JUDGMENT

N.SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

(1) THE appellant was charged for having committed the murder of his wife on 19th April, 1997 by strangulation. He was tried by the sessions judge, Mandya and found guilty for the offence of murder of his wife he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days for an offence under section 302 of IPC.

(2) HIS appeal to the High Court having failed the appellant is before us in this appeal.

(3) THE prosecution case briefly stated is: The deceased Nanjamanni was the third wife of the appellant. It is the prosecution case that there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant because of the fact that the appellant was given to drinking. On the date of incident it is stated that when PW 2 came at about 2 oclock in the afternoon to deliver his wedding invitation, he noticed from the outside of the house of the appellant that the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling, therefore, he went, instead of extending invitation to them, to the house of PWs 1 and 3 who were deceaseds parents and informed them about the said quarrel On hearing, it is the case of the prosecution that all PWs 1 to 3 who are also the residents of the same village came near the house of the appellant and found the appellant walking out of his house with a nylon rope. Noticing this act of the appellant the said witnesses went inside the house and found the deceased with a ligature mark on her neck. It is the further case of the prosecution that at about 5 p.m. in the evening the appellant came with a doctor, PW 13 but the said doctor did not go into the house to examine the deceased as he was informed that she had already died. The prosecution case is also that the appellant had told the said doctor that his wife had hanged herself and he brought her down to the ground and that she was lying unconscious and asked the doctor to revive her. It is the further case of the prosecution that at about 7 p.m., PWs 1 and 2 went to the police station and made an oral statement to the S.I PW 16 and lodged a complaint in regard to the death of the deceased. Thereafter, PW 16 informed his superior PW 18, who took up the investigation and visited the scene of the incident and held inquest proceeding - exhibit P 12. It is the case of the prosecution that after the incident in question the appellant had absconded and was arrested on 27th of April, 1997. In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs 1, 2 and 3 who had witnessed the accused going out of his house immediately after the incident in question had occurred. The prosecution witnesses 4, 5 and 6 who are neighbours have not supported the prosecution case except to the incident that they had witnessed frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. Prosecution also relied upon the recovery of MO. 7, nylon rope at the instance of the appellant, according to the prosecution, which was used in strangulation. The post mortem report and the evidence of the doctor shows that the deceased died homicidal death due to strangulation with rope. On this basis the prosecution tried to establish the case against the appellant. As stated above the learned sessions judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC.

(4) THE High Court in appeal practically disbelieved the entire prosecution case. So far as exhibit P 1 - complaint is concerned, the High Court has not placed reliance because of the fact that there was a prior intimation given to the police at 3 oclock pursuant to this the investigation had already started even before exhibit P1 came into existence. Therefore, in view of the fact that the earliest version of the incident was not brought on the record the High Court felt doubtful to accept the contents of exhibit P1. Similarly, in regard to the recovery