Judgment : KANAKARAJ J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the same person who was the sole accused before the District Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur Division at nagapattinam in S. C. No. 100/87. It is rather unfortunate that the Registry has numbered the appeal C. A. No. 573/88 when already the appellant had preferred C. A. No. 325/88. It transpires that C. A. No. 325/88 was filed as a private appeal by engaging a counsel, and even while the said appeal was pending, a jail appeal had been preferred by the appellant and the same has been referred to a counsel on the Legal Aid Panel and the Registry has numbered this appeal also as C. A. No. 573/88 and have posted both the appeals for hearing Mr. R. Nagarajan, represented that he was appearing in c. A. No. 325 /88 as well as Legal Aid Counsel in C. A. No. 573 /88. We do not think it is necessary to consider both the appeals because it is meaningless. We, therefore, reject the appeal filed second in point of time viz. , C. A. No. 573 /88 as unnecessary. ( 2 ) THE appellant faced a charge under Sections 376 (2) and 302 I. P. C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 (2) I. P. C. and for life imprisonment under Section 302 i. P. C. with a direction that the sentence has to run concurrently. The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows: The accused and his father Raja gounder owned a casuarina thope near sea side in the village of Vellapallam. About one month prior to the occurrence which event took place on 25-6-1987, there was a complaint against one Subramanian (P. W. 15) that he had cut four casuarina poles from the thope belonging to the accused P. W. 2 who as a panchayatdar speaks to the above occurrence. P. W. 15 who actually cut the casuarina poles, admits the above occurrence but says that the accused had given a warning that if anybody enters the thope, he would defame them. P. W. 15 who actually cut the casuarina poles, admits the above occurrence but says that the accused had given a warning that if anybody enters the thope, he would defame them. P. W. 16-A Nattanmai, who was also aware of the Panchayat corroborates the above incident and says that the accused went away warning that whoever enters the field, be it a male or a female, would be properly dealt with by the accused. It was decided in the Panchayat that P. W. 15 should pay a fine of rs. 50/- because he had admitted the fact of cutting casuarina poles. The accused is said to have refused to accept the fine of Rs. 50/- from P. W. 15 and suggested that the same may be paid over to the temple. Instead, he gave out a warning that if anybody enters the thope for the purpose of collecting sticks or cutting casuarina poles, he would be forced to use defamatory language against them. ( 3 ) P. W. 6 a resident of Vellapallam village, was a close associate of P. W. 5 and her daughter one Madhavi since deceased. P. W. 6 and the deceased used to frequent the thope of the accused for the purpose of collecting sticks to be used as fire twig. About eight days prior to the occurrence the accused had scolded the witness P. W. 6 and the deceased for having entered the thope and for having collected sticks. ( 4 ) ON the day of occurrence P. W. 7 another resident of Vellapallam was proceeding to Pushavanam along with P. W. 8. They had seen the deceased madhavi collecting sticks in the thope belonging to the accused. At that time, the deceased was wearing skirt M. O. 3 and jacket M. O. 4. she was having a basket for collecting the stick viz. , M. O. 5 P. W. 8 says that he had seen the accused also in the company of the deceased. When questioned, the accused is said to have told P. W. 8 that the deceased was daily collecting sticks from the thope of the accused P. W. 8 is said to have advised the accused that she was a small girl and she could be excused. He also speaks to the fact that the deceased was wearing mo. 3 skirt and MO. He also speaks to the fact that the deceased was wearing mo. 3 skirt and MO. 4 blouse apart from having the basket M. O. 5 P. W. 9 another resident of Vellapallam says that on that day at about 10 a. m. he had seen the accused leading the deceased along the narrow pathway towards the thope belonging to Subramanian. He speaks to the fact that the accused was wearing lungi M. O. 9 and cut banian MO. 10. He was also sporting a towel m. O. ll. ( 5 ) AT about 11. 00 a. m. P. W. ll another resident of the fishermen colony in vellapajlam was returning from Naluvedapathy along the thope of the accused. He found the accused proceeding from the thope towards the west. When questioned the accused is said to have told P. W. 11 that he had gone to see the thope and he was returning. P. W. 12 is said to have accompanied P. W. 11 and he had also seen the accused proceeding from the thope towards the west. P. W. 13 a resident of Naluvedapathy was buying fish at about 10 or all a. m. when he saw the accused proceeding from the east towards the west. ( 6 ) AT about 2. 00 P. M. on that day P. W. I a resident of Naluvedapathy had gone to the sea shore for buying fish. The casuarina thope near the sea shore which belonged to the accused was close to the sea shore. She had seen in the said those a child hanging from a tree without any clothes on her body. She went and told P. W. 2 a resident of Vellapallam. As soon as P. W. 1 told him, P. W. 2 proceeded to the thope and saw the deceased hanging upside down from a tree having been tied with the tape used for the skirt. Actually the leg was tied with the tape and the skirt was tied to the tree. One leg was spread and blood was oozing out from the ears, nose and mouth. He could recognize the child as the daughter of Kasinathan. Her vaginal portion was found swollen. He came to the village of Vellapalam and told the grand parents of the deceased and others. He then proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer (P. W. 17) at about 3. He could recognize the child as the daughter of Kasinathan. Her vaginal portion was found swollen. He came to the village of Vellapalam and told the grand parents of the deceased and others. He then proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer (P. W. 17) at about 3. 00 p. M. He gave a statement to him which was recorded by P. W. 17. It is Ex. P. 3. Thereafter, he proceeded along with his assistant P. W. 18 and P. W. 2 to the spot and was satisfied about the statement of P. W. 2. He sent the report Ex. P. 3 to the police Station at about 6. 00 P. M. He sent a copy to the Tahsildar. Vedaranyam. P. W. 3 is the younger sister of Kasinathan, who is the father of the deceased. On the day of occurrence, the parents of P. W. 3 had gone to Naluvedapathy for the purpose of purchasing timber. The parents of the deceased had gone to Kameswaram for the purpose of getting fish, Kasinathan had two daughters, the elder being the deceased Madhavi and the younger daughter is called valamathi. Valamathi had also been taken by their parents to Kameswaram. After their morning meals P. W. 3 along with the deceasedhad gone to sleep. The deceased was wearing M. 0. 3 skirt and M. O. 4 blouse. At about 11. 00 a. m. when p. W. 3 got up, she found that the deceased Madhavi was missing. ( 7 ) P. W. 4 is the grand-mother of the deceased. She had returned to the house at about 11. 00 a. m. when she found her daughter Selvi sleeping, she woke up her and asked as to what happened to Madhavi. She said that Madhavi was missing. They were searching for her all around until P. W. 2 came at about 3. 00 P. M. and reported about Madhavi hanging from a tree in the thope of the accused. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 is the mother of the deceased and she corroborates the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 4. ( 9 ) P. W. 22 was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Thalaignayiru Police Station at the relevant time. At about 8-30 P. M. on 25-6-1987. P. W. 18 came with report ex. P. 3 recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (P. W. 17 ). 3 and 4. ( 9 ) P. W. 22 was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Thalaignayiru Police Station at the relevant time. At about 8-30 P. M. on 25-6-1987. P. W. 18 came with report ex. P. 3 recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (P. W. 17 ). He registered the same as Crime No. 109/87 under Section 302 I. P. C. Ex. P. 17 is the printed f. I. R. which was sent to Thiruthuraipoondi II Class Magistrate at about 9-00 P. M. through a Constable. He informed the Inspector of Police by a telephone message. He then proceeded to the spot along with P. W. 18 and arranged for bandobust for the body of the deceased P. W. 23 was the Constable, who took the F. I. R. to the Magistrate Court at Thiruthuraipoondi. After being informed that the Magistrate was on leave, he proceeded to Nagapattinam on the next clay at about 7. 20 a. m. and handed over the F. I. R. to the Magistrate in-charge. P. W. 26 was the Inspector of Police. Thirthuraipoondi, who received information from P. W. 22. He proceeded to the spot at about 10-30 p. m. on his way, he sent word to the forensic expert and the police dog. Since it was dark by the time he reached the spot, he prepared the observation mahazar on 26-6-1987 at about 6-00 A. M. Ex. P. l is the observation mahazar attested by p. W. 17. He prepared a sketch Ex. P. 35 from the scene of occurrence. He arranged for untering the corpse from the tree and laid it on the earth and conducted inquest between 7-30 and 10-30 a. m. Ex. P. 36 is the Inquest Report. He examined p. Ws. 2,3,4 and 17 at the inquest. He sent the body through P. W. 21 with requisition Ex. P. 10 for the conduct of the postmortem examination. On the very same day he said to have examined P. Ws. 1. 5 to 10 and 18 and on the next day he examined some witnesses. The police dog came at about 11. 00 a. m. and was not of any assistance. From the spot, P. W. 26 recovered M. O. 1 blood stained earth. M. O. 2 sample earth, M. O. 3 skirt of the deceased under Ex. P. 2 mahazar attested by P. W. 17. The police dog came at about 11. 00 a. m. and was not of any assistance. From the spot, P. W. 26 recovered M. O. 1 blood stained earth. M. O. 2 sample earth, M. O. 3 skirt of the deceased under Ex. P. 2 mahazar attested by P. W. 17. He again examined P. Ws. 2. 11. 12. 16 and 17. He had recorded in the case diary that the accused was suspected and, therefore, he made a search for apprehending the accused but he was not available. ( 10 ) P. W. 19 was the Assistant Medical Officer at Thiruthuraipoondi government Hospital, who received the requisition Ex. P. 10 at about 4. 00 P. M. on 26-6-1987. She commenced the post-mortem examination at 4-30 P. M. She collected various stains and kept ?t for chemical examination. She found the hymen was intact. There was a slight patch on the private parts of the deceased. She had collected the white fluid smeared on the body of the deceased and her thing. It was mixed with excreta from the body of the deceased. Ex. P. ll is the post-mortem certificate. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation and throttling and fracture to hyoid bone about 27 to 31 hours prior to autopsy. The following stains were sent for chemical analysis. 1. White discharge (seminal discharge) swab from vagina 2. White discharge stained with motion scraped from left thigh medial side. 3. Reddish brown stain scraped from monspubis suprapubis region. ( 11 ) ON 18-7-1987, the accused had met P. W. 14 a toddy tapper and seller. According to P. W. 14, the accused had taken toddy from him both in the morning at about 7-30 a. m. and again in the afternoon at about 1. 00 P. M. on the day of occurrence. On 18-7-1987, when he met the accused, the accused was buying toddy from him, and P. W. 14, is said to have hold him that the police were in search of the accused. The accused replied saying that he also heard about the news. He further stated that he had raped a small girl, killed her and hung her from a tree. He was proposing to surrender to the police with the assistance of some other person. The accused replied saying that he also heard about the news. He further stated that he had raped a small girl, killed her and hung her from a tree. He was proposing to surrender to the police with the assistance of some other person. ( 12 ) ON 22-7-1987, the accused is said to have proceeded to the office of P. W. 17 (village Administrative Officer) and told him that he was being searched in connection with the death of the deceased Madhavi and that he was afraid of the police. He, therefore, sought the help of P. W. 17 to surrender to the police. P. W. 17 is said to have prepared a report Ex. P. 4 at the Police Station. ( 13 ) P. W. 26 received the information from P. W. 22 over phone that the suspected accused had surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer, who had in turn surrendered the accused before the police at about 9. 45 a. m. P. W. 26 proceeded to the police station and arrested the accused. He gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as ex. P. 5. In pursuance of Ex. P. 5, the basket carried by the deceased and the jacket worn by the deceased were recovered. They are M. Os. 3 and 4 respectively. The same were recovered from the same casuarina thope of the accused M. O. 5 was recovered under Ex. P. 6. M. O. 4 was recovered at a distance of 100 feet from the place where the body was found under a mahazar Ex. P. 8. P. W. 26 prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P. 7 at the place where the jacket was seized. It was also attested by P. W. 17. He prepared another rough sketch Ex. P. 37. The jacket M. O. 4 was hung in the tree at a distance of about 5 feet from the ground. ( 14 ) P. W. 26 examined the parents of the deceased by showing M. Os. 4 and 5. From the accused M. Os. 9, 10 and 11 were recovered after giving alternate clothes to the accused under Ex. P. 9. On the same day he examined P. Ws. 3, 5 and 17. ( 15 ) HE sent several requisitions to the Magistrate for sending the incriminating articles for chemical analysis. 4 and 5. From the accused M. Os. 9, 10 and 11 were recovered after giving alternate clothes to the accused under Ex. P. 9. On the same day he examined P. Ws. 3, 5 and 17. ( 15 ) HE sent several requisitions to the Magistrate for sending the incriminating articles for chemical analysis. P. W. 25 was the Assistant in the court of the II Class Magistrate. Thiruthuraipoondi. He had received Ex. P. 20 a requisition to send the seminal discharge found on the body of the deceased for chemical analysis. Accordingly, under office copy of letter Ex. P. 21, P. W. 25 sent the said articles for chemical analysis. Ex. P. 12 is the report of the chemical analyst. On the same day, another requisition from the Inspector of Police ex. P. 22 was received for sending M. Os. 1 to 3. The same were sent under office copy of letter Ex. P. 23, the report of the analyst is Ex. P. 24 and the report of the serologist is Ex. P. 25. On 23-7-1987, the Inspector of Police sent another requisition to P. W. 20 to examine the accused to find out his capacity to have sexual intercourse and also collected the spermatozoa and sent the same for chemical analysis. It is Ex. P. 27. Accordingly, under Exs. P. 28 and P. 29, a requisition was sent to the doctor. The correspondence between the Inspector of Police and the Magistrate are marked as Exs. P. 29 to P. 23. The report of the chemical analyst is Ex. P. 34. ( 16 ) P. W. 24 was the photographer, who was asked to take photographs of the body of the deceased hanging from the tree. On 26-6-1987, on the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he took photographs from seven angles. They are ex. P. 18 (Series) and the negatives are Ex. P. 19 (Series ). ( 17 ) ON completion of the investigation, P. W. 26 filed a final report under section 173 (2) Cr. On 26-6-1987, on the instructions of the Inspector of Police, he took photographs from seven angles. They are ex. P. 18 (Series) and the negatives are Ex. P. 19 (Series ). ( 17 ) ON completion of the investigation, P. W. 26 filed a final report under section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. On 25-9-1987 for the offences under Sections341, 376 and 302 I. P. C. ( 18 ) ON committal by the Magistrate, the trial Judge framed charges as already mentioned and on the accused pleading not guilty, proceeded to examine 26 witnesses and marked 37 documents on the side of the prosecution, he also recovered as many as 11 material objects. On the accused being questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. he denied complicity for the offences, but did not choose to examine any witnesses or file any document on his behalf. It is under the above circumstances the trial Judge has rendered a verdict of guilt on the part of the accused under Sections 376 (2) and 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment as already mentioned. ( 19 ) THIS is a case where the prosecution seeks the conviction of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence only. It is a well settled principle of law that in such a case each circumstance relied on by the prosecution should point out the inference that the accused and the accused alone could have committed the crime and there is no room for any doubt that some other person could have perpetrated the crime. The trial Judge has listed ten circumstances for holding that the accused alone was responsible for the rape and murder of the deceased. A careful scrutiny of the circumstances referred to by the trial Judge shows that the Court had misdirected itself in relying on circumstances which do not at all link the accused with the crime. Of the ten circumstances relied on by the trial judge, we are of the opinion that only circumstances 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 alone require consideration because they have some bearing on the accused being involved in the crime. Therefore, if the evidence adduced in the case substantiates those circumstances, one can sustain the judgment of the trial Court. Of the ten circumstances relied on by the trial judge, we are of the opinion that only circumstances 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 alone require consideration because they have some bearing on the accused being involved in the crime. Therefore, if the evidence adduced in the case substantiates those circumstances, one can sustain the judgment of the trial Court. If, on the other hand, the evidence relating to those circumstances are not believable or are not conclusive, then necessarily we will have to give the benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant. Before us Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the motive part as put forward by the prosecution is not at all believable. He also argues that the circumstances, relied on by the trial judge cannot be accepted by the this Court as pointing to the guilt of the accused. He refers to the discrepancy in the evidence relating to those circumstances. On the other hand, Mr. R. Ragupathi, learned Additional Public prosecutor argues that the trial Judge has given good and valid reasons for holding the accused guilty of the charges framed against him. ( 20 ) IN the light of the above arguments, we will now dwell into the evidence to find out whether the circumstantial evidence referred to by the prosecution is worthy of acceptance. ( 21 ) WE will first consider the question of motive and we may observe, that for the commission of an offence of rape, strictly speaking no motive is necessary. In any event, inasmuch as a particular motive has been suggested in this case we will examine the same to find out the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case. While narrating the facts, we have referred to the evidence of p. Ws. 2. 15 and 16 who referred to the Panchayat conducted when P. W. 15 had cut some casuarina poles from the thope of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused did not accept the fine of Rs. 50/-, but threatened to define defame anybody who entered the casuarina thope. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the witnesses are not uniform as to the words used by the accused regarding his threat of relation. While P. W. 2 says that the accused had threatened to use defamatory language. 50/-, but threatened to define defame anybody who entered the casuarina thope. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the witnesses are not uniform as to the words used by the accused regarding his threat of relation. While P. W. 2 says that the accused had threatened to use defamatory language. P. W. 15 says that the accused had threatened to actually put to crying shame any person who entered the thope and P. W. 16 further improves upon this threat of the accused by saying that whether it was male or female, he would take appropriate action. Apart from the attempt to improve upon the story regarding motive, we are unable to understand why the accused should rape the girl for the purpose of the alleged retaliatory measure. If the accused was only worried about the persons encroaching on his thope and collecting sticks or cutting casuarina poles, one can understand the accused either beating the trespassers or causing some other harm, but certainly not raping a small girl of 5-1 /2 years old. But the more important circumstances relating to the offence are the fact that the accused was seen with the deceased at about 10. 00 a. m. On 25-6-1987 by p. Ws. 7,8 and 9 at or near the Casuarina thope. In our opinion, the evidence of p. Ws. 7, 8 and 9 do not significantly advance the case of the prosecution because it is the uniform evidence of those witnesses that the deceased was not crying at the time and all that they say is that the accused was leading the deceased along the pathway. There is one disturbing feature in the evidence of P. Ws. 7,8 and 9 and that is seen from the evidence of P. W. 9 who says that the accused was leading the deceased Madhavi towards the thope of Subramanian. If me evidence of P. W. 9 is to be accepted, the crime could not have happened in the thope belonging to the accused. ( 22 ) THE other circumstances relates to the evidence of P. Ws. 11 and 12, who were said to have been the accused at about 11. 00 a. m. proceeding from his casuarina thope towards the west. ( 22 ) THE other circumstances relates to the evidence of P. Ws. 11 and 12, who were said to have been the accused at about 11. 00 a. m. proceeding from his casuarina thope towards the west. There was no other indication to suggest that the accused had committed any crime of the nature of murder because he had answered the question of P. Ws. 11 and 12 in natural fashion what is interesting to note is that if P. Ws. 11 and 12 had indeed given this information to the police. There is no reason why the investigation officer did not take immediate action against the accused. On the other hand, both in the first Information Report and in the inquest report, the suspicion against the accused had not been noticed. ( 23 ) WE now come to the more important circumstances of the accused making a nonjudicial confession to P. W. 14 onl8-7-1987. This confession to a toddy tapper is most artificial, because he had only stated that he had raped a small girl and killed her. If really the accused had told P. W. 14 about this confession, there is no reason at all way P. W. 14 did not inform others or the police till 24-7-1987 when he was examined by the Police. In other words, for a period of six days P. W. 14 has saved this information himself without disclosing it to any of the other villagers,, the Village Administrative Officer of the Police. We cannot therefore place any reliance on the extra judicial confession said to have been made to P. W. 14. coming to the confession said to have been made to p. W. 17, there is intrinsic evidence to show that the statement to P. W. 17 viz. , ex. P. 4 was only recorded at the police station. In fact no statement was recorded from the accused, but it is only in the form of a report by P. W. 17. P. W. 17 categorically admits that Ex. P. 4 was written at the police station. We nave considerable doubt in accepting this statement and holding that the accused had made a confession to P. W. 17. In fact no statement was recorded from the accused, but it is only in the form of a report by P. W. 17. P. W. 17 categorically admits that Ex. P. 4 was written at the police station. We nave considerable doubt in accepting this statement and holding that the accused had made a confession to P. W. 17. ( 24 ) WE now come to the medical evidence firmly relied on by the prosecution and the trial Judge for holding that the accused could have committed rape on the deceased and subsequently strangulated her. P. W. 19 admits that hymen was intact. She also says that therefore, the accused could not have inserted his male organ in the vagina of the deceased. But the prosecution relies on Ex. P. 12 a report of the chemical analyst relating to the whitish smear found on the thigh of the deceased and a little above private parts of the deceased. The report is as follows:-"deteched gonococci but not spermatozoa on the smears in items 1,2 and 3. " The absence of spermatozoa on the three items of whitish discharge found on the body of the deceased, is a strong circumstance that the accused could not have discharged any semen from his own body. But what the prosecution and the trial Judge seem to have relied upon is the presence of disease gonococci on the whitish discharge. This is because when the semen was collected from the accused and sent for chemical analysis, the report Ex. P. 14 is as follows:-"we examined the above smears for spermatozoa and gonococci and we detected spermatozoa and gonococci on the above smears. "it was also found that the accused was capable of having sexual intercourse. The argument is that the presence of the germs relating to the disease gonococci found on the body of the deceased could not have been communicated except by the accused whose seminal discharge was found to have the same disease. No doubt, this is a circumstance which could link the accused with the crime. But, we cannot ignore the fact that no spermatozoa was found on the body of the deceased which is a circumstance to suggest that the accused could not have had any intercourse or discharge, over the body of the deceased. No doubt, this is a circumstance which could link the accused with the crime. But, we cannot ignore the fact that no spermatozoa was found on the body of the deceased which is a circumstance to suggest that the accused could not have had any intercourse or discharge, over the body of the deceased. The only question is whether presence of the disease gonococci on the body of the deceased could conclusively establish that the accused could have had some sort of a sexual assau It on the deceased. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through Butterworths Medical dictionary under the word Gonorrhoea It is stated: "in both sexes irits polyrathrities and, rarely, endocarditis, may ensue, vulvovaginitis and proctitis occur in little girl from colctaminated bedding or toilet articles or, more rarely, from sexual assault. " modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology also contains a passage which supports the above theory that is not necessarily because of sexual intercourse with the disease is contracted. The following passage is relevant:-"the existence of a venereal disease in the female is not always a positive evidence of sexual connection. Gonorrhoeal infection of the genital treat particularly in young girls and infants may be conveyed through infected hands or other articles. Outbreaks of gonorrhea in children in schools, boarding houses or hospitals, have often been traced to the common use of the infected sponges, towels, bath tubs, etc. " ( 25 ) THEREFORE, we are of the opinion that even though the presence of the disease gonococci in both the seminal discharge of the accused and the smears found on the body of the deceased would give a strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused, we cannot convict the accused merely on suspicion. This is because the medical excerpt as quoted above do indicate that there are other methods by which the disease can be contracted especially in young age. Inasmuch as the deceased was young girl of 5-1 /2 years, we would give this benefit of doubt to the accused that the chemical reports do not conclusively prove that the accused could have had a sexual assault on the deceased. Inasmuch as the deceased was young girl of 5-1 /2 years, we would give this benefit of doubt to the accused that the chemical reports do not conclusively prove that the accused could have had a sexual assault on the deceased. ( 26 ) THE reliance placed by the trial Judge on the recovery of skirt M. O. 3 and the basket M. O. 5 in pursuance of the alleged confession under Section 27 of the evidence Act is not convincing in the sense that such a recovery apart from being artificial, cannot be brought under the fourth corners of Section 27 of the evidence Act. The articles were found in the thope and not place within the peculiar concealed in a particular, knowledge of the accused. Further, such a recovery does not also link the accused with the crime. The recovery in fact does not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner. ( 27 ) FOR all the above reasons, we give the benefit of doubt to the accused and hold that the cannot be found guilty for the charges framed against him. The conviction and sentence as ordered by the Sessions. Judge are set aside and the accused is acquitted. The appeal is, thus allowed.