THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1752 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused. 2. The respondent is sole accused in Sessions Case No.594 of 2007. 3. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17.06.2008, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam, in S.C.No.694 of 2007, acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal ode (for brevity “I.P.C.,”). 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased married one Bandarupalli Guravaiah and he died two years after their marriage. Later, she married another person by name B.Ramulu and after one year, she deserted him and started living with her parents. Again, third time, she married the accused about five years prior to the date of the offence and they were blessed with a child also. 5. As usual, on the date of the incident, i.e., on 23.09.2007, at about 7 pm., the deceased went to the house of P.W-3 in order to sleep there and at about 10.30 pm., she took one tumbler and went to the other side of the road and her husband, who is the accused, also followed her and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5. On the next day morning, at about 6 am., when the wife of P.W-3 woke up, the deceased, who was sleeping on the cot in their verandah, was found dead and the same was informed to the villagers. Some injuries on the neck and back were noticed on the body of the deceased and it was suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased as he took her out. Later, P.W-1 lodged a complaint to the police, and the police after completing all the formalities filed the charge sheet. 6. When the charge framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., was read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, besides M.Os.1 and 2, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The Court below, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and accordingly, acquitted him. 9. The only question that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is -- as to whether the Court below had properly appreciated the evidence on record in order to arrive at the conclusion that the accused had not committed the offence under Section 302 I.P.C? 10. P.W-3, who is the only person, who allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused on the previous day of the incident, stated that the deceased came to his house in the night time, took one tumbler and went to the other side of the road and that he found the accused also along with her. This is the only circumstance, which, in our view, is not such a strong circumstance to point out the guilt towards the accused, particularly in a case which rests solely on circumstantial evidence. 11. The settled law is that all the circumstances cumulatively should point out the accused as the offender. In the instant case, the sole circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the deceased was not even supported by any other corroborative evidence and hence, much weight cannot be attached to the evidence of P.W-3. 12. The trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence on record in a right perspective and we do not find any irregularity or irrationality in the reasoning assigned by the trial Court in acquitting the accused and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 08th December 2009 dr