IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

The instant is an appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 aggrieved by the judgment and conviction dated 10.03.2014 in Sessions Case No.464 of 2013 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District (for short, ‘the impugned judgment’).

2. Heard Mr.P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gadwal has found the appellant / accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 & 379 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant / accused to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302, and a further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that both the sentences to run concurrently and with default stipulation.

4. The brief case of prosecution is that on 17.07.2012, the appellant / accused, in order to rob the deceased of his cash around Rs.1,500 to 2,000 and also his mobile phone, committed murder of the deceased in the cattle shed of one Sudershan Reddy within the limits of Atmakur. It is stated that the appellant / accused had assaulted the deceased with a stone on his head and on his face. A complaint was lodged by Smt. K. Laxmamma (PW.3) (mother of the deceased) who stated that the deceased left his house on the early morning of 17. 07.2012 to go to Atmakur for getting income and the local certificate for his daughter. However, he did not return back on that day. The next day morning she was informed that her son (the deceased), viz., Chandraidu, was found dead in the cattle shed of Sudershan Reddy in the limits of Atmakur. Immediately, the family members rushed to the spot including the complainant and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with his head smashed and few of his teeth broken and blood oozing out. Later on, it was found that the mobile phone of the deceased was missing.

5. During the course of investigation, it was found that from the mobile phone of the deceased, the last call was made to one Sri Kondanna (LW.10). Upon enquiry from the said Kondanna, he informed that he had received a call from the appellant / accused from his mobile phone stating that he wanted to sell the mobile phone at half the price to meet some family exigency as the appellant / accused was facing financial crunch. Basing on the same, the appellant / accused was apprehended on 1.08.2012 and thereafter LWs.13 and 14 were called before him and confessional statement was recorded where the appellant / accused stated to have confessed about committing the offence for the mobile phone and the cash that was there in the hands of the deceased.

6. Later on, charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Gadwal where the case was registered as Sessions Case No.464 of 2013. The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 12. In turn, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence, i.e., (DWs.1 and 2), and Exhibits P.1 to P.4 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, and the relevant portion of the contradictory statement elicited during cross-examination of PW.6 was marked as Ex.D.1. Subsequently, the statement of the appellant /accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

7. Thereafter, the Trial Court passed judgment and conviction dated 06.03.2014 in Sessions Case No.464 of 2013, holding the appellant / accused guilty of the charges.

8. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / accused.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant / accused contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence strong enough for implicating the appellant / accused in the s