Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati in S.C.No.10 of 2004 charged the appellant herein with the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C, alleging that he committed the murder of his wife on 11.10.2003. The brother of the appellant, by name Munagala Nagaraju, was charged with the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 I.P.C. in relation to the same incident. Through its judgment, dated 30.08.2004, the trial Court acquitted A.2 but found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. were imposed. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. Initiation of proceedings against the appellant and the consequential prosecution commenced with the submission of a report, dated 13.10.2003, marked as Ex.P.1 by the Panchayat Secretary of Gopalakrishnapuram-P.W.1. He stated that the appellant, along with his parents came to the Panchayat Office building and stated that he killed his wife Durga Devi @ Mallika at 3:00 PM on 11.10.2003 in the forest near Ulavabanda canal and buried her dead body there. When questioned by P.W.1, the appellant is said to have replied that the doubtful conduct and illicit intimacy of his wife, with others, is the cause for committing the murder. Thereafter, the villagers are said to have taken the appellant to the forest and shown them the place, where the dead body was buried. After recovery of the dead body from the pit, P.W.1 is said to have brought the appellant to the police station. On receiving the complaint, P.W.5, the Inspector of Police, registered F.I.R and initiated further steps. The Mandal Revenue Officer-P.W.4 conducted the inquest over the dead body on 13.10.2003. The report thereof is marked as Ex.P.5. Post Mortem was conducted by P.W.3, vide Ex.P.7. On the basis of the material before it, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant-A.1 as well as his brother-A.2. Both of them pleaded not guilty. While A.2 was acquitted, the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. The report thereof is marked as Ex.P.5. Post Mortem was conducted by P.W.3, vide Ex.P.7. On the basis of the material before it, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant-A.1 as well as his brother-A.2. Both of them pleaded not guilty. While A.2 was acquitted, the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Smt. Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant-A.1 submits that the material on record is scanty and is hardly sufficient to prove the charges. She contends that except the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant to P.W.1, there is no other material and even as regards the same, there are contradictions vis--vis the other evidence. She further contends that the case of the prosecution that the whole episode came to light with the confession of the appellant is belied from the contents of the inquest report itself. The learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that having committed the murder, the appellant himself confessed the same before P.W.1, in the presence of his parents. He further submits that in cases of this nature, it is difficult to expect direct or other categories of circumstantial evidence; and the trial Court had appreciated the matter from the correct perspective. This is one of the rare cases, in which the prosecution had examined just two witnesses to speak about the occurrence and out of them, P.W.1 is an Official. P.W.3 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, P.W.4 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, who conducted the inquest and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer. The documentary evidence is equally scanty. The whole basis for the case of the prosecution is the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant to P.W.1, the Panchayat Secretary of the village. The contents of Ex.P.1 submitted by P.W.1 have already been referred to. The witness did not have any personal knowledge or information, from third parties, about the incident. The only source of information for him is the alleged extra judicial confession by the appellant himself. The point of time, at which the confession is said to have been made, becomes significant. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that on 12.10.2003 at 6: 00 PM, the appellant informed him that he has killed his wife in the forest. The only source of information for him is the alleged extra judicial confession by the appellant himself. The point of time, at which the confession is said to have been made, becomes significant. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that on 12.10.2003 at 6: 00 PM, the appellant informed him that he has killed his wife in the forest. Thereupon, P.W.1 is said to have proceeded to the forest, seen the place shown by the appellant and then went to the police station, together with the appellant, to submit Ex.P.1. If this were to have been the only source of information or the starting point, the version would have gained some credibility. After the machinery of law was set in motion, inquest was conducted by P.W.4 and a report was prepared, vide Ex.P.5. Paragraph 15 of the inquest report discloses the opinion of the panchayatdars, which reads as under: "The opinion of the panchayatdars is that on 11.10.03 in the after noon at about 1-00 hours the deceased Smt. Durga Devi started along with her husband Chenchuramaiah to go to the forest to get fire wood and reached to Ulavabanda kaluva. The reason for the quarrel that took place between them there itself, is not known to us. There her husband Sri Chenchuramaiah beat on her neck with a (stick) stout stick, thrown into the forest and as usual came to the house in the evening at 5-30 p.m. andtook his friends Sankariah and Shivaiah to the forest on some pretext and went to the spot and showed the deceased and immediately after seeing the dead body both of them got afraid and came to the village by running. As it is night 10-00 P.M. the things did not inform to anybody and on Sunday i.e., 12.10.03 morning around 10-00 a.m. all the villagers together went to the forest and on observing the dead body was buried by digging a pit." From this, it becomes clear that after committing the murder of his wife, the appellant returned to Village at 5:30 PM on 11.10.2003 and informed his friends Sankaraiah and Shivaiah, about the incident. The prosecution has not chosen to examine the said two persons. It is not as if the incident remained a closely guarded secret. By 10:00 AM on the next day, the villagers came to know and many of them proceeded to forest. The prosecution has not chosen to examine the said two persons. It is not as if the incident remained a closely guarded secret. By 10:00 AM on the next day, the villagers came to know and many of them proceeded to forest. Being the executive representative of the State, the Panchayat Secretary was under obligation to take note of the developments and bring it to the notice of the police, if they were already not informed. P.W.1 virtually swung into action, when the incident almost became stale with every possible villager, knowing about it. From the portion extracted above, two aspects became clear. The first is that the prosecution failed to examine Sankaraiah and Shivaiah, to whom the appellant was said to have disclosed the crime on the same day of occurrence. This failure to examine them as witnesses would naturally entail in an inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. The second is that the alleged extra judicial confession of the appellant to P.W.1 is not the starting point, to set the machinery of law in motion. Not only the news spread, but also hundreds of villagers have gone there, much before it. P.W.2 stated that when himself and Sivaiah were at his house, the appellant came there and informed that he fell a heavy tree, and requested them to join him, to lift the cut wood. Thereupon, himself and Sivaiah are said to have gone to a distance of about 6 kilo meters and there, the appellant is said to have asked them to help him in keeping the dead body of his wife, in burial pit. He is silent as to the acts or omissions on his part, thereafter. He stated that they kept quiet in the Village after coming back, due to fear, and did not inform anybody in the Village. This statement is not corroborated by any other evidence. Except this, there is no other evidence on record. It is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of unsupported and scanty evidence of this nature. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, against the appellant-A.1, is set aside. The appellant-A.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, against the appellant-A.1, is set aside. The appellant-A.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-A.1 shall be refunded to him.