IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the only conclusion of guilt for a conviction to be sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth (Legal Aid), learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2016 in S.C. No. 78 of 2015 passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, 379 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302 with default stipulation of one year and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 379 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.10.2014 at around 13:00 hours PW-1 (Jangam Gopal) filed a complaint at Shankarampet Police Station informing that on 27.09.2014 his brother-in-law came home and informed him that his wife i.e. PW-1’s sister Thaduri Swaroopa @ Lalitha is missing since 26.09.2014 and her mobile phone bearing No. 8897755298 was switched off. He further stated that on the date of filing the complaint on 01.10.2014 at around 12:00 hours he was informed by VRO Gottimukkula Village namely Vijay Kumar that a dead body of a female was found in Rajula Cheruvu in the Gottimukkula village. Upon receiving the said message from VRO, PW-1 rushed and found the dead body to be that of his sister Swaroopa. He recognized the body on the basis of marks that were there on the body as the face was otherwise not identifiable. In the course of investigation the prosecution seems to have apprehended the first husband of the deceased Maskuri Sailu and on the basis of confessional statement recorded, the investigation proceeded and concluded. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed and the matter in due course of time was put up for trial before the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Medak, where the case was registered as S.C. No. 78 of 2015.

5. The prosecution in all examined as much as thirteen witnesses and exhibited as many as nineteen documents. There were no witnesses examined, neither were there any documents marked in support of defence. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side finally vide the impugned judgment found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, 379 and 201 of IPC which is already mentioned in the beginning of this judgment.

6. It is said that the murder was committed by the appellant in order to take away the ornaments and jewelry on the body of the deceased with which the appellant intended to get his daughter married.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire judgment of conviction is based on conjuncture and surmises without any cogent substantial evidence collected by the prosecution to implicate the appellant and the impugned judgment is therefore not sustainable. Likewise, it was also the contention that the entire case revolves around circumstantial evidence with no chain of links whatsoever being available with the prosecution, nor there being any evidence collected with which the prosecution can claim that there is a chain of evidences and the chain of evidences are so interlinked that it leads to no other conclusion, but that of the appellant alone to have committed the murder of the deceased.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant opened his arguments highlighting the aspect of there being no cogent material available on record with which the prosecution can claim to have reasons to apprehend the appellant and thereafter to proceed with the investigation. Ac