Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiSyed Arif Hussain, Guntur Dt. vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 20 October, 2020Bench: A V Sai, B Krishna MohanTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI\n                                  AND\n       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN\n\n              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1315 OF 2014\n\nJUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)\n\n       Sole-accused, who is the husband of the deceased, is the\n\nappellant in the present Criminal Appeal, filed underSection\n\n374(2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter\n\nreferred to, as 'CrPC'). In the instant appeal, challenge is to the\n\njudgment dated 21.10.2014, rendered by the XI Additional\n\nDistrict and Sessions Judge, Tenali, in Sessions Case No.180 of\n\n2013. By way of the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge,\n\nwhile finding the accused guilty of the offence punishable\n\nunderSection 302I.P.C., convicted the accused and sentenced\n\nhim to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed fine of\n\nRs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo imprisonment for three\n\nmonths.\n\n\n       2.     According to the prosecution, the accused, having\n\naddicted to alcohol and suspecting the fidelity of his wife,\n\nmurdered the deceased on 12.07.2012, by beating her with\n\nchutney pounder.\n\n\n       3.     In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution\n\nexamined P.Ws.1 to 12 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.26, besides\n\nmarking M.Os.1 to 7.           On defence side, no witness was\n\nexamined. Ex.D.1 contradiction in the evidence of P.W.10 was\n\nmarked for the defence. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis\n\nof the material available on record, framed the following points\n\nfor determination:\n                                  2\n\n\n\n\n     (1) Whether the deceased-Ghousia @ Zaheeda was\n     murdered?\n     (2) If so, whether it is the accused who committed\n     that murder?\n\n      4.    Learned Sessions Judge, by way of the impugned\n\njudgment, convicted the accused and sentenced him to\n\nundergo imprisonment for life.\n\n\n      5.    Heard Sri Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the\n\nappellant and Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor\n\nappearing for the State, apart from perusing the material\n\navailable on record.\n\n\n      6.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the\n\nappellant that the impugned judgment is highly erroneous and\n\ncontrary to law and if it is allowed to sustain, it would result in\n\nmiscarriage of justice; that in the absence of any eyewitnesses,\n\nthe Court below grossly erred in convicting the accused on\n\npresumptions and surmises; that no prosecution witness spoke\n\nabout the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence of\n\nthe alleged offence; that the prosecution failed to prove that the\n\naccused was present in the village on the date of offence; that\n\nthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not trustworthy and they are\n\ninterested witnesses and they are the brothers of the deceased\n\nand that they are not even eyewitnesses; that in the\n\nexamination underSection 313Cr.P.C., the accused denied his\n\npresence and no independent contra evidence is adduced to\n\nrebut the same; and that the prosecution failed to discharge its\n\ninitial burden of proving the presence of the accused as per\n                                      3Section 106of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel\n\nplaces reliance on the following judgments:\n\n    (1) 2010 (1) SCC (Crl.) 658 = 2009 (12) SCC 588\n    (2) 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 145 (DB)\n    (3) 2011(3) ALT (Crl.) 259\n\n      7.In Madala Appa Rao @ Appayya @ Sreenu v.\n\nState of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court,\n\nHyderabad (second cited supra), the composite High Court, at\n\nparagraph Nos.12 and 13, held as follows:\n\n                   12. There are no eye witnesses to the\n            incident.P.Ws.6 and 7 were declaredhostile.P.W.1 is\n            the father of the deceased, who presented Ex.P.1\n            report. He is not an eyewitness to the incident. He\n            stated that upon the information given by his fourth\n            daughter about the death of the deceased, he went\n            to the house of the deceased and found the dead\n            body of the deceased in the house. Therefore, his\n            evidence is of no helpful to the prosecution case.\n            However, he speaks about the quarrels between the\n            accused and the deceased.P.W.3 stated that while\n            he   was   coming   to   Gunadala   for   Marymatha\n            Tirunallu, at about 9.00 or 9.30 a.m., the accused\n            came to him and confessed before him that he\n            murdered his wife. However, he deposed that the\n            accused again told him that he said so, for\n            "Yegatali" (joke).When P.W.3 came to Gunadala\n            along with his daughter, he was told that the\n            accused murdered his wife. Immediately, he went to\n            the house of the accused and found the dead body\n            of the deceased. But, he did not reveal to anybody\n            about the alleged confession said to have been\n            made by the accused. Except the evidence of P.W.3\n            about the alleged confession said to have been\n            made by the accused, no other evidence has been\n            adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence\n            of P.W.3 cannot be believed. In the present case, the\n            accused is a tractor driver and he used to go to the\n            job and return to house even after three days. Even\n            though the deceased and accused are wife and\n            husband, there is no evidence brought on record\n                                               4\n\n\n\n\n                   that on the date of the incident, the accused was\n                   present in the house along with the deceased.\n                   Further P.W.15-investigating officer in the cross-\n                   examination admitted that he did not observe the\n                   key of the tractor at the scene of offence and that\n                   none of the witnesses examined by him stated that\n                   they had seen the accused in his house one day\n                   prior to the incident. When the prosecution wants to\n                   establish the fact that the accused alone is the\n                   person who committed the murder of the deceased,\n                   it should positively establish the same by way of\n                   adducing cogent evidence. In the present case, the\n                   investigation officer as well as the learned Sessions\n                   Judge proceeded on the basis of mere suspicion and\n                   the investigation officer laid the charge sheet only\n                   on the basis of the confession recorded from the\n                   accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. The\n                   learned Sessions Judge has also on the basis of\n                   mere suspicion convicted the accused.\n                   13. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the\n                   prosecution     must     establish   all   the    pieces    of\n                   incriminating    circumstances       by      reliable      and\n                   clinching     evidence     which     would       permit     no\n                   conclusion other than the guilt of the accused. The\n                   evidence    adduced       by   the   prosecution        should\n                   consistently point to the guilt of the accused.\n                   Admittedly, as stated by the learned counsel for the\n                   appellant, even though the appellant-accused and\n                   the deceased are husband and wife, in the absence\n                   of any positive evidence to show that they were last\n                   seen together prior to the date of occurrence, the\n                   offence committed cannot be attributed to the\n                   appellant. In view of the same, the conviction and\n                   sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on\n                   the basis of mere suspicion cannot be sustainable\n                   and the same are liable to be set aside"\n\n\n          8.In Gopulapuram Balaiah v. State of Andhra\n\nPradesh1, the composite High Court, at paragraph Nos. 2, 4,\n\n18 and 19, held as follows:\n\n\n\n\n1\n    2006 (3) ALT (Crl) 403\n                                 5\n\n\n\n\n"2. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of\nthe appellant is as follows: the deceased bhoolaxmi is the\nwife of the accused. She belongs to pedda chepyal village\nand married the accused 16 years back and was blessed\nwith two daughters and one son. The accused migrated to\nsiddipet for eking livelihood by doing his professional work\nalong with his family members. About 10 years back, he\nconstructed a house at indiranagar locality at siddipet and\nwas residing in the same house, he started a workshop in\nthe town, which is about 3 to 4 kms away from his house.\nHe used to go to workshop daily in the morning and\nreturning house in the evening. He developed suspicion that\nthe deceased had illegal intimacy with their neighbour\nmuthyam and keeping the same in mind, he addicted to\nliquors and quarreled with the deceased very frequently.\nAbout five months back, he picked up a quarrel with the\nsaid muthyam, which was also attended and pacified by\nthe parents and blood relatives of the deceased. But, the\naccused did not change his behaviour and went on\nsuspecting the fidelity of the deceased and decided to do\naway with her life. Accordingly, on the morning of\n02-12-2004, as usual his children went to school and he\nwent to his workshop and at about 15-00 hours, he\nreturned to home unexpectedly and found the deceased\nspeaking with the said muthyam, which infuriated him. He\nwent inside the home and after closing the doors, murdered\nthe deceased by throttling her and went away by closing\nthe doors. He was seen going away in hurried manner by\np. Ws. 8 and 9 and also noticed that his shirt was torn at\nchest part. On a telephonic message passed to the wife of\np. W. 1, who is one of the brothers of the deceased, that the\ndeceased was in serious condition, p. W. 1 along with his\nmother went to the house of the deceased around 5.30\npm. and saw the deceased already died. Later, P.W.1\nlodged a compliant under Ex.P-1 with the police. On the\nbasis of the complaint, P.W.15, the Sub - Inspector of police,\nregistered crime no. 185 of 2004 undersection 302of IPC\nand issued fir under Ex.P11 and sent the same to the court.\nP. W. 18, the circle inspector of police took up investigation,\nvisited the scene of offence on 03-12-2004, conducted\ninquest over the dead body under Ex.P-4, prepared a rough\nsketch under Ex.P-12 in the presence of P.W.1 and another\nand sent the dead body for postmortem examination.\nP.W.14, the civil assistant surgeon working in the area\nhospital, Siddipet, conducted postmortem examination and\n                                    6\n\n\n\n\nopined that the death was due to asphyxia, fracture of\nhyoid and compression of hyoid and thyroid region. On 07-\n12-2004 at about 9-30 am, p. W. 18 apprehended the\naccused and interrogated in the presence of p. W. 12 and\nanother. The accused admitted his guilt and in his\npresence, the torn shirt was recovered under m. O. 2. After\ncompletion of the investigation, the police laid the charge\nsheet. The accused denied the charges and claimed for\ntrial.\n\n\n4.    Smt. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant\ncontended that in the absence of any eyewitnesses to the\noccurrence there is a doubt whether the accused killed the\ndeceased and in all probability, the prosecution failed to\nprove the guilty of the accused for the commission of the\noffence. She further submitted that as per the evidence of\nP.W.16, the accused surrendered before the police but it is\nnot corroborating with the evidence of P.W.18, who stated\nthat they have arrested the accused on 07-12-2004 at\n9-30 P.M., which is falsifying the case of the prosecution.\nShe further contended that as per the evidence of P.W.3, the\ndaughter of      the   deceased,       the   accused   treated   the\ndeceased affectionately and she went to school in the\nmorning and by the time she returned to house at 4-15\nP.M.,     the deceased, was found dead. Therefore, in the\nabsence of any evidence that the accused visited the house\nat the time occurrence, it is not safe to rely upon the\nprosecution evidence to connect the accused with the\ncommission of offence.\n\n\n18.      The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a\ndecision of the supreme court in Dasari Siva prasadReddy\nv. Publicprosecutor high court of A.P. wherein this court\nreversed the acquittal recorded by the sessions judge and\nconvicted the accused undersection 302of IPC and\nsentenced to life imprisonment. Further, the acquittal undersection 498IPC was confirmed. On further appeal by the\naccused to the supreme court, the supreme court held as\nfollows:\n\n\n          "24. A strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the\n          appellant but such suspicion cannot be the basis of\n          conviction, going by the standard of proof required\n          in a criminal case. The distance between 'may be\n          true' and 'must be true' shall be fully covered by\n                                        7\n\n\n\n\n             reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. But,\n             that has not been done in the instant case. If,\n             coupled with the circumstance unfolded by the\n             evidence of P.W.3, the evidence of P.W.4 had been\n             believed, it would have gone a long way in\n             substantiating the prosecution case. But, in the\n             instant case, apart from the fact that the appellant\n             was at his house on the morning of 20th                April,\n             1996, there is other circumstances whatsoever\n             which connects the accused to the crime, though\n             serious suspicion looms large about his involvement.\n             The    view taken    by       the   trial   court   that   the\n             prosecution could not establish the complete chain\n             of circumstances incriminating the accused is a\n             reasonably possible view and the high court should\n             not have disturb the same. Having regard to the\n             state of available evidence, the benefit of doubt\n             given to the accused by the trial court warranted no\n             interference by the high court. "\n\n\n      19.   In the present case, except the suspicion that the\n      accused was harassing the deceased and suspecting her\n      fidelity, no other circumstances have been established by\n      the prosecution that the accused participated in the\n      commission of offence. After going through the evidence and\n      the judgment of the trial court, we are unable to accept the\n      reasoning recorded by the trial court while convicting the\n      accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit doubt\n      and the conviction and sentence imposed on him are liable\n      to be set aside".\n\n\n      9.     On the contrary, while strongly supporting the\n\ncase of the prosecution, learned Public Prosecutor contends\n\nthat there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the\n\nimpugned judgment and, in the absence of the same,\n\ninterference of this Court underSection 374(2)Cr.P.C. is not\n\nwarranted; that having regard toSection 106of the Indian\n\nEvidence Act, 1872, initial burden lies on the accused to\n\ndisprove his presence at the scene of offence and since he failed\n\nto discharge the same, the Court below is perfectly justified in\n                                  8\n\n\n\n\nconvicting the accused; that the oral and documentary\n\nevidence adduced by the prosecution clearly demonstrates that\n\nthe accused committed the offence; and that there are no\n\ncontradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and\n\nevidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is consistent\n\nthroughout, as such, the conviction based on the same cannot\n\nbe faulted.\n\n       10.    In the above background, now, the issues that\n\narise for consideration of this Court in this Criminal Appeal\n\nare:\n\n   (1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the\n       accused beyond reasonable doubt?\n   (2) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is correct in\n       convicting the accused for the offence underSection 302I.P.C.?\n   (3) Whether the impugned judgment warrants any\n       interference of this Court underSection 374(2)of\n       Cr.P.C.?\n\n       11.    It is a settled position of law that when there is no\n\neyewitness and the entire case of the prosecution rests on\n\ncircumstantial evidence, Courts are required to examine,\n\nevaluate and assess the evidence on record in a meticulous\n\nmanner and the chain of events is required to be continuous to\n\nestablish the guilt of the accused. Admittedly, in the instant\n\ncase, there is no eyewitness for the alleged offence and the\n\nentire prosecution case rests on circumstantial and medical\n\nevidence.\n\n\n       12.    Prosecution Witnesses 3 to 7 in the instant case\n\nturned hostile.     P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and\n                                      9\n\n\n\n\naccording to him, the accused and the deceased were attending\n\nMason work and t he accused, having addicted to drinking,\n\nused to harass his sister by beating and abusing her and used\n\nto attribute illegal intimacy with their Mastry (P.W.10). He also\n\ndeposed that she used to inform the same to them and\n\ninformed the same to L.W.9-Shaik Yerra Babu and L.W.9\n\nconvinced the deceased to get on with the accused, keeping in\n\nview the interest of marital life and children. P.W.1 also stated\n\nabout his sister coming to his house on 17.06.2012 and\n\ncomplaining about the harassment by the accused and his\n\nsuspicion of her character and the factum of their consolation\n\nin the interest of their children and family life. He also deposed\n\nduring cross-examination that twice, they approached the\n\npolice    prior   to   death   of   the    deceased,   but   the   police\n\ncompromised and sent them.                It is significant to note that\n\nthough there was a suggestion that only after knowing the\n\ndeath of the deceased, the accused came from Hyderabad,\n\nP.W.1 categorically denied the same.\n\n\n         13.   P.W.2, who is the elder brother of P.W.1 and son of\n\nthe father of P.W.1 through his first wife, also spoke in the\n\nsame lines as that of P.W.1. As stated supra, P.Ws.3 to 7 did\n\nnot support the case of the prosecution and they turned\n\nhostile. P.W.8, who is the Village Officer of Duggirala, acted as\n\na mediator and, according to him, on 12.07.2012 at about 9\n\na.m., police Duggirala called him to act as mediator and he\n\nexamined the scene of offence and found the dead body of the\n\ndeceased in a pool of blood. P.W.8 spoke about the seizure of\n\nchutney pounder (M.O.1), bloodstained earth (M.O.2) and\n                                     10\n\n\n\n\ncontrolled earth (M.O.3) under the cover of mediators report.\n\nHe also deposed that on 17.07.2012 at about 6 a.m., the\n\nInspector of Police, Tenali, called him to act as a mediator for\n\narrest and accordingly, he went to Duggirala old locks along\n\nwith police and another mediator, Shaik Basha, and, on seeing\n\nthe police, the accused started running and then, the police\n\nchased and caught hold of him and the accused confessed to\n\nhave   killed    his   wife   by   hitting   with   chutney   pounder,\n\nsuspecting her character and that he concealed his blood\n\nstained clothes towards the south of Upper Primary School,\n\nDuggirala, between hayrick heap and the school.               He also\n\nspoke about the attestation of Ex.P.9 to the said effect. P.W.8\n\nalso spoke about the recovery of M.Os.4 and 5 under cover of\n\nEx.P.10 mediators report.\n\n\n       14.      P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem\n\nexamination and he opined that the deceased appears to have\n\ndied of head injury by using a blunt object and died of blood\n\nloss and shock. Ex.P.11 is the postmortem examination report,\n\nwhich shows the following injuries:\n\n   1.Lacerated injury over the occipital parietal region\n       vertically 10 cm x 5 cm.2. Another lacerated injury horizontally 6x4 cm below\n       the above injury.3. Contusion over the left eye of 5x5 cm.4. Skull fractured at the occipital parietal area of\n       about 10 cm vertically and 5 cm horizontally\n       through which brain expelled out.15.      The case of the appellant, as contended by the\n\nlearned counsel for the appellant, is that the prosecution could11not completely establish the chain of events to connect the\n\naccused with the commission of offence and could not establish\n\nthe motive and failed to discharge its initial burden.16.   P.W.1, as stated supra, categorically spoke about\n\nthe earlier conduct of the accused towards the deceased, i.e.,\n\nharassment, suspecting her fidelity. The evidence of P.W.1\n\nestablishes the motive of the accused for the offence underSection 302I.P.C. The deceased and the accused were\n\nadmittedly living under the same roof. The plea of alibi also\n\ncould not be substantiated by the defence by adducing\n\nevidence.   It is pertinent to note that during the course of\n\nexamination of accused underSection 313Cr.P.C. also, the\n\nplea of alibi was not raised and there was no explanation\n\noffered to the said effect, except stating that the accused was\n\nnot attending mason work at Tenali by the time of death.\n\nTherefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be\n\nconcluded that the appellant herein discharged his burden\n\nunderSection 106of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On the\n\nother hand, the prosecution, by adducing the evidence,\n\ndischarged its initial burden.17.   It is also required to be noted that according to\n\nF.S.L.Report, blood of human origin was detected on items 1, 2,\n\n3, 4, 6 and 7. Non-existence of blood of human origin on item\n\nNo.5 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, learned\n\nSessions Judge considered the aspect of alibi at paragraph\n\nNo.28 of the impugned judgment. Learned Sessions Judge also\n\nfound that there is no evidence to show that the accused was12working at Hyderabad, except the hostile witnesses P.Ws.3 to\n\n5, who are close relatives of the accused.18.        In support of his contentions and submissions,\n\nthe learned Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment\n\nof the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofTrimukh Maroti\n\nKirkan v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex\n\nCourt, at paragraphs 12, 15, 16 and 17, held as under:"12.    If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a\n            house and in such circumstances where the assailants have\n            all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time\n            and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely\n            difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the\n            guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial\n            evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A\n            Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that\n            no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see\n            that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties.\n            (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315\n            quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. inState of Punjab\n            vs. Karnail Singh(2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not\n            enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such\n            character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate\n            extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to\n            lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having\n            regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is\n            necessary to keep in mindSection 106of the Evidence Act\n            which says that when any fact is especially within the\n            knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is\n            upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws\n            some light on the content and scope of this provision and it\n            reads:(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without\n            ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy\n            inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would\n            undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and2(2006) 10 SCC 68113amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge\ncannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of\ncircumstantial      evidence.   The   burden      would    be    of   a\ncomparatively lighter character. In view ofSection 106of the\nEvidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the\ninmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how\nthe crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot\nget away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation\non the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case\nlies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all\non an accused to offer any explanation.15. In Ram Gulam Chaudhary & Ors. v. Sate of Bihar\n(2001) 8 SCC 311, the accused after brutally assaulting a boy\ncarried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive\nnor his body was found. The accused, however, offered no\nexplanation as to what they did after they took away the boy.\nIt was held that for the absence of any explanation from the\nside of the accused about the boy, there was every\njustification for    drawing    an    inference   that    they   have\nmurdered the boy. It was further observed that even\nthoughSection 106of the Evidence Act may not be intended\nto relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the\naccused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would\napply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has\nsucceeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference\ncan be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of their\nspecial knowledge must offer an explanation which might\nlead the Court to draw a different inference.16. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where\nno eye- witness account is available, there is another\nprinciple of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is\nthat when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused\nand the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an\nexplanation which is found to be untrue, then the same\nbecomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to\nmake it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of\ndecisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v.\nRajendran(1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6);State of U.P. v. Dr.\nRavindra Prakash MittalAIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40);State\nof     Maharashtra     v.   Suresh(2000)   1     SCC     471    (para27);Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan(2002) 1 SCC 731 (para15) andGulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para4)].1417. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the\n       murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading\n       evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime\n       they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the\n       dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it\n       has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer\n       any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an\n       explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong\n       circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for\n       commission of the crime. ..........."19.    Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eye\n\nwitness and the entire case of the prosecution rests on the\n\ncircumstantial evidence. As observed supra, the prosecution,\n\nby examining P.W.1, successfully established the scene of\n\noffence which shows the involvement of the appellant-accused\n\nin the commission of the offence. It is also significant to note\n\nthat during 313Cr.P.C. examination also, the aspect of alibi\n\nwas not raised and there was no proper explanation offered\n\nwith regard to the said fact. It is also the submission of the\n\nlearned counsel for the appellant-accused that the case of the\n\nappellant-accused may be considered                  under part-II ofSection 304IPC. Since there is no eye witness for the\n\noccurrence of the offence and as the weapon used by the\n\nappellant-accused, i.e. the chutney pounder, is normally\n\navailable in every kitchen and in the absence of any cogent\n\nevidence that the appellant-accused had beaten the deceased\n\nwith an intention to cause her death, in the considered opinion\n\nof this Court, the conviction of the appellant-accused under\n\npart-II ofSection 304IPC will be just, proper and appropriate.1521.   In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed\n\nand the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused,\n\nvide judgment, dated 21.10.2014, by the XI Additional District\n\nand Sessions Judge, Tenali, in Sessions Case No.180 of 2013,\n\nunderSection 302IPC, is altered to that ofSection 304-IIIPC\n\nand   the   accused    is   sentenced    to    undergo   rigorous\n\nimprisonment for a period of ten years. However, the fine and\n\ndefault clause shall remain intact.As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in\n\nthis appeal, shall stand closed.____________________\n                                                A.V.SESHA SAI, J\n\n\n\n                                        _________________________\n                                         B.KRISHNA MOHAN, J\nDate: 20.10.2020\n\nSiva/Tsy16THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI\n                         AND\n       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN\n\n\n\n\n           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1315 OF 2014\n\n\n\n\n                    Date: 20.10.2020\n\n\nsiva