Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any missing link benefits the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.)

These appeals are preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of learned Sessions Court, Mahila Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, dated 26.09.2017.The appellants herein are A-1 and A-2 respectively.

2. Since the impugned judgment in both the appeals is one and the same, this Court is inclined to pass a common judgment.

3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the appellant/A1, Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the appellant/A2, Mr.Dr.Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel represented on behalf of PW.1-De facto complainant claimed property under M.Os.1 to 4 and assisted Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

4. It is a peculiar case where the deceased Pedamallu Venkata Lakshmamma died on 03.08.2014, at her residence. P.Ws.1 to 3, who are her son, daughter-in-law and grandson, respectively and P.W.4 is who performed the funeral ceremony and P.Ws.5 to 7 are the neighbours of the vicinity, all were under the impression that the death of the deceased is due to natural causes. While so, the police unearthed the story of the death of the deceased on 18.11.2014, when they have arrested A1 and A2 relating to Crime No.244 of 2014 of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada. It is further stated that while recording the confession statement of A1 and A2, in the presence of mediators in the said crime, the accused also confessed about committing murder and robbed the gold jewels of the deceased old lady on 03.08.2014. That is how the crime in the present case as Crime No.409 of 2014 was registered basing on the mediator report. The alleged information said to have been collected from the accused leading to discovery of the house of the deceased and further let the police party to Manappuram Finance Company, where M.Os.1 to 4 were seized by the police. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, Ex.P2-Two receipts acknowledging the pledge of the gold articles by A2 in Manappuram Finance Company, Gunadala. The prosecution further alleged that A1 got pledged the gold articles M.Os.3 and 4 through A2 and also through one Lakshmi Priyanka, who testified as P.W.1. The A1 after securing the amount from pledging the gold articles, he purchased an Auto in the name of his wife Sindhura from one Rama Rao on monthly installment basis@ Rs.8,000/- each month for 26 months. It is further stated that A1 paid two installments and stopped paying such installments and finally they have sold away the Auto which stands in the name of his wife Sindhura through one Vasantha Rao, who was examined as P.W.9 in the case vide Agreement-Ex.P3. M.O.6 is the Auto which was seized from the said Vasantha Rao, M.O.5 is the motor bike, on which A1 and A2 were traced by the police on 18.11.2014. The Investigating Officer-P.W.14 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene in the presence of mediators and also seized the material objects in the presence of mediators under respective Panchanamas. After concluding investigation, he filed a report against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 449 , 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”).

5. On appearance of the Accused 1 and 2 before the trial Court, the copies of the documents were furnished to them. The learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 449 r/w 34 , 302 r/w 34 , 404 and 411 IPC . The P.Ws.1 to 15 were the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P13 were the documents marked. Ex.D1 is the contradiction elicited in the evidence of P.W.10. The M.Os.1 to 6 were the material objects placed before the Court. After completing the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “ Cr.P.C .”). They have denied the incriminating material fo