JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. A.1 to A.5 in S.C.No.14/2012 on the file of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram–cum-Judge, Family Court are the appellants in the present appeal. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: First charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 and A.2. Second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.3 to A.5. Third charge was under Section 324 IPC against A.3 for causing injuries to PW.2. Fourth charge was under Section 323 IPC against A.4 and A.5, and Last charge was under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW.2. 2. Substance of the charge against the accused is that on 01.01.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., while A.1 and A.2 were quarrelling in front of the house of Boddana Appanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) at Kurakula Veedhi, Poram Village, Mentada Mandal, the deceased questioned them. Then, A.1 beat him with a Spade on his head and A.2 beat him on his head with a pestle, who fell down, and when PW.2 intervened, A.3 to A.5 beat him with a spade and A.4 and A.5 kicked him with hands and legs and thereafter the deceased succumbed to injuries on 03.01.2011 while undergoing treatment in the hospital, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and A.2 under section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.3 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted A.4 & A.5 under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) All the accused are residents of Poram Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the son and PW.3 is the son-in-law of the deceased respectively. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) All the accused are residents of Poram Village, Mentada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the son and PW.3 is the son-in-law of the deceased respectively. PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6 are relatives of the deceased. While so, on 01.01.2011 at about 07.30 P.M., A.1 and A.2 were altercating with each other in a drunken condition in front of the house of the deceased. At that juncture, the deceased came out and asked both A.1 and A.2 why they are quarrelling in front of his house. Immediately, A.1 beat the deceased with a crow-bar and A.2 beat with a pestle on the head of the deceased. When PW.2 intervened, A.3 beat him on his head with a spade. After receiving both injuries, the deceased and PW.2 fell down. Thereafter, A.4 and A.5 said to have kicked PW.2 with hands and legs. Thereafter, when PWs 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 came to the scene of offence, all the accused left the place. Immediately, after receiving information, PWs 1 & 3 came to the scene of offence. Thereafter, PWs 1, 3 & 10 shifted both the injured to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram. On the intervening night of 01/02.01.2011 at about 12.30 A.M., PW.13, who was incharge of the Outpost Police Station, Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, received hospital intimation Ex.P6. Having received the said intimation, he went to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P2 from PW.2. He forwarded exhibits P.2 and P.6 to Andra Police Station on point of jurisdiction. PW.16 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station having received Ex.P2 and Ex.P6, registered a case in Cr.No.1/2011 under Sections 324, 326 & 323 r/w 34 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P12. Then, he along with PW.15 went to Poram Village and verified the scene of offence located in front of the house of the deceased. He secured the presence of PW.14 and prepared an observation report Ex.P7. He also seized blood stained earth and controlled earth M.Os.4 & 5 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PW.2 and PWs 5 to 7 and others. He secured the presence of PW.14 and prepared an observation report Ex.P7. He also seized blood stained earth and controlled earth M.Os.4 & 5 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PW.2 and PWs 5 to 7 and others. Immediately, he returned to Andra Police Station and found A.1 to A.3 who stated that they also received injuries. On the basis of said report, Cr.No.2/2011 was registered and he referred A.1 to A.3 to the hospital. Of course, Cr.2/2011 was referred as false as A.1 to A.3 did not receive any injuries. In the meanwhile, PW.12, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, treated PW.2 and found one lacerated injury over mid perital region. She opined that the said injury was simple in nature. She issued Ex.P5 Wound Certificate. In the meanwhile, the deceased was referred to KG Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 03.01.2011 at about 01.20 A.M. Immediately, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1. PW.15 Head Constable, Andra Police Station received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and altered F.I.R. to Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.11 is the altered F.I.R. Having come to know of the death of the deceased, PW.18 went to the Hospital and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.14 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. At the time of inquest, PW.18 seized MOs.6 & 7 under a Panchanama. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. One Dr.R.Nagasankar Reddy, Andhra Medical College conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He issued Postmortem certificate. He opined the cause of death was due to head injury. As the said Dr.R.Nagasankar Reddy was no more, his signature was identified by PW.17 Professor, Andhra Medical College, which was marked as Ex.P14. PW.17 further deposed stating that he produced mortuary slip and as per the said slip, the cause of death was due to “head injury”. The said slip is marked as Ex.P15. On 04.01.2011, PW.18 arrested all the accused near Pedamanapuram sandy in the presence of PW.14 and another. On the confession made by A.1, crow-bar M.O.1 was recovered under a Panchanama Ex.P8. He also recovered M.O.2 Pestle on the confession made by A.2 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P9. The said slip is marked as Ex.P15. On 04.01.2011, PW.18 arrested all the accused near Pedamanapuram sandy in the presence of PW.14 and another. On the confession made by A.1, crow-bar M.O.1 was recovered under a Panchanama Ex.P8. He also recovered M.O.2 Pestle on the confession made by A.2 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P9. He further recovered M.O.3 spade on the confession made by A.3 under a cover of Panchanama. On 05.01.2011, he recorded statements of PWs 8 to 10 and others. On 21.01.2011, he sent material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Visakhapatnam. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P17. After completion of the investigation and after receipt of Postmortem certificate, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18,marked exhibits P1 to P24 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, it examined D.W.1 and marked exhibits D.1 to D.3, portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 6, 8 and 10. 5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 6. Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the incident preceded by a quarrel in which A.1 and A.2 came and inflicted one blow each. Learned counsel further contends that A.1 and A.2 were in drunken state and as such they do not have any intention to kill the deceased. When A.1 and A.2 were quarreling with each other, the deceased intervened and as such they have no intention to cause the death of the deceased. He further contends that though A.4 and A.5 were attributed with overt acts of kicking PW.2 with hands and legs, no corresponding injuries were found by the Doctor PW.12. The only injury found by PW.12 Medical Officer is one lacerated injury over mid perital region which was attributed to A.3, which is also simple in nature. As such, learned counsel for the appellants requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by allowing the appeal. 8. The only injury found by PW.12 Medical Officer is one lacerated injury over mid perital region which was attributed to A.3, which is also simple in nature. As such, learned counsel for the appellants requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by allowing the appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that as many as 19 injuries were received by the deceased which were attributed to the deadly weapons i.e., crow-bar and pestle i.e., M.Os.1 and 2. He further contends that the incident was not preceded by any quarrel. Of course, quarrel is between A.1 and A.2. When A.1 and A.2 were quarrelling in front of the house of the deceased, he went and told them not to quarrel in front of his house. Immediately, both A.1 and A.2 dealt blows on the head of the deceased with crow-bar and pestle. He further contends that when PW.2 came to rescue the deceased, he was also beaten with a spade by A.3. PW.2 is the injured witness. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 10. Immediately, after the incident, PW.2 and the deceased were shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram. Having received hospital intimation, PW.13 Constable, who was working at Outpost, Government Headquarters Hospital, recorded statement Ex.P2 from PW.2 at about 12.30 A.M. on the intervening night of 01/02.01.2011. Immediately, he sent the Hospital intimation Ex.P6 along with Ex.P2 statement of PW.2 to Andra Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On the basis of exhibits P.2 and P.6, PW.16 registered a case in Cr.No.1/2011 Ex.P12 under Sections 324, 326 and 323 r/w 34 IPC. Absolutely, there was no delay in registering the crime. As PW.2 also received injuries, he was referred to the Hospital where his statement was recorded by PW.13. PW.2 in his earliest report Ex.P2 has attributed overt act only to A.1. He did not attribute any overt act to A.2. So far as injuries on PW.2 is concerned, it was attributed to A.3. Though in Ex.P2 it is stated that A.4 and A.5 also kicked him with hands and legs, no corresponding injuries either abrasion or complying pain was found by the Doctor PW.12. He did not attribute any overt act to A.2. So far as injuries on PW.2 is concerned, it was attributed to A.3. Though in Ex.P2 it is stated that A.4 and A.5 also kicked him with hands and legs, no corresponding injuries either abrasion or complying pain was found by the Doctor PW.12. In Ex.P2, PW.2 has stated that A.1 and A.2 were quarrelling in front of the house of the deceased and when the deceased questioned them, A.1 dealt blow on the head of the deceased with a crow-bar. So far as the overt acts attributed to A.2 during the course of trial is concerned, the same did not find place in the earliest report Ex.P2. Similarly, though A.4 and A.5 were attributed with overt acts of kicking, no corresponding injuries were found on PW.2. According to the prosecution, PWs 8 to 10 were also projected as eye witnesses. Though these three witnesses said to have witnessed the incident, PW.2 did not refer to their names in Ex.P2 about they witnessing the incident. Further, though the incident took place on 01.01.2011, PW.18 recorded their statements on 05.01.2011. As such, this Court is not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of PWs 8 to 10. Admittedly, PWs 1 and 3, who are son and son-in-law of the deceased respectively, they were not present at the time of incident and they came to the village after receiving information from the villagers. As such, the only eye witness available on record is PW.2, who is the injured witness. 11. Having considered the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.P2 and Wound Certificate Ex.P5 issued by PW.12, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that participation of A.2 in the alleged attack has not been established by the prosecution. Further, participation of A.4 and A.5 also has not been established by the prosecution. As such, they are entitled for acquittal. So far as A.1 is concerned, PW.2 specifically stated in the earliest version Ex.P2 about he beating the deceased on the head with a crow-bar. Further, as per the evidence of PW.17 coupled with Ex.P15, the deceased died of head injury and according to the Postmortem report, as many as 19 injuries have been received by the deceased. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1. Further, as per the evidence of PW.17 coupled with Ex.P15, the deceased died of head injury and according to the Postmortem report, as many as 19 injuries have been received by the deceased. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1. So far as A.3 is concerned, he is convicted under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants requests this Court that a lenient view may be taken insofar as A.3 is concerned as the incident took place about 14 years back and the injury received by PW.2 is simple in nature. As such, we are inclined to confirm the conviction of A.3 while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 3 years to the period already undergone while maintaining fine amount. 12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The appeal insofar as A.1 is concerned, same is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram–cum-Judge, Family Court in S.C.No.14 of 2012 vide judgment dt. 03.04.2014. So far as A.2 is concerned, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram–cum-Judge, Family Court in S.C.No.14 of 2012 vide judgment dt. 03.04.2014. Accordingly, A.2 is acquitted. So far as A.3 is concerned, while confirming the conviction recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram–cum- Judge, Family Court in S.C.No.14 of 2012 vide judgment dt. 03.04.2014, modified the sentence alone from three years to the period already undergone while maintaining fine amount. So far as A.4 & A.5 are concerned, the appeal against them was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against them under Section 323 IPC by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Vizianagaram–cum-Judge, Family Court in S.C.No.14 of 2012 vide judgment dt. 03.04.2014, and fine amount, if any, paid by A.4 and A.5 shall be refunded. 03.04.2014, and fine amount, if any, paid by A.4 and A.5 shall be refunded. As A.1 and A.2 were already enlarged on bail by order of this Court in terms of the order of a Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P. , [2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)] A.1 is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence and the trial Judge is directed to commit him to the Central Jail concerned to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. The period already undergone by A.1 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. So far as A.2 is concerned, he is directed to surrender before the trial Judge and complete the formalities in terms of the Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao (1 supra). As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.