JUDGMENT : C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikara in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1958 on his file. 2. The accused Mathew, alias Sunny, was charged for having caused the death of his wife Mariamma, alias Ammal, by shooting her with a revolver, M.O. 1, at about 5 p. m. on 22nd December 1957. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused was married to the deceased Ammal in or about 1951 when the deceased was a student in the St. Teresa’s College at Ernakulam. The accused himself was a lecturer in the St. Berchman’s College, Changanacherry. After her marriage, the deceased Ammal discontinued her studies and came to reside with the accused in his house called Melamparambil, Kavumbhagom, Thiruvella. Along with the accused and Ammal, the father of the accused, one Dr. Markose, a retired Medical Practitioner, was also residing. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused also started a tutorial college by name Sunny’s Tutorial College at Thiruvella. As his attention became divided between the St. Berchman’s College where he was serving as a lecturer and his own tutorial college, his services were dispensed with by the authorities of the St. Berchman’s College. The tutorial college run by the accused appears to have been flourishing and he appears to have been getting a monthly income ranging between Rs.1,000 and Rs.1,500. For about three or four years after their marriage both the accused and his wife, the deceased Ammal, seem to have been living a fairly happy life and they had also three children. But the accused got into bad ways and he used to drink very heavily. Added to this, according to the prosecution, the accused developed an intimacy with one Lizy Pothen who was an unmarried girl studying in his tutorial college. The intimacy between the accused and that girl developed very much and accused is stated to have been in the habit of taking her out in his car and staying in several places like Travellers’ Bungalows as husband and wife. 5. Evidently because of this conduct of her husband, Ammal seems to have had misunderstanding with her husband. The intimacy between the accused and that girl developed very much and accused is stated to have been in the habit of taking her out in his car and staying in several places like Travellers’ Bungalows as husband and wife. 5. Evidently because of this conduct of her husband, Ammal seems to have had misunderstanding with her husband. Early in January 1957 Ammal seems to have left Melamparambil House, the residence of her husband, and took up residence for a few months along with her mother and brother in Kurusinmootil House. 6. According to the prosecution, the several letters that passed between Ammal and the accused will show his bitter attitude towards Ammal. Again, the correspondence that passed between the accused and his girl friend, namely, Lizy Pothen, will also show that he was intensely in love with that girl and that he even contemplated divorcing Ammal and marrying Lizy Pothen. According to the prosecution, those letters, apart from showing his love for Lizy Pothen, will also show that he had a hatred for Ammal and that he felt that Ammal was a stumbling block in the way of his leading a happy life with his girl friend as he pleased. 7. While matters stood thus, in view of the reputation that the accused had of his intimacy with Lizy Pothen, the strength in his tutorial college gradually dwindled and his income also became very much less. 8. It is also alleged by the prosecution that after Ammal came to her mother’s house, she appeared for the Intermediate Examination at Ajmere and she was also taking the necessary training in shorthand and typewriting. In connection with her examination in shorthand and typewriting at Ernakulam on the 26th of October 1957, Ammal came to Ernakulam with one of her children and after the examination, she along with her student friends and Pw. .22 got into the boat on that night at Ernakulam to Thiruvella. At a place called Vaduthala, the accused got into that boat and Ammal enabled him to change his cloth as he was drenched in rain. At the request of her husband, Ammal got down at Vycome along with her child and accompanied her husband to Melamparambil House. Both of them, after spending some time in the intervening places, finally reached Melamparambil House. From that time onwards Ammal was living with the accused in Melamparambil House. At the request of her husband, Ammal got down at Vycome along with her child and accompanied her husband to Melamparambil House. Both of them, after spending some time in the intervening places, finally reached Melamparambil House. From that time onwards Ammal was living with the accused in Melamparambil House. She arranged to get her other children and also her servant girl to Melamparambil House from Kurusinmottil House. She appears to have been accompanying her husband, the accused, wherever he went including his tutorial college. According to the prosecution, the accused was having the revolver, M.O.1, always loaded, and was carrying it whenever he was going outside keeping it in the pocket of the righthand door of his car which was a Bug Fiat make. On 27th November 1957 Ammal went to the St. Joseph’s College for Women, Alleppey, where the girl Lizy Pothen was a student and who was also staying in the hostel attached to that college. When she went, she took along with her certain letters written by this Lizy Pothen to her husband and also a letter written by her husband to Lizy Pothen, but not yet actually sent by him. These letters were in code and she appears to have learnt to decode them from her husband. Taking these letters she went to Alleppey and met the principal of the college and the Warden and also the Rev. Mother of the St. Joseph’s College. She showed these letters and also explained the way in which they are to be decoded. She requested the college authorities to allow her to interview Lizy Pothen so that she may talk to her as a sister and request her to sever all her connections with her husband in the interests of everybody. After getting an assurance from Ammal, the college authorities permitted her to interview Lizy Pothen. During the discussions Ammal appears to have become emotional and gave a slap on Lizy Pothen’s cheek. She left the letters which she took with the college authorities and Lizy Pothen also admitted that one of the letters brought by Ammal had been sent by her to the accused. 9. The college authorities appear to have persuaded Lizy Pothen to write a letter, copy of which is Ext. P-13, to the accused intimating that she is severing all connections with him. But Lizy Pothen wrote Ext. 9. The college authorities appear to have persuaded Lizy Pothen to write a letter, copy of which is Ext. P-13, to the accused intimating that she is severing all connections with him. But Lizy Pothen wrote Ext. P-23, to her friend, one Ammukutty (P. W. 15) at Konni about the visit of Ammal to the college and her being slapped on the cheek by Ammal and also the other matters that took place in the presence of the Principal, Warden and Rev. Mother. She also informed Ammukutty that she had been induced to write the letter by the college authorities to the accused intimating him that she is severing all connections with him. But she wrote to Ammukutty asking her to mention to the accused the circumstances under which that letter has been sent to him and to inform him that she is in love with him and not to pay any heed to the letter written by her at the instance of the college authorities. 10. The visit of Ammal to the college and her interview with Lizy Pothen arid other matters appear to have come to the knowledge of the accused. The accused visited in the first week of December 1957, Ammukutty and her husband one Ravi, and the latter reported to him about the contents of the letter written by Lizy Pothen. 11. On the day of the occurrence, namely, 22nd December 1957, the prosecution case is that the accused started to go out in his car at about 10 a. m., Ammal also accompanied him in the car in the same dress that she was wearing in the house. In the afternoon the accused went to the house of Ammukutty (P.W. 15) and her husband Raveendran (P. W. 31) and the latter gave another letter to the accused from Lizy Pothen. Ravi (P. W. 31) saw Ammal sitting in the car when he came out of the house to the road along with the accused. Both Ammal and the accused returned to Melamparambil House at about 4 p.m. that day, and after taking their food, Ammal retired and lay down on a cot in one of the rooms of the house. Ravi (P. W. 31) saw Ammal sitting in the car when he came out of the house to the road along with the accused. Both Ammal and the accused returned to Melamparambil House at about 4 p.m. that day, and after taking their food, Ammal retired and lay down on a cot in one of the rooms of the house. The accused is stated to have gone to the latrine and Ammal also got up and went to the latrine and finding the accused reading a letter, asked the accused to hand over that letter to her and the accused declined to do so. According to the prosecution, the accused came into the house and went from room to room followed by Ammal. It is the further case of the prosecution that shortly thereafter at about 5 p. m., the accused went into the car shed in the Melamparambil House followed by Ammal and immediately after they went into the car shed, there was a revolver shot heard. The first shot was again immediately followed by a second shot, and when the servants of the house rushed to the car shed they saw the accused coming out of the car shed -with the revolver, M. 0. 1, in his hand and Ammal lying on the floor with injuries. According to the prosecution, the revolver was taken from the accused by his father Dr. Markose and the latter locked it up in the drawer of a table in the portico room of the house. A little later Ammal was put in the car of the accused and the accused took her to the O.K. Hospital, Thiruvella. One Kali (Pw. 10) also accompanied the accused in the car supporting Ammal. But as the doctor there was not available, the accused attempted to take her to the Government Hospital at Thiruvella. But as Ammal died on the way to the Hospital, the accused came back to the house along with Kali with the dead body of Ammal. 12. Pw. 1, the uncle (mother’s brother) of the deceased who was living nearby, hearing about the incident, came to Melamparambil House at about 5-45 p.m. By that time the accused had returned to the house with the dead body of Ammal. Pw. 1 went and gave a report, Ext. 12. Pw. 1, the uncle (mother’s brother) of the deceased who was living nearby, hearing about the incident, came to Melamparambil House at about 5-45 p.m. By that time the accused had returned to the house with the dead body of Ammal. Pw. 1 went and gave a report, Ext. P-1 at about 6-15 p.m. the same evening at the Thiruvella Police Station which is about one or one and a half furlongs from the Melamparambil House. The report was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, Pw. 24, who also prepared the first information report, Ext. P-36. He sent express reports to the authorities and he also informed the Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur by phone. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached the place at about 7-15 p. m. He did not question anybody then as he expected the Circle Inspector to come there at any time. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur (Pw. 34) reached the scene of occurrence at 7-45 p. m. on the same bay and took up investigation of the crime. The revolver, M. 0.1 was produced before Pw. 34 by Dr. Markose, the father of the accused, and it is evidenced by the mahazar, Ext. P-30. He conducted a search of the house and also questioned Dr. Markose, the father of the accused, the accused, the two servants who were in the house and also the eldest child of the accused, and also a neighbour by name Kali. M.O. 1 was a five-chamber revolver and was found to contain two empty cases and two live cartridges and one chamber was empty. One of the live cartridges taken from the revolver is M.O. 13. The empty cases are M.O. 12. The Circle Inspector also recovered a box containing 19 live cartridges from the house of the accused. The cartridges are contact, 32 S & W revolver cartridges and he also recovered certain letters. 13. The Circle Inspector (Pw. 34) conducted the inquest on the dead body of Ammal on 23rd December 1957 and, had prepared the inquest report, Ext. P-44. He also prepared Ext. P-48 being the mahazar for the car shed in the house of the accused. On the same day the letter, Ext. P-46, was produced by George Varghese (Pw. 33), before the Circle Inspector of Police. P-44. He also prepared Ext. P-48 being the mahazar for the car shed in the house of the accused. On the same day the letter, Ext. P-46, was produced by George Varghese (Pw. 33), before the Circle Inspector of Police. The Circle Inspector also arrested the accused at about 9 p. m. on 23rd December 1957. The tutorial college of the accused was also searched by the witness on 25th December 1957 and he recovered from there certain other articles. 14. The Circle Inspector searched the house of Pw. 12 on the 27th December 1957 and recovered two letters Ext. P.18 and Ext. P-19. On the 28th December, he obtained from the authorities of the St. Joseph’s College at Alleppey, Ext. P-6 Ext. P-6 (a), Ext! P-7 to Ext. P-10, Ext. P-10 (a), Ext. P-10 (b) and Ext. P-11. The house of Raveendran, Pw. 31, at Konni was also searched on the 29th December 1957 and the letter Ext. P-23 was recovered. 15. The post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor of the Government Hospital, Pw. 11, on 23rd December 1957. Pw. 11 has issued the post-mortem certificate, Ext. P-20. The doctor found one penetrating injury and two scratches on the body of Ammal. The penetrating injury was on the right chest. According to the doctor this injury was caused by a bullet which got embedded in the body. Injuries No. 2 were only two scratches skin deep and according to the doctor all the injuries are antemortem. Injury No. 1 has been caused by a fire-arm and injury No. 2 must have been caused by some hard and rough substance coming into contact with that part of the body. The bullet was extracted from the body of the deceased and that is M.O.2. 16. In the opinion of the doctor the penetrating injury No. 1 could be caused with a fire-arm like M.O.1 and M.O.2 fits in M.O.1. It is the further opinion of the Doctor that injury No. 1 is the fatal injury and Ammal must have died within 15 to 30 minutes. He also gave as the cause of death Syncope due to haemorrhage as a result of the gun-shot wound injury No. 1 which is fatal. The further opinion of the doctor is that probably this is a case of homicide. 17. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch (Pw. He also gave as the cause of death Syncope due to haemorrhage as a result of the gun-shot wound injury No. 1 which is fatal. The further opinion of the doctor is that probably this is a case of homicide. 17. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch (Pw. 36), took charge of the investigation of this case on 4th January 1958. 18. Originally the case was charged under section 302 and also under section 14 read with section 19 (f) of the Arms Act and charging also Dr. Markose, father of the accused, of an offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on a final charge has been laid against the accused and his father under section 302 and section 201 of the Penal Code and a separate charge was filed against the accused in respect of the offence under the Arms Act. The accused was committed to the Sessions to stand his trial for offence punishable under section 302. The Magistrate also committed Dr. Markose to stand his trial for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. But this High Court has stayed the trial of Dr. Markose for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending the trial of the accused on the charge of murder. Accordingly a charge was framed by the Sessions Court against the accused for an offence under section 302, I.P.C. 19. There are no eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence. But the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws. 1, 4 to 8, 12,15, 31 and 33 and also certain letters written by the accused to Ammal as also some correspondence that passed between the accused and Lizy Pothen (Pw. 12) to establish that the accused felt that Ammal, his wife, was a stumbling block in the way of his having his relationship with his girl friend, Pw. 12. According to the prosecution, this evidence supplies a motive for the accused to do away with his wife. Therefore, the prosecution relied very strongly on the evidence furnished by these witnesses and the letters to show that the accused had a motive to kill Ammal and as such he would have shot dead Ammal as alleged by the prosecution. 20. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of the Medical Officer, Pw. 11, Pw. Therefore, the prosecution relied very strongly on the evidence furnished by these witnesses and the letters to show that the accused had a motive to kill Ammal and as such he would have shot dead Ammal as alleged by the prosecution. 20. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of the Medical Officer, Pw. 11, Pw. 14, Professor of Pathalogy and Forensic Medicine and Principal of the Medical College. Trivandrum, and also the evidence of Pw. 35, Lieut. Commander, Indian Navy Long Gunnery Specialist, to establish that the injury found on the body of Ammal as a result of which she died, could not have been self-inflicted and that it is a case of homicide. This evidence assumes fairly great importance in view of the plea of the accused that Ammal committed suicide by shooting herself. The prosecution also relied upon some passages in certain leading text books of Medical Jurisprudence to establish that the opinion of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 is amply corroborated by the leading authors. 21. To connect the accused with the crime the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 25. In this case there is a plan Ext. P-37 prepared by Pw. 26 which gives a general idea of the location of the Melamparambil House together with its surroundings. Pw. 2 is a resident on the western side of Melamparambil House. His house is situated about 122 links from the car shed in the Melamparambil House. Pw. 3, according to the prosecution, was watching sugarcane that was being carted in a cart which was standing on the road on the eastern side of Melamparambil House. Pw. 6 is a servant boy and Pw. 7 is a servant girl both employed in the house of the accused and were present at the time of occurrence. Pw. 10 is washerwoman by profession staying in the house marked in the plan situated on the eastern side of Melamparambil House. Pw. 25 is a teacher employed in the MGM. School at Thiruvella and who had gone to see the father of the accused, Dr. Markose, in the evening of the day of occurrence. Pw. 10 is washerwoman by profession staying in the house marked in the plan situated on the eastern side of Melamparambil House. Pw. 25 is a teacher employed in the MGM. School at Thiruvella and who had gone to see the father of the accused, Dr. Markose, in the evening of the day of occurrence. We will be discussing the evidence of these witnesses at the proper stage but we may mention at present that according to the prosecution one or other of these witnesses saw at the relevant time the accused running into the car shed closely followed by the deceased Ammal and the sounds of two shots being heard in quick succession. According to the prosecution, some of these witnesses have also seen the accused immediately thereafter ‘ coming out of the car shed with a revolver in his hand. 22. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He had also stated that his wife was residing in her mother’s place some time prior to October 1957. But he denied that it was due to his bad habits. According to the accused, Ammal was staying in her mother’s house for some months prior to October 1957 for purposes of her study. He admitted certain letters written to Ammal, namely, Ext. P-33, Ext. P-46, and Ext. P 47 (b). He has stated that he wrote those letters to tease Ammal and he did not really mean what he has written there and he also added that Ammal was absolutely chaste. He admitted about his intimate friendship with Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12. Regarding some of the letters that passed between him and Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12, he admitted that Ext. P-9 in code was written by him to Pw. 12 and that Ext. P-10 in code was written to him by Pw. 12. He admitted having got ready the letter Ext. P-10(a) to be sent to Pw. 1 2 but when his wife Ammal came back in the end of October 1957 he gave Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-10 (a) to Ammal and confessed the whole matter and he even taught her how to decode the letters. He had also assured her that there will be absolutely no room for any complaint. He agreed that Ext. P-24 is the decoded version of the code letter Ext. P -10 and that Ext. P-35 and Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-10 (a) to Ammal and confessed the whole matter and he even taught her how to decode the letters. He had also assured her that there will be absolutely no room for any complaint. He agreed that Ext. P-24 is the decoded version of the code letter Ext. P -10 and that Ext. P-35 and Ext. P-34 are also the decoded version of Ext. P-9 and Ext. P-10 (a). But regarding some of the statements in Ext. P-34, the accused had stated that he did not really mean everything that is mentioned there and he wrote like that criticising his wife Ammal, only to please Pw. 12. According to the accused, Ammal willingly followed him from Vycome on the 26th night to his house at Melamparambil in view of the fact that he had assured her of his good behaviour and also promised not to have anything to do with Pw. 12. He further says that after Animal’s return both of them were living very happily without any quarrel whatsoever about Lizy Pothen affair but he understood that she was still suspecting him, when she mentioned to him about her visit to Alleppey to meet the college authorities and Lizy Pothen. The visit to Alleppey by Ammal on 27th November 1957 and the incidents that took place there have all been mentioned to the accused by her even on that day itself and she also mentioned to him about having given Exts. P-10 and Ext. P-10 (a) to the college authorities. Regarding the letter, Ext. P23, sent by Lizy Pothen to Ammukutty to inform the accused about the incident that took place with Ammal in the college, the accused admitted that the substance of the letter was mentioned to him by Raveendran, Pw. 31, when he went to his house in the first week of December 1957 to get money. But as he had already known from Ammal all these matters mentioned in Ext. P-23 he did not care to take that letter from Pw. 31. 23. The accused further stated that on 22nd December 1957 at about 10 a. m. when he was starting to go out in the car, deceased accompanied him, and that she usually used to accompany him wherever he went. But he denied the suggestion that she came with him in the same dress that she was wearing in the house. 23. The accused further stated that on 22nd December 1957 at about 10 a. m. when he was starting to go out in the car, deceased accompanied him, and that she usually used to accompany him wherever he went. But he denied the suggestion that she came with him in the same dress that she was wearing in the house. He admits having gone to the house of Ammukutty and Raveendran (Pws. 15 and 31 respectively) on the afternoon of the day of occurrence, namely, 22nd December 1957. His wife was in the car waiting outside and he went into the house. He also stated that Raveendran, Pw. 31, gave him a letter which had been received from Pw. 12. After going back home in the evening, according to the accused, he was just beginning to read the letter in the latrine when the deceased knocked at the door and opened it. She saw him reading the letter, and wanted the accused to hand it over to her. The accused replied to her that it will be given after he had read it. But Ammal insisted on its being given immediately. He replied that her demand was not proper, but anyhow he told her that he will give it only after he had finished reading the same. Saying this he got into the house. He denied that the servant boy Gopi (Pw. 6) came anywhere near the latrine at that time to take the cow from that place in order to put it in the shed. He also denied that the servant girl Sumathi (Pw. 7) came with his child anywhere near that place. According to the accused, he and Ammal alone were there. Regarding the evidence that he went from room to room and that Ammal chased him and that at about 5 p.m. he ran into the car shed followed by Ammal he stated that it is absolute falsehood. According to the accused, he got into the room south of the adjoining verandah with the letter in his hand. When Ammal attempted to come in he closed the southern door. When she tried to go into the room through the kitchen he closed the kitchen door also. When she attempted to go through the dining verandah he closed that door also. Then he began to read the letter. He had also closed the entrance from the Ara. When Ammal attempted to come in he closed the southern door. When she tried to go into the room through the kitchen he closed the kitchen door also. When she attempted to go through the dining verandah he closed that door also. Then he began to read the letter. He had also closed the entrance from the Ara. (Ad) At that time Ammal again asked for the letter standing outside the window of the adjoining verandah. The accused closed that window also. The accused further stated that it was only after the occurrence that he went to the car shed & that in the meanwhile he did not go anywhere from the room where he was with the letter. He would add that there was also no need to go out as he had closed all the doors of the room. 24. The accused admitted that the revolver, M.O.1, is his and that he used to go out with it fully loaded and keeping it in the car door pocket. He further stated that after Ammal came back both he and she had access to it, namely, sometimes he used to put the revolver in the car door pocket and sometimes Ammal will do so. The accused further stated that at about 5 p.m. on the evening of 22nd December 1957 he began reading the letter inside the room. When he had read about three or four sentences he heard a noise resembling the firing of crackers. He ignored that sound and continued reading the letter. It was only after the occurrence when he again thought about the noise that he felt it may have been the sound of a revolver shot. He also stated that after he had finished reading about a page of the letter he heard a sound and the cry of the children following it immediately. When he heard that, the accused immediately opened the door and ran to the car shed. His father, Dr. Markose, came behind him. When he went there he saw Ammal lying with gun shot wound. He denied the suggestion that he ran away from the car shed immediately with the revolver in his hand. He stated that it was his father, Dr. Markose, who took the revolver which was near the place where Ammal was lying. His father, Dr. Markose, came behind him. When he went there he saw Ammal lying with gun shot wound. He denied the suggestion that he ran away from the car shed immediately with the revolver in his hand. He stated that it was his father, Dr. Markose, who took the revolver which was near the place where Ammal was lying. He also characterised as deliberate falsehood the evidence that the injured Ammal told his father that the accused had shot her and that his father attempted to beat him. He would add that his father asked somebody to get a big car to take his wife to the hospital. He took the injured in his own car to the G.K. Hospital which is the nearest hospital to his house and is well equipped. As the doctor was not there and as the compounder told him that it was not possible to get the doctor the accused took the injured to the Government Hospital but she died on the way, He also added that he did not stay more than two or three minutes in the G.K. Hospital. 25. He admitted that Ammal died at about 5-45 p. m. in consequence of an injury which could be caused by shooting with M.O.1. He denied the suggestion that his father had tutored Gopi (Pw. 6) and Sumathi (Pw. 7), before the police came to give a particular version as mentioned by him to anybody who asks about the occurrence and added referring to his father “He is temperamentally incapable of telling a lie.” Regarding the evidence that the injury found on Ammal could not be self-inflicted, the accused asserted that “AXv’’ self-inflicted “BWv’’. He also added that according to him the so-called experts who say that it is not self-inflicted know nothing about either guns or the action of the guns. 26. Finally he stated that he is not at all guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. He has not done the act. He also stated: (xxxx).’’ The brother, mother and other relations of Ammal are on inimical terms with him for some time and they are also very rich and influential in the locality. They have manoeuvred to create a sensation about the case and due to their influence the Crime Branch has falsely charged him with this crime. He also stated: (xxxx).’’ The brother, mother and other relations of Ammal are on inimical terms with him for some time and they are also very rich and influential in the locality. They have manoeuvred to create a sensation about the case and due to their influence the Crime Branch has falsely charged him with this crime. The Crime Branch Police with a view to win this case, took away Pws. 6 and 7 and tutored them to give false evidence against the accused. Due to the pressure and influence of the Police Pws. 6 and 7 have given false evidence in the court. Those two witnesses have been threatened and coerced to give false evidence. Even on the day of the accused giving his statement, Pw. 6 who was his former servant, is in the house of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhaskara Panicker, Pw. 36. Pw. 7 is in the house of Ammal’s mother. It was Ammal’s mother who sent Pws. 6 and 7 to their house. He finally concluded by saying that he is absolutely innocent. 27. It will be seen from the summary of the statement of the accused above that the accused admits his relationship with Pw. 12 and also admits the writing of some of the letters relied upon by the prosecution. No doubt, he has got some explanation which will be considered later. He also admits the ownership of M.O.1 and he also admits that the deceased sustained injuries of a nature which could have been caused by the revolver, M.O.1. He has denied that he shot Ammal but has stated that Ammal shot herself dead, i.e., that Ammal committed suicide by shooting herself with the revolver, M.O.1. 28. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara, in the view that he took of the evidence adduced in the case has finally acquitted the accused. The learned Judge has held that Ammal died as a result of a bullet wound on her chest on the right side sustained at about 5 p.m. on 22nd December 1957 by the discharge of M.0.2 bullet from the revolver, M.0.1. Discussing the evidence of Pws. The learned Judge has held that Ammal died as a result of a bullet wound on her chest on the right side sustained at about 5 p.m. on 22nd December 1957 by the discharge of M.0.2 bullet from the revolver, M.0.1. Discussing the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the views expressed by those witnesses proceed on the assumption that in order to make the injury No. 1 in this case self-inflicted, the injured must have been standing erect holding the revolver in the right hand in the manner in which revolvers are held by those who generally use them and aiming at the place of entry and in the direction of the track of the wound. The learned Judge accepted the case of the prosecution that Ammal was a right-handed person and in this connection he has relied upon the evidence of the two servants employed in the house, namely, Pws. 6 and 7. That the deceased was a right-handed person has not also been challenged even before us by Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the accused. But the learned Judge was of the opinion that the trigger of M. 0. 1 could be pulled without much force and that “any person could discharge it sitting using both hands or supporting one or both hands on some surface or other so as to cause to him a wound similar to the one concerned in the case without much strain or getting his hands burnt.” The learned Judge was also of the view that it is not necessary for a right-handed person for using a revolver like M.0.1 to raise his elbow above his shoulder and to flex his wrist at an angle of 90 degrees as spoken to by Pw. 11. The learned Judge was also not inclined to accept the statement of Pw. 14, the Pathologist, that suicidal wounds are usually located in the right temporal region or the frontal region or through the mouth or over the region of the heart on the left side of the body-The learned Judge equally felt that the Gunnery Expert (Pw. 35) was exaggerating when he deposed that the possibility of putting a bullet through the right chest by a person committing suicide is well-nigh impracticable. 35) was exaggerating when he deposed that the possibility of putting a bullet through the right chest by a person committing suicide is well-nigh impracticable. Finally the learned Judge was of the view that whatever may be the opinion of Pws. 11, 14 and 35, it is not possible to conclude by reason of the location and direction only of the injury concerned, that injury No. 1 in this case could not be self-inflicted. 29. No doubt, the learned Judge was prepared to grant that the opinion of these three witnesses as to the distance from which the revolver should have been fired in the present case to cause an injury like No. 1 deserves very serious consideration in the matter of arriving at the conclusion as to whether injury No. 1 in this case could have been self-inflicted or not. On this aspect of the matter the learned Judge was of the view that Pws. 11, 14 and 35 have not paid any attention to the scorching around the wound mentioned in the Inquest Report, Ext. P-44 and later also referred to in the post-mortem certificate, Ext. P-20. Nor have they, according to the learned Judge, given consideration to the blackening with unburnt carbon particles of the blouse and bodice noted in Ext. P-44 and Ext. P-20. These circumstances, according to the learned Judge, are indications that the revolver was fired from very near the body. In this connection, the learned Judge has referred to a passage at page 58 in the third revised edition of the book “Identification of Fire Arms and Forensic Ballistics” by Sir Gerald Burrard, wherein it is stated that scorching may occur when a revolver or pistol is shot at two or three inches and that it can be assumed with absolute correctness that the presence of scorching is definite proof that the shot was fired from a range but of very few inches. 30. Blackening with unburnt carbon particles of the blouse and the bodice also, according to the learned Judge, indicates that the discharge was within a few inches of the body. 30. Blackening with unburnt carbon particles of the blouse and the bodice also, according to the learned Judge, indicates that the discharge was within a few inches of the body. After the consideration of the evidence of these witnesses, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that “the evidence adduced by the prosecution to make out that the injury concerned could not be a self-inflicted one is not of such a nature as would enable a court of law to come to the conclusion that the injury was not one capable of being self-inflicted. The position therefore, is that it is not possible to say from the position,direction and appearance of the wound and the condition of the clothes over the same that the injury was not a self-inflicted injury”. 31. Regarding the evidence of the witnesses and the correspondence which, according to the prosecution evidenced the attitude of the mind of the accused towards his wife, the learned Judge was prepared to proceed on the basis that the background portion the prosecution story is sufficiently proved by the evidence of Pws. 1, 4 to 8, 12, 15, 31 and 33 and also by the letters, Exts. P, P-9, P-10 and P-10 (a) with their decoded versions, Exts. P.35, P-24 and P. 33 and also by Exts. P-3, P-23, P-46, P-47, P-47 (a) and P-47 (b). The learned Judge was satisfied that the letters referred to above have been proved to have been written by the persons who, according to the prosecution, wrote them. The learned Judge was not prepared to accept the evidence of Pw. 12 that the letter Ext. P-10 was not written by her to the accused. The learned Judge has relied upon her own statement, Ext. P-8 (a) made before the college authorities, Pws. 4 and 5. According to the learned Judge, these letters relied upon by the prosecution would only show that the accused had a passionate love for his girl friend, Pw. 12; but at the same time he loved his wife Ammal also. The learned Judge was of the view that after the accused brought back Ammal from Vycome to Melamparambil House on the 26th of October 1957 there was nothing to show that the accused tried to contact Pw. 12. But the learned Judge was prepared to accept the prosecution story that after writing a letter like Ext. The learned Judge was of the view that after the accused brought back Ammal from Vycome to Melamparambil House on the 26th of October 1957 there was nothing to show that the accused tried to contact Pw. 12. But the learned Judge was prepared to accept the prosecution story that after writing a letter like Ext. P-13 to the accused at the instance of the college authorities, Pw. 12 wrote Ext. P-23 to her friend Ammukutty, Pw. 15. The learned Judge also accepted the case of the prosecution that the contents of Ext. P-23 were made known to the accused by Pw. 31, the husband of Pw. 15, when the accused called on them early in December 1957. 32. The learned Judge accepts the case of the prosecution that on 22nd December 1957 when the accused called on Pw. 31 at about 2 p.m., Pw. 31 handed over another letter to the accused received from Pw. 12. But the learned Judge is of the view that there is nothing on record to show what the nature of that letter is and therefore it would be unjust to presume that the said letter contained something to provoke the accused and to kill Ammal later on that day. In this connection the learned Judge has stated “Of course, it is possible to find passages in the letters written by him earlier to suggest that he would have liked that there was no Ammal to hamper his relations with Lizy”. The reference to ‘him’ in the above passage is to the accused and Lizy referred to there is Pw. 12. That there was not such a total absence of motive on the part of the accused, seems to be accepted by the learned Judge when he observes “All the same, it cannot be urged seriously that there was such a total absence of motive on the part of the accused that it is not possible to claim that he could not have caused the fatal injury”. The learned Judge winds up the discussion on this aspect of the matter in the following words: “All that has been stated above shows only that the position and direction of the wound and the mental make up of Ammal were not such as would lead to the conclusion that the wound could not be a self-inflicted wound. The learned Judge winds up the discussion on this aspect of the matter in the following words: “All that has been stated above shows only that the position and direction of the wound and the mental make up of Ammal were not such as would lead to the conclusion that the wound could not be a self-inflicted wound. That does not, however, mean that the wound was really self-inflicted”. 33. Then the learned Judge discusses the next set of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, namely, the evidence to connect the accused directly with the occurrence. As stated by us earlier, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 25. It may be mentioned at this stage that one of the criticisms levelled by the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State is that the evidence of Pws. 10 and 25 has not been adverted to by the learned Judge in this connection. 34. As we will have to advert to the evidence of these witnesses later on we will at this stage only summarise the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge on this point. The learned Judge accepts the case of the prosecution that two bullets were fired from the revolver, M. O. 1, at about 5 p. m., on 22nd December 1957 in the car shed in Melamparambil House and that it was one of them that caused the fatal injury to Ammal. The learned Judge also has stated: “If the circumstances sworn to by Pws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 are believed it is difficult to come to a conclusion other than that it was the accused who fired the fatal shot... .........I am also aware that the circumstances sworn to by Pws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 are such that it is not possible to exclude the theory of accident in a tuzzle between the accused and Ammal but no such suggestion or hypothesis emanated from the defence side, of course for obvious reasons”. 35. After discussing as to how far the versions given by Pws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 could be relied upon in arriving at a conclusion regarding this case, the learned Judge was not prepared to accept their evidence. So far as Pw. 35. After discussing as to how far the versions given by Pws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 could be relied upon in arriving at a conclusion regarding this case, the learned Judge was not prepared to accept their evidence. So far as Pw. 2 is concerned, the learned Judge, no doubt, was not impressed with the argument that he has given evidence in the manner that he did before the Sessions Court because he was afraid of the Police. But the fact that though he was an immediate nighbour, he was questioned only about two weeks after the occurrence is a circumstance, which according to the learned Judge is not very favourable for acting on his evidence. Regarding the evidence of Pw. 3 the comment of the learned Judge is that he has not at all mentioned what he saw or heard about the occurrence to anybody till he was examined by Pw. 36, the Dy. S. P., Crime Branch, on 12th January 1958, The further reasoning of the learned Judge is that the witness is not likely to have moved away from the gate after seeing the accused and Ammal running into the car shed. According to the learned Judge, there must be some interested person who was out to bring forward false evidence in this case and therefore, the delay in spotting Pw. 3 is a very suspicious feature. In this view, the learned Judge declined to give credence to the evidence of Pw. 3. 36. Regarding the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7, the servant boy and the servant girl working in the house of the accused at the relevant time, the learned Judge is of the view that when they were questioned by the Circle Inspector of Police, Pw. 34, on the same night they have given statements to the effect that Ammal must have shot herself with the revolver M.O. 1. The learned Judge rejected the case of the prosecution that those two witnesses gave the statements that they did to Pw. 34 on the night of 22nd December 1957 having been tutored by Dr. Markose, the father of the accused. According to the learned Judge, Dr. Markose could not have tutored them before the Police arrived on the scene. The learned Judge rejected the case of the prosecution that those two witnesses gave the statements that they did to Pw. 34 on the night of 22nd December 1957 having been tutored by Dr. Markose, the father of the accused. According to the learned Judge, Dr. Markose could not have tutored them before the Police arrived on the scene. But the conflict in the mind of the learned Judge is evidenced by the statement in his judgment “This does not involve a finding that what they said to Pw. 34 is true but only that the difference between that version of theirs and their present version makes it difficult to accept their present version as true.” The learned Judge again makes a remark that there was someone out to procure evidence for the prosecution and Pws. 6 and 7 could not have been beyond reach. The version given in the Sessions Court by these two witnesses has been given by them only before Pw. 36, the Dy. SP., Crime Branch, only on 5th January 1958. The fact that they have given statements before the Magistrate on 6th January 1958, Ext. P-15 and Ext. P-16 in accordance with the evidence given by them in the Sessions Court is according to the learned Judge, of no significance. Ultimately, the learned Judge declined to place reliance on the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 on the ground that “It would be a travesty of justice to rely on the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 in arriving at a conclusion as to the circumstances under which the fatal shot was fired” and wound up by saying “that means, that the evidence the prosecution has relied on to connect the accused with the fatal discharge is incapable of being relied on.” It may also be mentioned at this stage that the evidence of Pw. 10 and Pw. 25 was not discussed by the learned Judge. 37. Ultimately, the learned Judge further observing “the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not such as to exclude the statement of the accused as to the occurrence from the region of reasonable probabilities and the prosecution has failed to establish that it was the accused who fired the fatal shot” found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the offence with which he was charged. 38. 38. The learned Advocate-General has attacked the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the lower court. According to the learned Advocate-General, the evidence adduced in this case conclusively proves that the accused had a strong motive to do away with Ammal, as the accused felt that she was a stumbling block between him and Pw. 12. The correspondence and the other evidence clearly show that the accused hated Ammal and that he brought her back from Vycome at the end of October only because the accused felt that the presence of a wife will serve as a cloak for his relationship with Pw. 12. The learned Advocate-General criticised the judgment of the learned Judge as containing several contradictions. The learned Advocate-General also criticised the view taken by the learned Judge on the evidence adduced by Pws. 11, 14 and 35 who, according to him, are in the position of experts. The defence set up by the accused is one of suicide. In that contest the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 conclusively establishes that the theory of Ammal a right-handed person, having committed suicide by shooting herself and causing injury No 1 at the site it was found and with the angle, is absolutely improbable and almost impossible. Their evidence establishes that an injury of that nature could not have been inflicted by Ammal herself who was admittedly a right-handed person according to the evidence in this case. The learned Judge, according to the Advocate-General, has misread and misinterpreted their evidence. The direct evidence adduced by the prosecution has not also been properly appreciated by the learned Judge. The direct evidence relied upon by the prosecution conclusively establishes, according to the learned Advocate-General, that the accused and the deceased were last seen going to the car shed and the accused was coming running from the shed with the revolver M. O. 1 immediately after the two shots in quick succession were heard. In this connection the learned Advocate-General contended that while according to the prosecution two shots were fired in quick succession, the case of the accused is that there was an interval between the firing of the two shots. This interval is created by the accused for the purpose of establishing his case that Ammal committed suicide in the car shed while he was reading the letter in his room in the house. This interval is created by the accused for the purpose of establishing his case that Ammal committed suicide in the car shed while he was reading the letter in his room in the house. That interval has also been given only with a view to probabilise the statements given by Pws. 6 and 7 before the Circle Inspector of Police, Pw. 34 when they were questioned at the house in the presence of Dr. Markose on the night of the occurrence, and those statements originally given by these two witnesses to the Police is the result of tutoring by Dr. Markose who is very much interested in saving his son from a conviction for the offence of murder. The father of the accused, being a doctor, must have known the gravity of the injury sustained by Ammal and he must have made every attempt to see, if possible, that a case of murder is not found against his son. The fact that Dr. Markose is very much interested will also appear from the petition filed by him Ext. D-6 when Pw. 36 was taking steps to examine Pws. 6 and 7. According to the learned Advocate-General, once when these two witnesses were withdrawn from the influence of Dr. Markose, they have come out with the truth at the earliest occasion and they have also given statements before the Magistrate, namely, Ext. P-15 and Ext. P-16 which are in accordance with the evidence given by them in the Sessions Court 39. The learned Advocate-General finally contended that though this is a case depending upon circumstantial evidence, yet all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution will show beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who has committed this crime. 40. On the other hand, Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, has supported the order of acquittal in full. The learned counsel contended that in view of an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the presumption of innocence is reinforced according to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in several decisions. The learned counsel also contended that the learned Judge has considered all aspects and recorded an order of acquittal in favour of his client and that there are no adequate grounds for interfering with that order of acquittal by this Court. 41. The learned counsel also contended that the learned Judge has considered all aspects and recorded an order of acquittal in favour of his client and that there are no adequate grounds for interfering with that order of acquittal by this Court. 41. The learned counsel contended that so far as the background relied upon by the prosecution is concerned, even some of the letters will show that the accused loved Ammal. It may be that the accused loved also Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12. At the most it was a case of the accused taking some liberties with a girl friend in the position of Pw. 12. But that does not mean that he had any motive to kill his wife. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution itself will show that the accused was fond of his wife and he had no intention of marrying Pw. 12 and that at any rate after he brought Ammal back from Vycome, they have been living peacefully and happily as husband and wife. After the 26th October 1957, there is nothing to show that the accused made any attempt to contact Pw. 12 again. Therefore, even if the accused has expressed some sentiments against his wife in any of the previous letters, that must be treated as closed, especially when the accused himself went and brought Ammal back to Melamparambil House from Vycome. There was nothing on record as to what happened between 26th October 1957 and 22nd December 1957 to furnish any motive for the accused to kill Ammal. Therefore, the learned counsel urged that the several matters mentioned in the letters that passed between Ammal and the accused or between accused and Pw. 12 which, according to the prosecution, provides the background for this crime, have absolutely no bearing. 42. Regarding the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35, the learned counsel did not really attack the views expressed by them as such, but referred us to certain other passages in some of the text books. 12 which, according to the prosecution, provides the background for this crime, have absolutely no bearing. 42. Regarding the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35, the learned counsel did not really attack the views expressed by them as such, but referred us to certain other passages in some of the text books. On the basis of these passages, which will be considered by us later in the judgment, the learned counsel contended that the site and track of the injury which formed the basis for the views expressed by these three witnesses are not always a safe test to find out whether a particular injury is the result of suicide or homicide. The learned counsel urged that in any event, even the evidence of these witnesses does not rule out the present injury being the result of a suicidal action by the accused and as such so long as a possibility of suicide has not been completely ruled out, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 43. Again, regarding the evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime, learned counsel contended that the evidence of Pw. 2 is absolutely worthless. It is very doubtful whether Pw. 2 was in his house at all. The presence of Pw. 3 must have been known to the Police even much earlier if he was really present near the Melamparambil House at the time of the incident but he has been examined only very late and that after Pw. 36, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch took over investigation. Regarding the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 who are servants in the house, admittedly they had given one version before the Police on the date of the occurrence itself and they have completely given the go-by to that version, when they gave evidence in the Sessions Court and as such it is very unsafe or dangerous to rely upon their evidence given in the Sessions Court alone. The plea of the prosecution that these two witnesses have been tutored by Dr. Markose, the father of the accused, cannot at all be accepted because immediately after the occurrence a number of people gathered in the house and Dr. Markose could have had absolutely no opportunity to teach anything to these two witnesses. Immediately after the people began to arrive, Pw. Markose, the father of the accused, cannot at all be accepted because immediately after the occurrence a number of people gathered in the house and Dr. Markose could have had absolutely no opportunity to teach anything to these two witnesses. Immediately after the people began to arrive, Pw. 1 was there at 6-45 p. m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pw. 24 was there at 7-45 p. m. and the Circle Inspector of Police, namely, Pw. 34, himself was there at about 7-45 p. m. Situated in these circumstances it is absolutely impossible for Dr. Markose to tutor these witnesses. 44. He also very much emphasised about the conduct of the accused in having taken Ammal immediately to the nearest best equipped Hospital, namely, G.K. Hospital. When the Doctor was not available there, he even requested the compounder to render first aid to the injured. It was only when the doctor was not available and the compounder declined to render any assistance, that he took the injured to the Government Hospital and it was on the way to the Government Hospital that she died. 45. The learned counsel also tried to convince that the answers given by the accused Will clearly show that there is really no difference between the case of the prosecution and the plea of the accused that two shots were fired in quick succession. We will advert to this aspect later. 46. Finally the learned counsel contended that there is evidence to show that Animal’s people were rich and influential and even the Police Officer, Pw. 34 has deposed that he instructed the Police to safeguard the accused and his father from any molestation by Animal’s people. Evidently, the suggestion in this argument of the learned counsel is that Animal’s people must have foisted this case on the accused. 47. We have given this case our very anxious and serious consideration. We are aware of the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the principles to be applied in cases where the evidence is only circumstantial. We are also aware of the principles under which an order of acquittal could be set aside by the High Court. We have given very serious consideration to the contentions raised both by the learned Advocate-General for the State and by Mr. K.T. Thomas appearing for the accused. We are also aware of the principles under which an order of acquittal could be set aside by the High Court. We have given very serious consideration to the contentions raised both by the learned Advocate-General for the State and by Mr. K.T. Thomas appearing for the accused. After hearing their arguments and after considering the entire evidence in the case, we are of opinion that the order of acquittal cannot be sustained. We will discuss the various contentions on both sides under the various heads. Before we deal with the case of the prosecution regarding the background of the case and also the evidence to connect the accused with the crime, we will first take up the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 and find out whether the prosecution has proved by that evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the present case is one of homicide and not suicide. This assumes importance in view of the defence of the accused that Ammal shot herself with the revolver, M. O. 1. 48. The medical officer who conducted the post-mortem on the body of Ammal on the 23rd December 1957 is Pw. 11, the medical officer-in-charge of the Government Hospital at Thiruvella. As it is not disputed that the relevant matters mentioned in the Inquest Report, Ext. P-44, do find a place in Ext. P-20, we do not .think it necessary to refer to Ext. P-44, the inquest report. Ext. P-20, the post-mortem certificate issued by the Doctor shows that Mariamma alias Ammal, deceased, was about 24 years of age. The matters mentioned in the post-mortem certificate are as follow:- “The body when first seen by the undersigned was pale, cold and calm. Rigor mortis passed off. There was a small circular hole with burned edges on the right side of the front of the blouse with blackening with unburned carbon particles around 11/2” in diameter. On the inside body (braziers) was also a small circular hole on the front right side with burned edges with unburned carbon particles around 11/2” in diameter. These two holes correspond with the circular wound on the anterior chest wall right side. Postmortem commenced at 3 p m on 23rd December 1957. External appearances found: 1. On the inside body (braziers) was also a small circular hole on the front right side with burned edges with unburned carbon particles around 11/2” in diameter. These two holes correspond with the circular wound on the anterior chest wall right side. Postmortem commenced at 3 p m on 23rd December 1957. External appearances found: 1. A penetrating circular wound on the anterior chest wall 3/10 inch in diameter with 1/10 inch broad scorching of the skin around in the right 4th intercestal space 1-1/5 inch right of the mid line. No tattooing of the skin around the wound 2. Two scratches on the right forearm 1/5 inch and 3/10 inch long. Internal appearances found: The bullet has pierced the right side of the chest wall through the wound No 1 pierced near the lower medical angle of the upper lobe of the right lung, pierced the diaphragm and the liver adjacent to that part of the lung, passed through the substance of the liver pierced the posterior part of the diaphragm, again pierced near the posterior inferior angles of the lower lobe of the right lung and the bullet embedded in the soft tissues on the right side of the body of the 12th thoracic vertebra 1 1/2 inch external to the posterior midline. The bullet was palpable externally. The track of the bullet was about at angle 45° in relation to the anterior chest wall and was directed downwards and posteriorly. There was only two lobes in the right lung. There was about 1 1/2 pints of fluid and clotted blood in the right pleural cavity All the other internal organs normal except they are pale. The abdominal cavity contained about 1 pint of fluid and clotted blood. Skull in tact, Brain normal except that it was pale.” The medical officer has noted two injuries on the body of Ammal. The first injury is a penetrating circular one on the anterior chest wall 3/10 inch in diameter with 1/10 inch broad scorching of the skin around in the right 4th intercestal space 1/5 inch right of the mid line - no tattooing of the skin around the wound. 49. The second injury noted in Ext. P-20 are two scratches on the right forearm 1/5 inch and 3/10 inch long. 49. The second injury noted in Ext. P-20 are two scratches on the right forearm 1/5 inch and 3/10 inch long. It is also mentioned in the postmortem that there was a small circular hole with burnt edges on the right side of the front of the blouse with blackening with unburnt carbon particles around 11/2 inch in diameter. It is further stated that on the inside bodice also there was a small circular hole on the front right side with torn edges with unburnt particles around 11/2 inch in diameter. There is also a remark that these two holes correspond with the circular hole on the anterior chest wall. 50. The medical officer has further stated in Ext. P-20 that the bullet has pierced the right side of the chest wall through the wound No. 1 and after describing its track has stated that it has got embedded in the soft lateral tissues of the posterial midline. The track of the bullet is mentioned as at an angle of 45° in relation to the anterior chest wall and was directed downwards and posteriorly. 51. The opinion of the medical officer as to the cause of death has been given in Ext. P-20 as- “Syncope due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the gun-shot wound” There is also a note that the bullet mentioned in the body of the certificate was taken out from the dead body. There is no dispute that the said bullet is M. O. 2. 52. In his deposition before the court Pw. 11 has stated that he conducted the post-mortem on the deceased Ammal alias Mariamma on 23rd December 1957 and has issued the post-mortem certificate, Ext. P-20. He noted one penetrating injury and two scratches described in the certificate. The second injury was two scratches on the right forearm. 53. He also stated that injury No. 1 was caused by a bullet and that the bullet had pierced the right side of the chest wall through the injury No. 1, pierced near the lower medial angle of the upper lobe of the right lung and pierced the diaphragm and the liver adjacent to that part of the lung and he has also described the further track of the bullet. The track of the bullet, according to the doctor, was about an angle of 45° in relation to the anterior chest wall. The track of the bullet, according to the doctor, was about an angle of 45° in relation to the anterior chest wall. The doctor further deposed that all the injuries were antemortem and that injury No. 1 was caused by a fire arm. Regarding injury No. 2 the opinion of the doctor is that these two scratches must have been caused by some hard and rough substance coming into contact with that part of the body. He speaks to having extracted the bullet M. O. 2 from the body and sent to the police officers. He also says that injury No. 1 could be caused with a fire arm like M. O. 1 and that M. O. 2 fits into M. O. 1. 54. He was asked a specific question as to whether in his opinion injury No. 1 described in the post-mortem certificate is homicidal or suicidal. The answer was “considering all that I have noted in Ext. P-20, I am of opinion that probably this may be a case of homicide.” He gives the following reasons in support of his view that injury No. 1 is a case of homicide and they are (1) the shot was not fired at close contact with the body, (2) a right-handed person committing suicide using a revolver generally aims at the left side of the chest and (3) a right-handed person using a revolver like M. O. 1 for suicide and inflicting an injury as injury No. 1 must have raised his elbow above the shoulder, his wrist must have been flexed at an angle of 90° and he adds that firing in this position is not probable. 55. We may at this stage indicate that the case for the prosecution is that Ammal was a right-handed person and this is supported by the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7, the two servants working in the house of the accused. This aspect of the matter has not been challenged either in the lower court or before us. Therefore, we have to consider as to whether a right-handed person in the position of Ammal could have inflicted herself an injury like injury No. 1 with the revolver M.O. 1. 56. The doctor, Pw. 11, further stated that in this case the distance between the body and the tip of the barrel of the revolver might have been one to two feet. 56. The doctor, Pw. 11, further stated that in this case the distance between the body and the tip of the barrel of the revolver might have been one to two feet. He supported the statement by saying that when he examined the body before the post-mortem there was a small circular hole with burned edges on the right side of the front of the blouse with blackening with unburnt carbon particles around the hole in area 1 1/2 inch in diameter and on the inside bodice there was a small circular hole on the front right with burned edges with unburnt carbon particles around the hole in an area 1 1/2 inch in diameter. 57. The doctor further stated that if the revolver was fired beyond a distance of two feet there would not have been unburned carbon particles on the blouse and bodice. Therefore, Pw. 11 affirmed that the revolver could not have been fired beyond a distance of two feet. He is positive “it ought not to have been a close contact fire, i. e. the tip of the revolver actually touched the body for otherwise unburned carbon particles and explosive gas would have been pushed into the tissues and there would have been destruction of tissues around the wound”. He also deposed that as distance between the revolver and the body increased the degree of tattooing of the skin around the wound would become less and less. He expressed the view that so far as tattooing is concerned, beyond two feet there will be no tattooing. Pw. 11 also stated that the cause of death in this case was syncope due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the gun shot wound and that in jury No. 1 was fatal and death might have occurred within 15 to 30 minutes. He has accepted the suggestion of the prosecution that it was not impossible for the injured to have talked after sustaining injury No. 1. 58. In cross-examination Pw. 11 has stated that all important points have been noted in Ext. P. 20. He measured the actual dimensions of injury No. 1 and noted them in Ext. P20. He also stated that it was his estimate that he mentioned that the track of the bullet was at an angle of 45” though he did not actually measure it. 11 has stated that all important points have been noted in Ext. P. 20. He measured the actual dimensions of injury No. 1 and noted them in Ext. P20. He also stated that it was his estimate that he mentioned that the track of the bullet was at an angle of 45” though he did not actually measure it. When the suggestion was put to him that because there were two layers of cloth on the body of the deceased there was no tattooing on the skin. Pw. 11 stated that it depends upon the type of clothes and the distance of the fire arm. He also stated that the burnt edges noted in Ext.P20 and the scorching of the skin noted in injury No. 1 may be due to the hot bullet. When the passage from Major Sri Gerald Burrard’s ‘Identification of Fire Arms and Forensic Ballistics’ that scorching may occur up to 2 or 3 inches in the case of a revolver shot was put to Pw. 1 I he answered that he is not in a position to say whether that statement is correct or not. But he was very positive and said: “I can positively say from what I have noted that the revolver was not in contact with the body, I mean the body with the clothes on. If the revolver was within an inch or two the clothes and the tissues of the body would have been torn”. When again the passage from Burrard’s book to the effect that blackening can occur at about 6 inches in the case of revolvers was put to the witness be replied that “certain other books say differently.” He also accepted the suggestion that his view that injury No. 1 in this case could not be suicidal was based on the assumption that the right hand alone was used. A suggestion was made to him as to whether an injury like injury No. 1 can be caused by a person committing suicide if both the hands were used. The doctor replied that it may be possible and that he was not able to say more, 59. In re-examination he definitely stated that he did not note any burning or charring of Animal’s hands. The doctor replied that it may be possible and that he was not able to say more, 59. In re-examination he definitely stated that he did not note any burning or charring of Animal’s hands. According to the evidence of this medical officer, injury No. 1 could not have been caused by a right-handed person for committing suicide and in his opinion injury No. 1 is only homicidal. He has also stated that there was no tattooing of the skin around the wound and according to him the revolver in this case was not in contact with the body or with the body with the clothes on. The site of the injury and the track taken by the bullet and noted by him, according to the doctor, shows that it cannot be a suicidal injury but, on the other hand, a homicidal injury alone. From his evidence it is also seen that the distance between the body and the tip of the barrel might have been one to two feet. Whatever may be the opinion expressed by Burrard, the medical officer was very positive that in this case the injury is not a suicidal one. Pw. 14 is the Professor of Pathology and Forensic! Medicine in the Medical College at Trivandrum. He is also the Principal of the college. He is an M.D. He had research experience in the United Kingdom and the United States of America in cancer research and medical education. In answer to a question by the Public Prosecutor as to whether injury No. 1 was suicidal, this witness answered: “Most probably homicidal.” He gave the following reasons in support of this opinion. (1) The site of the entry wound and (2) the direction of the course of the bullet. According; to the witness suicidal wounds are usually located in the right temporal region or the frontal region or through the mouth or over the region of the heart on the left side of the body. In this ease the track of the bullet in the body is downwards, backwards and a little outwards. 60. According to the witness the range of firing in this case should be within two feet of the body. 61. In cross-examination this witness stated that Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence is an authority on the subject. In this ease the track of the bullet in the body is downwards, backwards and a little outwards. 60. According to the witness the range of firing in this case should be within two feet of the body. 61. In cross-examination this witness stated that Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence is an authority on the subject. He agreed with the passage read out to him from that book (1956 Edition, Volume I, at page 391) that as to whether the injury is a suicidal one or a homicidal one is to be reconstructed from circumstances showing the design, the situation of the wound or wounds, the distance from which the wound was fired, the position of the weapon when found after death, the direction of the wound, the nature of the projectile, power, wading, etc. But he added that an expert should not base his opinion by taking into consideration the design in this case. He has stated that in giving his opinion that injury No. 1 in this case is a homicidal injury, he took into consideration the situation of the wound, and the direction of the bullet. He added that a doctor who has been scientifically trained over a number of years, would be able to guess the angle without any great degree of fallacy. He has further stated that in giving an opinion about the angle he has taken into consideration the site of entry and the final lodgment of the bullet. Usually a line joining these two points projected outwards will approximately subtend an angle which will be more or less equal to what is given in Ext. P- 20. He further stated that the angle could vary from 30° to 60° and that he has taken the average 45° and approximated the angle by joining the site of entry to the site of final lodgment of the bullet on the basis that the deceased was a person of normal stature and build. The usual instances of suicidal wounds mentioned by the witness in his chief examination was further explained by the witness that it is on the basis that it is a right-handed individual using the right hand and also that the length of the arm is not shorter than normal. 62. Pw. The usual instances of suicidal wounds mentioned by the witness in his chief examination was further explained by the witness that it is on the basis that it is a right-handed individual using the right hand and also that the length of the arm is not shorter than normal. 62. Pw. 14 stated that scorching is usually produced by the hot gases as well as by the powder and that it is very seldom produced by the bullet which does not have the time to acquire a temperature sufficiently high for scorching or burning. The witness added that scorching is a term generally used when the injury is to the surface of the skin. According to the witness, intervention of the cloth may reduce or increase scorching effect dependent upon the material. The effect of burning will vary with the distance of the firing and the nature of the ammunition used. 63. Again when the passage from Burrard to the effect that in the case of a revolver scorching may occur up to 3 inches & therefore it can be assumed with absolute correctness that the presence of scorching is definite proof that the shot was fired from a range of but a very few inches was put to the witness, the latter answered that the author is not a forensic pathologist and that the said statement had not been substantiated with reference to any research information and as such he is not in absolute agreement with the author regarding that statement. The witness further stated that while the author has taken into consideration only the facts concerning the powder gas, the witness would like to take into consideration the different types of powder used and also the reaction to individual tissues. To a direct question as to whether the witness can state the range of blackening when a shot is fired from a revolver like M.O. 1 the witness answered that from his theoretical knowledge the range may vary from a few inches to a few feet, i. e., from two to six inches to one to three feet. 64. To a direct question as to whether the witness can state the range of blackening when a shot is fired from a revolver like M.O. 1 the witness answered that from his theoretical knowledge the range may vary from a few inches to a few feet, i. e., from two to six inches to one to three feet. 64. A suggestion was put to the witness by the learned counsel for the defence as to whether an injury like injury No. 1 could not have been caused if the injured held the revolver in the left hand, resting the upper surface of the barrel in the palm of the left hand and brought it to the right chest and pulled the trigger with the right thumb, keeping the index fingers and the middle finger of the right hand on the butt end. The answer was that in that position the strain on the blasted right wrist may not give enough force to the thumb to pull the trigger unless the person is a muscular individual and in such a case evidence of burning will be present in the left palm which holds the barrel. 65. In re-examination the Pathologist has stated that he has seen many gun-shot wounds as a trainee in the General Hospital at Madras which was the base hospital for the Far East during World War No. 2. He has also stated that generally when the distance of gun shot is described the terms long range and close range are used and that close range would be up to a few yards and beyond that it is called long range. He is positive that in this case the revolver could not have been in close contact with the skin or even 2 to 4 inches of the skin. He supported the statement by giving the following reasons: (1) If the revolver had been in contact with the skin the wound would be punched over with no-scorching but the tract will show blackening due to the deposit of powder. (2) If the shot had been fired from a short distance of 2 to 4 inches of the body the entry wound would be found to be lacerated. Muscular individual, according to the witness, is an individual whose muscles are specially trained for undertaking any strain which is not within the compass of a normal individual. 66. (2) If the shot had been fired from a short distance of 2 to 4 inches of the body the entry wound would be found to be lacerated. Muscular individual, according to the witness, is an individual whose muscles are specially trained for undertaking any strain which is not within the compass of a normal individual. 66. In the further cross-examination by the defence counsel, the witness stated that the principle of laceration of the skin is based on the unsteadiness of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle. But as the bullet travels further, it acquires force enough to inflict a clear cut wound. If the cloth has offered any resistance it would have led to greater unsteadiness of the bullet and would have given rise to a lacerated wound of entry. 67. Pw. 14 is also positive that in this case the revolver could not have been in close contact with the skin or even 2 to 4 inches of the skin. He has also stated that in the case of right-handed men the suicidal wounds are usually located in the right temporal region or the frontal region or through the mouth or over the region of the heart on the left side of the body. In this case he has taken the site of the entry and the track of the injury to come to the conclusion that injury No. 1 is a homicidal injury and could not be a suicidal injury. To a suggestion by the defence as to whether an injury similar to injury No. 1 could not have been caused, if the injured held the revolver in his left hand resting the upper surface of the barrel in the palm of the left hand and brought it to the right chest and pulled the trigger with the right thumb, keeping the index fingers and the middle finger of the right hand on the butt end the witness categorically stated that in such a position the strain on the flexed right wrist may not give enough force to pull the trigger unless the person is a muscular individual and he also stated that in such a case evidence of burning will be present in the left palm which holds the barrel. Pw. Pw. 11, it must be remembered, has already stated that he did not note any burning or charring on the hands of Ammal when he examined her body. Pw. 14 has also expressed his opinion about scorching and blackening. 68. The next witness examined by the prosecution to prove that injury No. 1 sustained by Ammal is a homicidal injury and could not have been a suicidal injury is Pw. 35 who is a Lieut. Commander, Indian Navy, and Long, Gunnery Specialist. Pw. 35 at the time he gave evidence was the officer-in-charge of the Gunnery School, INS., Venduruthi, Cochin and his duty was to impart gunnery training to the cadets. He had training in United Kingdom both in long gunnery practice and in small fire arms like revolvers and pistols, etc. After reading the post-mortem certificate Ext. P-20 and examining the revolver M.O. 1 he stated as his opinion that injury No. I could not be a self-inflicted one. In support of his opinion he gave reasons. The first reason given by him was that the possibility of putting a bullet through the chest is well-nigh impracticable, as to hold the revolver in the right hand and to put the bullet through the right chest one will have to stretch and strain the right hand in doing so, and in his opinion, to operate a revolver in that position was not at all possible. According to the witness, there must be a firm all round grip to hold the revolver in position. 69. The second reason given by the witness was that the natural tendency for a revolver when the trigger is fixed is to throw the muzzle end upwards with a jerk in which case, the bullet is not likely to have such a deep angle as described in Ext. P-20. The third reason was that when a revolver is fired in close contact or close proximity tearing and tattooing effect will result and such matters have not been noted in the post-mortem certificate. The fourth reason given by the witness was that when firing takes place at close quarters, the firing will send the bullet through and through the body. In this case the witness stated that from the description of the injuries the range of shooting should have been positively about one foot or approximately two feet, or even slightly beyond. The fourth reason given by the witness was that when firing takes place at close quarters, the firing will send the bullet through and through the body. In this case the witness stated that from the description of the injuries the range of shooting should have been positively about one foot or approximately two feet, or even slightly beyond. He also specifically stated that it is not possible for the injured to shoot herself and cause injury No. 1 if the distance be one foot or beyond. As the distance increases the operation, namely, the firing effect of the revolver also increases. He explained this statement by further saying that as distance increases the difficulty in firing the revolver increases also. The prosecution put to him the suggestion made by the defence counsel to Pws. 11 and 14, namely, of the injured holding the revolver in the left hand, resting the upper surface of the barrel in the palm of the left hand and bringing it to the chest, and pulling the trigger with the right thumb, keeping the index fingers and middle finger of the right hand on the butt end. The answer was that injury No. 1 could not be caused like that and he also said that he could safely rule it out because the pistol or revolver will be drawn upward with a tilt because of the action of the two fingers and the thumb of the right hand pressing together at the same time. He also supplemented this by giving another reason that the chambers and the barrel both being in the palm of the left hand, will burn the skin of the palm. According to the witness “The nature of the movement of the revolver when it is emptied and the trigger is pressed is entirely different from a revolver loaded and when fired. When a loaded revolver is fired the jerk is always upwards.” He also agreed with the suggestion of the prosecution that when the victim shoots herself at a distance from the body of about 2 to 4 inches up to two feet the bullet will either go upwards without touching the body or the tract of the bullet will be a little upwards and never downwards as the tendency of the muzzle when fired is to jerk upwards. 70. 70. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he was born and brought up at Mavelikkara till he was about 15 years of age and after that he was in Singapore till 1939 when he was about 20 years of age. After his return to India he joined the St. Xavier’s College, Palayamcotta, and then he joined the Navy in 1940 and that he became a Leut. Commander in 1954. He also added that his wife’s house is about 5 miles from Mavelikara and that he has relations in or around Mavelikkara and that he has got his mother and also other friends at Mavelikkara. He said that he does not read any Malayalam paper but he reads only the Indian Express and that he knows nothing about the merits of the case in which he was giving evidence. He also said that he has not met Pw. 36 before and till he saw Ext. P-20 he knew nothing about the case. He had special training at the Gunnery School, H. M. S. Excellent, in Portsmouth and he underwent training for about 13 1/2 months. Though he had handled fire arms before he went for training, he became fully conversant with the detailed technical matters about them only after his training. No doubt, he said that he is only a gunnery expert and is not a specialist in Pathology. He further stated that if a weapon is fired close to the body it will result in tearing and also probably burning of the clothes worn. But from a distance, dependent on the range, the shooting will result in a round hole without any tearing or burning of the material all round. Again, the statement of Burrard at page 58 to the effect that scorching with a revolver or pistol may occur at 2 to 3 inches and therefore the presence of scorching is definite proof that the shot was fired from a range of a very few inches was put to this witness also, and he said that he does not agree with that statement because scorching varies with the types of bullets and the amount of propellant used. He said that the opinion that he expressed 19 based upon his personal experience for the past 8 years in dealing with small fire arms, their use and their effect. He said that the opinion that he expressed 19 based upon his personal experience for the past 8 years in dealing with small fire arms, their use and their effect. He frankly admitted that he has not examined a suicidal case of shooting but he has seen suicidal injuries by revolver shots. The several instances of suicidal injuries by revolvers he has seen were through the temple, through the mouth and under the chin. After saying that he is not a medical man, he was able to point out to the counsel for the defence that the 12th thoracic vertebrae in his body is just about 3 or 4 inches above his hip bone. 71. The witness was asked to draw a diagram to show the track of the bullet that is described in Ext. P-20. He drew it and that stands marked as Ext. D1. No attempt was made either in the lower court or before us to show that the track course of the bullet drawn by him at that angle in Ext. D-1 is in any way incorrect. He said that M. O. 1, is a .32 Revolver, H. & R. double action. The witness also deposed that he has a certificate from the Gunnery School, England, to say that he has successfully passed the gunnery specialist’s examination. In the Syllabus, he stated, that three months of training in small arms is included. No doubt, he said that the type of small arms that were used for training were .45, .38, and .22 revolvers. He frankly admitted that he is not familiar with the composition of the black powder in the cartridge. 72. He further stated that it is not practicable for anybody to wound oneself with a revolver on the right side of the chest and the bullet to have taken the course as described in Ext. P-20. When he was asked whether he could not have experimented with blank cartridges as to the possibility or otherwise of attempting to wound with a revolver on the right side of the chest the answer was that he does not wish to burn himself and that a blank cartridge in the military service contains powder. P-20. When he was asked whether he could not have experimented with blank cartridges as to the possibility or otherwise of attempting to wound with a revolver on the right side of the chest the answer was that he does not wish to burn himself and that a blank cartridge in the military service contains powder. He affirmed that it was because of the place of the injury in this particular case that he is of the opinion that it cannot be a self-inflicted wound and he added by saying that it is not possible to sustain such an injury for a right-handed person by shooting himself. He further stated that if it was a self-inflicted injury the bullet would have passed through and through the body instead of lodging itself in the soft tissues. He further stated that the strength or otherwise of the trigger pull has nothing to do with the range. To a straight question whether the bullet was found in the upper portion of the body of the deceased because the lungs, the liver and the diaphragm would have offered resistance, he emphatically said ‘no’ and that it would not have happened if the shot was fired at close quarters and he added by saying “at close quarters the bullet would pass through the body”. According to the witness, beyond two feet the bullet may lodge or pass through the body depending upon the place through which the bullet passed. He was again asked whether he stands by his previous answer as to whether the injury could not be self-inflicted, he said that “it is not an imagination but it is a reality since I have shown to the court how awkward it can be and how your arm does not allow you to operate a revolver in that particular position”. He was further asked that apart from awkwardness or other reasons a possibility of an individual committing suicide by shooting in that manner cannot be ruled out and his answer was “miracles have happened but I can rule out the possibility for the reasons that I have already given.” He further stated that the angle of jerk of the muzzle of a revolver upwards when firing depends upon the strength of the wrist. He further stated that even in spite of clothing there will be tearing and tattooing found on the skin. He further stated that even in spite of clothing there will be tearing and tattooing found on the skin. When the passage from Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, at page 373, to the effect that when a weapon is discharged in contact with or within an inch or so of the body the gases including CO which emerge with the bullet enters the tissues and thereafter expand causing tearing of the tissues or clothes was put to the witness he answered that it could be both skin and clothes. To a further question put to the witness “If both arms were used and a shot was fired at an angle 45° or so, either the left hand lying across the barrel or the left hand merely holding the weapon to steady it and the trigger is pulled could not this injury be caused” the witness answered “A revolver is meant and made to be held at the small of the butt to give a firm grip to reduce the jerking movement as far as possible. To hold the revolver the wrong end up and attempt to fire will probably knock off the revolver from the hand or go upwards”. 73. In re-examination he answered that the butt end of a revolver is made with a cover so that it can be easily held in the correct way. He also stated that a jerk will cause deflection of the bullet and finally he stated that his opinion that in jury No. 1 cannot be a self-inflicted injury, is based not only on the position of the entry but also on the track of the bullet. 74. It will be seen that the three witnesses, namely, Pws. 11, 14 and 35 are of the opinion that injury No. 1 could not be a self-inflicted injury. No doubt, they do not rule out that such an injury can be a self-inflicted injury under very exceptional circumstances. But having regard to the fact that in this case the deceased was a right-handed person and in view of the site of the wound and the track of the bullet, all of them are unanimous that the injury is a homicidal injury and not a suicidal injury. According to these witnesses, in this case the shot must have been fired within about 1 to 2 feet distance from the body. According to these witnesses, in this case the shot must have been fired within about 1 to 2 feet distance from the body. They have also stated that from that distance it is not possible for victim to shoot herself. The main suggestion that appears to have been made to these witnesses is because there has been scorching and blackening noted in the postmortem certificate, that is a certain indication of the shot having been fired within a few inches and in this connection the passage from Burrard to the effect that scorching can occur in the case of revolvers and pistol within two or throe inches and the presence of scorching is an indication that the shot has been fired within a range of a few inches is quoted. On this the defence plea appears to have been that because there is scorching and blackening, the shot must have been fired at very close quarters and it must have been done only by Ammal herself. We will refer immediately to some of the leading text books on the subject as to how exactly the blackening or scorching occurs and in our opinion the view expressed by all the three witnesses is supported by the text book writers. 75. Even apart from that, Pws. 11 and 14 have given reasons, in our opinion very sound also, to show that the injury could not be a self-inflicted one in this case. Their various answers on this point have been summarised earlier. They are positively of the view that in this case injury No. 1 has not been caused by a close contact of the revolver with the body of the deceased. In Chapter XI at pages 318 and 369 in Taylors Medical Jurisprudence (Vol. 1, 11th Edition) the principle in the case of all fire arms has been stated thus: “The principle in all firearms is essentially the same. A charge of powder, black or smokeless as the case may be, is compressed in a cylinder. It is then ignited by percussion of fulminating mixture in the cap. The ignition of the powder leads to evolution of a quantity of gases at very high pressure and temperature, and the expansion of this volume of gas forces out the projectile at a greater or less velocity... ..................... It is then ignited by percussion of fulminating mixture in the cap. The ignition of the powder leads to evolution of a quantity of gases at very high pressure and temperature, and the expansion of this volume of gas forces out the projectile at a greater or less velocity... ..................... Black powder is a mixture of sulphur, saltpetre and charcoal and is found as black grains, coarse or fine, as the case may be, without any particular form. Nitrates, Potassium sulphides and sulphates may be detected on close discharge as well as small quantities of carbon monoxide.” Again at page 373 the author observes: “The interpretation of firearm wounds is made from the appearance of the entrance and exit wounds, the track of the bullet, and the presence of foreign matter in or around the entrance wound, in the tissues or in the clothing.” In dealing with Entrance Wounds at the same page, the author states: “The surrounding skin may be scorched or not, and there may be a zone of blackening or peppering with grains of metal and powder, according to the distance from which the weapon was fired. We must distinguish between near and more distant wounds. Usually when a weapon is discharged in contact with, or within an inch or so of the body, the gases including CO, which emerge with the bullet enter the tissues and thereafter expand, causing tearing of the skin or clothes, very often in the form of a cruciate or stellate split. Most of the powder is found inside the tissues, but there may be traces of blackening, burning, soiling and tattooing around the entrance hole ...........If the weapon is discharged at more than an inch or two from the skin, the effect of the hot gases is lost and the entrance wound looks like a hole which might be caused by the pressing of a lead pencil into the tissues.” Again at page 391 under the heading “Was it Accident, Suicide or Homicide?” it is stated that the facts are to be reconstructed from- “Circumstances showing the design; The situation of the wound or wounds; The distance from which the weapon was fired; The position of the weapon When found after death; The direction of the wound; The nature of the projectile, powder, wadding” etc. At page 392 under the topic “Evidence from Design” it is stated that: “In suicide there is commonly strong evidence of design”. Again at the same page under the heading “Evidence from the Situation” it is stated: “Suicidal wounds from firearms are almost always directed to what is concerned a vital part. The most common situation for a right-handed suicide to select is the right temple, this site being chosen in about 80 per cent of suicides. The centre forehead comes the next in frequency. Wounds of the heart are comparatively rare.” At page 393, in discussing the evidence from the proximity of the weapon when fired it is stated: “The weapon will usually be found to have been pressed against the body in the case of suicides, unless there is evidence of special design such as a long string or stick; the wound is almost sure to be ragged and blackened or peppered with fragments of powder”, etc. At page 396 the evidence from the direction of the wound is discussed by the author. It is stated that the course taken by a bullet when discharged at short distance will indicate the direction from which the discharge took place and thus aid any reconstruction of events. 76. In Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Mody (11th Edition) at pages 213 and 214 under the heading “Gunshot Wounds” it is stated: “These are injuries produced by projectiles discharged from firearms and present the characteristics of lacerated wounds but their appearances vary according to the nature of the projectile, the velocity at which it was travelling at the moment of impact, the distance of the firearm from the body at the moment of discharge and the angle at which it struck the part of the body”. At page 215 the author observes: “The wound of entrance is usually smaller from the elasticity of the skin, and is rounded when the projectile strikes the body at a right angle; and an oval when it strikes the body obliquely. The edges of the wound are inverted and ecchymosed. Wadding, pieces of clothing or other debris may be found lodged in the wound, and the skin surrounding it will be scorched and tattooed with particles of unconsumed gunpowder, if the firearm is discharged at close range”. The edges of the wound are inverted and ecchymosed. Wadding, pieces of clothing or other debris may be found lodged in the wound, and the skin surrounding it will be scorched and tattooed with particles of unconsumed gunpowder, if the firearm is discharged at close range”. At page 217 of the same book under the heading “Distance of the Firearm” it is stated: “If a firearm is discharged very close to the body or in actual contact, subcutaneous tissues over an area of two or three inches round the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened by smoke and tattooed with unburnt grains of gunpowder.” In Forensic Medicine by Sydney Smith (6th Edition) at page 167, under the heading it is stated: “The principle is the same in all weapons. A charge of powder, black or smokeless as the case may be, is ignited by means of a purcussion cap. This causes the evolution of a large volume of gas, namely, CO2, N2 and CO, in the case of smokeless powder and the same gases with traces of H2 S and SO2 with black powder”. At page 170 again it is stated: “When a revolver or automatic pistol is fired in contact or nearly in contact with the body the skin at the point of entrance is usually torn into a cross shape, due to the expanding gases ploughing up the tissues, there is usually some excavation under the skin, and a good deal of blackening and burning is found inside the wound.” 77. At page 181 of the same book under the heading “Accident, Suicide or Murder” it is stated: “The nature of the entrance wound is most important. A close discharge, with burning or blackening of the skin or clothes and occasionally blackening of the left hand where the barrel has been steadied against the body point to suicide.........Of course, a close discharge may also occur in accident and murder, but in suicide it must be a close discharge............A cruciform tear of the skin and subcutaneous excavation indicate that the muzzle was pressed against the skin”. 78. At page 182 it is again emphasised that the position and direction of the wound are highly important. 78. At page 182 it is again emphasised that the position and direction of the wound are highly important. It is sated: “A suicide if he is using a revolver or automatic pistol, usually shoots himself in the right temporal region,........................It is much less common to find the entrance wound in the forehead or over the heart.” 79. At page 57 of his book “The Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics” by Major Sir Gerald Burrard (3rd Edition) the author says that the scorching is caused by the efflux of the very hot powder gases from the muzzle which are projected against the target and that these gases are cooled very quickly on leaving the muzzle of the arm and so the range of their scorching effect is very limited. At page 58 the author, no doubt, observes that in the case of a revolver or pistol scorching may occur within a range of 2 to 3 inches and that it can be assumed with absolute correctness that the presence of scorching is definite proof that the shot was fired from a range of but a very few inches. The author also states at the same page that blackening is the result of the deposit from the dirty powder gases, and is really very akin to scorching, the blackening range beginning where the scorching range ends. 80. It will be noted that it is only Major Sir Gerald Burrard who takes a different view about scorching; but all the other authors, namely, Taylor, Mody and Sydney Smith, take the same view. 81. In this case there is the positive evidence of the Doctor Pw. 11 and the Pathologist, Pw. 14, to the effect that it is not possible for a right-handed person to cause an injury of the type of injury No. 1 in this case. The site of the injury and the track of the bullet have been taken into account by them in arriving at the conclusion that injury No. 1 in this case cannot be a self-inflicted one. The Gunnery expert, Pw. 35, who has got actual practical experience in such matters has also stated that it is almost impossible for a right-handed person to cause himself an injury like injury No. 1 in this case. 82. In the face of the positive evidence of Pws. The Gunnery expert, Pw. 35, who has got actual practical experience in such matters has also stated that it is almost impossible for a right-handed person to cause himself an injury like injury No. 1 in this case. 82. In the face of the positive evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 after a consideration of all the material circumstances in this case that injury No. 1 could not be a self-inflicted injury, we are not able to appreciate the reasons given by the learned Judge for not acting upon their evidence. In this court Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel for the accused, as stated earlier by us, has not really attacked the evidence as such given by these three witnesses. His contention before us was slightly different, namely, that the site of the injury and the track of the bullet on which the opinion of these three witnesses is based are not a sure guide to lead to the conclusion that the injury could not be a self-inflicted one. The learned counsel has referred us to certain extracts from certain passages contained in certain text books. He relied upon the following statement at page 214 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Mody (11th Edition): “While searching for a bullet it must be borne in mind that it takes a very erratic and circuitous course while passing through the body.” Then again the statement at page 222 of the same text book to the following effect: “In some cases it is difficult to determine the direction as the bullet is so often deflected by the tissues that its course is very irregular”, was also relied upon. He also referred us to the following passage at page 377 of Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 11th Edition, Vol. I: “Having decided that the wound is due to a firearm, the direction may be deduced from the position of entrance, exit and track, bearing in mind the possibility of deflection of the bullet and the different relationship of the parts of the body in movement”. I: “Having decided that the wound is due to a firearm, the direction may be deduced from the position of entrance, exit and track, bearing in mind the possibility of deflection of the bullet and the different relationship of the parts of the body in movement”. Reliance was also placed on another passage in the same text-book at page 387 to the following effect: “Speaking in broad, general terms, the missile fired from a firearm has a tendency to continue in a straight line, from the point of entrance to the point of lodgment, to a point of deflection or the wound of exit, so that, if the internal wound be straight, this straight line indicates the direction in which the barrel of the weapon was pointed when fired. But it must be particularly noted that very frequently this wound is not straight, but curved, the missile being deflected from its original course even by slight obstacles”. 83. We were also referred to another passage at page 389 of the same text book to the following effect: “When a bullet traverses the body it sometimes happens that the two apertures are opposite to each other, although the bullet may not have taken a direct course between them, but have been variously deflected by the subjacent soft parts. This deflection of a projectile from a rectilinear course is met with in those cases in which it strikes obliquely a curved surface, and it is found that when it enters and does not pass out its course is often circuitous, so that it is not always easy to say in what part of the body it will be found............A deflection of projectiles may occur not merely when they come in contact with bone, but when they meet skin, muscles, tendons or membranes”. Again the following passage at page 176 of Sydney Smith’s Forensic Medicine (6th Edition) was also referred to: “A certain amount of information with reference to direction may be obtained from an examination of the shape of the entrance wound and the distribution of powder stains. If a bullet strikes at right angles to the surface it usually makes a circular hole and the collar of contusion around this hole is regular If it strikes at an angle the hole tends to be oval, and confusion is more marked at one point.” 84. If a bullet strikes at right angles to the surface it usually makes a circular hole and the collar of contusion around this hole is regular If it strikes at an angle the hole tends to be oval, and confusion is more marked at one point.” 84. Reliance was also placed on a passage at page 387 of Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 11th Edition, Vol. 1, to the following effect: “Where the weapon is set at a slant to the body, the bullet may strike the skin and enter through a distinctly oval hole, the “approach” side of which is a graze widening out into the actual entry, or it may tear across the surface of the skin leaving only a groove or split.” 85. These passages are relied upon as stated earlier by learned counsel for the accused to show that the site of injury and the track of the bullet cannot be concluding factors in deciding whether injury No. 1 is a self-inflicted injury or a homicidal injury. The learned counsel also stressed that in view of the fact that in the post-mortem certificate it is mentioned that injury No. 1 is a penetrating circular wound it could not have been caused by being fired at an angle. The learned counsel also stressed the fact that in view of the erratic course that a bullet may take when going through the body it is also not safe to come to the conclusion that the injury in this case could not be self-inflicted because of the tract mentioned by Pws. 11, 14 and 35 that the bullet has taken in this case. We are not able to accept that these passages relied upon by the learned counsel in the various text books go to that extent. We have already shown that the text books emphasise that to ascertain whether an injury is homicidal, or suicidal, the relevant factors to be taken into account are the site of the injury and the track of the bullet. The passages from the various text books relied upon by Mr. K.T. Thomas, learned counsel for the accused, and referred to by us at the most only strike a note of caution that such possibilities also will have to be taken into account before coming to a conclusion. In this case Pws. 11 and 14 have considered all these aspects and given their opinion. K.T. Thomas, learned counsel for the accused, and referred to by us at the most only strike a note of caution that such possibilities also will have to be taken into account before coming to a conclusion. In this case Pws. 11 and 14 have considered all these aspects and given their opinion. In view of the evidence furnished by these witnesses whose opinion has been arrived at after considering all aspects the passage relied upon by Mr. K.T. Thomas will not in any way assist him. 86. The learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that because there has been scorching and blackening described in the post-mortem certificate and in view of the fact that Burrard has stated in his text book that scorching may occur in the case of revolvers within 2 to 3 inches, the shot must have been fired in this case within 2 or 3 inches and therefore it must be a suicidal injury. Apart from the fact that this view of Burrard is not in consonance with the views expressed by Taylor, Mody and Sydney Smith, in this case there are also other reasons given by Pws. 11, 14 and 35 to the effect that it is not possible for a right-handed person to shoot himself and cause an injury like injury No. 1. In our opinion, the learned Judge has not given due consideration to the evidence of these three witnesses. All the authors, including these witnesses, are of the view that in the case of a very close shot tearing and tattooing will result. In this case the post-mortem certificate, Ext. P - 20, is clear that there has been no tattooing. No tearing has been noted and Pw. 11 has deposed that he has correctly described the injury as he found it on the body. That the site of the injury and the track of the bullet are very material and relevant circumstances to be considered in such a situation is also emphasised, by Mody, Taylor and Sydney Smith. Though Pw. 35 is not a medical man he has got special training in the use of small arms like revolver and pistol. He has given evidence to the effect that it is almost impossible for a right-handed person to shoot himself and cause an injury of the nature of injury No. 1. 87. Though Pw. 35 is not a medical man he has got special training in the use of small arms like revolver and pistol. He has given evidence to the effect that it is almost impossible for a right-handed person to shoot himself and cause an injury of the nature of injury No. 1. 87. In the face of the evidence furnished by these three witnesses, it is rather difficult for us to understand him when the learned Judge observes in paragraph 18 of his judgment: “They seem to have assumed for this purpose that in order to make the injuries self-inflicted the injured must have been standing erect holding the revolver in the right hand in the manner in which revolvers are generally used by those who generally use them and aiming at the place of entry and in the direction of the track of the wound.” Again, the learned Judge observes: - “Pws. 6 and 7 indicate that Ammal was a right-handed person But that is no reason to presume that if she wanted to inflict a wound on her with a revolver she must have tried to do it standing erect and holding the revolver in her right hand in the manner in which revolvers are held by persons who generally use them. M.O. 1 was handled in court and it could be seen that the force required to pull its trigger was not much and that a person could discharge it sitting, using both hands, i. e,, or supporting one or both hands on some surface or other so as to cause on him a wound similar to the wound concerned in the case without much strain or getting his hands burnt.” 88. These observations give us the impression that the learned Judge has not even cared to advert to the whole evidence tendered by Pws. 11, 14 and 35. The learned Judge is only in the realm of absolute conjectures and guesses in making those observations. Pw. 35 who is well-versed in the band-ling of firearms, has stated that the movement of a revolver when it is empty, and the trigger is pressed is entirely different from a revolver loaded and fired. 11, 14 and 35. The learned Judge is only in the realm of absolute conjectures and guesses in making those observations. Pw. 35 who is well-versed in the band-ling of firearms, has stated that the movement of a revolver when it is empty, and the trigger is pressed is entirely different from a revolver loaded and fired. The learned Judge’s reasoning that it is easy for a person for shooting with both hands and causing an injury similar to injury No. 1 without much strain or getting his hands burnt is directly opposed to the evidence of Pws. 11 and 35. Pw. 35 has categorically stated that a revolver cannot be used in any manner one pleases if a desired effect is to be obtained. He has also demonstrated the absurdity of using the revolver in a manner otherwise than it should be used. Pw. 14 is of the opinion that in the position suggested by the defence, the strain on the flexed wrist may not give him enough force to the thumb to pull the trigger unless the person is a muscular individual and in such a case the evidence of burning will be present in the left palm which holds the barrel and in addition cadavaic rigidity holding a revolver may be present, when such a strain and determined effort is made to destroy oneself. 89. Again, the reasoning of the learned Judge that it is not necessary for a right-handed person for using a revolver like M.O. 1 to raise his left elbow above his shoulder and to flex his wrist at an angle of 90° is directly opposed to the positive evidence of Pw. 1. In this context the learned Judge has totally ignored the fact that the injury is on the right chest of the deceased and the track of the bullet is at an angle of 45°. The question that the court had to consider was not whether a person could shoot himself with his right hand but whether an injury like injury No. 1 could be caused by a right-handed person intending to commit suicide. There is also the evidence of Pw. 35 that when the trigger is pulled there is always a tendency for the muzzle of the revolver to jerk upwards. 90. Pws. There is also the evidence of Pw. 35 that when the trigger is pulled there is always a tendency for the muzzle of the revolver to jerk upwards. 90. Pws. 11 and 14 do not go to the extent of saying, as the learned Judge seems to assume, that it is impossible for a right-handed person to cause an injury on the right chest. What they have stated is that it is impossible for a right-handed person to cause an injury like injury No. 1, namely, at the site where it was found and with the track of the bullet following that injury. The learned Judge is of the view that Pw. 35 is exaggerating when he says that the possibility of putting a bullet through the right chest is well nigh impracticable. On what basis this view of the learned Judge is based we are notable to appreciate. He is a person quite familiar with the use of revolvers and pistols and he is qualified to speak to matters relating to their use. The learned Judge has relied upon a photograph given at page 221 of Mody’s Medical Jurisprudence, 11th Edition. Evidently the figure that is referred to is Figure No. 96 under the heading “Suicide by shooting with a gun.” We have seen that photograph and it purports to represent an entrance wound on the right chest and an exit wound on the left chest. There is no other information given as to whether such an injury was caused by a right-handed person or not and the circumstances under which that injury occurred excepting the bare fact that the photograph shows an entrance wound and exit wound. Certainly that photograph will show that there has been a case of suicide by shooting on the right chest. But to rely upon that photograph and say that it is very deceptive to form an opinion that the wound concerned in this case could be a self-inflicted one is something different. This observation of the learned Judge shows that the learned Judge has thoroughly misunderstood the medical evidence in this case. As stated earlier, neither Pw. 11 nor Pw. 14 go to the extent of saying that a person committing suicide cannot shoot himself on the right chest. What they have stated is that injury No. 1 could not have been self-inflicted by a right-handed person. 91. As stated earlier, neither Pw. 11 nor Pw. 14 go to the extent of saying that a person committing suicide cannot shoot himself on the right chest. What they have stated is that injury No. 1 could not have been self-inflicted by a right-handed person. 91. That the learned Judge is prepared to form his own conclusion irrespective of the positive opinion furnished by these three witnesses, is clear from the following observations: “The position, therefore, is whatever the opinion of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 might be, it is not possible to conclude by reason of the location and direction only of the injury concerned that it could not be self-inflicted.” That emphasis is laid on location and direction of an injury in such circumstances is clear from the passages that we have extracted from leading text books on Medical Jurisprudence and in our opinion, Pws. 11, 14 and 35 were absolutely correct in forming their opinion based on these two circumstances. 92. But the learned Judge, at the same time, was of the view that the opinion of these witnesses regarding the distance from which the revolver should have been fired in considering whether the injury is self-inflicted or not deserves very serious consideration. The learned Judge again is wrong in saying that neither Pw. 11 nor Pw. 14 has paid any attention to the scorching around the wound mentioned in Ext. P. 44 and Ext. P. 20 or the blackening with unburnt carbon particles on the blouse and the bodice or the tearing of the edges of the blouse and bodice. According to the learned Judge these are indications that a revolver was fired from very near the body. Then he refers to the passage from Burrard. 93. We have already shown the opinion of Taylor, Mody and Sydney Smith as to how scorching or blackening is caused and we have also indicated that the opinions expressed by Pws. 11 and 14 are amply supported by the views expressed in these text books. Both the witnesses have definitely stated that injury No. I could not have been inflicted at close contact with the body or the skin. There is also no mark of tattooing or tearing which are found in the case of close contact suicidal wound. According to these witnesses, the shot must have been fired from a distance of about 1 foot to 2 feet. There is also no mark of tattooing or tearing which are found in the case of close contact suicidal wound. According to these witnesses, the shot must have been fired from a distance of about 1 foot to 2 feet. They have also stated that it is not possible for a victim to fire herself from that distance. Both Pws. 11 and 14 are well versed in this subject and Pw. 35 is well versed in the use of fire-arms like revolvers and pistols. Ultimately the learned Judge winds up his discussion on this aspect and concludes: “The above discussion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to make out that the injury concerned could not be a self-inflicted wound is not of such a nature as would enable a court of law to come to a conclusion that the injury was not one capable of being self-inflicted. The position, therefore, is that it is not possible to say from the position, the direction and appearance of the wound and the condition of the clothes over the same that the injury was not a self-inflicted injury.” This conclusion is full of negatives and we ourselves found some difficulty in understanding the scope of this finding. 94. We entirely disagree with this reasoning of the learned Judge and we are of opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that injury No. 1 in Ext. P-20 is a homicidal injury and not a suicidal injury. 95. Having cleared the ground so far, we will deal with the second aspect of the matter pressed before us by the learned Advocate-General and! that is the attitude of the accused towards his wife, the deceased. According to the learned Advocate-General, that will show that the accused felt that his wife Ammal was a hindrance in the way of his having a happy relationship with. Pw. 12 and as such he had a strong motive for doing away with Ammal. 96. So far as this is concerned, even the Sessions Judge is prepared to proceed on the basis that the background portion of the story relied upon by the prosecution stands proved by Pws. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 31 and 33 as also the letters Ex. P-9 Ext. P-10 and Ext P-10 (a) and their decoded versions Ext P-35, Ext. P-24 and Ext. P. 34 and by Exts. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 31 and 33 as also the letters Ex. P-9 Ext. P-10 and Ext P-10 (a) and their decoded versions Ext P-35, Ext. P-24 and Ext. P. 34 and by Exts. P-3, P-23, P-46, P-47, P-47 (a) and P-47(b). Though the learned Judge was satisfied that these letters have been proved by the prosecution as having been written by the persons purporting to have written them and though the learned Judge is also inclined to the view that it is possible to find passages in the letters written by the accused earlier to suggest that he would have liked that there was no Ammal to hamper his relationship with Lizy, still ultimately he came to the conclusion that there cannot be such a strong motive for the accused to do away with Ammal. We will consider the reasoning of the learned Judge, after the background story as revealed by the prosecution evidence, is considered. 97. As stated in the beginning of this judgment it is the case of the prosecution that Ammal was married in or about 1951 when she was a student in the St. Teresa’s College at Ernakulam and that after marriage she discontinued her studies and took up residence with the accused at Melamparambil House. They had three children. But after three or four years of their marriage, misunderstandings appear to have arisen between the accused and Ammal in view of the fact that the accused was getting into bad ways of heavily drinking and also in view of his acquaintance with a girl called Lizy Pothen who is Pw. 12 in the case. According to the prosecution, this Lizy Pothen was a student in the Sunny Tutorial College which was being conducted by the accused and he became acquainted with her and it is also the case of the prosecution that they actually lived as husband and wife in several places like Travellers’ Bungalows and hotels. 98. The accused himself does not deny the several letters produced in this case nor does he deny his intimacy with Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12. We are not really concerned with his expressions of love towards Pw. 12 as such, but we are really more concerned to find out from the evidence let in by the prosecution the attitude of the accused to his wife. There is the evidence of Pw. 12. We are not really concerned with his expressions of love towards Pw. 12 as such, but we are really more concerned to find out from the evidence let in by the prosecution the attitude of the accused to his wife. There is the evidence of Pw. 1, the maternal uncle of the deceased, who also gave the first information report, Ext. P-1, to the effect that Ammal and the accused had misunderstandings after 3 or 4 years of married life, because of the evil ways in which the accused had fallen, namely, drinking and also his intimacy with Pw. 12. He is a resident of Thiruvella and lives about 3 quarters of a mile from Melamparambil House. After coming to know about the occurrence, he came to Melamparambil House and found the deceased lying dead on a cot. He proceeded to the Thiruvella Police Station at about 6-15 p. m. and gave the report, Ext. P-l. In Ext. P-l he has mentioned about all these matters and in particular he has stated that on the previous day at about 4 p. m. the deceased came to his house and told him that, in view of the Christmas holidays, her husband, Sunny, contemplates going and getting the next day (the date of occurrence) Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12 and that the deceased will not allow him and that she will go out with him wherever he goes, No doubt, in Ext. P-l he suspects that the accused has killed Ammal because she obstructed the accused from going out. This last statement cannot be correct and there is no evidence to support the same and he also admits these mistakes. 99. But the point in the statement given, and the evidence given in court by Pw. 1 is to the effect that the accused was continuing his friendship with Pw. 12 notwithstanding the fact that the accused had brought back Ammal on or about 26th October 1957. 100. The other witness who speaks to these matters is Pw. 33, the brother of the deceased. He has given the same story as Pw. 1 about Ammal being married in or about 1951 to the accused. He also stated that the accused was getting a salary of about Rs.300 or Rs.400 when he was in the St. Berchman’s College. 100. The other witness who speaks to these matters is Pw. 33, the brother of the deceased. He has given the same story as Pw. 1 about Ammal being married in or about 1951 to the accused. He also stated that the accused was getting a salary of about Rs.300 or Rs.400 when he was in the St. Berchman’s College. Later the accused started a tutorial college and was earning about Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,500 a month. After 3 or 4 years of her married life, the deceased came to his house and stayed for about 7 or 8 months till the end of October 1957. She was complaining about the character of the accused and also saying that he was in intimacy with Pw. 12, and also intends to marry her. The intervention of common friends was sought to advise the accused but there was no improvement in the conduct of the accused. Ammal made preparations for appearing for the Ajmere Intermediate Examination & she also learnt shorthand and typewriting. 101. He also stated that when Ammal was staying with him, the accused used to go there late at night drunk and go away early morning, and he protested against this conduct of the accused coming home late fully drunk. When Ammal had gone to appear for her examination to Ernakulam she was taken away from Vycome by the accused. Pw. 12 herself has also admitted that she was on very intimate terms with the accused. But no doubt she originally denied some of the letters which were shown to her as having been written by her to the accused. But ultimately she admitted that those letters were written by her and in any event the accused himself has admitted that they are written by Pw. 12 to him and he has also admitted the letters written by him to Pw. 12. Pws. 15 and 31, some common friends, of the accused and Pw. 12, have also given evidence about their friendship, and they admitted that letters intended for the accused were sent by Pw. 12 to them to be in turn passed on to the accused. 102. Next there is the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 who are the Principal and Warden of the St. Joseph’s College, Alleppey, and the Hostel attached to the College, respectively. 12 to them to be in turn passed on to the accused. 102. Next there is the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 who are the Principal and Warden of the St. Joseph’s College, Alleppey, and the Hostel attached to the College, respectively. They speak to Ammal having come on 27th November 1957 to the college to seek their intervention to persuade Pw. 12 to withdraw all her connection with the accused. She also had an interview with Lizy Pothen, Pw. 12, and appealed to her as a sister not to interrupt the married life of the accused and the deceased. She also left with the college authorities some of the letters which she had taken from the house of the accused. There is no dispute about these matters 103. There is also the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7, the servants of the house to the effect that even after the accused brought Ammal on or about 26th October 1957 they were always quarrelling on the ground that the accused was continuing his friendship with Pw. 12. Before we consider the letters written by the accused to his wife or the correspondence that passed between the accused and Pw. 12 we may also advert to Ext. P-3, a letter written by the father of the accused, Dr. Markose, to the Principal of the St. Joseph’s College, i.e., Pw. 4. That letter has been proved by Pw. 4 and she has also given the envelope in which it was received, namely, Ext. P-4. Exts. P-3 and P-4 were given by Pw. 4 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Pw. 36. In fact both Pws. 4 and 5 also speak to Ammal having come to the College and also of her having an interview with Pw. 12 and leaving with them some of the letters, namely, Ext. P.9, Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-10 (a). 104. In Ext. P-3 which is dated 23rd November 1957 Dr. Markose writes to the Principal to say that he has to inform her regarding a sorrowful and shameful affair concerning his son and a student of the college, whose name is given as Lizy Pothen of the 1st B. Sc. class. There is no dispute that this refers to Pw. 12, the girl friend of the accused. 105. Again Dr. Markose states that Pw. class. There is no dispute that this refers to Pw. 12, the girl friend of the accused. 105. Again Dr. Markose states that Pw. 12 was a student of the Sunny Tutorial College at Thiruvella conducted by his son, the accused. It is stated in so many words: “During her study in the tutorial college she became a concubine of Mathew. He is a married man with three children. After the Intermediate examination of last March- during the vacation - they were living together at Bangalore, Munnar and other places leading a shameful life.” Dr. Markose further says that even after Pw. 12 joined the Alleppey College she and the accused have been having correspondence through an organised system of go-betweens. It is also stated that the accused is maintaining her in the college and meeting all her expenses. He also states that during the last holidays the accused and Pw. 12 were living together in the house of one Ammukutty at Punaloor. This Ammukutty is Pw. 15. There are certain other matters written in the letter which will show the manner in which the accused and Pw. 12 were corresponding. He finally makes a request to the Principal to stop their correspondence as far as possible. 106. This letter is written as late as 23rd November 1957, i.e., nearly a month after the accused brought Ammal from Vycome when she was returning after her examination at Ernakulam. This letter may have some bearing again when we have to discuss the argument of Mr. K. T. Thomas that there is nothing on record to show that between 26th October 1957 (i.e. when Ammal was brought back by the accused) and the date of the occurrence, i.e., 22nd December 1957, the accused ever made any attempts to contact Pw. 12. This letter will give an idea of the father of the accused,-Dr. Markose, who was living with the accused in the same house and who is expected to know the movements of his son - feeling that the accused had not improved even after he brought back Ammal from Vycome. We will now refer to some letters written by the accused to Ammal at the time when she was staying in her mother’s house after a misunderstanding with her husband in view of his behaviour. No doubt, Mr. We will now refer to some letters written by the accused to Ammal at the time when she was staying in her mother’s house after a misunderstanding with her husband in view of his behaviour. No doubt, Mr. Thomas, learned counsel for the accused, contended that according to the accused, Ammal left for purposes of her study. No doubt, the brother, Pw. 33, also says that she came and stayed with them for about 7 or 8 months in 1957 and she was studying for the Ajmere Examination and also learning shorthand and typewriting. But it should not be forgotten that Pw. 33 has stated that Ammal was dissatisfied with the conduct of the accused about his friendly relationship with Pw. 12 and in spite of the intervention of common friends the conduct of the accused did not at all improve. 107. Ext. P33 is a letter dated 15th March 1957 written by the accused to his wife Ammal. No doubt, he starts by addressing her “The queen of my heart and the sole source of my delight”. But later on he says that she has betrayed him, deserted him and joined his enemies. The later part of the letter fully shows that Ammal was suspecting his conduct. There is a reference to Pw. 12 and to the part played by Ammal to send her out of the tutorial college. The accused then takes Ammal to task for the manner in which she sent Pw.12 out of the college. Then he says: “Though you have lived with me for seven years and though you know my bad character and peculiar nature and though I have told you several times that I will divorce you and that I will get married to this girl and that though you know I don’t mean many of these things I say, though you know that I even disclaimed the parentage of mv children without meaning it, even you believe with your people that I actually contemplate marriage with the girl”. The reference to the girl is to Pw. 12. Then he says: “You conspired with your people against me and in collaboration with them ruined our institution, destroyed. Again he takes Ammal to task for her behaviour towards the Mallapilli girl, namely, Pw. 12, and accuses Ammal of having scandalised Pw. 12. The reference to the girl is to Pw. 12. Then he says: “You conspired with your people against me and in collaboration with them ruined our institution, destroyed. Again he takes Ammal to task for her behaviour towards the Mallapilli girl, namely, Pw. 12, and accuses Ammal of having scandalised Pw. 12. Then he says: “Darling, how can I ever forgive and forget this mean disloyalty, St. Georgean Treachery and gross betrayal of yours?” No doubt, finally he says that he is prepared to forget and forgive everything provided she makes a sacrifice on his behalf and severs her complete connection with her mother, brother, etc. Then he adds: “From your action, gross betrayal of me, it is clear that you are determined to divorce me. Darling, if that is your will, I don’t want to force myself on anyone, least of all my wife. I am prepared to accept the divorce but I know the legal position now.” Then later he refers to a letter of hers advising him not to drink and then says: “Darling, in your letter you ask me not to drink How can I ever refrain from drinking when you proved yourself to be so treacherous.” Then he says: “If I get registered to a girl without getting a previous divorce from you, in a court of law I shall immediately land myself in jail.” In Ext. P-46 dated 1st October 1957 a letter written by the accused to Ammal he says: “I am still in love with you in spite of your treacherous betrayal. Yes, it is true that Lizy will sacrifice her life for me though it is more than three months since I saw her. I am absolutely sure that she will sacrifice her people and if necessary her life for me if I ask her to do so. But I can’t, as long as I am not ready to look after her future.” Then he accused Ammal of having stolen three letters of his and written to the Principal of the St. Joseph’s College that the accused was going to snatch Lizy away. He also accuses Ammal of having come to his house during his absence and stolen the testimonials that he had kept, so that the accused cannot apply for a job. Then he says that Lizy is much more loving, sincere, frank and straightforward than Ammal. Joseph’s College that the accused was going to snatch Lizy away. He also accuses Ammal of having come to his house during his absence and stolen the testimonials that he had kept, so that the accused cannot apply for a job. Then he says that Lizy is much more loving, sincere, frank and straightforward than Ammal. He further adds that Lizy is not a mercenary as Ammal was who is interested in money only. After adding that Lizy is prepared to give up her people for his sake he says that Ammal is not prepared even to disobey her prostitute mother for the sake of the accused. Then he asks: “How can I love you again?” In another letter written by the accused to Ammal, Ext. P-47 (b) he writes to say that he wants to see her immediately and talk to her about “our future.” Then he says that if she does not come at the place mentioned in that letter, “I shall have nothing more to do with you and I shall get registered to my Lizy who is much more sincere, loyal, dependable and honest than you.” 108. These letters give a fair indication of the attitude of his mind towards Ammal. No doubt, he is calling her darling and all that, but his bitterness towards his wife and his love for Pw. 12 are quite evident from these letters. There are three more letters which we may consider in this connection They are Exts. P-9, P-10 and P-10 (a). All these three letters are in code. A1 these have been decoded and Ext. P-35, Ext. P-24 and P-34 respectively are the decoded versions and all these letters are admitted by the accused. Ext. P-9 is a letter sent on 2nd July 1957 by the accused to Pw. 12. Ext. P-35 is the decoded version and in that letter the accused acknowledges receipt of a letter from Pw. 12 and promises to go on Thursday afternoon to meet her. He also says that he will take her back by Sunday. He winds up the letter by saying: “I am anxious to meet you now because it is a long time since I saw you.” Ext. P-10 (Ext. P-24 is the decoded version) is a letter dated 4th August 1957 again in code by Pw. 12 to the accused. He also says that he will take her back by Sunday. He winds up the letter by saying: “I am anxious to meet you now because it is a long time since I saw you.” Ext. P-10 (Ext. P-24 is the decoded version) is a letter dated 4th August 1957 again in code by Pw. 12 to the accused. By the time this letter is written, probably the scandal about Pw. 12 and the accused must have become fairly public because she says that she is staying in the hostel like a prisoner, being not allowed to go anywhere. She expresses her desire to meet the accused and says “Son, I am anxiously waiting to see you. I am really in love with you and I shall love until my death. May I hope that you will never betray me...... You must meet me with Chin or Ravi.” Ravi mentioned herein is no other than Pw. 31, husband of Pw. 15, and she says that she cannot lead life without seeing the accused. 109. Ext. P-10 (a) is a letter written on several dates in code and kept by the accused to be sent to Pw. 12. It started on 10th October 1957 and ends with 25th October 1957. The decoded version for Ext. P-10 (a) is Ext. P-34. There is no dispute that this is a letter written by the accused but he would say that the several matters mentioned therein regarding his wife Annual were only stated by him to please his girl friend, Pw. 12. 110. The letter itself is a very vulgar letter and we are not concerned with the expressions of love shown by him to Pw. 12. But that will show how much he was in love with Pw. 12, and it also gives us an idea of his attitude towards his wife, the deceased. He says: “I assure you that I will love you till I die...............” Referring to his wife, Ammal, the deceased, he says: “I promise you that I shall never meet or talk to Ammal, since she betrayed me and joined my enemies in abusing and scandalising me. I hate her like poison and I can never again love her as I loved her before and as I love you now. I hate her like poison and I can never again love her as I loved her before and as I love you now. Therefore, there is not going to be any change in our relations whether she returns to me or not.” He adds: “In a way it is better that she returns because we can meet more safely as people will suspect us less. But she is not going to return and I don’t want her back. The problem is to get a legal separation and to get rid of her for ever............I shall love you till I die and I shall look after your future.” Then he refers to the very happy time that they enjoyed together on a recent occasion. In that letter he also says that he went to see Miss. Elizabeth Philomina George. (Pw. 8) to her office and asked her to hand over a letter to Pw. 12 but she declined. He states in this letter that he mentioned to Pw. 8 that he is in love with Pw. 12 after Ammal left him and that he intends to marry Pw. 12. He also refers to Pw. 8 having declined to pass on the letter to Pw. 12 as Catholic religion is against divorce. Then he says: “Darling, I am dying to meet you. I feel terribly lonely. I must meet you as early as possible. Like the last time you must inform me when, where and how to meet you.” Then later on he refers to Pw. 12 and himself having stayed in the house of Ammukutty and her husband who are Pws. 15 and 31. Then he refers to a letter that Ammal has written to Pw. 12 and referring to Ammal he says: “She is no doubt dependant on her people. I am sure that her only aim is to trouble you. Thanks to Ammal, I think she will free me to marry you.” Then he proceeds: “Liz, my darling, I do not know how to meet you again Believe me, honey, I can be happy only in your company. Ammal whom I loved sincerely for 7 years betrayed so grossly that she can never again make me happy............You have something which she lacks to make me happy”. The tone of the letter clearly exhibits all the bitterness he has towards his wife Ammal. 111. Ammal whom I loved sincerely for 7 years betrayed so grossly that she can never again make me happy............You have something which she lacks to make me happy”. The tone of the letter clearly exhibits all the bitterness he has towards his wife Ammal. 111. The learned Advocate-General, in our opinion, is well founded in his contention that the ideas and sentiments expressed by the accused in all these letters will clearly show that he was feeling that Ammal was an impediment in his relationship with Lizy. In fact he refers in so many words when writing to Pw. 12 that the problem is how to get rid of Ammal for ever. 112. Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel for the accused, contended that whatever the accused may have stated to Ammal prior to 26th October 1957 cannot be put against the accused in considering whether he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. 113. There is the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 which has been accepted by the learned Judge regarding this aspect that even after getting back Ammal from Ernakulam, both the accused and the deceased were quarrelling over Pw. 12. There is the letter, Ext. P-3, written by the father of the accused to the St. Joseph’s College authorities nearly one month after Ammal was brought by the accused expressing his distress over the conduct of his son. Such a letter would not have been written if really the accused was not again in contact with Pw. 12 even after the return of Ammal from Ernakulam. Mr. Thomas also contended that after Ammal went and had an interview with the college authorities on 27th November 1957, at the suggestion of the college authorities Pw. 12 had written a letter, copy of which is Ext. P-13 severing all connections with the accused and the accused, therefore, could not have been under the belief that Pw. 12 was again entertaining any love for him. 114. This contention has no doubt appealed to the learned Sessions Judge but we cannot accept this contention of Mr. Thomas. Pw. 12 has admitted that after writing Ext. P-13 she has intimated her friend Ammukutty, Pw. 15, by Ext. P-23 to inform the accused that she has written in Ext. P-13 only at the instance of the college authorities. She has stated in Ext. Thomas. Pw. 12 has admitted that after writing Ext. P-13 she has intimated her friend Ammukutty, Pw. 15, by Ext. P-23 to inform the accused that she has written in Ext. P-13 only at the instance of the college authorities. She has stated in Ext. P-23 that she still loves the accused and wanted this to be conveyed to the accused. She has also referred to the incident that she had with Ammal when she visited the college the previous day, namely, 27th November 1957. 115. Pw. 31 has deposed that the accused called on him in the first week of December 1957 and at that time he had mentioned to him the substance of Ext. P-23. No doubt, the accused would have it that he had already known the information contained in Ext. P-23 because his wife Ammal had already mentioned to him about her visit to the Alleppey College. But the more important point in Ext. P-23 is the fact that Pw. 12 gave the go-by to Ext. P-13 and asserted that she was continuing her unabated love for the accused and that this attitude of her was made known to the accused. Then again there is the evidence of Pw. 31 to the effect that on the date of the occurrence i. e., on 22nd December 1957 in the afternoon, the accused came to his house and was there for about 5 to 10 minutes. No doubt he would say that the accused came in connection with some money transaction. But the witness admits that he had received another letter from Pw. 12, to be handed over to the accused, that he handed over that letter to the accused and that when he came out to the road to see the accused off, he saw Ammal sitting in the car. Pw. 12 was not prepared to admit the nature and contents of this letter and hence she was contradicted by the previous statement made by her to the investigating officer, Pw. 36, who had questioned her. Ext. P-54 contains those statements which were made use of for contradicting Pw. 12. The statements thus made use of from Ext. P-54 are that she had admitted to Pw. 36, who had questioned her. Ext. P-54 contains those statements which were made use of for contradicting Pw. 12. The statements thus made use of from Ext. P-54 are that she had admitted to Pw. 36 that she had stated in the letter sent by her to the accused that till her death she would not love anybody excepting himself, that so long as Animal lives there would be a lot of trouble from her, and that the accused should decide as to whether he wants Pw. 12 or Ammal. Pw. 12 denied having given such statements to Pw. 36. Pw. 15 was also asked about the contents of the letter she had received from Pw. 12 to be handed over to the accused and it was actually handed over to him by Pw. 31 on 22nd December 1957. This witness also was not prepared to disclose the contents of the letter and hence she too was attempted to be contradicted by confronting her with the previous statements which she had made to Pw. 36 in the course of the investigation of the case. The statements thus made use of for contradicting Pw. 15 are those contained in Ext. P-65. Pw. 15 denied having made such statements to Pw. 36. In view of such denial by Pw. 12 and Pw. 15, the statements contained in Exts. P-54 and P-55 cannot be accepted and relied on as evidence in proof of the contents of the letter of Pw. 12 which was handed over to the accused by Pw. 31 on 22nd December 1957. 116. The learned Sessions Judge was prepared to accept that the other items of evidence already referred to would support the background of the unhappy relationship between Ammal and the accused, but he was not prepared to act on such evidence because, according to the learned Judge, there was nothing to show that subsequent to 26th October 1957 the accused had tried to contact Lizy, Pw. 12. Another reason given by the learned Judge is that after the sending of the letter Ext. P-13 by Pw. 12 to the accused, the latter had no reason to think that Pw. 12 was still in love with him. We have already shown that Ext. P-13 had been promptly withdrawn by Pw. 12 by sending the letter Ext. P-23, the contents of which had been communicated to the accused by Pw. P-13 by Pw. 12 to the accused, the latter had no reason to think that Pw. 12 was still in love with him. We have already shown that Ext. P-13 had been promptly withdrawn by Pw. 12 by sending the letter Ext. P-23, the contents of which had been communicated to the accused by Pw. 31 even in the first week of December 1957. The other statement of the learned Judge that there is nothing to show that the accused tried to contact Lizy after 26th October 1957, is also wrong. There is the admitted fact that on the two occasions when the accused had gone to the house of Pws. 15 and 31, i.e., in the first week of December 1957 and on 22nd December 1957, two letters received from Pw. 12 were made known to him and the second of these letters was actually handed over to him on 22nd December 1957. In the light of these facts and circumstances, it is rather difficult to accept the conclusion of the learned Judge that there is nothing to show that the accused tried to contact Lizy after 26th October 1957. 117. The learned Judge further says that though the letter written by Pw. 12 was given to the accused by Pw. 31 on 22nd December 1957 there is nothing on record to show what the contents of that letter were and it would be unjust to presume that it contained something to provoke the accused to do away with Ammal. 118. The accused himself had admitted that when he went to the house of Pw. 15 and Pw. 31 on the afternoon of 22nd December 1957, he was given a letter received from Lizy and that after returning to his own house he was secret by reading that letter in the latrine. 119. Even though there is no acceptable evidence in proof of the contents of that letter, it is clear from the conduct of the accused that it contained some message from Lizy which the accused was not prepared to disclose to his wife Ammal. When she asked him to hand over that letter to her, the accused replied that even if he were to die, he would not give the letter to her. He was passing from room to room in his house in his attempt to prevent Ammal from getting at that letter. 120. When she asked him to hand over that letter to her, the accused replied that even if he were to die, he would not give the letter to her. He was passing from room to room in his house in his attempt to prevent Ammal from getting at that letter. 120. It has to be remembered in this connection that after Ammal had been brought back to his house on 26th October 1957, the accused had disclosed to her the previous correspondence that had passed between himself and Lizy and had tried to make Ammal believe that he would not have anything more to do with Lizy. His attitude on 22nd December 1957 has to be viewed in this background. His anxiety that Lizy’s letter which was in his possession on that date should not be allowed to be seen by Ammal at any cost, has its own significance. The inference is irresistible that he was feeling that it was time for him to decide whether he should have Ammal or Lizy. The letters which he had sent to Ammal previously and which had been adverted to earlier, contain clear indications of his feeling that Ammal was a stumbling block in the way of his relationship with Lizy and that this hindrance should be got rid of. 121. In dealing with the question of motive in this case, the learned Sessions Judge has stated as follows: “Of course it is possible to find passages in the letters written by him earlier to suggest that he would have like 1 that there was no Ammal to hamper his relations with Lizy...........But all the same, it cannot be urged seriously that there was such a total absence of motive on the part of the accused that it is not impossible to claim that he could have caused the fatal injury We find it rather difficult to appreciate the way in which the learned Judge has understood the background story furnished by the prosecution. The different items of acceptable evidence referred to by us earlier, in our opinion, are sufficient to clearly establish that the accused felt that Ammal was a hindrance to his relationship with Pw. 12 and that this served as a strong motive for him for removing Ammal from the scene. The different items of acceptable evidence referred to by us earlier, in our opinion, are sufficient to clearly establish that the accused felt that Ammal was a hindrance to his relationship with Pw. 12 and that this served as a strong motive for him for removing Ammal from the scene. 121-A. We will now advert to the last aspect of the matter, namely, the direct evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused with the actual occurrence. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution on this aspect is that of Pws. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 25. Pw. 2 is, as could be seen from the plan, Ext. P-37, a person living on the western side of Melamparambil House. According to this witness, he knows the deceased and the accused and he was reading on the evening of 22nd December 1957 on the southern portion of his house. He stated that he knew about the death of Ammal at about 5 p. m. by boys saying. He heard two shots from the direction of the car shed in Melamparambil House. One shot was heard and within two or three seconds another shot was also heard. When he heard shots he got down on the court-yard and looked towards the house. But he did not see anything there. Then he says that he saw accused running south near the cow shed. The accused was running from north towards the cow shed and the witness says he saw a revolver in his hand. 122. In cross-examination the witness says that the Police came to Melamparambil House the same night but he was not in the house. He had gone to the temple at 6 p. m. and returned only at about 8 p. m. He says he was taken away by the Police on the 18th instant and though he wanted to go out he was not permitted to do so by the Police. He says the Police did not teach him anything. But he added that he has the fear of ill-treat by Police if he has not deposed as he deposed in court. 123. He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Pw. 36, asked him about two weeks after the occurrence but he replied that he knew nothing. He says the Police did not teach him anything. But he added that he has the fear of ill-treat by Police if he has not deposed as he deposed in court. 123. He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Pw. 36, asked him about two weeks after the occurrence but he replied that he knew nothing. He was taken in a Jeep to Kallissery, at about 6 p. m. one evening and he left the T.B. only the next day. He further states that at the T. B. Pw. 36 told him what he has got to say. In accordance with that, he gave the statement to the Magistrate, Ext. P-2 on 6th January 1958. Then he says that it was only after he gave the statement that he was allowed to go. He has not seen a revolver either before or after or even on the day of the occurrence. He also says that he does not know what a revolver is. He further stated that his answer that he saw the accused running from north is wrong and wound up by saying that he mentioned all that out of fear of the Police. The learned Judge was not prepared to accept the evidence of this witness. No doubt, he was not prepared to accept the explanation of this witness that he was speaking due to the fear of the Police. 124. Mr. Thomas naturally attacked the evidence of this witness on the ground that when Pw. 34 questioned the mother of this witness the same night, she has stated that the witness was not at all in the house that evening. Further the learned counsel also relied upon the various answers given by this witness to show that no reliance can be placed upon this witness. 125. But the learned Advocate-General, no doubt, pressed us to accept the evidence of this witness especially in view of the fact that he has given a statement before the Magistrate Ext. P-2 as early as 6th January 1958 which is quite true. He is only attempting to go back on the same evidently to help the accused. 126. Though we are satisfied that this witness is attempting to go back on his previous statement, namely, Ext. P-2 as early as 6th January 1958 which is quite true. He is only attempting to go back on the same evidently to help the accused. 126. Though we are satisfied that this witness is attempting to go back on his previous statement, namely, Ext. P-2, still in view of the conflicting answers given by this witness even at the stage of the chief examination in the Sessions Court in our opinion, it will not be safe to place much reliance on his testimony. 127. We can also dispose of the evidence of Pw. 10. Pw. 10 is a washerwoman residing on the eastern side of Melamparambil House. She has been treated as hostile even by the prosecution, and there is nothing in that evidence which is in any way favourable to the accused either. Mr. Thomas, learned counsel for the accused, did not also place any reliance upon the evidence of this witness. She gives a very extreme story on which even the counsel for the accused has not placed any reliance. In view of this we will leave out the evidence of this witness also. 128. Before we consider the evidence of Pws. 3, 6 and 7 we will consider the evidence of Pw. 25. Pw. 25 is a school teacher in the M. G. M. School and is living in Kavumbhagom, Thiruvella. He says that on the day of occurrence he came to the house of the accused at about 4 p. m. to discuss certain matters with Dr. Markose, the father of the accused. He says that he was in the habit of going to purchase medicines and also in connection with compounding. He says when he was about to leave the house one of the children of the house came to Dr. Markose and told him that father and mother were quarrelling. When he had just left the house and he was about half a furlong away he heard the noise resembling the firing of crackers. After he proceeded another 5 or 6 steps, he heard a similar sound again. He went home and he got into a library and when he was reading a newspaper he heard somebody calling at the gate of the Government school nearby and saying that Ammal in Melamparambil House died by injuries sustained by gun shot wounds. After he proceeded another 5 or 6 steps, he heard a similar sound again. He went home and he got into a library and when he was reading a newspaper he heard somebody calling at the gate of the Government school nearby and saying that Ammal in Melamparambil House died by injuries sustained by gun shot wounds. He says that after hearing this he came back to Melamparambil House and saw the body of the deceased and after that he went home. 129. In cross-examination he stated that the G. K. Hospital is a good hospital and he is also familiar with that hospital. He stated that he was talking to Dr. Markose for about three quarters of an hour. He has spoken to giving a statement before the Circle Inspector of Police, Pw. 34. No doubt, he admitted that he mentioned to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, that he went to Dr. Markose to purchase medicine. 130. He is positive that the sounds of firing were from the direction of Melamparambil House and he also thought that being Christmas time it may be the sound of crackers. He says that he came back to that house at about 5-45 p. m. and saw women crying near Ammal. 131. The evidence of this witness is material only for this purpose, namely, that there were two shots heard in quick succession from the direction of Melamparambil House. The interval between the two shots, according to this witness, will be the time taken to proceed 5 or 6 steps. This will have some bearing in considering whether the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 given in the Sessions Court is to be accepted or not. It will also have some bearing on the answer given by the accused that when he was almost finishing a page of reading the letter in his room, he heard the second sound. The time factor between the two shots has not been adverted to by the lower court at all. 132. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of this witness. He is a totally disinterested witness and his evidence shows that at about 5 p. m. on 22nd December 1957 there were two shots in quick succession in Melamparambil House. 133. The most important evidence which will have to be considered in this case along with the evidence of Pw. He is a totally disinterested witness and his evidence shows that at about 5 p. m. on 22nd December 1957 there were two shots in quick succession in Melamparambil House. 133. The most important evidence which will have to be considered in this case along with the evidence of Pw. 25 is that of Pws. 3, 6 and 7. The learned Judge also states that if their evidence is accepted, then it is difficult to come to a conclusion other than that it was the accused who fired the fatal shot. In our opinion, the learned Judge is quite correct in that observation. Therefore, the question will resolve itself as to whether the evidence given by them is to be believed or not. 134. Pw. 3 is a boy aged about 11 years. According to him, his father has got a ration shop and also cultivation. His uncle has got sugarcane cultivation along with his father. The place of cultivation is stated to be a plot of land east of the house of Pw. 10. The house of the accused is to the west of Pw. 10’s house. The witness knows Ammal, the wife of the accused. She died on 22nd December 1957 at about 5 p. m. 135. The witness further stated that on the 22nd of December 1957 they were cutting sugarcane and putting them in a cart, parked on the road to the east of the house of the accused. He was keeping watch on the sugarcane stocked in a cart. The sugarcane was intended to be taken ultimately to the mill. He further states that in the afternoon after he came to the place, one cartload was sent and the cart came back again and it was being loaded with sugarcane. At that time the witness saw a car coming from the north and entering Melamparambil House at about 4 or 4-30 p. m. The witness saw the accused and the deceased getting down from the said ear and going into the house. The witness further states that some time later at about 5 p. m. he saw the accused and the deceased running to the car shed. The witness was then going to the sugarcane field and when he went to the south of the house of Pw. 10 he heard the sound of one shot from the direction of the par shed. The witness was then going to the sugarcane field and when he went to the south of the house of Pw. 10 he heard the sound of one shot from the direction of the par shed. When he had walked up just 3 or 4 feet he heard another sound like the earlier one from the direction of the shed. When he proceeded a little further he saw the coolies bringing sugarcane and he came back along with them to the place where the cart was. Some time later he saw a car going out from Melamparambil House towards the north and he saw the accused and Pw. 10 in the car. He then heard that Ammal had been shot dead and therefore he became afraid and went home. He has also stated that when he saw the accused and Ammal running into the car shed the accused was in front and Ammal was going behind. 136. In cross-examination he has stated that the day on which he gave evidence was 20th May and that his school re-opens on 2nd June. He has stated that he was questioned by the Police about this incident at Kallissery and that he does not know the name of the officer. He says that Pw. 36 who was then present in court questioned him. He does not know the exact date But it was in an afternoon. The Police came to his house and took him to Kallisseri saying that he had to give a statement regarding the death of Ammal. Otherwise he has not been examined on any earlier occasion. He was taken in a car to Kallisseri. When the Police came, his father, mother, elder brother and younger sister were all in the house. The Police told his father that he must be allowed to go with them to give a statement. His father permitted him to go and advised him to state what he saw. He also stated that Dy. S.P. asked him whether his father has got sugar-cane cultivation. He also asked whether his uncle has got sugarcane cultivation east of Pw. 10’s house and the witness told him that they have. He is also positive that when he was questioned by Pw. 36 there was nobody else in that room. The Dy. S.P. noted what he mentioned at that time. He also asked whether his uncle has got sugarcane cultivation east of Pw. 10’s house and the witness told him that they have. He is also positive that when he was questioned by Pw. 36 there was nobody else in that room. The Dy. S.P. noted what he mentioned at that time. The statement so taken was read out to him but he was not asked to sign. He has also stated that he has not read that statement after that date. He denied the suggestion that he has read the statement before coming to court to give evidence. 137. The sugarcane is cut from land about a quarter of a furlong to the east of Pw. 10’s house. According to the witness, to go to the road from there, the witness will have to go about 10 feet, south of the gate of Melamparambil house. He says that he came there at about 2 p. m. and guarded the sugarcane. He alone was there to guard the sugarcane. At the time he heard the first shot, he was standing in the paramba south of the house of Pw. 10. He saw nobody else near him when he heard the shot. He further stated that when he saw Sunny and Ammal running he was standing on the road, that the gate was wide enough for a big car to pass through. He was opposite to the gate on the southern side and the car shed is about 10 or 15 feet from the gate. He did not see anybody between the car shed and the gate, nor was there anybody else when Sunny and Ammal were running. He knows both of them much earlier. When they were running, Sunny had almost reached the shed and then Ammal was about five feet behind him. No doubt, the witness states that he did not see Ammal actually getting into the shed. Thinking that he may be found fault with if he stood there seeing them, running he went away. Ammal’s height will be about 5 feet one inch as shown by the witness in court. His house is about half a furlong to the east of Melamparambil House. No doubt, he admitted that he did not mention what he saw to his mother. 138. Ammal’s height will be about 5 feet one inch as shown by the witness in court. His house is about half a furlong to the east of Melamparambil House. No doubt, he admitted that he did not mention what he saw to his mother. 138. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he was taken away by Police two days before he gave evidence. He has stated that he came to the court that day to give evidence from his house along with his elder brother and that he did not meet any Police officer. He and his mother were in the house the whole of the previous day and night and his mother did not go anywhere the previous day. In the re-examination he has stated that his father was in the house. 139. The evidence of this witness establishes that at about 5 p. m., on 22nd December 1957 the witness saw the accused and the deceased running into the car shed in Melamparambil House. Pw. 6 has given evidence to show that at the time of the occurrence, there were some people carting sugarcane on the road. The evidence of Pw. 3 will also show that it was the accused who was first going into the car shed, followed by Ammal. Within a short time thereafter, two shots in quick succession were heard from the car shed. The evidence of this witness, if accepted, will establish the presence of the accused with the deceased in the car shed just before the two shots were heard. The witness is a resident of that place and he knew the accused and the deceased. 140. The criticism levelled against his evidence by Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel for the accused, is that he is a very young boy and that he was examined by the Police only on 12th January 1958. According to the learned counsel, if he had really been at the scene of occurrence at that time, his presence would certainly have been known even much earlier. He has also emphasised that this witness has not mentioned about what he saw even to his mother. Though learned counsel was not prepared to contend that evidence recorded contrary to section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, he desired that aspect also may be considered in dealing with this evidence. He has also emphasised that this witness has not mentioned about what he saw even to his mother. Though learned counsel was not prepared to contend that evidence recorded contrary to section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, he desired that aspect also may be considered in dealing with this evidence. The objection raised to the acceptance of the evidence of Pw. 3 and also of Pw. 7 is that the investigating officer violated the provision contained in section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in questioning them. That section states that any Police Officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code may by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The proviso to that section states that no male person under the age of 15 years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides. In the present case Pw. 36 had questioned Pws. 3 and 7 after getting them at the Kallisseri T.B. and not at their own residence. The proviso to section 160 is obviously intended merely as a safe guard against the misuse of the powers of the Police Officers during the course of the investigation. The proviso can only be treated as directory and cannot be treated as mandatory. The violation of such a direction cannot render the evidence of the witnesses concerned illegal or inadmissible. The utmost that can be said is that the notes of evidence taken from the witnesses without adhering to the direction contained in the proviso to section 160 has to be viewed with caution. So far as Pw. 3 is concerned, it has come out from his evidence that he was taken to the Kallisseri T.B. with the consent of his father, so as to enable Pw. 36 to question the witness. Neither the witness nor any of his relations has come forward with a complaint that the boy was forcibly taken to the Travellers’ Bungalow or that any force or undue influence was used against him at the time of questioning him. In the circumstances of this case Pw. 36 to question the witness. Neither the witness nor any of his relations has come forward with a complaint that the boy was forcibly taken to the Travellers’ Bungalow or that any force or undue influence was used against him at the time of questioning him. In the circumstances of this case Pw. 7 who was a servant in the house of the accused, had necessarily to be taken out of that house so that the witness could be questioned in an atmosphere free from the influence of the father of the accused. Here again, neither Pw. 7 nor any of her relations had complained of any force or undue influence having been used against the witness. On the other hand, the evidence of Pw. 36 is to the effect that after Pws. 6 and 7 were examined by him at Kallisseri T. B. on 5th January 1958, both of them were taken home in the evening at about 5 p. m. by the father of Pw. 6 and he also stated that the house of the father of Pw. 6 was very near the T.B. Pw. 36 has also stated that both Pws. 6 and 7 were again brought the next day by the father of Pw. 6 to give statements before the Magistrate, and taken back. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the failure to strictly comply with the proviso to section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot in any way detract from the value of the evidence given by Pws. 3 and 7. 141. After considering the several circumstances mentioned by Mr. Thomas, the learned counsel for the accused, we are inclined to accept the evidence of Pw. 3. The evidence of this witness appears to us to be quite natural and in spite of his age he has given very cogent answers. The explanation for not examining him earlier is given by Pw. 36, the Dy. S.P. He says that it was during his investigation that he came to know on 6th January 1958 that Pathanadan Parameswaran Pillai’s son i.e. Pw. 3 was guarding sugarcane put in a cart and there were some coolies also. The reasons given by the learned Judge for rejecting the evidence of this witness are that he has not been discovered prior to 12th January 1958. 3 was guarding sugarcane put in a cart and there were some coolies also. The reasons given by the learned Judge for rejecting the evidence of this witness are that he has not been discovered prior to 12th January 1958. Then the learned Judge says that it is rather a strange coincidence that he was just near the gate to see the accused and the deceased running into the shed. The learned Judge says that if the witness had really seen the accused and Ammal running into the car shed, he is not likely to have moved away immediately because “boys are more curious than that”. Again, the learned Judge says that the explanation given by the witness for going away (viz.) that he may be scolded, could not also be accepted because the witness had no test of any scolding from the accused or Ammal at any time. The learned Judge also says that some interested person was out to bring forward false evidence in this case. We are not able to find any suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that will throw any light on this remark of the learned Judge. 142. Pw. 36, the Dy. S.P. whose evidence, we see no reason to reject, has frankly admitted that he got information only on or about 6th January 1958 that Pw. 3 was one in the group of people who were carting sugarcane near the road opposite to the gate of the house of the accused. 143. In our opinion, there are absolutely no circumstances elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he is in any way purposely testifying against the accused. A reading of the answers clearly shows that he had occasion to be present and he being a resident of that area knows the accused and the deceased. His father and uncle have got joint sugarcane cultivation nearby. Therefore, the reasons given by the learned Judge for not acting on his evidence do not at all appeal to us. In fact, the evidence of this witness establishes that the accused and the deceased were seen together immediately before the occurrence and that two shots were fired in quick succession. This evidence also establishes that it was really the accused who was running in the front followed by Ammal. In fact, the evidence of this witness establishes that the accused and the deceased were seen together immediately before the occurrence and that two shots were fired in quick succession. This evidence also establishes that it was really the accused who was running in the front followed by Ammal. One other additional reason given by the learned Judge for not relying upon the evidence of this witness, namely, section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been attempted to be supported before us by Mr. K.T. Thomas. We have no hesitation to accept the evidence of this witness. The fact that he frankly admits that he did not wait to see Ammal going into the shed shows he is only speaking the truth. 144. The two other witnesses whose evidence is strongly relied upon by the learned Advocate-General are Pws. 6 and 7. Both of them are admittedly servants employed in the house of the accused for about two years, Their evidence is more or less substantially the same and the criticism levelled by Mr. Thomas against the acceptance of their evidence is also the same. We will now proceed to consider the evidence of Pw. 6. Pw. 6 is a boy aged 15 when he gave evidence in court. His evidence is to the effect that he knows the accused and Ammal, having been employed in their house at Melamparambil for about two years. Pw. 7 Saraswathi, also called Sumathi, is his mother’s sister’s daughter and she was also employed there along with him as a maid servant in their house. Ammal is dead and they left Melamparambil House about 10 or 15 days after her death. 145. According to him, there was a maid servant by name Saraswathi in Melamparambil House before Saraswathi, Pw. 7, joined service That girl was called by the children of the house as Sumathi and, therefore, though the name of Pw. 7 was Saraswathi, the children used to call her as Sumathi. The house of the accused is; known as Melamparambil House. On the northern side of the house there are five rooms and there are five other rooms behind them. In addition there was also an Ara. The second room from the east of the northern side was a portico room. The father of the accused Dr. The house of the accused is; known as Melamparambil House. On the northern side of the house there are five rooms and there are five other rooms behind them. In addition there was also an Ara. The second room from the east of the northern side was a portico room. The father of the accused Dr. Markose was using the room east of the portico room for keeping medicines, etc. The portico room is round in shape and protrudes outside. The house has got a small verandah on all sides excepting the western side. In the protruding portion of the portico room there are three doors and two windows. The room immediately west of the portico is the one used by the accused. West of that room is the dining room and west of that is the bed room where the accused and Ammal used to sleep. South of that bed room is the kitchen. There was also another room south of the dining room. There are doors leading to the rooms on three sides from the dining room. There is another room east of the room south of the dining room. The Ara is between the room just mentioned and south of the room of the accused. On the northern side of the house, towards the west there is a car shed. The shed will be more or less directly north of the bed room. There is a road on the eastern side of the compound of Melamparambil House. There is a gate giving entry to the road. The gate is north-east of the house. The latrine is situated in the southern compound, more or less opposite to the room on the south of the dining room. On the western side of the house is a cattle shed. He further states that when he tools up employment in Melamparambil House the accused, his wife and three children along with the father of the accused and Sumathi were there. About a year after he joined service Ammal took up her residence in her mother’s house at Kurusummoottil House on the ground that she has to study for her examination. Animal’s children and Sumathi, Pw. 7, also went over with Ammal. Ammal was fetched by the accused to Melamparambil only about two months prior to her death. The accused brought her from Ernakulam. She died on the 22nd of December 1957. Animal’s children and Sumathi, Pw. 7, also went over with Ammal. Ammal was fetched by the accused to Melamparambil only about two months prior to her death. The accused brought her from Ernakulam. She died on the 22nd of December 1957. It was in the last week in the previous Christmas. She died at about 5-30 p. m. in the evening. 146. After Ammal was brought away from Ernakulam by the accused, the witness says that both the accused and Ammal used always to quarrel. The quarrel was on the ground that Sunny was very intimate and friendly with a girl called Lizy and also on the ground that he gets drunk always. 147. On the day when Ammal died, at about 10 a. m. the accused got into his car saying that he was going to Kottayam. Saying that she will also accompany him, Ammal got into the car in the same dress that she was wearing in the house then. The accused drove his car. In the afternoon, the witness says, he went to the bazaar and came at about 4 p. m. When he came back from the bazaar he saw the car of Sunny in the shed and Ammal was lying on a cot in her room south of the dining room and .Sumathi was standing near her carrying Sheila, the third child of the accused and Ammal. 148. The witness further states that when he came back, the asked Pw. 7 as to whether the accused and Ammal had taken their meals and she replied in the affirmative. Then the father of the accused ordered the witness to take out the cow from the compound and put it in the cattle shed. After getting ready the fodder for the cow he went to the place where the cow was tied, namely, a coconut tree to the east of the latrine. At that time he saw the accused in, the latrine and the door was not closed properly. Ammal came behind the witness towards the latrine. As Sheila, cried, Pw. 7 also carrying the child came behind Ammal. When Ammal saw the accused reading a letter in the latrine she asked him to hand over the letter to her. But the accused answered, from inside the latrine “Even if I die I will not give this letter”. Ammal came behind the witness towards the latrine. As Sheila, cried, Pw. 7 also carrying the child came behind Ammal. When Ammal saw the accused reading a letter in the latrine she asked him to hand over the letter to her. But the accused answered, from inside the latrine “Even if I die I will not give this letter”. The witness untied the cow from the coconut tree and tethered it in the cattle shed. When he came to the kitchen both accused and Ammal - accused in the front and Ammal behind - were coming towards the room south of the dining room. Accused got into the room and closed the door on the south. Ammal came to the kitchen through the southern verandah and attempted to go into that room where the accused was. Then accused closed the door on that side. Then Ammal went from the kitchen to the bed room and got into the dining room and attempted to go into the room where the accused was. Then accused closed the door on that side also. Ammal came back to the kitchen from the bed room. Then accused went to the room east of the dining room and closed the western door also. Then Ammal got into the Ara opened the small entrance on the western side and got into the room where the accused was. 149. According to the witness, after a little interval he heard noises of tables and chairs being moved in that room. He and Pw. 7 went into the kitchen to prepare the evening coffee and tiffin. When they were so preparing within a short time he heard the sound of a shot coming from the direction of the car shed. Again within the time taken to count up to 3 or 4 the witness heard from the same direction another shot. Taking the child Pw. 7 ran towards the shed in advance of this witness. He also ran in that direction behind Pw. 7. 150. The witness further deposes that when he went into the dining room he saw the accused, with a revolver in hand, coming out of the shed a little eastwards and proceeding north of the shed. Then accused proceeded westwards of the car shed and coming by the side of the cattle shed got into the dining room. 151. 7. 150. The witness further deposes that when he went into the dining room he saw the accused, with a revolver in hand, coming out of the shed a little eastwards and proceeding north of the shed. Then accused proceeded westwards of the car shed and coming by the side of the cattle shed got into the dining room. 151. When the witness went further into the dining room he saw the father of the accused Dr. Markose going from the portico to the car shed. The witness proceeded in front and he went into the shed. Pw. 7 also got into the shed. When the witness saw the father of the accused coming he stepped aside out of respect and to give him way. The father of the accused went inside and saw Ammal. Then Ammal said: “Achhaya, Sunny has done this to kill me” At that time Ammal was lying in front of the car facing east with her right hand near the chest, After listening to what Ammal said, the father of the accused came out of the shed and the witness again stepped aside giving him way. The father of the accused with great sorrow got into Sunny’s room. The witness also stood there with great sorrow. Dr. Markose went along the court yard of the house and went through the dining room. Dr. Markose took the revolver from Sunny, went into the portico room and locked it in a table drawer. Pw. 7 and children were crying and the witness also cried. Hearing their cries Pw. 10 and her sister Bhavani came running to the car shed. Pw. 10 turned Ammal enabling her to lie facing upwards. The witness saw a red mark near the right breast of Ammal. At the instance of Pw. 10 the witness brought water and water was given to Ammal by Pw. 10. 152. A little later, Valiya Yajamanan, namely, Dr. Markose, got down from the portico and came and stood in the shed on the southern side of the car. The accused also came out and stood on the northern side of the car. Valia Yajamanan attempted to beat the accused with a stick which he had in his hand but the accused stepped aside and avoided the beating and as such the blow fell on the car. 153. The accused also came out and stood on the northern side of the car. Valia Yajamanan attempted to beat the accused with a stick which he had in his hand but the accused stepped aside and avoided the beating and as such the blow fell on the car. 153. Valia Yajamanan asked one Ramachandran Pillai who was there to go and get a car to take Ammal to hospital. Ramachandran Pillai is the person who lives a little to the west of the house. The witness does not know as to when exactly this Ramachandran Pillai came there. But as no car was brought even after a lapse of some time the accused said that he will take Ammal in his car itself if Dr. Markose will not attempt to beat him again. The accused, Pw. 10 and Bhavani lifted Ammal and put her in the car and Kali, Pw. 10 sat in the car holding Ammal’s head on her lap, and the accused drove the car. 154. But the car came back within about 10 or 15 minutes and everybody who went in the car came back in the car. As the car came to the house the accused told Dr. Markose that Ammal is dead. Pw. 10, Bhavani, the accused and one or two others, carried the dead body of Ammal inside the house and placed it on a cot in a room south of the dining room. The witness says that the revolver that he saw in the hand of the accused was his and that he has seen the accused taking it out and cleaning it now and then. He identifies the revolver M.O. 1 as belonging to the accused. 155. The witness further stated that Ammal will do all types of household work such as cutting vegetables, washing clothes, stitching and other items of work. Animal was doing all these with her right hand. 156. The witness further stated that during the nights the accused will keep the revolver inside the table drawer in his room and during day time he will keep it in the car in the pocket on the right-hand door of the seat where he usually sits. 157. In cross-examination this witness stated that on the night of the occurrence the Police came to that house. The Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector, Thiruvella, were also there. 157. In cross-examination this witness stated that on the night of the occurrence the Police came to that house. The Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector, Thiruvella, were also there. But he did not see any jeep. He has not seen the Circle Inspector or the Sub-Inspector before. When the Police arrived there were people in the house, about 10 or 20. In that group the witness knows only the people of the house. He does not know when the Circle Inspector or Sub-Inspector came but he saw them only at about 8 or 9 p. m. that night. He also stated that from the time Ammal’s body was put on the cot in the room till he saw the Police, he was in the room consoling the children. Both the witness and Pw. 7 were only going about near that room in the southern verandah with the children. He was either in the room where the body was or in the southern verandah during that time and he did not go anywhere else. People were coming and seeing Animal’s body and going. Among the people who so came were the mother of Ammal and her other relations. 158. The witness further stated that neither Ammal’s mother nor her other relations asked him anything about the matter and nobody else asked him about the matter till the Police came. The Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector questioned him about the occurrence at about 10 p. m. that night. At that time the Valia Yajamanan and Pw. 7 alone were there. He was not taken to the Police Station either that night or the next day. 159. Pw. 36, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has asked this witness about this occurrence in the T. B. at Kallisseri. The Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector asked him about this on the night of the occurrence at the Melamparambil House and they have not questioned the witness at any other time. It was about 10 or 12 days after the occurrence that Pw. 36 questioned him at the Kallisseri T. B. No Police Officer has taken the witness to the Police Station and examined him. He has stated that he mentioned to the Circle Inspector, Pw. 34, about his having seen Ammal with revolver in her hand because Dr. Markose, asked him and Pw. 7 to say so. 36 questioned him at the Kallisseri T. B. No Police Officer has taken the witness to the Police Station and examined him. He has stated that he mentioned to the Circle Inspector, Pw. 34, about his having seen Ammal with revolver in her hand because Dr. Markose, asked him and Pw. 7 to say so. The witness is positive that Ammal did not have any gun in her hand and it did not happen like that. 160. When Ammal was taken in the car to the hospital there was nobody in the house but there were a few people on the road and in the court yard. 161. A specific question was asked by the defence counsel, namely, “after Ammal was taken to the hospital where did Valiya Yajamanan go.” The answer was “He took me and Sumathi (Pw. 7) to the portico room. He took us from near the shed. People in the front court yard may have seen our being taken. In the front near the gate there were two or three people carting sugarcane at the time of the occurrence. But he does not know the names of these people. He also thought there were some people in the court yard and near the gate. He does not know their names. Valiya Yajamanan called both this witness and PW. 7 by show of hands. Nobody came behind this witness or Valiya Yajamanan to the portico room. Valia Yajamanan spoke jointly to this witness and Sumathi lying on an easy chair.” 162. Another question was “did it take half to three-quarters of an hour to mention.” The answer was he took only 10 or 15 minutes. During that time nobody came into that room, nor was anybody looking into that room. When the statement of the witness made to Pw. 34 was put to the witness he stated that he mentioned like that as taught by Valiya Yejamanan, i.e. the father of the accused. The witness also stated that the Police came about three or three and a half hours after Valia Yejamanan had taught them everything. Witness knew what he told the Circle Inspector was false but because of Valiya Yejamanan asking him to say so he said like that. Till he gave a statement to Pw. The witness also stated that the Police came about three or three and a half hours after Valia Yejamanan had taught them everything. Witness knew what he told the Circle Inspector was false but because of Valiya Yejamanan asking him to say so he said like that. Till he gave a statement to Pw. 36 he has not mentioned to anybody that what he mentioned to the Circle Inspector is a false statement given at the instance of the father of the accused. When Pw. 36 told the witness that he should not speak falsehood and that it is enough if the witness speaks to what he saw, then he began to tell the truth. 163. The witness further stated that after she was brought from Ernakulam by accused Ammal used to accompany the accused wherever he went. At that time the accused was running a tutorial college at Thiruvella. Even when the accused was going to the college Ammal used to accompany him. On very rare occasions Ammal will come back home alone in the evenings from the college and even on those occasions when the accused used to come late, Ammal used to quarrel with him. The college is about 2 or 2 1/2 miles away from Melamparambil House. 164. The witness further stated that Valiya Yejamanan is more than 70 years of age and though he does not use a stick inside the house still when he goes out he uses a stick sometimes. The witness further stated that it was he who went near the cow near the latrine first and Ammal came behind and the witness saw her coming out of the house. Animal did not come into the latrine. She only looked into it and told the accused ‘give me the letter.’ The accused did not immediately give it. The witness took the cow and tethered it in the cattle shed. It was when he went to the kitchen that Ammal and accused came from the latrine to the room and the witness saw them about 5 or 6 feet away from the room. They were not running. The witness was standing on the verandah near the kitchen when the accused entered the room. At that time Pw. 7 was inside the kitchen. It is possible to close from the kitchen the door in between the kitchen and the room which Sunny entered. They were not running. The witness was standing on the verandah near the kitchen when the accused entered the room. At that time Pw. 7 was inside the kitchen. It is possible to close from the kitchen the door in between the kitchen and the room which Sunny entered. That room has four entrances from four sides. The eastern entrance will lead to the Ara. Except the eastern door the accused closed all the doors on the other three sides. The witness saw Ammal going down to the Ara. He got out of the kitchen only when he heard the sound of a shot. Sumathi was also in the kitchen at that time. 165. The witness further deposed that on hearing the shots he got out of the kitchen and came to the dining room. The first thing that he saw was the accused coming out of the car shed with a revolver in his hand. He also stated that some people were carting sugarcane on the road near the gate a little to the south. He saw them even prior to the occurrence. After seeing the accused, the next thing that the witness saw was Valia Yejamanan getting down into the courtyard and going towards the car shed. The witness says that he did not actually go into the shed but was standing near the entrance on the northern side. Valiya Yejamanan went into the house and got into Sunny’s room. Witness affirms that standing near the shed on the northern side he can see what happened in the room of the accused. About five minutes afterwards, Valiya Yejamanan came back to the shed. When Pw. 10 came, Ammal uttered in low tone ‘Kali, Kali.’ When Valiya Yejamanan came to the shed the second time Ramachandran Pillai was near the gate. 166. Dr. Markose attempted to beat the accused saying “Why did you go in for doing such things.” Pw. 10 was there and he has mentioned this to Pw. 36 also. Pw. 7 was not with him when he was questioned by Pw. 36 at Kallisseri T.B. After he and Pw. 7 were separately questioned, they have not gone to Melamparambil House. He denied the suggestion that he was ever threatened to be made an accused or otherwise implicated in this case by Pw. 36 also. Pw. 7 was not with him when he was questioned by Pw. 36 at Kallisseri T.B. After he and Pw. 7 were separately questioned, they have not gone to Melamparambil House. He denied the suggestion that he was ever threatened to be made an accused or otherwise implicated in this case by Pw. 36 and it was not certainty because of any such threat, he has changed his earlier statement to the Police. 167. In re-examination the witness stated that when Animal’s mother came and saw the dead body she cried aloud and fell near the cot. She became unconscious and she was carried away and did not come back. He also says that he heard the two shots in quick succession. Ext. P-15 is the statement given by him before the Magistrate on 6th January 1958. 168. We have extracted almost in full the evidence of Pw. 6. The evidence of Pw. 7 is also substantially the same excepting that she does not speak to having seen the accused coming out of the car shed. In all other particulars Pw. 7 fully corroborates the evidence given by Pw. 6. 169. In the Sessions Court after Pw. 7 deposed that the accused along with Pw. 10 took Ammal in the car to the hospital, the defence put her a question as to when the car came back. She replied that a little time after Dr. Markose had mentioned to them to give a particular version the car came back with the dead body of Ammal. She has also stated that she does not know the direction very well but she had admitted that when giving statement before the Police she indicated the several directions by giving full description. 170. We may also at this stage indicate briefly the substance of their statement to the Circle Inspector, Pw. 34 when they were examined the same night at Melamparambil House. Their statement was to the effect that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased over a letter and that Ammal stated that the matter must be settled or she will die. A little later they heard the sound of a shot from the direction of the car shed and when they reached the shed they saw Ammal standing with a revolver in her hand. Ammal said: “Why did you come? A little later they heard the sound of a shot from the direction of the car shed and when they reached the shed they saw Ammal standing with a revolver in her hand. Ammal said: “Why did you come? Go away.” They came back to the house and again they heard the sound of a shot. They ran back again to the car shed and found Ammal lying on the floor with an injury and the gun near her. Dr. Markose came and took away the gun. 171. The evidence of these two witnesses, namely, Pws. 6 and 7, has been very severely attacked by Mr. K.T. Thomas, the learned counsel for the accused. The points of attack are common The occurrence was on 22nd December 1957. The same night they have been examined by the Circle Inspector, Pw. 34. The statement given by Pw. 6 is Ext. D-2 and the statement given by Pw. 7 is Ext. D-3. In these statements both the witnesses have stated that Ammal was seen with a revolver in her hand and a little later she was also found lying down with an injury on her body, after asking these witnesses to go away. That clearly shows that this is a case of suicide. These witnesses are now giving an entirely different version before the Sessions Court and it must be due to the pressure of the Police or being tutored by somebody else. The tutoring by Dr. Markose is brought in for the first time in the Sessions Court. 172. Secondly, the learned counsel also contended that Pw. 36 has recorded the statements of Pws. 6 and 7 on 5th January 1958. Those statements are Exts. D-7 and D-8. No doubt, both these witnesses have given statements before the Magistrate on 6th January 1958. Even the evidence given in the Sessions Court is at variance with their statements, Exts. D-7 and D-8. 173. Learned counsel also contended that there could not have been any time for Dr. Markose to tutor these witnesses. Immediately after the occurrence people had begun to gather in the house and Police also arrived at the scene soon after and therefore Dr. Markose could not have any opportunity to teach these witnesses to give any particular version. We have given this matter our very anxious consideration. Markose to tutor these witnesses. Immediately after the occurrence people had begun to gather in the house and Police also arrived at the scene soon after and therefore Dr. Markose could not have any opportunity to teach these witnesses to give any particular version. We have given this matter our very anxious consideration. We are aware of the fact that these two persons are young in age and they had given a different version when they were examined by the Police, on the day of occurrence itself. That statement to Pw. 34, if accepted as being true will certainly probabilise the plea put forward by the accused that Animal shot herself dead. But with due regard to all the circumstances, we have considered the evidence of these two witnesses and we are of opinion that their evidence given before the Sessions Court is the true one and that the statements given by them before Pw. 34 has been influenced by Dr. Markose who is certainly interested in trying to see that the accused, his only son, is not involved in a murder case. The reasons given by the lower Court for rejecting the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 are the same as the contentions of Mr. Thomas which we are not accepting. 174. It will also be seen that Dr. Markose evinces a lot of interest in the case as will be seen by his application made to the Magistrate when these people were taken to give a statement on 6th January 1958, i.e., Ext. D-6. In that petition filed on behalf of Dr. Markose it has been stated that Pws. 6 and 7 have been taken from the Melamparambil House on 3rd January 1958 by Pw. 36 to Kallisseri T.B. and was being kept in wrongful restraint and the Police have let them oat only on 6th January 1958. 175. Pw. 34 has spoken to the fact that after questioning Pws. 6 and 7 he has not at all taken them to the Police Station or any other place till they were taken to Kallisseri at the direction of Pw. 36. Even otherwise, Pw. 36 definitely stated that the statements in Ext. D-6 are not true. The allegation is that Pw. 36 took them away even as early as 3rd January 1958 from the house of the accused. Pw. 36. Even otherwise, Pw. 36 definitely stated that the statements in Ext. D-6 are not true. The allegation is that Pw. 36 took them away even as early as 3rd January 1958 from the house of the accused. Pw. 36 admittedly took charge of the investigation only on 4th January 1958. Pw. 36 has stated that he was in Trivandrum on 3rd January 1958 and that he went to Melamparambil House only at about 4 p. m. on 4th January 1958, on the day of his taking charge of the investigation. It was only in the afternoon of 5th January 1958 that Pws. 6 and 7 were taken to the T. B. He also stated that even on the evening of 5th January 1958 itself at about 5 p. m. the father of Pw. 6 took both Pws. 6 and 7 to his house from Kallisseri T. B. The house of the father of Pw. 6 was only about half a mile from the T. B. As the two witnesses had been asked to appear before the Magistrate the next day for recording their statements, Ext. P-15 and P-16, they appeared before the Magistrate and after their statements were recorded they again went back to their house along with the father of Pw. 6. We are satisfied that the allegations in Ext. D-6 are without any basis and purposely made by Dr. Markose because he became afraid that the witnesses will speak the truth when once they are removed from his control and the evidence of Pw. 36 will show that these allegations are absolutely fantastic and without any basis. 176. That the revolver was produced by the father of the accused is spoken to by Pw. 34 and Pw. 21. 177. Further, Pw. 36 has also stated frankly that though he has seen the statements of these witnesses as recorded by Pw. 34, yet he felt that if they are examined in the house of the accused itself he may not be able to ascertain the true particulars. Therefore, he left instructions to these witnesses to be brought to Kallisseri and each of them was questioned by him separately. No doubt, he has stated that both Pws. 6 and 7 when he started questioning, began by giving the same version given to Pw. Therefore, he left instructions to these witnesses to be brought to Kallisseri and each of them was questioned by him separately. No doubt, he has stated that both Pws. 6 and 7 when he started questioning, began by giving the same version given to Pw. 34 but the witness told them that he expects young people to speak the truth and he also mentioned that he wants only to know the truth and each of them began to give the version they have given in the Sessions Court and it was only when the statements had to be recorded that he called in the assistance of another Constable. 178. So far as the criticism that the evidence given before the Sessions Court and the statements made to Pw. 36 differ in material particulars we have been taken through these discrepancies and we are satisfied that there is no discrepancy in any material particulars. No doubt, in some matters there are some slight variations but they do not affect the testimony of these witnesses in the Sessions Court so far as material particulars are concerned. 179. Though the accused will deny that he ran from room to room and that he did not see either Pw. 6 or Pw. 7, he has himself admitted that he was reading a letter in the latrine and that Ammal came and knocked at the door and asked him to give the letter. Regarding the occurrence itself the accused says that after going into the room and closing the several doors, he had no further occasion to go outside the house, and that he had closed the doors and windows so that Ammal cannot get at the letter. But he is prepared to admit that he got into the room south of the dining room and that when Ammal attempted to go into it he closed the southern door; when she tried to go into that room through the kitchen he closed the kitchen door also; when she attempted to go through the dining verandah, he closed that door also. When according to the accused he began reading the letter the deceased came near the window of the dining verandah and asked for the letter and he closed that window also. When according to the accused he began reading the letter the deceased came near the window of the dining verandah and asked for the letter and he closed that window also. He further says that it was only after the occurrence that he went into the shed and that he had no occasion in the meanwhile to go anywhere from the room. 180. Regarding the sounds of shots he says that he began reading the letter inside the room at about 5 p.m. and when he had read about three or four sentences he heard a noise resembling the firing of crackers. He ignored the sound and continued reading the letter. It was only after the occurrence and when he thought about the sound that he felt that it may have been the sound of a revolver shot. He further states that after he had finished reading about a page of the letter he heard a sound quickly followed by the cry of the children. When he heard that, he immediately opened the door, and ran to the shed and his father came behind him. When he went there he saw Ammal lying with gun-shot wound and he also stated that it was his father who took the revolver which was near the place where Ammal was lying. He also stated that it was a deliberate falsehood to say that the injured said to his father that the accused shot her. 181. The evidence of Pws. 3, 6, 7 and 25 shows that the shots were fired in quick succession. The accused, on the other hand, tries to give, by his answers extracted above an interval between the first shot and the second shot. The reason is obvious because it is only if there is such an interval that the statements given to Pw. 34 by Pws. 6 and 7 can be true. It is not at all possible for us to accept his explanation. The statements given by Pws. 6 and 7 to Pw. 34, in our opinion, looks artificial and made up. The medical evidence referred to by us rules out beyond all doubt the possibility of the injury being a suicidal injury. 182. Both Pws. 6 and 7 have stated that it was immediately after the car left for the hospital with Ammal and before it came back that Dr. Markose took both Pws. The medical evidence referred to by us rules out beyond all doubt the possibility of the injury being a suicidal injury. 182. Both Pws. 6 and 7 have stated that it was immediately after the car left for the hospital with Ammal and before it came back that Dr. Markose took both Pws. 6 and 7 into the house and told them what they have to say. The contention of Mr. K.T.Thomas relying upon the evidence of Pws. 1, 21, 24 and 34 that there could not have been any chance of Dr. Markose tutoring Pws. 6 and 7 cannot be accepted. Pw. 1 admittedly goes to the house of the accused only at about 5 - 45 p. m. and immediately he sees the dead body of Ammal in the house. That means the accused had come back to the house with Animal’s dead body. The evidence of Pw. 21 is that he came there at about 6 p. m. He has only stated that by the time he came, the car had already left with Ammal. No doubt, he says that after coming to the house he was with Dr. Markose and continued till late in the night till the search and other inventories were made by the Police. Pw. 24, the Sub-Inspector of Police, came only at about 7 -15 p.m. and the Circle Inspector, Pw. 34, came only at 7-45 p. m. These two witnesses, Pws. 6 and 7, are quite positive that there was absolutely nobody inside the house after the car left for the hospital. No doubt; they admit that there were a few people standing outside near the gate or on the court yard. Pw. 6 is positive that it took over about 10 or 15 minutes for Dr. Markose to mention these matters to them and Pw. 7 is more positive in saying that it was after Dr. Markose taught them that the car came back with the dead body of Ammal. We are not satisfied with the reasons given by the learned Judge for rejecting the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7. They are the two servants in the house and they must certainly have been under the influence of Dr. Markose when they gave the statement to Pw. 34. Pw. 6 has stated that when Pw. 34 questioned him and Sumathi, Dr. Markose was present. We have indicated that Dr. 6 and 7. They are the two servants in the house and they must certainly have been under the influence of Dr. Markose when they gave the statement to Pw. 34. Pw. 6 has stated that when Pw. 34 questioned him and Sumathi, Dr. Markose was present. We have indicated that Dr. Markose had sufficient opportunity to tutor the witnesses and we are satisfied from the evidence of these two witnesses that Dr. Markose did tutor them before the car came back, with the dead body of Ammal. In fact the evidence of Pw. 29, the compounder in the G. K. Hospital, is that the accused brought the injured in the car to the hospital some time between 6-15 and 5-30 p.m. The learned Judge has given very great importance to the statements given by these witnesses to Pw. 34. Then again, he has stated in discussing their evidence that there was someone out to procure evidence for the prosecution and Pws. 6 and 7 could not have been beyond reach. Here again, we do not find anything in the records to show on what basis the observation of the learned judge is based. Pw. 36 has stated as to why he examined them at Kallisseri T. B. & there is also the evidence of Pw. 34 to the effect that after they were questioned by him at the house of the accused they have not been taken to the Police Station or anywhere else after that date. We are satisfied that once the influence of Dr. Markose was removed, namely, when the two witnesses were taken out of the house, they had come forth with the truth as spoken to by them in Sessions Court. We accept the evidence of these two witnesses, and their evidence when once accepted shows that the plea of the accused that he was inside the room all along is false. It will also show that immediately after the occurrence the accused was seen coming out with a revolver in his hand. That is a very strong circumstance in favour of the case of the prosecution. 183. It is not necessary for us to advert to the evidence of the investigating officers, Pws. 24, 34 and 36. To the extent to which their evidence was necessary we have already adverted to them in the appropriate places. 184. That is a very strong circumstance in favour of the case of the prosecution. 183. It is not necessary for us to advert to the evidence of the investigating officers, Pws. 24, 34 and 36. To the extent to which their evidence was necessary we have already adverted to them in the appropriate places. 184. The prosecution has established by the evidence of Pws. 11, 14 and 35 beyond all reasonable doubt that injury No. 1 found on the body of Ammal is a homicidal injury. We have also shown that the prosecution has established by the evidence discussed by us earlier that the accused had felt that Ammal was a hindrance between him and Pw. 12 and as such had a strong motive to remove her out of the picture. The evidence of Pw. 25 shows that sound of two shots, in very quick succession were heard from Melamparambil House at about 5 p.m. on 22nd December 1957. The evidence of Pw. 3 shows that the accused ran into the shed and was followed by Animal at about the time of the occurrence. Immediately thereafter there were the sounds of two shots heard in quick succession. There is the evidence of Pws. 6 and 7 that two shots were heard in quick succession from the direction of the car shed. Pw. 6 has given evidence to the effect that immediately after, the accused was seen coming out of the car shed with a revolver in his hand. Both Pws. 6 and 7 had spoken to the fact that when they went into the shed the injured Ammal told the father of the accused that the accused had done that to her. In our opinion though this is a case depending upon circumstantial evidence, there is a chain of evidence established in this case which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has established, in our opinion, beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who shot dead Ammal on 22nd December 1957. 185. We are satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. 186. Accordingly, we set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikkara and convict the accused of an offence under section 302,1. P. C. for which he was charged and tried; 187. 185. We are satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. 186. Accordingly, we set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mavelikkara and convict the accused of an offence under section 302,1. P. C. for which he was charged and tried; 187. There are no extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused and the only sentence that can be passed, in the circumstances of the case, is the sentence of death. Accordingly, we direct that he be hanged by the neck till he be dead. Allowed.