R.Balasubramanian, J.: The appellant in this appeal is the accused in S.C.No.142 of 1993 on the file of Court of Sessions, Coimbatore. He was tried for offences under Sec.302, I.P.C. (2 counts) and 201, I.P.C. (2 counts). He was found guilty in respect of both the offences and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on each count for the offence of murder and two years rigorous imprisonment on each count under Sec.201, I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The convicted accused has challenged the said judgment before this Court in this appeal. 2. Heard Mr.N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.Jayakutnar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. 3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is as follows: P.W.3 has four elder sisters, the eldest being Vanaja. Vanaja was already married to one Mani. Mani and the accused are friends. The accused often used to visit the house of Vanaja and Mani at Dindigul. Meera is the younger sister of Vanaja. In other words, she is also the sister of P.W.3. The accused married Meera. The family of Mani and the family of the accused settled themselves in separate establishment at Dindigul though side by side. Uma Maheswari is the daughter born to Vanaja out of her lawful wedlock with Mani. P.W.2 is the son of the accused and Meera. Besides P.W.2, the accused and Meera had one son Indirakumar and a daughter Deepa. Mani died. Meera also died later on. Taking into account, the welfare of the young children, the accused married Vanaja due to the intervention of the elders. The accused is a rickshaw puller by profession. P.W.5 is the younger sister of the accused. P.W.6 is the daughter of P.W.5. They were residing at Periyanayakan Palayam. P.W.7 is the elder brother of the accused and he was also residing at Periyanayakan Palayam. He was a lorry driver by profession. As the accused was having some difficulty in maintaining his family, except P.W.3 all the others have settled down at Periyanayakan Palayam in Coimbatore. They were living as tenants in the house of Subramani, examined as P.W.9. In that house, the accused, Vanaja, Uma Maheswari, P.W.2 and other children were residing. The accused was having a lottery shop opposite to Mahalakshmi Bakery. He was also selling peanuts in a mobile cart in the evening times. They were living as tenants in the house of Subramani, examined as P.W.9. In that house, the accused, Vanaja, Uma Maheswari, P.W.2 and other children were residing. The accused was having a lottery shop opposite to Mahalakshmi Bakery. He was also selling peanuts in a mobile cart in the evening times. Vanaja was employed in the house of P.W.4 as a house-maid. P.W.4 was employed as a teacher in a school where Uma Maheswari was studying her 9th standard. There was some money in the name of Uma Maheswari in the bank of Dindigul. To raise loan on that deposit, accused and Vanaja went to Dindigul and raised a loan. Thereafter, they went to see P.W.3. The accused told P.W.3 that he will arrange his marriage with Uma Maheswari and assuring employment for him at Coimbatore, invited him to come over to Coimbatore. 4. Accordingly, P.W.3 went to Coimbatore and was selling peanuts in a mobile cart by staying in the house of the accused. P.W.6 is a neighbour to the accused. P.W.8 owns the house in which P.W.6 is residing. On 14.12.1991, the accused vacated the house and went to another house which is behind Mahalakshmi Bakery. P.W.11 is a neighbour to the accused in that new establishment. On the morning of 23.12.1991, Vanaja went for her household work. The accused went to his shop and returned. At that time, P.Ws.2, 3 and other children were inside the house and were sleeping. The accused attempted to outrage the modesty of Uma Maheswari when she was on the bed covered with a blanket. Uma Maheswari shouted. Seeing P.W.3, the accused leaving Uma Maheswari went out. Uma Maheswari went inside the kitchen. There also the accused followed her and catching hold of her hands tried to give her some problem. Uma Maheswari again resisted which made the accused to come out. Hearing the noise, P.W.3 goes to the kitchen and enquiries Uma Maheswari. Uma Maheswari told him that the accused has been misbehaving with her since the last six nonths and that he had informed about it to her mother Vanaja. Vanaja returned home at 9.30 a.m. P.W.3 told her that the accused being in the position of father by relation to Uma Maheswari, cannot conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner towards her. Therefore, he asked Vanaja to accompany him to Dindigul. Vanaja returned home at 9.30 a.m. P.W.3 told her that the accused being in the position of father by relation to Uma Maheswari, cannot conduct himself in such a reprehensible manner towards her. Therefore, he asked Vanaja to accompany him to Dindigul. Stating that if she goes with P.W.3, all the children will become orphans, she refused to come. She also told P.W.3 at that time that she would some how or other arrange for the marriage of Uma Maheswari within a month. P.W.3 picking up a quarrel with Vanaja let for Dindigul on the same evening. On 24.12.1991, in the morning, Vanaja went to the house of P.W.4 as usual for doing the house hold work. Vanaja was accompanied by Uma Maheswari. On that evening, Vanaja did not report for duty. 5. At 2.00 a.m. on 25.12.1991, i.e., immediately after the midnight of 24.12.1991, P.W.10 returned from Jayanthi theatre after the late night show was over. He went to Mahalakshmi Bakery to have cup of tea. There he saw the accused pushing a three tyre cart, marked in this case as M.O.3, on which he saw a gunny bag and some objects covered with a mat and M.O.4. P.W.10 asked the accused as to where he is going at that late hour. The accused told that he is going to burn old clothes. P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.4 on 25.12.1991 and informed her that as her mother and daughter had gone out of town, they wanted a week’s leave and that he was asked to say so by his father/ accused. 6. P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer. At 2.45 p.m. on 26.12.1991, in lis office, his village menial, not examined in this case, informed him that in Coimbatore-Mettupalayam road near Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Polytechnic on the roadside, two totally charged decomposed bodies are found lying. P.W.1 immediately goes there and observes the two bodies. He goes to the police station, where before P.W.20, he gives a written complaint which stands marked as Ex.P-1 in Crime No.333/91 under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex.P-39 is the printed first information report The material records were sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials. P.W.21 is the Investigating Officer, who on receipt of information about this crime at 3.30 p.m. on 26.12.1991, reached the place where the dead bodies were lying. Ex.P-39 is the printed first information report The material records were sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials. P.W.21 is the Investigating Officer, who on receipt of information about this crime at 3.30 p.m. on 26.12.1991, reached the place where the dead bodies were lying. In the presence of P.W.15 and another, he prepared Ex.P-27, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-40, the plan at about 4.00 p.m. From that place he recovered M.O.13, chappal, under Ex.P-28 in the presence of the witnesses. Between 5.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. he conducted inquest over the first dead body and from 7.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. he conducted inquest over the second dead body. Exs.P-41 and 42 are the respective inquest reports. He examined P.W.1 and others and recorded their statements. He sent the two dead bodies for post mortem alongwith requisitions Exs.P-21 and P-22 through P.W.16, the police constable. Even in those requisitions he made a request to the medical officer to preserve the skulls for later expert examination. 7. P.W.14 is the Doctor on duty, who on receipt of requisitions, did post mortem on the first dead body, during which time he found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P-23, the post mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the dead body belongs to a female aged about 25 to 40 years and the death could have been caused as a result of head injuries sustained. Burns, lesions found on the body are post mortem in nature. For convenience sake, at this stage, we will refer this post mortem report as one relates to Vanaja (hereinafter called as D-1) assuming that the prosecution had established the identity of the dead body. Then, he did post mortem on the second dead body, during which time, he found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P-24, the post mortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the body which he examined belonged to a female aged about 12 to 14 and the death could have occurred due to the head injuries. The burns found on the dead body are post mortem in nature. For convenience sake, we will also refer this post mortem report as one relates to Uma Maheswari (hereinafter called as D-2). The burns found on the dead body are post mortem in nature. For convenience sake, we will also refer this post mortem report as one relates to Uma Maheswari (hereinafter called as D-2). Since Exs.P-23 and P-24 are in English, we do not propose to restate the symptoms noted therein once again in this judgment in order to save time. P.W.16 was present throughout the post mortem. After post mortem he recovered M.Os.14 to 25 from the dead bodies and produced the same before the investigating officer along with his special report Ex.P-29. 8. P.W.11, a neighbour of the accused, noticed the accused vacating the house on 29.12.1991 and at that time, he did not see D-1 and D-2 in his company. When P.W.11 asked him as to why he is vacating the house, the accused replied that the house has no semblance of fortune in his favour. P.W.4 received Ex.P-6, letter addressed to her on 31.12.1991. The senders name were mentioned in that letter as Vanaja and Uma. P.W.9 received an inland letter marked in this case as Ex.P-8 on 31.1.1991 delivered to him by the postman. As the letter was addressed to the accused, he took the same to handover it to P.W.6, who is residing in the house of P.W.8. P.W.6 was not there and therefore, he gave the letter to P.W.8. P.W.8 took that letter and gave it to P.W.7, the elder brother of the accused. F.W.7 opened the letter and read it and that letter shows that both D-1 and D-2 are hale and healthy at Trichy. When P.W.3 was at Dindigul, a person by name Dharmaraj came to see him and informed him that both D-1 and D-2 are not to be seen and enquired him as to whether they have come there. But P.W.3 replied in the negative D-1 and D-2 were searched for. But they were not available. P.W.2 came to Dindigul on 3.1.1992 to the house of P.W.3 and told him about the occurrence. P.W.2 also informed his aunt that the accused had taken shelter in the Mariamman temple. Accordingly, P.Ws.2, 3 and P.W.2’s aunt went to the temple where they did not find the accused. Immediately P.W.3 took P.W.2 to the police station at Pappanayakan Palayam, Coimbatore and reached the police station at 1.00 p.m. on 4.1.1992. P.W.2 also informed his aunt that the accused had taken shelter in the Mariamman temple. Accordingly, P.Ws.2, 3 and P.W.2’s aunt went to the temple where they did not find the accused. Immediately P.W.3 took P.W.2 to the police station at Pappanayakan Palayam, Coimbatore and reached the police station at 1.00 p.m. on 4.1.1992. At that time, P.W.21 the Inspector of Police was available before whom P.W.3 gave a statement which was reduced into writing and exhibited in this case as Ex.P-5. Accordingly, the section of offence was altered into one under Sec.302, I.P.C.. Ex.P-43 is the altered printed first information report. The altered first information report was sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials. At about 2.30 p.m. on that day, P.W.2 identified House No.27 in the police Lane at Bharathi Nagar in Periyanayakan Palayam. P.W.21 in the presence of P.W.1 2 and another prepared Ex.P-9, observation mahazar and Ex.P-44, the rough sketch. At 3.30 p.m. from that house, M.Os. 5 and 6 were recovered under Ex.P-10 attested by same witnesses. At 4.30 p.m. on the same day, on being shown by P.W.2, from D.No.12-A, Anna Nagar, Pappanayakan Palayam, M.Os.4, 7, 8 to 12 and M.Os. 11 to 14 were recovered under Ex.P-15 attested by the same witnesses. At 6.00 p.m. on the same day, on P.W.2 pointing out M.O.3 came to be recovered under Ex.P-16 attested by same witnesses. P.W.21 continued the investigation and examined further witnesses. He recovered M.O.8 produced by P.W.7 and examined him. At about 8.30 p.m. on that day, he examined P.Ws.10 and 11 and recorded their statements. On 5.1.1992, he examined P.W.4 and recovered M.O.6, letter. On the same day, he examined P.Ws.8 and 9 and recorded their statements. On 6.1.1992, he gave a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, to record the statement of the witnesses. Ex.P-17 is the requisition. Accordingly, P.W.13, the Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6 under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex.P-18 is the statement so recorded from P.W.2 and Ex.P-19 is a similar statement from P.W.6. While Ex.P-20 is the statement of P.W.5. P.W.21 came to know that on 9.1.1992 the accused surrendered in Court. On 10.1.1992 he recovered from P.W.4 a video cassette and with the help of P.W.18, the video shop owner, converted the video clippings into photographs. Ex.P-18 is the statement so recorded from P.W.2 and Ex.P-19 is a similar statement from P.W.6. While Ex.P-20 is the statement of P.W.5. P.W.21 came to know that on 9.1.1992 the accused surrendered in Court. On 10.1.1992 he recovered from P.W.4 a video cassette and with the help of P.W.18, the video shop owner, converted the video clippings into photographs. Those photographs were shown to P.Ws.2 and 3, who identified D-1 and D-2 in those photographs. P.W.19, is the photographer who took photographs of D-1 and D-2 from that record and M.O.17 series are the photographs. On the same day, he examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and P.Ws. 18 and 19 and recorded their statements. On 13.1.1992, he recovered M.O.7 series from P.W.19 and M.O.38 series its negatives. The photographs were shown to P.Ws.2 to 4 and they again identified the persons found in the photograph. He applied to the Court for police custody of the accused. Accordingly, police custody was given. While in police custody, on 14.1.1992, in the presence of P.W.1 and another, P.W.21, had taken the sample signature and handwriting of the accused, which are exhibited in this case as Ex.P-2 series. At 10.30 a.m. on that day, on the accused pointing out a place, M.O.1, the chappal was recovered under Ex.P-3 attested by witnesses. At about 11.30 a.m. on the same day, at the instance of the accused, M.O.2 came to be recovered under Ex.P-4 attested by the same witnesses. The accused was surrendered by him in Court on the same day. All the case properties were sent to the Court with a requisition Ex.P-30 to subject the same for chemical examination; for being examined by a handwriting expert as well for conducting super imposition test. As an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-31, the case properties were sent to the respective departments and Exs.P-32 to P-34 are the reports. The Investigating Officer gave requisition Ex.P-35 to send Ex.P-2 series and Ex;.P-6, 8 and 12 for handwriting expert’s opinion. As an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-36, the documents were sent to the handwriting expert. Ex.P-37 is the report regard thereto. P.W.22 continued the investigation and after completing the investigation he filed the final report against the accused on 26.1.1993. The Investigating Officer gave requisition Ex.P-35 to send Ex.P-2 series and Ex;.P-6, 8 and 12 for handwriting expert’s opinion. As an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-36, the documents were sent to the handwriting expert. Ex.P-37 is the report regard thereto. P.W.22 continued the investigation and after completing the investigation he filed the final report against the accused on 26.1.1993. When the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstances put up against him as false and contrary to facts. He also stated that he received information about the death of his aunt at Periyakulam on 24.12.1991 and therefore, he left for Periyakulam on the same day itself; he returned only on 26.12.1991 and found that both Vanaja and Uma Maheswari are missing; he went to the police station to give a complaint and they did not take any action, but instead advised him to search; he searched for them in several places and on coming to know that the police is searching for him, he surrendered and he has no connection whatsoever in this case. No witnesses were examined on his side. 9. The entire case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of P.W.4, the Doctor, who did post mortem, coupled with Exs.P-23 and P-24, the post mortem reports, definitely establish beyond doubt that two lives of the bodies which were subject to post mortem, have been lost due to homicidal violence. The two bodies were also found to be that of two females one in the age group of 25 to 40 and the other in the age group of 12 to 14. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty in holding that two persons were done to death. But the question is whether the prosecution had established that it is the accused who is responsible for causing the death of both the deceased. We have already extracted in detail, the relationship between the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand, as well as the relationship between P.Ws.2 and 3 vis-a-vis, the deceased and the accused. We have also referred to the relationship between the other witnesses. The accused had married the deceased D-1, D-2 is the daughter of D-1 through her late husband Mani. We have also referred to the relationship between the other witnesses. The accused had married the deceased D-1, D-2 is the daughter of D-1 through her late husband Mani. P.W.2 is the son of the accused through his late wife Meera. Meera and Vanaja are sisters. The circumstances placed before the Court by the prosecution to sustain their case, as enumerated by the learned Sessions Judge himself in his judgment, have been perused by us with utmost care and caution. Besides the circumstances that are found enumerated in the judgment under challenge, there is no other circumstance available on record and therefore, we have decided to consider each and every circumstance in seriatim as reflected in the judgment under challenge. It has come out in evidence that D-1 was employed as a household servant in the house of P.W.4 and on an earlier occasion, D-1 and D-2 were photographed in the festival that took place in the house of P.W.4, Accordingly, P.W.4 had given the video cassette to the investigating Officer and we have already referred as to how the video clippings were converted into photographs and the photographs on being shown to P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were proved to be that of D-1 and D-2. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty at all in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 that the photographs developed from the video cassette given by P.W.4 do contain the photographs of D-1 and D-2. But, it cannot by itself establish that the two dead bodies traced on 25.12.1991 are the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 in the absence of any clinching material. The prosecution had sent two skulls after post mortem for being super imposed by the forensic expert. The forensic expert’s report is Ex.P-34. We perused Ex.P-34 and it shows that two skulls relate to two female persons as reflected in the photographs. But, however, the forensic expert had not been examined in this case and the report of the forensic expert would not be a document which could be admitted without formal proof as provided for under Secs.293 and 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the examination of the expert is a mandatory requirement in such cases, so that the defence would be in a position to cross examine the expert with regard to his report. Therefore, the examination of the expert is a mandatory requirement in such cases, so that the defence would be in a position to cross examine the expert with regard to his report. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence before the Court, we have no doubt in our mind that Ex.P-34 cannot be a substantive evidence by itself. 10. The next circumstance relied on the by the learned Sessions Judge is the oral evidence of P.W.2 himself. P.W.2 turned hostile. He was projected as an eye witness and he did not support the case of the prosecution. He was examined by the Judicial Magistrate under Sec.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also by the police during the investigation. His statement recorded under Sec.164 and under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been put to him when he was cross-examined by the State and he denied having given such a statement. Of course, in one line he had stated that on 24.12.1991, he and his father/accused slept in the house. From this evidence, we are not able to get even a slightest indication that both the deceased were also sleeping in the company of P.W.2 and the accused on the night of 24.12.1991. It is well settled that the statement of witnesses recorded under Sec.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can never be a substantive evidence and it can be used only for contradicting the witness when he deposes in Court. Equally so, is the position in law in respect of a statement recorded from the witnesses during the course of investigation. The learned Sessions Judge went on to hold that P.W.2, had admitted that on the night of 24.12.1991, he and his father went to sleep together in the house, which would also include D-1 and D-2. For arriving at such a conclusion, we do not have any material at all. 11. The next circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is the oral evidence of P.W.10. His oral evidence shows that he is a neighbour and on the early hours of 25.12.1991, he saw the accused pushing his three tyre cart on which, 3 baggages were found. On being questioned as to where he is going, the accused replied that he is going out to burn old clothes. This witness is definitely an important witness. His oral evidence shows that he is a neighbour and on the early hours of 25.12.1991, he saw the accused pushing his three tyre cart on which, 3 baggages were found. On being questioned as to where he is going, the accused replied that he is going out to burn old clothes. This witness is definitely an important witness. But however, this witness had come to be examined during the course of investigation only on 4.1.1992 and when we pierced the original records, we see with surprise that his statement so recorded had reached the Court only on 1.2.1993. This Court has been consistently holding that the statement of important witness recorded during investigation should be sent to the Court at the earliest point of time. If there is any delay, then, the evidentiary value of the evidence of such witnesses is open to a serious doubt. In view of the delay in sending the statement of this witness to the Court, as noted above, we are of the considered opinion, that to act upon the evidence of this witness will be a risky factor, especially in a case of murder like this. 12. The learned Sessions Judge went on to criticize the conduct of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused according to his own showing returned to his place of abode on 26.12.1991 and at that time, he did not see his wife and daughter. Therefore, according to the learned Sessions Judge, he ought to have searched for them here and there and he ought to have spared more efforts in that direction. In elaborating this, the learned Sessions Judge found that the accused had not gone to the house of P.W.4 in enquiring the whereabout of D-1 and D-2. This conduct, attributed to the accused, which are incriminating according to the learned Sessions Judge, really do not appeal to us. The learned Sessions Judge in another breadth of the same judgment found that the accused was very much available in the same village till 31.12.1991. This conduct of the accused being available in the same place, would definitely, in our considered opinion, a relevant material in his favour. The learned Sessions Judge in another breadth of the same judgment found that the accused was very much available in the same village till 31.12.1991. This conduct of the accused being available in the same place, would definitely, in our considered opinion, a relevant material in his favour. One other circumstance which the learned Sessions Judge took into account is that when P.W.7, the elder brother of the accused, asked him as to why he is standing outside the house and where his kith and kin are, he told him that they have gone out of town. Once again we are unable to reconcile ourselves to take this situation at an incriminating circurnstance against the accused. 13. Then we considered the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 9 and P.W.11. Of these witnesses, P.Ws.6, 7 and 11 were shown to have been examined during investigation on 4.1.1992. But, we find from the records that their statement so recorded have reached the Court only on 1.2.1993. Likewise, P.Ws. 8 and 9 were shown to have been examined only on 5.1.1992. But their statements also reached this Court only on 1.2.1993. For the same reasons, which we gave for not giving any evidentiary value to the oral evidence of P.W.10, we have no doubt at all in oar mind that the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 9 and P.W.11 also cannot be given any weight at their face value. P.W.9 would state that the accused was his tenant till 14.12.1991. He vacated the house lock, stock and barrel and moved to a place near Mahalakshmi Bakery. Once again, we are unable to understand as to how this would be a circumstance against the accused. P.W.11 would state in his evidence that on the accused shifting his residence lock, stock and barrel, he being his neighbour asked him as to why he is vacating the house which the accused replied that the house has no semblance of fortune in his favour and vacated the house on 29.12.1991 leaving all alone. We have already noticed that the learned Sessions Judge himself found that the accused was available till 31.12.1991 in that place, though not in the same house. We have already noticed that the learned Sessions Judge himself found that the accused was available till 31.12.1991 in that place, though not in the same house. For the same reason, as referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the conduct of the accused in shifting the residence to the new place and vacating the new place on 29.12.1991 within 15 days of occupation and he not being found at that time in the company of D-1 and D-2 in the background of the fact that P.Ws.9 and 11 statements had reached the Court only on 1.2.1993 cannot be taken as a strong circumstance to clinchingly hold the accused guilty of the offence of murdering his wife and daughter. Then we have two letters one Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8. Ex.P-6 is addressed to P.W.4 and Ex.P-8 is addressed to Arumugham/ accused. The learned Sessions Judge himself found that Ex.P-6 was delivered on 31.12.1991 to P.W.4. That latter on the face of it shows that the senders namely Vanaja and Uma Maheswari i.e., D-1 and D-2 are hale and healthy. This means that they were alive even as on that date. Therefore, an onerous responsibility is cast upon the investigating agency to prove that Ex.P-6 was not written by D-1 and D-2, but it had been written only by the accused to lend colour to his case. Likewise, Ex.P-8 is another letter. This was also served on P. W.8 on 31.12.1991. Though the prosecution had taken steps to have the writings and signatures in Exs.P-6 and P-8 compared with Ex.P-2 series (writing and signatures of the accused taken when he was in police custody) by having forwarded it to the expert, it had failed to prove Ex.P-37 the report in their favour. Further, the expert had not been examined. The non-examination of the expert had definitely denied an opportunity to the accused to cross examine that witness to elicit answers in his favour, really if he could have any. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of the expert, we have no doubt at all in our mind that Ex.P-37 by itself cannot be substantive evidence. If that is so, going by the apparent tenor of Ex.P-6, the letter it is clear that Vanaja and Uma Maheswari are shown to be alive even when they wrote Ex.P-6, which was served on P.W.4 on 31.12.1991. If that is so, going by the apparent tenor of Ex.P-6, the letter it is clear that Vanaja and Uma Maheswari are shown to be alive even when they wrote Ex.P-6, which was served on P.W.4 on 31.12.1991. The prosecution had recovered Exs.P-11 and P-12, the diary and another sheet of paper containing the writings of the accused. We perused it and they do not contain any incriminating materials against the accused. Whatever it is, these things have come to be recovered on 4.1.1993 as spoken to by P.W.12 from the house of the accused. There is no evidence to show that where the accused moved after vacating the house in his occupation on 29.12.1991 to which P.W.11 was a neighbour. In any event, as Ex.P-11 and P-12 not containing any incremenating materials against the accused, we have no doubt in our mind that it cannot constitute any circumstances against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge understanding he absence of the evidence of the handwriting expert, was inclined to compare the writings and signatures in Exs.P-2, P-6 and P-8 by himself exercising his power under Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and came to the conclusion that the writings are similar. We perused those documents and even at the first blush it is impossible to hold the writings in Ex.P-2 is in similarity with the writings in Exs.P-6 and P-8. Two chappals marked as M.Os.1 and 13 (one left foot chappal and the other right foot chappal) are shown to have been recovered. There is no evidence to show that both chappals belong to the accused. There is no evidence also at all to show that the accused was asked to wear both the chappals in the respective foot. In any event, chappals are common commodity available in market everywhere and therefore, the recovery of chappals cannot add credence to the case of the prosecution. The dead bodies came to be noticed even on 26.12.1991. Therefore, even on that date, M.O.13 could have been recovered. But, the recoveries were made only when the accused was in the police custody. Now the prosecution connects these two chappals as one lying at the place where the dead bodies were found and the other lying in a close by place. Therefore, even on that date, M.O.13 could have been recovered. But, the recoveries were made only when the accused was in the police custody. Now the prosecution connects these two chappals as one lying at the place where the dead bodies were found and the other lying in a close by place. Taking the totality of the circumstances available on record, we have no doubt in our mind that this circumstance also is of no use at all to advance the case of the prosecution. After having adverted his mind to the circumstances referred to above, the learned Sessions Judge went into the motive aspect and found that the accused had motive to kill the deceased. The evidence of P.W.3 that the accused attempted to outrage the modesty of D-2 is far from convincing. D-2 is a girl aged about 10 to 14 (there is no precise evidence before the Court). This evidence of P.W.3 appears to be very artificial to be believed. 14. In the light of our discussions as referred to above, we have no doubt at all in our mind that the circumstances projected before the Court by the prosecution are far from convincing and in any event, they do not unerringly point out to the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances do no run contra to the innocence of the accused. We have no doubt in our mind that the conviction of the accused is without any legal material. We are fully aware that two young people had been done to death due to homicidal violence. But, however, the fact that the offence is gruesome by itself would not influence the mind of this Court to hold that the accused alone is guilty, unless the circumstances projected by the prosecution is a chain of circumstance leaving no loophole at all to enable the accused to get out of the crime. Under these circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted forthwith of the offences for which he was tried and convicted. The bail bonds if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated forthwith.