The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(K. SURENDER, J.)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/A1, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.04 of 2018 dated 11.09.2018, convicting the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC , and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC .

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. PW.1 lodged an English typed complaint with the Police on 17.04.2017 at 10.00 A.M. In the complaint, he narrated that his brother Syed Omed Ali (deceased), was a rickshaw puller and on 16.04.2017 at 16.00 hours, he saw his brother in an auto going with the appellant and two others. When PW.1 questioned the deceased as to where they were all going, the deceased informed him that they were going to the Toddy Compound at Saroornagar.

The next day morning at 9.00 A.M., PW.1 received a phone call from Madannapet Police saying that the deceased was found near a graveyard, Madannapet. PW.1 went there, identified the dead body, and lodged complaint-Ex.P1.

4. PW.2 is the person who went along with the appellant, A2, and the deceased to consume Toddy at Saroornagar. All of them consumed Toddy in the compound. PW.2 returned to his house at 8.00 p.m. from the Toddy shop. On the next day, he was informed around 3.00 P.M. about the death of the deceased.

5. PW.3 is the Pan shop owner, who states that on 16.04.2017, he saw the deceased along with appellant and A2 at 10.30 – 10.45 p.m. All of them went to his pan shop, purchased two pans, and went away. The appellant was driving the auto. On 18.04.2018, Saidabad Police took the appellant and A2 and went to his shop, PW.3 identified them as the persons who had come on 16.04.2018 to purchase Pans. Police also showed the photograph of the deceased, and PW.3 identified the deceased and informed the Police that he saw the deceased along with A1 and A2 on 16.04.2018.

6. PW.4 is the Toddy shop cashier, who states that around 9.30 P.M. the appellant purchased four toddy packets and paid Rs.100/-. They consumed toddy and left. However, PW.4 did not identify the deceased as the person who came to the Toddy shop.

7. PW.5 is the person who is running a fish shop at Shiva Shakthi Bar, Shankeshwar Bazar, Saroornagar. According to him, on 16.04.2017, around 11.30 P.M., four persons went to the Bar, and while two persons sat at a table, two persons came to the counter and purchased two pieces of fried fish. Two days thereafter, the Police enquired with PW.5 about the appellant and another purchasing fish. However, the Police did not show the photograph of the deceased to confirm whether the deceased accompanied the appellant and A2 at 11.30 P.M. at the Bar.

8. PW.6 is the scene of offence panch. According to him, MOs.1 to 7 were seized during the scene of offence proceedings.

9. PW.7 is the witness to the inquest proceedings.

10. PW.8 is the panch for the confession of A1. Pursuant to the confession of A1, MOs.10 and 11, which are the pant and shirt of A1, were seized. MOs.13 and 14 are the jeans shirt and pant of A2.

11. PW.9 is the Postmortem doctor who found 17 injuries on the body of the deceased. According to PW.9, the cause of death was due to throttling associated with multiple injuries. PW.9 also states that there was evidence suggestive of violation of the anal orifice.

12. The case of the prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, PW.1 had seen the appellant, A2, and the deceased in an Auto at 9.00 P.M. PW.2 had seen them at 8.00 P.M. PW.3 had seen them at 10.30-10.45 P.M., and PW.4 had seen them at 9.30 P.M. The last person who saw the appellant was PW.5. PW.5 had seen the appellant at 11.30 P.M. on 16.04.2017. PW.5 states that 4 persons came to the bar, while two persons sat at a tab