The judgment emphasizes the admissibility and weight of extra judicial confessions, the scrutiny of veracity and credibility of witnesses, and the principles regarding the evaluation of medical evidence in establishing guilt in a murder case.

1. Respondent Poulose and his wife, deceased Annamma, were blessed with two children. They were aged 2 and 4. The elder was with Annamma's father PW 6. While the other three alone were in the house on 3-8-85, Annamma had homicidal death inside the house in between 8 and 9 PM. On the basis of the extra judicial confession made by the respondent and after seeing the dead body, PW 1 gave information to the police. Next morning, appellant surrendered before the police. Next morning, appellant surrendered before the police station. In the trial on murder charge appellant was acquitted. State has come up in appeal.

2. Medical evidence of PW 12 and Ext. P7 postmortem certificate prepared by him show that death was homicidal and not suicidal. Cause of death is strangulation by tightening a towel as ligature around the neck. The ligature with the knot was in position around the neck in the dead body. It was so seen by PWs 1 to 3 as well as PWs 4 and 12. There was contusion around the neck involving subcutaneous tissues and sterno mastoid muscles. Upper bones of the thyroid cartilage were broken. PW 12 emphatically said that application of so much force which caused the above injuries coupled with the knot in position is impossible in a case of suicide.

3. There is no direct evidence regarding murder. So also, this is an appeal against acquittal. Even then, as in this case, when the circumstances established by the prosecution evidence are so clear and convincing in favour of the guilt of the accused and capable of excluding all hypothesis in favour of his innocence, and the conclusions arrived at by the trail judge are not at all reasonably possible, interference is a must. The reasonings adopted, both factual and legal, could even be turned perverse.

4. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 6 show that the accused is a drunkard who habitually indulged in picking up quarrels with the deceased and manhandle her. His property was mortgaged to PW 8 for Rs.800/-. PW 6 paid the money by taking a loan. On the date of incident, he came to the house of the accused to persuade him to sell paddy to pay off the loan. Accused refused and there was a quarrel. It was only thereafter that he was forced to agree and the paddy was sold to PW 7. Though these facts are clear from the evidence of PWs 6 to 8, the Sessions Judge refused to accept it as motive for the reason that in the quarrel the deceased did not support PW 6 or oppose the accused. This conclusion was ignoring the evidence regarding quarrels of the accused with the deceased and the impact of the quarrel with her father which acted as the immediate motive.

5. The evidence of PW6 shows that the deceased, the accused and their younger child aged two alone were in the house in the afternoon of the date of incident when he left. This is admitted when questioned under S.313. Thereafter, he raised a plea of alibi and failed to establish the same. False plea of alibi or failure to establish the plea is having the effect of establishing his presence as alleged by the prosecution though criminality has to be positively proved otherwise. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 clearly establish that the accused was in the house when the homicide took place. The dead body was in the room lying flat on the ground on a mat. The door was lying open with alighted chimney inside. The only other living being in the house, other than the accused, was the child. Immediately after homicide, he took the child and went to PWs 1 to 3 and 5 and others to make the extra judicial confessions that he murdered her by strangulation using a cloth as ligature. That was found to be true on verification.

6. The last seen theory is applicable with greater force in this case not only on account of the relationship and joint residence. He was the only person who was there and who could have known how death happened. To anybody who saw the dead body it was not difficult to realise that it was a clear case of homicide by stra