Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. The appellant stands convicted in S.C. No.154 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Villupuram under Section 302, I.P.C., for which he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- carrying a default sentence. He is therefore challenging his conviction in this Appeal. Heard Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. According to the prosecution, the accused killed his wife by name Lakshmi at about 8.00 a.m. on 10. 2003 in his house by throttling her neck and then banging her head in the nearby pillar, as a result of which, she suffered suffocation and therefore triable under Section 302, I.P.C. The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 12 besides marking Exs. P.1 to P.13 and M.Os. 1 and 2. The defence neither let in any oral nor documentary evidence. 3. P.W.s 1 to 3 are eye witnesses to the case. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are brothers among themselves – P.W.2 being the elder. P.W.1 is their maternal aunt. Lakshmi – since deceased – is the daughter of P.W.1. The accused is her husband. After marriage, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused made a demand for a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her through his wife to have power connection to the irrigation well. P.W.1 expresses her inability to meet that demand stating that only recently she incurred expenses in performing Lakshmi’s marriage. However, P.W.1 assured at that time that, she would try to mobilise funds and give it to her daughter. Again the accused along with his wife made a demand and also old his wife that she could not join him without money. Once again P.W.1 promised that somehow she would manage to give money to him and therefore the accused and his wife left. Ten days thereafter - P.W.1 would depose - that her daughter Lakshmi came to her house once again reiterating the demand made by her husband. Pacifying her, P.W.1 sent her back home. Four days thereafter, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 went to her daughter’s house. On seeing her empty handed, the accused abused her filthily. Lakshmi - since deceased intervened and asked her husband/the accused as to why he is scolding her mother. Pacifying her, P.W.1 sent her back home. Four days thereafter, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 went to her daughter’s house. On seeing her empty handed, the accused abused her filthily. Lakshmi - since deceased intervened and asked her husband/the accused as to why he is scolding her mother. Immediately, the accused put his hand on the neck of his wife and banged her in the nearby wooden pillar. P.W.1’s daughter fell down in pain and became unconscious. P.W.1 observed her and found her dead. Therefore, she left the place to inform her relatives before going to the police station and by the time she came back, the Village Administrative Officer had already given the complaint. P.W.1 was examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ex. P.1 is the statement given by her to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee examined her. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had given evidence on all aspects as disclosed by P.W.1, on the same lines as spoken to by P.W.1. However, P.Ws. 2 and 3 would state that the accused throttled his wife with both his hands and then banged her. They would also state that the accused also criminally intimidated them. Ex.P.2 is the statement of P.W. 2 recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer. P.W.4 is the Village Administrative Officer. At 12 noon on 10. 2003, his Village Assistant Shantha-moorthy/P.W.5 informed him that Lakshmi is lying dead. Immediately P.W.4 went to the house of the accused where he observed the dead body of Lakshmi put on a bench. P.W.4 asked the accused as to what happened and the accused was not responding at all. Therefore, entertaining a suspicion in the death, P.W.4 sent his Complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police with a copy of the same to the Tahsildar. Ex.P.3 is his Complaint. P.W.4 was also examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as by the Deputy Superintendent of Policy. 4. P.W.10 is the head constable in the investigating Police Station. He received the express records registered on the file of his Police Station for its onward journey to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which he accordingly handed over. P.W.11 is another head constable in the same investigating Police Station and he carried the copies of the express First Information Report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10. He received the express records registered on the file of his Police Station for its onward journey to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which he accordingly handed over. P.W.11 is another head constable in the same investigating Police Station and he carried the copies of the express First Information Report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10. 2003 which he handed over to him at 8.30 p.m. P.W.12 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police during the relevant time having jurisdiction over the crime area. On 10. 2003, he commenced the investigation. P.W.12 proceeded to the crime scene where in the presence of P.W.5 and another, he prepared Ex.P.4, the observation mahazar. Ex.P.11 is the rough sketch prepared by him. Ex.P.12 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him. P.W.12 arrested the accused opposite to his house on 110. 2003. P.W.7 is the Revenue Divisional Officer. He received the express First Information Report registered in this case in Crime No.164 of 2003 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and reached the crime scene at 2.30 p.m. on 10. 2003 where in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P.8 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 & 2, the accused and others by recording their statements. Exs. P.1 and P.2 are the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 while Ex.P.9 is the statement of the accused recorded by him. Then P.W.7 sent the dead body to the hospital with a requisition for post-mortem. He would depose that he did not see any symptoms on the dead body for suicidal hanging. He also deposed that he noticed a contusion on the rear side of the head. Ex.P. 10 is his report stating that the crime could have been committed in the context of the inability on the part of P.W.1 in not meeting the demand for money made by the accused. P.W.8 is the photographer, who as requested by the investigating Police Station, photographed the dead body from six different angles. M.Os. 1 and 2 series are the photographs and negatives respectively. P.W.9, the police constable carried the dead body along with the requisition, as directed by P.W.7, to the hospital. In the hospital, she was present during post-mortem and after post-mortem, she handed over the dead body to the relatives. 5. M.Os. 1 and 2 series are the photographs and negatives respectively. P.W.9, the police constable carried the dead body along with the requisition, as directed by P.W.7, to the hospital. In the hospital, she was present during post-mortem and after post-mortem, she handed over the dead body to the relatives. 5. P.W.6 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Villupuram, who on receipt of the dead body and the requisition commenced post-mortem on the dead body at 12 noon on 10. 2003 and during post-mortem, she found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex.P.7, the post-mortem report. Ex. P. 6 is the report on Hyoid Bone, which shows that the Hyoid Bone was intact. The symptoms noted in the post-mortem report are as hereunder: Body of a female, lies on its back, (n.c.) bloated, post-mortem blisters seen over the anterior chest wall, both upper limbs ant (n.c.) wall, back. Blood stained fluid coming out from both nostrils and mouth. Both eyes protruding out, tongue pro-truding out. Both breasts well developed, Axillary hair present, external genitalia well developed. Pubic hair present. No discharge from the external genetalia and no injuries seen around. External Injuries : Linear coloured area 3 in number running vertically from the lower border of left joints the middle of the left cheek – dar-kish red in colour of sized: (1) 4 x 1 cms (2) 5 x 1 cms (3) 3 x 1 cm at an interval of 1 cm each. Internal Examination: Thorax: Ribe intact. . Heart: Congested, Chambers Empty Lungs: Both sides of the lungs (n.c.) odematous, severely congested - reddish. Hyoid Bone: Intact. Sent for examination. Epigloths, Larynx: Congested. Trachea: mucous membrane congested. Abdomen: On opening the abdomen the gas escapes with a loud noise. Stomach: contains 50 ml. of brownish coloured fluid. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: congested. Intestines: Distended with gas. Bladder: congested, empty. Uterus: Congested normal in size, cavity empty. Pelvis intact. Head: Skull - Extravasation of blood - 50 ml. of partially clotted blood seen in the Left Parietal temporal region. Skull Bone: Intact. Membranes congested. Brain: Liquified and the liquified brain matter pouring out of the skull. Spinal column & spinal cord: intact.” Doctor opined that death would have occurred 48 to 60 hours prior to autopsy as a result of asphyxia. of partially clotted blood seen in the Left Parietal temporal region. Skull Bone: Intact. Membranes congested. Brain: Liquified and the liquified brain matter pouring out of the skull. Spinal column & spinal cord: intact.” Doctor opined that death would have occurred 48 to 60 hours prior to autopsy as a result of asphyxia. The post-mortem report also shows that the Viscera Report did not show any poison or alcohol in the system. P.W.12 after receipt of the post-mortem report altered the Section of offence into one under Section 302, I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.13, the altered express First Information Report. After completing all the other legal formalities, P.W.12 filed the Final Report in Court against the accused on 211. 2003 under Section 302, I.P.C. 6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstance put up against him as false and contrary to facts. As noted earliar, neither oral nor documentary evidence was brought before Court at his instance. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in the earliest statement made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to P.W.7, the Revenue Divisional Officer, they had come out with a version that Lakshmi died due to suicidal hanging. But however, they have come out with the present prosecution case only ten days thereafter when the Deputy Superintendent of Police/ P.W.12 stepped into the investigation. There-fore, on the face of such inconsistent version put forward by the so called eye witnesses, the Court has to necessarily give the benefit of such doubt arising out of such diametrically opposed versions to the accused and acquit him. The evidence of witnesses is that the accused banged his wife in the nearby pillar. But however, there is no corresponding injury on the head. On this ground also the prosecution case must fail. Taking us through the entire evidence, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that they indicate a strong probability of the victim committing suicide and therefore, the accused has to be necessarily acquitted. In meeting these points, Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that though it may be true that in the earliest version, P.Ws. In meeting these points, Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that though it may be true that in the earliest version, P.Ws. 1 and 2 told the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W.7 a version of pointing out to the innocence of the accused, yet they have given a reasonable explanation as to why they have given such a statement at the earliest point of time. That explanation deserves acceptance and if that is so, then this Court can ignore the earliest version of these eye witnesses. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that there are no symptoms on the dead body noted by the doctor, who did post-mortem, for suicidal hanging. However, the symptoms are in favour of homicidal assault. There is extravasation of blood in the head and this corresponds to the overt act attributed to the accused. .7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the entire records. P.W.6 is the doctor who did post-mortem on the dead body. Her evidence is that death is due to asphyxia. Post-mortem report shows that there is extravasation of blood in the skull -50 ml. of partially clotted blood seen in the left parietal temporal region. She had also stated that if the neck of an individual is pressed forcibly and the head is banged on a solid material, there may occur obstruction to breathing leading to suffocation and then death. When she was cross-examined, she had clearly stated that even without an external injury, there is possibility of breathlessness. Of course she had also admitted that external injuries noted by her would not cause suffocation. She is very positive that there is no ligature mark on the neck of the victim. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.6, we are in a position to conclude that suicidal hanging or causing death by hanging stands totally ruled out. Either in the case of suicidal hanging or causing death by hanging there would be definitely ligature mark around the neck. That symptom is totally absent in this case. No rope or any other material used for such hanging is shown to be available in the house ( see the observation mahazar). No such rope or any other material is also recovered from the crime scene. That symptom is totally absent in this case. No rope or any other material used for such hanging is shown to be available in the house ( see the observation mahazar). No such rope or any other material is also recovered from the crime scene. From the observation mahazar, we find that the house in which the accused and the deceased are living is a small hut. For a person to hang herself/himself, there should be provision in the roof/ceilingr using which alone a person can hang herself/himself. There is no such provision, namely, either a cross beam or any other material available in the hut. For a person to hang himself or harself, a stool or any such structure has to be normally used, so that once a person getting on to it would kick it so that he or she would hang by himself or herself. In the observation mahazar, we do not find any such stool or any other material on which the victim would have stood and then committed the suicide. Therefore, looking from any angle, we find that the case of suicidal hanging stands totally ruled out. On the contra, the medical evidence establishes beyond doubt that death is due to homicidal violence. An argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the prosecution witnesses uniformly speak that the accusad banged his wife’s head forcibly in the nearby pillar, there should be corresponding injuries and since it is absent, such evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved. As already noted, we find from the post-mortem report that there is extravasation of blood in the skull and 50 ml. partially clotted blood seen in the left parietal temporal region. Therefore, t he point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the above lines fails. .8. Let us examine the prosecution case whether they established the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is true that P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the earliest point of time, namely on 10. 2003 when they were examined by P.W.7, the Revenue Divisional Officer (the crime at that stage was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) they gave a version that Lakshmi committed suicide by hanging. As already noted, the medical evidence eliminates such act. 2003 when they were examined by P.W.7, the Revenue Divisional Officer (the crime at that stage was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) they gave a version that Lakshmi committed suicide by hanging. As already noted, the medical evidence eliminates such act. These witnesses besides P.W.3 had categorically stated that the accused by prostrating at their legs pleaded for sympathy and to save him from the crime and that is why P.Ws. 1 and 2 had given the different version before the Revenue Divisional Officer. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are rustic villagers and appears to be illiterates. From the inquest report prepared by the Revenue Divisional Officer, namely Ex.P.8, it is seen that the deceased was last seen alive by the accused and the dead body was also first seen only by the accused. Therefore, there is every probability for the accused to prepare himself even at that stage to get out of the clutches of law and having regard to the thick relationship between the parties inter se ; we have no doubt at all that the accused would have, under the disguise of gaining sympathy, influenced P.Ws. 1 and 2 to speak in his favour before the Revenue Divisional Officer. We also find that the post-mortem report had come into the picture only later on which alone shows that it is a homicidal assault. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are eye witnesses to the crime. As already noted they would have been gained over by the accused to speak in his favour at tha earliest point of time and only when the Deputy Superin-tendent of Police entered into the picture, the witnesses would have gained confidence in themselves to come out with the truth. In going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 we find that their evidence is so very natural and convincing that there is no reason at all as to why we must disbelieve them. As already noted though at the earliest point of time, P.Ws. 1 and 2 had given a different version, yet within a few days thereafter, they corrected themselves and came out with the correct picture of the present prosecution case. The explanation offered by them for giving such a different version really deserves acceptance even at our hands and accordingly we accept their explanation for giving a different version at the earliest point of time. The explanation offered by them for giving such a different version really deserves acceptance even at our hands and accordingly we accept their explanation for giving a different version at the earliest point of time. Ex.P.9 is the statement of the accused recorded by P.W.7, the Revenue Divisional Officer. In Ex.P.9, the accused had stated that his wife was in the house on the morning of the occurrence day; she complained that she have stomach pain; giving her soda and advising her to go to hospital for treatment, he left to a different village and when he came back, he found his wife dead after committing suicidal hanging. So this is he definite stand of the accused in his earliest statement/Ex.P.9 before the Revenue Divisional Officer. However, when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has taken a stand of total denial. Going by the contents of Ex.P.9, it is clear that Lakshmi was alive when the accused was in the house and she was alive when the accused left his house. According to the statemant, Lakshmi committed suicidal hanging. But we have already found that the medical evidence rules out such possibility. If that is so, then the accused has a legal obligation to explain as to how his wife died. He would set up a case of alibi saying that he was in a far away village during the day time. Once he sets up a plea of alibi, the burden is on him to establish, which he had not even attempted to establish. Learned counsel would also contend that on the materials available on record Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code stands attracted to the case on hand and therefore the conviction has to be modified from one under Section 302 into one under Section 304 Part I or Part II as the case may be. For this purpose, learned counsel took enormous pain. For this purpose, learned counsel took enormous pain. By taking us through the evidence, learned counsel would argue that the evidence on record shows that the accused had demanded money; the prosecution party was not in a position to pay; when P.W.1 entered the house of the accused, she was found empty handed and therefore there is every possibility of the accused getting provoked by his mother-in-law in not providing the money as required by him and only at that stage, when he abused his mother-in-law, the deceased intervened and the occurrence had taken place. In our considered opinion such evidence available on record would not satisfy the ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. For all the reasons stated above, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and accordingly, it is sustained. The Appeal is dismissed.