JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.236 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 21.06.2010, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs. Nambeeswari. The accused is her husband. Prior to the marriage, they had fallen in love with each other and in culmination of the said love affair, they married ten years prior to the date of occurrence. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased were residing together along with PW-1 and PW-2 at Peravur Village in Ramanathapuram District. PW-1 is the sister and PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. After some time, there arose a matrimonial dispute between the deceased and the accused and therefore, the accused deserted the deceased and he was living elsewhere. In this regard, the accused issued a legal notice to the deceased seeking divorce. As a counter blast, the deceased made a complaint to the police against the accused for dowry demand and harassment. Both the matters were pending. At that juncture, it is alleged that the accused came to the house of PW-1 and PW-2, on 04.04.2009 and assured that he would keep the deceased well as his wife. The accused requested the deceased to come and join with him to continue the matrimonial life. Accordingly, after informing PW-1 and PW-2, the deceased left the house of PW-1 and PW-2 along with the deceased. 2.1. It is further alleged that PW-1 was asked by PW-2 to follow the accused and the deceased. Accordingly, PW-1 also followed them, without being noticed by the deceased and the accused. It is further alleged that at about 11.00 AM, when the deceased and the accused had reached Peravur Kanmoi, suddenly, as per his prior plan, the accused strangulated the deceased and pushed her into the Kanmoi water. Accordingly, PW-1 also followed them, without being noticed by the deceased and the accused. It is further alleged that at about 11.00 AM, when the deceased and the accused had reached Peravur Kanmoi, suddenly, as per his prior plan, the accused strangulated the deceased and pushed her into the Kanmoi water. Then, he immersed her face into the water, until she breathed her lost and thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. 2.2. PW-1, immediately, returned to her house and informed PW-2 with the tears rolling down from her eyes. However, PW-2 did not believe her words. Therefore, they did not go in search of the deceased and the accused. PW-2, thereafter, went for rearing the cattle. 2.3. It is further alleged that by about 12.00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found in the lake by somebody. The villagers gathered in the lake. On hearing about the same, PW-2 also went there. Then, the villagers took out the dead body from the kanmoi water. 2.4. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the accused had gone to PW-7, the then Village Administrative Officer of Pattinamkathan. By around 11.30 AM, on 04.04.2009, the accused wanted to give a confession voluntarily. Accordingly, he gave a confession, orally, which was reduced to writing by PW-7 in the presence of his Village Assistant, by name, Mr. Ramesh. EX-P3 is the said confession of the accused. PW-7, then, prepared a report under EX-P4. He took the accused to the Police Station along with EX-P3 and EX-P4 and produced him before the Inspector of Police. 2.5. PW-11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Kenikarai Police Station, before whom the accused was produced by PW-7, registered a case in Crime No.149 of 2009, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of EX-P3. EX-P10 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents [EX-P4 and EX-P10] to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.6. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-14 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. EX-P12 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.7. 2.6. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-14 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. EX-P12 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.7. PW-10 -Dr.R.Chandrasekarn conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He noticed the following:- "Avulsion of skin left side of neck measuring 2 X 2 cm. No other injury, no mud, no weeds in mouth and hands." EX-P5 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to drowning. 2.7. Then, PW-14 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused, on 30.07.2009. 2.8. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined, 14 documents and eight material objects were marked. Out of the said 14 witnesses, PW-1 claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence. PW-2, the mother of the deceased, has stated that she requested PW-1 to follow the deceased and the accused. She has further stated that PW-1 informed her with the tears rolling down from her eyes about the entire occurrence. However, she did not believe her words. She has further stated that by about 12.00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found in the lake by the villagers. On hearing about the same, PW-2 went to the lake. 2.9. PW-3 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-4 has spoken about the matrimonial dispute between the accused and the deceased. PW-5, Dr.S.Jeyaprakash had declared the deceased dead and forwarded the dead body to the mortuary at the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. PW-6 is the Scientific Assistant, who examined the internal organs of the deceased. He found that there was no poison detected in the internal organs. PW-7 is the Village Administrative Officer. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused gave a voluntary confession, which was reduced to writing by him. PW-6 is the Scientific Assistant, who examined the internal organs of the deceased. He found that there was no poison detected in the internal organs. PW-7 is the Village Administrative Officer. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused gave a voluntary confession, which was reduced to writing by him. He has stated vividly about the same. PW-8 is the villager, who has stated that he found the dead body in Peravur Kanmoi by around 11.30 AM to 12.00 noon. PW-9 is the Head Constable, who has stated that he handed over the First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate at Ramathapuram, at 08.30 PM, on 04.04.2009. PW-10, Dr.R.Chandrasekarn, has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, has stated about the registration of the case, on the accused being produced by PW-7. PW-12 is the Head Constable, who has stated that he carried the dead body to the Government Hospital at Ramanathapuram, for postmortem. PW-13 is the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram. She has stated about the complaint made by the deceased against the accused in respect of the dowry demand made by him. PW-14 has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of the final report. 2.10. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against him, he denied the same as false. He did not choose to examine any witness. On his side, EX-D1, a sketch, showing the limit of Kenikarai Police Station was marked. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 4. In this case, there is no dispute that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that there was matrimonial dispute between them. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 4. In this case, there is no dispute that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that there was matrimonial dispute between them. In this regard, a legal notice was issued by the deceased seeking divorce and the deceased made a complaint to the police against the accused for dowry demand and harassment. In this backdrop, it is stated that the accused came and persuaded the deceased to come with him and join to continue the matrimonial life. This, in our considered view, is doubtful. 5. It is the further evidence of PW-1 that since the deceased was going with the accused, PW-2 wanted PW-1 to follow them. Had it been true, this would indicate that PW-1 and PW-2 had some suspicion in the conduct of the accused. PW-1, accordingly, followed the deceased and the accused. But, during cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that neither the deceased nor the accused had noticed her following them. On going near the Peravur Kanmoi, it is alleged that the accused pushed the deceased into the water and immersed her head into the water. Quite strangely, according to PW-1, she did not raise any alarm. Until the accused left the place of occurrence, after killing the deceased, she was waiting there very passively. This conduct of PW-1 is again highly unnatural making her evidence unbelievable. After the occurrence, according to PW-2, PW-1 returned to the house of PW-2 and informed PW-2 with tears in her eyes. PW-2, during chief-examination, admitted that PW-1 informed her about the entire occurrence with tears rolling down from her eyes. But, PW-2 would state that she did not believe PW-1 and therefore, she went for rearing cattle. 6. The above conduct of PW-2 is again quite strange and unnatural. When she had suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused and that it is the reason why, she wanted PW-1 to follow the deceased and the accused and when PW-1 had returned home and informed PW-2 that the deceased was killed by the accused, PW-2, the mother of the deceased, would not have simply gone for rearing cattle, without going to the place of occurrence to search for the deceased. PW-1, on her part also, kept mum thereafter and she also did not do anything more. It was only, by about 12.00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found in the lake by somebody. The villagers gathered and took out the dead body from the kanmoi water and informed PW-1 and thereafter only, it is stated that PW-1 and PW-2 also went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. So until the dead body was found, PW-1 and PW-2 kept mum, without informing about the occurrence to anybody and without even taking steps to go in search of the deceased. From this unnatural conduct of PW-1 and PW-2, as projected by the prosecution, in our considered view, the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be believed. 7. Apart from the above evidences, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-7, the Village Administrative Officer. According to him, at 11.30 AM, on 04.04.2009, the accused appeared before him and gave a voluntary confession. It is in evidence that the accused was not previously known to him. The accused had no acquaintance with PW-7. It is highly unbelievable that the accused would have chosen PW-7 to confess. Going by the concoction of the case as though PW-1 had witnessed the entire occurrence, there is every reason for us to suspect that the extra judicial confession is also nothing but a concocted story. The First Information Report registered on the basis of the extra judicial confession had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 08.30 PM, on 04.04.2009. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. At any rate, the extra judicial confession, by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence. Unless it inspires the confidence of the Court, it is not possible for this Court to sustain the conviction, in the absence of any corroboration from any other independent source. Here, in this case, as we have already pointed out, the so-called extra judicial confession does not inspire the confidence of this Court and further, there is no corroboration to the same also. 8. In such view of the matter, we find it very difficult to sustain the conviction based on the extra judicial confession, which, in our considered view, is highly unbelievable. 8. In such view of the matter, we find it very difficult to sustain the conviction based on the extra judicial confession, which, in our considered view, is highly unbelievable. As we have already pointed out, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be believed. If that be so, absolutely, we find that there is no evidence against the accused to sustain the conviction. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by Judgment dated 21.06.2010, made in S.C.No.236 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand terminated.