Judgment : V. Suri Appa Rao, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2007 is filed by accused 5 and 6, Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2007 is filed by accused 1 and 2, Criminal Appeal No.1158 of 2007 is filed by accused No.3 and Criminal Appeal No.1326 of 2007 is filed by accused No.4 against the judgment of conviction and sentences dated 17-8-2007 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, Krishna district, whereby the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1124, 1158 and 1326 of 2007, who are the accused 1 to 4, were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and were sentenced to ‘imprisonment for life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each; they were further convicted for the offence under Section 348 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; they were further convicted for the offence under Section 331 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each; and they were further convicted for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. 2. 2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2007, who are the accused 5 and 6, were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to ‘imprisonment for life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each; they were further convicted for the offence under Section 348 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; they were further convicted for the offence under Section 331 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each; and they were further convicted for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. 3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences passed against the appellants, they preferred these appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). Therefore, all these appeals are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) On 30-4-1999 accused No.5 gave a complaint Ex.P-31 to P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station stating that his newly married daughter Gowri, aged 18 years was missing since 19-4-1999. P.W.41 registered the same as a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 under the head ‘woman missing’ and took up investigation. He also deputed P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, a Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station to search for one Kona Krishna Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and one Vijaya alias Mary, who were suspected by the complainant behind the missing of his daughter. Therefore, P.W.30 along with accused 5 and 6 visited the house of P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao and enquired his father P.W.9 Kota Suvarna Raju about the deceased. He came to know through P.W.9 that the deceased went to Ghantasalapalem. Therefore, P.W.30 along with accused 5 and 6 visited the house of P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao and enquired his father P.W.9 Kota Suvarna Raju about the deceased. He came to know through P.W.9 that the deceased went to Ghantasalapalem. P.W.8 visited Ghantasalapalem on 01-5-1999 and informed the deceased and P.W.2 Dasi Baby Nancharamma, sister of the deceased about the enquiries made by P.W.30. (b) On 02-5-1999 P.W.30 followed by the accused 5 and 6 again made enquiries about the deceased and found her at the house of P.W.2. They asked the deceased to procure a photograph of the suspect woman Vijaya alias Mary and asked her to come to Payakapuram Police Station on 03-5-1999 after receipt of communication from the police station. (c) On 03-5-1999 at about 9 a.m., the deceased followed by P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao went to Payakapuram Police Station and appeared before P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station. He examined the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C about the suspect Vijaya alias Mary and let off her in the evening instructing to come to the police station on the next day i.e., on 04-5-1999, but P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao was asked to wait in the police station for further examination. (d) On the next day i.e., on 04-5-1999 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased attended the police station, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police was not present. She then requested P.W.14 P.V.Subrahmanyam, Station Writer to let off P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao, who was detained at the police station as he is innocent in the matter and on the instructions of P.W.14 Station Writer, the deceased returned to the house and requested her brother-in-law P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah to help her in releasing P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao from Payakapuram Police Station. As P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah did not show any interest she sought the help of P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar, who is a friend of P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah. (e) On the same day at about 7 p.m., the deceased accompanied by P.Ws.4, 6 and 7 Dasi Mangaiah, Cheeli Kasulu and Thota Anand Kumar, respectively, went to Payakapuram Police Station and as P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police was not present they waited for his arrival as per the advice of P.W.14 Station Writer. As P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police did not return to the police station even by 11.45 p.m., the deceased was let off. As P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police did not return to the police station even by 11.45 p.m., the deceased was let off. Then P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar took the deceased on his motorcycle to his Railway Quarter and gave Rs.20/-to P.W.6 Cheeli Kasulu to meet his conveyance. P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar reached the Railway Quarter along with the deceased and taking advantage of her dire need of money, influenced her and took her to his bedroom. After some time P.W.6 Cheeli Kasulu reached the Railway Quarter of P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar and knocked the door. Then P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar opened the door and asked him to wait in the verandah and had coitus with the deceased and paid Rs.100/- to her as consideration and dropped her on his motorcycle at about 2.30 a.m., on the intervening night of 04/05-5-1999 at her house. P.W.6 Cheeli Kasulu followed them on foot. (f) On 05-5-1999 from 8.30 p.m., to 12.30 a.m., on 06-5-1999 the accused 1 to 4 interrogated the deceased and beat her black and blue with sticks all over her body including the middle finger of right hand, on the right finger of left hand and unable to bear the pain and torture, the deceased passed urine in the room of accused No.1 itself. As per the instructions of accused No.1, the accused 3 and 4 took the deceased to toilet twice at about 9 p.m., and 10 p.m., and as per the directions of accused No.1, the deceased swept the police station and cleaned the office of the Sub Inspector of Police. The accused 5 to 7 and P.W.21 Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi were watching the proceedings. Later, accused 1 to 4 shifted the venue to the room situated adjoining to the lock-up room and continued interrogation and beat the deceased. (g) Despite severely beaten in the hands of the Police, the deceased relentlessly expressing to the accused 1 to 4 that she was innocent of the offence. At that juncture, the accused 5 to 7 intervened, called aside the accused 1 to 4 and advised them that the deceased could not come out with truth unless she was beaten severely. They further advised them that the deceased was a helpless, poor Scheduled Caste woman and nobody would support her even if anything happened to her. At that juncture, the accused 5 to 7 intervened, called aside the accused 1 to 4 and advised them that the deceased could not come out with truth unless she was beaten severely. They further advised them that the deceased was a helpless, poor Scheduled Caste woman and nobody would support her even if anything happened to her. So saying the accused 5 to 7 promised the accused 1 to 4 some money as extraneous consideration and having been influenced by them, the accused 1 to 4 returned to lock-up, where the deceased was confined and started beating her severely. (h) At about 12.30 hours P.Ws.18 to 20 Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao and Chithachalla Babu Rao, respectively, who were at the petrol bunk, heard the cries of the deceased from Mahila Police Station, came there and found the accused 5 to 7 were watching the proceedings and on seeing them, the accused 5 to 7 perturbed and went out from the station premises and P.W.21 Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi stood near the window, which was fixed to the wall of the adjoining room of the lock-up room. P.Ws.18 to 21 Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao, Chithachalla Babu Rao and Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, respectively, noticed through the window under the illumination provided by the lighting which fall into the room through the window, the accused 1 to 4 abusing the deceased in obscene language raising the name of her caste as “yeme mala lanja, Gouri, Vijaya yekkada vunnaro cheppave”, so saying they caught her head with their hands and hit it forcibly to the hook that was fixed to the wall of the lock-up, as a result she sustained an injury on her forehead. A stream of blood was flown out of it, due to which drenched her clothes. Finally the accused 1 to 4 pushed the deceased into the lock-up room and she fell on the floor in the lock-up room and subsequently died in the lock-up room itself. P.Ws.22 to 24 Mangalagiri Jawaharlal, Chukkada Umamaheswara Rao and Yalla Venkata Vara Prasad, respectively, noticed the accused 5 to 7 at Mahila Police Station along with P.W.21 Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi. P.Ws.22 to 24 Mangalagiri Jawaharlal, Chukkada Umamaheswara Rao and Yalla Venkata Vara Prasad, respectively, noticed the accused 5 to 7 at Mahila Police Station along with P.W.21 Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi. (i) On 06-5-1999 at about 4.55 a.m., P.W.37 Ayanavarapu Gandhi, Head Constable and P.W.40 G.V.Prakash, Sub Inspector of Police, of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station visited Mahila Police Station and took accused No.3 to escort the victim in a rape case of their police station to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada and after examining the victim girl, they dropped accused No.3 at the hospital itself. (j) On the same day i.e., on 06-5-1999 at about 6.15 a.m., P.W.33 Mohammed Tahera Begum, Woman Home Guard of II Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada while going to toilet situated in the rear side of Mahila Police Station, noticed the deceased hanging to the ventilator of the lock-up. She immediately woke up P.W.31 Mathe Kanaka Chinthaiah, Head Constable and another Police Constable Abdul Rasheed (L.W.38) and informed the same to them. Both P.W.31 Head Constable and another Constable entered Mahila Police Station pushing the doors and found accused No.4 sitting in a chair in front of the seat of accused No.1 and they questioned her as to why it was happened, accused No.4 did not give any reply. P.W.31 Head Constable and another Constable entered the lock-up room and noticed the deceased hanging by her neck to the ventilator with the help of her saree, being her feet touched to the ground and also a pool of blood on the floor adjoining to the window on the southern wall and near her feet, besides a gaping lacerated injury on her forehead. (k) Accused No.1 then gave a complaint Ex.P-33 to P.W.42 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada extricating herself from the offence. P.W.42 Sub Inspector of Police then registered the same as a case in Crime No.148 of 1999 under Section 176 of Cr.P.C and investigated into the offence. (k) Accused No.1 then gave a complaint Ex.P-33 to P.W.42 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada extricating herself from the offence. P.W.42 Sub Inspector of Police then registered the same as a case in Crime No.148 of 1999 under Section 176 of Cr.P.C and investigated into the offence. He sent a copy of First Information Report along with requisition to P.W.43 Sri J.Janaki Rama Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses P.Ws.35 and 36, Boddu John Samuel Raju and Smt. K.Sudha, respectively and others and sent the corpse for post-mortem examination through P.W.12 Medapolu Premalatha, Woman Police Constable, Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada and another Police Constable N.V.Rama Rao (L.W.55), Law and Order, Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada. He also seized an iron drum from the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses P.Ws.35 and 36 and others under a cover of mediators’ report. (l) P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy, Professor and Dr. M.Madusudhan Reddy (L.W.50), Assistant Professor, of Department of Forensic Medicine, University General Hospital, Vijayawada conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and found five injuries including the triangular shaped injury on her forehead, preserved viscera, vaginal swab, hyoid bone and bits of skin from the injury on forehead and around ligature mark and sent the hyoid bone and skin bits for histopathology examination. They also handed over the wearing apparel and ornaments of the deceased to N.V.Rama Rao (L.W.55), Police Constable. (m) At that stage, P.W.45 N.R.K.Paramahamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Vijayawada took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and seized the pieces of sticks from the scene of offence and a hook fixed to the lock-up wall in the presence of P.W.38 Kothapalli Venkata Surya Apparao and Rallabandi Venkatapathi Raju (L.W.48). He also collected blood stains from the scene of offence, viscera from the concerned and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for examination. (n) After receipt of the opinion of Dr. Krishna (L.W.51), Histopathologist, Nandamuri Taraka Ramarao Health University, Vijayawada and also the Chemical Examiners’ Report, P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy, Professor and Dr. He also collected blood stains from the scene of offence, viscera from the concerned and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for examination. (n) After receipt of the opinion of Dr. Krishna (L.W.51), Histopathologist, Nandamuri Taraka Ramarao Health University, Vijayawada and also the Chemical Examiners’ Report, P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy, Professor and Dr. M.Madusudhan Reddy (L.W.50), Assistant Professor, of Department of Forensic Medicine, University General Hospital, Vijayawada, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, issued final opinion stating that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury, which occurred six hours prior to the death of the deceased and hanging was post-mortem hanging and that the deceased would have sexual intercourse prior to 48 hours of her death. As per the Investigating Officer, P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar had sexual intercourse with the deceased on the night of 04-5-1999. (o) P.W.45 Deputy Superintendent of Police arrested all the accused and sent them for remand and after completion of investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 342, 331, 302 and 201 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PA) Act’). 5. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C against the accused 1 to 4 and under Section 109 read with Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C against the accused 5 to 7. The plea of the accused is one of denial. 6. Thereupon, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 45 and relied on Exs.P-1 to P-43 and M.Os.1 to 9. 7. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the defence got marked Exs.D-1 to D-34. 8. After considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, at paragraph 65 of the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge observed that there was no direct evidence in this case that the accused 1 to 4 caused the offences as alleged by the prosecution. But, basing on the circumstantial evidence he found the accused 1 to 6 guilty for the offences with which they were charged and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences, as stated above. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentences, the accused 1 to 6 have preferred these appeals. 10. But, basing on the circumstantial evidence he found the accused 1 to 6 guilty for the offences with which they were charged and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences, as stated above. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentences, the accused 1 to 6 have preferred these appeals. 10. The point for consideration is, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal as per Ex.P-33 report lodged by accused No.1 ? 11. Point:-Admittedly, accused No.1 was working as Woman Sub Inspector of Police in Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada. She lodged Ex.P-33 report to the Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayawada City stating that accused No.4, who was working as Woman Police Constable in the same police station, informed her that the deceased might have resorted to hanging between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and on the basis of the same, P.W.42 Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.148 of 1999 under Section 176 of Cr.P.C (enquiry by Magistrate into cause of death). 12. P.W.42 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada has stated in his evidence that immediately after receiving the report Ex.P-33 from accused No.1 he registered the same as a case in Crime No.148 of 199 under Section 176 of Cr.P.C., and he sent a requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer along with First Information Report to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. He also stated that he went to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer to handover the First Information Report along with requisition, but the Revenue Divisional Officer was not available. He, therefore, handed over the same to the Superintendent of R.D.O office. Thereafter, he went to the police station along with two Police Constables and kept them to guard Mahila Police Station till the arrival of the R.D.O. 13. P.W.43 T.Janaki Ramarao, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada has stated in his evidence that on 06-5-1999 he was attending Janmabhumi Programme at Jaggaiahpet. He received a message from his office Superintendent at about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m., about the requisition received from P.W.42 Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station to conduct inquest in respect of lock-up death occurred in Mahila Police Station. He, therefore, reached Mahila Police Station at about 2.30 p.m.. He received a message from his office Superintendent at about 12 noon or 12.30 p.m., about the requisition received from P.W.42 Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Police Station to conduct inquest in respect of lock-up death occurred in Mahila Police Station. He, therefore, reached Mahila Police Station at about 2.30 p.m.. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban was also present there and assisted him. He found the body of the deceased in hanging position in the lock-up room of Mahila Police Station. He made preliminary enquiry regarding the police officials on duty and also made enquiries about the blood relatives of the deceased. He recorded the statements of the accused 1 to 4, who were working in Mahila Police Station and also P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station. He also recorded the statement of one Dasari Ranga Babu, a relative of the deceased. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of panchas. He also prepared Ex.P-15 inquest report. After conducting inquest over the body of the deceased, the dead body was sent to the University General Hospital, Vijayawada for post-mortem examination. Ex.P-23 is the video cassette record pertaining to inquest and observation of the scene of offence. At paragraphs 7 to 9 of the inquest report, the position of the dead body and the injuries found on the body of the deceased were noted and at paragraph 16 of the inquest report, it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased might have died due to the thick wound on her forehead and even though the dead body appears as hanging, her legs are touching the floor and having a slight bend at the knees. As her eyes and mouth are closed, he was of the opinion that her death is not due to hanging. As blood stains are there in two or three places in the lock-up room and also outside the room, he was of the opinion that the death might have occurred due to injury on the forehead. 14. P.W.42 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada has also stated in his evidence that on the next day i.e., on 07-5-1999 after receipt of the inquest report Ex.P-15 he altered the Section of law from 176 of Cr.P.C to 302 of I.P.C and issued Ex.P-22 altered F.I.R. 15. P.W.39 Dr. 14. P.W.42 J.S.R.Swamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada has also stated in his evidence that on the next day i.e., on 07-5-1999 after receipt of the inquest report Ex.P-15 he altered the Section of law from 176 of Cr.P.C to 302 of I.P.C and issued Ex.P-22 altered F.I.R. 15. P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada, who conducted post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 07-5-1999 on requisition from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada he conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and found the following external injuries: (1) There is a contusion about 9.5 cm diameter just above knuckle of middle finger of right hand. (2) Contusion on the left hand above the knuckle of ring finger 0.5 cm in diameter. (3) Multiple bluish patches present on the front of both legs, show clotted blood on cut section. (4) Laceration middle part of forehead 3 cm x 4 cm triangular in shape, bone deep and margins contused. (5) Ligature marks 21 cm length, width 3.5 cm at the broadest shallow, in front of neck gong obliquely upwards to the right side of neck up to the mastoid process. Narrow on the right side of neck. Stopping at a point 7 cm away from the middle on the left side of neck. Ligature mark blackened, shallow, parchment like and harened. 16. P.W.39 Dr.P.Butchi Reddy further deposed that the injuries 1 to 4 are ante mortem in nature. He reserved the opinion regarding injury No.5 till the receipt of report from Histopathologist. Ex.P-8 is the post-mortem report issued by him. 17. He further stated in his evidence that after receipt of report from the Histopathologist, he gave Ex.P-9 final opinion about the cause of death of the deceased. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury and hanging is post-mortem in nature. The finding of semen and spermatozoa from vaginal swabs indicates that sexual intercourse could have occurred within 48 hours before her death. 18. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy clearly shows that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. The medical evidence further discloses that the deceased had sexual intercourse within 48 hours before her death. 18. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy clearly shows that the death of the deceased was due to head injury. The medical evidence further discloses that the deceased had sexual intercourse within 48 hours before her death. The inquest report Ex.P-15 also clearly indicates that the death was due to head injury but not due to hanging. 19. Thus, in view of the evidence of P.W.39 Dr. P.Butchi Reddy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada, Ex.P-18 post-mortem report, Ex.P-19 final opinion report of P.W.39 and in view of the evidence of P.W.43 R.D.O, the death of the deceased was homicidal. 20. According to the prosecution, the accused 1 to 4, who were working in Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada at the time of death of the deceased, were influenced and abetted by the accused 5 to 7, relatives of one Gowri who was found missing soon after her marriage, for which they suspected involvement of the deceased and another Vijaya alias Mary, due to which the accused 1 to 4 beat the deceased black and blue from 8.30 p.m., to 12.30 midnight on the intervening night of 05/06-5-1999 and caused injuries on the forehead, which resulted in her death. The prosecution, therefore, alleges that the accused 1 to 4 are liable for punishment under Section 302 of I.P.C and the accused 5 to 7 are liable for punishment under Section 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C and all the accused are further liable for punishment under Sections 324, 331, 342 and 201 of I.P.C and also under Section 3(2)(v)(vii) of the S.Cs. and the S.Ts. (PA) Act since the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. 21. and the S.Ts. (PA) Act since the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. 21. In order to prove that the accused 1 to 4 are responsible for causing injuries to the deceased and the accused 5 to 7 abetted the accused 1 to 4 to commit the offences, the prosecution examined P.Ws.18 to 21 Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao, Chithachalla Babu Rao and Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, respectively, that they heard the cries of the deceased from Mahila Police Station when they were at the petrol bunk and all of them went there and witnessed the incident through the window, which was fixed to the wall of adjoining room of lock-up in the illumination provided by the lighting, which fall into the room through the window from the lights of the police station, on the ground that P.Ws.18 to 21 Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao, Chithachalla Babu Rao and Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, respectively, witnessed the accused 1 to 4 beating the deceased in the lock-up and causing injuries on her forehead on the instigation of the accused 5 to 7. 22. P.Ws.18 to 21 Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao, Chithachalla Babu Rao and Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, respectively, did not support the prosecution case and all of them turned hostile to the prosecution. 23. The prosecution further examined P.Ws.22 to 24 Mangalagiri Jawaharlal, Chukkada Uma Maheswara Rao and Yalla Venkata Vara Prasad, respectively, to prove that P.W.21 Kagitha Ravindra Babu alias Ravi informed them about the incident while they were going to tea canteen in Raghavaiah Park Centre at about 11.30 p.m., after visiting the exhibition on 05-5-1999, but P.Ws.22 to 24 Mangalagiri Jawaharlal, Chukkada Uma Maheswara Rao and Yalla Venkata Vara Prasad, respectively, also did not support the prosecution case. 24. The prosecution further examined P.Ws.25 to 29 Kancherla Ramu, Y.Paramdhamaiah, Sayana Sridhar, Ummadisetty Suresh and Bhogalli Jagadeesh, respectively, to prove that they heard the conversation of P.Ws.18 and 19 Motipalli Srinivas and Yalla Srinivasa Rao, respectively, that the accused 1 to 4 were beating a woman in the lock-up of Mahila Police Station. But, P.Ws.25 to 29 Kancherla Ramu, Y.Paramdhamaiah, Sayana Sridhar, Ummadisetty Suresh and Bhogalli Jagadeesh, respectively, also did not support the prosecution regarding the conversation of P.Ws.18 and 19 Motipalli Srinivas and Yalla Srinivasa Rao, respectively and on the other hand, they gave different versions about the injuries caused to the deceased. 25. But, P.Ws.25 to 29 Kancherla Ramu, Y.Paramdhamaiah, Sayana Sridhar, Ummadisetty Suresh and Bhogalli Jagadeesh, respectively, also did not support the prosecution regarding the conversation of P.Ws.18 and 19 Motipalli Srinivas and Yalla Srinivasa Rao, respectively and on the other hand, they gave different versions about the injuries caused to the deceased. 25. P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas has stated in his evidence that on the intervening night of 05/06-5-1999 at about 12 in the midnight himself and his friend P.W.19 Yalla Srinivasa Rao started from Krishnalanka on the motorcycle of his friend bearing No.AP16-4736 to go to Vuyyuru to attend a marriage function there. As the petrol was exhausted they stopped their scooter near Ramanjaneya Petrol Bunk situated adjoining to Traffic Police Station and Mahila Police Station to get petrol in the bunk. Then himself and his friend P.W.19 Yalla Srinivasa Rao went to Traffic Police Station to meet one Subba Rao, who is working as Constable in Traffic Police Station. They were told that the said Subba Rao is not available in the police station. When they were returning from Traffic Police Station, he saw Circle Inspector Jagannadham and another person in Mahila Police Station. He knows Circle Inspector Jagannadham as his son is his friend. The said Circle Inspector was holding a stick in his hands shouting towards one lady in Mahila Police Station. Another person, who accompanied the Circle Inspector at that time, was standing and watching the proceedings at the police station. After that, they returned back from the police station and went to Vuyyuru to attend the marriage function. He was declared as hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-4 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 26. P.W.19 Yalla Srinivasa Rao also stated in his evidence that on the intervening night of 05/06-5-1999 at about 12.30 a.m., himself and P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas started from Krishnalanka on his scooter bearing No.AP16-4736 to go to Vuyyuru to attend a marriage function. As the petrol was exhausted they stopped the scooter near the petrol bunk, which is situated adjacent to Traffic Police Station and Mahila Police Station. After that, himself and P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas went into Traffic Police Station to see the friend of P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas who is working as a Constable. As the petrol was exhausted they stopped the scooter near the petrol bunk, which is situated adjacent to Traffic Police Station and Mahila Police Station. After that, himself and P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas went into Traffic Police Station to see the friend of P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas who is working as a Constable. While they were entering into the police station they saw the Circle Inspector of Police associated with another person. He was declared as hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-5 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 27. P.W.20 Chithachalla Babu Rao has stated in his evidence that in the year 1999 on one day at about 12.30 a.m., when he was going to Vijayawada on his cycle he observed one gathering in front of Mahila Police Station. He waited for 3 or 4 minutes on the road and went away. He stated that he did not see anything and he does not know what happened at Mahila Police Station. He also stated that he does not know P.Ws.18 and 19 Motipalli Srinivas and Yalla Srinivasa Rao, respectively. He was declared as hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-6 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 28. P.W.21 K.Ravindra Babu also stated in his evidence that he came to know about the death of one woman at the police lock-up through newspapers. He does not know her name. He also stated that he has not stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-7 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 29. P.W.22 M.Jawaharlal has stated in his evidence that on the night of 05-5-1999 himself, his friends Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao and Y.Venkata Vara Prasad, P.Ws.23 and 24 respectively, went to the exhibition. After watching the exhibition they came at about 10.45 or 11 p.m. and they went to tea canteen near super bazaar at Raghavaiah Park Centre. When they were proceeding towards Mahila Police Station they noticed P.W.21 K.Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, who was their friend, was wandering in the premises of Mahila Police Station. Then they called the said Ravi and he stated that he would come after some time. When they were proceeding towards Mahila Police Station they noticed P.W.21 K.Ravindra Babu alias Ravi, who was their friend, was wandering in the premises of Mahila Police Station. Then they called the said Ravi and he stated that he would come after some time. Within five minutes he came out of the premises of Mahila Police Station and informed them that one girl, by name Gowri, was missing and a complaint was also lodged at Payakapuram Police Station and they were advised to give a complaint in Mahila Police Station. Therefore, he went to Mahila Police Station. Except this, he has not stated anything. 30. P.W.23 Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao has stated in his evidence that on 05-5-1999 himself, P.W.22 M.Jawaharlal and Y.Venkata Vara Prasad P.W.24 went to the exhibition and at about 11.30 p.m., when they were going to tea canteen near Raghavaiah Park Centre, P.W.22 M.Jawaharlal left the place by saying that he wanted to meet one person. After some time he came back and all of them left that place after taking tea. He also stated that he has not stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-8 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 31. P.W.24 Y.Venkata Vara Prasad deposed that he does not know anything about this case except through newspapers about the incident. He also stated that he was not examined by the Police and he has not stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-9 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 32. P.W.25 K.Ramu, who is working in Sri Ramanjaneya Petrol Bunk situated by the side of Mahila Police Station, has stated in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case. He also stated that he was not examined by the Police and he has not stated before the Police as recorded in Ex.P-10 Section 161 Cr.P.C statement. 33. P.Ws.26 and 27 Y.Parandhamaiah and S.Sridhar, respectively, have also stated in their evidence that they do not know anything about this case and they have not stated before the Police as recorded in Exs.P-11 and P-12, respective Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. 34. P.W.28 U.Suresh, who is working as Cashier in Ramanjaneya Petrol Bunk opposite to the office of the Sub Collector, has stated in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the C.B.C.I.D officials. 35. 34. P.W.28 U.Suresh, who is working as Cashier in Ramanjaneya Petrol Bunk opposite to the office of the Sub Collector, has stated in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the C.B.C.I.D officials. 35. P.W.29 B.Jagadeesh, who was working as lorry cleaner, has stated in his evidence that he does not know the names of the persons who came to the Petrol Bunk for purchasing petrol on 06-5-1999. He came to know that one lady died in the police station. 36. Thus, P.Ws.18 to 29 M.Srinivas, Y.Srinivasa Rao, Ch.Babu Rao, K.Ravindra Babu, M.Jawaharlal, Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao, Y.Venkata Vara Prasad, K.Ramu, Y.Parandhamaiah, S.Sridhar, U.Suresh and B.Jagadeesh, respectively, have not stated anything about the accused 1 to 4 beating the deceased at Mahila Police Station at the instance of the accused 5 to 7. 37. The learned counsel for the accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against any of the accused. Mahila Police Station is intended for keeping the lady accused involved in crimes relating to other police stations only for safe custody and for sending the lady accused for judicial remand as the other police stations are not empowered to keep the women accused in their police stations. 38. It is further submitted that the accused 1 to 4 are not entrusted with the duty to interrogate any lady accused and they are not having any powers to interrogate any offence. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused 1 to 4 are responsible for causing the death of the deceased cannot be believed. 39. The learned counsel for the accused 5 and 6 further submitted that accused No.5 is an innocent man. He only lodged a complaint to Payakapuram Police Station about the missing of his daughter Gowri immediately after her marriage. His daughter is not traced so far and he was implicated in the case and he was languished in jail since five years without any justification. 40. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, perverse and not basing on the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses and the same is liable to be set aside. 41. 40. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, perverse and not basing on the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses and the same is liable to be set aside. 41. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased was handed over to Mahila Police Station for custody on the evening of 05-5-1999 and on the next day morning she was found dead and that the death occurred in the police station. Therefore, the accused 1 to 4 who are attached to Mahila Police Station are only liable for the death of the deceased in view of the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 42. The learned counsel for the accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 further submitted that if nobody has any access to Mahila Police Station the accused 1 to 4 are certainly liable and answerable for the death of the deceased in the lock-up. Mahila Police Station is a public place. The officials of other police stations are at liberty to attend Mahila Police Station to interrogate the lady accused involved in the crimes relating to other police stations. The Sub Inspector of Police and the Constables attached to Mahila Police Station are only meant for producing the lady accused to the hospital and concerned courts with case diaries and remand reports and they were not entrusted with the duty of investigation of any crime. The crime in which the deceased was kept in Mahila Police Station relates to Payakapuram Police Station on the complaint given by accused No.5 and his complaint also did not suspect that the deceased is responsible for the missing of his daughter and that the deceased is in no way responsible for missing of the girl Gowri, daughter of accused No.5. 43. It is further submitted that number of times the deceased was called to the police station. She informed the Police that she does not know anything and she does not know the missing girl Gowri. In spite of that, the deceased was illegally kept in the police lock-up, tortured her and caused her death. 44. It is further submitted that as per the medical evidence the deceased was subjected to sexual intercourse prior to her death. She informed the Police that she does not know anything and she does not know the missing girl Gowri. In spite of that, the deceased was illegally kept in the police lock-up, tortured her and caused her death. 44. It is further submitted that as per the medical evidence the deceased was subjected to sexual intercourse prior to her death. It is further contended that the presence of semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal swabs of the deceased clearly indicates that a male person was involved in the commission of offence and to save the said male person and the real offender, this case was booked against the accused 1 to 4, who are ladies, only three days after the incident. 45. It is further submitted that there was no material to show that the deceased was handed over to Mahila Police Station along with Case Diary. General Diary is manipulated for the first time and there were no prior incidents of handing over the lady accused to Mahila Police Station along with Case Diaries when the case related to other police stations. 46. In support of his contention, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 and Sri D.Purnachandra Rao, learned counsel for the accused 5 and 6, placed reliance on a judgment in MUSHEER KHAN v. STATE OF M.P. ( (2010) 2 SCC 748 ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 held that when murder charge is sought to be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. Whatever force presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 may have in civil or less criminal cases, in murder trial it is extremely weak compared with dominant presumption of innocence. 47. The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on a judgment in GADDALA NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1994(1) An.W.R. 506). In that case, the accused 1 and 2 along with the deceased were living in the same house. The body of the deceased was found in the kitchen of the house. At that time, the accused 1 to 3 were also present. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (1994(1) An.W.R. 506). In that case, the accused 1 and 2 along with the deceased were living in the same house. The body of the deceased was found in the kitchen of the house. At that time, the accused 1 to 3 were also present. The trial Court expressed opinion that it was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused who are residing in the house of the deceased as to how the deceased died. In that view, invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the trial Court held that the accused failed to prove that the manner in which the death of the deceased was caused, which is exclusive within the knowledge of the accused and found them guilty of the charge of Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. In such circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court held that the factors leading to the death constitute special knowledge within the exclusive purview of the accused and their failure to explain how the deceased died must result in adverse inference being raised against them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal filed by the accused. 48. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment in Parsineni Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. (2009 CRI. L. J. 2326). In that case, the accused allegedly caused death of the deceased by administering sleeping pills and pesticide. There was no direct evidence or even circumstances to show that accused administered poison to deceased. There was no evidence that accused was seen in company of deceased prior to incident or at time of incident or immediately after incident. Human blood was noticed by serologist on M.O. But it was not shown to be same blood of deceased. Recovery of M.O. cannot be said to be incriminating against accused. D.N.A. report cannot be considered as author of same was not examined in Court to prove its contents. Human blood was noticed by serologist on M.O. But it was not shown to be same blood of deceased. Recovery of M.O. cannot be said to be incriminating against accused. D.N.A. report cannot be considered as author of same was not examined in Court to prove its contents. A Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us VE, J. is a party) held that by reason of DNA report it cannot be said that accused administered poisonous substance to deceased merely because biological fluid present on langa of deceased was source of blood sample of accused. The accused cannot be convicted on basis of surmises and conjectures. 49. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (A.I.R. 1956 SUPREME COURT 404). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 observed that Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. The latter with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution, to establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are preeminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. 50. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if the death of the deceased is by suicide, the Police are responsible for the negligence in allowing the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Parvathamma v. Chief Secretary (1995 CRI. L. J. 4148), wherein it was held that whether the lock-up death is by suicide or on account of police atrocities onus lies upon the police to show that there has been no negligence on their part. 51. The learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on a judgment in STATE OF M.P. v. SYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI ( (1995) 4 SCC 262 ). 51. The learned Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on a judgment in STATE OF M.P. v. SYAMSUNDER TRIVEDI ( (1995) 4 SCC 262 ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available. Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues and the present case is an apt illustration as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter. 52. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused No.1 in the case on hand gave false report to the police stating that the deceased might have committed suicide. Later during investigation it is found to be false. Therefore, the accused, who are having the custody of the deceased, are only responsible and answerable for the cause of death of the deceased and in the absence of proper explanation and in view of the false report the accused are liable for punishment. For the above proposition, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on a judgment in Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (A. I. R. 2005 SUPREME COURT 402). In that case, the deceased alleged to have been taken to the police station and beaten, as a result of which he died. The false statement by one of the accused “B” police official as to the occurrence of death of deceased. Plea of another accused “G” that the deceased come to the police station in severe condition and after telling his name has collapsed, falsified by categorical statement made by him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accusations found established against “G”. However, no grievous injuries found on vital parts of body of deceased. Duration of injuries were widely variant. Right lung of deceased was TB affected thus combined effect of alcohol consumed by him and injuries shortened period of death and resulted in quicker death. Therefore, conviction of the accused under Section 304, Part II of I.P.C., was proper. 53. However, no grievous injuries found on vital parts of body of deceased. Duration of injuries were widely variant. Right lung of deceased was TB affected thus combined effect of alcohol consumed by him and injuries shortened period of death and resulted in quicker death. Therefore, conviction of the accused under Section 304, Part II of I.P.C., was proper. 53. The learned Public Prosecutor lastly placed reliance on a judgment in D.K. BASU v. STATE OF W.B. ( (1997) 1 SCC 416 ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental. 54. The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offences under Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The charge-sheet filed by P.W.45 Sri N.R.K.Paramahamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Vijayawada is silent as to when the deceased was sent to Mahila Police Station for interrogation by the accused 1 to 4. 55. The issues are fundamental. 54. The accused 1 to 4 were charged for the offences under Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The charge-sheet filed by P.W.45 Sri N.R.K.Paramahamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Vijayawada is silent as to when the deceased was sent to Mahila Police Station for interrogation by the accused 1 to 4. 55. In the charge-sheet, it is alleged that on 05-5-1999 from 8.30 p.m. to 12.30 p.m., the accused 1 to 4 interrogated the deceased and beat her black and blue armed with sticks all over her body including the middle finger of right hand and on the right finger of left hand and unable to bear the pain and torture the deceased passed urine involuntarily in the room of accused No.1 itself, that as per the instructions of accused No.1, the accused 3 and 4 took the deceased to toilet at about 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., that as per the directions of accused No.1 the deceased cleaned the police station and the room of the Sub Inspector of Police, that later the accused 1 to 4 shifted the venue to the room situated adjoining to the lock-up room and continued interrogation and beat the deceased and in spite of receiving several injuries the deceased expressed that she was innocent and does not know anything. 56. In the charge-sheet, it is further alleged that P.W.41 K.Surya Chandra Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station, Vijayawada deputed P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station, to search for Vijaya alias Mary who was suspected to be behind the missing of his daughter by accused No.5. Therefore, P.W.30 Police Constable and P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police are the crucial witnesses in this case as to when the deceased was brought to the police station and when she was sent to Mahila Police Station for interrogation. 57. P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable, has stated in his evidence that on 30-4-1999 accused No.5 presented a report to the Police about the missing of his married daughter and the same was registered as Crime No.126 of 1999 under the head “woman missing” and as per the instructions of the Sub Inspector of Police he made enquiries about Vijaya alias Mary and the deceased. In that connection he visited the house of P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao and he was informed by the father of P.W.8 that the deceased was working in Mercy Home. Therefore, he visited Mercy Home. As the father Benjamin was not available, he returned back. 58. P.W.30 further stated that on 02-5-1999 at 8 a.m., he visited Ramavarappadu in an auto along with the accused 5 and 6. They all went to Mercy Home. He then enquired Benjamin about the suspected woman Kona Krishna Kumari (deceased). He was informed that the deceased went to her native place Ghantasalapalem. He then made enquiries about Vijaya alias Mary at Koutha Industry at Ramavarappadu and he was informed that Vijaya alias Mary brought a married woman and that she left that place by vacating the premises. He informed the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station through phone. He then visited Ghantasalapalem to make enquiries with regard to Vijaya alias Mary and the suspected Kona Krishna Kumari (deceased) and met the parents and brother of Krishna Kumari and he was informed that Krishna Kumari has been residing along with her sister at Khuddus Nagar, Vijayawada. They all went to Khuddus Nagar in the same auto. P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah, brother-in-law of the deceased and the owner of the house, called Krishna Kumari. Then Krishna Kumari came out of the house. Then he asked her to come to the police station on the next day as the Sub Inspector of Police wanted to examine her at the police station. He also informed the same to the Sub Inspector of Police. 59. P.W.30 further stated that on 04-5-1999 at about 8 a.m., he again attended the duty, by then the Sub Inspector of Police was present. He was instructed by the Sub Inspector of Police to secure information in respect of the illicit distilled liquor. Therefore he left the police station. On 05-5-1999 as he was not keeping good health he went to the police station at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., by which time the Sub Inspector of Police was available in the police station. At about 11 a.m., the deceased came to the police station, by which time one Narayana was also there in the police station. Then he informed the sentry Balaswamy that the lady who came to the police station is Kona Krishna Kumari. At about 11 a.m., the deceased came to the police station, by which time one Narayana was also there in the police station. Then he informed the sentry Balaswamy that the lady who came to the police station is Kona Krishna Kumari. Then she was produced before the Sub Inspector of Police. The Sub Inspector of Police talked to her and telephoned to the Traffic Police Station to call the Mahila Police who were available at Mahila Police Station. The deceased gave a photograph to the Sub Inspector of Police. Then the Station Writer one Subrahmanyam handed over the Cade Diary file to him in the presence of the Sub Inspector of Police. By then, the accused 5 and 6 were also present at the police station. P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao was taking tiffin. Then he asked Krishna Kumari to take tiffin, then she had tiffin. 60. P.W.30 further stated that then he took the deceased to Mahila Police Station in an auto. The accused 5 and 6 also accompanied them on a T.V.S. Moped. By the time he reached Mahila Police Station, accused No.2 P.Santhoshamma, Woman Head Constable and P.W.12 M.Premalatha, Woman Police Constable were present. The said Premalatha, Woman Police Constable informed accused No.2, Woman Head Constable about receiving information from the Sub Inspector of Police regarding the case of Krishna Kumari. By then, P.W.32 K.Vijaya Kumari, Woman Police Constable was also present. Then he handed over Krishna Kumari along with Case Diary file and requested the Woman Head Constable to acknowledge receipt of the Case Diary file along with Krishna Kumari. By then, the Woman Sub Inspector of Police was not there in the police station. Accused No.2, Woman Head Constable gave Ex.P-1 acknowledgment. 61. P.W.30 further stated that he started at 11.15 a.m. at Payakapuram Police Station and reached Mahila Police Station at 11.45 a.m. Accused No.5 gave him Rs.60/-towards auto charges. In the same auto while he was returning back, he informed the accused 5 and 6 that Krishna Kumari will be examined by the Woman Sub Inspector of Police who comes to Mahila Police Station. He then reached the police station and handed over the acknowledgement to the Sub Inspector of Police. 62. In the same auto while he was returning back, he informed the accused 5 and 6 that Krishna Kumari will be examined by the Woman Sub Inspector of Police who comes to Mahila Police Station. He then reached the police station and handed over the acknowledgement to the Sub Inspector of Police. 62. P.W.30 further stated that on the same day at about 6 p.m., P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police and himself went to Ramavarappadu, Enikepadu and Prasadampadu on his motorcycle to make further enquiries about Vijaya Mary and as they could not secure reliable information about her whereabouts, they came back to the police station at 10 p.m. As there were no men at the police station he was asked to attend night duty on that day from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., on the next day i.e., 06-5-1999. He was relieved in the morning and returned back to his house at 8 a.m. 63. P.W.30 further stated that the Writer of the police station Subrahmanyam came to his house at 9 a.m. and informed him that the Sub Inspector of Police telephoned to him that Krishna Kumari died and that he had to come to the police station. He then went to Mahila Police Station at about 10 a.m. Sri Chandra Sekhar, D.I.G. of Eluru came to Mahila Police Station at about 10.30 a.m., and asked him as to what had happened. Then he narrated all the things to him. Then he was sent away. 64. P.W.41 K.Surya Chandra Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station, Vijayawada has stated in his evidence that on 30-4-1999 accused No.5 presented a report about the missing of his newly married daughter. He registered the same as a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 under the head “woman missing” and submitted the First Information Report. He examined the complainant and other witnesses. 65. P.W.41 further stated that one Vijaya alias Padma, who is a tenant of the complainant, vacated the house on 19-4-1999 i.e., 11 days prior to giving the complaint to the Police by accused No.5. She used to frequently telephone to a number 842112, which belongs to one Benjamin, in charge of Mercy Home where the deceased was working. 65. P.W.41 further stated that one Vijaya alias Padma, who is a tenant of the complainant, vacated the house on 19-4-1999 i.e., 11 days prior to giving the complaint to the Police by accused No.5. She used to frequently telephone to a number 842112, which belongs to one Benjamin, in charge of Mercy Home where the deceased was working. He therefore examined the said Benjamin, who is in charge of Mercy Home and he was informed that the services of the deceased were terminated due to her bad character. He deputed Police Constable 161 on 02-5-1999 to trace out Krishna Kumari. 66. P.W.41 further stated that on 03-5-1999 he visited the house of P.W.2 Dasi Baby Nancharamma, by then the deceased was not available. On 04-5-1999 the complainant produced the photos of Krishna Kumari and Vijaya. On 05-5-1999 at 11 a.m., when he was at the police station, Krishna Kumari came to the police station on her own accord and introduced herself as Krishna Kumari. He explained the case and asked about Vijaya. She admitted that Vijaya and Gowri are friends but she denied the missing of Gowri. He immediately contacted the Circle Inspector of Police, South over telephone and sought help from Mahila Police Station. He immediately sent the deceased and Case Diary file to hand over to Mahila Police Station. On 06-5-1999 at 8 a.m., the Circle Inspector of Police, South telephoned to him about the death of Krishna Kumari. He along with the available staff proceeded to Mahila Police Station. There, the Revenue Divisional Officer examined him. 67. P.W.1 Dasi Ramana Babu, nephew of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that the deceased was his aunt. She was residing in his house at Khuddus Nagar along with her daughter Sravanthi. On 24-4-1999 his mother, the deceased, his younger brother and daughter of the deceased Sravanthi went to Ghantasalapalem to attend a marriage and returned back to their house on 01-5-1999. 68. P.W.1 further stated that on 02-5-1999 at about 2 p.m., P.W.30 R.Sankara Rao, Police Constable of Payakapuram Police Station, followed by two persons visited their house and enquired about the deceased and one Vijaya. They also asked him to procure the photo of Vijaya and advised his aunt to visit Payakapuram Police Station on the next day after securing the photo of Vijaya and after receipt of communication from the Sub Inspector of Police. 69. They also asked him to procure the photo of Vijaya and advised his aunt to visit Payakapuram Police Station on the next day after securing the photo of Vijaya and after receipt of communication from the Sub Inspector of Police. 69. P.W.1 further stated that on 03-5-1999 the Sub Inspector of Police talked to the deceased over phone and asked her to visit Payakapuram Police Station along with the photo of Vijaya. Therefore, on 03-5-1999 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased left the house and went to the police station. At about 5 or 5.30 p.m., she returned to the house and informed him and his parents that Payakapuram Police after making due enquiry sent her away with a direction to attend the police station on the next day i.e., on 04-5-1999. 70. P.W.1 further stated that accordingly, the deceased again went to the police station on the next day at about 10 a.m., and returned back to the house at 5 p.m., and informed him and his mother that while going to the police station she took one Narayana (P.W.8) to the police station to have male support but the Police kept P.W.8 in the police station as he accompanied her to the police station and that the Police insisting for production of sureties for getting P.W.8 released from the police station. 71. P.W.1 further stated that on that, his father and his two friends went to the police station on the same day between 6 and 7 p.m. His father returned to the house as he was not feeling well. At about 11 or 11.30 p.m., the deceased and two persons returned home. The deceased informed him and his mother that the Police may take her to Mahila Police Station on the next day and told them to attend the marriage as scheduled at Ghantasalapalem and she may not be able to come to the marriage as her presence is required for the Police on the next day also. On the next day she went to the police station but she did not turn up on that day. 72. P.W.1 further stated that on 05-5-1999 at about 2 or 2.30 p.m., one Constable of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station came to their house and enquired about his father and mother, then he informed him that they were not available in the house. 72. P.W.1 further stated that on 05-5-1999 at about 2 or 2.30 p.m., one Constable of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station came to their house and enquired about his father and mother, then he informed him that they were not available in the house. Then he informed him that Krishna Kumari was hanged in Mahila Police Station. Then he immediately proceeded to Mahila Police Station and found the deceased hanging with saree from hook of the ceiling and her legs were found touching with the floor. At that time, the Revenue Divisional Officer also came and recorded his statement. 73. Therefore, by the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that from 02-5-1999 onwards P.W.30 R.Sankara Rao, Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station, is visiting the house of the deceased and asked her to visit the police station on 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999. When P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao also visited the police station along with the deceased on 04-5-1999, he was kept in the police station as he followed the deceased and he was not released till the sureties were produced. 74. P.W.8 Kota Narayana Rao has stated in his evidence that on 04-5-1999 while he was at the railway station, the deceased met him and requested him to come to the police station as the Police of Payakapuram were asking her to bring photo of one lady by name Vijaya for the purpose of tracing out the missing girl Gowri and that she does not know the Police. 75. P.W.8 further stated that on the next day in the early morning while he was waiting for her near the bus-stand the deceased met him. Both of them went to Payakapuram Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police questioned the deceased to disclose the whereabouts of Vijaya. The deceased replied that she does not know where Vijaya is residing and that she brought the photograph as per the instructions of the Police. 76. P.W.8 further stated that the Police then asked the deceased about him and the deceased told the Police that as she does not know the police station she brought him to the police station along with her. Then the Police enquired him the whereabouts of Vijaya. He also stated that he does not about her. 76. P.W.8 further stated that the Police then asked the deceased about him and the deceased told the Police that as she does not know the police station she brought him to the police station along with her. Then the Police enquired him the whereabouts of Vijaya. He also stated that he does not about her. Then the Sub Inspector of Police gave a ring to somebody whom he does not know by stating that he was sending him i.e., P.W.8 and the deceased to them. The Sub Inspector of Police sent the deceased along with two Constables in an auto to Mahila Police Station and he was asked to go away from the police station. After two days he had seen in ‘Eenadu’ Newspaper about the death of Krishna Kumari in the police lock-up. 77. P.W.2 Dasi Baby Nancharamma, sister of the deceased, also stated in her evidence that on 03-5-1000 at about 10 a.m., Payakapuram Police came to their house and asked the deceased to come to the police station along with photograph of Vijaya. She further stated that at about 11 a.m., she received a phone call from one person who claims to be the friend of Narayana Rao stating that he also went along with the deceased and Sankar Rao (sic, Narayana Rao) to the police station where the deceased was allowed to sit outside the police station but Narayana Rao was kept in the police lock-up. 78. She further stated that the deceased returned to the house in the evening and informed her that the Police had put Sankar Rao (sic, Narayana Rao) under police lockup and that the deceased informed her that she has to attend the police station regularly till Vijaya is traced out. 79. She also stated in her evidence that on 04-5-1999 the deceased left the house at about 9.30 or 10 a.m., along with a tiffin box for Narayana Rao to the police station. She came back from the police station in the afternoon and on enquiry she told her and her husband to get Narayana Rao released from the police station, the Police insisting money and also to get sureties. Then, her husband; one Kasulu, who was their tenant; one Anand, who is the friend of her husband; and the deceased went to the police station along with money on two scooters. Then, her husband; one Kasulu, who was their tenant; one Anand, who is the friend of her husband; and the deceased went to the police station along with money on two scooters. Her husband alone returned to the home at about 10 p.m., and informed her that the other three persons were waiting at the police station for the Sub Inspector of Police. She also stated that her sister also returned to the house at 11 p.m. on that day. 80. Her evidence further shows that the deceased informed her that on 05-5-1999 also she has to attend the police station and told her that it may not be possible for her to attend the marriage on 06-5-1999. She also stated that on 05-5-1999 in the morning she went to the police station along with tiffin box for Narayana Rao but did not turn up on that night. On the same day at about 10 p.m., she received a phone call from Narayana Rao stating that he was released by the Police of Payakapuram and the deceased was taken to Mahila Police Station. 81. She further stated that on the next day i.e., on 06-5-1999 at about 7 a.m., Narayana Rao came to their house and on seeing that the deceased was not available at the house, he told them that he would get the deceased released from the police station by taking the legal advice and went away. Therefore, she left the house at about 10 a.m., to attend the marriage. At about 1.30 p.m., she received a telephone message that the deceased was serious. Then her brother and brother-in-law immediately went to Ghantasala where the Mandal Revenue Officer told them that her sister was totally beaten at the police station and was killed. Immediately all of them came to Vijayawada and saw her sister covered with full bandage. After that the dead body of her sister was shifted to Ghantasalapalem for cremation. 82. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Dasi Ramana Babu and Dasi Baby Nancharamma, respectively, and P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station, clearly indicates that the deceased was made to attend the police station from 03-5-1999 onwards every day and she was allowed to go to her house in the evening on 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999 and on 05-5-1999 night she was sent to Mahila Police Station. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.41 K.Surya Chandra Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station, Vijayawada that the deceased herself on her own accord attended the police station on 05-5-1999 at 11 a.m., is false. 83. In the cross-examination, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police has admitted that he did not receive any written instructions for transfer of Crime No.126 of 1999 to any other police station. He also did not receive any message from the circle office asking him to transfer Crime No.126 of 1999 along with the suspect i.e., the deceased to any other police station. He further admitted that there are clear instructions from his superior officers to examine the witnesses or the suspect woman shall be forwarded to Mahila Police Station for examination. He also further admitted that by the entries in General Diary at 12.00 hours and 23.00 hours he made it clear that he was still investigating into the offence in Crime No.126 of 1999 in spite of the fact that he handed over the case to Mahila Police Station and as per the entry in his personal notes Ex.P-20 also, he continued investigation in Crime No.126 of 1999 till 23.00 hours and the suspect is Vijaya alias Mary alias Padma. He denied the suggestion that by 11 p.m., on 05-5-1999 he did not suspect the deceased. 84. P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police further admitted that he did not instruct P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable or his Station Writer Subrahmanyam to affix Ex.P-1 slip in the First Information Report Index Register. He also did not prepare any Memo addressing the women police station intimating the transfer of Crime No.126 of 1999. He does not know that P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable has obtained Ex.P-1 receipt. He further clearly admitted that as seen from Ex.P-1 acknowledgment, there is nothing to show that Mahila Police Station people have acknowledged the custody of the suspect woman i.e., the deceased on 05-5-1999. Ex.P-1 also does not contain the time at which the Case Diary file was acknowledged. 85. P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police denied the suggestion that himself and the Circle Inspector of Police Jagannadham and some other officials are responsible for the offence either under abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased or the murder of the deceased and in order to escape the punishment, they had created records and made the accused to face trial. 86. 86. This witness P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police has stated before the Investigating Officer i.e., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., that he examined the deceased orally and under Section 161 (1) of Cr.P.C at the police station on 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999 and let off her after examination as recorded in Ex.D-30. But, in the evidence he denied having stated so before the officials of the C.B.C.I.D. Therefore, the statement recorded by the officials of the C.B.C.I.D was marked as Ex.D-30. Even as per Ex.D-30 also, the statement of P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police recorded by the officials of the C.B.C.I.D., the deceased was interrogated by this witness on 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999. 87. According to P.W.45 N.R.K.Paramahamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., who investigated into the offence, he took up investigation in this case on 08-5-1999 and recorded the statements of the accused 1 to 4 and also other witnesses. He prepared Ex.P-27 rough sketch of the scene of offence and recorded the statements of the Police Constables attached to Mahila Police Station as well as Payakapuram Police Station. He further stated that subsequently he arrested the accused 1 to 7 and after obtaining Ex.P-29 Forensic Science Laboratory Report and the order of sanction of prosecution he filed charge-sheet. 88. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer P.W.45 has admitted that he believed the statement of P.W.1 Dasi Ramana Babu, nephew of the deceased that the deceased was being summoned by Payakapuram Police Station and attended the police station on 02-5-1999, 03-5-1999, 04-5-1999 and 05-5-1999. He further admitted that his investigation revealed that victim (deceased) was kept late in the night at the police station on 02-5-1999, 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999. He denied the suggestion that to save the male Police Constables and the Sub Inspector of Police of Payakapuram Police Station, he planted P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar after coming to know the presence of semen in the post-mortem report, he got obtained second opinion and planted P.W.7 as if he had intercourse with the deceased and that being the reason there was delay in examining P.W.7. 89. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer P.W.45 has admitted that he examined accused No.1 prior to 12-5-1999. He did not suspect accused No.1 as an accused till he recorded her statement. 89. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer P.W.45 has admitted that he examined accused No.1 prior to 12-5-1999. He did not suspect accused No.1 as an accused till he recorded her statement. He again stated that he entertained suspicion against the accused 1 to 4 as accused by 08-5-1999 and shown them as accused as per Case Diary dated 08-5-1999 as they were in charge of Mahila Police Station as on the date of the alleged incident. He further admitted that he has shown them as accused by 08-5-1999 in spite of the fact that nobody gave evidence against them. He further admitted that he did not seize any record relating to Mahila Police Station on 08-5-1999 and basing on the statements given by three Woman Police Constables, which were recorded by him on 08-5-1999, he cited the accused 1 to 4 as accused. 90. He (P.W.45) further admitted in his evidence that Mr. Jagannadham was the concerned Inspector to Mahila Police Station on the date of alleged incident. Naturally the staff of Mahila Police Station should act as per his instructions and there are no separate powers to Mahila Police Stations to register and investigate crimes. He also stated that he does not know whether any specific instructions were given to Women Police by the then Commissioner D.T.Naik that they should only enquire into the petitions. 91. He (P.W.45) further admitted that the deceased was not a habitual offender and that the arrested women will be sent to Mahila Police Station only to keep them in cell for onward transmission for judicial custody. He further admitted that as per Ex.P-20 entry i.e., the personal note book of P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, he (P.W.41) was present at the police station on 02-5-1999, 03-5-1999 and 04-5-1999. He further admitted that Crime No.126 of 1999 of Nunna Rural Police Station was not transferred to Mahila Police Station and as per his investigation, the entry regarding transfer is wrong and there should be authenticated correspondence between two agencies whenever there is any transfer of crime or an accused and he has not seen the acknowledgment made under Ex.P-1 in his service. 92. He (P.W.45) further stated that he submitted a report to the Government against P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police for making endorsement i.e. Ex.P-1 holding his responsibility for wrong entry made by P.W.14 P.V.Subrahmanyam, Station Writer of Payakapuram Police Station. 92. He (P.W.45) further stated that he submitted a report to the Government against P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police for making endorsement i.e. Ex.P-1 holding his responsibility for wrong entry made by P.W.14 P.V.Subrahmanyam, Station Writer of Payakapuram Police Station. He did not cite them as accused charging them under Section 201 of I.P.C. He denied the suggestion that instead of charging Circle Inspector of Police Jagannadham, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.14 Head Constable and officials of Nunna Police Station, for the reasons best known to him, he foisted the case against the accused 1 to 4. 93. According to him, P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas came to him on his own accord and gave statement about the incident on 10-5-1999. He cross-verified the statements made by P.Ws.18 to 20 and some other witnesses. He also stated that he did not ascertain the Traffic Police about the presence of P.Ws.18 to 20 on that day. He denied the suggestion that he has planted P.Ws.18 to 20 to attribute the case of assault. He admitted that except the evidence of P.Ws.18 to 20, there is no evidence against the accused 1 to 4 about the alleged torture made by them against the deceased. He further stated that he did not verify whether the accused 1 to 4 were on duty till they were suspended. He also examined the accused 5 to 7 prior to making them as accused in this case. He examined them and recorded their statements on 15-6-1999. But, he did not suspect the accused 5 to 7 till they were examined by him on 15-6-1999. 94. P.W.45 further admitted that he ascertained from P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable that P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police had sent the deceased and Case Diary file to Mahila Police Station for further investigation of Krishna Kumari (deceased) at Mahila Police Station at later time. He also admitted that there is no material in the office records maintained by Mahila Police Station to show that the deceased was handed over at Mahila Police Station by Payakapuram Police Station. 95. He also admitted that there is no material in the office records maintained by Mahila Police Station to show that the deceased was handed over at Mahila Police Station by Payakapuram Police Station. 95. He denied the suggestion that in order to shield the male police officials working in Payakapuram Police Station, he foisted the case against the accused 1 to 4 and that P.Ws.30 and 41, Police Constable and Sub Inspector of Police, respectively, are the real accused and he deposed falsely and therefore he recommended to take action against P.W.41. 96. P.W.45 also admitted that he came to know during investigation that Payakapuram Police demanded some illegal gratification for releasing Narayana. He also admitted that the report of accused No.5 did not reveal that they suspected the deceased for missing of the girl. He also admitted in the cross-examination that none of the records of Mahila Police Station reveal that the deceased was brought to Mahila Police Station on that night. He also did not verify the whereabouts of the missing girl Gowri till filing of the charge-sheet in this case. He did not examine Vijaya alias Mary, friend of deceased, till filing of the charge-sheet. He denied the suggestion that in order to save P.W.30 Police Constable and P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, of Payakapuram Police Station he foisted the case against the accused 5 to 7. 97. Thus, by the evidence of P.W.45 Investigating Officer it is clear that P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station sent the deceased and the Case Diary file to Mahila Police Station for further investigation. P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police has also clearly stated in his evidence that he sent the deceased to Mahila Police Station along with Case Diary through P.W.30 Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station. P.W.41 further admitted that even after the Case Diary file and the deceased were sent to Mahila Police Station, he is still investigating the case in Crime No.126 of 1999. 98. According to P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, he transferred the case to Mahila Police Station. He admitted in his evidence that he has not received any written instructions from his superior Police Officers for transfer of the case to Mahila Police Station for investigation. 98. According to P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, he transferred the case to Mahila Police Station. He admitted in his evidence that he has not received any written instructions from his superior Police Officers for transfer of the case to Mahila Police Station for investigation. Though no specific orders are received from his superior Police Officers, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police transferred the case to Mahila Police Station and obtained Ex.P-1 endorsement from accused No.2 and still continued the investigation in the crime, clearly indicates that Ex.P-1 acknowledgment is created only after the death of the deceased in the lock-up at Mahila Police Station. 99. Both P.Ws.41 and 45, Sub Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, respectively, have clearly stated that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was handed over to Mahila Police Station along with Case Diary file. Ex.P-1 is the acknowledgment given by accused No.2 on 05-5-1999. No time is mentioned in Ex.P-1. It is relevant to extract Ex.P-1 for better appreciation, which is as under: “Sir, Received C.No.126/99 u/S.Woman Missing of Nunna P.S. Sd/- P.Santhoshamma, WHC 1192, Mahila PS, VZA City, 5/5/99.” 100. P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police also clearly admitted that there is nothing to show that Mahila Police Station people have acknowledged the custody of the so-called suspect woman Krishna Kumari on 05-5-1999. P.W.45 has clearly admitted that there are no written instructions from any superior Police Officers for transfer of the case i.e., Crime No.126 of 1999 to Mahila Police Station from Payakapuram Police Station. Ex.P-20 personal notes maintained by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police clearly shows that he continued investigation in Crime No.126 of 1999 even after he handed over the Case Diary file and the deceased to Mahila Police Station. 101. This evidence of P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police clearly indicates that he has no clear instructions from his superior Police Officers addressing Mahila Police Station informing them about the transfer of the case in Crime No.126 of 1999. Admittedly, Crime No.126 of 1999 was registered on the complaint Ex.P-31 given by accused No.5 about the missing of his married daughter Gowri in the jurisdiction of Payakapuram Police Station. Unless there are any specific written instructions by any proceedings by the superior officers, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police is not expected to transfer the case from Payakapuram Police Station to Mahila Police Station. Unless there are any specific written instructions by any proceedings by the superior officers, P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police is not expected to transfer the case from Payakapuram Police Station to Mahila Police Station. The conduct of P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police for conducting investigation even after transfer of the case to Mahila Police Station clearly indicates that some foul play about the transfer of the suspect i.e., the deceased with Case Diary file. 102. As already stated that Ex.P-1 acknowledgment does not contain time of receipt of the Case Diary file. Accused No.2, Woman Head Constable, who is only in charge of Mahila Police Station in the absence of Woman Sub Inspector of Police, is not supposed to acknowledge the receipt of the Case Diary file unless she was instructed by the superior officers to receive the Case Diary file and the suspect i.e., the deceased. It appears, P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable has played a major role in obtaining Ex.P-1 acknowledgment from accused No.2. 103. Surprisingly, the Case Diary file in Crime No.126 of 1999 said to have been received by accused No.2 was not seized by P.W.45 Investigating Officer. P.W.45 Investigating Officer has also stated in his evidence that by the date of filing of the charge-sheet, he does not know whether the missing girl Gowri, daughter of accused No.5, was traced or not. P.W.45 Investigating Officer or any superior Police Officers of Vijayawada Commissionerate have not taken any interest for further investigation of the case in Crime No.126 of 1999, which was registered by Payakapuram Police Station on the complaint Ex.P-31 given by accused No.5. Furthermore, accused No.5, father of the missing girl Gowri and accused 6 and 7, relatives of accused No.5, were made as accused in this case. 104. According to P.W.45 Investigating Officer, the basis for involving the accused 1 to 4 in the crime is as per the statements of P.Ws.18 to 20, Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao and Chithachalla Babu Rao, respectively, before the Investigating Officer. Curiously P.W.45 Investigating Officer has stated that nobody informed him that P.Ws.18 to 20 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. According to him, P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas himself approached him and gave statement before the Police. Curiously P.W.45 Investigating Officer has stated that nobody informed him that P.Ws.18 to 20 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. According to him, P.W.18 Motipalli Srinivas himself approached him and gave statement before the Police. But, the witnesses P.Ws.18 to 20, who said to have been witnessed the accused 1 to 4 torturing the deceased at the instance of the accused 5 to 7, turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, they had clearly stated in their evidence that the Circle Inspector of Police and other male officials were present at Mahila Police Station and found interrogating some lady prisoner, threatening her with sticks. 105. The evidence of P.W.45 Investigating Officer is silent about the reasons for connecting the accused in the crime. He simply stated that he examined the evidence of different dates and arrested the accused on different dates and produced them before the Magistrate. P.W.45 Investigating Officer has stated that he has shown the accused 1 to 4 as accused as per Case Diary dated 08-5-1999. By then, he has not examined the alleged eyewitnesses P.Ws.18 to 20, Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao and Chithachalla Babu Rao, respectively. The statements of the alleged eyewitnesses P.Ws.18 to 20 said to have been recorded by P.W.45 Investigating Officer show that they were examined by P.W.45 Investigating Officer on 10-5-1999. By 08-5-1999 there is no evidence at all against the accused 1 to 4 or the accused 5 to 7 to connect them with the offence. 106. In the cross-examination, P.W.45 Investigating Officer has clearly admitted that he has shown the accused 1 to 4 as accused even by 08-5-1999 in spite of the fact that nobody gave evidence against them. The very fact that P.Ws.18 to 20 did not support the prosecution case clearly indicates that they have not stated anything about the presence and participation of any of the accused in the offence and they appear to be planted only to connect the accused basing on their alleged Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. 107. It is in the evidence P.W.45 Investigating Officer that the deceased was sent to Mahila Police Station by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police through P.W.30 Police Constable along with Case Diary file in Crime No.126 of 1999. 107. It is in the evidence P.W.45 Investigating Officer that the deceased was sent to Mahila Police Station by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police through P.W.30 Police Constable along with Case Diary file in Crime No.126 of 1999. Therefore, it is clear that the accused 1 to 4 are in no way responsible for wrongful confinement of the deceased in Mahila Police Station. 108. P.W.45 Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his evidence that the deceased was interrogated by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station on 03-5-1999, 04-5-1999 and 05-5-1999 and she was let off during late night, clearly shows that P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer in Crime No.126 of 1999, has interrogated the deceased in that crime. Therefore, there is no need for the Mahila Police to further interrogate the deceased on the same issue. 109. P.W.45 Investigating Officer has clearly admitted in his evidence that there are no separate powers to Mahila Police Stations to register and investigate into the crimes and that the deceased was not a habitual offender. He also admitted that women accused arrested will be sent to Mahila Police Station only to keep them in cells for onward transmission for judicial custody and there is no provision in the Police Manual that the suspected will be kept in the lock-up. 110. Thus, by the evidence of P.W.45 Investigating Officer it is clear that the accused 1 to 4, who are attached to Mahila Police Station, are not supposed to interrogate the deceased in the crime relating to Payakapuram Police Station, which was investigated into by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police with the assistance of P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable. 111. P.W.45 Investigating Officer gave another version to include the accused 1 to 4 in the crime. He stated that basing on the statements given by three Woman Police Constables recorded by him on 08-5-1999, he cited the accused 1 to 4 as accused. 112. The prosecution examined three Woman Police Constables as P.Ws.12, 13 and 32, respectively. 111. P.W.45 Investigating Officer gave another version to include the accused 1 to 4 in the crime. He stated that basing on the statements given by three Woman Police Constables recorded by him on 08-5-1999, he cited the accused 1 to 4 as accused. 112. The prosecution examined three Woman Police Constables as P.Ws.12, 13 and 32, respectively. P.W.12 M.Premalatha, Woman Police Constable attached to Mahila Police Station, has stated that on 05-5-1999 herself W.P.C.209 Vijaya Kumari were on station duty from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. At about 11 a.m., when she was cleaning the back yard of the police station, at about 11.30 a.m., or so she found some people related to one Khan, Sub Inspector of P.C.R., came to the police station regarding some dispute. One old lady and her grand-daughter from Krishnalanka also came to the police station regarding some dispute. At about 11.30 a.m., she observed the deceased was sitting on the verandah of the police station. At about 1.30 p.m., she saw the deceased sitting on the floor at the reception near the lock-up. Herself and P.W.32 K.Vijaya Kumari, Woman Police Constable were present at the police station till 2 p.m. and later they went away. On 06-5-1999 night at about 8 p.m., she attended for night duty and saw the body of the deceased in the lock-up room. 113. P.W.13 B.Lalitha Kumari, another Woman Police Constable, stated in her evidence that on 05-5-1999 she was on duty from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. One Woman Police Constable, by name Rajya Lakshmi was also posted to support her. P.W.12 M.Premalatha who was relieved from duty entrusted her to attend the duty to take care of one woman, by name Krishna Kumari, who was brought from Payakapuram Police Station. She (P.W.13) asked the woman Krishna Kumari about her lunch. When Krishna Kumari stated that she did not take lunch, she offered tiffin but she refused to take. Then she enquired about her occupation and residence and she was informed that Payakapuram Police brought her to the police station in connection with a woman victim case and she is innocent. She was also informed that Payakapuram Police were keeping her in the police station during day time and sending her away in the evening from two days. Then she enquired about her occupation and residence and she was informed that Payakapuram Police brought her to the police station in connection with a woman victim case and she is innocent. She was also informed that Payakapuram Police were keeping her in the police station during day time and sending her away in the evening from two days. She further stated that after the arrival of the Woman Head Constable Santhoshamma (accused No.2) at 5.30 p.m., she informed her that the deceased did not take meals and on that, Santhoshamma instructed her to inform Payakapuram Police about the food for Krishna Kumari. She, therefore, telephoned to Payakapuram Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police lifted the phone. She informed him about the food for Krishna Kumari. The Sub Inspector of Police told her that he would send food to her and having say so, he disconnected the phone. She further stated that at about 7.45 p.m., somebody brought meals for Krishna Kumari. She received the meals and showed the same to the Woman Sub Inspector of Police Jyothi (accused No.1), who instructed her to give the meals to Krishna Kumari. Accordingly, she gave food to her. After taking meals packet from her Krishna Kumari asked for a glass of water. She then supplied water. Meanwhile, Woman Police Constable Ragini (accused No.3) attended the duty at 8 p.m. She handed over the deceased to accused No.3 and informed her that she was brought from Payakapuram Police Station and requested her to take care of her and went to her house. On the next day morning she came to know that Krishna Kumari died in the lock-up. 114. P.W.32 K.Vijaya Kumari, another Woman Police Constable has stated that on 05-5-1999 herself and P.W.12 M.Premalatha W.P.C.749 attended station duty from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. P.Santhoshamma (accused No.2), Woman Head Constable, was in charge of Mahila Police Station by then. Between 11 a.m. to 12 noon one Police Constable brought one woman to the police station and he talked to the Woman Head Constable, accused No.2 and went away. After that, at 2 p.m., she left the police station after relieving from the duty. On the next day i.e. on 06-5-1999 she came to the police station and learnt that the woman who was brought to Mahila Police Station died. 115. After that, at 2 p.m., she left the police station after relieving from the duty. On the next day i.e. on 06-5-1999 she came to the police station and learnt that the woman who was brought to Mahila Police Station died. 115. P.Ws.12, 13 and 32 Woman Police Constables have stated in their evidence about the deceased coming to Mahila Police Station along with one Police Constable attached to Payakapuram Police Station i.e. P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao. P.Ws.12, 13 and 32 went away after relieving from the duty hours. On the next day only they came to know about the death of the deceased. They have not stated anything about the accused 1 to 4 interrogating the deceased, torturing and causing injuries to her. Their evidence clearly indicates that the deceased was allowed to sit anywhere in the police station and she was not kept in the police lock-up. It is not known as to what made the basis for P.W.45 Investigating Officer to connect the accused 1 to 4 in the crime on the basis of the above evidence of P.Ws.12, 13 and 32. 116. P.Ws.18 to 20, Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao and Chithachalla Babu Rao, respectively, who were cited by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the torture made by the accused 1 to 4 at the instance of the accused 5 to 7 and the other witnesses P.Ws.21 to 29 who heard the conversation about the incident, did not support the prosecution case and all of them turned hostile to the prosecution and there is no iota of evidence to connect any of the accused with the crime in view of the evidence of P.Ws.18 to 29. 117. P.Ws.12 and 13, Woman Police Constables have stated in their cross-examination that one Jagannadham, Circle Inspector of Police is the controlling and supervising authority of Mahila Police Station. From 1998 onwards, Mahila Police never arrested any accused and kept in the lock-up. The then Commissioner of Police D.T.Naik has withdrawn the investigation powers from Mahila Police Station, since then Mahila Police Station is not registering the cases and not investigating into any offence. The evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 is corroborated by P.W.45 Investigating Officer, who also clearly admitted that Mahila Police Station has no powers of investigation into any offence. 118. The then Commissioner of Police D.T.Naik has withdrawn the investigation powers from Mahila Police Station, since then Mahila Police Station is not registering the cases and not investigating into any offence. The evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 is corroborated by P.W.45 Investigating Officer, who also clearly admitted that Mahila Police Station has no powers of investigation into any offence. 118. Ex.P-19 post-mortem certificate and the evidence of P.W.39 the doctor clearly show that the deceased had sexual intercourse within 48 hours prior to her death. According to P.W.45 Investigating Officer, the deceased had sexual intercourse with P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar on 04-5-1999. It was suggested to P.W.45 Investigating Officer during the cross-examination that P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar was planted after receiving Ex.P-19 post-mortem certificate to save P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable and P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, of Payakapuram Police Station. Of course, P.W.45 Investigating Officer denied the same. 119. But, P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar in his evidence has stated that on 04-5-1999 he was called to the house of P.W.2 Dasi Baby Nancharamma, sister of the deceased where he was informed by P.W.2 that one Narayana was kept in the police station and the Police directed them to produce sureties for getting Narayana released from the police station. Then himself, P.W.6 Kasulu, P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah and the deceased went to the police station at about 8.45 p.m. As the Sub Inspector of Police was not available at the police station, himself and P.W.6 Kasulu went to the bus-stand. After that they went to a wine shop and they had taken liquor. Then they did not go to the police station. But the deceased came from the police station to the bus-stop at about 11-20 p.m. She enquired about P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah. Then they informed her that P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah already left for home. Then she informed them that the Police asked her to come to the police station on the next day and requested them to come to the police station along with her to sign on some papers and she also requested him to give Rs.100/- as handloan. Then he took the deceased on his scooter to his house. Kasulu also came in an auto. He gave Rs.100/-to her at his house and after taking water, they dropped the deceased at her house and went away. 120. Then he took the deceased on his scooter to his house. Kasulu also came in an auto. He gave Rs.100/-to her at his house and after taking water, they dropped the deceased at her house and went away. 120. Thus, the evidence of P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar shows that P.W.6 Kasulu and himself along with the deceased went to the police station and on her request he gave Rs.100/- to the deceased and dropped her at her house. He has not stated that he took her to his house and had sexual intercourse with her and gave Rs.100/- to her, as alleged by the prosecution. 121. Admittedly, P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar was examined by P.W.45 Investigating Officer on 29-5-1999 only after receiving the post-mortem report Ex.P-18, as suggested by the accused. P.W.7 also not supported the prosecution case about the alleged intercourse between him and the deceased prior to her death on 04-5-1999. 122. P.W.6 Ch.Kasulu stated in his evidence that on 02-5-1999 at about 6 p.m., P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable along with two others came to the house of P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah and enquired about the deceased and also whereabouts of the missing girl Gowri. On the next day i.e. on 03-5-1999 he returned to the house after attending the duty. Then, P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah requested him to come to the police station to release Narayana from the police station. On that, himself, P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar, P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah and the deceased went to the police station. As the Sub Inspector of Police was not available they have waited for him, but P.W.4 Dasi Mangaiah left the police station as he was suffering from stomach-pain. When himself and P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar were waiting outside the police station, the deceased was in the police station. After one and half hours she came out of the police station and all of them returned to their houses as the Sub Inspector of Police has not come to the police station. He has also not stated that the deceased and P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar had intercourse at the house of P.W.7 on 04-5-1999. 123. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that the deceased had intercourse with P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar on 04-5-1999, as alleged in the charge-sheet. He has also not stated that the deceased and P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar had intercourse at the house of P.W.7 on 04-5-1999. 123. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that the deceased had intercourse with P.W.7 Thota Anand Kumar on 04-5-1999, as alleged in the charge-sheet. Morevoer, the evidence of P.Ws.18 to 20, Motipalli Srinivas, Yalla Srinivasa Rao and Chithachalla Babu Rao, respectively, who were the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the torture and the assault on the deceased by the accused 1 to 4, clearly stated that the Circle Inspector of Police and another male person were present at Mahila Police Station at about 12.30 a.m., in the midnight. 124. Mahila Police Station is under the control of one Jagannadham, Circle Inspector of Police, who along with another person were found in the midnight on 05-5-1999 as per the evidence of P.W.19. P.W.45 Investigating Officer also admitted that Mahila Police Station is under the control of the Circle Inspector of Police Jagannadham. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 67 of the impugned judgment that the accused 1 to 4 are only made responsible for causing injuries to the deceased resulting in her death on the intervening night of 05/06-5-1999 in order to extricate information from the deceased, is perverse and erroneous and not based on any evidence available on record. 125. As per Ex.P-33 complaint given by accused No.1, she was informed by accused No.4 at about 5 a.m., that Krishna Kumari died by hanging from the window with a saree. Immediately she went to the police station and found in the lock-up room Krishna Kumari hanging from the ventilator of lock-up room by placing a saree to it and by tying its second end to her neck with legs touching the floor. According to Ex.P-33, when she asked for accused No.3 she was informed by accused No.4 that she was taken by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station at 5 a.m., stating that she is required for taking a girl involved in a rape case to the Government Hospital. After accused No.3 left the police station, accused No.4 saw towards the lock-up room and found the deceased hanging and that accused No.4 informed her that Krishna Kumari (deceased) might have resorted to hanging between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. 126. After accused No.3 left the police station, accused No.4 saw towards the lock-up room and found the deceased hanging and that accused No.4 informed her that Krishna Kumari (deceased) might have resorted to hanging between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. 126. Therefore, on the basis of the information given by accused No.4, accused No.1 who was admittedly was not on duty gave complaint to the Police on 06-5-1999 at 9-40 a.m., on the basis of which a case in Crime No.148 of 1999 was registered under Section 176 of Cr.P.C. This complaint Ex.P-33 that the deceased was resorted to hanging was found to be false after the investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. As per Ex.P-33, the accused 1 and 2, Woman Sub Inspector of Police and Woman Head Constable, of Mahila Police Station, respectively, also left the police station at 9 p.m. on 05-5-1999. The accused 3 and 4 attended the duty, during which time the deceased died in the lock-up. 127. There is absolutely no evidence on record that the accused 1 to 4 are responsible for wrongful confinement of the deceased and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to extricate information from her. P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, Payakapuram Police Station is only responsible for sending the deceased to Mahila Police Station. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused 1 to 4 wrongfully confined the deceased and caused grievous hurt is false and not worthy of acceptance in view of the evidence of P.Ws.12, 13 and 32, Woman Police Constables and the alleged eyewitnesses P.Ws.18 to 20. Therefore, the accused 1 to 4 are not liable for punishment under Sections 348, 331 and 302 of I.P.C. 128. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 348, 331 and 302 of I.P.C against the accused 1 to 4 and therefore, they are not liable for punishment for the said offences. 129. Ex.P-33 complaint was given by accused No.1 only basing on the information given to her by accused No.4. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence on record that the accused 1 and 2 caused disappearance of evidence of the offence and gave false information. Since the accused 1 and 2 were not present at the time of death of the deceased at Mahila Police Station, they (accused 1 and 2) are also not liable for punishment under Section 201 of I.P.C. 130. Since the accused 1 and 2 were not present at the time of death of the deceased at Mahila Police Station, they (accused 1 and 2) are also not liable for punishment under Section 201 of I.P.C. 130. Admittedly, the accused 3 and 4 were present from 9 p.m. onwards till the next day morning, during which time the deceased died in Mahila Police Station premises. But, the accused 3 and 4 simply denied the offence as alleged against them. However, the during the cross-examination of P.Ws.30, 41 and 45, Police Constable, Sub Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, respectively, it was suggested to them on behalf of the accused that P.Ws.30 and 41, Police Constable and Sub Inspector of Police, respectively, are responsible for causing the death of the deceased and tampered the Police records. The accused 3 and 4, who were admittedly present at Mahila Police Station where the body of the deceased was found in the early morning, must be knowing the cause of death of the deceased and the persons who actually involved for causing the injuries and death. But, they maintained silence throughout and only suggested during the cross-examination of P.Ws.30, 41 and 45, Police Constable, Sub Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, respectively, that P.Ws.30 and 41, Police Constable and Sub Inspector of Police, respectively, are responsible for causing the death of the deceased. 131. The conduct of the accused 3 and 4 keeping silence and not disclosing the facts about the cause of death of the deceased in Mahila Police Station clearly indicates that the accused 3 and 4 caused the disappearance of evidence and gave false information to screen the actual offenders. The accused 3 and 4 are, therefore, liable for punishment under Section 201 of I.P.C and their conviction for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the said offence is confirmed. 132. The accused 5 to 7 were charged for the offences under Section 109 read with Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C., on the ground that they abetted the accused 1 to 4 to interrogate the deceased to elicit information about the missing daughter of accused No.5 became instrumental for the death of the deceased. 133. 132. The accused 5 to 7 were charged for the offences under Section 109 read with Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C., on the ground that they abetted the accused 1 to 4 to interrogate the deceased to elicit information about the missing daughter of accused No.5 became instrumental for the death of the deceased. 133. Admittedly, on the complaint given by accused No.5, the Station House Officer, Payakapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 under the head “woman missing”. The complaint Ex.P-31 given by accused No.5 reads as follows: “To The S.I. of Police, Nunna Rural Police Station. Report got drafted and presented by Gandikota Venkateswarlu, S/o.Musalaiah, Resident of Santhinagar of Payakapuram. Sir, My second daughter is Talliboina Gowri, aged 18 years. About ten days back she left the house on some work but did not return so far. Since then we are searching for her at the places where we got relatives but she is not found. We therefore request you to cause investigation about our missing daughter and hand over her to our family. My daughter’s name is Talliboina Gowri, W/o.Venu, aged 18 years, Caste: Uppara, Santhinagar of Vijayawada; Medium complexion, height 4’ and wearing red colour upper cloth (voni), red colour blouse and blue colour (skirt). Yours faithfully, G.Venkateswarlu.” 134. Nowhere in Ex.P-31 complaint, accused No.5 suspected the deceased for missing of his married daughter Gowri. The entire investigation reveals that P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable and P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police, of Payakapuram Police Station interrogated the deceased only to ascertain the address and photo of one Vijaya alias Mary alias Padma, who was responsible for missing of the married daughter Gowri. The evidence on record clearly indicates that though the deceased time and again told the Police that she is innocent and does not know anything about the missing girl Gowri, she was subjected to interrogation several times till her death. 135. The evidence on record clearly indicates that though the deceased time and again told the Police that she is innocent and does not know anything about the missing girl Gowri, she was subjected to interrogation several times till her death. 135. P.W.45 N.R.K.Paramahamsa, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Vijayawada, who investigated into the offence, has unfortunately included the father of the missing girl and his close relatives as the accused 5 to 7 in this case on the sole ground that P.Ws.18 to 20 found the accused 5 to 7 near Mahila Police Station instigating the accused 1 to 4 to beat the deceased to extricate the truth and also promised to pay some amount to the accused 1 to 4 towards extraneous consideration and having been influenced by the accused 5 to 7, the accused 1 to 4 confined the deceased, beat her severely and caused her death. 136. P.Ws.12, 13 and 32, Woman Police Constables attached to Mahila Police Station, who were present when the deceased was brought by P.W.30 R.Sankar Rao, Police Constable of Payakapuram Police Station and handed over to accused No.2 between 11 to 12 p.m., have not stated anything about the accused 5 to 7 following the deceased to Mahila Police Station 137. The prosecution examined P.Ws.18 to 29 to prove that the accused 5 to 7 abetted the accused 1 to 4 for commission of offence. P.Ws.18 to 29 also did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, P.Ws.18 and 19 have stated that the Circle Inspector of Police and another person were present in the midnight in Mahila Police Station and shouting towards one lady present in Mahila Police Station. 138. In the evidence, P.W.45 Investigating Officer has stated that he examined the accused 5 to 7 prior to including them as accused in this case. He also issued a requisition to the Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to send the accused 5 to 7 for recording their statements. Accordingly, the accused 5 to 7 came to him, he examined them and recorded their statements on 15-6-1999. He further stated that on 12-6-1999 he had information through witnesses that the accused 5 to 7 instigated the accused 1 to 4 in torturing the victim. He again stated that he did not suspect the accused 5 to 7 when they were summoned and examined by him till 15-6-1999. 139. He further stated that on 12-6-1999 he had information through witnesses that the accused 5 to 7 instigated the accused 1 to 4 in torturing the victim. He again stated that he did not suspect the accused 5 to 7 when they were summoned and examined by him till 15-6-1999. 139. The evidence available on record shows that Mahila Police Station is abutting the II Town Police Station, Vijayawada. The prosecution did not choose to examine any Police Constables of the II Town Police Station or Mahila Police Station to prove the presence of the accused 5 to 7 near Mahila Police Station and abetting the accused 1 to 4 and watching the proceedings by standing near Mahila Police Station, as alleged by the prosecution. The witnesses P.Ws.18 to 29 examined by the prosecution to connect the accused 5 to 7 while abetting the accused 1 to 4 to commit the offences, also did not support the prosecution case. 140. Accused No.5 being the father of the missing girl Gowri, lodged a complaint Ex.P-31 with a hope that the Police will search for her missing daughter and handover to him, but, unfortunately, he was made as an accused in a grave offence like Section 302 of I.P.C., when the deceased met with lock-up death at Mahila Police Station. 141. The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of trial would be seriously undermined and the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial, criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system. 142. In this case, though accused No.5 gave Ex.P-31 complaint to the Station House Officer, Payakapuram Police Station about the missing of his married daughter, till filing of the charge-sheet in this case involving accused No.5 and his close relatives as the accused 5 to 7, the Police did not bother to investigate the case in Crime No.126 of 1999, on the basis of which the deceased was interrogated several times and she was sent to Mahila Police Station, wrongfully confined by P.W.41 Sub Inspector of Police for the purpose of interrogation. 143. 143. Though there is no evidence on record about the involvement of the accused 5 to 7, the learned Sessions Judge erroneously recorded conviction and passed sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C., knowing fully well that lock-up death took place in Mahila Police Station, where the accused 5 to 7 had no access and their presence before the death of the deceased was not spoken to by any of the prosecution witnesses. 144. Admittedly, P.Ws.18 to 20 were examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C on 10-5-1999. By then, P.W.45 Investigating Officer must be known that the accused 5 to 7 abetted the commission of offence. But, surprisingly, his evidence shows that he did not suspect the accused 5 to 7 when they were examined by him till 15-6-1999. Therefore, by this evidence, it is clear that P.Ws.18 to 20 also were planted only to implicate the accused 5 to 7 in the crime though P.W.45 Investigating Officer is conscious of the fact that they were in no way responsible for causing the death of the deceased who died in the police lock-up at Mahila Police Station. 145. In this case, almost all the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. There is absolutely no direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence to connect the accused 5 to 7 in the crime. The accused 5 and 6 are on the same footing and the evidence available against them is that of as against accused No.7. But, strangely the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.7 and convicted the accused 5 and 6 without any acceptable evidence. 146. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentences passed against the accused 5 and 6 for the offences with which they were charged, are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 147. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2007 filed by the accused 1 and 2, and Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2007 filed by the accused 5 and 6 are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentences passed against them for the offences under Sections 348, 331, 302 and 201 of I.P.C., is set aside. The accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other crime. 148. The accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other crime. 148. Criminal Appeal No.1158 of 2007 filed by accused No.3 and Criminal Appeal No.1326 of 2007 filed by accused No.4 are partly allowed. The conviction and sentences passed against them for the offences under Section 109 read with Sections 348, 331 and 302 of I.P.C., are set aside. The conviction and sentences passed against them for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., are confirmed. The accused 3 and 4 shall be released forthwith if they have already served the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C., and also not required in any other crime. 149. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused 1 to 6 shall be refunded to them.