JUDGMENT Mr. S.NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 34 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 08.02.2009, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay of fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Vellaiammal. The accused is her husband. The accused hails from Ponammal Nagar at Mettupatti Village. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the children of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 are residing at Kulampatti Village in Dindigul District. P.W.5 is the father of the deceased. He was residing at Nallampatti Village at Dindigul District. 3. After the marriage, for about 6 months the deceased was residing with the accused at his house at Mettupatti village and the marital life was peaceful. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused forced the deceased out of his house and wanted her to get money from her parents. By selling a land, the parents of the deceased gave Rs. 15,000/- each to all their daughters. Accordingly, they gave Rs. 15,000/- to the deceased also. Out of the said amount, the deceased had spent Rs. 6,000/- and deposited the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- in the post office account. 4. On one occasion, it is alleged that the accused wanted the deceased to withdraw the amount from the post office. Since she declined, it is alleged that the accused attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. But, even before fire was set, according to the prosecution, she escaped. In this regard a complaint was given to the police. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police summoned the accused and his family members as well as the deceased and her family members for enquiry. During enquiry, the dispute was amicably compromised and therefore, the deceased withdrew the complaint by making a statement under Exhibit P-10. At the police station, the accused assured to take back the deceased along with him. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police summoned the accused and his family members as well as the deceased and her family members for enquiry. During enquiry, the dispute was amicably compromised and therefore, the deceased withdrew the complaint by making a statement under Exhibit P-10. At the police station, the accused assured to take back the deceased along with him. At that time, the deceased was residing along with P.W.1 at Kullampatti village. In pursuance of the compromise reached at the police station, the accused assured to take back the deceased on or before 08.07.2004, after fixing a separate house for them to reside. Accordingly, the deceased again came to the house of P.W.1 and was residing with them. The husband of P.W.1 was then employed in Tiruppur and therefore, he was not available in Kullampatti village. 5. On 13.07.2004, at the house of P.W.1, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased were there. In the evening, on the same day, P.W.1 left for market on account of her business. Thus, P.Ws.2 and 3 and the deceased alone were there. At about 9.00 p.m. on 13.7.2004, the accused came to the house of P.W.1. On his arrival, the deceased enquired with him as to whether he had arranged for a house to live separately. The accused told her that for want of money, he could not make such arrangement. Therefore, he wanted the deceased to withdraw the amount lying in the post office account in her name. This resulted in a wordy duel between them. P.Ws.2 and 3 told them not to quarrel with each other as the matter could be sorted out after the arrival of P.W.1 and her husband. Then, the accused stayed back at the house of P.W.1. 6. On the next day (14.7.2004), P.W.4 came to the house of P.W.1 around 8.00 a.m. By that time P.Ws.2 and 3 were ready to go to their school and therefore, P.W.4 accompanied P.Ws.2 and 3 to the school. Around at 10.30 a.m. when P.W.4 returned to the house of P.W.1, he found the deceased lying dead. But, the accused was not there. Bloodstained froth was oozing out from the mouth of the deceased. He suspected foul play in the death of the deceased. Therefore, he rushed to the local market and informed P.W.1 about the occurrence. 7. Around at 10.30 a.m. when P.W.4 returned to the house of P.W.1, he found the deceased lying dead. But, the accused was not there. Bloodstained froth was oozing out from the mouth of the deceased. He suspected foul play in the death of the deceased. Therefore, he rushed to the local market and informed P.W.1 about the occurrence. 7. P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence along with P.W.4 and she also found the deceased lying dead and the accused was not available. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the house of PW8. PW8 is the Women Self Help Group leader and P.W.1 is a member of the said group. P.W.1 told PW8 about the above incident. Then, a complaint was drafted as dictated by P.W.1. It was drafted by a person who was sitting at the office of P.W.8. Taking the said complaint (Exhibit P-1), P.Ws.1 and 8, went to Dindigul Taluk Police Station and presented the said complaint. 8. P.W.17 was the Special Inspector of Police attached to Dindigul Taluk Police Station. Based on the said complaint preferred by P.W.1, at 4.00 p.m. on 14.7.2004, he registered a case in Cr. No. 816 of 2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Then, he forwarded a copy of the First Information Report to the Revenue Divisional Officer for holding inquest and handed over the case diary to Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation. 9. P.W.18, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, took up the case for investigation at 5.30 p.m. on 14.7.2004. On reaching the place of occurrence, he prepared an Observation Mahazar (Exhibit P-12) and a rough sketch (Exhibit P-13) in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. Then, he recovered the broken bangles of the deceased from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P-3 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. Then, he arranged for the services of a finger print expert and photographer. The finger print expert could not collect any incriminating evidence. 10. On 15.07.2004, P.W.12 the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindugul, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 07.00 a.m. During the said inquest, P.W.12 examined the accused and his family members besides P.Ws. 1 to 4. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 11. P.W.13, Doctor Manoharan, attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.20 a.m. on 15.07.2004. 1 to 4. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 11. P.W.13, Doctor Manoharan, attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.20 a.m. on 15.07.2004. He, noticed the following during post-mortem examination:- “Post-mortem Certificate Regarding the body of a female aged about 23 years, named Vellayammal. Requisition received at 9.50 a.m. on 15.7.2004 from the Bfhl;lhl;rpah;, Dindigul with his letter of L.R.22/04, dated 15.7.2004. Body in charge of Police Constable No. 1453 named Mr.Mandayan. Identification and cast marks: 1.A black mole on left side upper abdomen in the region stomach. 2.A scar on left ankle. The body was first seen by the undersigned at 11.20 a.m. on 15.07.04. Its condition then was rigor mortis present in all four limbs. Post-mortem commenced at 11.20 a.m. on 15.07.2004. Appearance found at the post-mortem: Body of a female moderately nourished, lies on its back. Eyes closed. Tongue inside. Jaws clenched. Teeth 8/8 8/8 External appearance: Intermiled marks seen around the neck extending from back of the neck to the front of the neck 18 cm in length 1 cm breadth with interval of 2 cm. The body was first seen by the undersigned at 11.20 a.m. on 15.07. “Thorax opened. Heart Chambers :Right full, left empty. Lungs, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys are congested. Stomach empty. Hyoid bone intact. Clots present on right horn of the Hyoid bone and left horn of Hyoid bone. Uterus normal. Skull opened; Membrane intact. No fracture. Brain intact. Peticheal (N.C.) present on the brain. The mark present on the neck has parchment like appear on cut Section.” The post-mortem commence at 11.20 a.m. and concluded at 12.20 p.m. on 15.7.2004.” 12. Exhibit P-8 is the post morterm certificate. Exhibit P-9 is the final opinion. He opined that the deceased would have appear to have died of Asphyxia due to throttling. Based on the report of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.12, P.W.18 altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC on 20.7.2004. 13. P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police, Dindigul, took up the case for further investigation from P.W.18. He examined few more witnesses. On 21.07.2004, at 3.30 p.m. at Mottanampatti Railway Gate, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Then, he examined the doctor and collected medical records. On completing the investigation on 15.10.2004, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. 14. He examined few more witnesses. On 21.07.2004, at 3.30 p.m. at Mottanampatti Railway Gate, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Then, he examined the doctor and collected medical records. On completing the investigation on 15.10.2004, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. 14. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded innocence. Therefore, he was put on trial. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited besides 6 material objects. 15. Out of the above-said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated about the motive and that the deceased was residing with her. P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that on 13.07.2004 at 9.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.2 to 4 have further stated that at 8.00 a.m., they left for school and at that time, the deceased and the accused were alone at the home. According to P.W.4, when he returned to the house of P.W.1 at 10.30 a.m. he found the deceased dead and the accused was not available. P.W.13, doctor Manoharan, was opined that the death was due to manual strangulation. The other are official witnesses. 16. When the above incriminating materials, were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. He made a statement before the lower Court that the did not come to the house of P.W.1 on 13.7.2004 at all. He has further stated that on 14.7.2004, when he was elsewhere, he heard about the death of the deceased and therefore, he immediately rushed to the village of P.W.1. He has further stated that immediately he went to the police station to make a complaint. But, he was asked to sit in the police station. He further stated that he was brought to the place of occurrence, when the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted inquest and before the Revenue Divisional Officer, he made a statement that he was not available at the house of P.W.1 at all during the crucial time. According to the accused, he is innocent. 17. Having considered the above, the trial Court rejected the defence put forward by the accused and held that it is the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased. According to the accused, he is innocent. 17. Having considered the above, the trial Court rejected the defence put forward by the accused and held that it is the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the records carefully. 19. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances projected by the prosecution are as follows:- i) There were ill feelings between the deceased and the accused and because of the same, the deceased was residing along with P.W.1 at her house. ii) During enquiry held by P.W.14, on 29.6.2004, the accused assured to take back the deceased to his matrimonial home on or before 8.7.2004 after arranging a separate house for them to reside. iii) On 13.7.2004, at about 9.00 p.m. as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused had come to the house of P.W.1 and there was a quarrel and he stayed over night at the house of P.W.1 iv) On the next day that was on 14.7.2004 at 8.00 a.m., P.W.4 came to the house of P.W.1 and found the accused at the house of P.W.1. v) P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 accompanied by P.W.4 went to the school at 8.30 a.m. and at that time, at the house of P.W.1, the deceased and the accused alone were there. vi) At 10.30 a.m., when P.W.4 came to the house of P.W.1, he found the deceased dead and the accused was not available. vii) According to the medical opinion, the death was due to manual strangulation. viii) The accused was absconding until he was arrested by the police on 21.7.2004. 20. According to the prosecution, all the above circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and by means of these proved circumstances, the prosecution has proved that it was this accused who manually strangulated the deceased to death and thus, he is the murderer. 21. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that most of the circumstances, projected by the prosecution have not been proved. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the accused did not come to the house of P.W.1 on 13.7.2004 at all and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be believed. 21. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that most of the circumstances, projected by the prosecution have not been proved. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the accused did not come to the house of P.W.1 on 13.7.2004 at all and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be believed. He would further contend that the evidence of P.W.4 that when he came to the house of P.W.1, on 14.7.2004, he found the accused at the house of P.W.1, cannot be believed because it is only an improvement in his evidence as he had not at all stated so, when he was examined by the police as well as by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 22. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no explanation for the delay in preferring the complaint. Apart from that, the complaint has been drafted after due deliberation with PW8. He would further add that P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has categorically stated that at the time of inquest, the accused was in the custody of the police and he was produced for the purpose of enquiry only by the police. He has further stated that after the enquiry, the accused was again taken into custody by the police. From this, the learned counsel would contend, that the accused did not abscond and as a matter of fact, on 14.7.2004, on hearing the news that his wife was dead, he went to the police station to make a complaint and he was detained in the police station illegally and thereafter, he was produced by showing that he was arrested on 21.7.2004. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has not all proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 23. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would vehemently oppose this appeal. He would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.2 to 4 are quite natural and their evidence cannot be rejected. He would further submit that of course, there is some delay in preferring the complaint, but such delay would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the conduct of the accused in absconding until 21.7.2004 is an adverse conduct against the accused. He would further submit that of course, there is some delay in preferring the complaint, but such delay would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the conduct of the accused in absconding until 21.7.2004 is an adverse conduct against the accused. From these proved circumstances, according to the prosecution, the case against the accused, has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court do not require any interference at that hands of this Court. 24. We have considered the above submissions. At the out set, we would like to reiterate the law on the subject. It is the law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution should be proved beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should have a close link forming a complete chain so as to point unerringly to the guilt of the accused and there shall be no hypothesis which is consistent with the innocence of the accused. Applying the said principle, let us now analyse the circumstances projected by the prosecution. 25. There is no dispute that due to some misunderstanding the deceased had left the house of the accused and she was residing at the house of P.W.1. This has been spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3, which has been duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.14. Exhibit P-10 is the statement made by the deceased at the police station, before P.W.14, during enquiry in respect of the complaint made by the deceased on 29.6.2004. A reading of Exhibit P-10 would go to show that the dispute was amicably settled between them and the accused assured to take back the deceased to live with him after arranging for a separate house. This circumstance in our considered opinion has been clearly proved by the prosecution. 26. Thereafter, according to P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 on 13.07.2004 at 09.00 a.m. and there was also a quarrel. It is their further evidence that the accused stayed over night. This is seriously disputed by the accused. Again, P.W.4 would state that on 14.07.2004, at 08.00 a.m., he found the accused along with the deceased at the house of P.W.1. It is their further evidence that the accused stayed over night. This is seriously disputed by the accused. Again, P.W.4 would state that on 14.07.2004, at 08.00 a.m., he found the accused along with the deceased at the house of P.W.1. From these circumstances, the prosecution tries to project that the accused and the deceased alone were at home, when the deceased was lastly seen alive. This is very seriously disputed by the accused. According to him, he was not available at the house of P.W.1 at all, during the relevant time. Now, the question is as to whether to believe the evidences of P.Ws. 2 to 4 in this regard. A close scrutiny of cross-examination of the evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that his evidence that he saw the accused at the house of P.W.1 on 14.7.2004 at 8.00 a.m is only an improvement made in his evidence as he did not say so to the police as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer when he was examined. Therefore, no weightage could be given to the evidence of P.W.4 in this regard. Further, he did not tell the police as well as to the Revenue Divisional Officer that the accused was at the house of P.W.1 at 8.00 a.m. on 14.7.2004. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the accused would have been lastly seen in the accompany of the deceased at the house of P.W.1. 27. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.4 immediately informed P.W.1 about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 rushed to the house of P.W.8, who is also a local resident. PW8 is not an illiterate person. She happens to be the President of Self Help Group. It was she who helped the deceased to make complaint against the accused on the earlier occasion. Therefore, she is also not new to the police station. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is hardly 4 kms. But, still the complaint was preferred only at 4.00 p.m. on 14.7.2004. Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why the complaint was not preferred for such a long time between 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. The non explanation of this delay creates enormous doubt in respect of the veracity of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4. 28. But, still the complaint was preferred only at 4.00 p.m. on 14.7.2004. Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why the complaint was not preferred for such a long time between 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. The non explanation of this delay creates enormous doubt in respect of the veracity of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4. 28. Nextly, as we have already pointed out, the prosecution projects the conduct of the accused as the one which is adverse to his defence. According to the prosecution, the accused was absconding till 21.7.2004. But, it is the case of the accused that from 14.7.2004 onwards, he was only in the police station. In this regard, we may refer to the evidence of P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 15.7.2004 at 7.00 a.m. During cross examination, he has stated that the accused was produced before him for the purpose of enquiry only by the police. He has further stated that after the enquiry was over, the accused was again taken into the custody of the police. This would only go to show that the theory put forward by the prosecution that the accused was absconding till 21.7.2004 is nothing but a false story. The defence of the accused that he was in the police station from 14.7.2004 has thus been probablised. 29. In his report under Exhibit P-6, P.W.12 has stated that the accused was examined and he made a long statement and the entire statement of the accused forms part of Exhibit P-5 report. A reading of the statement of the accused made to P.W.12 would go to show that at the earliest point of time, the accused told him that he was not available at the house of the P.W.1 during relevant time and he has further stated that on hearing about the death of his wife, he went to the police station on 14.7.2004 for the purpose of making complaint, but he was detained in the police station. Thus, the defence taken by the accused before the trail Court cannot be stated to be an after thought. At the earliest point of time, even while he was in the custody of the police and produced before P.W.12, he made such a statement. This statement therefore deserves to be given due weightate. Thus, the defence taken by the accused before the trail Court cannot be stated to be an after thought. At the earliest point of time, even while he was in the custody of the police and produced before P.W.12, he made such a statement. This statement therefore deserves to be given due weightate. Such defence taken at the earliest point of time by the accused, has been probablised by the evidence of P.W.12. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance relating to the conduct of the accused as well. 30. From the above narration, we find that the prosecution has proved only few circumstances, such as the deceased was residing with P.W.1, she was found dead on 14.7.2004, at 10.30 a.m. and the death was due to manual strangulation. The other circumstances have not been proved at all by the prosecution. These proved circumstances do not point to the guilt of the accused at all. Thus, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 31. In the result appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul, in S.C. No. 34 of 2006, dated 8.2.2007 are set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge. The bail bond executed if any shall stand discharged and the fine amount paid if any shall be refunded. Appeal allowed.