JUDGMENT : (K. Suresh Reddy, J.) Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He along with accused Nos. 2 to 4 was tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I charge was under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 , 380 , 201 and 411 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; II charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; III charge was under Section 380 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; IV charge was under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; and V charge was under Section 411 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Substance of the charges is that accused Nos. 2 to 4 having conspired with accused No. 1 committed murder of one Papineni Radhika (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') at about 2.30 p.m. on 16-04-2011 at door No. 4-5/2, Vempativari Street, Kondapalli, by throttling her neck and in the same process, they committed theft of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased and locked the door from outside and went away, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 302, 380 , 201 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC . After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The trial Court further convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the remaining charges. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. P.W.1 is husband of the deceased. P.W.3 is elder brother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased and sister of P.Ws. 1 and 3. 1 to 4 of the remaining charges. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. P.W.1 is husband of the deceased. P.W.3 is elder brother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased and sister of P.Ws. 1 and 3. The marriage between the deceased and P.W.1 took place about nine years ago prior to the date of incident. They were blessed with two children. Prior to the marriage, the deceased was having relationship with accused No. 1 who was her neighbour. When accused No. 1 asked P.W.2 to marry the deceased, the latter refused on the ground that the former belongs to a different caste. Subsequently, accused No. 1 married another woman. Even after marriage, accused No. 1 and the deceased continued their relationship. Due to the said relationship, wife of accused No. 1 obtained divorce in the year 2010. Thereafter, accused No. 1 took a rented room at Kondapalli owned by the father of P.W.5. Accused No. 1 and the deceased used to meet in the room twice or thrice in a week and spend time and thereafter they used to go to their respective houses. Subsequently, accused No. 1 developed jealous on the ground that the deceased was moving with others also. Accused No. 1 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, accused No. 1 conspired with accused Nos. 2 to 4 who were already accused in crime No. 239 of 2009 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. Accused No. 1 asked accused Nos. 2 to 4 to commit murder of the deceased and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to them. On 16-04-2011 at about 2.30 p.m., accused No. 1 went to the room situated at Kondapalli along with the deceased on his two-wheeler and enjoyed with her for some time. In the meanwhile, accused No. 1 telephoned accused Nos. 2 to 4 and asked them to come to Kondapalli. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the room situated at Kondapalli. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 killed the deceased by throttling her neck while accused No. 4 was guarding from outside. Thereafter, they committed theft of M.Os.1 to 4 from the body of the deceased and went away by locking the door from outside. As the deceased did not turn up, P.Ws.1 to 3 started searching in surrounding places. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 killed the deceased by throttling her neck while accused No. 4 was guarding from outside. Thereafter, they committed theft of M.Os.1 to 4 from the body of the deceased and went away by locking the door from outside. As the deceased did not turn up, P.Ws.1 to 3 started searching in surrounding places. During the course of search with the aid of photograph of the deceased, someone informed them on 18-04-2011 that they saw accused No. 1 taking the deceased on 16-04-2011. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 approached father of accused No. 1 who assured them that the deceased will be sent back. As whereabouts of the deceased were not known, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to police station, Ibrahimpatnam, on 21-04-2011 and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. P.W.15-the then Head Constable, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at about 11 a.m. on 21-04-2011 and registered a case in crime No. 151 of 2011 under the head 'Woman Missing'. Ex.P28 is copy of FIR. Thereafter, P.W.15 went to the house of P.W.1 and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.15 also prepared a rough sketch at the house which was marked as Ex.P29. While things stood thus, on 24-04-2011, P.W.2 went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P2 to police stating that dead body of the deceased was found in the house of P.W.5 at Kondapalli on 24-04-2011 in a highly decomposed state. P.W.16-the then Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, received Ex.P2 from P.W.2 and altered the section of law from Woman Missing to 302 and 201 IPC and issued altered FIR to all the concerned. Altered memo was marked as Ex.P30. It is further stated in Ex.P2 that P.W.2 went to Kondapalli on 24-04-2011 as the deceased used to stay now and then in the room of P.W.5; that when she opened the lock, she found dead body of the deceased in a highly decomposed state and that on enquiry, she came to know that her daughter and accused No. 1 came to the room and stayed for some time on 16-04-2011 and went away and as such, she expressed suspicion over accused No. 1 as the person who killed the deceased. P.W.16 visited the scene of offence along with P.W.2 and secured the presence of P.Ws.11 and 13 and prepared an observation report-Ex.P25. P.W.16 also prepared Ex.P31-Rough Sketch. P.W.16 visited the scene of offence along with P.W.2 and secured the presence of P.Ws.11 and 13 and prepared an observation report-Ex.P25. P.W.16 also prepared Ex.P31-Rough Sketch. P.W.16 seized M.Os.5 to 9 in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 13 under a cover of panchanama. On 25-04-2011, P.W.16 secured the presence of P.Ws.11, 13 and 14 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P10. P.W.16 examined P.W.1 to 4. As the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 were already recorded by P.W.15, P.W.16 did not record their statements since they did not deviate from their earlier version. P.W.16 also recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 7 during the course of investigation. P.W.16 sent the dead body of the deceased for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.9-HOD, Forensic Department, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.9 opined the cause of death was due to throttling and he also opined that the body of the deceased was in highly decomposed state. Accordingly, P.W.9 issued Ex.P7-post mortem certificate. On 27-04-2011, accused No. 1 himself surrendered before the Court. P.W.16 obtained custody of accused No. 1 and interrogated him in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 12. When initially P.W.16 interrogated accused No. 1 on 02-05-2011 and 03-05-2011, the latter did not state anything. Finally on 03-05-2011 at about 12.30 noon, accused No. 1 said to have confessed about commission of offence and on his confession, P.W.16 recovered one Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle from the house of accused No. 1 which was seized under Ex.P13. On 04-05-2011 at about 8 a.m., P.W.16 recovered another motorcycle. Both the motorcycles were marked as M.Os.12 and 13. During the course of further investigation, P.W.16 arrested accused Nos. 2 and 4 on 06-05-2011 at Sivalayam Street, Vijayawada. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 said to have confessed about commission of offence along with accused Nos. 1 and 3. On the confession made by accused Nos. 2 and 4, P.W.16 recovered M.Os.2 and 4 from them under a cover of panchanama. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.17-the then Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. On 03-06-2011, accused No. 3 himself surrendered before the Court. P.W.17 obtained police custody of accused No. 3 by filing a memo before the Court. 2 and 4, P.W.16 recovered M.Os.2 and 4 from them under a cover of panchanama. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.17-the then Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. On 03-06-2011, accused No. 3 himself surrendered before the Court. P.W.17 obtained police custody of accused No. 3 by filing a memo before the Court. When accused No. 3 was interrogated in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13, he confessed about commission of offence and on the basis of his confession, P.W.17 recovered M.O.3- gold ring under Ex.P36-panchanama. After receiving RFSL Report and final opinion-Ex.P37, P.W.17 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P37 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 13. 5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.D1 to D7. 6. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1, and leaned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1 is husband and P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is brother of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the deceased went to grinding mill on 16-04-2011 at about 2.30 p.m. for getting chilli powder. As the deceased did not turn up till 6 p.m., P.W.1 telephoned P.Ws.2 and 3. They searched for the deceased in surrounding places. During the course of search with the aid of photograph of the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 3 came to know through someone on 18-04-2011 that on the deceased was found going along with accused No. 1 on 16-04-2011 but they did not choose to give report to police, instead they went to the house of father of accused No. 1 and questioned him who assured them that the deceased will be sent to their house after they return. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to police station on 21-04-2021 and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police, on the basis of which crime was registered under the head of 'Woman Missing'. 8. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that she visited Kondapalli on 24-04-2011 and enquired P.W.5 about the deceased. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to police station on 21-04-2021 and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police, on the basis of which crime was registered under the head of 'Woman Missing'. 8. P.W.2 in her evidence stated that she visited Kondapalli on 24-04-2011 and enquired P.W.5 about the deceased. P.W.2 further stated that she came to know through P.W.5 that accused No. 1 along with the deceased came to the room situated at Kondapalli on 16-04-2011 at about 2.30 p.m. It is her further evidence that she opened the lock of the door, went inside the room and found the dead body of the deceased in a highly decomposed state. Thereafter, P.W.2 went to police station and lodged further report-Ex.P2, on the basis of which section of law was altered from Woman Missing to Sections 302 and 201 IPC . 9. P.W.4, who is running Kirana Shop at Ibrahimpatnam, was sought to be examined to prove the relationship between the deceased and accused No. 1 but he did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared hostile. 10. P.Ws.6 and 7, who are residents of Kondapalli Village, were also examined by the prosecution to prove the relationship between accused No. 1 and the deceased but they also did not support the case of prosecution. 11. P.W.5 was examined by the prosecution to show that accused No. 1 and the deceased took a room on rent and they used to meet now and then. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that about four years back, he saw accused No. 1 and the deceased entering into the room and after some time, accused Nos. 2 and 3 also entered into the room while accused No. 4 was guarding from outside. P.W.5 further stated in his evidence that accused No. 1 had taken the said room on rent about four years back. P.W.5 in his evidence specifically admitted that he cannot specify the date on which accused No. 1 and the deceased came to the room. P.W.5 also stated in his evidence that two or three days after their visit, he observed emanation of foul smell from the room. Two or three days thereafter, P.W.2 came and informed about missing of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 5 went to the room, opened the lock and found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 also stated in his evidence that two or three days after their visit, he observed emanation of foul smell from the room. Two or three days thereafter, P.W.2 came and informed about missing of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 5 went to the room, opened the lock and found the dead body of the deceased. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5, the incident said to have taken place on 16-04-2011 and they found the dead body of the deceased on 24-04-2011. 12. The prosecution examined P.W.8, owner of Kaza Jewellery Shop, to show that two persons visited his shop to sell gold ornaments but he did not support the case of prosecution and he was also declared hostile. 13. P.W.9 is Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is in-charge of Sai Balaji Scooter Stand, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, wherefrom the police seized motorcycle on 04-05-2011. P.Ws.11 to 14 are mediators for observation report, inquest, confession of the accused and recovery of motorcycles. Of course, P.Ws.12 to 14 did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. P.W.15 is Head Constable who registered the crime and P.Ws.16 and 17 are investigating officers. 14. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 is available on record to establish the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 only shows that the deceased was missing from 16-04-2011 onwards. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 further shows that on 18-04-2011 itself, they came to know that accused No. 1 took the deceased on 16-04-2011. In spite of they come to know about the deceased going along with accused No. 1, they did not choose to give any report to police. The evidence of P.W.2, mother of the deceased, further disclosed that she was aware of the relationship between the deceased and accused No. 1 and their meeting in the house of P.W.5 situated at Kondapalli. Though P.W.2 was aware of the same, she did not choose to visit Kondapalli, where accused No. 1 and the deceased used to meet, from 16-04-2011 to 24-04-2011. Further, P.W.2 in her report-Ex.P2 did not state about missing of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased. Though P.W.2 was aware of the same, she did not choose to visit Kondapalli, where accused No. 1 and the deceased used to meet, from 16-04-2011 to 24-04-2011. Further, P.W.2 in her report-Ex.P2 did not state about missing of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased. P.W.2 only stated that she found the dead body of the deceased in the room but she did not state about missing of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased. According to P.W.5, three persons entered into the room on the fateful day. Of course, P.W.5 admitted that he cannot specify the date on which they visited the room but it is his specific case that three persons entered into the room on the fateful day. 15. Case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed murder of the deceased by throttling but accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC . As such, there is no evidence to show that accused No. 1 alone caused death of the deceased. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 2 and 3 also killed the deceased. Even the allegation made in the charge sheet is that on receiving phone call from accused No. 1, accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the scene of offence and accused Nos. 1 to 3 caused death of the deceased by throttling while accused No. 4 stayed outside the room. There is absolutely no evidence to show that accused No. 1 alone killed the deceased. Having given benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 2 and 3, the trial Court ought to have given the same benefit of doubt to accused No. 1. So far as recovery of gold ornaments is concerned, obviously they must have been planted by the prosecution because P.W.2 in her report-Ex.P2 did not state about missing of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased. If really those gold ornaments were found missing, P.W.2 would have stated the same thing in Ex.P2. 16. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 411 IPC . 17. 16. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 411 IPC . 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused No. 1 by judgment dated 21-04-2017 in S.C.No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. The appellant-accused No. 1 is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant- accused No. 1 shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Fine amount paid by the appellant-accused No. 1, if any, shall be refunded to him. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.