ORDER : The respondents 2 and 3 are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in S.C.No.64 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and the second accused stood charged under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 08.02.2008, acquitted the accused. Challenging the said acquittal, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, has come up with this revision. 2. The facts of the case would be as follows; (a)The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ramasubramanian. The first accused is his wife. They were residing together at the house of one Mr.Pitchai Manickam on rent. The deceased was a drunkard and stopped going for any job. The family was, therefore, reduced to poverty. Mr.Pitchai Manickam, the owner of the house, secured a job for him in a watch shop at Karur. The second accused used to visit the house of the the first accused initially in a friendly manner. This culminated into illicit intimacy between them. On 16.10.2005, at about 3.30 p.m., the second accused had come to the house of the first accused and he was with the first accused. The deceased was not there at that time. He later came to his house in drunken state. The deceased questioned the second accused as to what made him to come to his house in his absence and he also scolded the first accused that she had developed illicit intimacy with the second accused. The deceased took the cellphone and attempted to make a call to his father to complain about the above incident. Suddenly, the first accused snatched away the cellphone from the deceased. Then, it is alleged that the accused 1 & 2 hatched a common intention to do away with the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of the same transaction, the accused pushed the deceased down and then, the first accused held him to enable the second accused to commit murder. The second accused took a pillow and pushed it against the face of the deceased, which resulted in his death due to suffocation. With these allegations, the investigating officer laid the final report. The second accused took a pillow and pushed it against the face of the deceased, which resulted in his death due to suffocation. With these allegations, the investigating officer laid the final report. (b)In order to prove the case of the prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined, 17 documents were exhibited and one Pillow was marked as MO.1. Out of the said witnesses, PW1 is the father of the deceased and he has deposed that the marriage between the first accused and the deceased was celebrated in the year 2003 and they were living together as husband and wife at Dindigul. Some time after the marriage, there arose quarrel between the first accused and the deceased, since the first accused demanded the deceased to get his share in the undivided family property. But, later on, they were persuaded and they again lived together. Some time thereafter, the deceased had gone to Germany for a job. The first accused remained with her parents. After two months, the first accused returned to the house of PW1 and stayed there. Thereafter, the deceased returned from Germany. Again, they started living together at Dindigul. Thereafter, there were frequent quarrels between them. (c) PW1 has further deposed that on 11.10.2005, PW1 wanted the deceased and the first accused to come to their village in connection with a local temple festival. PW1's wife viz., the mother of the deceased, spoke to the deceased over phone. The deceased told that he would come with his wife for launch that day itself. Within five minutes thereafter, the first accused called PW1 over phone and told him that since the deceased was drunk, they would not come for the village festival. Shortly, thereafter the first accused, again, spoke to PW1's wife (PW2) and told her that she alone would come for village festival, since the deceased was fully drunk. When his wife asked the first accused as to how the deceased alone would remain at his house, she told that the second accused would take care of him. The wife of PW1, in turn, told her not to come alone for the village festival leaving her husband. Thereafter, PW1's wife went to the house of the deceased and brought the first accused alone to her village. PW1 had occasion to see the deceased. He found that there were injuries on his face. The wife of PW1, in turn, told her not to come alone for the village festival leaving her husband. Thereafter, PW1's wife went to the house of the deceased and brought the first accused alone to her village. PW1 had occasion to see the deceased. He found that there were injuries on his face. When PW1 enquired him, the deceased told that he had suspicion about the fidelity of the first accused and when the same was questioned, the first accused attacked him and caused injuries. (d) PW1 has further stated that on 16.10.2005 at about 7.45 a.m., the deceased spoke to PW1 over phone. PW1 told him that he would ask his mother (PW2) to speak as he had to go to his field. At 11.00 a.m. PW1's wife spoke to the deceased and the first accused. Again, at 04.45 p.m. the deceased called PW1 over phone. PW1 picked up the phone. The deceased asked him to hand over the receiver to his mother (PW2). Accordingly, his wife (PW2) took the receiver, but from the other end the first accused enquired whether she was well. When his wife (PW2) asked the first accused as to what had happened to her husband, she told that he had come fully drunk. The deceased was shouting. At that time, PW1's wife (PW2) could hear the shouting of the deceased as to why the first accused was preventing him to speak to his mother. At that time, the wife of PW1 (PW2) could hear the voice of a third person. When PW1's wife (PW2) asked the first accused about the same, she told that there was nobody else, but the deceased was shouting in drunken state. Then, at about 7.05 p.m., the second accused spoke to PW1 informing him that the deceased was in a serious condition. Immediately, PWs.1 & 2 rushed to Dindigul to the house of the deceased. At about 9.30 p.m., when they reached the house they found that there were ladies sitting in the house. When they enquired as to where their son was, they said that he was in the upstairs. When they went to the upstairs, they found that the deceased was lying with injuries on his neck and chest. When they called him, he did not respond. Immediately, they sought the help of PW5 -Dr.Vadivel to come and give first aid. When they enquired as to where their son was, they said that he was in the upstairs. When they went to the upstairs, they found that the deceased was lying with injuries on his neck and chest. When they called him, he did not respond. Immediately, they sought the help of PW5 -Dr.Vadivel to come and give first aid. Accordingly, PW5 rushed to the house of the deceased and he found the deceased in a serious condition. He advised them to take him immediately to the hospital. PWs.1 & 2 with the help of others immediately took him to the Government Hospital at Dindigul. At 10.30 a.m. PW6 -Dr.Thirunavukkarasu examined him and declared him dead. Thereafter, the present complaint was made upon which PW11, the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Dindigul Town West Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.588 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He held inquest, during which he examined PWs.1 to 3 and few more witnesses. As I have already pointed out, PW2 is the wife of PW1 and they are the parents of the deceased. PW3 is related to PWs.1 & 2 and he has spoken about the frequent quarrels. (e) PW7 – Dr. Jeganantan, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 17.10.2005, found the following injuries; (1) an abrasion measuring 1 x ½ cm on the neck; (2) an abrasion measuring 2 x 1 cm on the left side of the neck; (3) an abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm on the chest. On opening of the dead body, he found no abnormality in the internal organs. He forwarded viscera for chemical examination. The chemical analyst, after holding chemical examination, reported that there was alcohol in liver, stomach, intestine and kidney. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Certificate. The Doctor gave opinion that the death in the case would not have occurred due to alcohol. On completing the investigation, the final report was filed against the said accused alleging that they have caused the death of the deceased. (f) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents on their side. The trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. (f) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents on their side. The trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this revision. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the death in this case was caused only by mechanical violence made by these accused and the same has been clearly proved. 4.I find it difficult to accept the said argument for more than one reasons. First of all, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused No.2 had pushed the pillow against the face of the deceased until he breathed his last. If that is true, when PWs.1 & 2 had come to the house of deceased, that too after a long time, the deceased would not have been alive. It is in evidence that after their arrival, on their request, PW5 had also rushed to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased was in a serious condition. PW5, therefore, advised them to take him to the hospital. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death was not caused by smothering. It is common knowledge that if once windpipe is opened after smothering for some time, the patient would survive, if he had not already breathed his last. It is in evidence that the deceased was alive until the arrival of PW1 and PW2. Thus, the death would not have been due to smothering. 5. Next comes the evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy. It is not in dispute that in the internal organs such as liver, stomach, intestine, etc. there was alcohol. According to the accused, the deceased was fully drunk. This stand of the accused is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, found only three small abrasions on the neck and chest. It is not the opinion of the Doctor that these three abrasions had contributed to any extent towards the cause of the death. It is also not the positive evidence of the doctor that the death would have been due to smothering. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, found only three small abrasions on the neck and chest. It is not the opinion of the Doctor that these three abrasions had contributed to any extent towards the cause of the death. It is also not the positive evidence of the doctor that the death would have been due to smothering. The doctor was not in a position to rule out the possibility of the death due to over consumption of alcohol. There is no clear evidence regarding the cause of death. Giving the benefit of doubt arising out of the same, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. Since the very foundation viz., the cause of death, has not been proved by the prosecution, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Thus, I do not find any merit at all in this revision. 6. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the acquittal of the accused is confirmed.