JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1959 on the file of the Sessions Court of Palghat questioning the sustainability of the conviction entered against him under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. The charge against the accused was that on 9-1-'59 he caused the death of Dumban Raman, son of Thitnan of Kallankad in Pallassena amsorn by strangling him with a coir rope. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The accused is the son of the younger brother of deceased Raman's father. The deceased had married P. W. 1 Ammini some years back and they were living together in the same house. They had 4 children, Ponnan (P. W. 3), Meenakshi (P. W. 2), Arumukhan a boy aged 6 years and Chinna aged 2 years. The accused was living in a house nearby. About a month prior to the date of occurrence, P. W. 1 eloped with the accused and lived in various places as husband and wife. Five days before the occurrence, the deceased, P. W. 2, Armukhan and P. W. 11 the mother inlaw of P. W. 2 went to Valluvakkundu and persuaded P. W. 1 to return back to the deceased's house. P. W. 1 returned and they were living together. The accused also returned to his house in Pallassena. On the day previous to the date of occurrence while P. W. 1 was washing rice, the accused caught hold of her hands and attempted to kiss her. P. W. 1 resented this conduct. ,P. W. 2 who saw this abused the accused. The accused then left the place. 3. On the date of the incident, i. e., on 9-1-'59 early morning the. accused came to the deceased's house and invited him to go out with him and have a drink. The deceased at first refused, but finally agreed and the deceased, P. W. 1, P. W. 2, Arumukhan and the accused went to one Nanjan to take toddy. P..W. 6 is the wife of that Nanjan and she served toddy to all the people. The deceased was made to consume a large quantity of liquor. 4. After sometime, the accused left the place and P. W. 1, the deceased and their children returned to their house. P..W. 6 is the wife of that Nanjan and she served toddy to all the people. The deceased was made to consume a large quantity of liquor. 4. After sometime, the accused left the place and P. W. 1, the deceased and their children returned to their house. They took some coconut fibre and came back to the foot of a rubber tree where they usually sit to make coir. While they were thus working, P. W. 2 told the deceased about the amorous advance made by the accused towards P. W. 1 and Ammini (P. W. 1) resenting to it. P. W. 1 also corroborated the statement of P. W. 2. P. W. 4, Chakkiliyan Ponnu, his wife and children who were also attending to their work under the tree also heard this conversation. At about 11 a. m., the deceasea along with others returned to their house. After' some time, P. W. 2 and her brother Arumukhan went out begging for food. Though their traditional occupation was coir-making, it is stated that they also go about begging. There were then the deceased and P. W. 1 in the house, besides their infant child. When the accused came there, the deceased asked the accused not to enter the house as he had made indecent overtures to his wife the previous day. The accused retorted as to why he should get upset over it since he did not fee! any disgrace when his wife and himself had lived as husband and wife for about a month. This was followed by an exchange of words, P. W. 1 then told the accused that hereafter wards she was going to live with the deceased and that she had no love for the accused. She then went away with the infant child to the tank nearby for washing clothes. When she came back in about a nazhika, she found the eastern door of her house closed. She went to the northern side and got into the house. She then saw the deceased squatting on the floor reclining on the wall and the accused stooping and pulling the two sides of M. O. 1, coir rope which was encircled round the neck of the deceased. She cried out as to what the accused was doing. The accused immediately released the rope and the deceased fell down. The accused threatened her. She cried out as to what the accused was doing. The accused immediately released the rope and the deceased fell down. The accused threatened her. By that time P. W. 2 and Arumukhan returned after begging. P. W. 1 left the house with her children to her son Ponnan's house in Kollengode to give information. On her way she told P. W. 2 that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating him with a rope. On the way they saw Ponnan and she told Ponoan that deceased was missing from the house. On hearing the news, Ponnan and his brother-in-law rushed to Pallassena. P. W. 1 and her children followed. Ponnan came to the house and saw his father lying dead. He then ran to the Amsom Adhikari for giving information. By that time P. W. 1 reached there and wanted to explain what really took place. But Ponnan did not stop to listen and rushed up to P. W. 14, the Adhikari and gave the statement Ext. P. 1. 5. P. W. 14 sent Ext. P. 1 with Ext. P. 7 the Yadast to the Kollengode police station. On receipt of Yadast, P. W. 17 registered a case and Ext. P.12 is the FIR P. W, 17 immediately went to the scene and saw the deceased lying dead. He conducted an inquest at 6. 30 a. m., the next day and Ext. P. 13 is the inquest report. He prepared a scene mahasar Ext. P. 5 and rough sketch of the scene Ext. P. 14. He questioned the witnesses also. 6. After the inquest P. W. 13 the Medical Officer attached to the Kollengode Government Dispensary conducted the post mortem examination at 11 a. m., on 10-1-59 and Ext. P. 6 is the post mortem certificate. On 11-1-59 at about 1 p. m., the accused went to P. W. 14, the Amsom Adhikari and confessed his guilt to him. P. W. 14 detained the accused there and seat up a report Ext. P. 8 to the Kollengode Police Station. This report was received by P. W. 17 at 4.5 p. m. He immediately came to the house of P. W. 14 and arrested and questioned the accused. On the strength of the information furnished by the accused, M. O. 1 coir was recovered by the police under Ext. P. 2 the mahazar from the house of the deceased. This report was received by P. W. 17 at 4.5 p. m. He immediately came to the house of P. W. 14 and arrested and questioned the accused. On the strength of the information furnished by the accused, M. O. 1 coir was recovered by the police under Ext. P. 2 the mahazar from the house of the deceased. P. W. 18 is the Circle Inspector of Police who verified the investigation of P. W. 17 and after completing the investigation a charge sheet was laid against the accused. 7. The accused's plea is one of complete denial. His case is that he left his house at 10 a. m. and returned home only at 4 p. m., and then he saw the police and people gather in the house of the deceased and that when he was going towards his house he was called in by the police and he was falsely implicated in the case. 8. The learned Judge has, in para 7 of the judgment, enumerated all the symptoms which the doctor has noted in the post mortem certificate Ext. P. 6. All the symptoms noted are those of death by strangulation. P. W. 13 the Medical Officer has also definitely stated that the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. A faint attempt was made to make out that it might be a case of suicidal strangulation and not one of homicidal strangulation as alleged by the prosecution. As seen from Modi's book on Medical Jurisprudence, 1945 Edition, page 150, continuous transverse ligature mark will be found on the neck in a case of strangulation as in this case. But in the case of hanging it would be oblique and non continuous. The mark in this case was seen on a lower level behind rather than in front. In the case of hanging, marks would be high up in the neck. In the case of hanging, neck would be stretched and elongated. In the case of strangulation no such symptoms would be seen. In this case also the neck was not seen stretched or elongated. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears would be very rare in the case of hanging and will be found in the case of strangulation. In the case of hanging, neck would be stretched and elongated. In the case of strangulation no such symptoms would be seen. In this case also the neck was not seen stretched or elongated. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears would be very rare in the case of hanging and will be found in the case of strangulation. Again in the case of hanging saliva would be flowing out of the mouth down on the chin and chest and in the case of strangulation no saliva would be seen. Here no trail of saliva was seen on the deceased. Emphysematous patches on the-surface of the lungs would not be present in the case of hanging. But it would be present in a case of strangulation. The doctor has noticed this symptom on the deceased. These symptoms prove conclusively that it could not be a case of hanging and it could only be a case of strangulation as set up by the prosecution. According to P. W. 13, the doctor, the hard dark constriction mark noted on the neck could be caused by a rope like M. O. 1. The doctor has also noted in front of the neck, between the thyroid and the chin, X mark, which according to him could be caused by a person pulling the two sides of the rope. 9. It was contended by the defence that the accused alone could not haw been able to strangulate the decea-ed without some struggle resulting in causing braises, or.other injuries on himself. It would be so, under normal conditions. The evidence in the case shows that the deceased was fully drunk. At the time of autopsy, 6.oz., of toddy was found in the stomach. According to the doctor, if the stomach were to contain 6 oz. of toddy at that time, he must have consumed a much larger quantity. The doctor says that if the victim is under the influence of alcohol, then strangulation could be caused by one individual without causing any external injuries. Though it may not completely incapacitate him, the deceased, it would certainly weaken his power of resistance. So, the medical evidence adduced in the case clearly point out that it is a case of homicidal strangulation. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though it may not completely incapacitate him, the deceased, it would certainly weaken his power of resistance. So, the medical evidence adduced in the case clearly point out that it is a case of homicidal strangulation. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The eyewitness in the case is P. W. 1, Ammini, the wife of the deceased. She speaks to the entire prosecution case as detailed above. She explains why she told Ponnan her son that the deceased was missing in the house. She says that she told him like that, because, her son was violently angry with her due to her elopement with the accused. She says that she was afraid that if she told her son that his father was dead, he would get completely upset and would even assault her. The learned counsel for the defence contended that she was suspected of having joined the accused in murdering the deceased and that her name was mentioned as one of the accused in the complaint filed by P. W. 3 and therefore her evidence should not be accepted. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of P. W. 1 to discredit her testimony and no arguments were advanced to persuade us to reject her evidence. The fact that she happens to be the wife of the deceased or that her name is mentioned as an accused in the complaint filed by P. W. 3 is no ground to disbelieve her. Her version stands corroborated in all material particulars by the Medical evidence and by the evidence of the other witnesses like P. Ws. 2 to 11 and also by the extra judicial confession made by the accused to the Adhikari, P. W. 14 and the discovery of M. O. in pursuance of his statement. 11. P. W. 2 is Meenakshi. She speaks to herself and Arumukhan going out for begging to the house of P. W. 9 and when they returned they saw P. W. 1 coming out of the house followed by the accused, that her mother was crying and that they went to inform Ponnan. 11. P. W. 2 is Meenakshi. She speaks to herself and Arumukhan going out for begging to the house of P. W. 9 and when they returned they saw P. W. 1 coming out of the house followed by the accused, that her mother was crying and that they went to inform Ponnan. Ponnan was told that the deceased was missing from the house and then he proceeded in advance and they also followed him and that when Ponnan saw the dead body, he ran out saying that he was going to inform the Adhikari that the accused and P. W. 1 killed his father. P. W. 3 and his brother inlaw P. W. 5 corroborated the story. Ext. P. 1 is a statement given by P. W. 3 to the Adhikari. In Ext. P. 1 he has stated that both P. W. 2 and the accused might have killed his father. But after his return, P." W. 1 told him about what really happened. P. W. 4 Chakkiliyan Ponnu, who was present under the rubber tree speaks to the deceased, P. W. 1 and their children working under the same tree and his hearing P. W. 2 telling the deceased about the attempt of the accused to kiss P. W. 1 and their having abused the accused. He also says that soon after P. W. 2 and Arumukhan went out for begging, the accused was seen going to the deceased's house. After some time P. W. 1 came out of their house and was seen going towards the tank. Some time after, P. W. 1 came back to her house from the tank and within a very short time thereafter he saw P.W.I coming out of the house followed by the accused. He also says that later P. Ws.1 1, 2 and 3 and others came to the house and that P.W. 1 told him that the accused killed the deceased by strangulating him with a coir rope. Then there is the evidence of P. W. 7, a tea-shop keeper about 21/2 furlongs away from the deceased's house. He speaks about the accused visiting his shop at about 11 a. m., on the date of occurrence. P. W. 8 another tea-shop keeper speaks about the accused going to his shop at 11-45 a.m. with a tortoise in a basket and offering to sell it. He speaks about the accused visiting his shop at about 11 a. m., on the date of occurrence. P. W. 8 another tea-shop keeper speaks about the accused going to his shop at 11-45 a.m. with a tortoise in a basket and offering to sell it. He says he did not purchase it and then the accused returned to his house. P.W. 6 is Lakshmi wife of Nanjan, in whose house the deceased, accused and P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to drink toddy. P.W. 11 is the mother inlaw of P. W. 2. She corroborates the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that she accompanied the deceased P. W. 2 and others to Valluvakkundu to take back P. W. 1. Nothing has been suggested a? to why all these witnesses should not be believed. There is no reason why they should all come and perjure in the witness box. 12. Added to all these, we have the evidence afforded by P. W. 14 the Adhikari of Pallassena Amsom. He speaks of the accused going to his house at about 1 p. m. on 11-1-59 and telling him that it was he who killed the deceased and that he killed him by strangulating his neck by a coir rope. The Adhikari detained the accused in his house and sent up a report Ext. P. 8 to the police. In that report he has made special mention of this extra judicial confession. There is no reason to disbelieve the Adhikari who is a thoroughly disinterested witness. This extra judicial confession of the accused corroborates completely the evidence of P.W. 1. 13. On getting the report, the Sub-Inspector P. W. 17 came to the house of the Adhikari, arrested and questioned the accused in the presence of the Adhikari and P. W. 12 another disinterested witness. He told them that the coir rope was placed in the eaves of the house of the deceased and that he would show the place. Ext. P. 2 is the admissible part of the statement of the accused and in pursuance of this information M. O. 1 coir rope was recovered under the mahazar Ext. P. 3. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the evidence of P. Ws. 12, 14 and 17. 14. The accused had also good motive for the commission of the offence. P. 2 is the admissible part of the statement of the accused and in pursuance of this information M. O. 1 coir rope was recovered under the mahazar Ext. P. 3. Nothing has been brought out to discredit the evidence of P. Ws. 12, 14 and 17. 14. The accused had also good motive for the commission of the offence. A month before the occurrence, the accused and P. W. 1 left the deceased and was living as husband and wife. The deceased came and took her away. Later she resented the amorous advance made by the accused. She told the deceased about this and the deceased asked him not to enter the house. The accused had a fancy for this woman and to get at her, he wanted to get rid of the deceased. That affords sufficient motive for the accused to have committed the crime. All the facts mentioned above establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased and we have no hesitation in finding that the accused is proved to be guilty of the offence he stands charged with. In the result, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.