Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Pitchaiah was charged under section 302, Indian Penal Code in Sc. No. 172 of 1985 on the file of the Pri. Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai for having accused the death of his wife by strangulating her with a rope at his residence between 10 p. m. on 2-12-1984 and 5. 30 a. m. on 3-12-1984. After an elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows:-Appellant Pitchaiah belonged to Tuiticorin. Some years prior to occurrence, he went over to Rameswaram to eke out his Ii velihood. He was employed in a Motor-boat initially and subsequently he became its driver. After love affair with Susai ammal, the deceased, appellant married her six months prior to occurrence at Anthoniar Church, Rameswaram. After marriage there used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife on every petty matters. However, they used to resolve their disputes quickly without any possibility of split in their marital life. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Anthony, father of deceased Susai ammal was residing in Attaman street, Rameswaram. His house had thatches alround and the roofing was also thatched. In the western ponion of the house, the appellant and his wife deceased Susai ammal were living. P. W. 3 Amburose, son of P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 Sakayam and P. W. 5 Maria Prema daughters of P. W. 1 were living along with their father on the eastern portion. At or about 8 or 8. 30 p. m. on 2-12-1984 deceased Susai aromal requested her sister P. W. 5 to buy some Murukkus (eatable ). P. W. 5 brought some murukkus and handed them over to deceased Susai ammal. The deceased distributed the eatable directly to her sisters while to the appellant who was sitting nearby, she threw a piece of the eatable. Appellant was aggrieved that the deceased did not handover eatable to him directly as she did for her sisters, but chose to hurl the same at him. In a fit of anger, appellant beat Susai ammal. Susai ammal was in tears. Appellant was aggrieved that the deceased did not handover eatable to him directly as she did for her sisters, but chose to hurl the same at him. In a fit of anger, appellant beat Susai ammal. Susai ammal was in tears. At or about that time, P. W. 2 Rayappan of Thangachimadam village who had arrived at Rameswaram on that day on his professional work relating to fishing, found deceased Susai ammal in tears. He enquired the deceased as to the cause for per grief. When the deceased narrated the incident P. W. 2, the latter chided the appellant and took him away to the nearby sea shore. P. W. 2 and the appellant engaged themselves in conversation at the beach, for about sixty minutes before they returned to the residence of the appellant. After leaving the appellant in his house, P. W. 2 went away. The appellant went inside the portion of his house where his wife was available. P. W. 3 who had gone away to witness a cinema, on his return, met P. W. 2 on the way. P. W. 2 informed P. W. 3 of the eatable throwing incident which resulted in a dispute between the appellant and his wife and his pacifying both of them. P. W. 3 informed P. W. 2 that such sort of quarrels was quite common between the spouses. P. W. 3 returned home at or about 10 or 10. 30 p. m. He was served food by P. Ws. 4 and 5. Later all of them went over to sleep. Next day early in the morning around 5. 30 a. m. P. Ws. 3 to 5 heard some groaning noise from the adjacent portion where the deceased and the appellant were living. They went to that portion and to their dismay, found the deceased dead. There was a rope mark on her neck. A rope was tying nearby. The appellant was seated near the head portion of the victim. Blood and froth were coming out of the nose of the deceased. P. W. 3 promptly informed his father P. W. 1. P. W. 1 rushed to the scene and found his daughter dead. At or about 6 a. m. , when P. W. 2 was passing through Attaman street, he found a crowd before the house of the deceased. Blood and froth were coming out of the nose of the deceased. P. W. 3 promptly informed his father P. W. 1. P. W. 1 rushed to the scene and found his daughter dead. At or about 6 a. m. , when P. W. 2 was passing through Attaman street, he found a crowd before the house of the deceased. When he peeped inside the house, he found Susai ammal dead with a rope mark on her neck. He also noticed froth and blood coming out of the nose of the victim. P. W. 6 Seshu who lives opposite to the house of the deceased, on hearing weeping noise, from the house opposite to him, went there and found the victim dead. He noticed M. O. 1 rope near the dead body and a rope mark on the neck of the victim. ( 4 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 proceeded to the Rameswaram Police Station and P. W. 1 complained at 8 a. m. about death of his daughter to P. W. 11 Ramamurthy, then Head Constable of Police. P. W. 11 reduced into writing the narration of P. W. 1 and in Ex. P1 so recorded, obtained the signature of P. W. 1. P. W. 2 has attested Ex. P1. On Ex. P1, P. W. 11 registered Crime No. 571 of 1984 under section 302, Indian Penal Code. He prepared Ex. Plo, the printed First Information Report. He forwarded Ex. P1 and Plo to the concerned Magistrate while despatching copies of Ex. Plo to his superior officers. He further informed over telephone to P. W. 12, Rammohan, then Inspector of Police of the registration of this crime. ( 5 ) P. W. 12, on receipt of information over the phone, proceeded to the Rameswaram Police Station, obtained a copy of the First Information Report, took up investigation and reached the scene of occurrence soon after. At the scene, he prepared the observation Mahazar Ex. P2, at tested by P. W. 7. He also prepared the scene sketch Ex. P11. Between 12. 30 noon and 3. 30 p. m. , he conducted inquest over the corpse of Susaiammal during the course of which he examined witnesses present. Ex. P12 is the inquest report. He seized from the scene M. O. 1 rope and M. O. 2 Mat under Mahazar Ex. P3 attested by P. W. 7. P11. Between 12. 30 noon and 3. 30 p. m. , he conducted inquest over the corpse of Susaiammal during the course of which he examined witnesses present. Ex. P12 is the inquest report. He seized from the scene M. O. 1 rope and M. O. 2 Mat under Mahazar Ex. P3 attested by P. W. 7. He then forwarded the dead body through police constable Muniasamy (P. W. 9) with a requisition Ex. P4 to the Government Hospital, Rameswaram for the conduct of postmortem. ( 6 ) P. W. 8 Dr. Lakshmipathy commenced autopsy at 3. 45 p. m. on 3-12-1984. He found the following appearances: a well nourished body with no external mark of cut injury from head to foot. No decomposition of body. 1. There is blood and mucous from external nasal passage. 2. Dark macule about 1. 5 cm tol cm breadth in the upper portion of neck around the neck except left side probably rope -strangulated around neck caused congestion of respiratory passage between pharynx and larynx. Internal examination: Both lungs congested. Hyoid bone, Trachea -Normal, Liver and stomach and spleen: Normal. Ileocecal intestinal examined, appeared normal. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of pulmonary congestive failure due to respiratory system arrest, as a result of compression of respiratory passage at oral phalangeal level. Death should have occurred between 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Death should have been due to mechanical compression resulting in asphyxia. Ex. P5 is the postmortem certificate. Strangulation by M. O. 1 could have caused the external marks found on the neck of the deceased. ( 7 ) AFTER autopsy the clothes of the deceased (M. Os. 3 to 5) were removed from the dead body by P. W. 9 and handed over to the Investigating Officer. The material objects seized were forwarded to the laboratory for chemical analysis through Court. Ex. P8 and P9 are lie reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively. ( 8 ) AT or about 2 a. m. on 6-12-1984, P. W. 12 arrested the appellant at Rameswaram beach and had him remanded. After completion of investigation, P. W. 12 laid the final report against the appellant before the Committal Court on 3-3-1985. ( 9 ) WHEN the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr. ( 8 ) AT or about 2 a. m. on 6-12-1984, P. W. 12 arrested the appellant at Rameswaram beach and had him remanded. After completion of investigation, P. W. 12 laid the final report against the appellant before the Committal Court on 3-3-1985. ( 9 ) WHEN the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime. He further stated that on the night of occurrence, he went away for fishing and only on the next morning he returned home. He was not at his residence on the fateful night. After marriage his wife used to take away all his earnings. She was mentally deranged and was kept in a hospital for about 3 months without any improvement. When he returned home on the next morning, he was told that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. The information was passed on to him by P. W. 3. He proceeded to the police station to prefer a complaint. He was detained at the police station and this false prosecution was launched. He also placed before the trial Judge his letter dated 22-5-1985 sent to Court from prison. In the letter he has stated that he was duped to marry the deceased who was mentally deranged. The deceased was suffering from incessant unbearable stomach pain. He heard on the morning of 3-12-1984 that his wife had committed suicide. He complained to the police, but however, he was falsely implicated. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. ( 10 ) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found the appellant guilty as charged accepting the prosecution case and rejecting the defence plea. ( 11 ) MR. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that there was no proximate motive for the appellant to commit this grave crime more so, when he is alleged to have married the deceased after prior love affair. He pointed out that the medical evidence and the other evidence probabilise, a case of suicide. ( 12 ) ON these contentions, we have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He was fair enough to state that the medical evidence did support the plea of the appellant that his wife had committed suicide. He pointed out that the medical evidence and the other evidence probabilise, a case of suicide. ( 12 ) ON these contentions, we have heard Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He was fair enough to state that the medical evidence did support the plea of the appellant that his wife had committed suicide. We have carefully considered these submissions of the defence and prosecuting counsel. ( 13 ) THERE can be no doubt whatever that the deceased had met with her unnatural death on the night of 2/3-12-1984. Till about 10. 30 p. m. all was well since the appellant had returned home, escorted by P. W. 2 thirty minutes earlier to the return of P. W. 3 who came back after witnessing a cinema then. The groaning sound from the portion of the hut occupied by the deceased is claimed to have been heard only at or about 5. 30 a. m. on 3-12-1984. The blood and froth that were coming out of the nose of the victim pro bablise a time lag, before the victim was actually found dead by P. Ws. 3 to 5 initially and P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6 subsequently, and the time of occurrence. ( 14 ) AS far as motive is concerned, it appears to be quite weak. All the witnesses uniformly had stated that there used to be frequent quarrels over petty matters between the spouses. But soon, thereafter, they would get themselves reconciled. ( 15 ) THE dispute between them did not appear to be on any worthwhile or serious matter which could have created a split in the matrimonial life, one wanting to get rid of the other. P. W. 1 the father of the deceased had kept his daughter and son-in-law in one portion of his own house while he was living with his other children on the other portion of the same house. The eatable throwing incident which had taken place at or about 8 or 8. 30 p. m. on 2-12-1984 had rightly created fury in the appellant since he appeared to have felt disgraced by the conduct of his wife throwing a piece of murukku while she had the courtesy to offer them directly to her sisters. We have already noticed that this spouse used to quarrel for petty things. 30 p. m. on 2-12-1984 had rightly created fury in the appellant since he appeared to have felt disgraced by the conduct of his wife throwing a piece of murukku while she had the courtesy to offer them directly to her sisters. We have already noticed that this spouse used to quarrel for petty things. The aggrieved appellant naturally had beaten his wife and that later went into prolific tears. P. W. 2 a good samaritan intervened and pacified the appellant by taking him to the nearby sea-shore. Uniform evidence is that soon after quarrels, petty as they were, patching up between the spouses would be thicker still. After a short absence from the house in the company of P. W. 2, the appellant certainly must have been pacified and he could not have nurtured any serious grievance against his wife to the extent of planning to get rid of her by strangulation over night. Motive does not appear to be formidable and in exclusion of the motive aspect, it win be necessary to scrutinise the other evidence. ( 16 ) THERE is no direct evidence regarding this murder. The circumstances available for the prosecution arc (i) the wife and the husband had slept over together in their portion on the earlier night and the availability of the dead body with a rope mark on its neck on the next morning when the appellant was also present; (ii) the later absconding of the appellant till his arrest; and (iii) the medical evidence. ( 17 ) ON careful examination of the evidence, we are inclined to hold that the accused/appellant will be entitled to the benefit of doubt. The possibility of suicide heavily looms large. P. W. 1, the father of the victim has stated that usually his daughter and son-in-law used to be happy. The rope, which was found nearby his daughter on 3-12-1984, had been earlier tied over a box. He was not aware of the earlier night incident, when an eatable was thrown by his daughter towards the appellant. P. W. 2, who had chided the appellant, has also spoken about the frequent petty quarrels between the spouses. Deceased is related to him as junior maternal aunt. P. W. 3 the elder brother of the deceased became aware that due to the beating by the appellant, the cheeks of the deceased got swollen. P. W. 2, who had chided the appellant, has also spoken about the frequent petty quarrels between the spouses. Deceased is related to him as junior maternal aunt. P. W. 3 the elder brother of the deceased became aware that due to the beating by the appellant, the cheeks of the deceased got swollen. Further she could not control her tears. His evidence will show that the roofing of the house was of a height of 9 to 10 feet and the height of the deceased was about 5 feet. Though he had seen the appellant inside his portion of the house, near the head portion of the deceased, he neither questioned him nor attempted to apprehend him to be taken to the police station to facilitate further action being taken against him. The height of the roofing probablises the possibility of an attempt to hang herself by the deceased. When P. Ws. 1 to 6 had seen the victim she was on the floor and the rope was a little farther away from her. Obviously, be it suicide or homicide, after some lapse of time alone, these witnesses had seen the dead body and the appellant. P. W. 4 had clearly stated that the appellant had not thrashed the deceased earlier in the manner in which he had thrashed her on the evening of 2-12-1984. Her evidence also shows, that her sister the deceased was so upset due to thrashing by her husband which left her in unceasing tears. Deceased went inside her portion. The appellant tapped the door at 10 p. m. to be opened by his wife and both of them slept thereafter. She has also affirmed that the appellant was seated near the head of the victim when they noticed the deceased dead. She has further stated that the appellant and the deceased mutually loved each other and then got married. Her sister was strong and healthy girl. She has admitted that throwing of an eatable towards her husband was certainly a disrespectful act. P. W. 5 juvenile sister of the deceased (13 years) has deposed that while weeping the deceased was mentioning that her husband who never used to beat her, had unfortunately thrashed her that evening. She has also affirmed that she did not ask the appellant who was seated by the head side of her sister about this occurrence. P. W. 5 juvenile sister of the deceased (13 years) has deposed that while weeping the deceased was mentioning that her husband who never used to beat her, had unfortunately thrashed her that evening. She has also affirmed that she did not ask the appellant who was seated by the head side of her sister about this occurrence. She is also certain that her brother did not attempt to apprehend the appellant. ( 18 ) THE evidence narrated above of the close relations of the deceased clearly indicates that the husband who had never beaten the wife earlier, had thrashed her mercilessly on the evening prior to occurrence which had made an indelible impact of sorrow in the mind of the deceased though it cannot be gainsaid that her act of throwing the eatable on the appellant was certainly a disrespectful act. It looks as though the deceased was fretting and fuming with sorrow on having beaten by the appellant and it appears, further probable that out of shame, of having been beaten by her husband before her sisters, she had attempted to put an end to her life. That she was so immersed in sorrow is clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and5. If infact P. Ws. 1 to 6 had suspected the appellant as the offender and the death of the deceased as one due to homicide, they would not have allowed the appellant to escape especially when he was available alone and when they were more in number. It is in this background that the medical evidence also enures in favour of the appellant and clearly clinches the possibility of suicide. If suicide is probable and cannot be excluded, it cannot be positively held that the deceased died of homicide, though the death might be unnatural. In such circumstances, the appellant will certainly be entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 19 ) P. W. 8 Dr. Lakshmipathy who conducted autopsy, is very clear in his evidence that the dark macule, was found in the upper portion of the neck, around the neck except left side. He has categorically stated that the symptoms noticed by him are also possible in a case of suicide by hanging. ( 19 ) P. W. 8 Dr. Lakshmipathy who conducted autopsy, is very clear in his evidence that the dark macule, was found in the upper portion of the neck, around the neck except left side. He has categorically stated that the symptoms noticed by him are also possible in a case of suicide by hanging. He has also stated that there would have been external marks suggesting struggle between the victim and the strangulated, which would normally be found in strangulation cases which were absent in the instant case. We have to recapitulate the evidence of P. W. 4 that the deceased was strong and healthy girl. It would not have been easily possible for the appellant to have strangulated her, without a struggle. Even if strangulation had been attempted, the deceased would have raised a hue and cry which would have attracted her brother and sisters who were sleeping in the adjacent portion. All that the witnesses had heard is a groaning noise. This groan need not necessarily relate to homicide for it could fit in with suicide as well. The doctor has further stated that in case of strangulation, there should have been dislocation of the neck bone, larynx or injury to larynx. He did not notice any of these signs in this case. He did not find protrusion of tongue. Hyoid bone was normal. Though he has stated in a portion of his evidence that existence of dark macule around the neck except left side was suggestive of probably violent strangulation with rope, he has not ruled out the possibility of suicide by hanging. Medical jurisprudence indicates that protrusion of tongue will depend on how the pressure was applied. If the pressure was above the larynx and in an upward direction, the tongue would protrude. If the pressure was below and made in the backward direction, the tongue will be normal. The medical evidence shows that the dark macule was in the upper portion of the neck. The non-protusion of tongue is also one more symptom in favour of the appellant though not the only symptom. Medical jurisprudence further shows that in a case of strangulation using a rope, usually ligature mark horizontal or transverse, continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish would be found. Medical jurisprudence further shows that in a case of strangulation using a rope, usually ligature mark horizontal or transverse, continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish would be found. In a case of hanging the ligature mark, would be oblique, noncontinuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. The medical evidence lends a clear possibility of suicidal death, of the deceased probably by suicide. ( 20 ) IN that background it appears quite probable as claimed by the appellant that he went over to the police station on the next morning and he was arrested. If the appellant had been available to the knowledge of the prosecution witnesses at his residence and they also knew that he was the offender since the First Information Report Ex. P1 would say so, they would not have allowed him to escape especially when there was no protest from him. ( 21 ) THE totality of facts does cast a suspicion if the appellant had strangulated his wife to death. The appellant will certainly be entitled to the benefit of doubt. We are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. This appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.