JUDGMENT :

G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J.

This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10.07.2014 in S.C.No.379 of 2013 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District, whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The appellant is the sole accused. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused along with his wife, settled in Gaddapotharam Village since 11 years. He was working as labour in Mylon company, residing at Room No.15 of first floor of the house bearing No.4-27/1 belonging to one Prakash Chary/ PW-1. Two months prior to the incident, the accused brought one Thurre Nukaratnam, wife of late Konda Babu (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’), kept her in the ground floor in Room No.8 of the same house, paid room rent and also arranged work for her in Balaji Company in the same village, as he developed illegal intimacy with her. It is the further case of the prosecution that the wife of the accused used to quarrel with him as he developed illegal intimacy with the deceased. Further, the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased, as she developed illegal intimacy with some others, at her work place and decided to eliminate/do away her. On 07.06.2013 at about 8:00 p.m., the accused picked up a stick from his house, went to Room No.8 of the deceased, had argument with her upto 9:00 p.m., kept bolt from inside, warned her and due to heated up arguments, out of anger, hit the head of the deceased against the wall, beat her with a stick, caused bleeding injuries and after coming to know that she succumbed to injuries, he fled away.

3. Basing on the complaint of PW-1, a crime was registered against the accused vide Crime No.60 of 2013 of IDA Bollaram Police Station. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, forwarded dead body for postmortem examination, observed the scene of offence, prepared crime report, affected the arrest of the accused, recorded his confession, seized the material objects and after receiving the medical reports, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence.

4. After committal proceedings, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9, Exs.P-1 to P-9 and material objects MOs.1 to 6 are marked. During the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, Exs.D1 to D3 which are the relevant portions of 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses, were marked. Further, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was denied by the accused and also reported no evidence on his behalf.

6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased, and accordingly, convicted him as aforesaid.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case is based only on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances connecting the events so as to convict the appellant, therefore, the conviction is bad in the eye of law and accordingly prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court; as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has convic