JUDGMENT : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/A-1 in S.C. No.31/2012 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur. 2. The prosecution’s case is as under:- The deceased Manimekalai got married to Shanmugam (A-1) on 12.2.2010 and lived in Kanjanur Village in joint family. It is alleged that there was dowry demand, and cruelty was meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. It is further alleged that on 11.12.10, Shanmugam (A-1) throttled her neck and caused her death and, thereafter, set fire to her body by pouring kerosene, in the backyard of his house. Annadurai (P.W.14), a panchayat member of Kanjanur village informed about the death of Manimekalai to Ramachandran (P.W.7), the President of Anaikarai Village, who, in turn, informed the family members of the deceased. On coming to know of it, Balasubramanian (P.W.1 - father), Valarmathi (P.W.2 - Mother), Sivanandam (P.W.3 - Uncle), Ramalingam (P.W.4) and Suganthi (P.W.5) came to Kanjanur Village and saw the body of the deceased in the drain in the backyard of the house of Shanmugam (A-1). 3. On the complaint (Ex.P-1) lodged by Balasubramanian (P.W.1), Senthilkumaran (P.W.29), the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.308/2010 on 12.12.2010 at 0930 hrs. u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P-11), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.25 p.m. on the same day. Since the death of Manimekalai was within 7 years of marriage, the investigation of the case was taken over by Rathnavel (P.W.31), the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who requested Ashok Kumar (P.W.30), the Revenue Divisional Officer, to conduct inquest over the body of the deceased. Ashok Kumar (P.W.30) went to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-12) and returned a finding that the death of Manimekalai could be on account of dowry harassment. 4. Rathnavel (P.W.31), the Deputy Superintendent of Police, requisitioned the services of Manisekaran (P.W.22), the Deputy Director of Forensic Department to come to the place of occurrence for collecting clue materials. Manisekaran (P.W.22) has stated that he went to the place of occurrence and found the body of the deceased completely burnt. He observed that there were no burn injuries on the sole and ankles of the deceased. Manisekaran (P.W.22) has stated that he went to the place of occurrence and found the body of the deceased completely burnt. He observed that there were no burn injuries on the sole and ankles of the deceased. From the place of occurrence, the investigation officer seized the following items:- (i) 5 Litre plastic can with kerosene smell M.O.1 (ii) A half burnt gunny cloth with kerosene smell M.O.2 (iii) Burnt pieces of petticoat M.O.3 (iv) Orange plastic mug with kerosene smell M.O.4 (v) Broken pieces of bangles M.O.5 5. The above items were seized under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P-15). The investigation officer prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P-13) and rough sketch (Ex.P-14). The body was sent to the Government Hospital, Trichy for post-mortem, where Dr.Mohan (P.W.21) and Dr.Suganthi (P.W.26) performed autopsy and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-9). The viscera was sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for examination and the hyoid bone was sent to Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25), District Police Surgeon, Trichy for examination. After receiving the viscera and bone case reports, Dr.Mohan (P.W.21) and Dr.Suganthi (P.W.26) issued the post-mortem certificate, the contents of which are very relevant to decide this case and, therefore, the same are extracted verbatim:- “Appearances found at the post-mortem: Body of female lying on its back. Pugilistic attitude present. Eyes - closed. Ears - no discharge, nostrils - bloody discharge present. Mouth - opened, tongue - protruded out. External Injuries: (1) Extensive deep burns involving entire body 100% burns. (2) Loss of medial four finger in the left side hand bone and tendons exposed. (3) Bones and tendons exposed right side thigh due to deep burns. Internal Examination: Larynx, trachea, glottis - congested. Hyoid bone - inward compression fracture involving left side horn (left side) present. Opening of Thorax: Ribs : No fracture. Lungs : Right Wt. 450 gms. C/S congested left. Wt. 400 gms. C/S congested. Heart : Wt. 250 gms. Chambers empty. Opening of Abdomen: Stomach : contains 300 ml of semisolid food particles present. Intesting - Liver wt. 1300 gms. C/S congested. Spleen - Wt. 110 gms. C/S - congested. Kidney each 110 gms. C/S congested. Bladder empty. Uterus - normal in size cavity empty. Head - Scalp, skull, membrane intact. Brain 1300 gm. C/S Pale. Post mortem concluded at 1.15 p.m. On 13.12.2010. Intesting - Liver wt. 1300 gms. C/S congested. Spleen - Wt. 110 gms. C/S - congested. Kidney each 110 gms. C/S congested. Bladder empty. Uterus - normal in size cavity empty. Head - Scalp, skull, membrane intact. Brain 1300 gm. C/S Pale. Post mortem concluded at 1.15 p.m. On 13.12.2010. (1) As per Viscera Report - Forensic Sciences Department (Government of Tamil Nadu) Regional Forensic Science Laboratory), Medical College, College Building, Thanjavur Tno.9096/2010 TAN/TOX.H 1096/2010 dated 21.12.2010. There is no poison material was detected in the visceras. (2) As per the BONE CASE REPORT received from office of the District Police Surgeon, Tiruchirappalli - I, dated 15.12.2010 Bone case No.227/2010. Hyoid Bone: Inward compression fracture on the left side of the body at the junction with greater corner. Ante mortem in nature. Final Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to throttling.” 6. On receipt of the post-mortem certificate, the investigation officer (P.W.31), altered the case from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. He examined witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed final report in PRC No.18/2011 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kumbakonam u/s 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC against Shanmugam (A-1), Jayalakshmi (A-2), Visalakshi (A-3) and Boopathi (A- 4). The sum and substance of the allegation in the charge sheet is that Shanmugam (A-1) and his family members inflicted cruelty on Manimekalai and were demanding Rs.1 Lakh for buying a tractor. On 11.12.2010, pursuant to the refusal of Manimekalai to concede to the demand of Rs.1 Lakh, Shanmugam (A-1) throttled her neck and murdered her and, thereafter, burnt the body in the backyard of his house and, hence, he was charged u/s 302 and 201 IPC. 7. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.31/12 and made over to the Mahila Court for trial. 8. The trial court framed the following charges:- (i) u/s 498-A IPC against A-1 to A-4; (ii) u/s 302 IPC against A-1; (iii) u/s 201 IPC also against Shanmugam (A-1 ). When questioned, all the accused pleaded not guilty. 8. The trial court framed the following charges:- (i) u/s 498-A IPC against A-1 to A-4; (ii) u/s 302 IPC against A-1; (iii) u/s 201 IPC also against Shanmugam (A-1 ). When questioned, all the accused pleaded not guilty. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses, marked 20 exhibits and 17 M.O.s. When the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same; however, Shanmugam (A-1) gave a written explanation saying that on the date of incident, the local village temple festival was on and his wife wanted him to drop her in her natal home; he told her that he will take her the next day; after sometime, Manimekalai was ablaze and he does not really know the reasons for that. 9. The trial court, after hearing either side and considering the evidence on record, by judgment dated 27.2.2017, acquitted A-2 to A-4 but convicted Shanmugam (A-1) and sentenced him as under:- S. No. Section Sentence 1 U/s 498-A IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2 U/s 302 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3 U/s 201 IPC Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed on him, Shanmugam (A-1), the appellant herein, has filed the present appeal. 10. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the acquittal of A-2 to A-4. It may be relevant to state here that the accused were not charged u/s 304-B IPC, but Shanmugam (A-1) alone was charged u/s 302 IPC on the allegation that he committed the murder by throttling his wife and, thereafter, in order to screen the offence, he set fire to her body in the backyard of his house at 9.45 p.m. on 11.12.10. 11. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is predicated on circumstantial evidence. 12. 11. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is predicated on circumstantial evidence. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that overwhelming materials available on record show that the appellant was sitting on the pial of his house when Manimekalai was found ablaze in the backyard of the house by the neighbours and, therefore, the allegation that he throttled her to death and, thereafter, burnt her body is baseless. 13. Per contra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor refuted the contentions and submitted that in the teeth of the opinion of Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25), that breakage of the hyoid bone was ante mortem, it is obvious that the appellant had throttled her to death. 14. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival contentions and also perused the materials available on record. 15. It may not be necessary for us to discuss in detail the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 5 because those witnesses speak about the marriage of Manimekalai and the cruelty meted out to her. They have not spoken to anything about the incident that occurred on 11.12.2010 in the matrimonial home of Manimekalai in Kanjanur Village since these witnesses hail from Anakarai Village. A-2 to A-4 have been acquitted of this charge and in the absence of any appeal challenging their acquittal on this allegation, it will only be a futile exercise to discuss their evidence. 16. The prosecution has proved the following facts beyond doubt:- (a) Manimekalai got married to Shanmugam on 12.2.2010 and she lived with him and her mother-in-law, Jayalakshmi in the matrimonial home at Kanjanur village; (b) Her natal village where her parents reside is Anaikarai Village; (c) Manimekalai died on 11.12.2010 around 9.45 p.m. in her house; (d) The village temple festival was being celebrated in Kanjanur Village. 17. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the appellant had throttled the deceased and set her on fire. 18. As stated above, there is no eye witness account to support the theory propounded by the prosecution. The prosecution strongly relies upon the opinion of Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25), who, in her evidence as well in the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10), has stated that the fracture in the hyoid bone is ante mortem in nature. 18. As stated above, there is no eye witness account to support the theory propounded by the prosecution. The prosecution strongly relies upon the opinion of Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25), who, in her evidence as well in the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10), has stated that the fracture in the hyoid bone is ante mortem in nature. It may be necessary to extract the relevant portion of the bone case report (Ex.P-10) dated 15.12.2010:- “Opinion : Hyoid Bone - Inward compression fracture on the left side of body at the junction with greater corner. Antemortem in nature.” 19. Dr.Mohan (P.W.21) and Dr.Suganthi (P.W.26), who performed autopsy have not stated that the 100% burn injuries suffered by the deceased were ante mortem or post-mortem in nature. That apart, they have also not noted any injury around the neck region of the deceased. Even in a case where murder is committed by throttling the neck and if the body is burnt thereafter, still, in the internal examination of the neck region, there will be signs of compression. Based merely on the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10), the post-mortem surgeons have opined that Manimekalai would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling. At the risk of repetition, it is necessary to state that the post-mortem surgeons have not given any opinion as to whether the burns were ante-mortem or post-mortem in nature. 20. Mrs.Thilaga Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the specific answer given by Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25), who gave the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10), who, in the cross-examination has stated that she has not given any reason in her report for saying that the fracture of the hyoid bone was ante-mortem in nature. We went through the evidence of Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25) and found that even in the chief examination, she has not given any reasons in support of her opinion that the fracture of the hyoid bone was ante-mortem in nature. Reasons are essential to justify the opinion of an expert whose evidence is relevant u/s 45 of the Evidence Act. 21. That apart, the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10) shows that the hyoid bone was found fractured only on the left side, which is normally termed as unilateral fracture. When both sides of the hyoid bone get fractured, it is called bilateral fracture. 21. That apart, the Bone Case Report (Ex.P-10) shows that the hyoid bone was found fractured only on the left side, which is normally termed as unilateral fracture. When both sides of the hyoid bone get fractured, it is called bilateral fracture. Unilateral fracture of hyoid bone by itself will not lead to the death of a person. It is only an indication that some pressure was mounted on the left neck region. 22. In this context, we may profitably refer to the following paragraph from the treatise -Forensic Pathology” (2nd Edn.) by Bernard Knight by Arnold Publications, wherein at Page-371, it is found thus:- “When a fracture of a laryngeal horn is found, it must first be proved to be ante-mortem in origin. Post-mortem fractures undoubtedly occur, either from mishandling the body during transit or from incorrect autopsy techniques - though the frequency of the latter has been overestimated. It is certainly possible to damage the larynx post-mortem by allowing the neck to fall against a hard surface or sharp edge during removal from the place or death, or during handling in the mortuary. Such damage, however, is more likely to occur to the laryngeal plate of the thyroid cartilage or to the cricoid, rather than to the laterally placed horns, though these can be broken. Damage at autopsy is usually caused by an inexperienced pathologist or autopsy-room technician, especially when forensic expertise is lacking. Clumsy removal of the tongue and neck structures can break the thyroid or hyoid cornuae, especially in old persons where they are calcified and brittle and when any natural joints are ankylosed. This may be one justification for radiography before autopsy, but probably the danger of artefactual breakage has been overestimated, especially where a gentle removal technique is employed.” 23. When the victim is throttled, air supply to the lungs will be disconnected and that will result in petechial haemorrhage on the surface of the heart and lungs and other parts of the body. Whereas, no recording has been made about petechial haemorrhage in the post-mortem report. Similarly, during throttling, the soft tissues around the hyoid bone would suffer contusion, which will be observable during post-mortem even in a case where the body is burnt after death. No recording of this condition has been noted either in the post-mortem report or in the bone case report. Similarly, during throttling, the soft tissues around the hyoid bone would suffer contusion, which will be observable during post-mortem even in a case where the body is burnt after death. No recording of this condition has been noted either in the post-mortem report or in the bone case report. When a person suffers intense burning, it is possible for the hyoid bone to become brittle and get fractured even with mild blunt force. Therefore, in the absence of any aforesaid symptoms, the mere fracture of the left side of the hyoid bone without anything more to substantiate throttling, cannot lead us to infer that the appellant had throttled the deceased to death and, thereafter, burnt her body, especially in the light of the evidence of the ocular witnesses that they saw Manimekalai on her legs when she was ablaze. Had she died immediately after she was throttled, where is the question of the eyewitnesses seeing her standing with fire on her? INQUEST: 24. In this case, we find that Mr.Ashok Kumar (P.W.30 - R.D.O.) has correctly understood the principle behind the conduct of inquest and has accordingly conducted the inquest fairly and thoroughly. 25. The word “inquest” in the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (New 9th Edn.) is:- “An official investigation to find out the cause of somebody’s death, especially when it has not happened naturally.” 26. The conduct of inquest was not imported from Western Criminal Jurisprudence. “The practice of holding inquest on dead bodies in the presence of panchayatadars was in vogue even at the time of Sultanates side- by-side with trials by ordeal.” (See : History of Madras Police - Madras Police Centenary Volume 1859 - 1959 - page 34) 27. Whenever a dead body of a person is found in a public place, it was the practice of the agent of the King to conduct an open inquiry in the presence of the local villagers in order to find out the cause of death. It will be of interest to give the details as to how in 1642, the first murder case within the East India Company Town of Madras was solved by Andrew Cogan, the first agent of the English East India Company. A dead body of a woman was seen floating up and down the Cooum river and Cogan instructed some local divers to bring the body ashore. A dead body of a woman was seen floating up and down the Cooum river and Cogan instructed some local divers to bring the body ashore. After the body was brought ashore, no wound was perceived on the body and, therefore, everyone thought that she would have drowned herself and were about to give her a burial. One of the divers wanted remuneration for having brought the body ashore for which a bystander wryly commented “why do you want money for this, after all she has been maintaining you this long”; when this was spoken, everyone lifted their eyes in one and looked at the diver. One of them discovered blood in the cloth of the diver and asked him to explain it. He was not able to satisfactorily explain it. This aroused everyone’s suspicion and the diver was subjected to intense questioning. He was not able to satisfactorily give answers. Therefore, they searched his house and found all the jewels of the deceased lady there. He confessed to the murder saying that his wife had died two or three years back and the deceased lady was keeping him and providing him with everything. Andrew Cogan did not know whether he had the authority to punish him and so the matter was referred to Damarala Venkatappa Nayak, also called ‘Pedda Nayak’, who granted the territory of Madarasapattinam to the Company. Pedda Nayak gave the express command to do justice in accordance with the laws of England and, thereafter, the murderer was hanged. This event finds place in the records of the East India Company. (See : History of Madras Police - Madras Police Centenary Volume 1859 - 1959 - page 55). 28. Today, in our court system, we are bogged by rampant perjury and very many commentators have stated that oral evidence in India should be accepted with a sack of salt and not merely with a pinch of salt. In Madhusudhan Sandyal - Vs - Sarup Chandra Sarkar Chaudhri (4 Moore Indian Appeals 441 @ 442), the Judicial Committee observed:- “In India, there is a free admixture of falsity and truth in the evidence of witnesses. In Madhusudhan Sandyal - Vs - Sarup Chandra Sarkar Chaudhri (4 Moore Indian Appeals 441 @ 442), the Judicial Committee observed:- “In India, there is a free admixture of falsity and truth in the evidence of witnesses. It is quite true that such is the lamentable disregard of truth prevailing amongst native inhabitants of Hindustan that all oral evidence is necessarily received with great suspicion.” This gives a very poor picture of the moral standards of Indians who were painted as congenital liars. This sweeping statement is far from the truth. 29. Justice P.N.Ramaswamy, the author of the locus classicus “Magisterial Police Act (MLJ Publication 1951) said:- “Similarly it cannot be doubted that the British administration of justice has for reasons acutely analysed by Major-General Sleeman of Thuggee fame led to an astonishing growth of perjury in our Courts. Major-General Sleeman writes:- “The large cotton-tree is, among the wild tribes of India, the favourite seat of gods still more terrible, because their superintendence is confined exclusively to the neighbourhood; and having their attention less occupied they can venture to make a more minute scrutiny into the conduct of the people immediately around them. The ‘pipal’ is occupied by one or other of the Hindu triad, the god of creation, preservation or destruction who have the affairs of the universe to look after; but the cotton and other trees are occupied by some minor deities who are vested with a local superintendence over the affairs of a district, or perhaps, of a single village. These are always in the view of the people, and every man knows that he is every moment liable to be taken to their court, and to be made to invoke their vengeance upon himself or those dear to him. If he has told a falsehood in what he has stated, or tells one in what he is about to state. Men so situated adhere habitually, and I may say religiously, to the truth; and I have had before me hundreds of cases in which a man’s property, liberty, or life has depended upon his telling a lie, and he has refused to tell it to save either; as my friend told me, ‘they had not learned the value of a lie’ or rather, they had not learned with how much impunity a lie could be told in the tribunals of civilised society. In their own tribunals, under the pipal tree or cotton- tree, imagination commonly did what the deities, who were supposed to preside, has the credit of doing; if the deponent told a lie, he believed that the deity who sat on the sylvan throne above him, and searched the heart of man, must know it; and from that moment he knew no rest - he was always in dread of his vengeance; if any accident happened to him, or to those dear to him, it was attributed to this offended deity; and if no accident happened, some evil was brought about by his own disordered imagination. In the tribunals, we introduce among them, we soon find that the Judges who preside can seldom search deeply into the hearts of men, or clearly distinguish truth from falsehood in the declarations of deponents; and when they can distinguish it, it is seldom that they can secure their conviction for perjury. They generally learn very soon that these Judges, instead of being, like the Judges of their own woods and wilds, the only beings who can search the hearts of men, and punish them for falsehoods, are frequently the persons, of all others, most blind to the real state of the deponent’s mind, and the degree of truth and falsehood in his narrative; that, however well- intentioned, they are often labouring in the ‘darkness visible’ created by the native officers around them. They not only learn this, but they learn what is still worse, that they may tell what lies they please in these tribunals; and that not one of them shall become known to the circle in which they move, and whose good opinion they value. If, by his lies told in such tribunals a man has robbed another, or caused him to be robbed, of his property, his character, his liberty, or his life, he can easily persuade the circle in which he resides that it has arisen, not from any false statements of his, but from the blindness of the Judge, or the wickedness of the native officers of his court because all circles consider the blindness of the one, and the wickedness of the other, to be everywhere very great. Arrian in speaking of the class of supervisors in India, says: “They may not be guilty of falsehood; and indeed none of the Indians were ever accused of that crime.” I believe that as little falsehood is spoken to by the people of India, in their village communities, as in any part of the world with an equal area and population. It is in our courts of justice where falsehood prevail most, and the longer they have been anywhere established, the greater the degree of falsehood that prevails in them.” (Rambles and Recollections, edited by V.A.Smith, I.C.S., Ch. 57, p.383).” (emphasis supplied) 30. When an inquisitorial enquiry relating to a crime is conducted in the open under a peepal or neem tree near village dieties like Ayyanar, Muneeswaran, et. al., and in the presence of one’s castemen and kins folk, the common Indian will refrain from lying. The penitent murderer, who voluntarily surrenders to the police and confesses to the commission of the crime soon changes his mind during trial on finding that the police have distorted the story with the aid of pliant and stock witnesses. In an open inquest, the police will not be able to put up stock witnesses nor will the suspect be able to get away with false explanations. Open inquest provides an opportunity for members of the public to be part of the criminal justice administration. Realising the importance of inquest, the Colonial Rulers enacted the Coroners Act, 1871, which is still in force in Mumbai and Kolkata. The 18th Law Commission (2006-2009) headed by Mr. Justice AR.Lakshmanan (Retd.) prepared and submitted to the Government an Act titled ‘Coroners Act’ for the whole of India which is yet to see the light of the day. In our view, when open inquests are held, perjury in law courts will stand reduced considerably and false implication of the innocent by the police will also come down. 31. “The adversarial system is opposite of our ancient ethos. In the Panchayat System, they were seeking the truth, which, in adversarial procedure, the Judge does not seek the truth, but only decides whether the charge has been proved by the prosecution. The Judge is not concerned with the truth; he is only concerned with the proof. 31. “The adversarial system is opposite of our ancient ethos. In the Panchayat System, they were seeking the truth, which, in adversarial procedure, the Judge does not seek the truth, but only decides whether the charge has been proved by the prosecution. The Judge is not concerned with the truth; he is only concerned with the proof. Those who know that the acquitted accused was in fact the offender, lose faith in the system” - R.Venkataraman, Former President of India - (Quoted by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in an Article in The Hindu dated 25.5.1999 quoted in Justice Malimath Committee’s Report). 32. The above prelude may appear as a digression, but, actually not, because, we wanted to drive home the efficacy of an open inquest and follow it up by demonstrating as to how the open inquest that was conducted by Mr.Ashok Kumar (P.W.30 - R.D.O.) in this case, had helped us in disinterring the truth. 33. Reverting to the facts of this case, Mr.Ashok Kumar (P.W.30 - R.D.O.), has examined 14 witnesses in the presence of 5 panchayatdars from Kanjanur Village and 4 panchayatdars from Anaikarai Village in order to give legitimacy to the inquest proceedings. The statement given by a person, be it the accused, in the inquest proceedings conducted by an Executive Magistrate does not suffer the vice of the bar u/s 162 Cr.P.C. Though it is not a substantive piece of evidence, it can be used for corroboration or contradiction. Even an incriminating admission by the accused to the Executive Magistrate can be used against him u/s 21 of the Evidence Act. (See : In Re. Ramasamy Mudaliar - AIR 1953 Madras 138). However, the same is not the case where the inquest is by a police officer. 34. Out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were from the family of the deceased. Shanmugam (A-1), Jayalakshmi (A-2) and Visalakshi (A-3) also gave their version of the incident. Apart from the two warring parties, the statements of three independent witnesses, viz., Selvaraj (P.W.8), Rajamanickam (P.W.10) and Rajeswari (P.W.12) were recorded by the RDO (P.W.30). The witnesses of the deceased party spoke about the marriage of Manimekalai to Shanmugam (A-1) and also about the demand of dowry by Shanmugam’s family. Those witnesses came to Kanjanur Village only after the occurrence and they had no knowledge as to how the incident had taken place. The witnesses of the deceased party spoke about the marriage of Manimekalai to Shanmugam (A-1) and also about the demand of dowry by Shanmugam’s family. Those witnesses came to Kanjanur Village only after the occurrence and they had no knowledge as to how the incident had taken place. Shanmugam (A-1) denied the dowry demand allegation and stated that on 11.12.10, he had dinner and was sitting on the pial of his house and at that time, Rajeswari (P.W.12), who lives in the opposite house, shouted that there is fire in the backyard and, therefore, he rushed to the backyard and found the door closed; he staved in and found his wife ablaze; he saw her falling near the drainage and the plantain tree nearby caught fire; he hollered hearing which the residents of the street also came there and helped him to put out the fire; thereafter, he felt giddy and so, he was brought out by his neighbours. When Shanmugam (A- 1) was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he had admitted that he was present in the house. 35. Selvaraj (P.W.8), in his inquest statement as well in the evidence before the Court, has stated that he lives behind the house of Shanmugam (A-1) and there is a fence separating their houses; at 9.45 p.m., he saw Shanmugam’s wife, Manimekalai, in flames coming to the backyard and falling down; thereafter, neighbours came there and put off the fire with water and gunny cloth.; at that time, there was power failure. 36. Rajamanickam (P.W.10), in his statement before the RDO (P.W.30) and in his testimony before the Court has stated that he lives opposite the house of Shanmugam (A-1); there was commotion in Shanmugam’s house and when he looked out, he saw Manimekalai in flames. 37. Rajeswari (P.W.12), in her inquest statement and in the Court testimony, had stated that she resides opposite the house of Shanmugam (A-1); there was power failure around 9.30 p.m.; at that time, she saw a bright fire like light in the backyard of Shanmugam’s house and shouted; Shanmugam was sitting on the pial of his house. 38. These three witnesses were not cross-examined by the accused. Rajeswari (P.W.12) alone was declared hostile because in the chief examination she did not state that she also went inside Shanmugam’s house to put out the fire. 38. These three witnesses were not cross-examined by the accused. Rajeswari (P.W.12) alone was declared hostile because in the chief examination she did not state that she also went inside Shanmugam’s house to put out the fire. In other words, the Prosecutor did not suggest to her that Shanmugam was not sitting on the pial as deposed by her in the examination in chief. 39. Thus, the testimonies of these three witnesses clearly show that they have stuck to the version given by them at the earliest point of time in the inquest proceedings and in the police statements. Though their previous statements were not in consonance with the prosecution theory of murder and burning, yet the investigation officer, Mr.Rathnavel (P.W.31), the Deputy Superintendent of Police had fairly included their names in the list of prosecution witnesses appended to the final report so that all facts are placed before the Court without suppression, for which we place on record our appreciation. 40. The evidence of these three witnesses that they saw Manimekalai alive, but in flames, finds scientific support from the evidence of Manisekaran (P.W.22), the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who has stated that there were no burn injuries in the soles and ankles of the deceased. 41. Mrs.Thilaga Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the appellant had murdered Manimekalai and, thereafter, burnt her, he would have been able to do it only by putting her flat on the ground and pouring kerosene, in which event, there will not be burn injuries on the back side of the body, whereas the medical evidence shows that there was 100% burn injuries, which means that there were burn injuries even on the back side of Manimekalai. We find sufficient force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 42. We find sufficient force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 42. Thus, we have three sets of evidence in this case, viz., :- (a) the testimonies of the relatives of Manimekalai for alleged demand of dowry, which according to the prosecution is the motive for the offence of murder; (b) the opinion of the post-mortem doctors that death was due to asphyxia on account of throttling, which is based solely on the fracture on the left side portion of the hyoid bone, without anything more; and (c) the testimonies of the three witnesses, who have stated at the earliest point of time in the inquest proceedings that they saw Manimekalai alive in flames. Rajeswari (P.W.12) has additionally stated that she saw the appellant sitting on the pial of his house at that time. 43. In our considered opinion, if we believe the testimonies of the three witnesses, then, the theory of the prosecution that Manimekalai was first murdered and, thereafter, burnt falls flat. We have no reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of those three witnesses because even at the earliest point of time, they have given the same version to the RDO (P.W.30) during inquest and to the police during investigation. The appellant also stated that he was sitting on the pial of his house when Manimekalai was in flames in the backyard. Manisekaran (P.W.22), Deputy Director, Forensic Sciences Department, who came to the place of occurrence to assist the Investigating Officer in collecting clue materials, has stated that there were no burns in the soles and ankles of Manimekalai. The post-mortem report shows 100% burns, which would include the back side of Manimekalai and that may not have occurred if Manimekalai was set on fire after she had died. The police surgeons have also not stated whether the burns were ante-mortem or post- mortem. Based solely on the unilateral fracture of the hyoid bone, we cannot ignore the aforesaid material evidence in favour of the appellant to conclude that the appellant had throttled Manimekalai to death, especially in the absence of reasonings by Dr.Renukadevi (P.W.25) in support of her opinion that the fracture of the hyoid bone was ante-mortem. 44. Thus, when there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of it should indubitably go to the appellant. Hence, we acquit the appellant of the charges u/s 302 and 201 IPC. 45. 44. Thus, when there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of it should indubitably go to the appellant. Hence, we acquit the appellant of the charges u/s 302 and 201 IPC. 45. Coming to the allegations of cruelty, the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 that the appellant and his family members demanded Rs.1 Lakh for buying a tractor and for the failure of Manimekalai to get the amount, she was ill-treated, cannot be rejected outrightly. Therefore, we uphold the conviction of the appellant u/s 498-A IPC. 46. Coming to the question of sentence on the appellant for the charge u/s 498-A IPC, we find that he has been in prison since the date of the trial court judgment, I.e., 27.2.17. The appellant was arrested during investigation and was in incarceration as undertrial prisoner. Thus, effectively, the appellant has been in prison for more than two years. Therefore, we reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment u/s 498-A IPC to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed on the appellant is maintained. 47. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant u/s 302 and 201 IPC are set aside. Fine amounts, if any, paid by the appellant towards the sentence u/s 302 and 201 IPC are directed to be refunded. The conviction of the appellant u/s 498-A IPC is confirmed, however, the sentence imposed on the appellant is modified to the period already undergone. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant u/s 498-A IPC is confirmed. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.