Judgment : Per R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J 1. The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S.C. No. 145 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Court of sessions (Fast Track Court), Vellore district atTirupattur for offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine carrying a default sentence and rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively. Hence the present appeal. The prosecution case is that on the night of 14.3.2001, the accused murdered his wife by strangulating her and then to screen the offence he threw the dead body into the well and therefore punishable as referred to above. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 16 besides making Exs. P.1 to P.13 and M.Os. 1 to 11. The defence neither let in any oral nor documentary evidence. Heard N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of the deceased. P.W.1s wife by name Sumathi is a councillor of the Village Panchayats. P.W.1 is an agriculturist by profession besides selling bricks and doing contract work. He knows the accused. On the 15th of a month in the year 2001, when P.W.1 was near his house, the accused appeared before him and confessed. P.W.1 initially advised him to go to the police station. Then he advised him to go to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.7). The accused told P.W.1 that he had already gone to the Village Administrative Officer, but he is not available. P.W.2 was by the side of P.W.1. At that time, the accused confessed that he married Radha, since deceased hardly one and half years before but however they were happy only for a period of two months. Thereafter there was quarrel between the two. As P.W.1 did not know to write, he asked P.W.2 to reduce into writing as to what the accused would narrate. The accused confessed as hereunder:- “On the night of 14th, under the guise of attending to the callsof nature, he took his wife to the lands belonging to P.W.8 and then after attending to the calls of nature, his wife told him that as he was already having another woman, he is not liking the food she prepared and served to him. Enraged at that, he slapped her on her face, as a result of that, his wife fell down and then using his lungi (personal wearing apparel) he strangulated her neck, as a result of which, she died. He then dropped her dead body in the well of P.W.8 and left”. P.W.2 reduced the same into writing in which the accused signed. To find out the correctness of the information furnished, P.W.1 went to the well and observed the dead body. Then P.W.1 informed P.W.3, the father of the deceased. Then P.W.1 in the company of Alagesa Gounder (not examined) took the accused to the investigating police station and surrendered him there. P.W.1 also gave the statement of the accused reduced into writing by P.W.2 in which P.W.1 and P.W.2 had signed. Ex.P.1 is the said statement. P.W.2 would state that at about 8.30 a.m. on 15.3.2001, he went to the house of P.W.1 to buy bricks. At that time, the accused appeared and confessed that he murdered his wife. P.W.1 advised the accused to go to the police station, for which the accused replied that he was afraid. Then P.W.1 advised the accused to go to the Village Administrative Officer, for which the accused replied that when he went there to see him he was not available. Then the accused confessed stating that he killed his wife in the lands of P.W.8 by strangulating her with his lungi and the dead body of his wife is in the well. P.W.2 reduced into writing the narration of the accused. Ex. P.1 is the said statement in which he and P.W.1 had signed. 3. P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating police station. At 10.00 a.m. on 15.3.2001, P.Ws.1, 2 and the accused appeared and by surrendering the accused and his statement he was requested to take action. P.W.15 registered that complaint as Ex.P.1in his police station crime No. 178 of 2001 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.10 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him. He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Ex.P.1 contains the signature of P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.13 is the police constable, who collected the express records and handed over the same to the higher officials as well as to the Court. He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Ex.P.1 contains the signature of P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.13 is the police constable, who collected the express records and handed over the same to the higher officials as well as to the Court. P.W.16 the Inspector of Police collected the express records at 10.45 a.m. on 15.3.2001 and commenced the investigation. He arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and examined him. At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.11. P.W. 16 gave change of dress to the accused and recovered his personal wearing apparel. Pursuant to Ex.P.11, the accused led the police party and the witnesses to a well in the lands of P.W.8 and identified it, from where, the dead body was observed. In the presence of P.W.7 and another he prepared Ex.P.2., the observation Mahazar and Ex.P.12, the rough sketch. With the help of P.W.5 and another, he retrieved the dead body from the well. Then P.W.16 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Exhibit P.13 is the inquest reprot. Then he caused the dead body as found inside the well and as placed outside the well photorgraphed. P.W.11 is the photographer, who proved M.Os. 1 and 2 serials. P.W.16 examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and others by recording their statements. The accused was sent for judicial remand. 4. P.W.14 accompanied the dead body along with the requisition for post-mortem. He was present throughout post-mortem. After post-mortem he removed M.Os. 5 to 11 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer with his special report Ex.P.9. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who on receipt of the dead body and the requisition commenced post-mortem at 4.55 p.m. on 15.3.2001, The requisition is Ex.P.3 and the post-mortem report is Ex.P.4. The following symptoms are noted in the post-mortem report:- “Rigor mertis present in all the four limbs, lacerated wound over the vault of the skull 2 cm × 1/2 cm × 1/2 cm blood clotted. No fracture. Abrasion blackish abrasion irregular 4 cm × 1 cm over the left side face. Wide abrasion over the left side neck 6cm × 1 cm blackish in colour. Bone over the laceration over the skull is intact. No fracture. Abrasion blackish abrasion irregular 4 cm × 1 cm over the left side face. Wide abrasion over the left side neck 6cm × 1 cm blackish in colour. Bone over the laceration over the skull is intact. Contusion and congestion over the top of the cerebrum. Hyoid bone intact. Lung tissue in the water - no water aspirated in to the lung, Uterus normal size stomach partly digested food. A contusion over the left side back 2 cm × 2 cm × 2 cm blackish in colour. A contusion over the left side Axilla 2cm × 1 cm × 1cm blackish in colour. P.W.10 opined that death would have occurred 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation with a wide cloth. 5. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are father and mother of the deceased and the parents-in-law of the accused. They would depose that after giving their daughter in marriage, their daughter was not happy and often she used to tell them about the quarrel between her and her husband. On all those occassion, P.Ws. 3 and 4 sorted out the problems. On all those occasions, the accused used to behave violently stating that as her husband, he has every right to beat his wife and P.Ws. 3 and 4 had no authority to intervene. One day prior to the occurrence day, there was a quarrel which P.W.3 sorted out. At 8.00 p.m. on the same day, he went to his daughters house to see his daughter and she was sitting on the pial. When asked she said that she is waiting for her husband and P.W.3 returned home. On the next day morning, when he went to see his daughter, he did not find her anywhere. They searched for her and at that time, P.W.1 told that his daughters dead body is lying in P.W.8s well. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the well to observe the dead body of his daughter. P.W.4 would state that on the day before the occurrence day night, the accused asked her about her daughter. P.W.4 apart from giving the family quarrels between her daughter and the accused, would depose that on a particular night her daughter was found missing and she searched for her in the company of the accused. P.W.4 would state that on the day before the occurrence day night, the accused asked her about her daughter. P.W.4 apart from giving the family quarrels between her daughter and the accused, would depose that on a particular night her daughter was found missing and she searched for her in the company of the accused. Next day morning she came to know that the accused had murdered his wife and dropped her in the well. 6. P.W. 16 continued his investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements. P.W.16 sent the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination. As an enclosure to Courts letter Ex.P.6, the case properties were sent to the laboratory. Exs.P.7 and P.8 are the chemical examiners report and serologists report. P.W.16 recovered the articles removed from the dead body after post-mortem by P.W.15 and produced before him. P.W.5 would state that when he went to Visamangalam Village where his mother-in-law is living, he found a crowd near the well in the agricultural lands of P.W.8. He went there. He with the help of four persons there, retrieved the dead body which was found floating in the well. P.W.6 is the elder brother of the deceased and son of P.Ws 3 and 4. Apart from giving details about the problems which his sister was facing from the accused, he would state that coming to know about the crime from P.W.1, he went to the lands of P.W.8 to observe the dead body of his sister in the well. P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer. At 12.00 noon on 15.3.2001, he was present when the dead body was retrieved from the well by the police. He witnesses the preparation of Ex.P.2, the observation Mahazar. P.W.8 is a resident of Visamangalam village and coming to know that a dead body is floating in the well in his land, he went and observed the dead body. Police arrived and the dead body was taken out. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 7.7.2001. 7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstances put up against him as false and contrary to facts. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 7.7.2001. 7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstances put up against him as false and contrary to facts. As already noted, neither oral nor documentary evidence was brought before Court at their instance. He denied the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that he had confessed before them. He also added that he was compelled to sign in the statement. At the end of his questioning, he had stated as hereunder:- “I have studied upto tenth standard; I have not seen P.Ws. 1 and 2; I have not given any confession statement to them; I have not signed in any statement; my wife was missing from the night itself; she used to have stomach pain during her menstrual cycle; I have promised to take her to the hospital; on the night, she was sleeping in the pial; in the morning when I woke up, I did not see her; I thought that she would have gone to her mothers house and therefore I went there; they also said that my wife had not come there; all of us together searched for her; thinking that I would have done something, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9 had tied me; police was informed over telephone; police arrived and untied me; then I was taken; then P.Ws.1and 2 were brought from their house; I was examined in their presence; I did not say anything; I was assaulted and treated cruelly; then my signature was taken in Ex.P.1 and I am not connected to the murder.” N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking us through the various materials on record would contend that there are enough doubts as to how the extra judicial confession had come to be recorded; there are enough doubts as to who retrieved the dead body from the well and the materials on record show that even on the night previous to the day on which the dead body was found, the accused was secured and tied. Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the mere extra judicial confession alone, which the accused denied having given, the conviction cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the mere extra judicial confession alone, which the accused denied having given, the conviction cannot be sustained. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points. 8. Let us now examine the merits of the prosecution case. The post-mortem report shows that lungs do not contain any water. There are ante-mortem injuries on the body. According to P.W.10, the Doctor, who did postmortem, and the post-mortem report, death is due to asphyxia due to strangulation. The question is, has the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubte For this purpose, they rely upon Ex.P.1, the extra judicial confession stated to have been given by the accused and the admissible portion of the confession statement/Ex.P.11 leading to the well-being pointed out by the accused from where the dead body was retrieved. Let us now examine whether the recording of the extra judicial confession is free from doubt. We must remember that the accused when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that even on the previous night to the day on which the dead body was found in the well, he was tied by P.Ws.3, 4 and 9 on suspicion that he may have a hand in his wife missing. P.W.9 is the leader in the village. Though in his evidence in chief he would state that after the arrival of the police only the dead body was retrieved from the well and did not say anything else, yet, when he was cross examined he submitted that P.Ws. 3, 4 and their children secured the presence of the accused and tied him in the village. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the father and mother of the victim, while P.W.6 is the elder brother of the victim. P.W.9 is also firm that the accused in any event was tied in the village at 9.00 a.m. on the morning and he advised those people, who had secured him to keep him secured in the same place, till such time the police comes. P.W.9 is also firm that the accused in any event was tied in the village at 9.00 a.m. on the morning and he advised those people, who had secured him to keep him secured in the same place, till such time the police comes. P.W.3 - who is the father of the victim had also admitted when he was cross examined that till, 11.00 p.m. in the night on the day prior to the day on which the dead body was found in the well, all of them including the accused were searching for the missing lady and suspecting possible involvement of the accused, on the night itself the accused was secured and tied. Of course P.W.4 had not deposed on the above aspect. Therefore there is clear evidence from P.Ws. 3 and 9 that the accused was secured and tied in the village, even on the night prior to the day in question. There is no evidence to show that at no point of time after the accused was so secured, he was let off by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 or even 9, which would alone enable the accused to move freely. When the accused was found secured in the village itself by the persons referred to above and when there is no evidence to show that he was let off later on, we fail to understand as to how, the accused would have appeared at 8.30 a.m. on 15.3.2001 before P.W.1 and confessed. It is not the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that after the accused confessed to them he was tied with the help of the villagers. In this context, we want to recall the evidence of P.W.9 when he would state that even by 9.00 a.m. on the morning of the day in question, the accused was found tied. Under these circumstances the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused appeared before them voluntarily (P.W.2 would state that it was 8.30 a.m. on 15.3.2001) and confessed the crime is not free from doubt. According to the evidence of P.W.1 after the accused confessed, he went to the police station along with Alagesa Gounder (not examined) with Ex.P.1, where he surrendered the accused before P.W.15. P.W.1s further evidence is that half an hour after they reached the police station, P.W.2 came to the police station. According to the evidence of P.W.1 after the accused confessed, he went to the police station along with Alagesa Gounder (not examined) with Ex.P.1, where he surrendered the accused before P.W.15. P.W.1s further evidence is that half an hour after they reached the police station, P.W.2 came to the police station. P.W.15s evidence is that P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused alone appeared in the police station when he was surrendered along with Ex.P.1. In this context, the evidence of P.W.2 assumes importance since he would admit when he was cross examined that in Ex.P.1. he put his signature only in the police station. The evidence of P.W.1 is that as he did not know to read and write he asked P.W.2 to reduce into writing the narration of the accused. Accordingly P.W.2 reduced into writing and he signed in it only at that place. If really P.W.2 had reduced the narration of the accused into writing, then it is nothing but common sense that he would have signed Ex.P.1 in the place where it was reduced into writing by him namely, in the house of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W. 2 eliminates this position and factually the position is contra namely, P.W.2 signed Ex.P.1 in the police station. Therefore in the context of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 9 that the accused was found tied in the village itself, the possibility of the accused appearing before P.Ws. 1 and 2 on his own to confess is highly doubtful. The possibility of the accused being taken to the police station where his statement could have been reduced into writing also looms large. 9. We now go to the question as to when the dead body was retrieved from the well. P.W. 16s evidence is that pursuant to Ex.P.11, the accused led the police party and the witnesses and pointed out the well in P.W.8s land, from where the dead body was retrieved. The retrieval of the dead body was in the presence of P.W.5 and another. P.W.5 do not say in his evidence that police was by the side of the well when he and four others retrieved the dead body. P.W.7, who claims that he was witnessing the retrieval of the dead body, do not even mention the presence of P.W.5 at that time by his side. P.W.5 do not say in his evidence that police was by the side of the well when he and four others retrieved the dead body. P.W.7, who claims that he was witnessing the retrieval of the dead body, do not even mention the presence of P.W.5 at that time by his side. Therefore, there is enough doubt as to whether the dead body came to be retrieved only after the accused pointed out the well or the dead body came to be retrieved much earlier. In the light of our discussion referred to above, we find that there are many suspicious circumstances in the recording of the extra judicial confession namely, whether it was due to the voluntary act of the accused or it was due to the intervention of the police -the possibility is that the latter being more bright than the former one. Further the accused pointing out the well from where the dead body was retrieved could be a relevant material against him but even in this context, we have enough doubt as indicated earlier. Under these circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused appeared on his own and confessed, is not free from doubt. Therefore, giving the benefit of our discussion referred to above to the accused, we are inclined to set aside the judgment under challenge and accordingly it is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged, tried and convicted. Fine amount if any paid by him, is directed to be refunded to him. It is stated that the accused is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.