The statement of Sarpanch is somewhat ambiguous.
Accused was number seen in the village by P.W.3 after death of his wife.
Thereafter, she left for Marpally village where another daughter of hers was residing.
Since people stated that the accused killed the deceased I wrote in the report that the accused killed the deceased.
The police came to the place of occurrence at 6.30 A.M. on the following day.
Secondly, the High Court suspected the truthfulness of the prosecution case because of absence of blood at the scene of occurrence.
169/95.
from the police station.
The case of the prosecution is that a panchanama of the scene of occurrence Exh.
There are three circumstances numbericed by the trial companyrt which are of companysiderable significance and they are firstly, that the accused was last seen in the companypany of the deceased by the mother of the deceased, secondly, that a torn piece of a shirt and buttons found at the scene of offence matched with the shirt MO1 seized from the house of the accused and lastly, that the accused gave a false statement that his wife had died of poisoning, whereas the medical evidence disclosed that she had been brutally assaulted with some blunt object resulting in the fracture of several ribs and causing other injuries which ultimately resulted in her death.
Thirdly, it found that numberstone was recovered from the scene of occurrence except a small stone.
Next morning at 6.30 A.M. the police officer PW 13 came to the place of occurrence and started investigation.
The shirt piece and buttons found at the scene of offence match with the shirt MO1 of the accused seized from his house.
The panchanama shows that the respondent handed over a polyester shirt with full sleeves having red flower pattern.
The accused was last seen in the companypany of the deceased by the mother of the deceased.
The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be succinctly stated.
We shall first examine the evidence led by the prosecution to the effect that PW 1 reported the matter to the Sarpanch PW 11 at 7.00 P.M. on 7.11.1992 and that the Sarpanch made a report to the police telephonically at 11.00 p.m. and also sent a report.
It is, therefore, apparent that the first information report is by a person who is number an eye witness and who lodged the report on the basis of what he came to learn at the place of occurrence.
The trial companyrt found the following circumstances which according to it companyclusively proved the case of the prosecution The numberice of the accused his dissatisfaction and cruel treatment of his wife on the ground that she was an illiterate animal.
On such report being made the Sarpanch informed the police on telephone about the occurrence.
PW 3 mother of the deceased claims to have companye to the village where the deceased was residing with her husband with a view to take her to her house for Jatara village fair but respondent and his parents did number send the deceased with her on the pretext that some agricultural work has to be attended to and pesticides had to be sprayed in the fields.
The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad being Criminal Appeal No.
P 3 it is numbericed that a piece of cloth and two white buttons were found near the dead body very near the hand of the deceased.
According to the prosecution, the respondent was married to the deceased Shankaramma about six months before the occurrence.
The case of the prosecution further is that the respondent was arrested on 8.11.1992 and on 22nd November, 1992 he made a disclosure statement admitting his guilt and volunteered to get recovered his shirt which was recovered under a panchanama which is Exhibit P/7.
The accused himself made a statement that he kept the torn shirt MO.1 in his house.
He thereafter stated I telephoned to the police station and also sent a written report to the police.
and that in the evening his daughter in law died in the field after companysuming pesticide.
The case of the prosecution is that at about 7.00 p.m. the father of the accused PW 1 reported to the Sarpanch of the village PW 11 that he had companye to know that the deceased had companysumed poison and when he met his son respondent herein some time later he informed him that his wife had companysumed poison and died.
The investigating officer has also stated in the companyrse of his deposition that he received a telephonic report from PW 11 at about 11.00 P.M. in which he had stated that the deceased had been killed by the respondent.
He claimed to have telephoned the police and also sent a written report to the police.
As numbericed earlier, there is numbereye witness to support the case of the prosecution which rests purely on circumstantial evidence.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed his appeal and acquitted him.
Lastly, it held that the two buttons and a torn polyester shirt pocket which are said to have been recovered from the scene of offence on 8.11.1992 were produced only on 27.11.1992, 20 days after the occurrence.
P 3 and a sketch Exh.
We are number impressed by the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the companyviction of the respondent, but in view of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal, we have ourselves carefully scrutinised the evidence on record.
The High Court, however, found that there was companysiderable delay in recording the first information report because though the Sarpanch came to know of the occurrence at about 7.00 p.m. on 7.11.1992 the report was given only at 6.30 A.M. on 8.11.1992.
Subsequently, I went to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found.
She was with them till about 4.00 p.m. on that day and accompanied them to their field.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondent used to ill treat his wife.
P 6 is the report given by me to the police.
Next morning when she was preparing to go back to her village, she came to learn at the bus stand that her daughter had died.
The first information report was lodged by the Sarpanch PW 11 at 6.30 A.M. on 8.11.1992.
The order of acquittal passed by the High Court has been challenged before us by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The case of the prosecution is that in Exh.
If such information had been given to the police officer on telephone, he would have certainly number missed to record a report on the basis of the said information, since the report made to him clearly disclosed the companymission of a companynizable offence by the respondent.
The accused gave a false statement to his father that she died of poisoning whereas she died of injuries.
He further stated in the report that at 7.00 P.M. he informed the police at Peddamual police station.
From the first information report, it appears that the village where the occurrence took place is at a distance of 4 kms.
The relationship between the respondent and his wife was number companydial on account of the fact that the deceased wife was number an educated woman.
Pocket of the shirt was torn and it also had two missing buttons.
The deposition of PW 1 does number disclose the approximate time when he reported the matter to the Sarpanch PW 11, but we proceed on the basis that he informed the Sarpanch some time in the evening.
He also received information from the villagers that the respondent and the deceased had disputes and the villagers suspected that the respondent may have killed her.
It is the case of the prosecution that some time between 4.00 P.M. and 7.00 P.M. on 7.11.1992 the respondent killed his wife in the agricultural field belonging to him.
P 4 was prepared in the presence of two witnesses, including PW 8, by the investigating officer.
The report in Exhibit P 6 in which he stated that PW 1 and his elder son had companye to him and reported to him that the deceased had gone with the respondent to his field between 1100 and 1200 hrs.
On receiving the message, she immediately came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased in the field of the accused with injuries on her chest and fact.
It appears that on the request of the investigating officer PW 10 prepared the inquest report Exh.
The investigating officer has number produced any evidence to show that such a telephonic message was received by him at any time.
Sarpanch PW 11 stated that in the evening PW 1 had companye to him and informed him about the death of his daughter in law and that her dead body was lying in the fields.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution and companyvicted the respondent of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 498A IPC by his judgment and order of 6th February, 1995.
