JUDGMENT : P. SAM KOSHY, J. 1. The instant is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 28.04.2016 in Sessions Case No. 245 of 2015 passed by the Judge, XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Mr. Mettu Govardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court had found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and upon convicting the appellant, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) months. 4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, is that on 29.01.2014 at 00:30 hours, PW-1 (R. Anil Kumar) who is father of the Master R. Yashraj Kumar (hereinafter, the ‘deceased’) lodged a initial complaint at Mangalhat Police Station, Hyderabad, contending that the deceased was missing since 28.01.2014 who went out from the house for playing and did not return to home. He provided a detailed description of his son, including his height, facial features and the clothes he was wearing (school uniform with a check shirt and blue Necker). PW-1 mentioned that he along with his relatives had searched for the deceased at all possible places but could not find him. Later, on 29.01.2014 at 08:00 hours, PW-1 submitted an additional complaint stating that his neighbors had informed him that on 28.01.2014, at about 18:00 hours, the appellant who was the distant relative of PW-1 had forcibly taken away the deceased while he was playing in front of his house. The appellant then took the deceased to Peeram Cheru Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, where the appellant brutally murdered him by strangling with an electrical wire and smashing the deceased head with a stone. To conceal the crime, the appellant attempted to disfigure the body using petrol. The motive for the crime was twofold: (i) to take revenge on the deceased’s mother for insulting the appellant and (ii) to extort ransom money from the deceased’s parents. 5. To conceal the crime, the appellant attempted to disfigure the body using petrol. The motive for the crime was twofold: (i) to take revenge on the deceased’s mother for insulting the appellant and (ii) to extort ransom money from the deceased’s parents. 5. As per prosecution, after thorough investigation by the police authorities it was revealed that the appellant kidnapped the deceased from outside his home while playing and the appellant also had a history of financial troubles, having defaulted on motorcycle loan repayments and addicted to toddy. The appellant had previous conflicts with deceased’s family particularly the deceased’s mother (LW-2) who had insulted him. The appellant meticulously planned the crime by luring the deceased with chocolates and separating him from another child and he then took the deceased on a journey by purchasing items for the murder including electrical wire, petrol and a matchbox. The appellant even stopped at a chat bhandar and toddy compound during this time, showing a chilling level of calculation. Eventually, the appellant took the boy to an isolated area in Peeram Cheru Village, and strangulated the deceased with the electrical wire and smashed his head with a stone. In an attempt to conceal the crime and prevent identification, he tried to burn the body using petrol. The next morning body was discovered by a passer-by PW-10 (Naveen Kumar) during his morning walk. This led to the initial registration of the case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC at Narsingi Police Station. Subsequently, after post-mortem examination it was held that the cause of death of the deceased as “Ligature Strangulation associated with Head Injury.” 6. The police authorities registered the complaint as Cr. No. 27 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant was apprehended on 05.02.2014 and during interrogation he confessed the crime. This case was originally registered in Narsingi Police Station, which later on was transferred to Mangalhat Police Station due to jurisdictional considerations as both the deceased and the appellant were residents of Mangalhat area. Based upon the said confessional statement and the recovery so made, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Sessions Court i.e. the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad where the case was registered as S.C. No. 245 of 2015. 7. Based upon the said confessional statement and the recovery so made, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Sessions Court i.e. the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad where the case was registered as S.C. No. 245 of 2015. 7. In all, the prosecution examined eighteen (18) witnesses, marked twelve (12) exhibits and also marked twelve (12) Material Objects (MOs). In defence, three (03) witnesses were examined, but no document was marked in defence. Later on examination of the appellant was done under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and finally the impugned judgment was passed convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) months. 8. To begin with, the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended that the prosecution's case was built primarily on circumstantial evidence with no direct eyewitness testimony of the actual crime. He emphasized that none of the witnesses had seen the appellant committing the act of murder, which significantly weakened the prosecution's case. He further meticulously pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, such as discrepancies in the reporting time of the incident and conflicting accounts of the appellant’s whereabouts which cast serious doubt on the reliability and credibility of the witness accounts. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that there was no apparent investigation conducted during the critical first three days following the filing of the complaint. It is also argued that the investigation only commenced after the discovery of the deceased's body, raising questions about the thoroughness and timeliness of the police work. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that this delayed start to the investigation could have led to the loss of crucial evidence and potentially skewed the direction of the inquiry. Furthermore, it is suggested that the investigating officers may have hastily gathered suspects based on information from the de-facto complainant rather than conducting a comprehensive and unbiased investigation from the outset. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the prosecution's case on the grounds of insufficient motive and lack of concrete evidence. He argued that there is no specific evidence demonstrating any animosity or “grudge” held by the appellant against the deceased's family. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the prosecution's case on the grounds of insufficient motive and lack of concrete evidence. He argued that there is no specific evidence demonstrating any animosity or “grudge” held by the appellant against the deceased's family. The absence of a clear motive according to the appellant weakens the prosecution's case significantly. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is no proper explanation provided for why enmity would have developed between the two families asserting that there was no pre-existing conflict that would necessitate or provide a reason for the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew attention of this Court to the limited nature of the evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Apart from CCTV footage from a petrol bunk, it is argued that there is no substantial evidence proving that the appellant took the deceased to his house. The learned counsel for the appellant also questioned as to why the deceased's family suspected the appellant and they did not search his house during the three-day period before the body was discovered. This lack of action by the deceased's family is presented as inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative and further undermines the case against the appellant. 11. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the appellant from all the charged leveled against him. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor heavily relied on the “last seen together” theory, which was supported by a robust chain of circumstantial evidence and multiple witnesses who have seen the appellant with the deceased child on the day of the incident. PW-2 saw the appellant and the deceased going together on a motorcycle towards Puranapul. PW-3, a child witness, gave a crucial account of how the appellant approached them while playing, gave them chocolates and then took the deceased away. This testimony was particularly significant as it directly linked the appellant to the act of taking away the child. Following this, a series of witnesses (PWs. 4 to 9) testified seeing the appellant with a young boy matching the deceased's description at various locations including an electronic shop, petrol pump, grocery store, pan shop, toddy shop and the chat bhandar. This testimony was particularly significant as it directly linked the appellant to the act of taking away the child. Following this, a series of witnesses (PWs. 4 to 9) testified seeing the appellant with a young boy matching the deceased's description at various locations including an electronic shop, petrol pump, grocery store, pan shop, toddy shop and the chat bhandar. These testimonies collectively established a clear timeline and path of the appellant’s movements with the child strengthening the prosecution's case by demonstrating the appellant’s continuous association with the deceased leading up to the crime. 13. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the appellant’s failure to provide a credible explanation for his whereabouts and actions during the critical time period significantly bolstered their case. When presented with such strong circumstantial evidence the burden of explanation shifted on the appellant. However, the alibi presented by the defense witnesses (DWs. 1 to 3) was found to be lacking in credibility and unsupported by any documentary evidence. DW-1 and DW-2 claimed that the appellant was working with them on the day of the incident but they could not provide any concrete proof of this claim such as work records or the name of the customer for whom they were allegedly working. The appellant himself (DW-3) provided an explanation that contradicted the testimony of DW-1 regarding the purpose of asking for money. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that this inconsistency in the defense's narrative coupled with the lack of supporting evidence further weakened the appellant’s case. He further argued that if the appellant was indeed innocent and had a genuine alibi, he should have been able to provide a more convincing and well-supported explanation for his whereabouts. 14. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the aforesaid reasons prayed for dismissal of the impugned judgment. 15. After thorough and meticulous consideration of the evidence presented put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture, to take note of the statements of PW-1 to PW-9 to determine that there is a sufficient evidence to convict the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 16. According to the testimony of PW-1, the father of the deceased, reported his son missing and later identified the body. PW-2 (Suresh Singh) saw the appellant and the deceased together on a motorcycle on the day of the incident. 16. According to the testimony of PW-1, the father of the deceased, reported his son missing and later identified the body. PW-2 (Suresh Singh) saw the appellant and the deceased together on a motorcycle on the day of the incident. Further, PW-3 (Kamalsetty Rahul, a child witness) provided a crucial testimony about the appellant’s interaction with the deceased and also stated that on 28.01.2014 the appellant approached them while playing, gave them chocolates and then took the deceased away. PW-3's statement remained consistent during the cross-examination, providing a strong foundation for the prosecution's case by directly linking the appellant to the act of taking the child. 17. This Court observed that the testimony of PW-4 (B. Sreenu) is the witness working in Raj Electronics at Puranapul. According to his evidence on 28.01.2014 the appellant came to his shop along with a boy aged about 4 years at about 6.00 P.M. and purchased a wire. Later, the police brought the appellant and asked him whether he can identify the appellant on which PW-4 informed the police that the appellant came and purchased a wire. 18. According to the testimony of PW-5 (Mohd. Jilani) an employee at Jayasree Enterprises Bharat Petrol Pump, witnessed the appellant purchasing petrol in a bottle while accompanied by a young child. The witness later identified the appellant during a police investigation. During cross-examination PW-5 revealed that while he possessed an identity card verified by the police, he did not provide it to them. He also stated that the petrol pump does not issue receipts for small purchases but maintains a register and he was unaware of the petrol pump's registration number. 19. Similarly, PW-6 (Veer Kumar) an employee at Bharat Traders Kirana Shop on Ring Road testified that the appellant visited the shop with a young boy approximately 4-5 years old and purchased a packet of chips. The police later brought the appellant to the shop for identification which PW-6 confirmed. During the cross-examination, questions about PW-6's identity and the lack of a receipt for the purchase were raised. PW-6 explained that while they don't maintain a formal register for individual purchases but they do keep a record of items bought at the shop. 20. According to PW-7 (Mohd. Mujahid) and PW-8 (K. Narsimha Goud) were witnesses who encountered the appellant on separate occasions. PW-6 explained that while they don't maintain a formal register for individual purchases but they do keep a record of items bought at the shop. 20. According to PW-7 (Mohd. Mujahid) and PW-8 (K. Narsimha Goud) were witnesses who encountered the appellant on separate occasions. PW-7, a pan shop owner, reported that the appellant visited his shop on the evening of 28.01.2014 accompanied by a young boy around 5 years old and purchased a matchbox. Similarly, PW-8, an employee at a toddy shop, testified that in the first week of February 2014, at approximately 7:00 P.M. the appellant came to the shop with a (similarly aged) boy, where the appellant bought two bottles of toddy, consumed one on the premises and left with the other. 21. According to PW-9 (C. Sanjeev) who operates a chat bhandar, on 28.01.2014, at approximately 7:00 P.M. he observed that the appellant entering his shop accompanied by a young boy, roughly 5 years old and dressed in a school uniform. The appellant purchased panipuri worth Rs.10/- for the child. Subsequently, the appellant left the premises, returning with a water bottle filled with petrol, later identified as MO.1. Following this, the appellant departed from the shop taking the young boy with him. 22. Upon careful examination of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established the charge under Section 302 of IPC which pertains to murder. The prosecution has presented a strong case built on a robust chain of circumstantial evidence, corroborated by multiple witnesses, which collectively leaves no room for doubt regarding the appellant’s involvement in the crime. 23. This Court heavily relying upon the testimony of witnesses PWs. 2 to 9 forms a cohesive narrative that places the appellant was with the deceased throughout the day of the incident. Each witness testimony adds a crucial link to the chain of events, creating a timeline that is both logical and damning for the appellant. One of the particular significance is the testimony of PW-3, a child witness, whose testimony directly connects the appellant to the act of taking the deceased away. The reliability of a child witness in such cases, especially when their testimony remains consistent, adds substantial weight to the prosecution's case. 24. One of the particular significance is the testimony of PW-3, a child witness, whose testimony directly connects the appellant to the act of taking the deceased away. The reliability of a child witness in such cases, especially when their testimony remains consistent, adds substantial weight to the prosecution's case. 24. Furthermore, the application of the “last seen together” doctrine as cited in the case of Trimukh Marotiu Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 106 shifts the burden of explanation onto the appellant. This legal principle is particularly relevant in this case, as the appellant was demonstratively the last person seen with the deceased. The appellant’s inability to provide a convincing alibi contribute to the soundness of the conviction. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any strong case made out by the appellant calling for interference to the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The present appeal thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.