Judgment : T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant who was accused in S. C. No. 133/87 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, and convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has challenged the said conviction and sentence in this Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE deceased was one Murga Gounder and he was the father of the appellant. There was some misunderstanding between the deceased and the appellant with regard to leasing of the land, which has been allotted to the appellant in the partition. The appellant wanted to lease out the said land to PW 5 which was not liked by the deceased and the deceased prevented the appellant from leasing the land to PW5. According to the prosecution, this was the motive for committing the murder of the deceased by the appellant. ( 3 ) ON 28-4-1987 when the deceased was coming after attending the festival, he was attacked by the appellant with Aruval, M. O. 1, near the land of PW 3. After the incident, the prosecution case was that accused went to PW1, who is a Village Administrative Officer of a nearby village and gave a statement which was recorded by PW 1 as per Ex. P1. PW 1 prepared copies of the said statement and obtained signature of the accused and went to the spot where the body was lying and prepared his report as per Ex. P3 and P4. He sent Ex. PT and P3 to Mothur Police Station and Ex. P2 and P4 to the judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, through a menial. PW7 who is a Grade I Police Constable of Mathur Police Station received Ex. PT and P3 and registered a case in Crime No. 931 87 at 11. 30 a. m. for an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. He sent Ex. PT and P3 along with First Information Report to the Court as well as to his superiors. PW 10, (he Inspector of Police, after receipt of the said First Information Report, came to the Police station and took the Sub-Inspector of Police and other Constables, to the spot at about 12 noon. PT and P3 along with First Information Report to the Court as well as to his superiors. PW 10, (he Inspector of Police, after receipt of the said First Information Report, came to the Police station and took the Sub-Inspector of Police and other Constables, to the spot at about 12 noon. The accused was detained by PW1 and PW10 arrested the accused from the custody of PW1 and obtained a statement in the presence of PW 1, the admissible portion which is marked as Ex. PS. M. O. 1 Billhook, was recovered from the house of the accused under Ex. P6 in the presence of PW1. PW1o prepared Observation Mahazar as per Ex. P7 and prepared a rough sketch as per Ex. P18. He conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex. P19 between 3. 20 and 6 p. m. During the course of inquest, he recorded the statements of PW5 1, 3 and 5. He arranged to take the photographs through PW 6. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination through a Police Constable, PW 8. He collected the sample of blood stained earth. M. O. 5 and sample earth, M. O. 6 and M. O. 8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, near the house of the deceased, under Ex. P8 and it was attested by PW1. ( 4 ) P. W. 2, the doctor, after receipt of the dead body, conducted autopsy at 11. 30 a. m. on 29-4- 1987. He noticed the following injuries:1. A lacerated wound extending from the left mostoid, bone to the left eye cutting the left ear in the middle 7 x itt x 1/2 with blood clot. 2. A lacerated wound on the front of the neck 5 x 2 1 with blood clots. 3. A lacerated wound on the lower jaw right side 6 x 2 1/2 with blood clot horizontally placed. 4. A lacerated wound on the occupital region 6 x itt 1 12 with blood clot. ( 5 ) A lacerated wound extending from the right mostoid bone to the right maxilla cutting the right ear in the middle 5 x 1 x itt with blood clot. 5. According to the doctor the deceased would appear to have died of due to multiple fractures of the skull bone and haemorrhage about 31 to 33 hours prior to autopsy. He issued postmortem report under Ex. 5. According to the doctor the deceased would appear to have died of due to multiple fractures of the skull bone and haemorrhage about 31 to 33 hours prior to autopsy. He issued postmortem report under Ex. P. W. 10. PW-8. recovered M. O. s II to 13 from the body of the deceased. Further investigation was taken up by PW-11 who recorded the statements of PW-4 and others. He sent the properties for chemical examination and after receipt of the reports of Chemical Examiner as well as Serologist as per Ex. P16 and P17 and after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet on 3-7-1987 for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 6 ) ON committal the learned Session Judge has framed a charge under Section 302 I. P. C. and the appellant pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW5 1 to 11 were examined and Ex. P-i to P-20 were got marked and M. O. s 1 to 14 were produced before the Court. The defence of the accused was that he has not committed the murder and the deceased died due to motor vehicle accident and a false complaint has been given against him involving the said case. He has filed a written statement along with 313 Cr. P. C. statement. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial by judgment dated 29-12-1988 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. ( 8 ) WE heard the learned Advocate Mr. J. Saravannvel, on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent. The learned Advocate has submitted that the Court below was not justified in placing reliance on Ex. P-i, the so called statement made by the accused before PW-1. He also submitted that the said statement cannot be believed and it is very artificial, and the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in placing reliance on the said statement and convicted the appellant. He has also stated that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant had motive to commit the murder of his father in placing reliance on the evidence of PW5 3 and 5. He has also stated that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant had motive to commit the murder of his father in placing reliance on the evidence of PW5 3 and 5. According to the learned Advocate, recovery of M. O. 1, the blood stained bill hook from the house of the accused was artificial and it cannot be a basis for conviction and on these grounds, he has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the accused. ( 9 ) ON the other hand the learned Additional Government Pleader has placed reliance on the statement of the appellant recorded by P. W. 1. He has pointed out that P. W. 1 is a responsible officer, being the Village Administrative Officer and there is nothing wrong for the learned Sessions Judge to place reliance on the said statement to convict the appellant, He has further pointed out that there was sufficient motive for the appellant to commit an offence of murder. ( 10 ) LET us examine the present case in the light of the materials placed by the prosecution as well as in the light of arguments advanced by the learned Advocates on either side. There is no dispute that the deceased Muruga Gounder was met with an homicidal death in view of the evidence given by the doctor. PW-2 under Ex. P-10. postmortem report. The only material on which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused was the statement of the accused. Ex. P-i given before PW-1. Let us examine whether the said statement, Ex. P-i can be a basis for convicting the appellant. The learned Advocate took us through Ex. P-i. From Ex. P-i, it could be noticed that all the details have been given by the appellant including the motive for commission of the offence, and the manner in which the death was caused and the concealment of weapon by him. According to the said statement he has committed the murder of his father at about 3. 30 a. m. during night and he has also stated in the statement that he waited for an opportunity to commit the murder of his father and at that night when his father returned from the festival, he committed the murder near the field of PW3. 30 a. m. during night and he has also stated in the statement that he waited for an opportunity to commit the murder of his father and at that night when his father returned from the festival, he committed the murder near the field of PW3. When the accused has taken so much care while committing the murder in the night time without being noticed by anybody, it is hard to believe the statement of the accused that all of a sudden he has changed his mind and went to PW-i to confess what he has done the murder before PW 1. PW 1 is a Village Administrative Officer, who usually resides at Mathur, which is 10 houses away from the Police Station but accused had given the statement at Sonarahalli village in a hotel when number of persons were present. There is no material to show how the accused came to know that PW 1 had gone to that village so to make a statement before him. Further according to the said statement, it was given in a tea shop when number of persons were present at the time of making the said statement. The prosecution has not examined anybody from the tea shop. Further, Ex. PT was attested by one, Sekar. Sekar has not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been given why he has not been examined. The said Ex. P-i was received by Grade J Police Constable of Mathur Police Station at about 11. 30 a. m. when the Police Station is hardly at a distance of 4 km. away from the place of incident. It has come in the evidence that PW-i had a cycle in his possession. According to us the statement given by the appellant before PW 1 cannot be a basis for convicting him as it is very artificial. The next circumstance is the motive spoken to by PW5 3 and 5. PW5 has been treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW3 has stated that the accused came to him and asked him to convince his father to give the land to PW5 for lease. This is the main motive according to the prosecution to commit the murder of his father. This motive is very trivial and it is hard to believe that the appellant would have gone to the extent of committing the murder of his father. This is the main motive according to the prosecution to commit the murder of his father. This motive is very trivial and it is hard to believe that the appellant would have gone to the extent of committing the murder of his father. It has come in the evidence that on the previous the accused and the deceased were working together in building the house and their relationship was so clause and cordial it is hard to believe that all of a sudden the accused has decided to commit the murder of his father. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in holding that there was motive for the appellant to commit the murder of his father. The other piece of evidence is that recovery of M. O. 1 from the house of the accused. We cannot place reliance on this circumstance because in Ex. P-i itself the appellant has stated the place where he has concealed the said weapon. There was no question of seizure of weapon in the statement regarding the recovery of weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further more, it is admitted by PW5, that though he has been treated hostile that the police has smeared blood in the said weapon during the time it was seized. Hence we are not prepared to place reliance on this piece of evidence. There is no other material collected by the prosecution to convict the appellant. Hence we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the above said circumstance to convict the appellant. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is in custody and if he is not required in connection with any other case. It he is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.