Subba Reddy Satti, J.

1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.226 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 26/27.12.2016, the accused caught hold of the head of Muppina Chiranjeevi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and struck him to a brick wall and thereafter picked up a stone and hit on his face, causing his instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is:

                  (i) The deceased, a Mechanic by profession, was a resident of Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem. The material witnesses as well as the accused are also residents of Tadepalligudem. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased; P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1, and P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.2 and cousin of the deceased. On 25.12.2016, P.W.1, the deceased, and P.W.3 went to Chebrolu to visit the parents' house of P.W.1 and returned to Tadepalligudem on 26.12.2016 at about 7:00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased went out to fetch sambar. At around 10:00 p.m., since the deceased did not return, P.W.1 called him, who in turn replied that he would be back within fifteen minutes. Thereafter, P.W.1 again called the deceased twice, who in turn, replied that he would come back within ten minutes and thereafter within five minutes. However, the deceased neither returned nor replied to the subsequent call made by P.W.1.

                  (ii) On the next day at about 6:30 a.m., while P.W.1 was cleaning the front yard, she observed three persons looking below the bridge. On her questioning, they informed her that somebody killed a person and the dead body was at the bridge. P.W.1 rushed to the place and identified the deceased as her son. She noticed that the face was smashed. She also found kadiyam, a cell phone and cheppals at the scene of offence. On 27.12.2016, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report.

                  (iii) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Circle, received Ex.P1-report and registered a case in crime No.328 of 2016 under Section 302 I.P.C. He submitted copies of the F.I.R. to all concerned. Ex.P11 is the original F.I.R. He requested higher officials to depute dog squad and clues team to the scene of offence. He secured the presence of P.W.11 and others and visited the scene of offence. He prepared scene observation report-Ex.P6 and rough sketch-Ex.P12. At the scene of offence, he found a motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 AP 2404, index company cell phone, belonged to the deceased and two green colour beer bottles containing a label as Carlsberg, Elephant strong beer. He seized the Index company cell phone-M.O.1, boulder stones-M.O.6, Beer bottles (M.O.4), Blood-stained earth and controlled earth- M.O.5, slippers-M.O.2, Steel Kadiyam-M.O.3 under mediators' report Ex P.6. P.W.13 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and others at the scene of offence and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.11 and others. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. He sent the body for postmortem examination.

                  (iv) P.W.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to severe crush injury over the face due to head injury and hanging. He issued postmortem certificate and final opinion under Exs.P3. He also issued final opinion Ex P5, after receipt of the RFSL report Ex.P.4.

                  (v) On 28.12.2016, P.W.13 examined P.W.10 and recorded his statement. He also examined P.Ws.5 to 7 and others and recorded their statements. On 29.12.2016, he received fingerprint report-Ex.P10 from the Fingerprint Office, Eluru. Based on the said report, he identified the accused as he was a previous convict. On 31.12.2016, he examined P.W.8 and another. On the same day, on receipt of credible information, he, along with mediators, P.W.11 and another staff proceeded to the house of the accused and arrested the accused. The accused confessed commission of the offence. At the time of arrest, he seized the clothes of the accused, M.O.7 and sent the accused to judicial remand. He sent the material objects to FSL through SDPO, Kovvur. On 30.03.2017, P.W.13 received the final opinion from P.W.9 and filed the charge sheet on 13.04.2017.

                  (vi) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, in the office of Fingerprint expert, Eluru, on receiving a phone call from Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem, visited the scene of offence along with his team. During the course of examination at the scene of offence, he found two empty beer bottles-M.O.4. He developed chance prints by using technical powders. He found two chance prints on one beer bottle, and they were marked as 'A' and 'B' for the facility of photography. He got photographed the chance prints and examined them. One chance print i.e. 'B' is unfit for comparison. The other chance print 'A' was fit for comparison. Ex.P9 is the scene of offence visiting report. The photocopy of the chance print 'A' has been compared with fingerprint record slips of Ex-convict criminals in the fingerprint unit, Eluru. During the course of minute examination and ridge comparison, the chance print marked as 'A', and it matched with the left thumb impression on the fingerprint slip bearing Tin No.2160626 of ex-convict criminal, the accused. He sent the report to P.W.13 under a covering letter. Ex.P10 is the fingerprint expert report of comparison.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7.

5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.

6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as foresaid.

7. Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence, and no circumstances connecting the accused were proved. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 and 10 is not trustworthy. P.W.10 had criminal antecedents, and hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon. P.W.12 is not competent to examine fingerprints on the bottles, and no separate panchanama was conducted by P.W.12 regarding seizure of M.O.4. The Police seized M.O.4 and later handed over the same to P.W.12. He would further contend that the thumb impression of the accused was not taken in the presence of the Magistrate and hence, the opinion of P.W.12 cannot be relied upon.

9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution established the chain of links and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the prosecution established the last seen theory, by examining P.Ws.6, 7 and 10 and further connected the chain of links by proving the thumb impression of the accused on M.O.4 and thus connected the accused with the crime. He would also contend that the accused failed to give any explanation for the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased and thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. We have given our anxious consideration and perused the entire material on record.

11. As seen from the material available on record, the incident took place on the intervening night of 26/27.12.2016, and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. To establish the last seen theory, the prosecution examined P.Ws.6, 7 and 10. Though P.W.10 had criminal antecedents, his evidence cannot totally be brushed aside on that ground. P.Ws.6 and 7, who are auto drivers, testified that the accused and the deceased were last seen together at Brandy shop near petrol bunk, where P.Ws.6 and 7 were also present. P.Ws.6 and 7 in their evidence stated that when they were present at the brandy shop, the accused offered an apple to P.Ws.6 and 7. When they refused the offer, the accused broke an empty bottle. P.Ws.6 and 7 necked out the accused. Later, the deceased, P.W.10 and the accused came back to the brandy shop. When P.W.10 and the deceased asked the accused as to who beat him, the accused, in turn, told them that nobody beat him. On that, the deceased slapped the accused two times. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased left on a motorcycle. Thus, the prosecution established the last seen theory of the accused and the deceased. When the accused was seen with the deceased, it is the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. However, the accused failed to explain the circumstances.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 5 SCC 391, observed as under:

                  29. On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of the deceased, etc. The accused is bound to give an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established - pleading securely to the conviction of the accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. [Satpal v. State of Haryana [Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610] and Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. [Ram Gopal v. State of M.P., (2023) 5 SCC 534]

13. Of course, it is a settled principle of law that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself infer that the accused committed the crime. The prosecution must establish something more to connect the accused to the crime.

14. In the case at hand, apart from the last seen theory, the prosecution also established fingerprints of the accused on M.O.4 and recovery of M.O.7 at the behest of the accused. As per Ex.P4, RFSL report, the clothes recovered at the behest of the accused, M.O.7 contain human blood. Once the prosecution connected the accused to the crime by placing substantial material, the accused should have given some explanation for the presence of blood stains on his pant and shirt. A mere plea of false implication during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., given the incriminating circumstances against the accused, is not sufficient.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravirala Laxmaiah v. State of A.P., (2013) 9 SCC 283, observed as under at para No.20:

                  "20. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eyewitness account is available, the principle is that:

                  "6. ... when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation [for the same,] or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete."

                  [Vide State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] , Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [(1995) 3 SCC 574 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 552 : AIR 1995 SC 1598] , State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40 : AIR 1999 SC 3535] (SCC pp. 685-86, para 6), State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263] and Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 1 SCC 731 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 247] .]

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Neel Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766, held as under:

                  30. It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. Recovery of incriminating material at his disclosure statement duly proved is a very positive circumstance against him. ."

17. In the case at hand, P.W.12, Inspector of Police working in the office of fingerprint expert, Eluru, deposed that he rushed to the scene of offence along with his team, where he found two empty beer bottles-M.O.4 and he developed the chance prints by using technical powder. He further deposed that during the course of minute examination and ridge comparison of the chance print marked as 'A', it was found to be identified with the left thumb impression on the fingerprint slip bearing Tin 2160626 of the Ex-convict criminal. As seen from the material, the accused was convicted earlier, and his fingerprints were available. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the thumb impression was not obtained in the presence of the learned Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the accused, falls to ground.

18. It appears that the fingerprints of the accused on one of the bottles, M.O.4, support the case of the prosecution and completes the chain of links and connected the accused to the crime. The accused also did not give any explanation for the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased. P.W.9, medical officer, found ten external injuries on the body of the deceased. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered all the aspects, concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, and eventually convicted the appellant.

19. Given the discussion supra, we do not find any merit in the criminal appeal.

20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in S.C.No.226 of 2017 dated 19.06.2018. It is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off, as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.