T. CH. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appellants stand convicted for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against them was that on 6-3-95 at about 10 p. m. in their house at Pedda Ummenthal Village, they did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of the deceased kondapally Ramchandraiah, s/o Venkaiah of Peddda Ummenthal Village, by the first accused strongly hitting on the head of the deceased with a pounder, and the second accused beating the deceased with stick all over the body, which resulted in his death, and thereby both of them committed an offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC. ( 3 ) AT the time of the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the testimony of the witnesses, in brief may be stated thus: ( 4 ) ALL the witnesses and the accused are residents of the same village. P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and PW-3 is the cousin of the deceased. A-1 and A-2 are the husband and wife. On 6-3-95 night, A-1 and a-2 came to the house of P. W. 2 woke up the deceased and tookhim to their house. P. W. 2, who also woke up, accompanied the accused to their house. However, the accused did not permit P. W. 2 to enter into their premises. They pushed her aside on the night of the incident. Thereupon, P. W. 2 returned home and slept. ( 5 ) ON the midnight of the occurrence, p. W. 3 heard altercations from the house of the accused. Upon hearing the sounds, he went to the house of the deceased and enquired about the same with P. W. 2. P. W. 2 informed P. W. 3 that the deceased went to the house of the accused. When P. Ws. 2,3,4, and one K. Narasaiah went to the house of the accused all of them found the doors of the house of the accused closed. By the time they reached the house, the sounds of altercations subsided and the doors of the house of the accused were bolted from inside. Despite their calls from outside, on one responded from inside the house. By the time they reached the house, the sounds of altercations subsided and the doors of the house of the accused were bolted from inside. Despite their calls from outside, on one responded from inside the house. ( 6 ) ON the next day morning, P. W. 2 informed P. W. 3 that the deceased did not return home. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and one k. Narasaiah went to the house of the accused again and they found the house locked. Then, all of them went to the house of p. W. 7. ( 7 ) ON the next day that was on 7-3-95, p. W. 2 went to the house of P. W. 7, who is the sarpanch of that village. On being informed by P. W. 2, P. W. 7, sent Kavalikars to the house of the accused and P. W. 2 also accompanied them. When they reached the house, they found it locked and both the accused were standing outside the house. The Kavalikars opened the lock of the house and found the dead body of the deceased inside the house. They also noticed injuries on the head, hands, and legs being tied with the rope. They also noticed two sticks and one pestle by the side of the dead body. ( 8 ) ON being informed by the Kavalikars, p. W. 1, the VAO joined them and all of them went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased in the house of the accused. They also noticed injuries on the person of the dead body and also found the sticks and pestle near the dead body, MOs. 1 and 2 are the sticks and M. O. 3 is the Pestle. They further noticed M. O. 4 Plastic rope with which the legs and hands of the deceased were tied. Thereupon. P. W. 1 sent a report to the Chenugomul Police station in ex. P. 1. ( 9 ) P. W. 8, the head constable, received ex. P. 1 report sent by P. W. 1 through the kavalikars on 7-3-95 at about 10. 30 a. m. and then registered the case on Ex. P. 1 as cr. No. 10/95 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex. P. 7 FIR. P. W. 9, the Inspector of police, Pargi, took up investigation in this case. P. 1 report sent by P. W. 1 through the kavalikars on 7-3-95 at about 10. 30 a. m. and then registered the case on Ex. P. 1 as cr. No. 10/95 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex. P. 7 FIR. P. W. 9, the Inspector of police, Pargi, took up investigation in this case. He visited the scene of the offence and got an observation report drafted there in the presence of P. W. 5 and one Buchaiah. He then seized M. Os. 1 to 3 and 8 prepared a rough sketch of the scene in Ex. P. 4. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of some panchas, and during the course of inquest, he seized m. Os. 4 to 9. Ex. P. 2 inquest report was drafted there. After completion of the inquest he sent the dead body to the government Hospital, Pargi, for knowing the cause of death. ( 10 ) ON 7-3-95, the Civil Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Pargi, conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P. 11 post-mortem certificate. P. W. 10 identified the signature of the doctor, who conducted autopsy on Ex. P. 11 post-mortem certificate. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 arrested A- 1 and A- 2 on 14-3-95. When questioned about the complicity, it is said that A- 1 made a statement pursuant to which P. W. 9 seized m. O. 10 Shirt under the cover of Ex. P. 5 panchanama. Eventually, P. W. 9 laid the charge- sheet against the accused. ( 12 ) AS aforesaid, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exs. P. 1 to P. 11 and M. Os. 1 to 10 marked. When called upon to enter upon their evidence, the accused examined none, and no documents were marked except Ex. D. 1 contradiction from the previous statement of P. W. 4. Upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and upon hearing either side, the learned Sessions judge, Ranga Reddy District, found both the accused guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life and further sentenced them to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- each, and in default to suffer R. I. for six months. 1,000/- each, and in default to suffer R. I. for six months. Having been aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed against them, both the appellants filed the present appeal. ( 13 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that there is no proof on record to show that both the appellants are the residents of the house whereat the dead body is said to have been found. Learned counsel further contends that the one circumstance that the body was found in the house is not at all sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. He further contends that, at any rate, A-2, when it is alleged, had illicit intimacy with the deceased, could not have had the necessary motive to kill the deceased, and in view of the type of evidence available on record she cannot at all be connected to the crime. ( 14 ) THE entire edifice of the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence since, there is no ocular testimony on the factum of the offence of murder. The learned sessions Judge enumerated five circumstances in his judgment, which are in his view emanating from the record. The circumstance being (1) The illicit intimacy of the deceased with A-2. (2) A-1 and A-2 coming to the house of the deceased and taking him with them to their house on the night of 6-3-95. (3) The deceased died a homicidal death. (4) The dead body of the deceased was found at the house of the accused. (5) M. O. 10 Bloodstained shirt was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of A-1. ( 15 ) THE learned Judge proceeded to consider each of the circumstances enumerated herein above. After having appreciated the evidence on the point, the learned Judge was of the view that the circumstances 2 and 5 were not established beyond all reasonable doubts. Relying upon the circumstances 1, 3 and 4, the learned judge was of the view that the cumulative effect of the same is sufficient to draw the necessary hypothesis, which is consistent with the guilt of the accused, and they unerringly point out towards the accused and accused alone. ( 16 ) P. W. 2, who is the important witness in this case, is the mother of the deceased. ( 16 ) P. W. 2, who is the important witness in this case, is the mother of the deceased. Her evidence shows that both the accused after having come to their house woke up her son, the deceased, and took him along with them to their house. Her evidence further shows that she accompanied them. However, both the accused did not permit her to enter into their house and pushed her aside. That part of the testimony of this witness that she accompanied the accused and the deceased to the house of the accused and that the accused did not permit her to enter into the house, instead they pushed her aside, has not been accepted by the trial court on the premise that the witness omitted to state the same in her previous statement recorded by the Investigating officer. ( 17 ) P. W. 7 is another witness whose testimony is to be considered in the context. According to the evidence of this witness that P. W. 2 came to his house on the night of occurrence and informed him that her son, the deceased, was not to be seen on that night and that her son went to the house of A-1 and did not return home. The evidence of this witness further shows that at about 9 p. m. on that day, P. W. 2 came to him and he informed her that he would look into the matter on the next day morning. This evidence of P. W. 7 appears to be divergent with the evidence as given by P. W. 2. P. W. 2, in her evidence, did not say that she went to the house of P. W. 7 at about 9 p. m. on that day and informed him about the absence of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the court below has considered that the circumstance No. 2 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. With the type of evidence available on record i. e. , from p. W. 2 and P. W. 7, we are of the considered view that we are not able to persuade ourselves to come to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the learned sessions Judge on Circumstance No. 2. ( 18 ) THE deceased, in this case, obviously died a homicidal death. ( 18 ) THE deceased, in this case, obviously died a homicidal death. The apparent cause of death, as can be seen from the opinion expressed by the inquestdars, is that it was not a natural death and that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him. Unfortunately, in this case, the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased could not be examined. The prosecution, instead, examined P. W. 10, who was conversant with the handwriting and signature of the post-mortem doctor and through this witness Ex. P. 11 postmortem certificate was proved and got marked. Ex. P. 11 post-mortem certificate is admissible evidence under Section 32 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act. This evidence clearly establishes that the deceased died a homicidal death. Above all, there has been no gainsaying that the deceased in this case died a homicidal death. This circumstance is, thus, clinchingly established by the prosecution. ( 19 ) AS regards the illicit intimacy in between the deceased and A-2, there is evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, and 7. The Court below has rightly appreciated the testimony of each witness and has come to a correct conclusion as regards the existence of illicit intimacy in between them. After having given our anxious consideration to the evidence of these witnesses, particularly in the light of the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are convinced that the evidence on this aspect given by the witnesses can be accepted without any hesitation. Therefore, in our considered view, this circumstance is held proved. ( 20 ) OBVIOUSLY, the dead body was found in the house, which belongs to the appellants. It is the plea of the appellants that they have been residing in a different village from a couple of years earlier to the date of occurrence in this case. Except the plea, it has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence or at least has been probablised by any means. Both the appellants are not disowning the house and, admittedly, they are the owners of the house whereat the dead body was found. It is not their plea that the house was not in their control. The evidence dearly shows that it was locked from outside and the dead body was found inside the house. Both the appellants are not disowning the house and, admittedly, they are the owners of the house whereat the dead body was found. It is not their plea that the house was not in their control. The evidence dearly shows that it was locked from outside and the dead body was found inside the house. This clear circumstance emanating from record will definitely militate against the defence taken by the accused. In the absence of any cogent explanation coming forward from the appellants, the only one inference that can be drawn in the light of the circumstance, particularly that the house was not shown to have been in their control or out of their control, they owe an explanation about the existence of the dead body in the house which was found to be locked from outside. Absence of any explanation on their side will definitely supply an additional link to the others links that are proved to be established in this case. ( 21 ) THUS, the three circumstances enumerated above, which are held to be proved, coupled with the absence of explanation on the side of the appellants about the existence of the dead body of the deceased in their house, which house was locked from outside, are sufficient enough. in our considered view, to complete the chain, and the only one inference that can unerringly be drawn from out of these circumstances, is the one that is consistent with the guilt of the accused and the accused alone. ( 22 ) THE case of the appellants 1 and 2 is separable. It is inherent case of the prosecution that on account of the illicit intimacy between A-2 and the deceased, which constituted the motive for the perpetration of the crime the offence has been perpetrated. When that be the case, a-2, in ordinary course, could not have entertained any motive to do away with the life of the deceased by joining hands with her husband. This improbability, which is inherent in the case of the prosecution itself and emanating form the record, militates against the case of the prosecution qua the second accused. The motive if at all is there for anybody, it must be the first appellant who noticed the illicit intimacy between his wife and the deceased. This improbability, which is inherent in the case of the prosecution itself and emanating form the record, militates against the case of the prosecution qua the second accused. The motive if at all is there for anybody, it must be the first appellant who noticed the illicit intimacy between his wife and the deceased. Therefore, in view of the glaring circumstance emanating from the record, we are of the considered view that there cannot be any motive for A-2 to perpetrate the offence in this case and her case is separable with that of A-1. In the absence of the circumstance that she too was found along with A-1 taking the deceased to their house in view of the glaring improbability appearing from the record, it is not safe to come to a conclusion placing reliance upon the circumstantial evidence that A-2 is responsible for the death of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that these circumstances will point out unerringly towards A-2 that she is responsible for the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the conviction of a-2 and the consequential sentence passed upon her are not legally sustainable. ( 23 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against A-2, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed against A-1. The fine amount, if any, paid by A-2 shall be refunded. A-2 shallbe set at liberty forthwith if not required in any case.