The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by appellants/A1 to A4 questioning their conviction under Sections 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.126 of 2010 dated 20.08.2015 passed by the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.08.2007 around 1.00 p.m, A1 went near the house of the deceased and took both the deceased Susheela Devi (D1) and Manju Rani (D2) in a Tata Sumo vehicle. On the said date, P.W.9 was present when D1 and D2 were waiting for a person. The Tata sumo vehicle came there in which A1 was sitting in the vehicle on the left side. However, he could not identify the driver. Both the deceased sat in the vehicle and they left. Two days thereafter, P.W.9 came to know that both the deceased were killed. P.W.8 is the son of D1 and brother of D2. According to him, on 25.08.2007, he called his mother, who informed that she along with Manju Rani were going to Kandukur in a Tata Sumo and one Sudhakar was also present along with them. Thereafter, when he tried to make contact with them, there was no response. Accordingly, P.W.8 went to the police station and lodged complaint Ex.P6 at 11.00 a.m. The said complaint Ex.P6 was registered as ‘two women missing’ and investigation was taken up by Saroornagar police.

3. Meanwhile, P.W.3, who is the Sarpanch of Narallapally Village, Chitapally Mandal, lodged complaint on 26.08.2007 stating that two dead bodies were found in the outskirts of the village. Accordingly, P.W.3 lodged Ex.P1 report with the police. P.W.18, Circle Inspector of Chinthapally Police Station registered the case in Crime No.120 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC. He went to the village and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7. Scene of offence panchanama was conducted. There, he found electric conduction wire of five meters length which was seized in the presence of mediators. Inquest proceedings were also concluded and dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. On the basis of information, Saroornagar police found that dead bodies were that of mother and sister of P.W.8. P.W.8 then went to the hospital and identified the dead bodies on 27.08.2007. The said case registered by the Chinthapally Police was transferred to Saroornagar Police Station. P.Ws.19 to 21 are Investigating Officers of Saroornagar Police Station. According to P.W.19, while investigation was in progress on 06.09.2007, P.Ws.16 and 17, who are the constables of Saroornagar Police Station apprehended the appellants/A1 to A4 while they were going in Tata Sumo on 06.09.2007 at 2.30 a.m. They were arrested and brought to the police station. On interrogation by P.W.9/Sub-Inspector, A1 allegedly confessed that on account of land disputes, since his father sold one acre of land to both the deceased at a lower price and since there was hike in land prices, A1 with the help of A2 to A4, murdered the deceased. Pursuant to the confession, gold ornaments of both the deceased which were marked as MOs.1 to 10 were seized from A1 to A4. Further, according to P.W.19, there was a written agreement on a bond paper which was purchased by A2 wherein A1 promised to give Rs.2.00 lakhs to A3 and A4 and A2 would stand as a mediator to the said agreement. On the basis of confession and recoveries made, Section of law of ‘women missing’ registered by Saroornagar Police was altered to Sections 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution also examined P.W.15, who stated that on 26.08.2007, in the evening, A2 brought gold chain and took Rs.4,900/-. The said transaction was recorded in the daily account book and the relevant entry was marked as Exs.P21and the receipt Ex.P22 was produced by P.W.15 on the date of his examination in the Court on10.09.2013.

4. The police, having seized the Tata sumo vehicle/MO13 along with ornaments at the instance of the appellants and also other evidence collected, charge sheet was filed.

5. The case is one of circumstantial e