JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant herein was tried as the sole accused in S.C.No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. She was working as a maid servant in the house of P.W.1, a retired railway driver. He was leading retired life with his wife, and his daughter at Visakhapatnam. On 18.11.2006, PW.1 is said to have gone to the Ayyappa Swamy Temple, for Pooja. At about 11.00 a.m., PW.2, his tenant and a resident near by, is said to have come to the temple, and informed him that the accused knocked the door, when he was asleep, and informed him that the wife of PW.1, by name Savitramma, was murdered by somebody. P.Ws.1 and 2 were said to have proceeded to the house, and found that the deceased was in a pool of blood, on a cot. PW.1 also said to have noticed a towel, around the neck of the deceased, and a portion of it, having been pushed into her mouth, and on removal of that, he is said to have noticed that the gold ornaments such as chain, mangalasutram were missing. The accused also is said to be present in the house, at that time. P.W.2 is said to have informed about the incident to PW.5, the Ex-ward member of Vepagunta Gram Panchayat. On receiving the telephone message from PW.5, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pendurthi-PW.10, registered a case in Crime No.394 of 2006, and proceeded to the scene of offence. He has also passed the information to PW.11-the Circle Inspector of Police, and various steps in the investigation, such as, preparation of the scene of offence, panchanama, causing inquest and postmortem, were completed. At that stage, a written complaint being Ex.P1 drafted by PW.2 and signed by PW.1, was submitted to the police. Entertaining suspicion against the accused on the ground that, though she was in the house, when PWs. 1 and 2 came to the house, she moved away when they were discussing about the submission of a complaint to the police. The investigation was carried out in that direction. The golden ornaments missing from the deceased are said to have recovered from the accused. PW.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, filed a detailed charge sheet, narrating all the events noticed by him, in the course of investigation. The investigation was carried out in that direction. The golden ornaments missing from the deceased are said to have recovered from the accused. PW.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, filed a detailed charge sheet, narrating all the events noticed by him, in the course of investigation. Based on the same, the trial court framed the charge against the accused. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined, Ex.P1 to P28 were marked. M.Os.1 to 11 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 21.10.2008, the trial Court held the accused guilty of committing the offence of murder of the deceased and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for one month. She was also held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years, and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the accused submits that there is any amount of doubt, as to how the prosecution was initiated, or the police swung into action in this case. He contends that though PW.1 stated that, himself and PW.2, went to the house of the accused, on receiving the information, he did not state, as to what was the source of information for the police, to reach there. He submits that PW.12 has stated in his evidence that, on receiving information from the accused about the death of the deceased, himself, and one S.Anjaneyulu-LW.12, proceeded to Ayyappaswamy temple, informed the same to PW.1, and all the three of them returned to the scene of occurrence, but PW.1 did not make any reference in the presence of LW.12. He further submits that failure to examine LW.12, would have its impact upon the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the plea of PW.1 that his daughter Rupa, who is living along with him, is an insane person, is belied from the fact that the said woman was not only married, but also had two children. He further submits that though the brother, sons, daughter-in-law and grand son of PW.1, were examined in the course of investigation, none of them have been cited as witnesses in the Court. He further submits that though the brother, sons, daughter-in-law and grand son of PW.1, were examined in the course of investigation, none of them have been cited as witnesses in the Court. He contends that PW.2 and PW.13 made extensive reference to the role played by PW.5-the ward member, whereas, PW.1 did not make any reference to him at all. He pleads that, if in fact, the accused committed murder, there would not have been any question of her informing the incident to PW.2, or for that matter, to remain in the house, till PW.1 came back. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the oral evidence, as well as the medical evidence adduced before the trial Court, has clinchingly proved the involvement of the accused in the incident. She contends that though the accused was present after the incident occurred, the very fact that she has moved away from the house of PW.1, and was not available for verification by the police, indicated her guilty conscious. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the police collected the broken pieces of a glass bottle, and the Forensic analysis, disclosed the existence of finger prints of the accused thereon, and it is sufficient to link the accused, with the occurrence. The back ground of the incident about the death of the wife of PW.1, and the steps that were taken thereafter, are mentioned in brief, in the preceding paragraphs. The stage at which, the police received the information, is a bit uncertain. Information about the death of the deceased was first received by PW.2. He is none other than the tenant of the accused. It is the specific case of PW.1 that, himself, his wife-the deceased, and his daughter, Rupa, are residing in the house, whereas, his two sons, who were grown up, are married, and living elsewhere. The accused is said to have been employed as a maid servant in their house, and living in the same house with them. On the date of occurrence, PW.1 is said to have gone to the Ayyappa Swamy temple at 5.00 p.m. and at 11.00 p.m., PW.2 is said to have informed him about the death of the deceased. The accused is said to have been employed as a maid servant in their house, and living in the same house with them. On the date of occurrence, PW.1 is said to have gone to the Ayyappa Swamy temple at 5.00 p.m. and at 11.00 p.m., PW.2 is said to have informed him about the death of the deceased. In his evidence, PW.2 stated that soon after receiving the information from the accused, himself and LW.12- S.Anjaneyulu, proceeded to Ayyappa Swamy temple, and from there, PW.1 and those two persons have come back to the place of the occurrence. It is only after coming back, that he is said to have passed the information to PW.5-the ward member. PW.11-the Sub Inspector of police, has stated that he received the phone call in the mid night, from PW.5, about the death of the deceased, and soon thereafter, he rushed to the scene of offence. A scrutiny of evidence also discloses that PWs. 2 and 5, were present, when the police received Ex.P1-the complaint, in the night of 19.10.2006 i.e. at 01.00 a.m. It is only thereafter the crime was registered under Sections 302 and 380 IPC, against the accused. PW.1 categorically stated that accused was very much present, when himself, and PW.2 returned. It was suggested not only to PW.1, but also to other witnesses, that the accused was very much present when the police arrived, and it is only thereafter, that she was taken to the police station. There is every possibility of the incident being witnessed by the daughter of PW.1 and the deceased, i.e., Rupa. Though PW.13 examined as many as 24 listed witnesses, that included the brother, sons, the daughter-in-law, grand children of PW.1, and other neighbours, he did not even make an attempt to examine the daughter of PW.1. Had an effort been made to examine her, things would have been different altogether. In the cross examination of PW.1, it was elicited that his daughter Rupa was married, she lived with her husband for about 10 years, and the couple had two children. Heavy duty rested upon PW.1 to state, as to when Rupa became insane, to such an extent, that she cannot act like an ordinary person. Failure to examine that woman is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Heavy duty rested upon PW.1 to state, as to when Rupa became insane, to such an extent, that she cannot act like an ordinary person. Failure to examine that woman is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. It has already been mentioned that PW.2 categorically stated that LW.12, by name, S. Ajaneyulu was with them, both when he went to Ayyappa swamy temple, and accompanied him to the scene of occurrence. However, the said Anjaneyulu was not examined. A person, who happened to notice the state of affairs at the earliest point of time, would have been of utmost importance to the prosecution. No reasons whatever were assigned for giving up such an important witness. PW.5-the ward member was said to be present at the scene of offence, and even he has figured as a witness, in the inquest. However, his presence was not spoken to by PW.1. The effect of this and the other lapses is certainly phenomenal. Learned Public Prosecutor laid much emphasis upon the finger prints, said to have been noticed upon a broken bottle. The record does not disclose that the finger prints of the accused, were taken with the permission of the Court. Ipsi dixit of the prosecution in taking the finger prints, and sending them to Forensic Laboratory, cannot be recognized in law as a step in the investigation of prosecution. We are satisfied that the circumstances that are pleaded by the prosecution, are not sufficient to prove the charge framed against the accused. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 21.10.2008, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-Accused shall be refunded to her. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.