Judgment :- Thangamani, J. The appellant Rajendran was charged under Secs.449,302 (two counts) and 392 read with Sec.397,I.P.C. on the allegation that on 8. 1985 at about 7.30 P.M. he committed house trespass in the farm house of deceased Raju at Thalakkarai in order to commit robbery and murder and at the same place and in the course of the same transactional about 11.00 P.M. he committed the murder of Raju and his wife Pappathi by cutting them with an aruval and in the course of the same transaction he committed robbery of M.O.6 wrist watch and a cash of Rs.85 belonging to the said Raju. 2. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, filed 41 Exhibits and marked 29 M.Os. Of the witnesses examined P.W.5 Selvi Mani turned hostile. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence on record is as under: Deceased Raju is a Mason by profession. He was doing building construction work in a place called Ariveru. His wife deceased Pappathi is the sister of P.W.1. Thangavel. Raju had no children.. Three years prior to the occurrence fortune seemed to smile upon them. They won about 7 lakhs of rupees in a r.afie. Thereafter they shifted their residence to Thazhaikkarai, their native place. They purchased a land, built a house, dug a well and settled there. 3 P.W.5 Mani is a resident of Kammalapatti in palladam Taluk. She became acquainted with appellant Rajendran since his sister Santha is her friend. It appears that love blossomed between the appellant and P.W.5 Selvi Mani. On 7. 1982 appellant Rajendran wrote Ex.P-2 letter to P.W.5 Mani asking her when she would be visiting Thazhaikkarai. Ex.P-3 is the letter written on 14. 1985 by P.W.5 Mani to appellant Rajendran stating that she was suffering from a boil in her chest. The doctors have advised a surgery which she could not afford. One month prior to the occurrence deceased Raju told P.W.3 Damoda-rasamy Naidu, an agriculturist of Thazhakkarai village that appellant demanded money from him and he gave a negative reply. P.W.13 Thiruma-laiappan is a practising Lawyer in Tirunelveli. He had appeared for the elder brother of appellant Rajendran in the C.J.M. Court. He used to give visiting cards to his clients. Ex.P-22 is his visiting card. 4. P.W.2 Perumal, is a farm servant under deceased Raju. On the evening of 8. P.W.13 Thiruma-laiappan is a practising Lawyer in Tirunelveli. He had appeared for the elder brother of appellant Rajendran in the C.J.M. Court. He used to give visiting cards to his clients. Ex.P-22 is his visiting card. 4. P.W.2 Perumal, is a farm servant under deceased Raju. On the evening of 8. 1985 he left the house of the deceased and came back on the next morning as usual for work. He found Raju and Pappathi lying with cut injuries. He immediately left for Mandiripalayam which is two miles away from Thazhakkarai and informed P.W.1 Thangavel what he saw. P.W. 1 Thangavel rushed to the house of his sister and found both the deceased lying with cut injuries. While Raju was dead, Pappathi was lingering for life. The almirah was found ransacked. He proceeded to Senjerimalai in a motor-cycle and brought P.W.4 Doctor. On seeing Raju and Pappathi lying with cut injuries, the Doctor expressed his inability to render first-aid since it was a medico-legal case and advised P.W.1 Thangavel to take the injured to the hospital. Thereupon P.W.1 Thangavel took his sister to Palladam Hospital where she was proclaimed dead. 5. Thereafter, P.W.1 Thangavel went to the Police Station in Ramanaickenpalayam and gave Ex.P-1 compliant about the incident. P.W.15 Sub Inspector, registered the same at 12.30 P.M. on 8. 1985 in his Station Crime No. 153 of 1985 under Secs.302 and 380, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-24 Express F.I.R. and sent both the documents to J.S.C.M., Palladam through a constable. He sent message to the Inspector over V.H.F. 6. At 2.00 P.M. P.W.16 Inspector received a copy of the F.I.R. and took up investigation of the case. At 3.30 P.M. he inspected the scene place and prepared Ex.P-25 observation mahazar and Ex.P-26 rough sketch. From 4.30 P.M. to 7.30 P.M. he held inquest over the dead body of Raju and prepared Ex.P-27 report. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. On his request P.W.14 Finger Print Expert and P.W.11 Police Photographer came there at 3 P.M. and 4.35 A.M. respectively. P.W.11 Photographer took photographs of the scene place in eight angles. M.O.11 series and M.O.12 series are the negatives and the photographs. P.W.14 F.P.Expert, examined whether any ringer prints were available in the place of occurrence. There were three ever silver tumblers M.O.28 series. He marked on ground the places where the tumblers were kept, took those tumblers and examined them. M.O.11 series and M.O.12 series are the negatives and the photographs. P.W.14 F.P.Expert, examined whether any ringer prints were available in the place of occurrence. There were three ever silver tumblers M.O.28 series. He marked on ground the places where the tumblers were kept, took those tumblers and examined them. There were finger prints in those three tumblers. In the steel almirah in the next room also there were finger prints. He marked those finger prints so as to enable the photographer to take photograph of them. Then he recorded the thumb impression of deceased Raju. Thereafter P.W.14 compared the thumb impressions. He found the thumb impression on one eversilver tumbler and one impression on the steel almirah tallied with the thumb impression of deceased Raju. So these impressions were not photographed. P.W.ll Photographer took photograph of only the remaining finger prints and sent them to P.W.14 F.P.F.xpert later on. 7. At about 7.00 P.M. P.W.16 Inspector marked the eversilver tumbler west of the mat as ‘A’. He gave the mark ‘B’ to the tumbler found near the sofa. The tumbler available near the middle of the cot was marked as ‘C. The Inspector of then seized M.Os.24 and 26 blood stained cement portion of the floor, M.Os.25 and 27 sample floor pieces, M.Os.18,21 and 23 blood stained pillows, M.O.19 blood stained mattress, M.Os.20 and 22 blood stained bed sheets, M.O.17 blood stained mat, M.O.28 series tumblers, M.O.29 polyester shirt and Ex.P-22 visiting card of P.W.13 Thiruma-laiappan under Ex.P-28 mahazar. Then he sent the body of the deceased Raju for post-mortem through P.W.9 Constable with Ex.P-5 requisition. 8. P.W.16 Inspector next proceeded to Government Hospital, Palladam and held inquest over the dead body of Pappathi from 9.00 P.M. to 12.00 mid night. At that time he examined P.Ws.1 and 2. Ex.P-29 is the Inquest Report prepared by him. He handed over the body to P.W.10 Constable for post-mortem. On 8. 1985 he got the dead body of Pappathi photographed by P.W.11 Photographer. M.Os.13 and 14 are the photographs and their negatives. P.W.11 Photographer sent M.Os. 13 and 14 to P.W.14 Finger Print Expert. On receipt of those photographs P.W.14 F.P.Expert compared the finger prints of deceased Pappathi with those available with him. He came to the conclusion that the finger print of deceased Pappathi tallied with the finger print on one of the remaining two tumblers. P.W.11 Photographer sent M.Os. 13 and 14 to P.W.14 Finger Print Expert. On receipt of those photographs P.W.14 F.P.Expert compared the finger prints of deceased Pappathi with those available with him. He came to the conclusion that the finger print of deceased Pappathi tallied with the finger print on one of the remaining two tumblers. The finger print on the third tumbler and that on the steel almirah did not tally with the finger print of any of the two deceased. So he kept them for further examination. 9. On 8. 1985 at 9.00 A.M. P.W.6 Doctor commenced the autopsy over the dead body of Raju. He found the following injuries: 1. There are four incised wounds of sizes 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep, 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep, 4 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep and 3 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over the left maxillary prominence that is in between the left ear and left eye placed side by side. 2. An incised wound of size 10 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep over the middle of right ear pinna. 3. An incised wound of size 8 cm.x 1 cm. x 4 cm. deep running horizontally behind the left ear. 4. An incised wound of size 12 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep over the left side mandible. 5. An incised wound of size 16 cm. x 2 cm. x trachea deep over the left side of neck running obliquely extending upto and cutting the trachea. 6. Another incised wound of size 12 cm. x 2 cm. x 4 cm. running parallel to inquiry No.5 and just below it. 7. An incised wound of size 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. xl/ 2 cm. over the dorsal aspect of the middle phalange of right middle finger. 8. Another incised wound of size 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 1/4 cm. over the doisal aspect of the terminal phalange of right little finger. Dissection: Injuries 1,3,7 and 8 skin and muscles are cut. The underlying bones are intact. Injury No.2: The skin and cartilages of left ear pinna are cut at mid region. Injury No. 4: The skin and muscles are cut. The angle of mandible on the left side is fractured. Injury No.5: The skin and muscles of the left side of the neck are cut. The underlying bones are intact. Injury No.2: The skin and cartilages of left ear pinna are cut at mid region. Injury No. 4: The skin and muscles are cut. The angle of mandible on the left side is fractured. Injury No.5: The skin and muscles of the left side of the neck are cut. The trachea just below the thyroid cartilage is cut and opened. Injury No.6: The skin and muscles are cut, just below the injury No.5. The left common carotid artery and left external jugular vein are also cut. He is of the opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. The death would have occurred 22 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. All the external injuries would have been caused by cutting with a sharp aruval. The external injuries corresponding to the internal injuries are likely to cause death in the normal course. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. After post-mortem P.W.9 Constable removed M.O.4 shirt, M.O.5 lungi, M.O.7 banian, M.O.8 underwear and M.O.9 waise-card and handed them over in the police station. 10. On the same day at 11.00 AM. P.W.7 Doctor conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of Pappathi. She found these injuries: 1. An incised wound extending from below and behind the angle of left mandible to the middle of the front of the neck 12 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep. 2. An incised wound severing the left ear lobule extending upto the upper lip just above and in front of the left angle of mouth size. 10 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep. 3. Cut injuries over the dorsum of middle third of right 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th fingers in a contiguous line. Distal end of right index finger was hanging from the rest of the finger size of injuries each finger was 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. x bone deep, in 2nd and 3rd fingers and less than bone deep in 4th and 5th fingers of right hand. Dissection: Injury No.1 skin superficial deep fascia and muscle great vessels of the neck (external carotid internal and external jugular veins on the left side of the neck). Hyoid bone was cut completely. Injury No.1: Skin superficial deep fascial and muscles were cut. Ramus of the left mandible cut below tempromandibular joint entirely lower jaw was hanging loosely. Dissection: Injury No.1 skin superficial deep fascia and muscle great vessels of the neck (external carotid internal and external jugular veins on the left side of the neck). Hyoid bone was cut completely. Injury No.1: Skin superficial deep fascial and muscles were cut. Ramus of the left mandible cut below tempromandibular joint entirely lower jaw was hanging loosely. Injury No.3: Middle Phalanx of right index finger was cut completely. Distal end of the right index finger was hanging loosely. There was fracture of middle phalanx of right middle finger. There was no fracture bone in ring and little fingers of right hand. In these two fingers 4th and 5th fingers of right hand there were cut injuries involving the skin and superficial fasciae. Head and neck skull bones and trachea were intact. Hyoid bone was broken. Membranes and brains were pale otherwise normal. Thorax well framed. No fracture in ribs. Both lungs were pale. Otherwise normal. Heart pale and chambers were empty. Abdomen injuries, stomach contains partially digested rice particles. She is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. The external injuries would have been caused by cutting with aruval. The external Injury Nos. 1 and 2 are fatal. Ex.P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by her. Thereafter P.W.10 Constable removed M.O.I saree, M.O.2 jacket, M.O.3 skirt and M.O.10 bed sheet from the dead body and entrusted them in the station. 11. On 2. 1985 P.W.16 Inspector got a clue of the offender. He searched for the appellant and he was absconding. On information on 18. 1985 at 11.00 A.M., he arrested the appellant near the bus stand at Udumalpet in the presence of P.W.12 Masilamani. The appellant voluntarily gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-17. He has stated therein that if he is taken, he would produce aruval and wrist watch kept concealed in his house and haystack. He also handed over Rs.6.60 M.O.15 series to the Inspector. The letter seized the same under Ex.P-18 mahazar. Then the appellant took the police party to his house and produced M.O.16 aruval which was seized by the Inspector under Ex.P-19 mahazar. He also produced M.O.6 watch and M.Os.3 and 4 letters from the table drawer of his house. The Inspector seized the same under Ex.P-20 House Search list. The letter seized the same under Ex.P-18 mahazar. Then the appellant took the police party to his house and produced M.O.16 aruval which was seized by the Inspector under Ex.P-19 mahazar. He also produced M.O.6 watch and M.Os.3 and 4 letters from the table drawer of his house. The Inspector seized the same under Ex.P-20 House Search list. The Inspector then proceeded to Kammalapatti where the appellant showed P.W.5 Mani. She produced Exs.P-20 and P21 letters. The Inspector seized the same under Ex.P-30 mahazar, P.W.12 Masilamani attested all the mahazars. 12. On 18. 1985 P.W.16 Inspector obtained the specimen signatures Exs.P-34 to P-40 and thumb impressions of the appellant and produced him before J.S.C.M. Court. He also sent requisition to J.S.C.M. Court to get the opinion of Experts after comparing the thumb impression and signatures. Ex.P-14 is the communication dt. 18. 1985 from the Court P.W.14 F.P.Expert requesting him to compare and give the opinion regarding the thumb impressions of the appellant. P.W.14 F.P.Expert on comparison found that the thumb impressions of the right ring finger, left index finger and left thumb of the appellant tallied with the finger prints he had already taken on the third-ever silver tumbler and preserved. Ex.P-23 is his report. 13. On requisition from P.W.16 Inspector, Ex.P-16 communication was sent to P.W.17 Handwriting Expert from the J.S.C.M. Court for comparing the specimen writings of the appellant and P.W.5 Mani with those found in Exs.P-2, P-3, P-4, P-21 and P-22. On comparison P.W.17 Handwriting Expert found that the signatures in Exs.P-3 and P-4 are those of P.W.5 Mani and the signatures in Exs.P-2 and P-21 are those of the appellant Rajen-dran. Ex. P-41 in his report. 14. On further requisition from the Inspector P.W.8 Assistant in J.S.C.M. Court Palladam sent the blood stained articles for chemical examination under the covering letter Ex.P-9. Exs.P-10, P-l1 and P-12 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. 15. On completion of investigation. P.W.16 Inspector laid charge sheet under Secs.302 and 380, I.P.C. against the appellant on 312. 1985. 16. When examined under Sec 313, Crl.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations against him. However, he conceded that P.W.2 Perumal was working as the farm servant of deceased Raju, and that he was also in the crowd that gathered in the house of the deceased on the next morning. 1985. 16. When examined under Sec 313, Crl.P.C, the appellant denied the allegations against him. However, he conceded that P.W.2 Perumal was working as the farm servant of deceased Raju, and that he was also in the crowd that gathered in the house of the deceased on the next morning. When P.W.1 Thangavel arrived on the scene place, the appellant was also there. Both the deceased were taken to the hospital. P.W.5 Mani wrote Ex.P-3 letter to him 11/2 years prior to the occurrence. The crowd disbursed at 12.00 noon from the scene place as per the directions of the Inspector. He also went away. 17. On an appraisal of the evidence oral and documentary, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under both the charges. He convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years under Sec.449 I.P.C. and R.I. for a similar period under Sec.392 read with Sec.397, I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under Sec.302, I.P.C. (two counts). Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred. 18. This case of double murder rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute that Raju and his wife Pappathi who were residing in their farm shed located in a solitary place met with their death in the hands of a culprit who got entry into the house on the night of 8. 1985. The evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7. Doctors who conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies of the husband and wife respectively and Exs,P-6 and P7 post-mortem certificates reveal that homicidal violence was the cause of their death The prosecution relied mainly on these factors in support of its theory that appellant Rajendran is the assailant: 1) The appellant was badly in need of money for the medical treatment of his fiancee P.W.5 Selvi Mani. 2) That sometime prior to the occurrence deceased Raju won Rupees Seven Lakhs in a raffle draw. 3) The thumb impression of the appellant was available on an ever silver tumbler found near the dead body. 4) The confession and recovery of M.O.6 wrist watch and some cash. 5) Detection of same group of human blood on M.O.16 aruval, M.O.2 blouse and M.O.18 pillow of deceased Raju. 6) Recovery of Ex.P-22 visiting card of P.W.13 Tirumalaiappan from the scene place. 19. 4) The confession and recovery of M.O.6 wrist watch and some cash. 5) Detection of same group of human blood on M.O.16 aruval, M.O.2 blouse and M.O.18 pillow of deceased Raju. 6) Recovery of Ex.P-22 visiting card of P.W.13 Tirumalaiappan from the scene place. 19. P.W.5 Mani has been examined to show that she and the appellant are lovers and she was suffering from a tumour which required surgery. She informed the appellant about her ailment and the latter was forced to find resources for the treatment of his sweet-heart. But P.W.5 Mani has turned hostile. However the prosecution relied on the letters Exs.P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-21 to substantiate its claim. P.W.5 Mani only admits that she had written Ex.P-3 letter posted on 14. 1985 to the appellant Rajendran and Ex.P-2 letter dated 27.1982 was addressed to her. The anpellat also conceded during his examination under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. that 11/2 years prior to that day P.W.5 Mani wrote a letter to him. In Ex.P-3 she expresses her love to him and also complains about her inability to undergo the surgical operation for the tumour in her chest. But it is significant to note that in Ex.P-3 letter P.W.5 Mani nowhere seeks the help of the appellant Rajendran for her medical treatment. These letters can at the most indicate that P.W.5 and the appellant were lovers and the former was unable to get medical treatment for her ailment on account of her penury. 20. But the more important pieces of evidence from the point of view of the prosecution are Exs.P-4 and P-21 letters. Ex.P-4 is purported to have been written by P.W.5 Mani on 27. 1985 to the appellant complaining how she was suffering from the tumour on her chest. She curses her fate for having been born in a poor family and in the end she expresses that the appellant was her only hope. Ex.P-21 is a letter dated 18. 1985 said to have been written by the appellant addressed to P.W.5 Mani. This reads as under: The contents of these letters have weighed much with learned trial Judge in fixing the responsibility for the crime on the appellant. No doubt P.W.5 Mani admits that she wrote Ex.P-4 letter. But according to her she was forced to write the same as per the directions of P.W.16 Inspector and she never received Ex.P-21 letter. This reads as under: The contents of these letters have weighed much with learned trial Judge in fixing the responsibility for the crime on the appellant. No doubt P.W.5 Mani admits that she wrote Ex.P-4 letter. But according to her she was forced to write the same as per the directions of P.W.16 Inspector and she never received Ex.P-21 letter. The appellant has taken the stand in his statement filed under Sec.233(2), Crl.P.C. that he was taken into custody 5 or 6 days after the occurrence along with some others from Thazhaikkarai. Sometime later others were let out and he was tortured. He was beaten and detained for many days in the Police Station before producing him in Court. P.W.16 Inspector tortured him often, made him to drink coffee in tumblers and obtained his thumb impressions. He compelled P.W.5 Mani and himself to write certain letters in the Inland covers and white sheets on the models furnished by him. Ex.P-4 dated 27. 1985 and Ex.P-21 dated 14.&1985 are such letters obtained on compulsion. In this connection it is the evidence of P.W.1 Thangavel that he did not tell the Inspector who were all the suspects. The Investigating Agency arranged for a police dog. On 8. 1985 the brothers of deceased Raju were detained by the police. The elder brother of this witness was also interrogated by the police. This witness as well as P.W.2 Perumal were detained in the Police Station for two or three days. All the people of Thazhaikkarai hamlet were taken into custody. He learnt five or six days after the occurrence that the appellant was also taken into custody by the police. And ultimately he admits in cross-examination that the appellant was kept in custody for eight days before he was produced in Court. The evidence of P.W.2 Perumal is also to the effect that he was kept in custody for ten days. Some others were also detained in the Police Station. Four or five days after the occurrence the appellant was brought to Palladam police Station. Both his hands were raised and tied. In between his two shoulders a pole was inserted and he was tortured. The appellant was kept in Palladam Police Station for about ten days. From this it is evident that from about 8. 1985 till 18. Four or five days after the occurrence the appellant was brought to Palladam police Station. Both his hands were raised and tied. In between his two shoulders a pole was inserted and he was tortured. The appellant was kept in Palladam Police Station for about ten days. From this it is evident that from about 8. 1985 till 18. 1985 the appellant was kept in police custody and tortured and the version of P.W.16 Inspector that the arrest was on 18. 1985 cannot be true. Further Ex.P-4 letter is written only on a plain sheet of paper. The concerned envelope which would have vouchsafed for its authenticity is not produced in Court and P.W.5 Selvi Marti asserts that she wrote that letter only as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer. So there could be no doubt that Ex.F-21 and Ex.P-4 letters could have come into existence only in the background mentioned by P.W.5 Selvi Mani and the appellant. Besides, a more perusal of the contents would also lend support to the view that it is one got up for the occasion. It is unbelievable that anyone would write in an Inland letter about his committing she-murder in such an open manner. While so, the evidence of P.W.17 Handwriting Expert that Exs.P-4 and P-21 are in the handwriting of P.W.5 Mani and the appellant respectively is of no avail. The reasoning of learned Sessions Judge for acting on these two letters is clearly erroneous. Instead we have no hesitation in rejecting the prosecution story based on these two letters. 21. P.W.1 Thangavel starts by saying that his brother-in-law deceased Raju got Rs.7,00,000 in a raffle draw some three years prior to the occurrence. He further states that from out of the funds received Raju purchased a land, dug a well and constructed a house. But he admits in cross-examination that the net amount received by Raju was only Rs.5,00,000. The land was purchased for two to three lakhs of rupees. He dug a huge well and built a big house. He also purchased two bullocks and carts. He had installed an oil engine and motor pumpset in the well. He did not own any property earlier. Admittedly this witness does not know what was the money deposited by Raju in the Bank. It is his further evidence that initially Raju made some jewels for his wife. He also purchased two bullocks and carts. He had installed an oil engine and motor pumpset in the well. He did not own any property earlier. Admittedly this witness does not know what was the money deposited by Raju in the Bank. It is his further evidence that initially Raju made some jewels for his wife. But later on he had sold those jewels. Raju was in the habit of drinking arrack always with two or three persons. Sometimes he used to quarrel with Pappathi. His sister would get angry and go to her parents’ house. Raju had purchased a motor-cycle also. He would drink in excess, go in a motor-cycle and fall somewhere. The sale proceeds of the jewels were also squandered away by Raju in drinking. Raju did not look after his farm properly. He borrowed heavily and spent. P.W.3 Damodarasamy Naidu also admits that Raju borrowed money for the purpose of purchasing bullocks. Raju told him that he wanted Rs.5,000 for farm expenses Raju was a drunkard and spendthrift. In view of this admission, the evidence of P.W.3 Damodarasamy Naidu that one month prior to the occurrence the appellant asked for a loan from Raju and the latter had told him that he had no money and he came to know of this from Raju is no; convincing. Besides, the only evidence which indicates some nexus between deceased Raju and the appellant is that of P.W.2 Perumal. According to this witness he knows the appellant and he was residing in a field shed near Thazhaikkarai. Raju is also a resident of Thazhaikkarai. So the prosecution theory that the appellant who was in need of funds for the surgical operation of P.W.5 Mani sought funds from deceased Raju and because the later had given a negative reply, the appellant thought of doing away with Raju and his wife for the purpose of committing robbery does not appear to be plausible. 22. In case of circumstantial evidence motive bears important significance. People do not act wholly without motive. Failure on the part of the prosecution to establish any acceptable motive on the part of the appellant herein to commit the murder of the deceased is certainly a missing link in the entire chain of circumstances. 23. We have already seen that besides the appellant, some others were also detained by the police on suspicion. Failure on the part of the prosecution to establish any acceptable motive on the part of the appellant herein to commit the murder of the deceased is certainly a missing link in the entire chain of circumstances. 23. We have already seen that besides the appellant, some others were also detained by the police on suspicion. And it is the admission of P.W.1 Thangavel that Raju did not render any assistance to his family. One Ponnan, Chinnakannan and Rengasamy are the elder brothers of deceased Raju. Ponnan demanded money from Raju and there were mutual exchange of blows between them in the dispute which arose between the deceased and Ponnan The son of Ponnan borrowed 10 sovereign gold chain of deceased Pappathi and did not return it. He presented the jewel to their daughter and performed her marriage. Ponnan was demanding a further sum of Rs.10,000 from Raju. Ponnan picked up frequent quarrels with Raju demanding money. The brothers of Raju did not have any property. There was an incident of arson in which the house, cows and grains of Raju were burnt. Raju gave a police complaint against Ponnan in that connection. There was always quarrel between Ponnan and Raju. After the demise of Raju his brothers alone are enjoying the properties. The brothers of Raju were also detained by the police in connection with the murder of Raju and his wife. This would indicate that there are others who were not well disposed towards deceased Raju. 24. Yet another factor relied on by the trial Court in finding the appellant guilty is the evidence of P.W.14 Finger Print Expert and his report Ex.P-23 which read that the finger prints available on the ever-silver tumbler found nearthe dead body and the steel almirah are those of the appellant. No doubt P.W.1 Thangavel and P.W.2 Perumalspeak about the presence of three ever-silver tumblers (M.O.28 series) near the dead body. Ex.P-25 observation mahazar also makes mention of these tumblers there. P.W.16 Inspector states in his evidence that at the time of his inspection he found these three tumblers. But, learned senior counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the thoroughly unsatisfactory state of evidence let in by the prosecution on this aspect. P.W.14 F.P.Expert only states that he got the thumb impressions on the ever-silver tumbler, steel bureau photographed by P.W.11 Photographer. But, learned senior counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the thoroughly unsatisfactory state of evidence let in by the prosecution on this aspect. P.W.14 F.P.Expert only states that he got the thumb impressions on the ever-silver tumbler, steel bureau photographed by P.W.11 Photographer. The photographer sent those fingerprints to him later on. P.W.14 does not appear to have been present when those photographs were taken. On 18. 1985, he received Ex.P-14 requisition from the J.S.C.M. Court asking him to compare the finger prints of the accused as required by the Inspector. Pursuant to this request, he compared and found that they were identical and Ex.P-23 is his report. It is significant to note that though P.W.11 photographer states that he photographed the finger prints marked by P.W.14 Inspector, he admits in cross examination that he did not send the negatives as well as the prints to the court. The only photographs taken by P.W.11 photographer and available in the court are M.0.11 series, M.O.12 series, M.O.13 series and M.O.14 series. They are the photographs and negatives of the scene place and the dead body of Pappathi. So, it is not known with what material P.W.14 F.P.Expert had compared the admitted thumb impressions of the appellant. Further it does not appear from the evidence of P.W.16 Inspector that the finger prints of the appellant were obtained in the presence of J.S.C.M. The Identification of Prisoners Act 33 of 1920 was enacted to authorise the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others. Sec.5 of the Act provides that if a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his photographs to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his photographs to be taken by a police officer: Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class. In Mahmood v. State of U.P.. 1976 Crl.L.J. 10, the specimen finger prints of the appellant were not taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Sec.5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. In Mahmood v. State of U.P.. 1976 Crl.L.J. 10, the specimen finger prints of the appellant were not taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Sec.5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. The Supreme Court has held that this is another suspicious feature of the conduct of investigation. In the present case, P.W.16 Inspector has not explained why the Magistrate was kept out of the picture in obtaining the finger print of the appellant. The testimonies of P.W. 16 Inspector, P.W. 14 F.P.Expert and P.W.1 1 photographer are as disjointed as possible and they do not convincingly establish that any finger print of significance was really available at the scene place subsequent to the crime and it was made use of. Besides P.W.16 Inspector swears that he held the inquest over the dead body of Raju at the scene of crime from 4.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. on 8. 1985. But he also claims to have received M.Os.17 to 29 under Ex.P-23 mahazar at 7.00 p.m. on that day. This is also a pointer to the fact that all was not well with the investigation. 25. And above all F.P.Expert’s report Ex.P-23 is bereft of any details. In fact, contrary to the claim of P.W.14 F.P.Expert, it is not a report at all. This only purports to be a communication dated 20.8.1985 from single Digit Finger Print Surgeon, Coimba-tore Rural District addressed to the J.S.C.M., Palladam. This boldly reads that “the Finger Print Expert who compared the photographed chance prints developed at the scene of crime concerned, reports that the chance prints developed on an eversilver tumbler are found identical with the right ring and left index finger prints respectively of the above said accused Rajendran, whose finger print slips were received by the bureau. The chance print developed on the door of the inner locker of the steel bureau is also found identical with the left thumb finger print of the same accused. The F.P. slips of Rajendran are retained here.” This letter does not furnish my further data as to how the Expert had arrived at his conclusion. The report of the F.P.Expert without furnishing the reasons for his conclusion, is of no value. 26. The F.P. slips of Rajendran are retained here.” This letter does not furnish my further data as to how the Expert had arrived at his conclusion. The report of the F.P.Expert without furnishing the reasons for his conclusion, is of no value. 26. In The Public Prosecutor v. Virammal, 16 L.W. 663, a Division Bench of this court disapproved the attitude of the lower court which was in effect a refusal to exercise its own judgment on the finger prints at all under an attempt to discredit the evidence of the F.P.Expert on general grounds. It pointed out that that attitude and refusal may have been due to its reluctance to enter into what is generally described as the ‘science’ of fingerprints or to come to close quarters with the evidence of a person described as ‘an expert’. But in face there is nothing in the so-called science of finger prints or the qualifications of an expert in it. which need have deterred the lower court from applying its own magnifying glass or its own eyes and its own mind to the evidence and verifying the results submitted to it by the witness. Horwill, J. has held in Crown Prosecutor v. Gopal, A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 551, that the court is not bound to accept the evidence of a F.P.Expert even though there are no special reasons for not accepting it. It is certainly proper for the court to satisfy itself by personal examination that the finger impressions of the accused and the disputed impressions are identical. While dealing with the evidence of an expert witness the court should ask the expert to explain in court the reasons for his opinion. It is only after hearing those reasons in detail that the court would be in a position to express a sound opinion whether or not the expert’s opinion is satisfactory. In Chandrasekar alias Chandran v. State, 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 314, Arunachalam, J. found that the opinion offered by a F.P.Expert had been done in a haphazard manner without application of mind on all the important features which could form the basis of rendering a safe and acceptable opinion. In Chandrasekar alias Chandran v. State, 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 314, Arunachalam, J. found that the opinion offered by a F.P.Expert had been done in a haphazard manner without application of mind on all the important features which could form the basis of rendering a safe and acceptable opinion. This passage occurring in the judgment of the learned Judge may be usefully extracted: “H.R.Hardless in his book on ‘Handwriting and Thumb Print Identification and Forensic Science’ published in 1970 has observed that the core and delta are the important features in an impression and the ridges in all impressions form patterns. M.K.Mehta in his book on ‘The Identification of Thumb Impression and the Cross Examination of Finger Prints Experts’ published in 1959, has definitely stated that to begin with, the patterns should be examined first, for, if the patterns are different it is conclusive proof that the impressions are different. The same author has also observed that it was not uncommon for Experts to manipulate the difference in such a manner, especially in blurred impressions, as to lead to the findings recorded by them. H.R. Hardless in his book (quoted above), on the aspect of ‘Points which prove Non-Identity’ of two impressions and about the differences in configuration of ridges within the pattern area, emphasises the need for both the impressions being clear and not blurred. As regards the non-identity, according to Hardless, even one major point of difference would be sufficient to exclude the identity and one of the major points of difference is the presence of a ridge characteristic in one print while in the other impression such characteristic is absent.” Sec.45 of the Evidence Act envisages the court to form an opinion as to identity of a finger impression and for thai purpose the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in questions as to identity of finger impressions are relevant. And it goes without saying that no such conclusions are possible without the Expert indicating the reasons for his opinion. So in the absence of reasons, Ex.P-23 serves no purpose. Any finding reached by the trial court on blindly accepting Ex.P-23 report is clearly erroneous. The core and delta are the important features in thumb impressions and the ridges in all the impressions form patterns. One has to examine first if the patterns are different for it is conclusive proof that the impressions are different. Any finding reached by the trial court on blindly accepting Ex.P-23 report is clearly erroneous. The core and delta are the important features in thumb impressions and the ridges in all the impressions form patterns. One has to examine first if the patterns are different for it is conclusive proof that the impressions are different. Then the court has to find out by comparison of the ridge characteristics, core and delta, whether the two impressions are identical. So, from a perusal of Ex.P-23, we are not in a position to know whether the opinion arrived by the Expert is correct or not and learned Sessions Judge failed to carry out any scrutiny of the impressions and come to his own conclusion. 27. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the alleged confession and recovery under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. According to P.W.16 Inspector, on his arrest on 18. 1985, the appellant gave a confession as in Ex.P-17 and pursuant to the same he took them to his house and haystack and produced M.O.16 aruval and M.O.6 wrist watch which were recovered by him under Exs.P-19 and P-20 in the presence of P.W.12 Masilamani. We find from Ex.P-11 Serologist’s report that M.O.16 aruval and M.O.2 blouse of Pappathi were having the same ‘O’ group of human blood. However, considering the fact that the appellant was detained in the police station for one week prior to his alleged date of arrest, no significance could be attached to the alleged confession and recovery since it could not be said that any fact was discovered in consequence of information received from him as contemplated under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. Discoveries which follow a confession brought about by compulsion cannot be used against an accused person. Statement by the appellant after long interrogation by police is evidently his by An.22 (1) of the Constitution also. 28. As per the evidence of P.W.16 Inspector, Ex.P-22 visiting card was found in M.O.29 polyester shirt found near the dead body. P.W.13 Thirumalaiappan a lawyer of Tirunelveli bar claims that it is his visiting card. He happened to appear for one Ranganathan, the elder brother of the appellant, in C.J.M.Court. It was his hahit to handover his visiting cards to his clients and persons accompanying them. This factor was pressed by learned Public Prosecutor to establish the complicity of the appellant in the crime. He happened to appear for one Ranganathan, the elder brother of the appellant, in C.J.M.Court. It was his hahit to handover his visiting cards to his clients and persons accompanying them. This factor was pressed by learned Public Prosecutor to establish the complicity of the appellant in the crime. But considering the fact that Ex.P-1 complaint makes no mention of finding either M.O.29 polyester shin or Ex.P-22 visiting card in the scene place, it is unsafe to act on the testimony of P. W. 16 Inspector, in this connection. In any event, this may at the most, create only a feeble suspicion against the appellant and nothing more. In the absence of any other substantive evidence, this factor is of little avail. 29. As it has been held by the Supreme Court in Mahmood v. State of U.P., 1976 Crl.L.J. 10: "In a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence, the Court before recording a conviction on the basis the refer must be firmly satisfied: .a. that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt; .b. that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and c. that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him". Evidently none of the links in the chain of circumstances, from which any inference of guilt is to be drawn in this case has been cogently and firmly established. While so we have no other alternative but to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 30. We express our deep anguish that a crime of double murder like this goes unpunished. In a case of this type, we expect the investigation agency to spring into action not only to trace out and bring to book the real culprit involved in the crime but also to place before the Court convincing evidence to connect the person arrested with the crime. The haphazard manner in which the investigation has been done in this case leaves much to be desired. The haphazard manner in which the investigation has been done in this case leaves much to be desired. The detention of the appellant in the police station long prior to his alleged date of arrest, the torture he was to undergo, the planting of the ever silver tumbler at the scene of crime so as to make it appear that the thumb impression of the culprit was available there and the coercion brought upon on P.W.5 Selvi and the appellant to write Exs.P-4 and P-21 letters so that they could serve to project a motive, are all instances which show that the investigation has not been done in a fair and straightforward manner. 31. Before parting, we would like to place on record our approval of the conduct of P.W.4 Doctor who had expressed his inability to render any medical aid when he was called upon to do so for deceased Pappathi when she was lingering for life. It is his admission in cross examination that because it was a medico-legal case, he did not treat Pappathi. In this connection, Mr.Vanamalai, learned senior counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Paramanand Kataria v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2039. These directions issued by the Supreme Court in a medico-legal case are worth extracting: "Every injured citizen brought for medical treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent death. There is no legal impediment for a medical professional when he is called upon or requested to attend to an injured person needing his medical assistance immediately. The effort to save the person should be the top priority not only of the medical professional but even of the police or any other citizen who happens to be connected with the matter or who happens to notice such an incident or a situation....Preservation of human life is of paramount importance. That is on account of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. That is on account of the fact that once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. The patient whether he be an innocent person or be a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are incharge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment. A doctor at the Government hospital positioned to meet the State obligation is, therefore, duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving life. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way. Every doctor should be reminded of his total obligation and be assured of the position that he docs not contravene the law of the land by proceeding to treat the injured victim on his appearance before him either by himself or being carried by others. Zonal regulations and classifications cannot also operate as fetters in the process of discharge of the obligation and irre-spective of the fact whether under instructions or rules, the victim has to be sent elsewhere or how the police shall be contacted, the guidelines indicated in the 1985 decision of the Committee of Forensic Medicine (set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India) is to become operative". 32. The Apex Court has pointed out in the decision referred to above that every doctor wherever he be within the territory of India should forthwith be aware of this position and therefore directed that that decision of the Apex Court should be published in all journals reporting decisions of the Supreme Court and adequate publicity highlighting those aspects should be given by the national media as also through the Doordarshan and the All India Radio. The Registry should forward adequate number of copies of the judgment to every High Court so that without delay the respective High Courts could forward them to every Sessions Judge within the respective jurisdictions and the Sessions Judges in their turn shall give due publicity to the same within that jurisdiction. The Medical Council of India should forward copies of that judgment to every medical institution affiliated to it. Copies of the judgment should be forwarded to every State Government with a direction that wide publicity should be given about the relevant aspects so that every practising Doctor would soon become aware of the position. 33. The abovesaid decision of the Apex Court is sufficient to clear any misunderstanding if any, about the law of procedure and that of police regulations and priorities in such situations.So we expect that on seeing an injured in a miserable condition, the human instinct in every medical practitioner should move him to rush for help and do all that can be done to save the life. Normally, the apprehension which sometimes prevents a medical professional inspite of his desire to help the person is that he will be a witness and may have to face the police interrogation which some times may need going to the police station repeatedly and waiting and also to be a witness in a court of law where also he apprehends that he may have to go number of days and may have to wait for a long time. It is this apprehension which prevents a medical professional who is not entrusted with the duty of handling medico-legal cases, to do the needful. So, in order to clear the apprehension of the medical profession, the Government may examine the desirability of making suitable amendments to the proviso to Sec.169, Crl.P.C. which gives power 10 the Police Officer to require attendance of witnesses. The proviso to this Section bars the Police Officer from requiring any male person under the age of 15 years or woman to attend any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides, for the purpose of interrogation. We are of the view that the medical practitioners may also be included in this category so that they may not have the necessity to attend police station for having rendered the first aid in medico-legal cases. 34. We are of the view that the medical practitioners may also be included in this category so that they may not have the necessity to attend police station for having rendered the first aid in medico-legal cases. 34. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. His bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.