1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1641 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional district and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Asifabad, in S.C.No.169 of 2009 dated 06.11.2009, for the offences punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction he filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint on 30.04.2007 stating that the appellant/accused is the wife of his deceased brother, that on the said date of incident, the daughter of the deceased went to the house of the complainant-PW1 and informed PW1 that her mother axed her father resulting in his death. Immediately, PW1 went to the house of the deceased and found that there were axe injuries on the head of the deceased and some chilli 2 powder was also sprinkled on the body of the deceased. Immediately, PW1 took the deceased to the hospital where he was declared as brought dead.
3. The prosecution examined the witnesses PWs.1 to
13. PW1 is the brother and defacto complainant who is not an eye-witness to the said incident of the alleged axing by the appellant.
4. PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is the daughter of the deceased. PW4 is the sister of PW3. PW5 is another brother of the deceased who all turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.6 and 7 are the inquest punch who turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.8 and 9 are the scene of offence punch who also turned hostile to the prosecution case.
5. PW10 is the photographer who took pictures of the scene.
6. PW1 is not an eye-witness to the alleged attack by the appellant. He stated that he was informed by the daughter of the deceased that the appellant attacked her 3 father with an axe. However, the said daughter of the deceased was not examined either during investigation or before the Court. The alleged weapon which is an axe used to attack the deceased was found at the scene. It is not the case of the prosecution that any seizures were effected at the instance of the appellant to conclude the exclusive knowledge of either the weapon or as it was found at the scene or incident.
7. Further, though there were several incised injuries, the wearing apparel of the appellant were not seized during the investigation. In cases of such an assault where 8 incised wounds found on the bodyof the deceased during post mortem examination, there is every possibility of the blood spilling on the assailant. No steps have taken to ascertain as to how the incident occurred and there is no explanation as to why the clothes of the appellant were not seized.
8. In the said circumstances, when there is no eye- witness account and all the witnesses to the inquest, scene of offence and confession turned hostile to the 4 prosecution case, there is no evidence on record to sustain the conviction.
9. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 304-II of IPC is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds stand cancelled.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:17.08.2022 tk 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1641 OF 2009 Dated: 17.08.2022 tk