JUDGMENT : B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J. 1. This Memorandum of Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the sentence and conviction passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak in SC No.69 of 2015, dated 21.12.2018, where under the appellants-A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months each. 2.1. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2014 at about 0200 hours, PW.1-B.Laxmi lodged a written complaint stating that on 06.04.2014, at about 8.00 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu went to the house of G.Laxmi to obtain lease of her land. G.Laxmi has dragged her husband B.Narsimlu into the house and bolted the latches and called Chakali Agamaiah (A1). A1 and his younger brother Chakali Ashok (A2) were having illegal intimacy with G.Laxmi, went there with axes, fortunately he escaped from there. As such, A1 and A2 developed grudge against her husband B.Narsimlu thinking that her husband is also having illegal intimacy with G.Laxmi. 2.2. On 07.04.2014 at about 8.30 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu went to the house of his brother Kistaiah to ascertain about the quarrel happening with that of his neighbor by name Buchaiah, the issue was pacified and later at 9.30 P.M. her husband B.Narsimlu was returning to the house, when he reached the house of one Vittal Reddy, A1 and A2 assaulted her husband with a sharp weapon like knife and stabbed him on the middle of chest, left side chest, left buttock, she went there and found her husband rolling on ground with bleeding injuries which was witnessed by G.Jailu (PW.3). Immediately, they called 108 Ambulance and while shifting to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, her husband died. Basing on the complaint, PW.9-B.Pramod Kumar registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2014 under Section 302 of IPC and investigated the matter and he handed over the case file to PW.11-Ch.Saidi Reddy. PW.11-Saidi Reddy has received the CD file on 08.04.2014 from PW.9-B.Pramod Kumar, verified the investigation done by him and found to be on proper lines and proceeded with further investigation. PW.11-Saidi Reddy has received the CD file on 08.04.2014 from PW.9-B.Pramod Kumar, verified the investigation done by him and found to be on proper lines and proceeded with further investigation. On his transfer, he handed over the CD file to LW.23-A.Ram Reddy for further investigation. LW.23-A.Ram Reddy verified the investigation done by PW.9 and PW.11 and found it on proper lines, collected the material papers and filed charge sheet against the appellants herein. 2.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur has taken cognizance of the case under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the appellants-A1 and A2 (herein after referred to as accused), numbered it as PRC No.45 of 2014. On appearance of the appellants-accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and other connected documents under Section 207 of CrPC and committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Medak at Sangareddy. Court of Sessions, Medak at Sanga Reddy has assigned SC No.69 of 2015 and made over the file to the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and proceeded with the trial. 4. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12, MOs.1 to 9. Ex.D1 is marked in the cross-examination of PW.5 by the defence counsel. 5. Accused (appellants herein) were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence put forth to them and thereafter the learned trial Court after hearing both sides, convicted the accused (appellants herein) for the offence under Section 302 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for Life, also to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- each towards fine for the offence, in default of payment of fine, each accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months each and the remand period of A1 and A2 if any undergone by them shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 6.1. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused submits that : (i) There is no acceptable evidence to show that the appellants-accused killed the deceased on suspicion that he was having illicit intimacy with G.Laxmi-LW.9 with whom appellant No.2-A2 was already having intimacy with her which is the alleged motive behind the incident. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused submits that : (i) There is no acceptable evidence to show that the appellants-accused killed the deceased on suspicion that he was having illicit intimacy with G.Laxmi-LW.9 with whom appellant No.2-A2 was already having intimacy with her which is the alleged motive behind the incident. (ii) The presence of PW.2 and PW.5 was not deposed by PW.1 and PW.3 at the time of incident and as per Ex.P1- complaint also, hence their presence is unbelievable and not proved by the prosecution. (iii) PW.5 clearly stated in Ex.P12 (Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement) that he did not saw the incident while A1 stabbing the deceased B.Narsimlu and A2 beating with stick. PW.5 has exaggerated his evidence which cannot be taken into consideration. (iv) A1 and A2 belongs to Congress Party and there is political rivalry, they were falsely implicated in the case and the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 cannot be believed. The houses of one Prabhu Reddy and Jagga Reddy are nearer to the scene of offence but the prosecution has not examined them for the reasons best known to them. On the other hand, they have examined PW.6 who is also a TRS Party Leader. (v) There are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 with that of the evidence of PWs.3 and 5 which ought to have been discarded by the learned trial Court and brushing aside the omissions and contradictions stating that they are minor in nature. 6.2. Counsel to substantiate his contention, relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Selveraj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , (1976) 4 SCC 343 (3 Judge Bench) (2) Balwan Singh and Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others , MANU/SC/1044/2019 (3 Judge Bench). (3) Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka , (2021) 5 SCC 572 (3 Judge Bench) (4) Dharambir @ Dharma Vs. State of Haryana , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 540 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 coupled with Exs.P12-Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 supports the case of the prosecution in its entirety with that of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The learned trial Court has rightly observed in the judgment that the omissions and contradictions are minor in nature and rightly convicted the appellants-accused for life imprisonment, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. The learned trial Court has rightly observed in the judgment that the omissions and contradictions are minor in nature and rightly convicted the appellants-accused for life imprisonment, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also filed Brief Note in support of his contention. 9. The point that falls for consideration before this Court is: Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the appellants-accused are sustainable, if so, does it require interference of this Court? 10. The entire case of the prosecution rest on the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, PW.8 with that of Ex.P12- Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. 11. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW.1 on 08.04.2014 at 0200 hours. Basing on which Ex.P8-FIR No.63 of 2014 is registered on 08.04.2014 under Section 302 of IPC against the appellants-accused. 12. PW.1 deposed that her husband Narsimlu went to the house of G.Laxmi-LW.9 to take her land on lease. LW.9-Laxmi locked the door and called A1 and A2 over phone. When they reached, her husband escaped from the place and he informed the same to her stating that LW.9-Laxmi has misunderstood him that he may develop illegal contacts with her. LW.9-Laxmi is already having illicit intimacy with A2. Thereby, A2 came to the house of LW.9- Laxmi with Axe along with A1. On the next day at about 8.00 p.m. on hearing the cries at the house of LW.2-Kistaiah, her husband Narsimlu went there and found that Kistaiah and one Buchaiah were quarrelling with each other, her husband has separated them. Thereafter, when he was coming to the house and when he reached the house of Vittal Reddy-LW.11, at that time A1 and A2 came and killed her husband. She was in search of her husband, on the way she met Jailu-PW.3 and he informed her that A1 and A2 have killed her husband. Then she went to the Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-complaint. 13. PW.2 deposed that when he was proceeding from the house of Kistaiah-LW.2 along with Narsimlu, when they reached the house of B.Vittal Reddy, then A1 and A2 came there and killed Narsimlu. Some persons were present thereat but he do not know their names and he thought that the deceased died. 13. PW.2 deposed that when he was proceeding from the house of Kistaiah-LW.2 along with Narsimlu, when they reached the house of B.Vittal Reddy, then A1 and A2 came there and killed Narsimlu. Some persons were present thereat but he do not know their names and he thought that the deceased died. At that time, son of Vittal Reddy by name Shashikanth Reddy-PW.5 informed that the deceased was alive. 14. PW.3 deposed that when he was proceeding from his house, on the way he heard galata near Durgamma Temple. Then he found that there was altercation between Kistaiah-LW.2 and Buchaiah and he separated them. After that Narsimlu was going to his house and when he reached the house of Vittal Reddy-LW.11 and Shashikanth Reddy-PW.5, A1 and A2 came there and killed Narsimlu with knife and stick. Himself, PW.2, B.Vittal Reddy and PW.5 are the witnesses to the incident. 15. PW.4 deposed that he has shifted deceased Narsimlu to the Hospital in his Auto, on the way Ambulance came there, thereafter they have shifted him into the Ambulance and he returned back. 16. PW.5 deposed that his house is situated near Hanuman Temple and he sat on Payal in front of his house, he heard a sound and went there, found A1 stabbing Narsimlu with knife and A2 beat him with stick, when he questioned the accused they fled away from the scene. Meanwhile, PW.3 and others came there and shifted him to the Hospital. 17. PW.6 deposed that the police has conducted panchanama and seized MO.1-stick, MO.2-cell phone, MO.3-controle earth, MO.4- blood stain earth. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. 18. PW.7 deposed that police has seized the blood stain Shirt, Lungi, Baniyan and underwear of the deceased which are MOs.5 to 8 and Ex.P4 is the Inquest panchanama. 19. PW.8 deposed that the MRO has called him over phone and also called LW.18-G.Veeraiha and asked them to go to the Police Station, Hathnoora. When they went to the Police Station, A1 and A2 were present thereat, on the instructions of the police, he inquired with A1 and A2 about the incident. 19. PW.8 deposed that the MRO has called him over phone and also called LW.18-G.Veeraiha and asked them to go to the Police Station, Hathnoora. When they went to the Police Station, A1 and A2 were present thereat, on the instructions of the police, he inquired with A1 and A2 about the incident. Then A1 informed him that A2 had illicit intimacy with Laxmi-LW.9 and deceased Narsimlu has abused Laxmi as well as his wife, due to which A1 and A2 have bore grudge against the deceased and A1 has stabbed the deceased and A2 has beat the deceased with stick at the house of Vittal Reddy and confession statement is prepared accordingly which are Exs.P5 and P6 and the accused has led them to Konyala Village and A1 has produced the knife from the bushes near the Gober gas which is MO.9 and Ex.P7 is the Recovery Panchanama. 20. PW.9 deposed that on receipt of complaint under Ex.P1 from PW.1, he registered Ex.P8-FIR and he recorded the statement of PW.1 at the Police Station. Later, he handed over the file to PW.11 for further investigation. 21. PW.10 deposed that on 08.04.2014 at about 12.14 P.M. he received a requisition from P.S. Hathnoora to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased B.Narsimlu, he conducted the autopsy on the same day and found the following injuries. (1) Stab wound on left side of chest on mid clavicular Line 0.05 cm to 1 cm below the nipple verticle in shape 4.5 cm length 1 to 1.5 cm width, 3.5 to 4 cm depth. (2) Stab wound on chest left side latiralto mid claivuler line 3 cm lateral to nipple Horizontal. 3 cm length 0.05 width 2-3 cm depth. (3) Stab wound on epigastrict region at mid line 2 cm length 0.05 cm width. He further deposed that the injuries are antemortem in nature. The cause of death is due to hemorigh shock and sudden cardiac arrest due to stabbed injury. Ex.P9 is the PME report and the injuries mentioned therein are possible with MO.9. 22. PW.11 deposed that he received the CD file from PW.9 on 08.04.2014 and verified the investigation done by him, found to be on proper lines. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized MOs.1 to 4. 22. PW.11 deposed that he received the CD file from PW.9 on 08.04.2014 and verified the investigation done by him, found to be on proper lines. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized MOs.1 to 4. Later, he visited Government Area Hospital, Sangareddy, there he secured the presence of the witnesses, conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Narsimlu and also seized MOs.5 to 8 under cover of panchanama. Later, he examined other witnesses. On 14.04.2014, PW.9 has apprehended the accused at their residence and produced before him for interrogation and they confessed the same in presence of PW.8 and G.Veeraiah-LW.18, confession statement is recorded accordingly and seized MO.9 from the possession of A1. Ex.P5 is the confessional statement of A1, Ex.P6 is the confessional statement of A2 and Ex.P7 is the Recovery Panchanama of MO.9. Ex.P11 is the FSL report and he made a requisition before LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet to record the statement of PW.5 which is Ex.P12, on his transfer he handed over the file to LW.23-A.Ram Reddy for further investigation. A.Ram Reddy- LW.23 verified the investigation done by him and PW.9 found to be on proper lines, filed charge sheet. PW.5 stated before him as in Ex.D1. 23.1. It would thus be seen that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is wholly unsatisfactory and it cannot be regarded as sufficient to found the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased : See Selveraj 1 (3 Judge Bench). 23.2. Be that as it may, we find that the whole story of the prosecution about the presence of PW.9 and PW.16 on the spot at the time of incident appears to be artificial and concocted : See Balwan Singh (supra) (3 Judge Bench). 23.3. Even if the prosecution version that PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 could and did see the appellant running in front of Devendrappa’s house from the respective positions they were in at the time of occurrence of the incident was accepted, the evidence we would have been left with would have been two accused persons being seen running away. That would have been too thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the Code, applying the principle of res gestae. That would have been too thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the Code, applying the principle of res gestae. The first court of facts on appreciation of evidence had acquitted the appellant. We do not find any major lacuna in its reasoning which would have warranted interference by the appeal court for reversing such finding into that of guilt : See Mallappa(supra)(3 Judge Bench). 23.4. We are, therefore, convinced that both the star prosecution witnesses i.e., Krishan kumar (PW.5) and Ram Kumar (PW.8) fall within the category of wholly unreliable witnesses and thus, in light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pritinder Singh Alias Lovely, (2023) 7 SCC 727 , it would be unsafe to place reliance on their evidence so as to affirm the guilt of accused- appellant. No other evidence was led by the prosecution for bringing home the charge : See Dharambir @ Dharma, (supra) 24. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.6 stated in his cross-examination that PW.5 was not present at the scene of offence and the scene of offence is situated at a distance of 40 yards from the house of Vittal Reddy. The house of Prabhu Reddy is situated at a distance of 60 yards and the house of Jagga Reddy is situated at a distance of 20 yards from the scene of offence. Prosecution has not examined Jagga Reddy and Prabhu Reddy who are nearer to the scene of offence as admitted by PW.1 in her cross-examination, so also admitted by PW.5 in the cross. PW.8 stated in the cross-examination that there were electrical lights near the scene of offence, as per the version of A1 and A2 there are no electrical lights and PW.11 has admitted in his cross that he has not mentioned the existence of electric lights near the scene of offence. Further cross-examination of PW.1 goes to show that between the house of Vittal Reddy-LW.11 and Prabhuguri Venkat Reddy there is a lane leading to Hanuman Temple and there are five to six houses intervening between the place of offence and the house of Vittal Reddy. 25. PW.2 admitted in his cross-examination that at the instance of PW.5, the case was registered against A1 and A2. 25. PW.2 admitted in his cross-examination that at the instance of PW.5, the case was registered against A1 and A2. The admission made by PW.3 in his cross-examination is that Vittal Reddy-LW.11 and PW.5 did not come to the scene of offence on the date of accident and he has not seen PW.5 at the scene of offence where the deceased was stabbed by the accused. The inconsistence versions of PW.2, PW.3 cast a doubt on the case of the prosecution about the presence of PW.5 at the scene of offence. PW.5 stated in his cross-examination that Police has recorded his statement after two days of the incident and he also admitted that the house of V.Prabhu Reddy is nearer to the scene of offence and his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded. He did not reveal the incident for two days because of the marriage function in the house and that he has not stated to the Police as in Ex.D1. The portion of Ex.D1 is as under: “Nenu bayapadi atti vishayamu evvariki Cheppaledu”. 26. It is apt to refer the important portions of Ex.P12-Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5: “On 07-04-2014 between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., I sat on the pail in front of my house after having my dinner. I observed that Badampeta Narsimlu passed through that road towards his house. Behind said Narsimlu, one Chakali Agamaiah also proceeded through the same road holding a stick in his hands and I observed that also in casual manner. Within 5 minutes, I heard a sudden cry of a male person from that road. Then I ran towards that road and below 100 meters from my house, I found Badampeta Narsimlu standing on that road with a stab injury on his chest. I found Chakali Agamaiah by the side of Badampeta Narsimlu and I found that there was severe bleeding from the said injury sustained by Badampeta Narsimlu. I also found that the brother of Agamaiah namely Chakali Ashok was running away from the scene when I reached there. When I questioned Agamaiah about the cause of such bleeding from the person of Badampeta Narsimlu, he stated that he stabbed Badamapeta Narsimlu with a knife and also beat him with a stick on his shoulder. Out of grief, I slapped Agamaiah saying that "Enthapani Chesinavuraa". I sent for some water to give to the injured Badampeta Narsimlu. When I questioned Agamaiah about the cause of such bleeding from the person of Badampeta Narsimlu, he stated that he stabbed Badamapeta Narsimlu with a knife and also beat him with a stick on his shoulder. Out of grief, I slapped Agamaiah saying that "Enthapani Chesinavuraa". I sent for some water to give to the injured Badampeta Narsimlu. In the mean time Agamaiah also fled away from that place. Within few minutes one Gangolla Jailu and the wife of Badampeta Narsimlu namely Laxmi also rushed to the scene. At that time the Police were also present at Konyala village in respect of some other incident and then I rushed to the Police and informed them about the incident, The Police also rushed to the scene and though we tried to get 108 ambulance it could not reach in time. As such the Police shifted the injured Badampeta Narsimulu in another auto to hospital. On the same night, I came to know that Badampeta Narsimlu died on the way to Hospital. I stated this version to Police when they examined me”. 27. Prosecution has not examined LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet but Ex.P12- Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 is marked through PW.11. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Narsimlu went to the house of his brother Kistaiah-LW.2 to pacify the quarrel of his brother with Buchaiah. Kistaiah-LW.2 is given up by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. As per Ex.P12, PW.3 and the wife of the deceased came to the scene of offence after few minutes. The evidence of PW.5 is contra to Ex.P12- Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 28. PW.11 has recorded the statement of PW.5 on 14.04.2014 after seven days of the incident, two months thereafter Ex.P12 is recorded on 13.06.2014 by LW.20-D.Rama Kanth, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jogipet. The evidence of PW.2 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that there is no corroboration about the killing of the deceased Narsimlu by which of the accused. Similarly, the evidence of PW.3 is also not helpful in view of the fact that it has not been corroborated with the evidence of PW.5. Similarly, the evidence of PW.3 is also not helpful in view of the fact that it has not been corroborated with the evidence of PW.5. The admission made by PW.8 in his cross- examination is that Ex.P5-confessional statement of A1 and Ex.P6- confessional statement of A2 does not disclose that A1 has stabbed the deceased with a knife and A2 beat the deceased with a stick. 29. The cross-examination of PW.11 goes to show that PW.5 did not state before him that he was busy in the marriage, he could not give the evidence immediately after the incident and he further admitted that PW.5 has not stated to him that A2 beat the deceased with a stick on his back. 30. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers with contradictions and surmises, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 in Para 24 of its judgment and discarded the same. 31. When two constructions are possible in a criminal trial the one beneficial to the accused will have to be adopted : See Pohalya Motya Valvi Vs. State of Maharashtra ( (1980) 1 SCC 530 ) ; Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab ( (2006) 12 SCC 306 ) ) and Thippiripati Ijaiah Alias Ajay Vs. State of A.P. (2005 SCC OnLine AP 1113). 32. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence : See (1) Sk.Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal ( (2011) 11 SCC 754 ), (2) Sahadevan and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( (2012) 6 SCC 403 ). 33. The learned trial Court has misread the evidence adduced by the prosecution and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the contradictions and omissions of the witnesses and in view of the reasons above appellants have made out a case and the impugned judgment recording conviction and imposition of sentence of Life Imprisonment on the appellants-accused is liable to be set aside. 34. Criminal Appeal is allowed and the sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed on the appellants-accused in SC.No.69 of 2015, dated 21.12.2018 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Medak is set aside. Appellants-accused are acquitted from the charges and we direct that they shall be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in connection with some other offences. Appellants-accused are acquitted from the charges and we direct that they shall be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in connection with some other offences. Bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled, Fine amount if any paid shall be returned to the appellants-accused after Appeal time is over. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stands closed.