IMPORTANT POINT
Where evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, facts and circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and unerringly point to guilt of accused.

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-The appellant was put to trial for an offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC before Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1998. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty under Sections 376 and 201 IPC and he was accordingly acquitted of the charges under the aforesaid Sections. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge were confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment under challenge.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant, a resident of Sultanagaram and a neighbour of the deceased - Devanaboyina Lakshmi, stated to be a minor girl aged 15-16 years accosted the deceased about two months prior to the incident on 14.7.1996. It is stated that the deceased went to graze goats at water canal bund. The appellant noticed the deceased going towards the water canal bund, followed her, and began to talk with her with an evil eye. This fact is stated to have been witnessed by PW-5 Sala Ankamma. It is also stated that having found no one present around the area, the appellant caught the deceased, dragged her to a nearby unused shed, gagged her mouth and committed rape on her against her will. It is also alleged that all the resistance put up by the victim girl went in vain and the accused over-powered the girl. It is further disclosed, in the process of struggle the upper and inner langa of the deceased were torn. When the appellant left the deceased alone and was about to part from the place of occurrence, the deceased allegedly was said to have told the appellant that she would bring the matter to the notice of villagers and police. Being frightened by this disclosure, it is alleged, the appellant chased her, caught her and threw her into the well situated in the northeastern corner of the dibba. The appellant also kept a stone in the well so as to prevent the body from floating and also put some caveltry creepers (Guprapu Dekka) with an intention to hide the offence. It is also alleged that the appellant had buried the torn clothes of the deceased. Since the deceased did not return by the evening, her kith and kin started searching for her without any result. Finally, PW-1 (author of FIR and foster father of the deceased), to whom the deceased was given in adoption by PW-2, came to know through PW-5 Sala Ankamma that two months prior to the date of missing i.e. 14.7.1996 she noticed the appellant talking with the deceased. Upon this information being given, PW-1 approached the village elders, one of whom, Rajarao was examined as PW-4. On being asked by the village elders the appellant allegedly confessed the guilt of committing rape on the deceased and throwing her into the well. It is only after this information, PW-1 lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-1). In course of investigation the prosecution examined as many as 12 PWs and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-29 and M.Os. 1-8. None of the DWs were examined on behalf of the appellant. He, however, pointed out three contradictions in the evidence of PW-5 marked Exhibits D-6 to D-8. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty as noticed above.

3. Undisputedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and conviction of the appellant is solely based on the circumstantial evidence.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, and in our view correctly, has formulated the following circumstantial evidence appearing against the appellant on appreciation of evidence :

(i) "The identity of the deceased was established;

(ii) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused;

(iii) The accused made an e