In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of proof is essential for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State. Perused the record.

2. The present is an appeal which has been filed under Section 378(3) & (1) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE seeking leave to appeal as also challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet in S.C.No.30 of 2023.

3. Vide the said impugned judgment, the learned trial Court i.e. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet has found the two accused persons not guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. The challenge to the said judgment of acquittal is primarily on the ground that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.4 which gives the material pertaining to the last seen theory so far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned. It was also the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that pursuant to the statement of P.W.4, suspicion had been raised against the two accused persons who were apprehended and on their confessional statement, ornaments, worn by the deceased which were removed by the accused persons, were recovered. It is, according to the Additional Public Prosecutor, sufficient to indicate motive on the part of the accused persons for having committed the said offences. The ornaments recovered were identified by P.W.1, the son of the deceased, which further proves the case of the prosecution so far as recovery made on the confessional statement, and for this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of acquittal and to hold the accused persons guilty of having committed the said offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. However, perusal of the material available with the appeal, it is clearly reflected that the prosecution in order to prove its case had examined as many as 14 witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 14. Likewise, the prosecution also had exhibited 15 documents i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-15 in the course of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Further, M.Os.1 to 5 were the material objects also produced and marked during the course of trial. There was no evidence lead in defence nor was there any documents exhibited in support of the defence.

6. Considering the evidence that has come on record as evidence by the prosecution, what is evidently reflected is that except for the statement of P.W.4, there is no material collected so far as linking the accused persons with the deceased and also in the course of the accused persons committing the crime of murder of the deceased. P.W.4 is also a witness allegedly establishing the last seen theory. However, there is no conclusive or strong material elicited in the course of his deposition of having known the accused persons as also the deceased person since long or having interacted with them during the course they were last seen together and also distinctly remembering the entire ornaments that were worn by the deceased when he had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. The statement of P.W.4 if it is to be relied upon that he has seen the accused in the company of the deceased on the previous night was for a very brief moment and during the said period, it is difficult for any person to so distinctly remember the entire ornaments that a person was wearing on her body which gives rise to great element of doubt on the statement of P.W.4. Further, what is also reflected is that P.W.1 is said to have identifie