JUDGMENT (Per N.V.Ramana, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2008 in S.C.No.565 of 2007 passed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The gravamen of the indictment against the appellant-accused is that on 26.01.2007 in the night, he caused the death of one Puran Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') by hacking him on the head with a knife, which is used for cutting firewood. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased and the accused are residents of Simbum District of Jarkhand State and for about 25 days prior to the incident, they joined as labourers in JEM Ceramic Private Limited, Kothur and were allotted Quarter No.7 in the premises of the factory for their residence. About two years prior to the incident, they worked as labourers at Delhi, where the accused gave hand loan of Rs. 200/- to the brother of the deceased on the oral surety of the deceased. Since the brother of the deceased failed to discharge the said loan amount, the accused demanded the deceased to pay the same, for which the deceased bluntly refused to do so and thereafter they used to quarrel with each other. 4. Thereafter, a dispute arose between them with regard to cooking food. The deceased used to misbehave and abuse the accused without re-cognizing his elderliness, due to which the accused bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 24.01.2007 the deceased and the accused consumed arrack somewhere near Kothur and quarreled with each other at their quarter, in which the accused beat the deceased with a stick on his head and caused an injury. On coming to know of the said incident, the proprietor of the factory summoned the accused and the deceased and advised them to live amicably. 5. Subsequently, on the night of 26.1.2007 the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other in an inebriated state with regard to their previous disputes and having vexed with the behaviour of the deceased, the accused took out a knife, used for cutting firewood, and hacked on the head of the deceased. 5. Subsequently, on the night of 26.1.2007 the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other in an inebriated state with regard to their previous disputes and having vexed with the behaviour of the deceased, the accused took out a knife, used for cutting firewood, and hacked on the head of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and died instantaneously.' On hearing the cries from the scene of offence, one factory worker, Vinod, rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident and that the accused threatened the said Vinod that he' would kill if he discloses the matter to anyone. Subsequently, the accused concealed the knife nearby their quarters and picked up the said Vinod to Shadnagar by putting him in fear of death and at Shadnagar the accused boarded a train along with the said Vinod and went to Hyderabad, where he boarded another train by informing the said Vinod that he was going to his native place and threatened him not to disclose the incident to anyone. After some time, the accused got down the train before its departure and searched for a job at Hyderabad, but he could not succeed and hence he again came to Kothur Mandal and secured labour work in Binju Metal Steel Factory, Teegapoor village through the Labour Supervisor Pardhan Babu by concealing his identity and introducing himself as Anil. 6. On 28.01.2007 at 0800 hours P.W.1 B.Shivashankar Reddy, Managing Director of JEM Siramic Private Limited, Kothur, lodged a complaint before P.W.7-Sub Inspector of Police, Kothur Police Station, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.24 of 2007 under Section 302 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, P.W.7 examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Subsequently, P.W.9-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, drafted observation report in Crime Details Form in the presence of P.W.5 and another, seized blood stained brick, controlled brick and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same mediators. Subsequently P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Community Health Centre, Shadnagar conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to head injury. Subsequently P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Community Health Centre, Shadnagar conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to head injury. Subsequently, P.W.9 arrested the accused on 21.02.2007 at Binju Metal Steel Factory, Teegapoor village, recorded his confession statement, seized the crime weapon and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. C. 7. A Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused. The plea of the accused was one of total denial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to PIS and M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and 02 were marked. 8. The learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused preferred this appeal. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge framed under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant accused submits that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever except the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence to connect the appellant accused with the commission of offence. He further submits that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the last seen theory by proving circumstances that the appellant-accused and deceased lived together in the quarter and that the accused absconded ever since the date of offence. He further submits that there were differences between the accused and the deceased and that there is very possibility of falsely implicating the accused in the commission of offence. He further submits that there is delay in registering the F.I.R and the trial Court has not at all considered the said fact. He further submits that there were differences between the accused and the deceased and that there is very possibility of falsely implicating the accused in the commission of offence. He further submits that there is delay in registering the F.I.R and the trial Court has not at all considered the said fact. He further submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 is not corroborated by any independent evidence and therefore, the appellant-accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is sufficient material to show that the appellant-accused was responsible for the commission of offence and therefore the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and no interference is called for. 12. P.W.1, who lodged EX.P1 report, is the Managing Director of JEM Ceramic Private Limited, Kothur. P.W.2 is the Product Section Supervisor of the factory under whom the deceased and accused were working. P.W.3 is the Private Medical Practioner, who treated the deceased with reference to the incident occurred on 24.01.2007. P.W4 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5, who is working as a labourer in the factory, is the mediator for Ex.P8-scene of offence panchanama and EX.P9- Inquest report. P.W.6, who is also working as labourer in the factory, is the mediator for recovery of panchanama of M.O.2 under Ex.P10. P.W.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothur Police Station, who registered Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued EX.P13-Post Mortem report. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer, who filed charge sheet against the accused. 13. P.W.1, who is the Managing Director of the factory and who gave Ex.P1 report to police, has stated in his evidence that the accused and deceased belonged to Jharkhand State; that they have joined in the factory as labourers and were residing in the same quarter situated in the factory premises and they used to cook food and have common dinner. He further stated that about four days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased regarding cooking food and the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries and that on coming know about the same through Security Guard, he pacified the matter and advised them to live amicably. He further stated that about four days prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased regarding cooking food and the accused beat the deceased and caused injuries and that on coming know about the same through Security Guard, he pacified the matter and advised them to live amicably. Both the deceased and accused were habitual drinkers and they were not prompt to their duties. He stated that at the time of said quarrel, the deceased proclaimed that he would do away with the life of the accused. He further stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased and accused did not attend to' duty and at about 11.30 P.M. he telephoned from Hyderabad to his supervisor (P.W.2) and enquired about the attendance of the workers, particularly the accused and deceased and after verification in the quarter, P.W.2 informed that the deceased was lying dead in the quarter and that the accused was absconding. Thereafter, he came to the factory at about 2 p.m. on 28.01.2007 and gave complaint to the police on the same day between 3 and 4 p.m. 14. P.W.2, who is the Section Supervisor of the factory, deposed in his evidence that the accused and deceased joined in their factory about 20 days prior to the incident and were residing in the same quarter situated in the factory premises. On 27.01.2007 at about 9 a.m. after coming to the factory he noticed that the deceased was found missing and then he asked the Security Guard to search for the deceased and after some time the Security Guard informed him that the deceased was lying with bleeding injury in the quarter. Immediately, P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 over phone and thereafter he went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and that on the information given by P.W.1 by phone to the police, police came to the factory at about 4 p.m. and shifted the dead body of the deceased to Shadnagar hospital for post mortem. 15. P.W.2 further stated in his evidence that three days prior to the incident, the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other and the deceased sustained an injury on his head and that he took him to Vijaya hospital, Kothur for treatment. P.W.2 informed the said incident to P.W.1 and that P.W.1 admonished them. 15. P.W.2 further stated in his evidence that three days prior to the incident, the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other and the deceased sustained an injury on his head and that he took him to Vijaya hospital, Kothur for treatment. P.W.2 informed the said incident to P.W.1 and that P.W.1 admonished them. The accused and deceased did not attend to duty on 27.01.2007. P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that he does not know the motive for the murder of the deceased. 16. P.W.3, who is a Private Medical Practioner and who treated the deceased on 24.01.2007, did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. 17. P.W.5, who is working as a labourer in the factory, deposed in his evidence that the accused and the deceased were residing in the same quarter. About one year back there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased regarding some personal matter and that the deceased sustained injuries. On the date of incident, police came to the factory and inspected the quarter and prepared the scene of offence panchanama-Ex.P8 and held inquest-Ex.P9 and obtained his signature on the panchanama and the panchayatdars opined that the deceased was killed by the accused with a stone-M.O.1 due to previous enmity. 18. P.W.6, who is working as labourer in the factory, is the mediator for recovery panchanama of M.O.2 under Ex.P10. 19. P. W.7 -Su b Inspector of police, Kothur, deposed that he received a complaint from P.W.1 on 28.01.2007 at 8 a.m. and registered the same as a case in Crime No.24 of 2007 under Section 302 of I.P.C. and issued express F.I.R to all concerned. 20. P.W.S is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Shadnagar, who deposed that she conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 29.01.2007 and found the following external injuries: 1. A laceration on the left temporal region 4 x 1 cm. 2. An abrasion over the right cheek 5 x2cm 3. A laceration on the left ear (Pinna) 4. Left temporal bone fractured. and on internal examination she also found sub-dural haemmotoma on the left temporal region. She opined that the cause of death is due to head injury. A laceration on the left temporal region 4 x 1 cm. 2. An abrasion over the right cheek 5 x2cm 3. A laceration on the left ear (Pinna) 4. Left temporal bone fractured. and on internal examination she also found sub-dural haemmotoma on the left temporal region. She opined that the cause of death is due to head injury. She further opined that the said head injury could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.2 and the abrasions could have been caused by a stone like object resembling M.O.1 and she issued Ex.P13- Post Mortem Report. In the cross examination, she stated that she did not find any traces of intoxication of the deceased in the Post Mortem Examination. She further stated that the head injury may also be possible in an accident. 21. After going through the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, coupled with the report of the medical officer it amply proves that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death. 22. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court indicates that the conviction was based on the motive of the accused to kill the deceased and on the 'last seen theory' by proving the circumstances that the accused and deceased lived together in the quarter No.7 and that the accused absconded ever since the date of offence. 23. The prosecution has adduced the evidence to prove the 'last seen theory' since there is no eye-witness to the murder of the deceased. 24. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of prosecution. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. 23. The prosecution has adduced the evidence to prove the 'last seen theory' since there is no eye-witness to the murder of the deceased. 24. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of prosecution. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the following tests have to be satisfied by the prosecution as laid down by the Apex Court in a decision in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1) AIR 1990 SC 79 : 1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 25. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen that whether the circumstances adduced by the prosecution are sufficient to infer that the accused alone was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. 26. P.W1, who is the Managing Director of the factory, admitted in his cross-examination that the death of the deceased has taken place on the intervening night of 26/27.01.2007 and he came to know about the death of the deceased through his supervisor, P.W.2, on 27.01.2007 at 12.30 p.m. and that he came to the factory at about 2 p.m. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station between 3 and 4 P.M., but he lodged EX.P1 complaint on 28.01.2007 at 8 a.m. before P.W.7, who in turn registered the complaint as Crime No.24 of 2007 under Section 302 of I.P.C and issued EX.P11 F.I.R. to the Magistrate concerned. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station, according to the prosecution is 3 K.Ms. Thus, there is almost 24 hours delay in lodging the complaint, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station, according to the prosecution is 3 K.Ms. Thus, there is almost 24 hours delay in lodging the complaint, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is no plausible explanation from P.W.1 for the said abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. 27. Further, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Section Supervisor of P.W.1's factory, reveals that he came to the factory on 27.01.2007 at 9 a.m. and on noticing the absence of the deceased and the accused amongst other labourers he asked the security guard to search for the deceased, on which he searched and informed that the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries in the quarter and immediately he telephoned to P.W.1 as well as to police. It is further revealed that after one hour P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased and thereafter P.W.1 telephoned to the police and the police came to the factory and at about 4 P.M. the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Shadnagar hospital for post mortem examination. It is in the evidence of P.W.7-Sub Inspector of Police that he received EX.P1 complaint from P.W.1 on 28.01.2007 at 8 a.m. 28. That apart, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that prior to the incident he came to know about the quarrel between the accused and deceased through his security guard and that he pacified the matter and suggested them to live amicably. He admits in his cross-examination that after his intervention, the accused and deceased were friendly and they were living together in the room on 26.01.2007 also. P.W.2 in his cross-examination admits that he does not know the motive for the murder of the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is sufficient to prove that the accused has no motive to kill the deceased. 29. Though one Vinod (L.W.8), factory worker, who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of the deceased and witnessed the incident was cited as a witness, the prosecution did not examine him to establish the said fact. 29. Though one Vinod (L.W.8), factory worker, who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of the deceased and witnessed the incident was cited as a witness, the prosecution did not examine him to establish the said fact. It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident, the accused had absconded from the scene of offence and secured labour work in Binju Metal Steel Factory, Teegapoor village through one Pardhan Bablu, Labour Supervisor (L.W.9) on 04.01.2007 by introducing himself as Anil. But the prosecution failed to examine the said Pardhan Bablu to establish the said fact. 30. According to the prosecution, on the night of 26.01.2007 the accused and deceased quarreled with each other in an inebriated state over the issue of cooking food and also with regard to the payment of Rs. 200/- due to the accused by the brother of the deceased and having vexed with the behaviour of the deceased, the accused hacked the deceased with a knife on his head, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. But according to the evidence of P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, in her cross-examination stated that she did not find any traces of intoxication from the body of the deceased. She further admits that head injury of this nature may also be possible in an accident. It is the further case of the prosecution that even prior to joining in the factory of P.W.1, there were disputes between the accused and deceased with regard to hand loan of Rs. 200/- while they were working as labourers in Delhi. However, the prosecution failed to prove the motive part with regard to the hand loan of Rs. 200/- in Delhi. According to the evidence of P.W.2, three days prior to the incident, the accused and deceased quarreled with each other in which the deceased sustained head injury and he took the deceased to Vijaya hospital, Kothur for treatment. But, P.W.3, who is a private Medical Practioner, Vijaya hospital, did not support the case of the prosecution. 31. Thus the prosecution has failed to satisfy the tests as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence. But, P.W.3, who is a private Medical Practioner, Vijaya hospital, did not support the case of the prosecution. 31. Thus the prosecution has failed to satisfy the tests as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Padala Veera Reddy when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances adduced by the prosecution are not sufficient to infer that the accused alone is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. 32. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 33. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., by judgment dated 21.01.2008 passed in S.C.No.565 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him, and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.