JUDGMENT (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 81 of 2008 by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle, on 26-6-2008. 2. The appellant herein is the sale accused and he was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 28-9-2006 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased Mekala Kadiramma along with P.W.4 went to Payalagutta near Thavalam forest for grazing her cows and at about 11.00 a.m. she went into the forest to collect Ullanji fruits. After 12 Noon P.W. 4 heard cries in the forest, but she did not give any attention to that cries. P.W.3, who was proceeding to Chowdepalle by walk through Thavalam forest area In between Payalagutta and Varanasi bank, saw the accused running with a dagger (Surakathi) towards the forest and due to anxiety he went into the forest for about 50 yards and there he found the dead body of the deceased with cut injury on the throat and due to fear he left the place and went to Chowdepalle for purchasing the cows and stayed there on that day. On the next day i.e., on 29-9-2006 P.W.3 left Chowdepalle for his village and on the way at about 2.00 p.m. near the scene of offence he informed to the son and daughter of the deceased about the murder of the deceased by the accused on 28-9-2006. Basing on the complaint of P.W.l, a case in Crime No. 36 of 2006 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered by P.W.9 Police Constable, Nimmanapalle Police Station and after receipt of copy of FIR P.W.8-Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Kothakota Police Station took up investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 5, seized the incriminating material and sent the dead body to the Area hospital, Madanapalle for post mortem examination. P.W.6-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to severing of neck, completely through the cervical vertebra at the level of C4 and C5. P.W.6-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to severing of neck, completely through the cervical vertebra at the level of C4 and C5. Subsequently, P.W.10 Inspector of Police, Mandanapalle Rural Circle took up investigation and he arrested the accused on 4-10-2008 at 11.00 a.m. near 14/1 culvert on Madanapalle-Boykonda road in the presence of P.W.7 and another, recorded his confession statement and seized the gold nose screw belonging to the deceased and blood stained dagger, blood stained pancha and T-Shirt from the possession of the accused and sent the accused for remand and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC. 4. The learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. 5. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charges against the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 and M.Os. 1 to 7 No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 8. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused has submitted that there is absolutely no eyewitness to the incident except the circumstantial evidence, which does not prove the commission of offence by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3 relied upon by the prosecution is quite unbelievable and unnatural and therefore conviction cannot be based on his evidence. 9. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 3 relied upon by the prosecution is quite unbelievable and unnatural and therefore conviction cannot be based on his evidence. 9. Learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and pleaded that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and is not liable to be set aside. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is - whether the prosecution could establish the charges framed under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 11. P.W.1 is said to have lodged Ex. P-1-report before P.W.9. P.W.2 is the son the deceased. P.W. 3 is an independent witness. P.W.4 is the relative of the deceased, who is said to have accompanied the deceased to the forest. P.W.5 is the mediator for Ex. P-3-Inquest report and also seizure of material objects at the scene of offence. P.W.6 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the panch witness for the alleged confession of the accused and recovery of M.Os. 4 to 7. P.W. 8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Kothakota P.S., who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 is the police constable, who registered Ex. P-l-report given by P.W.1. P.W.10 is the Inspector of police, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. 12. After going through the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, coupled with the report of P.W.6-Doctor, it amply proves that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death. 13. Since the death of the deceased was homicidal death, it has to be examined whether the appellant-accused has caused the death of the deceased or not. 14. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. P.W.1, who is said to have lodged Ex. P-l-report before P.W. 9, has stated that on the next day of the incident at about 7.00 a.m. his son (L.W.3) came to his house and informed him that they noticed the dead body of the deceased on the eastern side of Payalagutta and that they went and saw the dead body of the deceased with injury across the neck. P-l-report before P.W. 9, has stated that on the next day of the incident at about 7.00 a.m. his son (L.W.3) came to his house and informed him that they noticed the dead body of the deceased on the eastern side of Payalagutta and that they went and saw the dead body of the deceased with injury across the neck. P.W. 1 further stated that his son kept P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased, at the dead body of the deceased and thereafter he returned home. 15. P.W.2, the son of the deceased, deposed that he along with L.W.3 searched for the deceased in Nallemalleswara Forest temple throughout the night and round the dead body of the deceased with rut injury on her neck near Payala hillock and thereafter he sent L.W.3 to the house of P.W.1 to inform the death of the deceased, whereas he remained at the dead body of the deceased. However, P.W.2 was declared hostile, as he did not support the case of the prosecution. Even though L.W.3, who is the son of P.W.1, was cited as a witness, the prosecution did not examine him for the reasons best known to them. 16. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, who is said to be an independent witness to the incident. According to P.W.3, on the date of incident at about 11.00 a.m. while he was going to Chowdepally by walk through Payalagutta, he saw the accused running from Payalagutta side with Surakathi (knife) in his hand and after passing 50 feets towards Chowdepalle village, he noticed the dead body of the deceased with cut injury across the neck and due to fear he went to Chowdepally village. He further stated that on the next day of the incident while he was returning from Chowdepalle village, he saw the relatives of the deceased i.e., P.W.2 and other weeping at the place of the dead body of the deceased and then he informed them about his witnessing the incident on the previous day. 17. The aforesaid evidence of P.W. 3 is quite unbelievable and unnatural. 17. The aforesaid evidence of P.W. 3 is quite unbelievable and unnatural. If really P.W. 3 witnessed the accused running in front of him with a dagger in his hand and at a little distance he saw the dead body of the deceased, he would not have kept quite without informing the incident either to the relatives of the deceased, who are admittedly his neighbours, or to the police. 18. That apart, P.W. 4, who accompanied the deceased to the forest for grazing cows on the date of incident, has stated that while they were grazing cows at Payalagutta, the deceased went into the forest at about 11.00 a.m. for collection of Uliniji fruits and thereafter at about 12.00 Noon she heard cries towards the place where the deceased proceeded for collection of fruits, but she did not give any attention to that crises and returned to the house by driving her cattle and on the next day morning she came to know that the deceased was murdered in the forest. P.W.4 in her cross-examination admitted that she has not searched for the deceased anywhere in the forest. Hence, the evidence of P.W.4 is not cogent and trustworthy. 19. With regard to the alleged confession and recovery of M.Os. 4 to 7 from the possession of the accused is concerned, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.7, who is the Panchayat Secretary to the village. According to him, in his presence, on interrogation by the police, the accused made a confession about the commission of offence and that the police recovered M.O.4-Gold Nose Screw from the pocket of the accused and thereafter the accused led them to Nimmanapalle village near Khadarvalli's bunk and brought M.O.5-Kitchen knife, M.O.6-Pancha and M.O.7-T-Shirt and then the police seized the said material objects under a cover of panchanama. P.W.7, in his cross-examination, admitted that the place where the accused has allegedly made a confession is at a distance of l2 K.M.s from the Police Station, Nimmanapalle and the bunk of one Khadarvali is located very nearer to Nimmanapalli bus-stand at a distance of 10 to 20 yards. He further admitted that there are number of temporary shops and business establishments existing in and around Khadarvalli's bunk. He further admitted that there are number of temporary shops and business establishments existing in and around Khadarvalli's bunk. Basing on the said admissions of P.W.7, the alleged confession and recovery of material objects from the accused is highly doubtful since the so called place of recovery is a public place and it is not open to the prosecution to canvass that such a place is exclusively known to the accused. That apart, P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased, stated that he has seen M.O.4-Gold Nose Screw on the dead body of his deceased mother at the time of inquest. Added to the above, the chain of circumstances adduced by the prosecution are not at all sufficient to infer that the appellant-accused alone is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution his failed to establish the charges framed under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC against the appellant accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle, against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2008 dated 26-6-2008, is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said offences and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not otherwise required in any other case.