J U D G M E N T The sole appellant seeks to assail her conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, by his judgment, dated 15-07-2000, passed in S.C.No.72 of 1997, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and further sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer imprisonment for one month. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that on 25-08-1996 at about 6.00 PM at the outskirts of Annaram village, she did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly by throttling the neck and tying the testicals of Chilka Hanumantha Reddy and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In proof of the said charge, prosecution examined ten witnesses and got Exs.P1 to P7 marked. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the testimony of the witnesses, seems to be that the accused is the second wife of P.W.2. The deceased boy was the son of P.W.2 through his first wife, who since died he married the accused as his second wife. P.W.2 suspected fidelity of his first wife and her illicit contact with the husband of P.W.3. The accused, who did not like the survival of the boy, the step son, took him to P.W.6, the Doctor, for treatment on the date of occurrence, that was on 25-08-1996. P.W.6 treated the boy and gave the prescription slip to the accused. She returned along with the boy from P.W.6 on a bus and got down the bus at Annaram cross-roads. From there, the accused and the deceased boy were brought on cycle by P.W.7 and who too dropped them at the field. P.W.2, upon hearing the accused about the death of his son, Hanumantha Reddy, rushed to the house and found the dead body. He then enquired with the accused, who informed him that she had gone to fetch water and by the time she returned, her son was found dead. P.W.1, the maternal grand father of the boy, upon hearing about the death of the boy, came down to the village, saw the dead body and from there went to Tripuraram Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report. P.W.1, the maternal grand father of the boy, upon hearing about the death of the boy, came down to the village, saw the dead body and from there went to Tripuraram Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report. The Station House Officer registered the case on Ex.P1 and issued the First Information Report. P.W.10, after having received the express F.I.R., took up investigation in this case. He rushed to the village and stayed there for that night. On 27-08-1996, during morning hours, he visited the scene of offence, which was the field of Dharma Reddy Chilka, in the presence of P.W.4 and another mediator He got Ex.P3, scene of panchanama, recorded there. From there. the Investigating Officer left to the house of the accused, whereat the dead body was kept and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.5 and another and got Ex.P4 inquest report drafted there. Simultaneously, he examined the witnesses at the inquest. He then sent the dead body to P.W.9, the civil surgeon, for conducting autopsy. P.W.9, who conducted the postmortem examination, noticed one external injury on the dead body as under: 3. “Black mark 1/2 “ width across the front of the neck from ear to ear. Another blackish mark on both inquinal regions 1/4” in width. On internal examination I found the following features: Hyoid bone is broken.” 4. He then opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock due to asphyxia on account of strangulation and it was 36 to 48 hours earlier to the postmortem examination and issued Ex.P7 postmortem certificate. P.W.10 arrested the accused on 28-08-1996 and sent her to the Court for judicial remand. Eventually, after conducting the investigation, he laid the charge sheet. 5. After the evidence for the prosecution was completed, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when she denied the incriminating material put to her. When called upon to enter upon her defence, she stated that she had no witnesses to examine. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after having heard either side and appreciating the evidence available on record, was of the clear view that the accused must have committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code; secondly, he convicted her for the said offence and sentenced her as mentioned hereinabove. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after having heard either side and appreciating the evidence available on record, was of the clear view that the accused must have committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code; secondly, he convicted her for the said offence and sentenced her as mentioned hereinabove. It is that conviction and sentence that are now being sought to be assailed by the appellant before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant represents that since the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances that are sought to be enumerated by the prosecution are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. Obviously, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. There has been no eyewitnesses in this case to speak about the offence proper. It is clearly emanating from the record that the appellant is the second wife of P.W.2, the father of the deceased boy and is therefore the step mother. The boy was aged three years at the time of his unfortunate death. The mother of the boy died earlier, who was the first wife of P.W.2, leaving behind two children, out of which the deceased was one. The other child was with P.W.1, the maternal grand father. It is P.W.1, who set the criminal law into motion by launching Ex.P1 report. During the course of investigation, it revealed that the appellant took the deceased boy to P.W.6, the Doctor, for treatment as the boy was suffering from fever by then. After having given the necessary prescription chit to the appellant, the Doctor sent them away. The appellant and the deceased boy got down the bus at Annaram cross-roads junction. From the alighting point, they were brought up to the field by P.W.7 upon a bicycle, who too left them there. On being informed, P.W.2 rushed to the house and saw the dead body of the boy at his house. 10. From the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, the prosecution could clearly establish that the boy died a homicidal death. The death was obviously on account of shock due to asphyxia. On being informed, P.W.2 rushed to the house and saw the dead body of the boy at his house. 10. From the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, the prosecution could clearly establish that the boy died a homicidal death. The death was obviously on account of shock due to asphyxia. The evidence of P.W.9 is amply corroborated by the postmortem certificate issued by him and it can safely be relied upon by the Court to show that it was a case of homicidal death. The endeavour of the Court then starts to know who the offender is. 11. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon certain circumstances. They are being: (1) The boy was taken to the Doctor, P.W.6, for treatment who treated the boy; (2) The boy and the appellant were together brought from Annaram cross-roads to the field, the so called scene of offence, by P.W.7 upon a cycle; (3) The dead body of the deceased was found at the house of the appellant and P.W.2; (4) It was clear case of homicidal death: and (5) The appellant represented to P.W.2 when asked that she too was not present in the house having gone to fetch water and when returned to notice the dead body. 12. The above circumstances are clearly emanating from the record. It shall be seen as to whether the circumstances are sufficient enough to complete the chain and they give rise the only inference and the inference that is compatible with the guilt of the accused, but not the innocence of the accused. The circumstances are not susceptible of giving rise any other inference than the one that points out the guilt unerringly to the appellant and none else. The law in this case has been well settled and it would suffice to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in SHARAD V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA(1). Keeping the law in view let us now see whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The fact that the appellant was the stepmother of the deceased, perhaps in the absence of any mitigating and extenuating circumstance, may validly constitute the necessary motive. But here is a case where the evidence of P.W.6 shows that the boy, who was suffering from fever, was brought to him and was treated by him. 13. The fact that the appellant was the stepmother of the deceased, perhaps in the absence of any mitigating and extenuating circumstance, may validly constitute the necessary motive. But here is a case where the evidence of P.W.6 shows that the boy, who was suffering from fever, was brought to him and was treated by him. An attempt seems to have been made by the prosecution to show that the boy was brought to the hospital earlier on two occasions, but it falls short to connect the appellant to those two occasions. Obviously, P.W.6 was not in the village, whereat P.W.2 is a resident but in a different place. The fact remains that the deceased was taken to the Doctor by the accused for the purpose of treatment taking all pains by traveling in a bus so as to reach the clinic of the Doctor. This circumstance, which is clearly emerging from the evidence of P.W.6, is susceptible of not one inference but the other inference that notwithstanding the fact that she was the stepmother, she had the humanitarian touch to take the ailing boy to the Doctor for the purpose of treatment. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.6, the one circuinstance which is emerging out is susceptible of either inference and from this circumstance it is very difficult to draw only one inference that it was for the purpose of killing the boy. The other circumstance, which is coming out from the evidence of P.W.7, is clinching that both the appellant and the deceased boy were brought from the alighting point to the field, the so called scene of offence. This shows that the boy was last seen in the company of the appellant before the unfortunate death. From that point, there is total lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution. The other circumstance available is that the body of the deceased was found in the house. Obviously, P.W.2 and the appellant were the inmates of that house by then. From the evidence of P.W.2 that he was away in the fields and only on being informed about the death he rushed to the house, the other inmate that is left in the house was clearly the appellant. Obviously, P.W.2 and the appellant were the inmates of that house by then. From the evidence of P.W.2 that he was away in the fields and only on being informed about the death he rushed to the house, the other inmate that is left in the house was clearly the appellant. It is apt here now to consider the evidence of P.W.2 who stated on oath that when he asked his wife the appellant stated that she was away for fetching water and on return to notice the dead body. Whether this explanation offered by the appellant is true or false is got to be seen. If for any reason the explanation offered by the appellant is considered to be false, that affords the additional link to the case of the prosecution. But, it is very difficult for the Court to discern the element of falsity from the explanation sought to be offered by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant at this juncture seeks to contend that as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3, there are many enernies to P.W.2 and it was just possible that any one of his enemies could be the offender. I am afraid, this contention cannot be countenanced for the reason that the unfortunate deceased was the boy but not P.W.2. The enemies can legitimately be expected to aim at their enemy but not the relations of the enemy in ordinary course. 14. One shall not be oblivious of the fact that the prosecution seeks to fix the scene of offence not in the house but in the field. A scene of offence panchanama was recorded in Ex.P3 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W.3 and another mediator. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, one, Obulaneni Rama Chandra Rao, lead them to the field and statement of the said Rama Chandra Rao was recorded by the Investigating Officer. But, however, the prosecution failed to examine the said Rama Chandra Rao, whose evidence could have supplied an additional link to the case of the prosecution. The learned Principal Sessions Judge commented very much on the non-examination of the said Rama Chandra Rao and even proceeded to draw the necessary adverse inference. The learned Judge also observed inter alia in his judgment that there was no motive on the part of P.W.2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge commented very much on the non-examination of the said Rama Chandra Rao and even proceeded to draw the necessary adverse inference. The learned Judge also observed inter alia in his judgment that there was no motive on the part of P.W.2. Having thus reached the above two conclusions, he proceeded eventually to reach the conclusion in para 10 of his judgment that the appellant had taken the deceased boy to Miryalaguda hospital, they got down the bus at Annaram cross-roads, traveled up to the field of Dharmapal Reddy on the cycle of P.W.7 and thereafter the boy was dead and thereafter the boy in dead condition was brought to the house and since the boy died the homicidal death, they were sufficient enough to complete the chain. It is not known as to where the learned Judge could get the circumstance that the boy died at the field and the dead body was brought to the house. No witness was examined by the prosecution to prove that link. The evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 2 only shows that the dead body was eventually found in the house. Where the boy died is not proved by the prosecution by means of any evidence. Therefore, that link, which connects the dead body to the scene of offence, is very much missing in this case. The prosecution, having fixed the scene of offence at the field, failed to elicit the missing link by examining Obulaneni Rama Chandra Rao. Thus, we are left with the circumstances that the deceased was found last in the company of his stepmother, the appellant, at the field. Thereafter, the dead body was found in the house. From these two circumstances, it is very difficult nay hazardous to come to a legitimate conclusion that the chain is complete and the circumstances unerringly point out the guilt to the appellant and the appellant alone. In that view of the matter, the finding reached by the learned Sessions Judge is obviously erroneous. He sought to supply a link, which has not been clearly emanating from the record. The judgment, therefore, suffers from the vice of the above illegality. 15. For the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home clearly the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment, therefore, suffers from the vice of the above illegality. 15. For the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to bring home clearly the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled forthwith. --X—