Judgment :- 1. Wife and three daughters of Elipulikkattu Thomas stood charged under S.302 read with S.34 of the IPC for having caused his death. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, found them guilty and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. On 25-6-1982 at about 2 p.m. accused 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention are stated to have committed the murder of Thomas. Prosecution case is that Al cut the deceased with a chopper, that A2 hit him with a 5 kg. weight, that A3 strangulated him with a thorthu and that A4 stabbed him with a knife. PW.1, who lodged the first information statement is not an eye witness. 3. PW. 2 deposed that he saw Thomas deceased coming out of the house of Jose (CW.6) and proceeding towards his house, that he heard a cry when he was sitting in the nearby barber-shop, that he and others did not go to the house of the deceased as they used to hear cry and commotions from that house, that as Thomas was not seen coming out of the house for half an hour he along with PWs. 3 and 4 decided to go there, that when Pappa (CW.S) came there he informed him that a commotion was heard from the house of Thomas and that they decided to ascertain what had happened. Needing the advice of Pappa PW.2 called 10 to 15 persons and with them went to the courtyard of the house of the deceased. PW.2 stated that the doors of the house of Thomas was found closed, that peeping through the window he saw Thomas lying dead. PW.2 accompanied by another person went to the house of PW.1 to inform him about the incident. As PW.1 was net there the information was given to PW.1's sons. 4. PW.3 has a barber shop close to the place of occurrence. Hearing a cry PW.3 told PW.2, PW.4 and others who were in his shop to enquire what had happened in the house of Thomas. There was no response. PW.3 stated that Thomas had warned him on a previous occasion not to visit his house on hearing any hue and cry from there. PW.3 stated that he along with others peeped through the window and saw Thomas lying dead. PW.3 deposed that Themes was estranged to his wife and children. 5. There was no response. PW.3 stated that Thomas had warned him on a previous occasion not to visit his house on hearing any hue and cry from there. PW.3 stated that he along with others peeped through the window and saw Thomas lying dead. PW.3 deposed that Themes was estranged to his wife and children. 5. As PW.4 did not support the prosecution case he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW.4 has sworn that he did not see Al coming from the house half an hour after he heard the cry from there. 6. Evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is hardly sufficient to bring he me the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PWs.2, 3 and 4 do net implicate the accused with the crime. The Sessions Judge has relied on conjectures. In the absence of any positive evidence to connect the accused with the crime no interference is possible at all to held that it was the accused who committed the crime. 7. The first information statement alleged to have been lodged by PW.1 on 25-6-1982 at S.30 p. m. hardly inspires confidence as PW.1 admitted that he signed Ext, P1 three days after the incident. PW.1 in Ext. P1 stated that on getting the information about the incident be went to the place of occurrence and then rushed to the police station. In evidence he stated that be came to the police station and accompanied by the police went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his brother in the house. PW.1 deposed that it was A3 Valsa who told him that they killed Thomas. In cross-examination he stated that he knew about the complicity of the accused only because A3 divulged the information. He stated that nobody else told him as to how Thomas happened to die. As to whether he had informed police as to what A3 had told him he replied to the negative. In Ext. P1 the alleged confession it attributed to A2 Alice. PW.1's evidence that A3 confessed the crime of killing Thomas in the presence of police hardly inspires confidence as there is tote) lack of corroboration to that effect. His evidence that A4 Molly had confused about the crime not only lacks corroboration but it is also conspicuously absent in Ext. P1 first information statement. PW.1's evidence that A3 confessed the crime of killing Thomas in the presence of police hardly inspires confidence as there is tote) lack of corroboration to that effect. His evidence that A4 Molly had confused about the crime not only lacks corroboration but it is also conspicuously absent in Ext. P1 first information statement. In view of the evidence of PW.1 that he signed Ext. P1 three days after the incident and also in view of the various glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 and the version in the first information statement no reliance can be safely made on his testimony. 8. Evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 is hardly sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Though the Session Judge held that there is some discrepancy regarding the person who made the confession to PW.1 it was considered not material. In our opinion the above discrepancy is very material and the learned Sessions Judge should not have discarded it in such a cavalier manner. As PW1's evidence is wanting corroboration and as the version regarding confession in Ext. P1 and his evidence differ in all material particulars we are unable to accept his testimony. 9. The learned Sessions Judge held that the failure on the part of the accused to prove the alibi pleaded by them is a circumstance pointing out to the guilt of the accused. She also held that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence sufficiently establishes the prosecution case. We do net agree as the circumstantial evidence is far from sufficiency to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. As the initial burden is on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt the failure to prove the alibi set up by the accused cannot at all be highlighted as a circumstance to prove the prosecution case. Alibi, Latin for "elsewhere" is the defence resorted to in criminal prosecutions, where the accused pleads that he was so far distant at the time from the place where the crime was committed that he could not have been guilty. Presence of the accused at the scene of crime at the time when an offence was committed is really the essential factor in proof of his guilt. The burden is squarely upon the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused with the crime. Presence of the accused at the scene of crime at the time when an offence was committed is really the essential factor in proof of his guilt. The burden is squarely upon the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused with the crime. If the accused pleads alibi, he, in effect, is denying the case of the prosecution that he was at the scene of the crime at the relevant time when the crime was committed. When alibi is let up it is for the accused to substantiate the plea that he was really not present at the place of occurrence at the crucial time when the incident occurred. To successfully establish the alibi pleaded the accused has to prove that he was elsewhere at the moment of the crime and that in all reasonable probability be could not have been present at the place of occurrence. It is settled law that with regard to the burden of discharging the plea of alibi accused can raise reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of evidence and probabilities show that he was not at the place of occurrence during the relevant time. In a case where alibi has been set up by the accused and he failed to prove it the prosecution cannot jump to the conclusion that as the alibi has been disproved the only conclusion possible is to accept its case. Such a position cannot be accepted as the burden is on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where there is preponderance of probabilities and evidence in favour of the prosecution case, failure of a plea of alibi by the accused would be an added adverse circumstance against the defence case. That will not be so in a case where there is utter lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution. The plea of alibi set up by the accused even if it failed to click does not matter in a case where the prosecution has failed to establish its case. The weakness or falsity of an alibi is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution case is thereby strengthened or improved. The plea of alibi set up by the accused even if it failed to click does not matter in a case where the prosecution has failed to establish its case. The weakness or falsity of an alibi is not sufficient to hold that the prosecution case is thereby strengthened or improved. Learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the failure on the part of the accused to prove the alibi is a circumstance pointing out to the guilt of the accused, especially in this case where there is death of evidence to connect the accused with the crime. On a consideration of the entire evidence we find that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result Al to A4 are found not guilty and they are acquitted. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.