The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, proving a premeditated conspiracy resulting in murder and theft, supporting convictions under Sections 302, 120-B, and 380 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

N. Tukaramji, J.

We have heard Mr. P. Prabhaker Reddy, learned counsel for Accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014; Mr. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeals Nos.182 of 2014 and 212 of 2014 respectively; Smt. B. Prathibha, learned counsel for Accused No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023; and Mr. Syed Yasin Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017.

2. Since all these appeals arise from the same judgment, we propose to adjudicate them through this common judgment.

3. Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014 has been preferred by Accused Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Accused Nos.1 and 2’); Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2014 has been filed by Accused No.3 (hereinafter ‘Accused No.3’); and Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2023 has been filed by Accused No.4 (hereinafter ‘Accused No.4’). All these appeals challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2014, delivered in Sessions Case No.486 of 2010 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

4. Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2017 has been filed by the State (hereinafter ‘the prosecution’) challenging the same judgment dated 13.01.2014 in Sessions Case No.486 of 2010, to the extent it acquits Accused Nos.3 and 4 of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘IPC’).

5. In the impugned judgment, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of 10,000/- each. In default of payment, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Additionally, they were convicted under Section 380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, along with a fine of 5,000/- each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, with a fine of 5,000/- each; in default, they were to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each, with a fine of 2,000/- each; in default, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

6.(a). The prosecution’s case is based on a report/Ex.P-1 lodged by PW-1, the proprietor of RAK Lodge. According to the report, on 20.08.2009 at around 6:00 p.m., two individuals arrived at the lodge and booked three rooms—Nos. 201, 203, and 205—under the name "K. Prasad, son of K. Deraj," stating that identification would be provided upon check-in by the Prasad. Around 9:00 p.m., three men, three women, and two children (a boy and a girl) occupied the rooms.

(b). On 21.08.2009, at approximately 4:00 a.m., three men and one woman left the lodge claimin