JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.210 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C. 2. Vide judgment, dated 12.05.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C., and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C.; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The graveman of the charge against the accused is that in the early hours of 15.01.2012, the accused caused the death of one Kottu Madhumanjari (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased No.1”) by throttling her to death and Kottu Isha Madhumani (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased No.2”), who is his daughter, by hitting her face against the cot and subsequently, setting fire to their bodies. 4. The facts in issue are as under:- Deceased No.1 is the wife of the accused. Deceased No.2 is the daughter of accused and deceased No.1. P.W.1 is the mother of deceased No.1 and P.W.2 is the brother of deceased No.1. P.W.5 is a co-employee of the accused, who was working in Loyal Textiles Factory situated at Menakuru Village. P.Ws.3, 4 and D.W.1 were living adjacent to the house of the accused. D.W.2 is the mother of the accused and living along with the accused and deceased Nos.1 and 2. The accused was initially working in a sugar factory at Naidupet and now and then, used to visit the shop of P.W.1, who was eking out her livelihood by selling tea. D.W.2 is the mother of the accused and living along with the accused and deceased Nos.1 and 2. The accused was initially working in a sugar factory at Naidupet and now and then, used to visit the shop of P.W.1, who was eking out her livelihood by selling tea. The accused developed acquaintance with deceased No.1 and both of them got married in the year 2008. They were blessed with a daughter - deceased No.2, who was aged about 3 years at the time of death. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused developed illicit intimacy with P.W.5, who was a co-worker in Loyal Textiles Factory. Deceased No.1 is said to have seen some messages sent by P.W.5 and as such, suspected illegal intimacy between the accused and P.W.5. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, deceased No.1 completed her Engineering Course and thereafter, started working as a Lecturer in Gokula Krishna Engineering College, Sullurpet. Ten days prior to the incident, she joined M.Tech at N.B.K.R. Engineering College at Vidya Nagar. On 14.01.2012, in the evening, deceased No.1 left to Menakuru Village along with deceased No.2. On the next day morning i.e., on 15.01.2012, at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1 received a phone call from Menakuru Village stating that her daughter and grand daughter received injuries and fallen on the ground. She informed P.W.2 and thereafter, both of them proceeded to the house of accused where they found the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2, with burn injuries lying, in the kitchen room. Some people gathered there informed that deceased Nos.1 and 2 died due to leakage of gas while some others informed that the accused had killed both the deceased while others informed that deceased No.1 committed suicide. Suspecting some foul play by the accused, P.W.1 went to Naidupet Police Station and lodged a report with the Sub Inspector of Police/P.W.14. Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W.1 to P.W.14. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case in Crime No.10 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. Ex.P-16 is the F.I.R. The intimation was sent to P.W.9 – Tahsildar about the incident and also with a request to come to the scene of offence for holding inquest. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case in Crime No.10 of 2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. Ex.P-16 is the F.I.R. The intimation was sent to P.W.9 – Tahsildar about the incident and also with a request to come to the scene of offence for holding inquest. P.W.9 conducted inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of P.W.14 and issued Exs.P-5 and P-6 – inquest panchanamas. During inquest, P.W.14 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. The mediators opined that someone poured kerosene on both the deceased or deceased No.1 herself poured kerosene and set fire. After completing the inquest proceedings, the bodies were sent for post mortem examination. P.W.10, who was working as Assistant Professor at A.C.S.R. Government Medical College at Nellore, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of deceased No.1 was due to throttling. The Doctor noticed four burn injuries on the body of deceased No.2. According to him, the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to suffocation. Exs.P-14 and P-15 are the Post Mortem Certificates of deceased Nos.1 and 2 respectively. On 21.01.2012, the accused was arrested and on interrogation, the accused is said to have made a confession disclosing commission of offence, which was recorded in the presence of mediators under Ex.P-12. Pursuant to the confession made, two cell phones were recovered from the possession of the accused under M.Os.7 and 8. After collecting all the necessary material, P.W.15 – Inspector filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.09 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to him. 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 VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur 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, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. 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, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and M.Os.1 to 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which he denied. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 8. Out of fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.3 to 5 did not support the prosecution and they were turned hostile. Though there are no eye witnesses to the incident but having regard to the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the accused. 9. Sri H.Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and in the absence of any direct witness, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution cannot be made the basis to connect the accused with the crime. He further submits that merely because the dead bodies were found in the house of the accused, it does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused, who was responsible for the incident, more so, when there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was present in the house at the relevant point of time. He further submits that the evidence of the Doctor would establish that there is every possibility of accidental death or deceased committing suicide. Having regard to the above circumstances, learned counsel tried to contend that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the same contending that though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 would show that the accused had a strong motive to do away the deceased. 10. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the same contending that though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, but the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 would show that the accused had a strong motive to do away the deceased. He further submits that the trial Court took into consideration all the aspects and convicted the accused, which requires no interference of this Court. 11. The point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 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. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the mother and brother of deceased No.1, categorically stated in their evidence regarding existence of disputes between the accused and deceased No.1. It is said that while P.W.1 was running a tea stall near Sugar Factory at Naidupet, the accused developed acquaintance with deceased No.1 and married her. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the mother and brother of deceased No.1, categorically stated in their evidence regarding existence of disputes between the accused and deceased No.1. It is said that while P.W.1 was running a tea stall near Sugar Factory at Naidupet, the accused developed acquaintance with deceased No.1 and married her. Subsequently, the accused developed illegal intimacy with P.W.5, who is a widow working in Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. Since then, he started harassing deceased No.1. The fact of harassment by the accused was informed by deceased No.1 to P.W.1, when she came to Menakuru Village along with her daughter for Sankranthi Festival. Deceased No.1 returned to Menakuru Village along with deceased No.2 on 14.01.2012. On the next day morning, P.W.1 received a phone call about deceased Nos.1 and 2 receiving injuries and falling on the ground. Then she went there along with her son and noticed both deceased Nos.1 and 2 with burn injuries. Suspecting foul play, she lodged a report with the police. P.W.1 was cross examined at length but we do not find anything to doubt or discredit her testimony. 14. Similarly, P.W.2, who is the son of P.W.1 and brother of deceased No.1, also deposed on same lines. According to him, accused and his mother used to live in the said house along with deceased Nos.1 and 2 and there are no burn injuries on the accused and his mother. Having entertained a suspicion against the accused, his mother i.e., P.W.1 lodged a report. In the cross examination, he admits that there are residential houses around the house of the accused and there is a huge gathering in the house of the accused on the fateful day. 15. P.W.3 is a neighbour to the accused, who, in his evidence, stated that he knows the accused and deceased Nos.1 and 2. According to him, on the fateful day, in the early hours, while he was at his house, he heard some noise, came out of the house, reached the house of the accused and saw flames coming from the kitchen room of the accused. According to him, by the time he went there, both the deceased were in flames and he and other villagers put off the flames with sand. So also is the version of P.W.4. 16. P.W.5 was co-worker of the accused in Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. According to him, by the time he went there, both the deceased were in flames and he and other villagers put off the flames with sand. So also is the version of P.W.4. 16. P.W.5 was co-worker of the accused in Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. She, in her evidence, deposed that her marriage with one Ravi was performed about eight years prior to her deposition and she has one son and that her husband died in a road accident five years prior to her deposition. According to her, the accused, who was In charge of Boiler Section, used to inform on phone regarding her work and instruct her as to how it has to be done. This witness was declared hostile and was subjected to cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. 17. All other witnesses are official witnesses. 18. We will deal with the Post Mortem Doctor at the relevant point of time. 19. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the motive for the accused to commit the offence. The motive, as suggested by the prosecution, was the illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.5. In order to prove the same, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 13. P.Ws.1 and 2, in their evidence, categorically deposed that deceased No.1 informed them about accused developing illicit intimacy with P.W.5, who was working along with the accused in Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. It is the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that because of the same, the accused was harassing deceased No.1. 20. P.W.5 is the person with whom the accused was having illegal intimacy but she did not support the prosecution case. However, in her evidence, she admits that her husband died about five years prior to her deposition in a road accident and thereafter, she started working in Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. She also speaks about the accused working in the said factory. She was working in Spinning Section of the said factory and the accused was In charge of Boiler Section. It is her version that the accused used to instruct her on phone as to the nature of work to be done and she used to send messages to the accused. She was working in Spinning Section of the said factory and the accused was In charge of Boiler Section. It is her version that the accused used to instruct her on phone as to the nature of work to be done and she used to send messages to the accused. In the cross examination, learned Additional Public Prosecutor suggested that the accused got knowledge that her husband died and she had no knowledge whether the accused was married by then and was having daughter, which was denied. However, she states that the accused had informed him that he was already married and got one daughter. 21. P.W.13 is the Assistant General Manager at Loyal Textiles Factory, Menakuru. He, in his evidence, categorically states about the accused and P.W.5 working in the said factory and that the accused was absent from duty on 13.01.2012. These facts are also spoken to by P.Ws.13 and 15 during the course of investigation. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 15, it stands established that the accused and P.W.5 were working in the same factory. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would disclose that deceased No.1 used to inform them about the illegal intimacy between the accused and P.W.5. The said information was furnished by deceased No.1 to P.Ws.1 and 2 basing on the messages received by the accused to his cell phone from P.W.5 and also the disclosure made by the accused when she questioned him. Hence, under those circumstances, the motive i.e., the illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.5 cannot be totally brushed aside. 22. The second circumstance in the chain of events is the dispute between the accused and deceased No.1. Again, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to prove the same. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who, in categorical terms, speak about harassment by the accused, evidence of P.W.3 lends support to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, more so, with regard to the incident in question and they putting off the flames after the incident. Therefore, the second leaf in the chain of events i.e, dispute between the accused and deceased No.1 also stands established not only through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 but also through the evidence of P.W.3, who is the neighbour of the accused. 23. Therefore, the second leaf in the chain of events i.e, dispute between the accused and deceased No.1 also stands established not only through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 but also through the evidence of P.W.3, who is the neighbour of the accused. 23. Coming to the incident in question, as seen from the record, both the dead bodies were found in the kitchen room of the house. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that there is no dispute with regard to accused and deceased living together in the house along with his mother but his case is that at the time of the incident, accused went out for a walk. According to him, during that period, the deceased must have either committed suicide or met with an accident of burn injuries leading to death. 24. Having regard to the contents of the F.I.R. given by P.W.1, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased committed suicide. From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the accused was present in the house but at the relevant point of time, he went out for a walk and during that period, the deceased committed suicide. In order to test the said argument, it would be appropriate to refer to the F.I.R. given by P.W.1. In the said report, P.W.1 categorically stated that after receiving information at 7.00 a.m. on phone from one unknown person, P.W.1 along with her son started to Menakuru Village and when they went to the house of the accused, they noticed both deceased Nos.1 and 2 in the kitchen room. They noticed deceased No.1 lying her back with legs folded and underneath her, deceased No.2 was present. Both of them were having burn injuries all over the body and were dead by then. Having regard to the nature of relationship between the accused and deceased No.1, it was stated that the accused harassed her and so, she committed suicide or their son-in-law might have done some harm to them and kept the bodies in the kitchen room. Taking advantage of the sentence in the F.I.R. that the deceased might have committed suicide because of harassment, learned counsel tried to build up a case stating that when the accused went out for a walk, the deceased committed suicide. But the evidence of the Doctor falsifies the same. Taking advantage of the sentence in the F.I.R. that the deceased might have committed suicide because of harassment, learned counsel tried to build up a case stating that when the accused went out for a walk, the deceased committed suicide. But the evidence of the Doctor falsifies the same. Not only the evidence of the Doctor but the evidence of D.W.1 relied upon to show that the accused was in the habit of going out for walking in the morning appears to have been invented at a belated stage and as an afterthought. 25. P.W.10, who was working as Assistant Professor in A.C.S.R. Government Medical College, Nellore, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2. Insofar as the injuries on deceased No.1 are concerned, he found the same as under:- “External :- 1. Face, neck, both upper limbs, front of chest and abdomen, perineum, front and inner side of both thighs, front of legs, palms, some part of both soles, body charred. Hair on left of head singed. 2. Back of chest, back of abdomen, buttocks, back of thighs, back of legs, spared from burns. 3. All the burns are of deep burns, exposing bones like left tibia carpe carpel bones hands, chest fascia exposed etc., 75-80% burns, burns are post mortem in nature. Internal:- Neck structures congested Hyoid bone no fractures, left horm and Hyoid is contused. Left side of neck structure more deeply congested. Addl. Observations :- The uterus measures 8 x 6 x 3 cms size on cut section. There is an embryo of 30 to 45 days duration present adherent to posterior wall of uterus.” The Doctor, in categorically terms, states that the burns are post mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to throttling, meaning thereby, that after killing the deceased, she was burnt to death. 26. Similarly, the Doctor noticed the following injuries on the body of deceased No.2:- “External injuries:- Upper lip contused on inner side of lip size 2 x 1 cm. present black in colour. 2. Face, neck, both upper limbs, front and inner side of both thighs, front of legs, palms some part of both soles, dorsum of both feet, some part of hair singed. 3. Front and back of chest, front and back of abdomen, buttocks, back of thighs, back of legs spared from burns. 4. present black in colour. 2. Face, neck, both upper limbs, front and inner side of both thighs, front of legs, palms some part of both soles, dorsum of both feet, some part of hair singed. 3. Front and back of chest, front and back of abdomen, buttocks, back of thighs, back of legs spared from burns. 4. All the burns are 1st degree burns 50 to 60% burns. The burns are post mortem in nature.” Insofar as the said report is concerned, the Doctor states that the death was due to asphyxia due to suffocation. Even the injuries on deceased No.2 are found to be post mortem in nature i.e., after death, deceased No.2 was burnt to death. The Doctor was cross examined at length but in our view, nothing incriminating came to be elicited to discredit the same. In the cross examination, at a particular place, while dealing with the injuries sustained by deceased No.2, the Doctor states that the burns are ante mortem in nature but however, corrects himself by saying that the burns are post mortem, as stated in the chief examination. Taking advantage of the same, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version of the case, but we feel that it was a slip of tongue, which was corrected immediately by the Doctor by stating that what he stated in the evidence in chief is correct. He further states that there is every possibility of deceased No.2 dying due to suffocation. Be that as it may. The evidence of the Doctor stands established that both the deceased were done to death in their house and after causing their death, both of them were set on fire. 27. The question now is:- “Who is responsible for the same?” 28. As stated earlier, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the accused was not present in the house as he went out for a walk at that relevant point of time. In other words, his argument is that he was living with his wife in the said house but at that relevant point of time, he went out for a walk. To prove the same, he summoned and examined D.Ws.1 and 2. 29. D.W.1 claims to be a neighbour living beside the house of the accused at Menakuru Village of Naidupet Mandal. To prove the same, he summoned and examined D.Ws.1 and 2. 29. D.W.1 claims to be a neighbour living beside the house of the accused at Menakuru Village of Naidupet Mandal. According to her, her house is situated on the back side of the house of the accused. According to her, at about 6 a.m., on the date of Sankranthi, while she was cleaning front portion of her house, noticed accused walking. She asked deceased No.1 as to why she was not cleaning the house to which, she stated that her daughter - deceased No.2 was crying for milk and that after giving milk, she would clean the front portion of the house. Thereafter, deceased No.1 went inside the house. Ten minutes thereafter, she heard huge cries from inside the house pursuant to which, she rushed to the house of the accused and neighbours also came there. There were flames inside the house and the villagers threw sand to put off the flames. Meanwhile, ambulance came and the deceased were shifted through that ambulance. According to her, the police came to her house on that night and questioned her whether the above facts are true and correct. In the cross examination, she admits that her father-in-law’s name is Ramanaiah and father of Ramanaiah is Nagaiah. She admits that her father-in-law Ramanaiah was a witness in this case, who was examined as P.W.3 and he is none other than the maternal uncle of the accused. She also admits that the accused’s senior maternal aunt’s daughter’s son is P.W.3 and that the accused is also related to her through her father-in-law. At this stage, one fact which requires to be noted is that D.W.1, in her chief evidence, states that the accused is not related to her, but from the answers elicited, it is established that she is closely related to the accused. Having regard to the above, her evidence cannot be accepted at its face value. 30. Apart from that, it is also to be noted that the version of D.W.1 that the accused was not present in the house at the relevant point of time as he has gone out for walk was never suggested to any of the witnesses including the Investigating Officer. For the first time, the version, as spoken to by D.W.1, was brought into existence. For the first time, the version, as spoken to by D.W.1, was brought into existence. Things definitely would have been different had the accused had come out with such defence by suggesting either to the prosecution witnesses or to the Investigating Officer about the version spelt out by D.W.1. Leaned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that such a version was never suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the defence witnesses has to be given equal weight as that of prosecution witnesses may not apply to the facts of the case. 31. D.W.2 is the mother of the accused. She, in her evidence, stated that her son goes out for walk daily at 6.00 a.m. and on the date of incident also, at 6.00 a.m., he went out for walk. Within ten minutes thereafter, D.W.2 also went out for walk. According to her, while she started for walking, deceased No.2 was crying. Then, she handed over deceased No.2 to deceased No.1 and then, went out for walk. At about 7.00 a.m., when she returned back, she noticed number of persons gathered in front of her house. She, in her evidence, also states that the accused has nothing to do with the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and that they died due to accident. But one fact which requires to be noticed is that D.W.1 does not speak about seeing D.W.2 going out for a walk. If D.W.2 was in the habit of going for walk daily, definitely, D.W.1 would have mentioned about the same. Apart from that, this version of D.W.2 was also not suggested to any of the witnesses including the Investigating Officer. In fact, nowhere it is the defence of the accused that he went out for walk at that relevant point of time i.e., in the early hours of 14.01.2012 i.e., on the day of Pongal. It is also not the case of the accused that it was a murder for gain or that deceased Nos.1 and 2 died in the hands of someone else. 32. It is also not the case of the accused that it was a murder for gain or that deceased Nos.1 and 2 died in the hands of someone else. 32. Having regard to the evidence of the Doctor coupled with the false explanation given by the accused to the effect that he was not present in the house at the relevant point of time and that he was present before and after the incident in the house, we feel that the defence taken by the accused cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 33. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 12.05.2016, in Sessions Case No.210 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudur, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.