JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. A.1 in S.C.No.410/2011 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, is the appellant. Originally the police filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur. Thereafter, the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet. 2. As A.2 absconded, the case against A.2 was split up and numbered as S.C.No.125/2017 and the same is still pending. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge took up case only against A.1. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced 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 three months. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 31.03.2011, A.1 and A.2 invited one Manda Chinnaiah @ Chinnodu @ Nakkodu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) for consuming liquor in between 7.30 P.M. and 8.30 P.M. near Pedda Cheruvu and both of them caused his death by inflicting injuries with hunting sickle and a dagger, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) The appellant, A.2 and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Garugupalli Arundathiwada, Chitvel Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 and PW.2 are the wife and daughter of the deceased respectively. The deceased and PW.1 were eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. The marriage between the deceased and PW.1 took place about 10 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two sons aged about 7 years and 3 years. The marriage between PW.1 and deceased was a second marriage. PW.6, who is also resident of the same village, was having extramarital relationship with wife of A.1. A.1 was doing job in Kuwait. About 10 days prior to the date of incident, PW.6 went to the house of wife of A.1 and when he was with her, the relatives of A.1 chased him upto Tank Bund and were beating him. Having observed the same, the deceased went there and admonished both parties and sent them from there. Thereafter, the deceased went home and informed PW.1 about the said incident. Having observed the same, the deceased went there and admonished both parties and sent them from there. Thereafter, the deceased went home and informed PW.1 about the said incident. Thereafter, as the villagers came to know about their illegal relationship, the wife of A.1 committed suicide. Having come to know about the death of his wife, A.1 returned from Kuwait about five days prior to the date of incident. About three days prior to the date of incident, when the deceased and PW.1 were in their house, one Yellampalli Shivaiah, Thummuri Guravaiah and Thummuri Eswaraiah along with others came to the house of the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences as to why he supported PW.6 and left the house. On 31.03.2011, at about 08.00 P.M., when the deceased was at home along with PW.1. He went out of the house informing PW.1 that he would come back, but he did not return. On 01.04.2011, at about 06.00 A.M., PW.3 came and informed her stating that the deceased was found dead at Pedda Cheruvu with injuries. Immediately, PW.1 along with her mother and brother-in-law went to Pedda Cheruvu and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries on the head, back, throat and left hand. Immediately, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report on the same day at about 9.00 A.M. PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Chitvel Police Station received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.12/2011 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P9. Immediately, the Inspector of Police PW.14 took up investigation having received the information from PW.13. He went to Chitvel village at about 09.30 A.M. and received copy of F.I.R. from PW.13. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence at about 11.00 A.M. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.11 and others. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. He seized MOs.1 to 10 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3. He sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Rajampet for Postmortem examination. PW.12 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajampet conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He seized MOs.1 to 10 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3. He sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Rajampet for Postmortem examination. PW.12 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajampet conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to subdural hammotoma due to head injury and hypovolemic shock due to multiple bleeding injuries all over the body. Time of death was 18 to 24 hours prior to his examination. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P8. (b) On 02.04.2011, PW.14 went to Garugupalli village and secured the presence of PWs 4 and 10 and recorded their statements. On the same day, he recorded statements of PWs 5 and 6. While so, on 09.04.2011, A.1 and A.2 approached PW.11, who is working as V.R.O., Malemarpuram and confessed before him stating that both of them killed the deceased. PW.11 has prepared his report under Ex.P4 and thereafter he produced both of them before PW.14 along with his report Ex.P4. A.1 and A.2 said to have confessed before PW.14 also in the presence of PW.11 and others under Ex.P11. He arrested both of them at about 10.30 A.M. On the confession made by A.1 and A.2, PW.14 seized M.Os.11 and 12 weapons in a mango garden of one Duggina Narasimhulu near Garugupalli under Ex.P5 in the presence of PW.11 and others. PW.14 also proceeded to Reguntapalli Cheruvu and seized ashes of blood stained clothes of the accused marked as M.O.No.13 under a Panchanam Ex.P6. On 15.04.2011, he sent M.Os to the Court with a letter of advice Ex.P13. On 10.04.2011, he recorded statements of PWs 7 to 10 at Garugupalli village. He sent the seized articles for chemical examination through Court on 16.04.2011. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P14. After completion of investigation, PW.14 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 13. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. Heard Dr. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 13. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. Heard Dr. S.Nagaraju, learned counsel, representing Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. Dr. S.Nagaraju, learned counsel, contends that absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that A.1 killed the deceased. He contends that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose the commission of offence by the appellant. He further contends that the prosecution changed their version from stage to stage. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the evidence of PW.11 inspires confidence and there is nothing to disbelieve his version as he is an official witness. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. We have perused the entire material on record. 11. PW.1 is none other than the wife of deceased and PW.2 is the daughter of deceased. PW.1 in her evidence has categorically stated that PW.6 was having extramarital relationship with wife of A.1. She further stated that about 10 days prior to the date of incident, PW.6 was found in the house of the wife of A.1. Having seen the same, the relatives of A.1 chased PW.6 and beat him indiscriminately. During the said quarrel, the deceased went and chastised both the parties and sent them away. PW.1 has further stated that as the deceased intervened between PW.6 and relatives of A.1, A.1 and A.2 bore grudge against the deceased. She further stated in her evidence that the wife of A.1 committed suicide and having come to know of the same, A.1, who was living in Kuwait, returned to India about five days prior to the date of incident. She further stated in her evidence that the wife of A.1 committed suicide and having come to know of the same, A.1, who was living in Kuwait, returned to India about five days prior to the date of incident. She further stated in her evidence that about three days prior to the date of incident, the relatives of A.1 came to her house and threatened the deceased with dire consequences for supporting PW.6. She further stated that on 31.03.2011 at about 8.00 P.M., the deceased left home and did not return back and on the next day at about 6.00 A.M., she came to know about the death of the deceased through PW.3. Thereafter, she went to the Police Station at about 9.00 A.M. and set criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report. PW.2, daughter of the deceased, has also stated in the same lines spoken to by PW.1. PW.3 in his evidence has stated that he was having landed property near Garugupalli tank. He only stated in his evidence that on 01.04.2011 at about 6.00 A.M., he found the dead body of the deceased in the Tank. PW.4, who is the owner of the liquor shop, has stated that on 31.03.2011, A.1 and A.2 came to his shop and purchased liquor along with water packets, disposable glasses and some snacks. PW.5, who was working as Ayurvedic Doctor, in his evidence stated that on 23.03.2011 at about 10.00 A.M., the wife of A.1 was brought to him as she consumed pesticide. He advised them to take her to a better hospital. He further stated that later he came to know that the wife of A.1 died. PW.6, who was working as a Field Assistant in Grameena Upadhi Hami Pathakam (National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) in his evidence stated that the wife of A.1 was working in his organization. He further stated that the wife of A.1 committed suicide. PW.6 in his evidence further stated that the relatives of A.1 came to him, quarreled with him and also beat him suspecting the fidelity of the wife of A.1. He further stated in his evidence that when the relatives of A.1 were beating him, the deceased rescued him from their clutches. He further stated in his evidence that the relatives of A.1 used to suspect him as the wife of A.1 was talking to him frequently. He further stated in his evidence that when the relatives of A.1 were beating him, the deceased rescued him from their clutches. He further stated in his evidence that the relatives of A.1 used to suspect him as the wife of A.1 was talking to him frequently. The relatives of A.1 were also questioned the deceased as to why he interfered in the matter. PW.7, who is resident of the same village, did not support the prosecution and he was declared as hostile. PW.8, who is also resident of the same village, in his evidence has stated that there was suspicion against A.1 and A.2 in the murder of the deceased as A.1 and A.2 were absconding from the village. PW.9, who is also resident of the same village, has stated in the same lines spoken to by PW.8. PW.10 did not state anything except stating that he migrated from Garugupalli village to R.Kammapalli village about 12 years prior to the date of incident. PW.11, who was working as V.R.O., Malemarpuram, in his evidence has stated that on 09.04.2011, both the accused came to him and confessed about the commission of offence. He reduced the same into writing in his report Ex.P4. On the same day i.e., on 09.04.2011, at about 8.00 A.M., PW.11 took A.1 and A.2 to PW.14 and handed over them to PW.14 along with his report Ex.P4. PW.11 is a witness for the observation report, Inquest report and seizure panchanama. For all practical purposes PW.11 is the Panch witness. PW.12 is the Doctor, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body and issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P8. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered crime on receipt of Ex.P1 from PW.1. PW.14 is the Investigating Officer. 12. As seen from the above evidence on record, the evidence of PWs 5 to 10 is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner. So far as the evidence of PW.4 is concerned, he is the owner of liquor shop in Garugupalli village. In his evidence, he has stated that on the fateful day in the evening, both the accused came to his shop and purchased liquor along with water packets, disposable glasses and snacks. PW.4 did not say in his evidence as to whether he is having any license to run the liquor shop. He did not even furnish the name of the liquor shop. PW.4 did not say in his evidence as to whether he is having any license to run the liquor shop. He did not even furnish the name of the liquor shop. It seems the prosecution planted PW.4 to show that A.1 and A.2 purchased liquor in the evening of 31.03.2011. Even assuming that A.1 and A.2 purchased liquor from his shop, the said fact does not incriminate A.1 in any manner with regard to the commission of offence. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, who is also resident of the same village, he has only stated that he is having agricultural lands near Garugupalli tank. He further stated in his evidence that at about 1½ year ago, when he was going to his fields, he found the dead body of the deceased in the Tank. So far as the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is concerned, they have specifically stated that PW.6 was having extramarital relationship with the wife of A.1, and about 10 days prior to the date of incident, PW.6 was found in the house of the wife of A.1 and having seen them, the relatives of A.1 chased him upto the Tank bund and beat him indiscriminately. At that juncture, the deceased went there and pacified the matter and sent away both the parties. PWs 1 and 2 further deposed that unable to bear the insult, the wife of A.1 committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Having come to know about the death of his wife, A.1 came down from Kuwait about five days prior to the date of incident. PWs 1 and 2 further stated in their evidence that about three days prior to the date of incident, the relatives of A.1 came to their house and threatened the deceased with dire consequences. As such, PW.1 has expressed suspicion against A.1 and his relatives Thummuri Guravaiah and Thummuri Eswaraiah and some others as responsible for the death of deceased. During the course of investigation, PW.14 came to know that involvement of Thummuri Guravaiah and Thummuri Eswaraiah was not there. As such, he deleted their names in the charge sheet. 13. Now coming to the evidence of PW.11 V.R.O. of Malemarpuram, he stated in his evidence that on the morning of 09.04.2011, A.1 and A.2 approached him and confessed before him stating that they killed the deceased. But, PW.11 has altogether come up with a different version. As such, he deleted their names in the charge sheet. 13. Now coming to the evidence of PW.11 V.R.O. of Malemarpuram, he stated in his evidence that on the morning of 09.04.2011, A.1 and A.2 approached him and confessed before him stating that they killed the deceased. But, PW.11 has altogether come up with a different version. In his evidence, he stated that the deceased was harassing the wife of A.1 sexually and he spreading rumors in the entire village about the relationship of wife of A.1 with PW.6. Unable to bear the harassment of deceased, the wife of A.1 committed suicide. As such, PW.11 has altogether come up with a different version. As already pointed out, PWs 1 and 2 in their evidence stated that the accused killed the deceased as the latter was supporting PW.6. Whereas, PW.11 stated that the deceased himself used to harass the wife of A.1 sexually and also used to spread rumors in the entire village stating that the wife of A.1 was having extramarital relationship with PW.6. As such, the version of PWs 1 and 2 and version of PW.11 is altogether different. Further, PW.11 is the Panch witness for all the Panchanamas i.e., observation report, confession, recovery etc. As such, the evidence of PW.11 does not inspire confidence of this Court as his version is altogether different from the earliest version of PWs 1 and 2. The prosecution is not able to prove as to why the wife of A.1 committed suicide either because of the deceased was harassing her sexually and spreading rumors or the deceased was supporting PW.6. The prosecution is not able to fix up the motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. Except the inconsistent version of PWs 1 and 2 on one side and PW.11 on other side, there is no other evidence on record. As such, the prosecution could not be able to bring the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.410/2011 requires to be interfered with. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, in S.C.No.410/2011 vide judgment dt. 29.06.2017 is hereby set aside and accordingly, he is acquitted. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, in S.C.No.410/2011 vide judgment dt. 29.06.2017 is hereby set aside and accordingly, he is acquitted. As the appellant was already enlarged on bail by order of this Court dated 09.05.2023 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.)] , he is directed to appearbefore the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa for completion of necessary formalities. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stands cancelled. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.