Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 575 (AP)

Mane Naga Narasimha Rao v. State of A. P.

2021-08-27

B.KRISHNA MOHAN, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 536 of 2012 on the file of III Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, the informant (PW. 1) preferred the present appeal. 2. Originally, A.1 to A.3 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC, on an allegation that on 04.07.2011 in the morning hours, all the accused caused the death of one Addanki Aruna Kumari (deceased), by smothering her and also causing a blunt injury on her face with an intention to cause her death; Thereafter in order to screen away the evidence, all the accused are alleged to have hanged the body to picturise as if it is a case of suicide. 3. The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are as under: (i) PW. 1 is the brother of the deceased. PW. 2 is the mother of PW. 1 and the deceased. PW. 3 is the sister of PW. 1 and PW. 4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PWs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are the neighbours of the accused. A.1 is the husband, while A.2 and A.3 are sister and brother of A.1 respectively. (ii) The marriage of A.1 with one Aruna Kumari (deceased) was performed about 12 years prior to the incident. It is said that ever since the date of marriage, A.1 was harassing his wife as he was addicted to vices like drinking and having extra marital relationship. The deceased used to inform such harassment on phone to her family members. However, PWs. 1 to 4 tried to convince A.1 not to harass the deceased and also advised the deceased to adjust with the situation. (iii) About 8 months prior to the death of the deceased, A.1 met with an accident and sustained fractures to his hand and leg. Initially, he was treated as inpatient in a Hospital at Tanuku and after discharge he was advised to take bed rest in the house. The deceased served him during the said period. It is said that while taking rest, A.1 was harassing the deceased with offensive words. After his recovery, the parents of A.1 fell sick. The family members of the accused asked the deceased to serve them also, to which she refused. The deceased served him during the said period. It is said that while taking rest, A.1 was harassing the deceased with offensive words. After his recovery, the parents of A.1 fell sick. The family members of the accused asked the deceased to serve them also, to which she refused. All the accused harassed her physically and mentally forcing her to serve their parents who were bed ridden. The deceased is said to have stated that since she served A.1 for a long time, she cannot serve any more and asked A.1 to send his parents to his brother's houses. All the accused replied that their parents will not go anywhere and asked the deceased to serve them. It was further alleged that on one occasion, A.2 threatened the deceased stating that if she does not serve, she would be killed and will perform the marriage of A.1 with another woman and get her services utilized. (iv) On 04.07.2011, in the morning hours the deceased is said to have made a phone call to PW. 1 informing him about the harassment in the hands of the accused and asked him to come over to her place apprehending threat to her life. While they were preparing to go to Chagallu Village from Machilipatnam, A.1 telephoned to PW. 2 and informed that the deceased is unwell. PW. 2 informed the same to PW. 1 and others, on which PW. 1 in turn called A.1 who informed PW. 1 that the deceased became unconscious and when the doctor examined, her pulse was not felt. PW. 1 and other family members went to Chagallu by engaging a car to the house of A.1 and by the time they reached, the body of the deceased was lying in front of house of the accused. They noticed a press injury on the right side of the neck. The mother, elder sister-in-law and third sister-in-law of A.1 came out on seeing them. Thereafter, PW. 1 set the law in motion by lodging a report before PW. 16-the Head Constable of Chagallu police station, basing on which a case in Crime No. 67 of 2011 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. Ex. P.16 is the original FIR. (v) PW. 16 claims to have recorded the statement of PW. 1. 16-the Head Constable of Chagallu police station, basing on which a case in Crime No. 67 of 2011 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. Ex. P.16 is the original FIR. (v) PW. 16 claims to have recorded the statement of PW. 1. Thereafter, he visited the house of A.1 and as it was late night, he posted a guard. On the next day morning, he again visited the scene of offence and in the presence of mediators (not examined) he examined the scene of offence and prepared a scene observation report. He seized M.O. 1 Saree, got slips affixed on it and also got photographed the dead body of the deceased. He then conducted inquest over the body in the presence of Panchayatdars, namely, K. Purnarao and K. Vijayalakshmi and M. Veerraju (none of them were examined). During inquest, he examined PWs. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. After completion of inquest, the body was sent for post mortem examination. (vi) PW. 13 the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Nidadavole conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P.10 Post Mortem Certificate. After receiving FSL report, he issued his final report, which is Ex. P.12. (vii) On 11.07.2011 at 9.30 A.M., PW. 16 arrested all the accused at the house of A.1 and sent them for remand. Further investigation was taken up by PW. 17. According to him, after receipt of final opinion from the Post Mortem doctor, he altered the section of law from Section 306 r/w 34 IPC to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC on 20.03.2012 that is nearly eight months after the incident. Ex. P.18 is the altered FIR. (viii) On 22.10.2011, PW. 18 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station, took up investigation and verified the statements recorded by PW. 16. He examined PWs. 6, 7 and 8 and gave a questionnaire to the doctor on 11.02.2012. (ix) PW. 19 the Inspector of Police, who also investigated the case, speaks about proceeding to Chagallu village, visiting the scene of offence, verifying the scene of observation report and also examining PWs. 1 to 5. 16. He examined PWs. 6, 7 and 8 and gave a questionnaire to the doctor on 11.02.2012. (ix) PW. 19 the Inspector of Police, who also investigated the case, speaks about proceeding to Chagallu village, visiting the scene of offence, verifying the scene of observation report and also examining PWs. 1 to 5. After completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 17 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to them. Since the case is triable by Court of Session, the same was committed to the Court of Session under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges referred to above, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 19 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.20, besides marking M.O. 1. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence. 6. Having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, coupled with the evidence of Post Mortem doctor and the evidence of Investigating Officer, which were found to be contrary to the case of the prosecution itself, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Assailing the same, the informant filed the present appeal. 7. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel representing Sri Dasari S.V.V.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the accused. According to him, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 establish the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. He further submits that their evidence show that on the previous day, as well as on the date of the incident, they received a phone call from the deceased informing about the harassment in the hands of the accused and the threat to her life. 1 to 4 establish the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. He further submits that their evidence show that on the previous day, as well as on the date of the incident, they received a phone call from the deceased informing about the harassment in the hands of the accused and the threat to her life. He further submit that the version of A.1 informing about the health condition of the deceased on the date of the incident varied from call to call, which speaks volumes about his conduct. Coming to the evidence of the Post Mortem doctor, he would submit that the findings given by the doctor that it would be a case of suicide is apparently incorrect. If the evidence of post mortem doctor is read as a whole, it would give a clear indication that death with homicidal. He took us through the evidence of witnesses and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (1) Crimes 200 (SC); the Judgment of this Court in Dollu Venkataramana v. State of A.P. 2019 (1) ALT (Cri.) 428 and Suniram Kisku v. State Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 624 of 2008 in support of his plea. He further submits that though no charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC is framed, the accused can be convicted under Section 304B IPC as it is a lesser offence to Section 302 IPC. 8. On the other hand, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this being an appeal against acquittal, this court can interfere with the findings of court below only if the same are perverse. He further submits that the trial Court has considered every aspect of the incident, more particularly, the conduct of PW. 1 in lodging the report, and the suppression of earlier statements of the witnesses by the police, which clearly indicate that the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the case. He further submits that the version of PWs. 1 to 4 is inconsistent in material aspects and their version is a complete improvement from what they have stated in their earlier statement. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that the evidence of Post Mortem doctor clearly indicate that the cause of death could not be due to smothering as suggested by the prosecution. 1 to 4 is inconsistent in material aspects and their version is a complete improvement from what they have stated in their earlier statement. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that the evidence of Post Mortem doctor clearly indicate that the cause of death could not be due to smothering as suggested by the prosecution. He further submits that when the doctor in his cross-examination admits that his opinion is based on guess work and the final opinion of the FSL does not lend any help to his opinion, the learned trial Judge was right in discarding the prosecution case as to the cause of death. In view of the above, he submits that the judgment under challenge requires no interference. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of the witnesses and the contents of the First Information Report. 11. We first intend to deal with Ex. P.1 report said to have been lodged by PW. 1. As stated earlier, after receiving information from A.1 on the morning of 04.07.2011, PWs. 1 to 4 proceeded to the house of the accused and noticed the dead body lying with face upwards. They also noticed an injury on the neck. Though PW. 1 and others went to the house of the accused in the morning, but a report came to be lodged at 7.30 P.M. in the night. 12. The question that arises for consideration is the genuinity and authenticity of the First Information Report lodged by PW. 1. 13. PW. 1, in his chief-examination, deposed about going to the police station, getting the report scribed by somebody outside the police station; signing the report and presenting it to the police. In the cross-examination, he admits that Ex. P.1 report was scribed by a person aged about 45 years with whom he has no acquaintance prior to scribing Ex. P.1 report. He further admits that he signed the report without reading the contents therein; and even at the time of giving evidence, he does not know what was written in Ex. P.1. His evidence further discloses that he was working as Press Reporter and had acquaintance with police and hospitals. P.1 report. He further admits that he signed the report without reading the contents therein; and even at the time of giving evidence, he does not know what was written in Ex. P.1. His evidence further discloses that he was working as Press Reporter and had acquaintance with police and hospitals. However to a suggestion that even by the date of the death of his sister, he was working as Reporter to Andhra Prabha paper was denied. The evidence of PW. 1 would further show that they reached Chagallu between 2.00 to 2.30 P.M. and till he presented Ex. P.1 report to the police, he did not discuss with anyone. The evidence of PW. 1 also discloses that his brother-in-law was working as Reporter of Vaartha paper, who accompanied them in the car to the house of the accused. 14. As seen from the evidence of PW. 1, neither of them gave any report immediately after reaching the house. But at about 7.30 P.M., a report came to be lodged. Strangely, PW. 1 expressed unawareness about the contents of Ex. P.1 report. In fact, his evidence shows that even as on the date of giving evidence, he does not know what was written in Ex. P.1. Thereby a doubt arises as to the contents of Ex. P.1 report, more so, when the scribe of the said report was not examined. Further, as observed by the trial Court, having acquaintance with the police and hospitals, PW. 1 could not have got Ex. P.1 report drafted through someone whom he does not know. It is difficult to believe that he signed Ex. P.1 report without knowing the contents therein, more so, when the person who died, is none other than his sister. Therefore, the doubt expressed by the trial court with regard to the contents of Ex. P.1 report cannot be found fault with. Once the FIR is found to be doubtful, the entire fabric of the case has to be viewed with suspicion. 15. Coming to the issue of suppression of earlier statements, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW. 1. PW. 1, in his cross-examination, admits that initially the Inspector of Police examined him at his (PW. 1) sister's house on the same day night, when they came to Chagallu from Mogalthuru. 15. Coming to the issue of suppression of earlier statements, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW. 1. PW. 1, in his cross-examination, admits that initially the Inspector of Police examined him at his (PW. 1) sister's house on the same day night, when they came to Chagallu from Mogalthuru. He again says that on 05.07.2011 the Head Constable of Chagallu police station recorded his statement at about 7.00 A.M., after completion of inquest proceedings. He further admits that during inquest, no separate statement of himself, his mother, sisters, brother-in-law etc, were recorded and that the inquest report was prepared based on the statements of himself and his family members etc. He further admits that after his examination by the Head Constable, no police officer examined him thereafter. This version of PW. 1 with regard to recording of his statement, is inconsistent with the version of the Investigating Officer. 16. PW. 16, the Head Constable, who registered the FIR, in his examination in chief deposed that immediately after registration of FIR, he recorded the statement of PW. 1 and thereafter visited the scene of offence. His evidence further show that he examined the witnesses during the course of inquest and later sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW. 16 in the cross-examination further admits that except recording the statements of the witnesses during inquest, he did not record their 161 Cr.P.C. statements again. It would be relevant to extract the relevant portion in their evidence, which read as under: PW. 16 "......I sent the original FIR along with the report to court and the copies to all concerned. Ex. P.16 is the printed FIR. I recorded the statement of PW. 1 Narasimha Rao......" "...... Except recording the statements of the witnesses during inquest, I did not record their 161 Cr.P.C. statements again....." PW. 1 "....... The Inspector of Police examined him at his sister's house on the same day night when we came to Chagallu from Mogalthuru. But he did not record his statement at that time. On 05.07.2011 the Head Constable of Chagallu P.S. recorded his statement at about 7.00 A.M. ......." ".......My statement was recorded by the Head Constable after completion of the inquest. I examined during inquest. During the inquest, my mother, my sisters, my brothers-in-law and other persons who came from Mogalthuru were examined. On 05.07.2011 the Head Constable of Chagallu P.S. recorded his statement at about 7.00 A.M. ......." ".......My statement was recorded by the Head Constable after completion of the inquest. I examined during inquest. During the inquest, my mother, my sisters, my brothers-in-law and other persons who came from Mogalthuru were examined. During the inquest, no separate statements of myself, my mother, sisters, brothers-in-law etc., were recorded......" ".......After the Head Constable examined me after completion of the inquest, no police officer examined me subsequently. Except the Head Constable examined myself and family members after the inquest, no police officer examined either myself or my family members thereafter......." 17. From a reading of the evidence of PW. 1 and PW. 16, there arises a doubt as to when the statement of PW. 1 was recorded. On one hand PW. 1 claims that he was examined at his sister's house on the same day of the incident i.e. after coming over from his village, which would be after the registration of FIR, but the same is contrary to the evidence of PW. 16, who speaks about recording the statement of PW. 1 at the police station immediately after registration of FIR. The version of PW. 16 is that after recording the statement, he proceeded to the scene of offence, but the answers elicited in the cross-examination would reveal that the statement of PW. 1 came to be recorded either at the time of inquest or subsequent to the inquest. There is no clear evidence as to when the statement of PW. 1 was recorded. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that the prosecution suppressed the earliest statement of PW. 1 cannot be brushed aside, more so, when the FIR reached the court on the next day. 18. Before dealing with the oral evidence, we intend to deal with the issue relating to cause of death: 19. As seen from the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was done to death by smothering. None of them have seen as to how the deceased was killed. But, fact remains that she died in the house of the accused. As seen from the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was done to death by smothering. None of them have seen as to how the deceased was killed. But, fact remains that she died in the house of the accused. Having regard to the above, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the accused to explain as to how the deceased died. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the said proposition, more so, when there is no dispute with regard to the presence of the accused in the house. But, in the instant case, the accused have come out with specific defence of suicide. Suggestions given to all the witnesses that deceased committed suicide; she was killed and then hanged; and that she being hyper sensitive committed suicide in the kitchen by hanging himself, were denied. 20. To test the defence of the accused, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the evidence of Post Mortem doctor. Before dealing with the evidence of Post Mortem doctor and the evidence of PW. 17 and PW. 18, who prepared a questionnaire and given it to the doctor, it would be appropriate to mention that at the time of inquest they noticed only one injury on the neck. Even the family members, who were examined as PWs. 1 to 4, speak about only one injury on the neck. Keeping this circumstance in the background, we will now refer to the evidence of PW. 13, the Post Mortem doctor. 21. According to him, on 05.07.2011 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: (1) Face is congested and sinozed; (2) Peri orbital edema of left eye with left red colour conjectia on opening of the eye. Left black eye present; (3) Bleeding from both nostrils of the nose present; (4) Upper chest and both upper limbs are congested; (5) A small abrasion on right side of neck 2 inch long and one inch width with brownish black in colour. Internal findings: (1) On the opening of the mark and skin on the neck, no subcutaneous congestion is seen. No extravasation of blood is seen in the subcutaneous tissues. Internal findings: (1) On the opening of the mark and skin on the neck, no subcutaneous congestion is seen. No extravasation of blood is seen in the subcutaneous tissues. (2) Brain tissues, stomach and both lungs and all viscera of abdomen congested. PW. 16 in his evidence deposed that he sent the viscera to RFSL for chemical examination and received RFSL report. As per the said report, the cause of death, which is as under: "the cause of death to the best of my knowledge is Asphyxia might be due to smothering and also associated blunt injury over face, followed by post mortem hangings and might be homicidal." Ex. P.12 is the final opinion given by PW. 13. 22. From the above, the opinion of the doctor as to cause of death is asphyxia due to smothering and also associated with blunt injury over face followed by post mortem hangings and might be homicidal. 23. At this stage, one circumstance which assumes much importance is the requisition sent to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital for conducting Post Mortem examination. The said requisition is marked as Ex. P.17. A perusal of the said requisition would clearly show that it was PW. 1, who gave requisition to the doctor for conducting post mortem examination. It is strange as to how a requisition could have been given by PW. 1 to the doctor, for conducting post mortem and it is also strange as to how the doctor could have accepted such requisition and conducted autopsy. Though an argument is sought to be advanced stating that the Station House Officer sent the requisition for conducting post mortem examination, but the contents of the requisition would clearly indicate that it was sent by PW. 1. It would be appropriate to refer to the requisition which reads as under: "On 04.07.2011 morning they quarrelled with my younger sister and harassed her physically and mentally and caused severe mental stress. Her husband Addanki Kesavamurthy, elder sister-in-law Subbalakshmi and the third brother-in-law Koteswara Rao harassed her younger sister mentally for doing services to their parents and made her to commit suicide. Today morning the deceased informed my elder brother on phone that they are abusing to commit suicide in case she did not do services to her parents-in-law. Her husband Addanki Kesavamurthy, elder sister-in-law Subbalakshmi and the third brother-in-law Koteswara Rao harassed her younger sister mentally for doing services to their parents and made her to commit suicide. Today morning the deceased informed my elder brother on phone that they are abusing to commit suicide in case she did not do services to her parents-in-law. I came to know that because of mental stress caused by the above three persons, today at 11.00 A.M. my sister died by hanging herself." 24. A reading of the entire requisition, though signed by the Head Constable, show as if it was written by PW. 1, who is brother of the deceased. This shows the interference of outsiders/family members in the investigation process. In the cross-examination, PW. 13-the doctor, admits that his observation in the final report that it was post mortal hanging was his guess work based on RFSL opinion. He further admits that he mentioned in the post mortem report that no tissues were preserved for further examination. It would be appropriate to refer the relevant portions in the cross-examination of PW. 13, which reads as under: ".......I was supplied the inquest report also before conducting autopsy"; ........The visibility of the ligature mark on the neck depends on the composition or reflected on the skin... .......In the preliminary report, I did not mention whether the injuries are post mortem or ante mortem. The meaning of post mortal hanging is that hanging of the body subsequent to the death. The observation in the final report that it is post mortal hanging is my guess work based on the RFSL finding. It is true that the RFSL report did not lend any support to my final opinion. It is true that I mentioned in the P.R. report that no tissues were preserved for further examination. It is true that after completion of P.M. and before issuing final opinion, I did not mention any further examination. I did not examine whether there is any corresponding internal injury for the external associated blunt injury over the face mentioned in my final report....." 25. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the doctor, it is very much clear that he has mentioned in the preliminary report about the injury on the face i.e. congestion and the synopsis of the face and peri-orbital odema of left eye. From the answers elicited in the cross-examination of the doctor, it is very much clear that he has mentioned in the preliminary report about the injury on the face i.e. congestion and the synopsis of the face and peri-orbital odema of left eye. But, however, no such injury was found at the time of inquest. In fact, he states that he did not mention whether the injuries are post mortem or ante mortem. 26. Therefore, it is very much clear that the finding given by the doctor that it is a case of smothering and not a case of suicide has no basis. The fact that there was only one injury is also evident from the photographs of the deceased taken by PW. 12. Therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries are ante mortem in nature so as to cause death due to asphyxia on account of smothering. 27. At this stage it is also to be noted that PW. 18 the Sub-Inspector of Police, is said to have prepared a questionnaire and gave it to the doctor on 11.02.2012. In the cross-examination, she admits preparation of questionnaire, which is marked as Ex. P.19. She also admits that the question No. 2 does not indicate any injury on the face, as per the postmortem report and that the 3rd question does not suggest any homicidal death. 28. Therefore, it is very much clear that it was not PW. 18, who prepared the questionnaire, but at the behest of somebody, the questionnaire came to be prepared and supplied to the doctor. Her own admission show that she has no knowledge about the contents and meaning of certain terms used in the questionnaire. Oral evidence: 29. Insofar as the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 is concerned, all the witnesses speak about receiving information on 04.07.2011, about the deceased being in critical condition and the pulse not detected. They stated that they reached the house of the accused by 2.30 P.M. and noticed bruise on the right side of the neck and the said bruise was because of the harassment by the accused due to which she might have committed suicide. If really that was the reason, nothing prevented them from lodging a report within a reasonable time as the police station is situated in the very same village. If really that was the reason, nothing prevented them from lodging a report within a reasonable time as the police station is situated in the very same village. Even assuming for the sake argument that the report was lodged by PW. 1, no explanation is forthcoming from him as to why he kept quiet till 7.30 P.M. 30. Be that as it may, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 would show that their version in court is a complete improvement from what they have stated in their earlier statements and their versions are not consistent. According to PW. 1, on 04.07.2011 in the morning hours, the deceased called him stating that the harassment is severe and asked him to come over to the house, as the accused are threatening to kill her, while the evidence of PW. 2 is to the effect that on 04.07.2011 the deceased called PW. 1 stating that the harassment is severe and that she was beaten throughout the night and requested PW. 1 to come over there immediately. While the evidence of PW. 1 is to the effect that his mother received a phone call at 11.00 A.M. from the accused, who informed that the deceased became unconscious with fits and her pulse found not detected, PW. 2 gives a different version stating that the information given by A.1 is only to the effect that the condition of the deceased is serious. Though the version of the witnesses speak about the torture by the accused on the previous day and A.1 beating the deceased throughout the night, but PW. 2 admits in his cross-examination that she did not state before the police that the accused beat her daughter on the previous night. She also admits that she did not state before the police about the injuries found on the dead body. Similarly, PW. 1 did not state many crucial facts when he was examined by the Investigating Officer. The relevant portion from the evidence of investigating officer is as under: "....... PW. 1 did not mention in Ex. P.1 and did not state before me that himself and his family members on seeing the dead body felt that the accused murdered the deceased by beating......" .......PW. 2 did not state before me that the accused murdered the deceased by assaulting her. PW. PW. 1 did not mention in Ex. P.1 and did not state before me that himself and his family members on seeing the dead body felt that the accused murdered the deceased by beating......" .......PW. 2 did not state before me that the accused murdered the deceased by assaulting her. PW. 2 did not state before me about the presence of injuries over the dead body. PW. 2 did not state that the accused beat her daughter on the previous night. PW. 3 did not state that A.2 and A.3 were encouraging A.1 in harassing the deceased. PW. 3 did not state that A.1 was addicted to the vice of drinking and gambling and was coming home in a drunken condition......." ........PW. 3 did not state that all the accused forced the deceased to serve the father of A.1 stating that she has no option except to serve her father-in-law or to commit suicide and that if the deceased failed to exercise either of the options, they would murder the deceased and perform the marriage of A.1 with another woman. PW. 3 did not state before me that on 04.07.2011 the deceased called her by phone and state that all the accused beat the deceased on the night of 3/4.7.2011. PW. 3 did not state before me that the brother and sister-in-law of A.1 informed them that Aruna Kumari committed suicide. .......PW. 4 did not state before me that PW. 1 on seeing the dead body stated that it is a homicidal death caused by all the accused and asked PW. 1 to give report......" 31. Therefore, it appears that these witnesses failed to mention the crucial facts, which we have referred to above, in their earlier statements before the police and deposed for the first time while giving evidence in the court. Apart from that, as observed by us earlier, if really there was harassment right from the date of marriage, which took place about 12 years ago, PW. 1, being a reporter and having acquaintance with the police, could have as well raised a dispute before the elders of Mogalthuru or Chagallu, but no such steps were taken. 32. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments in Sunil Shrikrushna Wankhade and another v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. A. No. 624 of 2008, dt. 11.01.2021. 32. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments in Sunil Shrikrushna Wankhade and another v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. A. No. 624 of 2008, dt. 11.01.2021. It was a case where an appeal came to be preferred against the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC. In the said case, the trial court framed a charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, while the conviction was recorded for the offence under Section 498A IPC. It is also to be noted that in the said case, the death took place within two years of the marriage. 33. Narwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (1) Crimes 200 (SC) (supra) was a case where an appeal came to be preferred before the Apex court challenging the conviction under Section 306 IPC. In the said case, initially a case under Section 306 IPC was registered, but a charge under Section 304B IPC was ultimately framed by the court. After a full pledged trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. On appeal, the conviction under Section 304B IPC was altered to Section 306 IPC. It is to be noted that in the said case the marriage took place on 30.09.1984 and the death took place on 30.05.1988 within seven years of the marriage. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to Section 222 Cr.P.C. and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, upheld the conviction under Section 306 IPC. 34. In Dollu Venkataramana v. State of A.P., 2019 (1) ALT (Cri.) 428 (supra), the marriage of the deceased was on 13.04.2001 and the death occurred on 09.08.2001. Initially, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 306 IPC. The trial Court, while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10/- with default provision. The trial Court, while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10/- with default provision. The conviction of the accused under Section 306 IPC was set aside by the High Court on 23.02.2007 and the matter was remitted to the lower court for fresh adjudication. On remand, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Challenging the same, an appeal came to be preferred before the High Court. After analysing the evidence and the judgments of the Apex Court and in the absence of any explanation given by the accused as to how the deceased died though admitted that both of them stayed in Room No. 2 of Simhadri Lodge, the High Court confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 35. The case on hand stands on a different footing. The incident in question took place 12 years after the marriage. Presumption either under Section 113A or 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked. 36. Having regard to the evidence of the doctor with regard to cause of death, the nature of evidence of PW. 1 vis-a-vis Ex. P.1 report and the statements before the police during investigation and this being an appeal against an acquittal where the scope of interference of this court is limited except when the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse or contrary to evidence, which is not so, we see no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal. 37. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.