Mack, J.-This is a case, which has given us anxious consideration. Appellant, a man aged 43, has been found guilty under section 302, Indian Penal Code, of the murder of his 17 year old wife, Balakotamma, by strangling her to death during the night of 29th May, 1950, in his house in Vetapalam village in which there were admittedly no other inmates. The next morning appellant asked a washerman (P.W. 7) to take a message to his wife’s uncles, P.Ws. 1 and 5 and her maternal uncle and foster father P.W. 6 who all lived at Vadlamudi, a village three miles away to the effect that she was found lying speechless and unconscious in his house. On receipt of this message at 7 a.m. P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 hastened to Vetapalam and found Balakotamma lying dead on a cot. According to P.W. 1, appellant when questioned first made no reply and then denied knowledge of anything. There were no visible injuries on the body. Suspecting that appellant and his concubine one Subbamma had poisoned her, they made a complaint to this effect Exhibit P-I at the Vadlamudi Police Station at midday. The only evidence that the village munsif of Vetapalam (P.W. 9) gives is that he was a panchayatdar at the inquest held by the Circle Inspector (P.W. 11) who reached Vetapalam at 4 p.m. Near the corpse was lying a rice pounder M.O. 3. On the body was a blouse M.O. 1 put on, as is described, inside out and a sari M.O. 2. P.W. 1 says when he saw it was slightly wet. Post mortem held by Miss Annapoornamma, Assistant Surgeon of Tenali, the following morning at 8 a.m. showed that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. An echymosed patch was found on the neck extending upwards to the lower jaw and downwards to the upper part of both collar bones. The trachea and larynx were congested, oesophagus cynosed and the hyoid bone broken. There can be no doubt about the cause of death, which was strangulation by great pressure on the throat.

The Circle Inspector returned with the post mortem certificate to Vetapalam and arrested the accused on the 2nd June. He produced him before the Sub-Magistrate of Tenali (P.W. 4) on the evening of the 3rd of June with a requisition Exhibit P-3 to record his confession. As it was after lock up time, the Magistrate asked him to be produced the following morning and he was then kept in the sub-jail after being given the necessary warnings. He was produced again before the Magistrate on 5th June 1951 and after giving clear warnings to the appellant in full conformity not only with section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, but also with rule 85 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the Magistrate recorded a long detailed confession from the appellant in which he confessed that he squeezed his wife’s throat, while she was asleep with his own hands. Appellant’s statement was to the effect that he returned home at midnight and found his wife asleep, that in view of domestic troubles she was giving him he strangled her, that he slept in the house till the morning, that he fetched his mother, that neighbours gathered and that he sent word to his brothers-in-law. He said that one of them, when he came to the house, kicked him on the head, which struck against the wall and poked him with a stick near the abdomen. The domestic troubles he detailed there related to complaints his wife made to her brothers who continually interfered in his domestic life and that when he protested his wife scolded him and said she would get him killed by her brothers. The gist of his confession is that he killed her thinking that after doing so, he would also die at the hands of the Government rather than be killed by her brothers. This confession was retracted in the committing court where the appellant pleaded that he was coerced by the Circle Inspector and the Deputy Superintendent of Police into making the confession, that the wording was not his and that he repeated what he was asked to say like a parrot. He adopted the same attitude at his trial. There i