Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) C. A. No. 514 of 1986 is directed by the State on Special Leave, while Cr1. R. C. No. 394 of 1985 as directed by P. W. 2, wife of the deceased Balendra Thevar and the sister of the deceased Muthuraj, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Post Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur. Respondents 1 to 6 were tried for five charges under Sections 120-B (1), 302, 114 read with Section 302 and 114 read with section 302, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that between 27. 4. 1983 and upto the morning of 29. 4. 1983 at Kalanivasal they hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Balendra Thevar (hereinafter referred to D. 1) and one Durairaj (hereinafter referred to D. 2) and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, on the night of 28. 4. 1983 the first accused caused the death D. 1 by cutting him with aruval; the second accused caused the death of D. 2-by cutting him with aruval and accused 3 and 4 abetted accused 1 and 2 to cause the murders of D. 1 and D. 2. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 14, filed Ex. P. 1 to P. 21 and marked M. Os. 1 to 15. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence, which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the revision case, may be succinctly stated as follows :respondents Ito 6 are the accused in the cases, D. 1 and D. 2 belong to Kalanivasal village. P. W. 2 is the widow of D. 1 and the sister of D. 2. Accused 1 to 6 are the residents of Kalanivasal village. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. P. W. 1 is the village Administrative Officer of Kalanivisal village. P. W. 3 is a resident of Sozhanarvayal adjacent to Kalanivasal. P. W. 4 belongs to Kalanivasal. P. Ws. 7, 8 and 10 also belong to the same village. It is stated that there were previous enmity between D. 1 and the families of accused 5 and 6. About 8 years prior to the occurrence accused 5 and 6 spread a rumour in the village that P. W. 2 was immoral and she was having illicit intimacy with one Natesan Chettiar. It is stated that there were previous enmity between D. 1 and the families of accused 5 and 6. About 8 years prior to the occurrence accused 5 and 6 spread a rumour in the village that P. W. 2 was immoral and she was having illicit intimacy with one Natesan Chettiar. Konakulisundaram Chettiar, elder brother of the said Natesan Chettiar, convened a panchayat and settled the matter amicably. P. W. 2s elder brother, one Subramaniam, married. Sakunthala without the consent and knowledge of his parents and he was living with her. Subramaniam deserted her since she was immoral. Some days later, the marriage of the younger brother of P. W. 2, by name Ramamurthi was about to be celebrated. At that time, accused 5 and 6 induced the said Sakunthala to go to the local Pillayar temple and weep there spreading her hair and cursing the family of Subramaniam in order to do harm to his family. P. W s. 2 Chandra questioned the fifth accused about this. Subsequently Sakunthala who became pregnant was admitted in a private hospital at Peravurani where she died. Accused 5 and 6 induced the brother of Sakunthala to prefer a complaint to the police against Subramaniam and others for the death of Sakunthala. Police investigated the matter and found the case to be false. ( 3 ) ONE Ramasami Thevar, uncle of D. 1 was living at Ceylon. He owns 10 acres of land at Kalanivasal. The lands were cultivated by the Arunachala Thevar, a relation of the sixth accused by getting power from Ramasami Thevar. Since Arunachala Thevar did not pay lease amount regularly, D. 1 entrusted the same to P. W. 10 for cultivation and he was cultivating the same paying the lease amount regularly to D. 1 on behalf of Ramasami Thevar. Later the son of Ramasami Thevar, by name Balasundaram, wanted to sell the land. Accused 5 and 6 wanted to purchase the land for Rs 40,000/ -. But due to the efforts of P. W. 10, the land was sold for Rs. 35,000/ -. Hence, accused 5 and 6 were inimically disposed towards D. 1 on this score also. In 1982 the first accused worked under D. 1 as a farm servant of Rs. 1. 00 per day. But due to the efforts of P. W. 10, the land was sold for Rs. 35,000/ -. Hence, accused 5 and 6 were inimically disposed towards D. 1 on this score also. In 1982 the first accused worked under D. 1 as a farm servant of Rs. 1. 00 per day. Besides that, the first accused was given one mah of land for raising groundnut and taking the yield alone from the said land. When the first accused was working under D. 1, he received Rs. 100/- in excess of the salary due from D. 1 and in respect of the same, he executed a receipt Ex. P. 8. D. 1 asked the first accused to re-pay the sum of Rs. 100/- to him; but he was evading payment by giving false excuses and he did not re-pay the same. Further, he failed to report for duty for 3 days. The first accuseds mother went to the house of P. W. 2 and took away the iron box of the first accused. P. W. 2 went to the first accuseds house and questioned his mother about this and asked for repayment of the excess amount from her son. But she refused to do so. P. W. 2 told this to her brother, D. 2. Both D. 2 and P. W. 2 came to the first accuseds mothers house. Since she was not available, they returned. When the first accuseds mother spread a rumour that D. 2 set fire to her house. On 27. 4. 1983 at about 11 A. M. the first accused came to the fifth accused and reported about this against D. 2 and P. W. 2 and requested the fifth accused to enquire. The fifth accused in turn asked P. W. 4 to enquire about this. Since P. W. 4 refused, the fifth accused said that he would enquire the next day. On 28. 4. 1983 at 9 A. M. D. 1, D. 2, P. W. 2 and her son Ilangeswaran were taking food. Accused 1, 3 and 4 came there. The second accused Murugesan was standing nearby. The fourth accused questioned D. 1 and the first accused asked D. 2 as to why he came anti damaged the door of his house. D. 2 replied that he did not commit any mischief to his house. The fourth accused threatened D. 1 and D. 2. The second accused Murugesan was standing nearby. The fourth accused questioned D. 1 and the first accused asked D. 2 as to why he came anti damaged the door of his house. D. 2 replied that he did not commit any mischief to his house. The fourth accused threatened D. 1 and D. 2. There was a wordy quarrel between the two parties. Thereupon accused 1 to 4 left the place. At about 6 P. M. on 28. 4. 1983 P. W. 4 went to the house of the fifth accused and was accused 1 to 5 and 6 there. The fifth accused told the first accused to do what he asked him to do without fearing for anybody. P. W. 4 asked the fifth, accused as to what happened to the panchayat. The fifth accused replied that since D. 2 did not turn up, they talked among themselves. Thereupon P. W. 4 returned to his house. ( 4 ) ON the night of 28. 4. 1983 after taking meals. D. 1 and D. 2 went to the kollai for guarding the same as usual by taking bed. P. W. 7 was returning from Poovathakudi in a bus along with accused 5, 6 and two others after attending a condolence. Accused 5 and 6 alighted from the bus near the Peravurani Railway Station. P. W. 7 and others alighted at the bus stand. Later P. W. 7 and Chidamabara Thevar went to the Sivan Koil Tank and from there preceded to their village. They saw asked 5 and 6 in the village, south of the temple, and P. W. 7 asked them whether they were coming only then, to which they replied in the affirmative. P. W. 7 then saw accused 1 to 3 coming that side, followed by some others at some distance. It was about 10 P. M. Thereupon P. W. 7 went to his house. ( 5 ) P. W. 8 Subban was employed in the arrack shop at Peravurani during night time. On the night of occurrence, at about 2 A. M. he was cleaning glasses in that shop. Accused 1 to 6 came there, took arrack and were talking near the railway gate about 10 or 15 feet from the arrack shop. He went there to get the glasses from them. Then accused 4 to 6 went towards the railway station. On the night of occurrence, at about 2 A. M. he was cleaning glasses in that shop. Accused 1 to 6 came there, took arrack and were talking near the railway gate about 10 or 15 feet from the arrack shop. He went there to get the glasses from them. Then accused 4 to 6 went towards the railway station. According to him, the first accused paid a Rs. 100/- note towards the price of the arrack to one Chinnappan who paid the balance. P. W. 9 is residing at Selvanayakipuram near Peravurani along with her husband. It is her evidence that she knew the first accused and his relation Chinnappan, as she happened to see them while they were doing dobi work in the river. On 29. 4. 1983 at about 3 A. M. the first accused and Chinnappan came to her house and knocked at the door. When she arid her husband asked them what was the matter, they told them that they wanted to sleep there for the rest of the night and wanted to go to Pattukottai next morning. When P. W. 9 and her husband asked them for further details, the first accused told them that he had cut and killed D. 1 and D. 2 at Kalanivasal village, and hence he wanted to stay there for the night. At that time, the first accused was having an aruval in his hand. They refused to accommodate them in their house and asked them to go away. ( 6 ) ON the morning of 29. 4. 1983 at about 6 A. M. the first accused appeared before P. W. 1, village Administrative Officer of Kalanivasal village and informed him that he had committed the murder of D. 1 and his brother-in-law (D. 2) at Kalanivasal Vadakkikadu village by cutting them with aruval due to previous enmity, that the bodies were lying in the kollai and that he was having the aruval in his waist. Thereupon, P. W. 1 took the first accused along with the Thalayari to the place of occurrence. He saw both the dead bodies with cut injuries lying there. There upon he took the first accused to the nearby school and recorded his statement as narrated by him, read it over to him and after admitting the same to be correct, he put his signature. The statement is marked as Ex. P. 1. He saw both the dead bodies with cut injuries lying there. There upon he took the first accused to the nearby school and recorded his statement as narrated by him, read it over to him and after admitting the same to be correct, he put his signature. The statement is marked as Ex. P. 1. In Ex. P. 1 it is stated that on the night of 28. 4. 1983 the first accused went to the chilly kollai of D. 1 and saw D. 1 and his brother-in-law (D. 2) sleeping there and he cut D. 1 with aruval on the neck and he again cut D. 2 on the neck with the same aruval with force and on receiving the injuries D. 1 and D. 2 did not raise noise and died instantaneously and then he went away with aruval from there. He has further stated that since D. 1 was demanding Rs. 100/-due from him and D. 2 picked up a quarrel with his wife in his absence and damaged the doors of the house, he committed the offence. Thereupon P. W. 1 took the first accused to the Peravurani police station and produced him along with the aruval M. O. 1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, P. W. 12, and handed over Ex. P. 1 along with the yadast Ex. P. 2. He has also sent Ex. P. 3 yadast to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pattukottai. ( 7 ) ON the basis of Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2. , P. W. 12 registered a case in Crime No. 138 of 1983 under Section 302 I. P. C. prepared enquires report Ex. P. 12 with copies and sent Ex. P. 1, Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 12 to the court and their copies to the higher officials. He arrested the first accused and recovered M. O. 1 aruval under Form No. 95, Ex. P. 7, attested by P. W. 1. He also recovered the bloodstained shirt M. O. 11, banian, M. O. 12, trouser M. O. 13, lungi M. O. 14 and towel M. O. 15 from the first accused under Ex. P. 13 mahazar attested by Govindan and another. Thereupon he proceeded to the scene place. P. 7, attested by P. W. 1. He also recovered the bloodstained shirt M. O. 11, banian, M. O. 12, trouser M. O. 13, lungi M. O. 14 and towel M. O. 15 from the first accused under Ex. P. 13 mahazar attested by Govindan and another. Thereupon he proceeded to the scene place. ( 8 ) P. W. 14, Inspector of Police, on receipt of telephonic message about registering of the case, went to Peravurani police station and obtained a copy of the First Information Report at 10. 30 A. M. on 29. 4. 1983. Thereupon he reached the scene place along with the first accused and P. W. 1, inspected the same and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 4 attested by P. W. 1 and another. He collected panchayatdars and witnesses and held inquest over the dead body of P. W. 1 between 12, noon and 2 P. M. and during the inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the first accused. Ex. P. 19 is the inquest report prepared by him. He also held inquest over the body of D. 2 between 2 P. M. and 4 P. M. and during the inquest, he examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the first accused. Ex. P. 20 is the inquest report prepared by him. After inquest, he sent both the bodies along with the requisition Ex. P. 9 through P. W. 11 police constable to the Medical Officer, Peravurani for being conducted autopsy. ( 9 ) AT about 4. 30 P. M. P. W. 12 recovered M. O. 2 bloodstained gunny mat, M. O. 3 bloodstained mat and M. O. 4 bloodstained earth under the mahazar Ex. P. S attested by P. W. 1 from near the place where the body of D. 1 was lying. At 5 P. M. he recovered M. O. 5 bloodstained gunny mat, M. O. 6 bloodstained carpet, M. a. 7 bloodstained banian, M. O. 8 bloodstained shirt and M. O. 9 bloodstained earth under Ex. P. 6 attested by P. W. 1 from the place where the dead body of D. 2 was lying P. W. 14 examined P. W. 3 and others. P. 6 attested by P. W. 1 from the place where the dead body of D. 2 was lying P. W. 14 examined P. W. 3 and others. ( 10 ) P. W. 3, Medical Officer attached to the Peravurani Government Hospital, on receipt of the requisition from P. W. 14 to conduct autopsy, commenced post-mortem examination on the body of D. 2 at 4. 30 P. M. and found the following injuries: 1. An incised wound over the front of neck encircling round the neck, on the right side of neck extending upto the midlone on the back and extending to the left side from the front upto 8 cm. on the left side. The wound is at the mid thyroid cartilege. Length of the wound is 23 cm. Anterio posterior depth is 12 cm. Side to side depth is 11 cm. Edges are clean cut. Scab was formed. The following structures had been cut: a. Thyroid cartilege at the middle pharynx; b. Common carotid arteries, internal jugular, external jugular cut on both sides. c. Ribbon muscles of the neck on the front of both sides of back. On the left side of the nest on the back a skin superficial ribbon muscles only were intact. The lower part of the 4th cervical vertebra, the spinal cord completely divided. Blood clot was present over the cut ends of the dura matter. 2. An incised wound over the front of left shoulder of length 3 x 2 x 2 cm. The head of the humerous present a cut injury 0. 2 x 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm. The lateral third of the left collar bone present an incised wound of size of I x 0. 5. cm. x 0. 5. cm. The injury on the front of the head of the humorous measuring 2 x 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm. horizontally placed. Internal examination: Stomach contained 550 grams of partially digested food particles. Spinal cord has been completely divided at the level of the border of the cervical vertebra. P. W. 5 was of the opinion that D. 2 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the cut injuries to the major blood vessels and spinal cord in the neck about 10 to 18 hours prior to autopsy and that all the injuries are ante-mortem. P. W. 5 was of the opinion that D. 2 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the cut injuries to the major blood vessels and spinal cord in the neck about 10 to 18 hours prior to autopsy and that all the injuries are ante-mortem. Further, the injuries on the thyroid cartilage, spinal cord and cervical vertebra correspond to external injury No. 1 and they could have been caused by any sharp edged weapon like M. O. 1 aruval, that injury No. 1 with the corresponding internal injuries was necessarily fatal and that death would have been instantaneous. Ex. P. 10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. ( 11 ) P. W. 6, Doctor, conducted autopsy over the body of D. 1 and found the following injury An incised wound over the left side of neck extending from the middle of posterior surface of neck to the right side of the neck upto the right sternomastoid muscles cutting all the structures on the left side and in front of the neck at the level of the middle of thyroid cartilage. The length of the wound is 18 cm. from posterior surface to anterior surface. The depth of the wound anterior posteriority is 13 cm. and side to side 10 cm. left side to right-side. The edges were clean cut. Scab was formed. The following structures were divided into two parts 1. Thyroid cartilage at the middle and traphezious middle. 2. Left side sternomastoid, ribbon muscles of neck and traphozious muscles on the posterior aspect of neck; 3. Common carotid artery and internal jugular vein on the left side; 4. The 4th cervical vertebra had been divided at its lower border completely; 5. Spinal cord is divided and blood clot was present over the cut structures of the dura matter. Bloodstains over the face, chest and scalp present. Internal examination: Lungs were pale shrunken. Stomach dilated and contained partially digested food materials. Spleen shrunken and pale. Larynx, glottis and trachea were stained with blood. Pharynx was divided, Brain membranes were pale. Spinal cord, all the muscles, nerves and vessels around have been divided. Spinal cord was completely divided at the level of the 4th cervical vertebra. Internal examination: Lungs were pale shrunken. Stomach dilated and contained partially digested food materials. Spleen shrunken and pale. Larynx, glottis and trachea were stained with blood. Pharynx was divided, Brain membranes were pale. Spinal cord, all the muscles, nerves and vessels around have been divided. Spinal cord was completely divided at the level of the 4th cervical vertebra. P. W. 6 was of the opinion that D. 1 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the cut injuries to the major blood vessel and spinal cord and back, about 10 to 12 hours prior to autopsy and that the injuries were ante-mortem. He was of the further opinion that all the internal injuries correspond to external injury No. 1 and they could have been caused by cutting with a sharp edged weapon like M. O. 1 aruval, that the external injury with the corresponding internal injuries are necessarily fatal and that death would have been instantaneous. Ex. P. 11 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. ( 12 ) P. W. 14 continued further investigation. He again examined P. W. 2 on 30. 4. 1983. He examined P. Ws. 1 and 7 to 9 and others on that day. On 8. 5. 1983 he examined P. Ws. 5 and 6. On 10. 5. 1983 he sent the requisition Ex. P. 14 to the court to send the bloodstained articles for chemical analysis. P. W. 13, Head-clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrates Court, Pattukottai, in his evidence would state that in pursuance of the requisition received from police, the material objects were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Ex. P. 16 is the report of the Chemical Examiner and Ex. P. 17 is the report of the Serologist. ( 13 ) P. W. 14 arrested accused 3 and 4 on 4. 6. 1983 at 11. 30 A. M. at the Railway Station at Perpanaikadu. He arrested the second accused near Palaniappa Theatre on 10. 6. 1983 at 10 A. M. He arrested the fifth accused near the Bus stand at Pattukottai at 12. 15 P. M, on 2 1. 6. 1983. He examined P. W. 10 and others on 8. 12. 1983 and Dr. Geetha and others on 19. 12. 1983. He examined P. Ws. 11 and 12 and another constable on 29. 12. 1983. He recovered Ex. 15 P. M, on 2 1. 6. 1983. He examined P. W. 10 and others on 8. 12. 1983 and Dr. Geetha and others on 19. 12. 1983. He examined P. Ws. 11 and 12 and another constable on 29. 12. 1983. He recovered Ex. P. 8 receipt produced by P. W. 2 on 10. 1. 1984 and examined P. W. 2 again. Ex. P. 21 is the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence prepared by P. W. 1 and handed over to P. W. 14. P. W. 14 again examined P. W. 1. The sixth accused surrendered before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pattukottai, on 21. 6. 1983. After completing the investigation, P. W. 14 laid the charge-sheet against the accused, on 29. 2. 1984. ( 14 ) WHEN the accused were examined with reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence under Section 313 Cr. P. C. they denied the prosecution evidence. In addition, the first accused would state that on account of suspicion, he was included as an accused in this case and the police threatened and coerced him and got his signatures in blank papers. Accused 4 to 6 filed a written statement in which they stated that P. Ws. 4 and 7 and one Karthikaya Thevar were aggrieved with them on account of temple land, that P. W. 7 was evicted from the temple land through process of court, that the sixth accused dispossessed Raju Thevar (father of P. W. 7) and that accused 4 and 5 are helping the sixth accused in the cultivation of the temple lands. It is also stated that P. Ws. 4 and 7 and Raju Thevar are closely related to P. W. 2. They also produced Ex. D. 1 copy of the plaint filed by one Arumugam against accused 6 and 7 in the District Munsifs Court, Pattukottai; D. 2 registered notice issued by the counsel for Raju Thavar and another to the sixth accused, Ex. D. 3 carbon copy of the plaint in O. S. No. 341 of 1974 filed by Arumugam against the temple in the district Munsifs Court, Pattukottai, EX. D. 4 counterfoil of Ex. D. 2 containing the yadast book and Ex. D. S acknowledgement by thereon in the Judicial Second Class Magistratets Court, Pattukottai for receipt of the yadast sent by P. W. 1. D. 4 counterfoil of Ex. D. 2 containing the yadast book and Ex. D. S acknowledgement by thereon in the Judicial Second Class Magistratets Court, Pattukottai for receipt of the yadast sent by P. W. 1. They have also produced the account written in 1982 on the occasion of the function in the sixth accuseds house containing entries at pages 62 and 13 said to have been made by D. 1. No witness was examined on their side. ( 15 ) THE learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, for the reasons assigned in his judgment came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted, the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the appeal on obtaining special leave. P. W. 2, wife of D. I and sister of D. 2, has preferred the revision case. ( 16 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor took us through the judgment of the trial judge and the material evidence on record and submitted that though there is no eye witness to the occurrence, there are extra-judicial confessions given by the first accused to the village Administrative Officer P. W. 1 and to P. W. 9. He also submitted that the first accused produced M. O. 1 aruval before P. W. 1. He would also submit that besides the above extra-judicial confessions, the prosecution relied on other pieces of evidence, namely, the accused were seen at or about the time of occurrence near the arrack shop by P. W. 8, the motive for the occurrence spoken to by P. Ws. 10, and the medical evidence adduced by P. W. 5 and 6 who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies and issued post-mortem certificates. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge discussed the evidence and recorded reasons for acquittal in paras 25 to 46 of his judgment, and according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the reasons are not sustainable in law and hence the order of acquittal requires interference by this Court. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused/respondents would submit that the prosecution has put forward two different stories. According to Ex. P. 1. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused/respondents would submit that the prosecution has put forward two different stories. According to Ex. P. 1. the alleged extrajudicial confession given by the first accused to P. W. 1, the first accused himself had committed the murders of D. 1 and D. 2, while the charge levelled against the accused after the investigation is over is that the first accused Committed the murder of D. 1 and the second accused committed the murder of D. 2 in the presence of the other accused who abetted the commission of the said offence, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by accused 1 to 6. Further, the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the first accused to P. W. 9 is also to the same effect as in Ex. P. 1 that the first accused alone has committed the offence of murders of D. 1 and D. 2. Even the investigating officer admitted that no other evidence is available to prove the said charges. It was submitted that if the contents of Ex. P. 1 are true, the version of the prosecution that all the accused were found together at 9 A. M. and again they were found together at 2 A. M. by P. W. 8 near the arrack shop and at 3 A. M. the first accused met P. W. 9 and gave an extra-judicial confession would not be true. He vehemently argued that there is no link to connect the accused with the crime. He would vehemently argue that even according to P. W. 2 at the time of inquest, she gave a statement that accused 1 to 4 committed the murder and that she informed this to P. W. 1 also. P. W. 1, village Administrative officer has categorically stated that upto 6 P. M. except the first accused, the investigating officer was not informed about the involvement of the other accused. P. W. 1 says that when he enquired P. W. 2, she told him that she did not know. P. W. 2 has admitted that her father gave a complaint that the accused have committed the murder. The father of P. W. 2 was not examined. The said complaint is not forthcoming and it was not filed. P. W. 1 says that when he enquired P. W. 2, she told him that she did not know. P. W. 2 has admitted that her father gave a complaint that the accused have committed the murder. The father of P. W. 2 was not examined. The said complaint is not forthcoming and it was not filed. P. W. 2 says that the fourth accused was present at the time of inquest and when he began to run he was chased and arrested by police. The evidence of P. W. 14 that the fourth accused was arrested on 4. 6. 1983 is nothing but false. The learned counsel argued that the real facts were not put forward before court. The prosecution goes on implicating one accused after another. First, the first accused was implicated, thereafter accused 2 to 4 and again accused 5 and 6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the evidence of P. W. 8 who is a worker in the arrack shop is not helpful to the prosecution as, according to him, the accused came to the shop for consuming arrack at about 2 A. M. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 12. 30 A. M. The first accused and one Chinnappan are alleged to have gone to the house of P. W. 9 at about 3 A. M. and the first accused made an extra-judicial confession to P. W. 9. The learned counsel argued that the various answers elicited in cross-examination of P. W. 8 would go to show that he was not employed in the arrack shop as he is not able to say the names of the proprietor of the arrack shop and also other employees. This evidence is not an incriminating piece of evidence. Further EX. D. 1 falsifies the evidence of P. W. 9. P. W. 9 deposes that she gave a statement to the police and that she signed it. Her husband also gave a statement and it was reduced into writing and he put his thumb impression. But nothing was produced before court. According to P. W. 9, she identified the first accused at the police station and no identification parade was held. There was absolutely no occasion for P. W. 9 to see the first accused on prior occasions. But nothing was produced before court. According to P. W. 9, she identified the first accused at the police station and no identification parade was held. There was absolutely no occasion for P. W. 9 to see the first accused on prior occasions. P. W. 14 admits that except the first accused, no evidence was available for involving the other accused. P. W. 9 says that she saw M. O. 1 and identified M. O. 1 while P. W. 14 denied the some as M. O. 1 was not available and it was already sent to court. According to the learned counsel, even the first accused cannot be convicted since there is no acceptable evidence. The prosecution has put forward two different kinds of cases and it is not the definite case of the prosecution that the first accused alone committed the murders of D. I and D. 2. The extra-judicial confession said to have been made to P. W. 9 cannot be accepted as the same was not mentioned in the alleged extrajudicial confession said to have been made to P. W. 1 and the extra-judicial confession to P. W. 1 is contrary to the charges framed by court. It was argued that the alleged motive is not sufficient for convicting the accused. The learned trial Judge considered all these aspects in proper perspective and arrived at the correct conclusion and as such, no interference is called for. In any event there is no reason to come to the conclusion that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial judge is either perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant this court to interfere with the same. ( 17 ) THE point that arises for consideration in the appeal and the revision case is, whether the order of acquittal recorded by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable and whether it requires any interference. ( 17 ) THE point that arises for consideration in the appeal and the revision case is, whether the order of acquittal recorded by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable and whether it requires any interference. ( 18 ) THE prosecution mainly relies on the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the first accused to P. W. I, Village Administrative Officer and the other extrajudicial confession made by the first accused to P. W. 9 on the night of the occurrence at about 3 A. M. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of P. W. 8 who was a worker-in the arrack shop and who is alleged to have seen the accused near the railway station at or about the time of the occurrence. Now let us consider how far the prosecution has proved the guilt of these accused and how far the reasonings given by the learned trial judge for not accepting the said evidence suffer from infirmity. The learned judge rightly observed that the fact that both the deceased died as a result of homicidal violence is clearly established by the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 who conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem certificates Ex. p. 10 and p. ii to the night of 28. 4. 1983. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution relied on the alleged extra-judicial confession of the first accused to P. W. 1 and P. W. 9 the presence of accused 1 to 6 at or about the time of occurrence near the same place and also motive for commission of the offence. ( 19 ) AS far as Ex. p. i is concerned according to the prosecution, the first accused appeared before P. W. 1, village Administrative Officer at 6 A. M. on 29. 4. 1983 and made an extra-judicial confession. The same was reduced into writing and that is EX. p. i. Later, P. W. 1 inspected the same place, and prepared the yadast Ex. p. 2 and Ex. p. 3 and handed over the first accused at the police station along with Ex. p. i and p. 2 and sent Ex. p. 3 to the magistrate. He also handed over M. O. 1, produced by the first accused, at the police station. This aspect has been considered by the learned trial Judge in paras 29 to 36. p. 3 and handed over the first accused at the police station along with Ex. p. i and p. 2 and sent Ex. p. 3 to the magistrate. He also handed over M. O. 1, produced by the first accused, at the police station. This aspect has been considered by the learned trial Judge in paras 29 to 36. The learned Sessions Judge has given his reasonings that a perusal of Ex. P. I would reveal as if the first accused has confessed that it was he who committed the murder of the two victims concerned in this case and he has not implicated any other accused in this case either as co-conspirators or as co-accused. But what has been confessed and stated in length by the first accused in Ex. p. i is undoubtedly contrary and contradictory to the very basis of the prosecution case and the charges levelled against these accused wherein it is set out that between 27th and early hours of 29th April 1983 accused 1 to 6 entered into a criminal conspiracy to trespass into the land of D. 1 in order to commit the murders of D. 1 and D. 2 and accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the said land and with the assistance of accused 3 and 4, the first accused cut D. 1 with arruval while the second accused cut D. 2 with aruval while they were sleeping and as a result of the same, they died instantaneously. That is the definite case of the prosecution. But this is diametrically opposed to the extrajudicial confession statement given by the first accused in Ex. p. i wherein we find that the first accused has stated that he alone caused murders of both the victims. Further, even P. W. 14 admitted in his evidence that his investigation disclosed that it was the first accused who committed the murder of D-1 while the second accused committed the murder of D-2 and accused 3 and 4 abetted the commission of the said offence. In addition, the learned Session Judge pointed out that there are circumstances which probabilise that Ex. p. i has been brought about by the investigating agency by utilising the, service of P. W. 1, as they were aware that if a statement is recorded by police, it is hit by Section 25 of the of the Evidence Act. Ex. In addition, the learned Session Judge pointed out that there are circumstances which probabilise that Ex. p. i has been brought about by the investigating agency by utilising the, service of P. W. 1, as they were aware that if a statement is recorded by police, it is hit by Section 25 of the of the Evidence Act. Ex. p. i could not have been the one which was given by the first accused and could have come into existence as stated by P. W. 1 in his evidence. The counterfoil of the yadast is marked as Ex. D. 4. That has been marked through P. W. 1 which clearly established that Ex. p. i could not have been prepared as stated by P. W. 1 and the learned Sessions Judge. has given various reasons to substantiate the same in para 33. According to P. W. 1 when he took charge of the administration of the said village, the yadast book was not handed over to him and it was not in the charge list as one of the records. Further as per Rule 7, in every one of the records the Tahsildar must affix the seal and sign the same and that it should contain the seal of the Taluk Magistrate in Seriatim. But, the yadast book containing Ex. D-4, does not contain any such page number in Seriatim or the signature of the Tahsildar or the seal of the Taluk Magistrate. He also fairly admitted that there is no record to show that the yadast book was handed over to him. Such record was not produced before court even though he has stated that he has such record from the sic. inspection. Further, his own admission to that if he resides outside the particular jurisdiction, he should get permission from the Tahsildar. Even though he is the village Administrative officer of Kalanivasal, he is residing at Pookollai which is admittedly a different village. But, admittedly no permission has been obtained. Above all, on a perusal of Ex. D-4, we find numerous corrections, scorings and interpolations, particularly in respect of material aspects, namely, the name of the accused and weapon etc. while in Ex. P. I there was no interpolation, correction or scoring, Ex. D-4 contains interpolations, corrections and scoring. According to the prosecution Ex. D-4 is nothing but a copy of Ex. D-4, we find numerous corrections, scorings and interpolations, particularly in respect of material aspects, namely, the name of the accused and weapon etc. while in Ex. P. I there was no interpolation, correction or scoring, Ex. D-4 contains interpolations, corrections and scoring. According to the prosecution Ex. D-4 is nothing but a copy of Ex. p. i. If really there was no correction in Ex. P. I, there need not be any correction in Ex. D-4 also. This certainly creates, as pointed out by the, learned trial judge, a, real doubt in regard to the truth and genuineness of Ex. p. i as well as Ex. D-4. The learned judge also pointed out another feature regarding the confession statement, and pointed out that the first accused could not have given the confessional statement. If really he was a willing party to give such statement, nothing prevented the investigating agency to give a requisition to the magistrate to record a judicial confession from the first accused. In this case, no attempt was made to obtain a judicial confession from the first accused. That itself throws considerable doubt with regard to the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made to P. W. 1. Further, Ex. p. i could not be the first information report in this case. Even according to P. W. 2 wife of D-1 and sister of D-2, she admitted in her evidence that her father reported about this occurrence to the police alleging that her husband and his brother were cut and murdered. That report was not placed before court and her father was not examined. This also throws considerable doubt with regard to the truth and genuineness of Ex. p. i and the alleged extrajudicial confession given by the first accused is not the first information report. The very first information report with reference to the occurrence given by P. W. 2ts father has been suppressed. There is no explanation on the side of the prosecution as to what happened to the same. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P. W. 1 and also the various reasonings given by the learned trial judge, we entirely agreed with the reasoning of learned judge and hold that it is highly unbelievable and doubtful that the accused are responsible for the murders of D-1 and D-2. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P. W. 1 and also the various reasonings given by the learned trial judge, we entirely agreed with the reasoning of learned judge and hold that it is highly unbelievable and doubtful that the accused are responsible for the murders of D-1 and D-2. The first accused could not have made such extra judicial confession to P. W. 1 as there is nothing to substantiate the same. The learned Judge is perfectly correct in rejecting the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the first accused. ( 20 ) THE learned judge next considered the extra-judicial confession of the first accused said to have been made orally to P. W. 9 in para 37. According to P. W. 3 on the date of occurrence at about 3 A. M. the first accused and Chinappan came to her house and knocked at the door. According to her, they wanted to sleep there and leave for Pattukottai early morning. When questioned by her and her husband, the first accused is said to have told them he has committed the murders of D-1 and D-2 and therefore they wanted to stay there and then go to Pattukottai. The learned Judge observed that this is the most unnatural and artificial evidence because P. W. 9 in her evidence has admitted that there is no connection between her and the first accused. She does not know about the fast accused and the fast accused also does not know about her and her husband. P. W. 9 has also categorically admitted that prior to the occurrence she does not know the names of the accused and she had no occasion to know the name of the first accused prior to the occurrence. According to her admission, she identified the first accused only at the police station for the first time. If really the fast accused was a stranger and he does not know P. W. 9, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the evidence of P. W. 9 is unbelievable that the fast accused had gone to her house at the odd hour and knocked at the door and made the extra-judicial confession with regard to the murders of D-1 and D-2. The learned judge rightly rejected the said confession as unbelievable. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding. The learned judge rightly rejected the said confession as unbelievable. There is nothing to interfere with the said finding. ( 21 ) NEXT the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. W. 4. He speaks about the conversation between accused 1, 2, 5 and 6. The learned trial judge extracted the said conversation in para 38 and observed that the entire conversation does not implicate the accused in any manner with the offence in question. It has been commented upon by the learned judge that P. W. 4 is admittedly an interested witness and he has also given a contradictory version to the investigating officer when he was examined. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 7 would not show that he saw the accused near the scene of occurrence. He only speaks about accused 2, 3 and 1 coming to the place where he was standing. Beyond this, there is nothing in his evidence to connect the accused and the crime. His evidence is not helpful. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 8 is also not helpful. P. W. 8 was alleged to have been employed in the arrack shop during night. His evidence was that he was working in the arrack shop during night. According to him, the accused purchased arrack and thereupon they were near the railway station. After clearing the glasses in the shop, he went and picked up those glasses used by the accused. His evidence was rightly rejected by the learned judge as he is unable to tell the name of the owner of the arrack shop and also the names of other employees. There is no proof that he was working in the said arrack shop. He also admitted that he was taken to the police station and he was in police custody throughout 29th. This clearly established that out of fear he is deposing falsely against the accused as if he saw the accused near the arrack shop. Even otherwise his evidence would not incriminate the accused with the crime in question. Even if it is a fact that the accused went to the said arrack shop and took arrack on the night in question it cannot be said that they committed the murders in question. ( 22 ) P. W. 10 was examined to prove the motive aspect. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge in the face of Ex. Even if it is a fact that the accused went to the said arrack shop and took arrack on the night in question it cannot be said that they committed the murders in question. ( 22 ) P. W. 10 was examined to prove the motive aspect. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge in the face of Ex. p. i where none of the accused 2 to 6 was implicated and in view of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the fast accused not implicating accused 2 to 6, the motive does not assume any importance. Further, motive itself is not sufficient for convicting the accused with regard to the offence of murder in question. Only if there is any acceptable evidence with regard to the occurrence in question or there is any circumstantial evidence which is clinching and which is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused but consistent with guilt of the accused, motive aspect can be considered and motive assumes importance. Even otherwise, though various motives have been performed by the prosecution, on a careful consideration of the motive, we find that it cannot be said that there is sufficient motive for committing the murders of D-1 and D-2 by these accused. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, in the instant case there is no clinching circumstance to connect them with the crime. Though an attempt has been made to establish certain circumstances, there are many missing links and these links are fatal and as such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of any of these accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to make out any case to interfere with the findings of the lower court and find that the accused are guilty. When we asked him as to another there are circumstances to hold that findings rendered by the learned Judge are perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant this court to interfere with the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor clearly submitted that he is unable to point out any circumstances to show that the reasonings of the learned judge are perverse. On the other hand, at the risk of repetition we wish to point out that in the face of the alleged extrajudicial confession made by the first accused which is in the quite variance with the case put forward by the prosecution before this court, in support of which there is no evidence, certainly the learned Judge is justified in acquitting all the accused giving them the benefit of doubt. Thus on a careful consideration of the materials on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is perfectly legal and correct and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to this court to interfere with the. ( 23 ) IN the result, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed and this appeal fails and stands dismissed. In view of our findings in the appeal, Cr1. B. C. No. 394 of 1985 filed by P. W. 2 is also dismissed as devoid of any merit. Appeal and Revision dismissed. Order of acquittal legally sustainable.