JUDGMENT : (K. Surender, J.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – accused to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i)(m)(n), 376 “A”, and 302 read with Section 75 of IPC, and Sections 6 read with 5 (h) (i) (l) (m) of POCSO Act, 2012, & Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act No.1 of 2016), vide judgment, dated 26.07.2017 in S.C.PCs.No.20 of 2017, passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Hyderabad. The accused was sentenced for the aforesaid offences as follows:- Sl.No. Offence Sentence 1. Section 6 of the POCSO Act Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, to suffer simple in default, imprisonment for two months 2. 366-A of IPC Undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months 3. 376 (2) (i)(m)(n) of IPC Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder natural life of the accused and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 4. 376-A of IPC Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life. 5. 302 read with 75 of IPC Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. U/s. 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, on 02.07.2016, PW.2, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint (Ex.P2) stating that on 02.07.2016 at 09:30 P.M., he, along with his wife-Babitha, who was examined as PW.3, and daughter-Saritha (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), went to Toddy compound. While PWs.2 and 3 were consuming toddy, the deceased was playing outside, and around 3:30 PM, she was no longer seen thereafter. They searched all possible places in the surrounding area, but they could not find her. While PWs.2 and 3 were consuming toddy, the deceased was playing outside, and around 3:30 PM, she was no longer seen thereafter. They searched all possible places in the surrounding area, but they could not find her. The said complaint was registered by the Alwal police as a ‘missing girl’ case and the investigating officer started the investigation. 3. On 03.07.2016 at 2:00 AM, PW.1, who is the S.I of police, lodged a complaint with the Bollaram Police. In his complaint, he stated that while he, along with his staff, was performing patrolling duty at Ammuguda area, they received a call stating that there were suspicious sounds near the railway track. Accordingly, PW.1, along with PWs.9 and 10, went towards the IEME centre Headquarters in the patrolling car. A person was seen running from the location wearing a purple- coloured shirt and blue-coloured jeans pant. The age of the person appeared to be around 30 years. Although PWs.1, 5, and 10 made attempts to catch hold of the person, they could not succeed. 4. Further searching in the bushes, they found the dead body of the deceased without any clothes on her. Her hands were tied behind her back and her legs were tied to the neck with pieces of cloth. The body had bleeding injuries and blood was oozing from her head and ears. At that same place, they found a charge sheet in Cr.No121 of 2015, registered under Sections 393 and 307 IPC of Narsapur Police Station. They observed that the girl was kidnapped and killed after being raped. 5. On the basis of the complaint filed with Bollaram police, investigation was taken up. PW.20-investigating officer took up the investigation on the basis of Ex.P1 report filed by PW.1. He went to the scene of offence and visited the same with the assistance of PW.14. He collected incriminating material from the scene of offence, and the scene of offence was also photographed. After conducting the scene of offence panchanama, he received information regarding a complaint registered by the Alwal Police about a missing girl. Then, PW.20 went to the Alwal Police Station and verified the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P2. PWs.2 and 3 were informed about the deceased. PWs.2 and 3 identified their daughter. All other witnesses were examined. After conducting the scene of offence panchanama, he received information regarding a complaint registered by the Alwal Police about a missing girl. Then, PW.20 went to the Alwal Police Station and verified the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P2. PWs.2 and 3 were informed about the deceased. PWs.2 and 3 identified their daughter. All other witnesses were examined. After the enquiry, an inquest over the dead body was held, and the dead body was sent for post- mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by PW.17. PW.17 found multiple internal and external injuries. According to PW.17, the death was due to injuries to the internal and external genitalia, associated with multiple injuries. Ex.P15 is the PME report. Ex.P16 is the FSL report. 6. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2016 at Gandhi grounds, Bollaram bazaar, and in the presence of PW.15 and other witnesses, his confession was recorded. The appellant took the police to his house, where his clothes, MOs.3, 4, and 15, were seized. MO.3 is the purple-coloured shirt and MO.4 is the blue-coloured jeans pant of appellant and they were sent for the purpose of FSL examination. It was found that there was human blood on MOs.1 and 2, which are the red and black coloured frock and a yellow coloured lower pant of the deceased. Ex.P14 is the FSL report. However, no semen was detected on the purple-coloured shirt and blue-coloured jeans pant of the appellant. The charge sheet was filed against the appellant for various offences for rape and murder, registered under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(i)(m)(n), 376 “A”, and 302 read with Section 75 of IPC, and Sections 6 read with 5 (h) (i) (l) (m) of POCSO Act, 2012, & Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act No.1 of 2016). 7. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution during the course of the trial, found that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The version of prosecution is that the appellant had committed the rape and murder of the deceased child, who belonged to the SC community. Accordingly, the Appellant was convicted. 8. The version of prosecution is that the appellant had committed the rape and murder of the deceased child, who belonged to the SC community. Accordingly, the Appellant was convicted. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the main basis for convicting the accused, according to the police, who identified the appellant as the accused, is the CCTV footage dated 01.07.2016 at around 03:48 p.m., which is marked as Ex.P5. However, according to the prosecution, PWs.2 and 3 and the deceased girl went to the toddy shop on 02.07.2016. In the CCTV footage, PWs.2 and 3 and the deceased are not seen. Since the footage pertains to 01.07.2016, it cannot be said that the appellant is the person who allegedly kidnapped the deceased girl and committed rape on her. 9. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor submits that the appellant was found running from the scene, and his shirt and pant were identified, and this information was also written in the complaint. The said shirt and pant were seized at the instance of the appellant, and blood stains were found on the clothes. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 10. The complaint/Ex.P2 was filed by PW.2 at 9:30 PM on 02.07.2016. In the said complaint, he stated that he and his wife/PW.3 went to the toddy shop along with their daughter. However, the daughter was missing. When examined in the Court, PW.2 stated that around 2:30 P.M. on 02.07.2016, when he was at the toddy shop, the appellant gave one mirchi bajji to the deceased. The appellant introduced himself as Anil resident of Krishna Nagar Colony, Alwal. Thereafter, the appellant took the deceased and again purchased bajjis worth Rs.10/-. The appellant also bought two bottles of toddy and gave them to PWs.2 and 3. Thereby, the appellant came close to the deceased and took her out saying that he would purchase some meat for her. However, the girl did not return until 5:00 PM. Similar is the evidence of PW.3/wife of the PW.1. 11. The entire version of appellant getting acquainted with the PW.2 and 3 and also the deceased is a complete omission in the complaint. However, the girl did not return until 5:00 PM. Similar is the evidence of PW.3/wife of the PW.1. 11. The entire version of appellant getting acquainted with the PW.2 and 3 and also the deceased is a complete omission in the complaint. If at all a person had informed that the appellant took the deceased outside, the said version could not have been missing in the complaint that was filed under Ex.P2. The entire story of the appellant meeting them and offering foodstuff is an improved version. If any unknown person had introduced himself and took the deceased outside the toddy shop, such vital information would have been stated to police. 12. PWs.1, 9, and 10 are the police officials who went to the scene, i.e., the railway track, after receiving information that there was commotion. There, they found one person running away wearing a purple-coloured shirt and blue jeans pant. However, all the police men failed to apprehend the said person. The appellant was arrested by PW.20 on 04.07.2016. It appears that the appellant was identified from the CCTV footage that was taken from the toddy compound and also Mo.13-charge sheet found at the scene. 13. According to the complaint/Ex.P1, there was a charge sheet in Cr.No.121 of 2015 which was found at the scene. The said charge sheet was placed on record by the prosecution as MO.13. It is not clear as to how the appellant was identified and arrested by the police. If the identification of the appellant is on the basis of the charge sheet, the same appears to be improbable in the case. It cannot be believed that a criminal would carry a charge sheet along with him and leave it at the scene of offence after committing the offence. The CCTV footage is of the day prior to the deceased was reported missing. The CCTV footage is from 01.07.2016 at 3:48 AM, and even according to investigation officer, neither the deceased nor PWs.2 and 3 are seen in the CCTV footage. The CCTV footage is Ex.P5 and the footage was copied onto a CD. 14. No reason is given as to why the footage of 02.07.2017 was not filed nor collected by the investigating officer. If the girl went missing on 2.7.2017, the CCTV footage of the said date ought to have been collected. 15. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2016. The CCTV footage is Ex.P5 and the footage was copied onto a CD. 14. No reason is given as to why the footage of 02.07.2017 was not filed nor collected by the investigating officer. If the girl went missing on 2.7.2017, the CCTV footage of the said date ought to have been collected. 15. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2016. Test Identification Parade was conducted for the purpose of identifying the appellant/suspect. The police officers Pws.1, 9 and 10, who saw the person running from the scene, did not participate in the Test Identification Parade, and PWs.7 and 8 identified the appellant in the jail. PW.7 is the mirchi bajji vendor stationed outside the toddy compound. PW.8 is another vendor who was selling meat (boti) in the toddy compound. According to PWs.7 and 8, both of them identified the appellant as the person, who had brought the child/deceased along with him and purchased some meat and mirchi from PWs.7 and 8. 16. As already discussed, the entire version of the prosecution regarding the appellant being present on 2.7.2016 at the Toddy compound, and PWs.2 and 3 stating that the appellant had taken the deceased for purchasing mirchi bajji and meat, was not stated in Ex.P1. If at all the child was taken by an unknown person, the said aspect could not have been omitted by PW.2 in his compliant. If the child was taken at 3:30 PM and until 5:00 PM she was not found and taken away by him, the same would have been recorded in the complaint. Both PWs.7 and 8 appear to have been planted for the purpose of the case. The said finding gains credibility with the CCTV footage. The police have not collected CCTV footage from 2.7.2016, however, the footage of 1.7.2019 was collected. On 01.07.2019, the appellant was found in the CCTV footage but neither PWs.2, 3, 7, and 8 nor the deceased are seen in the CCTV footage. 17. The case is one of the circumstantial evidence. 18. The police have not collected CCTV footage from 2.7.2016, however, the footage of 1.7.2019 was collected. On 01.07.2019, the appellant was found in the CCTV footage but neither PWs.2, 3, 7, and 8 nor the deceased are seen in the CCTV footage. 17. The case is one of the circumstantial evidence. 18. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , held as follows: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, (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 the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 19. It is for the prosecution to prove all the circumstantial evidences in the case beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed, the version of PWs.2, 3, 7 and 8 is a developed version, which cannot be believed. The manner in which the appellant was apprehended in his house is also suspicious. Further, the FSL report does not conclude that the blood found on the appellant and MOs.3 and 4 is that of the deceased girl. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in the judgment dated 26.07.2017, in S.C.PCS.No.20 of 2017, is hereby set aside. Since the appellant/accused is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.