Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 507 (AP)

Mannaru Murugan v. State Of A. P.

2002-04-04

BILAL NAZKI, GODA RAGHURAM

body2002
GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the accused in S. C. No. 511 of 1999 on the file of learned v Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. He was charged on two counts - firstly, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ipc ) for having committed the murder, on 19-03-1999 after 8-30 p. m. , of his wife - Smt. J. K. Rani by throttling and beating her with a stone on the head: and secondly, and in the course of same transaction, as in charge No. 1, of committing theft of one Yellow thread with Bottu, two gold gundlu, four gold Nan-kolailu, two pairs of gold ear studs, one pair of silver leg chains and a pair of silver leg rings from the body of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 404 IPC. ( 2 ) THE accused entered the plea of denial and was put on trial. The prosecution examined eighteen (18) witnesses and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-19. The Sessions Court convicted the accused of both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100-00 and in default thereof, suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; and also undergo sentence of six (6) months Rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 200-00 and in default thereof, suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 404 ipc, both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused, a native of Chinnalur village of Nagari Mandal, Chittoor district, working as Loom Supervisor in the Power Loom industry of one J. P. Natarajan situate at k. V. P. R. Pet, Nagari Mandal, was married to the deceased Smt. J. K. Rani, who was working in Tex India, Pudupet, Nagari Mandal, on 07-07-1995 at Vinayaka Temple, Tiruthani. Theirs was an inter-caste marriage. A few months after the marriage, the accused deserted the deceased on the ground that she belongs to a lower caste. A few months thereafter, the accused joined the deceased after a compromise. After some time, he suspected the fidelity of the deceased on the ground that she was moving with other male persons and, therefore, decided to commit her murder. A few months thereafter, the accused joined the deceased after a compromise. After some time, he suspected the fidelity of the deceased on the ground that she was moving with other male persons and, therefore, decided to commit her murder. ( 4 ) ON 19-03-1999 at about 8-00 p. m. , the deceased and the accused had supper at haneefa Hotel, Nagari and thereafter the accused took her on T. V. S. Champ two wheeler to Rilasapalyam village on the pretext of a visit to the house of one Delhi babu. While proceeding to the said village of pilasapalyam on Pannur-Pilasapalyam metal road, the accused murdered the deceased by throttling and beating her with a stone on her head and by causing bleeding injuries, at a distance of 200 yards from 3rd K. M. stone situate on the road. After the murder, the accused committed theft of gold and silver ornaments on the body of the deceased and escaped with the loot leaving his telephone diary and gate pass issued by Tex India private Limited, Nagari, at the scene of offence. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 P. Radhakrishna Reddy was working as Village Administrative Officer, pannur village during the relevant period. According to his testimony, on 20-03-1999, the Thalari by name Kuppaiah (P. W. 2) informed that the dead body of a lady was found near Pannur-Palasapalyam road, whereupon he accompanied the Thalari at about 7-00 p. m. , went to the scene of offence and found an un-identified dead body of a lady. He found an injury on the forehead and broken pieces of bangles nearby 2nd also found a telephone pocket diary of brown colour and a rose colour gate pass with english and Tamil letters on it, which were there near the body. Thereupon, he went to the Police at about 10-30 p. m. and gave a complaint Ex. P-1. The police, after receipt of his report, accompanied him to the spot. He arranged for a petromox light. Some photographs of the dead body were taken and later he left the place. Next day morning at about 6-30 a. m. the police, witnesses, his thalari and others went to the spot, police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. He arranged for a petromox light. Some photographs of the dead body were taken and later he left the place. Next day morning at about 6-30 a. m. the police, witnesses, his thalari and others went to the spot, police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. The police prepared the scene of offence report and also seized the telephone diary, the gate pass, a stone and broken pieces of bangles and later sent the body for postmortem. On 27-03-1999 at about 6-30 a. m. , Vijayapuram Police came to his village, secured his presence and of another person by name Govindu and requested them to accompany to the Sub-station cross of Pannur village to act as mediators. At Pannur Sub-station cross, on seeing the police, the accused tried to escape on his T. V. S. Champ, but the police caught him. On enquiry, the accused confessed to the incident and produced a parcel tied with a cloth from his pocket. On opening the parcel, they found one gold thali bottu, two gold gundlu, four gold tubes, one pair of Nadiya gold ear studs, a pair of anklets and toe rig. The accused stated that a pair of gold ear studs were pledged with one Dilip Chand of Nagari and that he would show the police, if police accompanied him. After preparation of arrest and seizure mahazar, they went to Nagari to the shop of dilip Chand. The attender of the shop, on enquiry, stated that the accused had pledged a pair of ear studs with their shop and received Rs. 500-00 and produced the ear studs-M. O. 8 and the duplicate pawn ticket- ex. P-4. Thereupon, the police drafted a seizure Mahazar and the witness and govindu attested the same. On 28-03-1999 at about 10-00 p. m. the witness conducted the identification parade with regard to the articles M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8. The mother of the deceased identified the material objects, upon whkh, he drafted the identification Mahazar- ex. P-6. In the cross-examination, the witness stated the police brought similar articles as of M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 in four or five varieties from Nagari for identification. However, it is elicited from the witness that he does not know whether the said fact is mentioned in ex. P-6 (identification Mahazar), as he did not read the same. P-6. In the cross-examination, the witness stated the police brought similar articles as of M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 in four or five varieties from Nagari for identification. However, it is elicited from the witness that he does not know whether the said fact is mentioned in ex. P-6 (identification Mahazar), as he did not read the same. He also did not state that he obtained the signatures of P. W. 5 (mother of the deceased, who is stated to have identified the ornaments - M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 ). ( 6 ) P. W. 2 - Mr. Thalari Kuppaiah is the thalari, who stated that on 20-03-1999 one sikhamani of Pannur Dalithawada (P. W. 3) came and informed him that the body of a lady was found lying at the 3rd K. M. stone of pannur-Palasapalyem road and that he in torn informed P. W. 1. That both of them went to the spot on a scooter at about 7-00 or 7-30 p. m. and found the dead body. He also stated to have found injury on the head of the dead body. He was deputed by P. W. 1 to guard the body of the deceased and P. W. 1 went to the police station to report the matter. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 - K. Sikhamani stated that when he was proceeding to Palasapalyem from pannur for securing agricultural coolies, near the 3rd K. M. stone, he found the dead body of a lady and that he returned to the village and tried to inform P. W. 1, that as he could not get him, he informed the same to P. W. 2. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 - J. Kondanadan is a resident of kumarajapet and the brother of the deceased. According to this witness, the accused was initially his friend, who proposed marriage with the deceased. The witness and his mother questioned as to the caste of the accused and they are different and the parents of the accused may not agree to the marriage and the accused convinced them that once the marriage is performed, he would convince his parents, and that accordingly, they performed the marriage of his sister with the accused on 07-07-1995 at Tiruttani. The witness further stated that after a month of the marriage, the parents of the accused having agreed to the marriage, the accused took his sister to their house, but after six months, there was a dispute with regard to some demands and there was mediation in the matter. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased got separated and the deceased started living with her parental family. After separation in the year 1996, the deceased secured employment as a Tailor in Tex India private Limited, Pudupet, Nagari. Thereafter, the accused again approached his sister and proposed to live with her. The deceased joined him once again. According to this witness, three days prior to the death, deceased came to their house and informed that the accused was suspecting her character and forcing her to have family planning operation and that even so, the deceased was intending to live with the accused, and on the next day, she went to her husband with all her ornaments. On 21-03-1999 the police came to their house and informed that a body was lying at Puttur Government hospital. On hearing this, he went to the hospital and identified the body as that of his sister and informed the police that it was the accused who had killed the deceased as there were disputes. ( 9 ) P. W. 5 - Smt. J. Krishnaveni, is the mother of the deceased, who stated the facts similar to that of P. W. 4 with regard to the marriage of accused and deceased and the disputes between them. This witness also stated that after identifying the body of her daughter at the hospital and on seeing no jewels on the body, she informed the police about the missing jewels. The witness further stated that the police informed her and sent her to the Village Administrative Officer p. W. 1 for the purpose of identifying the jewels and that on 27-03-1999 she went to the vao (P. W. 1) and identified the jewels of her deceased daughter. She reiterated that m. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 belong to the deceased. In cross-examination, it is elicited from the witness that on Saturday at about 8-00 p. m. , the police came and informed her about the dead body. She reiterated that m. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 belong to the deceased. In cross-examination, it is elicited from the witness that on Saturday at about 8-00 p. m. , the police came and informed her about the dead body. Next day i. e. , Sunday at about 9-30 p. m. she went to Government Hospital, puttur, and at that time, the C. I. was present near the dead body. Later, she had taken the body of her daughter to the village. She further stated on cross-examination that ". . . . On that Sunday I was informed by C. I. of police to attend before V. A. O. on 27-03-1999 for identification of property". According to her, she was accompanied by her son-P. W. 4 to the V. A. O.-P. W. 1 for identification of the property. She was shown the jewels by p. W. 1 and she stated to P. W. 1 with regard to the specifications of M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8. It is also elicited from this witness that she has not stated before the police about the specific descriptive particulars of M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 nor before P. W. 1 under Ex. P-6. ( 10 ) P. W. 6 - K. Govindaswamy is a resident of Kumararajupet, who stated that he knew the parents and brother of the deceased as also the accused. According to this witness, the accused used to visit the house of P. W. 4 and developed friendship with the deceased and proposed to marry her. Some time after marriage, there were disputes and the deceased used to join the accused and come away on occasions. Thereafter, the accused and deceased were separated under mediation and some terms. After separation, the deceased secured a job as Tailor, after which, the accused joined the deceased. He also went to the hospital and identified the body of the deceased. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 - Smt. M. Lakshmamma is a resident of Nagaripet and landlord of the deceased. She testified that the deceased was her tenant for about ten (10) days, and that p. W. 5 - mother of the deceased kept the deceased in her house. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 - Smt. M. Lakshmamma is a resident of Nagaripet and landlord of the deceased. She testified that the deceased was her tenant for about ten (10) days, and that p. W. 5 - mother of the deceased kept the deceased in her house. All these ten days, the deceased used to go to her work in a bus and in the evening the accused used to drop the deceased at the house of the witness. According to this witness, on the fateful day, on Friday, the deceased left the house by 7-00 a. m. and later did not turn up. Later she learnt that the deceased was killed. In cross- examination, she stated that she did not state before the police that for all the ten days the deceased used to go to her job by bus in the morning and used to come in the evening with the accused on the scooter. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 - G. K. Desappan was working as a Supervisor. Delivery Section, Tex India (Exports) Private Limited, Pudupet. He testified to knowing one J. P. Natarajan, a dyer in the company. He does not know the accused. He further stated that the accused was working under J. P. Natarajan. On 19-03-1999 at about 10-00 or 10-30 a. m. the accused came to him and produced a bill belonging to J. P. Natarajan, under which, the witness had to deliver threads as per the bill. The witness delivered the goods and the accused took delivery of the same. The witness issued a gate pass to the accused. Ex. P-7 is the carbon copy of the gate pass that was issued to the accused. The bill number was mentioned in the gate pass Ex. P-7. According to this witness, after taking the gate pass and taking delivery of the goods, he did not observe whether the accused left the premises. In cross-examination, it is elicited from this witness that on 19-03-1999 there could have been 40 or 50 persons requesting him to issue gate passes and that he cannot recollect the persons, who brought the bills for issuing gate passes personally without verifying the records. He also stated that there is no proof in Ex. P-7 that it was issued to the accused. He could not also state for which invoice he issued Ex. P-7. He also stated that there is no proof in Ex. P-7 that it was issued to the accused. He could not also state for which invoice he issued Ex. P-7. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 - Mr. M. S. Natarajan is working as an Accountant in Tex India (Exports) private Ltd. , Pudupeta, Nagari. He testified that J. P. Natarajan, K. V. P. R. Pet was a contractor for about one year and the accused used to give bills to him. He does not know the accused. This witness was treated as hostile, but nothing is elicited from him in the cross-examination either. ( 14 ) P. W. 10 - Mr. M. Rajesh is the Security officer in Tex India Private Ltd. He testified hat he knew both the accused and the deceased, who were working in their company- the deceased as atailor. According to mis witness, on 19-03-1999 the deceased did not attend work. On that day, he was in the first shift duty, that at about 10-00 a. m. the accused and deceased came to the factory. The deceased was left at the main gate and the accused went inside the factory to take delivery of the yarn and obtained a gate pass from P. W. 8. The witness checked the gate pass and sent the accused from the factory. Later, the accused picked up the deceased, who was outside the factory and went away at about 11-00 a. m. Another security guard - p. W. 11 was also there along with the witness at that time. The witness identified Ex. P-7 as the gate pass, which was checked by him. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make any entry in the register maintained by him to the effect that the accused visited the company on 19-03-1999 at 10-30 a. m. He further admitted that there are about 300 to 400 gate passes for every month in the security room. He also admitted that there is no record in Ex. P-7 to show that the accused visited the company on 19-03-1999. He denied suggestion of animus against the accused. ( 15 ) P. W. 11 - D. Bikash Khadka is the other Security Guard, who, according to p. W. 10, was with him on 19-03-1999. He stated tha the signed Ex. P-7 to show that the accused visited the company on 19-03-1999. He denied suggestion of animus against the accused. ( 15 ) P. W. 11 - D. Bikash Khadka is the other Security Guard, who, according to p. W. 10, was with him on 19-03-1999. He stated tha the signed Ex. P-7 in token of having checked the gate pass, which was produced by the accused on 19-03-1999 while taking delivery of yarn from factory. He also stated that on 19-03-1999, the accused along with the deceased came to the factory and the deceased was waiting outside the factory, and that after taking the yarn, the accused picked away the deceased. In the cross- examination, he stated that he has not seen the deceased, but he had signed on Ex. P-7 on 19-03-1999 itself. It is elicited from this witness that Ex. P-7 does not reveal that the accused came to the factory on 19-03-1999. ( 16 ) P. W. 12 - J. P. Natarajan is a resident of k. V. P. R. Pet, Nagari Mandal. According to him the accused worked under Mm and the witness used to get yarn and other materials from the Tex India for himself. He deposed that on 19-03-1999 he deputed the accused to get the yarn ordered under the bill No. 7693 from Tex India, Nagari. That bill might have been obtained by him two days prior to sending the accused for getting the yarn. The accused brought the yam ordered under the bill and gave it at the house of the witness at about 12-00 noon, and that Friday being a holiday to his factory, the accused stated to him that he will come on the next day, but he did not come on the next day. According to this witness, as elicited from his cross-examination, he stated that the T. V. S. Champ belongs to his brother and that there is no record to show that he purchased the vehicle from his brother. He also stated that there is no record to show that the accused was working under him. He also admitted that he has not given any authorisation letter to the accused to bring the goods from Tex india. ( 17 ) P. W. 13 - P. Krishna Murthy, is a clerk in Dilip Chand Pawn Broker Shop, Nagari. He stated that the signature in Ex. He also admitted that he has not given any authorisation letter to the accused to bring the goods from Tex india. ( 17 ) P. W. 13 - P. Krishna Murthy, is a clerk in Dilip Chand Pawn Broker Shop, Nagari. He stated that the signature in Ex. P-4 belongs to him and that Ex. P-4 is a duplicate of a pawn ticket, of the shop. According to this witness, an year back, the accused went to the Pawn Shop and pledged two grants of gold ear studs, on which, the witness paid rs. 500-00 and took the signature of the accused in Ex. P-4. He stated that if the ear studs were shown to him, he would identify the same; and further stated that without seeing the articles, he cannot describe them. He stated that M. O. 8 is the ear studs that were pledged by the accused. In cross-examination, he admitted to have dealings with the police whenever there is a problem. He further admitted that he did not know the accused prior to the date of alleged pledge. It is also elicited from the witness that the accused came at about 5-00 p. m. , and that they accept pledging of articles only from known persons. He also admitted that he could not say whether the accused himself came to the shop or some other came to the shop to pledge the articles under Ex. P-4. It is also elicited in the cross-examination from p. W. 13 as under:". . . IT is true to say that I have prepared ex. P-4 and handed over the same to the police". ( 18 ) P. W. 14 - S. Ramalingam is the supplier in Haneefa Hotel Nagari. According to this witness, on 19-03-1999 at about 8-00p. m. , the deceased and accused came to their hotel to have dinner and went away in a red colour vehicle towards Nagalapuram road. On cross-examination, this witness stated that the owner was sitting at the cash counter on 19-03-1999, that at the time of visit by the accused, there were about ten persons in the hotel for taking food, that he did not know who were the other visitors in the hotel on that day. It is also elicited from this witness that he cannot identify the persons, who had food on the day previous the date of deposition. It is also elicited from this witness that he cannot identify the persons, who had food on the day previous the date of deposition. ( 19 ) P. W. 15 - Dr. J. Sridhar Raju is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and issued the post-mortem certificate-Ex. P-10. He testified to the following external and internal injuries: external Injuries:- (1) A compression injury over the right cheek measuring about 3 cm. x 3 cm. size. (2) A lacerated injury over the lateral angle of right eye measuring 2 cm. x 2 cm size. (3) A compression injury over the right side of forehead measuring about 5 cm x 2 cm. x bone deep. (4) Nail and finger markings present over the front of the neck. Internal Examination: (1) Scalp layers teared along the external injuries. (2) Skull bones: Frontal, temporal and facial bones on right side fractured irregularly. (3) Monings teared along the line of fracture of skull bone. (4) Brain matter liqduefied. Neck structures: Congested and compressed. Greater of hyoid bone fractured on leftside. Echymosis of blood present. Chest: Chest wall and ribs normal. Both lungs congested on cut section. Heart chambers empty and flabby on cut section. Abdoman: Stomach distended with gases. Liver, spleen, both kidneys congested and flabby on cut section. Small and large intestines distended with gases. Uterus normal size. Spine and Sinai column normal. Time since death: The deceased would appeared to have been died of 3 to 4 days prior to my P. M. Examination. Cause of death: The deceased would appeared to have been died of asphyxia due to throttling. Post-mortem certificate is Ex. P-10. ( 20 ) ACCORDING to this witness, the cause of death appears to have been as a result of asphyxia due to throttling. It is elicited from this witness in the cross-examination that because of putrefaction changes and peeling of the skin, he could not make out the identification marks on the body of the deceased. It needs to be noted that he conducted post-mortem on 21-03-1999 at about 11-00 a. m. i. e. , just one and half days from the date and time of occurrence - as per the prosecution. ( 21 ) P. W. 16 - Mr. V. Mulagea Feddy is a resident of Kumarajapet, who testified to knowing the family of the deceased. ( 21 ) P. W. 16 - Mr. V. Mulagea Feddy is a resident of Kumarajapet, who testified to knowing the family of the deceased. He testified as to the disputes between the accused and the deceased and to having mediated at one of such disputes. ( 22 ) P. W. 17-Mr. G. Amjath Basha, worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijapuram Police station at the relevant point of time. According to him, pursuant to the report - ex. P-1 by P. W. 1, he registered the crime and informed the same to P. W. 18. He issued f. I. R. and accompanied P. W. 18 along with the staff to the place where the body was lying. This was on 20-03-1999. On the next day morning, he enquired about the particulars of the deceased at Tex India (Export) Pvt. Ltd. , and thereupon secured the presence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and brought them to the Government Hospital, Puttur. He stated that P. Ws. 4 and 5 identified the body of the deceased. Then he took up the investigation. ( 23 ) P. W. 18 - Mr. V. Gangaraju is the circle Inspector of Police. Nagari circle and the Investigation Officer. He testified to initiating the investigation after receipt of message from P. W. 17. This witness stated that on 27-03-1999 at about 5-00 a. m. he received information about the accused, whereupon, he left the Station with the S. I. and staff and collected the panchayatdars - p. W. 1 and one Govindu and went to the sub-station, pannur and found the accused with the T. V. S. Champ moped. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape, but was apprehended and arrested. After arrest, the accused confessed to the offence and produced a packet wrapped with cloth from his right side pant pocket. In the said packet, the witness found M. Os. 1 to 6, which were the ornaments and other items. He seized the articles under the cover of Mahazar and thereafter accompanied the accused to proceed to the shop of Dilip Chand, Pawn broker. He seized the carbon copy of pawn ticket-Ex. P-4 and ear studs - M. O. 8. On the same day, he sent these articles along with a letter to P. W. 1 with a request to conduct the identification parade of jewels. According to this witness. He seized the carbon copy of pawn ticket-Ex. P-4 and ear studs - M. O. 8. On the same day, he sent these articles along with a letter to P. W. 1 with a request to conduct the identification parade of jewels. According to this witness. P. W. 1 conducted identification parade and sent the report under Ex. P-6. On the same day, he sent the material objects to F. S. L. for analysis under requisition - ex. P-14. In cross-examination, this witness admits that Ex. P-7 does not show that it belongs to the accused, but only discloses that it is a gate pass of Tex India. It is, further, admitted by this witness in the cross- examination that he did not send articles similar to M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 to P. W. 1 for identification purposes. ( 24 ) THERE are no eye-witnesses in this case and it rests on circumstantial evidence. The principal circumstances urged by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused are mainly three - Firstly, the disputes between the deceased and the accused: secondly, the deceased was last seen with the accused; and thirdly, the recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased from the person of the accused i. e. , m. Os. 1 to 6 and another ornament-M. O. 8, at the instance of the accused from the pawnshop. ( 25 ) THAT there were disputes between the accused and the deceased is clear from the testimony of P. W. 4 - the brother of the accused. P. W. 5 - mother of the deceased, p. Ws. 6 and 16 residents of Kumararajpet. P. W. 7, the landlord of the deceased during the last ten days, who however, did not testify to any altercations between the accused and the deceased. On the other hand, according to this witness, while the deceased used to go in morning by bus for working, she used to be dropped in the evenings by the accused on his vehicle. The other witnesses, who were the associates of the accused and the deceased at Tex India, such as P. W. 8, P. W. 10 and P. W. 11 have also not testified to any quarrels between the accused and the deceased. The other witnesses, who were the associates of the accused and the deceased at Tex India, such as P. W. 8, P. W. 10 and P. W. 11 have also not testified to any quarrels between the accused and the deceased. On this evidence, while it is probable that there were misunderstandings between the accused and the deceased, it is not clear as to whether there was such a degree of estrangement during the last days as to justify a motive for the accused to do away with the deceased. If one were to believe the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11, the deceased and the accused were seen at the factory - Tex India, on the morning of 19-03-1999 and the deceased was waiting outside the factory for the accused, such harmony between the accused and deceased also casts a doubt as to the intensity of the motive that the accused might have harboured. From the evidence on record, therefore, the motive of the accused does not appear very clearly. With regard to the circumstance of the accused and deceased, having been last seen together, the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11, the Security Officer and guard of Tex India respectively, does not contribute much. They testify to having seen the accused on the morning of 19-03-1999. While P. W. 10 states to have seen the deceased also outside the factory, P. W. 11, in the cross- examination, denies having seen the deceased. In any view of the matter, they having been seen on the morning of 19-03-1999 does not by itself lead to the inference that the accused was last person to have been seen with the deceased prior to her death. There is however, the evidence of p. W. 14, a Supplier of Haneefa hotel, Nagari, who states to have seen the deceased and the accused having dinner at 8-00 p. m. on 19-03-1999 at the hotel, where after, they went away in a red colour vehicle towards nagalapuram road. The testimony of this witness does not, however, inspire confidence. He could neither recognize the other visitors to the hotel on 19-03-1999, who according to the witness, were only about ten in number, nor could he identify the visitors, who had food in the hotel even on the day previous to the deposition in court. The testimony of this witness does not, however, inspire confidence. He could neither recognize the other visitors to the hotel on 19-03-1999, who according to the witness, were only about ten in number, nor could he identify the visitors, who had food in the hotel even on the day previous to the deposition in court. Further, if the deceased had dinner at 8-00 p. m. and was murdered on the same night, probably soon thereafter, there should have been some undigested food in her intestines, but no such evidence is forthcoming from the post-mortem report Ex. P-10 or as testified by P. W. 15, the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The post-mortem report Ex. P-10 does not even record the existence of any residual faecal matter in the body of the deceased. The autopsy was conducted at 11-00 a. m. on 21-03-1999 and P. W. 15 states that the death would have occurred three to four days prior to the post-mortem examination. The dead body was discovered on the morning of 20-03-1999, when P. W. 3 was proceeding to palasapalyem from Pannur in order to secure agricultural coolies. In these circumstances whether the deceased had dinner at Haneef a hotel at 8-00 p. m. in the company of the accused becomes a doubtful circumstance. ( 26 ) WITH regard to the recoveries, the gate pass said to have been issued to the accused while taking the material from Tex-India has not been established clearly as the one issued to the accused. P. W. 10, who issued the gate pass - Ex. P-7 admits, to not having made any entry in the register to show the accused visited the company and the other Security guard - P. W. 11 states that Ex. P-7 does not reveal that the accused came to the company on 19-03-1999. Ex. P-7 is a small very light pink piece of paper and it does not inspire confidence that the paper would have been present in the immediate vicinity of scene of offence from the evening of 19-03-1999 till the discovery of the dead body of the deceased on the evening of 20-03-1999, nearly about twenty four hours, and that too, on the road side. ( 27 ) WITH regard to the telephone pocket diary, it has not been connected to the accused. ( 27 ) WITH regard to the telephone pocket diary, it has not been connected to the accused. There is no evidence linking the diary to the accused. It has not been tested for fingerprints nor whether writing therein belongs to the accused. The circumstance regarding the recovery of the ornaments - m. O. 1 to 6 and 8 and their identification by p. W. 5 in the identification parade conducted by P. W. 1 does not also inspire confidence. P. W. 1, who testifies that he conducted the identification parade under Ex. P-7 report, states that the Sub-inspector and the Circle inspector-P. Ws. 17 and 18, brought P. W. 5 to the Panchayat Office of P. W. 1 to identify the property. According to this witness, the police brought similar articles in four or five varieties from Nagari for identification (probably, to mix these articles with the articles said to have been seized from the accused and frorn the accused and from the pawn shop ). P. W. 18, the Investigating officer, however, categorically states in cross-examination that neither did he take P. W. 5 to P. W. 1 for identification of the articles, nor did he sent similar articles to M. Os. 1 to 6 and 8 to P. W. 1 for identification purposes. P. W. 5 states that she identified the dead body of the deceased at the Government hospital on Sunday (21-03-1999 at about 9-30 a. m.) and that on that Sunday she was informed by the Circle Inspector of Police - p. W. 18 to attend before P. W. 1 on 27-03-1999 for identification of the property. From this statement of P. W. 5, it would appear that she was informed on 21-03-1999 that she has to attend the office of P. W. 1 for identification of M. Os. 1 to 6 and possibly M. O. 8 too, even before the arrest of the accused on 27-03-1999 and the seizure of M. Os. 1 to 6 from the accused after his arrest. In the light of this testimony, the seizure of M. Os. 1 to 6 or their identification by P. W. 5 in the identification parade conducted by P. W. 1 becomes highly doubtful and we are unable to persuade ourselves to rely upon this evidence to prove the circumstance of recovery. 1 to 6 from the accused after his arrest. In the light of this testimony, the seizure of M. Os. 1 to 6 or their identification by P. W. 5 in the identification parade conducted by P. W. 1 becomes highly doubtful and we are unable to persuade ourselves to rely upon this evidence to prove the circumstance of recovery. ( 28 ) IN the above state of evidence, there appears to be any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution story, as revealed at the trial, and the evidence taken in its entirely does not inspire confidence of this court. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased p. W. 15 testified that because of putrefaction changes and peeling of the skin, he could not make out the identification marks on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem, as already noticed, was conducted on 21-03-1999 at about 11-00 a. m. i. e. , about one and half days from the alleged time of occurrence. The peeling of the skin within that time frame also casts a doubt as to the alleged date and time of occurrence. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to present a convincing and complete chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused in the commission of offence. The benefit of doubt should go to the accused. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, chittoor in S. C. No. 511 of 1998 is set aside, the appellant-accused shall be set at liberty, it not required in any other case.