JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. K. Mohanan, J. 1. The appellant who is undergoing incarceration in pursuance of judgment dated 30/01/2009 in SC No. 603/06 of the Court of Sessions, Palakkad, has come in appeal challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below for the offence under S.302 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that, while the accused, who was the husband of the deceased Asya, was residing along with his wife and one daughter in the house bearing door No. XII / 562 (New No. VI / 422) of Cherplassery Grama Panchayat situated at Four cent colony at Manjakkal in Cherplassery Village, out of suspicion that his wife had illicit affair with other men, with the intention to cause her death, strangled her to death with a cloth in their house at about 1 p.m. on 04/03/2005, and thus the accused had committed the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC. 3. The investigating machinery, according to the prosecution, was set emotion by registering Crime No. 122/05 of Cherplassery Police Station for the offence under S.302 of IPC on giving the FIS by one Showkathali who was examined as PW 4. 4. Thus, consequent to the registration of the above crime, the investigation was undertaken by the then CI, Cherplassery, on 04/03/2005. Accordingly, he proceeded to the place of occurrence accompanied by Scientific Assistant, Tester Inspector, and the department photographer and he prepared inquest on the dead body of deceased Asya. He had also seized MO 1 Maxi, MO 15 underskirt, MO 14 brassier, and MO 11 scarf (muftha) from the body of the deceased as per Ext. P1 inquest. He had also seized a piece of cloth, identified as MO 12, which was found on the south - west corner of verandah on the eastern side of the room where the crime occurred. As per Ext. P1 inquest report, the said Investigating Officer has also seized two hairs from the occurrence room, a piece of rexin smeared with blood were found on the floor near to the left leg of the deceased, the cellophane tape pressings of both the hands and around the neck of the deceased by using cellophane etc. (MO 13) were taken and produced by PW 16 in a cover. The packets containing cellophane prints are marked as MOs. 8, 5, 10 and 9. (MO 13) were taken and produced by PW 16 in a cover. The packets containing cellophane prints are marked as MOs. 8, 5, 10 and 9. Thereafter, according to the Investigating Officer, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination to the District Hospital at Palakkad. He also prepared the scene mahazar in the presence of witnesses. He had also arrested the accused who surrendered in the Cherplassery Police Station at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day and he was subjected to interrogation and his statement was also recorded. According to the Investigating Officer, at the time of arrest of the accused, he had produced his dresses stating that, the same were worn by him at the time of the occurrence and the same were seized after providing cloths for changing the same. The dresses thus seized are MO 2 pants and MO 3 shirt and the same were seized by preparing a mahazar. On the arrest of the accused, he had obtained the cellophane print of both the hands of the accused by using cellophane and the said prints were seized by preparing a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. According to him, he reached the place of occurrence, on the next day of the arrest of the accused, i.e., 05/03/2005 and collected evidence and thereafter the accused was produced before the doctor who was examined as PW 8 for the purpose of taking the scalp hair, body hair and pubic hair of the accused, and accordingly PW 8 took the same and produced before the CI in a cover and the said cover was also seized through mahazar. Thereafter he produced the accused as well as the material objects before the Court. He had also furnished a report before the Court showing the full address of the accused. As per the mahazar, he had also seized the scalp hair, pubic hair and nail clippings of the deceased Asya produced by PW 7 on 08/03/2005. During his investigation, he had questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. 5. The further investigation was undertaken by the then CI of Cherplassery Police Station from 12/07/2005 onwards. On assuming charge of the investigation in Crime No. 122/05, he prepared a forwarding note and filed the same before the Court for sending the material objects for chemical examination. He also got prepared the site plan through the Village Officer. 5. The further investigation was undertaken by the then CI of Cherplassery Police Station from 12/07/2005 onwards. On assuming charge of the investigation in Crime No. 122/05, he prepared a forwarding note and filed the same before the Court for sending the material objects for chemical examination. He also got prepared the site plan through the Village Officer. He also made request before the Secretary, Cherplassery Grama Panchayat to obtain the possession certificate of the house where the occurrence had taken place. Thereafter, he continued the investigation during which he had also questioned certain witnesses and on completing the investigation, he laid the charge in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - Ottappalam. 6. On receiving such police charge, the learned Magistrate has instituted CPNo. 78/06 and subsequently, by order dated 26/10/2006, the learned Magistrate by his proceedings in CP No. 78/06 committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein SC No. 603/06 was instituted. As the accused was under detention as a pre - trial prisoner, the learned Judge has appointed Sri. K. Sasidharan, an advocate to defend the accused as State Brief. Thus after hearing both the prosecution as well as the accused, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC, which when read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same, consequent to which, the trial was proceeded further, during which PWs 1 to 17 were examined and Exts. P1 to P15 were marked from the side of the prosecution. Besides the above, MOs 1 to 15 material objects were also identified and marked from the side of the prosecution. On completing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under S.313 of CrPC and when the incriminating circumstances and evidence, brought out in the prosecution evidence, were put to the accused, he denied the same. Finally when he was asked by the Court that whether he had to say anything more, he stated that, he was innocent and he was suffering from certain ailments. As there was no scope to acquit the accused under S.232 of CrPC, the Trial Court asked the defence to adduce evidence if any under S.233 of CrPC and thus, one Abhilash was examined as DW 1 and Exts. D1 to D4 were also marked from the side of the defence. Besides the above, one Dr. As there was no scope to acquit the accused under S.232 of CrPC, the Trial Court asked the defence to adduce evidence if any under S.233 of CrPC and thus, one Abhilash was examined as DW 1 and Exts. D1 to D4 were also marked from the side of the defence. Besides the above, one Dr. Thomas K. P. was examined as CW 1. Finally, after considering the evidence and materials on record, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has concluded that the accused has committed murder of his wife Asya in his house at 1 p.m. on 04/03/2005 and consequently held that the prosecution has succeeded to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder of his wife Asya - the deceased and accordingly he was found guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC and thus convicted thereunder. After hearing the accused on the question of sentence, the learned Judge of the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under S.302 of IPC. Set off was allowed under S.428 of CrPC. Challenging the above findings, the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the accused had preferred the above appeal from the jail where he is undergoing imprisonment. 7. After condoning the delay that occurred in filing this appeal, when the appeal came up for admission on 06/04/2011 and while admitting the appeal, this Court directed the Registry to appoint a State Brief. Subsequently, Adv. Alex M. Scaria, by filing a vakalath had entered appearance for the appellant. Thus we heard Sri. Alex M. Scaria, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Praicy Joseph, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced several contentions assailing the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor, stoutly opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and pleaded for dismissal of the above appeal. Before considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that, it is apposite to refer to the evidence and materials on record to come into a right conclusion on the basis of the arguments advanced in the above appeal. 9. Before considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that, it is apposite to refer to the evidence and materials on record to come into a right conclusion on the basis of the arguments advanced in the above appeal. 9. We will firstly refer to the FIS, which is the basic document upon which the investigation was said to have started on registering the crime. It is seen recorded on the top of the above FIS that, it was given by one Showkathali, aged 40 years, S/o. Ibrahim, residing at Kurutholavalappil house, in Four cent Colony, at Manjackal Aanaparambu in Cherplassery amsom desom, in Ottappalam Taluk, at about 13.45 hours on 04/03/2005 before Mr. M. P. Sivadasan, the SI of Cherplassery Police Station. It is stated that the informant is doing poultry business and he came to the Police Station to furnish the information about the murder of one Asya, W/o. Cholackal Ali, who was residing adjacent to the house of the informant. He deposed that, he was residing along with his family for the last 5 months at Four cent colony at Aanaparambu, Cherplassery Manjakkal. According to him, adjacent to his house, the accused Ali and his wife Asya were residing along with their second daughter named Aleema, who was a beedi worker and she returns to the house after her work in the evening hours. In day time, only Ali and Asya were available in the house. He had further deposed that, on 04/03/2005 by 1 p.m., while he was coming to his house in an autorickshaw after his work, he found Ali, the accused, was going hurriedly along the road in his opposite direction and some people in the colony along with one Raju, a resident of the colony, were running after the accused Ali and when he asked the said Raju about the matter, it was told that they were going to catch the accused since the accused was leaving after quarrelling with his wife Asya and PW 4 got down at the Four cent colony near to his house. According to the deponent, himself and the said Raju followed Ali to a certain distance and they had gone upto the petty bunk shop of one Warrier, but Ali could not be found out and accordingly they returned to their houses. According to the deponent, himself and the said Raju followed Ali to a certain distance and they had gone upto the petty bunk shop of one Warrier, but Ali could not be found out and accordingly they returned to their houses. Thereafter, he saw his wife Sumayya, and wife of one Ali, who was a head load worker residing in the nearby house and the wife of one Vavu etc. in the Courtyard of the house of the said Ali, the accused. He proceeded to his wife and on asking her, he was told that Asya was found lying lifeless in the house of Ali and at about 12.45 p.m., she heard an outcry from the house of Ali 2-3 times, screaming that she will be killed and at that time, his wife was in the house of her aunt named Ummu. The deponent further stated that, by 1 p.m., his wife, on seeing Ali, who was quickly going out of his house after closing the doors, went to the backside of the house of Ali along with others and through the window they found Asya lying lifeless inside the house. Thereafter, according to the deponent, when he looked inside the house through the backside window, he had seen Asya lying dead and immediately he got inside the house after opening the front side door and he was convinced that Asya was murdered. He deposed that, he had noticed oozing of blood from the mouth of the deceased Asya and also found a ligature mark of cloth on the neck. According to the deponent, frequent quarrels occurred between Asya and Ali, on the suspicion that Asya had illicit relationship with other men and out of that reason and enmity, the accused Ali committed murder of his wife Asya by strangulating her neck by using a cloth, and the said occurrence was at about 1 p.m. on 04/03/2005. The deponent also requested to take appropriate steps in the matter. He had also informed that, the body of the deceased Asya was lying inside the house. It is seen recorded that the accused Ali was aged about 50 years and the deceased Asya was at the age of about 48 years. 10. Now, we will refer to the depositions of witnesses. PW 1 is an attestor to the inquest prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is seen recorded that the accused Ali was aged about 50 years and the deceased Asya was at the age of about 48 years. 10. Now, we will refer to the depositions of witnesses. PW 1 is an attestor to the inquest prepared by the Investigating Officer. When he was examined, he had deposed that he was a resident of Nellaya. He got acquaintance with deceased Asya who was residing along with her husband, who is the accused in this case (He identified the accused in the box), at the Four cent colony at Manjakal. According to him, he was a Grama Panchayat member representing the Panchayat ward covering the area of the said Four cent colony. On getting information as to the death of Asya, he went to the Four cent colony and at that time, the police and others were present in the house of the accused and he witnessed the inquest conducted by the police on the body of the deceased and accordingly he put his signature in the inquest report and he identified the signature in it and the inquest report was marked as Ext. P1. 11. PW 2 is the younger sister of the deceased Asya. According to her, she along with her husband was residing at Karakkat and the deceased was residing at Manjakkal colony along with her husband. She had also deposed that the deceased and her husband had 3 daughters. The elder daughter Noorjahan was residing at Krishnagiri after her marriage and the second daughter Aleema was residing along with the accused and the deceased and the third daughter Faseena was a student and was residing at the parental house of the deceased. According to PW 2, her sister Asya - the deceased used to tell her that, the accused used to pick up quarrel with her and threaten the deceased with death, on his suspicion that his wife had illicit affairs with other men. As per the version of PW 2, the deceased was murdered on 04/03/2005. On getting information that her sister was not well, PW 2 along with her husband reached the house of the deceased and the accused, and the deceased was found lying dead in the house. There was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and she came to know that the accused strangled his wife. On getting information that her sister was not well, PW 2 along with her husband reached the house of the deceased and the accused, and the deceased was found lying dead in the house. There was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and she came to know that the accused strangled his wife. According to her, the deceased was wearing a maxi and she identified the same and marked it as MO 1. During the cross - examination, she deposed that she reached the house of diseased Asya after 3 p.m. on the date of the incident. The Police came to her house and questioned her after 2-3 days of the incident and the statement so recorded was not read over to her and at the time of recording the statement, her sister in law and children, and the children of Asya and PW 2's mother were available in the house. According to her, on seeing the body of the diseased, she realised that her sister was strangulated by the accused and she does not know as to who said to her that the diseased Asya was strangulated. She did not see the mundu (dhothi) used for strangulation. On several occasion, Asya told her that she could not live along with Ali. According to her, Asya was sure that the accused would murder her. PW 2 has also deposed that, it was Ali (the accused) who had given the elder daughter in marriage. According to her, the diseased Asya has not committed suicide and it is incorrect to say that Asya's family was trying to convert suicide into a murder. Though there was no re - examination from the part of the prosecutor, the Court has put certain questions to PW 2 and accordingly she deposed that, she was residing in a short distance from the house of the diseased and she used to see the deceased at least once in a month. According to her, After the marriage of the deceased, more than 25 years are over. 12. PW 3, examined by the prosecution, is the sister in law of the deceased. When PW 3 was examined, she deposed that she is residing at Vallappuzha and she knew the deceased who is the sister of her husband and the accused is the husband of the deceased. 12. PW 3, examined by the prosecution, is the sister in law of the deceased. When PW 3 was examined, she deposed that she is residing at Vallappuzha and she knew the deceased who is the sister of her husband and the accused is the husband of the deceased. According to her, one week prior to the death of the deceased, she came to her house and resided along with them for five days and returned to her house by 8.30 a.m. on Tuesday (Asya died on Friday, i.e., on 04/03/2005). According to her, she came to know about the death of Asya after 1p.m. on 04/03/2005. She deposed that, the deceased used to tell them that Ali, the accused was in the habit of ill treating and manhandling her and she was fed up of her life and the accused has a second wife. PW 3 has also stated that the deceased told them that, she will be ousted from the house as the accused threatened to bring his second wife to the house and he often beat her. According to her, she went to the house of the deceased at 5 p.m. on the date of the incident and she did not attempt to see the dead body. The police has not questioned anything at that time, but subsequently questioned. During the cross - examination, she admitted that in the statement given to the police, she had deposed that the accused Ali had told that his second wife will be brought to the house for lodging. She has also deposed that she does not remember whether the said matter was stated to the Police or not. She does not remember as to whether she had deposed before the police that prior to the death, the deceased came to her house and resided for 5 days. She admitted that all the above facts were deposed for the first time in the Court. According to PW 3, she did not enter the house of the accused on the date of death of the deceased and that she came to knew the fact that, the accused had committed murder of the deceased. 13. PW 4 was the next witness examined by the prosecution who allegedly gave the first information statement before the police. According to PW 3, she did not enter the house of the accused on the date of death of the deceased and that she came to knew the fact that, the accused had committed murder of the deceased. 13. PW 4 was the next witness examined by the prosecution who allegedly gave the first information statement before the police. During the chief examination, he deposed that he is residing at Manjakkal Four cent colony and he knew the deceased Asya and that the accused was her husband. He identified the accused. He deposed that the deceased died about 3 years back of giving his deposition in the Court and he was not remembering the exact date of occurrence. According to him, he was having poultry business at Cherplassery. He deposed that on the date of occurrence, while he was coming to his house in an autorickshaw during the noon time, the accused was found going hurriedly along the road in the opposite direction and one Raju, a resident of the colony, was also found running after the accused Ali and he proceeded and alighted in the courtyard of his house and he saw some people gathered in the vicinity of the house of the accused. According to PW 4, when he asked the said Raju about the matter, he asked him to follow the accused and to catch him and thus himself and the said Raju followed Ali to a certain distance and they went upto the petty bunk shop of one Warrier, but the accused Ali could not be located and accordingly they returned. As per his version, at that time, the accused was wearing a pants and shirt and the same can be identified at sight. It is recorded that the pants was shown to the witness and he identified the same and it is marked as MO 2 and the shirt was also shown to him, and he deposed that the same was worn by the accused at the relevant time and it was marked as MO 3. According to him, he went to the house of the deceased and had seen the deceased lying supine in a room and blood was oozing from her mouth. He had further deposed that after the arrival of the Police, he entered inside the room and he saw a piece of cloth lying in the room. According to him, he went to the house of the deceased and had seen the deceased lying supine in a room and blood was oozing from her mouth. He had further deposed that after the arrival of the Police, he entered inside the room and he saw a piece of cloth lying in the room. The house of the accused is the fourth one to his house and it could be seen from his house. According to him, the accused, the deceased Asya and their daughter were residing together in the house and the said daughter was a beedi worker and was engaged from morning till evening and he had never been to their house, since there occurred frequent quarrel. According to him, the deceased was found lying dead in the house. When he reached the place of occurrence, among the people gathered, he saw his wife also and she told him that between the hours of 12.45 and 1 p.m., she heard a hue and cry from the house of the deceased. On the next day of the incident, the Police brought the accused to the house. He further deposed that, he was unaware as to how the family life of the accused and the deceased was. He went to the Police Station and gave statement and put his signature, and when the same was shown to him he identified the signature in the FIS, which was marked as Ext. P2. In the chief examination, he deposed that he had not deposed before the Court about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. According to PW 4, the accused was suspicious of his wife / the deceased that she used to talk to other men etc. According to him, the police has recorded his statement. 14. During the cross - examination, PW 4 has stated that the distance from his house to the house of the accused would come to 200 mtrs. and his house is situated on the southern side of the pathway. He also deposed that, the distance from his house to the main road would come to ¾ kms. and that his shop is situated in the Town, 2½ kms. away from his house and the shop was closed down at 12 noon and the particular incident was occurred on one Friday. He also deposed that, the distance from his house to the main road would come to ¾ kms. and that his shop is situated in the Town, 2½ kms. away from his house and the shop was closed down at 12 noon and the particular incident was occurred on one Friday. According to him, he came to his house after 12.30 p.m. on closing the shop for changing his dress and purchasing grocery to his house and at that time, he saw the accused running through the Panchayat road (it was not a tarred road), passing through the shop of one Warrier and he saw the accused before he reached the said shop. According to PW 4, he found nothing unusual in seeing the accused running and he straight away went to his house. It was further deposed that when he alighted in front of the house, Raju rushed towards his house and asked him whether he had seen Ali, the accused, who had fled away. According to PW 4, he had more or less seen the dress worn by the accused and he noticed the colour of the dress and he had worn a pants of sandal colour. As per his version, himself and Raju rushed up to the shop of Warrier, but the accused was not seen and he did not enquire with the said Warrier, who was inside the house and nobody was present in the shop. Thereafter, they came back to the house of the deceased and he stood among the crowd. He looked through the window of the house, since the doors were bolted and those doors were pushed open by the police. He had categorically deposed that before the arrival of the police men - 3 in numbers, nobody has entered inside the house. One cloth was seen lying near to the dead body and the body was lying on the floor in a supine position. PW 4 had further deposed that he went to the Police Station in the evening of the fatal day and he put his signature in Ext. P2 FIS between 9 and 10 p.m., but the contents of Ext. P2 were not read over to him. PW 4 had further deposed that he went to the Police Station in the evening of the fatal day and he put his signature in Ext. P2 FIS between 9 and 10 p.m., but the contents of Ext. P2 were not read over to him. According to him, he gave the details connecting the incident to the police and he deposed those facts that were within his knowledge and the matters that were told to him by his wife. He denied the suggestion that, in Ext. P2, he has not stated that he watched the situation after entering into the house and he has also not stated before the police in the following way: "When I looked inside the house through the backside window, I saw Asya lying dead. Immediately I got inside the house after opening the front side door and I was convinced that Asya was murdered". He denied the suggestion that, he stated before the police that, on 04/03/2005 at 1 o'clock in the noon while he was coming to his house in an autorickshaw, after his poultry business and when alighted at the Four cent colony near his house, the accused was seen running faster in his opposite direction and just behind him one Raju, a resident of the colony, and some people in the locality were also seen following him. He had specifically deposed before the Court during cross - examination that, he had never given any details, about the dress worn by the accused, before the police. He had further deposed that he has no specific knowledge about the whereabouts of the accused. According to him, the dead body of the deceased was removed from the room by the police by 8 p.m. on that particular day itself. It was also deposed that no statement was given to the police other than the one given on the date of occurrence. He never stated that the cloth piece found inside the house was having blood stain. During the re - examination, he deposed that as he was not having a watch, the time mentioned in the documents was only an approximate one. 15. PW 5 is a resident of Manjakkal Four cent colony wherein the accused as well as the deceased were residing. She deposed that she knew the deceased Asya and the death of Asya was about three years back. 15. PW 5 is a resident of Manjakkal Four cent colony wherein the accused as well as the deceased were residing. She deposed that she knew the deceased Asya and the death of Asya was about three years back. According to her, the deceased, her husband and their daughter were residing together and her house is the third one from the house of the deceased and the accused. The witness has further deposed that their daughter used to go for work. There occurred frequent quarrel between the accused Ali and his wife, since the accused was suspicious of his wife. She further deposed that on the date of her death at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased came to her house to obtain matchstick and PW 5 gave the same and she had gone with the same. PW 5 deposed that, by 12.30 hours, the accused was seen going outside his house and both sides of the house of the deceased were found closed and therefore she called the deceased but there was no reply, and then she looked through the window of the house and she found the deceased lying dead and blood was also found in the body. She and one Rasheeda cried aloud and then people assembled. She deposed that she was not having any kind of attachment with the house of the deceased and she went to the house, since the deceased was not found outside even after her calling. According to her, the police asked about the matter and she deposed that, the accused fled away at about 1 p.m. and she heard the sound of the deceased saying, "I am being killed" at about 12.30-12.45 in the noon time and she went there after some time. 16. During the cross - examination, PW 5 has stated that the house of the deceased is situated about 60 mtrs. away from her house. The name of her husband is Ali and in between their house there is another house. She is residing in the said house for the last 5 years. However, it is seen recorded in the deposition of PW 5 to the effect that she was not residing there before the occurrence. She had also deposed that the police questioned her after 2-3 days of the date of occurrence. She had denied the suggestion that she chatted with the deceased for half an hour. However, it is seen recorded in the deposition of PW 5 to the effect that she was not residing there before the occurrence. She had also deposed that the police questioned her after 2-3 days of the date of occurrence. She had denied the suggestion that she chatted with the deceased for half an hour. She had also stated that she has not deposed or given statement to the police in the following way: "The deceased, after arriving in her house at about 11.30 p.m., had demanded matchsticks and they had small talk for half an hour and thereafter the deceased had gone with the matchsticks to her house". As the witness contradicted her 161 statement, the same was marked as Ext. D1. She also denied the fact that, she deposed before the police about the screaming made by herself and Rasheeda and the police has not asked about the same, and that she deposed it before the Court for the first time. She has also deposed that the deceased used to tell her that she was fed up with her life and she wants to put an end to the same. According to PW 5, the accused used to go out of the house during noon time on Fridays, but she does not know whether he was going to the Mosque or not. She also admitted that the time mentioned in the documents was only approximate and she had not stated the exact time on the watch. However, PW 5 has categorically deposed before the Court that she went to the house of the deceased under the impression that the accused was not likely to be present in the house and that she did not hear any cry before her going to the house of the deceased. According to her, she does not know how the deceased Asya died and whether she died by hanging or not etc. When she reached the house of the deceased, nobody was present there and the Police came in the noon itself. In the reexamination, PW 5 deposed that, a screaming was heard from the house of the deceased. After the re examination, the Court put certain questions and accordingly she answered the same. It is recorded that, after she heard the screaming of the deceased, she saw the accused going out of the house. 17. In the reexamination, PW 5 deposed that, a screaming was heard from the house of the deceased. After the re examination, the Court put certain questions and accordingly she answered the same. It is recorded that, after she heard the screaming of the deceased, she saw the accused going out of the house. 17. PW 6 is an attestor to the scene mahazar prepared by the CI of Police, the Investigating Officer. PW 6 deposed that he is a resident of Four cent colony and he knew the accused who is a local man. According to him, the accused, his wife and children were residing in that house and after the occurrence, the police came to their house and prepared a mahazar and he put his signature in it as a witness and he identified the signature in the document shown to him and the scene mahazar was marked as Ext. P3. During the cross - examination, he deposed that he does not know what had written in Ext. P3. 18. PW 7 is the then District Police Surgeon attached to the District Hospital, Palakkad, during the relevant time and it was he who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Asya, aged 48 years, involved in Crime No. 122/05 of Cherplassery Police Station. He had noted the following post - mortem findings: "A. General: Body of moderately built and nourished female of length 149 cm. Face lived. Eyes slightly open, cornea hazy, conjunctivae intensely congested with extensive sub-conjunctival hemorrhage on both sides. Dried blood stains seen on nose, around mouth and on both cheeks. Rigor mortis established and retained all over the body. Post - mortem staining on back or trunk, fixed. (Body was kept in freezer at 08.45 p.m. on 04/03/2005). B. Neck: A fresh pressure abrasion of size 29.5 x 3.4 to 4.5 cm. is seen transversely all around neck, placed at one below thyroid cartilage in midline front of neck, 6.5 cm. below chin (breadth 3.4 cm.) 4.5 cm. below right ear lobule (breadth 3.6 cm.); 4.5 cm. below left ear louble (breadth 3.5 cm.) and 2.5 cm. above root of neck in midline back of neck (breadth 4.5 cm.). There was marked congestion of skin on front and sides of neck in the region of the pressure abrasion. below chin (breadth 3.4 cm.) 4.5 cm. below right ear lobule (breadth 3.6 cm.); 4.5 cm. below left ear louble (breadth 3.5 cm.) and 2.5 cm. above root of neck in midline back of neck (breadth 4.5 cm.). There was marked congestion of skin on front and sides of neck in the region of the pressure abrasion. The skin along the base and edges of the pressure abrasion showed patchy areas of contusions on front and right side. Flap dissection of neck in bloodless field showed thick infiltration of blood in the subcutaneous tissues underneath the pressure abrasion. Blood infiltrations were also seen in the strap muscles of neck on right side, underneath the pressure abrasion. The thyroid cartilage showed a midline fracture with infiltration of blood around. The right superior horn of thyroid cartilage was also fracture separated with infiltration of blood around. Multiple superficial contusions were seen along the root of tongue. The pharyngeal mucosa was congested with multiple petechial. The hyoid bone and cricoid cartilage were intact. The cervical vertebral column was intact." 19. According to PW 7, the viscera and blood was preserved for chemical analysis, the vaginal swap to look for semen, pubic and scalp hair samples to look for foreign hairs and for comparison and nail clippings to look for foreign particles were taken by him. As per his opinion, the deceased had died due to ligature strangulation. He identified before the Court his signature in the postmortem certificate and accordingly the same was marked as Ext. P4. He had also deposed that injuries in the neck were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When a piece of cloth that seized by the police and produced before the Court was shown to PW 7, he deposed that, that piece of cloth could be used to cause ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. She had also stated that, pubic and scalp hairs were taken for identifying foreign hairs and all that were handed over to the CI. When one packet was shown to him, he admitted that the same was handed over by him to the police, which contains the seal and label with his signature and the packet was marked as MO 4. When one packet was shown to him, he admitted that the same was handed over by him to the police, which contains the seal and label with his signature and the packet was marked as MO 4. When a bottle from MO 4 was taken out, he deposed that the same contains pubic hair of the deceased and the bottle was marked as MO 4(a). Another bottle from MO 4 was taken out and he identified the same which contains scalp hair and the said bottle was marked as MO 4(b). Another bottle was also taken out of MO 4 and the same contains nail clippings which was marked as MO 4(c). During the cross - examination, PW 7 had deposed that the ante mortem injuries mentioned in Ext. P4 might have occurred within few hours prior to death or immediately after the death. Injury nos. 2 to 7 were not received due to falling and injury nos. 2 and 3 could be caused by nail and that there was possibility of causing much more contused abrasions in case of falling from a height on a rough floor and that injury would show the possibility of assault on the victim and all the indications point towards death by ligature strangulation and in case of hanging, leaking of blood is not immediate and that happened in some cases. There was no serious cross - examination on PW 7 but the suggestions that were put to him were duly denied by him. 20. PW 8, Dr. V. Radha, was then working as Assistant Surgeon attached to Community Health Centre, Cherplassery. According to her, on 05/03/2005, the accused in this case was brought before her by the CI Cherplassery. On the request made by the CI, she took scalp hair, pubic hair and nail clippings of the accused and the same were taken in separate packets and all the packets were sealed and handed over to the CI. When a packet was shown to her, she deposed that, the said packet contains the scalp hair of the accused and that packet was marked as MO 5, which contains scalp hair. Thereafter, another packet was shown to her and she deposed that the said packet contains the body hair of the accused and that packet was marked as MO 6. Thereafter, another packet was shown to her and she deposed that the said packet contains the body hair of the accused and that packet was marked as MO 6. When the next packet shown to the witness, she deposed that the said packet contains the pubic hair, which was marked as MO 7. She deposed that the nail clippings were not taken and all the packets were sealed and entrusted with the CI. 21. PW 9 was then working as Police Constable in the Cherplassery Police Station. According to him, at about 7.30 p.m. on 04/03/2005, one person named Ali had surrendered before the Cherplassery CI and at that point of time, he was available in the Station. He pointed out the person standing in the box as the said person - the accused. He further deposed that, the said person told the CI that he strangled his wife and he heard the same. The accused had also stated that the pants and shirt that he was wearing at the time of his surrender before the police, were worn by him at the time of the incident and the said shirt was green in colour having cream lines in it and when it was shown to him, he identified the same and accordingly the same is marked as MO 3 and the pants was cream in colour and he identified the same, which is marked as MO 2. According to PW 9, another dress was given to him for changing and the dresses worn by the accused at the time of occurrence were seized by the CI as per the mahazar and he put his signature as a witness. When the records shown to him, he identified his signature and thus the mahazar was marked as Ext. P5. According to PW 9, the finger prints of the right hand and the right palm as well as the finger prints of the left hand and the left palm of the accused were taken and the same were put in separate covers and sealed. The covers shown to the witness wherein it was seen recorded as S - 7. He identified the right hand prints and accordingly the same was marked as Ext. P6. The covers shown to the witness wherein it was seen recorded as S - 7. He identified the right hand prints and accordingly the same was marked as Ext. P6. Another cover was shown to him wherein it was written as S - 8 and he deposed that the same contains the left hand print and the said cover was marked as Ext. P7. According to PW 9, the above referred Exts. P6 and P7 covers were also seized as per Ext. P5 mahazar. On 05/03/2005, at about 2.30 p.m., the accused Ali was taken by the CI and produced before Dr. V. Radha, Assistant Surgeon attached to Cherplassery CHC, and he had also gone along with the CI. He deposed that the doctor took the scalp hair, pubic hair and body hair of the deceased and the same were packed in separate covers and entrusted with the CI and the covers were sealed and the same were also seized by preparing a mahazar in which he had put his signature and thus Ext. P8 mahazar is marked through him. He had also identified MOs 5, 6 and 7. 22. During the cross - examination PW 9 has deposed that his statement was recorded on 04/03/2005. He had also deposed that he does not know whether the accused surrendered in the Police Station after the registration of the crime against him and he came to know that Ali was the accused as told by the CI and he gave the statement as instructed by the CI He had also deposed that he does not remember as to whether any strangers were present in the Police Station when the accused surrendered. According to him, CI told him that the arrest of the accused was recorded at 7.30 p.m. but he had not witnessed the arrest of the accused. If it is seen recorded in the statement that he had seen the arrest of the accused the same is incorrect. PW 9 deposed that he joined duty at 9.30 a.m. and he was not deputed to attend the place of occurrence. He deposed that, he does not remember the colour of the dress given to the accused for changing and whether the accused was taken out after wearing the substitute dress given. 23. PW 10 is the daughter of the accused as well as the deceased. He deposed that, he does not remember the colour of the dress given to the accused for changing and whether the accused was taken out after wearing the substitute dress given. 23. PW 10 is the daughter of the accused as well as the deceased. She deposed that she was residing along with her husband at Krishnagiri and she identified the accused standing in the box as her father. According to her, while her parents were residing at Manjakkal Four cent colony, her mother the deceased Asya - died about 3 years back. She deposed that, she was also residing at the said house prior to her marriage and that her father used to pick up quarrel with her mother on suspicion that her mother had illicit relationship with other men. According to her, one month prior to the death of her mother, she came to the house at Manjakkal and at that time also, her father was quarrelling with her mother and the quarrel was on the basis of the allegation of illicit connection of her mother with other men. As per her version, her mother was in good relationship with the people in the locality. She had also deposed that she arrived at the place of occurrence, i.e., the house in question, after the body of her deceased mother was taken for burial and she reached there on getting a phone message that her mother was killed by her father. Her younger sister was working in a beedi company and she was going for work at 7 o'clock in the morning and returns at 6 o'clock in the evening and during the day time, only her parents were present in the house. During the cross - examination, PW 10 had deposed that the Police has not recorded her statement. She had also deposed that she never deposed before the Police that she came to her home land one month prior to the death of her mother and the same was deposed for the first time before the Court. According to him, her marriage was arranged by her parents, which was prior to 2 years of the death of her mother and her younger sister was residing in the house of their grandmother considering the convenience of her studies. It was also deposed by PW 10 that her youngest sister was residing along with her parents. According to him, her marriage was arranged by her parents, which was prior to 2 years of the death of her mother and her younger sister was residing in the house of their grandmother considering the convenience of her studies. It was also deposed by PW 10 that her youngest sister was residing along with her parents. According to her, her mother had never expressed her dissatisfaction towards life and she had only hearsay knowledge about the death of her mother. 24. PW 11 was then working as Assistant Director, Biology, Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. During his chief examination he had deposed that, on 01/08/2005 a parcel was received from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam, in connection with Crime No. 122/05 of Cherplassery Police Station. According to him, the sealed parcel consisted of nineteen (19) sealed packets sealed with impressions of a seal corresponding with the specimen seal impression forwarded. The seals were intact and the packets consist of 19 items. He examined all the items except item Nos. 6, 9 to 11 and he had issued the report, which bears his signature and office seal. The report is marked as Ext. P9. The following results of examination are mentioned in the report. "1. The hairs in items 1 and 2 are human scalp hair which are similar to sample scalp hairs in item No. 19(a). 2. The cellophane tapes in items 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13 contain fibres similar to those in items 7 and 8. 3. The nail clippings in item No. 19(e) contained fibre similar to those in item No. 15." According to PW 11, for the examination of blood, item Nos. 6 to 11, 14 and 15 were forwarded to the Serology division of the laboratory and the report on the same submitted by the Asst. Director, Serology division, was attached with his report, which was signed by the Asst. Director, Serology Division, and the report is marked as Ext. P9(a). She deposed in the following way: "In the said report in item no. 2, the actual number is 13, which was mistakenly typewritten as 23. Item Nos. 1 and 2 had been completely utilised for examination. Result No. 2 would show that the sample of item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13 had contact with items seven and eight. The source of item No. 19(c) had a contact with item No. 15. 2, the actual number is 13, which was mistakenly typewritten as 23. Item Nos. 1 and 2 had been completely utilised for examination. Result No. 2 would show that the sample of item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13 had contact with items seven and eight. The source of item No. 19(c) had a contact with item No. 15. The MO shown to her was item No. 3 in the report. Seal impression of the lab was present over it. Item No. 3 in Ext. P9 report is marked as MO 8. MO 5 is item No. 16. MO 6 is item No. 17 and MO 7 is item No. 18 in Ext. P9 report. The packet shown to her in item No. 5 is Ext. P9 report. It is marked as MO 9. The cover shown to her in item No. 4 in her report, is marked as MO 10. Black scarf shown to her is item No. 7 in Ext. P9, which is marked as MO 11. Rose coloured cloth piece shown to her is item No. 8 in Ext. P9. It is marked as MO 12. Ext. P6 is item No. 12 in her report (Ext. P9). Ext. P7 is item No. 13 in her report. MO 3 shirt is item No. 14 in her report. MO 2 pants is item No. 15 in Ext. P9. MO 4(a) bottle is item No. 19(b) in Ext. P9. MO 4(b) is item No. 19(a) in Ext. P9. MO 4(c) is item No. 19(c) in Ext. P9. MO 4(a), MO 4(b) and MO 4(c) and other items mentioned above contain the seal of the lab. MO 4(a), (b) and (c) were received the Lab in MO 4 packet". 25. During cross - examination, PW 11 had deposed as follows: "Only one sample of nail clipping was received. She had not examined the samples for the presence of blood. The nail clippings were not forwarded to Serology Dept. as there was no request for detection of presence of blood. Blood was detected in the pants and shirt forwarded. Item Nos. 3 and 4 were examined for the presence of fibres only. Items 12 and 13 were examined for presence fibres only". 26. PW 12 was then working as Assistant Director, Serology Division in Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. PW 12 was not subjected to cross - examination. Blood was detected in the pants and shirt forwarded. Item Nos. 3 and 4 were examined for the presence of fibres only. Items 12 and 13 were examined for presence fibres only". 26. PW 12 was then working as Assistant Director, Serology Division in Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. PW 12 was not subjected to cross - examination. During chief examination, he deposed in the following way: "On 21/11/2005, a parcel was received from the Assistant Director of Biology Division in connection with Crime No. 122/2005 of Cherplassery Police Station. The parcel consisted of four sealed and 4 unsealed packets. The sealed packets were sealed with the impressions of a seal corresponding with the specimen seal impression. The seals were intact. The packets contained item Nos. 6 to 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 in Ext. P9. All these items were examined in the laboratory by using standard scientific techniques. The result of examination are: 1. Item No. 8 contains human blood. 2. Item No. 2 contains blood. No opinion with regard the origin of blood is possible, as the result was inconclusive. 3. Blood could not be detected on items 7, 9 to 11, 14 and 15. The Report is prepared by PW 12, which bears her signature and seal [already marked as Ext. P9(a)]. Item No. 6 in Exts. P9 and P9(a) was shown to her, that contains a piece of rexin. It is marked as MO 13. She identified MO 11 scarf as item No. 7 in Ext. P9(a), MO 12 as item no. 8 in Ext. P9(a), MO 1 as item No. 9 in Ext. P9(a), MO 14 brassier as item No. 10 in Ext. P9(a), MO 15 underskirt as item No. 11 in Ext. P9(a), MO 3 shirt as item No. 14 in Ext. P9(a) and MO 2 pants as item No. 15 in Ext. P9(a)." 27. PW 13 was then working as the S.I. of Cherplassery Police Station. Asper the prosecution case, PW 4 appeared and gave Ext. P2 statement before PW 13, who registered the crime. When PW 13 was examined, he deposed that on 04/03/2005 at about 1.45 p.m. CW 1 (PW 4) had come in the Police Station and gave statement, which was recorded by him. According to PW 13, the said person put his signature on the deposition and he had also put his signature on it. He identified Ext. When PW 13 was examined, he deposed that on 04/03/2005 at about 1.45 p.m. CW 1 (PW 4) had come in the Police Station and gave statement, which was recorded by him. According to PW 13, the said person put his signature on the deposition and he had also put his signature on it. He identified Ext. P2 FIS. According to PW 13, on the basis of Ext. P2, he had drawn an FIR in Crime No. 122/05 for the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC and the FIR was identified by him as Ext. P2 (a). According to him, the FIR was sent to the Court and copy of the same was sent to his superior officer and the investigation was undertaken by the Cherplassery CI. During the cross - examination PW 13 has admitted that Ext. P2 was not in his handwriting and he further deposed that he does not remember as to who had written the same. According to him, report was given to his Superior officers before 3 o'clock of that particular day and that can be seen on perusing the dispatch register in the Station. He denied the suggestion that Ext. P2 information was given after 8 p.m. and that Raju was not present along with CW 1. He had also deposed that he did not arrest the accused before registering the FIR. According to him, the age of the accused as well as the deceased was mentioned in the FIR on the basis of the information furnished by CW 1. He deposed that, in Ext. P2, as there was no sufficient space to record the statement given by the deponent at the last portion, the same was written in small characters and it was not subsequently incorporated. According to him, when the case was registered, the CI was available in the Station and immediately report was handed over to him and he went for scene guard and he reached the place of occurrence by about 2.45 p.m. When he reached the house in question, the doors were opened. When he reached the place of occurrence, CW 1 (PW 4) and Raju were not available at the spot and the accused was also not there and that they did not give any account or explanation about the occurrence. When he reached the place of occurrence, CW 1 (PW 4) and Raju were not available at the spot and the accused was also not there and that they did not give any account or explanation about the occurrence. As per his version, CI reached within 10 minutes of his arrival and himself and the CI were available in the place of occurrence till the body was sent for postmortem and the accused was not present at that time. According to him, the distance from the Station to the place of occurrence is 4 kms. He denied the suggestion that no statement was given by CW 1, at the alleged time of recording the FIS. 28. PW 14, was the then CI who took over the investigation from PW 17. During his chief examination, PW 14 had stated that he undertook the investigation in Crime No. 122/05 from 12/07/2005 onwards. Thus according to him, he prepared a forwarding note for sending the material objects for chemical examination and forwarded the same to the Court. When the forwarding note was shown to him, he identified the same and accordingly the forwarding note was marked as Ext. P10. PW 14 has also categorically claimed that he made a request before the concerned Village Officer to get prepared the scene plan of the place of occurrence and accordingly the same was received and the site plan is marked as Ext. P11. He had also deposed that he prepared an application addressing the same to the Secretary, Cherplassery Grama Panchayat to get the possession certificate with respect to the house wherein the occurrence had taken place. Accordingly, he received the ownership certificate from the said Panchayat and the same is marked as Ext. P12. He continued the investigation during which he had questioned CWs 21 and 22 and recorded their statements. He had further deposed that on completing the investigation, he laid the charge in the Court and the prior investigation was conducted by CW 29 (PW 17). 29. During the cross - examination, PW 14 has stated without any hesitation that he was not present when Ext. P11 was prepared. He had also admitted that in Ext. P11, the house of one Ali was not seen marked. He had admitted that adjacent to the house which was marked as 1', no other house was marked in Ext. P11. During the cross - examination, PW 14 has stated without any hesitation that he was not present when Ext. P11 was prepared. He had also admitted that in Ext. P11, the house of one Ali was not seen marked. He had admitted that adjacent to the house which was marked as 1', no other house was marked in Ext. P11. According to PW 14, he did not visit the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the report was filed without conducting proper investigation and that the deceased died in some other way. 30. PW 15 was working as the Village Assistant of Cherplassery at the relevant point of time. She deposed that the requisition of the Investigating Officer was received through the Tahasildar and the Village Officer entrusted the responsibility with her. Accordingly, she went to the place of occurrence and prepared the plan. She identified the plan prepared by her and also her signature on it, which was already marked as Ext. P11. According to her, the same was produced before the Investigating Officer. When it was put to PW 15 during the cross - examination that, she has no authorisation or power to prepare a site plan, her answer was that she does not know. According to her, in the plan, what shown as "1" was the western side of the house in question and she claimed that the measurement was taken by using tape. According to her, the pathway is on the northern side of the house and the same has a width of 1-1½ mtrs. and then she added further that it would have three feet width and an autorickshaw could not go through the same. In the site plan, on the south - western side of the pathway there is only one house shown as "1" and what shown in yellow colour on the eastern side is the Panchayat road and there is no petty bunk on the side of the road shown in the plan and the houses marked therein were done after verification. She has also specifically admitted that, the date of preparation of the plan was not mentioned in the plan. Thereafter, PW 15 has categorically deposed that the plan was prepared on 23/05/2005. She has also specifically admitted that, the date of preparation of the plan was not mentioned in the plan. Thereafter, PW 15 has categorically deposed that the plan was prepared on 23/05/2005. According to her, the lying position of wooden cot and pillow were recorded on her convincing of seeing the same and the position of plastic mat was also recorded on seeing it. What shown as "L" is the parapet and the house in question was facing the east and there were doors on the front and backside of the house. One can enter into the house from the eastern as well as from the western side. During the re - examination she deposed that what shown as "4" is the house and she had examined the house and its premises, that too within the area of 50 mtrs. During the further cross - examination with permission she deposed that, Pattambi road is situating at a distance of 1 ½ kms. away. She had also deposed that what mentioned by "4" is the house of one Kampamthodi Ahammad. Thereafter, the Court put certain questions and she deposed that there was no reference of any scale in the plan and that the parapet is on the eastern and western sides and it is incorrect if it is shown as on the east and west sides. 31. PW 16 was then working as Scientific Assistant (documents are at Thriuvananthapuram) and she had deposed as follows: "I am Dr. Sumi Mitra S. Scientific Asst. (Documents now at Trivandrum). While I was working at Malappuram, as per the directions of the Supt. of Police, Malappuram, I have examined the scene of occurrence in Crime No. 122/2005 of Cherplassery Police Station in the presence of Sri. Johnson Joseph, CI of Police Cherplassery and Sri. Sivadasan, SI of Police, Cherplassery. I was shown the dead body of female lying inside the main room of the house with building No. 12/562 of Cherplassry Panchayath. From the location, the following were collected: 1. A hair found at a distance of about 145 cms. from the north west corner ofthe room, where the body was found lying with head at a distance of about 15 cm. from the north west corner and at about 31 cm. from the western side wall. 2. Another hair was found at a distance of about 26 cms. A hair found at a distance of about 145 cms. from the north west corner ofthe room, where the body was found lying with head at a distance of about 15 cm. from the north west corner and at about 31 cm. from the western side wall. 2. Another hair was found at a distance of about 26 cms. to the east directionfrom the place where hair mentioned as item No. 1 was found. 3. Cellophane tape pressing of the right hand of the deceased. 4. Cellophane pressing from the left hand of the deceased. 5. Cellophane pressing from around neck of the deceased. 6. A portion of the sheet spread on the floor (synthetic carpet) from near theleg. All the six items were labelled and handed over so as to forward the same for detailed examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram through proper channel. I also request the service of biological expert if required. This report was prepared by me. It bears my signature. The report is marked as Ext. P13. This is the cellophane pressing of right hand. It is item No. 3 in Ext. P13 (already marked as MO 8). On MO 8, there is the label pasted by me. This is the cellophane pressing of the left hand. It is item No. 4 in Ext. P13 (already marked as MO 10). It contains my label. This is Cellophane pressing of around the neck of deceased. It is item No. 5 in Ext. P13 (already marked as MO 9). MO 9 contains the label pasted by me. This is cellophane pressing of carpet. It is item No. 6 in Ext. P13 (already marked as MO 13). Ext. P13 report was handed over to the CI of Police, Cherplassery. Endorsement made to that effect is in Ext. P13. I was questioned by the Police. Cross - examination: I visited the scene after 3 p.m. I do not remember when I was questioned. I do not remember whether I was questioned on the same day. I do not exactly remember the posture of the dead body on the floor. I examined before removing the garments. All the items were handed over together along with Ext. P13 report. All the items were handed over with label. Each item was put inside a small polythene cover. I do not exactly remember the posture of the dead body on the floor. I examined before removing the garments. All the items were handed over together along with Ext. P13 report. All the items were handed over with label. Each item was put inside a small polythene cover. The covers were not sealed." During the cross - examination, she deposed that it is seen recorded that after the seizure, the CI has marked the covers as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6 and sealed the same, and she has not witnessed the seizure of the same from the place of occurrence. She had also deposed that she was not remembering whether statement was given to the police to that effect. According to her, she has not assigned the number S1 to S6 and she has not witnessed the CI sealing the same. She had also deposed that, after handing over the covers, she left the place. According to her, in a room where the wife and husband residing together, there was every possibility of presence of hairs of them and she has also deposed that she had seen a black coloured cloth lying near to the body. 32. PW 17 was the then CI of who conducted the initial investigation. When he was examined, he had deposed that he undertook the investigation in the above crime on 04/03/2005 and on that day, he along with the Scientific Assistant (PW 16), the Tester Inspector and the department Photographer had reached the place of occurrence. He had conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased. He identified Ext. P1 inquest prepared by him which contains his signature and the signatures of the attestors. According to him, as per Ext. P1 inquest, MO 1 maxi, MO 15 skirt, MO 14 brassier and MO 11 mufta were found on the body and the same were seized. Besides the above, MO 12 piece of cloth was also seized, which was found on the south - west corner of the verandah lying on the eastern side of the room in question. According to PW 17, MO 12 was in a spiral form. Besides the above, MO 12 piece of cloth was also seized, which was found on the south - west corner of the verandah lying on the eastern side of the room in question. According to PW 17, MO 12 was in a spiral form. PW 16 had collected from the room in question, 2 hairs, a blood stained rexin which was lying on the floor adjacent to the left leg of the body of the deceased, the cellophane prints of both the hands of the dead body taken by using cellophane and also the cellophane prints of the neck portion of the dead body etc. in a cover and the same were seized by preparing Ext. P5 mahazar. He identified the packet containing rexin as MO 13. The cover containing cellophane prints are identified as MOs 8, 10 and 9. According to PW 17, all what produced by PW 16 were seized by affixing the seal. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Palakkad District Hospital. PW 17 further deposed that on that day itself, he prepared the scene mahazar in which himself and the witnesses put their signatures and the same was identified and marked as Ext. P3. On that day evening by 7.30 p.m., the accused surrendered in the Cherplassery Police Station and he arrested the accused and questioned him and recorded his statement. At the time when the accused was arrested, he produced his cloths stating that the same were worn by him at the time of the occurrence and accordingly the same were seized providing him cloths for changing. It was MO 2 pants and MO 3 shirt that were seized and the mahazar prepared at that time was marked as Ext. P5. After arresting the accused, prints of both the hands of the accused were taken by using cellophane and the same were also seized as per Ext. P5 in the presence of witnesses. Accordingly, he identified Exts. P6 and P7 respectively as the packets containing those prints. On 05/03/2005, PW 17 reached the place of occurrence with the accused and taken evidence and the accused was produced before PW 8. Accordingly, PW 8 had taken the scalp hair, body hair and pubic hair of the accused and put it in various covers and produced before him, and those covers were sealed and seized by preparing a mahazar, i.e., Ext. Accordingly, PW 8 had taken the scalp hair, body hair and pubic hair of the accused and put it in various covers and produced before him, and those covers were sealed and seized by preparing a mahazar, i.e., Ext. P8, in the presence of witnesses. During his examination, he identified those covers as MOs 5, 6 and 7. Thereafter, the accused and material objects were produced before the Court, during which he furnished the full and correct address of the accused through a report, which he identified as Ext. P14. On 08/03/2005, PW 7 produced the scalp hair, pubic hair and nail clippings of the deceased in a cover and the same were seized by him as per mahazar, which he identified as Ext. P15. He further identified MOs 4(a) to 4(c) as the material objects taken into custody as per Ext. P15 and the cover containing MOs 4(a) to (c) are identified as MO 4. He had also deposed that he had questioned the witnesses and their statements were recorded during the course of investigation conducted by him. 33. During the cross - examination of PW 17, he deposed before the Court that he had questioned one Raju whose name was mentioned in Ext. P2. However, he had categorically deposed that his statement was not recorded and the said Raju was not shown as a witness. According to him, he reached the place of occurrence on 04/03/2005 between 3 p.m. and 3.15 p.m. and the doors of the room wherein the deceased was found dead, have no bolts. PW 5 gave statement as per Ext. D1. According to him, after the inquest, he returned from the place of occurrence at about 6.45 p.m. The accused was arrested at 7.30 p.m. He said that it was incorrect to say that the evidence was artificially created against the accused. 34. As we have already indicated, from the side of the accused one witness was examined as DW 1 purportedly to establish that the accused was having some mental ailment during the relevant time. Thus during the chief examination, he deposed that his house is at Nellaya and he knew the accused who was a lottery seller. According to DW 1, he was conducting an STD booth at the place namely Manjakkal from 2000 till 2006. Thus during the chief examination, he deposed that his house is at Nellaya and he knew the accused who was a lottery seller. According to DW 1, he was conducting an STD booth at the place namely Manjakkal from 2000 till 2006. He further says that, he got acquaintance with the accused as he used to come to his booth and the accused had visited his booth on several occasions till March, 2005. According to the witness, during such visits, he felt that the accused has got some mental depression. However, he deposed that he has not seen any documents by which the accused has undergone treatment. During the cross examination, he deposed that he was not aware of the family affairs of the accused and also had no knowledge about the ailment of the accused. He had also deposed that he does not know what was the state of affairs of the accused on 04/03/2005. 35. The defence evidence, i.e., Exts. D2 and D3 are the communications sent from Govt. Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, by which it was mainly requested the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Palakkad, to furnish them the hospital admission details and also requested the Court to postpone the case for collecting details and also informed the Court that the alleged lunatic namely Ali (Aali), Cholakkal house, Naalu cent colony, Manjakkal, Cherplassery, has not been admitted in the Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, during the period from 1998 to 2005 as per the records available in the said institution. Ext. D1 is the 161 statement of Aisha, who was examined as PW 5, which bears the date 28/09/2005. 36. As pointed out earlier, one Dr. Thomas K. P., Psychiatric attached to Government Mental Health Centre, Thrissur, was examined as Court witness. Accordingly, he deposed that he had examined Mr. Ali, aged 53 years, on 24/05/2007 to 03/07/2007. During those days of observation, he could not find out any signs and symptoms of major mental illness and the patient did not reveal any past history of mental illness. According to CW 1, the said patient had history of occasional alcohol abuse. He had also certified that at that point of time he was fit for trial. He had issued a certificate to that effect which bears his signature and thus the said certificate is marked as Ext. X1. According to CW 1, the said patient had history of occasional alcohol abuse. He had also certified that at that point of time he was fit for trial. He had issued a certificate to that effect which bears his signature and thus the said certificate is marked as Ext. X1. He had also deposed that he had seen him in the Court verandah on the date of his examination and he had talked to him and as per his version, the patient / appellant was having some fearfulness, but he does not need any medication. According to him, on his observation on that day also, he was fit for trial. 37. These are the evidence and materials covered by the impugned judgment. 38. Sri. Alex M. Scaria, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and that resulted in great miscarriage of justice. After having taken us through the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, the learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of those witnesses contain lot of contradictions, infirmities and thereby their evidence are rendered as unreliable, but the learned Judge of the Trial Court had evaluated the same improperly and thus according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. It is contended that 'the last seen theory' is not applicable in the present case. If that be so, even if the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 are accepted as correct, according to the learned counsel, the chain of evidence is incomplete and therefore it is unsafe to convict the appellant. The learned counsel strenuously pointed out that in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, there is no consistency about the time at which those witnesses had allegedly seen the accused. As the prosecution failed to suggest the approximate time of death of the deceased, it made the situation worse and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the death of the deceased was occurred, not at the time as suggested by the prosecution, particularly when the stomach of the deceased was found empty at the time of postmortem examination. As the prosecution failed to suggest the approximate time of death of the deceased, it made the situation worse and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the death of the deceased was occurred, not at the time as suggested by the prosecution, particularly when the stomach of the deceased was found empty at the time of postmortem examination. The learned counsel has advanced another argument to the effect that the scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case cannot be accepted due to various procedural and legal infirmities. According to the learned counsel, the evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution connected with the seizure of MO 2 pants and MO 3 shirt of the accused is hit by S.25 of the Evidence Act and particularly when S.27 of the evidence Act is also not attracted, as the confession statement is not proved and no recovery was effected in pursuance of such revelation statement. It is also contended by the learned counsel that, the non - examination of three material witnesses is a vital defect that goes against the prosecution case, which also resulted in prejudice to the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically submitted that the very basic document of the prosecution namely, Ext. P2(a) cannot be accepted, since it has no legal sanctity and validity, particularly in view of evidence of PW 4 and PW 13. According to the learned counsel, Ext. P2(a) was not prepared on the date and time as recorded in Ext. P2(a), but on the basis of information furnished by some other person other than PW 4 at some other occasion. Thus the substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, Ext. P2(a) is a concocted document and no reliance can be placed upon the same and if so, the very basis of the prosecution case goes. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the motive alleged by the prosecution is not proved by the prosecution in this case, for which the prosecution was duty bound, since the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Thus according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant in accordance with the settled proposition of law which governs a case depending upon circumstantial evidence. Thus according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant in accordance with the settled proposition of law which governs a case depending upon circumstantial evidence. So the Trial Court is incorrect and illegal in its findings and convicting the appellant for the offence under S.302 of IPC. So according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to get an acquittal. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions: Sir Mohammed Yusuf and Another v. D and Another, AIR 1968 Bom. 112 (V 55 C 20), Kannan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1982 KHC 589: 1982 (2) SCC 350 : AIR 1982 SC 1192 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 430 : 1982 CriLJ 1570, V. Venugopal v. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) KHC 649 : 2007 (2) KLD 112, Sivan v. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) KHC 133 : ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 305 : 2007 (2) KLT SN 65 : 2007 (1) KLD 389, Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab, 2006 KHC 1952 : 2006 (12) SCC 306 : 2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 732 : 2007 CriLJ 1000 : 2007 (49) AIC 89 (SC), State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, 1980 KHC 873 : AIR 1980 SC 1314 : 1980 (3) SCC 303 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 683 : 1980 CriLJ 929, Thangavelu v. State of T.N., 2002 KHC 1319 : 2002 (6) SCC 498 : AIR 2002 SC 2759 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1382 : 2002 CriLJ 3558, Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, 2011 KHC 4528 : AIR 2011 SC 2283 : 2011 (6) SCALE 511 : 2011 (3) KLJ 153 : 2011 (3) KLT SN 58 : 2011 (11) SCC 754 : 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 620 : 2011 (3) ULJ 42 : 2011 (103) AIC 25 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 KHC 145 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 : 1984 KLT SN 101 : 1984 (4) SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 : 1984 CriLJ 1738. 39. 39. Per contra, Smt. Praicy Joseph, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it is an admitted fact of the defence that the appellant and the deceased were residing in the house, where the occurrence taken place, for more than 25 years as husband and wife and therefore, it is for the accused to offer a convincing explanation as to how his wife died. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that, in the present case, the appellant has no explanation as to how his wife murdered in his house on the date alleged by the prosecution. The said fact and the non explanation of the accused, goes against the appellant which guarantees the correctness of the prosecution allegation. The learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of evidence of PWs 4 and 5, has submitted that after hearing the cry of the deceased from their house, the accused was seen running from the said house and therefore it is crystal clear that it was the accused who committed the murder of his own wife, particularly when the appellant has no explanation for the death of his wife. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that, by adducing evidence, the prosecution has established that frequent quarrels occurred in the house of the accused and the deceased, since the appellant was suspicious that she had illicit relationship with other men. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, on the date of the occurrence also, quarrel occurred between the appellant and the deceased, and the deceased cried aloud saying that she is being killed. So, it is claimed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has adduced apt evidence, by which the circumstances that point towards the guilt of the accused are established. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in addition to the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, to connect the accused with the crime, there are other material and scientific evidence. So, it is claimed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has adduced apt evidence, by which the circumstances that point towards the guilt of the accused are established. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in addition to the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, to connect the accused with the crime, there are other material and scientific evidence. Thus, after inviting our attention to the evidence of PWs 7, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence collected, particularly as the nail clippings of the deceased contain fibres similar to that found on MO 2 pants worn by the accused at the time of the alleged incident, would exactly establish the presence of the accused at the time of the occurrence and the said unimpeachable evidence are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and therefore the Trial Court is fully justified in fixing the criminal liability upon the appellant for the murder of his own wife. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court has, after having considered the evidence and materials on record and its true appreciation, came into the conclusion that the appellant alone is responsible for the murder of his own wife and hence the findings warrant no interference and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 40. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and we have meticulously perused the evidence and materials on record and we have thoroughly gone through the authorities cited. 41. In the light of the above referred rival contentions and in view of the evidence and materials referred to above, the question to be considered is whether the Trial Court is justified in its finding and convicting the appellant for the offence under S.302 of IPC. Admittedly, the prosecution has no claim that the occurrence in the present case is witnessed by any person and therefore to prove the guilt of the accused they depend certain circumstances. Under the above scenario, it is only just and appropriate to refer for our guidance, certain decisions of the Honourable Apex Court and the principles laid down by the Court in the cases where the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Under the above scenario, it is only just and appropriate to refer for our guidance, certain decisions of the Honourable Apex Court and the principles laid down by the Court in the cases where the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. In the decision reported in Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P., 2008 KHC 5052 : 2008 CriLJ 3502 : 2008 (9) SCALE 652 : AIR 2008 SC 2819 : 2008 (13) SCC 257 : 2009 (2) SCC (Cri) 298, it was held as follows: "The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; (4) They should exclude every other hypothesis except the one to be proved; (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused." In a case where the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence to prove its allegation against the accused, the Court has to satisfy the following tests, as held in Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 KHC 725 : AIR 1989 SC 1890 : 1989 Supp (1) SCC 560 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 566 : 1989 CriLJ 2124: "1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; 2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. 3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and; 4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence." Also in the decision reported in Vithal Tukaram Mure and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 KHC 1335 : 2002 (7) SCC 20 : AIR 2002 SC 2715 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1555 : 2002 CriLJ 3546, it was held as follows: "The essential ingredients to prove the guilt of an accused by circumstantial evidence are: (a) the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (b) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (c) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence; (d) the circumstances should to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused." The important decision of the Honourable Apex Court which deals with cases depends upon circumstantial evidence is the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 KHC 145 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 : 1984 KLT SN 101 : 1984 (4) SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 : 1984 CriLJ 1738, according to which, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction. In the said decision, after taking stock of the precedents and codifying the dictums laid down therein, the Honourable Apex Court laid down the "panchasheel principles" governing the cases wherein the prosecution depends upon circumstantial evidence. The following "panchasheel" conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: "1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The following "panchasheel" conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: "1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 (2) SCC 793 : AIR 1973 SC 2622 where the following observations were made: "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." In a latest decision reported in Tomaso Bruno and Others v. State of U.P., 2015 KHC 4047 : 2015 (1) KLD 200 : 2015 (1) KLT SN 104 : 2015 CriLJ 1690 : 2015 (7) SCC 178 , the Apex Court has, after referring to celebrated judgments on the subject, has laid down as follows: "In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Others, 1989 KHC 828 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 : AIR 1990 SC 79 : 1989 BBCJ 121, it was laid down that in a case of circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following test: "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established: (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) those circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 (2) SCC 351 ]." 42. Thus guided by the dictums laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, let us examine the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence involved in the case on hand and the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. 43. Unfortunately, on a perusal of the impugned judgment, it can be seen that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not taken any effort to marshal the circumstances involved and relied on by the prosecution. According to us, it was a failure of the Trial Court in not stating the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. Our reason for the above conclusion will be stated separately at a later stage. As the Court below has not stated the circumstances in its correct perspective, we are of the view that, for an effective disposal of this appeal, it is our bounden duty to summarise the circumstances relied on by the prosecution in the present case. Thus on consideration of evidence and materials on record and considering the arguments advanced, we are of the view that, the following circumstances are relied on by the prosecution and tried to prove the guilt against the appellant / accused. 1. The accused and the deceased are husband and wife and were residing together in the house bearing door No. XII / 562 (New No. VI / 422) of Cherplassery Grama Panchayat for the last 25 years. 2. The wife of the accused namely Asya was found murdered at 1 p.m. on04/03/2005 in the above referred house. 3. The appellant / accused was found going from the above house, where thecrime occurred, in and around the time at which the crime occurred. 4. The hair of the accused found and collected on 08/03/2005 from the room ofthe house in question. 5. The nail clippings in MO 4 (c) collected from the hands of the deceased contain fibres, which are similar to those in MO 2 pants worn by the accused during the relevant time of the crime. And lastly, 6. The motive. 44. The hair of the accused found and collected on 08/03/2005 from the room ofthe house in question. 5. The nail clippings in MO 4 (c) collected from the hands of the deceased contain fibres, which are similar to those in MO 2 pants worn by the accused during the relevant time of the crime. And lastly, 6. The motive. 44. In the light of the aforesaid authorities, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the above circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and further, the proved circumstances must form a clear and complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused, ruling out any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused and that none other than the accused has committed the offence. Now let us examine the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging their burden in terms of the above authorities. 45. Regarding the first circumstance, we are of the view that, even the accused has not denied the fact that he was the husband of the deceased Asya and they were residing in the aforesaid house for the last 25 years. But according to us, the said fact itself is not sufficient to rope the accused into the above crime and fix the liability upon him. Admittedly, the accused is the head of the family consisting of himself and his wife and their three children. The prosecution has not disputed the fact that the elder daughter of the accused as well as the deceased was given in marriage as a result of the joint effort of the accused as well as his deceased wife. Further the prosecution has no case that the accused is an unemployed one and always remaining in the aforesaid house. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that when DW 1 was examined from the side of the defence, he had categorically deposed that the accused was a lottery seller by profession. The prosecution has also no case that the family expenses were met through the wages of their daughter Aleema who is a beedi worker. Therefore, in the absence of any positive case supported by evidence that the accused was an unemployed person and that during day time, he remained idle at his house; it is illegal and improper to hold that the accused was in his house on the date of occurrence. Therefore, in the absence of any positive case supported by evidence that the accused was an unemployed person and that during day time, he remained idle at his house; it is illegal and improper to hold that the accused was in his house on the date of occurrence. Similarly, it is also relevant to note that the prosecution has no case that the accused was found in the vicinity of the house in question prior to the incident. The witnesses examined, from the neighbourhood of the accused as well as the deceased, are PWs 4 and 5. According to PW 4, he was doing poultry business and he saw the accused when he was coming to his house after closing his shop, after 12.30 in the noon time. So, he has no case that he found the accused on that day prior to the incident. Another witness examined from the neighbourhood of the deceased and accused is none other than PW 5. In her evidence also, there was not even a whisper that she had seen the accused at any point of time before the occurrence. In total, the prosecution has no case that the deceased was lastly found in the company of the accused or at least, he was seen in the house or its vicinity on the fatal day. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 'last seen theory' is not applicable in the present case. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish that the appellant was found in the company of the deceased at any point of time before the death of the deceased and also failed to show that the accused was found in and around the house in question at any point of time before the occurrence. In this connection, we cannot ignore the fact that Aleema - the daughter of the accused as well as the deceased Asya, was also residing along with them in the said house who used to go for her work. The said Aleema was not examined, atleast to show that she had seen the accused in the house when she was going for her work on that particular day and at that time her mother Asya was found alive in the said house in the company of the accused. The said Aleema was not examined, atleast to show that she had seen the accused in the house when she was going for her work on that particular day and at that time her mother Asya was found alive in the said house in the company of the accused. Even though the prosecution was aware of the fact that Aleema was residing in the said house, she was not questioned and did not make her a witness and no attempt was made to establish that the accused and the deceased were found together before her departure for her work. Thus the net result of the above discussion is that though the prosecution has got opportunity to establish the presence of the accused with the company of the deceased before her death, if it was true, by examining a material witness, who is an inmate of the said house, it was not utilised by the prosecution. Therefore, according to us, even though the first circumstance is taken as proved, the same will no way promote the case of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. 46. With respect to the 2nd circumstance and about the homicidal death of the wife of the accused, there is no controversy. The evidence of PW 7 - the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has categorically deposed on the basis of Ext. P4 postmortem certificate that the deceased received certain ante mortem injuries which specifically referred in Ext. P4. According to him, the deceased had died due to ligature strangulation and the injuries in the neck was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and he further deposed that the piece of cloth shown to him could be used to cause ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. Admittedly, there was no serious cross - examination on PW 7 on behalf of the defence. The evidence adduced by the other witnesses in this connection also positively proved the second circumstance relied on by the prosecution and therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established the second circumstance. 47. To prove the third circumstance, the prosecution has very much relied upon the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. We have already referred to the deposition of the said witnesses. Now let us examine the evidence of PW 4. 47. To prove the third circumstance, the prosecution has very much relied upon the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. We have already referred to the deposition of the said witnesses. Now let us examine the evidence of PW 4. PW 4 is the person who claimed to have given Ext. P2 FIS. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced several arguments against accepting the evidence of PW 4. According to him, no evidentiary value can be attached to his depositions, especially when the same contradicts with his own Ext. P2 statement. The learned counsel submits that PW 4 is a chance witness and the Court below without following the principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, while appreciating the evidence of the charge witness, had erroneously accepted the version of PW 4. According to PW 4, the deceased in this case was died three years prior to his giving evidence before the Court, but he does not remember the date of death and he had also deposed that he was doing poultry business. It is further deposed that on the date of occurrence, during the noon time, while he was coming to his house in an autorickshaw he had seen the accused, in front of the petty bunk of one Warrier, and that the accused was going in his opposite direction. He had also deposed that, the accused was seen running and chased by one Raju. According to him, he straightaway went to his house and alighted from the autorickshaw in the Courtyard of his house. He said that the people in the locality were found gathered in the vicinity of the house of the deceased and therefore he enquired about the same with the said Raju and he told him to follow the accused and accordingly himself and the said Raju rushed towards the petty bunk shop of Warrier, but the accused was not fount. In the above portion of evidence of PW 4, there occurs a serious contradiction with respect to the previous part of the deposition contained in the chief examination. In the above portion of evidence of PW 4, there occurs a serious contradiction with respect to the previous part of the deposition contained in the chief examination. Though he stated firstly in his deposition that he saw the accused going on his opposite direction chased by one Raju, in the same breath, he said that when he reached his house, the said Raju was there among the crowd assembled in the vicinity of the house of the deceased, though he claimed that he came in an autorickshaw. Therefore, the above conflicting version of PW 4 about the presence and his meeting with the said Raju itself renders his evidence doubtful. During the cross - examination he deposed that, he reached his house by 12.30 hours and at that time he saw the accused running along the Panchayat road. He had also deposed that the petty bunk of the above referred Warrier is situating on the Panchayat road and he had seen the accused before he reaches the Panchayat road. The distance between his house and the house of the accused is 200 mtrs. and his house is situating on the southern side of the pathway and the main road is situated ¾ kms. away from his house. Again he had deposed that when he stepped down from the autorickshaw, the said Raju rushed to his house and asked him whether he had seen the accused running away, but without giving any answer to the above question put by Raju, according to him, himself and Raju rushed upto the petty bunk of Warrier, but the accused was not seen. If truly, he had actually seen the accused, when he was returning to his house, the same would have been divulged to the said Raju. As per one version of PW 4, on his arrival at his house and on seeing Raju, he enquired with the said Raju about the matter. Another version was that, the said Raju, who was found chasing the accused, came and asked him, whether he had seen the accused. So, the above conflicting versions, render his evidence as doubtful. As per one version of PW 4, on his arrival at his house and on seeing Raju, he enquired with the said Raju about the matter. Another version was that, the said Raju, who was found chasing the accused, came and asked him, whether he had seen the accused. So, the above conflicting versions, render his evidence as doubtful. According to PW 4, as nobody was available in the petty bunk shop of Warrier, he returned to the house of the deceased and he watched the situation by standing among the crowd and that he looked into the house through the window and the doors were bolted and the doors were pushed opened by the police on their arrival. He has categorically deposed that till the arrival of the police, nobody has entered inside the house. According to PW 4, on that day evening, he went to the Police Station and he put his signature on Ext. P2 between 9 and 10 p.m. He had also deposed that the contents of Ext. P2 were not read over to him and that he deposed on the basis of his own knowledge and as told by his wife. It is relevant to note that in Ext. P2, he had deposed that he entered the house in question through the front door of the house on seeing the deceased Asya lying dead inside the room when he looked through the window and thus when he entered inside the house and looked he was convinced that Asya was lying dead, but he disowned from his version in the said portion of Ext. P2 FIS. Again he denied the material portion of his statement contained in Ext. P2 to the effect that by 1 o'clock in the noon on 04/03/2005, he came to his house in an autorickshaw and alighted at the Four cent colony near to his house and at that time he had seen the accused going hurriedly along the road against his opposite direction followed by one Raju and others, who are the inmates of the colony. He had also deposed that he had not given any account about the dress worn by the accused and that he was not aware of the affairs of the accused. From the above version, it can be seen that there is glaring difference or contradiction both in the evidence of PW 4 and in Ext. He had also deposed that he had not given any account about the dress worn by the accused and that he was not aware of the affairs of the accused. From the above version, it can be seen that there is glaring difference or contradiction both in the evidence of PW 4 and in Ext. P2 FIS allegedly given by him. As per his version in Ext. P2, he was coming to his house at about 1 o'clock on the date of occurrence, whereas in his deposition, the time of his arrival was mentioned as 12.30 p.m. As per the case of the prosecution, the death was occurred at about 1 p.m. on 04/03/2005. If that be so, the evidence of PW 4 that, he had seen the accused in the aforesaid manner at about 12.30 hours is not helpful for the prosecution to establish that the accused was seen after the commission of the offence and near to the house in question. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that PW 4 has denied the version contained in Ext. P2 that he had seen the accused at 1 o'clock when he came to his house. So, as to the time, at which PW 4 claimed to have seen the accused on 04/03/2005, there is no consistency. From the above referred evidence of PW 4, it is also clear that there is divergent version in the evidence of PW 4 about the time and occasion when PW 4 had seen the above referred Raju and the accused. The case of the prosecution is based upon Ext. P2 FIS allegedly given by PW 4, in which PW 4 deposed the alleged time at which he had seen the accused and that fact was denied by him during his cross - examination. So, that part of Ext. P2 is not proved and the same contradicts the evidence of PW 4. Hence the evidence of PW 4 is under shadow of doubt and the evidence of PW 4 rendered as doubtful because of the above inbuilt contradictions and infirmities contained in his deposition. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that what all stated by PW 4 both before the police through Ext. Hence the evidence of PW 4 is under shadow of doubt and the evidence of PW 4 rendered as doubtful because of the above inbuilt contradictions and infirmities contained in his deposition. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that what all stated by PW 4 both before the police through Ext. P2 and before the Court through his deposition are not based upon his own knowledge but on the basis of what told to him by his wife and the said fact can be seen from the deposition of PW 4. It is true, in the deposition of PW 4, he had stated that what all deposed by him were on the basis of his own knowledge and on the basis of the information furnished by his wife; but, because of the contradiction in the deposition of PW 4 with respect to the time and the situation under which he claimed to had seen the accused on the date of occurrence, we are of the view that, the possibility, that he had deposed about the presence of the accused, was on the basis of what told to him by his wife, cannot be ruled out. It is also relevant to note that PW 4 appears to be totally an unbelievable witness, who was presented by the prosecution, because of his fallible version contained in his deposition. According to the prosecution, PW 4 appeared before the Police Station during the noon time on 04/03/2005. But PW 4 says that he went to the Police Station in the evening and he put his signature in Ext. P2 in between 9 and 10 at night, which shows that the FIS was launched by PW 4 in between 9 and 10 on the night of 04/03/2005. PW 4 deposed before PW 13 about the incident and he reduced the same into writing and Ext. P2(a) FIR was drawn on the basis of Ext. P2 FIS and it is on the basis of Ext. P2(a) FIR, the investigation was set in motion. At his juncture, it is beneficial to refer the evidence of PW 13 who said that he does not know who recorded Ext. P2 statement of PW 4 and he has categorically stated that the contents of Ext. P2 are not in his handwriting. P2(a) FIR, the investigation was set in motion. At his juncture, it is beneficial to refer the evidence of PW 13 who said that he does not know who recorded Ext. P2 statement of PW 4 and he has categorically stated that the contents of Ext. P2 are not in his handwriting. So the prosecution version, that PW 4 went to the Police Station at the time as recorded on the face of Ext. P2(a) and gave FIS, cannot be believed and therefore the claim of PW 4 that he had given statement before the police also cannot be believed and in toto what all deposed by PW 4 before the Court are rendered as unbelievable and unacceptable and no evidentiary value can be attached to his deposition. Thus the evidence of PW 4 is no way helpful for the prosecution to prove the third circumstance relied on by it. 48. Another witness examined by the prosecution to prove the third circumstance is none other than PW 5. She is an inhabitant of Manjakkal Four cent colony in which the house of the accused as well as the deceased was situating. We have already referred to her evidence, still then, for appreciation of her evidence, we refer to its relevant portion. She deposed that the deceased, her husband and daughter were residing together and her house is the third one from the house of the accused and the daughter of the deceased used to go for work. She deposed that there occurred frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased as her husband was having suspicion on his wife. She further deposed that at about 11.30 a.m. on the date of death of deceased Asya (i.e., on one Friday), she came to her house demanding matchsticks and she gave the same and thereafter the deceased had gone to her house. According to her, at about 12.30 hours, the accused was seen going from his house. She had also deposed that both the sides of the house of the deceased were seen closed and therefore she called the deceased, but there was no reply from the house and when she looked through the window, the deceased was seen lying on the floor and blood was also seen oozing from her mouth and thereafter herself and Rasheeda screamed aloud and on hearing the cry, people gathered. On a scrutiny of the above portion of the evidence on the chief examination of PW 5, it can be seen that she has no case that she had seen the accused in and around the house in between 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. or prior to that on that day. She has also no case that she had noticed anything unusual on the deceased on her appearance or in her demeanour when the deceased approached her to ask the matchsticks. Till 12.30 p.m. the time at which she claimed to have seen the accused coming out of his house, she had not heard any sound or cry from the house of the deceased. Admittedly, the house of PW 5 is the 3rd one from the house of the accused and the deceased. PW 5 never said as to how she happened to see the accused coming out from the house of the accused. In the absence of any positive evidence from the part of PW 5 to the effect that, she could see the development in the house in question or that a clear sight of the said house is possible from her house or that she saw the accused when she came out of her house, or while standing outside, her version cannot be believed that she saw the accused coming out of his house. If PW 5 had got a case that she saw the accused going along the pathway while she was sitting inside her house, that is not sufficient to hold that PW 5 saw the accused coming out of his house. From the above referred deposition of PW 5 during her chief examination itself, we find no reason for PW 5 to go and watch inside the house in question. Hence there is no justification for her to go to the house of the deceased. During the chief examination she further deposed that she went to the house of the deceased, as the deceased Asya was not seen outside, but there is no explanation as to what prompted her to go to the house of the deceased. Hence there is no justification for her to go to the house of the deceased. During the chief examination she further deposed that she went to the house of the deceased, as the deceased Asya was not seen outside, but there is no explanation as to what prompted her to go to the house of the deceased. Though in the above referred portion she stated that the accused was seen going from his house at about 12.30 hours, subsequently she deposed that at about 1 o'clock on that particular day, the accused was seen running and she further deposed that in between 12.30 and 12.45 hours, she heard hue and cry of the deceased saying "I am being killed.". According to her, on hearing the sound, she had not gone to the house in question in search of reason for such sound, but she went after some time. The above conduct of PW 5, who claimed to be the neighbour of the deceased, cannot be treated as a normal human conduct of a neighbouring woman, particularly when she said that the deceased came to her house just prior to the incident and asked for matchsticks. During the cross - examination of PW 5, she denied of having given Ext. D1 statement to the Police. During the cross examination she has further deposed that, PW 5 went to the house of the accused under the impression that the accused was not available there. Highlighting the above admission of PW 5, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the said fact itself is sufficient to hold that the accused was not available in the house at the relevant time and PW 5 was not correct in saying that she had seen the accused going from his house. We find some force in the said submission. The earlier portion of deposition of PW 5, which we referred above, shows that even before hearing any sound from the house in question, she went to the house of the accused. If truly, PW 5 saw the accused going from his house, there was no occasion for PW 5 to depose that she went to the house of the deceased and the accused, under the impression that accused was not likely to be present in their house. If truly, PW 5 saw the accused going from his house, there was no occasion for PW 5 to depose that she went to the house of the deceased and the accused, under the impression that accused was not likely to be present in their house. So it cannot be believed the version, that PW 5 had seen the accused going from his house. Thus on a careful analysis of the deposition of PW 5, it can be seen that, there is no concrete evidence as to when she had allegedly seen the accused and the time at which she heard the cry of the deceased; but, with reference to the time at which she claimed to have seen the accused, the Court interfered and put a question and it is brought out as her version that she found the accused going from his house after hearing the cry of the deceased. The above approach of the Court cannot be taken as lightly, especially when a case like the present one which depends upon circumstantial evidence. The Prosecutor on completing the cross examination, put certain questions to PW 5, so as to clarify the evidence of PW 5 and thus it is brought out from PW 5 that, the cry was heard from the house of the deceased. It is after that attempt of the prosecutor to clarify the evidence of PW 5, the Court put the question and got the above admission. Even if the said admission is accepted as correct, according to us, the same is not sufficient to hold that PW 5 had seen the accused coming out of his house, especially when PW 5 has no claim that immediately after hearing the cry, she came out of her house and saw the accused coming out of his house. In the light of the above infirmities and contradictions in the evidence of PW 5, we are of the view that, the evidence of PW 5 is not trustworthy and it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW 5. 49. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the inbuilt infirmities and contradictions occurred in the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, their evidence cannot be believed and therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the third circumstance relied on by them to prove the guilt of the accused. 50. 49. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the inbuilt infirmities and contradictions occurred in the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, their evidence cannot be believed and therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and substantiate the third circumstance relied on by them to prove the guilt of the accused. 50. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the hairs of the accused were seized from the crime room of the house in question. The above circumstance, according to us, is quite natural in the given facts and circumstance of this case and therefore that circumstance has no much relevance in the case on hand. As per the prosecution evidence, the pubic and scalp hairs were taken by PW 16 from the place of occurrence and handed over the same for detailed examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory. The evidence of PW 16 shows that a hair found at a distance of about 145 cms. from the north - west corner of the room in question, where the body was found lying, was taken and another hair was taken at a distance of about 26 cms. to the east direction from the place where the hair mentioned as item No. 1 was found. As per the evidence of PW 17, the Investigating Officer, the said hairs were seized by him. It is also the case of PW 17 that the accused was produced before PW 8 Dr. V. Radha, who took the scalp hair, pubic hair and nail clippings of the accused and handed over it to PW 17 as per MO 5 packets. Those hairs of the accused taken by PW 8 were identified by her in her evidence. During the cross - examination of PW 16, who allegedly collected the above referred hairs of the accused from the place of occurrence, had deposed that in a room where the wife and husband are residing together, there is every possibility of the presence of pubic hair and scalp hair of both. During the cross - examination of PW 16, who allegedly collected the above referred hairs of the accused from the place of occurrence, had deposed that in a room where the wife and husband are residing together, there is every possibility of the presence of pubic hair and scalp hair of both. It is an admitted case of both the prosecution as well as the defence that the accused and deceased were residing together in the house where the crime was occurred and the mere presence of hairs of the accused, which is quite natural, cannot be pressed into service to drag the accused into the crime and to fix the criminal liability upon him. So according to us, even though the fourth circumstance is proved, the same will not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 51. The fifth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that, the nail clippings of the deceased i.e., MO 4(c) contained fibers similar to those of MO 2 pants of the accused. The attempt of the prosecution is that MO 2 pants was worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime and it was under the above factual scenario, the prosecution tried to establish that the fibres similar to those in MO 2 pants happened to be present in the nail clippings of the deceased. Let us see how far the above circumstance proved by the prosecution and whether the same is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Accordingly, to establish the above circumstance, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the oral testimony of PW 4, who launched Ext. P2 FIS. According to the prosecution, PW 9 - the then Police Constable attached to Cherplassery, was present when the accused volunteered to surrender before the police saying that the pants and shirt worn by him while surrendering before the police were the same worn by him at the time of commission of the crime, and he is also an attestor to Ext. P5 mahazar, by which the aforesaid pants and shirt were seized by PW 17. The prosecution has projected certain other witnesses also, like PW 11 who prepared Ext. P5 mahazar, by which the aforesaid pants and shirt were seized by PW 17. The prosecution has projected certain other witnesses also, like PW 11 who prepared Ext. P9 report after examining the material objects received by him which said to have been collected by PW 16 from the place of occurrence and the nail clippings collected by PW 7 and the evidence of PW 17 the CI who received the above referred materials from the Scientific Expert and also, the evidence of PW 12, the Assistant Director, Serology Division, who deposed about the result of examination contained in Ext. P9(a). It is true, as per the evidence of PW 11 and as per Ext. P9 report, fibers similar to those in MO 2 pants contain in the nail clippings in MO 4 (c) collected from the hands of the deceased. For a correct conclusion, a detailed examination of those facts and evidence are absolutely inevitable. As per the evidence of PW 17, the CI, he went to the place of occurrence at the beginning stage of the investigation in the above crime along with PW 16 Scientific Assistant, Tester Inspector and Department Photographer. PW 16 deposed among other thing that a cellophane tape pressings of the right hand, of the left hand and around the neck of the deceased were taken and all those 6 items taken therefrom, were labeled and handed over to the police and the same were seized as per Ext. P13 report. According to PW 16, Dr. Sumi Mithra S., MOs 8 to 10 are the packets containing the aforesaid cellophane pressings of right hand, left hand and around the neck of the deceased and she handed over Ext. P13 report to PW 17. PW 17 has also deposed that MOs 8 to 10 are the above referred cellophane tape pressings handed over to him by PW 16 and the same were taken into custody by sealing the same. The further case of the prosecution is that those materials were sent for chemical examination report and thus they obtained Ext. P9 report which is proved through PW 11. When PW 11 was examined, he had detailed as to the result of examination mentioned in Ext. P9. According to him, the cellophane tapes in items 3, 5, 12 and 13 contained fibers similar to those in items 7 and 8. Item no. 3 in Ext. P9 report which is proved through PW 11. When PW 11 was examined, he had detailed as to the result of examination mentioned in Ext. P9. According to him, the cellophane tapes in items 3, 5, 12 and 13 contained fibers similar to those in items 7 and 8. Item no. 3 in Ext. P9 is MO 8 and MO 5 is item no. 16 in Ext. P9. In Ext. P9 report, according to PW 11, item no. 14 is MO 3 and item no. 15 is MO 2 which are respectively the shirt and pants allegedly worn by the accused at the relevant time. Similarly, when PW 12 was examined, he had deposed that item no. 8, i.e., MO 12 contained human blood. According to PW 12, item no. 2 contained blood and an opinion with regard to the origin of the blood is impossible as the result was inconclusive. According to him, blood could not be detected in item nos. 9 to 11 and 14 and 15. Item no. 15 in Ext. P9 is MO 2. But PW 12 has deposed that no blood was detected on item nos. 14 and 15. So, the net result is that in MO 2 pant, no blood could be detected by PW 12. However, still the prosecution case is that MO 2 is the pants worn by the accused at the time when he committed the offence. It is true that the evidence of PW 11 and Ext. P9 shows that the nail clippings in MO 4 (c) contains fibers similar to those in MO 2 pants. At this juncture it is relevant to note that, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 9 - the Constable, who was present at the time of the seizure of MOs 2 and 3 pants and shirt as per Ext. P5, has no case that the pants contains blood stain. PW 4, who claimed to have seen the accused going in his opposite direction at the relevant time and date, has also no case that he had seen blood stain on MO 2 pants allegedly worn by the accused at that point of time. PW 12, the Serologist, has also deposed before the Court that blood stain was not detected in MO 2 pants which is item no. 15 in Ext. P9 report. PW 12, the Serologist, has also deposed before the Court that blood stain was not detected in MO 2 pants which is item no. 15 in Ext. P9 report. So the case of the prosecution that the pants given by the accused at his surrender, was having blood stain has to be found against the prosecution. 52. As we have already indicated, to prove that the accused had worn MO 2 pants at the time of his committing the offence, the prosecution has examined PW 4 who gave Ext. P2 FIS. We have already found that the versions given by PW 4 is fallible for various reasons assigned earlier. However, it is apposite at this juncture to refer one particular aspect of his evidence. During the cross examination, PW 4 has stated that he never gave a statement to the police to the effect that, by 1 p.m. on 04/03/2005, he was coming to his house after his poultry business in an autorickshaw and alighted at Four cent colony adjacent to his house and at that time the accused was seen going hurriedly in his opposite direction along the road, followed by one Raju and others, who are the inhabitants of the colony. He had also categorically deposed during the cross - examination that no description about the dress worn by the accused was stated to the police and that he does not know anything about the accused. So the evidence of PW 4, according to us, is not helpful for the prosecution to show that, on the fatal day, the accused was found wearing MOs 2 and 3 dresses. Thus, if the above evidence of PW 4 is eschewed, the remaining evidence is that of PW 9 and PW 17 on this aspect. According to us, the evidence given by PW 9 and PW 17 in this respect is inadmissible by virtue of S.25 of the Evidence Act. S.25 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "Confession to Police Officer not to be proved.-- No confession made to a Police Officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." In the case on hand, the prosecution case is that at about 7.30 p.m. on 04/03/2005, the accused volunteered to surrender in the Police Station and accordingly he was taken into custody and questioned. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined PWs 9 and 17. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined PWs 9 and 17. PW 9 deposed that on 04/03/2005 at about 7.30 p.m., one Ali surrendered before the CI Cherplassery and at that time he was present in the station. PW 9 identified the accused as the person surrendered and he deposed that, he heard the accused deposing to the CI that he had committed murder of his wife by strangulation. According to PW 9, he had further heard that the accused had also stated before the CI that the pants and shirt worn by him while surrendering before the police, were the one worn by the accused at the time of commission of murder of his wife by strangulation. According to PW 9, by providing substitute dress for changing, those dresses were taken into custody and the shirt was green in colour having cream lines on it and he identified the same as MO 3 and the pants was cream in colour which was identified as MO 2. It is the further case of PW 9 that at about 7.45 p.m., those dresses were seized by the CI by preparing a seizure mahazar and he put his signature as an attestor and Ext. P5 mahazar was identified by him. PW 17 has also deposed in terms of the evidence of PW 9. PW 17 deposed that on the date of the occurrence at about 7.30 p.m., the accused surrendered at Cherplassery Police Station stating that he had committed murder of his wife by strangulation and he placed him under arrest and questioned him and his statement was recorded. He further deposed that, at the time when the accused was arrested, he stated that the dresses produced by him were the one worn at the time of occurrence and the same were seized. It was MO 2 pants and MO 3 shirt that were taken into custody as per Ex. P5. In Ext. P5 mahazar, it is stated that when the accused Ali was arrested and questioned on his surrender before Cherplassery Police Station at about 9.30 hours on 04/03/2005, he produced the dress, stating that the same were the one worn by him at the relevant time and accordingly by providing substitute dresses, the said dresses were taken into custody. In Ext. P5 mahazar, it is stated that when the accused Ali was arrested and questioned on his surrender before Cherplassery Police Station at about 9.30 hours on 04/03/2005, he produced the dress, stating that the same were the one worn by him at the relevant time and accordingly by providing substitute dresses, the said dresses were taken into custody. According to us, it goes without saying that the above evidence of the prosecution cannot be accepted as the same is hit by S.25 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has no case that the dresses worn by the accused at the relevant time were seized in pursuance of an information furnished by the accused, to fall the same under S.27 of the Evidence Act. So the evidence of PWs. 9 and 17 supported by Ext. P5 mahazar, rendered as inadmissible and it cannot be held that MO 2 pants and MO 3 shirt were worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus that part of the prosecution evidence cannot be accepted and if so, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the same beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the seizure of MOs 2 and 3 pants and shirt as worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence. 53. The net result of the above discussion and as per the evidence on record and particularly after excluding the inadmissible evidence which referred above, we are of the definite view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the fifth circumstance relied on by it. 54. The 6th circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the motive part. According to the prosecution, frequent quarrel occurred between the accused and the deceased, since the accused was always maintaining a doubt that his wife was having illicit relationship with other men. To prove the above aspect, the prosecution has examined PW 2 Suhara - the sister of the deceased, PW 3 Raziya - the sister in law of the deceased, PW 4 Showkathali who gave Ext. P2 FIS, PW 5 Ayisha - the neighbour and PW 10 Noorjahan - the elder daughter of both the accused and the deceased. We have carefully scrutinized the above evidence. P2 FIS, PW 5 Ayisha - the neighbour and PW 10 Noorjahan - the elder daughter of both the accused and the deceased. We have carefully scrutinized the above evidence. As we have already indicated, PW 4 has no direct knowledge about the affairs of the accused and his family, and he had categorically deposed to that effect. The other witnesses though generally stated that there occurred frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused, none of the witnesses has deposed any particular incident or about any quarrel taken place on any particular date. In this respect it is relevant to note that, according to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased were residing under the same roof for the last 25 years. It is also beyond dispute that the elder daughter was given in marriage with the joint effort of both the accused as well as the deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses has got any case to the effect that connected with any incident or quarrel any petition has been filed in any Police Station or before any competent authority and as such, no contemporary document is produced. Under the above circumstance, according to us, a mere version that quarrel used to occur between the couple, which is general in nature, and without saying about any particular incident or specific instance, it is impossible to accept the evidence projected by the prosecution, to establish the alleged motive. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the evidence of PW 5 who is the close neighbour of the accused and the deceased. She deposed before the Court that at about 11.30 a.m. on that fatal day, prior to the incident, the deceased approached her asking matchsticks and they chatted for some time and when the matchsticks were given to her, the deceased went back to her house. But in the evidence of PW 5, it is conspicuously absent as to any quarrel occurred on that particular day either before the arrival of the deceased to her residence or after her departure. So, absolutely there is no evidence that any quarrel taken place on that particular day as well. Under the aforesaid factual scenario and due to the absence of positive evidence to prove about the frequent quarrel, we are unable to hold that, the accused had a motive to commit murder of his wife. 55. So, absolutely there is no evidence that any quarrel taken place on that particular day as well. Under the aforesaid factual scenario and due to the absence of positive evidence to prove about the frequent quarrel, we are unable to hold that, the accused had a motive to commit murder of his wife. 55. Thus the outcome of the above discussion on the basis of the evidence and materials referred to above, is that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the above referred circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and also establishing a complete chain pointing the guilt exclusively towards the accused and ruling out any hypothesis which is consistent with the innocence of the accused in view of precedents referred above. 56. Indeed, apart from the failure of the prosecution to establish the circumstances and to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, there are certain other vital defects in the prosecution case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to examine certain material witnesses. The second daughter of the appellant as well as the deceased, namely Aleema, is the inmate of the house in question, other than the deceased and the accused and she used to go for beedi rolling work in the morning and she was a competent witness to say whether the accused was available in the house when she left the house for her work. If her evidence was available against the accused in this respect, certainly the burden would be upon the accused to give a proper account about the cause of death of his wife as rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of the decision relied on by her. But without any reason, the prosecution has not chosen to examine the said material witness. Similarly, one Raju, who is said to be the inhabitant of the colony where the house in question is situated, was not examined by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW 4, he had stated that it was the said Raju who was found chasing the accused, with whom PW 4 enquired about the incident. So in all possibilities, it can be seen that the said Raju is a witness competent to depose about the occurrence in the present case. As per the evidence of PW 4, he had stated that it was the said Raju who was found chasing the accused, with whom PW 4 enquired about the incident. So in all possibilities, it can be seen that the said Raju is a witness competent to depose about the occurrence in the present case. It is pertinent to note that PW 17 in his deposition has deposed that he had questioned the said Raju; but unfortunately, his evidence is to the effect that the statement of Raju is not recorded for the reason best known to him. So, it can be legitimately presumed that the prosecution has suppressed another material witness and screened the evidence from the scrutiny of the Court. As per Ext. P2 inquest report, the body was pointed out by one Subaida, but she was also not examined. So the non - examination of those material witnesses goes against the prosecution and it also resulted in prejudice to the defence. 57. Another vital defect in the prosecution case is that the very foundation of the prosecution case itself has been shaken. The entire prosecution case is built upon the FIR drawn under S.154 of CrPC and the same is expected to contain the earliest version of the incident occurred in that particular case. Thus an FIR in a criminal case is a vital document. It is now well settled that the principal object of the FIS is to make over a complaint to the police to set the criminal law into motion. It is equally an important object to obtain an early information of an alleged criminal activity and to record the same without giving a chance for embellishment or manipulation. It is also a settled position that the FIR is not a piece of substantial evidence and its use is against the maker either for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration. Thus while reiterating the object and use of FIR, we cannot ignore the importance of a document which came into existence immediately after the occurrence, since it is on the basis of that document the machinery for investigation being set in motion. It is on the basis of such a foundation, the entire prosecution case is built up. If there is any shake with respect to such a foundation, the whole structure will collapse. It is on the basis of such a foundation, the entire prosecution case is built up. If there is any shake with respect to such a foundation, the whole structure will collapse. In the present case, PW 4 is the person who claimed to have launched Ext. P2 FIS. As per the endorsement contained in Ext. P2(a) FIR, the time of launching of FIS was shown as at 1.45 p.m. on 04/03/2005. In the evidence of PW 4, he has stated in an unequivocal language that he went to the Police Station in the evening and he put his signature in the FIS between 9 and 10 p.m. and the contents of Ext. P2 FIS were not read over to him. Even according to PW 4, what he stated to the police were the facts that were within his knowledge and also as told by his wife. It is relevant to note that in the chief examination, he did not depose the time at which he went to the Police Station and gave Ext. P2. So the evidence of PW 4, who said to have given Ext. P2, is to the effect that he gave Ext. P2 FIS in the evening of the fatal day that too between 9 and 10 p.m. When PW 13 - the then SI of Cherplassery Police Station, was examined, he had deposed that CW 1 (PW 4) in this case appeared in the Station at 1.45 p.m. and the statement given by the first informant was recorded by him and himself and the informant had put the signatures in Ext. P2. Accordingly, he registered a crime for the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC. But at the very beginning of the cross examination itself, PW 13 has deposed that Ext. P2 was not prepared in his own handwriting and he does not remember in whose handwriting the same was prepared. On appreciation of evidence of PW 4, the alleged first informant, and the evidence of PW 13 - the then SI, who claimed to have prepared Ext. P2(a) together, it cannot be said that Ext. P2(a) came into existence at the time and date noted on Ext. P2(a). If the evidence of PW 4 is accepted as correct, that he gave Ext. P2 FIS in the evening between 9 and 10 in the night of 04/03/2005, we have to necessarily hold that Exts. P2(a) together, it cannot be said that Ext. P2(a) came into existence at the time and date noted on Ext. P2(a). If the evidence of PW 4 is accepted as correct, that he gave Ext. P2 FIS in the evening between 9 and 10 in the night of 04/03/2005, we have to necessarily hold that Exts. P2 and P2(a) are ante timed documents. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that PW 4 during his examination has categorically denied very material portion of the contents of Ext. P2 and further deposed that he has not given such a statement before the police. If that be so, Ext. P2(a) cannot be acted upon, as the same is a concocted one and given by somebody else other than PW 4. The contradictions and infirmities contained in the evidence of PW 4 when compared with the contents of Ext. P2, justify the above conclusion. So, the foundation stone of the prosecution case is shaken and consequently a serious doubt arose in our mind about the very inception of the case itself. It is the sacrosanct duty of the prosecution to convince the Court of law that their documents and materials are not concocted one and the Court can act upon its face value. However, in the present case, because of the vital defect about Exts. P2 and P2(a) documents and on the attempt of the prosecution to introduce concocted documents, had created serious doubt in our mind, which goes against the prosecution. 58. Before parting with the judgment, we are constrained to make certain observations and inference about the approach of the Trial Court in writing the judgment and about the plausible illegalities. Chapter XXVII of the CrPC, 1973, deals with the 'judgment'. S.353(1) mandates that the judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the Presiding Officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. Further S.354 of CrPC reads as follows: "354. S.353(1) mandates that the judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the Presiding Officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. Further S.354 of CrPC reads as follows: "354. Language and contents of judgment.-- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, every judgment referred to in S.353” xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; xxxx xxxx xxxx." We are concerned with Clause (b) of S.354(1) that, the judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. We are of the view that, it is corollary to S.354(1)(b), that to comply with the above mandate, the judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court should contain the memorandum of evidence and its appreciation and the decision on the point, formulated in that judgment, supporting or justifying the decisions. The Honourable Apex Court has held in the decision reported in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, 2008 KHC 6085 : 2008 (7) SCC 96 : 2008 (1) KLD 410 : 2008 (2) SCALE 59 : AIR 2009 SC Supp 603 as to the procedural and legal necessity of a speaking judgment. It held as follows: "5. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the appeal without recording reasons. This Court has deprecated the practice of disposing of matters without recording reasons in support of such decision. It has been insisted that when the matter is decided by a Court, reasons must be recorded in support of such decision. It is because the aggrieved party may make grievance in the superior Court that the reasons recorded by the Trial Court were non existent, extraneous, irrelevant etc. The successful party, on the other hand, may support the reasons recorded by the Court in his favour. Finally, the superior Court may also consider whether reasons recorded by the Court in support of the order passed by it were in consonance with law and whether interference is called for. The successful party, on the other hand, may support the reasons recorded by the Court in his favour. Finally, the superior Court may also consider whether reasons recorded by the Court in support of the order passed by it were in consonance with law and whether interference is called for. If the final order is without any reason, several questions may arise and it will be difficult for the parties to the proceedings as well as the superior Court to decide the mater one way or the other. This Court has, therefore, deprecated the practice of pronouncing final order without recording reasons in support of such order. 6. Before more than two decades, in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, the Court said: (SCC p.611, para 30) "30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a Statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instance case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment." In view of the above authority, if the judgment is a well - considered one, the Appellate Court can conveniently consider the legality and correctness of the findings arrived on by the sub ordinate Court on the basis of memorandum of evidence and the evaluation of evidence which forms part of such judgment. In the absence of narration of the memorandum of evidence, at least the relevant evidence, the Appellate Court would not be in a position to come into a correct conclusion as to whether the findings arrived on by the Court below are just, proper and legal. 59. In the present case, with respect to certain witnesses referred in the memorandum of evidence, the facts deposed by such witnesses during their cross - examination are not finding a place in the judgment, particularly in the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. We have referred the entire evidence of these witnesses that contained in both the chief and cross - examination. Unless such an approach is made, narrating the entire evidence which are relevant for the purpose of determining the points formulated for consideration and due appreciation and evaluation, it cannot be said that justice appears to have done. It is a settled position that the Courts while dispensing justice, a mere dispensation is not sufficient to show that justice has been done but the same should seen to have been done. In the present case, apart from the above anomalies of non - mentioning the entire material evidence, the Court below came into a definite conclusion as seen from paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, wherein it is stated as follows: "The circumstantial evidence discussed above is of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The said evidence goes to show that within all reasonable probability, the accused must have strangled the deceased to death with MO 12 cloth piece and the deceased died due to ligature strangulation. The accused has not given any explanation for the incriminating circumstances brought against him. The said evidence goes to show that within all reasonable probability, the accused must have strangled the deceased to death with MO 12 cloth piece and the deceased died due to ligature strangulation. The accused has not given any explanation for the incriminating circumstances brought against him. The incriminating circumstances mentioned above which have been established by reliable and clinching evidence form a chain of events from which the only conclusion about the guilt of the accused can safely be drawn and no hypothesis other than that of the guilt is possible. The above established facts are consistent with only the hypothesis against the guilt of the accused. So it can safely be concluded that the accused committed murder of deceased Asya in his house at about 1.00 P.M. on 04/03/2005. So the accused is punishable under S.302 of the IPC" Thereafter, it is seen stated in paragraph 30 of the very same judgment about the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused in the Trial Court. The above approach, according to us, is highly arbitrary. Such arguments of the defence as well as the prosecution, ought to have been referred to by the Court below before entering into a finding on such rival contentions and conclusion. On a perusal of the entire impugned judgment, we failed to see any reference to any argument advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence, other than mentioned in paragraph 30, before arriving into a conclusion as seen in paragraph 27. The above approach definitely creates an impression in the mind of the accused, who faced the trial in a criminal Court, that his contentions and his case has not been considered by the Court before finding his fault in terms of the prosecution allegation. In the decision in S. Partha Sarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1974 KHC 581 : 1974 (3) SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580 : AIR 1973 SC 2701 : 1973 (2) LLJ 473 : 1973 Lab IC 1607, the Honourable Apex Court has held, particularly in paragraph 16 as follows: "16. The tests of "real likelihood" and "reasonable suspicion" are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The tests of "real likelihood" and "reasonable suspicion" are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The Court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an inquiry officer, he must not conduct, the enquiry nevertheless; there must be a real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjecture would not be enough. There must exist circumstances from which reasonable men would think it probable or likely that the inquiring officer will be prejudiced against the delinquent. The Court will not inquire whether he was really prejudiced. If a reasonable man would think on the basis of the existing circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is sufficient to quash the decision (See per Lord Denning, H.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.GC.) Ltd. v. Lannon, 1968 (3) WLR 694 at 707). We should not, however, be understood to deny that the Court might with greater propriety apply the "reasonable suspicion" test in criminal or in proceedings analogous to criminal proceedings." (Vide AIR 2001 SC 24, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pants and Others)." 60. So, the judgment of every criminal Courts should contain the relevant and material evidence, its appreciation, the rival arguments, the points for determination and the findings thereon supported by evidence. As the judgment is an outcome of the trial, unless those inevitable factors contained in the judgment, it cannot be said that there was proper dispensation of justice. It is a settled position while dispensing justice, a mere dispensation of justice is not sufficient to conclude that justice has been done. Unless the above features or factors are shown as integral parts of the judgment, there would not be anything to show that justice has done. In other words, simply keeping the contents of the above inevitable component of a judgment in the mind of the Presiding Officer, who pronounced the judgment, is not sufficient to convince that justice has been done. In other words, simply keeping the contents of the above inevitable component of a judgment in the mind of the Presiding Officer, who pronounced the judgment, is not sufficient to convince that justice has been done. Thus the brief facts of the prosecution case, the memorandum of evidence (atleast of the relevant witnesses) and materials and documents, the rival arguments advanced, the points for determination, and the decisions on such points and the reasoning for such decisions or findings which can be treated or demonstrated as signs of application of mind while dispensing justice. In other words, the same are sufficient to show that justice has been done. 61. It is also relevant to note that, we have come across several judgments impugned in various criminal appeals before this Court and many of such cases are based upon circumstantial evidence. It is trite that in large number of judgments impugned in such appeals, the learned Judges of the concerned Trial Courts were taking care to lay down the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. But in a good number of cases, no attempts or efforts are taken by the Court below to summarise the circumstances relied on by the prosecution and the analysis and the findings of the Court below based upon such circumstances mentioned in that particular judgment. In the present case also, no attempt was made or no effort was taken by the learned Judge of the Trial Court to marshal the circumstances relied on by the prosecution and the findings of the Court below on such circumstances. So it is advisable that, in a case that rests upon circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court in its judgment has to summarise the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to establish its case against the accused and specific findings of the Trial Court on each of such circumstances so as to enable the Appellate Court to consider the correctness of such findings. So we are of the considered opinion that, every judgments, pronounced in every trials of criminal cases, should contain memorandum of evidence at least that of the material witnesses and material documents, the appreciation of such evidence, the rival arguments advanced by the prosecution as well as the defence and in case the prosecution case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, such circumstances and the specific findings thereon shall be summarised and enumerated so as to enable the Appellate Court to consider both the cases of the prosecution as well as the defence in its proper perspective and to come into a just decision. 62. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and the evidence and materials referred to and due to the absence of sufficient evidence and consequent to the defects pointed out with respect to the prosecution case, we are of the view that, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the circumstances relied on by it to connect the accused with the crime by which Asya, the deceased, the wife of the appellant was murdered on 04/03/2005. Therefore, we are unable to accord the conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant / accused by judgment dated 30/01/2009 in SC No. 603/06 and accordingly the same is set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed, acquitting the appellant / accused of all the charges levelled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 30/01/2009 in SC No. 603/06 of the Court of Sessions, Palakkad, in Crime No. 122/05 of Cherplassery Police Station. As the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside, the appellant, who is the accused in the above sessions case, is entitled to get released from the jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to forward a gist of this judgment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kannur, for the release of the appellant, forthwith.