Point of Law : of motive by itself may not be a ground to hold the accused guilty. Enmity, as is well-known, is a double edged weapon. Whereas existence of a motive on the part of an accused may be held to be the reason for committing crime, the same may also lead to false implication. Suspicion against the accused on the basis of their motive to commit the crime cannot by itself lead to a judgment of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. By way of judgment, dated 03-02-2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the accused No. 2 and 3.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:-

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sons of Accused No. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, Pw.1 is the elder brother of the deceased-Sukuru Kannya and marriage of Accused No. 1 with Pw.10 took place at the instance and mediation of the deceased. Festival of Samalamma had taken place at Kudumuru Village of Pachipenta Mandal in the year 2013. On 20-02-2013, Pw.1, deceased-Sukuru Kannayya and Pw.2 went to the said festival along with ten other villagers and when Pw.1 was seeing the Burrakatha, the deceased left the place in the middle of the programme by informing that he was leaving to the house and Pw.2, who is the cousin sister of Pw.1, informed at about 6.00 A.M that she found the dead body of the deceased near a drumstick tree in the field of one Majji Latchamma and also found bleeding injuries on the dead body and by that time Pw.1 was still at the programme in the Jatara and on hearing the same, she went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased and later she went to the house and brought the deceased's parents, who also found the dead body of the deceased so also blood injury on the back side of the head of the deceased. Thereafter, Pw.1 went to Pachipenta Police Station and lodged Ex. P-1 report where the statement of Pw.1 was recorded by the police.

4. After conclusion of investigation by the Inspector of Police, Salur Circle-Pw.12 filed a charge sheet under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12 and exhibited Exs. P-1 to P-11 apart from Mos.1 to 4. On defense side, nobody was examined nor any documents were marked.

6. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following point for consideration:-

Whether the Accused Nos. 1 to 3, with a common intention to kill the deceased Kannayya, caused the death of him, by beating him with a stout bamboo stick?

7. By way of the judgment, impugned in the present Criminal Appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found Accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and inflicted the sentence for "life", while acquitting Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal.

8. Heard Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dhushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 in the absence of any eye witnesses for the occurrence of the offence. It is also submitted that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. It is further submitted that the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before Pw.7-Village Revenue Officer cannot be the basis for convicting the appellant herein in the absence of any corroboration. It is submitted that the motive alone, even if the evidence to the said effect is available, cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused. The case of the prosecution is completely devoid of evidence. According to Doctor's evidence also, who was examined as Pw.9, the cause of death also can be attributed to fall from a height and meeting rough surface earth or stone. In support of her submissions and contentions