Judgment : This revision has been preferred by a private party P.W.1 in S.C.No.36 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Court, Periyar District at Erode, challenging the acquittal of the accused, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, tried for the offences under Secs.302 read with 35 (2 counts), 449, 402 and 201, I.P.C. 2. The accused were tried on the allegations that on the night of 16.6.1984, they caused the death of one Kannammal and her daughter Shanthi, by strangulating them after trespassing into their house and also committed theft of the gold chain owned by Kannammal and caused the evidence of the above crimes to disappear. The first respondent herein who was the first accused in the case was the brother of Periya Raman, husband of the deceased Kannammal. Periya Raman used to get drunk and used to return home late and quarrel with Kannammal. About 6 months prior to the occurrence, Periya Raman suddenly disappeared and was not heard of any longer. Even thereafter Kannammal and her daughter Shanthi continued to live in the garden. Opposite to their house, the first accused was living. After Periya Raman disappeared, the deceased Kannammal was cultivating one half of the lands, whereas the 1st accused was cultivating the other half and there were frequent quarrels between them regarding the cultivation P.W.5, a resident of the village, who was related to the parties was present on a Friday evening in the month of Tamil Month ‘Ani’ when there was a wordy altercation between Kannammal and the first accused over the lands, in the course of which Kannammal threw the slippers she was wearing on the first accused, which fell on his shoulder. P.W.5 pacified both of them. This incident was witnessed by P.W.6 also. Earlier that morning, the first accused had borrowed two gunny bags from P.W.5. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased Kannammal on 15.6.1984, found Kannammal and her daughter in their house in the morning, but on 19.6.1984, when he went there, he found them both missing and when he enquired the first accused about it, he was told by the first accused that Kannammal had gone elsewhere 2 or 3 days earlier along with her daughter. P.W.1 after making a search went to the police station on 20.6.1984 at 11.30 a.m. and gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.15 who registered it as Crime No.80 of 1984 as a case of woman missing and visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P6, the plan Ex.P23 and seized M.Os.13 and 14, two brass ornaments under Ex.P7 mahazar attested by P.W.11. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police. In the meantime, the first accused had made an extra judicial confession to P.W.6 on 27.6.1984 stating that he had murdered the two deceased, taken the bodies in a bandy and had dropped them in the channel at Thadapalli and both the accused had shared the gold chain that Kannammal was wearing. P.W.6 had passed on this information to the police, on the basis of which P.W.17, the Inspector of Police visited the channel of Thadapalli and searched for the dead bodies. On the northern side, he found a gunny bag in which two pieces of a saree, (M.O.1 series) and M.O.2 in skirt were found. Some bones were found inside the gunny bag. He held the inquest over the dead body between 7.30 and 10 a.m. as per the inquest report Ex.P24. He had the post-mortem conducted by P.W.2, the Medical Officer at the scene itself. He then went in search of the other dead body and found it at a distance of 1 1/2 furlongs therefrom, in a highly decomposed state. He held inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P25, the inquest report. Photographs were taken and post-mortem was also conducted there. He then searched for both the accused on 29.1.1984 he arrested the first accused at Kallipatti village. The first accused gave a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P8 and he took P.W.17 and party to his house at Sybenpudur and produced M.O.6 half bit of the chain which was seized by P.W.17 under Ex.P9 mahazar. The first accused also showed a double bullock bandy, which was seized under Ex.P10. He also pointed out the second accused, who on arrest and examination was found to have concealed the other bit of the gold chain, M.O.7 inside his banian packet. M.O.7 was seized under the mahazar Ex.P11. Photographs of the deceased Kannammal were traced and super imposition test was made during investigation. He also pointed out the second accused, who on arrest and examination was found to have concealed the other bit of the gold chain, M.O.7 inside his banian packet. M.O.7 was seized under the mahazar Ex.P11. Photographs of the deceased Kannammal were traced and super imposition test was made during investigation. The properties seized were sent for chemical examination and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid. 3. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P25 were marked and M.Os.1 to 18 were produced. The accused when questioned denied the occurrence and had no evidence to offer. 4. The trial Court for the reasons mentioned in the judgment held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused, which has resulted in the present revision being filed by P.W.1. 5. Thiru A.K.Kumaraswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the case rested purely on circumstantial evidence, yet the circumstances proved were sufficient to warrant a conviction and the trial court had acted illegally in not finding so, which called for interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel relied upon the salient features of the prosecution case and the findings rendered by the learned Sessions Judge to substantiate the above contentions. 6. Per contra, Thiru P.Pandi, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 accused, relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court which I shall presently refer, contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution had not been established and even if established, they were insufficient for rendering a conviction of the accused. 7. The prosecution had first to establish that the two deceased had been murdered. There is no direct evidence for the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence, therefore, has to be such as to rule out any possible inference other than the guilt of the accused P.Ws.12 and 17 were present when the two gunny bags were opened on 26.8.1984. In M.O.14 gunny bag only 6 bones were found and in M.O.17 gunny bag only 7 bones were found. The bodies were in a highly decomposed state. It was, therefore, not possible for anyone to identify the dead bodies and in fact, none had attempted to do so. In M.O.14 gunny bag only 6 bones were found and in M.O.17 gunny bag only 7 bones were found. The bodies were in a highly decomposed state. It was, therefore, not possible for anyone to identify the dead bodies and in fact, none had attempted to do so. The only way in which the body of Kannammal was sought to be identified is by the presence of M.O.1 (series) and M.O.2, which have been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 8 as belonging to the two deceased. It is needless to say that this sort of identification is very weak and ineffective and would lead to no conclusive results. M.O.2 and M.O.3 are ordinary clothings M.O.1 (series) are pieces of a saree, which is commonly owned. M.O.4 is an ordinary frock. No doubt the super imposition test had been conducted on the basis of which Ex.P22 opinion had been given. Whatever that be, the trial Court, had found that on these materials it could be taken that the dead bodies had been identified. 8. The next piece of circumstantial evidence offered by the prosecution was through P.W.5 from whom the first accused is said to have borrowed two gunny bags. P.W.4 is said to have seen the accused 1 and 2 at night going in a doubt bullock bandy with two gunny bags on it and when P.W.4 had questioned, the first accused is said to have replied that he was carrying manure to his field. The trial Court had assumed that even if the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 was to be believed, no inference could be drawn that the two gunny bags contained dead bodies. 9. The trial Court had rejected the evidence of P.W.6 who speaks to the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the first accused on 27.4.1984. It is on this aspect, the learned counsel for the accused would rely upon the decision in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 S.C.C. 116 ;1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 487;1984 Crl.L.J. 1738;A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622 wherein this evidence of extra judicial confession is characterised as a weak form of evidence, which could never be conclusive. The trial Court had dismissed this aspect in paragraph 19 of the Judgment referring to certain decisions of various Courts and on the basis had concluded that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be accepted. The trial Court had dismissed this aspect in paragraph 19 of the Judgment referring to certain decisions of various Courts and on the basis had concluded that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be accepted. I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect. 10. On behalf of the prosecution, the statement made by the first accused leading to the recovery of M.O.6 and the recovery of M.O.7 from the banian pocket of the second accused are put forward as strong pieces of circumstantial evidence, which would not only prove that the accused were in possession of the property found to be stolen, but had also committed theft as well as murder. No doubt under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, such a presumption could be drawn, but the question as to whether it could be drawn in a particular case, would depend entirely on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Due importance could be attached to this evidence in this case, except for one circumstance that in Ex.P1, there is no mention that the deceased Kannammal was wearing a chain at the time when she disappeared. If such a statement had been found, the Courts would be in a position to rely upon the recovery evidence as a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, which would be put against the accused even for determining whether the offence under Sec.302 has been made out or not. But as facts stand in this case, when this is not mentioned in Ex.P1, the possibility of a recovery being planted in order to strengthen the case, which is otherwise bereft of direct evidence, cannot be ruled out. But as facts stand in this case, when this is not mentioned in Ex.P1, the possibility of a recovery being planted in order to strengthen the case, which is otherwise bereft of direct evidence, cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel for the accused rightly relies upon the decision in Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 54 and the decision in Rakshish Singh v. State of Punjab Rakshish Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2016 in order to substantiate his contention that the mere possession of a property proved to be stolen, would not always lead to the inference that the accused is also guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. The decision in Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 1985 S.C.C. (Crl.) 505;A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1438 has been relied upon in order to submit that recovery from the house of the first accused, which is also occupied by others will not incriminate the first accused the learned counsel would rightly submit that if a recovery is made from a place to which others also have access, no presumption as enabled by Sec.114 of the Evidence Act could be drawn. The trial Court, therefore had rightly rejected the recovery evidence, as being of no help to the prosecution to substantiate any one of the charges. 11. The learned counsel for the accused relying upon the decision in Ram Avtar v. State (Delhi Administration) Ram Avtar v. State (Delhi Administration) A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1692 would contend that the proved circumstances should lead to no inference other than the guilt of the accused and that in the instance ease, even if it was established that the two deceased had been murdered, there was no circumstance to connect the accused with the crimes as such the position laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above decision relating to circumstantial evidence not having been fulfilled, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 12. This is a revision by a private party in a case instituted on a police report. The scope of this revision therefore, is considerably, being merely to find out whether any illegality in the trial or violation of any fundamental principle of law had been committed, which had led to denial of justice. 12. This is a revision by a private party in a case instituted on a police report. The scope of this revision therefore, is considerably, being merely to find out whether any illegality in the trial or violation of any fundamental principle of law had been committed, which had led to denial of justice. Even if this Court could not agree with the findings on facts given by the trial Court, it would be beyond the scope of the powers of this Court in this revision, to interfere with such findings. The acquittal cannot be converted into a conviction. For illegalities, only re-trial could be ordered. I see no such illegality which would warrant a retrial. I am also in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, based on a proper appreciation of the facts and the legal principles involved in this case. Under these circumstances, I have no option, but to dismiss this revision. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed.