JUDGMENT : (Per A. Gopal Reddy, J.) The sole accused in S.C. No. 361/2006 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District at Suryapet, was tried for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, by judgment of that court dt. 13-7-2007. He filed this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. The substance of the charge framed against the appellant/accused is that on 26th February, 2006 at 11 p.m. at the outskirts of Rekulakunta near Palair Stream, the accused caused the death of Mallela Pullamma (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") by beating on her head with a boulder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, which led to the conviction of the appellant/accused, is as follows: The accused is a resident of Balusupadu village. All the material prosecution witnesses and the deceased were also the residents of Balusupadu village. P.W.1 is the uncle of the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. 4. On 26-2-2006, the deceased, P.W. 3 and others went to Muthyala Jathara at Muthyala village of Krishna District. P.W.3 told P.W.1 that the deceased, and P.Ws. 4 and 5 went to purchase ice cream. P.W.3 further informed P.W.1 that the accused and the deceased were talking with each other and P.W.6 witnessed them. It was also announced in the mike in the Jathara that the deceased was missing. P.W.12 informed P.W.3 that the accused and the deceased left the place from the Jathara. They searched for the deceased at several places, but in vain. They went to Rekulakunta village through vagu where they found the dead body of the deceased lying on the big stone and also found head injury over the body of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the village and informed the same to P.Ws. 2, 3 and other family members. P.W.1 rushed to Kodad police Station and gave a report covered under Ex. P-1. 5. P.W.16, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad, who received Ex. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the village and informed the same to P.Ws. 2, 3 and other family members. P.W.1 rushed to Kodad police Station and gave a report covered under Ex. P-1. 5. P.W.16, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodad, who received Ex. P-1 from P.W.1 on 27-2-2006 at 11 a.m. registered it as a case in Cr. No. 35/2006 under Section 302 IPC and issued First Information Report covered under Ex. P-8. He examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He visited the scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws. 9 and 10. He got photographed the dead body of the deceased through P.W.14. He seized three blood stained stones, one pair of plastic chappals, blood stained earth, control earth, vooni, jacket, petty coat. He conducted in quest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and 10. After conducting inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.13 Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Kodad conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report covered under Ex. P-5 opining that the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to the fracture of skull and hymeotoma present on then brain. P.W.17 the then Circle Inspector of Police, Kodad, who took up investigation examined P.Ws 4 to 8 and 12, and L.Ws. 10. He arrested the accused on 6-3-2006 and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of P.Ws. 11 and 15. He seized shirt, pant, banian and underwear from the accused. After completion of investigation and on receiving relevant reports, P.W.17 filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. Learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No. 29/2006 and committed the case to the Sessions Division of Nalgonda District as the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No. 361/2006 and made over to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet for disposal according to law. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a single charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a single charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence for which he stood charged, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and proved 8 documents and exhibited 12 material objects. 7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and represented that there is no evidence to be adduced on his behalf. But Exs. D-1 to D-10 were marked on behalf of the defence. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, by the impugned judgment dt. 13-7-2007 held that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence of murder of the deceased and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment, as, aforementioned. Questioning the same, the present appeal has been filed by the accused. 9. Accused is provided with legal assistance in preferring the appeal. 10. Sri A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that when the accused was available at the time of inquest, arresting the accused on 6-3-2006 and his making confession statement covered under Ex. P-7 does not arise. She further contended that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12, and they only stated that they have seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the Jathara on the previous night of the date of occurrence and found the dead body on the next day morning, and their evidence is contradicting with each other. She further contended that P.W.4 is none other than the daughter of elder brother of P.W.2 and P.W.6 is none other than the elder sister of P.W. 2 and therefore, they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. She further contended that P.W.4 is none other than the daughter of elder brother of P.W.2 and P.W.6 is none other than the elder sister of P.W. 2 and therefore, they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. She further contended that when the evidence adduced shows that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased on the previous day of the date of occurrence and when the accused was available in the village, P.W. l has not lodged any complaint nor questioned him about the whereabouts of the deceased, which shows that the prosecution has concocted the story against the accused and therefore, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence of the interested witnesses. 11. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while sustaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused contended that once the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 is consistent that they saw the accused in the company of the deceased, it is for the accused to explain and his silence is sufficient to establish the he committed the murder of the deceased. 12. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are liable to be set aside or modified? 13. P. W. 1, who is the brother by courtesy to the father of the deceased i.e., P.W.2, stated that he lodged a report to the police. He further deposed that his wife and P.W.3, who is the wife of P.W. 2, are own sisters. About one year and two months back, on one day, the deceased, P.W.3, and Veeramma and others went to Muthyala Jathara at 'Muthyala village of Krishna District. P.W. 3 told him that the deceased, P.W. 5 and P.W. 4 went to purchase ice cream in the Jathara. P.W. 5 and P.W. 4 came after purchasing ice cream. P.W. 3 told him that while they purchasing ice cream, they saw the accused and the deceased were talking with each other. P.W. 6 witnessed about the deceased talking with the accused. P.W. 5 and P.W. 4 came after purchasing ice cream. P.W. 3 told him that while they purchasing ice cream, they saw the accused and the deceased were talking with each other. P.W. 6 witnessed about the deceased talking with the accused. Thereafter, it was announced in the mike in the Jathara that the deceased was missing. One Sreenu of Balusapadu village told P.W. 3 that the accused and the deceased left the Jathara. He heard about P.W. 3 and others searching for the deceased. P.W. 2 told him that his wife Bujji informed him all these facts. They also searched for the deceased at several places but in vain. While going to Rekulakunta village they found the dead body of the deceased lying on the big stone and found an injury on the head of the deceased. 14. P.W.2 who is the father of the deceased deposed that P.W. 3 is his wife. He further deposed that on one day the deceased, P.W. 3 and his mother-in-law Veeramma and others went to attend Muthyala Jathara. On the next day morning, P.W.3 came to the house and told him that the deceased along with P.Ws. 4 to 5 went to purchase ice cream in the Jathara but P.W. 4 and 5 returned but their daughter did not come back. He was also told by P.W. 3 that she enquired with P.W.6 about the deceased and he told that the accused was talking with the deceased. His wife (P.W. 3) further told him that herself, P.W. 6 and others searched for the deceased for about 2 hours. On the next day morning, on receipt of information, they went to the place where the dead body was lying and found the injuries on the forehead and backside of the deceased. 15. P.W. 4 who accompanied the deceased to the Jathara deposed that herself, P.W.5 and the deceased went to purchase ice cream but herself and P.W. 5 returned after purchasing ice cream and the deceased did not return back as she was talking with the accused. When P.W. 3 enquired about her daughter, they told her that the deceased was talking with the accused. She denied that P.Ws. 1 and 2 brought the accused from his house forcibly and handed over him to the police. When P.W. 3 enquired about her daughter, they told her that the deceased was talking with the accused. She denied that P.Ws. 1 and 2 brought the accused from his house forcibly and handed over him to the police. P.W. 5 deposed that the police apprehended the accused from his house on that day itself i.e., 27-2-2006. 16. P.W. 6 who is the elder sister's son of P.W. 2 stated that himself, the deceased, P.Ws. 3 to 5 and others boarded the auto at their village Balusupadu and went to Muthylal Jathara. In the Jathara, he found the deceased and the accused went towards bathroom in the Jathara. They got announced in the mike about the missing of the deceased but in vain. Later they came back to their village by 7 a.m. on the next day and heard that the dead body was lying in the vaagu and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the vagu. 17. P.W. 8 who is a resident of Balusupadu village deposed that while he was going for calls of nature at about 10.30 p.m. at the outskirts of their village towards road, he witnessed the deceased and the accused getting down the auto and also witnessed them while they were going towards Paleru vaagu. Thereafter, he went to his house. On the next day morning, they came to know that one dead body was lying in the vague. He has not revealed the fact to anybody in the village that he witnessed the deceased along with the accused while getting down the auto during night time while he was going to calls of nature. He has not revealed after seeing the dead body of the deceased, at the place where dead body is lying, that the he has seen the deceased along with the accused during night time at about 10.30 p.m. while getting down the auto. Except to police, who recorded his statement, he has not revealed about his witnessing the deceased in the company of the accused on the previous night of the date of occurrence. 18. P.W. 9 who is a mediator to Ex. P-2 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-3 sketch map and A-4 inquest panchanama admitted in his cross-examination that while conducting panchanamas, the village people shown the accused at the center of the village stating that he killed the deceased. 19. 18. P.W. 9 who is a mediator to Ex. P-2 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-3 sketch map and A-4 inquest panchanama admitted in his cross-examination that while conducting panchanamas, the village people shown the accused at the center of the village stating that he killed the deceased. 19. P.W. 12, who is a witness who last seen the deceased in the company of the accused deposed thathimself, P.W.7, P.W.10 and others including the accused boarded the auto at their village Balusupadu and went to Muthyala Jathara. The fact of boarding auto has not spoken to by P.W. 6. P.W. 12 further deposed that on that day from 9 p.m. onwards, the accused was not appeared. While he was coming after answering calls of nature, there was mike announcement in the Jathara that the deceased was missing. In the meanwhile, he observed the accused as well as the deceased while going in the auto from Muthayala Jathara. When P.W. 7 and others were coming towards him, he told them that he had seen the accused along with the deceased traveling in the auto. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the accused was present in the village on the next day when they heard about lying of dead body of the deceased in the vaagu. No police report was given in the Jathara about missing of he deceased the deceased and the accused alone travelled in the auto from Muthyala Jathara and he witnessed the same. The distance between Muthyala Jathara and vaagu where the dead body is lying is about 40 KMs. He has not stated to the police as in Ex. D-8, wherein it was stated that he along with the accused, Katta Pullaiah, his brother Ramu and family members along with others left to Muthyala Jathara in an auto. 20. The evidence adduced by the prosecution only shows that the accused and deceased were seen together when they purchased ice cream in the Muthyala Jathara by P.Ws. 4 and 5. Whereas the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 12 is contradictory. P.W. 8 stated that at about 10.30 p.m. while he was going for answering calls of nature, he witnessed the accused and the decreased getting down the auto. But he has not revealed the said fact to anybody even after seeing the dead body lying in the vaagu. Whereas the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 12 is contradictory. P.W. 8 stated that at about 10.30 p.m. while he was going for answering calls of nature, he witnessed the accused and the decreased getting down the auto. But he has not revealed the said fact to anybody even after seeing the dead body lying in the vaagu. Whereas P.W. 12 stated that the accused and the deceased alone were traveled in the auto from Muthyala Jathara and he witnessed them and the distance between Muthyala Jathara and the vaagu is about 40 KMs and it will take one hour and fifteen minutes in the auto to reach from Muthyala Jathara. P.W. 16, who is the investigating officer, stated that after taking over investigation on 28-2-2006 he examined P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 8 and others and he arrested the accused on 6-3-2006 and recorded his confessional panchanama covered under Ex. P-7, wherein, the accused confessed that the deceased, P .Ws. 4 and 5 went to a cart for purchasing ice cream, then he also reached there and took the deceased aside and the deceased asked him that if he marries she will follow him. He took the deceased to Jaggaiahpet in an auto and thereafter boarded a trolley auto. He hatched a plan to enjoy her sexually. After getting down auto at the outskirts of Balusupad village, they went to a big stone at Paleru vaagu in between the Balusupad and Redlakunta villages and enjoyed her sexually at 11.00 p.m. When the deceased asked him to marry her, and questioned him as to why he is postponing the topic, and slapped him, he gave a forcibly hit over the head of the deceased, due to which, she died due to bleeding injury. Thereafter, he reached the village and he was apprehended by the police on 6-3-2006 at 12.p.m. 21. The postmortem report covered under Ex.P-5 would not indicate that there was sexual harassment on the body of the deceased prior to her death. Further, FSL report covered under Ex.P-9 shows that semen is not detected on item Nos. 4 to 12 i.e., clothes of the accused as well as the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the accused committed sexual harassment on the deceased does not arise. Further, FSL report covered under Ex.P-9 shows that semen is not detected on item Nos. 4 to 12 i.e., clothes of the accused as well as the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the accused committed sexual harassment on the deceased does not arise. When the evidence of P.W. 5 is clear that the police apprehended the accused from his house on that day itself when the panchanamas conducted on 27-2-2006, the accused making confession on 6-3-2006 it doubtful and no credence can be given to the confessional statement made by the accused. 22. Thus, in this case all the alleged incriminating circumstances could not be said to have been established. Once that was clear and once it is found that the circumstances could not point out towards the guilt of the accused, without any other inference being probable, the accused must get the benefit of doubt. Further, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it also failed to prove that it is the accused committed the offence and none else. 23. Accordingly this appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused in SC No. 361/2006 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and he is acquitted of the same. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be returned to him. The appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.