Point of Law: In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

JUDGMENT :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.463 of 2013 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur at Tenali was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Vide judgment dated 12.12.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC,. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

P.W.1 is the husband, P.Ws.2 and 3 are daughters, of the deceased Movva Mangamma. P.W.4 is mother of P.W.1. The accused and the prosecution witnesses hail from same village, but the accused shifted to Jaggadiguntapalem village of Tenali mandal about 10 years prior to the incident. About 10 days prior to 04.11.2012, P.W.2, who is daughter of P.W.1, came to their house along with her husband in connection with Atlathaddi festival to fulfil certain rituals. On the said day, P.W.1 and another left to Guntur to attend a function. On 04.11.2012 at 9.30 A.M., P.W.1 left for Kollipaka to attend his work. At that point of time, P.W.4, who is mother of P.W.1, and wife of P.W.1 were present in the house. At about 3.45 PM, P.W.1 returned home by cycle and on the way, when he reached Kothabomma-varipalem, the accused, along with one Anasuya (not examined) and Ramadevi (not examined), were coming in the auto of P.W.6 along with wife of P.W.1. On a signal made by the accused, P.W.1 stopped, and on enquiry about the condition of his wife, the accused stated that she attempted to commit suicide by hanging and also informed that to avoid delay they were bringing the injured to hospital by auto. On that, P.W.1 followed them to Nandivelugupalle bridge, and in the mean while, the Ambulance came. The staff of Ambulance examined the wife of P.W.1 and declared her dead. Thereafter, she was brought to her house, but the accused was found missing. Suspecting foul play, P.W.1 examined the body of his wife and found swelling at the throat. The side rib portion was also found swelling. When enquired with his mother, it was informed that on that day, the accused came to the house at 1.00 PM and sat on cot, but the deceased asked him to leave and not to come again, as the family members are suspecting her. At that time, the son-in-law of P.W.1 (Anka Sambasiva Rao, not examined) and his daughter came out of the house and enquired the former about the same. It is stated that the accused was inside the house and the mother of P.W.1 was sitting under a neem tree by the side of the house. Some quarrel ensued between the deceased and the accused, which was noticed by P.W.8 and others, who came there.

Having regard to the information received, a report was lodged by P.W.1, vide Ex.P1, before P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, which led to registration of a case in crime No.95 of 2012 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC). Ex.P21 is the original F.I.R. He then took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence and found the dead body in a cooling box in front of her house. In the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10, he prepared an observation report vide Ex.P3 and a rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P22). Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10. Ex.P4 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and recor