Inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate held not fatal.

M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.

1. The appellant was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for having caused the death of his wife – Gandla Gangubai on 28-11-2008 at about 10.00 a.m., in the morning, in Muthyampet village, falling within the limits of P.S.Kowtala., Adilabad District.

2. Through its Judgment, dated 29-09-2009, the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad, found the accused guilty of the charge, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by it, the accused preferred this appeal.

3. The facts are as under:-

The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. They had two sons viz., Mukesh and Rakesh (PWs.1 and 2) and one daughter Nagamani. The accused used to harass the deceased suspecting her fidelity. On the intervening night of 27/28-11-2008, when the deceased switched off the light outside their house, the accused started quarrelling with her questioning the act of the deceased. The quarrel was pacified by Bayakka (P.W.3), who is the sister of the accused. In the morning of 28-11-2008, after PWs.1 and 2 went out, the accused again started quarrelling with his wife and taking advantage of her loneliness, he is alleged to have hacked the deceased with an axe, resulting in her instantaneous death. The sons of the accused, PWs.1 and 2, came and found the door closed from inside, and when asked to open the door, the accused refused to do so and stated that he has killed the deceased, and if the door is opened forcibly, he will kill them with the axe in his hand. Several people including the S.I. of Police (PW.10), who was called, gathered there. The accused consumed insecticide/poison and fell down unconscious. He was shifted in an ambulance to the hospital, where he was treated for three days and discharged on 01-12-2008.

On the basis of the complaint from P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.75 of 2008 was registered by P.S.Kowtala and during the course of investigation, the scene of offence panchanama and inquest were conducted, the dead body was sent to post-mortem examination and the material objects were also seized.

After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laid on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur Town, and after complying with the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Session and charge was framed.

On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, and Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 5 were filed. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that he is the supporter of Telugu Desam Party, that the Sarpanch has instigated his family members to file a false complaint, that the said Sarpanch also created family disputes in the matter of property and that he is falsely implicated. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused.

4. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused is that the evidence on record does not prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that due to internal family disputes and political rivalry, the prosecution witnesses, who are the members of the family of the accused, gave false evidence and that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erroneously found the accused guilty of the charge.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that not only the two sons but also the sister of the accused have consistently stated about the incident. She contends that the accused was caught red-handed when closeted in the house and was seen by several people immediately after having caused the gruesome murder of his wife and only at the perseverance of the people gathered there, the accused came out of the house and fell down due to the consumption of insecticide poison, which resulted in his hospitaliz