JUDGMENT

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The appellant figured as A1 in S.C. No. 398 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Herself and another, by name P. Sivakumar Reddy A2, were accused of committing murder of the husband of the appellant, by name V. Meghavarnam Reddy, on 29.06.2002. During the trial, A2 died and the case was proceeded against the appellant alone. Through its judgment, dated 22.11.2004, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC, and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life. She was also fined a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, in default of payment of fine. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 20 read with 34 IPC, and for this offence, she was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant developed illicit intimacy with A2 and being unhappy with this development, the deceased admonished them, on several occasions. On 29.06.2002, the appellant and A2 were said to be in the house of the deceased and that the latter came at 10.00 p.m. On seeing A2, the deceased is said to have caught hold him and in the meanwhile, the appellant is said to have brought a pistol and gave a severe blow, on the head of the deceased, and he died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant and A2 are said to have shifted the dead body, on a TVS moped, to a culvert of a road, three kilometers away from the village, and kept the same, in a cement pipe.

3. The dead body is said to have been first seen by PW3, who in turn, informed to PW2, the village servant. PW2 and PW1, the Village Administrative Officer, are said to have proceeded to the place where dead body is kept, on 02.07.2002, at 8.00 a.m. and lodged a report with the police, which is marked as Ex.P1.

4. The inquest was conducted on the dead body and the report thereon is marked as Ex. P3. Subsequently, the post-mortem was conducted and certificate in relation thereto is Ex. P8. The investigation into the offence was conducted by PW11, the Circle Inspector of Police. Charge sheet was filed accusing the appellant and A2 of committing the offence of murder of the deceased.

5. Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is neither direct, nor circumstantial evidence, in this case, to sustain the conviction, against the appellant. She contends that though serious effort was made by the prosecution to weave the story to implicate the appellant, there is not even basic material to convict the appellant. She contends that there is any amount of suspicion as to the role played by PW4, the brother of the deceased, and even if his evidence is taken on its face value, it does not point anything against the appellant.

6. Learned counsel submits that there is serious lapse in the investigation itself. She contends that the report, prepared after conducting dog squad, was not filed into the Court, and thereby, the presumption provided for under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, gets attracted. She places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat v. State of M.P.1

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though there is no direct evidence in the instant case, the prosecution was able to provide all the links to connect the appellant to the incident of the murder of her husband. He contends that the report of the forensic science laboratory clearly reveals that the blood-stains found in the house of the appellant, were that of the deceased and the only presumption that can be drawn is that the appellant is responsible for the murder. He contends that the evidence of PW5 is also material, in this regard.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the respective Counsel,