JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. 1. As all the three (3) Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case i.e. S.C. No.229 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2016, Accused No. 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2016, Accused Nos. 4 to 7 filed Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2016 in the above Sessions Case. During pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2016, A5 died, as such the appeal against him is abated. 3. All the seven (7) accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges. 1) First charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 6. 2) Second charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against Accused No. 1. 3) Third Charge was framed under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos. 2 to 7. 4) Fourth Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. 5) Fifth Charge was framed under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos. 3 to 7. 6) Sixth Charge was framed under Section 120-B IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 7. 7) Seventh Charge was framed under Section 201 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 6. 8) Eighth Charge was framed under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against Accused No7. 4. During the course of evidence, the trial Court found that insufficient charges were framed against the accused. Hence, with the consent of prosecution as well as defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the following additional charges. 1) Ninth charge was framed under Section 148 read with 149 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 7 2) Tenth charge was framed under Section 411 IPC against Accused No. 1. 5. Substance of all the charges is that on 22.02.2010 at about 9.15 P.M., Accused Nos. 1) Ninth charge was framed under Section 148 read with 149 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 7 2) Tenth charge was framed under Section 411 IPC against Accused No. 1. 5. Substance of all the charges is that on 22.02.2010 at about 9.15 P.M., Accused Nos. 1 to 6 having conspired, intercepted one Vinnakoti Sitha Rama Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') abducted him in a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP 09 TV 2294, beat him indiscriminately and strangulated him to death and threw the dead body into shallow valley situated 15 Kilometers away from Maredumilli Village by removing the clothes of the deceased and set fire to his clothes for causing disappearance of the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 364, 302, 201 read with 34, 149 and 109 IPC. 6. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, further found Accused No. 1, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, further found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, further found Accused Nos. 1 to 7 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 120-B IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven (7) years for each offence and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five (5) months each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed all the substantive sentences imposed upon the Accused No. 1 to 3, who are found guilty, shall run concurrently. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however found Accused Nos. 4 to 7 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed all the substantive sentences imposed upon the Accused No. 1 to 3, who are found guilty, shall run concurrently. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however found Accused Nos. 4 to 7 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also found Accused No. 7 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC. Further, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found Accused Nos. 2 to 7 not guilty for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found Accused Nos. 1 to 7 not guilty for the offence under Section 148 r/w 149 IPC. 11. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in nutshell is as follows:- P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the wife and P.W.7 is the brother- in-law of the deceased respectively and they are residents of Rajahmundry. The deceased was a practicing lawyer at Rajahmundry. P.W.23 is the wife of A1. Accused No. 7 is the father of A1. Accused No. 1 is a resident of Hyderabad. Accused No. 1 and P.W.23 fell in love with each other and they got married against the wishes of their parents. The couple started living at Hyderabad and they were blessed with a male child. Subsequently disputes arose between the couple and on that P.W.23 initiated Criminal Prosecution against A1 and A7 Vide Crime No. 64 of 2010 of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry. Thereafter P.W.23 also filed O.P. against A1 seeking dissolution of marriage. The deceased being practicing advocate used to appear on behalf of P.W.23. A1 developed grouse against the deceased as he is responsible for the matrimonial disputes between him and P.W.23. A1 decided to eliminate the deceased. In that connection A1 sought help of his friends A2 to A6 and his father A7. On 22.2.2010, at about 9.15 P.M., when the deceased was going towards Prakash Nagar Park on his motorcycle, A1 to A4 came in a car bearing registration No.AP 09 TV 2294 followed by A5 and A6 in a motorcycle intercepted the deceased and abducted him. While going in the car, the accused administered chloroform to the deceased and A1 beat the deceased with an iron rod. While going in the car, the accused administered chloroform to the deceased and A1 beat the deceased with an iron rod. When the deceased was struggling for life, A1 put belt around the neck of the deceased and strangulated him with a banian, as a result the deceased died. Later all the accused took the dead body to a forest at Maredumilli and threw the dead body by removing his clothes into a shallow valley and then they burnt the clothes of the deceased. Thereafter all the accused left for Hyderabad. 12. As the deceased did not turn up to the house, his father (P.W.1) tried to contact him through mobile phone and it was found switched off. He searched for the deceased throughout night, but he could not trace him. On the next day, P.W.1 went to Prakash Nagar Police Station and there he came to know that the motorcycle of the deceased was handed over at police station by an unidentified person. On enquiry, P.W.1 came to know that some persons have abducted the deceased in a car. In view of the circumstance that A1 used to give threatening calls to the deceased, he gave report to the police expressing suspicion against A1. 13. P.W.26-the then Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station, Rajahmundry on receipt of Ex.P1 report from P.W.1, instructed G.Venkata Ramachandra Rao (L.W.33) the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar Police Station to register a case, who in turn registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 365 r/w 34 IPC. The said FIR is marked as Ex.P27. Later P.W.26- recorded statements of P.Ws 1 and 2 and went to the scene of offence, where from the deceased was abducted. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 to 7. He prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P28 at the scene. P.W.1 furnished the mobile numbers of A1, A7 and P.W.23. On 24.2.2010, P.W.23 appeared before P.W.26 and he received her call data. He also collected the call data of A1, A7 and the deceased. The same is marked as Exs.P29 and P30. 14. On 24.2.2010, P.W.27-the then Inspector of Police, CCS, Rajahmundry received a memo from the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, directing him to investigate and assist the investigating officer. He also collected the call data of A1, A7 and the deceased. The same is marked as Exs.P29 and P30. 14. On 24.2.2010, P.W.27-the then Inspector of Police, CCS, Rajahmundry received a memo from the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, directing him to investigate and assist the investigating officer. On 24.2.2010 evening P.W.27 along with his staff went to Hyderabad in a private vehicle and reached there in the early hours of 25.2.2010. On the same day, at about 10.00 P.M., he secured the presence of mediators (P.W.16 and another). At about 4.00 AM on the next day he apprehended A2 and A3, who said to have confessed about the offence. Immediately, P.W.27 informed P.W.26 about the arrest of A2 and A3. P.W.27 also informed P.W.26 that the accused voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and they would show the dead body of the deceased which was thrown at Maredumilli forest. P.W.27 informed P.W.26 that they are coming along with A2 and A3 to Maredumilli forest. P.W.26 informed P.W.27 that he too will come to Maredumilli forest. P.W.27 proceeded to Chinthuru at about 1.00 P.M. By that time, P.W.26 was also present along with P.W.1. A2 and A3 have shown the place where the dead body was thrown. The said place is situated in between Maredumilli and Chinthuru at milestone number 93/8. P.W.1 identified the dead body. P.W.26 prepared an observation report in the presence of mediators. Thereafter he altered FIR to Sections 148, 302, 201, 365, 120-B, 379 and 109 r/w 149 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P32. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.13. The photographs were marked as Ex.P7. CD of scene observation report is marked as Ex.P33. He also held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws 25 and 14. He recorded the statements of blood relatives i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7. 15. On requisition made by P.W.26, the Medical Officer, Rampachodavaram, who was examined as P.W.20, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He found the body in a decomposed state. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia and strangulation. He issued Post-mortem Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P19. A2 and A3 were remanded to judicial custody. On the instructions of Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, P.W.27 took up further investigation in this case from 01.3.2010. He found the body in a decomposed state. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia and strangulation. He issued Post-mortem Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P19. A2 and A3 were remanded to judicial custody. On the instructions of Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, P.W.27 took up further investigation in this case from 01.3.2010. In the course of investigation, he arrested A4 and A6 at Hyderabad and recorded their confessional statements. 16. On 05.3.2010, P.W.27 visited Uma Sankar Lodge, Rajahmundry and recorded the statement of P.W.9. On 18.3.2010 he also visited Chandralok Lodge and recorded statement of P.W.15 and seized the lodge registers, which are marked as Exs.P5, P6, P12 and P41. He also recorded the statement of P.W.12, who was working at then as Manager in GVR Infra Limited to show that the accused travelled in a car from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry. P.W.27 also seized the vehicle movement register under Ex.P42. On 10.3.2010, P.W.27 recovered gear lever rod used for hitting the deceased, at the instance of A2 and A3, in the presence of P.W.21 and another, which was marked as MO5 under Mediators' report- Ex.P21. On 11.3.2010, he received information that the accused No. 1 had surrendered in Prakashnagar Police Station. On the same day, at about 12.00 Noon, he arrested A1 in the presence of P.W.18 and another and recorded his confession statement. He seized MO3 wrist watch of the deceased from A1 under a Panchanama. On 19.3.2010, A5 also surrendered himself at about 12.30 P.M. P.W.27 arrested A5 in the presence of P.W.14 and another under a mediators' report. On the confession made by A1, he seized MO18- purse belonging to the deceased near the scene of offence under a panchanama. 17. P.W.28 who is the successor of P.W.27 took up further investigation. After receiving post-mortem report, FSL report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 18. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 28 and marked Exs.P1 to P46 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 18. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined except marking Exs.D1 to D17. 19. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 20. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 21. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined except marking Exs.D1 to D17. 19. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 20. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 21. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Posani Akash, learned counsel, appearing for A2 to A7/appellants herein, Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel appearing for A1/appellant herein and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent. 22. We have carefully analysed the entire evidence on record. 23. The prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence as there are no eye witnesses to the case. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are; 1) Motive 2) The accused coming to Rajahmundry in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP 09 TV 2294 3) Accused staying in lodge 4) Accused abducting the deceased while he was going to Prakashnagar police station. 5) Confession made by the accused leading to recovery of body of the deceased, wrist watch of the deceased and gear rod. 6) Identification of the dead body and medical evidence. 24. So far as motive is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 23. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 23, they stated that the deceased, who was an Advocate filed Vakalat on behalf of P.W.23, whereby the accused developed grudge against the deceased. It is admitted by all these witnesses in their evidence, when they were confronted with Ex.D1 - Certified Copy of Vakalat that one K. Jagadeesh Kumar was the counsel appearing for P.W.23 in O.P. No.4 of 2010 on the file of Family Court- cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. All these four (4) witnesses have specifically admitted that the deceased was not the counsel for P.W.23 and it is K. Jagadeesh Kumar who filed Vakalat on behalf of P.W.23. As such, it can be safely held that the deceased was not the counsel for P.W.23. Coming to the call details of A1 and the deceased, though the prosecution filed the said call details, they do not meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, it can be safely held that the deceased was not the counsel for P.W.23. Coming to the call details of A1 and the deceased, though the prosecution filed the said call details, they do not meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution is not able to prove the motive for A1 to kill the deceased. 25. Coming to the next circumstance, i.e. the accused visiting Rajahmundry in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP 09 TV 2294, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.12 who was working as Manager at Tollgate to show that the said vehicle passed through tollgate in between Khammam and Suryapet. The evidence of P.W.12 also did not disclose that all the accused travelled in the said car to Rajahmundry. It only shows that the said vehicle passed in between Khammam and Suryapet, which is not at all helpful to the prosecution. 26. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused stayed in different lodges. To prove that the accused stayed in different lodges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.9, 10 and 15. P.W.9 who was working as clerk in Uma Sankar Lodge, in cross- examination has specifically admitted that the register does not contain the date and time of departure, collection of amounts and that column for signatures is left blank. He also admits that no document in proof of identity of the customers of the lodge was attached in the register. He also specifically admitted that he cannot identify the customers who stayed in the said lodge. He also admitted that the customer register does not contain his signature. The evidence of P.Ws.9, 10 and 15 is not at all helpful to the prosecution as the registers do not contain the identity proofs and signatures of the accused and the managers. As such, the prosecution could not prove this circumstance also. 27. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.Ws 3 to 6, who are said to have witnessed the accused kidnapping the deceased in Tata Indica Car. But all these four (4) witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. As such, the prosecution failed to prove even this circumstance of kidnap of the deceased by the accused. 28. But all these four (4) witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. As such, the prosecution failed to prove even this circumstance of kidnap of the deceased by the accused. 28. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of dead body from the scene of offence at the instance of A2 and A3. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 13, 14 and 25. P.W.13 is a photographer who took photographs under Ex.P7. So far as the evidence of P.W.14 is concerned he is working as VRO, Rajahmundry, who acted as mediator for recovery of dead body. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 14 and 25, at the instance of A2 and A3 who were arrested on 26.2.2010 at Hyderabad, the dead body was recovered on the very same day. In so far as A1 is concerned, according to the prosecution he has surrendered on 11.3.2010. As per the medical evidence, the dead body was in highly decomposed condition. Though the dead body was recovered at the instance of A2 and A3 the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A3 under Section 302 IPC. As per the version of the prosecution, A2 and A3 stands on the same footing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge having given the benefit of doubt to A3, the same ought to have been extended to A2 also. So far as A1 is concerned, the so called confession made by A2 and A3 cannot be used against A1 in convicting him under Section 302 IPC. As such, A1 and A2 are also entitled for benefit of doubt so far as recovery of dead body is concerned. So far as the recovery of wrist watch (MO3) belonging to the deceased from the accused, the same also cannot be taken into consideration. P.W.7- who is brother-in-law of the deceased, in his evidence, categorically stated that he identified the dead body with the help of wrist watch on the hand of the deceased. If it is so, the factum of seizing of wrist watch from A1 is falsified. P.W.27 the Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence that he has not taken any steps to get DNA test of P.W.1 and other family members of the deceased to tally the dead body belonging to the deceased. If it is so, the factum of seizing of wrist watch from A1 is falsified. P.W.27 the Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence that he has not taken any steps to get DNA test of P.W.1 and other family members of the deceased to tally the dead body belonging to the deceased. As such, having scrutinised the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution is not able to prove single circumstance to connect the accused with the alleged offences. As already pointed out, it is not the deceased and it is one K. Jagadeesh Kumar, who is appearing for P.W.23 in O.P. No.4 of 2010 on the file of Family Court cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram. 29. 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. (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." 30. In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to prove the motive of A1 to kill the deceased, as it is specifically elicited in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that one K. Jagadeesh Kumar, Advocate was the counsel for P.W.23 but not the deceased. The prosecution further failed to establish the abduction of the deceased by all the accused since all the four witnesses (P.Ws 3 to 6), examined to speak about the said kidnap, have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution further failed to establish the abduction of the deceased by all the accused since all the four witnesses (P.Ws 3 to 6), examined to speak about the said kidnap, have not supported the prosecution case. Similarly the prosecution is not able to prove the factum of recovery of wrist watch of the deceased from the possession of A1. Because P.W.7 who is brother-in-law of the deceased in his evidence clearly stated that he identified the dead body of the deceased with the help of the said wrist watch found to the hand of the dead body. Similarly the prosecution also failed to establish the factum of the accused travelling from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry and also their stay in different lodges at Rajahmundry. 31. Having analysed the above evidence carefully, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not able to prove the chain of circumstances pointing out 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. 32. All the above facts and circumstances indicate that the prosecution failed in proving the guilt of the accused/appellants herein beyond reasonable doubt, as such they are entitled to be acquitted. 33. In the result, all the above three (3) Criminal Appeals are allowed by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram in S.C. No.229 of 2011, dated 19.08.2016. Accordingly accused/appellants herein are acquitted. During pendency of the Criminal Appeal A5 died, hence the case against him stands abated. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/Accused shall be refunded to them. As the Accused No. 1 and 2 /appellants herein were already enlarged on bail, they are directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram for completing the legal formalities in terms of the judgment rendered by the combined High Court in 'Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P. 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP). Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.