The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion and uncorroborated confessions are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(P. Sam Koshy, J.)

1. Challenging the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2015 passed by the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Medak in S.C. No.269 of 2013; the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant herein has been found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2013 the complainant D.Chennaiah (PW.1) lodged a complaint at Police Station, Tekmal stating that on the previous night i.e. on 18.05.2013 his sister Dandugula Durgamma (hereinafter, the 'deceased') a deserted lady from her husband who has staying with her brother, the complainant, had gone to sleep after having dinner. However, on the early morning of 19.05.2013, at around 6:00 AM when the complainant had gone to attend nature call, he found the deceased lying on the field with face down. He immediately went to her rescue, but found that she was dead with strangulation marks over her neck and her tongue had also come outside and it was pressed in between the teeth.

5. The police authorities registered the complaint as Cr.No.42 of 2013 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of the inquest, the body was sent for autopsy at the Government Community Hospital, Jogipet and the investigation started. During the course of investigation, LW.8 and LW.9 along with the appellant had appeared before the Police Station and narrated the story that the appellant herein had committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation on the intervening night of 18 & 19.05.2013. On the basis of the confessional statement, the appellant also made available one Nylon rope from the village outskirts from the nearby bushes which is said to have been used in commission of the offence. Based upon the said confessional statement and the recovery so made, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the Sessions Court i.e. the VIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Medak where the case was registered as S.C. No.269 of 2013.

6. In all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked ten exhibits. There was no evidence led on behalf of the defence, neither was there any document marked in defence. Later on examination of the appellant was done under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and finally the impugned judgment was passed convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is this judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impugned judgment contended that the entire case is based on the so-called confessional statement made by appellant before LW.8 and LW.9. However, from plain perusal of the records and pleadings, it would reveal that the alleged confessional statement is not admissible as it was all made in presence of the police. Even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that there were no cogent strong materials collected in the course of investigation so as to establish without any doubt that it was the appellant alone who had committed the offence of murdering the deceased by strangulating her using a Nylon rope.

8. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that whatever evidence has been collected by the prosecution in the course of investigation and those which have been adduced before the Trial Court are neither acceptable, nor an admissible piece of evidence and the prosecution in fact has not been able to establish real motive on the part of the appellant in killing the decea