Judgment :- For having caused the death of his wife, by cutting with M.O.1 aruval-knife on her neck, Velu Muthiriyar, the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Facts in brief are as follows: (a) The deceased Rajamani is the wife of the accused Velu Muthiriyar. The accused had two wives. Through his first wife, he had two daughters and through his second wife (the deceased), the accused had two children, namely – P.W.2 Balamurugan (son) and P.W.3 Palaniammal (daughter). (b) The accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other frequently. The accused was suffering from illness for some time. The deceased, instead of taking care of her husband (the accused), who was ailing, went and stayed with her son, who was residing in a separate house. (c) The accused got angry over this conduct of the deceased. He reported the matter to P.W.4 Srinivasan, the Panchayatdar and requested him to convene a Panchayat and ensure her stay with the accused. Accordingly, a Panchayat was convened and ten days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased joined the accused. (d) On 21.7.1991 at about 7.00 a.m., the accused opened his petty shop and took out a knife from the shop. At about 9.30 a.m., the deceased was in a lane situated next to her house and the accused came near her and put the knife on the neck and began to cut. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Vijaya, who is the neighbour. (e) On noticing that P.W.1 Vijaya had seen the occurrence, the accused warned her not to disclose the same to any person. He also threatened P.W.1 that if she disclosed it to anyone, she would be facing dire consequences. (f) Then, after few hours, P.W.3 Palaniamal, the daughter of the deceased, came to know that her mother, the deceased, was found in a lane with injuries on the neck. Then, P.W.2 Balamurugan, the son and P.W.3 Palaniammal, the daughter, along with the accused, took the deceased to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, the deceased died. (g) On receipt of the intimation from the hospital at about 11.50 a.m., P.W.10 Head Constable went to the hospital and examined the accused, who was present there and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P-8. On the way to the hospital, the deceased died. (g) On receipt of the intimation from the hospital at about 11.50 a.m., P.W.10 Head Constable went to the hospital and examined the accused, who was present there and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P-8. The accused stated in Ex.P-8 complaint that the deceased herself cut her throat, since she was aggrieved as her son did not talk to her. A case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., for suspicious death. (h) P.W.12 Inspector of Police, at about 4.30 p.m. on the same day, on receipt of message, went to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch and recovered M.O.1 bloodstained knife, M.O.2 bloodstained earth and M.O.3 ordinary earth, from the scene of occurrence. (i) Next day, i.e. on 22.7.1991, P.W.12 Inspector of Police conducted inquest and examined P.Ws.1 to 3. Ex.P-15 is the inquest report. (j) During the course of inquest, on the basis of the statement given by P.W.1 Vijaya, P.W.12 Inspector of Police came to know that this is a case of murder and therefore, the offence was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Section 302 IPC. (k) The body was sent for post-mortem. P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found injuries on the deceased and she opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to the cut injury on the neck. Ex.P-5 is the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P-6 is the final opinion of P.W.8 Doctor regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. (l) On 28.7.1991, P.W.12 Inspector of Police arrested the accused and on his confession, M.O.4 bloodstained shirt was recovered. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis. (m) P.W.13 Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W.12, took up further investigation and after completion of the same, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-16 were filed and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he did not cause any injury on the deceased, and on the other hand, the deceased herself inflicted injury on the neck, and as such, it is a case of suicide. 5. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he did not cause any injury on the deceased, and on the other hand, the deceased herself inflicted injury on the neck, and as such, it is a case of suicide. 5. Ultimately, the trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mrs.Thenkodi Nelson, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the evidence of the only eye-witness P.W.1 Vijaya is not reliable, as her statement before the Court is not in consonance with her statement made to the Police and her conduct also would not show that she would have been present at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel also would point out various infirmities in the materials placed before the Court and on the basis of these infirmities, she would request this Court to give the "benefit of doubt" to the accused. 7. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspects. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and also perused the records. 9. According to the prosecution, the accused put the knife on the neck of the deceased, his wife and began cutting and causing injury. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Vijaya. After few hours, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are respectively the son and daughter of the accused and deceased, on noticing that the deceased was gasping for life in a lane, immediately took her to the hospital, accompanied by the accused. Thus, it is clear that it is the accused, who took the victim-deceased to the hospital and the accused waited there till the Police came. The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m. on 21.7.1991 and before 11.00 a.m., the deceased was taken to the hospital. At about 12.00 noon, P.W.10 Head Constable came and got the statement of the accused, which is Ex.P-8. 10. Admittedly, P.Ws.2 and 3 are not the eye-witnesses and the only eye-witness in this case is the neighbour, P.W.1 Vijaya. 11. According to P.W.1, she saw the occurrence, but did not cry. P.W.12, the investigating officer, would state that P.W.1 stated during the course of investigation that on witnessing the occurrence, she cried aloud. 10. Admittedly, P.Ws.2 and 3 are not the eye-witnesses and the only eye-witness in this case is the neighbour, P.W.1 Vijaya. 11. According to P.W.1, she saw the occurrence, but did not cry. P.W.12, the investigating officer, would state that P.W.1 stated during the course of investigation that on witnessing the occurrence, she cried aloud. Ex.P-1 observation mahazar would show that next to the lane, there are houses, teashops and other petty shops. The materials found available on record would indicate that there were people sitting and standing nearby the area. If P.W.1 had seen the occurrence and cried aloud as she stated before the Police, then naturally, it would have attracted the attention of all the persons available there and they would have also witnessed the act of the accused. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would show that the accused, after taking tiffin, went to market, and after buying mutton, the accused came back and asked P.W.3 Palaniammal, his daughter, to hand over the mutton to her mother, the deceased. P.W.3 Palaniammal went inside the house and found that her mother-deceased was not available there and the same was also informed to the accused. All of them searched for the deceased and thereafter, they came to know that the deceased was lying down in the lane with injuries. Then, immediately the victim-deceased was taken to the hospital by the accused and P.Ws.2 and 3. 12. If actually the accused had caused injury on the neck of the deceased, there is no reason for the accused to take the victim to the hospital. Further, as indicated above, P.Ws.2 and 3 would state that the accused came back home after buying mutton and at that point of time, the deceased was found in the lane with injuries. 13. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, it is unbelievable to state that it is the accused who caused injury on the neck of the deceased. 14. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 Vijaya does not inspire confidence, as her conduct would show that she did not choose to inform either to the son or to the daughter of the deceased or to others, who were available near the scene, immediately after the occurrence. 14. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 Vijaya does not inspire confidence, as her conduct would show that she did not choose to inform either to the son or to the daughter of the deceased or to others, who were available near the scene, immediately after the occurrence. As a matter of fact, there is no reason as to why P.W.1 Vijaya did not inform about the occurrence to the Police till she was examined on the next day, i.e. on 22.7.1991 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.12 Inspector of Police would state that P.W.1 Vijaya came with the statement only on the next day morning and till then, he had not received any information from her. 15. Strangely, P.W.1 would state in the cross-examination that she actually gave the information about the occurrence, implicating the accused even at 2.30 p.m. on the same day to the Police. If this is true, the prosecution has not explained as to what had happened to the complaint given by P.W.1 at 2.30 p.m. on 21.7.1991 itself to the Police. 16. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Palaniammal and even then, she has not been treated as hostile. 17. According to P.W.4 Srinivasan, the Panchayatdar, a Panchayat was convened prior to the date of occurrence and only on the intervention of the Panchatdars, the deceased joined the accused. During the course of chief examination, P.W.4 Srinivasan would state that when Panchayatdars insisted that the deceased should join the accused, the deceased expressed her fear that the accused threatened her that he would cut her throat and kill her. However, the Panchayatdars advised the deceased that nothing would happen like that. 18. The statement of P.W.4 has been given for the first time, only in the Court. He never gave such a statement to the Police as admitted by P.W.12, the investigating officer. Therefore, the motive also in this case has not been established. 19. According to P.W.12, the investigating officer, the accused was arrested on 28.7.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. and on his confession, M.O.4 bloodstained shirt was recovered. This evidence, in our view, cannot be accepted, as P.W.2 Balamurugan, the son of the deceased himself would say that the accused was taken to the Police Station and he was detained from 21.7.1991 onwards. According to P.W.12, the investigating officer, the accused was arrested on 28.7.1991 at about 6.00 p.m. and on his confession, M.O.4 bloodstained shirt was recovered. This evidence, in our view, cannot be accepted, as P.W.2 Balamurugan, the son of the deceased himself would say that the accused was taken to the Police Station and he was detained from 21.7.1991 onwards. As such, the evidence relating to the arrest and recovery, as projected through the evidence of P.W.12 Inspector of Police and the mahazar witness, has to be discarded. 20. Consequently, this Court is constrained to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, especially when the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted to be above suspicion. Hence, the appellant/accused is entitled to be acquitted on the "benefit of doubt". 21. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. The criminal appeal is allowed. The bail bond if any, executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.