JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 30-06-2017 in Sessions Case No. 531 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'the trial Court'), accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 therein filed the present criminal appeal before this Court. 2. Originally, the police filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5. During the pendency of trial, accused No. 2 died and therefore case against him was dismissed as abated by order dated 16-09-2011 and one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu was added as accused No. 6 as per the orders in Criminal M.P.No. 441 of 2012 dated 22-04-2015. As such, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 faced trial. On 10-02-2025 when the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants informed this Court that the appellants-accused Nos. 5 and 6 died pending the criminal appeal which fact was not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 25-02-2025, has dismissed the appeal against the appellants-accused Nos. 5 and 6 as abated. Consequently, the present appeal is taken up and considered only against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 3. Initially, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I. charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; and II. charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 3 to 5. Subsequently, after adding one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu as accused No. 6, the trial Court framed another charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against him on 14-09-2015. 4. Substance of the charges is that on 03-01-2007 at about 16.40 hours, near S.N.S.R. Degree College, Velgode, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, chased one Telugu Chinna Jambanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and accused No. 1 hacked on his head and accused No. 2 beat with a stick causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC . 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants- accused Nos. 5. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants- accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . 6. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: All the accused are residents of Velgode Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.1 is wife, P.W.2 is nephew and P.W.5 is younger brother of the deceased respectively. On 03-01-2007, accused Nos. 1 to 6 chased the deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 5 hacked the deceased with an axe on his head while accused Nos. 2 to 4 caught hold of him. The motive attributed by the prosecution for attacking the deceased is that the deceased was reluctant to vacate the hut located at Telugu Ganga Reservoir Project. The further motive attributed by the prosecution for attacking the deceased is that due to political rivalry between the accused and the deceased, the former attacked the latter. It is the prosecution case that during M.P.T.C. Elections held in the year 2006, accused No. 6 contested on behalf of Congress Party while the deceased and his family members supported Telugu Desam Party. In the elections, the candidate contesting on behalf of Telugu Desam party won the elections defeating accused No. 6, due to which the accused developed grudge against the deceased. Immediately after the attack, the injured was taken to Community Health Centre, Atmakur, and from there, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and while undergoing treatment, he died on 08-01-2007. Having received information about the offence, P.W.13-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Velgode Police Station, rushed to Community Health Centre, Atmakur, and recorded a statement from P.W.1. On the basis of the said statement, P.W.13 registered a case in crime No. 2 of 2007 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P12. On 04-01-2007, he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7. He also seized M.O.2-bloodstained white dothi of the deceased. He recorded statement of P.W.3 at the scene of offence. FIR was marked as Ex.P12. On 04-01-2007, he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7. He also seized M.O.2-bloodstained white dothi of the deceased. He recorded statement of P.W.3 at the scene of offence. On 08-01-2007, he received information from Government General Hospital, Kurnool, about the death of the deceased. At about 6 p.m. on 08-01-2007, P.W.15-the then Inspector of Police, Atmakur Circle, took up further investigation. He visited Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and received death intimation under Ex.P14. On the basis of Ex.P14, he altered the Section of law from 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P15. On 09-01-2007, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and another-mediators. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P6. He examined P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and another and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.11-the then Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, KMC, Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P11-post mortem certificate. On 10-01-2007, P.W.14-the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur, took up further investigation. He examined P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and others and recorded their statements. As involvement of accused No. 6 was not established, his name was deleted from the charge sheet. On 13-02-2007, he arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5 near Velgode Reservoir. On the confession made by accused No. 5, P.W.14 recovered M.O.1- axe from his house and the same was seized under Exs.P7 and P8- panchanamas. He sent M.Os.1 and 2 to R.F.S.L. for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 3. 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, however got marked Exs.D1 to D3 on their behalf. 9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as stated supra. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as stated supra. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 11. We have carefully analyzed and scrupulously scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. P.W.1 is none other than wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is nephew and P.W.5 is younger brother of the deceased respectively. P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7 did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. 13. P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 in their evidence stated that during M.P.T.C. Election held in the year 2006, accused No. 6 contested on behalf of Congress Party while the deceased and his family members supported Telugu Desam Party and that in the election, the candidate contesting on behalf of Telugu Desam party won the election defeating accused No. 6, due to which the accused developed grudge against the deceased. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that on 03-01-2007 at about 4 p.m., the deceased went to answer calls of nature towards S.N.S.R. Degree College, Velgode; that having seen the deceased going towards college side, all the accused went behind him; that when the deceased reached near the college, all the accused attacked the deceased; that on hearing cries of P.Ws.1 and 6, the accused left the scene and that thereafter P.W.1 went to police station and gave a report to police. P.W.1 in her report stated that her father got four daughters and she is one among them; that her father gave Ac. 0.05 cents of land at Jamminagar which was full of acacia trees; that they cut the acacia trees for the purpose of firewood; that while so, wife of accused No. 1 altercated with P.W.1 as the former was not given share in the firewood; that on such altercation, the deceased went to the house of accused No. 1 on 03-01-2007 at about 3 p.m. and altercated with accused No. 1; that in the said altercation, the deceased said to have received an injury on his head; that after the incident, on the same day at about 4.30 or 5 p.m. while the deceased was going to answer calls of nature and when he reached near S.N.S.R. Degree College, accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and another chased the deceased and beat him with sticks on head and other parts of the body and that immediately, she and P.W.2 shifted the injured to hospital. P.W.1 also stated in her earliest report that P.W.3 also witnessed the said incident. As such, P.W.1 in her earliest report stated that the dispute was with regard to sharing of firewood between accused No. 1 and the deceased. During the course of evidence, P.W.1 disowned her earliest report except admitting her thumb impression on it which was marked as Ex.P1. For the first time during the course of trial while recording evidence on 05-07-2011, P.W.1 altogether came up with a new version. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 came up with the version that due to political rivalry, the accused attacked the deceased. Further, P.W.1 in her earliest report mentioned the name of one Telugu Sankar but the police did not show him as one of the accused in the charge sheet. Furthermore, P.W.1 also did not mention the name of accused No. 4 in her earliest report. 14. Initially FIR was registered against accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and one Telugu Sankar but the police introduced accused Nos. 1 and 4 also in the charge sheet. Of course, the name of one Telugu Ramanjaneyulu has been deleted by the investigating agency stating that his involvement was not there. Though FIR was registered on 04-01-2007 and the charge sheet was filed as early as on 16-08-2007, neither P.W.1 nor P.Ws.2 and 5 raised their little finger till the date of recording evidence on 05-07-2011. For the first time, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 introduced the story of political rivalry between the accused and the deceased. Of course, none of the independent witnesses supported the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. Except the belated version of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, there is no other evidence available on record. Further, P.W.1 went to the extent of disowning her earliest report recorded by P.W.13. 15. Having carefully analyzed the above evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the belated version of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is liable to be set aside. 16. 15. Having carefully analyzed the above evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the belated version of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by judgment dated 30-06-2017 in Sessions Case No. 531 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Fine amount paid, if any, by the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shall be refunded to them. 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.