Judgment :- M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chengalpattu and aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment of R.I. for life imposed, vide Judgment dated 25.02.2010, has preferred this appeal. The appellant/accused was also charged under Section 498(A) of IPC. However, he was acquitted from the said charge by the trial Court. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The deceased viz., Chandra is the wife of the accused/appellant and the marriage between them was solemnized on 24.6.2001. Out of wedlock, two children were born to them. 3. The appellant/accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and on account of it, they used to pickup frequent quarrel between them and on such occasions, the deceased used to go to her parental home. In pursuant to the panchayat, the deceased asked to go and live with her husband/appellant. The appellant had sold the jewels of his wife and purchased ducks and for administering injections to ducks, the appellant went to the house of his father-in-law/P.W.1 and got a sum of Rs.1,000/-. 4. On 31.03.2007, when the wife of the appellant/deceased was proceeding to her sister’s house to attend the ear-boaring ceremony of her children, the appellant restrained her and he took the Thali Chain of his wife. Thereafter, the appellant quarrelled with his wife and on 01.04.2007, he pledged the Thali chain of his wife for a sum of Rs.1,500/-, consumed alcohol and again started quarrel with his wife. The deceased/wife of the appellant unable to bear with the same, has told him that he is always suspecting her fidelity and also beating her and hence, she will die and asked him to bring poison. 5. On 02.04.2007, at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Chandra went along with her child and at that juncture, the appellant consumed alcohol, went to Mamandur to procure pesticides and came to Melathangal lake, wherein the deceased was lying. At about 10.00 a.m., on that day, the appellant told the deceased that she only asked for poison and he brought it and he opened the same, tried to administer the same forcefully, and when it was prevented, he slapped the deceased and consequently, she fallen down. At about 10.00 a.m., on that day, the appellant told the deceased that she only asked for poison and he brought it and he opened the same, tried to administer the same forcefully, and when it was prevented, he slapped the deceased and consequently, she fallen down. The appellant also kicked the deceased on her chest and stomach. 6. P.W.26-Revathi who was on the way, saw the occurrence and since the deceased became unconscious, the appellant asked P.W.26 to procure some water. When the appellant tried to administer water in to the mouth of the deceased, it does not go into her mouth. The accused put his lungi on the deceased, went along with the child and informed P.W.11 about the condition of his wife and asked him to save his wife and also informed him that he is going to inform her father/P.W.1. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was absconding. 7. P.W.1-father of the deceased on coming to know of the occurrence, went to Thoosi Police Station at Thiruvannamalai District on 02.04.2007 evening hours and lodged a complaint to P.W.19-Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex.P1. P.W.19, based on Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.103/2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the FIR was marked as Ex.P13. P.W.19 forwarded the copies of FIR to his higher officials as well as to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 8. P.W.25-Deputy Superintendent of Police, after receipt of FIR, has commenced the investigation, went to the scene of occurrence at about 6.00 a.m. on 03.04.2007 and prepared the scene mahazar under Ex.P3 and also drew a Rough Sketch under Ex.P27 and he also recovered Material Objects under the cover of mahazar Ex.P4. Photographs were also taken. P.W.25 examined the witnesses and after the receipt of report from the Village Administrative Officer with regard to the confession made by the accused, the case was altered under the alteration report Ex.P28. P.W.25 handed over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram on 04.04.2007. 9. P.W.27 on receipt of the case files, commenced the investigation on 05.04.2007 and again proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 8.40 a.m. on that day and also examined the witnesses. On 07.04.2007, he examined the witnesses including P.W.26. P.W.27 also examined other witnesses on 09.04.2007 including Doctor-P.W.16, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. 10. P.W.27 on receipt of the case files, commenced the investigation on 05.04.2007 and again proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 8.40 a.m. on that day and also examined the witnesses. On 07.04.2007, he examined the witnesses including P.W.26. P.W.27 also examined other witnesses on 09.04.2007 including Doctor-P.W.16, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. 10. P.W.13-Village Administrative Officer of Thiruthakudi, before whom the accused surrendered and gave a confession statement, produced the accused along with his statement and his special report before P.W.27 at about 6.00 p.m. on 11.04.2007. The accused voluntarily gave a confession statement in the presence of two witnesses and in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement marked as Ex.P31, he produced a bill under which pesticide was purchased. P.W.27 also effected seizure of Thali chain and other jewels under the cover of mahazar Ex.P32. P.W.27 also effected seizure of counterfoil maintained by the fertilizer shop from whom the accused purchased the pesticide. Thereafter, altered the Sections to Section 498(A) and 302 of IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.P34. P.W.27 also examined some witnesses, he also produced the accused before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 12.04.2007 for conducting enquiry, and after enquiry was over, produced the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. 11. P.W.27 also made requisition to the jurisdictional Court for sending the Material Objects for chemical analysis and received the inquest report from the Revenue Divisional Officer. P.W.27 after completion of the investigation, has filed the final report. 12. The prosecution in order to sustain their case against the accused, had examined Pws. 1 to 27 and marked exhibits P1 to P35 and also marked Material Objects 1 to 11. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in, but Ex.D1-scene mahazar No.2, dated 3.4.2007 was marked. 13. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and on the date of the occurrence, while he was in the house, two persons came and informed him that near the Melathangal lake, his daughter was found lying on being unwell. Immediately, he along with his wife and daughter rushed to the place and when they went to that place, they found his daughter was found lying by covering with a lungi on her body and she was not alive. Immediately, he along with his wife and daughter rushed to the place and when they went to that place, they found his daughter was found lying by covering with a lungi on her body and she was not alive. They also found a rupture wound on her back, caused by a stone and also a pesticide bottle and other articles. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the Thoosi Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. P.W.1 also identified the articles found near the body of his daughter, which were marked as M.Os. 1 to 5. Admittedly, P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 14. According to P.W.2, when she was in her house on a particular day in the year 2007, at about 11.00 a.m. two persons came and informed her that somebody has beaten Chandra near the Ayyangarkulam Melathangal lake and she along with three persons went there and saw the body of the deceased. P.W.2 also is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 would depose that he along with one Sakthikumar has informed about the condition of Chandra to P.W.1. P.W.4 has also deposed about the death of his relative namely Chandra. P.W.5 has also spoken to the same. 15. P.W.6 would depose that in the year 2007 on a particular day at about 11.00 a.m., he went to Ayyangarkulam and on his return, when he was nearing to his pump set, the accused along with his child were proceeding fast. When P.W.6 proceeding to the western bank of the lake, he found the wife of the accused was lying. Thereafter, P.W.6 rushed to inform the mother of Chandra and at that juncture, he saw the relatives of Chandra who were rushing to the scene of occurrence. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 has deposed that he thought that the accused along with his child were proceeding to the teashop in a routine manner and he did not talk to the accused. 16. P.W.7 is a witness to the recovery mahazars Exs.P3 and P4 under which, the articles found in the scene of occurrence were recovered. P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer and he issued a certificate under Ex.P5 with regard to the body found in the scene of occurrence. 17. P.W.8 took the photographs of the body of the deceased in the scene of occurrence. P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer and he issued a certificate under Ex.P5 with regard to the body found in the scene of occurrence. 17. P.W.8 took the photographs of the body of the deceased in the scene of occurrence. P.W.10 was examined with regard to the body available in the scene of occurrence. P.W.11 would depose that two years prior to his deposition, at about 10.00 a.m. the accused brought his child and informed him that his wife is lying near the lake without conscious and hence he is proceeding to inform his father-in-law/P.W.1. P.W.12 speaks about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased at about two years prior to his deposition. 18. P.W.13 was the Village Administrative Officer of Sevilimedu and according to his testimony, while he was in duty on 11.4.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased appeared before him and voluntarily gave a statement wherein he admitted that he only killed his wife. The statement recorded from the accused was marked as Ex.P7 and the report of P.W.13 was marked as Ex.P8. In the cross-examination, P.W.13 would depose that he does not know the accused prior to his surrender and at the time of his surrender, his Assistants were also present and he has produced the accused along with his statement and special report before the Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station. Since he produced the accused, the police asked him to go away and they did not examine him during investigation. 19. P.W.14 speaks about the receipt issued by pawnbroker shop. He is also one of the witnesses to the mahazars Exs.P.24 and 25. P.W.15 was the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Kancheepuram who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.04.2007 and she would depose that she along with P.W.16 conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P9 and chemical analysis report under Ex.P.10. According to Exs.P9 and P.10, the deceased died on account of poison and the injuries to vital organs. P.W.16 has also spoken the same. P.W.17 was the Scientific Assistant of Forensic Department and he would speak about the Material Objects sent for chemical analysis. 20. P.W.18 was the Revenue Divisional Officer, and he speaks about the inquest conducted over the body of the deceased. P.W.16 has also spoken the same. P.W.17 was the Scientific Assistant of Forensic Department and he would speak about the Material Objects sent for chemical analysis. 20. P.W.18 was the Revenue Divisional Officer, and he speaks about the inquest conducted over the body of the deceased. P.W.19 was the Sub-Inspector of Police of Thoosi Police Station, who on receipt of the complaint under Ex.P1, registered an FIR under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and the FIR was marked as Ex.P13. P.W.20 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancheepupram Taluk Police Station and he speaks about the receipt of the alteration FIR. 21. P.W.21 is the owner of the pawn-broker shop and according to him, the accused came to his shop on 01.04.2007 and pledged Thali chain and two connected jewellery and got a sum of Rs.1,500/- and P.W.21 also issued a receipt. The copy of the receipt was marked as Ex.P19 and the articles recovered were marked as M.Os. 10 and 11. P.W.22 was running a pesticide shop and according to him, the accused came to his shop about two years prior to his deposition and purchased Monocrotopas pesticide and 10 days thereafter, the police brought the accused to his shop and they seized the counterfoils marked as Ex.P20 and P21 under the cover of mahazar Ex.P22. P.W.23 is the Scientific Assistant and as per the chemical analysis report marked as Ex.P23, the pesticide is Monocrotopas. P.W.24 speaks about the taking of FIR to Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station. P.W.25 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who initially conducted the investigation. 22. P.W.26 viz., Revathi would depose that two years prior to the date of her deposition, she was proceeding to Ayyangarkulam and she was nearing the lake at about 10.00 -10.30 a.m. and at that juncture, the accused came and asked her to fetch water and she procured the water from the lake. P.W.26 asked the accused whether he has beaten his wife but the accused did not response to her. In the cross-examination, P.W.26 would depose that what was given in the evidence was in the statement recorded by the police in the course of investigation. P.W.27-Deputy Superintendent of Police who took over the investigation and filed final report. 23. P.W.26 asked the accused whether he has beaten his wife but the accused did not response to her. In the cross-examination, P.W.26 would depose that what was given in the evidence was in the statement recorded by the police in the course of investigation. P.W.27-Deputy Superintendent of Police who took over the investigation and filed final report. 23. The accused was also examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and he denied the same as false. In the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused has also stated that while he was coming via Polytechnic at Ayyankarkulam, somebody has informed him that his wife is found unconscious on the banks of the lake. Immediately, he went there and tried to administer water and since the water did not go inside the mouth of his wife, he proceeded to inform the same to his father-in-law. 24. The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this appeal. 25. Heard submissions of Mr.S.Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for M/s. C.Deivasigamani & M.Chellakkannu, for the appellant/accused and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 26. The questions arose for consideration are: i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt on the part of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? ii) Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is sustainable? 27. Question No.1:- The prosecution to bring home the guilt on the part of the appellant/accused, has heavily placed reliance upon the testimony of P.W.6, P.W.26, and the extra-judicial confession given by the appellant/accused to P.W.13 and recovery. 28. A perusal of the testimony of P.W.6 would reveal that on a particular day in the year 2007, at about 11.00 a.m. he saw the accused along with his child, was rushing and he went to the bank of the lake, he found the wife of the accused was lying unconscious. Admittedly, P.W.6 did not see the accused beating his wife and forcefully administering poison. Admittedly, P.W.6 did not see the accused beating his wife and forcefully administering poison. P.W.26 would depose that when she was proceeding at about 10-10.30 a.m., on the date of occurrence, the accused came and asked her to fetch water and she fetched water from the lake and she found that the wife of the accused was lying. When P.W.26 asked the accused as to whether he has beaten her, he did not reply. 29. The attention of this Court was also drawn to cross-examination of P.W.27 with regard to the contradiction in the testimony of P.W.6 and P.W.26. P.W.27 in his cross-examination would admit that P.W.6 in his statement recorded during investigation did not state about the towel found on the deceased Chandra and also did not state that he switched off the pump set and proceeded to inform the mother of Chandra. As far as P.W.26 is concerned, P.W.27 would depose that P.W.26 during the course of investigation did not state that she fetch water from the lake, gave it to the accused, and did not state with regard to the beating of Chandra by the accused. 30. In the considered opinion of the Court, the contradiction elicited through P.W.27 is a very vital one and P.W.6 and 26 had improved their version from their statements recorded during the course of investigation. 31. P.W.13 was the Village Administrative Officer of Thiruthakudi and according to his testimony, on 11.04.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. the accused appeared before him and voluntarily gave a statement wherein he has admitted the commission of the offence and the statement given by him was marked as Ex.P7 and the special report of P.W.13 was marked as Ex.P8. In the cross-examination, P.W.13 admitted that he did not know the accused earlier and he handed over the accused to the Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station and immediately he was asked to go away and that, the police did not examine him in connection with the case. 32. In the cross-examination, P.W.13 admitted that he did not know the accused earlier and he handed over the accused to the Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station and immediately he was asked to go away and that, the police did not examine him in connection with the case. 32. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture, the offences were said to have been committed on 02.04.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. according to the prosecution and the First Information Report was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at about 18.00 hours on 02.04.2007 and it reached the Court on 03.04.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. Admittedly, the accused did not know P.W.13 as he is a stranger and the prosecution placed heavy reliance upon the extra-judicial confession given by the accused in the form of statement, which was marked as Ex.P7 to sustain their case. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported in AIR 2008 AIR SCW page 4669 –Kusuma Ankama Rao vs. State of A.P. , has considered the scope of conviction on the basis of extra-judicial confession and laid down the following proposition:- “The law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the court is satisfied that it was voluntary and at that stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of the confession, the court may refuse to act upon the confession, even if it is admissible in evidence. One important question, in regard to which the court has to be satisfied with is, whether when the accused made the confession, he was a free man or his movements were controlled by the police either by themselves or through some other agency employed by them for the purpose of securing such a confession. The question whether a confession is voluntary or not is always a question of fact. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak of such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” This Court keeping the principle laid down in the above cited decision, has carefully analysis the case projected by the prosecution. 34. As stated above, the accused did not know P.W.13 and nearly 9 days after the date of occurrence went before him and voluntarily gave confession statement, he reduced the same in to writing under Ex.P7. If the evidence of P.W.13 is subjected to the rigorous test on the touch stone of credibility, in the considered opinion of the Court, it is lacking credibility. It is highly unbelievable that the accused who is totally stranger to the P.W.13, nearly 9 days after the date of occurrence went voluntary before him and gave a confession statement admitting his guilt. It is highly unbelievable that the accused who is totally stranger to the P.W.13, nearly 9 days after the date of occurrence went voluntary before him and gave a confession statement admitting his guilt. According to P.W.13, at the time of surrender of accused before him, two of his Assistants were also present and admittedly, those persons were not examined as witness and it is not made clear as to whether they were examined during the course of investigation. That apart, immediately on production of the accused before the police, P.W.13 was asked to go away and the police did not examine him in connection with the case and this aspect is also create grave doubt in the mind of this Court as to the credibility and reliability of the extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.13. Hence, this Court is of the view, the extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence to bring home the guilt on the part of the accused. 35 Apart from the extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.13, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of P.W.6 and 26. Admittedly, P.W.6 and 26 did not see the commission of the offence. As already extracted above, they improved their version during the course of oral evidence very much free from their statement recorded during investigation and contradictions were elicited through the testimony of P.W.27 who would admit that P.W.6 and 26 did not state the things deposed by them during the course of their oral evidence. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the statement of P.W.6 and 26 were recorded by P.W.27 during the course of investigation on 7.4.2007 and it reached the Court only on 8.4.2007. It is also pertinent to be pointed out at this juncture that the FIR under Ex.P13 which came to be registered at 18.00 hours on 2.4.2007 reached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court at about 10.00 a.m. on 3.4.2007 and the statements of material witnesses viz., P.W.6 and 26 had reached the Court much belatedly. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1974 L.W. (Cri.) page 190 –Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar In re. , has observed as follows:- “We are therefore of the opinion that it is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub Magistrate. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1974 L.W. (Cri.) page 190 –Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar In re. , has observed as follows:- “We are therefore of the opinion that it is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the Sub Magistrate. The Station-House Officer should record the time of the actual despatch of the various documents in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded under S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting therein the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for the Guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrates. The following are documents of special importance, which, in our opinion, should be despatched by the investigating officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt. 1. The original report or complaint under S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The printed form of the first information report prepared on the basis of the said report or complaint. 3. Inquest reports and statements of witnesses recorded during the inquest. 4. Memo sent by the Station House Officers to doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment. 5. Memo sent by the doctor to the police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death memo sent by the doctor to the police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries. 6. Observation mahazars and mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act, etc., prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under S.161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Form No.91 accompanied by material objects. “ 36. 6. Observation mahazars and mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the accused admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act, etc., prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under S.161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Form No.91 accompanied by material objects. “ 36. In the light of the above said ratio, the delay in despatch of FIR as well as certain documents of material witnesses to the Court belatedly, is fatal to the case of the prosecution and no explanation whatsoever has been offered by P.W.27 investigating officer with regard to the said delay. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that even in the receipt seized from the accused with regard to the purchase of pesticide, no signature has been found and no explanation has been offered as to the said lapse. 37. In the considered opinion of the Court, all the above infirmities pointed out, had shaken the foundation laid by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently, the benefit of doubt shall enure in favour of the appellant/accused. 38. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Sessions Judge Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.86 of 2008 dated 25.02.2010 is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.