JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) 1. Crl.A.No.306 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Crl.A.No.315 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/A-1, A-5, and A-7, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w.34, 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 r/w.149, 307, and 307 r/w.149 of IPC , on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda. 2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the common judgment in S.C.No.23 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel appearing for A-2, Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A-1, A-5, and A-7, Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. All the accused Nos. 1 to 7 belonging to two families, were prosecuted for committing the murders of the two sons (D.1 & D.2) of P.W.1. A-6, A-7, and P.W.4 are brothers; A-1 and A-5 are sons of A-7; A-2, A-3, and A-4 are sons of A-6; D.1 and D.2 are sons of P.W.1. Admittedly, all the accused, deceased, and the witnesses are closely related. 5. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased/Dasari Anjaneyulu (D.1) and Dasari Annamaiah (D.2), went to the Police station and lodged a telugu written complaint on 22.08.2017 at 9 a.m. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that around 6:30 a.m., both the deceased went to the fields, and while they were cultivating their land and tried to stop water from flowing into their fields due to breach of bund, A-1 to A-7, who were hiding in the bushes near the field, attacked both D.1 and D2 with axes. At the time of attack, P.W.4 was present. Further, according to the complaint, all the accused had attacked and hacked both the deceased. Having received the injuries, both the deceased fell down. P.W.4, who was present at the scene, shouted at the accused saying not to kill the deceased. Two of the accused, A-2 and A-4, chased P.W.4. P.W.4 ran from the scene and went to the house of P.W.1, and informed him about the incident. From there, all of them went to the agricultural land, where the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in a pool of blood. Two of the accused, A-2 and A-4, chased P.W.4. P.W.4 ran from the scene and went to the house of P.W.1, and informed him about the incident. From there, all of them went to the agricultural land, where the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in a pool of blood. In the complaint, P.W.1 named other villagers, namely Nadyala Surapa Reddy, Prathapa Reddy, Shyam Sundar, and Pentaiah, stating that they had helped A-1 to A-7 in committing the murders of the deceased. 6. The complaint was received by P.W.14, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. Having received the written complaint at 9 a.m., he registered the crime and informed the Investigating Officer, i.e., Circle Inspector/P.W.15. P.W.15 went to the scene of offence at 10:30 a.m. There, he conducted the scene of offence panchnama, photographs were taken, and other incriminating materials were seized from the scene for the purpose of FSL examination. P.W.15 reconstructed the scene after arresting A-1 to A-7 on 27.08.2017. Two axes and two sickles, which are M.Os.1 to 4, were seized at the instance of the appellants. The bloodstained clothes of the appellants and the deceased, along with bloodstained earth, were also seized and sent for FSL examination. 7. Having concluded the investigation, P.W.15 filed a charge sheet against all the accused. 8. Learned Sessions Judge framed 107 charges against A-1 to A-7 individually for the offences under Sections 302 , 307, and 149 of IPC . 9. Learned Sessions Judge, during the course of investigation, examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 and also marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.22. M.O..1 to M.O.22 were also placed on record by the prosecutor. Accused marked Exs.D.1 and D.2, which are portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.4. 10. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted all the accused, A-1 to A-7. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued on the following grounds:- 1. The presence of P.W.4 at the scene cannot be believed, as he is a relative of the deceased, and the entire version stated by him in the Court is an omission, as proved through the Investigating Officer/P.W.15. 2. The incident happened at 6:30 a.m., and the police were present at the scene at 7:30 a.m. However, the complaint was received at the Police Station at 9 a.m. 3. 2. The incident happened at 6:30 a.m., and the police were present at the scene at 7:30 a.m. However, the complaint was received at the Police Station at 9 a.m. 3. P.W.6 stated that the Police were present at the scene at 7:30 a.m. P.W.4 was also present at that time. If the eyewitness/P.W.4 had been present at the scene, the Police would have taken the complaint from P.W.4, however, no such complaint was taken. 4. The seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 (2 axes and 2 sickles)are also doubtful. 5. According to P.W.13, the Police took A-1 to A-7 into custody, and on the next day, they went to the land of P.W.1, from where M.Os.1 to 4 were recovered. 6. There is an inordinate delay of 12 hours in the complaint reaching the Court, which is not explained by the prosecution. 7. The eyewitness account of P.W.4 does not tally with the injuries received by the deceased when compared to the postmortem injuries found on the deceased and narrated by P.W.12. 8. P.W.12 did not state that the injuries on the deceased were possible with M.Os.1 to 4. 12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the argument of the learned counsel highlight minor discrepancies, which are bound to occur in cases such as this. Since the discrepancies does not go to the root of the case, the same can be overlooked as the evidence of eye-witness/P.W.4 is believable. 13. As already narrated, the complaint was filed at 9 a.m. by P.W.1. In the said complaint, he stated that P.W.4 informed him about the assault of his two sons by A-1 to A-7. When D.1 and D.2 went to the fields, all the accused Nos.1 to 7, who were hiding in the bushes, attacked and injured them indiscriminately, resulting in their deaths. From there, P.W.4, who was at the scene, ran to the house of P.W.1 and informed him about the incident. 14. P.W.4 is the main witness to the incident, and the entire case rests on his evidence. P.W.4 narrated before the Court that when he went to his field at 6:30 a.m., he found A-1 and A- 3 in the fields. Abutting his field and field of Yadiah, there is land belonging to Bantu Ravi (not examined), which was cultivated by A-3/Kiran as a lessee. P.W.4 narrated before the Court that when he went to his field at 6:30 a.m., he found A-1 and A- 3 in the fields. Abutting his field and field of Yadiah, there is land belonging to Bantu Ravi (not examined), which was cultivated by A-3/Kiran as a lessee. According to P.W.4, A-3 breached the bund between Bantu Ravi’s field and Yadaiah’s field, resulting in water flowing into the fields of P.W.1. Both the deceased went there and found that water was flowing into their fields and they tried to close the breach. An altercation then took place between A-1, A-3, and both the deceased. P.W.4 tried to pacify them. Initially, A-1 and A-3 attacked the deceased, and thereafter, the other accused also joined in the attack. 15. The said version of P.W.4 before the Court is contrary to what was mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P.1. The version given by P.W.4 before the Court is a complete omission, and this omission is proved through the Investigating Officer/P.W.14, who stated as under:- “It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “I had gone to my fields to irrigate them. At that time Mallesh (accused No.1) and Kiran (accused No.3) were in their fields. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “Mallesh and Kiran said why are you closing the breach we made. Annamaiah and Anjaneyulu replied that you are letting water from your fields into our fields and damaging our crops and this not proper. Mallesh and Kiran were near the place of breach saying that the breach cannot be closed. Hearing the argument, I went near that place apprehending that they all might start physically fighting. At that time Saidulu carrying an Axe and Bharath carrying a Munja kodavali were coming from the village towards the fields. They also reached the place where we all were standing.” It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that he had seen the bund being breached. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “seeing that I shouted at Annamaiah to run away saying that his brother has been attacked”. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “I saw Venkatesh, Pandaraiah and Akkalaiah coming towards the fields carrying sticks at a distance of about Ac.2-00. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “seeing that I shouted at Annamaiah to run away saying that his brother has been attacked”. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that “I saw Venkatesh, Pandaraiah and Akkalaiah coming towards the fields carrying sticks at a distance of about Ac.2-00. Seeing me running Pandaraiah said that I am the only witness and I am running away and I should be killed”. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) stated before me that as in Ex.D.1 and D.2. It is true that Dothi Yadaiah (P.W.4) did not state before me that he can identify the weapons used if he sees them.” 16. As seen from the above, P.W.4 came up with a version that is contrary to what was stated in the complaint/Ex.P.1. 17. The complaint/Ex.P.1, according to P.W.14, was lodged at 9 a.m. P.W.6, who is an independent witness, stated that he came to know about the incident at 6:15 a.m., and the Police arrived at the scene at 7:15 a.m. By the time he reached the scene, the Circle Inspector, police constable, and P.W.4 were present, and he overheard P.W.4 informing the Circle Inspector about the incident. P.W.4, during his statement, stated that the incident happened at 6:30 a.m. and he went to the house of P.W.1 and informed him. According to him, the Police came to the scene at 9 or 9:30 a.m., and his statement was recorded at 9:40 or 10 a.m. Neither P.W.14 nor P.W.15/Police Officer stated about the Police visiting the scene either at 7:30 a.m. or 9 a.m. According to them, they visited the scene for the first time at 10:30 a.m. The version given by P.W.4 and others regarding the arrival of the Police at the scene of offence is contradictory to the evidence of police officer. 18. The timing of the lodging of complaint and the complaint reaching the Court, in the present case, gains significance. According to P.W.14, the complaint was received at 9 a.m. During cross examination of P.W.14, the defence counsel repeatedly asked the very same question regarding the delay in the FIR reaching the Court. 18. The timing of the lodging of complaint and the complaint reaching the Court, in the present case, gains significance. According to P.W.14, the complaint was received at 9 a.m. During cross examination of P.W.14, the defence counsel repeatedly asked the very same question regarding the delay in the FIR reaching the Court. On three occasions, when the counsel posed questions about the Magistrate Court being only half-an-hour away, P.W.14 consistently answered that, since it was a grave case, six copies of the FIR had to be submitted to different officials, which caused the delay. The questions and answers during P.W.14’s cross examination are as follows: “Question: Whether one can reach the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from Kangal police station within half an hour? Ans: As it is a grave case there will be six copies of FIR to be submitted to different officials and therefore there was delay. Question: Whether one can reach the court of judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from Kangal police station within half an hour? Ans: As it is a grave case there will be six copies of FIR to be submitted to different officials and therefore there was delay. Question: Whether one can reach the court of judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda from Kangal police station within half an hour on a vehicle? Ans: It takes one and half hour to reach the court on a vehicle. The distance between Nalgonda and Kangal is18 kms. The road is a State Highway. Question: I put it to you that it takes only half an hour to reach the court at Nalgonda from Kangal? Ans: Not true.” 19. As seen from the answers given by P.W.14, it is not only evident but also apparent that P.W.14 was trying to cover up the delay in submitting the complaint to the Court. 20. In Rajeevan and Another vs. State of Kerala , [ 2003 (3) SCC 355 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was a delay of 12 hours in filing the FIR. The delay in placing the FIR before the Magistrate coupled with the unsatisfactory explanation given by the police officer, was held to adversely affect the prosecution’s case. 21. The delay in placing the FIR before the Magistrate coupled with the unsatisfactory explanation given by the police officer, was held to adversely affect the prosecution’s case. 21. In Suresh @ Subhash & Ors vs. State of Kerala , [ 2009(15) SCC 121 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate was not properly explained by the Investigating Officer. In Teja Singh and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan , [ 2001(3) SCC 147 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The explanation given was that due to holidays, the delay occurred. The Court found the explanation to be neither convincing nor acceptable. In Buta Singh vs. State of Punjab , [ 1991 (2) SCC 612 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was a delay in lodging the report and the FIR reaching the Junior First Class Magistrate Court. In Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , [ 1972 (3) SCC 393 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging the report raises considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the two witnesses, and that it points to an infirmity in their testimony and renders it unsafe to base a conviction of the appellant upon such evidence. 22. The prosecution has to give reasons regarding the delay in submitting the FIR to the Court. In the background of the versions given by P.W.4 and P.W.6 regarding the presence of the Police at the scene and the recording of their statements, when viewed vis-a-vis the versions of P.W.14 and P.W.15, the same is totally contradictory to the version given by P.W.4/eye witness. It can only be inferred that the complaint was filed after due deliberations, implicating all the family members. As already discussed, the manner in which the incident took place as narrated in the complaint on the basis of P.W.4’s information, contradicting the version of P.W.4 in the Court, is a total improvement. The evidence of P.W.4 cannot be believed. Once the evidence of P.W.4 is doubtful, there is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. As already discussed, the manner in which the incident took place as narrated in the complaint on the basis of P.W.4’s information, contradicting the version of P.W.4 in the Court, is a total improvement. The evidence of P.W.4 cannot be believed. Once the evidence of P.W.4 is doubtful, there is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. Though recoveries were made, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the recoveries are of no consequence and the same cannot be made basis to connect the appellants. 23. Though arguments have been advanced regarding the evidence of eyewitness account of P.W.4 and the injuries found on the bodies, however, since the presence of P.W.4 is doubtful, we are not inclined to delve into the variation between the ocular and medical evidence regarding the injuries. 24. In view of the above discussion, the appellants succeed. Since the appellants are in jail, they shall be set at liberty forthwith. 25. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed.