Judgment :- S.Ashok Kumar, J. ... The appellant who was the sole accused in S.C.No.228 of 2000 and convicted and sentenced by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode Division, to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and also simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 309 I.P.C., has filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- The accused is the husband of the deceased Chitra. Two and half years prior to the occurrence, the marriage between the accused and the deceased took place. Out of the wedlock, they got a female child. P.W.1 Eswari is the sister of the deceased. P.W.2 Nagu @ Nagaraj and P.W.3 Sellammal are the father and mother of the deceased. The accused and deceased lived at Chellappagoundanvalasu. The accused thought that the deceased Chitra was a spendthrift and he also suspected her fidelity and hence, he used to quarrel with the deceased and abused her due to the above suspicion. He did not attend to his work regularly. On the fateful day, P.W.1 and the deceased went to the Government Hospital, Perundurai for taking treatment to the child of the deceased. Then, the deceased returned to her home at Chellappagoundeanvalasu at about 02.00 p.m. and P.W.1 returned to Kariamparai. At about 02.00 p.m., at his house, the accused cut his wife Chitra with M.O.1 brutally and caused multiple injuries. He also inflicted injury on his throat and left from the scene of occurrence. He met P.W.4 and informed the crime committed by him against his wife. (ii) On hearing the news, P.W.1 Eswari along with her father P.W.2 Nagu @ Nagaraj went to the house of the accused and saw her sister lying in a pool of blood. She also saw cut injuries on the cheek and right hand of the deceased. An Ambulance was arranged and the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Perundurai. P.W.15 Dr.Arumugam sent the deceased to the Government Headquarter Hospital at Erode, since her condition was serious. P.W.17 Dr.M.L.K. Rajan, attached to the Government Headquarter Hospital at Erode examined the deceased and found her unconscious. He found the following injuries:- "1. A deep cut injury right side cheek extended to right ear lobule and to right angle of eye. Size 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. 2. P.W.17 Dr.M.L.K. Rajan, attached to the Government Headquarter Hospital at Erode examined the deceased and found her unconscious. He found the following injuries:- "1. A deep cut injury right side cheek extended to right ear lobule and to right angle of eye. Size 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. 2. Multiple cut injuries extending from the right side of face & angle of mouth, size 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. 3. Incised wound over the dorsum of right wrist size 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 4. Incised wound over right hand 5 cm x 9 cm x 1 cm." Ex.P.21 is the accident register. He sent Ex.P.13 admission intimation to the Outpost Police Station attached to the Government Hospital. (iii) P.W.11 Constable Partheeban, in-charge of the Out-Post Police Station on 30.06.2000, received Ex.P.13 admission intimation and intimated the same to the Kanjikoil Police Station by wire-less. (iv) In the meantime, on 30.06.2000 at 05.00 p.m., the accused went to Perundurai Medical College Hospital for treatment for his throat injury. P.W.9 Dr.K.M.Balakrisshnan who was on duty, examined the accused, gave treatment and sent intimation to the Sub Inspector of Police, Perundurai. He also issued Ex.P.7 accident register copy and found the following injury:- "A linear cut injury 6 x 2 cm upto the muscle seen over upper part of neck." He referred him to the Government Headquarter Hospital at Erode for further treatment. (v) On 30.06.2000 at about 19.10 hours, the injured Chitra succumbed to injuries. P.W.7 Dr.Parameswaran, who was on duty at that time in the Government Headquarter Hospital at Erode, sent Ex.P.4 death intimation to the Outpost Police Station attached to the Hospital. (vi) P.W.11 Constable Partheeban, in-charge of the Outpost Police Station received Ex.P.4 intimation and intimated the same to the Kanchikoil Police Station through wireless. (vi) On 30.06.2000 at 18.45 hours, P.W.14 Ammasai, Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikoil Police Station received the message of admission through wireless. He reached the hospital at 19.45 hours and received Ex.P.13 admission intimation and Ex.P.4 death intimation. At 20.00 hours, he examined P.W.1 Eswari and recorded her statement, Ex.P.1 and obtained her left hand thumb impression. He returned to the Kanchikoil Police Station at 22.00 hours and registered a case in Cr.No.106 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.16 first information report. At 20.00 hours, he examined P.W.1 Eswari and recorded her statement, Ex.P.1 and obtained her left hand thumb impression. He returned to the Kanchikoil Police Station at 22.00 hours and registered a case in Cr.No.106 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 309 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.16 first information report. He sent Exs.P.16 F.I.R., P.4 death intimation and P.13 admission intimation to the Court through P.W.12 Constable Baskaran. He also sent the copies thereof to the higher police officials. (vii) On receiving the telephonic message on 30.06.2000 at 22.00 hours, P.W.18, J.Nazer, Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, went to the Kanchikoil Police Station and received the copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.16, at 22.30 hours and went to Chellappagoundanvalasu at 23.00 hours. In the presence of P.W.5 Gnanasekaran and Venkatachalam, he prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.22 rough sketch, with the help of a petromax light. On 30/01.07.2000 at 12.10 a.m, in the presence of the same witnesses, he seized M.Os.1 to 6 under the cover of Ex.P.3 mahazar. On 01.07.2000, between 11.00 a.m. and 02.50 hours, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.23 is the inquest report. With a requisition, Ex.P.5, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem through P.W.13 Police Constable. (ix) On receiving Ex.P.5 requisition on 01.07.2000 at 03.45 p.m., P.W.8 Dr.C.Janaki commenced postmortem at 03.50 p.m. on the same day and found the following injuries:- "1. Sutured wound (sutured with black silk) measuring about 15 cm in length present in the right side of face. 3 cms below the angle of the right eye. extending upto the back of right ear in the neck. 2. Another sutured wound measuring about 11 cms in length extending from the angle of the mount extending to the back of right ear and neck region. 3. Another sutured wound about 5 cms length below and parallel to the injury No.2 extending upto the neck. 4. Sutured wound right supraclavicular region about 9 cms in length. 5. Abrasion about 6 x ½ cm near the injury No.4. 6. Abrasion over right ear lobe 2 x 2 cms. 7. Bleeding from ear, nose, and mouth present. 8. Swelling of dorsum of right hand and 5 cms length sutured wound near the base of right heins. On removing the sutures; It was found all are incised injuries with clear margins. 6. Abrasion over right ear lobe 2 x 2 cms. 7. Bleeding from ear, nose, and mouth present. 8. Swelling of dorsum of right hand and 5 cms length sutured wound near the base of right heins. On removing the sutures; It was found all are incised injuries with clear margins. Injury No.(1) Starting from 3 cms below to the angle of right eye running below and behind the right mastoid process. Length 15 cms, Depth 5-6 cms. On exploring the first three wounds, depth is about 5 to 6 cms. The wound had divided the skin focial muscles, neck muscles, facial vein right and external jugular vein divided, involving a depth upto carotid steath and waches. O/D On dissection, the right dorsum of hand fracture (right) 2nd, 3rd, 4th metacarpal bones present. Thorasic case intact."... She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. She issued Ex.P.6 Postmortem Certificate. (x) On continuing the investigation, P.W.18 Investigating Officer examined P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, one Damotharan, Krishnan, Arumugam, Palanisamy and Venkatachalam and recorded their statements. On information, at 15.15 hours near Erode Bus Stand, he arrested the accused. As the accused sustained injury on his neck, P.W.18 Investigating Officer sent him to the Government Headquarter Hospital for treatment with Ex.P.18 medical memo through the Head Constable No.539. Since the accused was treated as an outpatient, P.W.18 arrested him at 17.00 hours and the accused volunteered to give a confession statement. At 18.00 hours P.W.18 sent him to the judicial remand. On 02.07.2000, he examined P.W.4 Murugan, one Kandasamy, P.W.13 Constable Arumugam, P.W.9 Dr.K.M.Balasubramanian, P.W.7 Dr.Parameswaran, P.W.11 Constable Partheeban,, Raju, Chitthan and P.W.12 Grade I Constable Baskaran and recorded their statements. On 13.07.2000, he sent case properties to the Court under Form No.95. (xi) In the meantime, on 01.07.2000, P.W.13 Head Constable Arumugam handed over M.Os.7 to 10 recovered after postmortem, under a special report, Ex.P.14. P.W.18 seized them under Ex.P.15, Form 95. On 08.07.2000, P.W.18 sent a requisition to the Court to send the material objects for chemical examination. On 18.08.2000,, he received the medical certificates and examined P.W.8 Dr.C.Janaki and P.W.16 Dr.Abibuliah and obtained their statements. He received Ex.P.20 wound certificate relating to the accused from P.W.16 Doctor. On 11.10.2000, after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet. 3. On 08.07.2000, P.W.18 sent a requisition to the Court to send the material objects for chemical examination. On 18.08.2000,, he received the medical certificates and examined P.W.8 Dr.C.Janaki and P.W.16 Dr.Abibuliah and obtained their statements. He received Ex.P.20 wound certificate relating to the accused from P.W.16 Doctor. On 11.10.2000, after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet. 3. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution side, P.W.1 to P.W.18 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.23 documents were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked, whereas on the side of the defence, one document was filed as Ex.D.1. 4. After considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode Division, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction, this appeal has been preferred by the accused. 5. Heard the rival contentions of both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence both oral and documentary. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime, since P.Ws.1 to 3, sister, father and mother of the deceased have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, and the only evidence relied upon by the trial Court is that of the evidence of P.W.4 to whom, the accused is said to have made an extra-judicial confession and that the non-explanation of the injury inflicted on himself is fatal to the prosecution case. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the deceased sustained injury in the house of the accused and failure of the accused to explain as to how he sustained injury is a strong circumstance to raise a presumption against the accused that he committed the offence. 8. P.W.1, who lodged Ex.P.1 complaint herself became hostile. P.W.1 is none other than the elder sister of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. But all the three of them who are the family members of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant, who caused the injuries on the deceased on 30.06.2000. The only other evidence relied upon by the Trial Court is the evidence of P.W.4 who is only a driver of a dipper lorry of the locality. The only other evidence relied upon by the Trial Court is the evidence of P.W.4 who is only a driver of a dipper lorry of the locality. According to P.W.4, on 30.06.2000 at 02.00 p.m., when he was taking tea in a tea shop, the accused came there with a bandage made by a towel around his neck, and when he questioned him, the accused told him that he cut his wife, but he did not tell him about the injuries sustained by himself. In his evidence, P.W.4 has not told whether he knew the accused previously or whether he is a friend of the accused and for what purpose, the accused made the extra-judicial confession to him that he cut his wife. A person who committed a crime will try to hide it from the knowledge of others. He may make a statement to his close confidant or a person in authority who may come to his rescue from the ordeal of the police torture. As far as P.W.4 is concerned, he is neither a known person to the deceased nor a friend to him, nor a person in authority, who can come to rescue of the accused at the hands of the police. There is absolutely no necessity for the accused to make a confession about his crime to this witness. Further, P.W.4 has questioned the accused as to why he has covered his neck with a towel. The accused is said to have told him that he cut his wife, but he has not answered for the question as to why he was covering his neck with a towel. If really the question with regard to the reason for covering the neck with a towel is asked, no other answer would be an explanation for such covering of the neck by a towel. But telling about the crime committed towards his wife by the accused is totally unwarranted. If really P.W.4 had any interest in the accused, he should have taken the accused to the hospital for treatment when he had seen the accused with injury on his neck. But after seeing him and asking him, he simply took his lorry and went away. The said P.W.4 was not examined during inquest. If really P.W.4 had any interest in the accused, he should have taken the accused to the hospital for treatment when he had seen the accused with injury on his neck. But after seeing him and asking him, he simply took his lorry and went away. The said P.W.4 was not examined during inquest. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reached the Court only on 16.10.2000 more than 3-1/2 months later to the alleged date on which the extra-judicial confession was made. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 that the accused made an extra-judicial confession is totally unreliable. It is settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration at least on material particulars. 9. Another ground on which, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused is that the accused had attempted to commit suicide by injuring himself with a knife over his neck and therefore, he should have also caused injuries on his wife. A perusal of Ex.P.7 the Accident Register recorded immediately on his being taken to the hospital on 30.06.2000 at 05.00 p.m. would show that he has informed the Doctor that he has sustained injury on his neck around 02.00 p.m. on 30.06.2000 caused by his wife while he was lying in the bed. But, on 01.07.2000 in the accident register recorded by the Government Hospital, Erode, when he was produced by the Head Constable of the concerned Police Station, it is stated that he sustained self-inflicted injury with Aruval. The said accident register is Ex.P.19. Ex.P.7 the accident register maintained at Perundurai Medical College Hospital is dated 30.06.2000 and it is immediately after the occurrence, in which the accused has stated that the injury was caused by his wife. But, after the appearance of the Police, a case was registered and when the accused was produced by the Police on 01.07.2000 at 03.45 p.m., it is recorded that the accused sustained self-inflicted injury. Therefore, there is vital contradiction between Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.19. Ex.P.20 wound certificate is based on Ex.P.19 accident register maintained at the Government Headquarter Hospital, Erode. Similarly, in the accident register, Ex.P.21 relating to the deceased, it is stated that she was assaulted by three known persons with a knife at 02.00 p.m. on 30.06.2000. Therefore, there is vital contradiction between Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.19. Ex.P.20 wound certificate is based on Ex.P.19 accident register maintained at the Government Headquarter Hospital, Erode. Similarly, in the accident register, Ex.P.21 relating to the deceased, it is stated that she was assaulted by three known persons with a knife at 02.00 p.m. on 30.06.2000. These vital contradictions in the prosecution case would go to show that the prosecution case as laid before the Court cannot be true and the occurrence should have taken place in some other manner in which both the accused and the deceased sustained injuries. Probably, that is a reason why P.W.1, sister of the deceased, P.W.2, father of the deceased and P.W.3 mother of the deceased did not support the prosecution case. There is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime, and the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 10. In result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.