THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 07-07-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 875 OF 2011 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Giduturi Yellamma @ Neeli Venu .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 875 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This criminal appeal by the State is against the order of acquittal dated 04-07-2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in S.C No. 9 of 2007. The respondent – accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC and at the conclusion of trial was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the alleged offence. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is the wife of the deceased and on 03-05-2005 at about 11.00 AM, she administered some sleeping pills in the lunch of the deceased as he suspected her fidelity and when the deceased fell asleep, the accused heated an electrical iron box and pressed the same on his face and despite the struggle made by the deceased, the accused did not raise from him and sat on him and finally he lost his conscious and stopped moving and then the accused caused burn injuries with a hot electric iron box over the right shoulder, ribs, hip and murdered him. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased near a native grinder and then called the neighbours at about 2.30 PM and misrepresented that the deceased fell down on the said grinder by slipping from the steps while he was going to toilet and died. Basing on the complaint given by the accused herself a case in Crime No.24 of 2005 was registered under Section 174 IPC on the file of Tallapudi Police Station. PW 11 - the Inspector of Police, Kovvur Circle conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire material available on record held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had given report to the police as per Ex.P-14 which was registered initially under Section 174 Cr.P.C., under suspicious death as per Ex.P-15; that the extra judicial confession made by the accused as per Ex.P-1 before PW 1 is not proved and when the said confession was made by the accused before PW 1 long after four months after the offence the delay is not properly explained by the prosecution and that the ocular evidence is contrary to the medical evidence spoken to by PW 9 and accordingly acquitted the respondent – accused. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and the learned counsel for the respondent - accused. The prosecution mainly relied upon the extra judicial confession Ex.P-1 made by the accused after four months of the incident. By that time, the entire investigation was completed including filing of post mortem certificate by the doctor PW 9. Initially, crime was registered by the police under Section 174 Cr.P.C on the complaint lodged by the respondent – accused and Ex.P-15 FIR was issued which was later altered to Section 302 IPC under Ex.P-16 basing upon the confessional statement of the accused herself. PW 9 the doctor who conducted post mortem examination and issued Ex.P-9 stated that he did not find either the injuries sustained by electrocution or pressing of face with pillow on the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination. He also did not state the fact that prior to the death, sleeping pills were administered to the deceased. He further stated that Ex.P-11 is the final opinion given by him. Ex.P-13 is the questionnaire given to him for ascertaining some clarifications for the post mortem report given by him and Ex.P12 is the answer for the questionnaire given to him. The entire case of the prosecution is that the accused murdered the deceased who is her husband as he suspected her fidelity and the accused herself gave a report under Ex.P-14 on which basis crime was registered. None of the neighbours who were examined by the prosecution stated that both the couple quarreled with each other and the deceased husband suspected the fidelity of the respondent – accused. PW 9, the doctor also stated that he noticed 1 ½ litres of fluid in the abdomen of the deceased which is a normal phenomenon and that in electrocution, the types of injuries can be noticed. If any person causes injury to other person with hot iron box, it leaves injuries equal size of the iron box. If a person is pressed with pillow, on his face one can notice saliva and blood oozing from nostrils and mouth, but he did not observe any saliva or blood oozing from the nostrils and mouth of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination. He further stated that in case of asphyxia death limpid would be well developed and tongue will be protruded, but he did not find any of the above said features. According to him, in case of asphyxia death by employing with pillow and pressing the face of the other person the victim as well as the assailant will receive injuries on the chest and other parts due to struggling and such features are absent in this case. As per Ex. P-12, the injury sustained to the deceased is only beating by others and all injuries mentioned in the post mortem certificate are all simple in nature and that too contusions and the injuries mentioned in the post mortem certificate could not cause death of a person. He further stated that he did not find any injuries over the dead body of the deceased at the time of post mortem examination sustained by any electrocution or pressing of the face with a pillow. In the present case, as rightly held by the trial Court the prosecution also failed to establish that the accused gave a report to the police as per Ex.P-14 and basing on the same they initially registered case under Section 174 Cr.P.C as per Ex.P-15. A perusal of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-15 would reveal that the signatures of the accused are different. Further, the prosecution has also brought crime dogs to the scene of offence but could not identify the culprit and the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW 1 as per Ex.P-1 also falsifies the theory of the prosecution. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any perversity to come to a different conclusion. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. A. GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 07-07-2011 ks