JUDGMENT : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.433 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, filed this Criminal Appeal feeling aggrieved by his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 394 IPC and sentence to undergo (i) Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, (ii) Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and (iii) Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 IPC, all of which were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows: One Ankireddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who was the owner of Sri Ramanjaneya Rice Mill situated at Lingampally Cross Road, was killed and his son (PW.3) received injuries on the night of 09-08-2000. LW.1- Somagani Bixam approached PW.9- Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothankal Police Station, at 11.00 a.m., on 10.08.2000 and gave Ex.P.4-report that he is a resident of Miryala Village and living on agriculture and also by doing coolie work in Sri Ramanjaneya Rice Mill; that on the night of 09-08-2000, himself and the deceased were sleeping on separate cots in the verandah of the Rice Mill; that PWs.3 and 4, who are the son and the daughter-in-law of the deceased slept in a room inside the mill; that at about 12.00 midnight, two strangers, who were wearing masks, suddenly arrived at the scene, woke up both the deceased and Bixam and demanded drinking water; that when they were given water with a small vessel, they informed that the said quantity of water would not be sufficient as there were 12 persons (elder brothers) waiting outside, who also need water; that on seeing the weapons such as axes and knives in their hands, Bixam (LW.1) felt scared and handed over the pot containing water; and that one of those two strangers took away the pot, while the other person sat with them. It is further stated that the person, who has taken the pot of water, came back, asked Bixam (LW.1) as to which is his native place and after his reply, commanded him to lie down on the floor, covered him with a blanket, directed him not to witness anything and threatened that if he does not do so, he will be hacked with axe; that thereafter, the assailants have brought PWs.3 and 4 outside the room and hacked the deceased with axes and knives; that following the said attack, the deceased went inside the mill and fell on the cot upon which he was again attacked with the axe leading to his instantaneous death; that when PWs.3 and 4 tried to prevent the assailants from attacking the deceased, they were also attacked with knives as a result of which they got injured; that both the assailants have forcibly put Bixam (LW.1) and PW.4 inside the room, bolted from outside and left the place after talking to PW.3 for some time; that during early morning, Bixam (LW.1) has opened the windows and looked for help from anybody, who may be going to their agricultural wells; that as it was heavily raining, he could not see anyone; and that PW.3 himself came by groaning and opened the doors following which Bixam (LW.1) and PW.4 came out; that both the assailants have thrown all the articles and clothes outside; and that he does not know the reason why they have killed the deceased. The said report was registered as FIR No.51 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 6.00 p.m., on 10-08-2000. In Column 7 of the FIR, the accused were described as ‘unidentified thieves’. 3. The said report was registered as FIR No.51 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 6.00 p.m., on 10-08-2000. In Column 7 of the FIR, the accused were described as ‘unidentified thieves’. 3. It is stated in the chargesheet that during the course of investigation, PW.9- Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuthankal, examined and recorded the statements of Bixam (LW.1), PW.1, Kompalli Narsi Reddy (LW.3), PW.2, PW.3 and Kompally Ram Reddy (LW.5); that thereafter, he prepared Ex.P.1- Scene of Offence Panchanama, conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased, prepared Ex.P.2- Inquest Report and shifted the dead body to the Government Area Hospital, Suryapet, for Post Mortem Examination; that after PW.11- Circle Inspector of Police, Thungaturthy, took up the investigation, he has added Section 394 IPC and recorded the statement of PW.3, who was unconscious for long time; and that the efforts of the Police to identify the culprits went in vain, as a result of which the case was referred as ‘undetectable’ on 25-11-2002 subject, however, to reopening of the case whenever clues come to light. It is further stated in the chargesheet that on 20-08-2004 at 10.00 hours, the then Circle Inspector of Police (LW.21) (since deceased) arrested the appellant in connection with Crime No.51 of 2004 registered under Section 392 IPC of Noothankal Police Station, recorded his confessional statement in the presence of PW.7 and Medida Rama Chary (LW.4) wherein he confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased in the instant case, recovered a stolen pair of silver leg chains from him and produced him before the Court; that the jurisdictional Magistrate has remanded the appellant to judicial custody; that he was, accordingly, lodged in Sub-Jail, Suryapet; that on 25-08-2004, PW.11 filed a requisition to the Court for permission to reopen the case; that accordingly, the Court granted permission for reopening the case on 24-09-2004 for further investigation; that as per the directions of the jurisdictional Court, the appellant was produced before it on 25-10-2004 on PT Warrant; that PW.11 examined and recorded the statements of PW.5 and Mali Balaji (LW.10) and filed requisition before the Court of Magistrate, Nakrekal, to conduct Test Identification Parade of the appellant by Bixam (LW.1), PW.3 and PW.4; that PW.10- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, conducted Test Identification Parade in the presence of LW.1 and PW.3 only as PW.4 was not available; that during the Test Identification Parade, PW.3 identified the appellant; and that the investigation revealed that the appellant and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are notorious criminals. 4. It is further stated in the chargesheet that the deceased is the owner of Sri Ramanjaneya Rice Mill; that during the night of 09-08-2000, accused Nos.1 to 4 went to the rice mill of the deceased; that accused No.1 (appellant) and accused No.3 went into the rice mill while the other two accused guarded the scene; that they beat PWs.3 and 4 with sticks and stabbed the deceased causing his instantaneous death and robbed a pair of gold ear studs and a pair of silver anklets from PW.4; that the appellant got the pair of silver anklets towards his share, which were mortgaged to PW.5; that accused No.4 expired two years prior to the filing of the charge sheet; that accused Nos.2 and 3 are still absconding; and that the charge sheet was, accordingly, filed against the appellant only. 5. 5. As the plea of the appellant was one of denial, he was subjected to trial during which the Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and produced MO.1- silver anklets. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has disposed of the case in the manner as noted herein before. 6. At the hearing, Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that this is a case where the name of the appellant was included in an already closed case; that the Police having closed the case as ‘undetectable’, reopened the same in the year 2004 after the appellant was arrested in connection with another case on the basis of a purported confessional statement; and that except the alleged identification of the appellant by PW.3, there is no evidence what-so-ever to connect him with the murder of the deceased, attack on PW.3 and the alleged robbery. She has further stated that MO.1 was planted obviously to implicate the appellant as neither in Ex.P.1- report of Bixam (LW.1) nor in Ex.P.5- FIR nor in the evidence of PW.3 given before the Court, there was any whisper about the alleged robbery. She has further argued that the whole case of the Prosecution as reflected in the charge sheet is contrary to the contents of the FIR and also the statement of PW.3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as per which the offences were committed by those persons, who had dispute over the godown with the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, however, sought to sustain the judgment of the lower Court. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to the record. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the Police failed to identify the assailants for more than two years after the offences have taken place and that the case was closed as undetectable on 25.11.2002. It is only after 20-08-2004, when the appellant was arrested by LW.21 in connection with another case that he along with accused Nos.2 to 4 were arraigned as the accused and the case was reopened. It is only after 20-08-2004, when the appellant was arrested by LW.21 in connection with another case that he along with accused Nos.2 to 4 were arraigned as the accused and the case was reopened. While Ex.P.4- report, based on which the FIR was registered, suggests that two assailants were involved in the commission of the offence, the charge sheet, however, named four accused and the case was proceeded against only the appellant as accused Nos.2 and 3 were absconding and accused No.4 has died. The said report also does not throw light either on the identity of the accused or the motive for murder. Interestingly, this document also does not raise any whisper about the assailants taking away the jewellery from the person of PW.4. In this context, Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 assumes a lot of importance. He has made a cryptic description of the whole background in which he along with his wife and the deceased were living in the rice mill. While being unable to identify the assailants, PW.3 has categorically stated that the reason for attack on them was the existence of disputes between his father and himself on one side and one Lakshmaiah, Satyanarayana Rao, Bandapalli Muttaiah and Chilpakunta Padma Reddy on the other side. He has also categorically stated that the said Lakshmaiah, Satyanarayana Rao and Bandapalli Muttaiah have developed vengeance against his father. We are surprised to note that in spite of the specific assertion made by PW.3 that the afore-mentioned three persons have developed vengeance against his father and that he is suspecting them, the Police did not appear to have carried on investigation on those lines and there is nothing on record to show that any steps were taken to arraign those three or four persons as suspects or assailants in the case. 7. Be that as it may. It is only in the year 2004 that the Police have chanced upon the appellant based on his alleged confessional statement, which is not even marked by the Prosecution. The only piece of evidence linking the appellant with the offences is Ex.P.3- seizure Panchanama of gold ear studs and silver anklets and Ex.P.6- proceedings of the Test Identification Parade. 8. As regards Ex.P.3, it is a Panchanama relating to the alleged seizure of a pair of gold ear studs and a pair of silver anklets from PW.5. The only piece of evidence linking the appellant with the offences is Ex.P.3- seizure Panchanama of gold ear studs and silver anklets and Ex.P.6- proceedings of the Test Identification Parade. 8. As regards Ex.P.3, it is a Panchanama relating to the alleged seizure of a pair of gold ear studs and a pair of silver anklets from PW.5. In his evidence, PW.5 has deposed that he was running gold ornaments preparation shop at Maripeda Bungalow of Warangal District from 1996 to September, 2004; that in September, 2004, he has shifted his residence to Kamanchikalu of Khammam District; that he knew the appellant since 2002 as he used to sell birds; that in the year 2003, the appellant approached him and made a request to advance some amount as he was not doing well; that therefore, the appellant, on two different occasions, pledged gold ear studs for a sum of Rs.300/- and silver anklets for a sum of Rs.200/- with him; that in July or August, 2004, Thungaturthy Police have come to his shop and seized the gold ear studs and silver anklets. In his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he does not possess licence for sale of gold or for doing pawn broker business; and that he has not maintained any record relating to the transaction with the appellant at the time of pledging the gold and silver ornaments. It was suggested to PW.5 that the appellant has not pledged any articles with him, which was of course denied by him. The evidence of PW.5 appears to be highly artificial. If the appellant has committed robbery in the year 2000, it is highly unlikely that he would not have either pledged or sold away the robbed items for more than three years. Moreover, except the ipsi dixit of PW.5, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has pledged gold ear studs or silver anklets. Admittedly, he did not have any license to do Pawn Broker business. It is not difficult for the Police to plant the gold ear studs and silver anklets to foist a false case against any person. Therefore, it is not safe to accept the testimony of PW.5 in the absence of any evidence even remotely suggesting that the appellant has pledged the gold ear studs and silver anklets with him. 9. It is not difficult for the Police to plant the gold ear studs and silver anklets to foist a false case against any person. Therefore, it is not safe to accept the testimony of PW.5 in the absence of any evidence even remotely suggesting that the appellant has pledged the gold ear studs and silver anklets with him. 9. The core lacuna in the case of the Prosecution lies in its failure to produce the seized silver and gold articles before the jurisdictional Magistrate and conduct Test Identification with either PW.3 or PW.4. Nothing is brought out on record to show that the gold ear studs and silver anklets seized from the possession of PW.5 belong to PW.4. Even if the seizure of those articles from PW.5 was correct, the crucial link establishing the nexus between the seized articles and PW.4 was completely missing due to the failure of the Investigation Officer to conduct the Test Identification in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Before closing this aspect, it needs to be reiterated that, as observed earlier, neither Ex.P.4 nor Ex.P.5 nor even Section 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.3 referred to the allegation of the appellant robbing the silver and gold ornaments from the person of PW.4. It is only for the first time that PW.4 in her evidence spoke to the said fact. If robbery had really taken place, LW.1 and PW.3 would not have been silent on the said aspect. This circumstance further weakens the theory of the Prosecution regarding the alleged robbery and the nexus of the appellant with the commission of the offences charged against him. The above discussed circumstances create a serious suspicion in the mind of this Court on the recovery of ornaments, which were probably planted to falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of offence. 10. Ex.P.6- proceedings clearly shows that the Test Identification Parade was arranged for identification of the appellant by LW.1, PW.3 and PW.4. However, the report reveals that while LW.1 has failed to identify the appellant, PW.4 was absent. It is only PW.3, who is stated to have identified the appellant. It was suggested to PW.3 in his cross-examination that there is a tackle mark on the forehead of the appellant and that the Police have shown his photographs before the Test Identification Parade. It is only PW.3, who is stated to have identified the appellant. It was suggested to PW.3 in his cross-examination that there is a tackle mark on the forehead of the appellant and that the Police have shown his photographs before the Test Identification Parade. Irrespective of the probative value of this suggestion, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be convicted solely based upon the identification by one witness as there is every likelihood of the witness indulging in chance identification as only 5 persons were paraded before him and such chance identification cannot be ruled out. If we carefully consider the contents of Ex.P.4, LW.1 spent long time with the assailants during the entire incident and for the reasons best known to the Prosecution, they have not cited him as a witness. Moreover, he, being the person who had the best chance of identifying the appellant, failed in this regard during the Test Identification Parade. Similarly, PW.4 has not even attended the Test Identification Parade. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is wholly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW.3 to connect the appellant to the offences with which he was charged. 11. On a careful scrutiny of the whole case of the prosecution, we have no hesitation to hold that the investigating agency has miserably failed to investigate the case on proper lines and implicated the appellant, obviously, to bring the case to its logical end. PWs.3 and 4- the alleged eye witnesses failed to strengthen the case of the Prosecution with their equivocal and uninspiring evidence. The earliest version of PW.3 being at direct variance with the theory of the Prosecution as reflected in the chargesheet, the Court below has committed a serious error in holding the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 & 394 IPC. For all the afore-mentioned reasons, we hold that the Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused are set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime and the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him.