JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2017 passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, in S.C.No.145 of 2014, the defacto complainant /P.W.1 filed the present criminal appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.2 to 13/accused Nos.1 to 12 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 120-B, 302 and 109 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted respondent Nos.2 to 13/accused Nos.1 to 12 of the aforesaid charges, by the judgment, impugned in the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side submitted that pending the criminal appeal, accused Nos.1 and 10 / respondent Nos.2 and 11 died. In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel on either side, the present appeal against accused Nos.1 and 10 / respondent Nos.2 and 11 is dismissed as abated. The present appeal is considered insofar as accused Nos.2 to 9, 11 and 12 are concerned. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their array in S.C.No.145 of 2014. 6. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: (i) All the accused except accused No.3 and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Purushothapuram village, within the limits of Ichapuram Town Police Station. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.Ws.1 to 3 are wife, son and the elder brother of the deceased, respectively. P.W.4 worked as a Clerk under the deceased, who was eking out livelihood by doing agriculture as well as by running lorry transport under the name and style Chintamani Transport. The deceased was also acting as village elder. (ii) While so, at about 5:00 p.m. on 08.12.2011, the deceased informed P.W.1 that he was going to the check-post for clearance of the lorries. At about 7:00 p.m. on the same day, P.W.12 went to the house of P.W.1 and informed her that the dead body of the deceased was found lying on the new highway road. P.W.1, immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his body and head. P.W.1 found the motorbike belonging to the deceased beside the dead body. P.W.1, immediately rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his body and head. P.W.1 found the motorbike belonging to the deceased beside the dead body. She came to know that her husband died at about 6:30 p.m. She expressed suspicion against accused Nos.9 to 12 and two others. Immediately P.W.1 went to Police Station and presented a report, Ex.P1. (iii) P.W.26, S.I. of Police, Ichapuram Town Police Station, at about 10:30 p.m. on the same day, registered a case in crime No.81 of 2011 based on the report lodged by P.W.1, for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P20. (iv) P.W.27, Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Police Station, having received information from P.W.26, proceeded to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood on NH16 road, near Purushothapuram check post. He got the scene photographed through P.W.16. Photographs were marked as Ex.P7. On the next day at about 6:00 a.m. P.W.27 along with his staff and mediators, P.W.19 and another proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report, Ex.P10 and rough sketch, Ex.P21. He seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of offence. He visited Community Health Centre, Ichapuram and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators and blood relatives. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P22. He sent the dead body for postmortem. (v) P.W.18, Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to Neurogenic shock due to multiple injuries to vital organs like brain and large vessels of neck. He issued postmortem certificate-Ex.P9. (vi) P.W.27 went to Ichapuram Police Station, secured the presence of witnesses and recorded their statements. Later he visited Purushothapuram village and recorded statements of some of the witnesses. He sent a requisition to P.W.21, Motor Vehicles Inspector to inspect the motorcycle-M.O.1. Accordingly, P.W.21 inspected M.O.1- motorcycle and issued certificate Ex.P17. On 10.12.2011, P.W.27 again visited Purushothapuram and recorded statements of some of the witnesses. (vii) On 28.12.2011 at about 4:00 p.m., P.W.27 arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.19 and another. He brought them to Ichapuram Police Station and kept them under surveillance. Accordingly, P.W.21 inspected M.O.1- motorcycle and issued certificate Ex.P17. On 10.12.2011, P.W.27 again visited Purushothapuram and recorded statements of some of the witnesses. (vii) On 28.12.2011 at about 4:00 p.m., P.W.27 arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.19 and another. He brought them to Ichapuram Police Station and kept them under surveillance. On 29.12.2011, P.W.27 secured the presence of P.W.19 and another and recorded confession statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 and pursuant to their confession, P.W.27 recovered M.Os.5 to 7 weapons from a pond situated at Tuttarapalli village, Orissa State. He prepared rough sketch at the recovery place i.e. pond and the same is marked as Ex.P23. He also photographed recovery proceedings and the pond. On 30.12.2011, P.W.27 arrested accused Nos.4 to 8 at Firozpeta village, in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, on 02.02.2012 at about 4:00 p.m., P.W.27 arrested remaining accused in the presence of P.W.19 and another. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P18. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.27 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 27, marked Exs.P1 to P23 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 14. 8. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1, statement of P.W.5 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked. 9. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 10. After elaborate trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused holding that there is no material to connect respondents 2 to 13 with the alleged offence. Aggrieved by the same, P.W.1/defacto complainant filed the present appeal. 11. Heard Sri G. Sai Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents/accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. 12. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 13. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is motive for the accused to kill the deceased. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of M.Os.5 to 7 at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and the third circumstance is the so-called confession statement made by the accused before P.W.27, Inspector of Police. 14. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is motive for the accused to kill the deceased. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of M.Os.5 to 7 at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and the third circumstance is the so-called confession statement made by the accused before P.W.27, Inspector of Police. 14. Insofar as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, who in their evidence have stated that the deceased along with P.W.13 acted as elder and used to settle disputes in the village. They also used to impose penalties on the villagers, who committed wrong and the amounts were utilized for the welfare of the villagers. Accused No.9, who is also the resident of the same village, is the second leader, and it became eyesore for accused No.9 as the deceased gained popularity in the village. 15. Insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, another motive set up by the prosecution is that their sister eloped with someone, and the deceased was instrumental in the said love affair. As such, the prosecution came up with two motives: one motive for accused Nos.1 to 8 and another motive for accused No.9 to 12, and the prosecution was not able to fix the exact motive for all the accused to kill the deceased. As already pointed out, P.W.1, in her earliest report-Ex.P1 expressed suspicion against accused Nos.9 to 12 and two others. Insofar as accused Nos.1 to 8 are concerned, she did not attribute anything against them. As such, the prosecution could not able to prove the so-called motive for all the accused to kill the deceased. As such the prosecution failed to establish the first circumstance. 16. Insofar as the second circumstance i.e. recovery of M.Os.5 to 7 at the instance of confession statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, P.W.19 was taken as mediator. Investigating Officer, P.W.27, in his evidence stated that on 28.12.2011 at about 2:00 p.m., he arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.19 and another and kept them under surveillance in Ichapuram Police Station. On the next i.e. on 29.12.2011, accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have confessed, and on their confession, P.W.27, along with P.W.19 proceeded to Tuttarpally village and recovered M.Os.5 to 7 from a pond. On the next i.e. on 29.12.2011, accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have confessed, and on their confession, P.W.27, along with P.W.19 proceeded to Tuttarpally village and recovered M.Os.5 to 7 from a pond. The so-called confession statement was made before P.W.27 while they were in the custody of the Police. Further, the mediator, P.W.19 is a stock mediator, and he acted as mediator in a number of cases, which was admitted by him in his cross-examination. Even in the case at hand, P.W.19 was taken as a mediator for observation report, inquest report, arrest, seizure, etc., i.e. for all practical purposes. Further, the so-called recovery of M.Os.5 to 7 from a pond after twenty days from the date of the incident is highly doubtful. Further it is absurd to accept that the so-called M.Os.5 to 7 contain human blood even after remaining in the water for twenty days. As such, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.19, holding that he is a stock mediator. In view of the same, the prosecution could not able to prove the so-called recovery of M.Os.5 to 7 from accused Nos.1 to 3. 17. Insofar as the last circumstance i.e. confession made by the accused before P.W.27, is concerned, the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the so-called confession was made by the arrested accused, while they were in the custody of the Police. As such, the prosecution miserably failed in establishing all the three circumstances. Except these three circumstances, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 18. Having analysed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta. 19. In the result, criminal appeal is hereby dismissed insofar as accused Nos.2 to 9, 11 and 12 / respondents 3 to 10, 12 and 13 are concerned, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 29.12.2017 passed in S.C.No.145 of 2014 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta. 20. The criminal appeal against accused Nos.1 and 10 / respondents2 and 11, is dismissed as abated. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.