JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. This criminal appeal is preferred by the State, challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2016 in S.C.No.99 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’). 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State and learned counsel for respondent/ accused. 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, sister of the deceased, lodged an English written complaint on 08.07.2015 at 14:00 hrs, stating that her younger sister (deceased-Saritha Sharma) informed her a few days earlier that her husband (accused-Rajesh Kumar Sharma @ Rajesh Sharma) was suspecting her character and harassing her mentally and physically and requested to settle the issue. That on 08.07.2015, at 12:30 p.m., when she along with her daughter was entering the deceased’s flat, her brother-in-law (accused) hurriedly ran away, pushing her aside without replying. It is further stated in the complaint that she saw the deceased lying on the bed in a pool of blood, with injuries on her head and blood oozing from her head. A small iron rod was found on the bed, blood was scattered on the walls and found her sister dead. When she raised hue and cries, the inmates, Sonia Sharma w/o. Rakesh Sharma (co-sister of deceased) came out of her room and Kamal Nayan Sharma, father-in-law came from down. She intimated her husband and other relatives and they came to Police Station, Mangalhat, and lodged complaint stating that her brother-in-law (Rajesh Sharma) brutally murdered her sister with an iron rod by beating her on her head. 4. Crime No.150 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 of IPC . PW.10 took up investigation, recorded statement of PW.1, rushed to the scene of offence and found the body lying in the pool of blood. PW.10 secured two panchas PW.6 and Susheel Kumar, conducted the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence. They also drafted a rough sketch of scene of offence and took photographs. PW.10 examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 6, conducted inquest panchanama and shifted the body to Osmania General Hospital. PW.7 conducted autopsy on 09.07.2015. PW.10 collected MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence and MOs.5 to 8 at the hospital, after autopsy. 5. They also drafted a rough sketch of scene of offence and took photographs. PW.10 examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 6, conducted inquest panchanama and shifted the body to Osmania General Hospital. PW.7 conducted autopsy on 09.07.2015. PW.10 collected MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence and MOs.5 to 8 at the hospital, after autopsy. 5. On receiving information about the accused, a special team rushed to Secunderabad Railway Station and apprehended the accused at 13:40 hrs on 09.07.2015 and produced him before PW.10. On interrogation, accused admitted his guilt. Confession statement was recorded in the presence of two panchas and seized his clothes i.e., MOs.9 and 10. Accused was produced before the Court on 10.07.2015 with remand report and was sent to judicial remand. Material Objects seized were sent to FSL. Statement of PW.5 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before XVII Addl. C.M.M., Hyderabad. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. 6. According to the investigating officer, the accused harassed his wife physically and mentally in front of his children and that he was suspecting her character. On 08.07.2015, accused picked up an altercation, abused her in filthy language and insulted her as characterless. When his wife raised objection and warned him not to abuse, the accused went into kitchen, picked up an iron rod, pushed her on bed and attacked with iron rod on her head, breaking the skull, causing instantaneous death. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State submitted that PWs.1 and 4 were at the place of incident immediately and rejecting their evidence, terming them as chance witnesses is erroneous. That evidence of PW.5 was not considered and was discarded without any reasons. 8. PW.1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses to the offence. They came to the house of deceased and found her dead. PW.1 in her evidence states that when she raised hue and cries on seeing her sister in a pool of blood, Sonia Sharma w/o. Rakesh Sharma, who was present in her bedroom (adjacent bedroom, scene of offence panchnama along with sketch Ex P.2), came. PW.1 in the complaint, Ex P.1, stated that Sonia Sharma came out of her room, when she raised hue and cries. Sonia Sharma is not examined. The presence of accused could have been testified by Sonia Sharma. PW.1 in the complaint, Ex P.1, stated that Sonia Sharma came out of her room, when she raised hue and cries. Sonia Sharma is not examined. The presence of accused could have been testified by Sonia Sharma. PW.1 in her evidence stated that she talked to her sister-in-law as to how the incident occurred. No information is gathered from the inmates. When there are other inmates present in the flat at the time of offence, it is unsafe to conclude the guilt of the accused, without the inmates being examined. Non- examination of Sonia Sharma is fatal to the case of prosecution. 9. PW.1 and PW.4 were not present at the time of occurrence. If an offence is committed in a dwelling house/flat, the inmates are natural witnesses. When a witness is interested in the deceased, the evidence needs to be weighed cautiously, more so, when they are not direct witnesses. Testimony of PW.1 and PW.4 is not free from doubt. PW.10 admits that there are others residing along with the accused, but did not record their statements (the inmate Sonia Sharma is not examined). Explanation for not recording is that they were not present at that time. PW.10 admits that the building consists of residential houses and commercial rooms, however, he did not record the statements of the occupants of the building. These lapses go to the root of the case. 10. PW.5 in her cross-examination stated that Phone Number 9603463209 was of her father. In Ex.D1, which is a statement recorded by Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, it was stated by PW.5 that her mother was using the Phone Number 9603463209. Ex.D2 is also the statement of PW.5, in which, she states that her father was using Phone Number 9676910867. Statements filed in the Court do not contain Exs.D1 and D2 part of the said statements. This is contrary to what is stated by PW.5 before the Court in her cross-examination that Phone Number ending with 209 belongs to her father. PW.10 in his cross-examination stated that he examined PW.5 twice, but only one statement is filed in the Court and the second statement was not furnished to the accused. Non furnishing of statement to the accused is hit by concept of fair trial and suppression has an impact on the outcome of the case. PW.10 in his cross-examination stated that he examined PW.5 twice, but only one statement is filed in the Court and the second statement was not furnished to the accused. Non furnishing of statement to the accused is hit by concept of fair trial and suppression has an impact on the outcome of the case. No call data records pertaining to the mobile number of the deceased is placed on record. These lapses are fatal to the case of prosecution. 11. PW.2 and PW.3 are residents of Yadagiri, Karnataka. In the evidence, they stated that they came to Hyderabad on 08.07.2015 and were informed by PW.1 that accused suspected the character of the deceased and was harassing her. They found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries on the head and that accused killed her. PW.3 in his cross-examination states that the deceased did not have cell phone. This evidence is contrary to the evidence on record. 12. PW.10 in his evidence states that he did not seal the property seized from the scene of offence or from the possession of the accused. He again says that he sealed the property. These contradicting statements do not inspire confidence of this Court. PW.9 in his evidence states that the Police Station is at a distance of 2 to 3 kms from Nampally Criminal Courts and it was a working day. Magistrate received the FIR at 10.45 p.m. on 08.07.2015, though the complaint was received at 02.00 p.m. The unexplained delay gives rise to any amount of doubt as to the timing of the complaint. 13. PW.1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses, inmates are not examined, there is suppression of statements, delay in dispatch of FIR, contradicting statements with regard to the seizure of property, non-examination of the occupants of the building and no call data record is obtained. These lapses are fatal to the case of the prosecution. 14. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another , [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. 15. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: “70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 16. Though blood group O+ was found on the bed and clothes, however no test was conducted to link the said blood with that of the accused. The said blood O+ being found is of no consequence. Further, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court and also the recording of statements of PWs.1 and 4 make them unreliable and cannot be termed as chance witnesses. The said blood O+ being found is of no consequence. Further, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court and also the recording of statements of PWs.1 and 4 make them unreliable and cannot be termed as chance witnesses. It appears that the witnesses PWs.1 and 4 were planted. 17. In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the trial Court had not fallen in error in appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. The prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution, thus, suffers from infirmities, contradictions and lapses as discussed above, which are fatal to the case. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 18. For reasons aforesaid, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.