IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.677 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 201 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. Vide Judgment, dated 27.10.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years more for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, the appellant herein/accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months more for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. The appellant herein/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and he was acquitted of the said offence in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’).

3. The substance of the charges as against the appellant herein/accused is that on 6th February, 2013 at about 11.30 PM, at the house of one G.Subbaramaiah Setty (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) he did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of the deceased by throttling his neck and pressing the face with a pillow, because of the same, the deceased died with asphyxia. Thereafter, the appellant herein/accused committed theft of cash of Rs.21.00 lakhs and gold ornaments about 42 Tulas from the deceased.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are all residents of Ragikunta village in Pavagada Taluq of Karnataka State. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.3. P.W.6 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was residing in the first floor and P.W.3 was residing in the second floor of the same house at Roddam. Wife of deceased died six months prior to the death of the deceased. P.W.6, who is the daughter of the deceased, was studying at Anantapuramu. The deceased was alone in the house and P.Ws.3 and 4 were supplying food and refreshments to him.

The deceased was doing real estate business. The deceased had lands in Ragikunta and Mopurlapalli villages and they were leased out to the appellant herein/accused. The appellant herein/ accused made the deceased to take part in real estate business. The appellant herein/accused regularly used to visit the house of the deceased. There was one house site at Pavagada (Karnataka State) in the name of the deceased. The appellant herein/accused made the deceased to sell the plot in Pavagada for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. The appellant herein/accused asked the deceased to purchase a dwelling site at Anantapuramu for a cost of Rs.30.00 lakhs and further asked to arrange the balance amount. The deceased borrowed an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from L.W.16/ S.Raghava Reddy and the deceased was also having cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs in his house.

On 06.02.2013 at about 10.00 AM, P.W.3 went to Dharmavaram and returned to Roddam at about 10.00 PM. By that time, the deceased came and opened the gate and P.W.3 went inside his house, which is situated in upstairs. At about 11.00 PM on the same day, the appellant herein/accused pressed the switch of the calling bell. P.W.3 went out and saw the appellant herein/ accused. The deceased went out and opened the door of the house. P.W.3 saw the deceased and the accused going into the house. P.W.3 went inside his house thinking that the appellant herein/accused is