Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1117 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Adukkalpattu Mani

2013-12-05

ANIS, K.C.BHANU

body2013
Judgment : Smt. Justice Anis, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.125 of 2005 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, whereunder and whereby the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same. 2. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the revision petitioner/de facto complainant aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: Accused No.1 is the son of Accused Nos.2 and 3. One A.Santhi (hereinafter be referred as ‘the deceased’) is the daughter of the de facto complainant J.S.Kumaraswamy Modiliar. The marriage of the deceased was performed with A.1 on 02.06.2002 as per Hindu customs in G.R.M. Kalyanamadapam, Nagari. At the time of marriage, parents of the deceased gave cash of Rs.15,000/- and three sovereigns of gold chain to A.1 and 8 ½ sovereigns of jewels to the deceased apart from the household articles. After marriage, the deceased joined A.1 and they lived together happily for about six months. Thereafter, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the deceased for additional dowry. In the meanwhile, on 07.10.2004, the deceased gave birth to twins. At that time, A.1 to A.3 demanded the parents of the deceased to pay Rs.7,000/- towards hospital expenses. But, due to poverty, the father of the deceased offered to give only Rs.4,000/-. Having not satisfied with that amount, the accused refused to receive the same. After discharge from the hospital, the deceased went to her in-laws house, but from then, A.1 to A.3 were not in good terms with the deceased. While so, on 09.11.2004 at about 12.00 midnight, A.1 informed the father of the deceased that his daughter was in serious condition. Immediately, the parents of the deceased and other relatives came down to the house of the accused and found the deceased died with burns. While so, on 09.11.2004 at about 12.00 midnight, A.1 informed the father of the deceased that his daughter was in serious condition. Immediately, the parents of the deceased and other relatives came down to the house of the accused and found the deceased died with burns. Having suspected with regard to the cause of death of the deceased, father of the deceased (PW1) gave a complaint in Puttur Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.138 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW10), Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttur (PW7) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars at the house of the accused. PW10 sent the dead body of the deceased to post-mortem examination. The Inspector of Police (PW11) took up investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, seized material objects under the cover of observation report, prepared rough sketch and photographed the scene of offence. The doctor (PW8), who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to vital organ (brain) and burns are postmortem in nature. During the course of investigation, it reveals that the accused misled the Investigating Officer stating that the deceased set fire to herself and died, further they did not speak about the injuries and in order to screen the evidence, they poured kerosene after the death of the deceased and set fire to the body as if the deceased committed suicide. Further, A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry by way of medical expenses. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed the charge sheet into the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 498-A and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 4. Further, A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry by way of medical expenses. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed the charge sheet into the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 498-A and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 4. The trial Court framed the following Charges against the accused: “Firstly, that you A1 to A3 between the year 2003 and November 2004 at Puttur being the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. A.Santhi respectively subjected her to cruelty physically and mentally of coerce her or her parents to meet out any unlawful demands of additional dowry and you thereby committed an offence punishable U/S. 498-A of the Indian Penal code and within the cognizance of Court of Session. Secondly, that you A1 to A3 on or about the 9th day of November 2004 at about 12 midnight in your house at Puttur did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the said A.Santhi when she could not meet out of unlawful demands, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and within cognizance of Court of Session. Lastly, that you A1 to A3 on or about the same day, at the same time and place during the course of the same transactions as mentioned in the aforesaid charge no.2 knowing or having reason to believe that the said offence punishable with death or life has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit set fire to the body of the deceased Santhi by pouring kerosene to mislead the investigation that the deceased Santhi set fire herself and died, with the intention and screening the said offence from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.201 of Indian Penal Code and within cognizance of the Court of Session. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 besides case properties MOs 1 to 6. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. 5. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 besides case properties MOs 1 to 6. 6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. But, A.1 stated that before their marriage itself, his deceased wife was suffering with fits, for which she was taking medicines; that even before her delivery also, she suffered with fits and thereby she was not in a position to give her breast feeding to the twins; that at the time of her discharge from the hospital, the doctor (PW-4) prescribed medicines for fits for a period of three months and advised them that his deceased wife should not give breast feeding to the twins; that even after her discharge from the hospital also, she was suffering with fits like anything and he used to console her; that on the date of the incident also, she ate bread offered by him and asked him to go to bed; that at about 11.30 or 12.00 midnight he heard her cries from inside their weavers room; that he accompanied by his father, rushed towards the said room side and noticed the door bolted from inside; that on their raising cries, the neighbours also came to the spot and tried to open the door and at last on its opening, they noticed his deceased wife lying with burn injuries; that immediately they brought her out and kept her in the main hall of their house and telephoned to her parents; that some time thereafter she died in the main hall itself, as such, they are not responsible for the cause of her death. A.2 and A.3 also stated that they too want to say the same thing as stated by A.1 and that they are not responsible for the cause of death of their deceased daughter-in-law. When the accused called upon to enter into defence, they first stated that they are having defence, but ultimately reported no defence. 7. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the respective charges framed against them. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Case are preferred by the State and de facto complainant (PW1) respectively. 8. 7. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the respective charges framed against them. Aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Case are preferred by the State and de facto complainant (PW1) respectively. 8. Now, the points that arise for determination are – 1) Whether the death of the deceased is a suicidal or homicidal in nature? 2) Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 I.P.C and 3) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper or not? 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who have clearly stated that A.1 to A.3 harassed the deceased for getting additional dowry; that the trial Court also ought to have observed that the post-mortem report of the deceased clearly shows that the backside of the body of the deceased did not burn, which clearly indicates that A.1 to A.3 murdered the deceased; that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record though there is an ample evidence about the involvement of the accused; that the trial Court also not considered the evidence in a true perspective way and acquitted the accused and finally argued that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the accused for the offences charged and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned judgment and convict the accused. 10. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Case contended that the deceased died within a short span of two years from the date of her marriage in a highly suspicious circumstances in the house of her in-laws and there is a clinching evidence regarding harassment of the dowry, hence a charge under Section 304-B I.P.C. ought to have been framed and presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should have been drawn, but the trial Court has not considered these aspects in correct manner; that the Sessions Court ought to have appreciated the medical evidence of PW8 by taking into consideration the other documentary evidence on record; that the injuries on the deceased are ante-mortem in nature, whereas the burn injuries are post-mortem in nature, which itself is sufficient that the death of the deceased is not a suicide, but it is a homicide and A.1 to A.3 are responsible for causing the death of the deceased; that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and finally prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused as per law. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused in both the cases argued that A.1 to A.3 are innocents and they have not committed any offence; that at no point of time, they have harassed the deceased for the sake of any additional dowry till her death; that they are maintaining cordial relationship with the family of the deceased and they never demanded Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses from PW1 and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to that effect is false and created for the purpose of this case. It is further argued that the evidence of doctor (PW8), who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, is not a conclusive piece of evidence in view of the admission made by him in his cross-examination; that PWs 1 to 3 and 5 are the interested witnesses and that there are much inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence and their evidence is full of improvements. It is further argued that the deceased was taking treatment from PW4, who prescribed medicines for fits and the deceased was taking ‘Eptoin’ by way of injunction and tablets and compose injunctions and the doctor also advised the deceased not to feed the babies with her milk and the deceased due to depression might have been committed suicide and they are no way connected with the offence attributed by the prosecution. He finally argued that the judgment of the trial Court is not suffered from any infirmity and the trial Court has passed the judgment in accordance with the evidence on record, and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss both the appeal and the revision. 12. Point No.1: Now, it has to be seen whether the death of deceased Santhi is a suicidal or homicidal one as per the evidence produced by the prosecution. 13. PW7 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. She conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 10.11.2004 at the house of the accused bearing Door No.6-56 in the presence of panchayatdars under Ex.P.2. While conducting inquest, blood-relatives of the deceased were also present. The inquest panchayatdars opined that due to harassment meted out in the hands of her husband and in-laws, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and lit fire to herself. In the process of conducting inquest, PW7 seized MOs 1 to 4 i.e. pair of ear studs (rolled gold), pair of rolled gold matties, gold nose stud and two pairs of silver toe rings. PW7 also stated that she recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased and also the neighbours under Exs.P.4 and P.5 respectively. In the cross-examination, she clearly stated that while conducting inquest, photographs were taken and she handed over those photographs to the Investigating Officer. 14. From a perusal of Ex.P.2 Inquest report, it is clear that the inquest panchayatdars opined that – (1) due to harassment of husband of deceased and her in-laws, deceased vexed with life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene (burnt), or (2) the husband and in-laws together might have caused that wound or (3) for any other reason, the deceased might have died. 15. PW8 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased in between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 10.11.2004. 15. PW8 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased in between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 10.11.2004. He found the following injuries: 1) A contusion of 3 X 4 cm. back of the head in occipital region. 2) A contusion present on left side mastoid region – 3 X 2 cm. 3) Bleeding from nose. 4) Bunt injuries on lower half of face, neck, chest, abdomen, both upper and lower limbs, hands and feet (60-70%). No burnt are present on back of the chest, lumber region and buttocks. Internal examination: Head and Neck: Vault normal, meanings covered with blood, brain congested, no oedema or any other signs of inflammation present in larynx and trachea and no soot present in the larynx and trachea. Chest: Ribs both sides normal, lungs normal and heart normal and all chambers contain blood. Abdomen: Stomach normal, contain 100% undigested food material present, liver normal, kidney normal, spleen normal, small intestine normal and in bladder 150 ml. of urine present. Spine & Spinal cord: Normal. PW8 gave opinion that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury to vital organs (brain) and burns are post-mortem in nature and the death might have been occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. Ex.P.6 is the post-mortem certificate. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused argued that the deceased died by pouring kerosene on her body and the death is suicidal in nature, but not homicidal. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed and contended that the post-mortem report clearly establishes that the death is a homicidal one, because the doctor has clearly gave opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased on vital organ are ante-mortem in nature, whereas the burns are post-mortem in nature and therefore, the death of the deceased is not suicidal, but it is a homicidal in nature. 17. Now, it has to be seen the evidence of PW-8 who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that haemorrhage means loss of blood due to any bleeding injury. 17. Now, it has to be seen the evidence of PW-8 who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that haemorrhage means loss of blood due to any bleeding injury. As per the post-mortem certificate, the deceased sustained four external injuries over her body, out of them, two injuries are crucial in nature, one is on the head in occipital region and another is on the left side of mastoid region (behind the ear) and the doctor also found the bleeding from nose. In that regard, the doctor has answered that there is no injury found over the nose of the deceased, but the blood was coming from the nose due to some internal injury. PW8 also specifically stated that blood will not come from the nose in case of burn injuries of present nature. 18. Dr. K.S.Narayan Reddy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, in his well-known treatise “The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology”, Sixth Edition at Pages 237-238 given descriptions of internal as well as external symptoms of burn injuries, wherein he observed: “The brain is usually shrunken, firm and yellow to light brown due to cooking. The dura matter is leathery (dura matter is meninges of the brain). If the death has occurred from suffocation, aspirated blackish coal particles are seen in the nose, mouth and whole of the respiratory track. Their presence is proof that the victim was alive when the fire occurred. The pleurae are congested or inflamed. The lungs are usually congested, may be shrunken and rarely anaemic… Visceral congestion is marked in many cases… The heart is usually filled with clotted ook. The adrenals (glands above kidneys) may be enlarged and congested.” He further observed that some of the symptoms of internal and external injuries are common in case of strangulation and burn, like face is swollen and distorted, the tongue protruded, the lungs are usually congested and visceral congestion is marked in many cases. 19. From the above, it is clear that if it was a case of merely burns, the blood of the heart would have got clotted. But, in this case, all chambers of heart contain blood, but not clotted. Even the post-mortem report does not say that the death was occurred due to burns. Further, usually, in burn cases, the brain is shrunken and firm. But, in this case, all chambers of heart contain blood, but not clotted. Even the post-mortem report does not say that the death was occurred due to burns. Further, usually, in burn cases, the brain is shrunken and firm. In this case also, PW8 found on internal examination that brain congested. Moreover, not uncommonly the victim who inhales smoke also vomits and in heals some vomit, presumably due to bouts of coughing, and plugs of regurgitated stomach contents mixed with soot may be found in the smaller bronchi, in the depths of the lungs. In layman language, in cases of death resulting from burns, soot particles are found in the wind pipe because they go in with the breathing. 20. The learned defence counsel mainly contended that the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination is not a specialist in forensic medicine and he cannot give any opinion about the cause of the death of the deceased and further argued that the opinion given in this case regarding the cause of death is also not correct as the doctor is unable to give whether the injuries are ante-mortem or post-mortem. But, if the cross-examination of the doctor is perused, it is clear that though he was confused at initial questions, in clear terms he stated that the death of the deceased occurred due to injuries of ante-mortem in nature but not post-mortem. Further, the doctor is not responsible for not taking opinion of forensic expert, but the Investigating Officer is responsible for such lapses. It is also immaterial about the questionnaire subsequently obtained from the doctor under Ex.P.10. 21. Further, on the date of incident, the accused and the deceased were in the house along with A.2 and A.3, but A.1 and the deceased were sleeping in one room. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.1 has categorically stated that on the date of incident, he gave bread to his wife and she in turn asked him to go to sleep. Thus, it is the duty of A.1 to explain how his wife sustained injuries 1 and 2 when she poured kerosene and set fire to herself in case she committed suicide. There is no plausible explanation coming from A.1. In this case, the opinion of the doctor is clear that the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature and burns are post-mortem in nature. There is no plausible explanation coming from A.1. In this case, the opinion of the doctor is clear that the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature and burns are post-mortem in nature. Further, the characteristic attitude of the body known as pugilistic attitude was not present. In deaths due to burns, that sort of attitude is found. So, it is confirmed that the body was burnt after death had occurred. Therefore, the death of the deceased is homicidal, but not suicidal in nature. 22. Points 2 and 3: Before dwelling into the points which have bearing on one another, it is better to discuss the evidence on record for better appreciation. PW1 is the father of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that he performed the marriage of his daughter Santhi with A.1 on 02.06.2002 at Nagari and at the time of marriage, he paid Rs.15,000/- as cash and some gold jewellery besides household articles. After marriage, his daughter joined A.1 at Puttur and they lived happily for about six months. Thereafter, A.1 started demanding his daughter to get more dowry. In the month of January, 2004, he took his daughter to hospital at Pallipattu and got tested her about pregnancy. In the month of July, 2004, he left his daughter in her in-laws’ house, till such time she was with him only. On 07.10.2004, his daughter gave birth to twins in the hospital of doctor Varma at Puttur. At that time, he offered Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses, but his son-in-law refused to receive the said amount and demanded Rs.7,000/-. His son-in-law paid the medical expenses and took his daughter and children to his house. On 09.11.2004 at about midnight, A.1 telephoned him and informed that his daughter poured kerosene over her body and set fire to herself and she was in serious condition. Then, himself and his family members rushed to the house of the accused and noticed the dead body of his daughter kept in the main hall of the house. Then, he went to Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P.1. The evidence of PW2 is similar to the evidence of PW-1. 23. PW-3 is the relative of PW1. He stated in his evidence about presenting the gold ornaments and cash by PW1 at the time of the marriage of the deceased with A.1. Then, he went to Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P.1. The evidence of PW2 is similar to the evidence of PW-1. 23. PW-3 is the relative of PW1. He stated in his evidence about presenting the gold ornaments and cash by PW1 at the time of the marriage of the deceased with A.1. He further stated that the deceased and A.1 lived happily for about six months, thereafter he came to know that A.1 to A.3 were harassing the deceased and demanding some more amount from the parents of the deceased. He also stated that he went to the hospital when the deceased gave birth to twins, at that time A.1 demanded PW1 to pay Rs.7,000/- towards hospital charges. On the midnight of 09.11.2004, he came to know the death of the deceased, then he went to the house of the accused and thereafter, he went to give report to the police. 24. PW4 is the Private Medical Practitioner, in whose hospital the deceased gave birth to twins on 07.10.2004. She stated in her evidence that the deceased was in their hospital about three days and A.1 paid the entire hospital charges. In the cross-examination, she stated that she prescribed ‘Eptoin” by way of injunction and tablets and they have given compose injunction also. She stated that those injunctions will be used for the persons suffering with fits. 25. PW5 is a distant relative of PW1 and the accused. He stated in his evidence that the deceased was given in marriage to A.1. After hearing the death of the deceased, he went to the house of the accused on the next day. At the request of PW1, he scribed the complaint, then himself and PW1 went to the Police Station and presented a complaint Ex.P.1. 26. PW6 is the resident of Puttur and weaver by profession. He stated in his evidence that he attested the inquest report on 10.11.2004. He acted as a mediator for the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased at the house of the accused and the mediators came to a conclusion that the deceased died by committing suicide by pouring kerosene over her body and lit fire to herself. Ex.P.2 is the inquest report. He acted as a mediator for the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased at the house of the accused and the mediators came to a conclusion that the deceased died by committing suicide by pouring kerosene over her body and lit fire to herself. Ex.P.2 is the inquest report. He also acted as a mediator for observation of scene of offence situated at the house of the accused and the seizure of one burnt match box and one plastic kerosene tin from the spot by the Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P.3. MOs 5 and 6 are the match box and kerosene tin. 27. PW9 is the Police Constable. He stated in his evidence that on 10.11.2004, PW7 handed over the dead body of the deceased and in turn, he handed over the same to the Government Hospital, Puttur for conducting autopsy. After completion of post-mortem examination, he delivered the dead body of the deceased to A.1 to A.3. 28. PW10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed that on receipt of the complaint from PW1 under Ex.P.1, he registered the same as a case in Crime No.138 of 2004 under Section 304-B I.P.C. and issued First Information Report under Ex.P.7. He handed over the case file to the Inspector of Police for further investigation. 29. PW11 is the Inspector of Police. He deposed that he recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence, seized MOs 5 and 6 from the scene of offence in the presence of PW6 under the cover of panchanama Ex.P.3, recorded the statements of other witnesses, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P.8 and got photographed the scene of offence under Ex.P.9 and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet into the Court. 30. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mannu Sao Vs. State of Bihar (2011)1 SCC (Cri) 370), held as under: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case, which rests on circumstantial evidence, against an accused can be said to be fully established: “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; 2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty; 3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. they should exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved; and 5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The above five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 32. In this case, there is no dispute that PW1 and one Smt. J.K.Devayani (List Witness No.2) performed the marriage of the deceased with A.1 on 02.06.2002 at Nagari. As per the customs prevailed in their Mudalior community, there is no giving and taking of dowry. Till the death of the deceased, the family of the complainant used to visit the house of the deceased and likewise the accused used to visit the family of the complainant. At no point of time, the complainant lodged any complaint regarding the demand of dowry by the accused either with the elders or with the police. It is also an admitted fact that on 07.10.2004, the deceased gave birth to twins in the hospital of PW4 and they are premature babies. In the hospital, A.1 paid the entire medical expenses of Rs.7,000/- and got discharged the deceased and took her to his house. It is also an admitted fact that on 07.10.2004, the deceased gave birth to twins in the hospital of PW4 and they are premature babies. In the hospital, A.1 paid the entire medical expenses of Rs.7,000/- and got discharged the deceased and took her to his house. The complainant and his son (PW-2) stayed for one day in the hospital and went to their village. From the above evidence, it is clear that till the death of the deceased, there were no disputes between the family of the complainant and the deceased regarding the demand of dowry or regarding the harassment of the accused to the deceased. Hence, the acquittal order passed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. needs no interference. 33. The main contention of the accused is that the deceased was suffering with fits even prior to her marriage and also after marriage and she was taken treatment for the fits. PW4 is the doctor, in whose hospital the deceased gave birth to twins on 07.10.2004, stated that the deceased remained in her hospital for three days and gave birth to twins and the accused paid the entire hospital charges. She further stated that the babies are premature and because the babies were kept in incubators, she gave advise to come for medical check up after one week and she gave necessary medicines. In the cross-examination, PW4 deposed that She prescribed ‘Eptoin” by way of injunction and tablets and also compose injunction. But , PW4 in the very cross-examination categorically admitted that compose and eptoin will be used for the persons suffering with fits, but she stated that she has no knowledge about A.1 in getting her staff nurses to his house and got administered the injections of compose and Eptoin to the deceased Santhi. In the cross-examination, PW4 also stated that she does not remember the advice which was given to Santhi with regard to the feeding to be given to the twins. This piece of evidence goes against the theory of accused that the deceased had taken treatment for fits. Further, though the doctor has given evidence that she prescribed “Eptoin” injunction and tablets to the deceased, that does not mean that the deceased was suffering with fits. Further, some patients during pregnancy will develop fits and after delivery, it will be cured. 34. Further, though the doctor has given evidence that she prescribed “Eptoin” injunction and tablets to the deceased, that does not mean that the deceased was suffering with fits. Further, some patients during pregnancy will develop fits and after delivery, it will be cured. 34. The another contention of the accused is that the deceased was in depression because the doctor has given advice not to give breast feeding to the twins, that is the reason why the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on 09.11.2004. But, PW4 nowhere stated about the said advice allegedly given to Santhi. Now, we have to see whether the contention of the accused is to be believed or not. In the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.1 has stated the above facts, but he has not produced a single piece of evidence by way of documents. If really, the deceased was suffering with fits, there could have been documentary evidence from the beginning. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, it was not elicited that the deceased was suffering with fits even before the marriage. Though PWs 1 and 2 denied this fact, the burden lies on the accused that after the marriage also, she suffered with fits, for which the accused has not produced any evidence. Even PW4 also has not produced any medical record to show that the deceased had suffered with fits and she used to treat her for the said disease. Therefore, the contention of A.1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was suffering with fits cannot be considered and further the advice of the doctor not to give breast feeding also cannot be believed. 35. It is settled law that the cases of circumstantial evidence have to be dealt with greater care and by microscopic examination of the documentary and oral evidence on record. It is then alone that the Court will be in a position to arrive at a conclusion upon proper analysis of the evidence in relation to the ingredients of an offence. In the case of circumstantial evidence, particularly, besides the entire case of the prosecution, even the statement of the accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be of substantial help. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Mohan Singh Vs. In the case of circumstantial evidence, particularly, besides the entire case of the prosecution, even the statement of the accused made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be of substantial help. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and another ( AIR 2002 S.C. 3582 ), held as under: “The statement of accused under S. 313 of Cr. P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant (supra) by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under S. 313 of Cr. P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.” 36. In this case, in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.1 has given lengthy statement about the disease of fits to the deceased, but he has not produced such medical record of the deceased to prove that she was suffering with such disease. The other contention of A.1 is that the doctor advised the deceased not to give breast feeding to the twins. For this aspect also, the accused stated in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that because of that advise, the deceased Shanti must have committed suicide. But, on perusal of the cross-examination of PW-4, she clearly stated that she does not remember the advice that she has given to Santhi with regard to the feeding to be given to the twins. The medical science never prohibits a woman from giving breast feeding to the children unless it is prohibited by the doctor. In this case, there is no documentary evidence produced by the accused that Santhi was given medicines which harms the twins if she gives her milk. The medical science never prohibits a woman from giving breast feeding to the children unless it is prohibited by the doctor. In this case, there is no documentary evidence produced by the accused that Santhi was given medicines which harms the twins if she gives her milk. In the absence of such evidence, the contention of the accused that deceased has worried that she was not in a position to give breast feeding to her children and thereby committed suicide, cannot be believed and it is a story created by the accused for the purpose of this case. 37. Admittedly, after delivery of twins (one male and one female), the accused performed the naming ceremony by calling PWs 1 and 2 and the mother of the deceased (List Witness No.2) to their house and there was a function in his house, which shows that there were cordial terms in between both the families and there were no quarrels in between both the families. Thus, it is evident that everything was going on well between both the families upto the date of offence. But, all of a sudden, on 09.11.2004, A.1 gave a call to PW1 that the condition of the deceased was serious and after hearing the said news, PWs 1 and 2 and the mother of the deceased (List Witness No.2) came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the main hall of the house of the accused. 38. There is no dispute that on 09.11.2004, the accused and the deceased after taking dinner slept in their respective rooms and at 12 O’ clock midnight, PW6, the neighbour, heard the cries from the house of the accused and immediately he came to the house of the accused and found flames coming from the weaving room and also found that the said room was bolted from inside, A.1 to A.3 were pushing the door and as the door was not opening, A.1 went over the roof of the building and from the other side, he got down and entered into the room by opening the door of the other room. After opening the room, they noticed deceased was burning and fell down. Thereafter, they brought the body into the main hall. 39. After opening the room, they noticed deceased was burning and fell down. Thereafter, they brought the body into the main hall. 39. PW6 was present and witnessed all the things happened on 09.11.2004 along with another person by name D.S.Ganesh, but the prosecution has not examined the said witness. Actually, PW6 is the inquest panchayatdar, who in his examination-in-chief only stated about the conducting of inquest and his presence at the time of inquest and seizure of MOs 5 and 6 i.e. match box and kerosene tin, but strangely in the cross-examination, the learned defence counsel before the trial court elicited all these facts which are favourable for them. The only point the defence wants is that A.1 to A.3 pushed the door and tried to open the door from outside as the deceased bolted the door from inside, to show that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set fire to herself. The trial court observed that at the advise of PW6, A.1 entered into the room by getting down from the top and opened the door and found the deceased crying and when he caught hold of her, she fell down, thereupon they brought her into the hall of the house where she died. This observation of the trial Court is not correct and further, nobody heard the cries of the deceased on that day and there is no evidence on that aspect. Here, what is to be noticed is that there are hardly any cries by the deceased. This is not possible even in a case of suicide. Even if the burns are inflicted with suicidal intent, the victim is bound to cry out of pain. Admittedly, there was no cries and, therefore, it was not a case of suicidal burns but the deceased was put in a condition where she could not cry and yet get burnt. 40. Further, A.1 to A.3 and PW6 were not tried to break open the door after hearing the alleged cries of the deceased. Admittedly, there was no cries and, therefore, it was not a case of suicidal burns but the deceased was put in a condition where she could not cry and yet get burnt. 40. Further, A.1 to A.3 and PW6 were not tried to break open the door after hearing the alleged cries of the deceased. Moreover, PW6 has not given any advise to A.1 to go and open the door which is situated on the other side, but A.1 on his own accord went on the roof and opened the door which is situated on the other side and brought the deceased into the main hall of the house, which shows that A.1 alone has knowledge that there is another door opened in the room where power looms are situated and where the deceased was in flames. The Investigating Officer in this case has not prepared the sketch of the scene of offence for the reasons best known to him. In his evidence, he categorically admitted that he prepared the sketch of Eswar temple street but not the scene of offence. On the other hand, PW6 categorically stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and the same was not filed in this case for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer (PW11). Admittedly, the scene of offence is situated in the room where the power looms were situated and if the photographs filed by the prosecution is perused, the power looms were also burnt. The Mandal Revenue Officer in her evidence clearly stated that she handed over the photographs taken immediately after the inquest, but the Investigating Officer has not filed the same into the Court, but subsequent photographs were filed and no explanation was given by PW11 in this regard. 41. Lastly, the evidence produced by the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of deceased is a homicidal and A.1 committed the offence. Though there is no dispute about A.1 and the deceased were residing with A.2 and A.3 in the house, on the date of incident, A.2 and A.3 must have slept in another room, whereas A.1 and the deceased were sleeping along with their children. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.1 stated that on the date of incident the deceased ate bread offered by him and asked him to sleep. In the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A.1 stated that on the date of incident the deceased ate bread offered by him and asked him to sleep. This piece of evidence shows that A.1 and the deceased were in the company on that day, hence A.1 has to explain how his wife died and received injuries 1 and 2. Hence this is one of the strong links in the chain connecting A.1 with the crime. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this fact in a case of Ravirala Laxmaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283 ), wherein it is held as under: “In view of the above discussion, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the appellant had been doubting the character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any explanation as to under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the saree of the deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by a knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact situation, part of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false information to his in-laws and while the dead body was lying in his house he stayed in Krishna Guest House, further that he had absconded from the site itself, suggest that he is guilty of the offence.” 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 10 SCC 373 ), observed as under: “A fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as to the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as to the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilized. Section 106 however is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, has offered an explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference.” The above observation is attracted to this case. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions cautioned that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. 43. Further, this is a case relying on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eyewitnesses of the crime. It is true that motive is important in cases of circumstantial evidence, but that does not mean that all cases of circumstantial evidence if the prosecution has been unable to satisfactorily prove a motive, its case must fail. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. As is often said, men may lie but circumstances do not. 44. Further, if really, deceased set fire to herself, she will not receive injuries 1 and 2 over her body and the medical evidence support that she has not committed suicide and the burn injuries are post-mortem in nature. Therefore, all the circumstances are showing that A.1 is the culprit and has committed the offence by attacking the deceased on that day and after attack, he set fire her, due to which she has not received any burn injuries on the back side of the body. Therefore, all the circumstances are showing that A.1 is the culprit and has committed the offence by attacking the deceased on that day and after attack, he set fire her, due to which she has not received any burn injuries on the back side of the body. Further, A.1 sprinkled the kerosene on the entire room and also on the power looms and set fire the body of the deceased, some of the walls and papers and side walls of the room were burnt and as per the evidence of PW6, the kerosene smell is emanating from the room. If really, the deceased wants to commit suicide, she should have poured kerosene on her body only and set fire and there is no need for her to sprinkle kerosene on the entire room and also on the power looms and set fire. Therefore, the prosecution proved that A.1 was with the deceased on the date of incident and with the knowledge and intention, he attacked the deceased and killed her and thereafter he set fire the dead body to screen the evidence of murder. Thus, the prosecution able to prove the guilt of A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. 45. In the result, the acquittal order passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati in the judgment, dated 26.09.2008 in Sessions Case No.125 of 2005 in favour of A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. is set aside. The respondent/A.1 is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly he is convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. So far, acquittal order passed by the trial Court with regard to A.2 and A.3 is hereby confirmed. 46. So far, acquittal order passed by the trial Court with regard to A.2 and A.3 is hereby confirmed. 46. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Case are partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.