IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

Heard Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants – accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.10.2016 in S.C.No.117 of 2013 passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants – accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of such payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and for the offence under Section 201 of IPC, the accused are sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.02.2011 a written complaint in Telugu language was lodged with Kothur Police Station of Mahabubnagar by PW.1 namely Smt. Pedaragalla Sailamma, wife of Chinna Mallaiah. In the said complaint, she had stated that her son Pedaragalla Ramesh was married to accused No.2 about eight years back and they were blessed with two sons. However, subsequently accused No.2 is said to have developed an illicit relationship with accused No.1 (brother-in-law of accused No.2’s sister). According to the complainant, about one year back, the accused No.2 left the house along with accused No.1; however, at the interference of the village elders, she came back to the matrimonial home and stayed for two days and again left along with her husband Pedaragalla Ramesh. According to the complainant, after accused No.2 and her husband had gone to Hyderabad about more than a year back, there has been no information about them and in spite of best efforts she has not been able to trace any of them. It was further contended in the complaint that on 31.01.2011, the complainant was informed that PW.2 had seen accused No.2 near Santhosh Nagar at Hyderabad. Accordingly, the complainant along with PW.2 came to Santhosh Nagar and noticed accused No.2 in the company of accused No.1. Initially, the complaint was registered as ‘man missing’ at Kothur Police Station in Cr.No.22 of 2011; however because of jurisdictional issues the matter stood transferred to Meerpet Police Station where the complaint was registered as Cr.No.383 of 2011. The investigating agency at Meerpet Police Station in the course of investigation drew suspicion upon both the accused. Based upon the suspicion, the accused were apprehended on 01.11.2011 where in the course of investigation the two accused confessed of having committed the murder of the deceased Pedaragalla Ramesh and is said to have buried the body on the banks of Meerpet tank besides graveyard. Subsequently, the Meerpet Police Station altered the offence from Section dealing with ‘man missing’ to Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. At the instance of the accused and at the place pointed out by them, the police party arranged for exhumation of the remains of the deceased’s body and accordingly found only the skeleton remains of the deceased. Exhumation was done in the presence of the mediators and later on the charge-sheet was filed and the accused were charged for the offence under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. The matter came up for trial before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District where eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses on behalf of the defence i.e. DW.1 and DW.2. Eleven exhibits were marked by the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P11, and no documents were exhibited on behalf of the