex.P1 goes to show that names of fathers of 26 accused are mentioned. A perusal of second page of Ex.P1 shows that the writing therein was adjusted to fit into the thumb impression marked as Ex.P2. Further more, P.Ws.19 and 20 also deposed the same version, but their statements reveal names of fathers of almost all the accused. Further, the complaint does not contain endorsement of police that the same was registered as crime. There is no explanation as to why statements of police who were on bandobust duty were not recorded by P.W.22 at first instance. In the light of evidence of P.Ws.1, 19 and 20 that they do not know names of respective father of the accused, Ex.P1-report containing names of fathers of 26 accused and also the statements of P.Ws.19 and 20 revealing names of respective father of all the accused, creates any amount of doubt about the manner of lodging Ex.P1-report by P.W.1. Though P.W.1 is a signatory and she affixed her signatures on the deposition given before the Court, Ex.P1-report contains her thumb impressions. Admittedly, several political leaders visited the scene and also hospital, after the incident. From these glaring defects, there is any amount of suspicion with regard to lodging of Ex.P1 by P.W.1 and the prosecution failed to explain that Ex.P1 is the complaint that was lodged by P.W.1. 23. Admittedly, several political leaders visited the scene and also hospital, after the incident. From these glaring defects, there is any amount of suspicion with regard to lodging of Ex.P1 by P.W.1 and the prosecution failed to explain that Ex.P1 is the complaint that was lodged by P.W.1. 23. There is also a discrepancy in the version mentioned in the earliest version in Ex.P1 and the medical evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 19 and 20. In the earliest version in Ex.P1, it is stated that A.1 and A.20 hit the deceased with boulders marked as M.O.13. M.O.13 is two blood stained big boulders. But, P.Ws.1, 19 and 20 deposed that A.1 threw the stone on the head of the deceased due to which the deceased died on the spot and brain matter came out of the head. Therefore, there is discrepancy with regard to the assailant of the deceased, in the earliest version mentioned in Ex.P1- report and in the evidence given before the Court. As seen from the postmortem examination report Ex.P33, it is clear that only one injury is found corresponding to the said overtact. Therefore, the evidence appears to have been given to suit the medical evidence. Further, according to evidence of P.W.1, A.1 to A.5 and A.30 surrounded the deceased and A.1 hit the deceased with a big boulder as shown in the Court. The trial Court found that the said boulder in Court is different from the one shown in the photograph and that the death was caused only with a single hit by one foundation stone, which is not marked and not shown to the witnesses and the Doctor. Further, the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1, 19 and 20 that all the accused beat the deceased with hands and legs and dragged him out of the house, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. So, the version in earliest version in Ex.P1 that A.1 and another beat the deceased with stones and that the other accused dragged the deceased and beat him with hands and legs, is not believable. It creates any amount of doubt whether the incident is said to have taken place as suggested by the prosecution. Ex.P1 appears to have been brought into existence at a belated stage after due deliberations. 24. On this aspect, it is pertinent to mention the following judgments. It creates any amount of doubt whether the incident is said to have taken place as suggested by the prosecution. Ex.P1 appears to have been brought into existence at a belated stage after due deliberations. 24. On this aspect, it is pertinent to mention the following judgments. (i) In Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani & others v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 238 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex court held thus: “This Court has repeatedly observed that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness, a conviction may be recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so, the Court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eye witness is of such sterling quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so, the Court must test the credibility of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.” (ii) In C.Magesh & others v. State of Karnataka, 2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 286 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “It may be cautioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasize, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that ‘no man is guilty until proven so’, hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that ‘no man is guilty until proven so’, hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” (iii) In Vangala Sreenivasa Reddy & others v. State of A.P., 2011 (1) ALT (Crl.) 286 (SC), a Division Bench of this Court held thus: “Though the First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is a vital document to know about the investigation and it is very much useful to find out the earliest version basing on which the investigation commenced. The entire evidence of the eye witnesses is contra and distinct to the averments made by P.W.1 in the First Information Report. There was no injury, which was supposed to have been caused with an iron rod repeatedly on the head of the deceased. Further, the evidence of eye witnesses before the Court comes into conflict with the version in the First Information Report and it also at variance with the police statements made by the said witnesses. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt whatsoever on the aspect that the medical evidence comes into conflict with the oral evidence, more particularly, as there was no injury, which was supposed to have been caused on the head of the deceased with an iron rod. This leads to an inference that either the eye witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence or that they are not giving correct version about the incident.” 25. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record goes to show that an implicit reliance cannot be placed on the solitary testimony of P.Ws.1, 19 and 20 so as to base conviction, for the reason that there are number of embellishments and contradictions in their evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly found the respondents/accused not guilty of the charges and accordingly acquitted them. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits. 26. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly found the respondents/accused not guilty of the charges and accordingly acquitted them. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.342 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapuram.