B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

1. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 of S.C.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur of Prakasam District, they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each respectively with default sentence of six months in each for the offence under Section 302 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence of six months each for the offence under Section 392 IPC and by giving set off of the period of remand and in ordering to run the said sentences concurrently. Impugning the said conviction judgment, dated 18.11.2011, by the learned Sessions Judge, these two appeals are maintained.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record placed before the trial Court covered by the evidence of PWs.1 to 19 and Exs.P.1 to P.49, M.Os.1 to 16, there is no independent evidence adduced by the accused and no documents marked on behalf of the accused and no documents even filed much less any statement by the accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination from the prosecution incriminating evidence when brought to his notice in recording his answers or explanations, if any, to that effect. The case is entirely rested on circumstantial evidence other than the call data in relation to the cell phone of accused No.1 and the cell phone used by the deceased and the phone conversation soon before his death while accused persons and the deceased were travelling allegedly as per the prosecution case after the accused engaged the car driven by the deceased bearing No.AP 28 AT 3222 belongs to the travel agency booked under the guise of going to Tirupati via Kalahasti and in the way near Dornala, which is within the limits of Prakasam District, within the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge of the Sessions Division Prakasam District, the deceased was brutally killed after midnight while taking rest with a pre plan having purchased in the transit the iron blade-M.O.6. The Crime No.19 of 2008 was registered by PW.18-the Station House Officer-cum-the then Head Constable, by name J.Avulaiah, on 01.05.2008, while he was on duty from the report submitted by PW.1-V.R.O. of Inamukkala (covered by Ex.P.30) which is near to Dornala. PW.1-V.R.O. but for saying police obtained his signature which is Ex.P.1 on the said report Ex.P.30 did not support even the contents of it, the crime registered is covered by Ex.P.29-original express F.I.R. submitted to the Court while transmitting copies to all concerned by handing over the copy to P.W.19-The Inspector of Police to take up investigation.

3. Though it is the suggestion on behalf of the accused that instead of registering the crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C., PW.18 was not right in registering the crime under Section 302 IPC, in fact, from perusal of the very contents of Ex.P.30-report in registering Ex.P.29- F.I.R., it discloses a cognizable offence, thereby rightly stated he has registered the crime for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. In this regard, coming to the evidence of PW.1, what he deposed is that he did not give that report, he was not examined by police, he did not visit the scene of offence and he does not know the accused and deceased or one Guravaiah-LW.11 and police called him and obtained his signature in the so-called report on 01.05.2008. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion of it is having found the dead body on information by reaching there as stated by him in his report he came to the Police Station and presented the report and also in the course of examination stated as in Ex.P.2 and also visited the scene of offence and he is turning hostility to the truth of the prosecution case for the reasons better known. Leave it as it is, PW.2-father of the deceased, stated that his son died three years ago and prior to his death he left