BILAL NAZKI,J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are being disposed of by the same judgment because both the appeals have been filed on behalf of the same accused against the same judgment Criminal appeal No. 1790 of 2000 was filed by the accused through jail with the help of legal Services Authority. Criminal Appeal no. 1798 of 2000 was filed on behalf of the accused by his father through advocate mr. A. Ramnarayana. ( 2 ) THE accused-appellant was tried in sessions Case No. 313 of 1997 on the file of the court of Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at machilipatnam. He was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code. He was also charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He was tried, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was, however, acquitted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 12 witnesses, exhibited 22 documents. The defence did not produce any evidence but pointed out certain contradictions, which were marked as Exs. D-1 to D-3. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is based on the statements of two eye witnesses (P. Ws. 2 and 3), who are the minor children of the deceased and the accused, the deceased and accused being husband and wife. Before going to their testimony, we would like to mention the argument put forth by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the case and the investigation of the case Itself shows that the version which was tried to be narrated before the (Court during trial was not the correct version of the events. He further submitted that the record would itself show that investigation was being tailored and the earliest versions were not brought to the notice of the Court. He further submitted that the record would itself show that investigation was being tailored and the earliest versions were not brought to the notice of the Court. He submits that according to the prosecution, the incident occurred in between the night of 7th and 8th of December, 1995 and the F. I. R. was lodged on 8th December, 1995 at 8. 30 P. M. This F. I. R. was lodged under Section 174 Cr. P. C, and on 9-12-1995, inquest was held and the charge was altered into Section 306 I. P. C. This charge was subsequently altered on 20th December 1995 to a charge under Section 302 of the i. P. C. The said report was given by P. W. I. ( 5 ) P. W. I is the Village Administrative officer. In his report (Ex. P-1), he had stated that he came to know about the unnatural death of the deceased. According to his report, the time of occurrence was 6. 00 A. M. But the witnesses, who are projected as eye witnesses, did not even support this. According to them, the time of occurrence was 10. 00 P. M. on 7-12-1995. Even from the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 3, who are projected as eye witnesses, the police had examined them on the date of occurrence itself. But on the other hand, the police officer, who investigated the case being P. W. ll, stated that he examined P. Ws. 2 and 3 only on 25th february 19%. It is unconceivable that if death of the wife occurs unnaturally in a house in which she lives with her children and husband and the husband is suspected to have committed the crime, the children could not be examined. Therefore, we are of the belief that these children had been examined immediately after the occurrence. They have admitted that and it can be inferred from the statement of P. W. 5, who is the mother of the deceased. She in her statement stated that P. Ws. 2 and 3 had narrated to her as to how the death of the deceased came about. Therefore, if P. Ws. They have admitted that and it can be inferred from the statement of P. W. 5, who is the mother of the deceased. She in her statement stated that P. Ws. 2 and 3 had narrated to her as to how the death of the deceased came about. Therefore, if P. Ws. 2 and 3 had narrated the story to the mother of the deceased, at least the mother of the deceased should have said it to the police and if that was so that on the basis of the information received from the mother of the deceased, the police would have certainly examined the children. The explanation given by the police officer for not examining these children for more than two months after occurrence is equally unacceptable. He has stated that as the children were living with their father (accused), they were not examined. We do not understand how it was an impediment for the police officer in examining these children. Although the children, who belong to the deceased and the accused, have given a vivid account as to how their mother was beaten and killed and hanged by their father (accused), we are constrained to say that their statements cannot be believed in view of the fact that the statements were recorded after more than 2 months although they were available at all times and when in their own statements they had stated that the police had examined them immediately after the occurrence. There are only two possibilities. Either they were not examined at all for two months or if they were examined, they had given some different version of the events. During this period of two more months, we are not sure whether these minor children of tender age were tutored or advised to make the statements they made before the Court or before the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C. For the aforementioned reasons, we feel that benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused insofar as the charge of murdering the deceased is concerned. The doubt with regard to the truthfulness of the statements made by P. Ws. P. C. For the aforementioned reasons, we feel that benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused insofar as the charge of murdering the deceased is concerned. The doubt with regard to the truthfulness of the statements made by P. Ws. 2 and 3 before the Court is strengthened by the fact that, after the body of the deceased was found the police changed the charge on 9-12-95 to a charge under section 306 I. P. C. On this date we believe that the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 3 were available with the Police. Therefore, there is a doubt that the statements made by P. Ws. 2 and 3 before the Police at the earlier point of time was to the effect that an offence was made out under Section 3061. P. C. It is only after 11 days i. e. , on 20th December, 1995 that the charge was altered to Section 302 i. P. C. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel of the appellant has fairly conceded that the charge under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. We have also gone through the record. There is sufficient evidence connection of the accused with an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I. P. C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by the learned Sessions judge in Sessions case No. 313 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge.