JUDGMENT : K. SURESH REDDY, J. 1. Sole accused in S.C.No.235 of 2017 on the file of Court of V Additional Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 IPC. The second charge was under Section 379 IPC. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 13.09.2015, at about 09.00 a.m., the accused strangulated one Devada Parvathi (hereinafter referred as the deceased) at Bridge county in the outskirts of Diwancheruvu village, causing her death and in the same process he committed theft of gold ear studs, cell phone and cash of Rs.10,000/- from the dead body, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC: (a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: (i) The appellant, originally a resident of Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District is presently residing at Mallayyapeta, near Manjunatha Bakery, Rajamahendravaram. P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. The accused is a car driver by profession. The deceased was a resident of Pothavaram village, hamlet of Chodipalem of Koyyuru Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. About 10 years prior to the date of incident, the deceased went to Hyderabad and used to work in a biscuit factory. The deceased used to stay in the house of the accused as a tenant. Gradually, the deceased developed intimacy with the accused which turned into extra marital relationship. By that time, the accused was already married to one ‘Neelima’ and he was having two children. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased shifted their residence to Rajamahendravaram. About 5 months prior to the date of incident, the deceased brought a girl by name ‘Sony’ from Hyderabad and introduced her to the accused stating that she is an orphan and requested him to allow her to be as a cook in their house. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased shifted their residence to Rajamahendravaram. About 5 months prior to the date of incident, the deceased brought a girl by name ‘Sony’ from Hyderabad and introduced her to the accused stating that she is an orphan and requested him to allow her to be as a cook in their house. The eldest son of the accused moved with said Sony closely. Having come to know about their closeness, the accused asked Sony to go away from his house, but, she refused and demanded him to marry her. Thereafter, on 07.07.2015, the accused killed the said Sony by throttling her at Bridge county, opposite to GIET college, Rajanagaram. Of course, the said case ended in acquittal. The elder son of the accused, having come to know about killing of Sony, used to threaten the accused stating that he will inform the same to others. When the deceased insisted about whereabouts of Sony, the accused gave evasive replies. The deceased used to insist the accused to marry her. (ii) On 13.09.2015, at about 06.00 a.m., the deceased along with her friend (P.W.3) left Gopalapuram where she was working in a prawn factory. She intended to proceed to her village. On the way, she telephoned to the accused and informed him about her going to village. The deceased and P.W.3 got down at Kotipalli bus stand, Rajamahendravaram, where the accused was already present. The accused took the deceased and P.W.3 on his motor bike to his house situated at Santosh Nagar, Bhavanipuram. When the deceased insisted him for marriage, he decided to eliminate her. After going to his house, the accused asked P.W.3 to stay there and took the deceased on the pretext of discussing about the marriage. The accused took the deceased to a secluded place in the western side forest area of Bridge county at the outskirts of Diwancheruvu and had intercourse with her. Having tired, the deceased went to sleep. Then, the accused took out a plastic tag, which was purchased from the shop of P.W.9 and strangulated her to death. The deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused took away bangles (M.O.4), gold ear hangings (M.O.7), gold ear studs (M.O.8) and cell phone (M.O.10) from the body of the deceased and went to his house. Then, the accused took out a plastic tag, which was purchased from the shop of P.W.9 and strangulated her to death. The deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused took away bangles (M.O.4), gold ear hangings (M.O.7), gold ear studs (M.O.8) and cell phone (M.O.10) from the body of the deceased and went to his house. When P.W.3 questioned the accused about the deceased, he replied stating that the deceased went to her relatives’ house. On that, P.W.3 left to her village. As the deceased did not turn up to the village, P.W.1 – brother of the deceased, went to the Police Station and gave a report – Ex.P.22. P.W.15 – S.I. of Police, Rajangaram received Ex.P.22 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.236 of 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.23 is the FIR. (iii) In the meanwhile, on 08.11.2015, the accused was arrested in Cr.No.217 of 2015 of Devarapalli Police Station which was registered under Section 302 IPC, in which the appellant caused the death of his elder son. During the course of interrogation, the appellant said to have confessed about the commission of murder of the deceased in the present case. On the basis of the said confession, P.W.15 filed altered memo on 09.11.2015 under Ex.P.25. Subsequently, on 10.11.2015, having received altered FIR, P.W.14 – Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police Station, re-registered the crime as Cr.No.379 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P.17 is the re-registered FIR. On the same day, he also received information about the unidentified dead body near GIET college, Diwancheruvu. He found skeleton remains and plastic tag scattered around the neck. As it was late in the night, he kept surveillance at the scene of offence. On the next day i.e. on 11.11.2015, at about 01.30 p.m., P.W.14 visited the scene of offence along with mediators and blood relatives who were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and others. He held inquest over the skeleton of the deceased in the presence of mediators and blood relatives. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.11. He also prepared an observation report (Ex.P.10) at the scene of offence. He also prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.18) at the scene of offence. On 12.11.2015, P.W.12 – Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body. He preserved the skeleton for sending it to FSL, Hyderabad. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.11. He also prepared an observation report (Ex.P.10) at the scene of offence. He also prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.18) at the scene of offence. On 12.11.2015, P.W.12 – Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body. He preserved the skeleton for sending it to FSL, Hyderabad. After conducting DNA, they could identify the dead body as that of the deceased. But, as only skeleton remains were found, P.W.12 could not find out the cause of death. P.W.12 gave opinion stating that deceased must have died 60 to 70 days prior to the postmortem examination. Ex.P.15 is the postmortem report and Ex.P.16 is the FSL report. On 25.11.2015, P.W.14 recorded the confessional statement in the presence of P.W.7 – VRO and others. On the basis of the confession, P.W.14 recovered M.Os.7 and 8, which were pledged with Sri. Venkateswara Finance, Devi Chowk. P.W.10 is the manager of Sri. Venkateswara Finance, Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram from whom M.Os.7 and 8 were recovered. P.W.14 arrested the accused on 25.11.2015 under PT warrant. After collecting all the material and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 15, marked exhibits P1 to P25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 10. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are none other than brother and sister of the deceased respectively, in their evidence have categorically stated that on 12.09.2015, the deceased telephoned to them and informed them that she is coming to their house situated at Narsipatnam. They further stated in their evidence that on 13.09.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., the deceased once again telephoned and informed both of them that she boarded bus to go to Narsipatnam. Thereafter, her cell phone was switched off. It is their further evidence that on 02.11.2015, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.3 went to the house of the accused and the door was locked. Thereafter, her cell phone was switched off. It is their further evidence that on 02.11.2015, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.W.3 went to the house of the accused and the door was locked. Then, they went to Rajanagaram Police Station and P.W.1 gave a report to the police on the basis of which a crime was registered under head of women missing. P.Ws.1 and 2 further stated in their evidence that on 10.11.2015, Bommuru Police informed about the death of the deceased to P.Ws. 1 to 3. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 further disclose that on 10.11.2015, they went to the scene of offence along with Police and found saree, chappals, bangles and other wearing apparel of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 further stated that they could identify the skeleton that was belonging to the deceased on the basis of her wearing apparel. They were also present at the time of seizure of M.Os.1 to 6 under Ex.P.1. 8. Crucial witness in the present case is P.W.3 – friend of the deceased. P.W.3 in her evidence categorically stated that on 13.09.2015 at about 06.00 a.m., she and the deceased boarded bus to go to Narsipatnam. They got down at Kotipalli bus stand at about 08.00 a.m., where the accused was already present. P.W.3 further deposed that the accused took her along with the deceased to his house. After going to the house, the accused asked P.W.3 to remain at the house and he took the deceased on his motor bike. P.W.3 further deposed that when the accused alone returned, she questioned about the deceased for which the accused replied stating that she went to her relatives’ house. Having killed the deceased in the forest, he gave false explanation to P.W.3. Subsequently, P.W.3, in her evidence further stated that 10 days thereafter, her statement was recorded by the Police. After few days she, along with P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence and identified the dead body with the help of M.Os.1 to 6 (wearing apparel of the deceased). She also stated that the said M.Os.1 to 6 were seized by the Police under Ex.P.1. 9. P.W.4, who is running a barber shop stated that he arranged a room for rent to the accused through P.W.8, who is the owner of the house in which the accused was residing as tenant. She also stated that the said M.Os.1 to 6 were seized by the Police under Ex.P.1. 9. P.W.4, who is running a barber shop stated that he arranged a room for rent to the accused through P.W.8, who is the owner of the house in which the accused was residing as tenant. In the evidence of P.W.8, she has categorically stated that on the fateful day, the accused brought deceased and P.W.3 to her house. She further stated that keeping P.W.3 at home, the accused has taken away the deceased on his motor bike and he alone returned back. She further stated that the deceased was not seen thereafter. P.W.9 is the clerk in ‘Car Fashion’ shop, near Anand Regency. In his evidence, he has stated that the accused purchased six wheel tags from the said shop. P.W.10 is the manager of Sri. Venkateswara Finance Company, Devi Chowk, Rajamahendravaram where the accused pledged M.Os.7 and 8. In his evidence, P.W.10 has categorically stated that the accused pledged M.O.7 on 08.08.2015 and M.O.8 on 18.09.2015. He also stated that he issued receipts to the accused marked as Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. He further stated that Police recovered M.Os.7, 8 and Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 from his shop. P.W.11 is the VRO, Yernagudem, Devarapalli, in whose presence the accused said to have confessed about the commission of the offence and he is the mediator for observation report and other panchanamas. P.W.12 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted postmortem over the dead body. P.Ws.13 to 15 are the investigating officers. 10. Having analyzed the above evidence carefully, the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 is crucial in the present case. As already pointed out, P.W.3 in her evidence has categorically stated that on 13.09.2015, she along with the deceased boarded bus at Gopalapuram village at about 06.00 a.m., and got down at Kotipalli bus stand, Rajamahendravaram at about 08.00 a.m. She further stated that the accused took the deceased and herself on his motorcycle to his house. After going home, the accused asked P.W.3 to remain at the house and took the deceased along with him. Thereafter, the deceased did not return and the accused gave false information stating that the deceased went to her relatives’ house. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 is also crucial. After going home, the accused asked P.W.3 to remain at the house and took the deceased along with him. Thereafter, the deceased did not return and the accused gave false information stating that the deceased went to her relatives’ house. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8 is also crucial. P.W.4, in his evidence categorically stated that he arranged a room for the accused in the house of P.W.8 as tenant. Both P.Ws.4 and 8 in their evidence have categorically stated that the deceased used to visit the house of accused frequently. P.W.8, in her evidence stated that on 13.09.2015, the accused along with the deceased and P.W.3 came to the house and thereafter accused, along with the deceased left the house on his motor bike. Thereafter, the deceased did not turn-up. 11. Further, the accused was apprehended on 08.11.2015 in Cr.No.217 of 2015 of Devarapalli Police Station, in which the accused killed his elder son. It is only during the course of interrogation into the Cr.No.217 of 2015, he confessed about commission of the offence in the present case also. It is only at the instance of the accused, the skeleton of the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the forest area near Bridge county at the outskirts of Diwancheruvu village. The prosecution also produced evidence through Exs.P.15, 16 and 20 to establish the fact that the skeleton remains belong to the deceased. Further, the prosecution is also able to prove recovery of M.Os.7 and 8 from the shop of P.W.10 at the instance of the accused. All the above circumstances relied on by the prosecution conclusively point out the guilt towards accused alone, but to none others. It is only to get rid of the deceased, as she was insisting him to marry, the accused killed the deceased. Of course, Cr.No.217 of 2015 of Devarapalli Police Station culminated into the S.C.No.125 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur. The allegation in the said case was that the accused killed his elder son. In the said case, the younger son of the deceased deposed against the appellant which ended in conviction, which was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2017. During the course of interrogation into the said crime, the accused disclosed about commission of murder of the deceased in the present case. In the said case, the younger son of the deceased deposed against the appellant which ended in conviction, which was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2017. During the course of interrogation into the said crime, the accused disclosed about commission of murder of the deceased in the present case. It is only thereafter, at the instance of the accused, the skeleton and M.Os.7 and 8 were recovered. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 also clinchingly establish that on 13.09.2015, the deceased informed them that she has already boarded a bus at Gopalapuram. Their evidence further disclose that the deceased, though boarded bus, has not reached the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is only after enquiry with P.W.3, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to know that the accused took the deceased on his motorcycle and did not return. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as there are no merits in the present appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 13. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram in S.C.No.235 of 2017, dated 15.11.2018. As the appellant was already convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life in S.C.No.125 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Kovvur, the sentence imposed in the present Sessions Case i.e. S.C.No.235 of 2017, is also directed to run concurrently along with the sentence imposed in the above sessions case. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.