JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. SAM KOSHY) 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 16.10.2015 in Sessions Case No.224 of 2014 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Asifabad. 2. Heard Mr. Ram Prasad Pathipaka, 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 under imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (03) three months. 4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, is that on 06.02.2014 at 12:00 hrs, PW.1 (Rasapalli Prakash) who is the brother of Rasapalli Santosh (hereinafter, the ‘deceased’) lodged a complaint at Asifabad Police Station stating that the deceased and the appellant are close friends belonging to same Gundi Village, Asifabad. Both the appellant and the deceased are known for wandering from one village to another without any specific purpose and both of them had previously been involved in multiple criminal cases, leading to their time in judicial custody where they developed strong friendship which continued even after their release. The deceased had a habit of consuming alcohol and frequently insulted the appellant in a filthy language. That on 02.02.2014, both the appellant and the deceased attended a cradle ceremony of Desboina Guruvaiah’s granddaughter in Gundi Village. While returning home on the same day at about 9:00 P.M. both of them had a quarrel in front of the local shop belonging to PW.8 where the deceased verbally abused the appellant, prompting him to kill the deceased. Following this plan, the appellant bought a bottle of liquor from the shop, encouraged the deceased to drink excessively and when the deceased fell asleep on a cot, the appellant attacked him with an axe by striking him on the head. The injuries were severe leading to the immediate death of the deceased at the scene of occurrence itself. 5. Initially the offence remained undiscovered for several days until 06.02.2014 when PWs.4 and 6 noticed a foul odour emanating from the appellant’s house. The injuries were severe leading to the immediate death of the deceased at the scene of occurrence itself. 5. Initially the offence remained undiscovered for several days until 06.02.2014 when PWs.4 and 6 noticed a foul odour emanating from the appellant’s house. Subsequently, PW.4, PW.6 and other locals opened the door and found fully decomposed dead body on the cot. Accordingly, the police authorities registered a complaint in Cr.No.18 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on 10.02.2014 at about 9:30 hours PWs.10 and 12 to whom the appellant made extra judicial confession, brought the appellant to the police station and surrendered him before the PW.16. During the interrogation the appellant confessed the crime and upon the confessional statement, the police authorities had recovered and seized a blood stained axe hidden in bushes behind his house. Further, the forensic analysis also confirmed the presence of human blood on various items at the crime scene. PW.14 in his report confirmed that the cause of the death was due to cardio pulmonary arrest due to fractured skull and laceration of the brain. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Asifabad, where the case was registered as Sessions Case No.224 of 2014. 6. In all, the prosecution examined sixteen (16) witnesses, marked thirteen (13) Exhibits and also marked twelve (12) Material Objects (MOs). There was neither any evidence on behalf of the defence, nor any document was marked. The Trial Court after recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, finally passed the impugned judgment of conviction holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not by the alleged weapon but rather result of falling on hard surface which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution’s claim that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a sharp object instead of accidental fall. Further, he argued that the witnesses presented by the prosecution particularly PWs.1 to 8 who are family members of the deceased and fellow villagers, had a vested interest in testifying against the appellant. Therefore, their testimonies are unreliable. 8. Further, he argued that the witnesses presented by the prosecution particularly PWs.1 to 8 who are family members of the deceased and fellow villagers, had a vested interest in testifying against the appellant. Therefore, their testimonies are unreliable. 8. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased and the appellant had a healthy relationship just before the day of cradle ceremony and there is no concrete evidence or an eyewitness to the alleged offence to prove the appellant guilty of committing the offence. Similarly, he argued that on the day of incident the last seen theory of the deceased was not proven adequately which again casts a serious doubt that there was a gap of four days between when the appellant and deceased were last seen together and when the body was discovered. This four days interval provides an ample opportunity for someone else to have committed the crime rising suspicion over the alleged testimony of the interested parties. 9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case against the appellant was largely circumstantial and there is no direct eyewitness to the commission of offence which did not meet the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, for all 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. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant made confession to PWs.10 and 12, who brought the appellant and surrendered him to the police authorities and recovery of axe at his instance was crucial evidence linking the appellant directly to the offence. Further, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the nature of injuries and post-mortem report gives a conclusive proof that the deceased was killed with sharp weapon such as the seized axe in the instant case. The severity and the location of the injuries clearly indicate the appellant’s intention to kill the deceased instead of accidental death or self-defence as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory where multiple witnesses PW.1 to 8 consistently testified that they have seen the appellant and the deceased together the before commission of the offence. 11. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory where multiple witnesses PW.1 to 8 consistently testified that they have seen the appellant and the deceased together the before commission of the offence. The discovery of dead body within the house of deceased and subsequently the appellant absconding from the scene of offence strongly implicate the appellant’s guilt. 12. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the aforesaid reasons prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, it would be relevant at this juncture, to take note of the facts which are recovered in the course of recording of evidences of PWs.1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12. 14. According to the testimony of PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that appellant and the deceased hail from same village and had befriended the deceased in jail. On the day of incident, PW.4 who went to work in the house of PW.6 noticed a foul smell from the appellant’s house and the same was informed to PW.6 and PW.5 respectively. Upon entering the house of the appellant they discovered a fully decomposed body lying on the cot and subsequently PW.1 identified the body by cloths and other marks on the body. He further noticed visible injuries and the presence of a crowbar, liquor bottles and steel glass in the appellant’s house. 15. According to the deposition of PW.4 (V.Abbaji) on 06.02.2014 at about 10:30 A.M. while he was engaged in Mason work at PW.6, PW.4 noticed many flies coming out of the ventilator and also a foul smell from the appellant’s house. PW.4 immediately informed to PW.6, who in turn informed to PW.5 and alarmed the villagers to open the door. Upon opening the door, they found fully decomposed body lying on the cot. PW.4 identified the body of the deceased by name slip found in the purse of the deceased’s pant. Similarly, the testimony of PW.4 was corroborated by PW.6 (M.Namdev) and PW.5 (S.Dattu). PW.5 made another deposition other than PWs.4 and 6 statement that PW.7 informed him that he observed the appellant and the deceased together at a function held on 02.02.2014 which was held in the house of Guruvaiah (who was not examined). Similarly, the testimony of PW.4 was corroborated by PW.6 (M.Namdev) and PW.5 (S.Dattu). PW.5 made another deposition other than PWs.4 and 6 statement that PW.7 informed him that he observed the appellant and the deceased together at a function held on 02.02.2014 which was held in the house of Guruvaiah (who was not examined). Both PWs.4 and 6 in their cross examination stated that they did not observe the appellant and the deceased together in the house prior to the death of the deceased. 16. Similarly, PW.7 (D.Hanmanthu) in his deposition stated that he had seen the appellant and the deceased together on 02.02.2014 at around 08:00 P.M while attending the cradle ceremony held at Guruvaiah’s house where the appellant and the deceased also attended the same ceremony in an intoxicated condition. PW.7 identified the deceased by his clothes and hospital slip found in the deceased’s purse. Further, PW.8 (B.Anjaiah) also on 02.02.2014 at 8:00 P.M. stated both the appellant and the deceased purchased liquor from his shop and left from his shop. 17. According to the deposition of PW.12 (Nikode Santosh) the appellant approached him and asked to lend Rs.20,000/- by taking his field on lease. He persistently pressured him for three days and on the fourth day he had to forcefully sent him away from his house. The following morning, the appellant returned and confessed that he had killed the deceased and needed money to survive further. The appellant further asked for his help in surrendering himself to the police. PW.12 thus agreed to assist him and surrendered the appellant before the Asifabad Police Station. During this process the appellant had admitted his guilt in PW.12’s presence. 18. According to PW.14 (Dr. M.Thirupathi) who conducted PME on deceased in his report stated that the death of the deceased is Cardio Pulmonary arrest due to fracture of skull and laceration of the brain, which for ready reference is reproduced herein under, viz., 1. Laceration over left parietal region above 6X4 cm., bone deep. 2. Laceration over right parietal region 4X2 cm., bone deep. 3. Multiple compound open fractures over occipital bone, brain visible external bhily through the fracture of occipital bone. 4. abrasion about 4X4 cm., at center of chest region. 5. Bleeding and oozing from both nostrils and ears noted. 6. Protrusion of tongue noted. 19. 2. Laceration over right parietal region 4X2 cm., bone deep. 3. Multiple compound open fractures over occipital bone, brain visible external bhily through the fracture of occipital bone. 4. abrasion about 4X4 cm., at center of chest region. 5. Bleeding and oozing from both nostrils and ears noted. 6. Protrusion of tongue noted. 19. After carefully considering the depositions of the witnesses, this Bench is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had produced all the chain of circumstantial evidence and also the last seen together theory by way of PWs.1, 4, 5, 7 and 8. The sequence of events as narrated through the testimonies of PW.4, PW.6 and PW.5 not only establish the timeline of the discovery of the dead body but also highlight the interconnected roles of these witnesses in bringing the crime to light. The last seen together theory plays a crucial role proving the appellant guilt. The theory posits that when an accused is last seen with the deceased shortly before the time of death, it creates a strong presumption of guilt unless the accused provides a satisfactory explanation where PWs.7 and 8 consistently testified seeing the appellant and the deceased together. Further, the medical evidence also confirms the cause of death due to severe injuries on the head indicating a clear intention of the appellant for commission of the offence and recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the appellant which create a reasonable doubt in light of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. 20. This Bench is of the considered opinion that the appellant has not provided a convincing alternative explanation for the events in question, nor has he successfully challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Given the strength and consistency of the prosecution's evidence along with the lack of a substantial defense from the appellant, we are firmly convinced of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is upheld and instant appeal being devoid of merits is therefore dismissed. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.