Judgment :- 1. These two Appeals are by the two accused persons in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1960 on the file of the Sessions Court of Quilon. Appeal No. 178 of 1960 is by the first accused and appeal No. 152 of 1960 by the second accused. The first accused was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under S.302 I.P.C. and the second accused was also convicted and sentenced similarly under S.302 read with S.34 I.P.C. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows: 2. Both the accused persons were residents in the Ex-Servicemen's Colony at Vechu Chira and the deceased Parameswara Kurup was also a resident in the same colony. Pw. 4, Raghavan Nair, was the Secretary of the colony and the deceased was a dependant and confidant of Raghavan Nair. The first accused wanted a loan from the Colony Office, for which Pw-4 did not help him and consequently on 27th July, 1959 the first accused entered the Colony Office armed with a dagger & threatened to attack Pw-4. Pw-4 complained to the police about this incident and ever since that the first accused was on inimical terms with Pw-4, and had been declaring openly that he would do away with Pw. 4. The second accused once abused Pw. 17, when the latter reported the matter to Pw. 4 and Pw. 4 advised him to make a complaint to the police On the advice of Pw. 4, Pw. 17 complained to the police and on this score, because Pw. 4 advised Pw. 17 to lodge a complaint against him, the 2nd accused was on terms of enmity with Pw. 4. According to the prosecution, since the deceased was a dependant of Pw. 4, both the accused persons, for the aforesaid reasons, were inimical to the deceased also. On the day of occurrence, that is, 11th August, 1959, the accused persons after taking toddy from a neighbouring toddy shop came out of the toddy shop, purchased a candle from the shop of one Mundakkayam and passed in front of the house of Pw. 2 at about 9 45 p. m. The first accused was then shouting that he would "do away with these scoundrels". Thereafter the first accused proceeded south & the second accused went towards the north The second accused then went to the house of Pw. 2 at about 9 45 p. m. The first accused was then shouting that he would "do away with these scoundrels". Thereafter the first accused proceeded south & the second accused went towards the north The second accused then went to the house of Pw. 8, who was a next door neighbour of the deceased, mistaking that house to be the house of the deceased and called the deceased by name. Pw. 8 told the second accused that the house of the deceased was the next house. Thereupon the second accused proceeded to the house of the deceased and called him. The deceased came out, when the second accused told him that he wanted to go to Pw. 4 to speak to him about something and he requested the deceased to accompany him. Pw. 6, the wife of the deceased, heard this conversation and also saw the second accused. The deceased took his torch light and accompanied the second accused. Both of them went towards the south passing in front of the house of Pw. 2. Pw. 2, who saw the second accused and the deceased proceeding south, became suspicious and therefore he followed them a few paces behind them. After proceeding a little he heard the cry of the deceased, that "these scoundrels are killing me", when he hid himself behind a tree and saw the first accused proceeding north with a dagger in hand. It was about 10 or 10.30 p m. then. Pw. 2 returned to his house and slept. The prosecution further alleges that the second accused, thereafter, proceeded to the house of Pw. 4 and tried to entice him also to the scene telling him that the first accused was molesting the deceased. Pw. 4 got afraid and therefore he did not accompany the second accused. 3. Pw. 6, the wife of the deceased, when she found that her husband did not return, sent her son early next morning to make enquiries about the deceased. The boy returned and told Pw. 6 that the dead body of his father was lying on the road leading to the Colony with stab injuries. Thereupon Pw. 6 went to the scene and thereafter to the house of Pw. 4. In the meantime Pw. 1, the nephew of the deceased, got information through a friend about the incident and he had also come to the scene. Thereupon Pw. 6 went to the scene and thereafter to the house of Pw. 4. In the meantime Pw. 1, the nephew of the deceased, got information through a friend about the incident and he had also come to the scene. After seeing the dead body of Parameswara Kurup, Pw.1 went to the house of Pw. 6 and later in the day he went to the police station at Ranni and gave the first information statement at, 12.20 p. m. On the basis of this first information, investigation started and the Circle Inspector of Pathanamthitta, Pw. 23, conducted the inquest, examined the witnesses and completed the investigation. The accused persons were absconding The first accused was arrested on 1st January 1960 and the second accused surrendered before the police on 7th March, 1960. This, in short, is the prosecution version of the case. 4. Both the accused persons denied any knowledge of the offence. They explained that they made themselves scarce after the incident because they knew that the police were after them on suspicion. It may be also mentioned at this stage that the committing Magistrate discharged the second accused after the preliminary enquiry, but on revision filed by the State, the District Magistrate committed him also to stand his trial at the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated and both the accused persons have filed separate appeals against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. That the death of Parameswara Kurup was as a result of stab injuries during the night of 11th August, 1959 does not admit of any doubt. The dead body of Parameswara Kurup had been identified by his wife, Pw. 6, and the other witnesses who were present at the time of the inquest. The medical evidence in the case disclosed as many as 11 injuries on the person of the deceased and all those injuries were incised injuries and several of them were on vital parts of the body, one of them being on the abdomen through which three coils of the small intestines were found protruding. The cause of death, according to the doctor, was syncope due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from these injuries. Thus it is clear that Parameswara Kurup died of stab injuries during the night of 11th August, 1959 5. The cause of death, according to the doctor, was syncope due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from these injuries. Thus it is clear that Parameswara Kurup died of stab injuries during the night of 11th August, 1959 5. The more important question in the case is as to who were responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased. It may be noted that in this case there is no direct evidence of eye witnesses to prove the prosecution case. The case depends entirely on circumstantial evidence and therefore we have to be very careful in scanning the circumstances to see whether they are "so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused." "In a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused" Gaganadhadas, J. in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR. 1955 S. C. 801.) The several circumstances relied on by the prosecution in this case are the motive of the accused to do away with the deceased; the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence immediately prior to the occurrence; the fact of the deceased being found last in the company of the accused and finally the absconding of the accused for several months after the incident. The principal witnesses, whose evidence we have to consider in this case, are Pws. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 & 16 and cws.1 and 2. 6. We would, first of all, dispose of the question of motive. The prosecution case regarding the motive is that both the accused were on inimical terms with Pw-4, the Secretary of the Colony. The first accused bore a grudge towards him because Pw-4 did not help him to get a loan from the Colony Office. Consequently the first accused entered the Office, where Pw-4 was working and threatened him with a dagger. This resulted in Pw-4 filing a complaint before the police. Similarly the second accused abused Pw-17, who was advised by Pw-4 to file a complaint before the police. Pw-17 filed a complaint and the police investigated the matter. Consequently the first accused entered the Office, where Pw-4 was working and threatened him with a dagger. This resulted in Pw-4 filing a complaint before the police. Similarly the second accused abused Pw-17, who was advised by Pw-4 to file a complaint before the police. Pw-17 filed a complaint and the police investigated the matter. The deceased Parameswara Kurup, being a dependant of Pw-4, had been in the habit of reporting the movements and activities of the two accused persons to Pw-4. The prosecution case is that the accused persons were inimical towards the deceased also for the above reasons. May be, that the accused persons had sufficient reason to bear a grudge against Pw-4, but it is doubtful whether this motive is a sufficient ground for causing the death of Parameswara Kurup, who was a friend and dependant of Pw-4. Anyhow, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on this question, it may reasonably be held that there is such a motive; the only question of doubt being whether this is a sufficient motive to justify the murder. 7. Now we would come to the next circumstance relied on by the prosecution, that is, the accused persons being present at the scene of occurrence immediately prior to the incident. At this stage we would point out that two witnesses, who were questioned by the police, were not examined by the prosecution in the Sessions Court. The second accused insisted on their being examined and therefore those two witnesses were examined as court witnesses. Cw-1 deposes that on the night of 11th August, 1959 he went to the toddy shop of Cw-2 at about 7 p. m. and while he was there the first accused came there and took toddy. Some time later the second accused also came. Both of them drank toddy and after some time they quarrelled between themselves and the first accused tore the banian of the second accused. After that incident the second accused left the place and some time thereafter the first accused also left. Cw-2 is the proprietor of the toddy shop. He also swears in similar terms as Cw-1. Both of them drank toddy and after some time they quarrelled between themselves and the first accused tore the banian of the second accused. After that incident the second accused left the place and some time thereafter the first accused also left. Cw-2 is the proprietor of the toddy shop. He also swears in similar terms as Cw-1. According to these witnesses the two accused persons came to the toddy shop at different times, quarrelled with each other at the shop and finally they left the shop at different times; the second accused leaving the shop half an hour after the first accused left the place. This evidence will have considerable bearing on the question of a previous concert or plot between the accused persons to commit the murder. Pw-16, a beedi worker in a neighbouring shop, deposes that he saw both the accused persons leaving the toddy shop together and the first accused going to the shop of one Mundakkayam and purchasing a candle, while the second accused waited a little distance away on the road. It is not possible to reconcile this evidence with the evidence of Cws-1 and 2, who, in unequivocal terms, depose that the two accused persons left the toddy shop at different times, one following the other half an hour after the first one left. Pw-16 has said in the Committal Court that he saw the accused persons going east, whereas his version in the Sessions Court is that they proceeded south towards the road leading to the Colony after purchasing the candle. The witness has been confronted with his statement in the committal court, which he has denied and the statement in the Magistrate's court has been marked as Ex-D5. On anxious and careful consideration of the evidence of Cws-1 and 2 and that of Pw-16 we are inclined to accept the evidence of the former in preference to that of the latter. 8. We would next proceed to a consideration of the evidence of Pw-2. Pw-2 lives in a paramba belonging to Pw-6, the wife of the deceased. His next door neighbours are two brothers of Pw-6, who had grown-up children living with them. Pw. 8. We would next proceed to a consideration of the evidence of Pw-2. Pw-2 lives in a paramba belonging to Pw-6, the wife of the deceased. His next door neighbours are two brothers of Pw-6, who had grown-up children living with them. Pw. 2 deposes that he saw both the accused persons on that fateful night at about 9 or 9.45 p. m. proceeding in front of his house: and the first accused was then shouting that he would "do away with these scoundrels". Thereafter he saw the second accused proceeding north and returning with the deceased within a few minutes. He got suspicious and followed them. Though he did not see the stabbing, he says that he heard the cry of Parameswara Kurup, that "these scoundrels are killing me", and he also says that he saw the first accused going away from the scene with a dagger in hand. He returned home; but he did not tell anybody about this until he was questioned by the police the next day in the afternoon. It is difficult to believe this witness when he says that he saw all that he deposes to, but did not mention it either to Pw-6 or at least to his own next door neighbours, who are none other than the brothers of Pw-6. This conduct of Pw-2 is normally inexplicable and it throws considerable doubt on the veracity of this witness He lives in the paramba belonging to Pw-6 without even paying any rent. He is a dependant of Pw-6 and he got suspicious when Parameswara Kurup and the second accused proceeded towards the south and he followed them. Thereafter he heard the cry of the deceased and saw the first accused leaving the scene with a dagger in hand. In spite of all these he did not make any attempt to inform either Pw-6 or at least his own neighbours, who are the brothers of Pw-6. The next morning at about 8 or 8.30 a.m. he met Pw-6 and even then he did not tell her what happened the previous night. Further, if Cws-1 and 2 are believed, which we have chosen to do, the evidence of Pw-2 that he saw both the accused persons together in front of his house at about 9 45 p.m. cannot possibly be true. Further, if Cws-1 and 2 are believed, which we have chosen to do, the evidence of Pw-2 that he saw both the accused persons together in front of his house at about 9 45 p.m. cannot possibly be true. In the above circumstances we feel that it is not safe to place any reliance on the testimony of this withness. 9. The other witnesses we would now consider are Pws. 3 and 8. Pw. 3 is an employee in a hotel at the Vechu Chira junction. He swears that the first accused had gone to the hotel in the morning of 11th August, 1959 at about 8-30 and left a torch light with the proprietor of the hotel saying that he would take it back in the evening The first accused, according to Pw. 3, returned to the hotel at about 10 in the night, when the proprietor of the hotel was not there, and took back the torch light from Pw. 3 The first accused has admitted in his statement before the Sessions Court that he left a torch light in the hotel in the morning and took it back in the evening, not at 10 in the night, from the proprietor of the hotel. Pw. 3 had stated in the committal court that he bad left his employment at the hotel at Vechu Chira early in Karkatakam, the incident being on the 26th of Karkatakom. This statement of the witness was put to him in cross-examination before the Sessions Court, when he stated that it was by mistake that he had stated like that in the committal court But he says further in the Sessions Court that he is definite that it was in 1134 M E. that he left Vechu Chira. If he were really at Vechu Chira on the 26th of Karkatakam his testimony comes to this: that he left Vechu Chira within a few days of the incident, i. e., within less than a week. If that were so, he could not have made any mistake and could have stated that he left Vechu Chira within a few days of the incident. At any rate, we are not prepared to hold that the first accused was present in the vicinity at about the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place on the basis of the testimony of this sole witness. Pw. At any rate, we are not prepared to hold that the first accused was present in the vicinity at about the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place on the basis of the testimony of this sole witness. Pw. 8 is the other witness, who is a neighbour of the deceased Parameswara Kurup. His testimony is that the second accused by mistake went to his house during the night of 11th August, 1959 and the witness directed him to the house of the deceased. The second accused is a person residing in the locality and is one who knows the locality very well and the evidence of Pw. 8 appears to be a little artificial when he deposes that the 2nd accused mistook the house of the witness to be that of the deceased. 10. The only other witnesses remaining to be considered are Pws. 4 & 6. Pw. 6 the wife of the deceased, deposes that the second accused came to her house at about 10 in the night and took her husband away saying that he had to meet Pw. 4 and speak to him about something. She further deposes that her husband accompanied the second accused and when she found that her husband did not return till the morning, she sent her son to find out the cause. The son came back and told her that her husband was stabbed to death and his dead body was seen on the road leading to the Colony. Pw. 6 then went to the scene and thereafter proceeded to the house of Pw. 4. After her return from the house of Pw. 4, Pw. 1, the nephew of the deceased met her and it may be noted that the first information statement was given by Pw.1 at 12.20 p. m. after this meeting Pw. 4 says that the second accused came to him in the night of the 11th of August at about 10-30 and told him that the deceased was being molested by the first accused and the second accused also invited Pw. 4 to go to the scene, which he refused to do. It is curious that Pw. 4 did not mention this latter fact to Pw. 6 on the next morning when she went to him. Though he mentioned to Pw. 4 to go to the scene, which he refused to do. It is curious that Pw. 4 did not mention this latter fact to Pw. 6 on the next morning when she went to him. Though he mentioned to Pw. 4 that the second accused went to him in the night, he did not divulge to her that the second accused told him that the deceased was being molested by the first accused. This, according to us, is a very suspicious circumstance, which, considering the enmity of this witness to the accused persons cautions us against accepting the testimony of Pw. 4 without any hesitation and acting upon it. One thing appears to be clear and that is that Pws. 4 and 6 had time enough, if they so chose, to shape the first information statement, which was given later by Pw.1 who met Pw. 6 after she met Pw. 4 11. Now we come to another circumstance which is relied on by the prosecution to prove the presence of the first accused at the scene. Ext. P4 is an Inland Letter alleged to have been written by the first accused to his wife and the prosecution case is that this letter was found lying underneath the dead body of Parameswara Kurup at the scene of occurrence. The letter bears the date 8th July, 1959 and it bears the signature K.K. Pillay in two places. In a portion of the body of the letter, which is in Malayalam, there is the word 'Omana' scribbled in English. The prosecution case is that this letter was written by the first accused to his wife and the word'Omana' was written by Pw. 14, the daughter of the first accused after the letter was received by the wife. To compare the signatures in Ext. P4 the prosecution has marked Ext P2, which is an application filed by the first accused before Pw. 4 for a loan Ext. P2 is admittedly not in the handwriting of the first accused. Therefore the comparison that can be done is only of the signatures. For this purpose we have before us as many as ten other signatures of the first accused on the several pages of his statement in the Sessions Court. What we note on a comparison of the several signatures is this: The two signatures appearing in Ext. P4 are themselves different one from the other. For this purpose we have before us as many as ten other signatures of the first accused on the several pages of his statement in the Sessions Court. What we note on a comparison of the several signatures is this: The two signatures appearing in Ext. P4 are themselves different one from the other. The signature in Ext. P2 appears to tally with the ten signatures appearing in the statement of the first accused, but does not appear to bear any striking resemblance with either of the signatures on Ext. P4. In these circumstances we do not feel that we will be justified in placing much reliance on the similarity of the signatures on Ext. P4 and the admitted signatures of the first accused and to hold with any definiteness that Ext. P4 must have been written by the first accused. Moreover, it is too much to believe that the first accused was carrying this letter, which was sent by him and not received by him more than a month prior to the occurrence, still on his person at the time of the occurrence. We are not satisfied as to how this letter came to be present at the scene and we are not prepared to hold on the basis of this circumstance that the first accused was present at the scene on that fateful night and he dropped this letter accidently at the scene. 12. From the foregoing discussion it becomes clear that the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused persons were present at or nearabout the scene immediately prior to the occurrence or shortly thereafter and also to prove that the deceased person was seen last in the company of the accused persons is not free from doubt or suspicion. Therefore we do not consider it safe to hold, on such evidence, that the accused persons were either present at the scene or that the deceased Parameswara Kurup was seen in their company during that night. 13. Before we leave this part of the case we would make a passing reference to Ext. P1, the first information in the case. While doing that we are quite alive to the fact that the first information in this case was given by a person, who does not speak to any material fact or circumstance. Even so we feel that the recitals in Ext. P1, the first information in the case. While doing that we are quite alive to the fact that the first information in this case was given by a person, who does not speak to any material fact or circumstance. Even so we feel that the recitals in Ext. P1 will throw some light on the truth or otherwise of the prosecution version. Pw. 1, the nephew of Parameswara Kurup, gave the first information after he visited the scene and met Pw. 6 after she herself met Pw. 4. In Ext. P1, Pw.1 has stated that on the previous night the second accused came to the house of Pw. 6 and called the deceased at about 10 p. m., when the deceased came out. Pw. 6 also came out and then the first accused and one Arikkal Chacko were also standing near the second accused in the yard of the house. The second accused told the deceased that he wanted to speak to Pw. 4 and also requested the deceased to accompany him. Thereupon the deceased accompanied the second accused telling Pw. 6 that he would come back soon. When Pw.1 was asked in the witness box regarding the source from which he got the information which he furnished in Ext, P1, he said that he got the details from Pw. 6, Pw. 3, Pw. 2 and others. It is not now the prosecution case that either Chacko or the first accused accompanied the second accused to the house of Pw. 6. Pw. 2 is definite that he did not tell anybody about the incident till the police examined him. Pw. 3 could not have told Pw.1 as to what took place in the yard of the house of Pw. 6 during that night. Evidently the presence of Chacko and the first accused along with the second accused when the second accused went to the house of Pw. 6 could have been mentioned to Pw.1 only by Pw. 6 and none else. This circumstance necessarily throws considerable suspicion on the testimony of Pw. 6. 14. Of course, the accused persons were absconding for several months after the incident and that is certainly a circumstance against them. Their explanation for thus making themselves scarce is that they knew that they were being suspected by the police and hence were afraid to remain in the locality. 6. 14. Of course, the accused persons were absconding for several months after the incident and that is certainly a circumstance against them. Their explanation for thus making themselves scarce is that they knew that they were being suspected by the police and hence were afraid to remain in the locality. That is a plausible explanation though not quite a satisfactory one. But even if that explanation is not acceptable, the absconding by itself is not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of the offence levelled against them. 15. Now we would take stock of the entire circumstantial evidence, that emerges from the foregoing discussion, against the accused persons. What we find in this case is, to use the simile of the Supreme Court in Deonandan Mishra's case (AIR. 1955 SC. 801), not a completed chain of circumstances wherein the various links in the chain of evidence are complete and intact, but a broken or incomplete chain where some of the links are missing It cannot be said in this case that the various links have been satisfactorily made out and it cannot also be said with reasonable definiteness that the accused persons are the probable assailants. The only two circumstances which appear against the accused persons are a weak motive to do away with the deceased person - we mean weak to take the life of the deceased though it may be strong to do away with Pw. 4 and their absconding for a long time after the incident. We are of opinion that these circumstances are not sufficient to warrant a conviction of these accused persons and therefore we allow the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, acquit the accused persons and direct that they be set at liberty. Allowed.