The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimony can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

1. Heard Dr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. R.Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 31.08.2012 in S.C.No.543 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, State preferred the present appeal. Vide the aforesaid Judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’).

3. As per the prosecution case, the accused killed the younger son of PW.1, namely, Mohd. Quizer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by throwing him in water i.e. Vaddi Cheruvu, Warangal. There are disputes between accused, PW.1 and PW.4 with regard to real-estate business. According to the prosecution, accused, PW.1 and PW.4 have entered into an agreement of sale on 21.12.1998 with regard to a plot. PW.1 and PW.4 have paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused towards advance sale consideration. Accused did not receive the balance sale consideration and did not execute registered sale deed in favour of PWs.1 and 4. There were also disputes between accused and PWs.1 and 4 with regard to the said agreement of sale. Keeping the same in mind, accused kidnapped both the minor sons of PW.1, who are aged about 9 and 11 years respectively, and threw them into water and killed the deceased. PW.5, elder son of PW.1, escaped from the water.

4. On receipt of the said information from PW.5, elder son of PW.1, PW.1 has lodged Ex.P1-complaint with Police, Inthezargunj Police Station, Warangal. On receipt of the said complaint, Police have registered Ex.P10-FIR on 04.10.1999 at about 09.30 A.M. for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC . Thereafter, the Investigating Officer in the said crime has filed Ex.P11 - alteration memo, dated 04.10.1999 stating that the dead body of the deceased was found floating and the accused killed the deceased by throwing him into water. Therefore, he has filed the said memo altering the section of law from of to that of Sections 302 , 307 and 363 of .

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of parents of the deceased as PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 is the Village Revenue Officer, who informed to the police about the floating of the dead body of the deceased on 04.10.1999 in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. on coming to know about the same from the villagers. PW.4, friend of accused and PW.1, deposed about the agreement between PW.1, PW.4 and accused and also with regard to the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment of sale consideration.

6. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of PWs.6 and 7 to prove the motive and that there are disputes between PWs.1, 4 and accused. However, both of them did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. PWs.8 and 9 are Panch Witnesses. PW.10 is a business person. However, he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.11 is a Xerox shop owner and he did not support prosecution and turned hostile. PW.12 is the owner of the subject car and according to him, the subject car was given to the accused on hire. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P.10 FIR on receipt of original Ex.P.1 complaint from PW.1. PW.14 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.15 is the Investigating Officer and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Prosecution has marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 4 w