JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. All the three accused in Sessions Case No.346 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges :- 1 st charge was under Section 364 IPC against A.1 to A.3, 2 nd charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 to A.3, the 3 rd charge was under Section 201 against A.1 to A.3, 4 th charge was under Section 379 IPC against A.1 to A.3 and the last charge was under Section 404 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 12.12.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused abducted one C.Gowtham Chand (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), and demanded gold and cash and on the same day at about 7.30 P.M. they strangulated him to death with a coconut rope and took three sovereign of gold chain and gold ornaments from the body of the deceased, caused his death and thereafter poured kerosene on the dead body and set fire to it at Rakshasi gutta forest near Jonnagurukala village in order to screen away the evidence and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 , 364, 201 , 404 read with 34 IPC . 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 364 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 404 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences imposed against the accused No.1 to 3 were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- The deceased is a resident of Chittoor and he is doing jewellery business under the name and style of “Gowtham Jewellery” Shop at Bazar street. P.Ws.1 and 5 are the sons of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the adjacent gold shop owners. A.1 and his family members were regular customers of the deceased. A.1 purchased a gold chain in the shop of the deceased and paid some amount and he was due an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the deceased. A.1 used to postpone to pay the same on one pretext or the other. While so, on 12.12.2011 A.1 telephoned to the deceased asking him to come to Vijayalakshi theatre centre, Gandhi road to collect the said amount. Immediately, the deceased, who was at his residence, left on his Suzuki Access two wheeler to collect the amount. On the same day, at about 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 received a phone call from his father i.e., the deceased informing that A.2 will visit the shop and advised him to give three sovereign of gold chain weighing 24 grams. At about 2.00 P.M., A.2 visited the shop of the deceased on the two wheeler belonging to the deceased and collected the chain. P.W.1 used the cell phone of P.W.2 for confirming the transaction in the presence of A.2. Thereafter, the deceased did not return either to his shop or to his residence. P.W.1 searched for the deceased throughout the day, but could not trace him. On 13.12.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report-Ex.P1. P.W.1 used the cell phone of P.W.2 for confirming the transaction in the presence of A.2. Thereafter, the deceased did not return either to his shop or to his residence. P.W.1 searched for the deceased throughout the day, but could not trace him. On 13.12.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report-Ex.P1. P.W.15 Sub Inspector of police received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2011 under the head of “man missing”. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.3 and one Naga Bhushanam informed P.W.1 that they saw the deceased talking with the accused on 12.12.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., at Vijayalakshmi theatre centre. On 14.12.2011 P.W.1 and his relatives visited the house of A.1 and enquired the wife of A.1 who in turn told them that A.1 to A.3 killed the deceased for the sake of gold and threw the dead body in the forest. On the same day, P.W.16 who took up investigation, once again examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence i.e., house of P.W.1 and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P17. On 15.12.2011 he examined and recorded the statements of the wife of A.1 and P.W.4. On 16.12.2011 P.W.6 Sub Inspector of police, Nagari who was appointed as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in this case along with P.W.1 and his relatives went to Rakshasi gutta and found the dead body of deceased at about 8.00 P.M. and he seized the voter I.D. of the deceased-Ex.P3, silver ring (M.O.2) on his right hand finger of the dead body of deceased. Thereafter, P.W.6 informed the same to P.W.16. On 17.12.2011, P.W.16 received another report from P.W.1. On that, he altered the Section of Law from man missing case to Sections 364 , 302, 201, 379 read with 34 IPC . Ex.P18 is the altered FIR. Then, he reexamined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. On 17.12.2011 at about 8.00 P.M., P.W.16 visited forest area at Rakshasi gutta and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of P.W.7 and another under Ex.P5. During the course of inquest, P.W.16 utilized the services of clues team and dog squad. He got the scene of offence photographed. The photographs are marked as Exs.P19 to P22. During the course of inquest, P.W.16 utilized the services of clues team and dog squad. He got the scene of offence photographed. The photographs are marked as Exs.P19 to P22. He also seized voter I.D. card (Ex.P3), M.O.4-burnt thread pieces, partially burnt belt, burnt shirt pieces, controlled earth and blood stained earth under Ex.P5 and drew the rough sketch under Ex.P23. On the same day, P.W.9 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and one Dr. Latha conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. They opined the cause of death was due to “Hypo-volemic shock, leading to cardio-respiratory failure”. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P6 and final opinion under Ex.P8. 5. On 19.12.2011 P.W.16 arrested A.1 to A.3 and seized an amount of Rs.5,300/- and two receipts, dated 30.09.2010 issued by Gowtham Jewellery shop and another receipt for Rs.3,700/- from A.1. He seized an amount of Rs.2,800/- and one receipt issued by Manapuram Finance Corporation for pledging gold rings from A.2. He also seized an amount of Rs.1,700/- from A.3 and Xerox copy of RC of the two wheeler bearing No.AP 03 AQ 0719. Seizure proceedings were marked as Ex.P10. The said Ex.P10 was prepared in the presence of mediators P.W.13 and another. At the instance of A.1, P.W.16 seized the gold chain-M.O.3 from the pawn broker shop of Rajesh (P.W.10). At the instance of A.2, P.W.16 seized two gold rings i.e., M.Os.4 and 5 under Ex.P13 from Manapuram Finance Corporation Private Limited and recorded the statement of its Branch Manager (P.W.12). At the instance of A.3, P.W.16 and others visited J.R.Granite factory and seized M.O.16-Hero Honda CD Deluxe motor cycle under the cover of panchanama-Ex.P14 in the presence of mediators. At the instance of A.3, P.W.16 seized M.O.1-two wheeler belonging to the deceased from the house of P.W.8 who is none other than the brother- in-law of A.3. On 24.12.2011 P.W.16 recorded the statement of P.W.11 who sold the kerosene to A2. In the Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.14, M.Os.2 to 5 were identified by P.W.1. After completion of investigation and after receipt of all the relevant documents, P.W.17 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 16. On behalf of defence Ex.D1 was marked. 7. When all the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C ., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 16. On behalf of defence Ex.D1 was marked. 7. When all the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C ., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the three accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, they filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard Smt A.Gayatri Reddy and Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A.2 and A.3 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency of the present appeal, A.1 died on 28.02.2023. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the nominal roll along with the death certificate furnished by the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kadapa and confirmed the factum of death of A.1. As such, the present appeal with regard to A.1 is liable to be dismissed as 'abated' and the appeal can be proceeded against A.2 and A.3 i.e., appellants 2 and 3. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was doing jewellery business under the name and style of “Gowtham jewellery shop” at bazaar street, Chittoor. P.Ws.1 and 5 are none other than the sons of deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the adjacent gold shop owners of the deceased. P.W.1 in his report-Ex.P1, dated 13.12.2011, has stated that on 12.12.2011 at about 9.00 A.M., the deceased went out on his two wheeler for collecting money. In Ex.P1 he has stated that the deceased did not return home till 10.00 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.1 and his relatives searched for the deceased in the surrounding places. It is further stated in Ex.P1 that on 13.12.2011 they searched for the deceased at Tirupathi, Velllore and Palamaner and did not find whereabouts of the deceased. Finally, on 13.12.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., he gave report-Ex.P1 to the police giving descriptive particulars of the deceased. It is only on the basis of the said Ex.P1, the criminal law was set into motion. According to the evidence of P.W.3, he stated that he noticed the deceased talking with A.1 to A.3 at Vijayalakshmi theatre centre at about 10.30 A.M. on 12.12.2011. It is only on the basis of the said Ex.P1, the criminal law was set into motion. According to the evidence of P.W.3, he stated that he noticed the deceased talking with A.1 to A.3 at Vijayalakshmi theatre centre at about 10.30 A.M. on 12.12.2011. P.W.3 in his evidence further stated that he informed about he being noticed the deceased in the company of A.1 to A.3 to P.W.1. But, P.W.1 did not choose to give this vital part of information to the police till 17.12.2011. Further, P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that on 12.12.2011 at about 10.00 A.M., A.1 telephoned to the deceased and asked him to come for collecting the balance amount of Rs.4,500/-. In his evidence P.W.1 has stated that before leaving the house, the deceased informed P.W.1 stating that A.1 called him, who asked him to collect the money of Rs.4500/-, but curiously P.W.1 did not say anything about the said information in Ex.P1. P.W.1 in his evidence has further stated that the deceased telephoned to him and informed him that as and when A.2 visit the shop, hand over three sovereigns of gold chain i.e., 24 grams of gold chain to him. He further stated that A.2 visited the shop at about 2.00 P.M. and P.W.1 handed over the gold chain-M.O.3 to A.2. Even the said fact was also not informed by P.W.1 to the police till 17.12.2011. P.W.1 kept quiet from 12.12.2011 till 17.12.2011. Though P.W.3 said to have informed P.W.1, he did not inform the same to the police about the said fact. It is only after the inquest report, the entire case has been developed and Ex.P2 further report was given by P.W.1. Though, he came to know on 13.12.2011 itself about the information from P.W.3, he did not choose to give any information to the police. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot be relied on. So far as P.W.2 is concerned, he is only neighbouring shop owner and he is not at all helpful to the prosecution. P.W.4 did not support the prosecution and he was declared as a hostile. P.W.5 is none other than the son of deceased. He also spoke in the same lines as that of PW.1. 12. P.W.6 Sub Inspector of police in his evidence stated that he was appointed as an officer on Special Duty connecting the present crime. P.W.4 did not support the prosecution and he was declared as a hostile. P.W.5 is none other than the son of deceased. He also spoke in the same lines as that of PW.1. 12. P.W.6 Sub Inspector of police in his evidence stated that he was appointed as an officer on Special Duty connecting the present crime. But, in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not receive any written proceedings from the Superiors to act as a Special Officer in the present crime. He stated that his Superior Officer orally informed him. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.7 is the VRO who is panch witness for the scene of offence and recovery of M.Os.2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 from the scene of offence. He is also panch witness for inquest report. P.W.8 is brother-in-law of A.3 and in his evidence he stated that A.3 kept two wheeler belonging to the deceased in his house. But, in his cross-examination, he stated that the police did not visit his house. He further stated in the cross-examination that for the first time, he saw M.O.1 motor cycle in the court premises only. As such, his evidence is also not helpful for the prosecution in so far as recovery of M.O1. P.W.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. P.W.10 is the pawn broker from whom M.O.3 gold chain was recovered. But, in his evidence he has stated that there is no record to show that A.1 sold the gold chain M.O.3 to him and he did not produce any material to show that A.1 sold the said gold chain to him. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that he did not state before the police in his 161 Cr.P.C . statement that he handed over M.O.3 gold chain to the police. He also admitted in his cross- examination that he did not submit any documents to the police while handing over M.O.3. P.W.11 is the owner of the shop, who sold kerosene to one of the accused. But, he has stated in his evidence in chief that he cannot identify the person who purchased kerosene from his shop. P.W.12 is the Branch Manager, Manapuram Finance Limited, Chittoor. P.W.11 is the owner of the shop, who sold kerosene to one of the accused. But, he has stated in his evidence in chief that he cannot identify the person who purchased kerosene from his shop. P.W.12 is the Branch Manager, Manapuram Finance Limited, Chittoor. In his evidence, he stated that M.Os.4 and 5 gold rings were pledged in his Branch in the name of A.2. P.W.12 in his cross-examination, has specifically stated that he did not know the person who pledged the gold ornaments on 12.12.2011. He further admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the same. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that M.Os.4 and 5 were pledged in Branch on 12.12.2011 and he was on leave on that day. He further admitted that normally they used to issue computer generated receipts. But, in the present case, the prosecution produced manual receipt purportedly issued by the Branch of P.W.12 which is marked as Ex.P9. He further admitted that Ex.P9 does not contain his signature. P.W.13 is the VRO who acted as a panch witness for the arrest and recovery of M.Os from the accused. P.W.14 is the person who conducted Test Identification Parade for identification of M.Os.3 to 5 through P.W.1. P.W.15 is the Sub Inspector of police who registered the crime. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.17 is the Inspector of police who filed the charge sheet. 13. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 14. The evidence of P.W.1, who is son of deceased, evidence of P.W.3, who saw the deceased in the company of A.1 to A.3, evidence of P.W.8 from whose house M.O.1 two wheeler belonging to the deceased was recovered and the evidence of P.W.10 from whose shop M.O.3 gold chain was recovered and the evidence of P.W.12 Branch Manager from whose branch M.Os.4 and 5 gold rings were recovered is relevant in the present case. As already pointed out, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that on 12.12.2011 after receiving telephone call from A.1, the deceased left home for collecting money from A.1. It is his further evidence that the deceased telephoned and informed him to hand over M.O.3 gold chain to A.2. It is also his evidence that on the same day at about 2.00 P.M., A.2 visited the shop and P.W.1 handed over M.O.3 gold chain to A.2. It is his further evidence that the deceased telephoned and informed him to hand over M.O.3 gold chain to A.2. It is also his evidence that on the same day at about 2.00 P.M., A.2 visited the shop and P.W.1 handed over M.O.3 gold chain to A.2. It is his further evidence that on the next day he came to know through P.W.3 that the deceased was last seen in the company of A.1 to A.3 at Vijayalakshmi theatre centre. Though he came to know all these information on 12.12.2011 and on 13.12.2011, he did not give any information to the police about the said facts. In his earliest statement Ex.P1, he only stated that the deceased was missing from 9.00 A.M. on 12.12.2011. Except giving descriptive particulars of the deceased, he did not state anything in his report- Ex.P1. It is only after noticing the dead body of deceased on 17.12.2011, P.W.1 developed his version by way of giving Ex.P2 report. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 did not inspire confidence of the Court to rely on his version. So far as the evidence of P.W.3 is concerned, he stated in his evidence that he found the deceased in the company of A.1 to A.3 at about 10.30 A.M. on 12.12.2011. Though he is a neighbouring owner of the shop of the deceased, he did not choose to inform P.W.1 till the evening of 13.12.2011. There is no evidence to show that when the statement of P.W.3 was recorded by the Investigating Officer. P.W.16 in his evidence has stated that he verified the statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and Naga Bhushanam Gupta recorded by P.W.15. But, P.W.15 has not stated that he has recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and Naga Bhushanam. As such, P.W.3 must have been planted by the prosecution at a belated stage. P.W.8 is the witness and he is none other than the brother-in-law of A.3. In his evidence he stated that A.3 kept two wheeler belonging to the deceased in his house. But, in his cross-examination P.W.8 has stated that he has seen the seized two wheeler-M.O.1 for the first time in the Court premises. He also stated in his cross-examination that police never recorded his statement. As such, the evidence of P.W8 also does not helpful to the prosecution. But, in his cross-examination P.W.8 has stated that he has seen the seized two wheeler-M.O.1 for the first time in the Court premises. He also stated in his cross-examination that police never recorded his statement. As such, the evidence of P.W8 also does not helpful to the prosecution. The next witness is P.W.10 from whom M.O.3 gold chain was recovered by the Investigating officer. The said recovery of M.O.3 was on 19.12.2011 i.e., after arrest of accused in furtherance of the confession. P.W.10 in his evidence has categorically admitted that he did not state to the police in his 161 Cr.P.C . statement that he handed over M.O.3 to them. He also admitted that he does not have any documents to show that M.O.3 was recovered from his shop. Coming to the next witness i.e., P.W.12 Branch Manager of Manapuram Finance Corporation Limited with whom A.2 pledged gold rings M.Os.4 and 5 he has admitted in his evidence that he does not know anything about the said transaction and the receipt Ex.P9 does not contain his signature. He has also specifically admitted that on 12.12.2011 i.e., on the date of pledge of M.Os.4 and 5, he was on leave. He also admitted in the cross- examination that he did not know the person who pledged M.Os.4 and 5 gold rings. Except the above evidence, there is no material on record to show that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased. As such, the prosecution is not able to prove a single circumstance, even recovery of M.Os.1 to 5 in the circumstances of the case. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Suspicion however strong, but the same cannot be culminated into a conviction. Prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but not on mere suspicion. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants/A.2 and A.3 is liable to be set aside. 15. Prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but not on mere suspicion. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants/A.2 and A.3 is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in S.C.No.346 of 2012 on 19.07.2017 and the appellants/A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections. 302, 364, 201 , 404 read with 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted. Further, Appellants/Accused No.2 & 3 are set at liberty, if they are not required in any other cases or crimes. The present Criminal Appeal with regard to A.1 is dismissed as abated. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.