Judgment :- (A. Gopal Reddy, J.) This is an appeal by the convicted accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.131 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi wherein the accused were tried for two charges; under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of P.Venkateshachary (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and under Section 201 IPC for setting fire to the face of the deceased with an intention to conceal the identity of the deceased. 2. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month; they were further convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution as emanated during the course of trial is that the deceased is the resident of Gollapalle Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Kothapalli Gopi-A1 is the resident of Pachikapalam Harijanawada, Kaveri Chengaiah-A2 is the resident of Athimanjeripet, Tamil Nadu State. Both the accused and the deceased are close friends, used to meet and celebrate parties once in a fortnight prior to the date of offence. P.W.1- Omkarachary, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, running a welding shop at Pachikapalem. On 29-01-2006 at around 3 P.M. both the accused went to the workshop of P.W.1 and invited the deceased for tea. Thereupon the deceased followed both the accused and do not return home even by night or next day morning. On 30-01-2006 P.W.2 found the dead body of the deceased without clothes and partly burnt hair lying in the bushes at Bodabandla Hillock and also noticing both the accused running from that place after seeing P.W.2. Immediately he went to the village and informed the same to P.W.1. Thereupon, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and others proceeded to Bodabandla and noticed the dead body with injuries over rear head and below right ear and face was appeared to be burnt. P.W.1 suspecting both the accused presented Ex.P1-complaint to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedurukuppam Police Station-P.W.13, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and issued Ex.P9-FIR and informed to the Circle Inspector of Police-P.W.14 over phone. P.W.1 suspecting both the accused presented Ex.P1-complaint to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedurukuppam Police Station-P.W.13, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and issued Ex.P9-FIR and informed to the Circle Inspector of Police-P.W.14 over phone. 4. P.W.14 on receipt of information from P.W.13, immediately proceed to the scene of offence, observed the dead body of the deceased, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under a cover of inquest report-Ex.P3 and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Puttur for postmortem examination. Later he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence- Ex.P10, prepared Mahazar of scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 11 covered under Ex.P4, seized blood stained stones-M.O.3, blood stained earth- M.O.4, control earth-M.O.5 and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and others. P.W.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Puttur, on receipt of requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8-postmortem certificate opining that death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to head. P.W.14 during the course of investigation arrested A1 on 05-02-2006 in the presence of P.W.9 and others and recorded the confessional statement of A1 covered under Ex.P5. In pursuance of confessional statement of A1, M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered covered under Ex.P6. On 22-02-2006 he (P.W.14) arrested A2 at Athimanjeripet, Tamil Nadu State in the presence of P.W.10 and after recording the confessional statement of A2 covered under Ex.P7 brought him to Karvetinagaram police station. After receipt of relevant report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirupathi and after completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet for the offences aforementioned before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur, who in turn committed the case to Court of Session. On committal, two charges were framed against the accused, explained them in their language. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and exhibited case properties M.Os.1 to 5. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on incriminating evidence put against them wherein both the accused admitted about their consuming arrack near by the spot and also setting fire to the body of the deceased. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on incriminating evidence put against them wherein both the accused admitted about their consuming arrack near by the spot and also setting fire to the body of the deceased. Whereas A2 answered that A1 took him to the hillock where he brought 10 liters of arrack and consumed the same. On the next day A1 shows the dead body of the deceased and hit with stones on his head and later they went away from the place of occurrence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence particularly, P.W.1 who deposed that A1 took the deceased from his shop on the previous day and P.W.2 is an eye witness to the occurrence, which is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3. Added to the same, the statement of the accused also clinchingly establish that the accused was last seen in the company of A1 and A2 and they were together on the previous night; the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, who are eye witnesses, clearly establishes that the accused killed the deceased and to screen away the evidence set fire to the face of deceased and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment, as aforementioned. 8. Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 are planted witnesses by the police; against P.W.2 a criminal case is pending on the date when he gave evidence. P.W.4 stated that she saw A1 and A2 at 4 or 5 P.M., whereas the dead body was found on the next day morning. The time gap between the P.W.4 witnessing the accused with the deceased and noticing the dead body is more than 12 hours. Since the offence took place in the open place, accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The statement made by the accused either should be totally accepted or rejected; therefore, the same cannot be used against them. The lower court committed an error in relying upon the statement of the accused. She lastly contended that there was no intention or premeditation to kill the deceased but due to intoxication accused are not capable of understanding nature of acts committed by them. At the most the accused may be convicted under Section 304 Part II but not under Section 302 IPC. 9. She lastly contended that there was no intention or premeditation to kill the deceased but due to intoxication accused are not capable of understanding nature of acts committed by them. At the most the accused may be convicted under Section 304 Part II but not under Section 302 IPC. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clinchingly establishes that the accused took the deceased from the work shop of P.W.1 to a hillock where they have consumed arrack, hit the deceased with stones and killed him, which fact has been admitted by the accused in their confessional statements, so it can be used against them for corroboration. 10. P.W.1 deposed that deceased is his brother in law and working in his workshop. A1 and A2 are friends and they used to move together; on 29-01-2006 at 3 P.M. both the accused took the deceased from his workshop on the pretext of taking tea; subsequently deceased did not turn up. On the next day he was informed by the villagers that the deceased was lying near Bodabandla; immediately he along with P.W.2 went to the spot and noticed the body of the deceased; then he gave compliant-Ex.P1 to the police. P.W.2, an eye witness to the incident deposed that on 30-01-2006 he took away his cows for grazing purpose to Bodabandla; while he was grazing the cows, he observed some smoke was coming from the bushes; he went there to know what was happened; on his going there, accused ran away; he witnessed the dead body of the deceased. He rushed to P.W.1 and informed the same to him. He admitted that a criminal case is filed against him registered at the same time when this case was registered. The evidence of P.W.3 clearly establishes that on 29-01-2006 at 5 P.M. both the accused and the deceased went towards Bodabandla side and only on the next day the dead body was noticed. P.W.4 deposed that when she went to Bodabandla to get back the goats at 5 P.M. she saw the accused and the deceased were pushing each other and the deceased fell down; A1 took up a boulder and threw on the head of the deceased; out of fear she came back to her house and did not reveal to any body. In the cross-examination she sated that she informed the incident to her husband, but either herself or her husband did not inform the incident to P.W.1. No credence can be given to her evidence that accused and deceased quarreling with each other at 4 or 5 P.M. on 29-01-2006. P.W.7 is the inquest panchayatdar. P.W.12 the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed that he issued Ex.P8-postmortem report opining that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to head (vital organ). 11. From the above evidence the prosecution was able to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and met with a homicidal death due to injuries sustained. 12. The question now falls for consideration is: "How far the statements of the accused can be relied upon to found them guilty in consideration of the other evidence against them led by the prosecution" 13. Before we advert to the above question, we briefly refer to the decided cases on the point. 14. The Supreme Court in NARAIN SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB 1963 (3) SCR 678 held it is not open to the Court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative, and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act, which would but for the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation. 15. In NISHI KANT JHA v. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1969 SC 422 it was held by the Supreme Court that the Court may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution. In that case, there were no eye-witnesses to the commission of the crime and the evidence was all circumstantial and the statement of the accused that he was present at the scene of the crime was a vital circumstance which taken in conjunction with other circumstances led the court to come to the conclusion that he was guilty of the crime imputed to him. 16. 16. In SAMPAT SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1969 SC 956 = (1969) 1 SCC 367 on the facts of the case, after accepting a part of the statement of the accused it was held that he caused injuries in exercise of the right of self-defence but he exceeded the same. Wherein it was observed that it is permissible for the Court to rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution. 17. In STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v VAZIR CHAND (1978) 1 SCC 130 = AIR 1978 SC 315 the Supreme Court considered whether the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. can be accepted and rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of other evidence against him led by the prosecution. Justice Desai speaking for the Bench observed that there was at one point of time some controversy whether the statement of the accused can be accepted in part and rejected in part. The said situation arose where a part of the statement was inculpatory and a part of the statement was exculpatory. After referring three judgments in NARAIN SINGH, NISHI KANT JHA and SAMPAT SINGH (1 to 3 supra) the Supreme Court observed as under: "Where the commencement or genesis of the occurrence is not available because there was no witness to the occurrence available, the only direct version of the commencement of the occurrence would be found in the statement of the accused, if he chooses to give out his version of the occurrence. His statement has to be considered in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and weighing his statement with the probabilities of the case either in his favour or against him." 18. In HATE SINGH v. STATE OF M.B. AIR 1953 SC 468 the Supreme Court held that the statements of an accused person recorded under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Code of Criminal Procedure are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial. 19. Keeping in view of the above principles in mind, we will now proceed to consider the statements given by the accused 1 and 2 when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. along with other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 20. 19. Keeping in view of the above principles in mind, we will now proceed to consider the statements given by the accused 1 and 2 when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. along with other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 20. A1-Kothapalli Gopi when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. categorically admitted that the deceased studied with him till 10th class; he is a good friend to him and used to go around together; on 29-01-2006 he got down from the bus at Pachikapalem; himself along with the deceased went to the shop; after taking tea they left to their village; on the way the deceased asked him about the amount available with him, he informed that he is having Rs.40/-, deceased was having Rs.50/- and thereafter, they have purchased 21/2 liters of arrack and mutton to fry and eat along with drink and left to Bodaguttalu; on the way they met A2; till then he does not know A2; A2 acquainted to him through the deceased; all the three went to hillock, there they consumed arrack; he do not know what was happened after that; on the next day when he came out to attend calls of nature, A2 forced him to drink arrack and took him to Gollagutta; when he was in full intoxication asked him to remove clothes from the dead body; when he resisted, he was threatened that police will kill him; then at the instructions of A2 he removed the clothes from the dead body and later dragged the dead body to some distance; after that A2 take away him to the down of hillock; then A2 went to safari and brought kerosene bottle and match box and asked him to burnt the face of the deceased and told that he will watch whether any person is coming from that side; then, he by heaping the grass on the face of the deceased lit fire; when he returned A2 is not there, so he came out about 1/2 k.m.; at that time Nagabhushanamma, Omkarachari, Sankarachari, Murga Reddy, Prakash and three others came in opposite direction, caught hold off him and asked about killing of their deceased brother. He took them to the place and shown the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, they took him to the police station. 21. He took them to the place and shown the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, they took him to the police station. 21. Whereas A2 when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had a friend by name Prakash and he was staying in his house; A1 frequently visit Prakash's house and used to bring arrack pockets to Prakash; deceased also used to visit the house of Prakash, in that way he acquainted with A1 and the deceased. On 29-01-2006 at 1.30 P.M. A1 and deceased together came and forcibly took him to Nakkalapuram village for consuming arrack; when they reached the village, A1 brought 10 liters of arrack and all the three went to nearby hillocks, by that time A1 already consumed arrack; himself and deceased consumed arrack and A1 and deceased ate mutton fry; then A1 asked him to lift the can to go to the village; when deceased used unparliamentary language against A1, who attempted to beat the deceased; then the deceased ran away to some distance; but he sat there and went into sleep there itself; he did not know when A1 returned; by evening 6.30 P.M. by the time he woke up A1 lifted him and informed that he killed the deceased; when he enquired, A1 took him to a distance and shown the dead body; when he viewing the dead body, A1 brought two boulders and thrown on the deceased; later they left to village and disbursed to their respective houses and he informed to Prakash; on Prakash requesting to inform about the incident in the house of deceased, in the morning he informed the same to Omprakashachari; meanwhile, A1 brought two arrack pockets and threatened to escape; then P.W.1 and others caught hold of A1 and later apprehended him. 22. P.W.1's evidence also lends corroboration with the statement of A1 that accused-A1 and A2 are friends, move together and they took the deceased from his shop at 3 P.M. on 29-01-2006 on the pretext of taking tea. On the next day he was informed by the villagers that the deceased was lying near Bodabandla. P.W.3 who is the resident of Pedda Podichenu village saw the accused and deceased going together on 29-01-2006 at 5 P.M. while he was sitting on the cot in front of his house. The statements of A1 and A2 support the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 who is the resident of Pedda Podichenu village saw the accused and deceased going together on 29-01-2006 at 5 P.M. while he was sitting on the cot in front of his house. The statements of A1 and A2 support the case of the prosecution. The deceased and the accused together consumed arrack at Nagalapuram. The evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that on 30-01-2006 at 11 A.M. while he was in the workshop, P.W.2 informed that the deceased was lying at a place near Bodabandla; then himself, P.W.2, Murga Reddy went to the place; P.W.3 came in opposite direction and informed that he witnessed the dead body. Whereas P.W.2 deposed that when he took his cows for grating purpose, while he was grazing he observed smoke coming form the bushes, when he went there what happened, accused were running away from the place. On witnessing the dead body he rushed to P.W.1 and informed the same to him. P.W.4 who examined as eye-witness by the prosecution deposed that at 4 or 5 P.M. when she went to Bodabandla to get back her goats, she saw both the accused and deceased pushing each other; when the deceased fell down due to push given by A1, then A1 picked up a boulder and thrown on the head of the deceased. Out of fear she went back to the village and did not reveal the said incident to villagers which improbablies her presence at the scene of offence. But the other evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 was not shaken in the cross-examination to discredit their testimony. When the statements of the accused implicating each other to the commission of offence, their statements have to be considered in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution and on weighing their statements probabilities of the case will show that scuffle was ensued between the accused and the deceased after consuming arrack which led to killing of the deceased by throwing stones on his head. As admitted by A1, at the instance of A2 he set fire to the body of the deceased also burnt the face to screen the evidence. 23. As admitted by A1, at the instance of A2 he set fire to the body of the deceased also burnt the face to screen the evidence. 23. The evidence of Investigating Officer-P.W.14 who seized the cloths of the deceased-M.O.1 and 2 under a cover of Mahazar corroborates the evidence of prosecution about involvement of A1 and the admission made by him (A1) of removing the clothes at the instructions of A2 and dragging the dead body at a distance and throwing into bushes and lit fire; and the evidence of Doctor- P.W.12 who conducted postmortem examination and issued Ex.P8-postmortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries on head also corroborates the statement of accused about their throwing boulders on the head as a result of which deceased died. 24. After examining these circumstances in detail, the learned Sessions Judge concluded the only inference that can be drawn is before occurrence accused and deceased were together consumed arrack and there was fight on some unparliamentary language used by the deceased, when the deceased fell down he was hit with boulders by causing death and later tried to screen away the evidence by putting grass on the face of the deceased and set fire. 25. On evaluating the entire evidence and the reasoning adopted by the lower court, we are unable to come to a different conclusion than reached by the lower court that it is the accused who committed the offence and that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances clearly point out commission of the offence by the accused none else. We accordingly concur with the findings of the lower court. 26. We do not see any merit in the Criminal Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court in all respects.