Section 216 Cr. P.C., confers power upon a Court to alter charge.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The total dishonest and illegal act performed by a senior Police Officer - PW-15 in this case, by name, P. Williamcary, who functioned as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Begumpet Division, in the year 2005, has watered down an otherwise fit case for trial under Section 304-B IPC. The efforts made by him yielded result and A-1 and A-2, the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased, were given a clean acquittal. The trial Court also was not alert enough and either has failed in its duty or was indifferent about such a blatant illegality.

2. PW-1, by name, Balaraju had a daughter, by name, Premalatha @ Latha. The marriage of that girl was performed with A-2 on 24.04.2006. In the afternoon of 16.10.2006, PW-1 received a message from P.S. Begumpet, that his daughter died. He rushed to the spot along with his wife -PW-2 and other relatives and found the dead body of Latha in the house of A-1 and A-2. Chunni was said to have been put around the neck of the deceased and on removal of that, they said to have noticed the injuries around the neck. Promptly, he submitted a complaint, Ex.P-1, before the police station. FIR No.356 of 2006 was registered even before arrival of PW-1, wherein a crime punishable under Section 304-B IPC was alleged against A-1 and A-2. As required under law, the investigation was handed over to a senior Police Officer i.e. PW-15. The inquest, post mortem and other formalities, as required under law, were completed with the participation of the officials of the concerned departments.

3. A serious turn in the case has taken place with the issuance of section alteration memo Ex.P-16, by PW-15 on 23.10.2006. The sole basis for him to alter the provision of law into Sections 302 and 498-A IPC instead of 304-B IPC was the alleged confession of A-1 during the course of interrogation. Though the charge sheet made extensive reference to Section 304-B IPC, ultimately, the trial Court framed a charge referable to Sections 498-A and 302 IPC, omitting Section 304-B IPC.

4. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-16 were filed. MOs.1 and 2 were taken on record. Contradictions elicited from PWs.1 and 2 were marked as EXs.D-1.

5. Through its judgment, dated 27.11.2008, the trial Court acquitted both the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr. P.C.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating officer has completely altered the course of investigation by changing the provision of law without there being any basis. She contends that even if there was a confession by A-1 as to the commission of offence, the alteration of provision of law was not at all warranted, and the trial Court could have proceeded by framing the charge under Section 304-B IPC. She contends that the trial Court was not vigilant enough to prevent miscarriage of justice on account of the collusion of PW-15 with the accused.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that even otherwise, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused. She submits that the death of the deceased took place right in the house of A-1 and A-2, that too, less than six months from the date of marriage and various injuries noticed around the neck of the deceased were not even explained. She submits that being the mother-in-law and husband of the deceased, the accused failed to explain the incriminating circumstances atleast in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and failure in this behalf would lead to a suspicion as to their involvement. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjappav. State of Karnataka (2014 (2) Supreme Court Cases 776).

8. Sri Madhusudan Rao, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submits that the investigation, in this case, was conducted in accordance with law and at no stage, objection was raised by anyone. He submits that there are no circumstances, whatever, to sus