JUDGMENT :

G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J.

This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 20.06.2013 in S.C.No.372 of 2011 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

2. The appellant is the sole accused who was tried before the Sessions Judge for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused was working under one Someshwar Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) for drilling the hand pump borewells and had been demanding the deceased to increase his wages, for which, the deceased did not respond. Keeping it in mind, the accused attacked the deceased in a fit of rage with brickbats and murdered him between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m. on 05.02.2011.

4. Basing on the report given by PW-1, who is the son of the deceased, the Circle Inspector of Police, Bichkunda Police Station took up investigation, examined the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence including the crime detailed report, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, forwarded the dead body to Government hospital, Bichkunda for postmortem examination, collected the material objects from the scene of offence and later apprehended the accused on 07.02.2011, recorded his confession statement in the presence of panchayatdars. Pursuant to the confession of the accused, recovered the brick bats (M.O.9) and later remanded the accused to judicial custody. After receiving the medical reports and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

5. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above said offences, read over and explained the same to him and the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15, Exs.P-1 to P-8 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence found against him but the accused denied the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence. After considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated supra.

6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was in jail since 20.06.2013 and Legal Aid was granted to him to defend his case before this Court.

7. Heard learned Legal Aid counsel Smt. Ande Vishala, appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and there are many missing links and therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, prayed to confirm the judgment of the Sessions Judge.

The point for consideration in this appeal is;

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether there is any irregularity or error in the judgment of the trial Court, requiring interference ?”

10. In order to appreciate the evidence, it is necessary to discuss about the witnesses. PW-1 is the son of the deceased. Basing on his report/Ex.P-1, the Police have registered the case against the accused, upon which, the criminal law is set into motion. Admittedly, PW-1 is not eyewitness to the incident. His evidence discloses that the accused used to work un