JUDGMENT (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C. No.15 of 2005 by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ongole on 28.03.2007. 2. The respondents herein were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 109 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v)(vi) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. According to the prosecution, all the accused and the deceased are residents of Thurakapalem village. All the accused are strong sympathizers of Congress-I party and also local leaders, who are leading the party. They want to establish their supremacy' in the village. Whereas the deceased was resident of SC colony of Thurakapalem village and is strong sympathizer of Telugu Desam Party and an active and front line party worker of TDP and he is causing obstacles to the village politics and became a strong opponent to the accused in the village politics challenging their supremacy in the village. Four months prior to the incident, the deceased has filed a case against A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and others under SC & ST (POA) Act regarding the dispute over the pathway leading to the village fields vide Cr.No.35 of 2003 of Tallur Police Station. In that case, A-1, A-3, A-4 and others were arrested and sent for remand. After their release from the jail, all the accused threatened the deceased to come to compromise, otherwise they would kill him and also demanded Rs. 40,000/- towards their expenditure for which the accused refused. Thus, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and A-1 to A-6 hatched a plan to murder the deceased without any traces and thereby waiting for an opportunity and observing the daily movements of the deceased. One month prior to the incident, A-1 to A-5 went to A-6 and informed that they observed the movements of the deceased as he was daily going to the fields of Daramvaripalem village for watering and returning in the evening times and it was a good opportunity to kill the deceased. A-6 informed that he would go to Sabaramalai and instructed them to murder the deceased before his arrival from Sabarimalai and after his arrival he and A-5 will look after the criminal case, bail and other expenditure. A-1 to A-4 agreed for it. A-6 informed that he would go to Sabaramalai and instructed them to murder the deceased before his arrival from Sabarimalai and after his arrival he and A-5 will look after the criminal case, bail and other expenditure. A-1 to A-4 agreed for it. On 13.12.2003 A-6 called A-1 to A-5 and informed to them that he is going to Sabarimalai on 15.12.2003 and he will return within 4 or 5 days and instigated them to kill deceased according to their plan before his return and wipe out the traces of the dead body and abscond from the village. Accordingly, A-6 went to Sabarimalai on 15.12.2003. On 16.12.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. A-1 informed A-2, A-3 and A-5 that the deceased went to the fields and it is a good opportunity to kill the deceased while he is returning from the fields. In pursuance of their common intention, A-2 brought an iron rod and went on a cycle along with A-1. A-3 brought an iron pipe and A-3 and A-5 went on another cycle behind A-1 and A-2 towards road of Papireddipalem. While they were proceeding, P.W.2 and another Pamba Yedukondalu were returning from their fields. A-1 to A-3 and A-5 waylaid near the lands of Maram Chinna Hanumantha Reddy situated at Thurakapalem and Papireddipalem cart track and waiting for deceased. At about 7.00 p.m. while the deceased was returning to home on his bicycle and when he reached at the scene of offence, A-1 went across the cycle of deceased, stopped him, picked up quarrel with him, then A-2 came there and beat with iron rod on left side of the head of the deceased, then A-3 beat with reverse end of the axe on the left side of the head of the deceased, due to which the head of the deceased was broken and fell down on the ground. Meanwhile, A-5 went there and A-1 to A-3 and A-5 carried the deceased into the vacant land situated on southern side, there A-2 and A-5 caught hold of the legs of the deceased tightly, then A-1 and A-3 throttled the deceased, who was at the edge of the death and killed the deceased. Later A-2 brought the cycle of the deceased and thrown it in the wet land near the said place. Later A-2 brought the cycle of the deceased and thrown it in the wet land near the said place. Thereafter A-1 to A-3 and A-5 bandaged the head of deceased with his shirt, lungi and towel, stopped the oozing of blood and took the dead body of deceased to a red gram field situated at some distance and kept the dead body in the field and also kept iron rod and axe near the field and went into the village. On the same day at about 9.00 p.m., A-1 informed A-4 about killing of deceased and requested him to assist to disappear the dead body of the deceased, for which A-4 agreed for it and asked A-1 to bring two empty bags. At about 11.00 p.m. A-1 to A-5 met, in order to disappear the evidence of the commission of offence, went to the dead body, A-1 brought two bags and A-4 brought one chalakapara and they inserted the dead body into the bags and tied it and carried one by one to a distance of two kilometers and reached the joining place of surplus weir water of the village tank with Dornapuvagu. Later they dug a pit with chalakapara about the death of waist and removed the dead body of the deceased from gunny bags and put the same in the pit and cremated with sand and returned to their village. While returning, A-1 thrown said bags in a pit in the tank, A-2 also thrown the rod in the tank near pit and A-3 and A-5 hidden the axe in the land of A-2. On the next day i.e. on 17.12.2003, A-1 to A-5 joined together and discussed, and during the discussion A-5 advised A-1 to A-4 to abscond from the village and also requested them not to inform the names of A-5 and A-6 if they were caught hold by the police and also promised them that he and A-6 will look after the expenditure of the case. On 18.12.2003, A-5 went to Ongole and met A-6 and informed the incident to him. On 17.12.2003 at about 8.00 a.m., P.Ws. On 18.12.2003, A-5 went to Ongole and met A-6 and informed the incident to him. On 17.12.2003 at about 8.00 a.m., P.Ws. l, 4 and 5 went to the house of the deceased and enquired about the deceased with P.W.6, the wife of the deceased and learnt that on 16.12.2003 evening at 4.00 p.m. he went to the fields for getting grass and did not return to the house, thereafter they made enquiries and went to Daramvaripalem village and enquired with P.W.3 and came to know that the deceased worked in the field of P.W.4 on that day till 5.00 p.m. While P.W.5, Pamba Nageswara Rao and Jaldi Venkateswarlu were returning, they noticed cycle of the deceased with blood stains near the field of Nagi Reddy of Daramvaripalem village and informed the same to P.W.6. Later on suspicion P.W.1 gave a report to P.W.20, who registered a case in Cr.No.58 of 2003 as 'man missing' and sent the FIR to all concerned. As per the instructions of P.W.24, P.W.23 took up the investigation and visited Thurakapalem village and examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence, seized the control earth, blood stained earth, cycle of the deceased under cover of mediatornama in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 15 and also drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 18.12.2003 P.W.23 secured the presence of witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26.12.2003 P.W.23 received information about the moving of some suspected accused in East Gangavaram village and immediately he proceeded to that village along with P.Ws.12 and 16 and found A-1 to A-4 near Ayyappa Swamy temple at about 10.00 a.m. and took them into custody on suspicion and interrogated and they confessed about the commission of the offence and expressed their willingness to show the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried and the same was recorded under cover of mediatornama, attested by P.Ws.12 and 16. Further in pursuance of the confession of A-1 to A-4, they led P.Ws.23, 12 and 16 to the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried and P.W.23 has recorded the same under cover of Panchanama and endorsed on the mediatornama to re-register the case in Cr.No.58 of 2003 under 'man missing' to Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act and accordingly, P.W.21 re-registered the case and issued the FIR. P.W.23 kept A-1 to A-4 under surveillance at Oarsi Police Station and sent a requisition to MRO, P.W.19 to exhume the body and conduct the inquest over the said dead body. As per the instructions given by S.P. of Ongole, P.W.24 took up the investigation from P.W.23 and on 27.12.2003 exhumed the dead body of the deceased from the place of burial in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 13 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.13, 26, 14 and another. P.W.18 has conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.24 arrested A-1 to A-4 and again interrogated them and confirmed the confession given to P.W.23. On 28.12.2003 P.W.24 interrogated A-4 and he expressed to show the chalakapara used in the commission of the offence and the same was recorded under cover of police proceedings. Later, in pursuance of the confession of A-1 to A-4, P.W.23 has recovered one gunny bag and one plastic bag from A-1, iron rod from A-2 and one chalakapara from A-4 under cover of mediatornama attested by P.Ws.11 and 22 and he produced A-1 to A-4 before the Court and got them remanded to judicial custody. On the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Ongol P.W.27 took up the investigation from P.W.24 and on 02.01.2004 he filed a requisition for the police custody of A-1 to A-4 and in pursuance of the order of the Court, on 08.01.2004 he took A-1 to A-4 into custody and interrogated and they confessed about the same facts as mentioned in Exs.P-23 and P-24 and visited the scene of offence and confirmed the scene of offence and later handed over the accused to the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Darsi. During the course of investigation, he sent the seized material objects to the RFSL, Guntur. During the course of investigation, he sent the seized material objects to the RFSL, Guntur. During the examination, human blood is detected on item Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. On 20.01.2004 P.W.21 has sent the viscera and hyoid bone of the deceased to RFSL, Guntur and the Professor of Medical College, Guntur, who examined the same and opined that there is no anti mortem fracture of hyoid bone. On 23.01.2004 P.W.27 arrested A-5 in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 25 at the Bus stand centre at Gangavaram village and interrogated and he confessed about the commission of the murder in conspiracy with A-1 to A-4 and A-6 and expressed his willingness to show the axe. In pursuance of the confession of A-5, P.W.27 has recovered the iron pipe, axe from A-5 under cover of separate Panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 25. Later he got remanded to judicial custody. On 24.01.2004 when P.W.27 was present in Markapur Rural Police Station, at about 12.30 p.m., P.W.11 produced A-6 along with his report and confessional statement of A-6 stating that he confessed about the offence before him and sought for his help by surrendering before the police and P.W.27 interrogated A-6 and he confessed the same facts as stated by P.W.11 and got recorded the statement and remanded to judicial custody. P.W.27 has sent a requisition to P.W.19 for issuing the caste certificate of the deceased and he issued certificate stating that the deceased belongs to Harijana-Mala caste which comes under SC-C community. P.W.26, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased after perusing the Medical College Professor's report about the hyoid bone and RFSL report, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to head injury by a blunt object. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. 4. The Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 120-B of IPC against A-1 to A-6, Section 302 of IPC against A-1 to A-3 and A-5, Section 201 of IPC against A-1 to A-5, Section 109 of IPC against A-6 and under Section 3(2)(v)(vi) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against A-1 to A-6. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges framed against them. 5. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges framed against them. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 27 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-53 and M.Os. 1 to 15. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused but Exs. D-1 to D-3 were marked. 6. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the charges under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 109, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) & (v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are acquitted. 7. Against the said acquittal of -the accused, the present appeal is filed by the State. 8. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 109 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & (vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: 9. The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial witnesses, i.e. P.W.2 saw the accused going to the fields with weapons and subsequently P.W.4 has found the cycle of the deceased with blood stains in the fields, and the medical evidence of P.W. 18 shows that the death of the deceased is homicidal one. She further pleaded that A-1 to A-4 have confessed about the commission of the offence before P.Ws.21 and 23 and also the mediators P.Ws.12 and 16 and shows the place where the dead body was buried by them and in pursuance of their confession the dead body was exhumed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 13 and P.W.19, the Mandal Revenue Officer, has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the same was identified by P.W.6, the wife of the deceased and P.W.7, the father of the deceased. She further pleaded that as the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of A-1 to A-4 in pursuance of their confession and they were found with arms going to the fields by P.W.2 and another and in view of the enmity between the accused and the deceased due to political rivalry the prosecution could able to establish the commission of the offence by the accused. 10. 10. The respondents' counsel, on the other hand, has pleaded that even though as per the evidence of P.Ws.21 and 23, the accused confessed before them and shown the place of burial but there is no evidence on record to show that they were present along with the accused at the time of exhuming the dead body on 27.12.2003. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body was exhumed by the Magistrate Executive Magistrate P.W.19 and the circumstantial evidence is not helpful as the same is not connecting the accused for the death of the deceased and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly discussed the evidence available on record and come to right conclusion holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the accused and acquitted the accused and said findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. 11. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the accused have got motive to kill the deceased Oasari Sivaiah? 2. Whether P.W.2 saw A-1 to A-3 and A-5 going towards the place of offence or with deadly weapons? 3. Whether A-1 to A-4 were arrested on 27.12.2003 near Ayyappa Swamy Temple and whether they made any statement leading to discovery of the dead body? 4. Whether A-5 was arrested on 23.01.2004 and whether iron pipe was seized at his instance and whether it is proved to be the weapon of offence? 5. Whether A-6 made any extra judicial confession to P.W.11? 6. What offence if an proved against the accused? The learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration of the evidence available on record held the point No.1 that A-1 to A-3 and A-4 have got the motive to kill the deceased as the police have registered the case against them and others and they were arrested and sent them to jail and subsequently faced the trial on the report of the deceased; and held point No.2 that P.W.2 witnessing A-1 to A-3 and A-5 going to the place of offence is doubtful. With regard to the point No.3, that the evidence produced by the prosecution only discloses that A-1 to A-4 have shown the place of burial of the dead body of Sivaiah only. With regard to the point No.3, that the evidence produced by the prosecution only discloses that A-1 to A-4 have shown the place of burial of the dead body of Sivaiah only. Point No.4 was held against the prosecution and also held the point Nos.5 and 6 against the prosecution and thereby acquitted all the accused for the charges for which they were framed. 12. In the present case, the deceased Oasari Shivaiah was missing from 16.12.2003 and P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 7 have searched for the deceased and found the cycle in the fields with blood stains and the said cycle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.15. But P.W.15, the mediator for the seizure of said cycle, has turned hostile to the prosecution. 13. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested the accused 1 to 4 and they have shown the place of burial of the dead body in pursuance of their confession to P.W.21 and P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, has got exhumed the dead body from that place. The Additional Public Prosecutor, basing on the evidence of P.Ws.21 and 23 and the mediator of exhuming the dead body P.W.13, has pleaded that as the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of A-1 to A-4, they alone have committed the offence and buried the dead body at that place, as such they are liable for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 14. P.W.23 the Inspector of Police assisted by P.W.21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has arrested the accused at Lord Ayyappa Swamy temple on 26.12.2003 on receiving the credible information and according to them, they arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 16, but both P.Ws.12 and 16 have turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported the case of the prosecution. According to P.W.21, he separately enquired A-1 to A-4 and A-1 confessed about the commission of the offence and he also enquired A-2, A-3 and A-4 individually, they also confessed about the crime in their presence and also promised to show the place of burying of the dead body and the material objects thrown into the pond and according to him after recording confessional statement of A-1 to A-4, led them to Vitalapuram lands and reached Dornapu vagu and they identified the burial place of Dasari Shivaiah and prepared an observation report in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 16. Therefore, according to P.W.21, in pursuance of the confession of A-1 to A-4, they have shown the place of burial of the deceased. But the mediators in whose presence A-1 to A-4 have shown the place of burial have turned hostile to the prosecution. Moreover, there is no separate confessional statement of A-2 and A-3. Ex.P-20 is the confessional statement of A-1 and EX.P-21 is the confessional statement of A-4 but P.Ws.23 and 21 have spoken that A-1 to A-4 led them to Dornapu vagu of Vitalapuram and shown the place of burial and drafted panchanama EX.P-13. Admittedly, the dead body was not exhumed by P.Ws.21 and 23 immediately after showing the place of burial by the accused. But surprisingly, P.W.23 made an endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P-13 for altering the Section of law to Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and as admitted by P.W.21, the altered FIR was issued even prior to exhuming the dead body. Thus, without seeing the dead body of the deceased, the FIR was altered into Section 302 of IPC. According to P.W.23 after identifying the place of burial by the accused, he sent a requisition to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Tallur for exhuming the body and he also arranged bandobust to maintain law and order during the course of exhuming and inquest by the MRO at the place of burial. He does not speak about the Mandal Executive Magistrate exhuming the dead body in his presence and also holding inquest in his presence. As already observed above, without even exhuming the dead body an endorsement was made by P.W.23 for altering the FIR. He does not speak about the Mandal Executive Magistrate exhuming the dead body in his presence and also holding inquest in his presence. As already observed above, without even exhuming the dead body an endorsement was made by P.W.23 for altering the FIR. The Mandal Executive Magistrate was examined as P.W.19 and he only stated about his conducting the inquest over the dead body of Dasari Shivaiah at Dornapu vagu on 27.12.2003 at 12.00 Noon in the presence of P.W.13. Nothing was elicited from him with regard to the exhuming the dead body of the deceased by him. But, whereas the mediator P.W.13 has stated that he attended the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased Shivaiah along with the MRO at Dornapu vagu and in their presence the dead body was exhumed from the vagu by digging and the said exhuming of the body was reduced into writing EX.P-9 and himself and P.W.11 signed on it. But P.W.11 has only stated about the drafting of the mediatornama on finding the dead body of the deceased Shivaiah. Ex.P-9 the exhumation proceedings, does not contain the signature of P.W.19 MRO, but only contains the signature of the two mediators, even though it was mentioned that in the presence of MRO, the dead body was exhumed. As already observed above, P.W.19 MRO does not speak anything about the exhuming of the dead body in his presence and P.Ws.21 and 23 and the mediators for the exhuming the dead body, do not speak about the presence of A-1 to A-4 at that time. Thus, as per the evidence of P.Ws.21 and 23, only A-1 to A-4 have shown the place of burial of Shivaiah but they were not present at the time of exhuming the dead body from the said place. 15. The Additional Public Prosecutor pleaded that since the burial place was shown by A-1 to A-4, it has to be presumed that A-1 to A-4 have committed the offence of murder of the deceased Shivaiah. 16. The respondents counsel has pleaded that the alleged confessional statements Exs.P-20 and P-21 are only made by A-1 and A-4 and not by A-2 and A-3 and even Exs.P-20 and P-21 cannot be treated as confession of the accused as they do not contain the signatures of A-1 and A-4. 16. The respondents counsel has pleaded that the alleged confessional statements Exs.P-20 and P-21 are only made by A-1 and A-4 and not by A-2 and A-3 and even Exs.P-20 and P-21 cannot be treated as confession of the accused as they do not contain the signatures of A-1 and A-4. The respondents' counsel has relied upon a decision Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1995 SC 2345 , in which the Apex Court held that "the prosecution has relied upon the seizure of the empties from the spot vide Memo Ex.P-7 and the recovery of the revolver Ex.M/O/4 pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act besides the report of the Ballistic Expert to connect the appellant with the crime". The Apex Court has further observed that "the disclosure statement Ex P-9 does not inspire the confidence. Firstly, because none of the two panch witnesses, Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI, have been examined at the trial and secondly because the disclosure statement does not bear the signatures or the thumb impression of the appellant and even the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex.P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement." 17. In the present case also Exs.P-20 and P-21 do not bear the signatures of A-1 and A-4. Thus, in view of the above said decision, when the confession which led to the recovery of the dead body does not contain the signatures of A-1 and A-4, they cannot be treated as statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to recovery of the dead body of the deceased. Moreover, as already observed above, A-1 to A-4 were not present at the time of exhuming the dead body or the Investigating Officers P.Ws.21 and 23 do not speak about the exhuming of the dead body in there presence by P.W.19. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of the dead body of the deceased as per the confession of A-1 and A-4. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of the dead body of the deceased as per the confession of A-1 and A-4. Thus, the lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and came to a right conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the said findings recorded by the Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.