THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.242 OF 2015 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The appellant is questioning the conviction under Section 302 of IPC on the allegation that he murdered his wife on 17.05.2013 by forcibly administering poison.

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

3. P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant filed complaint on 18.05.2013 at 8 a.m. According to the complaint, on 17.05.2013, his brother aged 10 years examined as P.W.2 went to her house and informed her that the appellant/father beat his deceased wife i.e., mother of P.Ws.1 and 2 and poured poison in the mouth of his mother. The deceased died in the house.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police investigated the case, scene of offence panchnama was conducted, inquest proceedings, post mortem examination and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that on 17.05.2013, when the appellant called his deceased wife and she did not respond, the appellant got angry and started beating her. Further, he dragged her into the house forcibly, then pushed her on to the ground, sat on her chest and poured pesticide poison in her mouth forcefully with an intention to kill her.

5. During the course of trial, evidence of P.W.1/complainant/daughter of appellant, appellant’s son/P.W.2 who was aged around 10 years was made basis to come to the conclusion that appellant forcibly poured poison into the mouth of his wife. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 was corroborated by P.W.3 who is the neighbor. P.W.3 stated that she heard commotion, went to the house and found the deceased died. Accordingly, the conviction was recorded.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 is doubtful, since his evidence appears to be tutored. Once his evidence is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to even remotely suggest that it was the appellant who administered poison to the deceased. In cases of such forceful administration of poison, there ought to be some injuries that would have been inflicted on the deceased. However, the Doctor did not find any injury either on the hands or any part of face of the deceased. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has to be extended in the said circumstances.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 who is the daughter of the appellant would lodge a false complaint against her own father. P.W.2 is the son who was present in the house and his version of the appellant forcibly administering poison is stated in Ex.P.1/complaint. In the said circumstances, the findings of the learned trial Judge regarding complicity of the appellant is correct.

8. Having gone through the record, the complaint was in fact filed the next day i.e., on 18.05.2013 at 8 a.m. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered. However, the incident happened around 5 p.m. on 17.05.2013. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she stated that the complaint was filed on 17.05.2013 at 6 p.m., however her version is contrary to the version of Investigating Officer. Scribe of Ex.P.1 was also not examined. According to P.W.1 she met the scribe of Ex.P.1 near the Police Station.

9. The Investigation Officer contradicts the version of P.W.1 regarding lodging of complaint. If it is considered that the complaint was filed on the next day at 8 a.m., there is a delay of nearly 15 hours. The said delay has to be explained by the prosecution. All the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 do not speak about what transpired in between 5 p.m. on 17.05.2013 till 8 a.m. on 18.05.2013, till the complaint was lodged. The prosecution is duty bound to explain the events that transpired for 15 hours and c