JUDGMENT (Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.) This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused is directed against the judgment, dated 11-10-2006, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, wherein the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') and further convicted and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month of the offence punishable under Section 3021PC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as follows: Agamma (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No.1'), Bondaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased No.2'), accused and P.W. 1, who is no other than the son of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2, are residents of Chinna Pendyala village of War an gal District. The accused was the farm servant of P. W. 1 and while working as farm servant, he used to consume liquor at the house of deceased Nos. 1 and 2, who were staying away from P.W.1. During that time, the accused had an evil eye over the cash and other valuables of deceased Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, the accused joined as farm servant with another and discontinued from P.W.1. Since then, the accused addicted to alcohol without working anywhere continuously. The accused found it difficult to get amounts to purchase liquor and therefore, he hatched a plan to commit theft of cash and valuables from the house of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and was waiting for an opportunity. As per his evil desire, on the night of 25-11-2004, he went to the hotel of LW. 12 and requested her to give him a whisky bottle, upon which, she refused to give and sent him out of the hotel. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of deceased Nos. 1 and 2atabout 24.00 hours and knocked the doors. At that time, deceased No.2 came out of the house to attend calls of nature. 12 and requested her to give him a whisky bottle, upon which, she refused to give and sent him out of the hotel. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of deceased Nos. 1 and 2atabout 24.00 hours and knocked the doors. At that time, deceased No.2 came out of the house to attend calls of nature. Suddenly, the accused pounced upon him, beat him with hands, fell him on the ground and pressed his neck and mouth till his death. Later the accused entered into the house and tried to snatch the gold pusthela thadu of deceased No.1, for which she woke up and shouted by mentioning the name of the accused. Then the accused pounced on her, beat her with a stick and pressed her neck till her death. Later, the accused committed theft of gold ear studs, two gold Nallapusala Gottalu, four gold muliku and one gold pathkam weighing about 15 grams all total worth of Rs. 13,0001- and fled away with the booty. On 26-11-2004 at about 6.30 a.m. P.W. 3 told with P.W. 1 that the dead body of deceased No.2 was lying in front of the house of the deceased. Then P.W. 1 went to the house and saw the dead body of deceased No.2 and he noticed bleeding from the ear of deceased No.2 and also noticed left finger broken. Later P.W.1 entered into the house and found his mother's dead body lying by the side of the long table used for sleeping. He noticed bleeding on front head and back of the head of deceased No.1. He also found that the gold ornaments of his mother were missing. P.W.1 went to Ghanpur Police Station and lodged Ex. P-1 - written complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police (not examined) registered a case in Cr.No. 159 of 2004 and issued Ex. P-18 FIR P.W. 11-incharge Inspector of Police of Ghanpur Police Station, on receipt of FIR, took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and others and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of P.W. 8and in his presence, he conducted the scene of offence panchanama at the places where two dead bodies were lying. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex. P-19 and P-20. Later he held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased under Exs. He secured the presence of P.W. 8and in his presence, he conducted the scene of offence panchanama at the places where two dead bodies were lying. He prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex. P-19 and P-20. Later he held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased under Exs. P-11 and P-12. He forwarded material objects for chemical analysis along with controlled earth and blood stained earth and he also subjected the dead bodies to Post-mortem examination. P.W. 9Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic, KMC, Warangal, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and opined that the cause of the death of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 is due to strangulation and he issued Exs. P-14 and P-15 post-mortem certificates. P.W. 12-C.1. of Police. Ghanpur Police Station, on receipt of information though P.W. 4 on 8-12-2004 that they detained the accused who is in possession of stolen property, he went along with his staff to Chinna Pendyala village and reached the shop of P.W.5. He interrogated the accused in the presence of P.W. 10 and others. The accused confessed about the offences and P.W. 12 recorded the confessional panchanama. At the instance of the accused, he sized gold articles from the pocket of the accused, which are M.Os. 1 to 4. In pursuance of confession of accused, he proceeded to the house of the deceased and recovered a stick in the bushes, which contained the bloodstains. On the same day, he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the following charges against the accused: Firstly: That you on the night of 25-11-2004 at Chinna Pendyala, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Agamma and Bondaiah by pressing their necks and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Secondly: That you during the course of same transaction mentioned above, robbed gold ear studs, two gold Nallapusala Gottalu, four gold milukulu and one gold Pathakam weighing about 15 grams all total worth of Rs. 13,000/and fled away and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. 13,000/and fled away and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P-1 to F-22 besides case property, M.Os. 1 to 15. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused except marking Exs. D-1 and D-2, which are portionsof161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 5. 6. The trial Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, especially by accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and confession made by the accused in the presence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 and 10, found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the said convictions and sentences, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused. 7. Smt. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence, that there is any amount of doubt about recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4 alleged to be belonging to the deceased because they are available in any house, that there is suspicion about the recoveries as per contradictory evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 and 10 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex. P-16, that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the recoveries and it is missing from the chain of circumstance and hence, she prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant-accused. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that minor discrepancies and variations in the evidence of P. Ws. 4 to 6 and 10 are not fatal to the case of the prosecution, that when the accused was found in possession of gold articles, he failed to explain how he came to be in possession of those gold articles and hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the said convictions and sentences. 9. 4 to 6 and 10 are not fatal to the case of the prosecution, that when the accused was found in possession of gold articles, he failed to explain how he came to be in possession of those gold articles and hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the said convictions and sentences. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is whether the prosecution has proved its case, against the appellant, of the offences with which he were charged, beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. There are no direct witnesses to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. When a case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence has to satisfy the following tests as laid down by the Apex Court in a decision reported in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein it was held that: "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent and firmly established. (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. P.W.1, who is no other than the son of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and who set the criminal law into motion by lodging a report to police, deposed that P.W. 3 informed him about the dead body of his father at about 6.00 of6.30 a.m. Then himself and others went and witnessed that his father's dead body was lying in front of his house and noticed bleeding from his ear and also noticed left finger broken. When he went inside the house, he found his mother's dead body lying by the side of long table used for sleeping and he noticed bleeding on front and back of her head and also noticed that her gold ornaments were missing. Then he gave Ex. P-1-complaint to police. 12. P.W. 2 deposed that on the date of incident, at about 6.00 a.m., when he went to have a tea in a hotel near by the house of Bondaiah, he found the dead body of Bondaiah near by a papaya tree in front of his house and he informed the same to P.W. 3. 13. P.W. 3 deposed that P.W.2 informed him about the dead body of Bondaiah lying. Then, both of them went there along with other villagers and found the dead body of Bondaiah lying and noticed injuries on his head. When they went inside the house, they found the dead body of Agamma lying dead with bleeding from back of her head. 14. From the above evidence, it is clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 only saw the dead bodies of the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and they did not depose anything against the accused. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 15. The learned Sessions Judge, by relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 4 to 6 and 10 and the alleged confession made by the accused for recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4 convicted the accused. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to refer to their evidence. 16. P.W. 4 who is an RTC driver deposed that on the date of incident at about 1 0.30 p.m. while he was taking his wife to hospital in the village, near the school, he heard the accused and P.W. 5 quarreling. About ten persons gathered there. Accused was holding gold jewellery, two gold ear studs, four gold milukulu, one gold locket and two gold gottalu. The accused requested him to keep them and pay Rs. 7,000/-. But, P.W.5 enquiry the accused how he got the jewellery. On persistent enquiry, the accused stated that he killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and brought the above gold articles. Then he telephoned the police and informed the same to them. The accused requested him to keep them and pay Rs. 7,000/-. But, P.W.5 enquiry the accused how he got the jewellery. On persistent enquiry, the accused stated that he killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and brought the above gold articles. Then he telephoned the police and informed the same to them. In the cross-examination he stated that police arrived at about 11 a.m. and they were there about 15 minutes and he affixed his signature on the panchanama. The accused was holding gold articles in a paper pack. He also admitted that he has seen the dead bodies of both the deceased atabout8.30a.m. on the same day. 17. P.W. 5 with whom the accused was quarreling deposed that on the date of incident, when she was selling vegetables at about 11a.m. the accused came and requested her to give Rs. 7,0001- by pledging the gold articles, namely four gold milukulu, two gold gottalu, one locket and two ear studs. She stated that she was not having any amount. Meanwhile P.W. 4 and others gathered there. When she asked the accused, he told that he killed both the deceased and stolen the gold articles. They informed the same to the police, who came and arrested the accused. In the cross-examination, she deposed that police came thereatabout6.00 p.m. and the incident of the accused coming to her and asking for money by pleading the gold articles took place at about 11.00 a.m. 18. P.W. 6 deposed that on the date of incident at about 1.00 p.m. the accused carne to P .W. 5 and while discussion was going on, P.W. 4, his wife and Kumaraswamy were present. The accused asked P.W. 5 to keep the gold articles and lend an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. When P.W. 5 enquired the accused about the gold articles, the accused stated that they belong to his wife and again said that they belong to his mother. They got suspicion in view of the murders of both the deceased and enquired the accused. Then he stated that the gold articles belong to the deceased and that he killed them. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he stated to the police that P.Ws. 4, 5 and others threatened the accused and out of fear, the accused told that he killed the deceased and stolen the gold articles. Then he stated that the gold articles belong to the deceased and that he killed them. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he stated to the police that P.Ws. 4, 5 and others threatened the accused and out of fear, the accused told that he killed the deceased and stolen the gold articles. Police came there 30 to 45 minutes after P.W. 4 telephoned them. 19. P.W. 10 is a witness for recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4. He deposed that about two years back at about 3 p.m. himself and others went to secondary School gate where the police were present there. When police enquired the accused how he got the gold articles, accused stated that he killed Bondaiah and Agamma and brought the gold articles. Then the police took the accused to the house of the deceased. His house and the house of the deceased are situated after two houses. The accused stated the manner in which he committed the offence. 20. As per the evidence of P.W.10, the accused was in police custody when he made confession. Whereas the evidence of P. Ws. 4 to 6, which would go to show about the accused insisting P.W. 5 to lend amount by pledging the gold articles, the information given to police, police coming to the spot and arresting the accused and on enquiry Ex. P-16-confession recovery panchanama was drafted between 15 and 16.30 hours, are inconsistent and contradictory with the time mentioned by them. I n view of the same, much credence cannot be given for recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4-gold articles. 21. Further the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 is contradictory with each other and the manner in which the accused confessed in recovering the gold articles. It is missing in connecting the accused with the crime. If the said recovery and the confession are disbelieved, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. The learned Sessions Jude by giving much importance to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 and recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4 under Ex. P-16-recovery panchanama, found the accused guilty which cannot be sustained. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the convictions and sentences recorded against the accused are liable to be set aside. 22. The learned Sessions Jude by giving much importance to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 and recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4 under Ex. P-16-recovery panchanama, found the accused guilty which cannot be sustained. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the convictions and sentences recorded against the accused are liable to be set aside. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant accused by the III Additional District and Session~ Judge, Warangal, dated 11-10-2006, in Sessions Case No. 69 of2006. The appellant accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charges. The appellant-accused shall be released forth with, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be returned to him.