JUDGMENT P. Durga Prasad, J. These appeals by accused Nos. 2, 1, 4 and 5 respectively are directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 74 of 2007 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 9-1-2009. 2. The appellants herein were prosecuted for the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, deceased No.1 D. Ravinder Chari was an employee of National Thermal Power Corporation, Godavarikhani and deceased No.2 J. Vijaya Kumari was Head Mistress of Zilla Parishad High School, Huzurabad and they were close friends. Both the deceased were running Vijaya Educational Society for SC/STs at Narasaraopet, Guntur and getting Central Government aid from 1998. They also opened two more schools at Huzurabad and Madhavpur of Karimnagar District. Srinivas Goud, Accused No.1 who was a close friend of deceased No.1 became their partner in the year 1999 and subsequently they transferred both the schools in the name of accused No.1 and accused No.1 appointed deceased No.1 as the Secretary and entrusted all powers including drawing of cheques from the joint account and he also appointed P.W. 4 to look after the work of the said society. Deceased No.1 without the knowledge of accused No.1 withdrew Rs.8,00,000/- from the account of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar Branch and cheated accused No.1 Thereafter disputes arose between accused No.1 and deceased No.1. Accused No.1 gave a complaint at Narsaraopet Police Station and also approached P.W. 6 who is an advocate and informed the same to him. P.W. 6 tried to pacify the matter, but deceased No.1 refused to pay money. Then, accused No.1 hatched a plan to do away with deceased No.1 and on 24-2-2003 on receipt of information that deceased Nos.1 and 2 WP to Hyderabad and stayed at Sri Laxmi Lodge, Nampally, Hyderabad, accused No. 1 secured the services of accused Nos. 2 105 arid all of them came to Hyderabad in Taxi Ambassador Car bearing No. Ap-16.F-6017 (engaged by P.W.9 and driven by P.W. 10) and reached Hyderabad. Accused Nos.1 to 5 booked room Nos. 302 and 310 at Sri Laxmi Lodge. On 25-2-2003 at 0530 hours accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered into room No. 308, accused Nos. 2 to 5 caught hold of deceased No.1 and tied him with ropes and accused No.1 cut the throat of deceased No.1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 booked room Nos. 302 and 310 at Sri Laxmi Lodge. On 25-2-2003 at 0530 hours accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered into room No. 308, accused Nos. 2 to 5 caught hold of deceased No.1 and tied him with ropes and accused No.1 cut the throat of deceased No.1. They also caught hold of deceased No.2 and accused No.1 cut her throat and locked room No. 308 from outside and all of them escaped from the lodge along with room keys of room Nos. 308, 302 and 310. Thus accused Nos. 1 to 5 conjointly hatched a plan and committed an offence of double murder of both the deceased on 25-2-2003 at Sri Laxmi Lodge, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed two charges against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC under two counts and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-107 and M.Os.1 to 24 and Ex.C-1 was also marked. No oral evidence was adduced in defence by the accused but Exs.0-1 and 0-2 were marked. Since accused No.3 died, the case against him was abated. 5. The Sessions Judge by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence found the appellants-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (two counts) and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine off 5000/- each on each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months on two counts. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeals are filed by the appellants - accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC under two counts against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Heard Sri Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1 Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 4; Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. 9. 8. Heard Sri Bali Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1 Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 4; Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants pleaded that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the commission of the offence by the appellants-accused and the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion relying on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 in that regard. They further pleaded that the identification parade of the accused was conducted long after their arrest and there is every possibility of their being shown to the witnesses for the purpose of identification and as such, their identification by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the test identification parade cannot be relied upon. They further pleaded that recovery of weapons and keys of the hotel by P.W. 22 in the presence of P.W. 19 cannot be relied up on as P.W. 19 is a stock witness of the police of Abids Police Station. They also pleaded that the trial Court merely basing on the fact that the deceased and the accused are in the same lodge in the night found them guilty for the death of both the deceased and the same cannot be treated as a strong circumstance to connect the accused with the death of both the deceased and• they further pleaded that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellants - accused and, hence, they are entitled for acquittal. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 clearly establishes the motive for the accused to commit the offence and P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused as the persons who stayed in the lodge on the night when both the deceased were in the same lodge and that they left on the next day morning without handing over the keys and their presence in the hotel on that night was also established by the prosecution by comparing the entries made in the lodge register Ex.P-2 with that of the admitted hand writing of accused No.4 on EX.P-16 by P.W. 18 who found that both are written by one and same person. She further pleaded that the keys of room Nos. She further pleaded that the keys of room Nos. 308, 302 and 310 were recovered at the instance of the accused and it is a strong circumstance to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. She supported the convicted and sentence passed by the trial Court. 11. It is the specific case of the prosecution that deceased No.1 without the knowledge of accused No.1 withdrew an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the bank account of State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar Branch and cheated accused No.1 and in that regard disputes arose between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 and accused No.1 complained the same to Narsaraopet police and also approached P.W. 6, an advocate for settlement of the dispute and that deceased No.1 refused to pay the money. Thereby, accused No.1 hatched a plan to do away with the life of deceased No.1 by taking the help of accused Nos. 2 to 5. 12. The trial Court has mainly come to the conclusion that the accused are responsible for the death of both the deceased as accused No.1 has got disputes with deceased No.1 with regard to financial transactions in connection with a educational society run by them and the other circumstance taken into consideration is that all the accused and the deceased stayed in the same lodge on the night of 24-2-2003 and the accused left the lodge on 25-2-2003 without handing over the keys and subsequently the said keys were recovered at their instance. 13. To establish the motive for the accused for the commission of the offence, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8. P.W. 4 is the brother of deceased No.1. P.W. 8 is the husband of deceased No.2. 14. P.W. 4 has only stated that he is working as an Accountant-cum- Teacher in Vijaya Vidyalaya at Husnabad, Karimnagar District and accused No.1 was a partner and treasurer of Vijaya Educational Society which runs Vijaya Vidyalaya School. Deceased No.1 was the Secretary of the said society. There were disputes between deceased No.1 and accused No.1 with regard to finances, as the society did not get financial assistance from the Central Government. There were two mediations. Accused No.1 threatened his brother deceased No.1 in January, 2003, about 20 days prior to the incident, to kill him if he did not give money to him. There were disputes between deceased No.1 and accused No.1 with regard to finances, as the society did not get financial assistance from the Central Government. There were two mediations. Accused No.1 threatened his brother deceased No.1 in January, 2003, about 20 days prior to the incident, to kill him if he did not give money to him. He did not state anything specifically with regard to deceased No.1 with drawing Rs.8,00,000/- from the account of the society and cheating accused No.1. In the cross-examination, he denied about lodging of criminal case in C.C. No. 127 of 2005 at Narsaraopet Court against deceased No.1, his father and others for misappropriation of funds. He further admitted that he did not give any documentary proof to the police to show that accused No.1 was the treasurer of the said society and he is working in Vijaya Educational Society. 15. P.W. 8 who is the husband of deceased No.2 has stated that six or seven years ago deceased No.2 joined as a Government Teacher in Huzurabad of Karimnagar District. She was also running Vijaya Educational Society along with deceased No.1 at Narsaraopet and he does not know who else were running the society school and he further stated that he does not know anything else about the institution and its partners and its affairs. But, in the cross-examination on behalf of accused No.1, he has stated that Vijaya Educational Society was registered in the year 1990 at Narsaraopet and the society was being run by his wife deceased No.2, her family members and relations and that he joined in the society as Treasurer in the year 1999. He further admitted that he gave a complaint in C.C. No. 127 of 2005 at Narsaraopet Court and in the said complaint he alleged that deceased No.2 had withdrawn amount from the society and eloped with Dr. Anil Kumar. He did not identify accused No.1 in that case. He further admitted that he has grievance against deceased No.1 for withdrawing Rs.7,00,000/- and odd and also has grievance against deceased No.2 for withdrawing similar amount and eloping with Dr. Anil Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he designedly and falsely implicated accused No.1 in this case. 16. Anil Kumar. He did not identify accused No.1 in that case. He further admitted that he has grievance against deceased No.1 for withdrawing Rs.7,00,000/- and odd and also has grievance against deceased No.2 for withdrawing similar amount and eloping with Dr. Anil Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he designedly and falsely implicated accused No.1 in this case. 16. The specific case of the prosecution is that deceased No.1 has withdrawn Rs.8,00,000/- from the bank account of the Society and when accused No.1 demanded for repayment of the same, he refused to pay the same and tried to mediate the same before an advocate, P.W. 6. P.W. 6whois a practicing advocate at Hyderabad has stated that accused No.1 and deceased No.1 met him once and deceased No.1 is employee-cum-partner along with deceased No.2 and P.W. 8 in Chakra Educational Society and Vijaya Educational Society running scheduled caste and scheduled tribe schools. Accused No.1 and deceased No.1 are close friends. In the year 2001, both the deceased along with accused No.1 came to him. The dispute was between deceased No.2 and P.W. 8 Vijaya Sekhar with regard to the finances of the society to a tune of about Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. He advised them to bring the papers relating to the dispute and nothing happened in his presence. 17. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 is that the disputes are between deceased No.2 and P.W. 8 but not between accused No.1 and deceased No.1 The evidence ofP.W.4 is that the dispute between deceased No.1 and accused No.1 is with regard to finances as the society did not get financial assistance from the Central Government and he did not speak about withdrawing Rs.8,00,000/- by deceased No.1 from society account. Thus from the above evidence the prosecution could not establish the motive as alleged against the accused for the commission of the offence. 18. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased stayed in Sri Laxmi Lodge, Nampally, Hyderabad on the night of 24-2-2003 and subsequently the dead bodies of the deceased were found in room No. 308 of the said lodge. According to the prosecution, the deceased occupied room No. 308 on 24-2-2003 at about 7.30 p.m. and the accused occupied room Nos. 302 and 310 at 11.20 p.m. on the same night. To establish occupation of room Nos. According to the prosecution, the deceased occupied room No. 308 on 24-2-2003 at about 7.30 p.m. and the accused occupied room Nos. 302 and 310 at 11.20 p.m. on the same night. To establish occupation of room Nos. 302 and 310 by the accused, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the entries made in the lodge register EX.P-2. 19. P.W.1 is the Manager of the lodge. He has stated that deceased No.1 along with a woman came to their lodge on 24-2-2003 at about 9.20 p.m. and he gave room No. 308 at third floor. According to him, deceased No.1 is a regular customer to their lodge. Subsequently, five persons came to their lodge at about 11.30 p.m. and asked for two rooms and he gave room Nos. 302 and 310 to them. After noting their addresses in the register and paying advance, they entered into the rooms. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Venumadhav informed him that he came from Karimnagar for the purpose of attending a marriage at Hyderabad. He does not know his father's name. 20. P.W. 2 is a room boy. According to him, on 24-2-2003 one customer came with his family and occupied room No. 308 and that he was their regular customer and at about 11.20p.m., five male customers entered into room Nos. 302 and 310 of their lodge and he identified such persons as accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. In the cross-examination, he stated that accused No.1 is an old customer to their lodge, but he does not is now his name and he also stated to the police that out of five accused, one is their old customer. 21. P.W. 3 who is the owner of the lodge has only stated that the deceased were regular customers of their lodge since last four or five years, that EX.P-2 is the ledger book relating to their lodge and Ex.P-2(a) is the entry relating to room No. 308 and Ex.P-2(b) is the entry relating to room Nos. 302 and 310. As per usual procedure, the respective customers make entries in that register. In the cross-examination, he stated that the police seized Ex.P-2 register on the same day. 22. In order to establish that the accused occupied room Nos. 302 and 310. As per usual procedure, the respective customers make entries in that register. In the cross-examination, he stated that the police seized Ex.P-2 register on the same day. 22. In order to establish that the accused occupied room Nos. 302 and 310 by making entries in Ex.P-2, the prosecution has got the said entries made in Ex.P-2(b) compared with that of the admitted handwriting of accused No.4. P.W. 18 is the Scientific Officer who compared the handwriting of accused No.4 with that of the signatures made by him in Ex.P-2 and she opined that the person who wrote red enclosed writings marked as S-1 to S-15 in EX.P-69 also wrote red enclosed writings marked as Q-l and Q-2 in Ex.P-2(b). 23. According to the Investigating Officer, P.W. 22, he seized register Ex.P-2 on 27-2-2003 and on 29-4-2003, he filed a requisition before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for taking specimen writings and signatures of accused No.4 and to forward the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and EX.P-89 is the FSL report. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that EX.P-2 register was not seized on 27-2-2003 as it contains the entries up to 3-3-2003. The verification of Ex.P-2 clearly shows that last entry was made on 3-3-2003. There are number of entries made subsequent to 27-2-2003 up to 3-3-2003 which shows that the register EX.P-2 was not seized on 27-2-2003 as stated by P.W. 22. 25. With regard to obtaining of specimen handwriting of accused No.4 as stated by P.W. 22, he made a requisition to the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 29-4-2003 for taking the specimen writings and signatures of accused No.4. The specimen handwriting of accused No.4 was marked as EX.P-69. Ex. P-69 shows that the Inspector of Police, Abids Police Station has obtained specimen signatures in the name of D. Venumadhav in the presence of IV Metropolitan Magistrate. The said Magistrate has not made any endorsement about the obtaining of said signatures in his presence but he only made an endorsement as 'seen'. The same does not show that the specimen signatures of accused No.4 in the name of D. Venumadhav were obtained in the presence of the Magistrate. Moreover, P.W. 22 stated that he made requisition on 29-4-2003, whereas specimen signatures were obtained on 18-4-2003. 26. The same does not show that the specimen signatures of accused No.4 in the name of D. Venumadhav were obtained in the presence of the Magistrate. Moreover, P.W. 22 stated that he made requisition on 29-4-2003, whereas specimen signatures were obtained on 18-4-2003. 26. Therefore, in view of the above contradiction, it is doubtful whether the writing and signatures on Ex.P-69 were made by accused No. 4 in the name of D. Venumadhav. 27. With regard to identity of the accused as occupants of room Nos. 302 and 310 of Sri Laxmi Lodge, the prosecution has again relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W. 1, the Mangager of the lodge has stated that accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 present in the Court have occupied room Nos. 302 and 310 and that he identified them in the test identification parade conducted in Chanchaiguda Jail. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the photographs of accused Nos. 1 to 5 printed in Eenadu newspaper and expressed his ignorance whether accused Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested and their photos published in the newspaper. He also stated that he did not see the visuals of accused Nos.1 to 5 in the news telecast in TV. He further stated that he did not give other descriptive particulars of accused Nos. 1 to5when the police examined him. 28. P.W. 2 who is a room boy stated that he identified all the accused persons earlier before the Magistrate and prior to the test identification parade the Magistrate has recorded his statement in which he gave descriptive particulars of the accused and expressed his ability to identify them. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state to the police about the details of luggage of all the accused, dress worn by each of them and their descriptive particulars. 29. P.W. 20 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate who conducted test identification parade of the accused and according to him, on 7-4-2003, he received requisition from the Inspector of Police, Abids Police Station, P.W. 22 for conducting test identification parade of suspects and he issued summons to five witnesses named in the requisition fixing the date of the parade as 19-4-2003. On that day, five witness turned up and he recorded their statements under Exs.P-81 to 85. On that day, five witness turned up and he recorded their statements under Exs.P-81 to 85. He secured 25 non-suspects from the inmates of the same prison and asked accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and another as to whether they have any objection for selecting any of those non-suspects. The accused stated that they have no objection and he conducted test identification parade in a hall adjacent to videoconference room in that prison and he gave liberty to all the suspects to choose their own positions as per their choice in the row of non-suspects. Then he called P.W. 1 and P.W.1 identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Thereafter he gave liberty to the suspects to change their positions, but they did not change their positions in the row of non-suspects. Pogulothu Balu (another witness not examined) was called inside and he identified all the five suspects including accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. After sending the said Balu outside, he gave liberty to the suspects to change their positions in the row. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not change their positions but accused Nos. 4 and 5 changed their positions in the row. Thereafter, he called P.W. 2 and he identified five suspects, accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. After sending' P.W. 2 out, he gave liberty to the suspects to change their positions, but none of them changed their positions. Then, he called one G. Swami (not examined) and he also identified all the suspects accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and after sending him out, he gave liberty to the suspects to change their positions. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 did not change their positions, but accused Nos. 3 and 5 changed their positions. Then he called P.W. 10 inside and he identified accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and on a non-suspect and he submitted his report under Ex. P-86. 30. Therefore, according to P.W. 20, he recorded the statements of all the witnesses prior to conducting of test identification parade under Exs.P-81 to 85. In the said statements, P.W.1 has stated that one suspect appears to be lean, two of them appear to be stout and two persons appear to be in normal state. They appear to be in normal complexion and he can identify them if they are shown. In the said statements, P.W.1 has stated that one suspect appears to be lean, two of them appear to be stout and two persons appear to be in normal state. They appear to be in normal complexion and he can identify them if they are shown. P.W. 2 also stated that three persons were stout whereas the other two were normal. One of them wore jeans pant and all of them were aged between 28 and 35 years and he can identify them if he can see them again. P.W. 10 has stated that he can identify the accused if they are shown to him, but he has not given any descriptive particulars. Even though P.Ws.1 and 2 gave their descriptive particulars in Exs.P-81 and 83, P.W.1 did not state the same before the police when he was examined much prior to EX.P-81. P.W. 2 also gave descriptive particulars in his statement, but he did not state the same before the police. Moreover, the accused were arrested on 29-3-2003 and remanded to judicial custody on 30-3-2003 and P.W. 22 have given the requisition on 4-4-2003 for conducting test identification parade and the test identification parade was conducted on 19-4-2003 i.e., after 19 days of the accused remanding to judicial custody. The accused after completion of test identification parade have specifically stated to the Magistrate that they were confined in the police station for six days and they got identified by the witnesses by showing to them. They also stated that the police have taken their photographs in the police station and they were shown to the witnesses on two occasions. Since there is a delay of 19 days in conducting test identification parade from the date of remanding of the accused to judicial custody, there is every possibility of the witnesses seeing the accused when they are brought to the Court for extension of their remand. Therefore, in view of delay in conducting the test identification parade, it is not safe to rely upon the test identification parade conducted by P.W. 20 and P.Ws.1 and 2 identifying the accused as the persons who stayed in the said lodge. 31. According to the prosecution, the accused engaged a taxi run by P.W. 10 and came to Hyderabad. Therefore, in view of delay in conducting the test identification parade, it is not safe to rely upon the test identification parade conducted by P.W. 20 and P.Ws.1 and 2 identifying the accused as the persons who stayed in the said lodge. 31. According to the prosecution, the accused engaged a taxi run by P.W. 10 and came to Hyderabad. Though P.W. 10 identified the accused in the test identification parade but turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, in the cross-examination he has specifically stated that accused Nos. 1 to 5 were shown to him in the police station for four days. He further admitted that the police gave photographs of accused Nos. 1 to 5 and asked to identify them in the test identification parade to be conducted. He further stated that about one month thereafter the police took him to jail and instructed him to identify accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the jail. P.W. 20 has stated that P.W. 10 has identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. In view of the evidence of P.W.10, his identifying the accused in the test identification parade cannot be believed. Moreover, he has not supported the case of the prosecution that the taxi driven by him was engaged by the accused to go to Hyderabad. Moreover, P.W. 9 who is travel agent has also not supported the case of the prosecution that he has arranged ambassador car bearing No. AP 16 F 6017 to anybody. Therefore, the identification of the accused by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the test identification parade cannot be relied upon to show that they have occupied room Nos. 302 and 310 in Sri Laxmi Lodge on the same day i.e., on 24-2-2003. 32. The other circumstance relied upon by the trial Court and the prosecution is recovery of keys of room Nos. 308, 302 and 310 which were marked as M.Os.1 to 3 and also the knives M.Os.13 to 17 at the instance of the accused. The investigating office, P.W. 22 has stated that on 29-3-2003 at about 3.00 p.m., on information he went to Nampally Police Station and apprehended accused No.1 and brought him to the police station and recorded his statement. Accused No.1 expressed his willingness to show the other accused and the articles if they accompany him to Warangal. The investigating office, P.W. 22 has stated that on 29-3-2003 at about 3.00 p.m., on information he went to Nampally Police Station and apprehended accused No.1 and brought him to the police station and recorded his statement. Accused No.1 expressed his willingness to show the other accused and the articles if they accompany him to Warangal. He got panchanama drafted under Exs.P-72 and 73. Thereafter, he along with panch witnesses and staff went to Warangal. Accused No.1 led them to his house at Warangal and handed over MO 24 broken SIM card, steel kitchen knife, MO 12 key chain of room No. 308 of Sri Laxmi Lodge and he seized them under Ex. P-74. Accused No.1 led all of them to the house of accused No.2 who was available and on enquiry, accused No.2 gave statement in the presence of panch witnesses and brought key chain of room No. 302, sickle and rope and he seized them under the cover of panchanama Ex.P-75. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 led them to the house of Tho kala Raju (accused No.3) and he handed over the key chain of room No. 310 and knife under a cover of panchanama Ex.P-76. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 lead P.W. 22 to the house of accused No.4 where accused No.4 gave statement and handed over lodge receipt and knife and they were seized by him under the cover of panchanama Exs.P-78 and 79. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 led all of them to the house of accused No.5. Accused No.5 gave statement and handed over a knife which he seized under the cover of mediators report under EX.P-77 and thereafter, he returned to the police station along with accused Nos.1 to 5. 33. According to P.W. 22, first he apprehended accused No.1 and recorded his statement in the presence of P.Ws.14 to 19. Accused No. lied P.W. 22, panch witnesses and staff to his house at Warangal and handed over M.O. 24 broken SIM card, steel kitchen knife and key chain of room No. 308 of Sri laxmi Lodge. Accused No. IIed all of them to the house of accused No.2 who brought key chain of room No. 302, sickle and rope. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 led them to the house of accused No.3 and from the possession of accused No.3, key chain of room No. 310 and a knife were seized. Accused No. IIed all of them to the house of accused No.2 who brought key chain of room No. 302, sickle and rope. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 led them to the house of accused No.3 and from the possession of accused No.3, key chain of room No. 310 and a knife were seized. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 3rd them to the house of accused No.4 wherein he handed over lodge receipt and knife. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 led all of them to the house of accused No.5 wherein he handed over a knife. 34. P.Ws.12, 14, 15 and 19 are mediators secured by P. W. 22 to the said confession and recovery. P.W. 12 who is a tea vendor and resident of Warangal has stated that he was called by the Mills Colony Police of Warangal and sent to P.W. 22. He signed on 10 to 18 papers in the police station at Hyderabad and that he does not know the contents of those papers. He also stated that he does not know accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, but he identified the signatures on Exs.P-11 to P-14 as his signatures. 35. P.W. 14 who is running a fast food center at Abids Circle, Hyderabad has also stated that he has signed all panchanamas in the Abids Police Station i.e., Exs.P-16 to P-21 and also signed on M.O. 12 and that he does not know anything about the case. 36. P.W.15 who is working as a Conductor in APSRTC at Hyderabad and native of Sivanagar, Warangal stated that he was running a pan shop at Warangal and about five or six years ago police came to him and asked him to assist Abids Police, Hyderabad and took him to Abids Police Station where his signatures were obtained on 15 to 20 papers and that he does not know the contents of those papers and in what connection he signed the papers. He signed as per Exs.P-22 to 26 and also on M.O. 12 and he does not know anything about the case. 37. P.W. 19 who is another mediator who is doing hotel business at Abids, Hyderabad has stated that on 5-3-2003, he was called to Abids Police Station. He accompanied the police to Warangal along with Moin and went to the house of accused No.1 at Teachers Colony, Warangal. 37. P.W. 19 who is another mediator who is doing hotel business at Abids, Hyderabad has stated that on 5-3-2003, he was called to Abids Police Station. He accompanied the police to Warangal along with Moin and went to the house of accused No.1 at Teachers Colony, Warangal. Accused No.1, his sister and uncle were present in the house. P.W.22 searched their house and a cupboard was under lock. The sister of accused No.1 expressed that she was not having key for that lock. P.W. 22 got the lock opened by bringing a key master and from the cupboard he seized cheques, sim card and white paper with revenue stamps under the cover of a mediators report Ex. P-71. Again on 29-3-2003 he was called to Abids Police Station and accused No.1 was also present in the police station and on questioning, accused No.1 gave statement in their presence and expressed his willingness to show rope and other items if they accompany him to Warangal. At that place, mediators report was prepared in which Exs.P-72 and 73 were marked. Accused N O.I led them to his house at Teachers Colony, Warangal and produced M.O. 13 knife which was seized under the cover of panchanama Ex.P-74. Accused No.1 led all of them to the house of accused No.2 at Warangal. Accused No.2 produced room key and a knife which are M.Os.2 and 14 seized under the cover of panchanama Ex. P-75. From there they went to another person who was not present in the Court. He gave key M.O. 3 and a knife M.O. 15 which were seized by the police under the cover of mediators report Ex.P-76 he further stated that he accompanied the police to the house of accused No.5 in Warangal and the police seized hotel slip and a knife MO 16 from the possession of accused No.5. Thereafter he was declared hostile. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that from the house of accused No.3 all of them went to the house of accused No.4 and from accused No.4 hotel slip and knife MO 27 were seized under EX.P-78. In the cross-examination for accused No.1, he state that he gave his evidence in two or three police cases as panch witnesses before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts. He also admitted that police call him whenever his services are required. 38. In the cross-examination for accused No.1, he state that he gave his evidence in two or three police cases as panch witnesses before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts. He also admitted that police call him whenever his services are required. 38. P.W. 19 is running hotel business in Abids area within the jurisdiction of Abids Police Station and his services are being used by the police whenever required by them. Moreover, they have taken him from Hyderabad to Warangal for recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 and 12 to 17. Further, the local mediators from Warangal P.Ws.12 and 15 secured by the police for conducting panchanama have turned hostile to the prosecution. The other witness P.W.14 who accompanied the police from Hyderabad to Warangal also turned hostile. All of them have specifically stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers in Abids Police Station. The mediator P.W. 19's evidence cannot be relied upon as P.W.19 is being used by Abids police whenever required by them. Moreover, no reasons are stated by P.W. 22 for taking P.W. 19 from Hyderabad to Warangal as a panch witnesses who they could secure other mediators at Warangal. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 19 to hold that he keys of room Nos. 308, 302 and 310 and knives M.Os.13 to 17 were recovered at the instance of the accused. 39. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted that the accused and the deceased stayed in the same lodge on the night of 24-2-2003, there is no evidence either direct or circumstantial to show that the accused met the deceased on that night. 40. As discussed above, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution cannot connect the accused with the death of deceased Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the accused guilty are liable to be set aside. 41. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 by judgment dated 9-1-2009 passed in S.C. No. 74 of 2007 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (two counts) is set aside. The appellants-accused Nos. 41. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants-accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 by judgment dated 9-1-2009 passed in S.C. No. 74 of 2007 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (two counts) is set aside. The appellants-accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are acquitted for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (two counts) and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.