Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. Accused No.1 in S.C.No.284 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, West Godavari District, filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence ordered against him, by the trial Court. The facts pertaining to the case in brief, are as under: PW.1 Balanagu Jaya Lakshmi @ Usha, submitted a complaint -Ex.P1, on 21.11.2006 at 5.30 p.m., to the Sub inspector of Police, Achanta. She stated that her husband, Ravi Chandra, is running a Silver and Gold shop, by name, Chandra Jewellers in Achanta, and that, he informed her on phone at around 3.00 p.m., on 20.11.2006, that A1, who borrowed money from him, as hand loan, asking him to come to Martair Village of Penumantra Mandal, for repayment, and that, he is going to that place. She is said to have telephoned to the shop at 4.30 p.m., and found that someone was there, and when she telephoned to her husband on his mobile, she found that it was switched off. According to her, her husband closed the shop, and put only one lock, and that he used to come at 10.00 p.m., to their house at Achanta, but he did not turn up till 11.00 p.m., and having waited till 12’ 0 clock in the mid night, she telephoned to her relatives and friends, to inform about the matter. PW.1 further sated that her husband purchased black coloured pulsar motor cycle bearing No AP AJ 4110, which was not transferred in his name yet, and suspecting that the accused may have taken the deceased on motor cycle to somewhere, she once again called her husband on both his mobile phones, but she did not get any reply. She is said to have gone to the shop and locked it properly. PW.1 has also stated that her son PW.2, who was studying 10th class, noticed A1, on the motor cycle of his father Ravi chandra at 4.30p.m., near Jaya Talkies, Martair, and when he enquired about his father, A1 is said to have stated that he is on the other side of the bridge. She further stated that whereabouts her husband are not known, and suspected the involvement of A1. She further stated that whereabouts her husband are not known, and suspected the involvement of A1. The Station House Officer, Palakol, West Godavari District, registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2006 under Sections 363 r/w 34 IPC, against A1 and others. On 22.11.2006, the Investigating Officer-PW.18 is said to have taken up the investigation, and prepared a rough sketch, and examined, as many as, five witnesses, and recorded the statements. During the course of further investigation, on 22.11.2006, PW.18, is said to have arrested A1 and A2 at the house of A1, and both of them are said to have confessed in the presence of two mediators, that they induced the deceased to come to the rented house of A1, by promising to pay the debt, they murdered the deceased, and have stolen the gold ornaments, bike and cell phones. The body is said to have been thrown away in the Nidadavolue canal near Kavitam lock to screen the evidence. PW.18 is said to have recovered the gold ornaments, and got conducted postmortem, and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18, and filed Exs.P1 to P22. MOs.1 to 10 were also taken on record. Exs.D1 to D4 were marked at the instance of the defence. Through its judgment dated 27.11.2009, the trial Court acquitted A2, and convicted A1, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 404 and 201 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years, and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. Similarly, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years, and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC, and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for one month was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. Smt A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is any amount of uncertainty, and inconsistency in the case of PWs.1 and 2, and the accused-A1, was falsely implicated. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. Smt A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is any amount of uncertainty, and inconsistency in the case of PWs.1 and 2, and the accused-A1, was falsely implicated. She contends that no reference whatever was made to PW.3 in Ex.P1, though he is said to be the source of information for PW.1. She contends that the events, and the imagination was strange, to such an extent that, to paint a picture that, the motor cycle of the deceased was stolen by A1, but the prosecution did not even care to verify, as to whether the deceased was owner of the motor cycle (MO.9) at all. She submits that, if in fact, PW.2 noticed that the motor cycle of his father, the deceased was found to be with A1, the immediate reaction would have been to proceed in that direction. She submits that except a remotely connected circumstance that, A1 was indebted to the deceased, there is absolutely no evidence whatever to hold that the accused is guilty of committing the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the disappearance and the death of the deceased, continued to be a mystery, till the breakthrough emerged on the basis of the confession of A1 and A2. She submits that the PW.1 has taken prompt action to submit a complaint, soon after, she noticed that her husband did not turn up, on the usual time. She contends that the trial Court has examined the matter in detail, analyzed the evidence, according to the principles of law, and that the judgment rendered by it, does not warrant any interference. The brief back ground of the case is furnished in the preceding paragraphs. The information about missing of the deceased from the night of 20.11.2006 was furnished to police, at 5.30 p.m., on 21.11.2006. PW.1 narrated the events that are said to have taken place on 20.11.2006, and stated that her husband did not turn up till mid night. At more places than one, reference was made to A1, in Ex.P1. It was alleged that A1 borrowed amount from the deceased, and it is on the call of A1, that the deceased went to Martair. She further stated that her son PW.2 has seen A1 on the motor cycle-MO.9, and had asked him whereabouts of his father. At more places than one, reference was made to A1, in Ex.P1. It was alleged that A1 borrowed amount from the deceased, and it is on the call of A1, that the deceased went to Martair. She further stated that her son PW.2 has seen A1 on the motor cycle-MO.9, and had asked him whereabouts of his father. This information, however, is said to have been furnished to her, only in the morning of 21.11.2006. Whatever may have been the worry, and concern of PW.1, in not making an attempt to contact A1, or to complain against him, immediately on 20.11.2006, at least when PW.2 is said to have informed her that he saw A1, riding in the motor cycle, and on enquiry about the deceased, gave an answer, as indicated above, PW.1, was expected to make an attempt to contact A1. However, she did not do so. In the cross examination, PW.1 stated : “……I did not make phone call to the first accused on 20.11.2006 to know about my husband. On the next day i.e., 21.11.2006 my brother-in-law and his son i.e., Balanagu Srirama Murthy @ Rambabu (L.W.3) and his son by name Balanagu Lakshman and Batch Kasi Viswanadham who is brother-in-law of my husband searched for my husband at Achanta-Martair and Kodamanchili and surrounding areas of about the village. We did not search for my husband at Narsapur. I do not know whether they searched the house of first accused to my knowledge…” There is a serious discrepancy about the information said to have been furnished by A2. In Ex.P1, PW.1 stated : “…..My son Chaitanya is studying 10th class in Ushodaya Public School, Martair. After returning from the school at 4.15, and found Polamuri Ravi on their scooter 4.30 p.m. at Jaya Talkies Centre, Martair and he questioned him who gave the vehicle to you, he replied that your Dad and myself together came, your Dad is on the other side of Bridge. My son came to the house….” In her cross examination, however, PW.1 stated that PW.2 informed her about the discussion with A1. My son came to the house….” In her cross examination, however, PW.1 stated that PW.2 informed her about the discussion with A1. “…on 20.11.2006 that after returning the school, my eldest son did not inform that he saw the first accused on the pulsar motor cycle of his father….” It is important to mention here that not a single document was filed before the Court to show that MO.9 was owned by the deceased. No one, who is acquainted with that matter pertaining to MO.9, was examined. One of the important witnesses examined by the prosecution is PW.3. This witness is said to be a gold smith. On 20.11.2006, at 2.00 p.m., he is said to have gone to the shop of the accused for attending the work, and at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased is said to have received a phone call, and after attending to it, the deceased is said to have informed him that he is going to Martair, for recovering a sum of Rs.10,000/- from A1, locked the shop, and went away by giving instructions to him, and the owner of neighbouring shop. When PW.3 was at the shop, one customer is said to have come to the shop at 4.30 p.m., and he made a phone call to the deceased, but the mobile was found to be switched off. Soon thereafter, he is said to have made a phone call to the house of the deceased, and that PW.1 received it. She is said to have informed him that the deceased did not come to the house, and thereafter, PW.3 is said to have waited till the mid night, for arrival of the deceased. At about 12.05 mid night, he is said to have made a phone call to the residence of the deceased with a request to lock up the shop properly, and then, the relatives of the deceased have come, and locked the shop at 1.00 p.m. If, in fact, PW.3 made a call to the residence of the deceased, and PW.1 received it, as stated by him, there should have been a reference to that, in Ex.P1, or in the deposition of PW1. There is not even a whisper about it. Such a serious omission, would certainly tell upon the trustworthiness of the case of the prosecution. There is not even a whisper about it. Such a serious omission, would certainly tell upon the trustworthiness of the case of the prosecution. PW.5, who is said to be acquainted with the deceased, and he is running a kirana shop, opposite to the shop of the deceased. He was declared hostile on the ground that he did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.6, is close relation of the deceased, and PW.1. He is said to have participated in the search for the deceased, and went to the dead body of the deceased, on being informed by LW.7 (not examined), and PW.7. A perusal of the evidence of PW.7 discloses that it is only a hearsay version, and he reached the place, was only, after police noticed the dead body. His evidence is of no use at all. PW.9 stated that A1 is his tenant, and that he saw him on 20.11.2006 at 4.00 p.m. on a black motor cycle. He is said to have questioned A1, as to why, he did not bring his family, and that there was no reply from A1. This witness was cross examined extensively. Ultimately, he admitted that it is only through public, that he came to know that, A1 killed the deceased. The police is said to have gone to him in the afternoon of 21.11.2006, and asked for the keys of the motor cycle, and that he is said to have pleaded ignorance. He further admitted that he did not go to the house of A1, after coming to know about the incident, and that he did not inform the police. The Investigating Officer- PW.18 may certify the important admissions. For example he sated as under: “….It is true as per my investigation the alleged scene of offence is situated at Martair, and it is in the limits of Penumantra Police Station and comes under circle of Penugonda. My Jurisdiction is Achanta and Poduru Police Stations. It is true M.O.9 Motorcycle is in the name of Kadali Malleswara Rao of Kavitam Village. It is true I did not seize the token attached to MO.9 and also Register maintained in cycle stand, Railway station of Narsapur…..” He stated in the chief examination that, he verified the incoming and outgoing calls on the cell phone of the deceased, but no particulars thereof, were furnished. It is true I did not seize the token attached to MO.9 and also Register maintained in cycle stand, Railway station of Narsapur…..” He stated in the chief examination that, he verified the incoming and outgoing calls on the cell phone of the deceased, but no particulars thereof, were furnished. In addition to that, the following admissions were elicited: “…..It is true that the second page of charge sheet I mentioned that the deceased was smothered, throttled and strangulated. It is true I did not send MOs to RFSL for Chemical Analysis. I did not seize cell phone of A.1. It is true 5th page last line of my charge sheet discloses that “The final opinion of medical officer should be filed in Honourable Court in soon”. It is true I did not secure any document to show that A1 borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/-from the deceased. It is true that I did not obtain any documentary proof to show that MOs.1 to 7 belongs to the deceased….” A perusal of the scene of offence, and in particular, the photographs of the deceased, reveals that it was not a case of an ordinary murder, by a person for any gain, but is suggestive fact that it has taken place under unexplained circumstances. If the murder is only for the purpose of avoiding payment, and steeling of the ornaments, one does not think of removing the clothes from the person. The dead body was virtually naked. From the discussion undertaken above, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between what is stated in Ex.P1, and the evidence of PW.1. There is serious omission in the Ex.P1, as well as, the deposition of PW.1, about the phone calls said to have been made by PW.3 to the deceased, as well as, PW1. The discrepancy in relation to the information said to have been passed on by PW.2 to PW.1 has already been highlighted by extracting the relevant portions. Added to that, PW.2 admitted that he did not state before the police, about the exact time, at which, he is said to have given information, to his mother, on 21.11.2006. A suggestion was made to PW.1 to the effect that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with one U. Madhavi, and it was also pointed out that no effort was made to enquire in the house of the said Madhavi. A suggestion was made to PW.1 to the effect that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with one U. Madhavi, and it was also pointed out that no effort was made to enquire in the house of the said Madhavi. We find that the discrepancies, and inconsistencies, pointed above material, and in that view of the matter, the judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.284 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, dated 27.11.2009, against the appeallant-A1, are set aside. The appellant-A1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A1 shall be refunded to him. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.