JUDGMENT K.G. Shankar, J. The sole accused, who allegedly kidnapped, raped and murdered Naga Pushpa, was tried by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam for the offences under Sections 364, 376, 302,404,201 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences u/s.302, 364, 376, 201 and 404 IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and Rs. 100/- with appropriate default sentence for the offence u/s.302 IPC. He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of 5 years for the offence u/s.364 IPC and RI for a period of 10 years for the offence u/s.376 IPC. He was also sentenced to RI for a period of 3 years for the offence u/s.201 IPC and for a period of 2 years for the offence u/s 104 IPC. The sentences awarded against the accused were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid. Before the trial Court as well as before us, the accused is defended by counsel provided by the State. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: a) The deceased was a resident of Munnaluru. She was the wife of PW.2. On 02.02.2006, the deceased went to Hyderabad from Munnaluru to attend the house warming ceremony of a cousin of PW.2 by name S. Venkateshwar Rao. After attending the house warming ceremony, the deceased left in a bus run by private travelers from Hyderabad on 03.02.2006 to return to Munnaluru. b) PWs.3,5, 6and 8alsoattended the same house warming ceremony. PWs.5, 6 and 8 boarded the bus along with the deceased at about 10.30 p.m. The bus was proceeding to Vijayawada. While PW.5 alighted the bus at Nandigama, PWs.6, 8 and the deceased got down from the bus at Kanchikacherla. PW.6 offered to take the deceased in a scooter to her village. The deceased, however, declined the offer. She also declined the earlier offer of PW.5 to get down at Nandigama and to go to the house of the daughter of PW.5 along with PW.5. The deceased informed PW.6 that she would catch an auto and to go to her village. c) PW.7, who has been running Coffee Hotel at Chevitikallu Road Centre at Kanchikacherla noticed the deceased boarding the auto of the accused at the auto stand between 4.30 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 04.02.2006. The deceased informed PW.6 that she would catch an auto and to go to her village. c) PW.7, who has been running Coffee Hotel at Chevitikallu Road Centre at Kanchikacherla noticed the deceased boarding the auto of the accused at the auto stand between 4.30 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 04.02.2006. PW.8, who was a resident of Munnaluru, noticed the deceased travelling the auto of the accused and made an in vain attempt to get the attention of the driver of the auto to stop the accused, who was driving the auto so that he could also board the auto to go to the village of Munnaluru. PW.9, who is an auto driver by calling, noticed at about 4.45 a.m. on the same day i.e., 04.02.2006 the accused and the deceased proceeding in the auto of the accused near Kanchikacherla bye pass road. 3. This is the evidence on the prosecution side to show that the deceased boarded the au to of the accused and was seen alive for the last time in the company of the accused. The further story of the prosecution may be stated now: a) PW.1 is a Panchayat Secretary of Kanchikacherla Gram Panchayat. At about 1 p.m. he was informed that a dead body of a female was found on the road between Kanchikacherla and Cherukupalli, near Nakkalampet Metal Road. He immediately rushed to the scene where the dead body of the deceased was lying. He noticed burn injuries on her right hand, chest, and half of the head. He also found that the legs of the dead body were widely open. PW.1 concluded that the deceased was molested and la ter was murdered. PW s.3, 4 (a resident of Munnaluru) and 5 to 7 also rushed to the scene where the dead body of the deceased was lying, on hearing about the dead body of a female. All of them identified the dead body of the deceased. b) Subsequently, complaint was lodged under Ex.P.1 to police by PW .1. An FIR under EX.P.16 was issued. Later the dead body was identified as the dead body of the deceased. Police conducted inquest and also observed the scene where the dead body was found. c) On 05.02.2006, PW.14, the then Inspector of Police, Nandigama Circle, arrested the accused at about 4 p.m. in the presence of PW.1 and other mediators. An FIR under EX.P.16 was issued. Later the dead body was identified as the dead body of the deceased. Police conducted inquest and also observed the scene where the dead body was found. c) On 05.02.2006, PW.14, the then Inspector of Police, Nandigama Circle, arrested the accused at about 4 p.m. in the presence of PW.1 and other mediators. The accused confessed that he murdered the deceased and snatched away the gold ornaments of the deceased. The Inspector of Police seized MO.8 gold bangles of the deceased from the possession of the accused. The accused later took the police party to the house of the accused at Chendralapadu and produced jewelry of the deceased concealed in a white handkerchief. PW.14 seized Mos.1 to 5 and 9, which are gold ornaments of the deceased and MO.7, which is a pair of silver anklets of the deceased from the house of the accused. The blood samples of the accused were drawn and were subjected to DNA finger printing with the semen found on the petty coat of the deceased lying by the side of the dead body of the deceased. They matched each other. Considering that the accused raped the accused (sic deceased) and later murdered her, the prosecution laid charge sheet against the sole accused for kidnapping, criminal misappropriation, rape and murder of the deceased as well as for concealing the evidence. 4. The learned trial Judge framed charges u/s.364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC as well as u/s.404 r/w 75 IPC. As already pointed out, the accused was found guilty of all the charges. 5. The accused, who is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, preferred the present appeal. Sri E. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel was appointed by the State to represent the case of the accused. 6. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PWs.3 to 6 is not the evidence of eye witnesses for the alleged offences, that the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 cannot be believed, that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence and that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PWs.3 to 6 is not the evidence of eye witnesses for the alleged offences, that the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 cannot be believed, that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence and that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the prosecution has established that the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of any explanation from the accused, the case of the prosecution stands established beyond reasonable doubt without any element of doubt. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused, who had an opportunity to explain the circumstantial evidence which was against him in the evidence of prosecution, did not explain the circumstances to establish his innocence either offering an explanation at the time of examination of the accused u/s.313 (1)(b) Cr.P. C. or by deposing or examining someone as defence witnesses. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon Thirakala Sreekanth v. State of A.P. (1)2007 (1) ALT(Crl.) 76 (D.B.)(A.P.) =2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 323 (AP). It was a case where a child was allegedly kidnapped and was later murdered. The trial Court convicted the sole accused for both the offences of murder and kidnap. In that case, the sole accused went to the school and took away the deceased boy in a car on the pretext that his father was unwell. He took the boy into a room in a lodge. Subsequently, the accused left the room locking the same and took away the key with him leaving the kidnapped boy behind. The body of the kidnapped boy was subsequently found in the room. The manager and ward boy of the lodge testified that nobody else entered the room where the body of the boy was found. The Division Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar(2) 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 74 (SC) =2000 (2) .ALD (Crl.) 718 (SC) and found the accused guilty of the conviction recorded by the trial Court for both the offences levelled against him. 9. The Division Bench of this Court distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar(2) 2001 (1) ALT (Crl.) 74 (SC) =2000 (2) .ALD (Crl.) 718 (SC) and found the accused guilty of the conviction recorded by the trial Court for both the offences levelled against him. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed reliance upon Usman Mian v. State of Bihar (3) 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 6 (SC)= AIR 2005 SC 1288 . In that case, the Supreme Court referred to Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (4) AIR 1952 SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (5) AIR 1984 SC 1622 with approval. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar's4 the Supreme Court observed that in cases where the evidence is .circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the accused is to be drawn should be fully established and that the facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused only and that the circumstances should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The Supreme Court clarified that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and that it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the overt act must have been done by the accused. Similar view was expressed in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's5 by the Supreme Court. The views in both the cases were referred with approval in Usman Mian's3. On the strength of these two decisions it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence in this case is enough to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. We may also refer to the view of our own High Court in another case. In Kurra Seetharamaiah v. State of A.P. (6) 2009 (2) AL T (Crl.) 284 (DB) (AP) a Division Bench of this Court inter alia pointed out that suspicion could be substituted for legal proof, however, strong it might be. 10. We may also refer to the view of our own High Court in another case. In Kurra Seetharamaiah v. State of A.P. (6) 2009 (2) AL T (Crl.) 284 (DB) (AP) a Division Bench of this Court inter alia pointed out that suspicion could be substituted for legal proof, however, strong it might be. On the strength of this decision, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution at best established the possibility of the accused being guilty of the offences, that the prosecution however failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused are liable to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him, as mere suspicion that the accused might have committed the offences is not sufficient to convict the accused. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the chain of evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused. He placed several circumstances in support of his contention as various links in the chain. Admittedly, the deceased went to Hyderabad on 02.02.2006 to attend the house warming ceremony of S. Venkateshwar Rao, who is a relative of the deceased and her husband PW.2. Again, the case of the prosecution that the deceased boarded a private bus going to Vijayawada on 04.02.2006 at Hyderabad and that PWs.5, 6 and 8 were travelling in the same bus is established by the evidence of PWs.5 and 6. The defence did not seriously' question the evidence of these witnesses regarding their claim that they travelled with the deceased in the same bus. Thus, evidently it is established that the deceased went to Hyderabad to attend the house warming ceremony of her relative and more important, she boarded a bus on 04.02.2006 at Hyderabad and got down the bus at Kanchikacherla. We may stop at this stage and consider whether these facts established the guilt of the accused in any manner. The obvious answer to this question is that these admitted facts cannot establish the guilt of the accused by any stretch of imagination. 12. It is the further case of prosecution that the accused boarded the auto of the deceased and that she was last seen in the auto of the deceased. This is what is spoken to by PW.7 to PW.9. 12. It is the further case of prosecution that the accused boarded the auto of the deceased and that she was last seen in the auto of the deceased. This is what is spoken to by PW.7 to PW.9. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the last seen philosophy and last seen evidence is a very weak piece of evidence and that at any rate the evidence of PW s.7 to 9 is not trustworthy to accept that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. 13. PW.7 has been running a Coffee Hotel at Chevitikallu Road Centre at Kanchikacherla. He claimed that the deceased asked him as to where the auto stand was and that she saw the deceased waking up the accused, who was sleeping in the auto, boarding the auto and proceeding to Munnaluru village. PW.8, a resident of Munnaluru, same village to which the deceased belonged to, also travelled in the same bus along with PWs.5, 6 and the deceased and noticed the deceased boarding the auto driven by the accused. 14.PW.9, a resident of Munnaluru village, is an auto driver. He was at Kanchikacherla at about 4.45 a.m. on 04.02.2006 and found the deceased travelling in the auto of the accused. The evidence of PWs.7 to 9 is questioned by the learned counsel for the accused. 15. PW.9, who is an auto driver, claimed that his vocation as an auto driver is to take school children from their residences at Munnaluru to Kanchikacherla and back to their residences from the school at Kanchkicherla. His evidence is that on the date of incident, he was proceeding with children at about 4.45 a.m. The learned counsel for the accused ridiculed the contention of PW.9 that he was taking the school children from a very small village like Munnaluru to a small town like Kanchikacherla starting at about 4.45 a.m. pointing out that even in a city like Hyderabad autos start picking up the children at about 7.30 a.m. and that in a village like Munnaluru, starting with the children at 4.45 a.m. is quite absurd. It is true that Munnalur is a small village and is near Kanchikacherla town. We do not fathom why PW.9 started at about 4.45 a.m. to take the school children. It is true that Munnalur is a small village and is near Kanchikacherla town. We do not fathom why PW.9 started at about 4.45 a.m. to take the school children. Even otherwise, PW.9 himself admitted that daylight has not set in and that it was still dark by 5.15 a.m. on 04.02.2006, before which time he found the deceased in the auto driven by the accused. It, therefore, is evident that PW.9 could not have noticed the persons travelling in the auto or even the driver of the auto during night time. It may be noticed that PW.9 did not state that he could see the accused and the deceased in the lights of the vehicular traffic. He also admitted that darkness was still prevailing at that time. Nevertheless no explanation is offered as to howPW.9could identify the accused and the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW.9 is not reasonable and deserves to be rejected, therefore, is justified. We propose to place no reliance upon the evidence of PW.9. 16. PW.8 claimed that he saw the deceased boarding the auto driven by the accused and proceeding towards the village. The deceased is the niece of PW.8. The house of PW.8 is at a distance of 1/2 k.m. from the house of the deceased. However, PW.8 was silent why he did not talk to the deceased while they were travelling till Kanchikacherla and why he did not alight the bus along with the deceased and proceed with her to the auto stand. More curious, although PW.8 tried to corroborate the stand of PW.7, which shall be examined presently, PW.8 did not whisper in his evidence about PWs.5 and 6 travelling in the same bus along with him and the deceased. On the other hand, he referred the names of Chandra Rao and Krishnaiah (L W s.9 and 12) as the persons with whom he got down the bus. He conspicuously failed to refer the name of PW.5 as getting down the bus at Nandigama or PW.6 getting down the bus with the deceased and PW.8. Indeed, more conspicuous is the fact that he did not refer to PWs.5 and 6 as travelling in the bus along with him and the deceased. He conspicuously failed to refer the name of PW.5 as getting down the bus at Nandigama or PW.6 getting down the bus with the deceased and PW.8. Indeed, more conspicuous is the fact that he did not refer to PWs.5 and 6 as travelling in the bus along with him and the deceased. It is not as though PW.8 is a stranger to PWs.5 and 6 PW.8 deposed that PWs.3 to 6 also attended the house warming ceremony. Thus, he knew or has facial acquaintance with PWs.5 and 6. No explanation is offered by the prosecution why PW.8 did not refer to PWs.5 and 6 as travelling in the same bus along with him and the deceased. It is not safe to rely upon the evidence of such a witness, merely because he referred to the name of PW.7 in his evidence. 17. As already referred to, PW.7has been running a coffee hotel. As the hotel is situate on the national highway, there is no surprise if the coffee hotel is opened at 4.30 a.m. PW.7 deposed that the deceased stood at a distance of 10 feet from his hotel and asked him about the auto stand and that he identified the accused as the driver of the auto, which the deceased boarded, in the light of the auto. When a passenger boards an auto, the driver puts on the headlights of the auto but not light inside the auto. It is rather difficult for PW.7 to identify either the accused or the deceased as the driver of the auto and as a passenger. This is evident from the fact that PW.7 deposed that he could identify the accused only in view of the light in the auto. I therefore consider that the evidence of PW.7 cannot be accepted regarding the identification of either the accused or the deceased by PW.7. Thus, the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 who spoke about the deceased being seen alive for the last time in the auto of the accused has not been established clinchingly and beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The question of the accused being considered guilty on the last seen theory, therefore, failed. 18. For the sake of argument, for a moment, it may be assumed that the prosecution established through the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. The question of the accused being considered guilty on the last seen theory, therefore, failed. 18. For the sake of argument, for a moment, it may be assumed that the prosecution established through the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. Can it be said that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in such circumstances? 19. PWs.7 to 9 saw the deceased going in the auto of the accused. Later, half burnt dead body of the deceased was found beside the road from Kanchikacherla to Munnaluru. The learned Public Prosecutor draws an inference from these facts that the accused was guilty. Indeed, it is the case of the prosecution that MO.8 pair of gold bangles of the deceased was seized from the accused w hen he was arrested. It is also the case of the prosecution that MOs.1 to 5,7 & 9 jewelry of the deceased was subsequently seized from the house of the accused. A conjoint effort of the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 and seizure of jewelry of the deceased from the house of the accused is sought to be shown as clinching evidence and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offences levelled against him. To the extent of seizure of MO.8 and MOs.1 to 5, 7 & 9 are concerned, they are primarily hit by Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. We shall deal with this aspect a little later. Where the prosecution failed to show that the material objects referred to above were seized from the possession of the accused, would the evidence ofPWs.7 to9 be sufficient to hold that the accused was guilty of the offence allegedly committed by him? After the deceased boarded the auto of the accused, she never got down the auto anywhere between the auto stand at Kanchikacherla and her residence at Munnaluru. She could have been robbed, raped and murdered by miscreants after she got down the auto. Why the deceased alighted the auto in between Kanchikacherla and Munnaluru is for the prosecution to explain. After the deceased boarded the auto of the accused, she never got down the auto anywhere between the auto stand at Kanchikacherla and her residence at Munnaluru. She could have been robbed, raped and murdered by miscreants after she got down the auto. Why the deceased alighted the auto in between Kanchikacherla and Munnaluru is for the prosecution to explain. At any rate, merely because the dead body was found, we are afraid that it cannot be concluded that the accused was guilty of robbery, rape and murder as well as guilty of the criminal misappropriation and resorting to overt acts to conceal the evidence and the crimes committed by him. As already pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, the last seen alive theory is a weak piece of evidence. It can strongly corroborate the other circumstances. At the same time, the last seen alive in the company of the accused by itself cannot establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The learned Public Prosecutor put forth the last seen together theory as a corroborative or corollary piece of evidence to the evidence of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of MO.8 as well as MOs.1 to 5, 7 & 9. PW.14 who is the Investigating Officer in this case deposed that when the accused was arrested on 05.02.2006 in the presence of PW.7, the accused confessed about the commission of offence and that MO.8 was also seized at that time. The seizure of MO.8 thus was after the arrest of the accused. Consequently, the alleged confession of the accused under Ex.P.5 and alleged seizure of MO.8 are not admissible in evidence. PW.1 is an omnibus witness. He lodged EX.P.1 complaint. He was an inquest mediator. He was also a mediator for the observation of the scene where the dead body of the deceased was lying when it was found. He was one of the mediators for the arrest of the accused as well as for the test identification parade in which PW.2 identified the gold ornaments belonging to his deceased wife. While so, PW.14 did not referthenameofPW.1 as one of the mediators before whom the accused was arrested. PW.14 referred to the name of PW.7. PW.7, however, did not subscribe to the evidence of PW.14 that he was present at the time of arrest of the accused. 21. While so, PW.14 did not referthenameofPW.1 as one of the mediators before whom the accused was arrested. PW.14 referred to the name of PW.7. PW.7, however, did not subscribe to the evidence of PW.14 that he was present at the time of arrest of the accused. 21. There are some typographical mistakes in this case. We shall refer to the typographical mistake in the post-mortem report under EX.P.15 letter. It may be assumed that PW.14 referred to the name of PW.1 as the person before whom the accused was arrested and that the court typist inadvertently typed it as though PW.7 was present with PW.14 at the time of arrest of the accused. In any event, when the accused made this statement to PW.14 after his arrest, the alleged confession of the accused under Ex.P.14 stood hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and became inadmissible. 22. PW.1 deposed that the police seized various gold ornaments and silver anklets from the possession of the accused at his house which are MOs.1 to 5 and 7 & 9 and that the seizure was under Ex.P.6 cover of mahazar. It may be noticed that while PW.1 stated that the accused took out a cloth bag from the bushes in front of his house wherefrom he produced the gold and silver jewelry, it is the specific case of PW.14 that the accused produced the above mentioned jewelry which were concealed in a white handkerchief at his house. PW.14 did not speak about the recovery of concealed items from the bushes by the accused, while PW.1 did not speak about a white handkerchief in which the material objects were packed and concealed. Evidently, PW.1, a Panchayat Secretary of Kanchikacherla is an accommodative witness which can be seen from the very fact that he is an omnibus witness and was ready to act as mediator for any purpose on behalf of police. When the evidence of PW.1 cannot at once be accepted on account of his close association with police, it would not be safe to accept the evidence of PW.1 to conclude that police seized various gold ornaments from the possession of the accused at his house upon the confession of the accused and upon the accused showing the same facilitating police to recover the same. Added to it, the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.14 contradicts each other as to the exact place at which MOs.1 to 5 and 7 & 9 were seized and as to the nature of the cover in which the gold and silver ornaments were packed and concealed. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that neither the evidence of PW.1 nor the evidence of PW.14 nor the conjoint evidenceofPWs.1 and 14 for that matter is sufficient to conclude that MOs.1 to 5, 7 & 9 were seized from the possession of the accused when the accused took PW.14 and the police party to his house. Thus, the seizure of MOs.1 to 5,7 & 9 is not made out by the prosecution. So much so, the seizure ofMO.8, which was seized after police arrested the accused also, cannot be accepted where the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to corroborate the evidence of PW.14 regarding the arrest, confession and seizure of MO.8 by PW.14 from the accused. Thus, the confession of the accused and seizure of MOs.1 to 5and 7 to 9 have not been made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The mere arrest of the accused is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, assuming that the arrest is made out. 23. The prosecution thus failed to link the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 to the subsequent arrest, confession and seizure of gold ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the accused by the police. The evidence of PW s.7 to 9 that they had last seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused, therefore, is of no consequence in this case. 24. Inter alia, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that while the murder of the deceased occurred on 04.02.2006, the accused was. arrested on the very same next day and that there was no scope for police to manipulate the evidence and create evidence of recovery and that the evidence of PW.14 and PW.1 regarding the arrest, confession of the accused and recovery of the seizure deserve to be accepted. Merely because the accused was arrested on the next day after the date of the incident proper, there cannot be any inference that the evidence was true and needs to be acted upon. Merely because the accused was arrested on the next day after the date of the incident proper, there cannot be any inference that the evidence was true and needs to be acted upon. It is the circumstance which show whether the evidence can be accepted or otherwise, more importantly so where the main evidence itself is circumstantial evidence. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of PWs.1 and 14 deserves to be accepted regarding various crimes leading to the guilt of the accused. 25. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out the confusion of the medical evidence in this case and tried to show that the evidence is manufactured to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The incident occurred on 04.02.2006. Ex.P.5 is the post-mortem report. PW.12, Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Nandigama, conducted postmortem examination of the deceased on 05.02.2006. He examined the dead body of the deceased between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on that day. While so, EX.P.15 shows as if it relates to the post-mortem examination of the deceased-Naga Pushpa on 05.02.2001 instead of 05.02.2006. The reference in the last page relating to the crime No.20 of 2006 shows that the same was on 05.02.2007. The opinion as to the cause of death which was referred for the FSL report also shows the date as 05.02.2001. The learned counsel for the accused has been trying to make hay out of this inconsistency pointing out that Ex.P.15 perhaps relates to some person other than the deceased and perhaps relates to some other death. At no place in Ex.P.15 was it noted that it was issued on 05.02.2006. At some places it was shown to be related to post-mortem examination on 05.02.2001 and at another place, it was shown to be related to Crime No.20 of 2006 dated 05.02.2007. However, it may be noticed that PW.12 who conducted autopsy was very clear in pointing out that he conducted the post-mortem examination on 05.02.2006. Evidently, the mentioning of the date as 05.02.2001 and as 05.02.2007 in Ex.P.15 are clerical mistakes. No inference can be drawn from this circumstance that Ex.P.15 did not belong to the deceased. 26. We, therefore, agree that Ex.P.15 is the post-mortem report of the deceased, in view of the evidence of PW.12. Evidently, the mentioning of the date as 05.02.2001 and as 05.02.2007 in Ex.P.15 are clerical mistakes. No inference can be drawn from this circumstance that Ex.P.15 did not belong to the deceased. 26. We, therefore, agree that Ex.P.15 is the post-mortem report of the deceased, in view of the evidence of PW.12. However, the learned counsel for the accused also pointed out the other inconsistencies relating to the time of the death of the deceased and the opinion ofPW.12 with reference to EX.P.1S. In Ex.P.1S, it was stated that the death was about 23 hours to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. PW.12 deposed that the deceased would appear to have died about 36 hours prior to post-mortem examination. Thus, if the deceased died about 24 hours prior to the death as mentioned in Ex.P.1S, the death was around 4 p.m. on 04.02.2006. By then, the body of the deceased was already traced. If the death was about 36 hours prior to the post-mortem examination, the death must be around 4 a.m. on 04.02.2006 by which time the deceased was still in the bus. The time mentioned by PW.12 and Ex.P.1S thus do not point out that the accused died some time after 5.15 a.m. on 04.02.206 after she boarded the auto of the deceased. 27. In Ex.P.1S, the doctor referred to the FSL report in Column No.11 and opined that the death was on account of rape and sudden violent disturbance of the nervous system. Curiously, at the end, the medical officer pointed out that the cause of death is in accordance with the FSL report. How PW.12 could state in Column No.11 of Ex.P.15 with reference to schedule of observation that the death was due to rape and sudden violent disturbance is not made out. The samples drawn for further chemical analysis in the main Column-H of Ex.P.15 did not show that virginal slaps were collected. It is not understandable as to how either PW.12 or the FSL report could conclude that the deceased was subjected to rape. PW.12 admitted in his evidence that there were no other symptoms of violence on any private part of the deceased barring for the burn injuries. Thus, the very rape of the deceased, much less the rape of the deceased by the accused is not made out in this case. PW.12 admitted in his evidence that there were no other symptoms of violence on any private part of the deceased barring for the burn injuries. Thus, the very rape of the deceased, much less the rape of the deceased by the accused is not made out in this case. The question of holding that the accused is guilty of rape of the deceased therefore would not arise. 28. Curiously, PW.I deposed that when he found the dead body of the deceased, it was in a half burnt condition and that the legs of the deceased were wide apart. PW.I, therefore, concluded that the deceased was subjected to rape before she was murdered. EX.P.I is the initial report lodged by PW.I with the police. EX.P.2 is the observation report at the scene where the dead body of the deceased was found. Neither in EX.P.I nor in Ex.P.2 PW.I referred to rape. He did not even state that the legs of the deceased were wide apart for PW.I reaching the conclusion that the deceased were subjected to rape before murder. 29. The only evidence on the basis of which police would appear to have concluded that the accused raped the deceased before murdering her is semen on the polyester saree and petty coat of the deceased. But the case of the prosecution is that the accused removed the wearing apparel of the deceased and later raped the deceased vide columI;} No.4 of EX.P.I4 letter of advice. If so, if the deceased was subjected to rape, apart from symptoms of injuries caused on account of the resistance offered by the deceased, the private parts of the deceased must contain semen of the accused and not the saree and petty coat of the deceased. PW.I2 already admitted that there were no symptoms of physical aggression on the person of the deceased barring for the wounds caused by the burn injuries. 30. The learned counsel for the accused inter alia submitted that the prosecution even failed to show that the blood samples of the accused were collected for DNA finger printing examination. PW.14 pointed out that the accused was sent for judicial custody after he was referred to medical examination for ascertaining his potency. He further deposed that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station took the accused to the FSL, Hyderabad and got the necessary samples from the accused for the ONA fingerprinting. PW.14 pointed out that the accused was sent for judicial custody after he was referred to medical examination for ascertaining his potency. He further deposed that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station took the accused to the FSL, Hyderabad and got the necessary samples from the accused for the ONA fingerprinting. PW.11, whois a scientist dealing with ON A finger printing, dealt with elaborately about the same and concluded that the blood samples of the accused tallied with the samples on the petty coat of the deceased. We have no hesitation to accept the evidence of PW.11 in concluding that the petty coat of the deceased contained semen of the accused. We, however, are not prepared to draw any inference there from that the accused was guilty of committing rape in view of the other evidence which is not consistent with the guilt of the accused for the offence of rape. 31. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no reason for semen of the accused on the petty coat of the deceased. First, if the accused committed rape upon the deceased, semen should be found on the private parts of the deceased. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that semen of the accused was found on the private parts of the deceased. Secondly, the accused perhaps had carnal acquaintance with the consent of the deceased. Not even for a moment do we suggest that the deceased was a lady of loose virtues. We would only point out as answer to the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that there is possibility of explanation for the semen being found on the garments of the deceased. Consequently, merely because semen of the accused was found on the clothes of the deceased, inference cannot be drawn that the accused raped the deceased and that he subsequently murdered the deceased and committed theft of gold ornaments of the deceased. 32. So far as the allegation of rape is concerned, there is some evidence at least in the shape of semen of the accused on the apparel of the deceased. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, no case whatsoever is made out. It is the case of the Kanchikacherla Police Station took the accused to the FSL, Hyderabad and got the necessary samples from the accused for the ONA fingerprinting. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, no case whatsoever is made out. It is the case of the Kanchikacherla Police Station took the accused to the FSL, Hyderabad and got the necessary samples from the accused for the ONA fingerprinting. PW.11, who is a scientist dealing with ON A finger printing, dealt with elaborately about the same and concluded that the blood samples of the accused tallied with the samples on the petty coat of the deceased. We have no hesitation to accept the evidence of PW.11 in concluding that the petty coat of the deceased contained semen of the accused. We, however, are not prepared to draw any inference there from that the accused was guilty of committing rape in view of the other evidence which is not consistent with the guilt of the accused for the offence of rape. 31. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no reason for semen of the accused on the petty coat of the deceased. First, if the accused committed rape upon the deceased, semen should be found on the private parts of the deceased. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that semen of the accused was found on the private parts of the deceased. Secondly, the accused perhaps had carnal acquaintance with the consent of the deceased. Not even for a moment do we suggest that the deceased was a lady of loose virtues. We would only point out as answer to the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that there is possibility of explanation for the semen being found on the garments of the deceased. Consequently, merely because semen of the accused was found on the clothes of the deceased, inference cannot be drawn that the accused raped the deceased and that he subsequently murdered the deceased and committed theft of gold ornaments of the deceased. 32. So far as the allegation of rape is concerned, there is some evidence at least in the shape of semen of the accused on the apparel of the deceased. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, no case whatsoever is made out. It is the case of the prosecution inter alia that the accused was guilty of the offence u/s.404 IPC. Section 404 IPC provides punishment for dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by the deceased at the time of his/her death. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, no case whatsoever is made out. It is the case of the prosecution inter alia that the accused was guilty of the offence u/s.404 IPC. Section 404 IPC provides punishment for dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by the deceased at the time of his/her death. As already considered, the evidence of PW.1, which is inconsistent with the evidence of PW.14, is not sufficient to conclude that the accused produced MOs.1 to 5, 7 & 9 from his possession from his house and MO.8 was found on the person of the accused at the time of his arrest. The prosecution, which failed to establish that MOs.1 to 5, 7 & 9 were in possession of the accused, consequently failed in establishing the offence u/s.404 IPC. 33. The accused allegedly kidnapped, murdered and burnt the dead body of the deceased with a view to conceal evidence and that the accused thus was liable for punishmentu/s.364,302 and 201 IPC. No one deposed that the deceased raised cries or alarm that the accused was taking away her in his auto. There is no evidence that the accused took away the deceased either by force or by conceit. It cannot be assumed in this background that the accused was guilty of the offence u/s.364 IPC. Similarly, no one saw the accused murdering the deceased and no one saw the accused setting fire to the dead body of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused kidnapped the deceased in his au to, raped her, later murdered her, snatched away the jewelry from the person of the deceased and then set fire to the dead body of the deceased to conceal the evidence and that the accused thus committed offences punishable u/s.364, 376, 302,404 and 201 IPC respectively. However, there is no evidence at all for any of the offence levelled against the accused. The evidence proved by the prosecution is that the deceased travelled in the same bus along with PWs.5, 6 and 8. It is even doubtful whether the deceased boarded the auto of the deceased (sic accused). Even otherwise, the prosecution failed to prove the kidnapping and on other offences levelled against him. 34. As already pointed out, there are no eye witnesses for the offence proper. It is even doubtful whether the deceased boarded the auto of the deceased (sic accused). Even otherwise, the prosecution failed to prove the kidnapping and on other offences levelled against him. 34. As already pointed out, there are no eye witnesses for the offence proper. As rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in the absence of eye witness account, circumstantial evidence must establish the guilt of the accused with such intensity that the only inference that can be drawn is that the accused was guilty of various offences levelled against him. For the reasons already set out, such an inference is not possible in this case, as the offence does not constitute various links of an unbroken chain of events. 35. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that while the dead body of the deceased was traced at about 1 p.m. on 04.02.2006, PW.2 husband of the deceased was informed only at about 5 p.m. and that any amount of doubt arises as the husband was not even informed about the death of his wife till about 5 p.m. It may be noticed that PW.1 and others came to know about an unidentified dead body at about 1 p.m. It would appear that as soon as the dead body was found to be that of the deceased, PW.2, husband of the deceased was informed about the same. The delay of intimation of the death of the deceased to PW.2 from the time the dead body of the deceased was traced is therefore of no consequence. 36. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a gutter in between the northern and southern fields of Satyanarayna and Suryanarayana on the one side and Bhaskar Rao and Vishnu Vardhan Rao on the other side as can be seen from Ex.P .18, rough sketch. The learned counsel for the accused contended that it was not believable that no one found the dead body of the deceased till about 1 p.m. if rape, murder and other offences occurred during the small hours of during the early morning hours of the day. It may be seen from Ex.P.18 and EX.P.2 observation report that the dead body of the deceased was in a gutter. The dead body was not on the main road. It may be seen from Ex.P.18 and EX.P.2 observation report that the dead body of the deceased was in a gutter. The dead body was not on the main road. Therefore, noticing of the dead body in the morning or not noticing the dead body till about 1 p.m. are not surprising. No inference can be drawn either way in favour of the accused or against the accused. 37. PW.5 curiously deposed that the deceased was subjected to forcible rape and murder for gain as if he witnessed the incident. At the same time, it is the case of the prosecution that not only PW.5 but no one witnessed the incident proper either for kidnap or for rape, murder or burning the dead body of the deceased, much less snatching of the gold ornaments from the dead body of the deceased. 38. Inter alia, the learned counsel for the accused tried to show that PW.2 was aware that the accused was not guilty of any of the offences and that PW.2 therefore resorted to Dharna before police for bringing the real culprit to book. PW.2 admitted in his evidence that along with others he had squatted before the police station protesting that the real culprit for the death of his wife should be arrested. The learned counsel for the accused draws an inference there from that PW.2 was aware that the deceased was not guilty of the offences levelled against him. It is for the accused only to state how PW.2 knew that the accused was not the culprit. It is also for them to explain why PW.2 did not name the actual culprit if he knew who the actual culprit was. In any event, merely because PW.2 resorted to protest for the arrest of the real culprit, it cannot be assumed that the accused was not guilty of the offences levelled against him. 39. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that it is an unfortunate case where albeit the investigation was commenced with great promptitude, there was any amount of slackness in the investigation. We do not venture to go to the extent of pointing out that the investigation was perfunctory or was not proper. We would only point out that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused much less beyond reasonable doubt. 40. We do not venture to go to the extent of pointing out that the investigation was perfunctory or was not proper. We would only point out that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused much less beyond reasonable doubt. 40. Thus, this is a case where the prosecution contended that the accused was guilty of kidnap, rape, murder, criminal misappropriation from a dead person and committing acts to conceal evidence of the guilt punishable u/s.364, 376, 302, 404 and 201 IPC. There is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence let in by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution therefore failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 41. The learned trial Judge wholly relied upon the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences levelled against him. For the reasons mentioned, we are not able to agree that the evidence of PWs.7 to 9 is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the learned trial Judge in considering the accused guilty of the offences with which he is charged, therefore; is liable to be set aside, holding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused accordingly is found not guilty of the offences levelled against him. He is found not guilty of various offences levelled against him and he is acquitted forthwith. If the accused is not needed in any other crime, he shall be released forthwith. The disposal of the valuable and non-valuable, marked and unmarked material objects as recorded by the learned trial Judge is maintained. 42. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.