IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.A.No.1054 OF 2007 Date:21-01-2011 Between:- State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant/Petitioner And Manthena Tarabai .. Accused/Respondent JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This Criminal Appeal, by the State under section 378(3)&(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment, dated 30-11-2005, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad whereunder and whereby, respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly he was acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present case may be stated as follows: Manthena Malla Goud (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and accused were leading their happy conjugal life at Rajura village. Five years prior to the incident, a quarrel ensued between them and since then, the accused was separated from her husband and started residing with her younger daughter Kamala at Nizamabad whereas the deceased was residing at Rajura village. One year prior to the incident, the deceased was affected with paralysis as a result of which, his left hand and left leg were paralysed, disabled him to attend his normal duties. P.Ws.2 and 3 came to Rajura village and stayed in attending to the regular needs of the deceased. On coming to know that the accused came to Rajura village, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased with regard to the taking of the jewels by the deceased for the purpose of purchasing a tractor. On 18-08- 2004, at about 7 a.m., at Rajura village, the accused allegedly committed the murder of her husband (deceased) by pouring kerosene and setting fire due to family disputes. P.W.1, who is the Village Secretary of Rajura Village, came to know about the same, rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased with burn injuries. According to P.W.1, there are no other persons staying in the house. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the neighbours, saw the smoke emanating from the house of the deceased, rushed to the house of the deceased and found the doors bolted from inside. As the door was not opened, they climbed on to the terrace of the house and went inside the house through steps and found the deceased sitting on a chair. Then, they poured water and extinguished the fire. The deceased was completely burnt. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, P.W.12, who received the report, registered a case and informed about the registration of the case to the Inspector of Police. P.W.13, on receipt of information, took up investigation and went to the village of Rajura. He observed the scene of occurrence, which is the verandah of the house of the deceased. He observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.13 under Ex.P-2. He seized M.Os.1 to 4, the burnt articles, from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of some panchas. During inquest, he examined the witnesses. He got photographed the dead body through P.W.10. Then, he sent requisition to the Government Hospital to conduct post mortem examination. P.W.11, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to burns and issued Ex.P-12 post mortem report. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. On 19-08-2004, the accused surrendered before him, interrogated her in the presence of mediators. In pursuance of her confession statement, the kerosene tin, which was used in the commission of offence, was seized. Thereafter, the material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory that were deposited into the Court. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. 3. The charge against the accused is that on 18-07-2004, at about 7 a.m., at Rajura village, she committed murder intentionally causing the death of her husband by pouring kerosene and setting fire due to family disputes and therefore, she committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 besides case properties M.Os.1 to 5. 6. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was scope or possibility for any third person to enter into the room where the deceased had sustained burn injuries and therefore, it has given a benefit of doubt to the accused and accordingly, acquitted her. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 8. The point for determination is: “Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 9. Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State contended that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 would clearly go to show that there is a scope for the accused to commit the murder because the deceased had taken away the gold jewellery of his wife and pledged the same with the bank for the purpose of purchasing a tractor, that when the accused demanded the deceased to return those gold ornaments, the deceased did not return the gold ornaments, that therefore, there is a possibility for the accused to entertain a grouse against the deceased, that except the deceased and the accused, who were residing in the house, there is no scope or possibility for any third person to commit the murder of the deceased and therefore, he prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused contended that though as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the accused was present in the house, but her presence itself is not a ground to infer that she is assailant of the deceased in view of the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in a room of the house, which consists of eleven rooms and there is no evidence to show that the accused was also present in the room where the dead body of the deceased was burnt, that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is very clear that the door was locked from inside, and they climbed over the roof and enter into the house and when such is the case, the deceased might have been committed suicide and the death of the deceased is also not established, that mere presence of the accused in the house does not lead to an irresistable conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused, and more else, that her presence at the house, at best, give rise to a suspicion, which however, cannot take the place by legal proof and therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. P.W.13 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and others under Ex.P-3. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries. 12. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found 100% burns all over the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died due to deep burn injuries and issued ExP-12 post mortem report. The cause of the death, as spoken to by the Doctor and as recited in the post mortem report, remained unchallenged. Therefore, homicidal death of the deceased is established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Now, it has to be seen whether the accused is the assailant of the deceased or not. 14. The factual matrix is not in serious dispute. The accused is the wife of the deceased. They have got two children. Though the accused pleaded that as on the date of incident, she was residing with her daughter at Nizamabad, that appears to be incorrect in view of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. There were some disputes between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident in question. The deceased is said to have pledged the gold ornaments of the accused for the purpose of purchasing a tractor. P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the quarrels between the accused and the deceased. He went to the village of the deceased at about 8 a.m. and prepared a report and sent to the police. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution even with regard to the motive also. 15. P.W.2 is the eldest daughter of the accused and the deceased. Admittedly, she is residing at Pembi village. While she was present at Khanapur, she received information about the death of the deceased as a result of burn injuries in Rajura village. Then, she along with others rushed to the scene of occurrence. According to her, her parents used to live happily. She further stated that her mother used to quarrel with her father to bring her ornaments back. As the deceased did not bring the jewels, the quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased. At best, her evidence goes to say that prior to the incident, some quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased with regard to the gold ornaments. So that cannot be a ground to infer that the accused is the assailant of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was residing in one room of the house. It is not her evidence that in the same room accused used to reside. So her evidence is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution. 16. P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.2, who speaks on similar lines as testified by P.W.2. Hence, his evidence does not incriminate anything against the accused. 17. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, admittedly, they are residents of Rajura village. They know both the accused and the deceased and on the date of incident, at about 7 or 7.30 a.m., they saw the smoke emanating from the house of the deceased and several persons gathered there. They both went to the house of the deceased and tried to push the main door to open it. The door was bolted from inside. As the door was not opened, they both climbed over to the terrace of the house and went inside the house through steps. There, they found the deceased sitting in posture on a chair with flames. They extinguished the fire but by then, the entire body was burnt. They have categorically stated that by the time they went into the house, the accused was sitting in another room. Their evidence would not disclose that the accused can have access to the room where the deceased sustained burn injuries. 18. If the evidence on record discloses that the accused was also present in the room where the dead body of the deceased was caught with flames, then it can be inferred that there is a possibility for the accused alone to pour kerosene and set fire to her husband. As the deceased was suffering with paralysis, there would be a scope for the accused to pour kerosene and set fire to him if really she was present in the room of deceased. Admittedly, when P.Ws.4 and 5 went into the room, they did not find the accused in the room. In the first instance, when they tried to open the door with force, it was bolted from inside. That means, there was no scope or possibility for the accused to pour kerosene on her husband and set fire to him. In such circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that the deceased must have sustained burn injuries accidentally or he poured kerosene over his body and set fire to himself. 19. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, they spoke about the earlier quarrels that were existing between the accused and the deceased with regard to the gold ornaments. Even if their evidence is to be accepted, it can, at best, be said that there were some disputes between the accused and the deceased. It is quite natural for a wife to demand her husband to bring back the ornaments after sometime. Admittedly, the accused gave her gold ornaments to the deceased to enable the deceased to purchase a tractor. So that cannot be said to be an immediate motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased especially the scene of occurrence is within the four corners of the wall where nobody can enter into the said house, as it was bolted from inside. That is a reason why P.Ws.4 and 5 have to climb over the terrace of the house and enter into the house. At that time, the accused was sitting in another room. There is no evidence to show that room is accessible to the place of occurrence. Therefore, mere presence of the accused in another room of same house does not lead to draw an irresistable conclusion that with all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Therefore, the trial Court, after giving reasons, rightly acquitted the accused and the findings of the trial Court cannot be shown to be perverse or incorrect. As there were no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment under challenge, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 20. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed confirming the judgment dated 30-11-2005 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 21st January, 2011 AMD