THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1528 OF 2018 & 2242 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

Criminal Appeal No.1528 of 2018 is filed by the accused No.2, and Criminal Appeal No.2242 of 2018 is filed by the accused No.1. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in SC No.124 of 2015 dated 17.04.2018, on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Godavarikhan, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1528 of 2018, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel representing Sri V.Rohith, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.2242 of 2018, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. PW1 is the husband of Sulochana (the deceased). PW1 was working in Singareni Collieries. Accused No.2 is a poojari by profession, and accused No.1 is a friend of accused No.2. On

01.11.2014, at about 07.00 AM, PW1 left the house while the deceased and the housemaid were present in the house. When he returned to the house at around 03.25 PM, the front door was closed and when he went inside, in the hall he found that the almirahs were opened and the articles in the almirah were ransacked. Then he found the dead body of his wife in the kitchen in a pool of blood. Her legs and arms were tied with a rope. PW1 noticed a cut wound to her neck, and when PW1 started shouting, the neighbours gathered in his house. He found some of the gold ornaments missing from the almirah. Gold ornaments of the deceased were marked under MOs.1 to 9. PW1 went to the police station and filed a complaint at 08.30 PM. In the complaint, he narrated that some unknown persons have entered into his house and attacked the deceased, resulting in her death and took away the gold ornaments.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, PW11 registered the FIR. On the night of that day, PW11 rushed to the spot and arranged for guards. Since it was night, he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and the inquest the next day, and he got the scene photographed. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased, the doormat, the plastic mat, two white coloured threads, cement flake, controlled earth, etc., were seized under MOs.14 to 20.

5. During the course of investigation, on 04.11.2014, i.e., three days after the incident, both the appellants were arrested. MOs.1 to 9/gold ornaments were seized from the pockets of the appellants. They were interrogated in the presence of PW9 and another independent witness. Thereafter, at the instance of the appellants, the police went to a pond near the banks of Godavari. There, they found a knife and clothes of the accused, which are MOs.11 and 12. A panchanama was conducted.

6. On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, both the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 380 of IPC.

7. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants relying on circumstantial evidence, which is, PW8, who saw the appellants on the date of the incident, i.e., on 01.11.2014, and the recovery of the gold ornaments/MOs.1 to 9 at the instance of the appellants.

8. Both the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the case is one of circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of PW8, who saw the appellants walking hurriedly near the Hanuman temple, Godavarikhani. The said evidence cannot form the basis to convict the appellants, as it is unreliable, and so is the recovery effected at the instance of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268, wherein it was held as under; :

“In the decision of Pra