JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. The present criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3, aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2018 in SC No.181 of 2014, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy and Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1 and accused No.2 (acquitted) are the sons of accused Nos.3 and 4 (acquitted) (A4 is the second wife of A3), and they are residents of Rahmathpura near Bahadurpura area, Hyderabad city. PW8 is the first wife of A3 and the mother of the deceased. PWs.1, 9, and 10 are PW8’s sons through A3. PW12 is the widow of the deceased, and she resides in the house situated at Chandulal Baradari area, Hyderabad City, which is in the name of PW9. There are about 12 mulgies situated at Rahamathpura area, registered in the name of PW8. There are 2 mulgies situated at Abids, one in the name of deceased, and another in the name of PW10. There was a dispute in sharing the rents of mulgies among accused, PW9, and her sons for a long time. 4. While so, on 06.06.2013, at about 03.30 P.M., the deceased left the house to attend his job at Bank of America in Hitech City. The deceased used to walk up to the Metro Theatre and catch the company vehicle. At about 04.00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on foot from Bahadurpura X Roads to Kamatipura, (near Rama Theatre) A1 allegedly attacked the deceased with a knife and fled. PW18, the Inspector of Police, Bhahadurpura Police Station, received a call on the 100 number about the incident at 04.20 PM and rushed to the scene, which is half a kilometre away from the police station. As the deceased was found dead in a pool of blood, PW18 shifted the dead body to the mortuary, Osmania General Hospital. PW18 then observed the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P15, the crime details/observation report, and concluded it by 05.00 PM after examining PWs.2 to 7. 5. As the deceased was found dead in a pool of blood, PW18 shifted the dead body to the mortuary, Osmania General Hospital. PW18 then observed the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P15, the crime details/observation report, and concluded it by 05.00 PM after examining PWs.2 to 7. 5. It is said that PW18 found the driving licence/Ex.P14 of the deceased at the scene, and he made arrangements to inform the family members of the deceased staying in the said address. Accordingly, the police went to the house of the deceased, and informed PW1 to go over to mortuary and indentify the body. Accordingly, PW1 went to mortuary, identified the body and thereafter went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1/complaint, based on which PW18 registered a case in Crime No.126 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 109 of IPC, and issued Ex.P16/FIR, and sent the FIR to the concerned Court. 6. During investigation, PW18 examined PW1 and recorded his statement. On the next day, PW18 examined PWs.8 to 12, and others, and held inquest-Ex.P6 over the dead body, and seized MOs.1, 2, and 7 to 11 under the seizure report Ex.P10, in the presence of PWs.13 and 14, and sent the body for post-mortem examination. It is said that, on 09.06.2013, A1 to A3 were apprehended and their confession-cum-seizure panchanams were recorded in the presence of PWs.13 and 15. 7. The charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer/PW18 against the appellants, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1, 3, and two others. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused Nos.1 and 3 were complicit in committing the offence of murder of the deceased, and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 4 for lack of evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the alleged disputes/enmity between the 2 families, i.e., between PWs.8 to 10 on one side and A1 to A4 on another side regarding the sharing of property and rents from mulgies, is a belated version and an improvement made only during the trial by PWs.8 to 10, as elicited from the evidence of PW18/the Investigating Officer. Further, civil cases were filed by PW8 only after the incident, as stated by PWs.1 and 9. 9. Further, civil cases were filed by PW8 only after the incident, as stated by PWs.1 and 9. 9. It is further contended that PW5, the lone eyewitness, is said to be a planted witness for the reason that he is a stranger to the deceased and his family members. He identified A1 at the police station, despite having no prior acquaintance with A1 or his family members, but did so at the request of the police on the next day. No test identification parade was conducted. Further, though PW5 was present at the scene of offence and he claimed that he has seen the incident, he was examined on the next day by the police. 10. It is further argued by the counsel that the FIR appears to be filed after due deliberations and is questionable because it reached the Court at 10.50 PM, though it was said to have been registered at 4.30 PM and allegedly issued immediately. This resulted in a delay of over six hours in the FIR reaching the concerned Magistrate. At the time of the report, the FIR was registered at 04.30 PM, but the identity of the deceased was itself unknown, as the driving licence/Ex.P14 of the deceased was traced only at 05.00 PM. Thereafter, PW1 was informed to identify the dead body, and only after that was Ex.P1 lodged, which could have taken approximately one and a half hours to two hours after Ex.P15. 11. The investigation itself is doubtful as PW18/ Investigating Officer stated that accused were apprehended/arrested on 09.06.2013, i.e., three days after the incident, whereas PWs.5, 9, and 10 stated that on the date of the incident by 06.30 PM, the accused were in police custody at the police station. The accused were implicated in the case only to unlawfully take over the self-earned properties of A3 by taking undue advantage of the incident. 12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the role played by A2 would not be evident; however, PW5, who is the eye witness to the incident, has categorically stated that it was A1 who attacked the deceased. In-fact, PW5 identified A1 in the Court. 13. Having gone through the record, the entire case rests on the evidence of the sole eyewitness/PW5. In-fact, PW5 identified A1 in the Court. 13. Having gone through the record, the entire case rests on the evidence of the sole eyewitness/PW5. In the examination before the trial Court, PW5 stated that he noticed the first appellant/A1 stabbing his brother (the deceased) with a knife, and fleeing from the scene. PW5 further stated that he came to know that the attack was on account of a property dispute between them. 14. In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he does not have any previous acquaintance with A1, and on the next day, he was called to the police station. In the police station, he identified A1 as the person who stabbed the deceased. He further stated that he did not know the names of the appellants until he went to the police station. 15. The incident happend on 06.06.2013, and according to PW18/Investigating Officer, PW5 was examined on 07.06.2013, at the mortuary of the hospital. However, PW5 stated that he went to the police station, and there, his statement was recorded. PW18 further stated that the appellants were apprehended on 09.06.2013. PW9, who is the brother of the deceased, stated in the chief-examination that he went to the mortuary of Osmania General Hospital and found the dead body of deceased with stab injuries. From there, he went to Bahadurpura police station, and by that time, A1 and A3 were in the police station, and within half an hour, A2 was also brought to the police station in a jeep. The inquest proceedings were conducted on 07.06.2013, and according to PW9, A1 to A3 were in the police station on the 07 th itself. 16. Similar is the evidence of PW10, who is another brother of the deceased. He stated in his chief-examination that he went to Osmania General Hospital, and found the dead body of the deceased with stab injuries, and then, he went to the police station, Bahadurpura, and he found A1 to A3 in the police station. 17. The evidence of PW5/eyewitness, PWs.9 and 10, who are the brothers of the deceased, contradict the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the appellants were arrested on 09.06.2013. If the evidence of the Investigating Officer is considered, A1 to A3 were apprehended only three days after the incident. However, PWs.5, 9, and 10 speak about their presence in the police station on the 7 th itself. If the evidence of the Investigating Officer is considered, A1 to A3 were apprehended only three days after the incident. However, PWs.5, 9, and 10 speak about their presence in the police station on the 7 th itself. The said discrepancy gives rise to a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the prosecution’s case in projecting the true and correct facts. It appears that the earliest version was suppressed, and the police have come up with a tainted version. In-fact PWs.5, 9, and 10 were not declared hostile by the prosecution, nor were they cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor regarding the presence of A1 to A3 in the police station on the 07 th itself. 18. PW5 is a chance witness. According to him, he does business on the footpath where the incident happened. He stated that the appellants were strangers to him and he saw only A1 stabbing the deceased. On the next day, he saw the appellants in police station, which is falsified by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Again, PW5 was examined in the Court on 20.10.2017, which is nearly four and a half years after the incident. PW5 identifying A1 in the Court after a gap of four and a half years is highly improbable. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in P.Sasikumar Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police , [(2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 600] , held that when no test identification parade was conducted, and the witnesses identified the accused for the first time in the Court, such identification cannot be relied upon. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab , [(2022) 9 Supreme Court Cases 402] . Relying upon the above judgments, the evidence of PW5 cannot be believed. 19. The other evidence presented by the prosecution is of no avail to its case. The motive projected by the prosecution is insufficient to infer that it was the appellants who have committed the murder of the deceased. 20. The appellants succeed in the present appeal, and accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court against them is liable to be set aside. 21. The motive projected by the prosecution is insufficient to infer that it was the appellants who have committed the murder of the deceased. 20. The appellants succeed in the present appeal, and accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court against them is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/A1 and A3 vide judgment dated 06.04.2018 in SC No.181 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The appellants shall be set at liberty forth-with if they are not required in any other crime.