JUDGMENT (Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.) Crl.A.No. 14180f2006 is filed by appellant/A-2 and Crl.A.No. 496 of 2007 is filed by appellant/A-1. Since both these appeals arise out of the very same judgment dated 23-08-2006 passed in S.C.No. 191 of2005 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, they are heard together' and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A-1-Jengili Pedda Mahesh @ Mahi and A-2-Bejjanki Chinna Mahesh @ Chinna Mahi, and A-3-M. Ashok @ Vader Ashok were put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 341PC for causing the death of Janardhan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on 19-2-2005 at about 10.00 p.m. in the limits of Neredmet near Banda Cheruvu Safilguda, and thereby committed the offence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting A-3 of the charge, found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charge framed against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 4. The prosecution story, as narrated during the course of trial, in brief, is as follows: The deceased Janardhan fel in love with Madhavi (P.W.9), the sister of A-1. On the eve of Holy Festival, the deceased smeared P.W. 9 with colour for which she did not protest. On noticing the same, A-1 beat the deceased, but the deceased continued to be after her, for which there was a quarrel about three to four months back. But the deceased continued to be after her taking her silence as her tacit approval of her love towards him. Further, the deceased informed to A-3 that he fell in love with P.W. 9 and one day he would elope and marry her. A-3 informed the same to A-2, who in turn informed to A-1. Then A-1 wanted to do away with the life of the deceased and discussed the same with A-2 and A-3, who are his close friends, and sought their help, for which both A-2 and A-3 readily agreed to kill the deceased and waited for an opportunity. On 19-02-2005 at about 10.00 p.m. all the three accused came to Bharathnagar road, where they found P.W. 5 with his scooter bearing No. A.P. 2B AB6607. A-1 and A-2 took the scooter of P.W. 5 and went in search of the deceased, while A-3 waited there. On 19-02-2005 at about 10.00 p.m. all the three accused came to Bharathnagar road, where they found P.W. 5 with his scooter bearing No. A.P. 2B AB6607. A-1 and A-2 took the scooter of P.W. 5 and went in search of the deceased, while A-3 waited there. They found the deceased before the wine shop of P.W. 13 at A.S.Rao Nagar,Kushaiguda. They suggested to the deceased that they would consume liquor. The deceased stated that he had already purchased a bottle of Kingfisher beer. A-1 purchased one half bottle of Bagpiper Whisky and also took an empty bottle of Haywards beer bottle. Thereafter, A-1, A-2 and the deceased went to Banda Cheruvu of Old Safilguda on the scooter ridden by A-2. On the way A-1 signaled A-3 to accompany them to Banda Cheruvu, where P.W. 5wasalsowaiting for his scooter, but they ignored him and went away. At Banda Cheruvu they consumed alcohol and the deceased Janardhan was made to consume more. A-3 also joined them. A-1 picked up altercation with the deceased, took out empty Haywards beer bottle and beat• with it on the head of the deceased. A-2 and A-3 stumped the deceased to the ground and caught hold of his limbs firmly and A-1 beat him on the head with two granite stones. While murdering the deceased some blood spilt on the shirts of A-1 and A-2. After making sure the death of the deceased, A-1 to A-3 went to Tallabasthi, Malkajgiri where the grand mother of A-1 stays, on the same scooter ridden by A-2 and changed their blood stained shirts. While returning on the way to Bharath Nagar they threw away their blood stained shirts in the thorny bushes near a petrol pump, Moulali. They went to the house of P. W. 6 before whom A-1 made extra judicial confession about the offence committed by them. L.Ws. 5 and 8 who were waiting for the scooter, saw the accused, followed them to the house of P.W. 6 and overhead the confession of A-1. After handing over the scooter, they slept for the night at the work place of A-1 at Ameerpet. On the following morning they went the house of A-1's paternal uncle at Davalapur, Near Jagadevpur. 5 and 8 who were waiting for the scooter, saw the accused, followed them to the house of P.W. 6 and overhead the confession of A-1. After handing over the scooter, they slept for the night at the work place of A-1 at Ameerpet. On the following morning they went the house of A-1's paternal uncle at Davalapur, Near Jagadevpur. On 20-02-2005 at about 9.00 hours, P .W. 1, the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint with the Neredmet Police Station alleging that one Jangili Jaya Chandraiah came and informed that Pedda Mahesh (A-1), Chinna Mahesh (A-2) and Vaddera Ashok (A-3)came to him and informed that they all together beat the deceased and murdered him, on that they went to Banda Cheruvu and saw the dead body of his son. On the basis of the said complaint, P.W. 21 registered a case in Crime No. 59 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 341PC and took up investigation. He rushed to the scene of offence at Banda Cheruvu and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2 to 8, which were scribed by P.W. 16. He conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P. Ws. 10 and 11 under Ex. P-7, prepared rough sketch Ex. P-8, got photographed the scene and the dead body by P.W. 15 and called the finger print expert P.W. 18, who collected finger prints at the scene and preserved them. He seized the material objects like blood stained boulders (bandarallu )/granite stones) M.Os. 12 and 13, green and white colour broken glass pieces stained with blood M.O. 7, Kingfisher 5000 beer bottle pieces M.O. 8, one empty bagpiper whisky 375 MI bottle M.O. 10. Then he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence 01 the same panchas under Ex. P-9 and subjected the dead body for post mortem examination at Gandhi Medical College. Thereafter, he arrested the accused on 25-02-2005 at Devalapur Village and on their confessing the commission of offence, P.W. 21 recorded their confessional statements in the presence of P.W. 14 and Mohd. Usman-L.W. 17 and on the accused leading to Saibhavani Dharma Kantha, he seized M .O. 21 light green colour shirt stained with blood at the instance of A-1, and M.O.20 wheat colour shirt stained with blood at the instance of A-2 in the presence of the same panchas. Usman-L.W. 17 and on the accused leading to Saibhavani Dharma Kantha, he seized M .O. 21 light green colour shirt stained with blood at the instance of A-1, and M.O.20 wheat colour shirt stained with blood at the instance of A-2 in the presence of the same panchas. He also obtained •finger prints• of A-1 to- A-3 for comparison with the chance prints developed by P.W. 18 and they were" sent to finger print bureau. On completion of investigation and after receiving the relevant reports P.W. 21 laid charge sheet before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. 5. The learned Magistrate taken the same on his file as P.R.C.No. 25 of 2005 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 341PC and read over the same to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 22 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-40 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 22. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced in defence by the accused. On putting the incriminating material under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the same. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, mainly relying upon the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W. 6, which was overheard by P.Ws. 5 and 7, observed that the chance prints on the material objects are tallying with the finger prints of A-2 and A-1. The motive for A-1 has also been established by the prosecution, and the same has been amply supported by the medical evidence, which has been remained unchallenged as the Medical Officer has not been cross-examined. Observing so, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting A-3 of the charged framed against him, found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charge framed against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. 8. Observing so, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting A-3 of the charged framed against him, found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charge framed against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. 8. Sri E. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 , who was entrusted the case by the Legal Services Authority in preferring the appeal by A-1, contended that the extra judicial confession made by A-1 before P.W. 6 cannot be relied upon, since P. W. 6 was confined by the police for two days and later his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Since P. W. 6 resiled from the oral statement he was declared hostile by the prosecution. He also contended that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in placing reliance on the statement of A-1 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P .C., for convicting the accused, and that the finger prints were obtained by the police while the accused were in their custody without judicial process and hence the same cannot be used against them. When the specimen fingerprints of A-3 were not tallying with any of the chance prints, the appellant/A-1 is also entitled to acquittal on the similar evidence. 9. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A-2 contended that there is missing like in the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution since nobody has seen the accused and the deceased going together prior to commission of offence. Admittedly, the deceased left the house in the morning of 10-2-2005 and the dead body was found at8.00 hours on the next day. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of so called extra judicial confession made before P.W. 6. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment under appeal contended that there is no enmity for P.Ws. 5 to 7 to speak falsehood against the accused. P.W. 5 admitted the contents under Ex. P-22 the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate, so also, the case of P.W. 6. The finger prints obtained by the investigating officer are tallying with the chance finger prints on the material objects seized at the scene of offence, and the evidence of P.W. 18, who developed the chance prints, also supports the same. P-22 the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate, so also, the case of P.W. 6. The finger prints obtained by the investigating officer are tallying with the chance finger prints on the material objects seized at the scene of offence, and the evidence of P.W. 18, who developed the chance prints, also supports the same. Admittedly, A-1 has developed grudge against the deceased for his advancing towards his sister P.W. 9. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/A-1 and A-2, needs no interference. 11. On the above rival submissions the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 12. P.W. 1, who is not an eyewitness to the incident, set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex. P-1 report, wherein it was stated that on 19-2-2005 morning 9.00 hours the deceased left for his work and not returned in the night. On the morning of 20-02-2002 at about 8.00 hours Jangili Jaya Chandriah came and informed her that Pedda Mahesh, Chinna Mahesh and Vaddera Ashok (Car driver) together beat the deceased and murdered him near Banda Cheruvu. On that herself and her son Sheshadri went to Banda Cheruvu and found the dead body of the deceased lying near the tank and the granite stones resting on the left side, and his head was broken and brain came out. There is enmity for A-1 against the deceased since the deceased was having love affair with P.W. 9, and in view of the same, the accused killed the deceased. 13. In her evidence as P.W. 1 before the Court, she deposed in the same lines of the complaint lodged by her, stating that on 20-02-2005 at about 8.00 a.m. Chandraiah, who is her distant relation and who resides near to their house, came and told her that A-1 to A-3 beat and killed her son Janardhan near Banda Cheruvu where there is a tank without a bund. She further stated that the accused killed the deceased on the ground that he loved P.W. 9. She also deposed that they are living in the house of A-2 on lease. A-1 is very close friend of A-2. A-3 is also friend of A-1 and A-2. She further stated that the accused killed the deceased on the ground that he loved P.W. 9. She also deposed that they are living in the house of A-2 on lease. A-1 is very close friend of A-2. A-3 is also friend of A-1 and A-2. Prior to the incident, on the ground that the deceased was looking at his younger sister P.W. 9, A-1 was angry with the deceased. Then P.W. 1 told A-1 that the deceased was not that kind of person to steal glances at his sister. In his cross-examination, she admitted that her house is about 1 km., to Banda Cheruvu, which is open place with tank. They directly went to the scene, where the dead body of the deceased was lying. The police got the dead body photographed and conducted panchanama. On seeing the dead body of her son near which there are stones, she lost consciousness and collapsed. The police have come there as she has given complaint. When she was weeping at the dead body of the deceased, the police came there, enquired her and reduced the same into writing. 14. P.W. 2 the brother of the deceased, who accompanied P.W. 1 to the scene of offence, corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 . 15. P.W. 3, the younger brother of the deceased, stated that P.W. 1 is his mother P. W. 2 and the deceased are his elder brothers. About one year ago, at about 7.30 or 8.00 a.m., P.W. 6 came and told him that A-1 to A-3 beat the deceased with boulders at Banda Cheruvu and killed him. Then all of them including P.Ws. 1 and 2 went there. Prior to the incident about 3 years back, A-1 beat the deceased on the ground that he loved his younger sister P.W. 9. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witness A-1 beating the deceased three year prior to the incident because of love affair between the deceased and P.W. 9. 16. P.W. 4, the sister of P.W. 1 deposed that on 19-02-2005 the deceased went to duty in the morning but did not return to home in the night. Next day morning P .W. 6 told them that A-1 to A-3 killed the deceased. Herself and P.Ws.1 t0 3 went to the scene of offence in an auto. 17. 16. P.W. 4, the sister of P.W. 1 deposed that on 19-02-2005 the deceased went to duty in the morning but did not return to home in the night. Next day morning P .W. 6 told them that A-1 to A-3 killed the deceased. Herself and P.Ws.1 t0 3 went to the scene of offence in an auto. 17. P.W. 5, who is the owner of the scooter, deposed that he returned home after duty at about 9.30 p.m., kept his scooter on the road and talking with his friend Narsingh Rao. Then A-2 came and asked for the scooter but he refused to give the same. A-2 pleaded him that he has to go to Ashoknagar and took the scooter and both A-1 and A-2left the place on the scooter, but they did not return even by 10 p.m. Then, after taking meals, he waited there till about 10.55 p.m. Thereafter, he woke up P.W. 7 at about 10.55 p.m. and told him about A-1 and A-2 taking away his scooter. Then himself and P.W. 7 came on to the road and when they were contemplating to give complaint to the police, A-1 to A-3 came on the scooter in a drunken state. They were talking with him in belittling manner and questioned him why he told to P.W. 7. Then he has taken his scooter and went home since he was little bit afraid of the accused. He was declared hostile by the prosecution, as he did not support its case. On 14-03-2006, when he was reexamined by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that the Magistrate recorded his 164 Cr.P.C., statement under Ex. P-22 and he confirmed the correctness of the contents of Ex. P-22. 18. P.W. 6 deposed thatA-1ls his younger brother's son. He quarreled with the deceased about 2 or 3 months prior to his death. On 20-02-2005 public were saying that a person died at Bandha Cheruvu. Then he went there, identified the dead body, returned and informed the same to P .W.1 and others. On the previous night the accused did not tell him anything. He heard public saying that A-1 to A-3 killed the deceased. On 20-02-2005 public were saying that a person died at Bandha Cheruvu. Then he went there, identified the dead body, returned and informed the same to P .W.1 and others. On the previous night the accused did not tell him anything. He heard public saying that A-1 to A-3 killed the deceased. He was also recalled on 20-03-2006 i.e., after 10 days of his declaring hostile, where he admitted that P.W. 1 told him earlier that they were compromising with the accused so he stated as in his chief examination earlier, and what he stated in Ex. P-6 is correct. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was taken to Neredmet Police Station, where he was kept for two days and the police asked him to state before the Magistrate as to the facts. Accordingly, he stated before the Magistrate. He also admitted that the police told him on the previous day that he must depose as stated to the Magistrate. Accordingly, he deposed on that day. 19. P.W. 7, who deposed that he did not hear anything while accused saying to P.W.6, was also declared hostile by the prosecution. 20. P.Ws. 8 and 9 were also declared hostile by the prosecution. 21. P .W. 10, who is a panch witness to the inquest and scene of offence was also declared hostile. After recalling on 13-03-2006, he stated that the police seized the boulders, which were marked as M.Os. 12 and 13. black shoes as M.O. 14, brown colour pant containing black belt as M. O. 15, brown and read colour bag as M.O. 16 and full sleeved cream colour blood stained shirt as M.O. 17. On seeing the material objects and after reading the contents to them they affixed their signatures in Ex. P-7 and EX.P-8. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know all the contents of Ex. P-7. M.Os. 3, 7, 9, 6, 5 and 8 are presently not affixed slip containing their signatures. 22. P.W. 11 was also declared hostile. 23. P.W. 12 is the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, who recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6, which are marked through him as Exs. P-23 to P-26. P-7. M.Os. 3, 7, 9, 6, 5 and 8 are presently not affixed slip containing their signatures. 22. P.W. 11 was also declared hostile. 23. P.W. 12 is the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, who recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6, which are marked through him as Exs. P-23 to P-26. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not put preliminary questions to the above witnesses to the effect that they are giving the statements voluntarily or that the police have pressurized them to give the statements. 24. P.W. 13 speaks about A-1 and A-2 purchasing Bagpiper half whisky bottle from his shop. He identified M.O. 10 with the help of batch number sticker affixed to the cap on which licence number of his shop was written. He admitted that on 19-02-2005 there were thousands of bottles similar to M. O. 10 in his shop. He does not have the particulars of all the persons, who purchased liquor in his shop and he cannot say that it was purchased by A-1 and A-2 only. 25. P.W. 14 is a panch witness to the recovery of M.O. 20 at the instance of A-1. He admitted in the cross-examination that he was called to the police station at about 2.30 p.m. and by the time he went to police station three or four police persons were there and they have scribed the panchanamas in which he affixed his signatures. At the time of seizure, police affixed slips containing their signatures on material objects i.e., M.Os. 20 and /.1 and that those are not packed and sealed in their presence. He cannot say on what place of shirts on M.O. 20 and 21 slips were affixed. 26. P.W. 15 took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased and developed the same. 27. P. W. 16 the police constable recorded the statements of P .Ws. 1 to 9. 13 and 15 on the instructions of P.W. 21. In the cross-examination he admitted that he cannot say the time when he recorded the statements of the witnesses. After receipt of complaint at 9 p.m. they went to the spot. P.W.1 came to the police station where she gave complaint. 28. P.W. 17 deposed that he went to Banda Cheruvu where the dead body of the deceased was lying. In the cross-examination he admitted that he cannot say the time when he recorded the statements of the witnesses. After receipt of complaint at 9 p.m. they went to the spot. P.W.1 came to the police station where she gave complaint. 28. P.W. 17 deposed that he went to Banda Cheruvu where the dead body of the deceased was lying. P.W. 1 was weeping at the dead body and requested him to scribe her statement as Sh8 cannot write, and he scribed the same at the dictation of P.W. 1. He admitted in the cross-examination that he wrote Ex. P-1 at the scene of offence, where the police were also present there. Police did not ask him to write complaint. 29. P.W. 18, the Inspector of Finger Prints Bureau, Cyberabad, visited the scene of offence on the requisition made by P.W. 21. He found a broken beer bottle neckpiece near the spot. He also noticed empty Bagpiper whisky bottle, which was marked as M.O. 10 whereas the beer bottle neckpieces were marked as M.O. 8. He took fingerprints contained on M.Os. 8 and 10 on the spot. On 7-03-2005 he received thumb impressions of A-1 to A-3 and compared the same with the chance prints found on M.Os. 8 and 10. The photocopy of chance prints marked as 'A' are identical with right thumb finger impression of A-1. The chance prints marked as 'B' are found identical with right index finger impression of A-2. The chance prints and specimen fingerprints of A-1 the photos of which are shown to him were marked as Exs. P-27 and Ex. P-28 respectively. The chance prints marked as 'B' and the fingerprints of A-2 were marked as Exs. P-29 and 30 respectively. The opinion comprising of points of identity chart and above sheets were marked as Ex. P-31. The specimen fingerprints of A-3 are not tallied with any of the chance prints. He admitted in the cross-examination that he has not taken chance prints of the scene in the presence of mediators. Right thumb of A-1 is found on outside of neckpiece of beer bottle pointing towards downside. Though there are other finger prints on the neckpiece of the bottle, they are not fit for comparison and he has not given the photos of other chance prints, which are not fit for comparison and the police obtained thumb impression of A-1 subsequently. Right thumb of A-1 is found on outside of neckpiece of beer bottle pointing towards downside. Though there are other finger prints on the neckpiece of the bottle, they are not fit for comparison and he has not given the photos of other chance prints, which are not fit for comparison and the police obtained thumb impression of A-1 subsequently. Apart from the two chance prints of M.O. 10 Bagpiper whisky bottle, there are also other fingerprints, which are not clear, as it is necessary at least 10 points of comparison should be available. In his second report he mentioned that other chance prints are not clear for comparison. 30. P.W. 21 the Inspector of Police stated that the scene of offence is situated at Banda Cheruvu at S.No. 4141 in Polapalli Balaiah Colony near Seetharama Rao's plot. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P. Ws. 10 and 11 under Ex. P-7, prepared rough sketch under Ex. P-8, which discloses that the scene of offence is open plot. The house of one Chavali Venkata Narayana is shown on the northern side of the scene of offence. He admitted that he got the scene of offence photographed by the photographer P. W. 15, which clearly goes to show that there are no houses near the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Whereas P.W. 22 stated that they heard the barking of a dog at about mid-night. Then he woke up, opened the windows and noticed four persons sitting on the basement in the open place and drinking beer or something like that. After some time, he heard the cries and shouts from that place and he also heard granite stones breaking sounds. He became afraid and closed the doors of the window and slept. On the next day morning when he woke up he noticed a dead body with broken head. He admitted that there were thorny bushes and there was a street light near the place of incident. 31. P.W. 19, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found 9 ante-mortem injuries, deposed that the cause of death of the deceased was due to crush injury on the head and the death was occurred within 24 hours prior to his P.M. examination. The first injury is possible by a hard blunt object such as stone. The first injury is possible by a hard blunt object such as stone. Injuries 2 and 9 are possible by a blunt object like stick, stone etc. He issued Ex. P-33 p.m. report. He was not cross-examined by the defence counsel. 32. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W. 6, which was overheard by P.W. 7. P.W. 6 categorically admitted that he was confined in the police station for two days and the police after recording his statement, produced him before the Magistrate, who also recorded his statement. Since he resiled from the earliest version recorded by the police, he was declared hostile. But the learned Sessions Judge mainly relied upon the statement recorded by the Magistrate P.W. 12, who admitted that before examining P. Ws. 6 and 7 he has not put any preliminary questions to them to the effect that whether they are giving the statement voluntarily or the police pressurized them to give the statements. When P.W. 6 admitted that he was confined in the police station for two days prior to his production before the Magistrate for recording his statement, it can be presumed that he acted according to the tunes of the prosecution to prove extra judicial confession made by A-1 and A-2 and the same was overheard by P.Ws. 5 and 7, and is not voluntary. Further in the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Ex. P-26, P.W. 6 stated that on 19-02-2005 while he was sleeping in his house about 1 O'clock in the night the accused wake him up and stated that they have taken the vehicle of P .W. 5 and took the deceased near Banda Cheruvu and killed him by beating him with granite stones. Then P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 came to his house. On seeing them A-1 to A-3 scolded P .W. 5 in filthy language that why he has come there. On that P.W. 6 asked them to go away. 33. It is well settled that the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of truth of the facts, but it may be used for contradiction or for corroboration of the witness, who made it. On that P.W. 6 asked them to go away. 33. It is well settled that the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can never be used as substantive evidence of truth of the facts, but it may be used for contradiction or for corroboration of the witness, who made it. A statement can be used to cross-examine the maker of it and the result may be to show that the evidence of the witness is false. But that does not establish that what he stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is true statement. The statement of a witness i3 generally recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is to fix him to it when it is feared that he may resile afterwards or may be tampered with. The mere fact that the statement was previously recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. will be sufficient to disregard it, the Court however, ought to receive it with caution and if there are other circumstances on record, which lend support to the truth of the same, it can be acted upon (see Ram Charan v. State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1270). 34. If the Court finds that in view of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the witness has been won-over by the defence, his evidence in the Court must be entirely ignored (See Mamand v. Emperor AIR (33) 1946 Privy Council 45). 35. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony1 the Supreme Court held as under: There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession a weak piece of evidence. 35. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony1 the Supreme Court held as under: There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The Courts have considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused; the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. In such a situation to go in search of corroboration itself tends of cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon. 36. The evidence of P.W. 6 is wholly unreliable and appears to have been a planted witness by the police and he was forced to state before the magistrate as stated by them, as per their wishes. The evidence of P.W. 6 recorded under Ex. P-26 cannot be relied upon to prove the extra judicial confession for the purpose of convicting the accused and for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, the Investigating Officer P .W. 21 has not sent the material objects to compare with the fingerprints of A-1 and A-2 through process of Court. Hence the same is very weak piece of evidence, which could be relied upon if the prosecution established the guilt of the accused through other evidence. Mere proof of motive and the homicidal death of the deceased alone are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, to convict them for the charges framed against them. 37. Hence the same is very weak piece of evidence, which could be relied upon if the prosecution established the guilt of the accused through other evidence. Mere proof of motive and the homicidal death of the deceased alone are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, to convict them for the charges framed against them. 37. In view of the same we are not persuaded to agree that the findings recorded by the lower Court in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the circumstantial evidence adduced by it is complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis except that the guilt of the accused. Each circumstance has to be proved by adducing evidence and not by surmises. The suspicion however strong it may be cannot substitute the legal proof. In view of the same, and since the prosecution miserably failed to prove the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before P.W. 6, who is appears to be a planted witness, we cannot upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the lower Court in convicting A-1 and A-2. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 and A-2 by the lower Court. 38. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentences imposed against the appeliantA-2 in Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2006, namely, Bejjanki Chinna Mahesh @ Chinna Mahi, S/o. B. Eswar and the appellantA-1 in Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2007 namely Jengili Pedda Mahesh @ Mahi S/o. Mutyalu, by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in S.C.No. 191 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 341PC are set aside, and they shall eb set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.