Mrs.A.Subbulakshmy, J.: The accused/appellants were charged for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 7.4.1989 at 4.30 a.m. at Elapalayam Bypass Road, Erode, due to previous enmity, the first appellant/A-1 stabbed the deceased Kumarasamy on his head and the second appellant/A-2 Perumal squeezed the testacies of the deceased and caused death to him. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows: P.W.2 is the second wife of the deceased Kumarasamy. A-2 is the paternal uncle’s son of the deceased Kumarasamy. A-1 is the son of A-2. There is previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the accused. P.W.2 went to her parents house at Pallipalayam and while she was there, P.W.4 came and informed her that her husband was lying dead on the date of occurrence due to lorry accident. 3. P.W.2 immediately along with her parents came to the scene of occurrence. When she reached the scene of occurrence, she found the police people, there. P.W.2 has turned hostile. On 7.4.1989 at 9.30 a.m., when the village Administrative Officer of Villarammaptti Village was in his office, P.W.2 came to his office and informed him that her husband was lying dead and she orally stated the matter. P.W.1 recorded her complaint Ex.P-1 and obtained her signature. P.W.1 prepared three copies of it and he sent one copy to the Tahsildar, one copy to the Judicial Magistrate III, Erode, and retained one copy with him. 4. In Ex.P-1, P.W.2 stated before P.W.1 that she suspects that A-1 and A-2 would have caused the death of her husband Kumarasamy. P.W.1 along with his menials went to the scene of occurrence and he was present, when the Inspector of Police prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P-3, which is attested by P.W.1 and one Kaviyarasu. P.W.1 was also present, when the Inspector recovered the blood stained earth M.O.1, plain earth M.O.2, Hercules cycle M.O.3, Gunny Bag, M.O.4, coconuts contained in the gunny bag M.O.5 series, knife M.O.6 under Mahazar Ex.P-4, which is also attested by P.W.1 Kaviyarasu. 5. P.W.3, the mother of the deceased has stated that there is enmity between her family and the family of the accused and about twenty years back, the accused stabbed her husband Ramasamy Gounder. 5. P.W.3, the mother of the deceased has stated that there is enmity between her family and the family of the accused and about twenty years back, the accused stabbed her husband Ramasamy Gounder. On the date of occurrence, the deceased, son of P.W.3 was going in the cycle M.O.3 carrying gunny bag M.O.4 containing coconuts M.O.5 series to Erode. P.W.5 came and informed P.W.3 that her son Kumarasamy was lying dead with cut injuries. P.W.5 has turned hostile and he speaks in his evidence that while he was in his house, Ponnusamy and Chinnasamy, not examined, came and informed him that the deceased Kumarasamy was lying dead due to lorry accident. 6. P.W.10 the Sub-Inspector of Police on 7.4.1989 at 11.30 a.m. received Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 from P.W. 1 and registered it in Crime No.431 of 1989 under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and prepared the first information report Ex.P-15. He sent the first information report Ex.P-15 along with Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 to the Judicial Magistrate III, Erode and he also sent a copy of the first information report Ex.P-15 to the higher authorities P.W.11, on receipt of Ex.P-15, took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence at 12.45 p.m. and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.1 and Kaviyarasu and also drew rough sketch Ex.P-16 and recovered the material objects. P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body of Kumarasamy between 2 and 5 p.m. on that date and prepared inquest report Ex.P-17 and also sent the dead body of Kumarasamy to post mortem through P.W.8 along with his requisition Ex.P-8. 7. P.W.7, the doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kumarasamy and he found on him the following injuries: 1. Abrasion 2“X 1” over left upper arm. 2. Lacerated injury 1“X 1/2” right side forehead downwards and medially bone deep. 3. Incised wound over the right parietal region 2“X 1” bone deep downwards laterally. 4. Incised wound over the left side scalp 5“X 2” extending medially up to the forehead exposing the bone and brain matter. 5. Punctured wound over the eyebrow left side 1“X 1/2” bone deep. 6. Abrasion over the neck circular 2“x 1/2” left side. 7. Ecchymosis scrotal skin present yester and cord normal, contusion right side face 2“X 2”. 8. 4. Incised wound over the left side scalp 5“X 2” extending medially up to the forehead exposing the bone and brain matter. 5. Punctured wound over the eyebrow left side 1“X 1/2” bone deep. 6. Abrasion over the neck circular 2“x 1/2” left side. 7. Ecchymosis scrotal skin present yester and cord normal, contusion right side face 2“X 2”. 8. P.W.7 is of the opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemohage due to head injury about 24 to 32 hours prior to autopsy. He has given the post mortem certificate Ex.P-9. He stated that injuries Nos.2 and 4 are possible by cutting with an aruval like M.0.7 and external injuries Nos.3 and 5 are possible by stabbing with a knife like M.O.6 and all the fracture of bones in the head are the corresponding internal injuries to the external injury Nos.3 and 4 in Ex.P-9. The death could have been instantaneous and the external injuries Nos.3 and. 4 mentioned in Ex.P-9 are not possible by hit by a lorry. External injuries Nos.3 and 4 and the corresponding internal injury mentioned in Ex.P-9 are fatal and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. P.W.8, after post mortem, recovered the dress worn by the deceased M.O.9 and M.O.10 and produced it before P.W.11. 9. On 10.4.1989, at 9 a.m. at Erode Sithode Road, P.W.11 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and recorded his confessional statement Ex.P-5 and as per the admissible portion of the confessional statement Ex.P-5, P.W.11 along with the witnesses went to Umaiyanthottam and A-1 produced M.O.7 knife and P.W.11 recovered it under Mahazar Ex.P-6. Then, A-1 took P.W.11 and others to the house of his father-in-law and produced the motor cycle M.O.8. P.W.11 recovered it under mahazar Ex.P-7 in the presence of witnesses. M.O.8 contained two boxes and the box on the right side was found blood stained. P.W.11 sent both the accused for remand, the material objects to the court and gave requisition Ex.P-10 for sending the material objects for chemical. Analysis and the chemical analyst’s report Ex.P-12 was received. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused. 10. P.W.11 sent both the accused for remand, the material objects to the court and gave requisition Ex.P-10 for sending the material objects for chemical. Analysis and the chemical analyst’s report Ex.P-12 was received. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused. 10. The case was tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode and he found both the accused guilty under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. As against the conviction and sentence, the appeal is directed. 11. The point for consideration is as to whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is not even an iota of evidence in this case to link the accused with the alleged offence and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused are found guilty for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 13. Learned Government Advocate on the criminal side has also fairly submitted that except the motive and the recovery of M.O.7 knife under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence available in this case to connect the accused with the alleged occurrence. 14. There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence in this case to link the accused with the alleged occurrence. P.W.2 the second wife of the deceased has turned hostile. While P.W.2 was in her parents house in Palliapalayam Village, she was informed by P.W.4 about the death of her husband due to lorry accident. Immediately, she came to the scene of occurrence with her parents and saw the dead body of her husband kumarasamy. 15. P.W. 1 is the Village Administrative Officer. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that P.W.2 appeared before him on 7.4.1989 at 9.30 a.m. and narrated that due to some cart track dispute, her husband Kumarasamy, the deceased would have been done to death. He recorded her statement Ex.P-1. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that P.W.2 narrated before P.W.1 that the assailants would have been A-1 and A-2 and they would have caused the death of her husband Kumarasamy. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P-1 as per the narration of P.W.2 before him. He recorded her statement Ex.P-1. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that P.W.2 narrated before P.W.1 that the assailants would have been A-1 and A-2 and they would have caused the death of her husband Kumarasamy. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P-1 as per the narration of P.W.2 before him. Accordingly, he has prepared three copies of Ex.P-1 and sent one copy to the Tahsildar, one copy to the Magistrate and retained one copy with him. But P.W.2 has stated a different version in her evidence, when she was examined in court, she has categorically stated that her husband died due to lorry accident and she was informed only like that. Her oral evidence before the court is contra to what was narrated before P.W.1. 16. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that at 12 noon, he along with his menials went to the scene of occurrence where he found the Inspector of Police, who had also arrived there Ex.P-3 observation mahazar was prepared and M.Os.1 to 6 were also recovered under mahazar Ex.P-4. But the evidence of P.W.10 is that on 7.4.1989 at 11.30 a.m. he received Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 through P.W.1 registered the case in Crime No.431 of 1989 under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code, prepared Ex.P-15 and sent Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-15 to the Judicial Magistrate and also sent a copy of that to the Inspector of Police P.W.11 for investigation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police on 7.4.1989 at 12.30 p.m. received Ex.P-15 took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and also prepared observation mahazar. He also recovered M.Os.1 to 6 under Ex.P-4. 17. The evidence of P.W.1 varies from the evidence of P.W.10. P.W.1 does not speak in his evidence that he went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. The evidence of P.W.1 is that after recording Ex.P-1, he straightaway went to the scene of occurrence along with his menials and there, he saw the Inspector of Police P.W.11, the observation mahazar was prepared and the material objects were recovered. The evidence of P.W.1 is that only after the receipt of Ex.P-1. Ex.P-2, and Ex.P-15, he took up investigation and visited the scene of occurrence. It is not known from the evidence of P.W.1 as to how Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 reached the police station. The evidence of P.W.1 is that only after the receipt of Ex.P-1. Ex.P-2, and Ex.P-15, he took up investigation and visited the scene of occurrence. It is not known from the evidence of P.W.1 as to how Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 reached the police station. There is no connecting link for the receipt of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 from P.W.1 in the police station by P.W.10, who registered the case. 18. The evidence on the side of the prosecution, even with regard to the complaint Ex.P-1, is not cogent and consistent. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the occurrence is distinct and not corroborative. P.W.2 has stated that the deceased died of lorry accident and she was informed accordingly. But, P.W.2 before P.W.1 in Ex.P-1 has stated that A-1 and A-2 would have caused the death of her husband Kumarasamy. P.W.3 the mother of the deceased had also stated that on the date of occurrence at 7.30 a.m., the Inspector of Police came to the scene of occurrence where the dead body of Kumarasamy was lying. Similarly, P.W.4 has also stated that when he along with others went to the scene of occurrence, he found the police people there. The evidence of P.W.3 also shows that P.W.5 came and informed her that the deceased Kumarasamy was involved in lorry accident. 19. So, the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with P.W.3 and P.W.4 and this part of inconsistent evidence creates doubt with regard to the genuineness of Ex.P-1, A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 leads to irresistible conclusion that Ex.P-1 itself is doubtful. Even though the doctor conducted the post mortem, has found seven external injuries on the dead body of the deceased Kumarasamy and he has also given the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury and because of the injuries, death would have been instantaneous and injuries No.3 and 4 and corresponding internal injury in Ex.P-9 are fatal and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that except external injuries Nos.3 and 4 and the corresponding internal injuries, other injuries mentioned in Ex.P-9 are possible by hit by a lorry. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that except external injuries Nos.3 and 4 and the corresponding internal injuries, other injuries mentioned in Ex.P-9 are possible by hit by a lorry. So, the medical evidence is not much corroborative and the evidence of P.W.7 also lead to suspicion with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The medical evidence cannot be stated to be supporting to the case of the prosecution. 20. P.W.11 arrested the accused at 9 a.m. on 10.4.1989 and recorded the confessional statement of A-1. The evidence of P.W.11 shows that as per the admissible portion of evidence of A-1 in Ex.P-3, A-1 took him and the witnesses P.W.6 and another Chinnasamy to Umaiyanthottam, and produced M.O.7 knife from that place and P.W.11 recovered it under mahazar Ex.P-6. A-1 also took P.W.11 and P.W.6 and other witnesses to the house of his father-in-law and he produced the motor cycle M.O.8 and P.W.11 recovered it under mahazar Ex.P-7. Even though the knife M.O.7 was recovered from A.1, since the recovery of the weapon M.O.7 from A-1 was not supported by corroborated evidence with regard to the involvement of the weapon M.O.7 in the occurrence, the mere recovery of M.O.7 from A-1 under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act will not establish the guilt of the accused. None of the witnesses have spoken in their evidence with regard to the use of weapon M.O.7 in the alleged occurrence. Under the circumstances, even though M.O.7 was produced by A-1 and recovered from him, the mere recovery alone will not leas to come to the conclusion that the accused were involved in the occurrence. There is no connective evidence to prove that the weapon M.O.7 was used in the involvement of the occurrence by the accused. In the absence of such connected evidence in the alleged occurrence with regard to the weapon M.O.7, recovered from A-1, from the mere recovery, it cannot be concluded that the accused were involved in the occurrence and they had committed the alleged offence. 21. It has been held in the case of Rambilas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3954, that the recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, assuming it to be true, the same cannot form the basis for conviction. 21. It has been held in the case of Rambilas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3954, that the recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance of the accused under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act, assuming it to be true, the same cannot form the basis for conviction. As there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the recovery of M.O.7, following the said decision of the Supreme Court, we find that the recovery of M.O.7 at the instance of the accused cannot form the basis for conviction. 22. Further the chemical analysis report Ex.P-14 also reveals that even though the blood found in the material objects was human blood, the grouping test was inconclusive. So, even the chemical analysis report does not support the case of the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the occurrence. The evidence on the side of the prosecution is inconsistent and not cogent and it is quite unsafe to convict and sentence the accused on the basis of such inconsistent and uncorroborative evidence. Hence, we find that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the accused are directed to be released forthwith, if they are confined in prison.