THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.984 OF 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. State is questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State and Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 who is the maternal uncle of the deceased filed Ex.P1/Complaint with the Police at 09:00 P.M. on 03.01.2015, stating that the deceased married thrice and she divorced all the three husbands. The appellant and deceased were living together as husband and wife. On 03.01.2015 around 06:30 P.M., both the appellant and deceased were consuming alcohol, fought with each other and thereafter, the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased, due to which, she died on the spot. The said information was given by PW2 to PW1 and also by PW5, who is the owner of stone crusher. On the basis of the complaint filed, the Police went to scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and the body was sent for Post Mortem Examination after concluding inquest proceedings.

4. The appellant was arrested on 05.01.2015. During interrogation, the accused allegedly confessed that he had committed murder of the deceased. Thereafter, 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 and 2 were recorded. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 13 and marking Exs.P1 to P24 acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

i. The prosecution failed to prove that PW2 was an eye witness to the incident.

ii. According to PW1’s evidence, in the statement before the learned Magistrate, he stated that the appellant confessed before him. However, it was not stated to the Investigating Officer.

iii. The son of the deceased who was residing along with the deceased in the house was not examined.

iv. The deceased had performed marriages with three persons and gave divorce to all of them. In the said circumstances, differences between them in the earlier marriages cannot be ruled out.

v. PW5 admitted that PW2 who is the sole eye witness to the incident had informed him about the death of the deceased, however, there were disputes in between PW2, accused and the deceased. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that it was the deceased only who had motive to commit the murder.

vi. Once the evidence of PW2 is disbelieved, as he had stated before the learned Magistrate that on 03.01.2015, one Mr. Gangadhar informed him that there was fight between the appellant and deceased after consuming liquor and the deceased died. However, said Gangadhar was not examined.

vii. No efforts were made to collect any finger prints on the neck of the deceased.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that PW2 is the eye witness to the incident and his evidence cannot be disbelieved, only on the ground of contradiction which crept in, during his 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

7. Entire case rests on the evidence of PW2 who is projected as eye witness to the incident. However, he stated that information regarding the death of the deceased was received through one Mr. Gangadhar. In the said circumstances, when there is no other eye witness account other than PW2 who cannot be believed, the only other evidence is statement of PW1 that the appellant confessed before him that he had committed the murder. PW1’s evidence cannot form basis when it was denied by the accused during trial and further, the defence of the appellant is one of false implication. The alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant cannot be believed, when prosecution failed to prove under what circumstances the confession was made and what compelled the appellant to inform PW1.

8. Prosecution has the bounden duty to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The entire case re