JUDGMENT : K.Lakshman, J. Heard Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned legal-aid counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Dr.S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.352 of 2015 on the file of learned the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Vide impugned Judgment dated 26.04.2017, learned trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Learned trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that the appellant bore grudge on Smt.Kampendla Lakshmamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and killed her. The deceased is the mother of PW.1, maternal grandmother of PWs.2 and 4 and sister of PW.3. PW.2 is the wife of the appellant and their marriage was performed in the year 2014. Thereafter, they have obtained customary divorce vide Ex.P.5 document, dated 16.08.2014. According to the prosecution, PW.2 alleged against the appellant that he is an impotent and she has informed the said fact to her mother and the deceased. A panchayat was held on 16.08.2014 before the elders in which both the appellant and PW.2 agreed for divorce and they have obtained customary divorce vide Ex.P.5 document, dated 16.08.2014. Accordingly, Ex.P.5 customary divorce document dated 16.08.2014 was drafted by PW.8. 4. It is also the further case of the prosecution that, in the said panchayat, the deceased, grandmother of PW.2, abused the appellant before the elders stating that though he is an impotent and incapable of leading marital life, even then he married her granddaughter (PW.2) and spoiled her life. Thus, she has abused the appellant in filthy language before the elders. Therefore, he bore grudge against the deceased and killed her on 24.11.2014. 5. Basing on Ex.P.1 - complaint lodged by PW.1, dated 24.11.2014, Police, Kalwakurthy Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2014 vide Ex.P.10 FIR, dated 24.11.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 11, collected Exs.P.1 to P.12, seized M.Os.1 to 6 and laid the charge sheet against the appellant herein. 6. Learned trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences vide S.C.No.352 of 2015. 7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 11, collected Exs.P.1 to P.12, seized M.Os.1 to 6 and laid the charge sheet against the appellant herein. 6. Learned trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences vide S.C.No.352 of 2015. 7. To prove the said offences, prosecution has examined PW.1 - daughter of the deceased, PW.2 - wife of the appellant, PW.3 - brother of the deceased, PW.4 - granddaughter of the deceased, PWs.5 to 7 – elders, PW.8 - village elder, who drafted Ex.P.5 customary divorce document dated 16.08.2014, PW.9 - Panch Witness for seizure, PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW.11 - Panch Witness to the inquest and PW.12 - Investigating Officer. Exs.P.1 to P.12 documents are exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. Exs.D.1 to D.3 are the portions of statements of PWs.3 and 4 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) exhibited on behalf of the appellant. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide the impugned Judgment dated 26.04.2017, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. However, learned trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Challenging the said Judgment, appellant has preferred the present appeal. 9. Petitioner was in jail from 26.04.2017 and this Court granted bail to him on 05.01.2022. He is on bail now. 10. Mr.P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned legal-aid counsel appearing for the appellant, contended as follows: i) Prosecution failed to prove the motive beyond reasonable doubt; ii) Depositions of PWs.1 to 4 are not reliable and did not inspire confidence of the Court; iii) PWs.5 to 7 – elders did not support the prosecution; iv) In Ex.P.5 – customary divorce document, dated 16.08.2014, there is no mention about the alleged impotency of the appellant. The same is evident from the deposition of PW.8, who drafted Ex.P.5 document; v) PWs.9 and 11 – Panch Witnesses to the seizure and inquest did not state about the said offences; vi) There are serious contradictions of the version of the prosecution witnesses in their depositions and in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Exs.D1 to D3); vii) There was no light at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time and the said fact was admitted by PW.1 herself. There was a delay in lodging the complaint and also in reaching Ex.P10 – FIR to the Court concerned; viii) None of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs.1 to 5, identified the appellant herein. Though according to prosecution seven people were sleeping in one room, there are serious contradictions in the depositions of the said witnesses with regard to the appellant entering into the said room and committing the alleged offence; and ix) Prosecution did not examine Smt.Chandramma, who was also sleeping beside the deceased and husband of the deceased, who was sleeping outside the house. Even then, without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 11. He has placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Parvat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [ (2020) 4 SCC 33 ] Narayana Reddy @ Babu v. State of Karnataka , [ (2016) 14 SCC 212 ] and Mahtab Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ (2009) 13 SCC 670 ] to contend that there was darkness, no light and identification of the appellant is impossible. 12. Whereas, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by examining PWs.1 to 5. Appellant bore grudge on the deceased since she has abused him in filthy language before the elders stating that he is an impotent and he has spoiled the life of her granddaughter. Though the said fact is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 document, the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 5 can be considered. PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, specifically opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock with cerebral hemorrhage due to sustained head injury with blunt object. Though the said fact is not mentioned in Ex.P.5 document, the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 5 can be considered. PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, specifically opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock with cerebral hemorrhage due to sustained head injury with blunt object. The appellant killed the deceased by throwing M.O.1 – granite stone on her head. The depositions of PWs.1 to 5 inspired the confidence of this Court. In a matter like this minor contradictions and omissions cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The appellant is the relative of PWs.1 to 5. Therefore, even though there was no light, they have identified the appellant. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court convicted the appellant. There is no error in it. 13. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in S.Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P. , [(2006) 10 SCC 163] Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. State of Karnataka , [ (2003) 6 SCC 392 ] and Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M.P.State Road Transport Corporation , [ (2001) 8 SCC 322 ] , to contend that though there was no light and there was darkness, the witnesses can identify the appellant basing on the voice, mannerism, etc. Motive 14. As discussed supra, according to the prosecution, the motive is that the appellant bore grudge on the deceased, on the ground that she has abused him in filthy language before the elders stating that he is an impotent, even then, he married her granddaughter (PW.2) and spoiled her life. Therefore, he bore grudge on the deceased and killed her. 15. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant with PW.2 was performed in the year 2014. It is also not in dispute that they have obtained customary divorce vide Ex.P.5 document dated 16.08.2014. The same was reduced into writing and PW.8 is scribe of Ex.P.5 document. 16. Perusal of Ex.P.5 document would reveal that there is no mention about that the appellant is an impotent and that they have decided to obtain divorce. In Ex.P.5 document, it is mentioned that there were disputes between the appellant and PW.2. Therefore, they are not in a position to stay together and they have requested the elders to conduct panchayat. Perusal of Ex.P.5 document would reveal that there is no mention about that the appellant is an impotent and that they have decided to obtain divorce. In Ex.P.5 document, it is mentioned that there were disputes between the appellant and PW.2. Therefore, they are not in a position to stay together and they have requested the elders to conduct panchayat. Elders, including Village and Caste elders, conducted the panchayat on 16.08.2014 and recorded the decision of the appellant and PW.2 that they have decided to obtain divorce. They can marry again. 17. There are two witnesses to Ex.P.5 document. Even then, prosecution did not examine any of the witnesses to the said Ex.P.5 document. According to the prosecution, PW.8 is the elder, who has drafted Ex.P.5 document. PW.8 in his deposition also did not say that both the appellant and PW.2 obtained divorce on the ground that the appellant is an impotent. However, he has deposed that he can identify Ex.P.5 document, which was shown to him. Except that he did not know anything about the case regarding abusing the deceased and threatening of appellant. Thus, except ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 4, there is no other evidence with regard to motive. 18. It is apt to note that the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited him to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. But, if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. The motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused person to commit a particular crime, he cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye- witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction. The said principle was laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v Kishanpal , [(2008) 16 SCC 13] 19. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye- witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction. The said principle was laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v Kishanpal , [(2008) 16 SCC 13] 19. It is apt to note that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that wights in favour of the accused as held by the Apex Court in Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 20. It is also apt to note that though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances as held by the Apex Court in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626 21. In the light of the aforesaid principle and coming to the case on hand, PW.1 is the daughter of the deceased. She has specifically deposed that after one month of execution of Ex.P5 document, dated 16.08.2014, appellant went to the house of her daughter (PW.4) and gave a letter stating that he is ready to lead matrimonial life with PW.2. On that they have refused and kept quite without disclosing to anybody. Two months after taking divorce, on one day appellant came to their house at about 03.30 A.M. while they were sleeping in one room without locking the door. Appellant brought one boulder from outside the house, threw the same on the head of the deceased and while he was escaping from the scene of offence, his leg touched her and she woke-up and found that the appellant is escaping from their house. She heard noise of her mother simultaneously. Her mother died instantaneously. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint with Police, Kalwakurthy Police Station at 08.00 A.M. on 24.11.2014. 22. During the cross-examination of PW.1, she has categorically admitted that November month is winter season. In the said season, people will close all the doors in the night. They have not closed the doors as her father was sleeping outside the house. Her father is aged about 90 years as on the date of incident and he has no proper hearing but he can see. In the said season, people will close all the doors in the night. They have not closed the doors as her father was sleeping outside the house. Her father is aged about 90 years as on the date of incident and he has no proper hearing but he can see. She did not state to police that his father was sleeping outside the house. In the letter said to have been given to PW.4, appellant did not mention any abusive or threatening words. He only requested that he is willing to lead matrimonial life with PW.2. 23. PW.2 is the wife of the appellant and granddaughter of the deceased. She also deposed on the same lines. However, during her cross-examination, she has admitted that herself, her mother (PW.1), the said Smt.Chandramma, mother/PW.1 and her father (PW.3) are residing in the said house. Appellant studied upto 7 th class. Her grandmother died in winter season i.e., November month. In the said season, all the people will close doors during night. They have not closed the door as her grandfather was sleeping outside the house. It was dark in the night in their house. It is difficult to identify a particular person in the darkness. It is not possible to identify a person, who is coming inside and going outside the house in the darkness. Thus, PW.2 categorically admitted that there was no light, it was winter season and it was dark. 24. Though PWs.1 and 2 specifically deposed that after one month of the execution of Ex.P5 document, dated 16.08.2014, appellant went to the house of PW.4 and handed over a letter stating that he will take PW.2 to lead matrimonial life. Even then, Investigating Officer did not collect the said letter and filed before the learned trial Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the motive i.e., appellant bore grudge on the deceased on the ground that deceased abused him in filthy language before the elders stating that he is an impotent, even then, he married her granddaughter/PW.2 and spoiled her life. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 25. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, except the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 4, there is no other evidence. PWs.1 to 4 are family members of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 25. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, except the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 4, there is no other evidence. PWs.1 to 4 are family members of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. It is also settled law that though PWs.1 to 4 are relatives, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. However, their evidence has to gain confidence. In the present case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 with regard to motive and commission of offence by the appellant is improbable. The same has not gained confidence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. 26. Perusal of the record, more particularly, the depositions of PWs.1 to 4 and PW.12 - Investigating Officer, would reveal that five people were there in the said house. Even according to PWs.1 and 2, they themselves, the said Smt.Chandramma, Sri Krishnaiah/PW.3 were there in the house. They were sleeping. PW.2 specifically deposed that she along with her maternal aunt – Smt.Chandramma, her mother (PW.1) were sleeping just beside the deceased. Her grandfather i.e., husband of the deceased was sleeping outside the house. Therefore, they have not bolted the door. Since the age of her grandfather was about 90 years old at the time of incident, he can’t hear, properly but he can see. The said fact was admitted by PW.2 during cross-examination. However, perusal of the evidence, more particularly, the depositions of PWs.1 to 3 would also reveal the said fact. Even then, prosecution did not examine the said Smt.Chandramma and husband of the deceased. 27. In Ex.P1 complaint and also in her deposition, PW.1 stated that while they were sleeping in one room without locking the door, on 24.11.2014 at about 03.30 A.M. the appellant came to their house being armed with one boulder and he threw the same on the head of the deceased. While he was escaping from the scene of offence, his leg touched her body, she woke-up and found him escaping from the house. She also heard the noise of her mother simultaneously. Her mother died instantaneously. PW.2 also deposed on the same lines. Thus, the depositions of PWs.1 to 4 are not inspiring confidence. 28. In the charge-sheet as well as Ex.P.6 confessional panchanama, dated 25.11.2014, there is a specific mention that appellant was in Shiva mala, therefore, he wore saffron clothes. She also heard the noise of her mother simultaneously. Her mother died instantaneously. PW.2 also deposed on the same lines. Thus, the depositions of PWs.1 to 4 are not inspiring confidence. 28. In the charge-sheet as well as Ex.P.6 confessional panchanama, dated 25.11.2014, there is a specific mention that appellant was in Shiva mala, therefore, he wore saffron clothes. But in Ex.P1 - complaint, PW.1 stated that appellant was in white clothes. Therefore, there are serious contradictions with regard to the dress of the appellant. 29. There is no dispute that appellant is related to PWs.1 to 4. Just because they are related, prosecution cannot contend that they have identified the appellant. Though on receipt of the head injury, the deceased started groaning, even then PWs.1, 2 and the said Smt.Chandramma did not wake up. According to them, on touching the leg of the appellant, PW.1 woke up. The said evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is improbable and it is not gaining confidence of the Court. 30. It is the settled principle that how much grave the offence may be, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by producing sure and safe evidence. Unless and until the guilt of the accused is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, he shall be presumed to be an innocent. Thus, heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 31. As discussed supra, in the present case, it is not in dispute that it was winter season, there was no light and it was dark. Even then, PWs.1 to 3 had identified the appellant. Their evidence did not gain confidence. There are serious contradictions in their version i.e., Exs.D.1 to D.3 and depositions of PWs.1 to 3. PWs.5 and 6 – elders of the said panchayat did not support the prosecution and they turned hostile. 32. It is also settled principle that though the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence-in-chief to the extent useful to the prosecution can be considered. In the present case, the chief-examination of PWs.5 to 7 is not useful to the prosecution. 33. Further, PW.8, who drafted Ex.P.5 document, dated 16.08.2014, did not state about the motive and commission of offence. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. In the present case, the chief-examination of PWs.5 to 7 is not useful to the prosecution. 33. Further, PW.8, who drafted Ex.P.5 document, dated 16.08.2014, did not state about the motive and commission of offence. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. According to PW.10 – Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he found the following injuries: 1) Laceration 3 x 2 x 1 cm over the scalp left parietal region; 2) Contusion 2 x 2 cm over the left side of face; 3) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over the left supra orbital region; and 4) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over the frontal region of scalp. According to him, the cause of the death was due to shock with cerebral hemorrhage due to sustained head injury with blunt object. Even then, by producing reliable evidence, the prosecution has to prove that the appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased and he has killed the deceased. In the present case, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. 34. The Investigating Officer has collected Ex.P.12 FSL report, dated 21.02.2015. He has also recovered M.Os.1 to 6. PWs.9 and 11 are the panch witnesses for inquest and seizure. Their evidence is not useful to the prosecution. None of them spoke about the recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of the appellant. Exs.P.6 and P.8 are silent with regard to the same. 35. Perusal of the record would also reveal that as per PWs.1 to 3, the alleged incident was at about 03.30 A.M. on 24.11.2014. PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with Police, Kalwakurthy Police Station, at about 08.00 A.M. on 24.11.2014. Ex.P.10 FIR, dated 24.11.2014 was received by the learned Magistrate concerned on 24.11.2014 at about 07.30 P.M. In the light of the same, it is apt to note that place of incident, police station and learned Magistrate concerned are in Kalwakurthy Town. Place of offence is about ½ K.M. far from the police station and FIR was dispatched from the police station at about 09.00 A.M. on 24.11.2014, which is evident from Ex.P.10 FIR. It is an express FIR. Even then, it was received by the learned Magistrate concerned at about 07.30 P.M. on 24.11.2014. There is no explanation from the prosecution on the said aspects. 36. It is an express FIR. Even then, it was received by the learned Magistrate concerned at about 07.30 P.M. on 24.11.2014. There is no explanation from the prosecution on the said aspects. 36. As discussed supra, prosecution has to prove the guilt of the appellant and the offences committed by him beyond reasonable doubt by producing sure and safe evidence. In the present case, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not reposing confidence. PWs.5 to 7, elders, did not support the prosecution. Their evidence is also not useful to the prosecution. The evidence of PW.8 – elder, who drafted Ex.P.5 customary divorce document, dated 16.08.2014, is also not useful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant. 37. Further, prosecution failed to examine the said Smt.Chandramma, sister of PW.1 and father of PW.1 (husband of the deceased), who was aged about 90 years old on the date of incident and was sleeping outside the scene of offence room. 38. As discussed supra, it was winter season and there was no light in the scene of offence room. The said fact was admitted by PW.2 during her cross-examination. In such case, identification of the appellant is highly doubtful. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Parvat Singh (cited supra), Narayana Reddy @ Babu (cited supra and Mahtab Singh (cited supra). 39. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the aforesaid three Judgments i.e., S.Sudershan Reddy (cited supra), Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav (cited supra) and Dwarika Prasad Tiwari (cited supra). In all the three Judgments, the Apex Court held that accused therein was known person. Therefore, by hearing his voice and his mannerism, they can identify the accused in the darkness. In the present case, even according to the prosecution, more particularly, PWs.1 to 4, appellant did not open his mouth. Even, as per Ex.P.1 complaint dated 24.11.2014, appellant wore white clothes while committing the offence. In the charge sheet, it was specifically mentioned that the appellant wore Shiva mala and he wore saffron clothes. The said fact was also mentioned in Exs.P.6 and P.8 confessional statement and inquest panchanama. Thus, there are serious contradictions with regard to the dress colour of the appellant. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid three Judgments relied on by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is not useful to the prosecution. 40. The said fact was also mentioned in Exs.P.6 and P.8 confessional statement and inquest panchanama. Thus, there are serious contradictions with regard to the dress colour of the appellant. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid three Judgments relied on by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is not useful to the prosecution. 40. It is also settled law that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to accused has to be considered. Without considering the aforesaid aspects, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The impugned Judgment is not a reasoned Judgment and the interference of this Court is warranted. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 41. In the light of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the conviction recorded against the appellant herein - accused and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him vide judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court – cum – VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in S.C. No.352 of 2015. Appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Bail bonds furnished by him stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is also ordered to be returned to the appellant herein - accused after expiry of appeal time. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.