HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.617 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) The State filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment, dated 09.09.2005, passed by the learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in S.C.No.252 of 2002, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: i) Smt. T. Chinnamma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was given in marriage to the accused about 10 years back. After the marriage, the accused was addicted to vices like drinking and adultery and started harassing the deceased physically and mentally, without assigning any reason. On three occasions, he necked out the deceased from his house. The elders of the village intervened and made re-union between the accused and the deceased. The accused developed extra marital relationship with one Kannemma and lived with her for some time. The said Kannemma committed suicide by consuming poison, due to the harassment meted out by her in the hands of the accused. ii) On 30.09.2001 at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.1, brother of the deceased, noticed the accused beating the deceased in front of his house in Mundlapudi Village. Thereupon, he intervened and chastised the accused and went away. On that day during evening hours, the deceased went to the house of P.W.4, her neighbour, and planned to attend coolie work on 01.10.2001. P.W.4 also found the deceased in the company of the accused on the night of 30.09.2001. On 01.10.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.4 went to the house of the deceased to enquire about her coming for coolie work and found the deceased hanging to a wooden log in her house with a saree and also found the accused absconding. Having come to know about the incident, P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 rushed to the scene of offence and later P.W.1 lodged a complaint against the accused under Ex.P.1 with Tiruchanur Police Station. iii) On the basis of Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1, P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchanur P.S., registered Crime No.155 of 2001 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, L.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Tirupati Rural, took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P.2, drawn Ex.P.8-sketch of scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.9, seized the clothes worn by the deceased as M.Os.1 to 4, and sent the dead body of the deceased to S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, for post-mortem examination, where the doctor P.W.9 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.9- post mortem report opining that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to pressure over the neck. L.W.16 died in the year 2004. Subsequently, P.W.11, Inspector of Police, Tirupati Rural, filed charge sheet against the accused before the competent criminal Court. iv) The investigation discloses that the accused was harassing and beating the deceased, that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on 30.09.2001, that P.W.1 had seen the accused assaulting the deceased on the evening of 30th September, 2001, that after assaulting the deceased on her head, the accused might have hanged the deceased to a wooden rafter till her death, and that in order to create an impression that the deceased has committed suicide, the accused hanged the dead body of the deceased to a wooden rafter in her house and escaped from the house. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution conducted trial by examining as many as 11 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 apart from M.Os. 1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. After evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charge leveled against him, by judgment dated 09.09.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the State filed this appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial Court has utterly failed to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution and came to an erroneous conclusion that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is not completely linked up with each other and thereby the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, he prays to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused contended that the trial Court is right in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal of the accused. 7. We have perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.4. As per the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agency, P.W.4 saw the accused along with the deceased on the night of 30.09.2001 and she found the accused absconding on the date of incident i.e. 01.10.2001, whereas she deposed in the Court that on the date of incident, no one was present in the house except the deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that the witnesses found injuries on the private parts of the deceased. Whereas P.W.9, doctor, totally denied the same. 8. In a case where husband and wife lived together, and if the wife died, in natural circumstances, of course, it is the duty of the husband to explain as to how his wife died. But in the present case, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused and the deceased lived together on the date of occurrence. 9. Further, it is evident from the records that before commission of the crime there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. The said fact coupled with the admission of the doctor, P.W.9, in his cross-examination that he cannot give any opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased whether it is suicidal or homicidal, shows that there is also a possibility of commission of suicide. However, taking into consideration the previous quarrel between the deceased and the accused, the Court cannot rule out the possibility of commission of suicide in the present case. In such a situation, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused taking into account the fact that it is not safe to convict a person on the basis of present evidence. It is also well settled position of law that when two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, one, which is in favour of the accused or more probable, can be taken into consideration and if the same is appreciated and the accused is acquitted of the offence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 10. In view the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the said judgment does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity and there is no apparent error on the face of the record also. 11. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 25th October, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.617 of 2007 (Dismissed) 25th October, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.617 of 2007 Dated:25-10-2010 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant AND T. Elumalai Reddy …Respondent/ Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: