JUDGMENT : EV Venugopal, J. 1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.05.2018 in SC No.271 of 2016 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where by the trial Court found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months each, for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 of IPC; further, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and further sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy and Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3. SC No.271 of 2016, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is a case registered basing on the complaint/Ex.P1, lodged by PW1 in FIR No.134 of 2015, dated 25.05.2015 on the file of PS, Kachiguda for the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC on the allegation that the appellants committed murder of deceased No.1, committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 10 Tolas, worth then about Rs.2.50 Lakhs, from her dead body and also committed murder of her retorted brother-in-law. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2015 at about 21.15 hours, PW18/SI of Police, PS Kachiguda received a complaint from PW1, who is the son of deceased No.1 and nephew of deceased No.2, complaining missing of his mother and paternal uncle. Accordingly, FIR No.134 of 2015 was registered. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2015 at about 21.15 hours, PW18/SI of Police, PS Kachiguda received a complaint from PW1, who is the son of deceased No.1 and nephew of deceased No.2, complaining missing of his mother and paternal uncle. Accordingly, FIR No.134 of 2015 was registered. When PW19/SI of police enquired PWs.1 and 2, who are the son and husband respectively of the deceased No.1, they informed that when the deceased No.1 requested PW2 to take her to Yadagirigutta on the eve of their marriage anniversary day, PW2 informed the deceased No.1 to go in the regular auto of Parthasarathi/appellant No.1 along with his mentally unsound brother i.e. the deceased No.2. PW10, who is the tenant of deceased No.1, stated that the deceased went to Yadagirigutta in the auto of appellant No.1 at 10.00 AM on 16.05.2015. He also stated that the deceased No.1 wore red colour saree at that time. PWs.1 and 2 further stated that when they tried to contact the auto driver/appellant No.1 over cell phone, his cell phone was found switched off. 5. On 01.06.2015 at about 07.00 hours, PW19 apprehended the appellant No.1 at Kachiguda Railway Station while he was trying to flee to Chennai by train. Appellant No.1 confessed that on 16.05.2015 he took both the deceased in his auto to Yadagirigutta and on the afternoon of 17.05.2015 he, along with his associate viz. Appellant No.2 killed them in the isolated hillocks of Podichedu Village of Mothkur Mandal, Nalgona District, and he committed theft of gold ornaments from the dead body of deceased No.1. He further confessed that he pledged some of the gold ornaments with a pawn broker/PW6 at Malakpet and some with PW11. 6. During the course of investigation, PW19 arrested the appellants. PW20/Inspector of Police took up investigation, recorded voluntary confessions of appellants, seized the auto, recovered the gold ornaments and pawn broker receipts and after conducting post-mortem examination and after completing the requisite formalities, filed the charge-sheet 7. 6. During the course of investigation, PW19 arrested the appellants. PW20/Inspector of Police took up investigation, recorded voluntary confessions of appellants, seized the auto, recovered the gold ornaments and pawn broker receipts and after conducting post-mortem examination and after completing the requisite formalities, filed the charge-sheet 7. During the course of investigation, the local police from Mothkur PS came to the spot and observed the scene and reported that they have discovered the dead body of deceased No.2 on 19.05.2015, conducted inquest in Crime No.45 of 2015, panchanama of scene of offence and autopsy on dead body through PW7 and thereafter disposed off the body on 23.05.2015 through gram panchayat officials as per rules. PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9 identified the photographs and wearing apparel of the deceased No.2. 8. PW15, Finger Prints Examiner identified the skull and humerus bone through DNA finger printing diagnostics and issued report bearing No.DCDFD/LDFS/3675/2957/2016, dated 04.02.2016 stating that the same belong to the deceased No.1. 9. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 379, 404 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 10. To substantiate its case before the trial Court, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 22. 11. Basing on the evidence adduced on record, the trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 364 read with Section 34 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, as stated supra. 12. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the offences basing on the following circumstances : (i) A1 was known to Uma Rani and her family members and was regularly engaging his auto bearing No.AP 09 W 3180. (ii) On 16.05.2015 at 10.00 AM deceased No.1 had left for Yadagirigutta along with her brother-in-law/deceased No.2 and at that time appellants were in the auto and appellant No.1 was the driver of the said auto. (iii) They went to another temple and therefore they reached Yadagirigutta in the night and stayed there in the room of PW4. (iv) The deceased did not return from Yadagirigutta. (v) Family members reported the matter to the police on 19.05.2015. 13. (iii) They went to another temple and therefore they reached Yadagirigutta in the night and stayed there in the room of PW4. (iv) The deceased did not return from Yadagirigutta. (v) Family members reported the matter to the police on 19.05.2015. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no ocular evidence to the scene of offence, though the case of the prosecution that the deceased were missing from 16.05.2015, Ex.P25 pawn broker receipt was dated 15.05.2015 i.e., prior to their missing, the trial Court relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses and the relatives of the deceased, the crime vehicle was not in a condition of moving and hence, the same cannot be used in commission of offence. Further, though the appellant No.1 was arrested on 28.05.2015 the police showed his date of arrest as 01.06.2015. This fact itself shows that the prosecution case is not based on the true set of facts. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant No.1, in support of their contentions, relied upon the following decisions : (1) M.Paul Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police , [2022 (1) ALT (Crl.) 201] (2) Ashish Jain Vs. Stte of Madhya Pradesh , [ 2019 (3) SCC 770 ] (3) Jarapala Deepala and others Vs. State of A.P., 2005 SCC OnLine 1119. (4) Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 . By placing reliance, the learned counsel contended that when test identification parade of property was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, credence cannot be given to the identification of the property by the witness in the Court. Further, omissions to mention important facts in FIR effect the probability of the case. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 relied upon the following decisions : (1) Nizam and another Vs. State of Rajasthan , [2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 898 (SC)] (2) SK Yousuf Vs. State of West Bengal , [(2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 754] (3) Sugali Dungavathi Lakshma Naik @ Anda and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 172 (AP)] (4) Devarla Murali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 476 (AP)] (5) Anil Kumar Goswamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2019(1) ALD (Crl.) 797 (6) Jose alias Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and another, 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (SC). State of Andhra Pradesh , [2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 172 (AP)] (4) Devarla Murali Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 476 (AP)] (5) Anil Kumar Goswamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2019(1) ALD (Crl.) 797 (6) Jose alias Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and another, 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 1 (SC). (7) Satish Kumar and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another , [2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 531 (SC)] (8) CT Ponnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 391. Basing on the proposition of law laid down in the above decisions, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 contended that it would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. 16. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal appeal mainly contending that the complicity of the appellants is established by the prosecution by adducing convincing, cogent and acceptable evidence and that the appellants having failed to rebut the same, filed the present criminal appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Upon hearing the rival contentions on either side and perusing the record, the point to be determined herein is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 379 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. The prosecution case goes on to show that the deceased No.1 along with the deceased No.2 went in the auto of appellant No.1 accompanied by appellant No.2 to Yadagirigutta. Their leaving the house was witnessed by PW10, tenant of deceased No.1. PW10 stated that on 16.05.2015 at 10.00 AM he saw deceased No.1 dressed up along with the deceased No.2 to go out and when he asked her about her dressing up with jewellery, she replied that she was going to Yadagirigutta to have darshan on the eve of her marriage day in the auto of appellant No.1. PW10 stated that on 16.05.2015 at 10.00 AM he saw deceased No.1 dressed up along with the deceased No.2 to go out and when he asked her about her dressing up with jewellery, she replied that she was going to Yadagirigutta to have darshan on the eve of her marriage day in the auto of appellant No.1. He further stated that after 15 minutes, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 came with auto and took the deceased. He further stated that he saw appellant No.1 earlier on two to three occasions as he used to take the deceased No.1 to bank, hospitals etc. 19. PWs.1, 3 and 9 are the sons of the deceased No.1 and PW2 is her husband. They have deposed with regard to their acquaintance with appellant No.1, using his auto services by deceased No.1 according to her travel exigencies and deceased Nos.1 and 2 going along with the appellants on 16.05.2015 to have a darshan at Yadagirigutta. They identified the decomposed dead body of deceased No.1, her wearing apparel and gold ornaments and also the photographs and clothes of deceased No.2. 20. PW15/senior technical examiner examined teeth and humerus bone of the deceased No.1 by comparing the same with the DNA profiles of PWs.1, 3 and 9 and also their blood stains and confirmed under Ex.P17 report that the deceased is the biological mother of PWs.1, 3 and 9. The identification of dead bodies and wearing apparel is very much established by the above said witnesses and hence, there cannot be any doubt in this regard. 21. Appellant No.1 admitted his pledging the gold ornaments with PW6 and PW11 and accordingly, they were recovered. Further, as shown by the appellant No.1, the auto used for commission of offence was recovered from the possession of appellant No.2. Evidence of PW5 shows that he being the owner of auto bearing No.AP 09 W 3180, hired his auto to accused No.1 for plying the same in the year 2015. Evidence of PW4 shows that two years ago they provided accommodation in their private accommodation at Yadagirigutta to the deceased and appellants. PW4 also stated that on the next day at 07.00 AM appellants and the deceased vacated the room. He asserted that appellant No.1 was present among the persons who took accommodation. Evidence of PW4 shows that two years ago they provided accommodation in their private accommodation at Yadagirigutta to the deceased and appellants. PW4 also stated that on the next day at 07.00 AM appellants and the deceased vacated the room. He asserted that appellant No.1 was present among the persons who took accommodation. PW12 along with T.Jaya Ramulu acted as mediators for recovery of MOs.16 and 17 from the scene and auto from the residence of appellant No.2. They also witnessed confession of appellants stating that they murdered the deceased. 22. PW7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2, certified under Ex.P3/post-mortem examination report that due to respiratory arrest caused by head injury and internal bleeding the deceased No.2 died. PW8 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.1 certified under Ex.P4/post-mortem examination report that due to bleeding leading to hypovolemia and shock the deceased No.1 died. He also certified that the body was putrefied and mummified. 23. Though the learned counsel for the appellant No.1 contended that the appellant No.1 was arrested on 28.05.2015, PW19 showed the date of arrest of appellant No.1 as 06.06.2015, there is no question put to PW-19 in this regard. 24. The law is very clear that when there is no direct evidence to establish the culpability of the accused, circumstantial evidence plays crucial role to lend support to prove the guilt of the accused as enunciated under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act. 25. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and then the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being a part of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long time gap and the possibility of other person coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases . In Hatti Singh vs. State of Haryana , [ (2007)12 SCC 471 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “21. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. In Hatti Singh vs. State of Haryana , [ (2007)12 SCC 471 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “21. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 2006 SC 1656 ), this Court noticed: 27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration. 28. In State of U.P. v. Satish (2005 CriLJ 1428), this Court observed: 22. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW 2.” However, in the case on hand, there is ample evidence available on record, particularly in the form of evidence of PW10, to establish that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together and the complaint was lodged with a little gap only. The said fact was established through the evidence of PW10. There is corroboration in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 on that aspect. Hence this court relies upon the last seen theory, which was established by cogent and convincing evidence. 26. The said fact was established through the evidence of PW10. There is corroboration in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 on that aspect. Hence this court relies upon the last seen theory, which was established by cogent and convincing evidence. 26. The prosecution has categorically established the motive, intent and premeditation on the part of the appellant No.1 stating that since the deceased No.1 refused to extend financial assistance to the appellant No.1, he hatched a plan along with appellant No.2 and executed the same, committed murder of deceased and took away her gold. 27. As per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 9, when they tried to contact the appellant No.1 to enquire about the deceased, his phone found to be switched off and his whereabouts were also not found. Admittedly, after going along with the appellants in the auto of appellant No.1 the deceased did not return to the home. 28. When the above factual matrix is meticulously scrutinized, the chain of link is completed pointing out the finger towards the appellants in view of the evidence of PW10. It is well established through the evidence of PW6 and PW11 that the appellant No.1 and his wife have mortgaged the property with them. They identified the appellant No.1 and his wife. Further, PWs.1 and 2, who are the son and husband of the deceased No.1 have identified the ornaments recovered from PWs.6 and 11. 29. The evidence let in by the prosecution is cogent, clinching and convincing in establishing an unbroken chain of circumstances in proving the culpability of the appellants. By taking into consideration the above factual matrix, the trial Court had rightly found the appellant No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 364 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted him by giving proper reasoning and findings. 30. With regard to the culpability of appellant No.2 is concerned, the prosecution could able to establish that he accompanied the appellant No.1 in the entire episode. Admittedly, except the auto, nothing was recovered from appellant No.2. The prosecution failed to prove his role in committing murder of the deceased or in taking away her gold ornaments. 30. With regard to the culpability of appellant No.2 is concerned, the prosecution could able to establish that he accompanied the appellant No.1 in the entire episode. Admittedly, except the auto, nothing was recovered from appellant No.2. The prosecution failed to prove his role in committing murder of the deceased or in taking away her gold ornaments. In that view of the matter the findings of the trial Court with regard to the appellant No.2 needs interference by this Court since evidence on record is not sufficient to found him guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the evidence on record could establish that the appellant No.2 extended his help or abetted the appellant No.1 in taking the deceased in the auto of appellant No.1. Accordingly, the appellant No.2 is found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 109 of IPC. 31. In the result, the criminal appeal, insofar as the appellant No.1 is concerned, is dismissed. Insofar as the appellant No.2 is concerned, the conviction as imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC is set aside and he is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 109 of IPC and accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant No.2 is entitled for the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.