IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases, especially those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.06.2015 in S.C. No. 32 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 449 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the daughter-in-law of the appellant/accused. On account of the said suspicion, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, three months prior to the incident.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW-5, who is the neighbor of the deceased, on the intervening night of 06/07-07-2014, got up at 2:30 A.M. and went to attend nature call and he saw the appellant/accused coming from the side of the deceased house and going towards bus stand. Then he went back to sleep and on the next day morning, he went on to his daily work at 6:30 A.M.

5. PW-1 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He lodged a complaint stating that he found the dead body of the deceased in his house and he was suspecting that the appellant/accused would have caused death of the deceased since deceased was having illicit intimacy with accused daughter-in-law. However, the father of the deceased, who was examined as PW-2, turned hostile to the prosecution case and stated that there was no rivalry between the appellant and the deceased.

6. On the basis of the appellant having motive to commit murder of the deceased, charge sheet under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC was filed against the appellant/accused.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 10 and relied on the following circumstances adduced by the prosecution:

(i) PW-5 had seen the deceased at 2:30 A.M. on the intervening night of 06/07.07.2014 and on the next day morning at about 6:30 A.M., the body of the deceased was found by PW-1.

(ii) PW-1 specifically stated about a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant on the ground that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the daughter-in-law of the appellant.

(iii) The appellant absconded from the village from date of death i.e., 06/07.07.2014and later was arrested on 16.07.2014.

(iv) On 17.07.2014, his confession was recorded and at his instance, the police recovered MO.1 – knife and MO.2 – bloodstained shirt, which is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(v) MO.2 blood stained shirt of the accused was seized and the blood group of the blood found on MO.2 was the blood group of the deceased.

8. On the basis of the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge opined that a complete chain of circumstances was formed to prove the case against the appellant and accordingly, convicted the appellant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the Sessions Court had committed an error in convicting the appellant when the circumstances, which were culled out by the prosecution during the course of trial, were not enough to point towards the guilt of the appellant. In a case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances should be conclusive in nature and should point towards the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the only basis is the bloodstained shirt – MO.2, which was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Learned counsel argued that according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood group of the stains on the shirt was that of the deceased, which is not sufficient proof to convict the appellant. She relie