Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. Dead body of Guruvammal, a resident of V.Kazhukachahpuram was found by her younger brother P.W.l A.Rajaperumal at or about 2 p.m. on 27. 1985, near a brook adjacent to Venkatachalapuram, with cut injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. Gold jewel M.O.5, which she normally used to wear, was also found missing from the dead body, though M.O.I series a pair of ear ornaments and M.O.2 series a pair of nose screws were found intact on the dead body. 2. Suspecting that appellant Pandiarajan must have caused the death of deceased Guruvammal and committed robbery of her gold chain (M.O.5), he was charged under Secs. 302 and 394, I.P.C., in S.C.No.61 of 1986 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. After trial, he was found guilty of both the offences an&sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for murder and 5 years rigorous imprisonment for having voluntarily caused hurt while committing robbery. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 3. P.W.6 Munisamy Nadar married deceased Guruvammal 21 years prior to occurrence and fathered a son Selvalingam (not examined). P.W.6 acquired property in his village, some in the name of his wife. P.W.6 was living with his wife and son at V.Kazhukachalapuram Village, till about 2 years prior to occurrence. Appellate was a resident of Malaian Street, Veppalodai, not far away from the house of the deceased. P.W.l Rajaperumal, younger brother of the deceased was residing at V.Pandiapuram, situated one and half furlongs away from V.Kazhukachalapuram. Appellant developed illicit intimacy with the deceased and P.W.6 himself, was an eye witness, to such a relationship. Inspite of persistent warnings by P.W.6 to his wife, the latter would not put an end to Tier relationship with the appellant. P.W.6, who was dejected, left V.Kazhukachalapuram 2years prior to occurrence and commenced living at Panaiyur village. Deceased Guruvammal and her son Selvalingam were attending to cultivation at V.Kazhukachalapuram village, with the help of the appellant. P.W.6 had provided his wife with M.O.5, a gold chain along with Mangal sutra weighing 5 sovereigns. Deceased was constantly wearing the said chain. P.W.6 had also decked his wife with M.Os.l and 2 series ear ornaments and nose-screws. P.W.5 Mookandi is a neighbour of deceased Guruvammal. He has seen constantly appellant taking Guruvammal from her house, for the purpose of cultivation. Deceased was constantly wearing the said chain. P.W.6 had also decked his wife with M.Os.l and 2 series ear ornaments and nose-screws. P.W.5 Mookandi is a neighbour of deceased Guruvammal. He has seen constantly appellant taking Guruvammal from her house, for the purpose of cultivation. A week prior to occurrence, appellant demanded wages from the deceased as well as a sum of Rs.500 as loan. Without acceding to the request of the appellant, deceased demanded him to repay Rs.500 obtained by him earlier. There was a petty altercation between both of them. Appellant then stated, that within 2days he would repay the loan and settle his account with her. It was two days later, the deceased was murdered. 4. On 27. 1985 at or about 10 a.m. when P.W.l was at his residence at V.Pandiapuram, deceased Guruvammal met him. Appellant was following the deceased. Appellant took deceased Guruvammal to point out the parts of her land, from where Velikathan plants, had to be removed, for facilitating cultivation. After the deceased and the appellant left his house, P.W.l went over to Tuti-corin. 5. On the same day, at or about 10 p.m. when P.W.2 Thangapazham was at his residence at Veppalodai, deceased requested him for some water. After consuming water, deceased left his house stating, that she was proceeding to her punja land to cut volikatnan karuvai plants. Guruvammal then possessed an aruval. P.W.2 noticed, appellant accompanying Guruvammal, towards her land, engaging himself in conversation. 6. P.W.3 Sendurpandian, who had married the daughter of P.W.l’s junior paternal uncle, happened to notice appellant and the deceased proceeding one behind another westwards at or about 11 a.m. on 27. 1985, when he was ploughing the land belonging to Balakrishnan. At that time, deceased was wearing M.O.3 saree and M.O.4 Jacket. At 3 p.m. on the next day, he became aware that deceased Guruvammal had been murdered, one kilo metre away from the place he was ploughing. 7. P.W.4, Muniasamy, another resident of Pandiapuram village went in search of his missing sheep, at or about 11.30 a.m. on 27. 1985. Between Kalmedu and Venkatachalapuram, there were Velikatan plants to a distance of about 2 kms. He searched for his sheep in the cluster of Velikaruvai plants. He then noticed the appellant proceeding with a blood stained aruval and a twel westwards at a distance of about 200 feet away from him. 1985. Between Kalmedu and Venkatachalapuram, there were Velikatan plants to a distance of about 2 kms. He searched for his sheep in the cluster of Velikaruvai plants. He then noticed the appellant proceeding with a blood stained aruval and a twel westwards at a distance of about 200 feet away from him. M.O.7 is the aruval then in the posses-sion of the appellant. Being afraid; he returned home. 8. P.W.1 returned from Tuticorin at or about 10 P.M. on 27. 1985, Selvalingam, Son of the deceased informed him that his mother had not returned home, after she left P.W.l’s house in the morning. Since it was night time, P.W.1 informed his nephew that search for his mother could be made on the next morning. 9. At or about 8 a.m. on the next morning, in the company of Mariappan (not examined) P.W.1 went in search of his elder sister, she was not to be found in her punja land. P.W.1 with Mariappan searched for the deceased, extending to a radius of 10 miles. Ultimately at 2 p.m. he found the dead body of Guruvammal, with cut injuries and missing M.O.5, in a brook in between Venkatachalapuram and Kalmedu. He wept for sometime and then returned to his village. After furnishing information at his residence of all that he had seen, he proceeded along with Mariappan to Kolathur Police Station, situated 6 kms away from the scene of occurrence. 10. At 4.30 p.m. he narrated about the occurrence to P.W.13, Subbiah, then Head Constable Kolathur Police Station. P.W.13 reduced into writing the complaint of P.W.1 and on Ex.P-1 so scribed, he registered Crime No.81 of 1985 under Secs.302 and 379, I.P.C. He then prepared Ex.P-16 the printed first information report. He despatched Exs.P-1 and P-16 through Police Constable Madasami (P.W.11), to Judicial II Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam and copies of Ex.P-16 to his superior officers. At 5 p.m., he informed P.W.14, Kesavan, Inspector of Police, over the wireless, about the registration of this crime. P.W.11 handed over Exs.P-1 and P-16 to the Magistrate at 10.30 p.m. on the same night. 11. P.W.14 on receipt of wireless message proceeded to Kolathur Police Station, obtained a copy of the first information report and took up investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at 7 p.m. and in the presence of P.W.10, Village Administrative Officer, Veppalodai, he prepared Ex. 11. P.W.14 on receipt of wireless message proceeded to Kolathur Police Station, obtained a copy of the first information report and took up investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at 7 p.m. and in the presence of P.W.10, Village Administrative Officer, Veppalodai, he prepared Ex. P-14 the observation mahazar and Ex.P-17, the scene sketch. Between 8 p.m. and 12 mid-night he held inquest over the corpse of Guruvammal during the course of which he examined P.W.1 and others. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report. After inquest, he depatched the dead body through Police Constable Shanmugasundaram (P.W.12) with a requisition Ex.P-5 to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin for the conduct of postmortem. 12.P.W.8 Dr.Santhammal commenced autopsy at 11 a.m. on 27. 1985. Decomposed body was that of a female with blisters over the anter or aspect, abdomen and chest. Skin was found peeled off over the abdomen, vulva and anterior aspect around the nostrils and both lower limbs. Maggots were seen crawling. The head was found connected with the body only with a tag of skin on the right side. The following injuries were noticed. 1. There are two holes 1/2" in each diameter in the middle of the tage of skin 1" apart from each other. 2. Incised wound completely cutting the neck at the level of 7th cervical certebra bearing a tag of skin 1" x 1/2" x 4" on the right side. 3. Incised wounds 1/4" x 1/4"x 1/4" each on the proximal inter phalangeal joints (anterior aspect) of (left) index, middle and ring finger. 4. An incised wound 10" x 4" x 3" on the right side of mandible 1/2" below the right ear underlying muscles exposed. 5. An incised wound 2" x 1/2"x 1/2" on the right side of face 1" below the left eye. 6. An incised wound 5" x 3" x 2" on the posteior aspect of left forearm immediately below the left elbow. 7. Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1/2" on the left side of mandible 1" below the left angle of mouth. 8. Incised wound 5" x 2" x 3" on the occipital region. 9. Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" on the left parietal region 2" above the injury No.8. 10. 7. Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1/2" on the left side of mandible 1" below the left angle of mouth. 8. Incised wound 5" x 2" x 3" on the occipital region. 9. Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" on the left parietal region 2" above the injury No.8. 10. Incised wound 1" x 1" x 1" in the left side of chest 1" medial to the left shoulder." Internally soft pale crack fracture of left parietal and occipital bones were found present. Hyoid bone was intact. No enternal injuries were noticed on the Vagina on the vulva and upper part of the thigh. Hymen was found absent. Vagina was dry. No sperms were seen. Vaginal smear was taken for chemical analysis. Ex.P-7 is the postmortem certificate. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries found on her body, about 24 to 36 hours prior to commencement of autopsy. Since the dead body was in an advanced stage of decomposition, P.W.8 was unable to offer any opinion, if the deceased had been raped before murder. On receipt of Ex.P-6 report from the chemical examiner, she offered her opinion that there was no poison in the stomach intestine, liver and kidney contents of the victim. After postmortem, P.W.12 removed from the dead body jewellery (M.O.I and M.0.2series) blood stained Saree M.O.3, blood stained jacket M.O.4 and bloodstained petty coat M.O.14 and handed them over to the investigating officer. 13. Meanwhile after despatching the dead body for postmortem examination, P.W.14 seized from the scene blood stained earth M.O.9; sample earth M.O.10, hair pieces M.O.11; hair with skin M.O.12; Bunch of hair M.O.13 and aruval M.O.6 under mahazar Ex.P-15, attested by P.W.10. 14. On 27. 1985 P.W.14had information that the appellant had surrendered before Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Tirunelveli. On 37. 1985 P.W.14 filed Ex.P-19, an affidavit before the Judicial 1 Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Tirunelveli, pleading for police custody of the appellant. On orders being passed, P.W.14 took the appellant in his custody on the same evening, from Vilathikulam P.W.14 took the appellant to Oddapidaram Police Station. On the next morning, he took the appellant to Kolathur Police Station. At or about 11 a.m. on 8. 1985, he examined the appellant at Kolathur Police Station in the presence of P.W.7 Yesudasan Nadar. On orders being passed, P.W.14 took the appellant in his custody on the same evening, from Vilathikulam P.W.14 took the appellant to Oddapidaram Police Station. On the next morning, he took the appellant to Kolathur Police Station. At or about 11 a.m. on 8. 1985, he examined the appellant at Kolathur Police Station in the presence of P.W.7 Yesudasan Nadar. Appellant volunteered a confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-2. Pursuant to his confession appellant took P.W.14 and his party to a road bridge situated a furlong away and from near the third pillar, dug the earth and produced Aruval M.O.7, which was seized under Mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by P.W.7. Half an hour later at 1.30 p.m. appellant, produced from under neath the same bridge after digging the earth, M.O.8 a polythene bag which contained the gold chain M.O.5. M.Os.5 and 8 were seized under Ex.P-4, attested by P.W.7. At the Police Station, P.Ws.1 and 6, identified the jewellery as belonging to the deceased. 15. P.W.14 sent a requisition to the Magistrate to forward the blood stained articles, to the Labora- tory for analysis and report. Exs.P-12 and P-13 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serolo- gist respectively. After completing investigation P.W.14 laid the charge sheet on 2.9,1985. 16. When the appellant was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime. He filed a statement in writing. He has stated therein, that he was working in the Fisheries Department at Tuticorin. He owned 15 acres of Punja lands and 2 1/2 acres of Nanja land. He was not an agricultural labourer by profession. He did not have plough or bullocks. He had no connection whatever with deceased Guruvammal. P.W.1 was arrested for smuggling. In that case the cart and bullocks belonging to P.W.3 were also seized. P.Ws.1 and 3 suspected that the appellant and his elder brother, who was then the village karnam, were responsible for their arrest. Hence there was animosity between_them. P.W.1 and the deceased had grievances, between themselves. Two years prior to occurrence, P. W.6 had married one Muthammal and was residing with her at Panaiyur. Deceased had filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tuticorin, claiming maintenance from P.W.6. He was taken by P.W.14 from Court to Oddapidaram Police Station. P.W.1 and the deceased had grievances, between themselves. Two years prior to occurrence, P. W.6 had married one Muthammal and was residing with her at Panaiyur. Deceased had filed a suit in O.S.No.228 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tuticorin, claiming maintenance from P.W.6. He was taken by P.W.14 from Court to Oddapidaram Police Station. He was not taken to Kolathur Police Station. He did not volunteer a confession and no articles were recovered at his instance. Between him and P.W.7 there was animosity, due to bidding in auction, for purchase of land Appellant annexed along with his written statement copies of plaint and written statement in O.S.No.228of 1983, aforesaid. He had also filed true copies of proceedings before Deputy Tahsil-dar, Kovilpattai. Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. 17. Learned trial Judge on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case rejected the defence and dealt with the appellant as stated earlier. 18. Mr.N.T.Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that motive put forth by the prosecution, had not been established, more so when the trial Court had chosen to reject the evidence of P.W.5. He then urged that on the evidence of P.W.6, illicit contact between the appellant and the deceased, cannot be safely found. According to the learned counsel, absence of motive in a case sought to be stablished by circumstantial evidence, must be held to be a plus point in favour of the appellant. He then contended, that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 regarding the movements of the appellant and the deceased, on the day earlier to the finding of the dead body, was not credible. Even otherwise, such movements if true, cannot be held to be incriminating. He then strenuously contended, that Ex.P-2 statement of the appellant leading to discovery of M.Os.5, 7 and 8 was not admissible under Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that was one more serious lacuna in the prosecution case, which shapped the link between the crime and the appellant. He commented, that there was enormous delay in preferring Ex.P-1 which was sufficient to hold, that the complaint was the outcome of good-deal of deliberation. He also argued that Ex.P-2 could not have been a statement voluntarily offered by the appellant. He pleaded for exoneration of the appellant, on the theory of benefit of doubt. He commented, that there was enormous delay in preferring Ex.P-1 which was sufficient to hold, that the complaint was the outcome of good-deal of deliberation. He also argued that Ex.P-2 could not have been a statement voluntarily offered by the appellant. He pleaded for exoneration of the appellant, on the theory of benefit of doubt. 19. Mr.A.N.Rajan, Government Advocate contended, that this was a murder for gain, and recovery evidence was a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution. He argued, that the learned trial Judge had correctly accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, regarding movement. There was medical corroboration, of the available circumstantial evidence. Recovery of the jewellery of the deceased was within 9 days after the occurrence and hence it was a strong piece of evidence. Even if there had been delay, in preferring Ex.P-1, proper explanation had been offered. Learned Government Advocate emphasized that there was no sinister delay in preferring the complaint. He pleaded, for sustaining the verdict, recorded by the trial Judge. 20. This is a case of circumstantial evidence before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question have to be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. If these circumstances can be explained by any reasonable hypothesis, then the appellant must have the benefit of the hypothesis. The court must be satisfied that the suggested hypothesis was reasonable and not far-fetchea In assessing the hypothesis only ordinary human possibilities will have to be taken note of and not imaginary possibilities. 21. Of the four witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 4), examined to speak about the movement of the appellant and the deceased together, between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on 27. 1985, learned trial Judge has rejected the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. Therefore on the movements of the appellant and the deceased, on 27. 1985, we are left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 alone. P. Ws.5 and 6 were examined to establish motive for the crime. The version of P. W.5 was disbelieved, and it is strenuously contended now, that the version of P.W.6, will not disclose satisfactorily, illicit intimacy between the appellant and the deceased. 1985, we are left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 alone. P. Ws.5 and 6 were examined to establish motive for the crime. The version of P. W.5 was disbelieved, and it is strenuously contended now, that the version of P.W.6, will not disclose satisfactorily, illicit intimacy between the appellant and the deceased. The last circumstance is the recovery of M.O.5 gold chain of the deceased kept in a polythene cover M.O.8 and M.O.7 aruval, stated to be the weapon of offence. None of these material objects contained blood stains. 22. We will have to scrutinise, whether the three circumstances aforestated, would be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. We will take up the motive aspect initially. P.W.1, the younger brother of the deceased has not spoken anything about the illicit intimacy between his elder sister and the appellant. There is no reason for him, to have refrained from speaking about it. After all P.W.1 was living about a furlong and half away from the house of the deceased and he would not have been ignorant of the immoral conduct of his elder sister, if true. P.W.5 Mookandi a neighbour of the deceased, has deposed about the appellant having demanded from the deceased, a week prior to occurrence, his wages plus a loan of Rs.500. The deceased was not inclined to accede to the request of the appellant and a wordy altercation ensued. P.W.5 would have it, that the appellant took a vow to repay the amount borrowed by him within 2 days and settle all accounts. P.W.5 has also spoken about the frequent visits of the appellant to the house of the deceased, to take the latter for cultivation. P.W.5 has also not deposed about any illicit intimacy between the appellant and the deceased. If there had been a money dispute between the appellant and the deceased, about a week prior to occurrence, it may probably be the proximate cause, which led to the murder of the deceased. However, P.W.5 has admitted when cross-examined, that all these details which we have extracted earlier, were not spoken to by him during investigation. Obviously for the first time in Court, he had chosen to impute a motive to the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in not having accepted his evidence regarding motive. However, P.W.5 has admitted when cross-examined, that all these details which we have extracted earlier, were not spoken to by him during investigation. Obviously for the first time in Court, he had chosen to impute a motive to the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in not having accepted his evidence regarding motive. Merely because the appellant helped the deceased in cultivation, it cannot be presumed that there was illicit relationship between both of them. While considering the motive spoken to by P.W.5. we cannot ignore, the motive for this crime suggested by P.W.1 in Ex.P-1, the first information report. P.W.1 has stated therein that Mandiri, elder brother of the appellant owed monies to the deceased, which the deceased was frequently demanding repayment of. Ex.P-1 also shows suspicion entertained by P.W.1, against the appellant and |his elder brother Mandiri as the perpetrators of this crime, who had committed theft of the jewellery of the deceased as well, after causing her death. In terms of Ex.P-1, due to money transactions, there was no direct animosity between the appellant and the deceased. That part of the motive spoken to by P.W.5 if excluded on logical basis, all that remains is the evidence of P.W.6, about the illicit relationship between the deceased and the appellant, to his direct personal knowledge. P.W.6 is the husband of the deceased and if he had seen his wife and the appellant in pari delicto, it would certainly be a strong piece of evidence, to show illicit intimacy between them. When cross-examined P.W.6 has specifically admitted, that during investigation, he had not stated of his having personally seen illicit relationship between his wife and the’ appellant. That P.W.6 would not have seen such contracts, is further evident from the written statement filed by him, in O.S.No.228 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tuticorin, a suit instituted by the deceased claiming maintenance from him. P.W.6 has stated therein that he was always ready and willing to take the plaintiffs (his wife and minor children) back in his fold. P.W.6 has stated therein that he was always ready and willing to take the plaintiffs (his wife and minor children) back in his fold. If in fact, it was the illicit relationship between the deceased and the appellant which had driven him away from V.Kazhukachalapuram to Paniyur, he would have certainly stated in the written statement about such illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased and further would not have offered to take back his wife, in the matrimonial home. Not only that but, P.W.6 was also questioned about his having married one Muthammal, while his marriage with the deceased was subsisting. In his written statement in the sun, he denied the allegation of illicit intimacy between him and Muthammal of Veppolodai. In his substantive evidence, he has admitted that hough he had not married Muthammal, he was keeping her with him to cook his food. P.W.6, even denied a maintenance suit having been filed by his wife against him. In such a state of unsatisfactory evidence, especially when others having not spoken about it, it will be extremely difficult to hold, on the basis of the version of P.W.6 alone, that the appellant and the deceased were illicitly connected. It is thus apparent that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing motive for this crims. Recently the Apex Court in Sakharam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992)1 M.W.N. (Crl.) 86, held, that absence of motive may not be relevant in a case where the evidence was overwhelming but it was a plus point for the accused in a case where the evidence against him was only circumstantial. Hence the first circumstance is of no avail to the prosecution. 23. We will now examine movement evidence spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3. Before doing so, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial Judge, that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 regarding movements of the deceased and the appellant, cannot be safely accepted. P.W.2 admittedly had defective eye sight and he claims to have seen the appellant and the deceased having gone together, one furlong away from his house. P.W.2 was further certain, that unless he was near, he would not be in a position to identify persons and even in court, he was constrained to go near the dock, before he could identify the appellant. P.W.2 was further certain, that unless he was near, he would not be in a position to identify persons and even in court, he was constrained to go near the dock, before he could identify the appellant. Further admittedly there was animosity between the family of P.W.2 and the family of the appellant. The suggestion was that P.W.2 was uttering falsehood, due to inimical disposition. All said and done, We are not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 and we agree with the observations of the learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph 16 of his judgment. 24. At the first blush we felt that the learned trial Judge was not justified in having rejected the evidence of P.W.4, who had spoken of his having seen the appellant at or about 11.30 am. on 27. 1985 somewhere near the scene of occurrence, with an aruval, blood-stained. Learned Sessions Judge disbelieved his version on the ground, that even after he became aware of the murder of the deceased on the next day, he did not choose to inform about his having seen the appellant with a blood stained aruval on the earlier day in the vicinity, of the scene where the dead body was discovered. He was examined for the first time only two days thereafter. We felt, if P.W.4 had seen the appellant at 11.30 a.m. on the previous day with an aruval, there was nothing sinister in it, for like every other villager engaged in cultivation, the appellant could have gone with an aruval, normally carried by him, to engage himself in agricultural operations in the Geld of the deceased. There is enough evidence to show that the appellant was helping the deceased in her cultivation. However what the learned Sessions Judge had missed is, that the appellant was seen with a blood stained aruval by P.W.4. If in fact P.W.4 had seen the appellant with a bloodstained aruval, naturally his curiosity must have been aroused on that., day, which must have prompted him to inform his co-villagers on the next day after the dead body was discovered, about his having seen the appellant with a blood stained weapon near the venus, on the earlier day. This conduct of P.W.4 does arouse suspicion. P.W.4 has admittedly seen the appellant at a distance of 200 feet. This conduct of P.W.4 does arouse suspicion. P.W.4 has admittedly seen the appellant at a distance of 200 feet. Obviously it would be preposterous to accept his version, that he was still in a position to note blood stains in the aruval carried by the appellant. 25. P.W.3 had seen appellant Pandiarajan in the company of the deceased, at or about 11 a.m. on 27. 1985, proceeding one behind the other, when he was ploughing in the land of one Balakrishnan (not examined). Appellant and the deceased were proceeding west of the land of Balakrishnan. He then noticed deceased wearing M.O.3 saree and M.O.4 jacket. He did not see the deceased later, till he became aware of her death the next afternoon at 3 p.m. at a place one kilometre away from the land he was ploughing, on the earlier day. P.W.3 is related to P.W.1 and it was the latter who took him to the police station. P.W.3 was not examined on the day, when the dead body was found and when police officials had covered in the village. Even before investigation commenced, there was ample talk in the village about who could have killed the deceased and with whom she had proceeded, earlier to her death. In spite of such talk in the village, of which he was aware, he did not choose to inform anyone of his having seen the deceased and the appellant together on the earlier morning. He was examined only at the Police Station on production by P.W.1, on 27. 1985. P.W.3 has married the daughter of P. W.l’s junior paternal uncle. Admittedly there was intimate and close relationship between the families of P.Ws.1 and 3. If in fact P.W.3 had seen the appellant and the deceased together a day prior to the finding of the dead body, he would not have omitted to mention about the same to P.W.1, who was also residing in the same village. P.W.3 claims to have not met P.W.1, either on the day on which the dead body was found or even on the next day. It is rather strange that P.W.3 was not inclined to find our from P.W.1 the manner in which the deceased had met with her death. P.W.3 claims to have not met P.W.1, either on the day on which the dead body was found or even on the next day. It is rather strange that P.W.3 was not inclined to find our from P.W.1 the manner in which the deceased had met with her death. Though P.W.3 had disclaimed knowledge of the involvement of P.W.1 in a smuggling case, he chose to admit about his cart and bullocks having been seized by the Customs Department in connection with a smuggling case. It appears, that elder brother of the appellant was then village karnam. Though P.W.3 has denied, it is clear that the village karnam, who happened to be the elder brother of the appellant,was entrusted with the custody of the bullocks and the cart, seized by the Customs Department. Therefore there was animosity between P.Ws.1 and 3and.the family of the appellant. The silence of P.W.3 for two days, till he was examined by the Police at the instance of P.W.1, does create a suspicion if at all he could have seen the appellant and the deceased together on the earlier morning. The evidence of P.W.3 does not inspire confidence. We reject his evidence. 26. We are now left with the evidence of P.W.1 alone, regarding movements of the appellant and the deceased, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 27. 1985. P.W.1 claims that the deceased visited him at his residence at V.Pandiapuram. He noticed the appellant having followed the deceased. Appellant requested the deceased to point out the Velikaruval plants in her lands, for their removal, to facilitate cultivation. It is rather strange as to why the appellant should call the deceased to point out her punja land for cutting of the velikaruval plants, since it is the definite case of the prosecution, that the appellant was helping the deceased in her cultivation. If that be so appellant must be aware of the location of the punja lands as well as the growth of Velikaruval plants. There was no need for the deceased to specifically take the appellant and point out portions of her land to facilitate removal of the plaints. It is rather surprising as to why the deceased and the appellant should have gone to the house of P.W.1 at all, who was living at V.Pandiapuram, whereas the punja lands of the deceased were situated in V.Kazhukachalapuram. It is rather surprising as to why the deceased and the appellant should have gone to the house of P.W.1 at all, who was living at V.Pandiapuram, whereas the punja lands of the deceased were situated in V.Kazhukachalapuram. It looks as though a reason has been trotted out, to get the presence of the appellant and the deceased fixed at the house of P.W.1, earlier to their leaving his house towards the lands of the deceased. It has been suggested to P.W.1 that there was no smooth relationship between him and his elder sister. P.W.1 has admitted, that the appellant had gone to the punja lands of his elder sister even earlier, and inspite of it he did not choose to question the appellant as to why he should be asked to point out her lands, of which the appellant was already aware. Though P.W.3 has claimed that he was examined at the police station on 27. 1985 on being produced by P.W.1, P.W.1 would have it that he happened to meet P.W.3 only ten days after the death of his elder sister, and there was no occasion for him to meet P.W.3 earlier. When they so met in the public road, neither of them talked about this occurrence. This evidence of P.W.1 appears to be too difficult to swallow. Assuming that P.W.1 had seen the appellant and the deceased together between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 27. 1985 and he became aware at 10 a.m. on the same night through the son of the deceased, that the deceased had not returned home, one would have expected P.W.1 to be so concerned about it to take immediate steps to trace his elder sister. Even if he had felt that it was night time and search could not be organised immediately, we would have expected him to have informed the local villagers about the missing of his sister and attempted to find out ways and means to trace her quickly. Even otherwise, since he had seen the appellant and the deceased together earlier in the morning, he would have attempted to find out the whereabouts of the appellant on the very same night. P.W.1 would not indulge himself in these tasks, which one normally would expect of a person placed in a similar situation. There seems to have been no sense of urgency in P.W.1, even on the next morning. P.W.1 would not indulge himself in these tasks, which one normally would expect of a person placed in a similar situation. There seems to have been no sense of urgency in P.W.1, even on the next morning. He chose to leave his house only at or about 8 a.m. taking along with him one Mariappan (not examined). We have evidence that Selvalingam, son of the deceased was aged about 17 or 18 years. There is no reason why P.W.1 could not have taken Selvalingam along with him for the search of his elder sister. It is further doubtful if Mariappan could have accompanied P.W.1 for, there is no mention of the presence of Mariappan along with him in Ex.P-1 either when he went in search of his sister or when he went ever to the Police Station to prefer Ex.P-1. Though P.W.1 has stated in Ex.P-1, about his suspicion against Mandiri the elder brother of the appellant in connection with this crime, he has not spoken a word about the said Mandiri in his substantive evidence. The body of the deceased was ultimately traced near a brook in between Venkatachalapuram and Kalmadu. The evidence of P.W.3 would show that the field of Balakrish-nan where he was cultivating, was situated three furlongs away from V.Pandiapuram where he and P.W.1 were residing. The dead body was found one kilo metre away from the place where P.W.3 was engaged in ploughing. It is thus apparent that the dead body was found within one kilo metre and three furlongs from the residence of P.W.1. If that be so, it is not possible to comprehend how P.W.1 could have missed the dead body, till about 2 p.m., though he claims to have travelled to a radius of ten miles from his village. The attempt appears to be to find out excuses to explain the long delay in preferring the first information report. It is more probable that after having come across the dead body of the victim, on suspicion the appellant and his elder brother Mandiri were sought to be connected with this crime. If P.W.1 had seen appellant and the deceased together on the morning of 27. 1985, his natural suspicion must have been against the appellant alone and not against Mandiri. If P.W.1 had seen appellant and the deceased together on the morning of 27. 1985, his natural suspicion must have been against the appellant alone and not against Mandiri. The first information was preferred only at 4.30 p.m. and it is not surprising that P.W.1 has attempted to come out with stories, to account for the delay in the complaint. Kolathur Police Station was within a distance of 6 kms. from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 who has denied the suggestion of animosity between himself and his elder sister, pleads oblivion of the pendency of civil suits between his elder sister and P.W.6, though P.W.3, his close relation,was awared that P.W.6 had married another lady and was living with her at Paniyur and civil litigation was pending between the deceased and P.W.6. P.W.1 claims ignorance even about his brother-in-law, living with one Muthammal, at Paniyur. The obvious inference is, that P.W.1 was not inclined to speak the truth. It is further doubtful if P.W.1 had gone at all to Tuticorin on the morning of 27. 1985 after having seen the appellant and the deceased together, for, we have varying versions regarding the purpose for which he proceeded to Tuticorin. On the first information report, his trip to Tuticorin was intended to buy house-hold articles. But his substantive evidence would disclose that he had taken the trip to facilitate purchase of articles for the village pongal. I could be argued by the prosecution that irrespective of the trip being personal or for a common purpose, the fact remained the P.W.1 had proceeded to Tuticorin. The argument of course is attractive. But once P.W.1 had decided to eclipse truth, even this minor infirmity in the background of supression of material facts, assumes sufficient significance. After all Tuticorin was situated only 18 kms. away from V.Pandiapuram, where P.W.1 was residing. For either purpose, if he had proceeded to Tuticorin, there was no need for him to spend over 12 hours before he returned to the village, if the ostensible purpose was so limited. The conduct of P.W.1 appears to be strange. We cannot altogether ignore as impossible the suggestion of the defence that he had animosity against the appellant and his elder brother, for as the instance of Mandiri, he was implicated in a case of smuggling. No more discussion would be required to reject the evidence of P.W.1. 27. The conduct of P.W.1 appears to be strange. We cannot altogether ignore as impossible the suggestion of the defence that he had animosity against the appellant and his elder brother, for as the instance of Mandiri, he was implicated in a case of smuggling. No more discussion would be required to reject the evidence of P.W.1. 27. The only circumstance that remains to be considered is recovery of M.Os.5, 7 and 8 at the instance of the appellant. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the murder was for gain. If that be so, the assailants whomsoever it might be, would have attempted to remove M.O.1 series and M.O.2 series, gold ear ornaments and gold nose screws as well, from the dead body of the deceased. If cannot be argued that since M.O.5 was easily removable, that alone had been removed for the dead body was found in a desolate place. It is not the prosecution case that there was anybody else in the vincinity, of whom the assailants were afraid, of being noticed if they indulged in spending some more item in the process of removing M.O.1 and M.O.2 series. To our mind, it appears that murder was not one for gain. Naturally our attention was next diverted to find out, if murder could relate to sexual assault on the victim, for she was aged only about 37 years. We are unable to have any clinching evidence on that aspect for P.W.8 Dr.Senthammal has deposed, that she was not in a position to offer any categoric opinion if the deceased had been raped before the murder, since the dead body was in a highly decomposed state. The postmortem certificate Ex.P-7 does show, that there were no internal injuries on the vegine or vulva or the upper part of the thigh and further smear taken from the dry vagina did not disclose any sperms. We presume, that medical opinion was the outcome of scrutiny of all symptoms. Murder could or could not have been after sexual assault. 28. Medical evidence furnished by P.W.8 is still more puzzling. If the dead body was so much decomposed, the natural inference would be that sufficient time must have elapsed between the occurrence, discovery of the dead body and consequent postmortem P. W.8 claims that the deceased must have met with her death 24 to 36 hours prior to conduct of postmortem. Medical evidence furnished by P.W.8 is still more puzzling. If the dead body was so much decomposed, the natural inference would be that sufficient time must have elapsed between the occurrence, discovery of the dead body and consequent postmortem P. W.8 claims that the deceased must have met with her death 24 to 36 hours prior to conduct of postmortem. Postmortem was conducted at 11 a.m. on 27. 1985. If that be so, death must have taken place between 11 p.m. on 27. 1985 and 11 a.m. on 27. 1985. Even if a few hours either way are allowed, it is clear that the murder could not have taken place at or about 12 noon on 27. 1985 as claimed by the prosecution. In that event, the movement evidence will practically become worthless. 29. The next question obviously is whether the assailants of the deceased were two or only a single person. If there was any basis for suspicion of the involvement of Mandiri, elder brother of the appellant in this crime, prosecution must have come out with specific reasons for his exclusion from this crime, especially when the evidence is totally circumstantial. We have already referred, while discussing motive evidence, that in the first information report, motive due to money transaction was attributed only to Mandiri and not to the appellant. All that P.W.14, the Investigating Officer states in his evidence is, that charge sheet was not filed against Mandiri the elder brother of the appellant since his investigation did not disclose his complicity in the crime. The learned Government Advocate fairly stated that even in the Inquest report in column 15, the prosecution case was that the appellant and his elder brother Mandiri had conspired together and done away with the deceased and thereafter committed theft of her chain valued at Rs.10,000. The appellant, accord-ing to P.W.14 was taken into custody on 37. 1985, and was examined on 8. 1985, when he volunteered a statement Ex.P-2. The Government Advocate states that only after having recorded Ex.P-2, the investigating officer became aware of the non-involvement of Mandiri, the elder brother of the appellant in the crime. It looks patent, that sufficient cause has not been shown by the prosecution to exclude Mandiri, more so, when the evidence sought to be placed is purely circumstan-tial in character. The Government Advocate states that only after having recorded Ex.P-2, the investigating officer became aware of the non-involvement of Mandiri, the elder brother of the appellant in the crime. It looks patent, that sufficient cause has not been shown by the prosecution to exclude Mandiri, more so, when the evidence sought to be placed is purely circumstan-tial in character. At best the prosecution can claim that recovery was made at the instance of the appellant alone, and that was a sufficient connecting link between him and the crime. This aspect will be adverted to a little later. 30. It is the definite case of P.W.14, that he became aware on 27. 1985, of the appellant having surrendered on 27. 1985, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Tirunelveli. If that be so, there is no explanation as to why P.W.14 delayed taking steps to get police custody of the appellant, at whose instance, he was anxious to find out further clues to resolve this crime. Whatever it be P.W.14 has admitted that he obtained custody of the appellant front the Magistrate at 5 p.m. on 37. 1985. If that be so, there is no reason way the appellant was not questioned at all time 11 a.m. on the next morning, though he was in his custody throughout. P.W.14 does not claim that he was busy otherwise and did hot have time to question the appellant. A shrewd investigating officer would not have postponed examination of the accused, when investigation in a grave crime was in progress and possible information from the accused was thought necessary for further progress. P.W.14 had brought the appellant from Vilathikulam to Ottapidaram Police Station. The whole night the appellant was detained at Ottapi-daram. On the next morning without any attempt to question the appellant, he was taken to Kolathur Police Station, that the appellant was examined at 11 a.m., in the presence of P.W.7, Yesudasan Nadar. There was no need to examine the appellant only at Kolathur, merely because, the crime concerned the Kolathur Police Station. It therefore appears obvious, that P.W.14 must have questioned the appellant between 5 p.m. on 37. 1985 and 11 a.m. on 8. 1985, though he was not prepared to speak about such examination. The witness, chosen for affirming confession and recovery evidence, does not seem to be above board. It therefore appears obvious, that P.W.14 must have questioned the appellant between 5 p.m. on 37. 1985 and 11 a.m. on 8. 1985, though he was not prepared to speak about such examination. The witness, chosen for affirming confession and recovery evidence, does not seem to be above board. P.W.7 claims to have been conducting a tea shop at Veppalodai. He was available at or about 10 or 11 a.m. on 8. 1985 since he had gone over there to buy articles for his tea shop. On becoming aware, that the appellant had been brought to Kolathur Police Station in connection with a murder case, he went near the Police Station. It was a strange coincidence, that the Policeman questioned him if he was from Veppalodai and then took him inside the Police Station, on the guise that P.W.14 wanted him. It was thereafter in his presence, appellant volunteered a confession. It was reduced into writing by the Inspector of , Police. It is very doubtful if P.W.7 was running a tea stall at Veppalodai for P.W.10 Thirumal Village Administrative Officer of Veppalodai has categorically deposed, that at or about the time of death of Guruvammal, P.W.7 was not conducting any tea shop. He was only engaged in writing petitions in the village as a petition writer. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel, that petition writers would normally have access to Police Stations, cannot be easily brushed aside as not relevant. Assuming that P.W.7 was present at the Police Station, inspite of his evidence in chief examination, mat the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the appellant, in cross-examination he would feign ignorance of the scribe of the statement of the appellant. He was not aware as to the number of pages the statement ran. He had no other purpose of Kolathur except buying provisions for his tea shop. He was the Secretary of the D.M.K Party at Veppalodai, where the party owned a building. A ‘B Memo’ was issued to the party in respect of the said building.. The Village Karnam at that point of time was the eldest brother of the appellant. He entered into an altercation with appellant’s elder brother. Inspite of these details, P.W.7 would claim, that there was no enmity between him and the elder brother of the appellant. A ‘B Memo’ was issued to the party in respect of the said building.. The Village Karnam at that point of time was the eldest brother of the appellant. He entered into an altercation with appellant’s elder brother. Inspite of these details, P.W.7 would claim, that there was no enmity between him and the elder brother of the appellant. Be as it may, the further evidence of P.W.7 regarding the actual place of recovery of M.Os. 5, 7 and 8 contradicts the evidence of P.W.14. According to P.W.7, M.O.7 was seized, after it was produced by digging the earth under the road bridge. M.Os.5 and 8 were seized west of the same bridge adjacent to the western wall, after the appellant produced them by digging the earth. However the seizure mahazar shows that M.Os.5 and 8 were removed from near the second pillar portion of the road bridge on the southern side of the bridge adjacent to the southern wall. Even conceding that P.W.7 may have made a mistake about the direction, south or west, his definite evidence in cross-examination that M.Os. 5, 7 and 8 were produced by the appellant from near the third pillar of the bridge smashes the evidence of P.W.14. The knife (aruval) was seized from underneath the third pillar and other two articles were seized from near the second pillar. There is no dispute that there was a distance of about 10 to 15 feet between one pillar and the other. It therefore strikes reasonable that obviously P.W.7 was not present either at the time when the confession was recorded or when the material objects were allegedly produced by the appellant, from underneath the road bridge. After all the recovery was from a public place accessable to every one, though it is possible for the prosecution to claim, that since they were concealed under the earth, they were within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. This aspect also, will not escape our attention. The evidence of P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer is that he became aware that the jewellery belonging to the deceased were weighed at the Police Station four or five days after he signed in the observation mahazar Ex.P-14. We find that the observation mahazar was signed on 27. 1985. This aspect also, will not escape our attention. The evidence of P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer is that he became aware that the jewellery belonging to the deceased were weighed at the Police Station four or five days after he signed in the observation mahazar Ex.P-14. We find that the observation mahazar was signed on 27. 1985. Even if 23rd is excluded, and 5 days are added up, the weighing of jewellery at the Police Station to the knowledge of P.W.10 must have been on 27. 1985. Admittedly the appellant was taken not in the custody of P.W.14. Even if it is commented, that P.W.10 had no personal knowledge of what happened at the Police Station four or five days after he had signed the observation mahazar, the evidene of P.W.2, though treated hostile shows about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 6 at the Police Station four or five days after the death of the deceased, when he himself was taken to the Police Station. It is the definite evidence of P.W.14 that after initial examination of P.Ws.1 and 6 on 27. 1985 and 27. 1985, he examined them over-again only for identification of jewellery. If that be so, there was no need for the presence of P.Ws.1 and 6 at the Police Station earlier to 8. 1985 when jewellery was seized. Their presence must have been admittedly for identification of jewellery since they as younger brother and husband of the deceased were the most competent persons to identify the jewellery of the victim. If they had been present at the Police Station four or five days after the death of deceased, which was on 27. 1985, and that piece of evidence synchronizes with the claim of P.W.10, of the jeweller, having been weighed at the Police Station, four or five days later of his having signed the observation mahazar, it looks possible that the jewellery was available at the Police Station, even prior to the obtaining of police custody of the appellant by P.W.14 on 37. 1985. 1985. Probably because P.W.14 must have been aware of the availability of the jewellery, he merely kept the appellant at the Police Station at Ottapidaram over night, to facilitate a make believe confession and recovery at Kolathur Police Station, on the next mornings With so much of infirmities it will not be possible to safely accept recovery evidence spoken to by P.W.14 alone, for as stated earlier, there is so much of divergence between the versions of P.W.7 and P.W.14. The evidence also discloses, that the appellant had averred in his surrender petition, that he had no information to offer and he should not be handed over to the custody of the police. When P.W.14 was specifically questioned on the contents of the surrender petition, which has not been brought on record, he has deposed that he did not peruse the surrender petition and he was not aware if the appellant had opposed his being handed over to police custody, since the police were attempting to effect a make believe recovery, as though as his instance. This circumstances also will benefit the appellant. Further none of these material objects contained blood, much less human. If we are able to entertain a suspicion that jewellery must have been available before Ex.P-2 as recorded, the connecting link between the crime and the appellant automatically gets snapped. 31. It is in this context that the nature of statement recorded from the appellant under Ex.P-2, assumes greater significance. It will be apt to extract the contents of Ex.P-2. This statement only shows that the appellant was aware that the Vettaruval and the gold chain were kept concealed underneath the earth, under the road bridge, which place he was prepared to point out and produce those articles. The statement does not connect him with the crime proper and hence this recovery even if true does hot supply the link between the crime and the appellant. 32. Enough case law is available on the subject. The statement does not connect him with the crime proper and hence this recovery even if true does hot supply the link between the crime and the appellant. 32. Enough case law is available on the subject. In Jaffer Husain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 M.L.J. (Crl.) 212, the Apex Court while considering the scope and applicability of a statement of an accused to Police under Sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act and its essential requirements, stated that an exception to Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act was provided by Sec.26 which makes a confessional statement made before a Magistrate by an accused, admissible in evidence notwithstanding the fact that he was in police custody, when he made the incriminating statement. Sec.27 was a proviso to Sec.26 which makes admissible so much, of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of affect deposed to by him and connected with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it was confessional or otherwise. Essential ingredient of the Section was that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which was the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as was distinctly connected with the said recovery was admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. Embargo on statements of the accused before the police will not apply if all the above conditions are fulfilled. In that case the statement of the appellant to the police read as follows: “I will point out one Gaddi alias Ramsingh of Delhi at Bombay Central Railway Station at III Class Waiting Hall to whom I have given a packet containing diamonds of different sizes more than 200 in number.” After referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 1-.A.1.R. 1947 P.C. 67: (1947)1 M.L.J. 219 : 2301.C. 135:1947M.W.N. (Crl) 45:1947 M.W.N. 217 and its earlier decision in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788: (1963)1 Crl.L.J. 8: (1963)3 S.C.R. 412 , the Supreme Court held that there was no discovery of a fact connecting the appellant with the receipt of the diamonds which were stolen, within the meaning of Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, because the police already knew that the third and or the fourth accused had the diamonds. 33. In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 1.-A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 67: (1947)1 M.L.J. 219 : 230 I.C. 135: 1947 M.W.N. (Crl.) 45: 1947 M.W.N. 217, it was observed, after extracting the statements of the accused therein, as follows: “About 14 days ago, I Kottayya and people of my party lay in wait for Sivayya and others at about sunset time at the corner of Pulipad tank. We all beat Boddupati China Sivayya and Subbayya to death. The remaining persons Pullayya, Kottayya and Narayana ran away. Dondapati Ramayya who was in our party received blows on his hands. He had a spear in his hands. He gave it to me then. I hid it and my stick in the rick of Venkatanarasu in the village I will show if you come. We did all this at the instigation of Pulukuri Kottayya.” The Board held that the whole of the statement except the passage ‘I hid it (a spear) and my stick in the rick of Venkatanarasu in the village. I will show if you come” was in admissible. Holding that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information was required to relate the Judicial Committee pointed out that “the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relate distinctly to the fact.” The Board was careful to observe thatinformation as to past user, or the past history of the object produced was not related to its discovery in the setting in which it was discovered.” 34. In Mohd. In Mohd. Inayathullah v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 483, Sarkaria, J. speaking for the Bench, stated thus: “Where the accused stated that“I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August” the statement had to be split up to its components and to separate the admissible portion or portions. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected. Thus processed, in the instant case only the first part of the statement namely “I will tell the place of the deposit of the three Chemical drums” was the immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered. Therefore, this portion only was admissible under Sec.27. The rest of the statement namely, which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August constituted only the past history of the drums or their theft by the accused; it was not the distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and had to be ruled out of evidence altogether.....The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible portion of the statement made by the accused, could give rise to two alternative hypothesis equally possible, namely, (i) that it was the accused who had himself deposited the stolen drums in the Musafirkhana, or (ii) the accused only knew that the drums were lying at that place. The second hypothesis was wholly compatible with his innocence. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt." 35. Again the Apex Court had occasion to consider a similar question in Pohalya v. State of Maharashra, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1310. That was a case where the statement of the accused led to discovery of the murder weapon. Statement was found capable of two interpretations. The Supreme Court stated thus: "The High Court reads the statement as reproduced in its judgment as under: "I give my true statement before the Panchas that (then comes the inadmissible portion which we do not consider proper to reproduce there).... that spear I have hidden in the grass in my field of Jawar to the southern side of my house. That spear I am ready to produce." The High Court uses the pronoun ‘I’ at two places. that spear I have hidden in the grass in my field of Jawar to the southern side of my house. That spear I am ready to produce." The High Court uses the pronoun ‘I’ at two places. We, with the assistance of both the learned Counsel proficient in Marathi language read the original statement. The reading of the statement by the High Court appears to be far fetched. Even the High Court is conscious of it when it observes in para 20 of the judgment that the authorship of the Act of concealment of the spear would be implied and would be none other than the appellant, and then observes that this circumstances which is one of the strongest links stand duly established. The Marathi word ‘Me’ is to be found at the commencement of the statement followed by the wholly inadmissible portion and then there is reference to the place where the spear was hidden. The Marathi expression ‘Thevalela’ would more appropriately be translated ‘has been kept’ and not ‘I have kept’ because in the case of Have kept it the Marathi word would be ‘Thevala’. It may be that being not conversant with Marathi language our translation may not be appropriate but if this recovery of bloodstained spear is the only important circumstance of an incriminating character established in this case and if the authorship of concealment is not clearly borne out by cogent and incontrovertible evidence but as the High Court observes left to be inferred by implication, we have considerable hesitation in placing implicit reliance upon it. More so when it is a confessional statement which becomes admissible under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act though made in the immediate presence of a Police Officer. The recovery of a bloodstained spear becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely that the appellant who gave information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. And in this case Bhamta was another co-accused. The appellant may have only the knowledge of the place where it was hidden. And in this case Bhamta was another co-accused. The appellant may have only the knowledge of the place where it was hidden. To make such a circumstances incriminating it must be shown that the appellant himself had concealed the bloodstained spear which was the weapon of offence and on this point the language used in the contemporaneous record Ext.28 is not free from doubt and when two constructions are possible in a criminal trial, the one beneficial to the accused will have to be adopted. Therefore, this linchpin of the prosecution case ceases to provided and incriminating evidence against the appellant." The observations of the Supreme Court in Pohalya v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1310, will fully cover the facts, in the instant appeal. Not only the. appellant but also his elder brother, were suspected to be the arthors of the crime. The appellant may have only the knowledge of the place where M.Os.5,7 and 8 were hidden. To make such circumstances incriminating, it must be shown, that the appellant himself had concealed the aruval and the gold chain contained in a polythene cover, and on this point, the language used in Ex.P-2 is not free from doubt. All that Ex.P-2 shows is that the appellant could produce the aruval and the gold chain from the place of the concealment, underneath a bridge. By no stretch of imagaina-tion, it can be stated, that it was the appellant who had concealed them. It may be the elder brother of the appellant. Even if two constructions are possible in a criminal trial, as observed by the Supreme Court in, one beneficial to the accused will have to be adopted. We have already noticed that the recovery evidence is totally unsatisfactory. Ex.P-2 affords one more clinching circumstance to doubt recovery evidence. 36. In Dudhnath v. U.P. State, (1981) 2 S.C.R. 771 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 911: 1981 Crl.L.J. 618: (1981)2 S.C.C. 166 :1981 S.C.C. (Crl.)379, it was observed as follows: “Evidence of recovery of the pistol at the instance of the appellant cannot by itself prove that he who pointed out the weapon weilded it in offence. The statement accompanying the discovery is woefully vague to identify the authorship of concealment, with the result that the pointing out of the weapon may at best prove the appellant’s knowledge as to where the weapon was kept.” 37. The statement accompanying the discovery is woefully vague to identify the authorship of concealment, with the result that the pointing out of the weapon may at best prove the appellant’s knowledge as to where the weapon was kept.” 37. We have already held that there was every possibility of M.Os.5 and 7 having been available with the investigating officer long prior to his having obtained custody of the appellant, and his subsequent statement Ex.P-2, allegedly leading to discovery. 38. We do not think it necessary to consider in detail the argument with regard to delay in setting the law in motion for, the prosecution case even otherwise bristles with irreconcilable infirmities. 39. Several infirmities pointed out by us affect the core of the prosecution case. We are, therefore, unable to share the view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge, finding the appellant guilty of murder and robbery. The appellant is certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt. Convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Judge under Secs.302 and 394, I.P.C. are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. This appeal is allowed.