JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 06-07-2017 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the trial Court'), accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 794 and 1114 of 2017 respectively before this Court. 2. Since both these criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I charge was under Section 363 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; II charge was under Section 364 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; III charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; IV charge was under Section 201 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; and V charge was under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 1989 Act'), against accused No. 1. 4. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 363 IPC; to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 364 IPC; to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial Court also convicted the appellant-accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of 1989 Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Substance of the charges is that on 20-02-2009 at about 5 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with one K.Uday Kumar kidnapped one Vulavapati Venkata Ramesh Babu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') along with his son namely Vulavapati Krushi Teja @ Nani @ Satya-P.W.2, who belonged to scheduled caste, from their house and threatened the deceased to sign on a stamp paper on the point of knife and when he refused, they caused the death of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately over his stomach and testicles and in the same process, they threw the dead body of the deceased into Thetteru Vagu, near Mittapalem Village, Dakkili Mandal, to screen away the evidence and left P.W.2 on highway in Tamil Nadu State, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of 1989 Act. 6. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and son of the deceased respectively and P.W.3 is younger sister of P.W.1 and they are residents of Nellore Town. The deceased started Flex Board Printing Business under the name and style of 'Mahi Digitals' in Nellore. In the beginning, the deceased was the sole proprietor of the business and later, due to financial problems, he had taken accused No. 1 as partner and gave him 40% share in the said business. In the month of January, 2008, the deceased met with a road accident and he sustained fracture to his leg and could not work properly. During the said period, accused No. 1 looked after the business but he did not maintain the accounts of the business properly, due to which the deceased demanded accused No. 1 to settle the accounts but he failed to do so. Twenty days prior to the date of death of the deceased, accused No. 1 started pressurizing the deceased to sell Flex Board Printing Business. While so, on 20-02-2009 at about 3 p.m., P.W.1 was going to Deepti Coaching Centre. Twenty days prior to the date of death of the deceased, accused No. 1 started pressurizing the deceased to sell Flex Board Printing Business. While so, on 20-02-2009 at about 3 p.m., P.W.1 was going to Deepti Coaching Centre. At that juncture, accused No. 1 over phone informed the deceased that he would come to his house with money to settle the accounts relating to Flex Board Printing Business and talk to him regarding selling of business. At about 5 p.m. on the same day, the deceased and his son-P.W.2 left their apartment to go to hospital as P.W.2 was suffering from toothache. At that juncture, accused No. 1 brought a car and the deceased and P.W.2 got into the car, in which accused No. 2 and one K.Uday Kuamr were also present. At about 8 p.m., wife of the deceased-P.W.1 returned home and found the deceased and P.W.2 were not there in the house. Then, P.W.1 enquired P.W.3 who informed her that at about 5 p.m., the deceased had taken P.W.2 to doctor as he was suffering from toothache. At about 11 p.m., one Moghal Lliaz Baig-L.W.11 came to the house of P.W.1 and asked her whether the deceased returned home or not. On the next day i.e. on 21-02-2009 at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.10- Muthu Bhagavathi, Lorry Driver, who was proceeding on highway, stopped his lorry near Melmaruvathur Town for tea break. Then, P.W.10 noticed P.W.2 on road. When P.W.10 enquired P.W.2, the latter stated that accused No. 1 and two others kidnapped his father and himself from Nellore in a car and on the way, they gagged the mouth of the deceased with a cloth, beat him and threw him into water and then, they left him on road and went away. On 21-02-2009 at about 6 or 6.30 a.m., L.W.11 informed P.W.1 that accused No. 1 and some others took away the deceased and P.W.2 in a car on the evening of 20-02-2009 and that accused No. 1 informed one Konduru Mahesh Reddy-L.W.9 about taking away of the deceased and P.W.2. Having received the said information from L.W.11, P.W.1 contacted her in-laws. P.W.6 informed parents of the deceased that accused No. 1 had kidnapped the deceased and P.W.2 at Amancharla Dhaba and he was planning to kill the deceased and that accused No. 1 sought his help but he refused. Having received the said information from L.W.11, P.W.1 contacted her in-laws. P.W.6 informed parents of the deceased that accused No. 1 had kidnapped the deceased and P.W.2 at Amancharla Dhaba and he was planning to kill the deceased and that accused No. 1 sought his help but he refused. In the meanwhile, at about 8.30 a.m., P.W.10 approached P.W.7- the then Head Constable, Padaram Police Station, Tamil Nadu State, who was on highway patrolling duty, along with P.W.2. When P.W.7 enquired P.W.10, the latter stated that he found P.W.2 on highway who informed him that accused No. 1 along with two others murdered the deceased and left him on road. Then, P.W.7 took P.W.2 and handed over him to P.W.8-the then Inspector of Police, Melmaruvathur Police Station, and P.W.9-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Melmaruvathur Police Station. P.W.8 enquired P.W.2 who stated that they were coming along with some persons towards Chennai and on the way, those persons squeezed the neck of the deceased and threw him from the car. P.W.9 took photographs of P.W.2. Exs.P8 and P9 are photographs of P.W.2. On 21-02-2009 at about 10.30 a.m., elder brother of accused No. 1 informed parents of the deceased that accused No. 1 handed over the deceased and P.W.2 to some persons at R.T.O. Office, Nellore, in the evening of 20-02-2009. On 21-02-2009 at about 5 p.m., P.W.5-the then in-charge Village Revenue Officer, Chapalapalli Village, gave a report-Ex.P5 to Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station, stating that an unidentified dead body of a male person was found in Thetteru Vagu, near Chenna Samudram Village of Dakkili Mandal. Basing on the said report, P.W.15-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station, registered a case in crime No. 10 of 2009 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P14 is FIR and it reached magistrate at about 7.45 p.m. on 22-02-2009. P.W.15 prepared an observation report in the presence of P.W.11 and another. P.W.15 got the dead body lifted from Thetteru Vagu. Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.15 observed cut injuries on both ears and injuries around the neck. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter, P.W.15 sent the dead body of the deceased to Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, for conducting post mortem examination. Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.15 observed cut injuries on both ears and injuries around the neck. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter, P.W.15 sent the dead body of the deceased to Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, for conducting post mortem examination. On 21-02-2009 at about 3.30 p.m., P.W.1 and her in-laws went to police station and gave a report. P.W.14-the then A.S.I. of Police, IV Town Police Station, Nellore, received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No. 35 of 2009 under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC. The said FIR was marked as Ex.P13. On the same day at about 5 or 5.30 p.m., P.W.14 received information from Melmaruvathur Police Station about the presence of P.W.2 in their police station. Immediately, P.W.14 informed P.W.1 that P.W.2 was present in Melmaruvathur Police Station. Then, P.W.1 along with P.W.20-the then Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Nellore, went to Melmaruvathur Police Station and stayed there for two hours. P.W.1 enquired P.W.2 about the deceased, on which P.W.2 informed that accused No. 1 and two other persons gagged the mouth of the deceased, beat him on stomach, killed him, threw the dead body into water, left him on road and went away. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 returned to Nellore. On 22-02-2009, a news item was published in newspapers that one unidentified dead body of a male person was kept in Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri. On the same day at about 9 a.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. On the same day at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.1 went to Dakkili Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P2. On the basis of the said report, P.W.15 altered the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 364 and 302 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of 1989 Act. Ex.P15 is altered FIR. P.W.16-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found two external injuries. He opined the cause of death was due to respiratory arrest. He also opined that the time of death might be 48 to 72 hours prior to his post mortem examination. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P17-post mortem certificate and Ex.P18-final opinion. He opined the cause of death was due to respiratory arrest. He also opined that the time of death might be 48 to 72 hours prior to his post mortem examination. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P17-post mortem certificate and Ex.P18-final opinion. P.W.17-the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural Sub Division, received copies of FIR i.e. Exs.P13 to P15. On 23-02-2009, P.W.17 received proceedings under Ex.P19 from the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, authorizing him to investigate the case. Then, P.W.17 enquired whereabouts of the accused and found them absconding. On 28-02-2009 at about 7 a.m., he received credible information about the movements of accused No. 1. Then, he along with P.W.12-the then Village Revenue Officer, Nellore Town, proceeded to Ramalingapuram Junction, and started vehicle checking. They noticed one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. AP 26 AC 0380 coming from Magunta layout side. They stopped the vehicle and noticed accused No. 1 driving the vehicle. When P.W.17 questioned accused No. 1, the latter confessed that he killed the deceased along with two others and produced M.O.1-knife and M.O.2-non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.100/-. P.W.17 arrested accused No. 1 under Ex.P11-panchanama. Thereafter, accused No. 1 was produced before concerned Court and was remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.21-the then Sub Divisional Police officer, Nellore Town. On 26-06-2009 at about 10 a.m., P.Ws.1, 2 and 13 were called to IV Town Police Station, Nellore, in whose presence accused No. 2 surrendered and confessed about the commission of offence and the said proceedings were marked as Ex.P12. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W.19-the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Town. P.W.19 addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Dakkili Mandal, requesting him to send original FIR and inquest report. Thereafter, P.W.19 addressed a letter to Manager, Airtel Network, to send call detail records relating to the cell phones used by the accused. On 23-11-2009, the Manager, Airtel Network, sent his reply to P.W.19 informing that they could not furnish the call detail records as they did not maintain call detail records beyond a period of two months and requested him to approach head office. On persuasion, P.W.19 finally got the call detail records of accused No. 1 under Ex.P21, accused No. 2 under Ex.P22, L.W.9 under Ex.P23, one Philips Rahul-L.W.10 under Ex.P24 and L.W.11 under Ex.P25. After receipt of necessary documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.19 filed charge sheet. 7. On persuasion, P.W.19 finally got the call detail records of accused No. 1 under Ex.P21, accused No. 2 under Ex.P22, L.W.9 under Ex.P23, one Philips Rahul-L.W.10 under Ex.P24 and L.W.11 under Ex.P25. After receipt of necessary documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.19 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P33 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 and 2. 8. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. 9. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 to 10, the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 as afore-stated. 10. Heard Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Allam Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1, Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 2, 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 and P.W.2 is son of the deceased. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that on 20-02-2009 at about 3.30 p.m. while she was getting ready to go to coaching centre, the deceased received a phone call from accused No. 1 and that thereafter, she went to coaching centre and returned home at about 8 p.m. and found the deceased and P.W.2 were absent in the house. P.W.1 in her evidence further stated that when she enquired her younger sister-P.W.3, the latter informed the former that the deceased and P.W.2 went to hospital as P.W.2 was complaining of toothache and that till 11 p.m., the deceased and P.W.2 did not return. P.W.1 in her evidence further stated that when she enquired her younger sister-P.W.3, the latter informed the former that the deceased and P.W.2 went to hospital as P.W.2 was complaining of toothache and that till 11 p.m., the deceased and P.W.2 did not return. P.W.1 also stated that on the same day at about 11 p.m., friend of the deceased- L.W.11 came to her house and enquired her about the deceased; that on the next day at about 6.30 a.m., L.W.11 again came to her house and stated that he came to know through L.W.9 that accused No. 1 took away the deceased and P.W.2 in a car on the evening of 20-02-2009; that thereafter, she went to her mother-in-law and informed the same and that at about 7 p.m. on 21-02-2009, P.W.6 and L.W.10, friends of the deceased, came to the house of her in-laws and informed them that accused No. 1 kidnapped the deceased and P.W.2 at Amancharla Dhaba and that accused No. 1 was intending to kill the deceased. Of course, P.W.6 did not support the case of prosecution. So far as L.W.10 is concerned, he was not examined by the prosecution. 13. The evidence of P.W.2, who is a solitary child witness, is crucial in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the evidence of P.W.2, on 20-02-2009, accused No. 1 along with two others took away both of them in a car and on the way, they killed the deceased and threw the dead body into water and left him in Tamil Nadu State. P.W.5 was aged about 5 years on the date of incident. Though P.W.2 was enquired by P.Ws.7 to 9, who are police officers of Tamil Nadu State, they did not record any statement from P.W.2. P.Ws.8 and 9 did not even register any crime at Melmaruvathur Police Station. 14. As seen from the record, after bringing back P.W.2 to Nellore who informed about the incident, no statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded except altering FIR in crime No. 35 of 2009. The police officer at IV Town Police Station, Nellore, did not take any steps to record a statement from P.W.2. After seeing the news item, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. Immediately, both of them went to Dakkili Police Station. The police officer at IV Town Police Station, Nellore, did not take any steps to record a statement from P.W.2. After seeing the news item, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Government General Hospital, Venkatagiri, and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. Immediately, both of them went to Dakkili Police Station. Even there also, P.W.15 did not record any statement from P.W.2. P.Ws.7 to 9, who are police officers of Tamil Nadu State, at the first instance; P.W.20-Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Nellore, at the second instance; and P.W.15-Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station, at the third instance, did not choose to record any statement from P.W.2. For the first time, P.W.1 implicated the appellants in the crime by way of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement before P.W.17 on 23-02-2009. On the same day, P.W.17 also recorded statement of P.W.2. As already pointed out, at no point of time, statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by any of the police officers either at Melmaruvathur Police Station or at Dakkili Police Station. For the first time, P.W.2 stated all these things before the Court during the course of trial on 10-02-2015 i.e. nearly after six years who was all through in the custody of P.W.1 and under the influence and supervision of police. The statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after Ex.P2-report was given by P.W.1. Except the belated version of P.W.2, there is no other evidence available on record. As already pointed out, L.Ws.9 to 11, friends of the deceased, were not examined by the prosecution. The other friend who was examined as P.W.6 also did not support the case of prosecution. As already pointed out, P.W.2 was aged about 5 years on the date of offence and we have carefully analyzed his evidence. We have serious doubts in our mind about the evidence of P.W.2 as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23-02-2009 though he was traced on 21-02-2009 itself. Further, the statement of P.W.2 was recorded by police after fixing the accused in this case by P.W.1. Therefore, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. 15. Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel, and Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. Therefore, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. 15. Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel, and Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab , [2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 741 (SC)] to contend that conviction upon testimony of solitary child witness is not sustainable when there is serious doubt as to whether he had ever seen or known the accused before occurrence took place. In the case on hand, except the sole testimony of P.W.2 who was aged about 5 years on the date of incident, there is no other evidence available on record to connect the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the alleged offences. We entertain a serious doubt as to whether P.W.2 knew the appellants at all when the occurrence took place. There is no evidence to prove that P.W.2 was known to the appellants. The names of the appellants appear to have been introduced by his mother, P.W.1, who is not an eyewitness. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 10, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by police after one year from the date of incident. Further, P.Ws.8 and 9 did not choose to register any crime at Melmaruvathur Police Station. P.W.10, lorry driver, did not give any particulars of trip sheet and way bills of the lorry. There is absolutely no material to show that P.W.10 found P.W.2 on highway on 20-02-2009 while he was driving his lorry. If really P.W.2 was found on highway, near Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu State, on 20-02-2009, statements of P.Ws.7 to 10 would have been recorded by police immediately. As already pointed out, statements of P.Ws.7 to 10 were recorded after one year from the date of incident. Non-examination of L.Ws.9 to 11, friends of deceased, is also a fatal to the case of prosecution. Furthermore, though statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 were recorded by P.W.7 by 23-02-2009 and though all the documents i.e. post mortem report and inquest report etcetera were available, P.W.19 filed charge sheet on 20-03-2016 i.e. after 13 months obviously by planting P.Ws.7 to 10. 17. Having analyzed the evidence of P.W.2 with close scrutiny, we are of the opinion that it is not safe to convict the appellants-accused Nos. 17. Having analyzed the evidence of P.W.2 with close scrutiny, we are of the opinion that it is not safe to convict the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of belated version of P.W.2 that too who is a child witness aged about 5 years on the date of incident. As such, the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. 18. In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 by judgment dated 06-07-2017 in S.C.No. 84 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 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 and 2 shall be refunded to them. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence.