JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.146 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. 2. Vide judgment, dated 07.04.2016, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C., convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C.; and to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 08.01.2011, the accused made a phone call to one Nowkad Vanaja Rani @ Vannu @ Lajjo (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”) from his mobile number, induced her to come to Vijayawada from Hyderabad on a premise of visiting the temple of Goddess Kanaka Durga and after the arrival of the deceased, took room No.307 in Prestige Lodge on 09.01.2011 initially and later, on 10.01.2011 to room No.305 in Hotel Abhiram Palace A/C situated at Galla Vari Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada where the accused is said to have caused the death of the deceased by squeezing her neck. 4. The facts, as spelt out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as under:- (i) P.W.10 is the father of the deceased while P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 are witnesses who are associated with Abhiram Lodge, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. P.W.10 was blessed with three children through his first wife – Neeraja. The marriage of elder daughter of the first wife – Sandhya Rani was performed with one Kali Srinivas. The second daughter of his first wife – Vanaja Rani (deceased) studied up to Intermediate and thereafter, P.W.10 performed her marriage with one Nowkad Man Prasad, who is his maternal uncle’s son. They were residing in a rented house near the house of P.W.10. It is said that they were also blessed with two daughters. The second daughter of his first wife – Vanaja Rani (deceased) studied up to Intermediate and thereafter, P.W.10 performed her marriage with one Nowkad Man Prasad, who is his maternal uncle’s son. They were residing in a rented house near the house of P.W.10. It is said that they were also blessed with two daughters. On 08.01.2011, at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased left the house to attend the classes but did not return home till 6.00 p.m. The son-in-law of P.W.10 informed P.W.10 about the same. They searched for the deceased with their relatives till next day morning. As the whereabouts of the deceased are not known, they lodged a report in Hussainialam Police Station about the missing of the deceased. (ii) On 09.01.2011, at about at 4.00 p.m., one male person along with a lady boarded in Room No.307 of Prestige Lodge informing his name as Prasanth from Hyderabad. The said person filled the address particulars in the form and also in the register pursuant to which, they were allotted the said room. On 10.01.2011, both of them vacated the Prestige Lodge at 8.00 p.m. P.W.11, who was working as Manager of Prestige Rest House, identified the accused as the person who visited the rest house on 09.01.2011 in a test identification parade conducted on 22.01.2011 and also in the Court. (iii) On 10.01.2011, one lady and a male person came to Abhiram Lodge seeking a room, of which P.W.1 is the Manager. They were allotted room No.305 wherein they mentioned the names in the register as Raju and Lajio with their mobile numbers. (iv) P.W.2, who was working as a boy in Abhiram Lodge, was handed over the keys of the room and he was directed to take both of them to the said room and do the needful. (v) P.W.3, who was working as a boy in Abhiram Lodge, deposed about P.W.2 taking the deceased and accused to room No.305 after the keys were handed over to him by P.W.1. After P.W.3 was relieved from the duty, P.W.4 claims to have worked in the said hotel till next day morning. P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused as the person who came to their lodge on 10.01.2011. On 12.01.2011, while P.W.2 was cleaning the lodge at 7.30 or 8.00 a.m., he noticed foul smell emanating from the said room. After P.W.3 was relieved from the duty, P.W.4 claims to have worked in the said hotel till next day morning. P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused as the person who came to their lodge on 10.01.2011. On 12.01.2011, while P.W.2 was cleaning the lodge at 7.30 or 8.00 a.m., he noticed foul smell emanating from the said room. Suspecting foul play, he informed the same to P.W.1 who made a phone call to the owner of the lodge about bad smell coming from the said room. The owner of the lodge – P.W.6 initially directed the Manager to lodge a report, after instructing P.W.1 to give a report. After giving report, police came there, got the room opened with a duplicate key and found the dead body in a swollen condition and the body was covered with a bed sheet. Law was set into motion basing on the report lodged by P.W.1 with P.W.22 – Inspector of Police pursuant to which, a case in Crime No.24 of 2011 came to be registered under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-1 is the report. Ex.P-51 is the original F.I.R. He informed the clues team and the dog squad to visit the scene of offence and trace out the chance prints and to find clues relating to the crime. He requested the Tahsildar to send revenue officials to act as mediators for the scene observation report. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence situated at room No.305, 2nd floor, Hotel Abhiram Palace A/C, Door No.20-3-8, Gallavari Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada and at about 9.30 a.m., in the absence of P.W.15 and L.W.17, prepared the Scene Observation Report, which is placed on record as Ex.P-24. He also got the scene of offence photographed with the help of P.W.5. Thereafter, prepared a rough sketch of the scene and the same is marked as Ex.P-52. At the scene, he seized M.Os.2 and 3 from room No.305 and M.Os.4 to 15 from the dressing table of the said room apart from other objects which are marked as M.Os.16 to 46. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Ex.P-34 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statement. After conducting the inquest, dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Ex.P-34 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statement. After conducting the inquest, dead body was sent for post mortem examination. (vi) P.W.19, who is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Sidhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-44 – Post Mortem Report. According to him, the cause of death was due to asphyxia resulting from ligature strangulation with injuries. (vii) P.W.22, who continued with the investigation, sent a requisition to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada for furnishing tower location and cell details of Idea SIM No.9951595030, which was mentioned in the Register under Ex.P-7. He flashed radio message to all the concerned. While things stood thus, the electronic engineers of the lodge came to the scene of offence and verified the previous data of the CC camera footage and found the photographs of the deceased and the accused at the time of they arriving the lodge on 10.01.2011. The faces of the accused and deceased were identified by P.Ws.1 and 2. (viii) At this stage, one of the circumstances, which require to be noticed is that the picture of auto-driver, who brought the accused and deceased to Abhiram Lodge on 10.01.2011 at about 6.50 p.m., was also noticed in the CC camera footage of the said lodge. (ix) On the same day, P.W.22 received the call details of cell phone No.9951595030 and while going through the said data, traced the father of the deceased – P.W.10 and gave information regarding the death of the deceased. On receipt of the said information, P.W.10 came to Vijayawada for identifying the deceased. As the body was buried by then, the same was exhumed immediately and the body was identified as that of the deceased by P.W.10. (x) On 14.01.2011, on reliable information, P.W.22 secured mediators along with staff and proceeded to Prakasam Statue Center near Railway parcel office gate at 10.00 a.m. and arrested the person, who tried to run away on seeing the police. After his arrest, in the presence of the mediators, his confessional statement was recorded, the relevant portion of which, is marked as Ex.P.35. At the time of arrest, M.Os.47 to 50 were seized in the presence of mediators under Ex.P-8. After his arrest, in the presence of the mediators, his confessional statement was recorded, the relevant portion of which, is marked as Ex.P.35. At the time of arrest, M.Os.47 to 50 were seized in the presence of mediators under Ex.P-8. P.W.11 identified the accused as the person who vacated the room. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 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 Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada 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. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-55 and M.Os.1 to 50. 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. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf. 8. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant mainly submits that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved, do not confirm a chain of events establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, he would contend that the circumstance of last seen theory and the recovery of room key along with a cash receipt issued by Abhiram Lodge, Gandhinagar, does not establish the guilt of the accused. Further, the time gap between last seen and the recovery of dead body in the room is not proximate or immediate. 9. In other words, he would contend that the circumstance of last seen theory and the recovery of room key along with a cash receipt issued by Abhiram Lodge, Gandhinagar, does not establish the guilt of the accused. Further, the time gap between last seen and the recovery of dead body in the room is not proximate or immediate. 9. On the other hand, Sri S.Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending that the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, are established beyond reasonable doubt, and as such, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused. He took us through the evidence of the witnesses in support of his plea. 10. The point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?” 11. POINT:- As seen from the evidence of P.W.10, the father of the deceased, the deceased left the house on 08.01.2011 to attend her class, but did not return home till 6.00 p.m. P.W.10 along with his relatives searched for the deceased, but, in vain. Later, they were informed by the police in Vijayawada about the tracing of the dead body of the deceased. 12. P.W.11, who was working as a Manager, Prestige Rest House at Seshaiah Veedhi, I Town, Vijayawada, in his evidence deposed that on 09.01.2011 one person along with a lady came to the rest house at 4.00 p.m., informing his name as ‘Prasanth’. He filled the address particulars and name in the register. Pursuant thereto, he was allotted Room No.207. It was also informed that they came to Vijayawada for a visit to Kanakadurgamma Temple. However, on next day i.e., on 10.01.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., they vacated the said room. The registers, bill books etc., were handed over to CI. 13. This evidence of P.W.11 also shows that, he not only identified the person who visited the rest house on 09.01.2011, in the court, but also in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate on 22.01.2011. He was cross-examined at length, but we feel that nothing incriminating has been elicited to discard the testimony of P.W.11. 13. This evidence of P.W.11 also shows that, he not only identified the person who visited the rest house on 09.01.2011, in the court, but also in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate on 22.01.2011. He was cross-examined at length, but we feel that nothing incriminating has been elicited to discard the testimony of P.W.11. Though, he admits that he has not stated before the police about accused filling the register and not giving descriptive particulars of the accused to the police, but the same does not go to the root of the matter. Nothing was suggested to P.W.22, who conducted investigation about the omissions if any, in the earlier statement of this witness. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.11, it stands establish that on 09.01.2011 the accused along with one lady (deceased) came to the rest house and stayed for a day and vacated the premises on the next day morning i.e., on 10.01.2011. 14. P.W.1, who was working as Manager in Abhiram Lodge, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, in his evidence deposed that on 10.01.2011 while he was on duty, one male and female person came to the lodge at 7.00 p.m., informing that they have come from Hyderabad for visiting the temple and asked for a room in the said lodge. Details of the persons came to be registered in the lodge register and they were allotted Room No.305. The accused described himself as ‘Raju’ and that of the lady as ‘Lajio’. They also mentioned their mobile numbers in the lodge register. P.W.2 who was working as a servant in the said hotel, was asked to take both of them to the said room. Accordingly, it is said that P.W.2 showed the room to them and on their request, brought food and wine. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that he got himself relieved at about 7.00 p.m., and P.W.3 took charge for the second shift, which starts from 7.00 p.m., till next day morning 9.00 a.m. He in his evidence also speaks about seeing accused in the lodge along with a lady and they were given Room No.305. In other words, his evidence is that P.W.2, P.W.3 and one Venkata Reddy (L.W.4) along with another person were present when the room was allotted to them. Though, both the witnesses were cross-examined, nothing incriminating came to be elicited to discredit their testimony. In other words, his evidence is that P.W.2, P.W.3 and one Venkata Reddy (L.W.4) along with another person were present when the room was allotted to them. Though, both the witnesses were cross-examined, nothing incriminating came to be elicited to discredit their testimony. Though, omissions were elicited with regard to not mentioning about the age and colour of the persons before the Magistrate while conducting Test Identification Parade, but, the same do not matter much as these two witnesses have identified the accused not only in Test identification Parade conducted by the Magistrate, but also in Court. 15. Further, the learned Senior Counsel neither found fault with the procedure followed in conducting Test Identification Parade nor with regard to identification of the accused by these witnesses in the Test Identification Parade. From the evidence of these witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are working as room boys in the said hotel, it stands establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused along with the deceased took a room in their hotel on 10.01.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., and thereafter, they have ordered for some food and wine. 16. Though, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to contend that the presence of accused and deceased in the hotel on that day and entering into Room No.305 also stands establish through CC footage, but the same is opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the same cannot be relied upon, since Certificate as required under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 has not been produced. But, however, in reply, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.W.7, who was the Technician of CC Camera at Suraksha Security System, was summoned, to display the recordings and as such, the Certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not necessary. It may not be necessary to dwell into that aspect, as the oral evidence available on record establishes the presence of the accused along with the deceased in the hotel on 10.01.2011. 17. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution mainly is the evidence of P.W.19/Post-Mortem Doctor and the evidence of P.W.22/Investigating Officer vis-à-vis the panch witnesses i.e., P.W.16 and P.W.20 for the recoveries made pursuant to the arrest of the accused. 17. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution mainly is the evidence of P.W.19/Post-Mortem Doctor and the evidence of P.W.22/Investigating Officer vis-à-vis the panch witnesses i.e., P.W.16 and P.W.20 for the recoveries made pursuant to the arrest of the accused. The evidence of P.W.22, the Investigating Officer would show that on 14.01.2011 on reliable information he secured the presence of P.W.16 and P.W.20 along with his staff and proceeded to Prakasam statue centre, near Railway Parcel Office Gate at 10.00 a.m. He found one person aged about 32 years, dressed in pant and shirt, wearing monkey cap, who was proceeding towards Railway Station by walk along with blue colour bag. On seeing police he tried to skulk away. Suspecting him to be an accused, he was surrounded with the assistance of his staff and was questioned about his identity, but he failed to respond properly. On that, he was arrested. In the presence of P.W.16 and P.W.20 a confession was recorded which lead to discovery of M.O.47 to M.O.50. 18. In order to substantiate the said recovery, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.20. P.W.16 and P.W.20 have both deposed about arrest of the accused and recovery of one T-shirt, pant, monkey cap, one Abhiram Palace cash receipt and also Abhiram Palace room key having Door No.305. M.O.49 is the room key of Abhiram Palace and Ex.P.8 is the cash receipt issued by the said hotel on payment of advance of Rs.1,000/-, as spoken to by P.W.3 and P.W.4. Strangely, for the reasons best known, P.W.20 was not cross-examined at all. The record shows that counsel for accused was absent on that day for cross-examination and accused requested time, stating that his counsel is not feeling well. But, however, the Court closed the cross-examination as ‘NIL’. No effort was made thereafter for recall of the witness for cross-examination and there is no material to show that an application was filed for recall of the said witness for cross-examination and as such, the same remained unchallenged. Therefore, this evidence of P.W.20, which remain unrebutted would stand establish beyond reasonable doubt about the recovery of room key of hotel Abhiram Palace (Room No.305) and the cash receipt issued by the Hotel Abhiram after collecting an advance of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, this evidence of P.W.20, which remain unrebutted would stand establish beyond reasonable doubt about the recovery of room key of hotel Abhiram Palace (Room No.305) and the cash receipt issued by the Hotel Abhiram after collecting an advance of Rs.1,000/-. Though, P.W.16 in his cross-examination stated that he cannot identify the signatures of M.O.47 to M.O.50, but the same, in our view, may not carry any weight, for the reason that, there cannot be any signatures on M.O.47 to M.O.50. It is nobody’s case that he has not identified his signature on the Panchanama prepared on recovery. 19. Be that as it may. The evidence of P.W.20, in our view, inspires confidence and is believable. More so, in the absence of cross-examination with regard to recovery of Ex.P.8 i.e., Abhiram Palace Hotel Receipt and M.O.49/Room Key of the hotel from the accused, which was on 14.01.2011 i.e., immediately thereafter. 20. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution would be the evidence of P.W.19, the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem Examination on the body of the deceased. He in his evidence speaks about issuing Ex.P.4, Post-Mortem Certificate. It is also to be noted here that the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem Examination and issued Certificate to that effect, was not at all cross-examined. A perusal of Ex.P.44 would show that the Post-Mortem Examination was conducted on 12.01.2011 between 2.10 p.m., and 3.10 p.m., and according to the Doctor, the approximate time of death of the deceased was 36 to 48 hours prior to Post-Mortem Examination. That being so, the death of the deceased i.e., the incident in question might have occurred after 3.10 p.m., on 10.01.2011, which correlates with the time when the accused and deceased were there together in the room on 10.01.2011. Therefore, having regard to the above the argument of Sri S.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel that there is no material on record to show that the accused was responsible for the incident in question, cannot be accepted. 21. Therefore, having regard to the above the argument of Sri S.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel that there is no material on record to show that the accused was responsible for the incident in question, cannot be accepted. 21. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.9, the auto-driver, who brought the accused and deceased to Abhiram Hotel on 10.01.2011 at 7.00 p.m. He was also cross-examined, but nothing material has been elicited to discredit his testimony, except where he admitted to a suggestion that he did not give descriptive particulars of the person whom he has to identify before the Magistrate. Apart from that, P.W.12, the tailor, who was running a shop in the name and style of ‘Tejaswi Ladies Tailor’ states that on 10.01.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., one male and female person came to his shop for stitching a Punjabi dress and asked to deliver material. As such, he stitched the said dress within hours and after taking the same they left the shop. He also identifies the accused as the person, who came along with the deceased to his shop on 10.01.2011, in Test Identification Parade conducted on 22.01.2011. He also identifies the clothes which he has stitched. Though, an answer came to be elicited in his cross-examination that he has not given descriptive particulars of the accused to the police, but the fact that the Test Identification Parade was conducted within a week after the incident, is sufficient for him to remember the identity of the person. 22. Coming to the conduct of the accused, the evidence on record shows that from 11.01.2011 morning onwards, the room was locked and his whereabouts were not known. If really he was innocent of the offence and was not aware as to what happened in the room after he left on 10.01.2011, his conduct would have been otherwise. He failed to explain the same during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. When the room key was found with him, the burden is case upon the accused to explain as to how he got in possession of room key without vacating the room and handing over the key at the reception of the hotel. His conduct, in our view assumes significance, more so, having regard to the recoveries made from his possession. His conduct, in our view assumes significance, more so, having regard to the recoveries made from his possession. For the aforesaid reasons, the guilt of the accused stands established beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above, it may not be necessary for us to go into the other aspect of the matter, viz., as to the admissibility or otherwise of the CC footage and the call data collected by the police. 23. Having regard to the above findings, we see no grounds to interfere with the impugned Judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is ‘Dismissed’ confirming the Judgment, dated 07.04.2016, passed in Sessions Case No.146 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.