C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.

1. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 539 of 2011 on the file of XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.'] for causing the death of one Mahammad Lakishma ['deceased'], daughter of one Rafi, on 26.01.2011 at 7.00 P.M. at Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet. By its Judgment, dated 28.08.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under the said charge and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Out of the fine amount collected from the accused, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- was awarded as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to PW 1, who is the mother of the deceased.

2. The facts are as under:

i) PW 1 is the mother of the deceased while PW 2 is the daughter of PW 1. PW 3 is a retired bank employee and a neighbour to PW 1 and PW 2; while PW 4 is known to the family of PW 1 and PW 2. PW 5 is a relative of PW 1.

ii) The accused is having a readymade garment shop in Narasaraopet. His shop was adjacent to the shop of PW 8. The husband of PW 1 was doing business in United States of America, but, however, died about 5 months prior to the date of giving evidence in court by PW. 1. She along with her mother and four children were residing in Reddy Colony, Narasaraopet. She claims to know the accused and also the other witnesses examined by the prosecution.

iii) The deceased did beautician course and was maintaining a beauty parlour at their house. She used to visit the shop of accused and on two occasions, at the request of the accused, G. Mallikharjuna Reddy [PW 8] accompanied the accused to the house of the deceased for proposing the marriage of deceased with the accused.

iv) In the month of August 2010, the accused and PW 8 came to the house of PW 1 and asked about their daughter Lakishma. By that time, PW 1 was informed by her daughter that the accused used to tease her stating that he intends to marry her. PW 1 admonished them not to tease her daughter as she is having two more daughters. Thereafter, the accused and PW 8 left their house. It is said that, since then, PW 1 was not allowing her daughter to go out of the house.

v) About a month prior to the incident, the accused again came to the house along with PW 8 in the afternoon. At that time, all her children and one Abdul Khadeer [PW 5] who were present in the house, were discussing about the marriage alliance of the deceased. The accused is said to have called the deceased from outside. On hearing the same, PW 1 came out of the house and admonished the accused. PW 5 also came out of the house and admonished the accused. The accused is said to have threatened them stating that if his marriage is not performed with the daughter of PW 1, he will die or he will kill the daughter of PW 1. So saying, he left the place.

vi) On 26.01.2011 at about 3.00 P.M. afternoon while PW 7 was proceeding towards Prakash Nagar on a motorcycle and when he stopped the motorcycle at a railway gate near Shankar Muth, the accused came there on a motorcycle along with the deceased. At that time, she was wearing a burqa. PW 7 claimed to have identified the deceased basing on her face, which was not covered with the burqa. He asked the accused as to where he is going along with Lakishma. The accused replied stating that he is going to Prakash Nagar on work.

vii) On 26.01.2011 the daughter of PW 1 left their house on the pretext of visiting their relatives at Narasaraopet. Thereafter, she did not return till evening. On the same day at about 3.45 P.M., while PW 6 was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Vinukonda road to visit his land and when he reached near Deepti School, noticed the accused getting down from the motorcycle with a Muslim girl wearing a burqa. PW 6 stopped the vehicle and asked the accused as to why he is there with a Muslim girl. The accused introduced her as Lakishma, a resident of Reddynagar and he came to the said place with her to the room of PW 8 who is his friend. Thereafter PW 6 left that place.

viii) At about 3.45 P.M., while PW 8 was in his room and when he was about to go out, the accused came there along with the deceased and asked him to give the keys of his room as he intend to discuss some issues with the deceased - Lakishma. It is said that even previously, the accused used to request for the room and he used to give his room keys to him. As the accused neither responded to his phone call nor handed over the room keys, PW 8 went to his room on the evening of 27.01.2011, opened the lock of the room with the second key available and found the injured lying with injuries in a pool of blood. He informed about the same to the owner of the room, by name, Radha Krishna Murthy, who was examined as PW 3.

ix) On receiving the said information, PW 3 proceeded towards the said room and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood with injuries. At that time, PW 8 was present near the room. When enquired as to why and how the deceased was lying in his room, PW 8 replied stating that he gave the keys of the room to his friend, but does not know as to how the incident occurred.

x) Information about the incident reached the family members of the deceased through PW 4. At about 8.30 P.M., PW 1 went to the place where the dead body of a female girl was lying. She saw the body and identified her to be that of the deceased. She noticed stab injuries on the face of her daughter. According to her, many people gathered at that place and PW 8 was also present at that place. On the very same day night PW 1 lodged a report with the police suspecting the accused and also PW 8. Ex. P1 is the report given to PW 14 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet I Town Police Station. Basing on which, PW 14 registered a case in Crime No. 20 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex. P16 is the F.I.R. He sent one Constable and Head Constable to the scene of offence to guard the dead body. On the next day morning PW 14 accompanied the Inspector of Police and other staff to the scene of offence.

xi) PW 15 - the Inspector of Police took up investigation in this case, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report, which is placed on record as Ex. P11. He also got drawn a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex. P17. At the scene of offence, PW 15 seized a steel bent knife; rose colour plastic stained with blood; Blenders Pride liquor bottles pieces; bloodstained light green colour checks towel; blue, white and red colour designed bed sheet; bloodstained pillow cover; bloodstained blanket; gold flake company cigarette bud and ash; black colour hair of the deceased; hair stuck in the fingers of the deceased; two empty liquor bottles 750 ml. Each; bloodstained cotton and controlled cotton.

xii) PW 15 called the clues team, Guntur, to take chance finger prints on Blenders Pride and on empty bottles. Accordingly, the clues team visited the scene of offence and took finger prints at the scene. Thereafter, the body was shifted to Area Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, where inquest was conducted over the dead body in the presence of mediators. Ex. P12 is the inquest report. During inquest, PW 15 examined PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 and recorded their statements. After completing the inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

xiii) PW 13 - the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex. P15 post-mortem report. According to him, the cause of death was due to cut throat injury and the approximate time of death is 36 to 48 hours prior to post-mortem examination. PW 13 also opined that the injuries are possible with M.O.7 - knife.

xiv) After post-mortem examination, PW 15 seized blood stained clothes of the deceased [M.O. 1 to M.O.5] and also a pair of rold-gold ear studs [M.O. 21], which were handed over to him by the Medical Officer. On 29.01.2011 he examined PW 8 and recorded his statement.

xv) PW 15 sent a requisition to Superintendent of Police, Guntur, for details of mobile calls made between the accused and the deceased along with their friend's mobile number. The mobile number of the accused is 8125745727 and that of the deceased is 7416750021. Ex. P18 is the call data. He verified the call data, which according to him tallied with his investigation. He recorded the statements of PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 on 20.02.2011 and that of PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7 on 28.01.2011. On receipt of credible information about the accused, PW 15 secured the presence of mediators and on 20.02.2011 at 1.00 P.M., proceeded to Kotappakonda road near Perantalamma temple, and arrested the accused while he was trying to escape on seeing the police. On enquiry, the accused confessed about the commission of offence and lead them to the house of Eadara Anuradha in Maddukuri garden area, from where the accused produced his motorcycle, trouser and shirt, which he was wearing on the date of incident. M.O. 20 is the motorcycle and M.O. 18 and M.O. 19 are the pant and shirt. The same were seized under a mahazar-Ex. P14. He arrested the accused, brought him to police station and took his finger prints for sending them to Finger Print Expert for comparison with the finger prints available at the scene. Ex. P19 is the R.F.S.L., report. He also received the report from Finger Print Expert, which revealed that the finger prints of the accused did not tally with the finger prints taken by the clues team at the scene. After collecting all the necessary documents, he filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 11 of 2011 on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 15 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P19, besides marking M.Os. 1 to 21. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. In support of his plea, the accused examined DW 1 to DW 3 and got marked Ex. D1 to Ex. D6.

5. Since the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

6. Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate for the appellant would submit that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. According to him, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and even if proved are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. He further submits that in order to save the real culprits the appellant has been implicated in the case. Learned counsel mainly submits that the prosecution is not coming out with the true version of the case and suppression of truth is very much evident from the record. To substantiate the same, he submits that the earlier reports given by PW 1, one Silar and a third report given by PW 1 are suppressed. He further submits that in the earliest report given by PW. 1, a suspicion was entertained not only against the accused but also against PW 8, which fact was not investigated. That being so, it is strange as to how the finger prints of PW 8 was not taken by the police for comparison with chance prints that were obtained at the scene. According to him, the investigating agency should have shown PW 8 as an accused and take his finger prints with prints traced at the scene of offence. He further submits that after the report is given by one S.K. Silar, PW 7 to PW 9 were kept in lock-up and later on no investigation was done on those lines. He further submits that when the hands of the deceased had some hair, which is evident from the evidence of the investigating officer, the Investigating Officer should have got conducted DNA analysis of the said hair with that of accused or PW. 8 since they were last seen together.

7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that DW 1 to DW 3 visited the scene of offence by 7.00 P.M. and took finger prints from the scene, in which event, no explanation is forthcoming as to why no investigation commenced after furnishing information to clues team, more so, when PW 1, PW 2 and PW 8 were available at the scene. In-fact, the evidence of PW 2 and PW 1 would clearly indicate that the police were present by the evening of 27.01.2011 itself but no report or action was taken in-spite of a report, being given by the mother of the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the opinion of the clues team is totally excluded from consideration by the trial court and if the same is taken into consideration, the presence of the accused at the scene becomes doubtful.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that even if the evidence of PW 8 is believed, it only shows that the accused and deceased came to him, asked for room key, which was at 3.45 P.M. and, thereafter, there is no evidence as to what happened till next day evening. When the second key of the room was available with PW 8, which is evident from the fact that he opened the door when the accused failed to hand over the key, show the possibility of offence being committed by others and then throwing the blame on the accused.

9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, there is sufficient 'motive' for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. According to him, on two occasions, the accused went to the house of PW 1 and expressed his intention to marry the deceased. But, PW 1 admonished the accused and PW 8 and asked them not to come anymore. At that time, the accused is said to have threatened PW 1 stating that either he will die or he will kill the deceased if marriage is not performed. He further submits that the evidence of PW 8 show that the accused and deceased were seen together on the previous day evening at 3.45 P.M. and both of them took the key of the room of PW 8.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the evidence of PW 5 amply establish the involvement of the accused, more so, the extra judicial confession said to have been made by him before PW 9. He further submits that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before him, when he enquired about his acts at Tirupathi connects the accused with the crime. He further submits that the conduct of the accused in absconding from the place by closing his shop, fortifies the case of the prosecution.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgments in Brahm Swaroop & Anr. V. State of U.P. 2011 (6) SCC 288 and Ravirala Laxmaiah V. State of A.P.  2013 (9) SCC 283 in support of his plea.

12. In reply, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the fact that Ex. P11 - Scene Observation Report and M.O. 1 to M.O.7 came to be filed before the court after the arrest of the accused on 20.02.2011, would reveal that every effort was made to fabricate the case. He further submits that prosecution has erred in not examining G. Mallikharjuna Reddy [PW 8] on 27.01.2011 and leaving him at the scene, though, he was shown as a suspect, speak volumes about the manner in which the investigation was done.

13. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2019 (4) SCC 522; State of M.P. Vs. Ratan Singh & Ors.  2020 (12) SCC 630; and the judgment of this court in A. Lakshmi Vs. The State of A.P2005 (3) Crime 249 (A.P.), Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the prosecution suppressed the reports given at the earliest point of time and, thereafter, fabricated the case.

14. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

15. It is no doubt true that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused.

16. In R. Damodaran Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of PoliceAIR (2021) SC 1173, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors  1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

3. the 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; and

4. 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. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharastra (1982) 2 SCC 351)

17. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, we shall now proceed to see as to whether the circumstances relied upon are proved and if proved, whether they are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.

18. In the instant case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are mainly; (1) motive; (2) accused and the deceased being 'last seen' together with PW 6 and PW 7; (3) accused and deceased approaching PW 8 and asking for the key of his room on the ground that the accused wanted to discuss something with the deceased; (4) dead body with multiple injuries found in the room of PW 8 (key of that room is said to have been taken by the accused from PW 8); (5) the recoveries made pursuant to the statement made; and (6) the conduct of the accused.

19. Before dealing with the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, it is also to be noted here that in the instant case the accused pressed into service the evidence of Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of District Clues Team and the Finger Print Expert of Clues Team, who formed part of the Clues Team, as DWs. 1 and 2. Their evidence which will be discussed later also assumes lot of importance.

20. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is motive for the accused to commit the crime. To deal with the said circumstance, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 7 and 9.

21. PW. 1 is mother of the deceased, who in her evidence, deposed that herself, her mother and four children were residing at Reddy Colony, Narasaraopet and she knows the accused. According to her, the deceased Lathishma did Beautician course and was maintaining Beauty Parlour at their house. The accused and PW. 8 were running readymade shop at Narasaraopet. In the month of August, 2010 morning, the accused and PW. 8 came to their house and enquired about her daughter Lathishma. She came to know personally and also through her daughter that the accused used to tease her daughter Lathishma and that he intends to marry her. When the accused and PW. 8 went to the house of PW. 1, she admonished them not to tease her daughter Lathishma as she is having two more unmarried daughters. Thereafter both of them left the house. About a month prior to the incident, the accused again went to the house of PW. 1 along with PW. 8 in the afternoon. At that time, all their children and one Abdul Khadeer (PW. 5) were present in the house, discussing about marriage alliance of Lathishma. When the accused called her daughter Lathishma, PW. 1 came out of the house and admonished the accused. PW. 5 also claimed to have admonished the accused. The accused is said to have told them that if his marriage is not performed with Lathishma, he would die or kill his daughter. So saying he left the place. According to her, on 26.01.2011, her daughter Lathishma left their house for visiting their relative's house at Narasaraopet, but did not return home till evening. Her enquiries with the relatives proved in vain. On the evening of 27.01.2011, PW. 4 came to their house and informed that the dead body of one girl was lying in a room in the back side of Deepthi School.

22. At about 8:30 P.M. PW. 1 went to the said place and identified the dead body as that of her daughter. She noticed bleeding injury on the neck of her daughter. She also found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Many people including PW. 8 were present there. She enquired PW. 8 as to how the incident occurred, to which, he informed that in the said room he is residing as a tenant and on the previous day evening the accused requested him to give keys of that room as he wants to talk with the deceased and accordingly, he handed over keys of his room to the accused. According to PW. 1, on the midnight of 27.01.2011 she lodged a report before the police, which is placed on record as Ex. P.1. In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that in the First Information Report given by her, she suspected the accused and PW. 8 responsible for the death of the deceased.

23. PW. 2 is sister of the deceased, who in her evidence, deposed that her father was working as a Salesman in a Jewellery shop in United States of America and the deceased who did beautician course and was running a Beauty Parlour at their house. She also claims to know the accused. According to her, in the year 2009, herself and her family members visited the shop of the accused to purchase clothes. From that time onwards, the accused used to tease her sister Lathishma on the ground that he intends to marry her. PW. 2 in her evidence deposed that the accused along with his friend-PW. 8 came to their house and enquired about her sister Lathishma, but her mother (PW. 1) admonished them and directed the accused not to tease her sister. According to her, about one month prior to the incident, the accused and PW. 8 came to their house and when the accused called her sister, PW. 1 and PW. 5 admonished him and thereafter, the accused left the place with a threat to the life of the deceased, stating that if they do not perform his marriage with Lathishma, he would kill her sister or would die. PW. 2 also speaks about the deceased leaving their house on 26.01.2011 at 2:00 P.M.; they coming to know about the dead body of her sister Lathishma lying in a room behind Deepthi School, Narasaraopet on the evening on 27.01.2011. She also deposed about PW. 1 lodging a report with the police and the police recording the statement of PW. 1 at the Government Hospital, Narasaraopet.

24. In the cross-examination, both PWs. 1 and 2 admit that one Sk. Silar, who is Journalist and brother of PW. 1, PW. 4 and PW. 6 used to visit the house. PW. 2 further admits that when she visited the scene of offence, many people including police were present and no effort was made to record the statement of any one of them by the police. She further admits that Ex. P.1 report was drafted in her presence, but she does not know who drafted Ex. P.1 report.

25. PW. 5 in his evidence deposed that he knows both accused and deceased as well as PWs. 1 and 2 and others. According to him, in the year 2009, PW. 1 came to Narasaraopet along with her children and was residing at Reddynagar, Narasaraopet. He used to visit the house of PW. 1 to look after their welfare. PW. 5 further deposed that about two months prior to the death of the deceased, PW. 1 called him to her house and informed about the accused teasing her daughter, and she intends to search a good alliance for the deceased. According to him, about a month prior to the death of the deceased, when he again visited the house of PW. 1 and was discussing about the marriage alliances of the deceased, the accused and PW. 8 came to the house of PW. 1, entered the house and asked them to perform his marriage with the deceased, for which they refused. While leaving the house, the accused threatened them with dire consequences stating that if they fail to perform his marriage with the deceased, he would either die or kill the deceased.

26. PW. 7 is a resident of Narasraopet and was working as a Broker in Real Estate business. According to him, whenever he visited the shop of the accused, he noticed the accused closely talking with the deceased at his shop. About two months prior to the death of the deceased, he saw the accused and the deceased sitting in the shop at the cash counter and were talking with each other closely.

27. Similarly, PW. 9 in his evidence deposed that he knows the accused by name Polisetty Prasad and also the deceased. According to him, one girl by name Bhanu introduced the deceased to him and the deceased in turn introduced the accused to him. Thereafter he got acquaintance with the family members of the deceased.

28. From the evidence of PW. 7 and PW. 9, it is very much clear that the accused and the deceased were very close to each other and the evidence of PW. 7 and PW. 9 would indicate that the deceased used to sit along with the accused in his shop and was moving very closely with the accused. Probably for this reason the accused took the help of PW. 8 and went to the house of PW. 1.

29. In fact, the evidence of PW. 8 also shows that he knows the accused and the deceased, who fell in love and used to roam around in Narasaraopet. According to him, the deceased used to visit the shop of the accused. On two occasions at the request of the accused, he accompanied the accused to the house of the deceased for marriage proposal.

30. Hence, the evidence of this witness also makes it clear that the accused and the deceased were known to each other and moving very closely in and around Narasaraopet Town. In fact, the evidence of other witnesses also reveals that both of them were sitting in the cash counter of the shop of the accused. Therefore, the version of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 as referred to earlier runs contra to the evidence of PWs. 7, 8 and 9. As observed by us earlier, it is the version of PW. 1 that the accused was teasing the deceased with intent to marry her. If really the version of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 is correct, then the deceased would not have been sitting in the cash counter of the shop of the accused and moving along with the accused in and around Narasaraopet Town. Therefore, the motive as projected by the prosecution is running contra to the evidence of PW. 7, PW. 8, and PW. 9 and the same is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

31. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased.

32. The evidence of PW. 1 and 2 would disclose that on the afternoon of 26.01.2011, the deceased herself left the house.

33. PW. 6 in his evidence deposed that on 26.01.2011 at about 3:45 P.M., while he was proceeding on his motor cycle towards Vinukonda road, to visit his land, through Prakash Nagar and when he reached near Deepthi School, noticed accused getting down from his motor cycle with a Muslim girl wearing burakha. On seeing the accused, he stopped his vehicle near the accused and asked him as to why he was there with a Muslim girl. The accused is said to have introduced the said Muslim girl as Lathishma, resident of Reddynagar, and he came to that place with her to the room of his friend (PW. 8). PW. 6 left the place and proceeded towards his fields. In the cross-examination, PW. 6 admits that on 26.01.2011 at about 3:30 P.M. or 4:00 P.M. he started from his house at Lingamguntla village and proceeded towards Vinukonda road side via Railway Station at Narasaraopet and Prakash Nagar. According to him, his land is situated by the side of Balaji Rice Mill at Vinukonda Road. He further admits that he worked as a Manager in Ravi Kala Mandir Cinema Theatre, Narasaraopet during the year 2006 and 2007 and his wife was elected as MPTC unanimously. He further admits that to reach his agricultural lands which is by the side of Vinukonda Road, there are two or three routes without passing through Narasaraopet. He denied the suggestion that his land, which is situated by the side of Vinukonda road, is within the limits of Narasaraopet and it is not in the village limits. To a suggestion that he is a planted witness in this case by Sk. Silar was denied by him.

34. PW. 7 in his evidence deposed that on 26.01.2011 at about 3:00 P.M. in the afternoon while he was proceeding towards Prakash Nagar on his motorcycle and when he stopped his motorcycle at the railway gate near Sankar Muth, due to closure of railway gate, the accused came there on his motorcycle along with the deceased and stopped his vehicle. He identified the Muslim lady as the deceased in this case. The accused is said to have informed him that he was proceeding to Prakash Nagar on his work and later on he came to know about the death of the deceased.

35. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that both of them saw the accused and the deceased together on 26.01.2011 between 3:00 or 4:00 P.M. While the evidence of PW. 6 is to the effect that he saw both of them near Deepthi School, the evidence of PW. 7 is that he saw both of them at the railway gate near Sankar Muth.

36. At this stage it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW. 8, who in his evidence, deposed that he was residing in the room of PW. 3 as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- since last six months. According to him, on 26.01.2011 at 3:45 P.M., when he was in his room, the accused came there along with the deceased and asked him to give the keys of his room as he intended to discuss with the deceased. According to him, on one or two occasions earlier, he gave the keys of his room to the accused. After handing over the keys to the accused, PW. 8 is said to have left the place. As the accused did not return his room keys and was not responding to his phone call, PW. 8 went to his room on the evening of 27.01.2011, opened the room with the second set of keys available with him and found the deceased lying with injuries in a pool of blood. Then he informed the same to his owner Radhakrishna Murthy (PW. 3) and also to the neighbours.

37. From the evidence of this witness, it is very clear that both accused and the deceased met him when he was about to leave his room and on a request made by the accused, he handed over the key of the room to him and thereafter on the next day evening opened the room with the second key available with him and noticed the dead body lying dead. In the cross-examination, he admits that the key of the room situated in Prakashnagar was also available with his friends and they used to keep one key on the top of the door of his room. Therefore, his evidence is to the effect that his room situated at Prakashnagar where the dead body of the deceased was found, was being used by his friends with different set of keys. His evidence also shows that the second key of the room is with him and on the fateful day, he opened the door with the second key.

38. From the aforesaid, it is clear PW. 6, PW. 7 and PW. 8 noticed the accused and the deceased together on 26.01.2011 between 3:00 and 4:00 P.M. and as such the circumstance of last seen, relied upon by the prosecution, in our view, stands established.

39. The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recoveries made pursuant to the statement made by the accused; extra judicial confession before PW. 9 and the conduct of the accused in absconding from the place, by closing his shop.

40. Insofar as the conduct of the accused is concerned, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW. 9, who was working in a footwear shop at Clock Tower centre, Narasaraopet between 2004 and 2009 and who knows the accused and the deceased. According to him, in March, 2010 he went to Hyderabad and worked at Shamshabad Airport upto October, 2010. At that time, he was residing at West Venkatapuram, in a house by the side of Sainivas Apartment at Hyderabad. At that time, the accused came to Hyderabad and stayed in his room for a period of four months. During that period the accused developed acquaintance with one girl by name Prabhavathi. According to him, as the accused was returning to Narasaraopet, he asked PW. 9 to return to Narasaraopet as his work in Hyderabad was complete. Then in January, 2011 PW. 9 returned to Narasaraopet and joined in a Footwear shop. The accused brought the said Prabhavathi to Narasaraopet and resided along with her in the house of one Rasool (PW. 10) on rent. As PW. 10 suspected the relationship between the accused and the said Prabhavathi, he asked the accused to vacate the house and then the accused vacated the house and took another house on rent in Madhukuri gardens, Kotappakonda road, Narasaraopet. There the accused and the said Prabhavathi resided as husband and wife. According to him, on 22.01.2011 he went to Hyderabad on his foot wear shop duty; while he was at Hyderabad, he met the accused along with Prabhavathi near Secunderabad Railway Station. The accused asked him to get the deceased out of her house as he (PW. 9) got acquaintance with the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, PW. 9, the accused and Prabhavathi went to the house of Prabhavathi and from there the accused alone left to Narasaraopet as he intended to talk with the deceased. From 25.01.2011, PW. 9 was at the house of Prabhavathi in Hyderabad up to 26.01.2011. Then on 26.01.2011, PW. 9 and Prabhavathi left Hyderabad to Narasaraopet and when they reached Narasaraopet in the midnight of 26.01.2011 got message from the accused stating that he is at Martur and asked them to come over to Chilakaluripet. Then both of them went to Chilakaluripet and met the accused at RTC bus stand at about 3:00 or 4:00 A.M. i.e. in the early hours of 27.01.2011. At that time, the accused was in a hurry. When PW. 9 enquired as to what happened, the accused is said to have told him that he was proceeding to Tirupathi along with Prabhavathi and asked him to sell his household articles in his house at Narasaraopet, collect money and come over to Tirupathi. PW. 9 claimed to have met the accused at Tirupathi on the midnight of 27.01.2011 itself, after selling household articles of the accused. When PW. 9 enquired, the accused is said to have informed him that he met the deceased and asked her to marry for which she refused and then he killed her in a room at Narasaraopet. On knowing about the death of the deceased, PW. 9 returned back to Narasaraopet.

41. This evidence of PW. 9 is sought to be relied upon by the prosecution to prove the conduct of the accused in leaving Narasaraopet and also the extra judicial confession made before him. PW. 9 in his evidence deposed about the conduct of the accused in leaving Narasaraopet on 27.01.2011; asking him to sell the household articles in his house at Narasaraopet; PW. 9 taking the sale proceeds and leaving to Tirupathi. But, it is to be noted that PW. 9 kept quiet till the police examined him on 20.02.2011, which was the day of arrest of the accused. He kept quiet till that day, without informing anyone about the alleged statement by the accused. Having regard to the above, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the extra judicial confession made before PW. 9 disclosing the commission of offence is sufficient to base a conviction cannot be given much weight, more so, when such confession is a weak piece of evidence.

42. Coming to the conduct of the accused, PW. 9 in his evidence deposed that in the early hours of 27.01.2011 the accused left Narasaraopet to Tirupathi, and he was arrested on 20.02.2011. As observed earlier, these facts were stated by PW. 9 for the first time on 20.02.2011 i.e. after the arrest of the accused. There could be many reasons for a person to leave the town of offence. Dealing with ascendance of accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam : AIR 2013 SC 3817, held as under:

"14. Whether the ascendance of an accused can be taken as a circumstance against him has been considered by this Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal,  AIR 2010 SC 3638, wherein the Court observed:

"27. In Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 1050, this Court repelled the submissions made by the State that as after commission of the offence the accused had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn that he was a guilty person observing as under:

19. The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such is the instinct of self- preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.

In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence.'

28. Abscondence by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt. Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience." While deciding the said case, a large number of earlier judgments were also taken into consideration by the Court, including Matru (supra); and State of M.P. thr. CBI & Ors. v. Paltan Mallah & Ors.,  AIR 2005 SC 733.

15. Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere ascendance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondence is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction. (See: Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200; and Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 2283)...."

43. In view of the above judgment, this circumstance by itself cannot be taken to hold that the accused is responsible for the incident in question unless all other circumstances are proved beyond doubt.

44. Insofar as recoveries made pursuant to the confession of the accused, it is to be noted that the accused lead the police to the house of one Eadara Anuradha in Maddukuri gardens area and informed them about he residing in that house as a tenant. The said Anuradha was not examined by the police. The accused produced his motorcycle, trouser and shirt, which are placed on record as M.Os. 18 to 20. Then, the police took the finger prints of the accused for comparison with the finger prints available at the scene of offence. This in substance is the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove recoveries. But recoveries so effected, in our view, does not incriminate the accused with the crime, as no material belonging to the deceased was recovered at his instance or any material connecting the accused with the crime. Hence, the circumstances relied upon does not in any way connect the accused with the crime.

45. As observed by us earlier, there is another dimension to this case. The question is whether the prosecution is really coming out with the true version of the case.

46. The evidence of PW. 1 discloses that on coming to know about the incident from PW. 4 on the evening of 27.01.2011, she went to the said room at about 8:30 P.M., and found the dead body of a female girl lying which she identified to be as that of her daughter. She also noticed injuries all over the body. By that time, many people gathered there including PW. 8 and the police. Strangely, no effort was made by the police to record the statement of PW. 1 or take report from PW. 1 or PW. 2 or PW. 5 or PW. 8 or any other person present at the scene. Long thereafter i.e. in the midnight of 27.01.2011, PW. 1 claims to have got the report scribed and lodged it before PW. 14, which according to PW. 14, was in the early hours of 28.01.2011 (at 1.30 A.M.). This appears to be slightly strange. When the evidence of PW. 2, PW. 5 and other witnesses, more particularly the family members and PW. 8, show the presence of the police at the scene, on the evening of 27.01.2011 itself, it is strange as to why no action was taken by the police by examining the persons present there and why they kept quiet till a report was given at 1.30 A.M. on 28.01.2011 by PW. 1.

47. Whether the version of the police that they commenced the investigation after receiving report at 1.30 A.M. can be accepted. The same requires to be tested with other evidence on record.

48. It has been the consistent case of the accused that one Sk. Silar, who is elder brother of PW. 1 and who was working as Journalist, has lodged a report before the police on the evening on 27.01.2011, on the basis of which, the law was set into motion by registering a crime. Pursuant thereto, the Clues Team was summoned, who examined the room where the dead body was found. It is also the case of the accused that PW. 7, PW. 8 and PW. 9 were detained in the police station on suspicion for nearly three days from 27.01.2011. Lodging of report by Sk. Silar is strongly disputed by the prosecution. All the suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the report given by Sk. Silar, the detention of PW. 7, PW. 8 and PW. 9 in the police station for three days, taking the report from PW. 1 subsequently to implicate the accused were denied. In fact, the evidence of investigating officer goes to show as if the Clues Team came to the scene of offence on 28.01.2011 at 6:00 A.M. to Narasaraopet, took finger prints and gave a memorandum to PW. 15-the investigating officer at the scene of offence itself. This piece of evidence of the investigating officer, which is found in the cross-examination, requires to be extracted and the same is as under:

"......I received memorandum from Clues Team on 28.1.2011 at the scene of offence. On 28.1.2011 Clues Team came to the scene of offence, took finger prints and gave a memorandum to me at the scene of offence itself. The Clues Team came to Narasaraopet on the intervening night of 27/28.1.2011 and then we went to the scene of offence along with Clues Team at 6:00 A.M. on 28.1.2011......."

49. Though the investigating agency as well as the prosecution witnesses in their evidence deny lodging of a report by one Sk. Silar, but Ex. D.1, which is the copy of the evidence collected by the Clues Team and which is marked through DW. 1, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, in-charge for District Clues Team, Guntur at the relevant point of time, reveal that a report was lodged by Sk. Silar, pursuant to which a case in Crime No. 20 of 2011 was registered under Section 302 IPC. Further, the evidence of DW. 1 would show that on 27.1.2011 at about 7:30 P.M. itself he along with his team visited the scene of offence situated at Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet and collected chance finger prints, physical evidence and got photographed the scene of offence. According to him, they handed over the letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station indicating the evidence collected at the scene. DW. 1 in his evidence further deposed about the contents of the sheet and the physical evidence collected at the scene. A perusal of Ex. D.1, the physical evidence sheet reads as under:

"CLUES TEAM GUNTUR

Date: 27-1-2011

Team member particulars:

(1) Team In charge T. Mallikarjuna Rao, S.I.

(2) Team In-charge G. Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I.,

(3) Team member P. Surendhra Babu, P.C. 593

(4) Team member (Photographer) Sk. Karimulla, PC 235 Expert Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, Guntur.

On telephone message the CLUES Team rushed to scene of offence, recorded the scene.

With digital photographed and collected the physical evidence in Crime No. 20/11 U/S. 302 IPC of Narasaraopet police station on 27.1.2011.

Complaint Sk. Silar, S/o -------------- aged 45 years,

Address Pathuru road, Sivalayam, Narasaraopet.

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

(1) 1 tool of steel knife with blade grip bended collected beside deceased;

(2) Broken Blenders pride bottle pieces collected near deceased body;

(3) Blood stained checks cotton towel;

(4) Blood stained bed sheet;

(5) Blood stained pillow covers;

(6) Blood stained blanket;

(7) Half burnt cigarette buds collected ash tray in deceased room;

(8) Blood stained cutted hair;

(9) Cutted hair in deceased hand

(10) Chance prints collected

Deceased/missed/injured particulars male/female

Name: Sri Lakshima, D/o Mohd. Chand Bee, aged 21 years Caste: Muslim

Death cause: throat cutting on: prior to 27-1-11 at 7.30 PM.

The above physical evidences must sent to FSL/RFSL for detailed reports.

Sd/- T. Mallikarjuna Rao,

CLUES TEAM IN-Charge,

Guntur, dated 27.1.2011"

50. The above mentioned sheet given by the Clues Team to PW. 14 on 27.01.2011 itself clearly refers to the report lodged by Sk. Silar and registration of a case in Crime No. 20 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC of Narasaraopet. In fact, the name of Sk. Silar with his age as 45 years and address is also reflected in Ex. D.1. This report which was given to PW. 14 on 27.01.2011 itself contains facts which are now disputed by the investigating agency. When the same was confronted, there was no proper explanation, except denial. As observed by us earlier, the prosecution is now giving a totally different version., as if the Clues Team visited the scene of offence on the morning of 28.01.2011, and examining the room where the dead body was found, which is totally contrary to the record produced by the witnesses of the investigating agency, namely DW. 1 and DW. 2. The Investigating Officer thought of getting away by giving vague answers and denying everything. Ergo, the argument of Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the earliest report given by Sk. Silar expressing doubt on others has not seen the light, cannot be brushed aside. In fact, even in the first information report given by PW. 1 on 28.01.2011 at 1.30 A.M., a suspicion was entertained against PW. 8, but no action has been taken against PW. 8. Be that as it may, Ex. D.1 throws any amount of doubt with regard to the manner in which the prosecution proceeded with the case. As held earlier, there is no explanation from the prosecution as to what happened to the report given by Sk. Silar, which, in our view, throws suspicion on the prosecution case.

51. Further, Ex. D.2, which is the report of the Inspector of Police shows seven chance prints developed at the scene, which are marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G. An analysis of the chance prints taken with the finger prints of the accused by the Investigating Officer shows that the same does not tally with the finger prints of the accused. It will be appropriate to extract the report of Finger Print Inspector (FP Expert), Finger Print Unit, Guntur which reads as under:

"The photo copies of the chance prints marked 'B & C' are wanting in clear ridge characteristics for the purpose of comparison and identity, hence, they are unfit for comparison. The photo copies of chance prints marked 'A, D, E, F & G' are clear and fit for comparison.

The clear and fit photo copies of chance prints marked 'A, D, E, F & G' have been compared with the arrested accused of Polisetty Kali Vara Prasad, S/o. Kannarao of Narasaraopet which was supplied by the Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Urban received in this unit on 1.03.2011, on comparison they are not identical with above said arrested accused."

52. If really the accused was responsible for the incident, finger print of the accused should have been found on the articles at the scene. At this stage, we intend to refer to the evidence of PW. 15-the investigating officer, who in his evidence categorically deposed that at the scene of offence, he seized steel bent knife rose colour plastic colour stained with blood, blenders pride liquor bottle pieces, blood stained light green colour check towel, blue white and red colour designed bed sheet, blood stained pillow cover, blood stained blanket, gold flake company cigarette bud and ash, black colour hair of the deceased, the hair found in the hands of the deceased, two 750ML empty liquor bottles, blood stained cotton and controlled cotton and then called the Clues Team, Guntur to take chance finger prints on blenders pride liquor bottle and on empty bottles. But the finger prints of the accused did not tally with the finger prints found on the articles. On the other hand, some other finger prints were found. Strangely, no effort was made by the police to trace out as to whose finger prints they are, more so, when a suspicion was entertained against PW. 7, PW. 8 and PW. 9 in the report of Sk. Silar and they being detained in the police station for three days. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether really the prosecution is coming out with the true version of the case or whether the circumstances set up by the prosecution are created for this case.

53. One another circumstance, which requires to be noted, is that though the objects referred to above were found at the scene of offence on 27.01.2011 itself, the same did not reflect in the observation report. However, the said articles were produced before the court after the arrest of the accused on 20.02.2011. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the said material objects seized on 27.01.2011 itself (if seized) were not produced before the court, till 20.02.2011.

54. To sum up, though, only one of the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime is proved, but, as held above, there is a different dimension to the prosecution case.

(i) No effort was made by the police to record the statement of PW 1 or PW 2 or PW 5 or any family members or persons presented at the scene on the evening of 27.01.2011. In fact, the evidence on record would show that the police were also present at the scene in the evening of 27.01.2011 itself, but no effort was made to record the statement or to find out the truth. Explanation is now given stating that only after receiving report at 1.30 a.m., on 28.01.2011, the police have commenced the investigation. It is very strange as to why they kept quiet when the family members of the deceased and the persons on whom suspicion was entertained, were present at the scene of offence.

(ii) PW 9, before whom an extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by the accused as not reduced into writing nor any effort was made by him to inform others about the statement made by the accused. Long thereafter, i.e., after the arrest on 20.02.2011, he comes forward with the said version. No explanation is forthcoming as to why he kept quiet for such a long time.

(iii) The prosecution failed to prove existence of any animosity or ill-will between the accused and the deceased or the version as projected now, namely, that the accused was teasing the deceased, in view of the evidence of PWs., 7, 8 and 9, which runs contrary to the evidence of PWs., 1, 2 and 5.

(iv) The recovery made does not in any way incriminate the accused with the crime.

(v) When the evidence on record show the arrival of the clues team on the evening of 27.01.2011 and they submitted a report on that day to PW 15 at the scene itself, the evidence of PW 15 that the clues team arrived on 28.01.2011 is absolutely false and baseless. It appears that to get over the delay in commencing the investigation, PW 15 thought of getting away by giving answers, which are contrary to the evidence of another set of investigating officers, who were examined as DW 1 and DW 2. Further, the prosecution suppressed the report given by one Sk. Silar,. No explanation is forthcoming from the I.O., as to how he would deny lodging of the report by Sk. Silar, when their counterparts speak about the same, which is evident from Ex. D1. It appears that suppressing the report given by Sk. Silar, who expressed suspicion on PW 7 to PW 9, a new report was brought into existence on 28.01.2011 at 1.30 a.m., implicating the accused, which must have made him to abscond or leave the town.

55. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 539 of 2011 vide Judgment, dated 28.08.2014 by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet is set aside. The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant/accused shall be returned to him.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.