JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru is the appellant. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. for committing murder of one Kasigari Durga Bhavani (hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”) by stabbing him over right side of her neck with an electrical tester and strangulating her with her chunni till her death and thereafter, committed theft of rold gold chain with two gold mangala sutrams and a hand bag containing two cell phones. 2. Vide judgment, dated 21.08.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 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 one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts in issue are as under: PW-5 is the husband of the deceased while PW-6 is the mother of the deceased. PW-7 is the sister of the deceased. The accused is a resident of Velagapalli Village of Ganapavaram Mandal. PW-6, who is a widow, was running a kirana shop. She along with the deceased used to attend religious meetings at Guntur, as they got converted to Christianity and took Baptism during which period, the deceased developed acquaintance with the accused, who also used to attend religious meetings at Guntur. The accused was also talking with the deceased on phone. It is said that the deceased studied I Year Intermediate by staying in the house of the accused at Ganapavaram. It is said that while the deceased was studying I Year Intermediate by staying in the house of the accused, the accused took away one pair of gold ear studs and one pair of silver anklets from the deceased. When the same was informed to PW-6, she called the accused over phone and questioned him as to why he took the gold ornaments. When the same was informed to PW-6, she called the accused over phone and questioned him as to why he took the gold ornaments. The accused stated that he was in financial trouble and he would return back the same after getting them released from pledge. The material on record show that the accused along with his mother requested PW-8 rickshaw puller went to the shop of PW-13 pawn broker to recommend pledging of gold ear studs and one pair of silver anklets as he was in need of money. It is said that PW-8 along with the accused and his mother had gone to the shop of PW-13 where they pledged the gold and silver items. This was sometime in the year 2008. The evidence on record also shows that the accused was in touch with the deceased and was talking to her on telephone and on one day, came to the house of PW-6 and informed PW-6 that he would like to marry her daughter for which, PW-6 and her daughter refused because both of them belong to different castes. Later on, PW-6 performed the marriage of the deceased with PW-5. About three months after the marriage of the deceased, PW-5 dropped the deceased at the house of PW-6 on the eve of Atlathaddi. The deceased stayed in the house of PW-6 for about 15 days. On the date of incident, which was on 26.11.2012, the accused called the deceased on phone and requested her to come to Tanuku for taking back the gold and silver ornaments, which were taken by him while she was studying I Year Intermediate. Accordingly, at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased left the house to Tanuku but however, she did not return home on that night and on the next day morning, PW-5 enquired PW-6 about the whereabouts of the deceased. It is said that PW-7, who is the daughter of PW-6, was also informed about the deceased not returning home from Tanuku. On the evening of 27.11.2012, PW-5 and other relatives came to the house of PW-6 to enquire about the whereabouts of the deceased. On 27.11.2012, at about 8.30 or 8.45 a.m. while PW-1 V.R.O. was present in the house, he received a phone call from PW-3 informing about a dead body lying on the agricultural path way near his fields. On the evening of 27.11.2012, PW-5 and other relatives came to the house of PW-6 to enquire about the whereabouts of the deceased. On 27.11.2012, at about 8.30 or 8.45 a.m. while PW-1 V.R.O. was present in the house, he received a phone call from PW-3 informing about a dead body lying on the agricultural path way near his fields. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence and noticed a female dead body with half saree (chunni) tied around her neck. She was wearing punjabi dress, which was in mustard colour with white flowers. He presented a report at Ananthapalli Police Station at 10.20 a.m. before PW-20 Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapalli Police Station, who registered a case in Crime No. 162 of 2012 of Ananthapalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Basing on the said report, he issued express F.I.R. to all the concerned and informed about the registering of F.I.R. to the higher authorities over phone. Ex.P-13 is the original F.I.R. Further investigation in this case was taken up by PW-21 Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Circle, who on receipt of phone call from PW-20, proceeded towards Ananthapalli Police Station, received a copy of the F.I.R. and then, sent a requisition to PW-16 for holding inquest over the dead body. PW-16 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW-21 on 27.11.2012 between 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. Ex.P-3 is the Inquest Report. PW-21 visited the scene of offence and in the presence of PW-15, prepared an observation report of the scene. Ex.P-2 is the Scene Observation Report. At the scene, he seized M.Os.1 and 2, which are mustard coloured chunni and mustard coloured punjabi dress owned by the deceased. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P-14. Ex.P-5 is the photographs of the scene of offence. On the same day, PW-21 got published in all newspapers the photographs of the deceased for identification of the dead body. Intimation about the publication was furnished by PW-7 to PW-6, who on receipt of the said information, proceeded to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem where the Circle Inspector of Police showed the dead body. The family members identified the body as that of the deceased. The dress owned by the deceased was also identified. Intimation about the publication was furnished by PW-7 to PW-6, who on receipt of the said information, proceeded to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem where the Circle Inspector of Police showed the dead body. The family members identified the body as that of the deceased. The dress owned by the deceased was also identified. It is said that the rold gold chain with gold mangala sutrams on the neck of the deceased was found missing. M.Os.1 and 2 are the articles identified by PW-6 as that of the deceased. PW-21 examined PWs. 5 and 6 at the hospital and recorded their statements. Basing on the said statements, they suspected the accused as assailant in this case. On 07.12.2012, on credible information, PW-21 along with his staff and PW-18 went to the house of the accused situated at Velagapalli Village. On hearing the sound of the jeep, the accused tried to escape but however, the staff of the Police Department apprehended him and on interrogation, he disclosed his name as “Tadepalli Pandurangadu @ Pandu.” On his arrest, a confessional statement was recorded, which was reduced into writing. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, M.Os.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were recovered at the instance of the accused. The accused is said to have informed that he has pledged M.Os.3 and 4 with PW-13 and that he would show if they follow him. Ex.P-9 is the relevant portion of the confessional statement of the accused. Pursuant to the confession made, the accused lead the police party to the shop of PW-13 from where M.Os.3 and 4 were said to have been recovered, in the presence of PW-18 and another. Ex.P-10 is the mediators’ report for seizure of M.Os.3 and 4. From there, the accused lead them to the scene of offence where the police reconstructed the scene of offence and drafted a report there itself under Ex.P-11. Basing on the statement made by the accused, the section of law was altered from Section 302 I.P.C. to Sections 364, 379 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-15 is the alteration memo. The Investigating Officer claims to have examined PW-9 on 09.12.2012. On 18.12.2012, he sent a requisition to PW-19 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for holding test identification parade and accordingly, test identification parade was held on 29.12.2012. The Investigating Officer claims to have examined PW-9 on 09.12.2012. On 18.12.2012, he sent a requisition to PW-19 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for holding test identification parade and accordingly, test identification parade was held on 29.12.2012. After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 72 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. 4. 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 Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 5. 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. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 22, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.Os.1 to 9. 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, none were examined. However, Exs.D-1 to D-3 were got marked. 7. Relying upon the circumstances i.e. motive, deceased being last seen in the company of the accused, discovery of articles of the deceased from the accused pursuant to the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 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. 8. Ms. Ammaji Mettam, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, mainly submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. According to her, 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. According to her, 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 the absence of any material to show that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved, do not establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, learned counsel would contend that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 9. On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that though it is a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has proved motive, last seen and recovery of articles of the deceased at the instance of the accused. In view of the above, it is pleaded that the judgment impugned warrants no interference of this Court. 10. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?” 11. 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 vs. State of Orissa, 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. 12. 12. 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 and which is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has mainly relied upon four circumstances namely (1) motive for the accused to commit the offence (2) the deceased being last seen in the company of accused and (3) confession made by the accused leading to recovery of articles belonging to the accused. 13. MOTIVE: Insofar as the motive aspect is concerned, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of PWs. 6 and 7. PW-6 is the mother of the deceased while PW-7 is the sister of the deceased. In their evidence, PW-6 deposed that while they were attending religious meetings at Guntur after conversion to Baptism, the accused and deceased developed acquaintance with each other. As such, the deceased studied her I Year Intermediate by staying in the house of the accused. While studying her I Year Intermediate, the accused is said to have taken gold ear studs and silver anklets and when the same was informed to PW-6, she enquired from the accused as to why he had taken those articles. The accused is said to have replied that as he was in financial trouble, he pledged the said articles. These two articles are marked as M.Os.3 and 4. To a proposal of marriage by the accused with the deceased, PW-6 and deceased refused for the same and accordingly, the marriage of the deceased was performed with PW-5. 14. Similar is the evidence of PW-7. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that these articles were taken by the accused about four to five years prior to the incident. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that these two articles - M.Os.3 and 4 were pledged with PW-13 with the assistance of PW-8. PW-13, in his evidence, states that about seven years prior to giving evidence, which would be in the year 2007, the accused along with one aged female person came to him and asked about pledging of gold and silver items for which, they have to be identified by a known person. PW-13, in his evidence, states that about seven years prior to giving evidence, which would be in the year 2007, the accused along with one aged female person came to him and asked about pledging of gold and silver items for which, they have to be identified by a known person. Then, they brought PW-8, who identified them, and asked PW-13 to give money to them and accordingly, by pledging the gold articles, PW-13 gave some money to the accused. In the month of November or December, 2012, the Inspector of Police went to the shop of PW-13 and enquired whether the accused had pledged any gold and silver articles for which, he replied that the accused pledged one pair of gold ear studs and one pair of silver anklets. He handed over the same to the police. In the cross examination, the witness categorically admits that it is the mother of the accused who pledged and not the accused. He also admits that he had handed over the receipt, which contains thumb impression of the mother of the accused, to the police. He also admits that he had not obtained the signature of PW-8, who introduced the accused and his mother to him. He further admits that he had not taken any receipt pertaining to M.Os.3 and 4 from the mother of the accused to know the place of purchase. He further admits that he has not stated before the police as to when the accused and his mother approached him and pledged gold and silver articles. Further, he admits that he did not state before the police that the mother of the accused pledged M.Os.3 and 4 with him. However, to a suggestion that M.Os.3 and 4 are planted only to help the prosecution was denied by him. He also admits that he did not hand over the ledgers maintained by him with regard to payment of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 500/- to accused and his mother. This evidence of PW-13 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-21. Therefore, the motive, as sought for, by the prosecution, in our view, is too remote to the incident in question, more so, when no report was given regarding the accused forcibly taking the ornaments of the deceased and pledging the same or holding a mediation in the presence of elders for return of those articles. Therefore, the motive, as sought for, by the prosecution, in our view, is too remote to the incident in question, more so, when no report was given regarding the accused forcibly taking the ornaments of the deceased and pledging the same or holding a mediation in the presence of elders for return of those articles. Things would have been different had there was any effort made during the last four or five years by PW-6 or by the deceased to secure the ornaments alleged to have been taken by the accused. Apart from that, the evidence of PW-13 is also consistent as to the pledging of gold ornaments namely as to whether it was by the accused or by his mother and no documentary evidence is made available to the Court to believe the involvement of the accused in pledging the articles, as the receipt contains the thumb impression of the mother of the accused. Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation that the motive, as suggested by the prosecution, holds no water. Further, it is well established principle of law that in a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role which the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the same was not done in the instant case. 16. LAST SEEN: The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased. PWs. 2 and 9 were examined to prove the same. PW-2 is none other than the resident of Marellamudi Village of Nallajarla Mandal doing business in pesticides. According to him, on 26.11.2012, at about 7.00 p.m. when he was in his pesticides shop, he noticed one female and one male person, who were altogether new to his village, proceeding towards Quarry Gopalapuram. The male person was lean and tall in height, while the female was stout and short in height. On the next day morning hours at 9.00 a.m. he heard from the villagers that a body of a female was lying at agricultural pathway towards Quarry Gopalapuram. He rushed to the scene of offence and identified the female as the lady whom he saw on the previous day night. On the next day morning hours at 9.00 a.m. he heard from the villagers that a body of a female was lying at agricultural pathway towards Quarry Gopalapuram. He rushed to the scene of offence and identified the female as the lady whom he saw on the previous day night. This evidence of PW-2 is sought to be questioned mainly on the ground that it is highly impossible for PW-2 to identify the strangers whom he had seen for a fraction of second, while passing in front of his shop, that too, in night time. 17. In order to prove the same, learned counsel took us through the cross examination of PW-2 wherein he admits that on 26.11.2012, there was rain and it was cloudy. He deposed that normally, in the winter season, it would become dark by 5.30 p.m. It was further stated that the distance between his pesticide shop and the road which is in front of his shop is 4 or 5 meters. He further admits that it was totally dark at 7.00 p.m. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion, which reads as under: “It is true the day on 26.11.2012 is a winter season. On the previous day there was rain and on 26.11.2012 it was cloudy. It is true that normally in the winter season, it will become dark by 5-30 p.m. The distance between my pesticide shop and the road in front of my shop, is 4 or 5 metres. It is not true to suggest that our residence is abutting to my shop. My shop is having only one shutter measuring 9 feet width..... It is not true to suggest that the accused is in black in complexion. It is true that there was darkness at 7-00 p.m......” 18. However, to a suggestion that he had not seen the accused and the deceased passing in front of his shop was denied by him. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that he was a chance witness and admittedly, both of them were strangers to him and further, it was dark by 7.00 p.m. as it was winter and raining. From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that he was a chance witness and admittedly, both of them were strangers to him and further, it was dark by 7.00 p.m. as it was winter and raining. That being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-2 could not have identified the physical features and could not have identified the accused in the test identification parade, which was conducted nearly a month later, cannot be brushed aside. 19. This evidence of PW-2 is also to be tested from the answers elicited in the cross examination of PW-21, who admits that the descriptive particulars of the accused were not stated by PW-2 and that he had not drawn the sketch of the shop of PW-2, more particularly, the width and length of passage, as spoken to by PW-2 in Ex.P-14. He also admits that PW-2 did not state before him about the two broken pieces of chain, one pair of chappals, poosala haram and sweet packet being present at the scene of offence apart from neem tree, palmyrah trees and banian tree at the scene of offence. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is any amount of doubt whether PW-2 had seen and if he had seen, whether he could have identified in the test identification parade held nearly a month after the incident, more so, the descriptive particulars of the accused being not mentioned at any point of time, cannot be brushed aside. 20. Coming to the evidence of PW-9, he is an auto driver by profession. According to him, on 26.11.2012, in between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. he took one family in his auto from Nallajerla to Jagannadhapuram. He asked them to get down at Jagannadhapuram Village Centre but they requested him to drop them at the end of the colony for which, he asked to pay Rs. 40/- towards fare of the auto but they agreed to pay Rs. 20/- for which, he agreed as the male person requested him that there was a female person. Accordingly, PW-9 dropped both of them in the outskirts of the colony. He claims to have identified both the persons who travelled in his auto on that day. Thereafter, on the next day, he came to know that the female person who travelled in his auto was killed. Accordingly, PW-9 dropped both of them in the outskirts of the colony. He claims to have identified both the persons who travelled in his auto on that day. Thereafter, on the next day, he came to know that the female person who travelled in his auto was killed. He rushed to the scene of offence and identified the female person as the one who travelled on the previous day in his auto between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. He also claims to have identified the accused in the test identification parade conducted by the Magistrate. In the cross examination, he admits that the person travelling in his auto did not discuss anything with each other and he did not ask their address as well. He further submits that on 27.11.2012 morning, police questioned the auto drivers by showing the photographs of the deceased as to whether any of them can identify the dead body of such female person. To a suggestion that he had stated before the police that he was at Nallajerla Centre on 26.11.2012 at 8 p.m. was denied by him. From the evidence of this witness, the prosecution tried to establish that the deceased was in the company of the accused on the evening of 26.11.2012 and that on the next day morning, he was examined by the police as to whether they have seen the deceased on the previous day. 21. In order to test the veracity or otherwise of the evidence of PW-9, we feel that it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW-21. In the chief evidence itself, he states that on 09.12.2012, he secured the presence of PW-9, examined him at Ananthapalli Police Station and recorded his statement. When he asked as to whether he can identify the accused, PW-9 stated that he can identify him and accordingly, he identified the accused. It would be appropriate to extract the same, which reads as under: “.......On 9.12.2012, I secured the presence of PW-9, examined him at Ananthapalli Police Station and recorded his statement. When I asked PW-9 whether he can identify the accused, then he stated that he can identify him.....” 22. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it stands established that PW-9 was examined on 09.12.2012, while the evidence of PW-9 shows as if he was examined on 27.11.2012 itself by the police. When I asked PW-9 whether he can identify the accused, then he stated that he can identify him.....” 22. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it stands established that PW-9 was examined on 09.12.2012, while the evidence of PW-9 shows as if he was examined on 27.11.2012 itself by the police. This contradiction, in our view, goes to the root of the matter doubting the version of PW-9. Apart from that, in the cross examination, PW-21 admits that PW-9 did not state before him that on 26.11.2012, one family came to him and asked for an auto in between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. It would be appropriate to refer to the same, which reads as under: “.......It is true PW-9 did not state before me that on 26.11.2012 one family came to him and asked for auto in between 6-30 to 7-00 P.M. It is true PW-9 stated as in Ex.D.3.....” 23. Further, PW-9 also stated to him as in Ex.D-3 namely that he was at Nallajerla Centre with his auto on 26.11.2012 night at about 8.00 p.m. PW-21 also admits in his cross examination that PW-9 did not state the physical features of the accused when he was examined by him. However, to a suggestion that he had examined PW-9 was denied by him. Therefore, this evidence of the Investigating Officer would show that PW-9 failed to mention in his earlier statement about his family hiring his auto on 26.11.2012 between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. That being so, a doubt arises as to whether really he is speaking the truth in the Court, more particularly, with regard to identification of the accused in the test identification parade conducted by PW-19. 24. Further, it is well established principle of law that to establish the guilt of the accused basing on the last seen theory, the proximity between the accused and the deceased being last seen together and the time when the dead body was found should be so proximate, which would exclude any other hypothesis. Even assuming that the accused and the deceased were seen together on the evening by 7.00 p.m. on 26.11.2012, but the body itself was traced for nearly 24 hours thereafter. As the other circumstances by the prosecution are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, this circumstance of last seen, by itself, cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. 25. As the other circumstances by the prosecution are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, this circumstance of last seen, by itself, cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. 25. RECOVERY: The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased from the shop of PW-13. It is no doubt true that pursuant to the confession made by the accused, the police party along with the accused went to the shop of PW-13 from where M.Os.3 and 4 were recovered but strangely, those two articles were not identified by any of the witnesses as belonging to the deceased. Apart from that, the other articles which were seized from the house of the accused after his arrest namely M.O.5 - one pair of gold mangala sutrams and M.O.6 - piece of rold gold chain with eight black beads and one red bead with yellow thread were also not identified as that of the deceased. Further, the evidence of the Investigating Officer also shows that PW-13 did not state before him that the accused came and pledged gold and silver articles and that he gave Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 500/- to the accused by keeping gold and silver articles. The relevant portion reads as under: “.......It is true PW-13 did not state before me that the accused came and pledged gold and silver articles with him. It is true PW-13 did not state before me that he gave Rs. 3,000/- and again Rs. 500/- to the accused by keeping gold and silver articles.....” 26. It is also to be noted that none of the family members either PW-6 or PW-7 were made to identify these articles even in the Court. Only the dress of the deceased, which was seized from the scene of offence and marked as M.Os.1 and 2, was identified by PW-6. Mere recovery of the ornaments pursuant to confession made will not, in our view, connect the accused or for that matter involve the accused in the crime. Therefore, the last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution namely recovery of articles of the deceased at the instance of the accused, in our view, is not proved. 27. Mere recovery of the ornaments pursuant to confession made will not, in our view, connect the accused or for that matter involve the accused in the crime. Therefore, the last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution namely recovery of articles of the deceased at the instance of the accused, in our view, is not proved. 27. Having regard to the above, the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them so as to connect the accused with the crime and as such, the judgment of the trial Court impugned herein is liable to be set aside. 28. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru vide judgment, dated 21.08.2015, in Sessions Case No. 132 of 2014 against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. are set aside. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. M.Os.3 to 5 shall be returned to PW-6 as per law. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 30. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.