BILAL NAZKI, ACJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 243 of 2002 before the iv-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad. He was charged under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is also fined to rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THE allegations against the accused on the basis of which charge under Section 302 ipc was framed were that at about 12. 30 a. m. midnight on 1-12-2001, he at House no. 10-5-342/156/36, M. C. H. Quarters, tukaram Gate, beat his wife Krishnaveni with a roller stick indiscriminately and committed her murder. The accused pleaded not guilty and was tried by the learned sessions Judge. The prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses and exhibited thirteen (13) documents. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that there was no evidence connecting the accused to the crime and therefore, he could not have been convicted by the trial Court. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned Public prosecutor. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 is the son of the deceased. The deceased had re-married the accused after her first husband, who was the father of p. W. 1, died in the year 1971. According to this witness, five years after the death of his father, the deceased married the accused and joined nim in a rented house in M. C. H. Tukaram Gate and through him, she gave birth to two daughters. He stated that from the beginning of their relationship, the accused used to harass the deceased and beat her very often after taking drinks. The deceased used to visit the house of this witness at least once in six months and during her visit, she would narrate her problems with the accused and she also complained that her husband was harassing her. On 2-12-2001 at about 1. 30 p. m. , he received a phone call from a neighbour by name, Kumar who informed him that his mother had expired at her house. He along with his wife and brother rushed to her house and found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen with bleeding injuries. On 2-12-2001 at about 1. 30 p. m. , he received a phone call from a neighbour by name, Kumar who informed him that his mother had expired at her house. He along with his wife and brother rushed to her house and found the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen with bleeding injuries. He also found a stick by the side of the dead body. He thereafter, proceeded to Tukaramgate Police station and lodged a complaint. The complaint was Ex. P-1. In his cross-examination/the examination in chief he has said anything about the actual occurrence. He has also not said anything about the presence or absence of the accused at the place of occurrence. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 stated that she was a maidservant and the deceased Krishnaveni was their neighbour. She stated that she knew herfor more than 20 years. The accused used to return home in a drunken condition and would often beat his wife. Whenever he took drinks, he used to beat his wife. He was not doing any work. She stated that in the midnight of 1/2-12-2001, she heard the sounds of the accused and she apprehended that there was a quarrel between the wife and husband. When her husband returned from the duty, she opened the door. When she opened the door, she observed that it was beating sound of the accused. By that time laddu, nephew of the accused came and stood in front of their house. She enquired from him about the purpose of his coming. Laddu told her that his uncle, the accused drove him out of the house and he was beating his wife, Krishnaveni. As it was usual for the accused to beat his wife, she closed the door and slept. The next day was Sunday and at about 10. 00 a. m. Saraswathi, the mother of the accused came and informed her that her daughter-in-law had expired. Then she and other people of the locality went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased, Krishnaveni, which was lying in the kitchen. They found a stick by the side of the dead body. She could not say whether M. O. 1 was the same stick. She had seen the dead body from the window and found some injuries on the legs of the deceased. They found a stick by the side of the dead body. She could not say whether M. O. 1 was the same stick. She had seen the dead body from the window and found some injuries on the legs of the deceased. In the cross-examination, she stated that her husband was a Railway employee and he left the house at 3. 00 p. m. , and returned at about midnight. The inner portion of the house of the accused was not visible from the door of the house of this witness. The house of the accused was at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from her house. She stated that she had not seen Krishnaveni drinking any time. She did not know whether krishnaveni was a habitual drinker. She denied the suggestion that Laddu had not come to her house. But she stated in her evidence that she had not only seen Laddu on that day, but also spoken to him. She did not know whether the accused used go on pilgrimage for one or two days leaving his wife. She also stated that the accused was present in the house when she went to see the dead body of the deceased. She is the only witness who had spoken against the accused. However she has maintained that she did not see anything with her own eyes, but she heard the sounds of beating from the house of the accused. She father stated that the nephew of the accused, Laddu and her husband came to her house at the time when she heard the sounds of beating from the house of the accused. Therefore, we will discuss the evidence of Laddu and her husband at this stage. ( 7 ) LADDU is P. W. 3. When he made the statement, he was fourteen (14) years old. Obviously at the time of occurrence, he was about 13 years. He did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. He was categorical in stating that he did not visit the house of the accused on the date of the death of Krishnaveni. He said that he knew P. W. 2, but he had not met her on that day. He also stated that he had not made any statement before the police. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8. He said that he knew P. W. 2, but he had not met her on that day. He also stated that he had not made any statement before the police. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8. 30 p. m. he went to his house after work in the hotel in which he was working. He further stated that he had not at all gone to the house of the accused on the date of occurrence. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 is the husband of P. W. 2. He stated that the accused was his neighbour and Krishnaveni was his wife. They were residing in the locality from the times when he was not living in that locality. He stated that whenever the accused took drinks, there used to be a quarrel between the accused and his wife. But, on the date of occurrence, he returned home from his duty at about 11. 30 p. m. and by that time P. W. 3 was standing outside the house of the accused and when he came to the house, his wife opened the door. He went inside the house. He said that he did not know what happened subsequently. On the next day, at about 10. 30. a. m. , he came to know that Krishnaveni died. He denied that he had made a statement before the police that he observe the quarrel between the accused and his wife. ( 9 ) IN view of the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 6, the testimony of P. W. 2 would not be sufficient in our view to convict the accused for an offence of murder. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 is a neighbour. She stated that there were quarrels between the accused and his wife. But, on the date of occurrence she returned home at about 7. 30 p. m. and she did not observe any such thing in the house of the accused. This witness was also declared as hostile. P. W. 5 is the mother of the accused. She also turned hostile. P. W. 7 is a witness to the inquest. P. W. 8 is the doctorwho conducted post-mortem and found the following injuries: (1) Multiple abraded contusions with skin deep lacerations 1 to 3 cms. size over upper 2/3 skin of right leg. (2) Lacerations 3 in No. 1. She also turned hostile. P. W. 7 is a witness to the inquest. P. W. 8 is the doctorwho conducted post-mortem and found the following injuries: (1) Multiple abraded contusions with skin deep lacerations 1 to 3 cms. size over upper 2/3 skin of right leg. (2) Lacerations 3 in No. 1. 5 to 2 cms. skin deep over upper middle and lower 1/3rd skin of left leg. (3) Tram line contusion 5 x 1. 75 cms. over inner aspect calf of right leg oblique. (4) Tram Line contusion 6 x 1. 75 cms. over outer aspect calf left leg transverse. (5) 2 tram line contusions 5 x 1. 5 cms. , 7 x 1. 75 cms. , over lower 1/3 outer aspect left thigh oblique. (6) Diffused contusion 20 x 17 cms. , outer aspect upper left thigh and left buttock (7) Lacerations 2 in no. skin deep, middle 1/3rd back of left fore arm. (8) Tram line contusion 16 x 1. 75 cms. 15 x 1. 75 cms. outer aspect right thigh (9) Diffused contusion 20 x 18 cms. over right buttock and upper 1/3 right thigh (10) Fracture, metacarpro-phalengeal joints of inner 4 fingers of left hand. (11) Abrasion 2 x 1 cms. , back of right elbow. (12) Laceration 1 x 0. 5 c. ms. , skin deep, mid back right fore arm. (13) Tram line Contusions 10 c. ms. , 9 c. ms. , 1. 75 c. ms. width on left side back of chest below shoulder blade, vertical with surrounding contusions of 15 x 12 c. ms. (14) Tram Line Contution 6 c. ms. , and 5 c. ms. ,x 1. 5 c. ms. , over upper part of left side back of chest below shoulder blade oblique. (15) Abrasion 6 x 1. 5 c. ms. , front of neck, extending from sternal notch to left supra clavicular fossa oblique. (16) Abrasion 3 x 1. 5 c. ms. , middle of front neck. 5 c. ms. , above sternal notch oblique. (17) Abrasion 3 c. ms. , x 0. 75 c. ms. , front of neck, 7 c. ms. above sternal notch extending from mid line to right side. (18) Two scratch abrasions on either side of thyroid cartilage 0. 5 x 1. 5 c. ms. , 7 c. ms. , below chin. (19) Scratch, 3 c. ms. (17) Abrasion 3 c. ms. , x 0. 75 c. ms. , front of neck, 7 c. ms. above sternal notch extending from mid line to right side. (18) Two scratch abrasions on either side of thyroid cartilage 0. 5 x 1. 5 c. ms. , 7 c. ms. , below chin. (19) Scratch, 3 c. ms. , over left cheek, near angle of mouth. (20) On dissection, the neck structure are showing contusion of 3. 5 x 2 c. ms. , over thyroid cartilage involving crico-thyroid muscles and another contusion of 3 x 2 c. ms. , near the inner end of right collar bone, involving sterno-mastoid muscle. (21) Fracture ribs 8 x 12, para-vertibral plane on left side with contusion of inner costals. (22) Fracture ribs 9 to 12 paravertebral plane on right side with contusion of inner costals. (23) Multiple, discreet contusions of 4 to 7 cms. , size, width, over left frontal, mid parietal and parieiot region of the scalp. Abrasions are reddish brown in colour, contusions red in colour. ( 11 ) P. W. 9 is the mediatorto the disclosure alleged to have been made by the accused. He stated in his evidence that on interrogation by the Inspector, the accused confessed to have committed the offence of murder of his wife. He also stated that at about 8. 00 p. m. , the Inspector took him and the other panch witnesses to the house of the accused at mch Quarters of Thukaram Gate. They all entered into the house and found a roller stick in the kitchen. The stick was M. O. 1. P. Ws. 10 and 11 are the police officers, who conducted the investigation at different stages. ( 12 ) EVEN if we eschew the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 6 and rely on the evidence of p. W. 2, that would at best create suspicion, but it would not prove that the accused was guilty of the offence for which he was charged. There is no evidence even to the effect that the accused was present in the house when the offence took place. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in our view, the trial Court was not right in convicting the accused for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, in our view, the trial Court was not right in convicting the accused for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.