JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Accused Nos.1 and 7 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. They along with Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos.8 to 10 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under six(06) charges i.e., first charge was under Section 148 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 10; second charge was under Section 364 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 8; third charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1; fourth charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 7; fifth charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the last charge was under Section 176 IPC against Accused Nos.9 and 10. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.05.2014 at about 7.45 A.M Accused Nos.1 to 10 formed into an unlawful assembly and kidnapped one V. Bangarureddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a Scorpio Vehicle, bearing No.AP-21-AK-4646, near old bus stand, Bethamcherla Village and attacked him at Leprosy Colony, Dhone Mandal, which led to causing his death and in the same process, to screen the evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 3 thrown the dead body near railway track, Shivalayam, Dhone Village, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 364, 302, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 and 176 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.1 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer to Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years. 4. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Accused No.7 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.7 under Section 148 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) years. All the substantive sentences imposed against Accused Nos.1 to 7 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos. 8 to 10 of the charges levelled against them. 5. As there are no eye witness to the incident, the case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet, is as follows:- The deceased is a resident of Rudravaram Village and Accused No.1 is a resident of Dhone town. Pws-3 and 4 are none other than sons of the deceased. Pw-5 is younger brother of the deceased. Pw-6 is the son-in-law of the deceased. Pw-8 is the brother-in-law of Pw-3. Accused No.1 married the daughter of one Bala Thimmaiah-(Lw-7) in the year-2001, who is also a resident of Rudravaram Village. Accused No.1 purchased an extent of 3.00 Acers of land in Rudravaram Village and subsequently he wanted to dispose of the said land for which, there was a resistance from his father-in-law Bala Thimmaiah. The deceased used to support said Bala Thimmaiah. As such, Accused No.1 bore grudge against the deceased. 6. It is further alleged that the deceased questioned the Chairman of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 about the accounts pertaining to the lands of the said temple. As such, there was dispute between the deceased on one side and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 on the other side. While so, on 18.05.2014, Pw-19-Constable of Bethamcherla Police Station visited Rudravaram Village and informed the deceased stating that the Inspector of Police asked him to bring the former. The deceased spoke to the Inspector over phone and informed him that he will visit the Police Station on the next day i.e., on 19.05.2014. Accordingly, on 19.05.2014 at about 9.00 A.M, the deceased went to Bethamcherla Village. The deceased spoke to the Inspector over phone and informed him that he will visit the Police Station on the next day i.e., on 19.05.2014. Accordingly, on 19.05.2014 at about 9.00 A.M, the deceased went to Bethamcherla Village. Thereafter, he did not turn up. Pws-3 and 4 searched for the deceased till the evening of 20.05.2014 and whereabouts of the deceased were not known. Pw-3 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-14 at about 4.30 P.M. Pw-20 received Ex.P-14 from Pw-3 and registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2014 under the head ‘man missing’. On the same day, he recorded statements of Pws-3 to 5. The further investigation was taken over by Inspector of Police. In the meanwhile, having found the dead body on the railway track, Pws-1 and 2 i.e., the railway employees gave a report to the Police. On the basis of Ex.P-1 report given by Pw-2, Head Constable, Dhone Railway Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.44 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On the same day, he secured the mediators Pw-13 and another and proceeded to the scene of offence, situated between Dhone-Malkapuram Railway Station. He prepared observation report-Ex.P-6 in the presence of mediators. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-15 at the scene of offence. He also got scene photographed, which were marked as Ex.P-16. He also seized M.Os-2 and 3 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body to the Community Health Centre, Dhone for the purpose of identification. He also got published the photographs of the dead body in the newspapers on 21.05.2014. Having seen the photographs in the newspaper, Pws-3, 4 and 10 approached him at about 11.00 A.M on 21.05.2014. Pws-3, 4 and 10 identified the dead body as that of the deceased. He recorded statements of Pws-3, 4 and 10. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of Pws-11 and 12 at about 12.00 Noon at Community Health Centre, Dhone. Thereafter, he shifted the dead body to the Government Hospital, Kurnool for Post-Mortem examination. 7. Pw-18-Associate Professor, Kurnool Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “depressed fracture of skull causing brain injury due to blunt force application associated with signs of pressure over the neck”. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-13. 7. Pw-18-Associate Professor, Kurnool Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “depressed fracture of skull causing brain injury due to blunt force application associated with signs of pressure over the neck”. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-13. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police addressed a letter- Ex.P-17 entrusting the investigation to Pw-22. On the basis of Ex.P- 17, Pw-22 re-registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2014 under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-18 is the altered copy of FIR. In the altered FIR, the names of suspected accused were shown as ten (10) in number. Except the name of Accused No.9, all other nine persons were shown as different persons unconnected with the present case. He verified the investigation done by the previous Investigating Officers on 10.06.2014. On the same day, he went to Malkapuram Railway Station and recorded statements of Pws-1 and 2. On 11.06.2014, he visited Rudravaram Village at about 8.30 A.M and recorded statements of Pws-3 to 5 and Pw-10. On 12.06.2014, he visited Siddanagattu Village and recorded statements of Pws-6 and 8. On receipt of case property from Pw-21, he sent them to RFSL, Kurnool. On 19.06.2014 at about 12.00 Noon, he received a phone call from Pw-14-V.R.O, who informed him that eight persons came and confessed stating that they kidnapped the deceased and committed murder on 19.05.2014 at about 10.00 A.M at old bus stand, Bethamcherla Village. He further informed Pw-22 that he has recorded confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 8. Immediately, he secured the presence of Pws-15 and 16 along with staff and went to Ambapuram Village by 1.00 P.M, where he found Accused Nos.1 to 8 before Pw-14. He also interrogated Accused Nos.1 to 8 in the presence of Pws-15 and 16, who said to have confessed stating that they kidnapped the deceased from old bus stand, Bethamcherla Village in a Scorpio vehicle and caused his death and thereafter thrown the dead body on the railway track. Immediately, he arrested Accused Nos.1 to 8. On the confession made by the arrested accused, he recovered six bamboo sticks, one nylon rope and one axe kept under the stone pial in the garden of one Mallikarjuna Reddy. Immediately, he arrested Accused Nos.1 to 8. On the confession made by the arrested accused, he recovered six bamboo sticks, one nylon rope and one axe kept under the stone pial in the garden of one Mallikarjuna Reddy. Bamboo sticks were marked as M.O-6, nylon rope was marked as M.O-7, which were seized under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P-9. He also recovered Scorpio vehicle from the possession of Pw-9, which is marked as M.O-1 in the presence of Pws-15 and 16. On the next day, Accused Nos.1 to 8 were remanded to judicial custody. On 20.06.2014, he arrested Accused Nos.9 and 10 at Seetharampuram Metta, and seized two cell phones from their possession in the presence of Pw-16 and another, which were marked as M.Os-8 and 9. Subsequently, Accused Nos.9 and 10 were remanded to judicial custody. On 02.08.2014, Pw-24-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool conducted test identification parade in which, Pws-6 and 8 said to have identified the accused. Test identification parade was marked as Ex.P-24. After completion of investigation, Pw-22 filed charge sheet. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 25 and marked Exs.P-1 to 24 and also exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. 9. On behalf of the defence, portions of 161 Cr.P.C statements of Pws-6 and 8 were marked as Exs.D1 to D3. 10. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them. 11. Relying on the evidence of Pws-3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Accused as aforesaid. 12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the appellants contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged attack on the deceased in the present case. The prosecution purely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the “motive” for the accused to kill the deceased. To prove the motive, the prosecution examined sons of the deceased i.e., Pws-3 and 4 and brother of the deceased-Pw-10. According to these three witnesses, the deceased questioned the Chairman of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna, Accused Nos. 9 and 10 with regard to the accounts of the temple lands. As such, the accused have got motive to the prosecution case. According to these three witnesses, the deceased questioned the Chairman of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna, Accused Nos. 9 and 10 with regard to the accounts of the temple lands. As such, the accused have got motive to the prosecution case. The learned senior counsel further contends that none were examined from the temple side to show that there are disputes between the deceased on one side and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 on the other side. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the deceased leaving Rudravaram Village at about 9.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. Pws- 3 and 4, who are none other than the sons of the deceased have stated about the deceased boarded the bus at bus stand, Rudravaram Village to go to Bethamcherla Village. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is “last scene theory”. According to the prosecution, Pws-6 and 8 said to have witnessed the accused kidnapping the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle at about 10.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. The learned senior counsel further contends that the evidence of Pws-6 and 8 cannot be relied on as they were planted by the prosecution belatedly. So far as the evidence of Pw-10 is concerned, he did not state anything except saying that there are disputes between the deceased and Accused Nos.9 and 10. The mediators for the arrest and seizure, who were examined as Pws-14, 15 and Pw-16, did not support the prosecution version. As such, the learned senior counsel states that except the belated evidence of Pws-6 and 8, there is no other evidence on record. 13. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal contending inter alia that by the evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10, the prosecution is able to prove the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. He further contends that as per the evidence of Pws-6 and 8, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at about 10.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. As such, he sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 14. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 15. He further contends that as per the evidence of Pws-6 and 8, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at about 10.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. As such, he sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 14. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 15. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10, who are none other than the sons and younger brother of the deceased, only show that there are disputes between the deceased and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 with regard to accounts of the Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple. But, the prosecution did not examine any witness or placed any material from the temple authorities to the effect that there are any misappropriations by Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10 is not at all useful to the prosecution in any manner. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10 did not disclose motive for the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 7 to kill the deceased. At one stage, the prosecution alleged motive stating that the father-in- law of Accused No.1 is objecting the sale of Ac.3.00 of property which was suppressed by the deceased. As such, Pws-3, 4 and 10 did not give clear version for motive. If at all there is any motive to kill the deceased, it is for Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 and not for Accused Nos.1 and 7. The prosecution came up with the evidence of Pws-6 and 8 to show that the deceased was kidnapped by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle at Bethamcherla Village. Pw-6 is none other than son-in-law of the deceased and Pw-8 is the brother-in-law of Pw-3. Though both these witnesses said to have witnessed the accused kidnapping the deceased, curiously they did not inform anyone. Pws-6 and 8 were closely related to the deceased. Admittedly, the photo of the dead body appeared in the newspaper on 21.05.2014. Though Pws-6 and 8 said to have witnessed the kidnapping of the deceased on 19.05.2014, they kept quite. At least, they did not even inform to Pws-3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased. Curiously, the Investigating Officer-Pw-22 has stated in his evidence that he recorded statements of Pws-6 and 8 on 12.06.2014 though the incident took place on 19.05.2014. At least, they did not even inform to Pws-3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased. Curiously, the Investigating Officer-Pw-22 has stated in his evidence that he recorded statements of Pws-6 and 8 on 12.06.2014 though the incident took place on 19.05.2014. As such, it is very difficult to place any reliance on the evidence of Pws- 6 and 8, who came forward with the version that they saw the accused taking the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle. Pws-6 and 8 tried to state that they have not suspected the accused as they have only taken the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle. But, the defence suggested to both Pws-6 and 8 stating that they have stated before the Investigating Officer-Pw-22 that the deceased was forcibly taken by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle. The defence also marked Exs.D1 to D3 portions of 161 Cr.P.C., statements of Pws-6 and 8, wherein they have categorically stated that the deceased was taken forcibly by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle. If really, they have taken him forcibly and if really these Pws-6 and 8 witnessed the kidnap, they ought to have informed at least to the sons of the deceased-Pws-3 and 4. But, curiously their statements were recorded only after twenty three (23) days from the date of incident. As such, the evidence of Pws-6 and 8 did not inspire the confidence of this Court. Except the evidence of Pws-3, 4, 6 and 8, absolutely there is no other material to connect the accused with the alleged offence. In the altered FIR, dated 10.06.2014, the suspected accused were altogether different, except Accused No.9. As such, the prosecution is not able to prove and fix up as to who were responsible for the alleged kidnap and murder. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have placed any reliance on the belated version of Pws-6 and 8, who were examined twenty three (23) days after the alleged incident. 16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution did not able to prove a single circumstance to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. 16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution did not able to prove a single circumstance to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 7 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, vide S.C.No.83 of 2016, dated 10.11.2016. As the appellant/Accused No.1 was already released on bail, he is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, and complete the formalities as per the guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.