The prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases; the last seen theory has limited application when there is a significant time gap between the last sighting and the time of death.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

1. Crl.A.No.244 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-1 and Crl.A.No.489 of 2021 is preferred by the appellant/A-2, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad at Mancherial.

2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.113 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2 are friends. The deceased, who is the son of P.W.1, owned an auto. He gave the said auto to P.W.4 on rent.

5. On 17.06.2018, at about 10 a.m., A-1, A-2, and the deceased went to the wine shop of P.W.6. There, they sat in the permit room and left the room. Thereafter, all three of them went to the house of P.W.5. According to P.W.5, both the appellants and the deceased stayed in his room and consumed liquor. There, they entered into a quarrel around 12:30 p.m. on the said day. P.W.5 admonished them, as such, all three of them left his room.

6. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, who went to the police station in the night of 18.06.2018 at 0015 hours, and lodged a telugu written complaint. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that his son had gone out in the morning around 9 a.m. on 17.06.2018. Around 1:00 p.m., when his daughter called the deceased, he informed that he was partying with his friends at the ACC Quarry and would return home after the party. Again, at 2:00 p.m., the deceased was contacted, however, some other person answered the call and threatened that the deceased would be killed. Then, P.W.1 and others went in search of the deceased but could not trace him. Around 6 p.m., another phone call was made to the cell phone of the deceased, and a person picked up and stated that auto collection money had to be given to Shiva. When contacted again, a bank account bearing No.62454544613 was provided, and the caller demanded that money be deposited in the said account. On account of the said events that transpired on 17.06.2018, a complaint was filed with the police, seeking assistance of the police to trace the whereabouts of the deceased.

7. The dead body of the deceased was found on the outskirts of the village on 18.06.2018. The dead body was identified as that of the son of P.W.1. The police conducted the scene of offence panchnama, and the body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.11 conducted autopsy of the dead body and found the following injuries:

1. Crushed head injury (left side, brain exposed) (ante-mortem)

2. Contusion over the left upper chest (ante-mortem).

3. Blisters all over the body present (post-mortem).

8. According to P.W.11, the age of injuries was 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. However, according to postmortem examination report/Ex.P.9, the approximate time of death was 36 to 38 hours prior to the post mortem conducted on 19.06.2018 at 12 noon.

9. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of the evidence collected, i.e., the CCTV footage at the wine shop and the account bearing No.62454544613 belonging to A-2, apprehended the appellants on 25.06.2018. Upon interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime, and the wearing apparel of the accused at the time of incident were also seized. The accused also pointed out the place where the murder of the deceased was committed.

10. Both the accused were tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

11. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, found favour with the prosecution case and convicted the appellants.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel raised the following grounds:

1. The postmortem Do