JUDGMENT: C. Praveen Kumar, J. Heard Sri. M.V. Raja Raam, learned Counsel appearing for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 [appellants herein] and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of. 1. A2 and A3 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2013, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, are the Appellants herein. Originally, there were four [04] accused, but, the case against A1 and A4 was separated as they were juveniles on the date of incident vide Order, dated 28.07.2014. 2. The two appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 369, 379, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code [“I.P.C.”]. Vide its Judgment, dated 05.01.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 90 days. They were further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven [07] years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 369 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 201 I.P.C. respectively, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 90 days each. The two appellants were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charges against the accused is that, on 09.11.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., at Thummapala Village, Anakapalle Mandal, the accused with a common intention kidnapped one Gadi Sandhya [“deceased”], aged about 04 years; demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom for the release of said girl and thereafter caused her death after committing theft of gold ear rings from her body. 4. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under : (i) PW1 is the brother of PW2, while PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of PW1 and PW2. PW4 is the wife of PW1. 4. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under : (i) PW1 is the brother of PW2, while PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of PW1 and PW2. PW4 is the wife of PW1. All of them are residents of Thummapala Village and knew the accused, who were also residents of Thummapala Village. Previously, A1 and A4 committed theft of some money from the house of PW1, in that connection, there were disputes between them. However, since six months prior to the incident, both the families were cordial with each other. (ii) While things stood thus, on 09.11.2008, while PW4 was at her house, the deceased was playing with one Lokeswari, who is the daughter of A2 and A3. At that point of time, PW4, her mother-in-law and co-sister went to Venugopala Swamy Temple for worship and returned back within one hour. They noticed the deceased [Sandhya] missing, while the elder daughter of PW4 was in the house. PW4 claims to have gone to the house of A2 and A3 and enquired about the deceased, but A2 informed her that the deceased left her house about half an hour back. She searched the surroundings, but to no avail. She, immediately, informed PW1 and PW2, who also returned home and searched for Sandhya, but in vain. Hence, PW1 lodged a report on 9.11.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., before PW18 – Sub- Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 253 of 2008. Ex.P13 is the First Information Report, registered under the head ‘girl missing’. (iii) On 10.11.2008, while PW1 and his brother [PW2] were going to Munagapaka Village in search of the missing girl, his brother [G. Srinivasa Rao - PW2] received a phone call from an unknown person disclosing that the daughter of PW1 was with him and asked them to come to Nursery situated near Gundala Veedhi. PW1 and his brother went to the said Nursery at Gundala Veedhi, but could not trace the missing girl. They returned back the call to the number from where it has come, but the person who lifted the phone informed that it is only a STD booth coin call phone. Immediately, both of them went towards the booth and enquired about the caller. They returned back the call to the number from where it has come, but the person who lifted the phone informed that it is only a STD booth coin call phone. Immediately, both of them went towards the booth and enquired about the caller. He disclosed that one person came and made use of the public phone for some time and left the place, which is before their arrival. He further disclosed that the said person is aged about 20 years and that he can identify if shown to him. (iv) At about 1.30 p.m., PW2 who is the brother of PW1, received another call, wherein, it was informed that the daughter of PW1 was with him and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- to handover the girl. They returned the call to the same number, but it was informed that it relates to STD booth coin box phone situated opposite to RTC Complex near Juice Center, Anakapalle. When enquired, the said person again informed them that one person talked over the phone and thereafter left the place. (v) On 10.11.2008, PW1 again went to Anakapalle Town Police Station and lodged a report vide Ex.P2. Pursuant to which, PW19 altered the First Information Report from the head ‘girl missing’ to Section 363 I.PC. Ex.P15 is the altered First Information Report. (vi) On 11.11.2008, PW2 received another phone call from the kidnapper, who demanded payment of Rs.3,00,000/- and 25 tulas of gold to hand over PW1’s daughter. When PW2 requested him to allow them to talk with the deceased [Sandhya], it was informed that he is at Anakapalle and after going to Visakhapatnam, he will allow them to talk with the missing girl. For three days they continued their search, but in vain. (vii) On 15.11.2008, PW1 to PW3 went in search of their daughter behind the house of A2 and A3 and at that time noticed bad smell emanating from the back side house of A2 and A3 [A1 and A4 are the children of A2 and A3]. PW1, PW2 and others requested A2 and A3 to verify their backyard as bad smell was emanating from that area, but it was informed to them that a rat died, because of which bad smell was emanating. PW1, PW2 and others requested A2 and A3 to verify their backyard as bad smell was emanating from that area, but it was informed to them that a rat died, because of which bad smell was emanating. Though, they prevented PW1 and others from entering the house, it is said that PW1 along with others forcibly entered the house of the accused and noticed foul smell emanating from a room situated on the western side of the house. They noticed one paddy jar in which half burnt body in a decomposed stage was present. They further noticed one plastic bottle with small quantity of petrol and papers. When questioned, there was no response from A2 and A3. On the advice of PW3, a third report was given to PW19 vide Ex.P3, which lead to addition of Sections 302, 363, 201 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P16 is the altered First Information Report. (viii) PW20 – Inspector of Police took up investigation from PW19 and visited the scene of offence i.e., house of accused at Thummapala Village. He got photographed the scene with the help of PW12. He also summoned the dog squad and finger print expert to the scene. When the investigating officer along with the staff entered the house, noticed foul smell coming from the western side of the house. He opened the door of the western side room and noticed no sufficient illumination in that room. After fixing a light, the room was searched and noticed one big pot [granary] with half burnt dead body rolled in a gunny bag. He called PW5, PW6 and one Munjeti Appa Rao and with their help, PW20 got dismantled the pot from the bottom and removed half burnt dead body rolled in a gunny bag outside and found the dead body of Gadi Sandhya. The same was identified by PW1. At the scene, PW20 seized M.O.3 to M.O.8 under Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P14. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW14. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Anakapalle for post-mortem examination. (ix) PW15 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nakkapalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 16.11.2008 at 10.00 a.m., and issued Ex.P8 – the postmortem certificate. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Anakapalle for post-mortem examination. (ix) PW15 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nakkapalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 16.11.2008 at 10.00 a.m., and issued Ex.P8 – the postmortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to smothering by pressure over mouth and nose. (x) PW20, who continued with the investigation recorded the statements of PW5, PW6, PW8 and others, and on 17.11.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., arrested A1 in the presence of PW16 and others at Anakapalle Pudimadaka Road. A1 is said to have confessed about the commission of offence in the presence of PW16 and others. Pursuant to the confessional statement of A1, M.O.2 [silver brasslet], which is said to be the property purchased after selling gold ear studs of the deceased, was seized, under Ex.P9. A1 lead them to the shop of PW10 styled as Nikambika Jewellery Shop located at Perugu Bazar Junction, Anakapalle on 17.11.2008 where he is said to have sold one pair of gold ear kadalu of deceased girl to PW10. PW10 produced one pair of gold ear kadalu sold by A1, which were seized under Ex.P10. Thereafter, A1 lead them to a petrol bunk, where he claims to have purchased petrol. The statement of gold shop owner [PW10] and the vendor of petrol bunk [PW11] were recorded. (xi) On 17.11.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., PW20 received information about the availability of the remaining accused in this case. Immediately, he along with his staff and PW16 proceeded to Tallapalem Junction and apprehended A2 to A4. Separate confessions were recorded, which were on same lines as that of A1. On a requisition made, Sections 369 and 379 I.P.C., were added. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to C.M.M. Court, Visakhapatnam, for holding the test identification parade of A1 by PW10 and others, which was conducted on 12.12.2008 at Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, wherein, PW7 failed to identify the suspects, but, however, one Surampudi Krishna identified A1. After completing the investigation and collecting all the documents, the successor of PW20 filed the charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 09 of 2009 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. After completing the investigation and collecting all the documents, the successor of PW20 filed the charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 09 of 2009 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW20 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, beside marking M.O.1 to M.O.8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. In support of their plea, the accused got marked Ex.D1, Ex.D1-A and Ex.D2. 7. Relying upon the circumstances, namely, ‘last seen’ in the company of the deceased; recovery of the dead body from the house of the accused and the ear rings of the accused at the instance of A1, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the A2 and A3. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. (i) Sri. M.V. Raja Raam, learned Counsel for the Appellants, mainly submits that, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond doubt and even if proved, do not in any way connect the accused with the crime. He further submits that, merely because A2 and A3 were in their house living along with A1 and A4, does not by itself lead to an inference that it is they who committed the offence or that they were aware about the commission of offence by other inmates of the house. He further submits that there is a small lane by the side of the house and that there is every possibility of a third person placing the dead body in the said room. He further submits that when the girl was found missing from 09th onwards, it is difficult to believe that these accused would have kept the dead body in the house till 15th. He further submits that when the girl was found missing from 09th onwards, it is difficult to believe that these accused would have kept the dead body in the house till 15th. If really they were aware about the existence of the dead body in the house, definitely, they would have taken steps to cause disappearance of dead body. In other words, his argument is that, no prudent person would keep the dead body in the house for days, more so, when foul smell was emanating from the body. (ii) Referring to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned Counsel would submit that a presumption under Section 106 is not automatic and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Counsel took us through the evidence of all the witnesses to substantiate his plea. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, though, there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but the evidence of PW8, who has seen the deceased going into the house, coupled with recovery of the dead body from the house of the accused, amply establish the involvement of the accused in the crime. He would submit that it is a fit case where a presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, has to be invoked. Having regard to the above, he would submit that the findings recorded by the Sessions Court warrant no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 11. It is no doubt true that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused. 12. In R.Damodaran v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, AIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. By The Inspector Of Police, AIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; 3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ) 13. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, we shall now proceed to see as to whether the circumstances relied upon are proved and if proved, whether they are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 14. As stated earlier, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution mainly relied upon the following circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. I. “Motive”: (a) A1 and A4 together committed theft of some amount, on two occasions at PW1’s house; (b) Talks resumed between the families about six months prior to this case; (c) That they did not obey the demand made by the kidnapers; II. “Last Seen”: (a) Deceased was ‘last seen’ in the company of the accused; (b) A2 and A3 were present at their house when the deceased came to their house playing with the daughter [Lokeswari] of A2 and A3; (c) Evidence of PW8 witnessing the deceased going to the house of the accused; (d) Accused preventing PW1 to PW3 entering their house portion to verify bad smell emanating from a room of the house; III. “Demand for Ransom”: (a) Evidence of PW7 in proof of conversation made by A1 with someone from STD Booth coin call phone; (b) Evidence of PW11 from whom A1 purchased petrol; IV. “Recovery of body and ornaments of the deceased”: (a) Recovery of half burnt body of the deceased from the house of the accused; (b) Recovery of M.O.1 [gold ear kadalu] of the deceased from the shop of PW10 at the instance of A1; (c) Recovery of M.O.2 [silver bracelet] in pursuance of confessional statement of A1; 15. In order to prove the first circumstance, namely, whether the deceased was ‘last seen’ in the company of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW8. 16. It is to be noted here that, four [04] persons, namely A1 to A4 were living in the same house. A1 and A4 are the children of A2 and A3. A2 is the mother, while A3 is the father of A1 and A4. It is informed to the court that the case against A1 and A4 was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board and a judgment was also pronounced convicting A1 along under Section 304-II I.P.C. 17. The record further discloses that, originally charges were framed on 17.01.2014 and A1 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 I.P.C. while A1 to A4 were charged for an offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. However, after commencement of trial and after examination of all the witnesses, additional charge was framed against A2 and A3 on 30.09.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 18. In order to appreciate the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses. 19. “Motive”. Insofar as ‘motive’ is concerned, PW1 in his evidence deposed that previously A1 and A4 together committed theft of some amount, on two occasions at his house. In that connection, there were disputes between them. Talking terms resumed between their families about six months prior to this case. According to him, motive for commission of the offence is that they did not obey the demand made by the kidnapers. But, however, in cross-examination PW1 admits that A2 maintained cordial terms with him and his family till 15.11.2008. In that connection, there were disputes between them. Talking terms resumed between their families about six months prior to this case. According to him, motive for commission of the offence is that they did not obey the demand made by the kidnapers. But, however, in cross-examination PW1 admits that A2 maintained cordial terms with him and his family till 15.11.2008. Similarly, PW2 in his evidence admits that A2 has been maintaining cordial relationship with his family till 15.11.2008. Therefore, the evidence available on record show that there was some enmity long prior to the date of incident and, thereafter, both the families were in cordial terms. The reason now projected by the prosecution is that the accused killed the deceased because they did not pay the amount demanded as ransom, for which there is no evidence to show that it was the accused who demanded the ransom. 20. “Deceased going the house of accused”. (i) PW1 is the father of the deceased, while PW4 is his wife. The evidence of PW4 would show that on the fateful day, while she was at her house, her daughter was playing with one Lokeswari, who is the daughter of A2 and A3. While so, herself, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law went to Venugopala Swamy Temple and returned back to the house within one hour. She found her daughter missing. When PW4 asked her eldest daughter about the whereabouts of the deceased [Sandhya], she informed her that the deceased was playing with Lokeswari outside. But, she was not there. She immediately went to the house of accused and enquired with A2 about the deceased [Sandhya]. But A2 informed her that the deceased left her house about half an hour back. PW4 informed PW1 and PW2 about missing of her daughter. Pursuant to which, PW1 and PW2 returned to the house and searched for the missing daughter. (ii) It would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW8, who is also resident of Thummapale Village and was working as servant maid at the house of one Dilip. According to her, A1 to A4 were residing in one portion of the house of Subba Raju as tenants, while PW8 was residing in another portion of the house of Subba Raju. According to her, A1 to A4 were residing in one portion of the house of Subba Raju as tenants, while PW8 was residing in another portion of the house of Subba Raju. According to her, on one day, she noticed the daughter of PW1 going into the house of the accused, while she was coming out of her room. About four or five days thereafter, she heard in the village that the daughter of PW1 was missing. At that stage, this witness was treated hostile. But, the evidence of this witness, would reveal that she noticed the deceased going into the house of the accused and four or five days later, she came to know about the missing of the deceased and her death. Therefore, the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the deceased going to the house of the accused stands established through the evidence of PW8. It also stands established through the evidence of PW1, that A2 was present in the house at that relevant point of time. 21. “Recovery of the body in the house of the accused and demand for ransom”. (i) The evidence of PW4 establishes that, on that day when she went into the house and enquired about the deceased, A2 who was present in the house, informed her about the deceased leaving the house half an hour prior to her arrival. (ii) At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to show that PW2 received phone calls demanding ransom. PW2 who is the brother of PW1 in his evidence states that, on 10.11.2008, himself and PW1 together searched from Anakapalle to Munagapaka Village from 5.00 a.m., onwards. At about 7.18 a.m., while they were at Munagapaka, received a phone call, wherein, one person informed him that the Sandhya is with him and asked them to come to a Nursery situated near Gundala Veedhi. They went there but no one was there. The evidence of PW1 further shows that, they made a telephone call to the same number from where they received the call. The person who picked up the call informed that it is a STD booth coin call phone. They went there and enquired about the person who made the call. They went there but no one was there. The evidence of PW1 further shows that, they made a telephone call to the same number from where they received the call. The person who picked up the call informed that it is a STD booth coin call phone. They went there and enquired about the person who made the call. The said person [PW7] stated that one person made use of the said public phone sometime just prior and left the place after talking from the public phone. According to him, the said person is aged about 20 years and he can identify if shown to him. (iii) On 10.11.2008, at about 1.30 p.m., PW2 received another call from the kidnapper informing that the daughter of PW1 is with him and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom. They again telephoned to the same number, but it was informed that it is a STD booth coin box phone situated opposite to RTC Complex near Juice Center, Anakapalle. The custodian of the telephone booth informed them that one person used the phone and left the place. At that point of time, the law was sent into motion by PW1 by lodging a report. After lodging the report, on 11.11.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., PW2 received another phone call from the kidnapper demanding Rs.3,00,000/- and 25 tulas of gold for handing over Sandhya. Though, they asked the kidnaper to allow their daughter to talk with them, but he informed that he is at Anakapalle and after going to Visakhapatnam, he will allow their daughter to talk. PW1 and PW2 searched for their daughter on 12th, 13th and 14th November 2008 but to no avail. (iv) At this point of time, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW7, who in his evidence stated that about six years back at about 8.00 a.m., one person came to his shop and asked him to give one rupee coins five in number and that he gave five coins to him. He identified the said person as A1. He is said to have made use of those coins by making a call at the telephone booth and, thereafter, returned back the unused coins to PW7. Fifteen minutes thereafter, he received a phone call to his telephone box from Munagapaka village asking the details of the person who called from that phone. He identified the said person as A1. He is said to have made use of those coins by making a call at the telephone booth and, thereafter, returned back the unused coins to PW7. Fifteen minutes thereafter, he received a phone call to his telephone box from Munagapaka village asking the details of the person who called from that phone. PW7 claims to have informed the caller that it is a coin box phone and one person used the said phone and left the place. Thereafter, the person who called from Munagapaka went to the shop of PW7 and inquired about the details of the person who talked through the said phone. (v) PW7 further deposed that he participated in the test identification parade and identified A1 in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. Though, PW7 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit his testimony. (vi) This evidence of PW7, which has been relied upon by the prosecution would only show that it was A1 who made the call to PW2 demanding ransom, for handing over the daughter of PW1 to them. Hence, the evidence of PW7 coupled with Test Identification Parade conducted in jail would at the most establish that it was A1 who made a telephone call from the booth of PW7. (vii) Insofar as recovery of the dead body from the house of the accused is concerned, it is to be noted that all the four accused were residing in the said house. The said fact is not in dispute. The fact that dead body is recovered from a room in the house is also not in dispute. As stated by PW1 and PW2, they forcibly entered the house as foul smelling was emanating from the back side and noticed half burnt body in one paddy jar. After the arrival of the Inspector, the body was removed and PW1, PW2 and PW4 identified the body as that of the deceased. When PW1 and PW2 questioned the accused about the dead body in the house, they kept mumb. Hence, recovery of the dead body from the house stands established. 22. “Recovery of articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of A1”: (i) PW20 in his evidence deposed that on 17.11.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was in Circle Office, Anakapalle, he received information about the availability of the accused in this case. Hence, recovery of the dead body from the house stands established. 22. “Recovery of articles belonging to the deceased at the instance of A1”: (i) PW20 in his evidence deposed that on 17.11.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., while he was in Circle Office, Anakapalle, he received information about the availability of the accused in this case. After securing the mediators, he along with PW16 and another proceeded to Anakapalle Pudimadaka Road and noticed one person standing by the side of the road. On seeing them, he tried to skulk away, but, he was apprehended with the help of his staff, who disclosed his name as Mamidi Rama Kumar [A1]. PW20 affected the arrest of A1 and explained the grounds of arrest. A1 is said to have confessed about the commission of the offence in the presence of PW16, which was reduced into writing. Pursuant to the confession made, Silver Bracelet [M.O.2] was seized, which according to A1 was prepared after selling the gold ear studs of the deceased. Thereafter, A1 lead the police party to Nokambika Jewellery Shop situated at Anakapalle Junction, from where one pair of gold ear kadalu of the deceased were recovered from the shop of PW10. (ii) In his evidence, PW10 deposed about the transaction between him and the accused and he identifies the accused as the person who sold the said articles. Though, PW10 was cross-examined, nothing incriminating was elicited. On the other hand the answers elicited were in favour of the prosecution. (iii) Be that as it may, the evidence of PW20 further indicates that on the same day at 3.00 p.m., he received information about the remaining accused. He again secured PW16, proceeded to Tallapalem junction and apprehended three persons, who are A2 to A4. Nothing incriminating was recovered at the instance of A2 to A4. Therefore, recovery, if any, made was only at the instance of A1, who is not the appellant herein. 23. The question now would be, whether in the fact situation A2 and A3 can be held liable for convicting the accused under Section 302 or 302 read with 34 I.P.C.? 24. As observed earlier, initially charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 I.P.C. against A1 only and only a charge for an offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., was framed against A1 to A4. 24. As observed earlier, initially charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 I.P.C. against A1 only and only a charge for an offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., was framed against A1 to A4. But, however, after completion of entire prosecution evidence, additional single charge was framed against A2 and A3 as well, for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. This circumstance of framing the charge at a very belated stage lead to recall of witnesses in the month of November 2014. 25. At this stage, we intend to refer to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer [PW20] done on 21.11.2014. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portion in the cross-examination, which is as under: “As per confession made by Accused No. 1 he confessed that he alone committed murder of girl in this case. Accused No. 2 and 3 are parents of accused no. 1 and they concealed the dead body and burnt the dead body of girl and screening the evidence [Witness volunteers]. It is true that after offence accused No. 2 and 3 gave shelter to their son i.e., Accused No. 1. I have not examined owner of house wherein the accused are residing by name Vadapalli Subbaraju and his children in this case. It is not true to say that I have intentionally not examined and recorded statement of owner of said house and that in case he was examined he will state that there is no paddy jar in the said house. It is not true to say that my entire investigation discloses that accused No. 2 and 3 are concealed the facts and no other evidence. My investigation reveals that accused No. 2 and 3 were not shared in the offence of murder of girl”. 26. A reading of the above indicate A2 and A3, who are the appellants herein, concealed the dead body and tried to screen away the evidence apart from giving shelter to their son who is A1. Further, the last two sentences in the cross-examination of PW20 reveal that A2 and A3 did not participate in the offence of murder of the girl. Further, the last two sentences in the cross-examination of PW20 reveal that A2 and A3 did not participate in the offence of murder of the girl. A perusal of the judgment dated 27.04.2019 in J.C.C. No. 44 of 2015, before the Juvenile Justice Board, Visakhapatnam, would show that A1 was held to be involved in the commission of murder of Sandhya. Having gone into the material available, the Board while acquitting A4, convicted A1 alone under Section 304-II I.P.C. It may be true that A2 and A3 who are parents of A1 and A4 were inmates of the house, but the circumstances pointed out earlier are mainly directed against A1, who is not before us. Therefore, convicting A2 and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., may not be proper. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that these accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 369 and 379 I.P.C. Accordingly, these two appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 27. But, there is enough material available on record to show that these appellants have screened the evidence / tried to screen the evidence by not disclosing the presence of the dead body in the house. In-fact, as observed by us earlier, no explanation is forthcoming as to the presence of half burnt dead body in their house. 28. Though, the learned counsel for the Appellants tried to contend that the place from where the dead body was recovered is accessible to others since there is a street by the side of the house; the compound wall of the house was in a dilapidated condition and that one can climb and get into the compound of the house of the accused, but, a perusal of the entire evidence nowhere reveals that the room where the dead body was found is accessible to third parties. A vain attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants stating that when the door of the room is not locked, there is a possibility of third person placing the dead body in the house. We are not inclined to accept the same as there is no material to that effect. A vain attempt is made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants stating that when the door of the room is not locked, there is a possibility of third person placing the dead body in the house. We are not inclined to accept the same as there is no material to that effect. Further, the door will not be locked as it is a part of the house and possibility of using the same for some purpose cannot be ruled out. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants/ accused No. 2 and 3 in the judgment, dated 05.01.2015 in S.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, for the offences punishable under Sections 369, 379 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. are set aside, but the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 I.P.C. is confirmed. However, the sentence of seven years awarded by the trial court is reduced to six [06] years. The fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the trial court remains unaltered. Consequently, the appellants/accused No. 2 and 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case, if they have completed six [06] years of imprisonment imposed on them for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 I.P.C. 30. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.