JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J. : - The appellant was accused in S.C. No. 123 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, Salem. He was found guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which was directed to run concurrently along with the life imprisonment under Sec.302 (2 counts), I.P.C. imposed upon him in S.C. No. 68 of 1986. He was, however, found not guilty under Sec.449, I.P.C. and acquitted thereof. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are: (a) One Sengoda Gounder (since deceased) was a resident of Mettupatti Peru-mapalayam. He had been residing in his garden lands going by the name Naicken thottam. He had two wives. P.W.1. is the son born through his first wife and P.W.4 is his daughter born through his second wife. P.W.1. married the sister of the accused, viz., Perumayee. The accused was eager to marry P.W.4 some few months prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 4.12.1985, when the accused expressed, his pious wish to marrying P.W.4 to the deceased, the deceased in turn, refused to give his daughter P.W.4 to the accused saying that he would very well give his daughter to a beggar rather than giving her in marriage to him. Consequently, want of cordial atmosphere came to prevail between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.4 was given in marriage to one Murugesan and for the said marriage the deceased did not extend an invitation to the accused and the accused, in turn, also did not attend the marriage function. (b) P.W.2 was the then farm servant of the deceased. His wife is P.W.3. Both of them had been staying in Naicken thottam itself during night hours. P.W.1. got partition from his father, the deceased and had been residing in a separate house a furlong away from the garden house of the deceased. (c) P.W.6 and one Ganesan (since deceased) were then functioning as the cleaner for the lorry MSN .458 (M.O.I) of which the accused was the driver. The said lorry belonged to one Natesan, whose son-in-law was none else them one Sivashanmugam (since deceased). The said Sivashanmugam had been managing the said lorry. The accused-driver was not properly rendering accounts and consequently, there were quarrels and skirmishes between the accused and deceased Sivashanmugam. The said lorry belonged to one Natesan, whose son-in-law was none else them one Sivashanmugam (since deceased). The said Sivashanmugam had been managing the said lorry. The accused-driver was not properly rendering accounts and consequently, there were quarrels and skirmishes between the accused and deceased Sivashanmugam. (d) On 2.12.1985, the accused loaded the lorry with the cement bags at Sankagiri Cement Factory and unloaded the same at Salem junction. At that time P.W.6 and deceased Ganesan were in the Lorry as cleaners. After unloading the cement bags at Salem junction, the lorry proceeded towards Attayampatti and got parked near a cinema theatre at Morepalayam. The time was then 8.15 p.m. The accused and the deceased Ganesan went for answering the calls nature. They returned to the Lorry after some time and when the accused started the lorry, be did not start at all. Thereafter, the accused and P.W.6 went to the cinema theatre for the purpose of witnessing the film running there at that time. The deceased Ganesan slept in the lorry itself. (e) At 8.00 a.m. on 3.12.1985 the lorry had been started by giving a push with the aid of a tractor and the lorry reached Attayampati at 11.00 a.m. and after parking the lorry, all of them took tea in a tea shop. At that time, the deceased Sivashanmugam came there and reprimanded the accused for his unauthorisedly using the lorry without making it available for the use of his father, who had been engaged in rig operation at Bangalore. The accused appeared to have told the deceased Sivashanmugam that the lorry had been taken to Salem for the purpose of getting it repaid. The deceased Sivashanmugam, in turn, mandated the lorry driver to go to Salem and purchase the necessary spare parts after parking the lorry there itself. Consequently, the accused and P.W.6 went to Salem for the purchase of spare parts. P.W.6, after reaching Salem, got Rs.100 from the accused and went to his house saying that since the lorry was to go to Bangalore for the purpose of its being used for rig operation, he would join in some other lorry. (f) The deceased Sengoda Gounder, it is said was found sleeping in front of his house during night hours on the day of occurrence. During dead of night a hue and cry emerged from the place where the deceased Sengoda Gounder was sleeping. (f) The deceased Sengoda Gounder, it is said was found sleeping in front of his house during night hours on the day of occurrence. During dead of night a hue and cry emerged from the place where the deceased Sengoda Gounder was sleeping. P.Ws.2 and 3 woke up from their bed and saw an assailant mounting an attack on the person of the deceased by means of a knife. When both of them neared the scene, they were also threatened with dare consequences. Some how or other they were able to decipher that the assailant, who was mounting the attack on the person of the deceased was none else than the accused. In the meantime P.W.1 and one Mottayyan alias Sengoda Gounder came rushing and one scene of occurrence and to them P.Ws.2 and 3 narrated how the occurrence took place. (g) P.W.7 was the then village Administrative Officer, Mettupatti. At 3.00 a.m. on 4.12.1985 while he was in his house, P.W.1. and another person Mottayyan alias Sengoda Gounder came to him. P.W.1. gave a statement as respects the occurrence. The statement so made had been reduced into writing by him. After the completion of the statement, he read over the same to P.W.1. and he, in turn, admitted the same to be correct. He also subscribed his signature to the said statement. In the said statement itself P.W.7 made his special report. Ex.P-1 is the statement given by P.W.1. Ex.P-3 is the special report of P.W.7 He then entrusted Exs.P-1 and P-3 to one Periasami, the village menial to hand over the same at the police station at Vazhappadi. (h) P.W.14 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vazhappadipolicestation.At5.00a.m.on4.12.1985, will he was in charge of the police station, he received Exs.P-1 and P-3 from P.W.7 through the village menial. He then registered the case in Crime No.361/85 under Sec.302, I.P.C. Ex.P-20 is the printed F.I.R. He prepared Express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. (i) P.W.17 was, the then Inspector of Police, Vazhappadi. At 6.00 a.m. on 4.12.1985 he received the express report and immediately took up further investigation in this case. He then rushed and reached the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. After inspecting the scene, he prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.7. He drew a rough sketch Ex.P-22. (i) P.W.17 was, the then Inspector of Police, Vazhappadi. At 6.00 a.m. on 4.12.1985 he received the express report and immediately took up further investigation in this case. He then rushed and reached the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. After inspecting the scene, he prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.7. He drew a rough sketch Ex.P-22. Between 6.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. he held inquest over the body of deceased Sengoda Gounder. Ex.P-23 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and others. At 11.00 a.m. he seized from the scene M.O.2 bed sheet, M.O.3 torch light, M.O.5 button knife, M.O.8 gold ring, M.O.9 blood stained earth, M.O.10 sample earth, M.O.11 blood stained cement plaster, MO. 12 sample cement plaster and M.O.13 blotting paper under Ex.P-5 mahazar attested by P.W.7. (j) After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable P.W.11 along with Ex.P-10 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. He then examined P.W.7 others. (k) In the meantime the accused appeared before P.W.15, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Police Station at 10.00 a.m. He also gave a statement to him. On the strength of the statement, P.W.15 registered a case in Crime No. 743 of 1985 under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C. Ex.P-21 is the printed F.I.R. Since the occurrence happened within the jurisdiction of Mallasamudram Police Station Limits, he made arrangements for the transfer of the F.I.R. to the said police station. (l) At 11.45 a.m. while P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode was available in his house, he received the express F.I.R. in Crime No.743 of 1985 of Tiruchengode Police Station. He immediately rushed and reached the Tiruchengode Police Station at 12.00 Noon and took up further investigation of the case. He arrested the accused then available there. On interrogation, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of P.W.8. Ex.P-6 is the admissible portion of the said confession statement attested by P.W.8 The accused took out and produced M.O.4 Koduval and M.O.14 Series five cartridges kept in the tool box in the lorry M.O.I parked in front of the Police Station and they were seized under Ex.P-7 mahazar attested by P.W.8. Ex.P-6 is the admissible portion of the said confession statement attested by P.W.8 The accused took out and produced M.O.4 Koduval and M.O.14 Series five cartridges kept in the tool box in the lorry M.O.I parked in front of the Police Station and they were seized under Ex.P-7 mahazar attested by P.W.8. (m) Since the accused was having certain injuries on his person, he had been sent to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode for the purpose of treatment. The accused was stated to have been treated as an out-patient in the hospital by P.W.5, the then Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchengode for certain injuries said to have been caused to him at 1.00 a.m. on 4.12.1985 by a known person. Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate, (n) Thereafter, the accused was brought to the police station at 1.45 p.m. P.W.1.6 then examined P.W.8 The accused took P.W.16 to Vennandhur where the accused pointed out a ditch in front of one Senthil Corporation situate at Rasipuram main road. From the said ditch, the accused took out and produced M.O.15 dhothi and the same had been seized under Ex.P-8 Mahazar attested by P.W.9. (o) He then took the accused to Vazhappadi Police Station. After reaching the said police station, he came to know that a case in Crime No.361/85 had been registered against the accused. He was further made aware that the button knife M.O.5 had been seized by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, Vazhappadi. He then took the accused to Mallasamudran Police Station and reached there at 12.30 (00-30) midnight. After reaching the accused, he seized from him M.O.6 pant, M.O.7 shirt, M.O.16 banian and M.O.17 underwear under Ex.P-9 form 95 attested by P.W.7. The next day viz., 5.12.1985 he sent accused to court for remand. (p) In the meantime P.W.10, the then Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Headquarters Hospital, Salem, on receipt of Ex.P-10 requisition conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased at 3.00 p.m. Ex.P-11 is the post mortem Certificate he issued. He found on the body 24 injuries. He would opine that injury Nos. 4, 5, 9, 11 to 14, 19 and 21 could have been caused by a weapon life Koduval, while the rest of the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like button knife. He found on the body 24 injuries. He would opine that injury Nos. 4, 5, 9, 11 to 14, 19 and 21 could have been caused by a weapon life Koduval, while the rest of the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like button knife. He would further opine that injury No.4 was necessary fatal and the cumulative effect of all the injuries was also necessarily fatal, (q) After the autopsy was over, P.W.11 seized from the body M.O.18 dhothi, M.O.19 shirt, M.O.20 towel, M.O.21 bed sheet, M.O.22 silver waist card and M.O.23 gold ring and handed over the same at the police station. (r) On 5.12.1985, P.W.17 examined P.W.6 and P.W.11. He also despatched the incriminating articles seized to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court No.4, Salem. On 19.12.1985 he examined P.W.10. On 2.1.1986 he sent Ex.P-12 requisition to court for sending the incriminating material objects, viz., M.Os. 3, 5, 9 to 18 to 21 to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis, (s) P.W. 12 was the then Head Clerk, Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court No.4 Salem. On receipt of Ex.P-12 requisition, she separately packed and despatched M.Os. 3, 5, 9 to 13 and 18 to 21 under the directions of learned Magistrate to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis, under the original of Ex.P-13, office copy of the letter. Exs. P-14 and P-15 are respectively the Chemical Examiner's and Serologist's reports. (t) P.W. 13 was the then Head Clerk attached to Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, Tiruchengode. On receipt of Ex. P-16 requisition from P.W. 16, the then Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode, he despatched M.Os. 4, 6, 7, 15 to 17 and other incriminating materials objects concerned in Crime No.229/85 of Mallasamudram Police Station to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis under the original of Ex.P-17 Office copy of the letter. Exs.P-18 and P-19 are respectively the Chemical Examiner's and Serologist's reports. (u) On 31.1.1986 P.W.17 examined P.Ws.5, 8 and 15. On 19.2.1986 he had been transferred and the successor Inspector by name Durai filed the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. against the accused under Secs.449 and 302, I.P.C. before the Judicial II Class Magistrate No.4, Salem. 4. Exs.P-18 and P-19 are respectively the Chemical Examiner's and Serologist's reports. (u) On 31.1.1986 P.W.17 examined P.Ws.5, 8 and 15. On 19.2.1986 he had been transferred and the successor Inspector by name Durai filed the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. against the accused under Secs.449 and 302, I.P.C. before the Judicial II Class Magistrate No.4, Salem. 4. (a) On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Secs.449 and 302, I.P.C. (b) The accused when questioned as respects the charges so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution in proof of the charges so framed, examined P.Ws.1 to 17, filed Exs.P-1 to P-23 and marked M.Os.1 to 23. 6. The accused when questioned as respects the incriminating circumstances available in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf. He would, however, file a written statement, in pith and substance, denying his participation in the crime during his examination under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the defence as well as learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered the verdict as above. 8. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- accused, would submit that the materials available on record in the shape of evidence oral and documentary, are shaky and slippery as is not possible to fasten or mulct criminal liability upon the appellant accused, as had been done by the court below, the consequence of which is that there is no other go for this Court except to acquit the accused appellant by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt, to which course Mr.R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent, would however, strike a discordant. 9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was having a grudge against the deceased Sengoda Gounder. The animosity or the embittered relationship between him and the deceased arose out of the refusal of the deceased to give his daughter P.W.4 in marriage to the accused. Not only the refusal to give his daughter in marriage, irritated the accused, by the hurling of insinuating remarks said to. have been made by the deceased, made the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased. Not only the refusal to give his daughter in marriage, irritated the accused, by the hurling of insinuating remarks said to. have been made by the deceased, made the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased. The deceased was stated to have remarked that he would rather prefer to give his daughter P.W.4 in marriage to a bugger rather than a person like the accused. This sort of a motive was sought to be projected and proved through P.W.1 and P.W.4, the son and daughter of the deceased. P.W. 1 though stated the motive aspect of the case of the prosecution during the course of the investigation, yet he resiled from such earlier version and turned hostile wholesale. But P.W.4 alone spoke to the motive aspect of the prosecution case. No doubt, motive is not a must in each and every case. Even motiveless murder may happen. If a motive is attributed to the accused, it may enable the court to assess the evidence in the best of fashion possible. Even accepting the testimony of P.W.4 as to the accused having some sort of a grudge against the deceased, inasmuch as he refused to give his daughter P.W.4 in marriage to the accused, even then such a motive by itself is of no consequence, in the absence of other evidence emerging from independent quarters pointing out the factum of the deceased having had a hand in the murder of the deceased. 10. No doubt true it is, the prosecution sought to prove the hand of the accused in the Commission of the murder of the deceased through P.Ws.2 and 3, the farm servants of the deceased, who were stated to be residing in the garden land itself. Both of them, though stated during the course of their examination before the police as to the accused being the assailant in inflicting certain stabs on the person of the deceased, which resulted in his death, yet during the course of trial turned hostile wholesale. However, their resiled earlier versions had been brought on record in the manner allowed by law. Apart from their resiled version, there is no other evidence pointing out the hand of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased. In such state of affairs, no safe reliance could be plased upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 for any purpose whatever. Apart from their resiled version, there is no other evidence pointing out the hand of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased. In such state of affairs, no safe reliance could be plased upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 for any purpose whatever. Consequently, we eschew their evidence out of consideration out and out. 11. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was stated to have reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the heinous crime of murder of the deceased and he was able to understand as to how the occurrence took place from P.Ws.2 and 3. No doubt, what P.W.1. heard from P.Ws.2 and 3 immediately after the occurrence, if proved, could very well be utilised as resgestae evidence under Sec.6 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, P.W.1. stated during the course of investigation as to what he heard from P.Ws.2 and 3. As adverted to earlier, he turned hostile wholesale to the prosecution and consequently, he denied everything during the course of trial. The beneficiary value of such testimony of his, is more or less practically nil, especially in the absence of other evidence on such aspects and therefore, the proved resiled version of his cannot be expected to improve or advance the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever. 12. What remains for consideration is the medical evidence available on record, in the shape of the testimony of the Doctor P.W.10 coupled with Ex.P-11 post mortem certificate pointing out the death of the deceased Sengoda Gounder due to homicidal violence, the sustaining of injuries by the accused on his person at or about the time of occurrence, as disclosed by the evidence of the Doctor P.W.5 coupled with Ex.P-2 wound certificate, recovery of M.O.15 dhothi from a ditch situate in front of Senthil Corporation located at Rasipuram main road atVennandhur containing human blood of ‘B’ group origin, which is the blood group of the deceased, besides the recovery of M.O.4 Koduval from the tool box kept in the lorry M.O. 1, the clothes of the accused, viz., M.Os. 6, 7, 16 and 17 seized by P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police containing human blood of ‘B’ group, which is the blood group of the deceased and M.0.5 button knife recovered from the scene containing human blood. 13. 6, 7, 16 and 17 seized by P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police containing human blood of ‘B’ group, which is the blood group of the deceased and M.0.5 button knife recovered from the scene containing human blood. 13. There is no pale of controversy that the deceased Sengoda Gounder died of homicidal violence, as disclosed by the testimony of the Doctor P.W.10 coupled with Ex.P-11 post mortem certificate he issued. No doubt, the said Doctor found on the person of the accused 24 injuries and of them, injury Nos.4, 5, 9, 11 to 14, 19 and 21, he would say, could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.4 Koduval and the rest of the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.5 button knife. There is no evidence aliunde in the shape of evidence-direct or circumstantial, to point out that the accused wielded the weapons M.O.4 and M.O.5 in inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased Sengoda Gounder. The fact that the accused was found to be having certain injuries on his person as disclosed by the testimony of the Doctor P. W.5, coupled with the wound certificate Ex.P-2 is of no consequence, in the absence of any independent evidence that he sustained such injuries while inflicting a frontal attack on the person of the deceased. Thus, from the medical evidence available on record alone it is well nigh not possible to infer connection between the accused appellant and the crime of the murder of the deceased Sengoda Gounder. 14. No doubt, M.O.4 Koduval contains human blood of ‘B’ group origin, which is the blood group of the deceased. This sort of a circumstances may establish the connection between the said weapon and the crime of murder of the deceased. The clothes of the accused, viz., M.Os.6, 7 and 15 to 17 were found stained with human blood of ‘B’ group origin, which is that of the deceased person. This sort of a circumstances may establish the connection between the said weapon and the crime of murder of the deceased. The clothes of the accused, viz., M.Os.6, 7 and 15 to 17 were found stained with human blood of ‘B’ group origin, which is that of the deceased person. Human blood of ‘B’ group origin in the clothes of the accused is by itself not sufficient to come to the one and only conclusion that the perpetrator of the crime of the murder of the deceased was none else than the accused and such a circumstance could be taken into account as a lending assurance factor pointing out the hand of the accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased, if there are evidence aliened as to his having been involved in the commission of the murder of the deceased. 15. For the reasons above, the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt and finding him not guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. by setting aside the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon him by the court below. 16. In fine, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon him by the court below under Sec.302, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted thereof by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. B.S.-----Appeal allowed.