L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- The sole accused in S.C. No.36 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, is the appellant. She was accused of committing the murder of a child Shivaji of eleven months age, by throttling its neck. The trial Court found the appellant, guilty of the offence under Section 302 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 302, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was fined Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. The prosecution alleged as under: The appellant is the wife of P.W.6. P.W.1 is the elder brother of P.W.6 and P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. Both the brothers were living jointly. The marriage of accused with P.W.6 took place eight months prior to the date of incident. P.Ws.1 and 2 got two children earlier, but both of them died. The deceased was their third child. P.W.3, the sister of P.Ws.1 and 6, was living in the same house after deserting her husband. The deceased child woke up at 4 a.m., on the date of incident i.e., 21.11.2002 and started crying. P.Ws.1, 2,3,6 and accused have woken up, on hearing the cries of the child. The accused has taken the child from P.W.2 by instructing her to prepare milk and went to the backyard of the house, along with the child. After ten minutes, she came alone and when she did not give any answer as to the whereabouts of the child, the witnesses referred to above have started searching and found the child in an old well, in the backyard of the house. The motive attributed to the accused is that if the deceased is killed, the entire property of P.W.I would also accrue to her husband, since P.W.2 had undergone family planning operation after the birth of the deceased. 3. P.W.1 submitted a complaint, marked as Ex.P 1, in the nearby police station at about 9 a.m., and the crime was registered. The motive attributed to the accused is that if the deceased is killed, the entire property of P.W.I would also accrue to her husband, since P.W.2 had undergone family planning operation after the birth of the deceased. 3. P.W.1 submitted a complaint, marked as Ex.P 1, in the nearby police station at about 9 a.m., and the crime was registered. The inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and this was followed by post-mortem by P.W.5. The post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P4, discloses that the death occurred on account of throttling of neck. Further investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, accusing her that she has committed the offence of murder and resorted to removal of evidence, to conceal her guilt. 4. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that there is any amount of inconsistency as to what happened at 4 a.m., on 21.11.2002 and the entire family had conspired against the appellant to implicate her, on account of the fact that the appellant and her parents are not able to meet the demands of dowry. She contends that the deposition of P.W.1 is a substantial improvement upon what he mentioned in Ex.P.1 as well as in statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She further contends that the Police Station is just half a kilometer away from the place of occurrence and the Ex.P.1 was submitted nearly after 4 1/2 hours after the alleged incident. The learned Counsel submits that apart from denying her complicity the appellant had explained in detail, as to what happened on 21.11.2002 and immediately prior thereto and that the trial Court did not take the same into account. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that P.Ws. l, 2, 3 and 6 have in one voice, said that the appellant had taken child into her lap on the pretext of consoling it and thereafter completed the murder by throttling the neck and throwing the dead body into the well. He contends that minor variations in the depositions are not material in nature. l, 2, 3 and 6 have in one voice, said that the appellant had taken child into her lap on the pretext of consoling it and thereafter completed the murder by throttling the neck and throwing the dead body into the well. He contends that minor variations in the depositions are not material in nature. It is also his case that the delay in filing the F.I.R. is not substantial and having regard to the fact that the incident occurred in a village and the persons involved are from the same family, the complaint cannot be expected to be submitted instantly. 6. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 narrated the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. He stated that himself and P.W.2 got two children earlier and both of them died as infants only. The deceased is said to be their third child and that the P.W.2 had undergone family planning operation. In the complaint it was simply stated that at 4 a.m., on that day, the appellant took the child for consoling, but shortly thereafter she came empty handed, and thereafter the dead body was recovered from a well in the backyard. It was clearly stated that the appellant did not give any answer for her coming empty-handed. In comparison to this, in his chief-examination in the Court, he stated that the appellant came empty handed after ten minutes and when they enquired about the child, she did not give any reply. He is said to have noticed "some bloodstains on the mouth of the accused". This is a total improvement upon what is stated in Ex.P 1 as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was marked as EX.D 1. 7. Another important aspect to be noticed from his chief-examination is that himself and his wife, P.W.2, woke up when the child was crying, P.W.2, gave milk to the child, and at that stage the P.W.3, P.W.6 and the appellant are said to have woken up. That means, by the time the said witnesses and the appellant woke up, the child was already given milk. In contrast, P.W.2, the mother of the child, said that the child started crying at about 4 a.m., and in the meanwhile the accused came there to take child from her arms, by asking her to prepare the milk. That means, by the time the said witnesses and the appellant woke up, the child was already given milk. In contrast, P.W.2, the mother of the child, said that the child started crying at about 4 a.m., and in the meanwhile the accused came there to take child from her arms, by asking her to prepare the milk. No reference is made to other witnesses so far as that stage is concerned. She stated that the appellant came after ten minutes, without the child, did not give any reply initially, but when asked persistently, she informed that she throttled the child and threw it in the well. 8. For better appreciation, it is felt necessary to extract the relevant portion: "On the date of death of my son, he woke up and crying at about 4 a.m., the accused meanwhile came there and took the child from my arms by asking me to prepare the milk for child, by the time I prepared milk the accused was not found there along with my child, after 10 minutes she came without my son, when we asked the accused about the child, she did not give any reply for first time, when we all asked the accused persistently about my child she informed us that she throttled my child and thrown the child in a well which is situated behind our house. We all went to the well and found my son in the well, P.W.1 went into the well and removed my son." 9. In cross-examination, the version is somewhat different. She stated that herself and P.W.3 slept in one room, along with the child and P.W.1 slept in another room. She deposed that after they woke up and started doing work, the deceased child woke up and cried. It means that the theory of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 and the accused waking up, on hearing the cries of the child, eventually stands belied. 'This would also belie the statement of P.W.1 that himself and P.W.2 woke up on hearing the cries of the child. Even according to P.W.2, both of them were sleeping in different rooms. 10. P.W.3, by and large, repeated in her chief-examination whatever was spoken to, by P.W.2. This witness, however, did not say that the appellant had stated that she throttled the child and thrown it in the well. Even according to P.W.2, both of them were sleeping in different rooms. 10. P.W.3, by and large, repeated in her chief-examination whatever was spoken to, by P.W.2. This witness, however, did not say that the appellant had stated that she throttled the child and thrown it in the well. It is beneficial to extract the relevant portion of her cross-examination, which reads as under: "It is not true that I have not stated before police that the accused asked the P.W.2 to prepare the milk when the child was crying. Myself, P.W.I, P.W.2 and my younger brother searched for the deceased at that time the accused was coming from the well. I did not inform the police that the accused came to the house after the incident without the child as in EX.D4. (A portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement)." This is at a total variance with what was stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. 11. Another crucial witness is P.W.6, the husband of the appellant. He too said that the appellant did not give any answer for her coming empty-handed and they noticed the dead body in the well only after undertaking search by themselves. Extensive suggestions were made to him about the dissatisfaction of himself and his other family members with the appellant for not being able to bring additional dowry etc. He said that there are no bushes in the well and that there is a provision to go into the well. The panch witness, P.W.4, on the other hand, stated that it is an old well with full of trees and bushes. He also said that there are no steps into the well. 12. This is one of the rare cases where the appellant had offered a detailed explanation as to what transpired between herself and the other witnesses immediately preceding the death of the child. The trial Court almost translated the entire statement and reproduced the statement. It reads as under: "After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused herein. The accused stated that P.Ws. l, 2, 6 and 8 deposed falsely. She further stated that one day prior to the death of the deceased Shivaji P.W.3, P.W.6 and her mother-in-law beat her. It reads as under: "After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused herein. The accused stated that P.Ws. l, 2, 6 and 8 deposed falsely. She further stated that one day prior to the death of the deceased Shivaji P.W.3, P.W.6 and her mother-in-law beat her. P.W.3 caused injuries on her neck and left leg with fire stick, they demanded bike for her husband, she informed her that her parents are not in a position to purchase bike, on that P.W.3, her husband and mother in-law beat her stating as to why she is giving reply there itself. She further stated that on the date of death of the child at about 6.00 a.m. P.W.3 woke her up, tied her to a window and snatched her Pustela Tadu, big chain, Kamma Buttalu, ring, silver patties and Nanu and asked her to confess that she killed the child, but she did not confess. By the time, police came there, she fell unconscious, and she does not know what the police recorded. She further stated that P.W.6 her husband beat her on the right side of her head with a stone. Some people of their village poured kerosene on her, but she do not know who poured kerosene. After that police took her to the hospital without informing her parents. Previously also her husband tortured her and sent her to her brother, disliking her. P.W.3 not allowed to serve food to her husband on the pretext that she will mix some poison. Her husband brought bulls worth of Rs.20,000/-, one she buffalo worth of Rs.6,000/- from her parents' house. Though her parents invited them for Deepavali Festival, her husband did not go to her parents' house and did not allow her to, go to her parents' house. Her husband pushed her brother out of the house demanding bike and her husband also threatened to kill her if she do not bring bike and beat her, as she did not bring the bike from her parents' house even after lapse of 15 days. She further stated that as the child died, a false case is foisted against her." 13. Even if half of what is contained in the statement is true, this Court is of the view that it is more a case for prosecuting P.Ws. She further stated that as the child died, a false case is foisted against her." 13. Even if half of what is contained in the statement is true, this Court is of the view that it is more a case for prosecuting P.Ws. l, 2, 3 and 6 for the offence under Section 498-A, for harassing the appellant. Across the bar it is stated that P.W.2 is no more and soon after her death, P.W.1 remarried and begot children. P.W.6 is said to have married another lady, even while the appellant is languishing in jail. P.W.3 is running the entire show having deserted her husband. This Court is strongly of the view that the appellant, who hardly crossed the age of minority, was victimized in a deep-rooted conspiracy. 14. The record discloses that the deceased was aged about II months and within that period the family spent about Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. P.W.2, the mother, admitted that just four days prior to the incident the child was discharged from the hospital. The unfortunate ill-health of the child was converted as a device by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6, to get rid of the appellant. The trial Court has unfortunately fallen prey to a cleverly woven story, least realizing that a close analysis of the same would have revealed the crude design of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6. 15. The time taken in submitting the complaint to the police station, which is half a kilometer away from the place of occurrence, is another factor that needs to be taken into account. Within this time anything could have been hatched, particularly when whole of the family was pitted against the helpless appellant. The very fact that even the parents of the appellant were not informed till she was arrested discloses the design according to which the whole show was conducted. 16. Hence, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant herein in S.C. No.36 of 2003 dated 26.3.2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad. She shall be set at liberty. if not required in any other crime.