J U D G M E N T (per the Hon’ble Dr.Justice G. Yethirajulu) The sole accused in S.C.No.312 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad, is the appellant herein. He was charged for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. for allegedly killing the deceased at about 8-30 PM on 26-11-2002 at the outskirts of the Banjara village. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 2.The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction is as follows: The deceased and the accused are doing sheep business. They go to local Shandies for business. On 24-11-2002, the deceased went to Maripeda cattle Shandy with his 14 sheep for selling. On that, the accused purchased the sheep from the deceased for Rs.16,000/- and out of which he has paid Rs.2,000/- to the deceased as advance and promised to pay the remaining amount at Korivi Shandy on 25-11-2002. The deceased returned to his house and informed the same to his wife, who was examined as PW-4. On 25-11-2002, the deceased along with his nephew went to Korivi Shandy, but the accused could not pay the balance amount as the said sheep were not sold. In the evening, PW-12 purchased the sheep from the accused for Rs.16,100/- and gave Rs.2,000/- as advance and requested the accused to collect the balance amount at Nekkonda Shandy. On that, the deceased was pressurizing the accused to pay the balance amount. On that, PW-12 advised the accused and deceased to go to his house, halt there for the night and collect the amount at Nekkonda Shandy. Accordingly, the accused and the deceased went to the house of the PW-12. On the next day morning, the accused collected Rs.1,000/- from PW-12 for expenses and went to Nekkonda Shandy along with the deceased. In the meanwhile, PW-12 reached Nekkonda Shandy, but the sheep were not sold to any one, due to which PW-12 could not pay the amount to the accused and advised the accused and the deceased to come to Inugurthy Shandy on 27-11-2002. On that, the deceased started abusing the accused for not paying the balance amount. Then the accused and the deceased reached Nellikudur on 26-11-2002 by evening. There also, the deceased abused the accused. On that, the accused felt insulted and decided to kill the deceased. On that, the deceased started abusing the accused for not paying the balance amount. Then the accused and the deceased reached Nellikudur on 26-11-2002 by evening. There also, the deceased abused the accused. On that, the accused felt insulted and decided to kill the deceased. In pursuance of that, the accused asked the deceased to come to his house for payment of the balance amount. The accused also purchased M.0.7 iron karru from the shop of PW-8, boarded the bus and got down the bus at ‘T” junction of Banjara Village at about 8-30 PM. The accused took the deceased towards the hillock saying that this is the shortest way to reach the village and after reaching some distance, the accused attacked the deceased with Karru due to which the deceased died on the spot and the accused escaped from the scene of offence. The dead body was detected on the next day. A crime was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and later it was registered for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The police observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and recovered M.O.7. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The lower Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, dated 20-072004, preferred the present Appeal challenging its validity and legality. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial, therefore, the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Judgment of the lower Court is liable to be set aside or modified?” 5. This is a case basing on the circumstantial evidence. 4. The plea of the accused is one of denial, therefore, the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Judgment of the lower Court is liable to be set aside or modified?” 5. This is a case basing on the circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the acquaintance between the accused and the deceased, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, 8 and 12. PWs.7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 turned hostile and did not support prosecution. 6. PW-1 is a villager of Banjara who found the dead body on 27-11-2002 and reported the matter to the police under Ex.P-1 complaint. 7.PW-2 is a Photographer, who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. 8. PW-3 is a businessman, who was doing business in sheep along with the deceased. He stated that three days prior to the incident, the wife of the deceased told him that the deceased went to cattle Shandy for selling the goats, but he did not return to the house. He saw a news item in the newspaper to the effect that one unidentified dead body was placed in the mortuary of Area Hospital, Mahabubabad. He and PW-4, the wife of the deceased, went to the mortuary and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. 9. PW-4, the wife of the deceased, deposed that on Sunday, the deceased went to Maripeda for selling the goats. The deceased sold the goats to the accused for Rs.16,100/-. The accused paid Rs.2,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount at Korivi village. On that, the deceased went to Korivi along with PW-5 on Monday. But the deceased did not come back to the house on that day and next day also. PW-5 told her that the deceased would come later and asked her to go to the house. PW-5 also told her that the accused took the deceased to Nekkonda for payment of the balance amount. She in turn told PW-3 that the deceased went to the accused for receiving the money from him, but did not come to the house till then. Later, she came to know about the availability of a dead body and identified the same as that of the deceased. 10. PW-5, the cousin of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was doing business in goats. Later, she came to know about the availability of a dead body and identified the same as that of the deceased. 10. PW-5, the cousin of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was doing business in goats. The deceased took him to Korivi village by saying that the accused was due some amount to him. The accused met the deceased and the deceased asked the accused about the amount due to him and the accused told the deceased that he will pay the amount after selling the goats as the goats were not sold. The accused took the deceased to Nekkonda for payment of the amount. Then, he returned to his house and told PW-4 that the deceased went to Nekkonda along with the accused for collection of the balance amount from him. After identifying the dead body, he gained an impression that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased. 11. PW-6, the brother in law of the deceased, deposed that on 26-11-2002, the deceased came to Nekkonda. He saw the deceased and asked him as to why he came there. The deceased told that he came along with the accused for collection of the amount. Then, he asked the accused to give the amount due to the deceased. The accused replied that he would give the amount to the deceased after selling the goats. Then it was about 5’o clock in the evening and the deceased came to him and told that the accused asked him to come to Banjara Village for receiving the due amount. Then the deceased and the accused went to Banjara village and he left Nekkonda to go to his house at Kesamudram. 12. PW-8 is a hardware shop man, who alleged to have sold iron Karru to the accused under Ex.P-4, receipt, on payment of Rs.15/-. This witness appears to have identified the accused only in the Court Hall. No identification parade has been conducted prior to the trial. 13. PW-12, a businessman in goats, deposed that he knows the accused and he does business in goats. When he went to Shandy in Korivi village, the accused met him. The accused had some goats with him at that time and when he asked him about where and from whom he purchased the said goats, the accused told him that he purchased the said goats from the deceased for Rs.16,000/- and odd. When he went to Shandy in Korivi village, the accused met him. The accused had some goats with him at that time and when he asked him about where and from whom he purchased the said goats, the accused told him that he purchased the said goats from the deceased for Rs.16,000/- and odd. He purchased the said goats from the accused for Rs.16,100/- and paid Rs.2,000/- as advance to the accused. He told the accused that he would give the balance amount after selling the goats at Nekkonda and also told the said information to the deceased. The deceased and the accused came along with him to Nekkonda Shandy. There he could not sell the goats. Then there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and he told them to come to Inguruthy thanda and there he would pay the balance amount to the accused. But they did not come to Inqurthy thanda along with him. The accused and the deceased left the shandy of Nekkonda and he does not know where they have gone. 14. Basing on the above evidence, the prosecution pleaded that the circumstances narrated by the witnesses are sufficient to hold that the accused was responsible for the commission of the offence. The prosecution alleged that the accused caused injuries to the deceased with a Karru and the deceased met with a homicidal death. 15. PW-15, the Doctor, who examined the deceased, found the following external injuries: 1. Incised wound left parietal region after scal near midline 1/2 inch x1/4 inch x bone depth. 2. Incised wound left parietal region of the scalp 1/2 x 1/4 inch x bone depth., 3. Incised wound left parietal regions of the scalp 1/4 x 1/4 x bone depth. 4. Incised would left parietal regions of the scalp 1/2 x1/4 x bone depth. 5. Incised wound left parietal regions of the scalp 1/2 x 1/4 x bone depth. 6. Incised wound left parietal regions of the scalp over the back of the left ear of 1 inch 1/2 x bone depth. 7. Incised wound left maxilallaari region of the face 1 x 1/2 x bone depth. 8. Incised wound over the chin 1 inch 1/2 x bone depth. 9. Abrasion right leg 1 inch x 1 inch x skin depth. 10 Abrasion right forearm 1 inch x 1 inch x skin depth. 7. Incised wound left maxilallaari region of the face 1 x 1/2 x bone depth. 8. Incised wound over the chin 1 inch 1/2 x bone depth. 9. Abrasion right leg 1 inch x 1 inch x skin depth. 10 Abrasion right forearm 1 inch x 1 inch x skin depth. He also found the following internal injuries: Compound fractures left mahilla. Scalp: External injuries No.1 to 6. Skull: External injury No.7 and 8 compound fracture of left maxilla.” The Doctor opined that the deceased appear to have died due to cardiac respiratory failure due to hypotonic shock due to multiple injuries and the injuries appeared on the deceased would have been caused with a weapon like M.O.7. 16. The nature of the injuries stated by PW-15 is creating a doubt whether those injuries are possible with an iron Karru which is 4 centimetres length and 3 centimetres diameter and whether by stabbing with the said weapon, there is possibility of fracture of maxilallari bone resulting in the death of the deceased. 17. In SHARAD BIRIDHICHAND SARDA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1), the following principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in a cases covered by the circumstantial evidence: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Case law discussed.” 18. The prosecution from the evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 12 established the following circumstances: Circumstances before the incident: (i) Deceased Jakkula Iylaiah sold his goats to the accused for Rs.16,1000/- and accused paid Rs.2,000/- and told him that he would pay the balance due in Kuravi village after selling the goats. Case law discussed.” 18. The prosecution from the evidence of PWs.5, 6 and 12 established the following circumstances: Circumstances before the incident: (i) Deceased Jakkula Iylaiah sold his goats to the accused for Rs.16,1000/- and accused paid Rs.2,000/- and told him that he would pay the balance due in Kuravi village after selling the goats. (ii) Deceased along with P.W.5 Yakaiah went to Kuravi Shandy for collecting the due amount. (iii) Accused could not pay the amount to the deceased as the goats were not sold but on the same day P.W.12 Bhukya Mandgya purchased goats from the accused and he told both the deceased and the accused to come to Nekkonda Shandy for the collection of the due amount. (iv) Both accused and deceased went to Nekkonda shandy for the collection of the due amount from P.W.12 B. Mangya and there also P.W.12 could not pay the amount as the sheep were not sold and there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased about the non-payment of the money, upon which P.W.12 told them to come to Inugurthy thanda for the collection of the due amount. (v) As the deceased abused the accused for the non-payment of the money, the accused felt insulted and decided to kill the deceased and in pursuance of the same he asked the deceased to come to Banjara Village for the payment of the due amount. Accused purchased an iron-karru from P.W.8 and attacked with iron-karru and killed the deceased at the hillock. Circumstances after the incident: (i) Accused took towel, lungi and cloth bag of the deceased and kept them along with the iron-karru underneath a boulder. (ii) Accused went to Mahabubabad to P.W.9 gave his blood stained clothes to him for washing in a laundry and took a pair of clothes from P.W.9 and left that place. (iii) Seizure of M.Os.5 to 8 from underneath a boulder near the hillock at the outskirts of the Banjara village by the police at the instance of the accused under the cover of Ex.P8 panchanama. (iv) Seizure of M.Os.3 and 4 from P.W.10 the laundry shop owner by the police at the instance of accused. (v)Corroborative medical evidence. The lower Court found that the above circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, therefore, the Court found the accused guilty of the offence. 19. (iv) Seizure of M.Os.3 and 4 from P.W.10 the laundry shop owner by the police at the instance of accused. (v)Corroborative medical evidence. The lower Court found that the above circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, therefore, the Court found the accused guilty of the offence. 19. The Supreme Court and other Courts laid down the following principles in the cases where the circumstantial evidence was relied upon by the prosecution: 20. In POHALYA MOTYA VALVI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2), the Supreme Court held as follows: “Ordinarily, when a person is accused of committing murder of another, the fact that the accused and the deceased were last seen alive in company of each other and the failure of the accused to satisfactorily account for the disappearance of the deceased is considered a circumstance of an incriminating character.” 21. In KRISHNA v. STATE (3), the Calcutta High Court held as follows: “Where the victim was last seen with the accused and victim’s muffler and radio were received from the possession of the accused, the seizure of articles was held to be most incriminating.” 22. In SABANA PIRIBIKA v. STATE OF ORISSA (4), the Orissa High Court held as follows: “The theory of last seen together can be considered to be a link in the chain in the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle that merely because two persons were found together at a particular time and some time thereafter one of them is found dead, the inevitable conclusion is not that the other is the author of the crime. There must be further positive material to show that the accused and the deceased were together immediately before the death of the deceased.” 23. In HARENDRA NARAIN SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR(5), the Supreme Court held as follows: “Where a case is founded on circumstantial evidence, before absence of explanation or a false explanation of the accused for the circumstances and the facts proved against him is used as additional link against the accused the Court should satisfy itself that (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (2) The circumstances point to the guilt of accused with reasonable definiteness; and (3) the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation where all these conditions are fulfilled. 24. (2) The circumstances point to the guilt of accused with reasonable definiteness; and (3) the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation where all these conditions are fulfilled. 24. In this case, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially PW-12 was suspected for the commission of the offence and he was detained in custody for some time and ultimately, the accused was implicated without knowing as to who was responsible for the commission of the offence. He further submitted that the accused and the deceased were last seen at about 5-00 PM at Nekkonda, and subsequently, there was no evidence to show that the accused and the deceased moved together and that the accused was responsible for the commission of the offence. 25. The recovery of the weapon and the arrest of the accused and the examination of the witnesses were also done much later to the discovery of the dead body, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether the prosecution improved its version by implicating the accused in the commission of the offence. In the case on hand, the evidence discloses that except the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased at Nekkonda at about 5-00 PM and the recovery of the material objects, which could not be proved due to mediators turned hostile, there is no other material to connect the accused, therefore, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence by placing chain of circumstances to rule out the possibility of any other person committing the offence and to establish that except the accused, there is no possibility of any other person committing the offence. 26. In the light of the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that there is a doubt from the evidence of the prosecution whether the accused was solely responsible for the commission of the offence, therefore, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt. After going through the evidence and the Judgment of the lower Court, we differ with the view expressed by the lower Court and we are inclined to allow the Appeal by setting the Judgment of the lower Court. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the lower Court, dated 20-07-2004 is set aside. After going through the evidence and the Judgment of the lower Court, we differ with the view expressed by the lower Court and we are inclined to allow the Appeal by setting the Judgment of the lower Court. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the lower Court, dated 20-07-2004 is set aside. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the sentence imposed thereon are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime. --X—