JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-05-2017 in S.C.No. 207 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu (for short, 'the trial Court'), the appellants-accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2017 and the appellants- accused Nos. 2 and 4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 2017. Aggrieved by the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 7, de facto complainant-P.W.1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2017. 2. Since all these criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellants-accused Nos. 2 to 6 along with accused Nos. 1 and 7 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I charge was under Section 148 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 6; II charge was under Section 109 read with Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 7; III charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 2 to 6; IV charge was under Section 307 IPC against accused Nos. 2 to 6; and V charge was under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 7. 4. Substance of the charges is that on 07-02-2013 at about 12.30 p.m., accused Nos. 2 to 6, having conspired with accused Nos. 1 and 7, in furtherance of their common object i.e. to eliminate one K.Ramakrishna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), formed into an unlawful assembly armed with knives and attacked the deceased at HLC Small Canal situated in Reddipalli Village, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, causing his death and in the same process, accused Nos. 2 to 6 attempted to kill P.W.1, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 109 read with Section 302, 302, 307 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court, while acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 7 of all the charges, convicted accused Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. After completion of trial, the trial Court, while acquitting accused Nos. 1 and 7 of all the charges, convicted accused Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial Court also convicted accused Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The trial Court further convicted accused Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences imposed under Sections 307 and 148 IPC were directed to run concurrently. 6. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: The deceased is only son of P.W.1 and they are residents of Ananthapuramu Town. Accused No. 7 is none other than wife of the deceased and their marriage was performed about 15 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with one daughter and one son. P.W.1 got an extent of Ac. 12.00 cents of agricultural land at Reddipalli and she along with the deceased used to cultivate the said land personally by engaging workers. Few months prior to the date of incident, there were disputes between accused No. 7 and the deceased as the former was having extra marital relationship with accused No. 1. In order to eliminate the deceased and P.W.1, accused No. 1, at the instigation of accused No. 7, engaged accused Nos. 2 to 6 and all of them conspired together and decided to do away the lives of the deceased and P.W.1. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 met at a tree near the scene of offence and consumed alcohol and were waiting for the deceased and P.W.1. On 07-02-2013 morning at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went to their agricultural land on motorcycle along with P.Ws.2 to 4 for attending agricultural operations. After completion of work, at about 12.30 noon, P.W.1 and the deceased proceeded on motorcycle to their house situated at Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town. When they reached near HLC Small Canal, accused Nos. On 07-02-2013 morning at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went to their agricultural land on motorcycle along with P.Ws.2 to 4 for attending agricultural operations. After completion of work, at about 12.30 noon, P.W.1 and the deceased proceeded on motorcycle to their house situated at Rani Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town. When they reached near HLC Small Canal, accused Nos. 2 to 6 came on two motorcycles and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased and P.W.1 fell down. Then, accused Nos. 2 to 6 surrounded the deceased and stabbed him with knives on his vital parts, as a result of which the deceased fell down. When P.W.1 raised cries and tried to rescue her son, accused Nos. 2 to 6 surrounded P.W.1 and inflicted injuries with knives, as a result of which she also fell down. Thinking that both of them were dead, accused Nos. 2 to 6 left the scene of offence. In the meanwhile, P.Ws.2 to 5 came to the scene on hearing the cries of P.W.1 and found them lying on ground. Immediately, P.W.5 telephoned P.W.6, who is owner-cum-auto driver, and shifted the deceased and P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. The Medical Officer declared the deceased brought dead at about 1.45 p.m. while P.W.1 was admitted in hospital. P.W.15-the then Police Constable, Outpost, Government General Hospital, went to COT Ward and noticed P.W.1 with injuries. P.W.15 recorded statement of P.W.1 and forwarded the same to B.K.Samudram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Ex.P15 is MLC death intimation and Ex.P16 is MLC inquest intimation. On the same day afternoon, P.W.16-the then Sub Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Police Station, received the statement sent by P.W.15 and registered a case in crime No. 27 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 109 and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P17 is FIR. On the same day at about 4 p.m., P.W.19-the then Inspector of Police, Itukalapalli Circle, received copy of FIR and proceeded to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. P.W.19 visited mortuary room and found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.19 secured the presence of P.W.12 and others and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P11. P.W.19 visited mortuary room and found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.19 secured the presence of P.W.12 and others and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P11. During the course of inquest, P.W.19 seized wearing apparel of the deceased under a cover of panchanama which were marked as M.Os.13 to 15. As it was late in the night, P.W.19 continued his investigation on 08-02-2013. P.W.19 prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P20 at the scene of offence and he also prepared an observation report- Ex.P12 in the presence of mediators. P.W.19 also seized motorcycle belonging to the deceased which was marked as M.O.16. P.W.1 was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru, for better treatment. On 09-02-2019, P.W.19 visited Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru, and recorded statement of P.W.1. On 26-02-2013 at about 11.15 a.m., P.W.9-the then V.R.O., B.K.Samudram, produced accused Nos. 1 to 7 before P.W.19 stating that accused Nos. 1 to 7 confessed before him about the commission of offence along with his special report. Thereafter, P.W.19 interrogated accused Nos. 1 to 7 who said to have confessed the commission of offence and produced knives-M.Os.1 to 3 and two motorcycles-M.Os.22 and 23 used by them in the commission of offence. P.W.19 seized M.Os.1 to 3, 22 and 23 under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, P.W.19 arrested all the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. In the meanwhile, on 07-02-2013, P.W.19 sent the dead body of the deceased for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.15-In- charge Professor, Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Ananthapuramu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.15 opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem multiple injuries sustained mainly stab wounds. Accordingly, P.W.15 issued Ex.P14-post mortem certificate. P.W.19 made a requisition for conducting test identification parade of accused Nos. 1 to 6. Accordingly, P.W.17-Special Judicial I Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Court, Ananthapuramu, conducted test identification parade on 30-03-2013. In the test identification parade, P.W.1 identified accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6; P.W.5 identified accused Nos. 3 and 4 and P.W.7 identified accused No. 1 alone. Test identification parade proceedings were marked as ExP18. 1 to 6. Accordingly, P.W.17-Special Judicial I Class Magistrate, Prohibition and Excise Court, Ananthapuramu, conducted test identification parade on 30-03-2013. In the test identification parade, P.W.1 identified accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6; P.W.5 identified accused Nos. 3 and 4 and P.W.7 identified accused No. 1 alone. Test identification parade proceedings were marked as ExP18. Thereafter, on the requisition made by P.W.19, P.W.13-Judicial I Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu, recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.19 sent material objects to R.F.S.L., Tirupati, under Ex.P23-letter of advice. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P24. After completion of investigation and after receipt of R.F.S.L. Report and post mortem certificate, P.W.19 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P24 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 23. 8. 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 Exs.D1 to D3. 9. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court convicted the accused Nos. 2 to 6 as stated supra. 10. Heard Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6, Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 2, Smt. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- accused No. 4, Sri B.S.V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-de facto complainant, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 11. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9. P.W.1 is injured witness who is none other than mother of the deceased. P.Ws.2 to 4 are coolies attended agricultural work in the fields of P.W.1. P.W.5 is neighbouring land owner of P.W.1. 12. The prosecution projected P.Ws.1 to 5 as eyewitnesses but unfortunately P.Ws.2 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. So far as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, the trial Court disbelieved his evidence on the ground that P.W.1 did not refer to his name in her earliest report recorded by P.W.15. So far as the evidence of P.W.6, who is owner-cum-driver of an auto, is concerned, after receiving phone call from P.W.5, he came to the scene of offence and shifted the deceased and P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. So far as the evidence of P.W.6, who is owner-cum-driver of an auto, is concerned, after receiving phone call from P.W.5, he came to the scene of offence and shifted the deceased and P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution. So far as the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 is concerned, they were also declared hostile. As such, except the evidence of P.W.1, no other witness is available for the alleged incident. 13. P.W.1 in her earliest report stated that three unknown persons on one motorcycle and two unknown persons on another motorcycle came opposite to them while they were going home at about 12.30 p.m. but she did not name anyone in her earliest report. P.W.1 specifically stated in her statement that five unknown persons came on two motorcycles and dashed the motorcycle on which she and the deceased were proceeding. Further, P.W.1 did not even give descriptive particulars of the five persons who dashed their motorcycle. Even in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement marked as Ex.P13, P.W.1 did not give descriptive particulars. In FIR and Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that five unknown persons came on two motorcycles and attacked both of them. So far as conspiracy between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7 is concerned, the trial Court disbelieved the same and accordingly acquitted them. The trial Court observed that the prosecution has not at all examined any relations of P.W.1 to prove the so called illegal relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7. The trial Court disbelieved the conspiracy and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.5. As such, the only evidence remaining is the evidence of P.W.1, on the basis of which the trial Court convicted accused Nos. 2 to 6 as afore-stated. 14. So far as extra judicial confession said to have been made before P.W.9 is concerned, the same was also disbelieved by the trial Court as P.W.9 did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. Except the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court did not place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.5, extra judicial confession and the so called extra marital relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7. The trial Court gave cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 9. Except the evidence of P.W.1, the trial Court did not place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.5, extra judicial confession and the so called extra marital relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7. The trial Court gave cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 9. As already pointed out, neither in FIR nor in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.1 mentioned the names of the accused. P.W.1 did not even give the descriptive particulars of accused Nos. 2 to 6. 15. In the evidence of P.W.1, she improved her version stating that accused No. 1 was also present at the scene of offence. Further, P.W.1 did not even refer to the extra marital relationship between accused No.1 and accused No. 7 in her earliest report. 16. The next evidence adduced by the prosecution is test identification parade conducted by P.W.17. The accused were arrested on 26-02-2013. The incident took place on 07-02-2013 whereas test identification parade was conducted on 30-03-2013. Admittedly, on the next date of incident, the names and photographs of the accused were published in newspapers. As such, test identification parade conducted after 34 days from the date of arrest of the accused is a myth and therefore no reliance can be placed on the proceedings of test identification parade as names and photographs of the accused were already published in newspapers which fact was admitted by P.W.1. The only evidence available on record is of P.W.1 whose evidence does not inspire confidence of this Court as she did not give names and descriptive particulars of the accused in her earliest version and further, she did not even refer to the extra marital relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 7 in her earliest report. As P.W.1 came up with the present version for the first time during the course of trial, we are not inclined to place any reliance on her belated version. 17. 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. 2 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos. 713 and 725 of 2017 are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 2 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos. 713 and 725 of 2017 are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 2 to 6 by judgment dated 10-05-2017 in S.C.No. 207 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, and Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2017 filed by the appellant-de facto complainant is dismissed as devoid of any merits. The appellants-accused Nos. 2 to 6 are acquitted of all the charges. As the appellants-accused Nos. 2 to 6 are enlarged on bail by this Court 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 by the appellants- accused Nos. 2 to 6, if any, shall be refunded to them. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.