JUDGMENT (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant herein, by judgment dated 26.08.2008 passed in S.C. No. 356 of 2005 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. 2. The case of the prosecution, In brief, is as follows: 3. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased namely Kanchalapally Vijaya Lakshmi, lodged a report with the Sub Inspector of Police, Yacharam, on 15.07.2005, stating that the deceased was given in marriage to the accused in the year 1992. At the time of marriage, they gave Rs.80,000/-, one house plot at Ibrahimpatnam and household articles to the accused. After one year of their marriage, the accused and the deceased shifted their residence to Yacharam. Since then the accused started harassing the deceased demanding her to bring additional dowry. In the year 1998, when the accused was constructing a house, they gave Rs.10,000/- to him. Again about two years back, they gave him Rs.25,000/-, for payment of due amount in respect of a chit transaction. Even then, the accused continued his harassment towards the deceased for additional dowry. On 14.07.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased, beat her and dragged her into the house, stating that he would kill her. Though one K. Dasarath Goud and other neighbours tried to pacify him, he did not relent, and at 10.00 p.m., he bolted the doors of the house from inside and beat the deceased. On the next day morning, at about 3.00 a.m., the brother of the accused namely Krishna Reddy called him over phone and informed that the accused killed the deceased by pressing her throat and fled away. Based on the said report lodged by P.W.1, the S.I of Police, Yacharam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. P.W.9-Inspector of Police took up investigation of the case. He visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26.07.2005, he arrested the accused and on interrogation, the accused confessed to have beat the deceased and when she fell unconscious, killed her by throttling her neck with a rope. Pursuant to his confession, P.W.9 recovered M.O.1-two pieces of rope with which the accused is said to have strangulated the deceased, from the house of the accused. Thereafter, P.W.9 produced the accused before the Court, which remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. The Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P9 and M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant in defence. 6. The Sessions Judge, having appreciated the entire evidence available on record, held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 7. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution could not prove the motive for the appellant to kill the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. P.W .8 Doctor did not properly conduct the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P8-post-mortem examination report issued by him shows that he did not properly examine the brain and chest of the deceased. Further, as per Ex.P8, the eyes and tongue of the deceased were found to be in normal condition and hence it cannot be said that the deceased was strangulated to death. He further submitted that P.W.4 did not corroborate the version of P.W.7, as regards recovery of M.O.1-two pieces of rope, at the instance of the accused, by P.W.9-Investigating Officer, in their presence, pursuant to the accused confessing to the commission of offence. He further submitted that P.W.4 did not corroborate the version of P.W.7, as regards recovery of M.O.1-two pieces of rope, at the instance of the accused, by P.W.9-Investigating Officer, in their presence, pursuant to the accused confessing to the commission of offence. Further, according to P.W.9-Investigating Officer, he arrested the accused on 27.07.2005, whereas the confessional statement of the accused was recorded and M.O.1 was recovered at his instance on 26.07.2005, and hence the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. He, thus, contends that as the evidence on record, which is circumstantial in nature, could not connect the accused with the commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 8. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State supported the judgment under appeal and submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6, who are the independent witnesses, reveal that the accused quarreled with the deceased few hours before the death of the deceased. P.W.2, who is the son of the accused and the deceased, has also categorically stated that when he returned from the school, he saw the accused beating the deceased, and the accused and the deceased slept together in the kitchen on the night of incident, and in the midnight at about 2.00 a.m., his father woke him up and asked the phone number of P.W.1-brother of the deceased and stated that he killed the deceased. Thus, the prosecution could establish that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. He further submitted that P.W.8-Doctor has categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased died due to strangulation, which is homicidal, but not self-strangulation and his evidence also reveals that the hyoid bone was fractured on right side, which is not possible by self-strangulation, and thus it cannot be said that P.W.8 did not conduct the post-mortem examination properly. He submitted that the absence of motive for the accused to kill the deceased is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, if the other circumstances, which connect the accused with the commission of offence, are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. He submitted that the absence of motive for the accused to kill the deceased is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, if the other circumstances, which connect the accused with the commission of offence, are proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, as the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is found to be reliable and trustworthy and it connects the accused with the commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt, the Court below has rightly found the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly imposed the conviction and sentence by the judgment under appeal, which is just and proper and needs no interference in this appeal. 9. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment under appeal and other material available on record. 10. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt? 11. To prove that the deceased died a homicidal death, the prosecution examined P.W.8-Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8-post-mortem examination report. He stated that on 15.07.2005, on the requisition of S.I. of Police, Yacharam Police Station, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following antemortem injuries: 1. Ligature mark 6 inches long across the front of neck, ½cm width, continuous 2. Cut injury on the right eyelid 3 cms. deep. 2. Abrasions on the right side of abdomen, superficial. 12. P.W.8 stated that on opening the neck of the deceased, the hyoid bone was found fractured on the right side. He opined the cause of the death of the deceased is due to strangulation asphyxia, which is homicidal, but not self-strangulation. He has categorically stated that the ligature marks found on the neck are possible by M.O.1 pieces of rope, said to have been used by the accused to throttle the neck of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that neck injury is not possible by self strangulation, as there is a fracture of hyoid bone. He denied the suggestion that injury No.1 is caused only due to self-strangulation, and he was deposing falsely. 13. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that neck injury is not possible by self strangulation, as there is a fracture of hyoid bone. He denied the suggestion that injury No.1 is caused only due to self-strangulation, and he was deposing falsely. 13. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 clearly reveals that the deceased died homicidal death due to strangulation. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant-accused that P.W.8 did not properly conduct the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, cannot be accepted. 14. According to the prosecution, the accused caused the homicidal death of the deceased, and the motive for him to kill the deceased is that he used to harass the deceased demanding her to bring money from her brother-P.W.1, and on the night of incident, he demanded the deceased to give money for purchasing liquor, and when she refused, he beat her and on the neighbours intervening, the accused and the deceased went inside the house. However, thereafter, the accused again beat the deceased and when she fell unconscious, he killed her by throttling her neck with a rope. 15. To prove that the accused used to harass the deceased for money, the prosecution examined P.W.1-elder brother of the deceased, P.W.2-son of the deceased and the accused, and P.W.3-elder sister of the deceased. 16. P.W.1 deposed that the accused and the deceased lived happily for about one year after their marriage, and thereafter they shifted their residence to Yacharam village and since then the accused started harassing the deceased, demanding her to bring money from him and his mother. He gave money on some occasions. In the year 1998, the accused demanded him to provide sand and steel for construction of house and sent the deceased to him. Thereupon, he gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused. Again the accused beat the deceased and sent her to him to bring money for payment of a chit, upon which he gave Rs.25,000/-. Even then, the accused used to beat the deceased and harass her, to bring more money from him. On being informed about the said harassment, he brought the deceased to his house, and twenty days prior to the incident, the accused took the deceased to his house with a promise that he would look after her well. Even then, the accused used to beat the deceased and harass her, to bring more money from him. On being informed about the said harassment, he brought the deceased to his house, and twenty days prior to the incident, the accused took the deceased to his house with a promise that he would look after her well. On 14.07.2005 at about 9.00 p.m., the brother of the accused informed him over telephone that the accused killed the deceased and left the house. Immediately, himself and other relatives rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased dead. He found injuries on the forehead and strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased. Immediately, he went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 report. He further stated that on his enquiry, the neighbours of the accused told that on the day of incident, the accused demanded the deceased to give Rs.20/- for alcohol and when she refused, he beat her with a plastic pipe and in the meantime, the neighbours intervened and separated them. Subsequently, the accused threatened his children to stay outside and took the deceased inside the house and subsequently she died. 17. Though in his chief-examination, he deposed that he paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused for construction of house, in his cross-examination, he categorically stated that the accused constructed the house by himself. He also stated that the house constructed by the accused is situated by the roadside and it consists of two shops in the front side, of which one shop is being run by the accused. He further stated that the house constructed by the accused is fetching a rent of Rs.1,500/- per month, which is now being deposited in the name of the daughter of the accused. His cross-examination further reveals that prior to the death of the deceased, the accused got registered the said house in the name of the deceased and after her death, it was registered in the name of his minor children. This shows that the accused is not greedy and he has sufficient means for his livelihood. His cross-examination further reveals that prior to the death of the deceased, the accused got registered the said house in the name of the deceased and after her death, it was registered in the name of his minor children. This shows that the accused is not greedy and he has sufficient means for his livelihood. Further, though P.W.1 deposed that the neighbours of the accused told him that on the day of incident, the accused demanded the deceased to give Rs.20/- for alcohol and when she refused, he beat her with a plastic pipe and in the meantime, the neighbours intervened and separated them, but the fact remains, P.W.9-Investigating Officer has categorically stated that P.W.1 did not state about the same before him. Further, P.Ws.4 and 6, who are said to be the neighbours of the accused, in their evidence, did not state about the accused demanding Rs.20/- from the deceased to purchase liquor and beating her with plastic pipe when she did not give that amount. P.W.4 only stated that on the night of incident, at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., the deceased came out from the house stating that the accused beat her and thereupon he intervened and sent her inside the house, while P.W.6 stated that the accused beat the deceased in the night prior to her death and then himself and P.W.4 intervened and sent the deceased inside his house. Thus, having regard to the fact that P.Ws.4 and 6 in their evidence did not speak about the accused demanding Rs.20/- from the deceased to purchase liquor, and in view of the own admission of P.W.1 that the accused is earning as a mechanic of submersible pumpsets and running a shop, it cannot be believed that the accused beat the deceased for not giving him Rs.20/- to purchase liquor. Further, though P.W.1 stated in his chief-examination that on being informed about the harassment by the accused towards the deceased, he brought the deceased to his house and twenty days prior to the incident, the accused took her to his house assuring to look after her well, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state before police about the same. Thus, his evidence is not trustworthy and does not help the prosecution to attribute motive to the accused to kill the deceased. 18. P.W.2 is the minor son of the deceased and the accused. Thus, his evidence is not trustworthy and does not help the prosecution to attribute motive to the accused to kill the deceased. 18. P.W.2 is the minor son of the deceased and the accused. Since he is a child witness, the Court, after putting some preliminary questions to him and after satisfying for itself that he is capable to give evidence, permitted him to give evidence. So far as the motive is concerned, it is his evidence that during the lifetime of the deceased, the accused used to beat her regularly in drunken state and demand her to bring amount from P.W.1. The deceased went to the house of P.W.1 for two or three times and brought money. But, the accused did not look after the deceased properly. Though he denied to have not stated before the police that the deceased went to the house of P.W.1 for two or three times to bring money for the accused, but P.W.9-Investigating Officer has categorically stated in his cross-examination that P.W.2 did not state about the same before him. Thus, this evidence of P.W.2 is nothing but improvement from his statement before the police. Therefore, his evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. 19. P.W.3, who is the elder sister of the deceased, stated that the accused used to beat the deceased to bring money and during her lifetime, she visited her house for two or three times and stated that the accused was beating her. However, in her cross-examination, she too admitted that the accused constructed the house with his own earnings. 20. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the brother, son and sister of the deceased respectively, does not help the prosecution to prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased, beyond all reasonable doubt. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the prosecution did not adduce any other evidence to show that the accused used to harass the deceased to bring money from P.W.1. There is no evidence on record to show that either P.W.1 or the deceased got conducted any panchayat or lodged any report with the police about the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused. There is no evidence on record to show that either P.W.1 or the deceased got conducted any panchayat or lodged any report with the police about the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the accused. Thus, in the absence of any such evidence, it is highly unsafe to rely on the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 to hold that the accused used to harass the deceased for money and collected money from P.W.1 for construction of house and for payment of due chit amount, more particularly when the evidence of P.W.1 reveals that the accused is earning as a mechanic and running a shop and he constructed the house with his own earnings, which is now transferred in the name of his minor children and the rent fetched therefrom is being deposited in the name of his daughter. 21. The counsel for the appellant-accused contended that motive in a criminal trial especially in a case, which rests upon circumstantial evidence, is very much relevant and is the strongest link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the commission of crime, and in the present case, since the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted. 22. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the absence of motive for the accused to kill the deceased is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, provided the other circumstances connect the accused with the commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in Giriraj Singh Gaghela and others v. State of A.P. (1) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 48 (DB)(A.P.)= 2009 Crl.L.J. 1257, Dhansukh Bhikhabhai Kapadi v. State of Gujarat (2) 2009 Crl.L.J .4319 and Ramesh Chand Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan (3) 2009 Crl.L.J. 1842. 23. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in Giriraj Singh Gaghela and others v. State of A.P. (1) 2009 (1) ALT (Crl.) 48 (DB)(A.P.)= 2009 Crl.L.J. 1257, Dhansukh Bhikhabhai Kapadi v. State of Gujarat (2) 2009 Crl.L.J .4319 and Ramesh Chand Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan (3) 2009 Crl.L.J. 1842. 23. In its decision in Dhansukh Bhikhabhai Kapadi (2 supra), the Gujarat High Court relied on the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Atley v. State of U.P. (4) AIR 1955 SC 8071 to the effect that even in the case of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive which may be one of the strongest links to connect the chain would not necessarily become fatal provided the other circumstances would complete the chain and connect the accused with the commission of the offence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, from the proved circumstances. Likewise, in Ramesh Chand Ajmera (3 supra), the Jaipur Bench relied on the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar (5) AIR 1992 SC 1175 to the effect that failure to prove the motive is not fatal as a matter of law, and proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction, and that when facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved and therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime nor militates against the prosecution case. 24. Thus, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court referred to above, now we have to examine whether the prosecution, even in the absence of proof of motive, could prove the other circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of crime, beyond all reasonable doubt. 25. According to the prosecution, prior to the death of the deceased on the night of incident, the accused beat the deceased, which was witnessed by their son-P.W.2 and the neighbours- P.Ws.4 and 6 and thereafter the accused and the deceased went inside the house, and in the early morning, the deceased was found dead in the house and the accused escaped from the house. 26. 26. P.W.2, who is the son of the accused and the deceased, deposed that on the date of incident, when he returned from the school in the evening, he found the accused beating the deceased, and in the meantime, one Dasarath (P.W.4) came to the rescue of the deceased and sent her inside the house. Then, himself, his brother and sister went into the shop, which is situated in part of their house, and slept there. The deceased and the accused slept in the kitchen. In the night, at about 2.00 a.m., the accused woke him up and asked the phone number of P.W.1. As previously the deceased instructed him not to give the phone number of P.W.1 to the accused, he gave some other number to him. When he questioned the accused as to why he needed the phone number of P.W.1, the accused stated that he killed the deceased. Thereafter, the accused took the registration documents of the house and went away. Then he went to his junior paternal uncle and informed that the accused killed the deceased and thereafter himself and his junior paternal uncle returned to his house and found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen. 27. Though, in his cross-examination, he denied to have not stated before the police that on the day of incident, when he returned from the school, he found the accused beating the deceased, that himself, his brother and sister went into the shop and slept there, while the accused and the deceased slept in the kitchen, and that as the deceased instructed him not to give the phone number of P.W.1 to the accused, he gave some other phone number to the accused when he asked him the phone number of P.W.1, but P.W.9 Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that P.W.2 did not make the said statements before him. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 is an improvement from what he stated before the police earlier. Hence, his evidence does not help the prosecution to prove this circumstance that a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased in the night prior to her death and thereafter, they slept inside the house and on that night itself, the deceased died. 28. Hence, his evidence does not help the prosecution to prove this circumstance that a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased in the night prior to her death and thereafter, they slept inside the house and on that night itself, the deceased died. 28. P.W.4, who is the neighbour of the accused and the deceased, deposed that on the night of incident, at about 8.30 p.m. or 9.00 p.m., the deceased came out of the house, stating that the accused beat her, and thereupon he intervened and sent her inside the house. At about 4.30 a.m., Krishna Reddy telephoned and informed him that the deceased died. Then he went inside the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased and the accused was not present in the house at that time. Thus, his evidence reveals that he did not actually witness the accused beating the deceased and, according to him, the deceased came out of the house and stated that the accused beat her and thereupon he intervened and sent her inside the house. 29. P.W.6 deposed that in the night, prior to the death of the deceased, at about 9.00 p.m., the accused was beating the deceased, and himself and P.W.4 intervened and sent the deceased inside the house. On the next day morning, when he woke up, he was informed that the deceased died. He went inside the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen. At that time, the children of the accused were present, but the accused was not present. 30. Though P.W.6 stated that he saw the accused beating the deceased at about 9.00 p.m., prior to the death of the deceased, and then himself and P.W.4 intervened and sent the deceased inside the house, but the fact remains, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 does not speak about the presence of P.W.6 at that time. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 has left with no corroboration. 31. Further, according to P.Ws.2, 4 and 6, after the alleged quarrel, the deceased and the accused went inside the house to sleep and the deceased died on that night. According to the prosecution, the accused, after going inside the house, again beat the deceased and when she fell unconscious,' throttled her neck with M.O.1 and killed her. 31. Further, according to P.Ws.2, 4 and 6, after the alleged quarrel, the deceased and the accused went inside the house to sleep and the deceased died on that night. According to the prosecution, the accused, after going inside the house, again beat the deceased and when she fell unconscious,' throttled her neck with M.O.1 and killed her. But, there is no evidence on record to show that after the accused and the deceased went inside the house to sleep, they have again quarreled and that led to the accused killing the deceased. If any such quarrel took place, P.W.2, who slept in the shop situated in a part of the house, as stated by him, and P.Ws.4 and 6, who are the immediate neighbours of the accused, would have stated about the same in their evidence, but their evidence does not speak anything about such quarrel. 32. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 6 does not help the prosecution to prove the circumstance that a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused in the night before the death of the deceased, and that led to the accused killing the deceased by throttling. 33. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, is the recovery of M.O.1-two pieces of rope at the instance of the accused, by P.W.9-Investigating Officer, in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 7, pursuant to the accused confessing to P.W.9 about the commission of offence by him. 34. Though P.W.7 deposed that one week after the incident, police called him and P.W.4 to the police station, and the accused, who was in the custody of the police, confessed to have committed the offence, and pursuant thereto the accused led them to his house and produced two pieces of rope, which were marked as M.O.1, and the same were seized by P.W.9 under EX.P7-seizure report, but P.W.4 did not corroborate his evidence. P.W.4, though deposed about the accused confessing to the commission of the offence, in his presence, but however, stated that he did not accompany the police at the time of seizure of the said rope. P.W.4, though deposed about the accused confessing to the commission of the offence, in his presence, but however, stated that he did not accompany the police at the time of seizure of the said rope. Since P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the seizure of M.O.1-two pieces of rope by P.W.9 in his presence, the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State sought permission of the Court to cross-examine him. In his cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.4, though admitted his signature on the seizure report, but categorically stated that the police have informed him that they have seized two pieces of rope and he did not go inside the house. He denied the suggestion that the police have seized two pieces of rope in his presence and he was deposing falsely to help the accused. Further, the evidence of P.W.7 shows that by the time he went to the police station, the accused was already in the custody of the police. This apart, the evidence of P.W.9-Investigating Officer shows that he arrested the accused on 27.07.2005, while EX.P7-seizure report shows that M.O.1 was recovered at his instance on 26.07.2005. Thus, the prosecution could not prove the recovery of M.O.1-two pieces of rope said to have been used by the accused in the commission of offence, at the instance of the accused, by P.W.9, beyond reasonable doubt. 35. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not establish the circumstances that connect the accused with the commission of crime, cogently and firmly, and hence we hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant-accused for the said offence cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 36. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused, by judgment dated 26.08.2008 passed in S.C. No. 356 of 2005 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., is hereby set aside. 36. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused, by judgment dated 26.08.2008 passed in S.C. No. 356 of 2005 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted for the said charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case, and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him.