JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—Twelve persons were challenged for the murder of Nethala Veeraswarny, a resident and Sarpanch of village Ramaraogudem in Eluru Taluq, West Godavari District (A.P.) in the night of 31-12-1977. Learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru, tried the case and relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 in toto and the evidence of P.W. 3 to some extent convicted all the accused persons for the offences charged under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and awarded each one of them sentence of imprisonment for life and other minor terms of imprisonment for other offences. On appeal the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of seven accused persons, namely, Dasari Bhaskara Rao (A-4), Kali China Krishna (A-5), Namburi Lakshmana (A-8), Namburi Ramulu (A-9), Namburi Prasada Rao (A-10), Mada Govardhana Rao (A-11) and Kali Kamaka Rao (A-12). The High Court confirmed the conviction of the remaining five accused persons Mullagiri Vajram (A-1), Mullagiri Yasupadam (A-2), Dasari Bhima Rao (A-3), Mada Lakshmandas (A-6) and Gadi Abraham (A-7) under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for fife. The High Court further held that as these accused had been sentenced for the main offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and there was no need of separate sentence under Sections 148 and 147, I.P.C.

2. The five accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7 have come before this Court in appeal against the order of the High Court by grant of Special leave. Mada Lakshma (A-6) expired during the pendency of appeal before this Court as such the appeal filed by him was dismissed as having abated by order, dated 8-4-1992. We are now concerned in this appeal with the four accused appellants A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-7.

3. We have gone through the Judgment of the lower Courts and have perused the record and have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The High Court has considered the prosecution evidence in detail and has placed reliance on the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as eyewitnesses of the incident. The High Court has placed implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W. 2 and who was a clerk working in the panchayat office of Ramaraogudem and had accompanied the deceased in an autorichshaw and had seen the incident. We find no infirmity in the statement of P.W. 2 and the High Court has rightly placed reliance on his evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that even if the statement of P.W. 2 is taken to be correct, no offence is made out so far as accused (A-3) is concerned . Learned counsel in this regard submitted that P.W. 2 in the cross examination has admitted that he did not state the name of A-3 in his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that though P.W. 2 stated that he had given the name of A-3 in his statement recorded at the inquest but the name of A-3 does not find mention in exhibit D-7, the statement of P.W. 2 recorded at the inquest. We see force in the aforesaid contention. A perusal of the statement of P.W. 2 shows that he did not make a mention of the name of A-3 in his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and also in his statement exhibit D-7 recorded at the inquest. In view of these circumstances the accused A-3 is also entitled to the benefit of doubt.

5. It was next contended by learned counsel on behalf of the accused A-2 and A-7 that P.W. 2 in the cross examination admitted that after the incident he had gone to police station seven or eight times. He had gone to the police station as he was asked by the police. He also admitted that at that time accused persons were in police lock up. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of P.W. 2 it was contended that when P.W. 2 had gone to police station seven or eight times after the incident the possibility of his seeing the accused (A-2) and (A-7) in the police station cannot be ruled out. It was thus contended