JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Accused No.1 in S.C.No.188 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapuramu District is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He along with Accused Nos.2 and 3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, under the following charges: (i) First charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.1 and 2. (ii) The second charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 3. (iii) The third charge was under Section 404 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 3, alternatively under Section 379 IPC and the last charge was under Section 203 IPC against Accused No.1. 2. The substance of the charge is that on 28.08.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2 with common intention committed murder of one Ludgate Tone Berly Anne, an Australian citizen (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) in room No.304 of Sai Gowri apartment, Puttaparthi by throttling her and in the same process, Accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of cash of Rs.40,000/- and also gold jewellary i.e., M.O.s 1 to 4 and buried the dead body in the fields of Accused No.1 near Handri Neeva Channel, Thalamarla Village and in the same process, Accused No.1 gave a false information to PWs.1, 2, 9 and 10, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 404, 379 or 411 and 201 read with 34 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur convicted Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur further convicted Accused No.1 under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur further convicted A1 under Section 203 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur further convicted A1 under Section 203 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences imposed against Accused No.1 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur acquitted Accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the charges. Accused No.1 was acquitted for the charge under Section 404 or 379 IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution as emanated from the prosecution witnesses, is as follows: (i) All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Puttaparthi. Accused No.1 was working as a watchman at Sai Gowri apartments, Puttaparthi. PW.1 is the owner and PW.2 is the manager of Sai Gowri apartments, Puttaparthi. (ii) On 14.08.2014, PW.1 received a phone call from Accused No.1 stating that the deceased-a foreigner came to the apartments and was asking for a room. Then, PW.1 instructed the manager-PW.2 to look after the issue. Later, PW.2 came to the apartment on the instructions of PW.1 and on the request of the deceased, he allotted room No.304 to the deceased. The deceased gave an advance of Rs.10,000/- to the Accused No.1, who in turn gave the same to PW.2, who issued a receipt and allotted room No.304. The deceased took rest for two days in the said apartment. After two days, PW.2 asked the deceased about her arrival report. The deceased submitted copies of passport, visa and also signed on Form-C. PW.2 uploaded all these documents through internet and furnished one copy to the deceased by keeping one copy in the office. In the month of September, 2014, Accused No.1 informed PW.1 stating that the deceased, who was staying in room No.304 went on missing and she was not seen. Then, PW.1 along with Accused No.1 went to the police station and tried to inform the police, but, they were busy on some other work outside the police station. On 14.10.2014, Accused No.1 went to Puttaparthi Urban police station and gave written information-Ex.P15 about missing of the deceased. On the basis of Ex.P15, the Sub-Inspector of police-PW.9 registered a case in Crime No.114 of 2014 under the head of “woman missing”. The said F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P16. He issued copy of F.I.R. to all the concerned. On 14.10.2014, Accused No.1 went to Puttaparthi Urban police station and gave written information-Ex.P15 about missing of the deceased. On the basis of Ex.P15, the Sub-Inspector of police-PW.9 registered a case in Crime No.114 of 2014 under the head of “woman missing”. The said F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P16. He issued copy of F.I.R. to all the concerned. He examined Accused No.1 and PW.1. PW.9 tried to trace the missing lady, but in vain. (iii) While so, on 07.11.2014, at about 02.00 p.m., when PW.4, who was working as V.R.O. Chennekothapalli, was in his office, Accused Nos.1 to 3 approached him and made an extra-judicial confession stating that they killed the deceased. He drafted a report under Ex.P5. Immediately, PW.4 informed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Puttaparthi, who was examined as PW.9, about the confession of Accused Nos.1 to 3. PW.11 sent a Constable to secure two mediators. Accordingly, PW.3-V.R.O. Brahmanapalli came to PW.11. PW.9 along with his staff and mediators-P.W.3 and another, went to the office of PW.5- M.R.O., Kothacheruvu. He enquired with PW.4 about Ex.P5-confession, who admitted the contents of Ex.P5 are true and correct. Then, PW.11 separated all the accused and recorded their confession statements, who stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 killed the deceased by throttling her. Then, PW.11 altered the section of law from “woman missing” to Sections 302, 404, 201 read with 34 IPC and issued altered F.I.R.s to all the concerned, which is marked as Ex.P17. They also confessed stating that, they have taken away M.Os. 1 to 4-gold ornaments from the dead body of the deceased. On the confession made by Accused No.1, PW.11 along with mediators, went to the house of Accused No.1 and recovered M.O.s 1 to 4-gold ornaments of the deceased under the cover of a panchayanama. Accused No.1 further confessed stating that the dead body was buried in his fields situated at Thalamarla Village. On 08.11.2014, at 05.30 a.m., PW.11 recovered partly burnt articles of the deceased under Ex.P9-seizurenama. Thereafter, PW.11 requested PW.5-M.R.O. to exhume the body of the deceased. The exhumation proceedings were marked as Ex.P10. Accordingly, PW.11 along with mediators, PW.5 went to the fields of Accused No.1 and a skeleton was recovered. PW.11 got the scene photographed and videographed through C.W.1, which were marked as Ex.P21 and P22. The C.D. was marked as Ex.P20. PW.11 also prepared an observation report-Ex.P18. The exhumation proceedings were marked as Ex.P10. Accordingly, PW.11 along with mediators, PW.5 went to the fields of Accused No.1 and a skeleton was recovered. PW.11 got the scene photographed and videographed through C.W.1, which were marked as Ex.P21 and P22. The C.D. was marked as Ex.P20. PW.11 also prepared an observation report-Ex.P18. On 08.11.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., PW.11 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.3 under Ex.P8. PW.11 issued a requisition to PW.7-Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Hospital, Anantapuramu, to conduct autopsy over the dead body. In view of the extensive putrefaction of the dead body, he could not find any injuries. As the dead body was almost skeletonized, he could not give any opinion with regard to the cause of death. Final opinion issued by PW.7 is marked as Ex.P13. 5. On 03.12.2014, PW.11 sent the skull, jaw, femur bone and hair of the deceased along with her color photograph and also half burnt ATM card, half burnt digital camera, half burnt laptop, ash and control earth to F.S.L. The report issued by Forensic authorities was marked as Ex.P28. On 22.12.2014, PW.11 seized crime vehicle from CW.2, which is registered in the name of his sister-inlaw-CW.3. On 08.01.2015, PW.11 recovered M.O.5-mobile phone belonging to the deceased from one Rajesh. After completion of investigation and after collecting required documents, PW.12 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P28 and exhibited M.O.s 1 to 5. On behalf of the Court, CW.s 1 to 3 were examined as Court Witnesses. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. He further contends that the prosecution could not able to prove that the skeleton belonging to the deceased. He further contends that the prosecution ought not to have placed any reliance on the extra-judicial confession made before PW.4. He further contends that the prosecution could not able to prove that the skeleton belonging to the deceased. He further contends that the prosecution ought not to have placed any reliance on the extra-judicial confession made before PW.4. He further contends that the dead body allegedly recovered from the open place is accessible to one and all and as such no reliance can be placed on the alleged recovery. Therefore, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. 11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal, contending inter-alia that the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution clinchingly established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. All the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, pointing out the guilt towards the appellant and except the appellant none others. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 12. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. Admittedly, there are no direct witnesses in the present case. The prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant was working as a watchman in Sai Gowri apartment, where the deceased stayed at room No.304. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the extra-judicial confession made before PW.4-V.R.O. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of M.O.s 1 to 4-gold ornaments belonging to the deceased from the house of Accused No.1. The fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body in the fields of Accused No.1 at the instance of the accused. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the false information given by the accused No.1 to PWs.1, 2, 9 and 10. 13. Insofar as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 is the owner and PW.2 is the manager of Sai Gowri apartment. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly show that on 14.08.2014, Accused No.1 telephoned to PW.1 and informed him stating that a lady from Australia requested a room in the apartment. On the instructions of PW.1, PW.2- manager went to the apartments and received Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1, which was paid by the deceased and allotted Room No.304. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly show that on 14.08.2014, Accused No.1 telephoned to PW.1 and informed him stating that a lady from Australia requested a room in the apartment. On the instructions of PW.1, PW.2- manager went to the apartments and received Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1, which was paid by the deceased and allotted Room No.304. It is also the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that in the month of September, 2014, Accused No.1 informed them that the deceased was missing from room No.304. As such, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clinchingly establish that the deceased was staying in room No.304 of Sai Gowri apartment, where the appellant/Accused No.1 was working as a watchman. 14. Insofar as the second circumstance is concerned, the prosecution adduced the evidence of PW.4 to show that the accused made extra-judicial confession before him. PW.4 recorded the statement of accused under Ex.P5 and forwarded the same to the Investigating Officer-PW.11. PW.11 went to the office of PW.4 and recorded joint confessional statement of all the three accused. PW.4 was working as a V.R.O. of Chennekothapalli and on 07.11.2014, at about 02.00 p.m., all the three accused approached him and confessed before him stating that they killed the deceased. PW.4 has taken all precautions before recording Ex.P5. As such, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW.4 in the circumstances of the case. 15. Insofar as the third circumstance is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.3 and 11 to show that the recovery of M.O.s 1 to 4-gold ornaments from the house of Accused No.1. According to the prosecution, M.O.s 1 to 4-gold ornaments were recovered on the confession made by Accused No.1. The recovery proceedings were marked as Ex.P18. PW.3 in his evidence categorically stated that M.O.s 1 to 4-gold ornaments were recovered from the house of Accused No.1 at the instance of Accused No.1. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the third circumstance also. 16. Insofar as the fourth circumstance is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.5 and 11. On the confession made by the Accused No.1 before PW.11 stating that the dead body was buried in his fields at Thalamarla Village, he issued a requisition to PW.5-M.R.O. to exhume the dead body. Accordingly, PW.5 exhumed the dead body in the presence of PW.11 and mediators. On the confession made by the Accused No.1 before PW.11 stating that the dead body was buried in his fields at Thalamarla Village, he issued a requisition to PW.5-M.R.O. to exhume the dead body. Accordingly, PW.5 exhumed the dead body in the presence of PW.11 and mediators. Exhumation proceedings were marked as Ex.P10. On the confession made by Accused No.1, PW.11 also recovered half burnt laptop, camera, passport, visa and others in the presence of PW.6 and another under Ex.P9. As such, the prosecution is also able to prove the fourth circumstance. 17. Insofar as the last circumstance is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 9 and 10. PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that Accused No.1 informed them stating that the deceased was missing from Room No.304 in the month of September, 2014. Accused No.1 also gave false information to the police i.e., PW.9-Sub Inspector of police, on the basis of which Crime No.114 of 2014 was registered under the head of “woman missing”. PW.10-friend of the deceased, who is working as a manager in Western Canteen, who also hails from Australia enquired with Accused No.1, who in turn informed her stating that the deceased went to Banglore on 24.08.2014 on an emergency work. Though the accused killed the deceased, he gave a false information to PWs.1, 2, 9 and 10. Hence, the prosecution could able to prove the said circumstance also. 18. In this connection, it is trite that the Hon?ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 4 SCC 116 has laid down five (5) golden principles, which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence: “(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be followed, AND (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 19. In this case as mentioned supra, the prosecution has clinchingly established the chain of circumstances and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is sustainable in view of the evidence placed on record in the present case. 20. On the above analysis and having carefully examined the case in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court needs no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence, imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapuramu District, dated 19.09.2016, in S.C.No.188 of 2016. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused No.1 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.