ORDER This revision petition is by the wife of the deceased Suresh who is claimed to have been killed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and thereafter with the assistance of accused Nos. 5 and 6 who are the neighboring villagers, they screened away the material evidence and as such they were also implicated. The allegations are also made against accused NO.4. He was implicated in the case for the offences punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 302, 177, 201 read with Section 149 IPC by judgment dated 13-4-2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in S.C.No.13/1997. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Suresh, the husband of the petitioner herein was the brother of accused NO.4 and accused No. 2 is wife of accused NO.4. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are the son and daughter of accused Nos. 2 to 4 respectively. Accused NO.4 being elder in the family was managing the family properties. The deceased Suresh, his wife and children were making a living in Bangalore. As Suresh could not augment sufficient income for making his livelihood, he returned back to the village and started to make his living with accused NO.4 his elder brother. However, he was demanding his share of the property, which was being postponed on one pretext or the other. That on 12-5-1996, Suresh the husband of the petitioner had gone to a Betrothal ceremony in the morning. He returned late in the evening at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. he was found drunk. PW. 3, who is none other than the mother of accused NO.4 and deceased Suresh was searching for dinner plates for the servants. As they were not found, she shouted at accused NO.2 and asked her as to where she had kept the plates. In response, accused No. 2 shouted and stated that she should thoroughly search for the same and she may find them and that she should not act like a blind person. This enraged Suresh who took an objection for accused NO.2 saying so to his mother and a quarrel ensued between them. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and Suresh on the other, quarreled for sometime in the said regard. This enraged Suresh who took an objection for accused NO.2 saying so to his mother and a quarrel ensued between them. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and Suresh on the other, quarreled for sometime in the said regard. Then thereafter, Suresh having become fed up, went to the nearby water tank and jumped into the same. He was followed by P.W. 3, the mother who also jumped into the water tank. The neighbors were alerted. They fished out PW. 3 as well as Suresh. PW. 3 survived. Suresh was brought back to the house and was made to lie in front of the house, efforts were made to remove water which had entered into his body, but he breathed his last. Accused No. 4 the elder brother who returned to the house, lodged a complaint to the police regarding the death of Suresh which came to be registered in UDR No. 13/1996. Investigation was taken over and as the death of Suresh was unnatural, the dead body of Suresh was subjected to postmortem examination. The same was conducted by p.w. 20. He has issued post-mortem report as per Ex. P-20. In the post-mortem report, he has rendered an opinion that the death was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. The petitioner here in who was the inmate of the house where Suresh died, was also examined during the course of inquest proceedings. She made a statement to the effect that her husband had committed suicide and non-else is responsible for the death of her husband. Later on, the customary rituals of deceased Suresh were completed on the eleventh day. The rituals and the ceremonies were attended by the mother of the petitioner herein, her brother-in-law, sisters and other relatives. On 24-5-1996, the petitioner met her father who was ailing. At that point of time, she revealed to her father that there was a quarrel between her husband Suresh and accused Nos. 1 to 3, on 12-5-1996, that deceased Suresh in the quarrel had held the tuft of accused NO.3 and accused NO.1 got enraged, he felled him down and throttled him. Accused NO.2 also assisted him in assaulting Suresh. At that point of time, she revealed to her father that there was a quarrel between her husband Suresh and accused Nos. 1 to 3, on 12-5-1996, that deceased Suresh in the quarrel had held the tuft of accused NO.3 and accused NO.1 got enraged, he felled him down and throttled him. Accused NO.2 also assisted him in assaulting Suresh. On revealing such information, her father P.W. 4, who is the complainant told her that the same should be reported to the police and asked her to accompany him to the Police Station, but she told her father P.W. 4 that her daughter was suffering from sore throat and she had to go to the Doctor and accordingly, she went to the Doctor and got treatment to her daughter and returned back. However, in the meantime on 24-5-1996, P.W. 4 the father of the petitioner herein has gone to the Police Station and lodged a complaint as at Ex. P-4, alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had committed the murder of Suresh his son-in-law and on the basis of the said complaint the case came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and investigation was taken up. Later on, during the course of investigation, as it revealed that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were also involved in the case, they were implicated and charge-sheet was filed after investigation against accused Nos. 5 and 6 also. The trial Court on committal, framed the following charge as against accused. "That A-1 to A-6 on the 12'" day of May, 1996, at about 7.30 p.m. at Bekkesodlur village, within the limits of Virajpet Taluk, S.P. in furtherance of your common intention due to property sharing dispute, you committed murder of Suresh by intentionally or knowingly causing his death by assaulting him with wooden mane, wire chair and also by strangulating his neck by you/A-1 to 4 respectively and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 302 RIW 34 of IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, that A-4 to A-6 on the said date, time and place, being legally bound to furnish information of the murder of Suresh you furnished information to the Police, which you knew to be false, and under Section 177 of IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, that A-4 to A-6 on the said date, time and place, being legally bound to furnish information of the murder of Suresh you furnished information to the Police, which you knew to be false, and under Section 177 of IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly, that A•5 and A•6 on the said date, time and place, and in furtherance of common intention after committing the murder of Suresh, you burnt off the blood stained clothes of the deceased Suresh, with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 RIW 34 of IPC and within any cognizance. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws. 1 to 26, got marked Exs. P1 to P•30 and M.Os.1 to 7. The defene of the accused was one of total denial. However, it got marked Ex. 0-1 - portion of statement of P.W. 16 recorded at the time of inquest panchanama, Ex. 0-2 - Statement of It should be noted that spasmodic closure of the vocal cord is not detectable in post-mortem examination. In drowning under the innocence of alcohol. the death is sudden without any struggle, such cases have been reported from Norway. Sudden cooling of the skin on the chest and the abdomen causes dyspnea and an often uncontrollable hyperventilation, a reaction triggered from the cold receptors in the skin, which may result in a cardiovascular collapse through ventricular fibrillation (Immersion Syndrome, Hydrocution)." 15. It is argued on behalf of the accused that merely because P. W. 20 has stated that death is due to throttling the same is an opinion and the ocular evidence belies the medical evidence. It is argued on behalf of the accused that merely because P. W. 20 has stated that death is due to throttling the same is an opinion and the ocular evidence belies the medical evidence. P W. 17 has clearly stated that Suresh was fished out of the water tank and he breathed his last and his evidence has not been challenged and it is the case of the prosecution itself that he had drowned into the ' water tank and cause of Asphyxia could be for the reasons as stated above and as such since the opinion of P. W. 20 does not prevail over the ocular evidence and there being possibility of he committing an error in rendering an opinion and also the fact of the hyoid bone of deceased Suresh being intact, would reveal that he death was not due to throttling and as such the opinion of the doctor cannot form the basis to hold the petitioners/accused guilty of the charges leveled against them. 16. "P.W. 21 Lohith is a panch witness for mahazar Ex. P-21. PW. 22 Harischandra was working as Head Constable who conducted inquest panchanama conducted on 13-5-1996. He also deposed that post-mortem was conducted at the spot itself by the doctor. P. W. 22 further admits that when the inquest panchanama was conducted on the next day of the incident i.e" 13-5-1996 the mother of Anitha as well PW. 4 father of Anitha were also present. At this point, it should be noted PW. 4 has filed a complaint on 24-5-1996. Though he was present at the time of inquest which was conducted on 13-5-1996, P.W. 23 Nambiar C. P .1. recorded the statements of few witnesses seized the wooden plank, plastic chairs, drew up mahazar of the scene of occurrence and filed a charge-sheet as against the accused persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by PW. 4 on 24-5-1996. 17. PW. 24 Govindaraju was working as P.S.I. of Ponnampet. He in his evidence has stated that A-4 came to the Police Station on 12-5-1996 and reported that his brother had drowned himself in the water tank and on the basis of the said report he registered UDR No. 13/1996 and conducted inquest mahazar over the dead body. Later on after a period of 12 days on 24-5-1996 at about 10 a.m. he received a complaint through the Dy. Later on after a period of 12 days on 24-5-1996 at about 10 a.m. he received a complaint through the Dy. S.P. He registered a case in Cr. No. 106/1996 for an offence punishable under Section 302, I. P.C. and later on after forwarding the FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate he visited the spot and drew a spot panchanama as per Ex. P-14and handed over further investigation to C.P.1. 18. The trial Court on appreciation of the material on record more particularly the delay in lodging of the complaint by P W. 4 on 24-5-1996 though the incident had occurred on 12-5-1996andthoughhewasfoundpresent at the time of inquest on 13-5-1996asadmitted by the Police Constable who drew the inquest mahazar and taking into account the evidence of the witnesses who had seen Suresh being fished out of the water tank has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 19. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that post-mortem report reveals that the death was due to throttling and was not due to downing and as such the material evidence has been shut out by the trial Court and the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused persons. The evidence of the doctor P .W. 20 is opinion evidence. The post-mortem was conducted on the scene of occurrence itself. The ocular evidence reveals that the body of Suresh was fished out of the water. There is enormous delay in Lodging of complaint. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth for the delay in lodging the complaint. The explanation given by PW. 1 Anitha that she was under the threat of the accused persons is falsified by the evidence of PW. 17 and PW. 22 who have stated that her father P.W. 4 was present when the inquest panchanama was drawn and as such her version that after the death of her husband after some time she met her father only on 24-5-1996isfoundtobefalse. The observations of Dr. Modi reveals possibility of Asphyxia are likely to occur in case of drunken man when drowned the water may not enter the hungs at all and the classical signs of drowning will be absent. In view of the same, I hold that there is no error in the passing of the order of acquittal by the trial Court acquitting the respondents! accused. Hence, the following: