JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) 1. The appellant is accused No.1 in S.C.No.523 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. The appellant was tried for the offence under Sections 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC along with A2 to A4. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 03.07.2015 in S.C.No.523 of 2013 found the appellant/A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. A2 to A4 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC and were acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that Ex.P1 was lodged by P.W.1 namely Godugu Samatha/P.W.1/defacto complainant. According to complainant, P.W.1, her sister Ch.Kavitha (P.W.3) and her brother Godugu Ramesh (P.W.2) are the children of Godugu Pochalu and Godugu Rajeshwari (deceased Nos.1 and 2 in this case). A1 is the uncle related to the defacto complainant. A1’s daughter by name Deepa was not concentrating on her studies and committed suicide on 27.02.2012. Deepa, daughter of A1 and A2 used to visit the house of P.W.1 and after the death of Deepa, her father A1 found fault with Godugu Ramesh (P.W.2) that he was after Deepa expressing his love for her. A1 and his wife/A2 Nethetla Dhanalaxmi developed grudge against the family members of P.W.1 for the said reason. On 30.05.2012 at about 2.00 p.m, A1, A2, A3 and A4 along with Nethetla Santhosh (juvenile) and Nethetla Anjali (juvenile) all armed with sticks and axe made a sudden attack on the parents of P.W.1 and killed them on the spot and also caused injuries to P.W.1 and her sister Ch.Kavitha (P.W.3). The brother of P.W.1 managed to be inside the house bolting the door from inside and was saved from the attack by all accused. 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged complaint with the police, Peddapalli at 15.00 hours on 30.05.2012. Basing on the said report, case in Crime NO.180 of 2012 under Section 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up by C.I of Police/P.W.18. 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged complaint with the police, Peddapalli at 15.00 hours on 30.05.2012. Basing on the said report, case in Crime NO.180 of 2012 under Section 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC was registered and the investigation was taken up by C.I of Police/P.W.18. After completion of investigation, chare sheet was laid against all accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC. 4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P1 to P44 were marked by prosecution. MOs.1 to 12 were also brought on record. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 and acquitted A2 to A4. 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that there are no specific overt acts attributed to the appellant in respect of the injuries caused to the deceased 1 and 2 in the complaint/Ex.P1 nor in the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. P.Ws.1 to 3 improved their version for the first time deposed before the trial Court. 6. The extracts of the depositions would be relevant. P.W.1 deposed in chief examination: “Accused No.1 armed with Axe, A-2 armed with sickle and cycle pump, A-3 armed with stick and A-4 armed with stick. My father sustained bleeding injuries on the head and on the face. I cannot say with regard to specific overt acts of each Accused. All accused attacked all of a sudden and caused injuries. My mother sustained an injury with an axe on her head and a cut injury on her throat with a sickle. Accused No.4 bet me with stick on the back side of my Head. A2 bet my sister on her head with a cycle pump. P.W.1 stated in her cross-examination as follows: “I did not state before Police nor in Complaint/Ex.P1 regarding the weapons with which each Accused was armed with. I did not state before Police that my mother was attacked with Axe and Sickle. I did not state before the Police that A-4 bet me with stick. I did not state before Police that my sister was attacked with Cycle Pump by A-2 and caused injury on her head.” 7. P.W.2, elder son of deceased/eye witness stated as follows: “A-1 armed with Axe. A-2 was armed with Sickle. A-3 was armed with a stick. A-4 was armed with a Cycle pump. I did not state before Police that my sister was attacked with Cycle Pump by A-2 and caused injury on her head.” 7. P.W.2, elder son of deceased/eye witness stated as follows: “A-1 armed with Axe. A-2 was armed with Sickle. A-3 was armed with a stick. A-4 was armed with a Cycle pump. A-1 caused injury to my mother on her head with an axe. A-2 cut the throat of my mother with a sickle. A-4 bet my father with Cycle Pump on the face and on the head and also on the hands and legs. My elder sister Kavitha/P.W.3 tried to save my parents and she was attacked by A-1 to A-4.” P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: “I did not state before the Police that A-1 was armed with Axe, A-2 was armed with Sickle, A-3 was armed with stick and A-4 was armed with Cycle Pump. I did not state before the police that my mother fell on the feet of A-1 and requested him not to cause any harm to any one of us. I did not state before Police that I witnessed the incident through the Window and I did not state before the Police that A-1 bet my mother with Axe and A-2 cut the throat of my mother with Sickle. I did not state before the Police that any one of the accused were armed with sickle and used the same in causing injury to my mother. I did not state before the Police that A-3 & A-4 caught hold of my father and brought him in front of our house and that A-3 bet my father with a stick on the face and A4 bet him with a Cycle Pump on the head, face and other parts of body. It took minutes for the entire incident of attack.” 8. P.W.3, elder daughter of deceased/eye witness stated as follows in chief examination: “A-1 bet my mother with an axe on her head. A-2 cut the throat of my mother with sickle. A-3 bet my father with stick. A-4 bet my father with Cycle Pump. A-2 bet me with Cycle Pump on my face and on the head and also no the hands and legs. A-2 cut the throat of my mother with sickle. A-3 bet my father with stick. A-4 bet my father with Cycle Pump. A-2 bet me with Cycle Pump on my face and on the head and also no the hands and legs. A-1 attacked P.W.1.” P.W.3 deposed in her cross-examination as follows: “A1 bet my mother with an axe on her head and A-2 caused an injury with a sickle on the throat of my mother. A-3 bet my father with a stick. A-4 bet my father with a Cycle Pump.” 9. According to P.W.17/investigating officer: “P.W.2 did not state that his sister Kavitha (P.W.3) was beaten by accused when she tried to save her parents. It is true that P.W.3 did not state that A1 caused injury to deceased Rajeshwari on her head with an Axe and A-2 caused an injury with Sickle on the throat of Rajeshwari. It is also true that P.W.3 did not state before me that A3 and A4 caught hold of Pochaiah (D1) and brought him in front of the house and A-03 bet Pochaiah with a Stick and A4 bet the Pochaiah with a Cycle Pump. It is true that P.W.3 did not state before A2 bet her with a Cycle Pump on her face, left ear, head, hands and legs. It is also true that P.Ws.1 & 2 did not state before me as to the weapons with which the Accused were armed with and the specific overt acts of each Accused. P.W.3 stated before me that A1 caused an injury to Pochaiah with an axe on his head and A-4 bet Rajeshwari with Cycle Pump. The place where the weapons were recoveredis open to all. The weapons were not wrapped with any paper or cloth by the time I seized them from the bushes.” 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to see that the appellant should have been treated on par with A2 to A4 as the evidence is same. The trial Court failed to appreciate that P.Ws.4, 5, 7 & 8 who are independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and were treated as hostile to the prosecution case. The Court below failed to see that P.Ws.10, 11 & 12 who are the panch and other witnesses were also treated as hostile. The trial Court failed to appreciate that P.Ws.4, 5, 7 & 8 who are independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and were treated as hostile to the prosecution case. The Court below failed to see that P.Ws.10, 11 & 12 who are the panch and other witnesses were also treated as hostile. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 eye witnesses and I.O, are inconsistent with each other and disclose no incriminating evidence as against the Appellant. Therefore, the trial Court should have acquitted A1. He further submits that the trial Court failed to see that P.W.2 is not an eye witness and whereas P.W.1, who lodged the complaint against all accused including the appellant did not attribute any specific overt acts. P.W.3’s evidence is quite contradictory with the version of P.W.1 and the Court below while acquitting A2 to A4, on the same evidence ought to have acquitted A1 also. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the motive attributed is suspicious. P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically stated that the relationship between two families were cordial before and after alleged incident. The Court below ought to have seen that the evidence on record did not establish the motive as projected by the prosecution. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments: i) Sudhir and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1985 SC 515 ), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held on facts that the evidence of injured eye witnesses containing many infirmities, has to be rejected. ii) Bandi Mallaiah and others v. State of A.P ( 1980 (3) SCC 136 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any statement made by a witness in Court and not found in FIR or Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, the same has to be viewed with suspicion. iii) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat ( 2023 (9) SCC 164 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is a similar or identical evidence of eye witnesses against two accused ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other. In such cases, cases of both accused will be governed by principle of parity, which means that criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, court cannot make distinction between two accused, which will amount to discrimination. 13. In such cases, cases of both accused will be governed by principle of parity, which means that criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, court cannot make distinction between two accused, which will amount to discrimination. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge had clearly narrated the reasons as to why the case was made out against the appellant herein and also why benefit of doubt was extended to A2 to A4. The witnesses have specifically spoken about the appellant attacking with an axe, as such, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant. Though the complaint which was filed at the earliest point of time does not contain the specific overt acts of the appellant, the same can be attributed to the situation which the witnesses were in. In the situation of two deaths taking place on account of attack, the witnesses may not be in a position to immediately state regarding specific overt acts. However, at a later date while recollecting the way the incident happened, the overt acts were attributed to their recollection before Court. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the witnesses have deliberately made up the case against the appellant. 14. Learned Sessions Judge found that the very substratum of the prosecution case is incorrect since A2 to A4 were falsely implicated which can be attributed to the delay of the complaint being sent to the learned Magistrate. The very version of the prosecution witnesses that A1 to A4 were involved in the attack was disbelieved. However, the learned Sessions Judge has selectively relied on the statements made by P.Ws.1 to 3 for the first time before the Court regarding the involvement and specific overt acts attributed to A1. Admittedly, the said overt acts attributed to A1 regarding attacking with an axe was not stated at the earliest point of time either in the complaint or Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, but stated for the first time before the Court below. The witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer admitted that no specific overt acts attributed to A1 at the earliest point of time. The witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer admitted that no specific overt acts attributed to A1 at the earliest point of time. When the substratum of the prosecution case was found to be incorrect regarding involvement of A2 to A4, the trial Court has committed an error in selectively relying on the overt acts attributed to A1 for the first time during trial before the Court. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi’s case (supra) stated that when there is similar or identical evidence of eye witnesses against two accused, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such cases, the Courts will be governed by principle of parity. Even in the present case, as already discussed, the entire version of the witnesses attributing specific overt acts to A1 attacking with an axe is complete omission. The version given by the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding A2 to A4 attacking with the sickle and other weapons was disbelieved. The said benefit, in the present circumstances of the case, has to be extended in favour of the appellant/A1. Quality of evidence and also the reliability of evidence has to be looked into and not quantity. Only for the reason of P.Ws.1 to 3 stating that A1 attacked with an axe, that in itself cannot form basis to convict A1. 16. In view of the same, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded against Appellant/A1 in S.C.No.523 of 2013 dated 03.07.2015. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.