JUDGMENT : C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused No. 2 and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. Accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’], while Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 109 read with 302 of I.P.C. By its Judgment, dated 29.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 109 read with 302 of I.P.C., convicted Accused No.2 alone for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused No. 2 was also convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the Accused is that, on 05.09.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. night, while Thandra Papa Rao [‘deceased’] was proceeding from Kotha Road junction towards Akkivaram village by walk, Accused No.2 is said to have stabbed the deceased and killed him. It is said that, Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have aided Accused No. 2 in killing the deceased. 4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under : i) PW1 is the Son and PW2 & PW4 are Brothers of the deceased, while PW3 is the Mother of Accused No. 2. ii) Accused No. 2 was working as a Constable in Border Security Force in Jammu and Kashmir State and as PW3 was not well, he came to see her and, thereafter, the family members did not send him back and, as such, he was removed from service. iii) The family members of the deceased had Ac. 6.00 cents of land. ii) Accused No. 2 was working as a Constable in Border Security Force in Jammu and Kashmir State and as PW3 was not well, he came to see her and, thereafter, the family members did not send him back and, as such, he was removed from service. iii) The family members of the deceased had Ac. 6.00 cents of land. PW1 claims to have cashew nut tope by the side of Nagavali River in their Village and there were sand heaps by the side of their tope in Nagavali River. It is said that, the Accused used to lift the sand illegally during night time and sell the same to lorry drivers. When the deceased, who is the father of PW1 obstructed the Accused and tried to prevent them from lifting the sand from the reach, which was by the side of their tope, disputes arose between them. iv) It is said that, frequent quarrels took place between both of them. Representations were sent by the deceased to the higher officials i.e., Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, against the Accused. On the complaints of the deceased, the Vigilance officials and Mandal Revenue Officer seized the sand collected by the Accused, which was auctioned by the Government for Rs.8,86,000/-. v) It is said that, on 05.05.2011, Accused No. 2 beat PW1 at his house, suspecting that PW1 has taken away his cell-phone. When the Mother of PW1 intervened, she was also beaten. On that a complaint was given in the Police Station. The request of Accused No. 2 for compromise was refused by the deceased. For the aforesaid reasons, Accused No. 2 along with other Accused, bore grudge against the deceased. vi) On 05.09.2011, the deceased left his house stating that, he is going to Mandal Revenue Office, Amadalavalasa, on work. PW1 and other family members waited for him till 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., but the deceased did not return. On that night, at about 9.30 or 9.45 p.m., Accused No. 2 in drunken state came and went inside his house by limping. As it was the habit of the deceased to return to house two or three days later whenever he leaves the house, PW1 and other inmates of the house did not bother to enquire on that day. But, however, on the next day morning, they enquired, but to no avail. As it was the habit of the deceased to return to house two or three days later whenever he leaves the house, PW1 and other inmates of the house did not bother to enquire on that day. But, however, on the next day morning, they enquired, but to no avail. vii) On 08.09.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. when PW1 was at his house, Balaga Suryanarayana and Bendi Vodindarajulu, came to his house and informed that the body of the deceased [father of PW1] was lying in the sand heaps by the side of cashew nut tope. Immediately, all of them went there and noticed the dead body of the father of PW1. At about 8.00 p.m., PW1 went to Amadalavalasa Police Station and lodged a report with PW18 – Sub- Inspector of Police. Basing on which, a case in Crime No. 103 of 2011 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. Ex.P24 is the First Information Report. Thereafter, PW18 along with another Constable proceeded to scene of offence, which is cashew nut tope by the side of the road between Gopinagar and Akkivalasa Villages, where PW20 – In-charge Inspector of Police, took up investigation. On that night, PW20 posted a guard to guard the scene of offence and dead body. viii) On 09.09.2011, PW20 took up further investigation and he again visited the scene of offence at 7.00 p.m. and in the presence of PW5, PW12 and one Bendi Govindarajulu, observed the scene of offence and prepared an Observation Report, which is placed on record as Ex.P16. Thereafter, PW20 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW12. Ex.P4 is the Inquest Report. He also prepared a Rough Sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P26. He got the body of the deceased photographed and then sent the same for post-mortem examination. ix) PW8 – the Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS General Hospital, Srikakulam, on receipt of dead body, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body and issued Ex.P18 – the post-mortem certificate. According to him, there was no poisonous substance in the body and the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of external and internal injuries on the dead body. According to him, there was no poisonous substance in the body and the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of external and internal injuries on the dead body. x) After sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, PW20 visited Akkivaram Village and recorded the statement of Balaga Suryanarayana, Bendi Govindarajulu and Seepana Chiranjeevi. xi) On 18.09.2011, while he was in Amadalavalasa Police Station, PW20 received reliable information about the movements of Accused No. 1 and 2. Along with his staff, he proceeded towards Voosavanipeta Village and the accused were at Railway Out Gate, were apprehended in the presence of PW5 and PW12. On interrogation, they confessed about committing the offence. Accused No. 2 also disclosed that, he will show the place of offence where he killed the deceased and also the stick used in the offence. Ex.P15 is the relevant portion of the statement of Accused No.2. From there, the entire Police party along with Accused No. 1 and 2 went to the scene of offence, shown by Accused No.2, where PW20 prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P27. Then, Accused No. 1 and 2 took them to cashew nut tope belonging to Tandra Appanna and Tandra Ramanamurthy, picked up a stick having blood stains, a pair of chappals and on blood stained fullhand shirt from the bushes. M.O.1 is the stick, M.O.2 is the full-hand shirt of accused, and M.O.3 is a pair of chappals, belonging to the deceased. xii) On 19.09.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., while PW20 was present in the Police Station, PW7 and PW8 came to the Police Station along with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and produced them before him along with their confessional statements recorded by PW7 & PW8 and handed over to PW20. PW20 secured PW5 & PW12 and in their presence he interrogated Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and recorded their statements. After collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 1 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. After collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 1 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amadalavalasa. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which, the Accused 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.P31, beside marking M.Os. 1 to M.O.3. Out of 20 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW12 (to a certain extent) did not support the prosecution case and were treated as hostile by the prosecution. 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, however, no evidence was adduced in support of their plea. 7. Basing on the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely, motive; presence of Accused No. 2 at the scene and recovery of M.Os., 1 to 3 from the scene of offence; the learned Sessions Judge convicted A2 alone under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. and acquitted Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in10 spite of holding that Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 along with Accused No. 2 had a ‘motive’ to cause death of the deceased, as there was no other supporting circumstances to connect Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 with the crime. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by Accused No.2. 8. (i) Smt. A Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, more so, when benefit of doubt was given to Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 8. (i) Smt. A Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, more so, when benefit of doubt was given to Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. (ii) She further submits that, recovery of blood stain fullhand shirt of the accused, cannot be made the basis to connect the Accused No. 2 with the crime, since, the blood grouping found on the shirt is not established. (iii) Insofar as chappals of the deceased are concerned, it is said that, none of the witnesses were made to identify those chappals as that of deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a discovery made pursuant to a confession made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Having regard to all the circumstances, she would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that, in a case of circumstantial evidence, ‘motive’ place a significant role and once ‘motive’ is established, the Court can convict the accused basing on the said circumstance alone. Apart from that, he would contend that, recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 from the scene, pursuant to the statement made by the Accused under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, link the Accused with the crime. Having regard to the above, he would submit that, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Accused No.2 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. 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. 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 in the judgments referred to above, it is now to be seen whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and if proved, whether they form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime leading to an inescapable conclusion, the guilt of the accused. 14. The fact that the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances, is not in dispute. (i) “A2 going into his house limping on the fateful night, which is sought to be established through the evidence of PW1; (ii) Accused Nos. 1 to 4 going in the same direction in which the deceased went the deceased went on the fateful day after consuming liquor; (iii) “Motive” (iv) Presence of Accused No. 2 at the scene and recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 at the instance of the Accused.” 15. Insofar as the first circumstance, namely, Accused No.2 going into his house limping on the fateful night, the same is reflected in the evidence of PW1, who states that, on that night at about 9.30 or 9.45 p.m., Accused No. 2 in a drunken state came and went inside his outside limping. Insofar as the first circumstance, namely, Accused No.2 going into his house limping on the fateful night, the same is reflected in the evidence of PW1, who states that, on that night at about 9.30 or 9.45 p.m., Accused No. 2 in a drunken state came and went inside his outside limping. But, this fact was not mentioned by PW1 in his earlier statement. PW20 (Inspector of Police) in his cross-examination admits that, PW1 did not mention in Ex.P1 – report nor stated about he seeing Accused No. 2 going inside his house. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under: “It is true that, PW1 did not mention in Ex.P1 report nor stated before me that he had seen A2 going inside his house on that night by limping.” 16. Therefore, the first circumstance that Accused No. 2 went into his house limping is not established. 17. The second circumstance is, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 following the path of the deceased on the fateful day after consuming liquor. The same is spoken to by PW2, who is the brother of the deceased. He in his evidence deposed that, on 05.09.2011 at about 8.20 p.m., he got down from the bus at Kotha Road Junction and seen all the accused consuming liquor at belt shop. At that time, the deceased approached him. When PW2 asked the deceased as to where he had gone, the deceased replied that, he went to Mandal Revenue Office on some work; that work was not complete and that he has to meet the said Office after again two or three days. Then, PW2 asked the deceased to go to his house. The deceased went for some distance, talked with one auto driver, by name, Chiranjeevi, and later proceeded further. Then all the accused after completing their drink proceeded in same road in which the deceased went. PW2 having waited for 15 minutes, left to his house. But, these facts were not spoken to by PW2 in his earlier statement. 18. The deceased went for some distance, talked with one auto driver, by name, Chiranjeevi, and later proceeded further. Then all the accused after completing their drink proceeded in same road in which the deceased went. PW2 having waited for 15 minutes, left to his house. But, these facts were not spoken to by PW2 in his earlier statement. 18. PW20 in his cross-examination admits that, PW2 did not state to him that he has seen all the accused consuming liquor at belt shop at Kotha Road Junction on 05.09.2011 at about 8.20 p.m. He also admits that, PW2 did not state to him about deceased informing him that the work for which he went to Mandal Revenue Office was not complete. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which is as under: “It is true that PW2 Mutyalarao did not state to me that he had seen all the accused consuming liquor at Belt shop in Kotha Road Junction on 05.09.2011 at about 8.20 p.m. It is true that, PW2 did not state to me that the deceased told him that the work for which he had gone to Mandal Revenue Office work not yet completed.” 19. Therefore, the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the accused proceeded in the direction, in which the deceased went or that they were seen consuming liquor was also not established by the prosecution. 20. Coming to the ‘Motive’ part; it is no doubt true that, motive plays a significant role in cases arising out of the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 16 of the Judgment categorically held that all the accused had developed grudge and enmity against the deceased. 20. Coming to the ‘Motive’ part; it is no doubt true that, motive plays a significant role in cases arising out of the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 16 of the Judgment categorically held that all the accused had developed grudge and enmity against the deceased. It would be appropriate to extract the said paragraph, as under: “PW19 – B. Ananda Mohan who was holding Full Additional Charge, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Srikakulam from April, 2011 to September, 2011 deposed that on 12.08.2011 he received telephonic information from an unknown person that there was illegal sand mining operations were going on and immediately he passed on the said message to Inspector of Police B. Ambedkar (PW16) for verification and taking further action and that thereafter PW16 Ambedkar, Inspector of Police in turn informed him that the illegal sand mining was going on with the help of JCB and he was going to seize the said JCB and lorry and later he sent the information to Inspector of Police vide his Ex.P25 letter dated 13.09.2011. As seen his cross-examination, nothing material is elicited on behalf of the accused to discredit his testimony. Therefore the above evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 4, 15 to 17 and 19 establish the prosecution version that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were involving and indulging in lifting the sand illegally from Nagavali river which was being obstructed and questioned by the deceased Papa Rao including complaining to the higher officials such as vigilance officials and about the seizure of the sand illegally collected by the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and as such the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 developed grudges and enmity against the deceased Papa Rao. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 4 further established the fact about the disputes between the deceased Papa Rao and A2 – Ramana Murthy when A2 – Ramana Murthy asked the deceased Papa Rao to withdraw the complaint filed against him before police and when the deceased Papa Rao refused to do so. Therefore, the prosecution version that all the accused bore grudge against the deceased as he was coming in their way of illegal lifting of sand from Nagavali river is proved. Further, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 also shows that A2 is a hired gunda. Therefore, the prosecution version that all the accused bore grudge against the deceased as he was coming in their way of illegal lifting of sand from Nagavali river is proved. Further, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 also shows that A2 is a hired gunda. ..............But in the present case as I have observed above, the motive of all the accused to do away the life of the deceased Papa Rao is proved in this case. Therefore the contention of the learned defence counsel that the motive of the accused is not proved in this case as the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4, the brothers of the deceased can be said to be hearsay on regarding the illegal activities of the accused in doing sand business from Nagavali river, cannot be said to be sustainable and tenable.” 21. From the findings given by the learned Single Sessions Judge, it is clear that, a perusal of the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 4, 15 to 17 and 19 establish that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were indulging in lifting of sand illegally from the Nagavali River and when the deceased objected for the same, by lodging complaints to higher officials, all the accused developed grudge against the deceased. But, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, having regard to the fact that, there are no other circumstances connecting them with the crime. But, insofar as Accused No. 2 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him as other circumstance, namely, his presence at the scene and the recovery made pursuant to his confession are established. 22. It is now to be seen, as to whether the other two circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, namely, presence of the Accused No. 2 [Appellant] at the scene, and the recoveries made pursuant to his arrest are proved? 23. Insofar as presence of the accused at the scene is concerned, the prosecution tried to establish the same through the evidence of PW11, who is the Medical Practitioner running a Nursing Home, by name Vandana Nursing Home, at Nakka Veedhi, near Zilla Parishad Office, Srikakulam. He in his evidence deposed that, on 07.09.2011 one person, by name Bendi Ramana, came to his Nursing Home with injuries to his left foot caused by a glass piece. PW11 instructed his staff to clean the injury and dress it. He in his evidence deposed that, on 07.09.2011 one person, by name Bendi Ramana, came to his Nursing Home with injuries to his left foot caused by a glass piece. PW11 instructed his staff to clean the injury and dress it. The same was entered in the O.P. Register of the Nursing Home, which is not produced before the Court as it could be traced due to lapse of time. It is said that, after dressing the injury, the said injured left. He further states that, he cannot identify the Bendi Ramana even if he sees him now due to lapse of time. PW11 in his cross-examination admits that, daily about 10 injured persons attend his Nursing Home and that he cannot say their names. He further admits that, he has not treated this person personally and that he cannot say the name of the staff who attended the injured. 24. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that, two days after the incident, one Bendi Ramana went to PW11’s Nursing Home, but neither does he identify the person who visited his Nursing Home nor does he remember the name of his staff who attended the injured. In-fact, PW11 categorically admits that, he cannot identify Bendi Ramana, even if he sees him due to lapse of time. Definitely things would have been different had the injured was treated on the very same day or the information about the injuries received by him was furnished to the Police Officers at the earliest point of time. Since, neither of it was done and having regard to the evidence, a doubt arises as to whether really it was Accused No. 2 who went to the Nursing Home of PW11 to get himself treated two [02] days after the incident. 25. The other circumstance, which was made the basis to connect the accused with the crime is the, ‘arrest and recovery’ made under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW12 was examined by the prosecution to prove the same. He in his evidence-in-chief deposed that, on 18.09.2011, when himself and PW5 were present at Mandal Revenue Office, Amadalavalasa, they were called by the Police to the Police Station and from there, at 12.00 noon they along with Police party went to Voosavanipeta Railway Gate, where they noticed Accused Nos. 1 and 2 standing. He in his evidence-in-chief deposed that, on 18.09.2011, when himself and PW5 were present at Mandal Revenue Office, Amadalavalasa, they were called by the Police to the Police Station and from there, at 12.00 noon they along with Police party went to Voosavanipeta Railway Gate, where they noticed Accused Nos. 1 and 2 standing. On seeing the Police, the accused tried to flee, but, however, they are apprehended and on interrogation, both of them confessed about the commission of the offence. Accused No. 2 further disclosed that, he will show the place where the offence was committed and also show the stick, shirt and chappals of the deceased. Pursuant to the confession, the entire Police party along with the mediators proceeded to cashew nut tope from where Accused No. 2 [Appellant] produced a blood stained stick, shirt and a pair of chappals from the bushes, which were seized under Ex.P16 and marked in the Court as M.O.1 to M.O.3. 26. Insofar as chappals are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the same belong to the deceased. But, strangely, the same were not put to any of the witnesses for its identification. None of the witnesses were made to identify the chappals as that of the deceased. M.O.2 is the shirt containing blood stains. The same was sent to forensic expert, which only gives a report that human blood is found on the shirt, but strangely no grouping was done with the blood of the accused. Merely because blood stains are found on the shirt of the accused, which assuming it to be human blood, it does not establish that those blood stains relate to the blood of the accused. Similar is the case with M.O.1 – stick alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the Accused No. 2 [Appellant]. Though, these items were recovered, at the instance of Accused No. 2, but there is no positive evidence on record to show that these items have any relationship with the incident in question. PW5 (Mediator) who was there along with the Police party on the date of incident and who was also present at the time when the accused is alleged to have made a statement under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, did not support of the prosecution case. 27. PW5 (Mediator) who was there along with the Police party on the date of incident and who was also present at the time when the accused is alleged to have made a statement under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, did not support of the prosecution case. 27. In Kailash Gour and others vs. State of Assam, AIR 2012 SC 786 the Apex Court held as under: “It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused `may have committed the offence' and `must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away.” 28. Having regard to above, we feel that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved beyond doubt and the said circumstances do not form a complete chain, connecting the accused with the crime. Considering the judgments referred to above and in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, we feel that, it may not be safe to convict the appellant/accused No.2 for the charge of murder basing on the evidence adduced. Accordingly, we are inclined to acquit the Appellant/Accused No.2 by extending benefit of doubt. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused No. 2 in the Judgment, dated 29.10.2015, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C., is set- aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Consequently, the appellant/accused No. 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused No.2 shall be refunded to him. No order as to costs. 30. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.