In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes other hypotheses of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

The appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by his conviction vide judgment dated 21.06.2014 in S.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

2. Heard Sri K.Raghunath Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and perused the record. 3. The case rests on circumstantial evidence and the FIR was registered on the basis of Extra Judicial Confession made by the appellant to PW.4 that the appellant killed the wife of PW.1. Pursuant to such Extra Judicial Confession, PW.4 informed policed and FIR was registered and case was investigated.

4. According to the case of the prosecution, the wife of PW.1 went missing on 03.02.2010. PW.1 lodged Ex.P1/Complaint with the police that the deceased was missing. The said complaint was made on 17.02.2020. In Ex.P-1/complaint, PW.1 stated that his wife was missing and requested police to find his wife. He did not speak anything about any suspicion over anybody regarding missing of his wife in the complaint/Ex.P1.

5. According to the prosecution, the appellant met PW.4 on 05.04.2010 and confessed before him that he had committed the murder of the deceased two months prior and that he was afraid of the police. Appellant further informed that he had illegal intimacy with the deceased. He found that deceased slept with another person, as such he took her to 8-Incline Colony and killed her by causing injuries with a big stone.

6. PW.4 lodged complaint/Ex.P2 with the police and the police took accused into custody and conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the dead body was identified along with a Mo.10 i.e. big stone by which the death was caused. Having concluded the scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P14 and the inquest/Ex.P15, the appellant allegedly took Police to his house where silver and other jewellery which were marked as MOs.1 to 3 were seized. On the next day i.e., 06.04.2010, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The dead body was sent for Postmortem Examination. PW.9 conducted Postmortem and found one injury which is fracture of spinal cord injury. According to the Doctor, the death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to upper cervical spinal cord injury. On the basis of the said facts that were collected during the course of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

7. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 12 and also marked Exs.P1 to P21 on behalf of the prosecution. Further, MOs.1 to 10 were also placed on record.

8. Learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty on the basis of the following circumstantial evidence.

“7. Thus the prosecution is dependent on the following pieces of evidence.

1) The evidence of D.Shankar (PW.5) in whose auto deceased and accused travelled from Gunjapadugu to 11-A Incline Colony on 03.02.2010.

2) The evidence of PW.4 Rajender that the accused came to him and confessed to him about the offence.

3) The recovery of Gold Pustela Tadu, Silver anklets and Silver rings from the accused after his arrest by the Police.

4) Tracing out of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused.

5) Call details of the cell-phone of the accused and the cell details of the cell-phone of the deceased on 03.02.2010.

6) The accused and PW.1 being friends and accused developing illicit intimacy with the deceased.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of Extra Judicial Confession made to PW.4 is highly doubtful. In fact,