IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. - This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment and sentence of imprisonment, in S.C.No.463 of 2009, dtd. 29/10/2013, on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the sole accused/appellant found guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 380 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and shall pay a fine of Rs.10, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also shall pay a fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the deceased G.Babu Rao as well as the accused were working as sweepers in Railway Mail Service situated in II floor of General Post Office, JN Road, Abids, Hyderabad. While so, on the intervening night of 2/3/2/2009, the accused murdered the deceased Babu Rao in the premises of the office and committed theft of net cash of Rs.9, 90, 655.00 from the cash chest. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the next day, when P.W.2/sweeper went to sweep the office prior to office hours, she found the dead body of the deceased and intimated the same to P.W.1, who inturn came to the office, noticed the dead body of the deceased and found cash of Rs.9, 90, 655.00 missing from the cash chest and further he preferred Ex.P-1 report to the Police. Basing on the said report, the Police have registered a case vide Crime No.42 of 2009, on the file of Abids Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 380 of IPC against the unknown offender.

3. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene observation panchanama, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and observed scene of offence, prepared crime detail report in the presence of the panchayatdars and later forwarded the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. The Investigating Officer has also secured presence of Forensic Expert to lift chance prints from the scene of offence and accordingly Finger Prints Expert lifted four chance prints. On the same day afternoon, the Investigating Officer rushed to house of the accused, searched the house of the accused and found cash worth of Rs.8, 25, 620.00, and the same was seized. Further, on interrogation, the accused confessed that he has sent an amount of Rs.1, 65, 039.00 to one Satish Goud through his father-in-law. Basing on his confession, the Police have gone to the house of T.Satish Goud and recovered the balance amount. Further, one of the chance prints developed from the scene of offence tallied with the specimen Finger Print of the accused. Later, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court for judicial remand. After collecting medical reports and other relevant documents and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 380 of IPC.

4. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 380 of IPC for which the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied incriminating evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has framed the following point for consideration:- "Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the charge under Ss.