JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. The de facto complainant in Sessions Case No.125 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Sessions Court’) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried and they were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and they were acquitted of the aforesaid charge in terms of Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’). 2. The substance of the charge as against the accused Nos.1 to 3 is that on 19.07.2011 at about 7.00 PM, near plantain garden of one Amudapu Pedda Venkata Reddy situated at the outskirts of Y.Kothapalli village of Yerragondapalem Mandal, accused No.1 hit one Adipi Pedda Galeiah (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) with a stick and wrapped a turkey towel around the neck of the deceased and further pierced his right eye with a small stick; accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased and threw him out of the compound wall, due to which, the deceased was suffocated to death and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the murder of deceased intentionally, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, the material prosecution witnesses and the accused Nos.1 to 3 are all residents of Y.Kothapalli village. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the grandson of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased. P.W.5 is another son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of the deceased. 4. On 19.07.2011 at about 4.00 PM, the deceased went to Y.Palem. At about 8.00 PM, P.W.6 informed P.W.3 that the deceased was beaten by accused No.1 and asked him to inform the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. Then, P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and others went in search of the deceased, but in vain; on that, they returned to their house. On the next day, at about 10.00/11.00 AM, P.W.3 and others proceeded to Y.Palem Police Station to give a report about missing of the deceased. Then, P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and others went in search of the deceased, but in vain; on that, they returned to their house. On the next day, at about 10.00/11.00 AM, P.W.3 and others proceeded to Y.Palem Police Station to give a report about missing of the deceased. While they were proceeding to police station and when they were amidst the fields of P.W.9, P.W.9 informed them that one unknown dead body was lying in his field. Then, they all went to the fields of P.W.9 and identified the dead body of the deceased. On the same day at about 1.00 PM they gave a report to police. P.W.18, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station received a report from P.W.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.47 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC of Y.Palem Police Station. Ex.P16 is the original FIR. On instructions of SDPO, Markapur, P.W.18 proceeded to the scene of offence and seized M.Os.1 to 4 and also a piece of blood stained turkey towel/M.O.5 from the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of mediators. P.W.18 prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P17 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. P.W.18 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.14 and others under Ex.P10- Inquest Report. Thereafter, P.W.18 sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer under Post-Mortem examination. P.W.17, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Y.Palem, on requisition conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P15 Post-Mortem Certificate. According to P.W.17/Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia followed by neurogenic shock, respiratory and cardiac arrest. P.W.19, Inspector of Police, Y.Palem Circle took up investigation, secured the presence of P.Ws.7 to 10 and recorded their statements. On 29.07.2011, on receiving credible information about the movements of accused, P.W.19 secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.Ws.15 and 16 and arrested accused No.1. Accused No.1 is alleged to have made confession to P.W.19. In pursuant of the confessional statement made by accused No.1, P.W.19 arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and got them remanded to judicial custody. P.W.19 after obtaining all case documents, laid the charge sheet as against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. Accused No.1 is alleged to have made confession to P.W.19. In pursuant of the confessional statement made by accused No.1, P.W.19 arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and got them remanded to judicial custody. P.W.19 after obtaining all case documents, laid the charge sheet as against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 20 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting M.Os 1 to 5. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected, merely because the prosecution itself chose to treat them as hostile. The witnesses, in cross-examination, spoke with regard to the alleged incident and basing on the same, the accused ought to have been convicted. 7. Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the State did not prefer any appeal as against the Judgment of acquittal. He supported the version of the appellant herein/de facto complainant. 8. Learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that there is no legal evidence to convict the accused for the offences alleged; all the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Considering these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused. 9. Now the point for determination: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge levelled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. A perusal of material on record goes to show that P.Ws.1 to 5, in one voice, stated that, it is P.W.6, who gave information to the extent that accused No.1 had caused death of the deceased. According to P.W.3, on 19.07.2011 while he was at his house, at about 8.00 PM, P.W.6 informed him that the deceased was beaten by accused No.1 and further, asked him to inform the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. On the same day, during night, P.Ws.3, 9 and others went in search of the deceased, but they could not trace him. According to P.W.3, on 19.07.2011 while he was at his house, at about 8.00 PM, P.W.6 informed him that the deceased was beaten by accused No.1 and further, asked him to inform the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. On the same day, during night, P.Ws.3, 9 and others went in search of the deceased, but they could not trace him. On that, they returned to their house and on the next day, at about 10.00/11.00 AM, they proceeded to Y.Palem Police Station to give a report about the missing of deceased; while they were proceeding to police station, they were informed by P.W.9 that an unknown dead body was lying in his field. 11. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that, it is hearsay evidence and he is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. P.Ws.1 to 5, except stating the said fact, did not state any other thing with regard to the act of the accused in causing the death of the deceased. Admittedly, they are not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident; they only heard the version from P.W.6. 12. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.6. He did not support the prosecution case and he was declared as hostile by the prosecution. Even, in the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.W.6, to connect the accused to the offence alleged. 13. P.Ws.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 too did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. P.Ws.14 and 15 are the panch witnesses. On conspicuous reading of entire evidence, there is no incriminating evidence as against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the previous statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC have to be relied upon in order to convict the accused. The said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is unheard. Mere marking of previous statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC is of no avail, since those previous statements can only be used for contradiction. The said statements cannot, by themselves would constitute substantive evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is unheard. Mere marking of previous statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC is of no avail, since those previous statements can only be used for contradiction. The said statements cannot, by themselves would constitute substantive evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, the previous statements which are marked as Exs.P2 to P8 would not, in any way, come to the aid of appellant to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 15. It is for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. The burden lies on them to prove that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. There is absolutely no legal evidence to show that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. P.W.6 is the only eyewitness to the alleged incident, but he did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. P.Ws.9 and 10 too did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.1 to 5, who are the blood relatives of the deceased, deposed that it is P.W.6, who went to the house of P.W.3 and informed that accused caused the death of the deceased. The version of P.Ws.1 to 5 is nothing but hearsay evidence. In view of the above said reasons, this Court is convinced with the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 16. The learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, had rightly found the accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty of the offence and accordingly, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3 of the charge levelled against them, which warrants no interference by this Court. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2016 is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 04.05.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.125 of 2012 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.