JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.435 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District, has filed the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges i.e., the first charge was under Section 302 IPC and the second charge was under Section 404 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 08.02.2015 at about 7.00 P.M, the accused committed murder of one Madakasira Lakshmidevamma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by cutting her throat with a knife and stabbing her on the left breast, causing her death and in the same process he has taken away gold ear studs from the body, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/Accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six(06) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant/Accused under Section 404 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- The deceased and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Sasanakota Village, Parigi Mandal. The accused is a resident of Kodigenahalli Village and he was working as a Carpenter. The deceased was working as Aaya in Anganwadi at Sasanakota Village for the last eighteen (18) years. The husband of the deceased died long back. Pw-1 is the daughter and Pw-2 is the nephew of the deceased. Three (03) years prior to the date of incident, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused, who used to attend his own sister’s house by name Gangamma. The deceased purchased a two wheeler for the accused, who in turn used to take her to the work place and bring back home. In the month of January-2015, there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased took back the two wheeler from the accused. The deceased used to consume toddy from the shop of Pw-3. The deceased purchased a two wheeler for the accused, who in turn used to take her to the work place and bring back home. In the month of January-2015, there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. The deceased took back the two wheeler from the accused. The deceased used to consume toddy from the shop of Pw-3. While so, on 08.02.2015, Pw-1 and her grandmother went to Bagepalli to attend a marriage and on the same day, at about 6.30 P.M they returned. At that time, Pw-1 and the deceased were sitting in the court yard of the house and were chit chatting. The accused came there and made three or four rounds in front of the house. The accused gave a signal to the deceased inviting her to come out. Then the deceased accompanied the accused. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home on that night. On the next day morning, at about 9.00 A.M, Pw-1 informed Pw-2 about the deceased not returning home. Pw-2 went in search and found the deceased lying dead near electrical pole with cut throat injury and informed the same to Pw-1. Then Pw-1 along with others went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased with cut throat injury and missing of her ears along with ear studs. She found two empty toddy bottles at the scene of offence. Immediately, she went to Parigi Police Station and gave a report- Ex.P-1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Parigi Police Station, who was not examined, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. Copy of FIR was marked through the Investigating Officer-Pw-13 under Ex.P-33. Having received the information, the Inspector of Police rushed to the scene of offence at the outskirts of Sasanakota Village along with his staff. He secured the presence of Pws-9 and 10. He prepared rough sketch–Ex.P-18 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed and videographed through Pws-4 and 5. The photographs and CDs were marked as Exs.P-19 and 20. Subsequently, he recorded statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pws-9 and 10. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-21. Then he sent the dead body for conducting Post-Mortem examination. 5. Pw-11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Hindupur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. Subsequently, he recorded statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pws-9 and 10. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-21. Then he sent the dead body for conducting Post-Mortem examination. 5. Pw-11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Hindupur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to “shock and haemorrhage on account of a cut throat injury to neck”. He also opined that sexual intercourse has occurred prior to the death of the deceased. He issued Post-Mortem Certificates Exs.P-14 and 15. 6. Pw-13 seized M.Os-2 to 13 under a cover of panchanama. On 16.02.2015 at about 4.30 P.M, he arrested the accused at Kodigenahalli Village in the presence of Pws-9 and 10. On 25.02.2015, the accused confessed stating that the gold ear studs- M.O-1 were given to his wife Radhamma. The said statement was recorded as Ex.P-27. Then Pw-13 went to Tirupati to the house of the accused and questioned Radhamma. She has stated that she pledged the said gold ear studs in the shop of Pw-8. She has handed over the pawn ticket to Pw-13. On the basis of said statement, Pw-13 went to the shop of Pw-8 and showed the pawn ticket. After seeing the said pawn ticket standing in the name of wife of the accused, Pw-8 handed over M.O-1 to Pw-13. The pawn ticket was marked as Ex.P-3. The seizure of mahazarnama was marked as Ex.P-28. On 26.02.2015, Pw-13 conducted test identification of M.O-1 through Pw-9 mediator. In the said test identification, Pw-1 identified M.O-1 belonging to her mother. After completion of investigation and after receipt of Post-Mortem Certificate, Pw-13 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to 33 and also exhibited M.Os-1 to 15. 8. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him. 9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. 10. We have heard Sri V.R Machavaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. 10. We have heard Sri V.R Machavaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further contends that the only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is “last seen theory”. As such, on the basis of last seen theory alone, the conviction cannot be sustained. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 12. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending inter alia that apart from last seen theory, the prosecution is able to prove the recovery of ear studs- M.O-1 at the instance of the accused. He further contends that on 08.02.2015 at about 4.00 P.M i.e., just prior to the time of occurrence, the accused went to the toddy shop of Pw-3 and purchased two bottles of toddy. He further contends that the evidence of Pw-6, who is the independent witness, goes to show that he found the accused coming with two bottles of toddy to the scene of offence. He further contends that the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 also show the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 14. Pw-1, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased in her evidence specifically stated that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the accused for the last three (03) years prior to the date of incident. The evidence of Pw-2 also show that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the accused. The evidence of Pws-1 and 2 further disclose that in the month of January-2015, the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other and the deceased has taken back the two wheeler from the accused, which was purchased by her. Thereafter, till 08.02.2015 they did not meet each other. It is also in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 that the deceased is in the habit of consuming toddy. Thereafter, till 08.02.2015 they did not meet each other. It is also in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2 that the deceased is in the habit of consuming toddy. Pw-1 in her evidence has specifically stated that on 08.02.2015 at about 6.30 P.M, the accused came to their house and made a signal to the deceased and following the signal, the deceased followed the accused. Thereafter, the deceased did not return to the house on that night. The evidence of Pws-1 and 2 further goes to show that on the next day morning, at about 9.00 A.M, they found the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence. 15. Pw-3, who is an independent witness and who is running a toddy shop, in his evidence has stated that on 08.02.2015, the accused purchased two bottles of toddy for Rs.20/- and paid an amount of Rs.100/-. He further stated that after return of the empty bottles, he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.80/-. But, the accused did not return to the shop for handing over the empty bottles and for collecting Rs.80/-. Another independent witness i.e., Pw-6 states that on the date of offence at about relevant time, he found the accused coming with two toddy bottles and keeping them near the electrical pole by removing small bushes. As such, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on 08.02.2015 at about 6.30 P.M. 16. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of M.O-1-ear studs belonging to the deceased. The evidence of Investigating Officer-Pw-13 show that the accused confessed stating that he has handed over the ear studs-M.O-1 to his wife Radhamma. On the basis of said confession, Pw-13 went to the house of accused at Tirupati and questioned the wife of the accused. Immediately, she informed him stating that the said ear studs were pledged in the shop of Pw-8 and to that effect she produced a pawn ticket-Ex.P-3. Immediately, Pw-13 went to the shop of Pw-8 and enquired about the ear studs-M.O-1 by showing pawn ticket-Ex.P-3. Pw-8 handed over M.O-1 to Pw-13. Thereafter, Pw-13 conducted test identification of M.O-1 with Pw-9. On 26.02.2015, Pw-9 conducted identification parade of M.O-1 in which, Pw-1 identified the ear studs belonging to her mother. Immediately, Pw-13 went to the shop of Pw-8 and enquired about the ear studs-M.O-1 by showing pawn ticket-Ex.P-3. Pw-8 handed over M.O-1 to Pw-13. Thereafter, Pw-13 conducted test identification of M.O-1 with Pw-9. On 26.02.2015, Pw-9 conducted identification parade of M.O-1 in which, Pw-1 identified the ear studs belonging to her mother. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the recovery of M.O-1 at the instance of the accused. In the above circumstances by the evidence of Pws-1 and 2, the prosecution is able to prove the circumstance of last seen theory apart from the evidence of Pws-3 and 6, who are the independent witnesses, to show that the accused purchased two bottles of toddy and kept at the scene of offence. In addition to that, the prosecution is also established the factum of recovery of stolen article-M.O-1 at the instance of the accused. Pw-8 is the owner of the shop, where the ear studs were pledged, also show that the wife of accused pledged those ear studs in his shop and Ex.P-3- pawn ticket stood in the name of the wife of the accused. 17. Viewed from any angle, all the circumstances and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, point out the guilt towards Accused alone. Except the Accused, no other person has got any opportunity to kill the deceased. 18. On the above analysis and having carefully examined the case in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/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. 19. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District, in Sessions Case No.435 of 2015, dated 28.10.2015 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.