Judgment : 1. The sole accused in S.C.No.99 of 209 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) III Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, is the appellant. He was accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The trial Court found him guilty of both the offences and imposed the punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution was that one Mr.Raghukula Tilak Reddy, a bachelor, was doing Mining Mica business, and was residing in the first floor of a building at Lakshminarasimhapuram, Podalakur Road, Nellore Town. The accused was said to have been engaged as a domestic servant by him and that he too was living in the same residence. 3. In the early hours of 28.08.2006, the accused is said to have telephoned Shyamala, the elder sister of the deceased, residing at Hyderabad, informing that the deceased brought four bottles of Brandi in the preceding night, had consumed the same along with friends, and in the morning he found him dead on a Diwan Cot, with certain injuries. Shyamala is said to have informed the same to her sister at Nellore, by name, Mrudula, PW.1. It was alleged that before PW.1 and her husband, PW.2 left for the place of occurrence, they received a telephone call from PW.4, that he reached the spot and found Tilak Reddy, died with some injuries. PW.4 is also said to have informed PW.1 that the accused, who is present at the spot, was giving inconsistent answers about the cause of the death. PWs.1 and 2 are said to have proceeded to the spot, and thereafter, submitted a complaint, Ex.P.1 before I-Town Police Station, Nellore, and the same was registered as Crime No.177 of 2006. 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, PW.13, took up the investigation, caused inquest on the dead body and sent the body for post-mortem examination. On the basis of the investigation conducted by him, he filed a charge-sheet. After the case was committed to it, the trial Court framed the following charges against the accused: “1. 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, PW.13, took up the investigation, caused inquest on the dead body and sent the body for post-mortem examination. On the basis of the investigation conducted by him, he filed a charge-sheet. After the case was committed to it, the trial Court framed the following charges against the accused: “1. That you, the accused on 28.08.2006 at about 4.30 a.m., in the house of the deceased Mettukuru Raghukula Tilak Reddy situated at 2nd Street, L.N.Puram, Podalakur Road, Nellore, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of said Mettukuru Raghukula Tilak Reddy by beating him on his head with an iron rod and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and within my cognisance. 2. That you on the same day, time and place as mentioned in the first count, knowing that certain offence, punishable with death of imprisonment for life has been committed by you, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit, after committing murder of said Mettukuru Raghukula Tilak Reddy, removed your bloodstained pant and shirt, which you were at the time of committing the murder, and the iron rod used for commission of the said offence kept the same in a gunny bag, took them from the scene of offence and threw the gunny bag and the iron rod into the premises of D.S.R. Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Nellore, with the intention of screening the said offender you from legal punishment, and that you the accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and within my cognisance.” 5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.13. The relevant portion in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked as Ex.D.1. M.Os.1 to 23 were taken on record. Ultimately, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and imposed the punishment as indicated above. 6. Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that the evidence that is placed on record do not in any way prove the involvement of the accused for the death of his Master-Tilak Reddy. 6. Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that the evidence that is placed on record do not in any way prove the involvement of the accused for the death of his Master-Tilak Reddy. He submits that the investigating agency failed to secure the best possible evidence and even failed to examine Smt. Shyamala, the sister of the deceased, who is said to be 1st person to have received information about the death of the deceased. According to him, the chain of events is not complete, to conclude that the accused and none else is involved in the crime. He contends the motive that is attributed to the accused is not at all strong enough to hold that he might have resorted to murdering of the deceased. It is pleaded that extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused is unbelievable and the alleged recovery of the incriminating objects from a public place is improbable. The learned counsel further submits that the conviction of the accused on the basis of such material on record cannot be sustained, and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that by placing the oral and documentary evidence on record the prosecution could establish all the links in the chain, which leads to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone, who committed the crime. She contends that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused guilty on appreciation of the material on record, and convicted him. It is urged that the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant any interference. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution was able to prove that the accused committed the crime alleged against him. 9. POINT: Ragukula Tilak Reddy, aged about 34 years, a business man was staying alone in the first floor portion of the house, bearing No.25-3-14, Laxminarasimha Puram, 2nd Street, Nellore, owned by one Khasim. The accused, aged about 22 years and a native of Ananthapur district, was employed by him as a cook/domestic servant in August 2006. Tilak Reddy had four sisters and a brother and one of the sisters Smt. Mrudula (PW-1) was residing at Nellore just at a distance of 2½ kilometres from his house. The accused, aged about 22 years and a native of Ananthapur district, was employed by him as a cook/domestic servant in August 2006. Tilak Reddy had four sisters and a brother and one of the sisters Smt. Mrudula (PW-1) was residing at Nellore just at a distance of 2½ kilometres from his house. His other sister, by name Smt.Shyamala is said to be living at Hyderabad. Even according to the prosecution, he was addicted to alcohol and was drinking heavily. On 28.08.2006 at about 8.30 a.m., one Chintha Sairam Vara Prasad (PW-4), a friend of Tilak Reddy is said to have gone to his house and found him lying dead on the cot, with injuries and blood spilled around. In the meantime, PW-1 and her husband PW-2 are said to have came there on being requested by Smt. Shyamala, the other sister of the deceased at Hyderabad to visit the house. Shyamala is said to have got a phone call from the accused about the deceased being in a serious condition due to injury. PWs.1 and 2 were alleged to have questioned the accused as to the cause of the death of the deceased, but he did not give any reply, and maintained stoic silence. Thereafter PW-1 lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1, before PW-12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station, Nellore. He registered the case in Cr.No.177 of 2006 under Sec.302 IPC and issued the F.I.R. PW-13, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet. According to the prosecution, the involvement of the accused is established by the evidence on record. 10. The plea of the accused both at the time of examination under Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C., and Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is that he is innocent of the crime and he has been falsely implicated and that as a matter of fact about a week prior to the incident he left the employment of the deceased and was working in ‘Sri Rama Canteen’ by residing in a small room. The further statement of the accused is that several friends of the deceased were coming to the house, drinking together and were altercating with the deceased. 11. The further statement of the accused is that several friends of the deceased were coming to the house, drinking together and were altercating with the deceased. 11. Since the case is based on circumstantial evidence what is required to be seen is as to (1) whether the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn are cogently and firmly proved, and (2) whether, taken together, those circumstances form a chain so complete, that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 12. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, undoubtedly, motive to commit the crime is an important factor to be reckoned with. That, however, must be so strong as to overawe all the senses of an ordinary human being. 13. In the case in hand it is alleged that the accused, who was working with the deceased, was being subjected to physical, immoral, unethical and unnatural violence at the hands of the deceased in an inebriated condition. According to the prosecution, this could be the motive for the accused to commit the crime. The accused is said to have shared his anguish and grievance with PW-3, who was a neighbouring merchant. The evidence of PW-3 on this aspect is cryptic. He claims that the accused used to tell him that as and when the deceased was taking liquor, he was abusing and beating him. Except for this vague statement, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused nurtured any malice or ill-feelings towards the deceased whom he was serving day-in and day-out. In our view, this is too weak, a reason for a person to kill another. 14. Now, it needs to be seen as to whether the accused caused the death of the deceased. According to the prosecution at about 8.00 and 9.00 a.m., on 28.08.2006 the accused informed Smt. Shyamala, sister of the deceased through phone that the deceased is lying on the cot with injuries, and in turn, the said Shyamala requested her sister, PW-1, to visit the deceased and see his condition. If that be the case, it is Shyamala, who could have stated as to what information was received from the accused and what instructions she issued to PW-1. Surprisingly, Shyamala has not been examined either during the course of investigation or the trial. If that be the case, it is Shyamala, who could have stated as to what information was received from the accused and what instructions she issued to PW-1. Surprisingly, Shyamala has not been examined either during the course of investigation or the trial. Failure of the prosecution in this behalf, would certainly justify an inference, provided for under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 15. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that when she was about to move out from her house, she -1 received another phone call from one Sairam Vara Prasad (PW-4), and he informed her that the deceased is lying with injuries on the cot and the accused who was at the house, was not responding to his queries. She states that herself and PW-2, proceeded to the house of the deceased, and found him dead with injuries. It was stated that when they questioned the accused as to how the deceased sustained injuries, the accused did not respond and remained silent. According to her, since there were empty liquor bottles on the Tea-poi, herself and her husband gained an impression that the deceased might have said something to the accused and in retaliation the accused may have inflicted the injuries and killed him. 16. On similar lines is the testimony of PW-2. It is elicited from PW-2 that there were empty liquor bottles and three to four glasses on the table and because of that he is of the view that the deceased along with friends might have taken liquor together. 17. What could be gathered from the evidence of these two relatives of the deceased is that when they reached the spot at the earliest point of time, they noticed the dead body, and the material which suggested that the deceased and some of his friends, have consumed liquor at that place. The question, as to who were those persons were and till what time they were boozing together and what transpired during that process has neither been investigated nor established. Admittedly, the deceased was living in the first floor portion of a building in which there were some other occupants including PW.11 – Shaik Meerabi, a resident in the ground floor, and in the same premises that he was found dead. Admittedly, the deceased was living in the first floor portion of a building in which there were some other occupants including PW.11 – Shaik Meerabi, a resident in the ground floor, and in the same premises that he was found dead. PW-11 stated that she was living in the ground floor and the deceased was living in the first floor and that the deceased was not having any quarrels or disputes with any of the neighbours. She claimed ignorance about the cause of the death of the deceased. What is apparent from her testimony is that some incident took place within the closed doors of the portion of the deceased when he was consuming liquor with his friends or thereafter and in the next morning, he was found dead, with injuries. 18. The other material evidence is that of the PW-4, who is said to be the friend of the deceased. Incidentally he is the first person to see the deceased lying dead at about 8.30 a.m. on 28.08.2006. His evidence is that when he went to the house of the deceased at about 8.30 a.m. he found the deceased lying on Diwan, with bleeding injuries, and blood stains were found on the floor and the wall. He is said to have enquired the accused as to the cause of death and that the accused did not give him any answer, and in that view of the matter he entertained a suspicion that something wrong was done to the deceased. It was stated that he telephoned PW-1 and after PWs.1 and 2 came, he shared with them, what he noticed. 19. It may be noticed that even though PWs.1, 2 and 4 have strongly suspected the involvement of the accused, because he was not properly responding to them, they allowed the accused to go away from there. The accused was a person, who was engaged as a cook and assistant for the deceased and who was hailing from Ananthapur district and none of the witnesses or relations of the deceased had any other information about the accused. If they really suspected the involvement of the accused, they would not have allowed the accused to go from the spot, even after questioning him and with whose response they were not satisfied. If they really suspected the involvement of the accused, they would not have allowed the accused to go from the spot, even after questioning him and with whose response they were not satisfied. The prudent conduct of any person will be to take custody of such a person and handover him to the law enforcing agency for doing the needful. Instead of that, all the witnesses have allowed the accused to go from the spot and PW-1 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint,Ex.P.1, expressing suspicion against the accused. 20. It is also in the evidence of PW-4 that he was told by PW-3 that he has seen the accused and the deceased coming in an auto at about 4.30 a.m. and at that time the deceased was having an injury on head. Even during the course of conducting the scene of offence panchanama, as is borne from the record, a medical prescription bearing No.99118, dated 27.8.2006 issued by Dr. Ram Nayak (LW-7) was found. It is evident that there was material to show that when the deceased was found dead at about 8.30 a.m. on 28.08.2006 just four hours prior to thereto, he was treated by LW-7, Dr. Ram Nayak for the head injury. There is also evidence to the effect that it is the accused, who took the deceased to the said doctor in the dead of the night, and the accused and the deceased were seen returning in an auto, by the neighbouring merchant (PW-3). Unfortunately the evidence pertaining to this crucial aspect has not been placed before the Court. The said doctor has not been examined and he was given up by the prosecution. 21. It is admitted by PW-4 that the brother of the deceased is running a college and through him PW-1 had acquaintance with the deceased. It was suggested to PW-4 that on the intervening night of the incident, himself and two other persons and the deceased consumed liquor and with regard to the business of the deceased there was altercation and in the said altercation the deceased was beaten by them. 22. The evidence of PW-4 is also strongly relied upon by the prosecution for establishing a circumstantial link in the chain of circumstances. It is the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused inculpating himself in the crime. 22. The evidence of PW-4 is also strongly relied upon by the prosecution for establishing a circumstantial link in the chain of circumstances. It is the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused inculpating himself in the crime. PW-4 stated that the accused fled away from the scene on 28.08.2006 in the morning, but on 29.08.2006 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused again came to him and spilled the beans on being assured of protection. According to PW-4, the accused told him that the deceased was fully drunken, beat him and was harassed him even sexually and vexed with that behaviour, the accused beat the deceased. He further stated that the accused confessed of having wiped the blood stains with the cloth and further informed that he has thrown the blood stained clothes and iron rod into the premises of the Government Hospital at Nellore. The accused is further said to have confessed before him that when the deceased was lying on the cot with injuries he put a pillow on his face and pressed it. 23. The so called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused is highly suspicious and difficult to be believed. An extra-judicial confession needs to be analysed with utmost care and caution and it must be tested on the touchstone of natural human conduct. The question as to whether a person, who committed a heinous crime, more than 24 hours prior thereto and who coolly and successfully escaped from the kith and kin and friends of the deceased, would again go back to one of such persons and confess that it is he, who killed the deceased, needs to be tested from the view point of an ordinary human being, if not, of a criminal. In our opinion, it is difficult to accept that it accords with the same. There were no compelling circumstances, warranting the accused to walk into the jaws of death and inform PW4 that he has killed the deceased. 24. Further, PW-4 claims that on the basis of the statement made by the accused, he submitted a report to the police, marked as Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.2, he has informed the police, what the accused is said to have told him. The so called confession of the accused was not recorded by PW-4 in the words of the accused. 24. Further, PW-4 claims that on the basis of the statement made by the accused, he submitted a report to the police, marked as Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.2, he has informed the police, what the accused is said to have told him. The so called confession of the accused was not recorded by PW-4 in the words of the accused. The conduct of PW-4 itself warrants careful scrutiny, if the contents of Ex.P.2 are perused. According to him, when the accused confessed of having committed the crime, he assured the accused to speak to the C.I. and S.I. of police and assured as much help as possible. That is not what was expected from PW-4, if really the accused has confessed before him that it is he who killed the deceased. 25. The other evidence that is brought on record is that of PW-5, who claims to be the friend of the deceased. According to him on 27.8.2006 at about 11 or 12.00 in the mid night, the deceased telephoned him and informed that the accused was acting adverse to his interest and he is apprehending danger to his life in the hands of the accused. PW-5 further deposed that he could notice that at that time the deceased was fully drunken and accordingly he advised the deceased to take rest and promised to visit him in the next morning. He stated that on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. when he was passing through the house of the deceased, he found the gathering of the people and the police in front of the house of the deceased, and on enquiry, he came to know that his friend, the deceased was found lying dead in the house. 26. This testimony of PW-5 is difficult to be accepted for the simple reason that the accused was only an assistant and servant in the house of the deceased and not a business rival. Such apprehension is possible only from his business associates with whom he was consuming liquor. That apart when the deceased has specifically made a request to him and if really he was a friend and well-wisher of the deceased, he would have gone to the house of the deceased to verify as to what the matter, really is. He neither went to the house of the deceased immediately, nor even in the next morning as promised. He neither went to the house of the deceased immediately, nor even in the next morning as promised. Only at about 11.00 a.m. i.e., nearly more than three hours after the dead body was found and that too while casually walking across the house of the deceased, he is said to have known about the death of the deceased. This is not a natural human conduct. 27. The other evidence is about the discovery of the material objects. There is no controversy that only the confession leading to the discovery of the material object needs acceptance. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, the accused confessed of having committed the crime and lead the panchas and police to the recovery of the incriminating material objects, namely the blood stained cloths and the weapon alleged to have been used by him in the commission of crime. When a criminal mind works, it do so very guardedly. According to the prosecution, after killing the deceased, the accused cleaned the blood stain marks around the place, changed his own clothes, removed the other blood stained clothes and dumped them in a gunny bag and threw it in the compound wall of the Government General Hospital, Nellore. By any standard that is not the place where incriminating material objects will be concealed. It is also in the evidence that after having thrown the weapon used by him in the commission of crime in the compound wall of the Govt. Hospital, the accused again came and slept in the house of the deceased. This is also an improbable aspect of the matter. 28. The investigation in a crime, such as the one in hand, was required to be handled with utmost care and caution and all the necessary steps to preserve the evidence were to be taken by the Investigating Officer, for production of the same before the Court. In the instant case, it is admitted by the witnesses as well as Investigating Officer that when they first visited the scene of offence, they saw found the deceased lying dead on the cot, found four empty bottles of wine and three or four glasses. It obviously means that such glasses were used by the persons, who had consumed liquor immediately preceding the death of the deceased. It obviously means that such glasses were used by the persons, who had consumed liquor immediately preceding the death of the deceased. The Investigating Officer, PW-13, admits that he has not taken any steps whatsoever to preserve the finger prints on such crucial objects for connecting the criminal with the crime. Similarly, no endeavour was made to get examined the finger prints on the weapon of offence alleged to have been used by the accused. A case of this nature warrants for a scientific investigation, since admittedly there was no eye-witness to the incident. The persons, who spent time with the deceased just prior to his death, are the persons, who fall in the category of last seen together, and their identity, was essential and their role required probe. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer, PW-13 has failed to act accordingly. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the evidence on record does not conclusively establish the allegation against the accused and the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit thereof. It is a well settled principle that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, will not take the place of proof. In the instant case also, at best the material on record raises suspicion against the accused, but the same has not been proved. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered S.C.No.99 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC) III Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, dated 10.08.2009, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.