Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 227 of 2008, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. By Judgment, dated 03.04.2009, the Trial Court convicted her under all the three charges and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 307I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 309 I.P.C. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Jeyasuriya, aged hardly 9 years. P.W.3, Jeyasanthiya, is aged 7 years. These two children are the son and daughter respectively of the accused. The accused was already married to one Mr. Jeyaraman. The children were born to them. 1½ years prior to the occurrence, the appellant's husband Mr. Jeyaraman died in a motor cycle accident. After that, the accused along with her children was living with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at Ambattaiyanpatti Village. After some time, the father of the accused and her father-in-law decided to give her in marriage to the brother of her husband. Accordingly, marriage was celebrated in Thirupparankundram between the accused and Mr. Rajaram. Thereafter, they were all living together as a joint family in the same village. 3. While so, since the children had vacation holidays for the school, the father of the accused had taken them to his house. They stayed there with him for about 10 days. The school was to open on 04.10.2007. Therefore, on 03.10.2007, the children were brought back to the house of the accused. After that, the accused kept mum and she did not freely speak to others. 4. While so, it is alleged that the accused was eve-teased by the villagers for having married her brother-in-law within one year of the death of her husband. This, according to the prosecution, made her to depress. After that, the accused kept mum and she did not freely speak to others. 4. While so, it is alleged that the accused was eve-teased by the villagers for having married her brother-in-law within one year of the death of her husband. This, according to the prosecution, made her to depress. During the night intervening 04.10.2007 and 05.10.2007, the accused and her children were in the house. P.W.1, namely, her father-in-law and her mother-in- law had gone to a different place, where they were sleeping. It was a normal practice of the workers, working in the rice mill owned by P.W.1 to get tea prepared for the employees as the mill used to run during night hours. In the usual course, P.W.4, one of the mill workers, had come to the house and knocked at the door, in order to get tea from the accused. But, she did not open. He went and informed P.W.1 and others. Then, all of them came to the house and knocked at the door. But, nobody from inside opened it. When they peeped through the key hole, they found the accused hanging by means of saree from fan hook on the terrace. Immediately, they pushed the door, opened it, went inside and removed her from the rope. In the same room, they found the children in unconscious state. Two tumblers were found near them. Then, they immediately rushed the accused and children to the Government Hospital at Usilampatti. 5. P.W.11, Dr. Gokulnath Premchand, examined the accused at 02.00 a.m. on 05.10.2007. She was in unconscious state. There was a ligature mark on the neck. P.W.11, immediately admitted her in the hospital after making entries in the Accident Register (Ex.P.13). Then, for better treatment, she was sent to Madurai Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital. According to P.W.11, the said ligature mark on the neck, would have been caused by hanging. 6. Immediately, he examined P.W.3, Selvi. Jeyasanthiya, aged 6 years. She was conscious. She told the doctor that on 04.10.2007, at about 11.30 a.m. her mother gave her rat poison. He gave treatment to P.W.3 for the same. Ex.P.15 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.16 is his medical opinion. Then, he examined the deceased and he found that he was dead. Ex.P.14 is the Accident Register for him. Then, he transferred the body to the mortuary. 7. He gave treatment to P.W.3 for the same. Ex.P.15 is the Accident Register and Ex.P.16 is his medical opinion. Then, he examined the deceased and he found that he was dead. Ex.P.14 is the Accident Register for him. Then, he transferred the body to the mortuary. 7. P.W.13, was the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Sindhupatti Police Station. He received intimation from the hospital and immediately rushed to the Usilampatti Headquarters Hospital. There, he recorded the statement of P.W.2 under Ex.P.1 and on returning to Sindhupatti Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 207 of 2007, under Sections 302, 307 and 309 I.P.C. Ex.P.19 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.13 to Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 8. P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence. In the presence of P.W.6 and another witness, he prepared an Observation Mahazer (Ex.P.5) and a Rough Sketch under Ex.P.20. From the place of occurrence, he recovered the saree (M.O.1), which was allegedly used by the accused for hanging and two ever-silver tumblers (M.O.2 series) under a mahazer. Then, he examined P.Ws.2,4,5 and 6 and recorded their statements. Then, on reaching the Headquarters Hospital at Usilampatti, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 11.15 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. Ex.P.21 is the Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. P.W.12, Dr. Sathasivam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.10.2007 at 01.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: "Abrasion marks are seen over the front and left side of neck. A bruise of about 4 x 1 cm over right side of neck present. Hyoid bone intact. No fracture of cervical vertebrae. No other external injuries seen. Internal Examination: Hyoid Bone intact. No foreign body in the larynx and trachea. Thorax: Heart and lugs congested, no haemothorax, Abdomen: Stomach congested, filled with partly digested food particles, Small Intestine: Congested, Liver, Kidney, Spleen, congested, Bladder empty, Spine & pelvis, no bony injury: Skull: Intact, No bony injury, Brain congested". He reserved his opinion pending report of the chemical analysis and the viscera report. Finally, he gave opinion that no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death. He reserved his opinion pending report of the chemical analysis and the viscera report. Finally, he gave opinion that no definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death. However, according to him, from and out of the postmortem appearance and the clinical symptoms and signs, which were consistent with the death due to snake poison. The nature of which should not be made out. 9. Continuing the investigation, P.W.15 forwarded M.O.1 to Court and gave a request to the Court to forward the same for chemical examination. He arrested the accused on 27.10.2007 and sent her to Court for judicial remand. He made a request to the Court to record the confession of the accused. P.W.9, the then Judicial Magistrate of Melur, received the said requisition from P.W.15. On 26.11.2007, the accused was produced before him. He gave the necessary statutory warnings as required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and directed her to be produced on the next day, that is, on 27.11.2007. On 27.11.2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate gave necessary warnings and then recorded her statement. In the said statement (Ex.P.12), the accused told that on the day of occurrence, she was sleeping in the house and the child were also sleeping from 07.00 p.m. onwards. While so, when she returned the consciousness, she found herself only in the Government Hospital at Usilampatti. She has further stated that she did not know as to what had happened after 07.00 p.m. She further told that she did not give poison to the children and she did not kill her son. 10. P.W.15 continued the investigation and on completing the same, he laid charge sheet against the accused on 20.03.2008. 11. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. 12. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 15 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited, besides 5 Material Objects. 13. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the father-in-law of the accused has stated that on the day of occurrence, he along with his wife, namely, P.W.2, were sleeping in a different place and in the house, the accused and her children alone were sleeping. He further stated that when they opened the door, they found the accused hanging and the children unconsciously lying. He further stated that when they opened the door, they found the accused hanging and the children unconsciously lying. He further stated that when he enquired the accused, she told him that out of frustration due to the eve-teasing by the villagers, accusing her of having married her brother-in-law within one year of the demise of her husband, she gave poison to the children by mixing in the milk and she attempted to commit suicide by hanging. Then, he took all the three to the hospital. P.W.2 has also stated the same facts as she accompanied P.W.1 to the house and witnessed everything. P.W.3, the daughter of the accused, has turned hostile. According to her evidence, she had food by around 8 O' clock and thereafter, she slept. Then, when she opened her eyes, she found herself only in the hospital. P.W.4, a worker in the mill under P.W.1, has stated that when P.W.2 knocked the doors at 10 O'clock, since it was not opened, she saw through the key hole and found the accused was hanging and then she informed P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and all of them opened the door. P.W.5, Mr. Pandi, is yet another worker, who has stated about the same. P.W.6 is the Village Administrative Officer, in whose presence, the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch were prepared and the two material objects, namely, M.O.1 series and M.O.2 were recovered. P.W.7, Mr. Muthupandi, is the one, who carried all the three persons in his vehicle to the hospital. P.W.8 is the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, who has spoken about the forwarding of the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.9 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the accused as well as witnesses. P.W.10 is the Scientific Assistant, who has spoken about the chemical analysis done on the two tumblers. According to her, the smears on the tumblers revealed that there was rodent poison. P.W.11, Dr. Gokulnath Premchand, has stated about the treatment given by him to P.W.3 and the accused. He further stated about the fact that he declared the deceased dead. P.W.12, Dr. Sadasivam, has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.13, is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. P.W.14 is the Constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court. He further stated about the fact that he declared the deceased dead. P.W.12, Dr. Sadasivam, has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.13, is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. P.W.14 is the Constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court. P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and laid charge sheet. He has spoken vividly about the same. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section313 Cr.P.C., she denied the same as false. On her side, she examined herself as D.W.1. She has stated about the petition filed by P.W.1 for appointment of guardianship of herself for P.W.3. According to the accused, she did not give poison to the children and she did not hang herself. After having food, she went for sleeping and she did not know what happened to them thereafter and after opened her eyes, she found herself in the hospital. Thus, she had totally denied the occurrence. The petition filed by P.W.1 for appointment of guardianship of herself, is marked as Ex.D.1. 15. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and sentenced her accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the defence taken by the accused is so probable and the same has been, to some extent, established by the accused by means of materials collected through the examination of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel would further submit that though it is alleged that the deceased died due to strangulation, the medical evidence revealed that there was no such strangulation. The learned counsel would state that though it is stated that the deceased and P.W.3 were given rat poison by this accused, absolutely there is no evidence, such as, viscera report of the deceased and any other report regarding the contents of the stomach of P.W.3 also. The learned counsel would submit that only out of surmise it is stated that the deceased as well as P.W.3 were given rat poison. The learned counsel would submit that only out of surmise it is stated that the deceased as well as P.W.3 were given rat poison. The learned counsel would further submit that simply because in the two tumblers recovered from the place of occurrence there was rat poison, it cannot be presumed that they were used by the accused for giving poison to the children. So far as, the hanging by the accused is concerned, the learned counsel, would submit that at the earliest opportunity, she has explained that she only slept and after that she did not know what had happened to her. In other words, according to her, she would have been hanged by somebody due to some reason. So far as the locking of the house from inside, is concerned, the learned counsel, would submit that the house has got many other ways, through which, somebody would have come and committed these crimes. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would however oppose this appeal. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that according to the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the house was locked from inside and it was broke open and then it was found that the accused was hanging. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is too difficult to believe that the accused did not know as to the how she was hanging. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the medical evidence vividly corroborates the eye witness account. Thus, according to him, there are no reasons to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court. 19. We have considered the above submissions. 20. Let us first take up the death of the son of the accused. In the Postmortem Certificate, it has been stated that there were only abrasion marks on the front left side of neck. There was no other contusion corresponding to the above abrasions in the subcutaneous tissues. The Doctor has given the following opinion in Ex.P.18: "No definite opinion as to the cause of death can be given". The Doctor has further stated in Ex.P.18 that however, postmortem appearance and the clinical symptoms and signs are consisting with the death due to snake poison. The Doctor has given the following opinion in Ex.P.18: "No definite opinion as to the cause of death can be given". The Doctor has further stated in Ex.P.18 that however, postmortem appearance and the clinical symptoms and signs are consisting with the death due to snake poison. He has further added as follows: "The nature of which is/could not be made out". Thus, from Ex.P.18, it is crystal clear that P.W.12, was not in a position to give a definite opinion about the cause of death. Though, it is alleged by the prosecution that rat poison was given by the accused by mixing the same with the milk, the stomach did not contain the milk at all. The visceral organs were sent for chemical analysis by P.W.12. But, the said report has not been proved in evidence. The report has been suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the child died due to rat poison. Thus, the prosecution, in our considered view, has failed to prove the cause of death. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death, it is difficult to hold that the death was homicide. 21. Next comes the allegation against the accused in respect of P.W.3, her daughter. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused gave poison by mixing the same with milk to her. But, P.W.3 in her evidence has stated that by about 08.00 p.m. her mother served her food and she took the same and then she slept. She has further stated that when she woke up, she found that she was in the hospital. Thus, there is no positive evidence from her that the accused gave her milk mixed with poison. Of course, the child told the doctor that the accused gave her milk mixed with poison. But, that statement being only a former statement, cannot be used as a substantive evidence. It could be only used to contradict P.W.3. But, unfortunately P.W.3 was not contradicted by the said statement. Thus, there is no clinching evidence to prove that the accused gave milk mixed with poison to P.W.3. 22. It is a common knowledge that if a patient is brought to the hospital with the complaint of poisoning, quite naturally, the doctor would give stomach wash first. But, unfortunately P.W.3 was not contradicted by the said statement. Thus, there is no clinching evidence to prove that the accused gave milk mixed with poison to P.W.3. 22. It is a common knowledge that if a patient is brought to the hospital with the complaint of poisoning, quite naturally, the doctor would give stomach wash first. It is also common knowledge that stomach wash would be collected and sent for chemical analysis to find out whether there was any poison or not. In this case, though P.W.3 was in the hospital for a number of days, medical records have not been produced and report relating to the stomach wash, has not been produced. Thus, absolutely, as of now, there is no evidence that P.W.3 was administered poison by this accused. 23. Last comes, the allegation of attempt to commit suicide made by the accused. She has stated that she slept and when she woke up, she was in the hospital. She did not know anything as to how she came to be hanged. In other words, her defence is that somebody else would have entered into the house, made her unconscious and would have hanged her. The theory put forward by the accused is not improbable. Though, it is alleged that the house was found locked from inside, it has not been ruled out that there was no other entrance to enter into the room either through the back doors or through the other entrance. The Investigating Officer has not investigated to rule out the possibility for anybody else to enter into the house, where the accused and children were sleeping. Thus, it is also quite probable that some other enemies would have entered into the house, made these people unconscious and hanged the deceased. This possibility has not been ruled out by the prosecution and therefore the doubt arising out the said possibility, should go to the accused. In view of the above position, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal. 24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 227 of 2008, dated 03.04.2009, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. 24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 227 of 2008, dated 03.04.2009, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by her, shall be refunded to her.