JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) 1. Crl.A.No.244 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-1 and Crl.A.No.489 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-2, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad at Mancherial. 2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.113 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 are friends. The deceased, who is the son of P.W.1, owned an auto. He gave the said auto to P.W.4 on rent. 5. On 17.06.2018, at about 10 a.m., A-1, A-2, and the deceased went to the wine shop of P.W.6. There, they sat in the permit room and left the room. Thereafter, all three of them went to the house of P.W.5. According to P.W.5, both the appellants and the deceased stayed in his room and consumed liquor. There, they entered into a quarrel around 12:30 p.m. on the said day. P.W.5 admonished them, as such, all three of them left his room. 6. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who went to the police station in the night of 18.06.2018 at 0015 hours, and lodged a telugu written complaint. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that his son had gone out in the morning around 9 a.m. on 17.06.2018. Around 1:00 p.m., when his daughter called the deceased, he informed that he was partying with his friends at the ACC Quarry and would return home after the party. Again, at 2:00 p.m., the deceased was contacted, however, some other person answered the call and threatened that the deceased would be killed. Then, P.W.1 and others went in search of the deceased but could not trace him. Around 6 p.m., another phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased, and a person picked up and stated that auto collection money had to be given to Shiva. When contacted again, a bank account bearing No.62454544613 was provided, and the caller demanded that money be deposited in the said account. Around 6 p.m., another phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased, and a person picked up and stated that auto collection money had to be given to Shiva. When contacted again, a bank account bearing No.62454544613 was provided, and the caller demanded that money be deposited in the said account. On account of the said events that transpired on 17.06.2018, a complaint was filed with the police, seeking assistance of the police to trace the whereabouts of the deceased. 7. The dead body of the deceased was found on the outskirts of the village on 18.06.2018. The dead body was identified as that of the son of P.W.1. The police conducted the scene of offence panchnama, and the body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.11 conducted autopsy of the dead body and found the following injuries: 1. Crushed head injury (left side, brain exposed) (ante-mortem) 2. Contusion over the left upper chest (ante-mortem). 3. Blisters all over the body present (post-mortem). 8. According to P.W.11, the age of injuries was 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. However, according to postmortem examination report/Ex.P.9, the approximate time of death was 36 to 38 hours prior to the post mortem conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon. 9. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of the evidence collected, i.e., the CCTV footage at the wine shop and the account bearing No.62454544613 belonging to A-2, apprehended the appellants on 25.06.2018. Upon interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime, and the wearing apparel of the accused at the time of incident were also seized. The accused also pointed out the place where the murder of the deceased was committed. 10. Both the accused were tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 11. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, found favour with the prosecution case and convicted the appellants. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel raised the following grounds: 1. The postmortem Doctor stated that the death occurred 24 hours prior to the incident. The postmortem was conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon. If the opinion of the postmortem Doctor is considered, the death must have occurred on 18.06.2018 around 12 noon. The learned counsel raised the following grounds: 1. The postmortem Doctor stated that the death occurred 24 hours prior to the incident. The postmortem was conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon. If the opinion of the postmortem Doctor is considered, the death must have occurred on 18.06.2018 around 12 noon. The question of convicting the appellants does not arise, as the appellants were last seen with the deceased on 17.06.2018 around 12:30 p.m., by P.W.5 in his room, which is 24 hours prior to the death. The ‘last seen’ theory cannot be consistent. 2. The account number stated in the complaint though belonging to A-2, would be known to several persons. It cannot be said conclusively that it was the appellants who had given the account number. 3. There is a lot of time gap between the last seen theory and actual time of death. 13. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jabir and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand , [2023 SCC online SC 32] . The relevant paragraphs read as under: 25. A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.5 These were so stated in Sarad Birdichand Sarda (supra) where the court, after quoting from Hanumant, observed that: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an Accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri.) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of 5 Ibid 3 the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused.” 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 28. This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance. In Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab, 6 this court explained the soundness of such a rule: “Without probing further into the correctness of the "last- seen" version emanating from P.W. 14's evidence, even assuming that the deceased did accompany the accused in their vehicle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant and his companion had killed him and thrown the dead body in the culvert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his companions were responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arises against the accused. There is considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the Appellant and the time when P.W. 11 found the dead body. In the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence it is not possible to convict the Appellant solely on the basis of the "last-seen" evidence, even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. In view of this, the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the alleged confession made to him by the Appellant assumes importance.” 14. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the circumstances narrated by the prosecution clearly indicate that the deceased was in the company of A-1 and A-2, and it is for the appellants to explain under what circumstances the deceased died. 15. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.11, who stated that the death occurred 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was on 19.06.2018, at 12 noon. However, as seen from the postmortem report, the death occurred 36 to 38 hours prior to the postmortem examination, which would place the time of death around midnight on 17.06.2018. It appears that there was a typo during the course of the postmortem Doctor’s examination in the Court. 16. The sequence of the events narrated are as follows:- 1. Both the appellants and the deceased were found at the wine shop of P.W.6, and their presence was recorded in the CCTV footage. 2. It appears that there was a typo during the course of the postmortem Doctor’s examination in the Court. 16. The sequence of the events narrated are as follows:- 1. Both the appellants and the deceased were found at the wine shop of P.W.6, and their presence was recorded in the CCTV footage. 2. All three of them went to the room of P.W.5 where they consumed alcohol. A quarrel ensued between them, and thereafter, they left the room at 12:30 p.m. on 17.06.2018. 3. Around 1:00 p.m., when a call was made, the deceased informed his sister that they were partying and he would return home after partying. 4. On the same day, around 2:00 p.m., when a phone call was made, some other person picked up the phone and threatened that the deceased would be killed. 5. Around 6 p.m. on the said day, another person picked up the call and asked for money to be deposited into the account of A-2. 6. The dead body was found on the outskirts of the village, and the death was homicidal. 7. The postmortem was conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon, and the death is estimated to have occurred around midnight on 17.06.2018. 8. The cell phone of the deceased was recovered from the possession of A-2. 17. As seen from the postmortem examination, the stomach of the deceased contained undigested food particles mixed with alcohol. Under normal circumstances, when the stomach contains undigested food, death would have occurred approximately within two hours of consumption of food. According to the prosecution case, A-1, A-2 and the deceased were consuming liquor from 10 a.m. onwards in the morning. If the death occurred around midnight, there is no mention by any of the witnesses that the deceased consumed food later in the day. However, in the background of the present case, it can be inferred that the food must have been consumed two hours prior to the death, but the exact time of death could not be established by the prosecution. The appellants were last seen in the company of the deceased around 12:30 p.m. on 17.06.2018. Thereafter, in the evening around 6 p.m., the account number of A-2 was given when a phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased. 18. The appellants were last seen in the company of the deceased around 12:30 p.m. on 17.06.2018. Thereafter, in the evening around 6 p.m., the account number of A-2 was given when a phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased. 18. The events that transpired on the date of the incident reflect that both the appellants and the deceased were consuming alcohol throughout the day. As seen from the injuries found on the dead body, the death was as a result of crushed injury on the head. In the present circumstances, a drunken brawl cannot be ruled out. Both the appellants and the deceased were drunk and the deceased was killed with a blunt force injury to the head. There are neither stab injuries on the body nor any other injuries on the body to infer that the deceased was attacked with a weapon. In the said circumstances, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC. 19. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonment. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.