Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a legal finding of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.10.2014 in S.C.No.180 of 2014, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. The allegation against the appellant/accused is that she had strangulated her grandson on 17.11.2013. P.W.1 is the husband of the appellant who filed telugu written complaint on 17.11.2013 stating that his daughter married earlier and her husband died by committing suicide. Thereafter, she eloped with someone else. However, a child was born who was being taken care of by P.W.1 and the appellant. The deceased boy was living in their house. On 17.11.2013, P.W.1 took his son Balraj to the hospital leaving the child in the house along with the appellant. On returning home at 12 noon, he found that the boy was dead. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station around 7:00 p.m. and filed written complaint. The Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

5. Learned Sessions Judge after framing charge examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.10 and found favour with the version of the prosecution that it was the appellant who was responsible for throttling the deceased boy. Even in the post mortem examination report, it was mentioned that the boy died due to asphyxia and cardio pulmonary arrest due to manual strangulation and strangulation mark was found on the throat of the boy. According to the Doctor, the death was caused on account of manual strangulation. Deceased was in the house of appellant and she alone was responsible for causing the death.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.1 who merely stated that he had suspicion regarding his wife causing death of the child. The complaint was filed on 17.11.2013, however, as seen from the endorsement of the Magistrate of the concerned Court, FIR reached the Court on 23.11.2013 with a delay of 6 days. The said delay was not explained by the prosecution. In the absence of explanation by the prosecution regarding the Police sending the FIR, it is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, no reason was given as to why appellant would inform the villagers that she had killed the boy. Even in the inquest, it is mentioned that on the basis of evidence of witnesses, there was suspicion that the appellant might have throttled the grandson Masappa and killed him. During inquest, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were examined, however according to their version, during inquest report, they suspected that the appellant had killed the boy. However, none of the witnesses who were examined during inquest had stated that appellant had made any confession regarding throttling of the boy to death. Counsel further submits that neither in Ex.P.1/complaint nor in the evidence of P.W.1, there is any mention about the presence of the appellant when P.W.1 had found the boy dead.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the appellant had stated to P.Ws.2 to 4 that she had strangulated the boy, further, in the Court below when the Court questioned after convicting the appellant, she stated that she has nothing to say. Since she was the person who was present in the house, the Co