JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu is the appellant herein. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 05.11.2014, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Originally, A-1 was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. while A-2 and A-3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. Vide judgment, dated 05.11.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting A-2 and A-3, convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. A-1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 201 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The substance of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 14.07.2012, at about 10:00 A.M., at K.P. Doddi Village, Gummagatta Mandal, he voluntarily beat one Boya Raghavendra (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) with an axe on his head and neck indiscriminately with an intention to kill him and caused his death. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3, in order to screen the evidence, buried the body of the deceased in a dilapidated well, burnt the blood stained clothes and concealed the axe. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: A-1 is the husband of A-2. A-1 is a resident of Jakkalavadiki Village, Kanekal Mandal. A-2 was residing at K.P. Doddi Village. A-3 is the sister’s son of A-1 and resident of Muradi Village of D. Hirahal Mandal. The deceased is also a resident of K.P. Doddi Village. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 by courtesy. P.W.1 is elder sister’s daughter of the father of P.W.3. The deceased was working as Vidya Volunteer in Upper Primary School at K.P. Doddi Village. The deceased is also a resident of K.P. Doddi Village. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1 by courtesy. P.W.1 is elder sister’s daughter of the father of P.W.3. The deceased was working as Vidya Volunteer in Upper Primary School at K.P. Doddi Village. A-2 was also working in the same school as Vidya Volunteer. The deceased and A-2 developed close acquaintance as both of them were working in the same school. A-1 developed suspicion and warned the deceased to cut off his relations with A-2. On 14.7.2012, at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased left home informing his mother -P.W.1 that he was going to Kothapalli Village for purchasing groundnut seeds. When the deceased was passing in front of the house of A-2, she asked the deceased to come into her house. The deceased went inside the house of A-2 and the same was noticed by P.W.2, who is also a resident of K.P. Doddi Village. Sometime thereafter, A-1 came and entered into the house and found the deceased and A-2 in a compromising position. On seeing it, A-1 became wild, took an axe and dealt a blow on the head, face and neck of the deceased. Due to injuries on the vital parts, the deceased died on the spot. A-1 and A-2 kept the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag, cleaned the axe and blood stains on the floor. A-1 kept the cloth pieces used in wiping out blood stains in a plastic cover. A-1 concealed the axe in the sand of building foundation by the side of the house of A-2. A-1 informed A-3 that he has killed the deceased. A-1 took the plastic bag containing blood stained cloth pieces, a bottle of petrol and proceeded to a hillock near Adiguppa Village where he partly burnt cloth pieces. After returning from that place, A-1 met A-3 near Adiguppa cross. A-3 advised A-1 to take the bag with the dead body to the dilapidated well in his field in Muradi Village limits. Then, A-3 went to his field where groundnut sowing was taking place. After returning from that place, A-1 met A-3 near Adiguppa cross. A-3 advised A-1 to take the bag with the dead body to the dilapidated well in his field in Muradi Village limits. Then, A-3 went to his field where groundnut sowing was taking place. Thereafter, A-1 went to the house of A-2, took the gunny bag containing the dead body of the deceased, kept it on his motor cycle, drove away towards the dilapidated well situated in the lands of A-3 at Muradi Village, dug a trench, kept the gunny bag containing the dead body in the well and covered it with earth and went away. Since the deceased did not return home, his mother – P.W.1 searched for him and on 15.07.2012, at about 3:00 P.M., she went to P.W.11 – Sub Inspector of Police, Gummagatta Police Station and lodged a written report. P.W.11 registered the same as Crime No.110 of 2012 under the head “Man missing.” Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W.1 and Ex.P-12 is the F.I.R. sent to the Court, which was received by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg at 10:30 A.M. on 16.07.2012. P.W.11 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and proceeded to K.P. Doddi Village at about 4:30 P.M. and recorded the statement of P.W.2 and others. On 15.07.2012, at about 4:00 P.M., P.W.1 went to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, Rayadurg and informed him about missing of his son. On 16.07.2012, at about 9:00 A.M., P.W.1 again went to Gummagatta Police Station and lodged Ex.P-2 -a written report basing on which, the section of law was altered from “Man missing” to 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. and issued Express F.I.R. Ex.P-13 is the altered F.I.R. and the same was received by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayadurg at 3:55 P.M. on 16.07.2012. On 16.07.2012, P.W.12 – Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle received Ex.P-13, the altered F.I.R., and took up investigation. P.W.12 proceeded to the dilapidated well near Muradi Village and contacted P.W.10, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, D. Hirehal Mandal, and asked him to exhume the dead body of the deceased from the well. Accordingly, the Tahsildar issued orders for exhumation of the dead body and the dead body was brought out of the dilapidated well. The body was kept in a polythene cover, which was placed inside a white coloured urea bag. Accordingly, the Tahsildar issued orders for exhumation of the dead body and the dead body was brought out of the dilapidated well. The body was kept in a polythene cover, which was placed inside a white coloured urea bag. When they opened the cover, found the dead body in a swollen and putrefied condition. P.W.3 and others identified the dead body. The clothes of the deceased, the polythene cover and the white urea bag were seized. P.W.10 – the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate D. Hirehal, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 16.07.2012 between 12:30 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. in the presence of P.W.7 and others. Ex.P-5 is the Inquest Report. Thereafter, the body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.9 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Rayadurg conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at the well between 3:55 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. on 16.07.2012 and found seven external injuries. Ex.P-11 is the Post Mortem Certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The Doctor opined that the death was about two to three days prior to post mortem examination. P.W.12 – Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle, who continued with the investigation, prepared Ex.P-14 – a rough sketch of the dilapidated well and its surroundings. Then, he proceeded to K.P. Doddi Village and prepared Ex.P-15 – rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.12 examined P.W.4 and others and recorded their statements. On 17.07.2012, P.W.12 examined P.W.5 and others and recorded their statements. On 20.07.2012, at about 8:00 A.M., while P.W.6 – Village Revenue Officer, Galagala was in his house, A-1 to A-3 came to him and A-1 confessed to have committed the offence and requested P.W.6 to help them in surrendering before P.W.12 – Inspector. P.W.6 – V.R.O. recorded the statement of A-1 and obtained the signatures of A-1 to A-3. Ex.P-3 is the extra-judicial confession of A-1 to A-3. On the same day, at 09:45 A.M., P.W.6 – V.R.O. took A-1 to A-3 to P.W.12 -Inspector of Police and handed over them along with Ex.P-3 – the extra-judicial confession. P.W.12 -Inspector recorded the statement of P.W.6 and arrested A-1 to A-3 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. P.W.12 interrogated A-1 to A-3 and recorded a common confessional statement of A-1 to A-3. Ex.P-6 is the relevant portion. P.W.12 -Inspector recorded the statement of P.W.6 and arrested A-1 to A-3 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. P.W.12 interrogated A-1 to A-3 and recorded a common confessional statement of A-1 to A-3. Ex.P-6 is the relevant portion. At about 2:45 P.M., A-1 led P.W.12 and others to the scene of offence and produced M.O.1 – axe. Then, A-1 led them to a hillock area near Adiguppa Village and showed M.O.2 – burnt pieces of blood stained bed sheet and M.O.3 – burnt pieces of blood stained plastic urea bag. A-1 also led them to the dilapidated well near Muradi Village and produced M.O.4 – spade. A-1 led P.W.12 and others to the cattle shed of his brother-in-law by name Hanumantha Reddy at Muradi Village and produced M.Os.1, 5, 6 and 7 (motor cycle). After receiving Ex.P-17 – F.S.L. Report, P.W.12 Inspector filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.35 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the offences are triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 7. After the closure 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 the prosecution witnesses to which they denied. No oral evidence was adduced on their behalf. However, Ex.D-1 was got marked on their behalf. 8. After the closure 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 the prosecution witnesses to which they denied. No oral evidence was adduced on their behalf. However, Ex.D-1 was got marked on their behalf. 8. Relying upon four circumstances namely (1) the cause of death being homicidal in nature, (2) motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased namely that A-2 was having intimacy with the deceased (3) the evidence of P.W.2, who saw the deceased going into the house of A-2 on the date of incident and (4) the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.6, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1 alone and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by A-1. 9. Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ A-1, mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form the chain of events connecting A-1 with the crime. In fact, he would submit that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he would submit that the conviction of A-1 requires to be interfered with. 10. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution namely A-2 being last seen in the company of the deceased and thereafter, A-1 entering the house of A-2, the extra-judicial confession made before P.W.6 and the recovery of the dead body in a gunny bag, which was carried by the accused from his house, as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, coupled with motive are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, his argument appears to be that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. The point that arises for consideration is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?” 12. POINT:- As seen from the record, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. 11. The point that arises for consideration is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?” 12. POINT:- As seen from the record, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire 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 connecting the accused with the crime. In Jawaharlal Das v. State of Orissa’s case, AIR 1991 SC 1388 the Apex Court held that to base a conviction in a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, three conditions are required to be satisfied viz., (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 the guilt of the accused and (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 it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 13. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, we shall now deal with the case on hand. As stated earlier, the prosecution has mainly relied upon four circumstances. The first circumstance is that the cause of death being homicidal in nature. The fact that it is a case of homicidal death is not in dispute. P.W.9, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Community Health Centre, Rayadurg, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries, which can be caused with a weapon – M.O.1. According to him, the time of death is about two to three days prior to his post mortem examination. Therefore, the fact that it is a case of homicidal death is not in dispute. 14. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is motive for A-1 to cause the death of the deceased. According to him, the time of death is about two to three days prior to his post mortem examination. Therefore, the fact that it is a case of homicidal death is not in dispute. 14. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is motive for A-1 to cause the death of the deceased. In order to substantiate the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 is none other than the brother of P.W.1 by courtesy, who knows the deceased as the son of P.W.1. According to him, the deceased used to work as Vidya Volunteer in Government School at K.P. Doddi Village and A-2 also working in the same school. From the above, it only establishes that the deceased and A-2 were working as Vidya Volunteers in the same school but however, the evidence of P.W.4, who is a resident of the same village and moves with A-1 and A-2, shows that the deceased and A-2, who were working as Vidya Volunteers in Government School at K.P. Doddi Village, used to move closely. Except that, there is no other evidence to show that A-2 and the deceased were moving closely to the knowledge of A-1. Apart from that, the motive aspect was also referred to in the extra-judicial confession, which we will deal with a little later. If really A-2 was having an affair with the deceased, there was no reason for A-2 to kill the deceased. 15. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that on the date of incident, himself and the deceased were going to purchase groundnut seeds at Kothapalli. While they were going in front of the house of A-2, A-2 called the deceased and he alone went inside the house of A-2. At that time, A-1, who is the husband of A-2, also went inside the house of A-2. Then, P.W.2 went for grazing his cattle in the village and at about 6:00 P.M., he returned to his house. Thereafter, he went to the house of the deceased and enquired P.W.1 about the deceased. She replied that the deceased went out of the house at 9:00 A.M. but did not return to the house. Then, P.W.2 went for grazing his cattle in the village and at about 6:00 P.M., he returned to his house. Thereafter, he went to the house of the deceased and enquired P.W.1 about the deceased. She replied that the deceased went out of the house at 9:00 A.M. but did not return to the house. Then, P.W.2 is said to have informed P.W.1 that in the morning, while he was going along with the deceased in front of the house of A-2, the deceased was called by A-2 and the deceased went inside the house of A-2 and at the same time, A-1 also went inside the house of A-2. His evidence also discloses that on the same day evening, he along with P.W.1 went to Gummagatta Police Station and lodged a report. He further states that P.W.3 informed him that subsequently, another report came to be lodged in Rayadurg Police Station. His evidence further discloses that on the same day, P.W.1 informed him that she met A-1 and when questioned, A-1 is alleged to have told her that as the deceased was coming regularly to his house, he killed the deceased by hacking and later, buried the body of the deceased at Muradi Village. This, in substance, is the evidence of P.W.2. But the report alleged to have been lodged by P.Ws.1 and 2 together on 15.07.2012, which is Ex.P-1, has not seen the light of the day. The second report, which was lodged on 16.07.2012 and marked as Ex.P-2, only speaks about the deceased going to Kothapalli Village to bring groundnut seeds and did not return to the house till evening; that A-2 called the deceased into her house and the deceased went into her house; later, A-1 also went to the house of A-2. If really P.W.2 has informed P.W.1 after he seeing the deceased going into the house of A-2 on being called by A-2 and followed by A-1, definitely, there would be reference to the said fact in the first F.I.R. In fact, the first F.I.R. does not even refer to P.W.1 meeting P.W.2 before lodging the report and both of them going to Gummagatta Police Station on the previous day as well. That being so, a doubt arises as to whether really P.W.2 saw the deceased going into the house of A-2 and also the fact of deceased and P.W.2 going Kothapalli Village to purchase groundnut seeds on that day, for the reason that if really the deceased and P.W.2 intended to go to Kothapalli Village for purchase of groundnut seeds and when the deceased went into the house of A-2, nothing prevented P.W.2 alone to go to Kothapalli Village to purchase groundnut seeds. On the other hand, he speaks about grazing his cattle in the village after the deceased went into the house of A-2. This evidence of P.W.2, in our view, is not convincing and a doubt arises as to whether really he was in the company of the deceased on that day. 16. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement alleged to have made by A-1 to P.W.1. P.W.1, in his evidence, deposed that on the next day morning after the incident, A-1 disclosed that he killed the deceased, as he was regularly coming to his house, and thereafter, buried the dead body in a dilapidated well at Muradi Village. If really A-1 made such a statement before P.W.1, two things should have normally followed. First, she should have taken every step or help of villagers in catching hold of A-1 and bringing him to the police station and if that is not possible, at least, in the report given on 15.07.2012, which was at 3 : 30 P.M., she should have disclosed about the same, since her own evidence shows that A-1 met her in the morning hours. Therefore, this circumstance, in our view, does not, in any way, help the prosecution and hence, the fact of deceased going into the house of A-2, in our view, is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Coming to the fourth circumstance namely the extra-judicial confession made before P.W.6, it is to be noted here that extra-judicial confession is said to have been made on 20.07.2012 i.e., nearly after a week after the incident. Before going through the evidence of P.W.6, it is to be noted that P.W.1, in her evidence, admitted that A-1 was taken to the police station on the previous day night and kept in the police station and later, A-2 was also taken to the police station. Before going through the evidence of P.W.6, it is to be noted that P.W.1, in her evidence, admitted that A-1 was taken to the police station on the previous day night and kept in the police station and later, A-2 was also taken to the police station. The evidence on record shows that the statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 15.07.2012 and the contents of the said admission would show that on 14.07.2012, A-1, A-2 and others were taken to the police station by the police. Though in the cross examination, at one stage, P.W.1 denies police taking A-1 and A-2 to Police Station on that day but later, admits about police taking A-1, A-2 and others to the police station. It would be useful to extract the relevant portion, which reads as under:- “… The accused No.1 was taken to the police station by the police on the previous day night and kept in the police station. Later, A2 and others were taken to police station. The dead body was taken to my village and inquest was held at my village….” In view of the admission made by P.W.1, it is very difficult to believe that the accused would have made extra-judicial confession on 20.07.2012. Further, a doubt arises as to whether really A-1 to A-3 would have gone to P.W.6 to make extra-judicial confession, for the reason that he is the V.R.O. of a different village and has nothing to do with Rayadurg Village where A-1 to A-3 stay. Therefore, in our view, there was no necessity for these accused to go and make extra-judicial confession before the person who is a stranger. Apart from that, it is well established principle of law that extra-judicial confession is made only for securing some help from the hands of the police but it is difficult to believe that they would have made such confession before an unknown person. Apart from that, when the accused were already in custody of the police, question of seeking help from P.W.6 on 20.07.2012 appears to be doubtful. 18. Apart from that, when the accused were already in custody of the police, question of seeking help from P.W.6 on 20.07.2012 appears to be doubtful. 18. Insofar as the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is concerned, namely that P.W.4 saw A-1 carrying a gunny bag on his motor bike on the evening of 14.07.2012 and P.W.5 seeing a plastic bag being carried on the afternoon of 14.07.2012, it is to be noted here that there is no positive evidence on record to show that this plastic bag or big gunny bag contained the clothes or dead body of the deceased. Merely because A-1 carried some plastic bag and a gunny bag on his motor cycle, does not establish that the said gunny bag contains the dead body of the deceased. If the dead body was found in a gunny bag, the prosecution should have made some effort to establish that the gunny bag which the accused carried on 14.07.2012 at about 5:00 P.M., is the same gunny bag in which the dead body was found or at least some similarity in the bag but no effort was made to establish the same. In fact, the said gunny bag was not even marked. Therefore, a crucial link to establish some connectivity to the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and A-1 carrying dead body is not established. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.5 is to the effect that on 14.07.2012, at about 2:30 P.M., A-1, who was carrying a plastic bag, kept the said bag at the field and talked something with A-2 and then, by carrying the said plastic bag, went on foot towards Adigubba Village and thirty minutes later, he returned to the field and then, he along with A-2 went on the motor cycle belonging to A-3. If that is so, it is strange that the clothes were found on the body of the deceased. P.W.5 came to know that the dead body was found in a well on 16.07.2012 evening. In fact, the dead body was identified to be that of the deceased basing on the clothes of the deceased. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that A-1 carried the clothes in the gunny bag and thereafter, buried them on hillock on 14.07.2012 may not be correct. In fact, the dead body was identified to be that of the deceased basing on the clothes of the deceased. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that A-1 carried the clothes in the gunny bag and thereafter, buried them on hillock on 14.07.2012 may not be correct. For all these reasons, we feel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with 201 I.P.C., and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu vide judgment, dated 05.11.2014, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2013 against the appellant/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with 201 I.P.C. is set aside. The appellant/A-1 shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-1 shall be refunded to him. M.O.7 – Hero Honda shall be returned to the concerned as per law. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.