Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This is an unfortunate case where a girl, with bright future ahead of her in the electronic media, was put to death almost at the threshold of her career. 2. Lakshmi Sujatha (the deceased) was working as News Reader in Gemini Television (a Telugu T.V. Channel) at Hyderabad. A-1, by name, Bandla Chandra Sekhar was working as Makeup Man in the same. A-2 is said to be a Camera Man in a private firm and a roommate of A-1, at Hyderabad. 3. The receptionist of Vajram Lodge, Vijayawada – PW-1 submitted a complaint on 10.02.2007 at 1.00 p.m. in P.S., Governorpet, Vijayawada, stating that the inmates of Room No.307 of their Lodge did not come out since morning, nor were they opening the door when knocked and suspecting something abnormal, he sent a word to police station, and a Constable came to the lodge. He stated that the door was opened with the help of a screwdriver in the presence of the Constable, and they found a woman, aged 30 years, dead lying on the bed, in a pool of blood, in the room. He has also stated that as per records of the lodge, the room was booked at 5.20 a.m. on 09.02.2007 in the name of Ch. Madhukumar, Guntur, and another person accompanying him. It was alleged that the inmate of the room placed order for meals at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, they were not seen. He suspected the involvement of the persons, who booked the room, for the death of the woman. 4. The Station House Officer registered Crime No.28 of 2007 mentioning offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The lodge was visited by the police officials. The scene of offence panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted and the dead body was subjected to post mortem. After investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed. A-1 was accused of committing offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC, whereas A-2 was accused of committing offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 376 IPC. The case was made over, to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, and was tried as S.C. No.11 of 2008. After investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed. A-1 was accused of committing offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC, whereas A-2 was accused of committing offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 376 IPC. The case was made over, to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, and was tried as S.C. No.11 of 2008. The following charges were framed against the accused: “FIRSTLY: That A-1 Bandla Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu of you on or about 9.2.2007 after noon, in Room No.307 of Vajram Lodge, situate at Governorpet, Vijayawada pressed Badiga Lakshmi Sujatha on her face with a pillow as a result of which she became unconscious and then A1 of you asked A2 –Garyala Ravindra @ Ravi to come to that room and accordingly A2 of you came to that room and A2 caught hold the said Lakshmi Sujatha, A1 of you stabbed her indiscriminately in her person with a knife and thereby A1 of you committed murder intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the said Lakshmi Sujatha and thereby A1 of you committed the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC and within my cognizance. SECONDLY: That on or about the same date, place and time as mentioned in charge No.1, A2 – Garyala Ravindra @ Ravi of you having common intention along with A1 – Bandal Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu of you to commit murder of Badiga Lakshmi Sujatha and in pursuance of your common intention A2 of you was catching hold the said Lakshmi Sujatha, A1 of you stabbed her indiscriminately with knife and there by caused her death and murdered her and as such A2 of you committed the offence punishable U/s.302 r/w.34 IPC and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That on or about the same date, place and time as mentioned in charge Nos.1 and 2, after causing stab injuries to the said Lakshmi Sujatha by A1-Bandla Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu of you and A2 of you committed rape on her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.376 IPC and within my cognizance. THIRDLY: That on or about the same date, place and time as mentioned in charge Nos.1 and 2, after causing stab injuries to the said Lakshmi Sujatha by A1-Bandla Chandra Sekhar @ Chandu of you and A2 of you committed rape on her and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.376 IPC and within my cognizance. FOURTHLY: That on or about the same date, place an time as mentioned in charge No.1, after causing death of the deceased the said Lakshmi Sujatha as mentioned in Charge No.1, A1 of you committed theft of a gold chain and gold ear-stud from the said Lakshmi Sujatha after causing her death in the said room No.307 of Vajram Lodge, which is a building used by dwelling for custody of property and thereby A1 of you committed an offence punishable U/s.380 IPC and within my cognizance. 5. Through its judgment, dated 11.08.2009, the trial Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months was imposed. In addition to that, A-1 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. Both the sentences against A-1 were directed to run concurrently. A-2 was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC Aggrieved of the same, A-1 filed Crl.A. No.1703 of 3009 and A-2 filed Crl.A. No.1243 of 2009. 6. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that A-1 had intimacy with the deceased, but on coming to know that she was moving with other persons, he developed enmity and formed opinion that she was with him only, as long as he was providing comfort and money. He is said to have come to know that the deceased was proceeding to her place at Gudivada and intended to meet her at Vijayawada. Accordingly, A-1 and A-2 are said to have proceeded to Vijayawada and on arrival, took a room in Vajram Lodge. To hide his identity, A-1 is said to have mentioned his name as Madhukumar, in the Register - Ex.P-1. Accordingly, A-1 and A-2 are said to have proceeded to Vijayawada and on arrival, took a room in Vajram Lodge. To hide his identity, A-1 is said to have mentioned his name as Madhukumar, in the Register - Ex.P-1. At about 11’o clock on 09.02.2007, an employee of the lodge is said to have noticed A-1 going along with a woman and when questioned, he is said to have informed that she is a friend and would not stay in the room. Thereafter, PW-3, a room boy, is said to have been sent to the Room No.307 for taking the order for meals and there, he is said to have seen A-1, in the company of a woman, the deceased. A sum of Rs.500/- was said to have paid to PW-3 by A-1, to supply the items of food mentioned by him. Thereafter, PW-3 is said to have noticed A-1 and A-2 going along with their luggage and when they asked as to whether they are vacating the room, they are said to have replied that they would come back and the woman is already there. Till morning of the next day, there was said to be, no activity in the room and when it was not opened even after the door was knocked, PW-1, the duty receptionist took the steps mentioned at the threshold and submitted Ex.P-3. 7. The investigation is said to have revealed that the deceased and her mother PW-7 reached Vijayawada Station at about 8.00 a.m. and on finding that there is no train from Vijayawada to Hyderabad at that time, a ticket was purchased for a train which would leave the Station at about 11.00 a.m. PW-7 is said to have left for her place whereas her daughter, the deceased, was waiting for the train in the station. A-1 is said to have come to the station, took the deceased to the room and there A-1 and A-2 are said to have murdered her, after committing rape. It was also alleged that the gold ornaments of the deceased were taken away by A-1. 8. A-1 is said to have come to the station, took the deceased to the room and there A-1 and A-2 are said to have murdered her, after committing rape. It was also alleged that the gold ornaments of the deceased were taken away by A-1. 8. The prosecution has drawn support from the information furnished by PW-8, who is said to be another makeup man in the Gemini T.V. This witness stated that A-1 left Hyderabad on 08.02.2007 and asked him to perform his duties on 09.02.2007, so much so, that the signature of A-1 also must be put on that date; and that he acceded to that request. Two days thereafter, he is said to have received information from PW-17, another employee of the same organization, to the effect that A-1 gave him certain gold ornaments for pledging and accordingly, he pledged the ornaments with PW-10 and gave the money. Thus, the prosecution made an attempt to complete the chain of events, to link the offence to the accused. 9. Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for A-2 and Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, appeared for A-1. The gist of their argument is that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has recorded its findings only on surmises and presumptions. They submit that none of PWs.1 to 3, the employees of the lodge, had any prior acquaintance with A-1 and A-2 and there was no occasion for them to have a clear idea about the accused. They submit that in Ex.P-1 or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from those witnesses, no descriptive particulars of the persons, who stayed in the lodge and have taken Room No.307, were furnished. Learned counsel submit that the prosecution stretched the reasoning too far, to connect the accused with the crime just because the deceased was an employee of Gemini T.V. Channel and A-1 is a makeup man in that organization. It is also their case that the conviction cannot be sustained if one takes into account, the settled principles of the criminal law and of the appreciation of evidence. 10. Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, had made further argument in respect of A-2. According to him, even if it can be said that there existed a motive for A-1, to commit the murder, the same cannot be proved about A-2. 10. Sri T. Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, had made further argument in respect of A-2. According to him, even if it can be said that there existed a motive for A-1, to commit the murder, the same cannot be proved about A-2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the only person who has seen the deceased in the Lodge was PW-3 and according to that witness, it was only A-1 who was in company of the deceased and not A-2; and in that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence against A-2, cannot be sustained. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the case on hand, virtually posed a challenge to the police administration and a meticulous investigation was conducted. She contends that the criminal conduct of A-1 is evident from the fact that he has left Hyderabad for Vijaywada with the sole objective of meeting the deceased but in a deceptive manner, which is evident from the fact that he instructed PW-8 not only to discharge his functions of makeup, and also put his signature on the Attendance Register – Ex.P-5 in proxy. She contends that A-2 also made an attempt to plead alibi by stating that he was at Kondepi of Prakasam District on the date of occurrence and two days thereafter, but miserably failed in that front. She contends that the recovery of gold ornaments of the deceased, from PW-10 with whom, they were pledged by PW17 on behalf of A-1 and identification of the same by PW-7 would clearly established that it was A-1 who committed murder and A-2 had a common intention in committing the offence. 12. Obviously, because the person who was murdered was a woman, working in a News Channel and that the gruesome incident has taken place right in Vijayawada Town, the police administration has undertaken the investigation of a very high order. As many as 30 witnesses were examined before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.P-1 to P-44 were marked. The contradictory statements in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3. MOs.1 to 19 were marked. D.W-1 deposed as a defence witness. The trial Court convicted the accused and awarded the sentence, as indicated earlier. 13. Since the murder occurred in a room in a Hotel, nobody has seen it, and everything rests upon the circumstantial evidence. MOs.1 to 19 were marked. D.W-1 deposed as a defence witness. The trial Court convicted the accused and awarded the sentence, as indicated earlier. 13. Since the murder occurred in a room in a Hotel, nobody has seen it, and everything rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The investigation into the case commenced with the submission of a complaint, Ex.P-3. The persons, who booked the room, were also not available in the lodge. Therefore, everything was at large. Obviously because the deceased was from the Gemini News Channel, the investigation started by examining some of the employees of that organization. PW-8 is a makeup man in the Studio. On his examination, it emerged that A-1 was his co-employee and on 09.02.2007 A-1 did not attend the studio. That gave an important clue to the police. The investigation was focused upon him. A-1 is a subscriber of a mobile telephone TATA Indicom bearing No.9247744481. Whatever may have been the side effects of the improved technology, the call data furnished by the TATA Indicom in relation to the calls made by A-1, which is filed as Ex.P-12, proved to be of utmost importance to the prosecution. Ex.P-12 disclosed that on 09.02.2007 A-1 was at Vijayawada till about 2.30 p.m. Thereafter, he proceeded to Guntur. By the end of that date i.e. at about 11.15 p.m. he was found to be travelling via Piduguralla. 14. In Ex.P-1, the name of the person, who booked the room, was mentioned as Madhukumar. If one examines the writing therein, marked as “Ex.P-2”, it becomes clear that the person was making an attempt to cover up his identity. However, it becomes difficult to infer that A-1 is the person who booked the room, if one just goes by Ex.P-1. Unfortunately, for A-1, the attendance register of his employer provided further clues. PW-8 stated that he was asked by A-1 to sign on his behalf in the attendance register, Ex.P-5, on 09.02.2007. A scrutiny of the signatures in Ex.P-5 against the name of A-1 discloses that the one on 09.02.2007 is in a totally different writing. Ex.P-5 also discloses that A-1 reciprocated PW-8, by putting the signature of the latter for 10.02.2007. 15. In the extensive cross-examination of PW-8 nothing was elicited to doubt his credibility. It was not even suggested that A-1 is not acquainted with him or that he has any grouse against A1, to implicate him. Ex.P-5 also discloses that A-1 reciprocated PW-8, by putting the signature of the latter for 10.02.2007. 15. In the extensive cross-examination of PW-8 nothing was elicited to doubt his credibility. It was not even suggested that A-1 is not acquainted with him or that he has any grouse against A1, to implicate him. 16. The manner in which A-1 and A-2 had access to the deceased becomes essential. The body of the deceased was found in the Hotel, was proved beyond any pale of doubt. A-1 and the deceased had prior acquaintance and are working in the same organization. PW.8 and PW.17 stated in clear terms that A-1 had acquaintance with the deceased and at one point of time, A-1 used to proclaim that he would marry her. He is also said to have expressed displeasure about the deceased on account of going to another organization and getting acquainted with other people. The evidence also discloses that A-1 spent daily good amount of money on the deceased, that too by pledging the gold ornaments, brought from his native place. 17. PW-7 is the mother of the deceased. She stated that she reached Vijayawada Railway Station at about 8.00 a.m. to see off the deceased, for Hyderabad. However, on finding that there is no train at that time, they purchased a ticket for a train, which is at 11.00 a.m. She is said to have remained in the station along with the deceased upto 10.30 a.m. and thereafter proceeded to the house of her younger sister at Ramavarappadu. In her evidence, she furnished the telephone numbers of herself and that of her daughter. The number of the cell phone of the deceased was “9849887956”. In Ex.P-12, the call summery of the mobile of A-1 with number “9247744481”, reveals that A-1 made a call to the deceased at about 10.46 a.m. on 09.02.2007. Thereafter, A-1 called A-2 on cell phone number “9247111207” on many occasions. 18. PW-3 stated that he saw A-1 with the deceased at about 11.00 a.m., proceeding to the room and that he took order in the room No.307, where A-1 and another woman i.e. the deceased were present. Thereafter, A-1 called A-2 on cell phone number “9247111207” on many occasions. 18. PW-3 stated that he saw A-1 with the deceased at about 11.00 a.m., proceeding to the room and that he took order in the room No.307, where A-1 and another woman i.e. the deceased were present. This sequence of evidence would lead to inescapable conclusion that A-1 met the deceased at Vijayawada Railway Station at around 10.30 a.m. and both of them came at the hotel, at around 11.00 a.m. What happened thereafter is a matter of anybody’s inference or guess, if one takes into account the displeasure of A-1 as to the conduct of the deceased. The condition in which the dead body was found in the room, present a horrifying scene, difficult, even to describe. 19. Another important circumstance that connects atleast A-1, with the incident is the recovery of gold ornaments from PW-10, the pawn broker. The ornaments were identified by the mother of the deceased - PW-7. They were pledged by PW-17, the person who worked as a makeup man in Gemini T.V. and who was acquainted with A-1. He stated that A-1 gave the ornaments to him for pledging and it is only on 10.02.2007 on the next day, that he saw news item to the effect that the murder of the deceased occurred at Vijayawada. No attempt whatever, was made on behalf of A-1 to disown the ornaments or to contradict the evidence of PW-8 and PW-17. What emerges from this is that after committing the murder of the deceased, A-1 took the ornaments from her body and got them pledged with PW-10 through PW-17. The ornaments were identified beyond any pale of doubt, by PW-7 - the mother of the deceased. 20. An attempt was made to raise the plea of alibi on behalf of A-2. D.W-1 was examined to establish that A-1 was at places, Kondepi and Ongole, to cover a marriage program in video. The statement made in the chief examination of D.W-1 is vague and bereft of any particulars whatever. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has no proof to establish that himself and A-2 were at Ongole or that they have videographed any marriage. Just as a plea of justification in the field of torts plea of alibi is a double edged weapon. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has no proof to establish that himself and A-2 were at Ongole or that they have videographed any marriage. Just as a plea of justification in the field of torts plea of alibi is a double edged weapon. If proved to the satisfaction of the Court, they would extricate the defendant or the accused, as the case may be, from the liability. On failure, they are exposed to risk of being fixed up without much effort of the plaintiff or the prosecution, as the case may be. If a person who raises the plea of alibi fails to establish it, the first consequence which emerges is that the person is not truthful, and thereafter it becomes free for the prosecution to pin down such a person to the event, leading to commission of offence. In the instant case, an attempt was made by A-2 to plead that he was at a different place, but he failed to prove that and the prosecution gained an upper hand. 21. Added to that, the presence of A-2 in the company of A-1 was noticed by the staff of the Lodge, when they entered the Hotel on 09.02.2007 and when they checked out from it. While their entry was noticed by PW-2, their exit was spoken to by PW-3. To none of the said witnesses, any suggestions to the contrary were made. We, therefore, find that the finding of the trial Court that A-1 and A-2 were involved in committing the murder of the deceased is well founded and supported by perfect evidence. However, in the context of degree of involvement, we find some difference. A-1 had a clear motive to murder the deceased and even had stolen the gold ornaments from her. The occurrence was not witnessed by any individual, and as observed earlier, the entire case rests upon circumstances. 22. A-2 is a videographer by profession, and he is said to have come to Hyderabad, hardly one month before the incident in search of opportunities. He was the roommate of A-1 and he accompanied A-1 to Vijayawada. He did not have any purpose of his own, nor did he have any objective in common, with A-1. Several injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It is difficult to attribute the specific injuries to any of the accused. He was the roommate of A-1 and he accompanied A-1 to Vijayawada. He did not have any purpose of his own, nor did he have any objective in common, with A-1. Several injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It is difficult to attribute the specific injuries to any of the accused. However, if one takes into account, the specific motive on the part of A-1, to commit the crime, A-2 cannot be said to have acted with intention to cause the murder of the deceased by himself or by participating with A-1. 23. Though the confessional statement recorded from an accused cannot be treated as a basis to the Court to rest its conclusion, we find that when he saw A-1 stabbing the deceased. A-2 wanted to prevent him, but at a later stage when the deceased was crying, he closed her mouth lest the sound is heard from outside. Though he too can be said to have played role in the crime it was not with any premeditated intention. We are of the view that though not in its strict sense, the case against A-2 can fit into Section 304-II IPC and we propose to modify the conviction against him under that provision, since he did not have any clear intention to kill the deceased. He was just married before the occurrence. We propose to reduce the sentence against him, to five years rigorous imprisonment, and to confirm the fine. 24. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.1703 of 2009 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No.1243 of 2009 is partly allowed. The conviction ordered against the appellant in Crl.A. No.1243 of 2009 i.e., accused No.2 in S.C.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, dated 11.08.2009, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified to that for offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, and the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years. The fine imposed on him is confirmed. In case the appellant in Crl.A. No.1243 of 2009 i.e. accused No.2 has already served the sentence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is needed in relation to any other crime.