Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J.: 1. By our judgment dated 31.7.1991 we set aside the conviction of the appellant and directed her acquittal. We then observed, that the reasons which impelled as to acquit the appellant, would follow in due course. We further stated that the detailed judgment would include the nature of action, if any, to be taken against P.W.13 Gopal, the then Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam who prima facie appears to have intentionally given false evidence and/or fabricated such .evidence, in the course of the judicial proceedings. 2. Here are our reasons for the decision arrived at on 31.7.1991. 3. Facts in this prosecution: Appellant Eswari is the wife of P.W.1 Ramasamy,. The appellant was living along with her husband at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. Deceased Rajammal, was the younger sister of P.W.1. P.W.2 Bathrammal is the mother of P.W.1 she was blind. Deceased Rajammal was residing along with the appellant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur, Deceased Rajammal was unmarried. P.W.1 was working at Tiruchirapalli as a cook in the Guest House attached to Ramakrishnan Oil Company. The appellant, used to work as a labourer in construction of buildings. Deceased used to do gardening and earn wages therefor. The family members of P.W.1 were eking out their livelihood on the earnings of P.W.1, the deceased and the appellant. 4. About a month prior to occurrence, P.W.1 requested the appellant to part with her jewellery, to facilitate matrimony of the deceased. P.W.1 also told his wife (Appellant) that the house property in the name of his parents, should be settled in favour of the deceased. The appellant not only refused to part with her jewellery, but also protested against the intended settlement of the ancestral property of her husband in favour of the deceased. However, P.W.1 left the village after informing the appellant, that within 2 months thereafter, the marriage of the deceased had to be performed. 5. While so, on 17.12.1983, the deceased left her house, after informing her mother P.W.2 that she was proceeding, to pick up firewood. The exact time when the deceased left her house is not clear from the evidence, though the charge reads that the deceased was murdered at or about 5.30 a.m., on 17.12.1983. After the deceased left her house’ the appellant also left the house stating that she was proceeding to wash clothes. The exact time when the deceased left her house is not clear from the evidence, though the charge reads that the deceased was murdered at or about 5.30 a.m., on 17.12.1983. After the deceased left her house’ the appellant also left the house stating that she was proceeding to wash clothes. Sometime later the appellant returned and told P.W.2, that sufficient flow of water was not available in the riverbed. The appellant carried on washing activity in the backyard of the house. She did not go for he; masonry work on 17.12.1983. On the same night around 7.30 p.m., Dr.Kala Shree, (not examined) informed P.W.1 over the phone, that the deceased who had gone over to the river bed to wash clothes, had been washed ashore, by the river waters. P. W.1 received the telephonic message at Tiruchirapalli and reached his village at 7 a.m. on 18.12.1983. P.W.1 questioned his wife. His father also left the house on the morning of 18.12.1983, after quarrelling with the appellant. The appellant told P.W.1, that on information of a corpse having been washed ashore in the river bed, she went and saw the dead body. P.W.1 proceeded to the river bed. He found his younger sister, the deceased with cut injuries. The body of the deceased was found naked. Jewellery on her ears and nose were found removed. Thereafter P.W.1 proceeded to the Mettupalayam Police Station and preferred the complaint, Ex.P.1, before P.W.12 Govindaraj, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Ex.P-1 which was received by him at or about 10.30 a.m., on 18.12.1983, was registered as Crime No.358 of 1983, under Sec.302, I.P.C., by P.W.12. Ex.P-11 is the printed first information report. He forwarded copies of Ex.P.11 to court and his superior officers. He also informed P.W.13, the Inspector of Police about the registration of this crime. P.W.13, Gopal, Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam on receipt of the telephonic message from P. W.12, obtained a copy of Ex.P.11 and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at or about 11 a.m. At the scene he prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-12 and the scene sketch Ex.P-13. Between 11 a.m., and 2 p.m., he conducted the inquest over the corpse of Rajammal, during the course of which he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. Between 11 a.m., and 2 p.m., he conducted the inquest over the corpse of Rajammal, during the course of which he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. After inquest, he forwarded the dead body through police constable Manickam (P.W.8) with a requisition Ex.P.2 to the Government HospitalMettupalayam, for the conduct of post mortem. 6. P.W.7 Dr.Hariharan commenced autopsy on the dead body at or about 3.30 p.m., on 18.12.1983 He found the. following injuries: “Injuries (1) incised wound over the head about 1”to the right of mid line about 6“in length cutting the bone and the brain issue in A.P. direction. 2. Another incised would 1 cm. lateral to injury No. 1 cutting the bone and brain 6” in length in the antcaposter in direction. 3. Incised wound starting from the angle of left eye extending porteriorly, downwards and backwards upto the midline of neck in the back. The left ear was found missing. The mastoid process was found cut. 4. Incised wound starting 1 cm. below the injury No.3. The wound starts about 1 cm. below the injury No.3 in similar manner, and ends at the midline to back of neck cutting all the deeper tissues upto the bone. 5. Incised injury. 6. Incised injury 1 cm. below the injury No.5 in the similar manner. 7. Incised injury over the left side of face at the level of angle of mandible directed downwards and backwards to the midline of back of neck. The deeper tissues are cut. Through the wounds 3 to 7 I have found the following things: The anterior occipital joint was found cut and the spinal cord was found partially cut. The brain matter was found protruding through the wound; 8. Circular lacerated wound over the right elbow skin deep. 9. Lacerated wound on the back of right forearm. Internally uterus and ovaries were normal. The bladder was empty. Two fractures were found on the frontal bone of skull, each 5“in length, in the anterior, porterior direction. The 1st fracture was 1” from the mid line, on right side and the 2nd fracture 1/2“lateral to the 1st fracture. There was a fracture over the base of skull, on the left side 1” lateral to the margin. Membranes were injured corresponding to the fractures. The spinal cord was found partially cut, below atlanto occipital joint. Ex.P.3 is the post-mortem certificate. There was a fracture over the base of skull, on the left side 1” lateral to the margin. Membranes were injured corresponding to the fractures. The spinal cord was found partially cut, below atlanto occipital joint. Ex.P.3 is the post-mortem certificate. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of injury to brain, injury to spinal cord and the multiple cut injuries over the left side of face and neck. The injuries noticed on the deceased could have been caused by an aruval. The death would have been instantaneous. Injuries 1 and 2 were necessarily fatal. 7. P.W. 13 arrested the appellant at or about 8a.m., on 21.12.1983, near Kalanithi garden at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur in the presence of P.W.10. The appellant volunteered a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.7. In pursuance of her statement, she agreed to produce the aruval M.O.6 and the sari M.O.7, which she had worn at the time of occurrence. The appellant took P.W. 13 and his party to her house and produced M.Os.6 and 7 from Attikalai “TaMIL” which were seized under mahazar Ex.P.8. The appellant also thereafter pointed out P.W.5 a jewellers at Mettupalayam. P.W 13 and his party reached the shop of P.W.5 at or about 11.30 a.m. P.W.5 produced M.O.1 series which were seized under a mahazar Ex.P.9, attested by P.W.10. On being pointed out by the appellant P.W.6 Ramathal of Ramaiahgoundan Pudur, was discovered. She produced M.O.3 which had been entrusted to her by the appellant on the date of occurrence, along with Rs.800 in cash. M.O.3 was seized under a mahazar Ex.P. 10. Attested by P.W. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant after committing the murder, proceeded to Mettupalayam, sold away M.O.1 series to P.W.5 at or about 2 p.m., and purchased from him M.O.3 series a new set of ear rings after paying a sum of Rs.150 over and above the value of M.O.1 series. After ret urn from Mettupalayam, the appellant is stated to have handed over M.O.3 series and Rs.800 in cash for safe custody to P.W.6 The next day the appellant took away the cash while requesting P.W.6 to retain M.O.3 series. 8. The prosecution has also examined, P.W.3, Rangasamy, who has garden land at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. The appellant at or about the time of occurrence was working in his garden land. 8. The prosecution has also examined, P.W.3, Rangasamy, who has garden land at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. The appellant at or about the time of occurrence was working in his garden land. The appellant approached P.W.3 about a year prior his deposition in court and told him that deceased .was found dead in the river bed an requested him to given her Rs.500 towards cremtion expenses. She also told him, that a telegras had to be sent to her husband, who was the at Tiruchirapalli. The rroney borrowed was later returned by the appellant. P.W.3 would further depose, that the appellant requested him to inform the police that she had attended work on Saturday. P.W.2 refused to accede to this request, since she had not come for work on that day. The appellant requested him to save her, since she may be apprehended in respect of the death of deceased Rajammal. 9. P.W.4 Sathiseelan, an employee at Rajalakshmi Mills, has spoken of an extra judicial confession, made to him by the appellant, two days subsequent to the occurrence. At or about 7 p.m., the appellant is stated to have informed him, that she had murdered the deceased. P.W.4 advised her to surrender before the Police. The appellant had also told P.W.4 about a week earlier, that P.W.1 was desirous of getting Rajammal married by utilising her jewellery and settling the house property. 10. P.W.13 sent a requisition to the trial Magistrate to forward the material objects seized for chemical analysis, to the Laboratory. P. W.9 Kaliaperumal the court clerk the proved Ex.P-6 the report of the chemical Examiner. Ex.P.6 discloses that there was no blood on either of M.Os.6 to 7 (the aruval and sari) After completing investigation, P.W.13 filed the final report against the appellant before the committal court on 20.8.1984, alleging that she had committed an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. 11. When the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in evidence, she chose to deny her complicity in the crime. She did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence. 12. The learned trial Judge on a consideration oral and documentary evidence accepted the prosecution case rejected the plea of innocence by the appellant, convicted her under Sec.302, I.P.C. andsentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life. 13. She did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence. 12. The learned trial Judge on a consideration oral and documentary evidence accepted the prosecution case rejected the plea of innocence by the appellant, convicted her under Sec.302, I.P.C. andsentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life. 13. We have heard Mr.N.Duraisamu, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr.B. Sriramulu, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. Both of them took us through the recorded evidence in detail. 14. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Apart from this, the prosecution also seeks to rely upon an alleged extra judicial confession, stated to have been made by the appellant to P.W.4 15. It is settled law that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogent and firm, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. These circumstances must also form a chain so complete, that there can be no escape from the conclusion, that human ingenuity could foresee that the accused and the accused alone,was the author of the crime. Further there should be no possibility of those circumstances bring explained away by any other reasonable hypothesis. 16. Equally it is the enunciated law, that extra judicial confession by itself is a very weak piece of evidence. If after taking note of the surrounding circumstances, the court entertains a doubt, about its voluntary nature, such confession cannot be relied upon. The extra judicial concession, examined with caution if held voluntary and believable, can form the sole basis for recording a conviction. Thus the acceptance or rejection of an extrajudicial confession, is essentially a question of fact. 17. In the background of the legal position, let us now scrutinise the evidence available in this case. Initially we will dispose of the evidence regarding extrajudicial confession. The occurrence is staled to have taken place at or about 5.30 a.m., on 7.12.1983. P.W.4 is an employee in Rajalakshmi Mills and a resident of Kuttaiyur. It can be recapitulated, that P.W.1, the deceased and the appellant were residents of Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. P.W.4 would have it that one week prior to the Recurrence the appellant told him, that P.W.1 was particular to celebrate the marriage of the deceased, by utilising her valuable jewellery and giving away the house. It can be recapitulated, that P.W.1, the deceased and the appellant were residents of Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. P.W.4 would have it that one week prior to the Recurrence the appellant told him, that P.W.1 was particular to celebrate the marriage of the deceased, by utilising her valuable jewellery and giving away the house. Two days thereafter the Appellant told him at or about 6 p.m., that she had murdered the deceased Rajammal and wanted his help,for being saved. He directed her to surrender before the police. It was suggested to him, that he had illicit contacts with the deceased, which was chastised by the appellant. If the evidence of P.W.1 is taken at its face value, that two days after her first meeting, the appellant met him again, obviously it will be before the commission of murder on 17.12.1983. On the other hand if we take it, that the appellant had told P.W.4 two days after the commission of murder, it will take us to 19.12.1983, 7 p.m., P.W.1, on the information furnished by his wife, the appellant, had arrived in the village even on the morning of 18.12.1983 and had set the law in motion by preferring Ex.P.1 at 10.30 a.m. According to P.W.1, he had questioned his wife and her reply was that she went over to the river bed on hearing information of a corpse having been washed ashore. There was no reason for the appellant to wait for two full days, before deciding to confession to P.W.4 of this crime. It is not the case of P.W.4 that he was a friend of the family of the appellant either prior to her marriage or to her marital home subsequently. P.W.4 does not even belong to the village of the appellant and it appears odd that late in the evening, the appellant had left the village to the place of P. W.4, when the whole family was in a state of shock and criminal law had already been set in motion. Further investigation was in progress. It would not have been easily possible for the appellant to move out so freely and confess. If in fact, the appellant had confessed, one would have normally expected P.W.4 to have informed P.W.1 about the alleged extra judicial confession. P.W.4 was examined only on 21.12.1983, two days after the alleged extra judicial confession. Further investigation was in progress. It would not have been easily possible for the appellant to move out so freely and confess. If in fact, the appellant had confessed, one would have normally expected P.W.4 to have informed P.W.1 about the alleged extra judicial confession. P.W.4 was examined only on 21.12.1983, two days after the alleged extra judicial confession. The silence of P.W.4 for two days, cannot be easily explained away. We are constrained to entertain a doubt, that the statement of P.W.4 could not have been recorded during investigation on 21.12.1983 for his statement had reached the court only on 21.8.1984. As we have stated earlier, extra judicial confession itself is a week piece of evidence and if that piece does not inspire confidence and looks unnatural, it will be too difficult to attach any probative value to it. Without hesitation we reject, the alleged extra judicial concession. 18. While on this aspect, it will be better to dispose of the evidence of P. W.3 Rangasamy, a resident of Dasampalayam, who had garden land at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur. He would have it, that the appellant was working in his garden land. About a year prior to his deposition before court, he would have it, that the appellant approached him and informed the fact of deceased having been found dead in the river bed and sought his help for sending a telegram to her husband. She also requested him to lend Rs.500 for cremation expenses. He has also deposed that Rs.500 loaned by him, was later returned. He has then added that the appellant requested him to inform the police, if inquired, that she had attended to her work, in his garden land, on Saturday. He refused and informed the appellant that if required, he would inform that she did not turn up for work. The appellant pleaded that he should save her, for she may be apprehended in ‘Rajammals Case’. This evidence can have no probative value whatsoever. It is not a confession by the appellant and even if true, the evidence of P. W.3 will only show that the appellant had feared that she may be suspected in respect of the death of Rajammal. The evidence of P.W.3, thus does not advance the prosecution case any further. This evidence can have no probative value whatsoever. It is not a confession by the appellant and even if true, the evidence of P. W.3 will only show that the appellant had feared that she may be suspected in respect of the death of Rajammal. The evidence of P.W.3, thus does not advance the prosecution case any further. 18-A. The circumstances which the prosecution has placed before court, for drawing an inference of guilt, against the appellant, are as follows: “1. the evidence of P.W.2, the mother-in-law of the appellant, stating that her daughter the deceased went out for picking fire-wood. The appellant went out stating that she would wash the clothes, but returned a little later and informed P.W.2 that there was no water flowing in the river. The appellant did not go for work on that date. The next morning, at or about 10 a.m., she was informed that some one was found dead in the riverbed with cut injuries. She asked the appellant to go in search of the deceased. The appellant replied. “TAMIL” At 4 p.m., she was informed that the corpse was that of the deceased. The appellant went out to pass on information to P.W.1, P.W.1 arrived on the next day. 2. The evidence of P.W.1, that when he went over to the river bed, he found that jewels on the ears and nose of the deceased, having been removed. 3. The evidence of P.W.5, a jeweller at Mettupalayam that at or about 2 p.m., on 17.12.1983 the appellant had met him in his shop and wanted a new pair of earrings in exchange for M.O.1 series, the old pair of earrings. P.W.5 agreed and sold M.O.3 series to the appellant after obtaining M.O.1 series and Rs.150. In each on 21.12.19153 at or about 11 or 12 noon, P.W.13 Inspector of Police seized from his shop M.O.1 series. The appellant was in a car and from there she pointed out his shop. 4. The evidence of P. W.6, a resident of Ramaiah Goundan Pudur, a vegetable vendor, to the effect that the appellant, had met her on a Saturday, afternoon one year prior to her deposition and had handed over Rs.800 in each and M.O.3 series, for safe custody. The next day, the appellant took back the cash allowing M.O.3 series to remain in her custody. Later polio; seized M.O.3 series. 19. The next day, the appellant took back the cash allowing M.O.3 series to remain in her custody. Later polio; seized M.O.3 series. 19. The evidence of P.W.2 does not indicate, even remotely, that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. A perusal of Ex.P-1, the first information report shows, that P.W.2 is blind. Therefore, she could not have watched the movements of the deceased and/or the appellant. The deceased had told her even on the earlier night, that she would go out on the next day, to pick up firewood. The time at which the deceased left the house has not been spoken to by P.W.2. Even approximately, there is no evidence, to gauge the time of such leaving. Further the evidence of P.W.2 does not show that the appellant followed the deceased soon after she left, after informing her. All that we are able to gather from the evidence of P.W.2 is that some time later after she left, the appellant returned to wash the clothes behind the house on the ground, that there was no flow of water in the river. Of course her evidence will show that the appellant had not gone for work on that day. The contents of Ex.P.1 would show, that the appellant was a masonry labourer. There is no evidence, that inspite of her having been engaged for masonry labour, the appellant did not so far work on that particular day. Ex.P-1 also states that the deceased used to work in the garden land. The evidence of P.W.3 also does not show that the appellant was working on a permanent basis in his garden land. Therefore the circumstance of the appellant not having gone for work on the day on which the deceased had left the house, cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance. There is one more difficulty in accepting the evidence of P.W.2. According to her, it was only on the next day at or about 10 a.m., there was information of a dead body with cut injuries having been found, near the river bed. If the occurrence had taken place on 17.12.1983, obviously, the information on the next day, must take us to 10 a.m., on 18.12.1983. Naturally in the sequence of events deposed to by P.W.2, it was on 18:12.1983, that the appellant was requested to go in search of the deceased. If the occurrence had taken place on 17.12.1983, obviously, the information on the next day, must take us to 10 a.m., on 18.12.1983. Naturally in the sequence of events deposed to by P.W.2, it was on 18:12.1983, that the appellant was requested to go in search of the deceased. Again it was only at 4 p.m., that P.W.2 knew that the corpse-was that of the deceased. It was thereafter that the appellant went out to furnish information to her husband (P.W.1). P.W.1 having arrived at 7 a.m., on 18.12.1983 at 10.30 a.m., we will have to presume from the evidence of P.W.2, that the deceased had left her house on the morning of 16.12.1983 and on the next morning she had informed of a naked corpse near the river. If that be so, it is very difficult to connect the appellant as having gone to wash the clothes in the river bed, on the very same day when the deceased had left. Even if we take if that the appellant had followed the deceased on the same day, it will be odd that P.W.2, the mother of the deceased did not think it necessary to inquire about her daughter for the whole day of 16.12.1983 and till 10 a.m., on the next morning. This conduct of P.W.2 does not fit in with normal expectancy. P.W.2 has also admitted that her relationship with the appellant was quite good and they were living happily “TAMIL” Though she has denied that she has not stated during investigation that Rajammal (deceased) used to accompany one Lakshmi, whose character was not good, this contradiction had not been put to the investigating officer and his reply elicited. Anyhow that omission cannot make any difference in this prosecution. 20. The second circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1, that when he noticed the corpse of his sister, he found the jewels on her ears and nose having been removed. However, in Ex.P.1 he has spoken of both the ear lobes having been found cut. The medical evidence shows that the left ear was found missing. There is no evidence of the other ear having been cut. The recovery of articles from the corpse shows, that there was a nose screw in the list. However, in Ex.P.1 he has spoken of both the ear lobes having been found cut. The medical evidence shows that the left ear was found missing. There is no evidence of the other ear having been cut. The recovery of articles from the corpse shows, that there was a nose screw in the list. Examination of the corpse by the investigating Officer disclosed that the tip of the right ear had been shaved off and there was an injury behind the said ear. There were cut injuries on the left ear also. Therefore it is seen that there is no consistency, about the number of articles of the deceased found missing, when the corpse was first noticed. Anyhow we will take it as projected by the prosecution, that the earring of the deceased had been taken away from the body of the deceased, whomsoever may be the offender. The evidence of P.W.1 does not incriminate the appellant. 21. We now pass on to the evidence regarding recovery. If the evidence of P.W.5, the Mettupalayam Jeweller can be accepted as true and the recoveryof M.O.1 would inspire confidence, it can easily be held, that the appellant was in possession of the jewellery of the deceased, soon after the occurrence and had not offered any explanation for such possession, which would permit a presumption being drawn, that the appellant was the murderer. It is the definite case of P.W.5, that the appellant met him at his shop at or about 2p.m., on 17.12.1983. He also affirms, that he took M.O.1 series and Rs.150 from the appellant and in exchange handed over M.O.3 series to the appellant. He is further specific that between 11 and 12 noon on 21.12.83, P.W.13 seized M.O.2 series from him, the shop having been pointed out by the appellant, who was seated in a car. Admittedly there being no contemporaneous record for this alleged transaction of buying and selling, we have to examine the evidence of P.W.5 with extreme care. He has admitted that though he is a licensed dealer in Jewellery, he had not made any entry in his register about having purchased M.O.1 series. No entry has also been made for Rs.150 in cash received by him. He has not spoken of any bill issued to the appellant for the sale of M.O.3 series. He has admitted that though he is a licensed dealer in Jewellery, he had not made any entry in his register about having purchased M.O.1 series. No entry has also been made for Rs.150 in cash received by him. He has not spoken of any bill issued to the appellant for the sale of M.O.3 series. A licensed dealer would, in the usual course of business, have a bill book, the counterfoil of which would have been easily produced if such transaction had been entered in it. The more serious question is whether M.O.1 series was at all available with P.W.5 on 21.12.1983, to facilitate seizure by P.W.13. A specific suggestion was addressed to P.W.5 by the defence the answer to which in Tamil reads as follows: “TAMIL” This contradiction was put to P.W.13 investigating Officer and his reply is as hereunder: “TAMIL” If as stated by P.W.12, P.W.5 had told him during investigation, that he had kept M.O.1 series, for the purpose of melting, there can be no doubt, that M.O.1 series in the original form was available with him to permit P.W.13, to seize it. In view of the specific suggestion put to P.W.5 we are impelled to look into the original statement recorded by P.W.13 during investigation. To our shock and surprise, we found, that P.W.5 had stated during investigation, as follows: “TAMIL” It at the earliest point of time on 21.12.1983, when allegedly M.O.1 was recovered from P.W.5, he had made this statement, indisputably it would indicate, that M.O.1 series could not have been available for seizure by P.W.13. Taking at its face value, the statement of P.W.5 during investigation it is clear that on the next day of this transaction with the appellant, which will take us to 18.12.1983, he had melted M.O.1 series along with other old gold jewels and had further made out new jewellery out of the melted gold. If that be so, we are unable to comprehend, how M.O.1, series was available for seizure from P.W.5, in its original form. If M.O.1 series could not have been available in its original form for seizure, he vital link connecting the appellant with the c rime gets totally extinguished. Not only P.W.5 had uttered falsehood, but a responsible police official P.W.13 had chosen to misguide the court, by not placing before it, the actual statement made by P.W.5 to him, during investigation. If M.O.1 series could not have been available in its original form for seizure, he vital link connecting the appellant with the c rime gets totally extinguished. Not only P.W.5 had uttered falsehood, but a responsible police official P.W.13 had chosen to misguide the court, by not placing before it, the actual statement made by P.W.5 to him, during investigation. P.W.13, when questioned about contradictions, was bound to look into the statement recorded by him during investigation and then depose about the facts stated in the statement so recorded. We will consider a little later regarding the action to be taken against P.W.13 for having given false evidence before court and for having fabricated Ex.P.9 seizure mahazar, as though M.O.1 series in its original form, had been recovered from P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 has to be necessarily rejected, since M.O.1 series cannot be connected with the jewels, allegedly worn by the deceased. 22. We will not turn our attention to the evidence of P.W.6, to whom he appellant is stated to have handed over M.O.3 series, for safe custody. We are not now concerned with Rs.800 in cash, stated to have been handed over by the appellant, to P.W.3, for two reasons, one is that Rs.600 had been taken back by the appellant and the second is that Rs.800 had no connection with the crime in question. The seizure of M.O.3, from P.W.6, appears to have no relevance whatever that M.O.3 series was sold to the appellant by P.W.5, we do not have documentary evidence. We have already stated that the evidence of P.W.5 is not at all credit worthy. Even if the appellant had handed over M.O.2 series to P.W.6, these piece of jewellery (a pair of earrings) cannot even remotely connect her with the crime in question. The appellant herself has denied such handing over. Thus the evidence of P. W 6 who was examined during investigation on 20.6.1984, does not help the case of the prosecution in any manner. 23. It is therefore apparent that neither the extra judicial confession nor the circumstances placed before court by -the prosecution connect the appellant with the crime, to safely record a conviction. Thus the evidence of P. W 6 who was examined during investigation on 20.6.1984, does not help the case of the prosecution in any manner. 23. It is therefore apparent that neither the extra judicial confession nor the circumstances placed before court by -the prosecution connect the appellant with the crime, to safely record a conviction. On the other land, every one of the circumstances appear to be capable of being explained away, on otherwise reasonable hypothesis, the conduct of the appellant herself in having returned to her house soon after the alleged occurrence; her attempts to inform her husband P.W.1 who was then at Trichy of the fate that had befallen the deceased; telling him on his arrival of the body of his sister having been found in the river bed etc., are capable of inferentially indicating, that probably she had no role to play in this crime. The seizure of M.Os.6 and 7, the aruval and her sari, on her alleged confessional statement, can have no sinister significance, because both the material objects did not at all contain blood. If the appellant had decided to conceal the weapon of offence and allegedly blood stained sari in her house, there appears to be no rhyme or reason in her having thought it fit to hand over M.O.3 series to P. W.6 for safe custody. The appellant was also available in the village after the commission of the crime and therefore her alleged arrest on 21.12.1983, near the garden of Kalanidhi at Ramaiahgoundan Pudur village itself, does not impress us, as a truthful facet. The appellant is entitled to an acquittal. Her conviction and sentence are set aside. We have already allowed this appeal on 31.7.1991 and we have now stated our conclusions for the same. 24. Now we have to divert our attention to the action, if any, that should be taken against P.W.13 Gopal, investigating officer On 30.7.1991 after prima facie arriving at our conclusion, that P. W. 13 had not only given false evidence, but had also fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding, we furnished an opportunity to him to offer an explanation on the next day, as to why action should not be taken against him, by initiating a prosecution for perjury. On 31.7.91, P.W.13 by himself and through the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.B.Sriramulu pleaded for exoneration, purely on sympathetical grounds. Then we observed that sympathy if any, would be totally misplaced, especially when the appellant was then still in jail she having served nearly 7 years. He submitted that his prior record in the police department was clear, without any blemish, and he had inadvertently committed a mistake. When we questioned him, how the mistake could be inadvertent, especially when he was bound to look into the record and answer about the contradictions, he stated, that he was aware of the contents of the statement recorded during investigation, but the learned Public Prosecutor in the trial court, had told him that explanation could be offered later in the event of further cross-examination by the defence counsel. This explanation obviously, does not look credible. He then stated, that the statement of P.W.5 was recorded by the Head constable and he presumed that the record must have been correctly made, that the jewel, (M.O.1 series) was available in its original form, for seizure, since it had been kept only for melting and had not been actually melted. Even if true, that the statement of P.W.5 during investigation was recorded by the Head constable in the presence of the Investigating Officer, the latter was bound to look into the record and answer questions put to him in cross-examination, while eliciting contradictions. His answers would be relevant to facilitate the court to form an opinion one way or other about the guilt or innocence of the appellant/accused. Hence either on the ground of his inadvertence or default of his subordinate, P.W.13 cannot expect exoneration. Then P.W.13 submitted that there was no mala fides whatever and even P.W.1, the husband of the appellant had identified M.O.1 series as a jewel of his sister. If M.O.1 could not have been seized from P.W.5 as alleged, the identification of M.O.1 series by P.W.1, as the jewel of his sister, can have no value whatsoever. Either it may be that P.W.1 believed, that M.O.1 series was that of his sister or may be that he was impelled to say so for success of this prosecution. At this stage, P.W.13-sincerely repented for his action, which he claimed was unintentional and voluntarily offered to compensate the appellant who had suffered incarceration for several years. Either it may be that P.W.1 believed, that M.O.1 series was that of his sister or may be that he was impelled to say so for success of this prosecution. At this stage, P.W.13-sincerely repented for his action, which he claimed was unintentional and voluntarily offered to compensate the appellant who had suffered incarceration for several years. The learned Public Prosecutor, also submitted, that the official record of P.W. 13 was clear and he had also been awarded some rewards, for meritorious service. He further urged, that by directing P.W.13 to compensate the appellant, substantial justice would be done. 25. We also heard, Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel who was present in court, for some other case, on the legal issue involved. He submitted that he was able to visualize the agony and anguish of the court, about the fate that had befallen the appellant, solely due to the evidence of P.W. 13. He stated that if P.W. 13 himself could approach the appellant and compensate her reasonably, then the court can still consider if it was expedient in the interests of justice to initiate a prosecution against him. 26. This matter was taken again on 13.8.1991. The appellant was acquitted in pursuance of our judgment dated 31.7.1991, wherein we reserved pronouncement of reasons, to a later date. She was present in court, on 13.8.1991. P.W. 13 pleaded for some more time to offer and arrange for payment of compensation to the appellant. We acceded to his request and adjourned hearing to 30.8.9091 Today the appellant as well as P.W. 13 are present before us. P.W. 13 had offered a compensation of Rs.75,000 which has been accepted by the appellant. We do not want this sum to be handed over to the appellant in cash, for it is likely to be squandered or taken away by the others who would be more tempted by the money rather than affording protection to the appellant. Rs.75,000 handed over by P.W. 13 to the appellant was deposited in the forenoon in a Nationalised Bank (Canara Bank, Thambu Chetty Street,Madras1), in the name of the appellant for a period of 7 years. The same bank had facilitated opening of a savings Bank account in the name of the appellant at Sirumugai Village, near the place where the appellant normally resides. The same bank had facilitated opening of a savings Bank account in the name of the appellant at Sirumugai Village, near the place where the appellant normally resides. The Canara BankThambu Chetty Street,Madras will forward every month Rs.803.77 the interest that would get accrued, to the account of the appellant, opened at Canara Bank, Sirumugai. In the event of an increase in the rate of interest, the appellant will certainly be entitled to the increased interest. This interest would be despatched by the Canara Bank, Thambu Chetty Branch, to the Canara Bank, Sirumugai on 30th of every succeeding English Calendar month, and the first of such payments will be made on 30.9.1991. After the expiry of the period of fixed deposit, it will be totally open to the appellant to deal with the accrued amount in the manner she chooses. The appellant will not be entitled to utilise this fixed deposit receipt for any purpose, except for claiming monthly interest and the ultimate proceeds on the expiry of the period for which the fixed deposit receipt F.M.A.952064 has been issued. The appellant has been told in person and through her counsel, that the fixed deposit receipt shall not be used as a pledge or pawn for receiving advances. It shall not be utilised for any other ulterior purpose, which we cannot foresee at this moment. 27. After bestowing serious thought we feel that social justice would be best rendered by compensating the victim (appellant) who probably would not have the connubial affection of her husband P.W.1, since the deceased is his sister. The appellant stated before us, that even after her release, she was not permitted by her husband even to see her children. The children themselves informed her, that they have no mother since she has to be treated as dead. They also wanted her to go away, lest she incur their wrath and that of their father. We are able to see that the appellant is bound to be stranded and the substantial compensation now offered and accepted may serve the cause of justice better than a prosecution especially, when P.W.12 has bona fide repented for his action. 28. We will have to consider if it would be expedient to initiate a prosecution against P.W.13. The law is clear that sanction should be granted only in those cases, where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious. 28. We will have to consider if it would be expedient to initiate a prosecution against P.W.13. The law is clear that sanction should be granted only in those cases, where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious. In other words to start prosecutions for or perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution, and consideration of expediency in the interests of justice on a given set of facts, may defeat its very end. 29. On facts we are not prepared to hold, that P.W. 13 Inspector of Police, had made a mere wrong statement. However, this may not be a case, where P.W.13 could have intended to have some unlawful gain over the accused/appellant, though it will be possible to conclude, that he. was either over eager or over enthusiastic to succeed in the prosecution which was the outcome of his investigation. 30. False evidence is intentionally given, if a person making the statement makes it advisedly knowing it to be false, and with the intention of deceiving the court and of letting it to be supposed that which he states is true. Corrupt intention can always be inferred from surrounding circumstances. The statement of P.W.5 was recorded during investigation to the knowledge and in the presence of P. W.13. Certainly if P.W. 13 had truthfully deposed, in all probability the trial court may not have convicted the appellant. To that extent the course of justice has certainly been hampered and the appellant had also to be in jail for several years till we directed her to be freed. 31. Whether, it is expedient in the interests of justice, that a complaint should be made is the only relevant consideration now and it naturally requires a careful study of many factors. In deciding whether in the interests of justice an inquiry should be made, the court need not always have to be confined to the record of the proceedings, but will be entitled to take into account and consider information otherwise acquired and the further developments that had taken place, as in this case, the offer and acceptance of a compensation, which we hold as absolutely reasonable. 32. We hold that the interests of justice would be best served. On the peculiar facts of this case, by substantially compensating the appellant which has been done by P.W. 13. 32. We hold that the interests of justice would be best served. On the peculiar facts of this case, by substantially compensating the appellant which has been done by P.W. 13. Needless to add, that the compensation offered and accepted would go a long way to alleviate her distress. While dissuading ourselves from directing a prosecution we still observe that the work of P.W.13 in future should be carefully monitored by his superior officers. On the particularity of facts stated earlier and special circumstances of this case, no further, action or punishment will appear to be necessary in any forum, except monitoring the future activity of P.W.13, by the Department. 33. P.W.13 stated before us directly and through Mr.B.Sriramulu, the learned Public Prosecutor, that he had made up this sum of Rs.75,000 by selling the jewels of his wife and obtaining funds from his brothers. P.W.13 is bound to inform his higher authorities, about the manner in which he had raised the funds and paid this compensation before court, to-day for concurrence; or ratification whatever it be. We had granted him sufficient time to voluntarily offer compensation to the appellant and raise the money towards that end, which he appears to have bona fide done. 34. We place on record the assistance rendered by Sri N.T.Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel on our request and the dispassionate manner in which Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor made his submissions regarding the expediency or otherwise, of initiating a prosecution against P.W.13.