Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant herein was accused of committing the murder of one Singampalli Venkatarao of Venkatapathirajunagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhaptnam, on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2008. The case introduced by the prosecution against the accused was, briefly, as under: P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. On 19.05.2008, the brother of the deceased, P.W.2, and junior maternal uncle of P.W.1, by name, Satyanarayana, came to the house of the deceased, and at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased, P.W.2 and Satyanarayana went to the beach. In the night at about 8.00 p.m., P.W.2 and Satyanarayana are said to have returned, and the deceased is said to have stayed back, to procure chicken curry for his family members. On the early hours of the next day i.e., at about 3.00 a.m., one Mr. Pydi Raju is said to have informed P.W.1 that her husband is found dead before J.K. Apartments, Visakhapatnam. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have rushed to the spot, and thereafter, reported the matter to the police, by filing a complaint, Ex.P.1. Crime No.304 of 2008 was registered and the police visited the spot, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and post-mortem, and recorded the statements of concerned witnesses. Thereafter, the accused is said to have been arrested, and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charge referable to Section 302 IPC against the accused, and on denial of the same by the accused, a full-fledged trial was undertaken, wherein P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were filed. M.Os.1 to 6 were also taken on record. On behalf of defence, Ex.D.1, the portion of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from P.W.6, was cited. Through its judgment, dated 15.09.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him and imposed the punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this Criminal Appeal. Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there are not only inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but also there are several lapses on the part of the prosecution. Hence, this Criminal Appeal. Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there are not only inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but also there are several lapses on the part of the prosecution. She contends that Satyanarayana, the junior maternal uncle of P.W.1, who is said to have accompanied the deceased to the beach, was not examined, and more than that, the only source of information about the death of the deceased i.e., Pydi Raju was also not examined. She further contends that the versions as to the non-returning of the deceased are different i.e., while according to some witnesses, the deceased is said to have been called by some other persons to a different place from the beach, according to P.W.2, the deceased is said to have stayed back for procuring chicken curry. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of P.W.7. She contends that even if the evidence of P.W.7 is taken into account, it only suggests that the accused had some other grievance vis-à-vis that witness, and that from the evidence of P.W.5, it is clear that the deceased and the accused were in friendly terms even at 11.00 p.m. She contends that no motive, worth its name, was suggested to the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the accused had a clear motive to kill the deceased, on account of the intervention of the latter, when the accused was having an argument with P.W.7. She contends that the failure to examine Satyanarayana or Pydi Raju is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also urged that P.W.7 is a reliable witness and he has acquaintance with the accused as well as the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was said to have been noticed first by one Pydi Raju before the J.K. Apartments, Visakhapatnam. He is said to have furnished the information to P.W.1 at about 3.00 a.m. on 20.05.2008. Though Pydi Raju was examined during the course of investigation as L.W.6, he was given up, at the stage of trial. Such an omission provides a typical illustration for Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Non-examination of such a vital witness virtually removes an important link from the chain of events. Though Pydi Raju was examined during the course of investigation as L.W.6, he was given up, at the stage of trial. Such an omission provides a typical illustration for Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Non-examination of such a vital witness virtually removes an important link from the chain of events. In her complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that at about 5.00 p.m. on 19.06.2008, the deceased, P.W.2 and Satyanarayana went to the beach, and though the other two persons came back, the deceased did not return. Satyanarayana was not examined, and even that constitutes a serious lapse. The purpose, for which the deceased is said to have stayed back, was stated differently by various persons. While according to P.W.1, the deceased along with P.W.2 and Satyanarayana went to the beach and the deceased did not return, though P.W.2 and Satyanarayana came back; P.W.2 stated that the deceased stayed back, with a view to procure chicken curry. The minor discrepancy, in this regard, can certainly be neglected, since either of the versions are not going to lead the case anywhere. P.W.7 is said to be a salesman in a Bar and Restaurant near J.K. Apartments, Visakhapatnam. He claimed acquaintance both with the accused and the deceased. According to him, the deceased and two others came to the Bar, purchased liquor and consumed it, and thereafter, the two other persons, who accompanied the deceased, went away. The accused is said to have come to the Bar at a bit later and bargained for a liquor bottle. This witness is said to have not accepted for sale of the liquor bottle, at a cheaper price, and on that, the accused is said to have turned wild, so much so, he threatened to kill him. The deceased is said to have intervened and admonished the accused. Even if what all P.W.7 stated is true, it is difficult to hold that the accused has such a grievance to kill the deceased, on the sole ground that he admonished him for bargaining with P.W.7, in the course of purchasing a liquor bottle. P.W.7 did not identify the persons, who were said to have accompanied the deceased, in the Bar. In fact, even by the time P.W.7 closed the Bar, nothing untoward occurred in between the accused and the deceased and both of them are said to have gone out for purchasing the noodles. P.W.7 did not identify the persons, who were said to have accompanied the deceased, in the Bar. In fact, even by the time P.W.7 closed the Bar, nothing untoward occurred in between the accused and the deceased and both of them are said to have gone out for purchasing the noodles. This time he did not speak about the two persons, who are said to have accompanied the deceased. The prosecution examined P.W.5, the person who was said to be running a noodle shop. He too is said to be acquainted with the accused and the deceased and said to have replied to them that the stock is exhausted by 11.00 p.m. This witness did not mention even about the traces of quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In case the accused had an intention to kill the deceased, he would have resorted to that instantly. The dead body of the deceased is said to have been noticed by Pydi Raju and the information is said to have been passed on at 3.00 a.m. on 20.05.2008. It has already been mentioned that non-examination of Pydi Raju is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is hardly anything, which the prosecution is able to place before the Court, that can be taken as the basis to link the accused with the crime. The evidence of P.W.7, if at all anything, would suggest that the deceased was in a drunken condition. The medical evidence, in the form of post mortem, reveals four external injuries. The prosecution is not able to suggest, as to how the accused has caused those injuries. We do not find the evidence on record, as being adequate, to hold the accused guilty of the offence. We, therefore, allow the Criminal Appeal, and the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant/accused, in S.C.No.9 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, through judgment dated 15.09.2009, are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed with reference to any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.