The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence with inconsistencies does not suffice for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.265 of 2014 dated 03.08.2015 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, for murdering the daughter of P.W.3 and L.W.5 (not examined). Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the villagers of Manikbandar saw dead body of an unknown woman on 07.11.2013 in Mosali Kunta Cheruvu at Borgam (K) village shivar (outskirts). Woman was aged around 40 to 45 years. At the scene, there were blood stains near the tank bund, broken bangles and foot wear. The said information was given by the villagers to P.W.1, who was working as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) of Manikbandar Village. The throat of the dead body was found to be slit. P.W.1 having seen the dead body went and lodged complaint with the police, which is Ex.P1, dated 07.11.2013.

3. The police, having taken up investigation went to the scene of offence, photographs were taken and also scene of offence panchanama was conducted. Foot wear pair and broken bangles were collected (MOs.1 to 3). The dead body was sent for the purpose of postmortem examination. After postmortem was conducted by P.W.9 on 08.11.2013, he issued opinion that the cause of death was due to ‘neck cut anteriorally including trachea below hyoid bone’. According to P.W.9, the body was putrefied and death might have occurred three to four days prior to the postmortem examination. Thereafter, the dead body was buried since no one came forward to identify the body or claim body.

4. According to the investigating officer/P.W.13, the telephone number of the deceased while she was alive was collected. The said telephone number is 9908029824. On the basis of the cell phone number, the call data was taken from the service provider. In the call data information provided, the police noticed IMEI No.911129553398350 of the mobile phone, which was used by the deceased. It was found that one person with cell phone number 7702422907 was using the very same IMEI number. It was traced that the cell phone was used by one Aggu Savithri, who is wife of the appellant. Then the appellant was apprehended on 16.07.2014, since he was using the cell phone. During interrogation of the appellant, he confessed regarding crime and from the scene of offence, MO.7, which is broken beer bottle with which the alleged injury was caused on the neck of the deceased was seized. Further, at the instance of the appellant, MOs.8, 9, 10 and 11, which are the ornaments of the deceased were also seized. MOs.8 to 11 were identified by the father/P.W.3, taken possession during investigation after orders of Court. P.W.8, who is VRO witnessed the seizure of beer bottle and also the jewellery. MO7, beer bottle was seized from the scene of offence with which, according the prosecution, the appellant injured the deceased. During the evidence of P.W.10, who was the Sub-Inspector, P.W.3 produced MOs. 8 to 11 and they were marked.

5. Mainly on the basis of the cell phone (MO12), which allegedly belonged to the deceased and was used by the accused, and also the jewelry MOs.8 to 11 which were also seized from the house of the appellant, which belongs to the deceased, charge sheet was filed.

6. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following circumstances:

i) P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the Village Revenue Officers found female dead body and lodged complaint.

ii) P.W.3, who is the father of the deceased stated that the deceased was missing eight months prior.

iii) P.W.3 identified the gold ornaments and photographs of the dead body as th