The prosecution must prove all the essential ingredients of an offence, including the existence of a guilty mind, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the accused is not required to prove their innocence.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Charku Sathiah, who figured as the 1st accused in the court below, was tried along with one Deverpalli Ramaiah, who figured as the 2nd accused, on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. which was framed in the following terms :"that you the said Cheruku Satliiah along with. Deverpalli Ramaiah on the 21st day of September 1957, at 5 P. M. with the common intention to do away with Deverpalli Malliah as there was longstanding land dispute between Deverpalli Ramaiah and Malliah, administered poison to Deverpalli Malliah mixed with sugar, saying that it is prasad, as a result Malliali died in the hospital at Ramannapet after 15 days, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and within the cognizance of this Court. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge. "

( 2 ) A similar charge was framed against the 2nd accused. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the 2nd accused and convicted the appellant of an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The result of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of a common intention between the two accused and had also failed to prove that the appellant had administered poison to the deceased Malliah in furtherance of such a common intention.

( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case lie within a narrow compass and are as fellows: The 2nd accused and the deceased were first cousins and at the time of the occurrence a civil suit between them with regard to certain lands was pending in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, Bhongir. The 2nd accused hoped to get the entire property if he succeeded in doing away with the deceased. The appellant had no motive whatever to do any harm to the deceased but it was alleged by the prosecution that be and the 2nd accused were close Friends and that the 2nd accused had procured poison and induced the appellant to administer it to the deceased through the medium of prasad.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned at once that the learned Sessions Judge, after a scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the alleged friendship between the two accused, has found the evidence to be unconvincing and has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any particular friendship between the appellant and the 2nd accused. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, found that the 2nd accused had a Strong motive to do away with the deceased.

( 5 ) IT is alleged that just before sunset on the 21/09/1957, the deceased Maliiah who had gone to his field to tend his cattle, left the cattle in the field and returned home in a critical condition with his face all swollen up and complaining of giddiness and burning sensation in the stomach. When questioned by his sister Siddamma (P. W. 1) and his grand-mother Mallamma (P. W. 3), he told them about what had happened in the field; and since his statement forms the bed-rock of the prosecutions case against the appellant, the evidence of P. Ws, 1 and 3 with regard to that statement may be reproduced verbatim. This is what P. W. 1 deposed:"deverapalli Maliiah was my elder brother. He was poisoned by these two accused persons about 5 months back at our chalka, Banda Kadi, just before sun-set. The chalaka is 150 yards from our house. My brother told me in the house. When he came home his face was swollen. I asked him the reason. He said that Sathaiah had given him sugar while Ramaiah was standing by his side. Sathaiah had told my brother that it was prasad; then again he gave some other thing just like sugar and my brother had eaten this. There was some sensation in his mouth. He vomited. His head was heavy and he felt giddy. He left the cattle there and came home. The deceased had told me all these things. My grandmother was with me who had also heard all these things. I left my g