Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. This appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondent-accused, who faced trial for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. in S.C.No. 26 of 1986 on the file of Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. 2. Brief facts are: (a) The accused is a resident of Villukuri, situate within the limits of Eraniel Police Station. He is none else than the sister’s son of P.W.4. P.W. 4’s daughter is one Saroja (since deceased), who had been given in marriage to the accused one and a half years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 4th April, 1986. P.W. 4 had been residing in adjacent Village going by the name Gnaroad. (b) P.W. 9 is the brother of the accused. Both of them are agricultural coolies. On the morning of the day of the occurrence they went to do agricultural cooly work. The wife of P.W. 9 brought porridge to the place of work. Somehow or other, the deceased wife of the accused did not bring porridge to him. Consequently he shared the porridge brought by the wife of P.W. 9. The accused was, however, stated to be irritated by the conduct of the deceased, his wife, in not having brought porridge to him for his lunch that day. After the day’s work, both the accused and P.W. 9 returned home. (c) At about 8 p.m.,P.Ws. 1 and 2 residing in the same street in which the accused had been residing happened to pass through the house of the accused, so as to purchase some provisions in the bazaar. At that time, they were able to hear hue and cry emerging from the house of the accused. Daunted by curiosity both of them saw as to what was transpiring inside the house. A chimney (M.O. 1) was then burning inside the house. The accused went on beating his wife, the deceased with palymyrah stem (M.O. 2) all over the parts of her body. In the process of such beating, the palmyrah stem got split into pieces. Therefore, the accused was stated to have abandoned beating her with M.O. 2 palmyrah stem and threw it away. He then started kicking her with his right leg, besides also giving beating with his right hand on her left cheek, the consequence of which was, she fell down fainted and fits supervened. P.Ws. Therefore, the accused was stated to have abandoned beating her with M.O. 2 palmyrah stem and threw it away. He then started kicking her with his right leg, besides also giving beating with his right hand on her left cheek, the consequence of which was, she fell down fainted and fits supervened. P.Ws. 1 and 2 asked the accused the reason why he had beaten his wife. The accused told them that she did not at all bring porridge to the place of work for his lunch and that was the reason he got irritated and thrashed his wife, the deceased. They appeared to have advised the accused to at least give her treatment by bringing medical personnel. The accused, in turn, went outside and procured P.W.5 a compounder for the purpose of giving her treatment. When P.W.5 came and examined her, he found her already dead. P.Ws. 1 and 2 went away from there. (d) The accused appeared to have sent information to his father-in-law P.W.4 through one Subramanian. P.W.4, in turn on the next morning, along with other relations, visited the house of the accused. On his arrival, he found the deceased lying on the floor covered with a cloth. On lifting the cloth, he was able to find injuries on her person. He suspected some foul-play. He enquired from P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were there and they appeared to have divulged the real reason for the death of the deceased. (e) P.W. 4 then rushed and reached Eraniel Police Station at 10 a.m. He gave Ex.P-3 report to P.W. 10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. The time was then 11 a.m. P.W. 10 registered the case in Crime No. 75/ 86 for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Ex.P-8 is the express report sent to court through Constable, P.W. 11. (f) P.W. 13 was the then Inspector of Police. At 12.30 p.m., he received express F.I.R. and took up further investigation in the case. He went to the scene and after inspecting the scene, prepared Ex.P-9 observation mahazar. He also drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch of the scene. He held inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest he examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Ex.P-11 is the inquest report. He went to the scene and after inspecting the scene, prepared Ex.P-9 observation mahazar. He also drew Ex.P-10 rough sketch of the scene. He held inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest he examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. Ex.P-11 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable P.W. 12, along with a requisition Ex.P-1 for the purpose of autopsy. He seized No. 1 chimney lamp under Ex. 12 attapshi. In the meantime, he also caused photographs to be taken of the scene, along with the body of the deceased, through the photographer, P.W. 8. Ex.P-6 series are photographs. Ex.P-7 series are the negatives. (g) P.W. 3 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Colachel. On receipt of Ex.P-1, he held autopsy over the body of the deceased on 4. 1986 at 10 a.m. Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem certificate. He would opine that the injury No. 12, with its corresponding Internal injuries, is fatal and she could have lived 10 to 12 hours after receiving the said injury. He would also opine that all the injuries, he found described in Ex.P-2, are ante-mortem. (h) On 4. 1986 at about 4 a.m. P.W. 6 went to Vadaseri Shandy along with one Purushothaman. They went on bicycles. When they were proceeding near Kanchimutt Sasthankovil, they happened to sight the accused and immediately thereafter, the accused was caught hold of by them and an information had been sent to Eraniel Police Station. P.W. 13 came there at 6.30 a.m. He arrested the accused. On interrogation, he was stated to have given a voluntary confession statement under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-4. The accused then took P.W. 13 and others to his house and took out M.O. 2 kept concealed underneath a jack tree in his garden, which was seized under Ex.P-5 mahazar attested by P.W. 7. The accused had then been remanded to judicial custody. (i) P.W. 13 also sent the seized material objects to the court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel. After completing the investigating P.W. 13 filed the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. On 14. 1986 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Eraniel for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 3. (i) P.W. 13 also sent the seized material objects to the court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel. After completing the investigating P.W. 13 filed the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. On 14. 1986 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Eraniel for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 3. On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Sec. 302, I.P.C. against the accused. 4. The accused, when questioned as respects the charge so framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in proof of the said charge, examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exs.P-1 to P-12 and marked M.Os. 1 and 2. 6. The accused, when questioned as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him denied his complicity in the crime. He however, did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, accused and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered the verdict of acquittal. 8. The State, as earlier stated, has resorted to the present action. 9. From the submissions of Mr.R. Raghupathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and Mr.V. Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- accused, the sole and lone point that arises for consideration is whether the verdict of acquittal as rendered by the court below, calls for interference, as being perverse, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 10. Axiomatic a proposition of law it is that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal has full power to review all such evidence, on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach a conclusion of its own. However, in exercising such power, the appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to the following matters: .(1) The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; .(2) Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; .(3) Right of the accused to the benefit of doubt; .(4) Slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact: and .(5) The order of acquittal is not to be disturbed, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record. 11. 11. In the backdrop of the well-established proposition of law, as stated above, let us approach the materials available in the shape of evidence oral and documentary in the case, leave alone the reasons given by the court below, for rendering the verdict of acquittal. The case of the prosecution solely rests upon the so-called ocular testimony of the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2, stated to be residing in the very same street, in which the accused had been residing, along with his wife. It is their evidence that at or about the time of the occurrence, they happened to pass along the house of the accused, to the bazaar for the purchase of provisions and in such process, they were able to hear the screeching and screaming noises emerging from the house of the accused and daunted by curiosity, they stopped for a moment and peeped inside the house. They would see to their astonishment, a chimney lamp (M.O. 1) was burning and the accused was mercilessly beating the deceased-his wife with M.O. 2, palmyrah stem and when the palmyrah stem got split into pieces, he threw the same on the ground and then started using his legs and hands as weapons of offences in kicking the deceased, besides beating her on her left cheek, with the result, the deceased fell down fainted with fits on the ground and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries sustained. 12. Astonishing it is to note that both of them happened to pass through the house of the accused, exactly at the appropriate time of the occurrence, just to purchase provisions for their respective houses. In that sense, they are, though the residents of the locality, only chance witnesses. No doubt true it is that they emerged from independent quarters, in the sense of not having any sort of connection, either with the accused or with the deceased. However, both of them are related to each other. Puzzling it is to note that though they were bodily present at the time, when the merciless beatings were stated to have been inflicted by the accused on the person or the deceased- his wife, they were silent spectators, without going to the rescue of the deceased, a woman. It is but the normal course of human conduct, especially when such an incident happened, to go to the rescue of such womenfolk. It is but the normal course of human conduct, especially when such an incident happened, to go to the rescue of such womenfolk. They did not do at all. What is further worse is that they did not, however, make any report about such an occurrence to anyone, much less the police. 13. Yet another dismal feature is that even when P.W. 4 and other relations of the deceased came to the house of the accused next morning, they did not go and inform either of them as to the dare-devil act of the accused in beating his wife-the deceased, which resulted in her succumbing to the injuries. It is only when P.W. 4, father of the deceased suspected some foul-play and acquired them, they divulged the real state of affairs. It is not at all the evidence of P.W. 4 that he did make an enquiry as to the cause of death and in the process of such enquiry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 divulged the real state of affairs. Such being the case, we are unable to conceive or comprehend as to how it was possible for P.W.4 to contact P.Ws. 1 and 2 to ascertain the real reason for the death of the deceased. In such state of affairs, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, we rather feel, is not above reproach and beyond suspicion. 14. These things apart, the medical testimony available on record, in the shape of that testimony of P.W. 3, coupled with the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-2 he issued, creates a further doubt as to the veracity of the version projected by the so-called ocular witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2. To recapitulate that it is the consistent version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused thrashed his wife with M.O. 2, besides kicking her and beating serverly on her left cheek by his right hand. The doctor P.W. 3 found only 12 injuries on the person of the deceased and out of 12, injuries 1 to 4 and 6 to 11, as described in Ex.P-2, are mere abrasions, while injuries 5 and 12 are diffused swellings on the left forearm and swelling on the left side of the cheek. Only internal examination revealed the fracture of temporal bone, corresponding to external injury No. 12. Only internal examination revealed the fracture of temporal bone, corresponding to external injury No. 12. Though the doctor P.W. 3 would say in chief -examination that those injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution yet he would give a diametrically opposite version in the course of cross-examination, by stating that the deceased would have sustained injuries 1 to 11 due to falling down with fits. He would further add that a person developing fits and falling down on a stone and in such process, the temporal region comes into contact with the stone, injury No. 12, with the corresponding internal injuries could have been caused. He would also positively assert that even a forcible slapping with palm of the hand, which is a soft part, could not have caused the fracture of the temporal bone. 15. Fit and proper it is, at this juncture to take into account the theory of the defence and the conduct of the accused. According to the defence, the deceased, even prior to her marriage, was suffering from epilepsy and on the day in question, she fell on the ground due to such epileptical fits and in the process of such falling, she sustained all those injuries. The theory of the defence is also probabilised by the materials available on record, as produced by the prosecution. Even P.W.4 would categorically state in the earliest first information Ex.P-3 that the deceased even prior to the marriage was suffering from epilepsy. Of course, during the course of trial, he would say that she was not at all suffering from any sort of epilepsy after marriage. However, a person, like the deceased the wife of the accused already suffering from epilepsy cured for sometime, not having epileptical fits cannot at all be stated to be not developing such sort of fits at any future point of time and in that view of the matter, the theory of the defence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. 16. In view of the glaring inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, besides other dismal features we have already noticed, it will be extremely unsafe and hazardous to reverse the verdict of acquittal, as rendered by the court below. 17. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed.