JUDGMENT (Per B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Saroornagar. The appellant herein was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows. P.W.1 D.Venkata Chary and P.W.2 Smt. D.Shoba are the parents of the deceased jyothi. She got married to the appellant-A-1 six years prior to the date of incident. Her marital life with the appellant-A-1 ran in rough weather and consequently, she stayed with her parents for about an year. 20 days prior to the incident, the appellant-A-1 along with other acquitted accused (A-2 to A-7) went to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and persuaded them to send deceased Smt. Jyothi with him and he assured them that he would treat the deceased cordially and affectionately. On the said assurance, the deceased joined with the appellant-A-1. On the intervening night of 6/7-5-1995, the appellant-A-1 allegedly asked the deceased to have sexual intercourse with him and in deed he had sex with her and when the appellant-A-1 asked to have sexual intercourse for the second time, the deceased resisted for the same and it enraged the appellant-A-1 and consequently, the appellant-A-1 dealt blows on her and pushed a stick in her private parts and thereby killed her. P.W.5 M. Anjaiah - the village Sarpanch came to know the death of the deceased on 7-5-1995 at about 6.50 a.m. He went to the house of the appellant-A-1 and saw the dead body of deceased Jyothi and sent the information to the police and also to the parents of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, received the intimation and reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.1 presented a report before P.W.13 Ashok-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shamirpet Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report submitted by him. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, received the intimation and reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.1 presented a report before P.W.13 Ashok-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shamirpet Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report submitted by him. Basing on EX.P-1 report, P.W.13 registered a case and sent EX.P-10 FIR to court while marking copies of the same to the authorities concerned. He also sent requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer to conduct the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Jyothi. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. P.W.15 A. Satyanarayana Rao, Inspector of Police, took up investigation and visited Anantharam village and learnt that the appellant-A-1 made an extra-judicial confession before P.W.8. He examined P.W.8 on 16-5-1995 and recorded his statement. He effected the arrest of the appellant-A-1 on 18-5-1995 and recovered M.O. 5 stick in pursuance of the disclosure statement of appellant-A-1 under the cover of panchanama and sent the material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory. After completing the investigation, he laid chargesheet in the court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.CN 0.22 of 1995 and as the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, he committed the case to the Sessions Division, Ranga Reddy District. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge heard the prosecution and the accused and framed the following charges: Charge No.1: Against the appellant-A-1 and the acquitted Accused (A-2 to A-7) for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Charge No.2: Against the appellant-A-1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant-A-1 and the acquitted accused (A-2 to A-7) pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.O.s. 1 to 5. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. On considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant-A-1 alone was responsible ...... On behalf of the accused, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. On considering the evidence available on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant-A-1 alone was responsible ...... for the death of the deceased and thereby found him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him accordingly while finding the other accused (A-2 to A-7) not guilty for the offence with which they stood charged and acquitted them accordingly. Being aggrieved by the conviction of the appellant-A-1 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant-A-1 has filed this Criminal Appeal. 5. The learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the appellant-A-1 contends that the conviction of the appellant-A-1 is based on extra-judicial confession and the said extra-judicial confession is highly improbable in the circumstances of the case. She also contends that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the appellant-A-1 and the deceased were together on the intervening night of the incident. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the prosecution was able to bring out the circumstances which clinchingly proved the guilt of the accused and the said circumstances were rightly believed by the trial court and conviction of the appellant-A-1 was recorded for the offences under Sections 498- A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The case against the appellant herein is that he along with the other acquitted accused (A-2 to A-7) harassed the deceased on the ground of dowry demand and that on the intervening night of 6/7-5-1995, he beat her and pushed a stick in her vagina and thereby killed her. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.Os.1 to 5 to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant-A-1 and the acquitted accused (A-2 to A-7). P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are said to be the elders in the village. P.W.6 R. Sivarajaiah and P.W.7 R. Ramulamma are the residents of Anantharam village and they did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution cross-examined them after obtaining permission of the court. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are said to be the elders in the village. P.W.6 R. Sivarajaiah and P.W.7 R. Ramulamma are the residents of Anantharam village and they did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution cross-examined them after obtaining permission of the court. P.W.8 P. Venkatesh is a witness to speak of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-A-1 P.W.9 Smt. P. Girijamma is the panch witness for the inquest. P.W.10 Dr. C.R. Rami Reddy is the post-mortem doctor. P.W.11 V. Babu Rao is the Mandai Revenue Officer who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.12 V. Bala Raju is the panch witness for the recovery of M.O.1 stick in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant A-1. P.W.13 P. Ashok is the Sub-Inspector of Police who received the report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 52 of 1995 and issued EX.P-10 FIR. P.W.14 S. Nageshwara Rao and P.W.15 K. Satyanarayana are the investigating officers. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, which occurred on the intervening night of 6/7-5-1995. 8. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to find whether the circumstances are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant is the guilty of the crime charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent evidence and the circumstances must not be consistent with the innocence of the accused for determining whether the circumstances established on the evidence raised, but one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused, regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances. It is well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only if other hypothesis of the guilt is completely excluded and the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 9. In a case of circumstantial evidence, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramachandraiah v. State of U.P. 1985 Crl.L.J. (SC) 766 held that the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete and must clearly pointing out to the guilt of the accused. 9. In a case of circumstantial evidence, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramachandraiah v. State of U.P. 1985 Crl.L.J. (SC) 766 held that the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete and must clearly pointing out to the guilt of the accused. Where the circumstances do not really complete the chain as to the lead to the conclusion that the accused and no other would have been the accused and then the conviction should not be maintained. 10. In a case dependent only on circumstantial evidence, the court before recording conviction on the basis thereof must be firmly satisfied: (a) that the circumstances from which the guilt of the accused is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt. (b) that circumstances are of determinate tendency unerringly pointing out to the guilt of the accused. (c) that circumstances taken collectively incapable of explaining on any reasonable hypothesis since that of the guilt sought to be proved against him. There seems to be no dispute that the deceased met with homicidal death. The prosecution has established this fact beyond reasonable doubt. The main witness to speak of the appellant-A-1 to connect with the offence is P.W.8. According to the prosecution, the appellant-A-1 went to the house of Seethanarayana and made extrajudicial confession before P.W.8 Venkatesh. There seems to be no relationship between P.W.8 and the appellant-A-1. There are no special Circumstances for the appellant-A-1 to choose P.W.8 to make extra-judicial confession before him. According to P.W.8, the appellant-A-1 confessed before him at the house of Seethanaraya!la 15 days after the date of incident. It is distressing to note that the prosecution did not examine the said Seethanarayana for the reasons best known to it and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for not examining the said Seethanarayana. It is the evidence of investigating officer i.e., P.W.15 that he came to know about the appellant-A-1 making extra-judicial confession before P.W.8 on 16-5-1995 and therefore, he went to Anantharam and recorded the statement of P.W.8. When the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.15 read together, the alleged date of extra-judicial confession does not tally. Therefore, it is highly improbable for the appellant- A-1 to choose P. W. 8 to make extrajudicial confession before him. When the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.15 read together, the alleged date of extra-judicial confession does not tally. Therefore, it is highly improbable for the appellant- A-1 to choose P. W. 8 to make extrajudicial confession before him. When once the extra-judicial confession is eschewed, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant-A-1 to the death of the deceased. In view of the above discussion, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant-A-1 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant-A-1 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant-A-1 is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not otherwise required in any other case.