JUDGMENT (Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J.) Both the appeals are preferred by the appellants against the calendar and judgment passed in S.C.No.146 of 2004 on 23-9-2004 by the learned XX Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad at Secunderabad. 2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2157 of 2004 is A-2 and the appellant in CrI.A.No.252 of 2005 is A-1 in S.C.No.146 of 2004. These appeals arose out of one and the same calendar and judgment passed in S.C.No.146 of 2004. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals, may briefly be stated as follows: The accused and one Ganesh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) were rag pickers. A-3 was the concubine of the deceased. She deserted him about 3 months ago and developed illicit intimacy with A-1 and they were staying separately in Audeiah Nagar Play ground, for which the deceased objected resulting frequent quarrels. Therefore, A-1 and A-3 decided to eliminate the deceased, A-1 took the help of A-2. 4. While so, on 24-1 0-2003, the deceased went to the said Audeiah Nagar play ground and abused A-1 and A-3 in filthy language and tried to burn the articles of A-1 and A-3. Then, A-1 to A-3 beat him. A-3 beat him with a brick on his face. The deceased fell down. Then A-1 hit on his head with stone. A-2 beat him with an iron rod on his head. The deceased died on the spot. On the report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.257 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 5-11-2003, the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On interrogation, they confessed the commission of the offence under the cover of separate statements. Pursuant to the confession, the iron rod, which was used for commission of the offence, was seized under the cover of a mediators report. P.W.3, the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died due to head injury. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 besides the material objects as M.Os.1 to 5. 6. P.W.3, the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination, opined that the deceased died due to head injury. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 besides the material objects as M.Os.1 to 5. 6. The learned trial Judge having accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the appellants (A-1 and A-2) and A-3 guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days each, while setting off the remand period, if any under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appellants (A-1 and A-2) have preferred the present appeals. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that there is no direct or ocular evidence available so as to implicate the accused in the commission of the offence and that there was also no recovery of the weapons and in the absence of such recovery, the accused cannot be held responsible for the commission of the offence. The non-examination of the author of EX.P-1, is fatal to the case of the prosecution and apart apart from that, the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution in view of the fact that there are number of injuries found on the body of the deceased besides the head injury. Therefore, the Court below is not justified in convicting the accused and as such, they are entitled to be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that there was a clear motive for commission of the offence and that the evidence of the witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, is clear and cogent and as such, the Court below is justified in convicting the accused. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence imposed against the accused need no interference by this Court and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have perused the entire material on record and the judgment impugned herein. 11. Therefore, the conviction and the sentence imposed against the accused need no interference by this Court and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. We have perused the entire material on record and the judgment impugned herein. 11. On a close scrutiny of the entire material on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the entire case of the prosecution solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. 12. It is well settled that while relying on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must cogently and firmly establish all the circumstances unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused. 13. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances in order to substantiate its case against the accused: 1. Motive. 2. Homicidal death and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused. 14. In so far as the motive is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is relevant for consideration. 15. Firstly, it has to be seen as to whether the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 16. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 in one breath stated that the deceased died due to injuries on his body. P.W.3, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 7 -10-2003, found the following injuries: 1. Cut laceration 6 x 3 cm. x cranial cavity, horizontal over right frontal region. 2. Cut injury 4 x 1 cm. x muscle deep over right eye brow horizontal. 3. Cut injury 1 x 0.50 cm. over right zygoma horizontal. 4. Cut injury 21/2 x 1 cm. x muscle deep over right cheek, horizontal. 5. Cut injury 1 x 0.50 cms. in front of right ear. 6. Abraded contusion 2 x 1 cm. over right zygoma. 7. Cut laceration scalp 5 x 1 cm. x bone deep over right occipital region. 8. Contusion scalp 23 x 17 cms. over right fronto parietal region. 9. Depressed communitted fracture 7 x 4 c.ms. over right fronto parietal region continued as fissured fracture 10 cms. over right temporal region association with multiple fractures of base of skull. 10. Diffuse sub-dural and suborachnoid heamorrhage all over the brain with 200 gms. subdural hemotoma over base of brain. 17. The medical officer has issued Ex.P-2, Post mortem certificate opining that the cause of death is due to head injury. 18. over right temporal region association with multiple fractures of base of skull. 10. Diffuse sub-dural and suborachnoid heamorrhage all over the brain with 200 gms. subdural hemotoma over base of brain. 17. The medical officer has issued Ex.P-2, Post mortem certificate opining that the cause of death is due to head injury. 18. Thus, the evidence of the medical officer coupled with P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 and the inquest report makes it clear that the deceased died due to head injury. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 19. Now, it has to be seen as to whether it is the appellants-accused, who are responsible for commission of the offence. 20. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a dispute between A-1 and the deceased with regard to A-3 and the said dispute is the motive for commission of the offence. In this regard, P.WA, one of the rag pickers stated that he is residing in the said play ground and that the deceased and A-3 came to the said play ground and they were residing there. The deceased was a drunkard and he used to quarrel with A-3 on the ground that she developed illicit intimacy with A-1. On that, A-1 to A-3 and one Sreenu shifted their residence to Adaiahnagar play ground under Raavi tree. For twice or thrice, the deceased went to Adaiahnagar playground and quarreled with the accused. But, during his cross-examination, having stated different versions as to the relationship of A-3 and the deceased as wife and husband, he volunteers that he did not know about the disputes between A-3 and the deceased. In the same breath, he stated that the police obtained his thumb mark on the papers. Whereas, P.W.5 Srinivas who is alleged to have shifted the abode to Audaiahnagar play ground along with A-1 to A-3, stated that the deceased kept A-3 as his mistress and subsequently, A-1 quarreled with the deceased to send A-3. The evidence of P.ws.4 and 5 who are the alleged rag pickers residing in the same vicinity, is not consistent on material aspects. In view of the contradictory statements of these witnesses, much weight cannot be attached to it with regard to the alleged motive for commission of the offence. The evidence of P.ws.4 and 5 who are the alleged rag pickers residing in the same vicinity, is not consistent on material aspects. In view of the contradictory statements of these witnesses, much weight cannot be attached to it with regard to the alleged motive for commission of the offence. Hence, in view of the fact that all the accused and the deceased and P. Ws.4 and 5 are the rag pickers and in the absence of any evidence as to the relationship of the deceased and A-3, we have no hesitation to hold that the alleged motive has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. However, it has to be seen that as to whether it is the appellants who are responsible for commission of the offence. 22. In this regard, the solitary evidence of P.W.5, one of the rag pickers is available for consideration. 23. Let us now examine the veracity of the testimony of this witness. 24. P. W.5 stated that the accused used to reside in Bhoiguda play ground along with them. The deceased kept A-3 Rajeswari as his mistress. Later, A-1 quarreled with the deceased to send A-3 along with him. Later, A-1 to A-3 and himself shifted their residence to Audiahnagar play ground and they started living under a Raavi tree in the said Audiahnagar play ground. The deceased came to Audiahnagar play ground and quarreled with A-1 and demanded him to send back his wife A-3. One day prior to Deepavali festival, the deceased came to the said Audiahnagar play ground during night and burnt their plastic bags and the clothes of himself and the accused. When the flames arose, they woke up. Then, A-3 beat the deceased with a brick on his head, as a result of which he fell down. Then A-1 threw a big stone on the head of the deceased and A-3 also beat the deceased with a rod on the face of the deceased. The deceased died. 25. During his cross-examination, this witness volunteers that they used to sleep in the nights wherever they feel convenient. If that being the case, it gives rise to a doubt as to the presence of this witness at the scene of offence. 26. Further, P.W.5 stated that he is having sight problem, but it is only when the light is focused on his eyes or otherwise he can see well. If that being the case, it gives rise to a doubt as to the presence of this witness at the scene of offence. 26. Further, P.W.5 stated that he is having sight problem, but it is only when the light is focused on his eyes or otherwise he can see well. Even the chief examination of this witness itself goes to show that when the flames arose, they woke up and at that time, A-1 to A-3 beat the deceased with brick, stone and rod, as a result of which, he died. In view of the fact that he is having sight problem, we feel that he cannot identify specific overt acts of each accused and that this fact would falsify his presence at the relevant point of time. 27. The Medical Officer having found as many as 10 injuries on the body of the deceased opined that the death of the deceased was due to head injury, but he did not specifically mention the possible object that would cause the said head injury .In this regard, the evidence of P.W.5, who is the alleged eyewitness to the occurrence is relevant for consideration. He stated that A-3 beat the deceased on his head with a stone and when he fell down, A-1 threw a big stone on the head of the deceased while A-2 beat the deceased with a rod on the face of the deceased. While coming to the evidence of the medical officer, except injuries-8 and 9, the remaining are cut injuries. But, no explanation is forthcoming as to how the said cut injuries could be caused when the alleged weapons used are stone and rod. 28. In view of the presence of the cut injuries on the body of the deceased and in view of the evidence of P.W.5 who is the alleged eye witness as to the weapons i.e., brick, rod and big stone. We have no hesitation to hold that the alleged presence of PW.5 at the relevant point of time, is nothing but full of cloud of doubts and as such, much weight cannot be attached to his testimony. 29. If this evidence of PW.5 is brushed aside, there remains no incriminating material to implicate the appellants. 30. We have no hesitation to hold that the alleged presence of PW.5 at the relevant point of time, is nothing but full of cloud of doubts and as such, much weight cannot be attached to his testimony. 29. If this evidence of PW.5 is brushed aside, there remains no incriminating material to implicate the appellants. 30. For the reasons stated, we feel that there is no incriminating material to implicate the appellants in the commission of the offence and as such, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 31. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that A-3 who is in women prison, has not preferred any appeal. 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs we feel that though A-3 has not preferred any appeal before this Court, her case stands on the same footing as appealing accused. In this view of the matter and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Anjlus Dung Dung v. State of Jharkhand 2005 SCC (Cri) 1468 = 2005 (1) ALT 1 .2 (DN SC). We feel it a fit case wherein the benefit that has been extended to the appellants herein, can also be extended to A-3 and thereby, she is entitled to be acquitted. 33. For the above reasons, We have no hesitation to hold that the Court below has failed to consider all these aspects in proper perspective and as such, the conviction and the sentence recorded against A-1 to A-3, are not justified and consequently, they are all entitled to be acquitted. 34. Accordingly, both the above criminal appeals are allowed setting the conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 to A-3. Consequently, A-1 to A-3 are acquitted u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the charge leveled against them. 35. It is made clear that A-1 to A-3 shall be set at liberty, if they are in no longer required in any other case.