Judgment : The revision is against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.51 of 1995 on his file, dated 37. 1995. The second respondent/ accused was prosecuted for the offence under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code on an allegation that he committed the murder of his wife by hanging her with her saree. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21. 1992, the deceased and the accused were sleeping together, that after sexual intercourse between them, there was a quarrel and the accused slapped his wife, who fell on the ground hitting against the wall, that there was no breath and she became unconscious and that the accused, thinking that she was dead, hanged her with her saree. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution is relying only upon the circumstantial evidence and the extrajudicial confession spoken by P.Ws.3 and 4. 3. Though P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased woman, would allege that the couple were living happily for some time and the husband/ accused thereafter demanded a scooter and therefore, there was quarrel between them> the prosecution case is not that the deceased was murdered for the dowry. As mentioned above, on account of the wordy quarrel between them, the deceased was slapped and under the misconception that she was dead, the husband had hanged her. But there is no evidence to speak about the quarrel between the husband and wife, the beating by the accused on her check or the deceased falling down breathelessly and thereafter for hanging her with the saree of the deceased herself. But the prosecution has introduced the evidence from P.Ws.3 and 4, the persons who have spoken about the extra-judicial confession to prove these facts. Therefore, unless the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is believable, the prosecution theory that the deceased was beaten and thereafter, was hanged by neck, will not be acceptable for want of evidence. 4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after assessing the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, would hold that their evidence is artificial and unacceptable. P.W.3 to whom the confession said to have been made by the accused, is a resident of Sulur Village, which is about 5 kms. away from the residence of the accused. 4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after assessing the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, would hold that their evidence is artificial and unacceptable. P.W.3 to whom the confession said to have been made by the accused, is a resident of Sulur Village, which is about 5 kms. away from the residence of the accused. P.W.3 is living by grazing his sheep and by penning the Rams before the agricultural seasons for the purpose of measuring the lands. It is also in evidence that once in a year, P.W.3 used to come to the villages for manuring the lands with his hand. It is also the version of P.W.3 that P.W.4 also was with him at the time when the accused made the confession. While assessing the evidence of these two witnesses, the learned Principal Sessions Judge would observe that when P.W.3 is a grazer of sheep and residing in a different village as there is nothing to show that the accused was having any close contact with him or developed friendship, he would not have gone to him to make a confession about the murder of his wife. As it is accepted that P.W.3 is a person of different village and there is also no evidence to hold that the accused and P. W,3 were closed friends, the view taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge that the accused would not have gone to P.W.3 to make a confession the possibility of the accused to make confession to cannot be said to be an unreasonable view. Therefore, the P.Ws.3 and 4 looks more artificial and for that reason, the learned principal Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. If this extra-judicial confession is eschewed, there is no other material available before the court to hold that the accused has committed the offence of murder by hanging his wife. 5. The courts have held that extra-judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and it will be dangerous to rely upon the extra-judicial confession alone to convict a person when especially, the evidence for the extra-judicial confession also is not satisfactory. Therefore, in this case for the reasons mentioned above, when the extrajudicial confession is not satisfactory that piece of evidence alone is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence. 6. Therefore, in this case for the reasons mentioned above, when the extrajudicial confession is not satisfactory that piece of evidence alone is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence. 6. It is true that the husband and wife along with the father of the accused were living in the same roof and the statement of the accused is that on the early morning of 21. 1992 he and his father had left the house, for the purpose of gathering milk as they were milk vendors. Therefore, there is every possibility for the deceased committing suicide in the absence of the accused and her father-in-law. The medical evidence is that the death as due to asphyia by hanging. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of the deceased committing suicide by hanging. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there are no circumstances to hold that the deceased had made any attempt on the previous occasions to commit suicide, and, therefore, she could not have committed suicide. It is not for the accused to let in evidence to show that there were instances when the deceased had attempted to commit suicide. Any sensitive woman may commit suicide even on a domestic quarrel. In this case, as death was due to asphyia by hanging. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of the deceased committing suicide on account of any grievance against her husband or for the quarrel that might have ensued between the husband and wife on that night. 8. There is also evidence from P.W.2 that the deceased had communed to her mother that once her father-in-law attempt to misbehave with her. Therefore, there might have been instances by which a sensitive Woman would have taken recourse to this step by committing suicide. Therefore, when such a possibility also is available, the court can not hold that the death must have been only at the hands of the accused when especially there is no satisfactory evidence before the Court and the prosecution also is relying upon the circumstantial evidence. 9. Hence, taking into consideration of all these aspects, the view taken by the learned Principal Sessions Judge cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere with his findings. The revision therefore is not sustainable and is dismissed in the admission stage.