JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard through Video Conference (Blue Jeans App). 2. The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. assailing the sentence and conviction imposed against the accused in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati wherein she was tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). Vide judgment, dated 11.07.2016, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 11.03.2012, at 11:30 A.M. at Manchineellakunta, Srikalahasti, the accused is said to have caused the death of one G. Venkatarathnam (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”). 4. The facts in issue are as under:- PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. PW-4 is the wife of the deceased while PW-5 is the son of the deceased. PWs. 2 and 3 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. The incident in question is said to have taken place on 11.3.2012 between 11:30 A.M. and 12:00 noon. It is said that as the accused had illicit intimacy with other male person, she decided to get rid of the deceased and accordingly, on the date of incident, she is said to have administered three amples of injection for sedation, as the deceased was objecting to her activities, and thereafter, she is said to have poured kerosene over his body while he was asleep. As a result of the same, the thatched house was also set on fire. It is said that PWs. 2 and 3 witnessed the incident. On the basis of the information furnished by his wife, PW-1 went to Sri Kalahasthi where the dead body of his brother was lying and found him dead. He enquired with the neighbours, who informed him that the accused poured kerosene over the body and set the deceased on fire. Thereafter, he went to Sri Kalahasthi Police Station and lodged a report with PW-12 Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No. 23 of 2012 came to be registered. Thereafter, he went to Sri Kalahasthi Police Station and lodged a report with PW-12 Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town Police Station. Ex.P-1 is the report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No. 23 of 2012 came to be registered. Ex.P-14 is the Express F.I.R. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence and posted two police constables to protect the crime scene until his arrival. At about 2:35 P.M., he took PW-9 Village Revenue Officer, one T. Yellaiah and D. Muni Venkataiah (LWs. 10 and 11) to the scene of offence and got the dead-body and scene of offence photographed and examined the scene of offence. He prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P-15 is the bunch of photos (four in number), while Ex.P-16 is the rough sketch of the scene. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW-9 and LWs. 10 and 11 from 3:00 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. During inquest, he seized one empty five liter kerosene tin and match box at the scene of offence. M.O.1 is the empty five liters kerosene tin. M.O.2 is the used match box. During inquest, he examined PWs. 1 to 6 and recorded their statements. The inquest panchayatdars unanimously opined that on 11.3.2012, at about 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon, while the deceased was in an inebriate condition, the accused poured kerosene and lit fire due to which the deceased succumbed to his burns. Thereafter, the body was handed over to the police Constable for taking the same to the post mortem examination. PW-11 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Srikalahasti conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 12.3.2012 at 9:45 A.M. He found partial full thickness ante mortem burns all over the body with patchy involvement over groin, waist, both feet and scalp. Ex.P-12 is the Post Mortem Report. According to him, the approximate time of death was within twenty four hours from the time of post mortem examination. Ex.P-13 is the Final Opinion for the cause of death. Ex.P-12 is the Post Mortem Report. According to him, the approximate time of death was within twenty four hours from the time of post mortem examination. Ex.P-13 is the Final Opinion for the cause of death. On 12.3.2012, while PW-12 was in police station, he received credible information about the accused in this case and accordingly, along with his staff, rushed to Ramachandrapuram Village and in the presence of PW-10 and one P. Siddaiah (LW-13), arrested the accused after identifying her as “Sujatha” the accused in this case and later, recorded her confession pursuant to which, they discovered three Fortwin amples and two used 5 M.L. syringes kept in a black polythin cover in the bushes. Ex.P-10 is the seizure mahazarnama. M.O.3 is the three used Fortwin amples while M.O.4 is the two used syringes. He arrested the accused and produced her before the Magistrate for remand. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 22 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to her. As the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 6. Basing on the material available on record, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 6. Out of the twelve witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which she denied. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which she denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 8. Basing on the evidence of PWs. 1, 4, 5 and 6, the trial Court, while holding that the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 corroborates the evidence of other witnesses, convicted the accused and sentenced her, as stated earlier. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the accused. 9. Sri. D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, would contend that there is absolutely no legal evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to him, PWs. 2 and 3, who were examined as eye witnesses to the incident, did not support the prosecution case. He would further submit that a reading of the evidence of PW-2 would show that her presence in the house on the date of incident is doubtful. Apart from that, he further pleads that the evidence of PW-5, who is the son of the deceased, also cannot be believed as his version is improved from stage to stage. To establish the same, he took us through the cross examination of the Investigating Officer to show that the evidence of PW-5 cannot be relied upon. Coming to the evidence of PWs. 6 and 7, he would submit that their evidence is also hearsay and their evidence cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that though PWs. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case, there is enough evidence available on record to establish the guilt of the accused. 11. In order to appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence available on record. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the incident. He was informed about the incident by his wife and thereafter, he went to Srikalahasti and noticed the dead body of the deceased and later, lodged a report. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the incident. He was informed about the incident by his wife and thereafter, he went to Srikalahasti and noticed the dead body of the deceased and later, lodged a report. Firstly, as stated by us earlier, he is not an eye witness to the incident and secondly, his wife, who is said to have furnished information to him, was not examined. Therefore, his evidence is of no help to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. His evidence is only to the effect that the accused had illicit intimacy with other male person and to get rid of his brother, she committed the offence. But his evidence do not reveal the name of the person with whom the accused had illicit intimacy. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that PW-1 did not state either in his statement under Ex.P-1 or in his statement recorded by the police about the names of the persons whom he enquired about the incident. He further states that he never stated the names of PWs. 2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the incident. He did not state either in his statement under Ex.P-1 or his statement recorded by the police as if his wife informed him about the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 is of no help to the prosecution since at the earliest point of time, he never referred to PWs. 2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the incident. 12. Coming to the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, both of them did not support the prosecution case. According to PW-2, on the date of incident, she heard cries of neighbours, came out of the house and observed flames coming out from the side of the house of the accused. She questioned the accused from her house as to why the flames are coming out, for which the accused asked her to go away. According to her, only one house intervenes her house from the house of the accused. She further deposed that she does not know the reason as to why the flames came out. Thereafter, she heard from the neighbours that one male person died. It is said that she does not know the cause of death of that male person. According to her, only one house intervenes her house from the house of the accused. She further deposed that she does not know the reason as to why the flames came out. Thereafter, she heard from the neighbours that one male person died. It is said that she does not know the cause of death of that male person. At that stage, the learned Public Prosecutor treated the witness as hostile. In the cross examination by the accused, it has been elicited that she used to go to work at 7:00 A.M. and return by 7:30 P.M. to her house. Therefore, her presence in the house on that day appears to be doubtful having regard to the said admission. Even otherwise her evidence in chief does not show that it was the accused, who set the deceased to flames. On the other hand, it was a thatched shed which got fire. 13. Coming to the evidence of PW-3, who was also examined as eye witness to the incident, she, in her evidence, deposed that she is a tenant in the house of PW-2 and used to pay Rs. 300/- per month as rent. According to her, the deceased died four years prior to the date of giving evidence and she was not available in the house at the time of his death. According to her, PW-2 informed her that the accused poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and lit fire. Though PW-3 was examined as eye witness, she went back and said that she was not present in the house on that day and the information about the incident was given to her by PW-2 but PW-2, as stated by us earlier, does not speak about the incident. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses, in our view, does not establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses, in our view, does not establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime. In fact, in the cross examination of PW-3 by the accused, it has been elicited that she did not state before the police that on 11.3.2012, at 11:00 A.M., she went outside of her house and returned at 1:00 P.M. and that the accused poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and lit fire to his body and by that time, PW-2 went there and tried to pour water on his body to stop the flames but the accused did not allow her to do so. Therefore, the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, who are eye witness, in our view, does not inspire confidence, as their evidence does not establish that both of them have seen the incident. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW-4, she is the wife of the deceased. According to her, the accused used to make telephone calls to her husband while they were living together. According to her, her husband used to go to the house of the accused by saying that he was going to coolie work. According to her, the accused killed her husband by pouring kerosene over his body and letting fire. Her version is to the effect that PW-1 informed her about the incident, which establishes that she is not an eye witness to the incident, but at the same time, PW-1, in his evidence, did not say that he informed PW-4 about the incident. Therefore, her evidence cannot be used as a corroboration to the evidence of PW-1. Though she speaks about the illicit relationship between accused and the deceased, her evidence, in our view, may not be much helpful to connect the accused with the crime. Things would have been different had at least PWs. 2 and 3 or any of the witnesses deposed about the incident in question or seen both of them together in the house at that time or anyone of the witnesses seen the accused pouring kerosene. 15. The prosecution also placed reliance on the evidence of PW-5 the son of the deceased. He gives a different version of the entire incident. 15. The prosecution also placed reliance on the evidence of PW-5 the son of the deceased. He gives a different version of the entire incident. According to him, on 11.3.2012, between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon, the accused administered three amples of injection for sedation of the deceased and thereafter, the accused is said to have poured kerosene and set him on fire as a result of which, the thatched house also got burnt. In order to prove that the syringes were given by the doctor, who was doing private practice as a Gynecologist in Srikalahasti, the prosecution examined PW-8 the said Doctor. She did not support the prosecution case. Further, PW-5 did not say in his earlier statement that the accused administered three amples of injection for sedation with an intention to kill him as he was objecting for the illicit intimacy of the accused, which fact is not proved through the evidence of PW-5. 16. PW-6 only speaks about the hearing of a rumor that the accused killed the deceased by pouring kerosene over his body and setting him on fire. From the evidence, which is referred above, it is evident that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the two witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. Even the plea set up by PW-5 with regard to giving sedation is incorrect as the evidence of PWs. 8 and 12 falsifies the same. 17. Having regard to the above and in the absence of any evidence, we feel that the trial Court erred in convicting the accused and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and as such, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati vide judgment, dated 11.07.2016, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2013 against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. are set aside. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith if she is not required to be detained in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to her. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 20. The appellant/accused shall be released forthwith if she is not required to be detained in any other crime. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to her. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.