THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V SURI APPA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1096 OF 2007 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Suri Appa Rao) The appellants herein are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 512 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code is filed against the judgment dated 20.7.2007 in S.C. No. 512 of 2006 convicting the accused under Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused and the deceased/Nagaiah hails from same village and belongs to same community and one week prior to the alleged incident, one Dharmula Chinna Poddaiah fell down from Palmyra tree and succumbed to the injuries and during his funeral ceremony, Dharmula Chinna Poddaiah, Dharmula Gangaiah who were attending the rituals fell down at the pyre and in moribund condition and the accused suspect that the deceased was doing sorcery due to which Poddaiah died and Dharmula Gangaiah suddenly fell sick. In view of the said incidents, all the accused strongly believe that the deceased was sorcerer and the death of Dharmula China Poddaiah and sudden sickness of Dharmula Gangaiah was due to witchcraft resorted by the deceased and all the accused decided that until and unless they get rid of the deceased by hook or crook, they could not live peacefully. With that grudge and motive, the accused 1 to 6 having common intention, designed murder plan of deceased and in pursuance of their plan on 3.3.2006 when the deceased/ Muchika Nagaiah was grazing his cattle at the outskirts of Mallethota village, at about 3.00 P.M. the villagers of Mallethota i.e., Dharmula Ram Babu, Dharmula Mallaiah, Dharmula Kantha Rao, Dharmula Satyanarayana and some others caught hold of the deceased, took him under a mango tree located in the fields of Dharmula Sriramulu stating that he is killing people by doing sorcery and made the deceased to drink pesticide poison and Dharmula Nageswar Rao/Accused No.4 beat the deceased with bamboo stick on his teeth and uprooted his 6th upper teeth while Mr Dharmula Kantha Rao/ Accused No.5 and Mr Dharmula China Venkaiah/ Accused No.6 caught him firmly and beat him with hands. Finally Dharmula Rambabu/Accused No.1 and Dharmula Mallaiah/Accused No.2 hanged the deceased with the help of coconut jute rope from a branch of mango tree until his death. After confirming that the deceased died, they got down the dead body of the deceased, laid the body on the ground and fled away from the scene of offence along with insecticide poison bottle, rope and stick which were used for the commission of offence. The entire incident was witnessed by P.W.1 to 4 who are wife, brother, daughter respectively and P.W.-4 Mr Madakam Ramulu belongs to the same village. The wife of the deceased /P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.A1 on next day morning 4.3.2006 at 8.30 A.M. and the Sub Inspector of Police, Chintoor registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 2006 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Upon recording the statement of P.W.1, he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Mr.Madakalam Dulaiah/P.W.6 and another and observed the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and in presence of mediators held inquest over the dead body marked as Ex.P.4 and thereafter sent the body for postmortem examination. P.W.10/ Dr S.H.Samson, Civil Assistant Surgeon , Government Hospital, Chintoor conducted the postmortem examination and observed hanging ligature marks on the anterior left side and opined that death is due to organophosporous poison and ausphyxia due to hanging. On 10.3.2006 at about 8.15 A.M. the Circle Inspector of Police- Mr G.Ramreddy/P.W. 12 arrested accused nos.1 to 6 at Mallethota village and they stated to have voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Their confessional statement was recorded in presence of panchas and seized the coconut rope which was used for hanging the deceased from the possession and instance of accused No.3. One bamboo stick which was used for beating the deceased was recovered from the possession and instance of accused No.4 under the cover of panchanama and in presence of panchas. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the police. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused. The plea of the accused is denial. To substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and relied upon Exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.13 and marked material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.3. The prosecution examined P.Ws 6, 10 and 11 to prove that the death of the deceased/Nagaiah was homicidal. P.W.6/ Madakam Doolaiah in his evidence stated that on the next day of incident, Police, Chintoor police station summoned him and one Ramajogi to the scene of offence at the fields of Sreeramulu under a mango tree, where they observed the scene of offence in presence of police and panchanama Ex.P.3 was drafted and he along with said Ramajogi attested the same. He further stated that after completion of scene of panchanama, police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and they attested Ex.P.4 inquest panchanama. That blood was oozing from the mouth of the deceased and there was ligature marks around the neck of the deceased. P.W.10/Dr S.H.Samson, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Chintoor, in his evidence stated that on 4.3.2006 on requisition of the police, he conducted autopsy over the dead body and observed hanging ligature marks on the anterior left side and right upper 6th tooth was lost. He opined that death is due to organophosporous poison and ausphyxia due to hanging and that he has conducted postmortem at 11.30 a.m. and approximate time of death was 19 hours prior to post mortem. He further opined that a rope like M.O.3 may cause ligature marks available on the dead body of the deceased. He has issued postmortem examination certificate which is marked as Ex.P.11. P.W.11/Mr Ch.Rajireddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, in his evidence stated that on 4.3.2006 at about 8.30 A.M., P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged written complaint and based on the same he has registered a case in Crime No. 19/2009 under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued First Information Report. That he has recorded the statement of P.W.1 and proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of P.W.6 and another and observed the scene of offence in their presence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and obtained signature of P.W.6 and in presence of same mediators conducted inquest over the dead body Ex.P.4 is inquest panchanama. Thus, in view of the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.11 and the postmortem examination report in Ex.P.11, the prosecution could able to prove that the deceased/Nagaiah died due to organophosporous poison and ausphyxia due to hanging and it is homicidal death. Now the point for consideration is ‘Whether the accused are responsible for causing the death of deceased/Nagaiah? According to the prosecution, P.W.1 to 4 are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.1/ Muchika Bahdramma, wife of the deceased in her evidence stated that on the date of the incident her husband went to the outskirts of the village for grazing the cattle and she along with her daughter Kanakamma/P.W.3 went to their fields and at about 12 noon, she heard the cries of her husband and rushed towards him and that Accused 1 to 6 came to her husband and dragged him towards the lands of Sreeramulu and she too went to the lands of Sreeramulu and all the accused assaulted her husband and forcibly administered poison. Thereafter they uprooted the teeth of her husband and hanged him to a mango tree with a rope. That when she tried to interfere, all the accused pushed her aside. That Muchika Subbaiah/P.W.2 and Kanakamma/P.W.3 also witnessed the incident. That all the accused suspected her husband /deceased as sorcerer, therefore they killed him. That on the next day she went to police station and lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 and police recorded her statement. In her cross examination, she stated that she alone remained at the scene of offence till 7.00 P.M. . She also stated that 5 or 6 years prior to the date of incident one Mutchika Gangaiah mixed poison in the toddy and the same was consumed by her husband and at that time the accused herein have saved the life of her husband by doing stomach wash. She also stated that several villagers witnessed while the accused assaulting her husband at the scene of offence. P.W.2/Mutchika Subbaiah who is brother of the deceased in his evidence stated that on the date of incident, the deceased was grazing the cattle near his fields and at about 12.00 noon all the accused dragged the deceased towards mango trees situated at the land of Sreeramulu and he along with P.W.1 and her daughter/P.W.3 rushed to the scene of offence and all the accused forcibly administered the poison into the mouth of the deceased and since deceased did not die, the accused hanged the deceased to a mango tree with a rope, that accused uprooted the teeth of the deceased before he was hanged to the tree. He further stated that 2 or 3 days prior to the date of incident one Poddaiah fell down from the toddy tree and died and accused suspected that deceased killed Poddaiah by performing sorcery, therefore they have killed my deceased brother. In cross examination, he stated that one day after the death of Poddaiah, the accused killed his deceased brother and denied the suggestion that the accused are falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry and he did not witness the incident. P.W.3/Syamala Kanakamma, daughter of the deceased in her evidence stated that P.W.1 is her mother and deceased Nagaiah is her father and 10 days prior to the date of incident, she came to her parents house. On the date of incident her father went to outskirts of the village for grazing the cattle and she along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 were working at their fields and at about 3.00 P.M. all the accused dragged the deceased to the fields of one Sreeramulu near the mango tree beat her father and administered him poison. That her father did not die immediately, then accused hanged her deceased father to a mango tree with a rope and when they tried to rescue her father, they pushed them aside. She further stated that one week prior to the date of incident one Poddaiah fell down from Palymyra tree and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital and all the accused suspected that her father performed sorcery to Poddaiah, therefore he died. In the cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not go to the fields and did not witness the incident. P.W.4/Madakam Ramulu who stated to have witnessed the incident along with P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In his evidence, he stated that he do not know how the deceased Nagaiah met with his death but police examined him on the next day of the incident. Learned counsel for the Appellants/accused submitted that though the incident stated to have been took place on 3.3.2006, P.W.1/wife of the deceased delayed lodging the complaint before the police and has lodged the complaint on the next day i.e., 4.3.2006 at about 8.30 A.M. and there is a delay of about 17 hours which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. She further submitted that the accused were falsely implicated in the case due to political faction in the village and that the name of the Accused No.6 was not even mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P.1 and that there is no reference to P.W.2 and 3 witnessing the incident, as such their evidence cannot be believed. She further submitted that there are no external visible injuries on the body of the deceased, therefore the theory of prosecution that deceased was beaten by accused and some others with sticks and hands cannot be believed. In support of her contention as regards delay in lodging the complaint/Ex.P.1, she placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Marudanal Augusti Vs., State of Kerala[1] , wherein the Trial Court acquitted that accused/appellant on the ground that there were certain infirmities in the investigation conducted by the Police Officer, the manner in which the FIR was lodged, the delay in dispatch of FIR and delay on the part of P.W.1 in getting the injuries examined by the Doctor, are so gravely suspicious that they went to the root of the matter. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala opined that there was no reason to throw out the prosecution due to the infirmities noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. While considering the said matter, the Apex Court held as under; “The High Court, however, seems to have overlooked the fact that in reversing the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court has also to keep in mind a very vital consideration, namely, as to whether or not the view taken by the Sessions Judge could be reasonably possible. We have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court and after hearing the parties we are satisfied that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was, doubtless, reasonably possible…..” Learned counsel for appellant further relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi[2], wherein the Apex Court while dealing with a case where alleged incident took place on 8.8.1984 and the complaint was lodged on 31.8.1984 held as follows; “…..In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged incident took place on 8.8.1984 and the complaint was lodged on 31.8.1984. Except a bare statement to the effect that representations were made to various persons, no material in that regard was adduced. Further, the modalities to be adopted when the police does not register the FIR are indicated in Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Admittedly, that has not been done. It has also not been explained as to how and why the Prime Minister of the country was moved. Even no material has been adduced to show that any such complaint was made either to the Prime Minister or the police officials claimed. In any event, no advocate was engaged for the accused who did not have the means to engage a lawyer and therefore the mandate of Section 304 Criminal Procedure Code has been clearly violated. In any event, the ingredients of Section 397 IPC have not been established. … …. In Criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case.” Placing reliance on the above cited judgments, learned counsel for appellant submits that in the present case there was unexplained delay of about 17 hours in lodging the complaint, therefore the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. She further reiterated that presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the scene of offence was not mentioned in First Information Report, as such their evidence cannot be considered and the same needs to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely on the ground that the names of P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not mentioned in the First Information Report, their evidence cannot be set aside. It is further submitted that though the name of Accused No.6 in the First Information Report is not mentioned, there is clear evidence i.e., evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who in clear terms stated about the presence and participation of Accused No.6 in the offence, as such, it cannot be said that he has not participated in the commission of offence. He further submitted that omission to mention of incidental facts by a rustic lay woman cannot be attached any importance. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P.[3] and Gurnam Kaur Vs. Bakshish Singh [4]. In Bhagwan Singh case (cited 3 supra), the Apex Court held that non-mention of the name of witness in First Information Report is not relevant and there is no requirement of law for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the FIR, the object of which is only to set the criminal law in motion. The relevant portion reads as under; “We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that statement of Kiran (P.W.7) should not be given any weight because her name is not mentioned in the FIR. There is no requirement of law for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the FIR, the object of which is only to set the criminal law in motion. Kiran (P.W.7) herself was injured and being the niece of Hari Ram (deceased) had no reason to involve innocent persons in the commission of the crime. Merely because P.Ws. 7 , 12 and 22 happen to be the relations of the deceased, cannot be made a ground to discard their evidence. In the circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly found the aforesaid witnesses to be natural witnesses of the occurrence.” In Gurnam Kaur case (cited 4 supra), the Apex Court held as under; “The fact that F.I.R. did not mention about clothes becoming stained with blood cannot be a circumstance of any significance as the First Information Report given by a rustic lay woman is not to be treated as or equated to the summary of the entire prosecution case and a mere omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying an otherwise prompt and impeccable report” Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the material available on record. In the present case, as per the evidence of P.W.11/Sub Inspector of Police, he received the complaint Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 on 4.3.2006 at 8.30 A.M. and the scribe of complaint is one Mr.M.Dulaiah, V.A.O. A.G Koteru Gram Panchayat and the date mentioned therein is 3.3.2006. It is pertinent to note that P.W.1/wife of the deceased is a rustic and illiterate women could not know the importance of immediately lodging a complaint before the police, more particularly when she is in the shock of sudden death of her husband and in such a situation in all probabilities she would prefer to stay with the dead body of her husband rather than thinking of immediately lodging a complaint. Further, it is also her case that she is with the dead body of her husband till 7.00 P.M on 3.3.2006, thus, she has lodged the complaint on the next day morning. Considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge in its judgment at para 38 has rightly observed that ‘there was delay in lodging the report before the police and the delay has been properly explained by her in her report under Ex.P.1. Further, there is no requirement of law for mentioning the names of all the witnesses in the First Information Report and the object of which is only to set the criminal law in motion. It is also settled law that first information report need not contain the minute details of the crime. It is also not necessary that all the events and details must be mentioned in first information report which is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. Thus, considering the fact that the complainant is a rustic and illiterate women no inference can be drawn that there was a delay in lodging the first information report or that the contents of the first information report are exaggerated or created after due deliberations. Thus, it can safely be said that there is plausible explanation for the delay. Further, it is to be noted that though there is no specific reference of accused No.6, P.W.1 in her statement specifically stated that A1 to A5 and some other villages had committed the offence. Further specific allegation against the accused No.6 is that he along with accused No.5 caught hold firmly the deceased and beat him with hands which clearly establish the presence and involvement of accused No.6 in the offence. In the complaint it has been mentioned that A4 and A4 forcibly administered pesticide into the mouth of Nagaiah/deceased and remaining persons beat him with hands and sticks and when Nagaiah did not die eve after administering the pesticide, all the accused hanged Nagaiah to Mango tree till he died. It is also to be noted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 in their evidence, in clear terms stated about the involvement of all the accused in commission of crime. Admittedly, the names of P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint, as already stated, P.W.1 wife of the deceased is an rustic and illiterate women and Ex.P.1 complaint was drafted by Mr.M.Dulaiah, Village Administrative Officer, A.G.Koteru Gram Panchayat on 3.3.2006 i.e., on the date of incident and same was presented to the police on the next day morning i.e., on 4.3.2006 at 8.30 A.M. It is now settled law that the witness is found to be independent and reliable and believed to be present during the occurrence, their evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that their names are not mentioned in the First Information Report. Non mention of names of all the witnesses may be honest omission or an inadvertent mistake or due to various other conceivable reasons. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and P.W. 1 to P.W.3 in their evidence clearly stated that while the deceased was grazing his cattle in the outskirts of the village and they were working in their respective fields, they heard the cries of the deceased and rushed towards the deceased and witnessed the incidence and interfered and tried to save the deceased but all the accused pushed them aside. P.W.1 in her evidence clearly stated that all the accused assaulted the deceased and forcibly administered him poison and uprooted the teeth of the deceased and hanged him to a mango tree with a rope till he died. P.W.2 in his evidence clearly stated that all the accused forcibly administered the poison into the mouth of the deceased and deceased did not die, therefore the accused hanged the deceased to a mango tree with a rope. P.W.3 in her evidence clearly stated that all the accused dragged the deceased to the fields of one Sreeramulu near the mango tree and beat and administered poison and since deceased did not die immediately, then accused hanged the deceased to a mango tree with a rope. It is to be noted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are probable and natural witnesses and their evidence is consistent and corroborative on material particulars about the involvement of all the accused in committing the offence and the same is supported by