Vodnala Saroja, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4171 Tel

                             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

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

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

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1641 OF 2009

Dated: 17.08.2022

tk