JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Smt. Ammaji Nettam, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State through Video Conference operating in Blue-jeans App. 2. The sole accused in S.C. No. 447 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FAC), Hindupuram is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his wife namely Sivamma with sickle, suspecting her fidelity. By its judgment dated 28.11.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The gravamen of the charge leveled against the accused is that on 08.10.2008 at morning hours in Konkallu village of Gudibanda Mandal, the accused caused the death of his wife by hacking her with sickle. 4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows: PW-1 is the brother of the deceased while PW-2 is a resident of Palaram village of Gudibanda Mandal. PW-3 is an Ex-Sarpanch of Gudibanda Gram Panchayat while PW-4 was examined as an eye-witness to the incident. 5. The accused is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage took place about eight years prior to her death, and subsequently, both of them lived happily. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two sons. It is stated that the accused and the deceased went to Tumkur village for coolie work leaving their sons with the parents of the accused and both of them stayed in Tumkur for about six months. Thereafter, they returned to Konkallu village as the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife. PW-1, who came to know about the same, went to their house and noticed his sister with swollen injuries. When questioned, she is said to have informed that the accused beat her suspecting her fidelity. PW-1 claimed to have taken her to a Doctor at Mandalapalli, and after taking treatment, she was brought back to the village. Ten days thereafter, the accused, his parents and others went to the house of PW-1 for holding panchayat wherein the accused promised to look after the deceased well and asked PW-1 to send her with him. PW-1 claimed to have taken her to a Doctor at Mandalapalli, and after taking treatment, she was brought back to the village. Ten days thereafter, the accused, his parents and others went to the house of PW-1 for holding panchayat wherein the accused promised to look after the deceased well and asked PW-1 to send her with him. On an assurance given, the deceased was sent along with the accused in the presence of elders. The evidence on record further shows that about ten days thereafter, the accused invited PW-1 to attend a festival arranged in their house. On that, PW-1 went there during which time, the neighbours informed PW-1 about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. PW-1 is said to have requested the accused not to harass the deceased and went back to his village inviting the accused and the deceased to come over to his village in connection with Nagula festival two days later. 6. On the date of the incident, at about 10:00 P.M. PW-4, who is neighbour to the accused, came out of his house to pass urine. While he was standing on the road, he noticed the accused coming out of his house holding a sickle in his hand, and on seeing PW-4, the accused ran away. Then, PW-4 and one Bheemappa went inside the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, they went to their house without informing anybody. 7. On 08.10.2008, at about 05:00 or 05:30 a.m. while PW-3, an Ex-sarpanch of Gudibanda Gram Panchayat came to know through the people of S.C. colony that the accused murdered the deceased by hacking her neck, he informed the same to PW-1 over phone. Pursuant thereto, PW-1 and others came to Konkallu village and saw the dead body of the deceased in the house of the accused with blood injuries on sides of the neck and also on the right shoulder. This was noticed at about 06:30 A.M. PW-1 claims to have enquired with PW-4 and one Bheemappa and informed about the incident which happened on the previous night. Immediately, thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to police station and lodged a report with PW-9 Sub-Inspector of Police at 09:00 A.M. Ex.P1 is the report. This was noticed at about 06:30 A.M. PW-1 claims to have enquired with PW-4 and one Bheemappa and informed about the incident which happened on the previous night. Immediately, thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to police station and lodged a report with PW-9 Sub-Inspector of Police at 09:00 A.M. Ex.P1 is the report. Basing on which, a case in Crime No. 40 of 2008 came to be registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused. Further investigation was taken up by PW-10 Circle Inspector of police. According to him, on 09.10.2008 at about 09:00 a.m., after receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. he along with Sub-Inspector of Police went to Kondkallu village, visited the scene of offence and noticed the dead body in the house of the accused. In the presence of PW-5, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 11:00 a.m. to 03:00 p.m. and examined the relatives of the deceased who are witnesses to the incident. After inquest, the dead body was sent for holding post-mortem examination. 8. PW-7 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Madakasira, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased from 04:40 p.m. to 06:00 p.m. and issued Ex.P4 post-mortem certificate. According to him, the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 9. PW-10, who continued with the investigation, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which was marked as Ex.P6. At the scene of offence, he seized blood-stained mat, woolen blanket, pillow, blood-stained cement slab and its control. He examined the witnesses namely PWs. 1 to 4 and recorded their statement. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased. On 20.10.2008, he forwarded material objects to R.F.S.L. Tirupathi with a letter of advice through Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madakasira for analysis, which is marked as Ex.P7. On 11.07.2009 i.e. a year later, while he was in Gudibanda police station, he received credible information about the accused. Immediately, he along with Sub-Inspector of Police and staff took PWs. 6 and 8 - mediators and reached the house of Harijana Rangaswamappa at Mandalapalli, and found the accused standing in front of the house. On seeing the police, he tried to run away from the place. They surrounded and arrested him. On enquiry, he revealed his identity and in the presence of mediators, he confessed about the commission of the offence. On seeing the police, he tried to run away from the place. They surrounded and arrested him. On enquiry, he revealed his identity and in the presence of mediators, he confessed about the commission of the offence. On further enquiry about the weapon used, sickle (MO1) was discovered from his relatives’ house. Ex.P3 is the mahazaar for the seizure of sickle. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 10 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur (FAC) Madakasira. 10. On appearance of the accused, documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge (FAC), Hindupuram under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 11. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 302 IPC came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 10. 13. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied, however he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. 14. Relying upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 15. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is absolutely no legal evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. According to her, though the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-4, but he did not inform the matter to anybody till 11:00 a.m. on the next day. Apart from that it is contended that if really PW-4 was examined by the Circle Inspector of Police who conducted inquest at 11:00 A.M. definitely he would have been figured as a witness in the inquest report. Further, the persons, who are shown as eye-witnesses to the incident in the inquest report, were not examined before the Court. Apart from that it is contended that if really PW-4 was examined by the Circle Inspector of Police who conducted inquest at 11:00 A.M. definitely he would have been figured as a witness in the inquest report. Further, the persons, who are shown as eye-witnesses to the incident in the inquest report, were not examined before the Court. Insofar as the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is concerned, their evidence is mainly based on the version given by PW-4. Therefore, in the absence of any positive material to show that the accused was present in the house, a doubt arises whether the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased, more so, when no presumption can be invoked in this case. 16. The same is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that the evidence on record amply establish the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. 17. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 18. As stated earlier, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 10 of whom, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. 19. PW-1 is the brother of the deceased, who in his evidence speaks about the marriage between the accused and the deceased taking place about eight years prior to the incident and out of wedlock both of them were blessed with two sons. He also speaks about the accused and the deceased going to Tumkur in search of their livelihood, and thereafter, returned home on the ground that the deceased developed illicit relationship with others. It is further stated that on coming to know about the return of the accused and the deceased, PW-1 went to the house of the accused and noticed the face of the deceased swollen with injuries, and when enquired, she informed about the accused beating her. He also speaks about the panchayat wherein the accused promised to take care of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 further shows that about 10 days after the panchayat, the accused invited PW-1 to his house for festival, and thereafter, PW-1 also invited the accused and the deceased to attend the festival in his village. He also speaks about the panchayat wherein the accused promised to take care of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 further shows that about 10 days after the panchayat, the accused invited PW-1 to his house for festival, and thereafter, PW-1 also invited the accused and the deceased to attend the festival in his village. While things stood thus, on 09.10.2008, while PW-1 was at the Bus Stand, he was informed by PW-3 about the accused killing the deceased by hacking with sickle at his house and thereafter leaving her. Pursuant thereto, all of them went to Konkallu village and noticed the dead body. Basing on the information furnished by PW-1, the law was set into motion. PW-1 was cross-examined at length but nothing useful came to be elicited in the evidence, but however, a perusal of his evidence would show that after reaching the village at 06:30 a.m. on 09.10.2008, PW-4 and one Bheemappa informed him about the galata which took place on the evening of the previous day, and on hearing the cries, they went out and saw the accused coming out of the house armed with sickle. It is stated that the accused threatened Bheemappa with dire consequences if he informs anybody about the incident and then ran away. Basing on the same, Ex.P1 was said to have been prepared in the village and then law was set into motion. 20. From the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that the basis of information for lodging the report is PW-4 and Bheemappa. According to PW-1, on that day, on hearing the cries, both of them came out of the house and went towards the house of the accused and saw the accused coming out of the house armed with sickle and thereafter, the accused is said to have threatened Bheemappa with dire consequences if he informs about the incident to others. But strangely, Bheemappa was not examined by the prosecution. No reasons are forth-coming as to why Bheemappa was not examined. 21. On the other hand, PW-4 was examined to speak about the incident. It would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW-4 at this stage. In his evidence, PW-4 deposed that in the night at about 10:00 p.m. he came out of the house to pass urine. No reasons are forth-coming as to why Bheemappa was not examined. 21. On the other hand, PW-4 was examined to speak about the incident. It would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW-4 at this stage. In his evidence, PW-4 deposed that in the night at about 10:00 p.m. he came out of the house to pass urine. While he was standing on the road, he saw the accused coming out of the house holding sickle in his hand and running away. Thereafter, himself and Bheemappa went inside the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in pool of blood, and thereafter, both of them went to their respective houses and slept without informing anybody about the incident. This version of PW-4, in our view, runs contra to the evidence of PW-1 who has spoken to about the information furnished by PW-4 and Bhemmappa. 22. A perusal of the evidence of PW-4 would show that PW-4 never deposed about they coming out of the house on hearing the cries of the deceased or hearing a galata at the house of the accused. His version was to the effect that he came out to pass urine and while he was standing on the road, he noticed the accused coming out of his house holding a sickle in his hand. Further evidence of PW-4 does not indicate any threat given by the accused to Bheemappa. 23. Apart from that, it is to be noted that though PW-4 claims to have seen the body of the deceased in the house and also the accused leaving the house with a sickle, strangely, he did not inform anybody about the incident. His conduct, in our view, appears to be very strange. When a neighbour is killed, more so, a lady, definitely the conduct of the person seeing the same would have been otherwise. It is not the case of PW-4 that the accused threatened him with dire consequences if he informs about the incident to others. Therefore, nothing prevented PW-4 in informing others, at least neighbours, if not the police about the incident. According to him, he claims to have gone back to his house, slept in the house and only on the next day at 11:00 a.m. when Inspector of police and Village Revenue Officer came to house, he disclosed about the incident. 24. Therefore, nothing prevented PW-4 in informing others, at least neighbours, if not the police about the incident. According to him, he claims to have gone back to his house, slept in the house and only on the next day at 11:00 a.m. when Inspector of police and Village Revenue Officer came to house, he disclosed about the incident. 24. At this stage, it is to be noted that even the disclosure of the incident at 11:00 a.m. appears to be suspicious for the reason that in the cross-examination, he admits that he goes to coolie work in the morning and returns home at 05:00 p.m. and after taking dinner at 06:00 P.M., he goes to bed. It is not the case of PW-4 that he stayed back in his house on the next day till 11:00 a.m. 25. Be that as it may, the material record shows that inquest was conducted between 11:00 a.m. and 03:00 p.m. If really PW-4 was an eye-witness to the incident and if he had informed about the incident to either Inspector of Police or the Village Revenue Officer, who conducted inquest at 11:00, he would have figured as an eye-witness in the report. But the inquest report is silent on this aspect. He was not shown as eye-witness to the incident. On the other hand, Bheemappa was shown as eye-witness to the incident, but the prosecution failed to examined him. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution, in our view, has to be viewed with suspicion. 26. Coming to the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, they are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Their evidence is hear-say. They deposed about PW-1 informing them about the incident. Even PW-3 Ex-Sarpanch of Gudibanda Gram Panchayat in his evidence deposed that on 08.10.2008 at about 05:00 or 05:30 a.m. his relatives and the people of S.C. colony were talking about the accused killing the deceased. He informed PW-1 who in turn set the law into motion. Even his evidence is hearsay. This is all the evidence available on record. 27. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to rely on the evidence of PW-5 who conducted inquest to show that the evidence of the eye-witnesses discloses commission of the offence by the accused. He informed PW-1 who in turn set the law into motion. Even his evidence is hearsay. This is all the evidence available on record. 27. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to rely on the evidence of PW-5 who conducted inquest to show that the evidence of the eye-witnesses discloses commission of the offence by the accused. But strangely, in the cross-examination, he admits that though the police examined the parents of the accused during inquest but their statements were not recorded. He did not enquire with the police as to the reason why the statements of the parents of the accused were not recorded. He also says that the police examined about 4 or 5 neighbours of the accused and the deceased during inquest, but their statements were not recorded. The police also did not record the names of the witnesses examined by them during inquest. It will be useful to extract the relevant portion in the cross-examination of PW-5 which is as under: “The accused, the deceased and the parents of the accused were residing in that scene of offence house. Police examined the parents of the accused during inquest in our presence. But, their statements were not recorded. I did not enquire police the reason why the statements of the parents of the accused were not recorded. Police examined about 4 or 5 neighbours of the accused and the deceased during inquest, but their statements are not recorded. Police did not record the names of the witnesses examined by them during inquest.” 28. From the above it is clear that there is no positive evidence on record to show that the accused alone was present in the house and he was responsible for the death of the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence being available on record, we feel that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is liable to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 28.11.2014 in S.C. No. 447 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FAC), Hindupuram. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 28.11.2014 in S.C. No. 447 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (FAC), Hindupuram. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the charged offence and he is directed to be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other case. 30. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.