The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Suresh Reddy, J.)

Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'), is the appellant in the present criminal appeal before this Court. He along with accused Nos. 2 to 4 was tried by the trial Court under the following charges:

I charge was under Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 380 , 201 and 411 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4;

II charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4;

III charge was under Section 380 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4;

IV charge was under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4; and

V charge was under Section 411 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 4.

2. Substance of the charges is that accused Nos. 2 to 4 having conspired with accused No. 1 committed murder of one Papineni Radhika (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') at about 2.30 p.m. on 16-04-2011 at door No. 4-5/2, Vempativari Street, Kondapalli, by throttling her neck and in the same process, they committed theft of gold ornaments from the body of the deceased and locked the door from outside and went away, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 302, 380 , 201 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC . After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The trial Court further convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the remaining charges.

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus:

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. P.W.1 is husband of the deceased. P.W.3 is elder brother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased and sister of P.Ws. 1 and 3. The marriage between the deceased and P.W.1 took place about nine years ago prior to the date of incident. They were blessed with two children. Prior to the marriage, the deceased was having relationship with accused No. 1 who was her neighbour. When accused No. 1 asked P.W.2 to marry the deceased, the latter refused on the ground that the former belongs to a different caste. Subsequently, accused No. 1 married another woman. Even after marriage, accused No. 1 and the deceased continued their relationship. Due to the said relationship, wife of accused No. 1 obtained divorce in the year 2010. Thereafter, accused No. 1 took a rented room at Kondapalli owned by the father of P.W.5. Accused No. 1 and the deceased used to meet in the room twice or thrice in a week and spend time and thereafter they used to go to their respective houses. Subsequently, accused No. 1 developed jealous on the ground that the deceased was moving with others also. Accused No. 1 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, accused No. 1 conspired with accused Nos. 2 to 4 who were already accused in crime No. 239 of 2009 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. Accused No. 1 asked accused Nos. 2 to 4 to commit murder of the deceased and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to them.

On 16-04-2011 at about 2.30 p.m., accused No. 1 went to the room situated at Kondapalli along with the deceased on his two-wheeler and enjoyed with her for some time. In the meanwhile, accused No. 1 telephoned accused Nos. 2 to 4 and asked them to come to Kondapalli. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the room situated at Kondapalli. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 killed the deceased by throttling her neck while accused No. 4 was guarding from outside. Thereafter, they committed theft of M.Os.1 to 4 from the body of the deceased and went away by locking the door from o