Case: State Of A P Vs. Patnam Anandam

3. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be succinctly stated. According to the prosecution, the respondent was married to the deceased Shankaramma about six months before the occurrence. The relationship between the respondent and his wife was not cordial on account of the fact that the deceased wife was not an educated woman. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent used tot his wife.3 mother of the deceased claims to have come to the village where the deceased, was residing with her husband with a view to take her to her house for Jatara (village fair) but respondent and his parents did not send the deceased with her on the pretext that some agricultural work has to be attended to and pesticides had to be sprayed in the fields. She was with them till about 4.00 p.m. on that day and accompanied them to their field. Thereafter, she left for Marpally village where another daughter of hers was residing . Next morning when she was preparing to go back to her village, she came to learn at the bus stand that her daughter had died. On receiving the message, she immediately came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased in the field of the accused with injuries on her chest and face.  4. The case of the prosecution is that at about 7.00 p.m. the father of the accused1 reported to the Sarpanch of the village1 that he had come to know that the deceased had consumed poison and when he met his son (respondent herein) some time later he informed him that his wife had consumed poison and died. On such report being made the Sarpanch informed the police on telephone about the occurrence. Next morning at 6.30 A.M. the police officer3 came to the place of occurrence and started investigation. From the first information report, it appears that the village where the occurrence took place is at a distance of 4 km. from the police station. The first information report was lodged by the Sarpanch1 at 6.30 A.M. on 8.11.1992. The report is Exhibit6 in which he stated that1 and his elder son had come to him and reported to him that the deceased had gone with the respondent to his field between 1100 and 1200 hrs. and that in the evening hisw died in the field after consuming pesticide. He further stated in the report that at 7.00 P.M. he informed the police at Peddamual police station. He also received information from the villagers that the respondent and the deceased had disputes and the villagers suspected that the respondent may have killed her. It is, therefore, apparent that the first information report is by a person who is not an eye witness and who lodged the report on the basis of what he came to learn at the place of occurrence. It appears that on the request of the investigating officer5. The case of the prosecution is that a panchanama of the scene of occurrence3 and a sketch Exh.4 was prepared in the presence of two witnesses, including, by the investigating officer. The case of the prosecution is that in Exh.3 it is noticed that a piece of cloth and two white buttons were found near the dead body very near the hand of the deceased. The case of the prosecution further is that the respondent was arrested on 8.11.1992 and on 22nd November, 1992 he made a disclosure statement admitting his guilt and volunteered to get recovered his shirt which was recovered under a panchnama which is Exhibit P/7. The panchnama shows that the respondent handed over a polyester shirt with full sleeves having red flower pattern. Pocket of the shirt was torn and it also had two missing buttons.

Reasoning: 9. There are three circumstances noticed by the trial court which are of considerable significance and they arefirstly, that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased by the mother of the deceased, secondly, that a torn piece of a shirt and buttons found at the scene of offence matched with the shirt MO1 seized from the house of the accused and lastly, that the accused gave a false statement that his wife had died of poisoning, whereas the medical evidence disclosed that she had been brutally assaulted with some blunt object resulting in the fracture of several ribs and causing other injuries which ultimately resulted in her death11. The next significant circumstance is the fact that the respondent had given a wrong information about the cause of death of deceased. It is no doubt true that the medial evidence conclusively establishes the fact that the deceased was battered by a hard and blunt object and her neck was pressed with such force that even the hyoid bone was fractured. However, the statement made by1 to the Sarpanch1 that his son had informed him that the deceased had died after consuming pesticide, is not admissible in evidence, being hit by the rule against hearsay. This circumstance cannot, therefore, be relied upon by the prosecution to prove that the respondent had given a fake explanation for the death of the deceased12. The most crucial circumstance which could have linked the respondent with the murder of the deceased is the finding of a cloth piece and two buttons near the body of the deceased, which according to the prosecution were parts of the shirt worn by the respondent on the date of occurrence. It was urged before us that the respondent made a disclosure statement on 22.11.1992 and produced a shirt from his house voluntarily which was worn by him on the date of occurrence. The case of the prosecution is that while resisting the assault on her, the deceased may have caught hold of the pocket of the shirt and in the struggle that ensued, the pocket was torn off and two buttons also fell off near the place of occurrence. Unfortunately, the prosecution had led no evidence to connect the shirt with the piece of cloth found near the place of occurrence. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was arrested on 8th November, 1992 and the alleged disclosure statement is said to have made on 22nd November, 1992. The disclosure statement made after such delay has no value. We will assume in favour of the prosecution that a disclosure statement was made on 22nd November, 1992 and pursuant thereto the respondent produced before the police a shirt, which according to the prosecution, was worn by him on the date of occurrence. The seizure memo of the shirt shows that the shirt was a white shirt with red patterns of flower appeared that the pocket of the shirt was torn apart. Two buttons were also missing from the shirt. The site plan Exhibit3 discloses that near the dead body was found a torn shirt pocket and two white buttons. The colour of the shirt pocket found has not been disclosed in the panchnama. It is, therefore, difficult to connect the torn shirt pocket with the shirt which was recovered at the instance of the respondent. This apart, we find that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish that the piece of cloth found at the place of occurrence was really a part of the shirt which was recovered at the instance of the respondent. No witness has said so. Moreover, the circumstances that the pocket of the shirt worn by the accused at the time of committing the offence was found at the scene of occurrence, was not even put to the respondent in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, difficult to reply upon, as an incriminating circumstance, the recovery of two buttons and a piece of cloth, said to be the pocket of a shirt, from the place of occurrence, in the absence of any evidence to connect the said piece of cloth with the shirt of the accused13. In this state of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the respondent is entitled to an acquittal by giving to him the benefit of doubt, though for reasons different from the reasons recorded by the High Court.