BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the first accused in sessions Case No. 397 of 2000 before learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru. He has been convicted of the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also fined rs. 1000/-, in default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Hence, the appeal. ( 3 ) BEFORE the trial Court, originally there were three accused. The second accused died during the course of trial and the third accused has been acquitted. ( 4 ) THE allegations against the appellant- accused No. 1 were that he and accused nos. 2and 3 on 7th December, 1999, between 9. 00 p. m. and 10. 30 p. m. atthe fields of Alladi sarojini Devi, situated at Pallamkatlampudi village, committed murder of Pagurla rangarao by inflicting incised injuries on his neck and chest by using broken bottles. ( 5 ) BASED on these allegations, charges under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 302 read with 34 IPC against accused No. 3 were framed. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. ( 7 ) THE case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. Three circumstances were pressed into service for bringing home the guilt of the accused. First circumstance related to the motive, second circumstance was that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and third circumstance was that the death of the deceased was homicidal. ( 8 ) P. WS. 2, 4, 5 and 7 were projected as eye-witnesses to the circumstance of last seen. P. W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that the deceased Rangarao resided with his family opposite to his house. His house and the house of Rangarao were situated in the same premises. In his house, he was staying along with his mother and two other brothers and in the other house, the deceased was living with his family. The witness knew the accused and identified them. All the accused lived in Indira Colony, which is separated from the house of the witness by a road. In his house, he was staying along with his mother and two other brothers and in the other house, the deceased was living with his family. The witness knew the accused and identified them. All the accused lived in Indira Colony, which is separated from the house of the witness by a road. The deceased used to move with the wife of the first accused rachaprolu Rubhenu for three years prior to his death. This fact was known to the first accused. On account of this relationship, there were quarrels between the first accused and the deceased. On 7-12-1999 he went to the fields, where he was cultivating land measuring Ac. 5. 00, which he had taken on lease. He left the house at 9. 30 p. m. When he left his house, he saw his deceased brother lying on the cot in front of his house. He left the house along with his other two brothers. When they returned at 10. 30 p. m. , they did not find Rangarao on cot. He enquired from his mother (P. W. 2) about the whereabouts of the deceased and his mother told him that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come and they took Rangarao along with them. During that night, the deceased did not return home. He was under the impression that the deceased might have gone to other village. On 8-12-1999 in the morning, he again went for his agricultural operations. On the same day, in the evening, at 6. 00 p. m. R. Sutramraju came to his house and informed his mother that the dead body of Rangarao was lying in katlampudi village fields and he informed that the dead body of Rangarao was lying in the irrigation channel of the said field. Then all the members of the family went there. They found the dead body of Rangarao lying in the irrigation channel facing towards earth. They found a lacerated injury on the left side of neck of Rangarao. They also found the shirt was stained with blood. They also found bloodstained broken glass pieces. Then he went to the village and informed the said fact to the village elders. He gave report to the police. They found a lacerated injury on the left side of neck of Rangarao. They also found the shirt was stained with blood. They also found bloodstained broken glass pieces. Then he went to the village and informed the said fact to the village elders. He gave report to the police. When he returned after informing the matter to the elders, one Peethani Raju (P. W. 7) informed him that he gave three bottles to the deceased Rangarao, Rubhenu (accused No. 1), Peeka Chandra Rao (Accused No. 2-died ). He also said that there was another person with them whom he could not identify. Then he went to the house of Satyanarayana (P. W. 8), who informed them that Rangarao-the deceased, accused nos. 1 and 2 had taken a tumbler from him. The police drafted the report to his dictation. This witness was not a witness to having seen the deceased with the accused persons at any point of time. Whatever information he gathered, according to him, he had gathered the same from his mother. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. She also sated that there were two houses. In one of the houses the deceased was living and in another house, she was living with her other children. Both the houses were in the same premises. She stated that she knew accused Nos. 1,2 and 3. She also stated that her deceased son Rangarao used to move along with the accused including the second accused. The deceased Rangarao, and all the accused used to take alcohol drinks together and used to attend to the work together. They used to move freely. The deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of the first accused. She could not give the dates. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 came to their house about 3 years before and woke up rangarao, who was lying on the cot in front of the house. She enquired from the second accused as to where they were going. The deceased and the second accused told her that they were going for a stroll and would be back soon. Her other sons had gone to the fields to attend the agricultural operations. On the same day i. e. , Tuesday, at 10. 30 p. m. her sons enquired from her as to where the deceased had gone. She informed them that accused Nos. Her other sons had gone to the fields to attend the agricultural operations. On the same day i. e. , Tuesday, at 10. 30 p. m. her sons enquired from her as to where the deceased had gone. She informed them that accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 had taken Rangarao along with them. Her son did not return. She was under the impression that he would return. On the next day also, her son did not return. On the next day, she saw the second accused. She enquired from him about the whereabouts of her son. The second accused told her that Rangarao would return. Later on she came to know that her son had been murdered and his body was thrown into an irrigation channel. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the statement of this witness is not worthy of acceptance on the simple fact as she stated that her deceased son was friend to all the accused persons. They used to move freely. They were working together and they were drinking together. If that was the case between the accused and the deceased, then the question of illicit relations of the wife of the first accused with the deceased become doubtful. She submits that even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had any illicit relationship with the wife of the first accused. If the deceased had any relationship with the wife of the first accused, then they would not have been friendly and they would not have consumed liquor together and also would not have done the work together. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 stated that on account of illicit relationship between the wife of the first accused and the deceased, there were quarrels between the deceased and the first accused, which was contradicted by P. W. 2. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. He almost narrated the same story, which was narrated by P. W. 1 and he was not present in the house when the deceased wegedly left along with the accused persons. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 is another eye-witness to the circumstance of last seen. She is the wife of the deceased. He almost narrated the same story, which was narrated by P. W. 1 and he was not present in the house when the deceased wegedly left along with the accused persons. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 is another eye-witness to the circumstance of last seen. She is the wife of the deceased. She stated that on 7th december, her husband Rangarao was lying on the cot in their house, at that time Pika chandra Rao [accused No. 2], Rubhenu (accused No. 1) and Kunathi Chandra Rao (accused No. 3) came to their house, woke up her husband and when she enquired from them where they were going, the accused told her that they had got some work and they would return soon. P. Ws. 1 and 2 had stated in their statements that Rangarao was sleeping on the cot in front of his house whereas this witness had stated that rangarao was lying on the cot in their house. She stated that Rangarao did not return to the house on that day. Her mother-in-law was present in the house. She also enquired from the accused. On the next day also, the deceased did not return and they came to know from a witness on 8th December, that the dead body of the deceased was in the irrigation channel of Pallam Katlapudi fields. She also stated that her husband Rangarao used to move with Durga, the wife of the first accused. She had warned her husband regarding the matter. Her husband did not hear her advise and did not stop moving with durga. There were quarrels between the deceased and the first accused. ( 14 ) THE evidence of this witness also suffers from the same problems with which the evidence of P. W. 2 suffered. On one hand these witnesses stated that the accused and the deceased were friendly and on the other hand, they stated that there were quarrels between the two in connection with alleged illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of the first accused. ( 15 ) P. W. 5 is the father-in-law of the deceased and father of P. W. 4. He also stated that his son-in-law Rangarao had illicit intimacy with the wife of the first accused. He did not, however, personally know whether there were any disputes between his son-in- law and the first accused. ( 15 ) P. W. 5 is the father-in-law of the deceased and father of P. W. 4. He also stated that his son-in-law Rangarao had illicit intimacy with the wife of the first accused. He did not, however, personally know whether there were any disputes between his son-in- law and the first accused. On the right of 7-12-1999 he found his son-in-law, the first accused and the second accused standing at the place at Madepalli centre. He went away on his work to Kharkhana. He did not try to talk to them. He was under the impression that the said three persons were talking among themselves. While he was returning from Kharkhana, he did notfind any one of them at Madepalli centre. He returned to his house directly. On 8-1. 2-1999, he was in fields. After coming to know that Rangarao was lying dead in the channel of Pallam katlapudi village, he went there. He found injuries on the left side of the neck of rangarao. ( 16 ) P. W. 6 stated that on 8-12-1999 at 3. 00 p. m. he went to his Hands at Pallam katlapudi he found the dead body of rangarao lying. Immediately he came to madepally center. He informed the said fact to Balaswamy (P. W. 1) and his family members. ( 17 ) P. W. 7 is the shopkeeper and runs a cool drink shop at Madepalli centre. He stated that on 7-12-1999 when he was about to close his shop between 9. 00 and 10. 00 p. m. , the deceased and accused No. 2 came to his shop. He did not see whether accused Nos. 1 and 3 were also along with them. He did not observe whether accused Nos. 1 and 3 were somewhere nearby. They purchased two cool drink bottles from him, then both of them left the shop. He did not see in which direction they left. This witness was declared hostile. ( 18 ) P. W. 8 was also declared hostile. P. W. 9 is the photographer, who took the photographs. P. W. 10 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination and observed the following injuries:1. A clear cut incised injury extending from left side of the neck up to middle of neck oblique in direction 4x 2 1/2" 3" in size exposing skin, muscles, great vessels wind pipe of neck, blood clots present. 2. P. W. 10 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination and observed the following injuries:1. A clear cut incised injury extending from left side of the neck up to middle of neck oblique in direction 4x 2 1/2" 3" in size exposing skin, muscles, great vessels wind pipe of neck, blood clots present. 2. An incised injury over lower lip 2 1/2" x 1/2" 1/4 oblique muscle deep black in colour. 3. Clear cut incised injury on lower lips to 2 cm below 2nd injury oblique 2 1/2 x 1/2 1/24. A clear cut incised injury on left side of middle of nose 1" x 1/2"1/2" oblique exposing muscles and bones. 5. A clear cut incised injury over middle of chest 1/2" x1/2" 1/4" oblique muscle deep. 6. A clear cut incised injury 2" above to 5th injury, oblique direction 1" x 1/4x 1/4" muscle deep. 7. A clear cut incised injury on right side of chest 1" x 1/4" 1/4" muscle deep. 8. An abrasion over backside of neck 1/2" x 1/4" oblique direction. 9. An abrasion over the backside of neck 2 cm below 8th injury 1/2" x 1/4" and skin deep. ( 19 ) ACCORDING to him, the approximate time for the death of the deceased to his knowledge was about 38 to 40 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He condycted the post-mortem on 9-12-1999 at 12. 40 noon and according to him, the cause of death was hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. ( 20 ) P. W. 11 is the doctor, who collected blood samples and saliva from the accused persons on receiving a requisition from the inspector of Police. ( 21 ) P. W. 12 was the Assistant Secretary of Kalakurru village from January, 2002. He stated that he worked as Village administrative Officer of Kalakurru village at the relevant point of time. On 9-12-1999 police called him at 6. 00 a. m. he went to the police station, from there, they wentto Pallam katlapudi and reached there at 7. 00 a. m. One K. Venkata Ramana, who was the Vicesarpanch of Madepalli, also accompanied them. They went to the land of Sarojini Devi and observed the entire scene, which was the irrigation channel. They found certain objects on the scene of offence including broken glass pieces and cap of thums-up bottle. 00 a. m. One K. Venkata Ramana, who was the Vicesarpanch of Madepalli, also accompanied them. They went to the land of Sarojini Devi and observed the entire scene, which was the irrigation channel. They found certain objects on the scene of offence including broken glass pieces and cap of thums-up bottle. The said broken bottle glass pieces and cap were marked as M. 0. 6. The police also seized broken glass pieces along with black cap. They were marked as M. 0. 7. The police also seized a five-rupee-note, two pieces of blue colour plastic wire and nine pieces of beedis , which were marked as m. Os. 8 to 10 respectively. The bloodstained earth and control earth were marked as m. Os. 11 and 12. He was also a witness to the inquest. They also recorded the statement of the accused persons and the relevant portion of the statement of the accused was marked as Ex. P-15. After disclosure, the accused led them to the house and produced lungi and shirt under cover of mazhaar- ex. P-16. The green colour lungi contained strips was marked as M. 0. 13. The navy blue full hand shirt was marked as M. 0. 14. ( 22 ) P. W. 13 stated that he worked as constable in Rural Police Station. He took the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W. 14 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police. He received complaint from P. W. 1 and registered the same as Crime No. 158 of 1999 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. P. W. 15 is the Inspector of Police, who arrested the accused and completed the investigation. ( 23 ) WE have discussed the evidence in detail to show that even the circumstance of last seen has not been proved. We have not been able to believe the witnesses who supposedly had seen the accused and the deceased together. The circumstance relating to illicit relationship between the wife of the first accused and the deceased has also not been proved. Though it is right that the death of the deceased was homicidal but since the chain of circumstances is not completed, therefore, it may not be safe to base the conviction on the evidence relating to last seen. The circumstance relating to illicit relationship between the wife of the first accused and the deceased has also not been proved. Though it is right that the death of the deceased was homicidal but since the chain of circumstances is not completed, therefore, it may not be safe to base the conviction on the evidence relating to last seen. Even if this circumstance was taken to be proved, even then it was not sufficient to convict the accused for murder on the basis of this single circumstance. ( 24 ) WE do not also find any definite evidence as to what was the time of death of the deceased. The body was found on 8-12-1999 at 3. 00 p. m. The post-mortem was conducted on 9-12-1999 i. e. , almost after24 hours. The delay is also not explained. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is difficult to come to a conclusion whether the death occurred immediately after the accused allegedly took away the deceased. For these reasons, we feel that the benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused. ( 25 ) THE Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and the sentence passed by the trial Court against accused no. 1 /appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He shall be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.