M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: The appellants (A-1 to A-5) challenging the conviction under Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code, have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 26.12.2000 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.247 of 2000. 2. The facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) Devendran, A-1 and the deceased Gandhi were friends. Due to many dispute, eight months prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased Gandhi and P.W.5 Mohan attacked A-1 Devendran. A-1 preferred a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, the deceased Gandhi and P.W.5 Mohan were arrested and released on bail. P.W.2, the father of the deceased purchased an auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.PY-01-C-1 167. The same had been used by the deceased. (b) The occurrence took place on 15.11.1998. At about 10.00 p.m, A-2 Raju alias Samirajan came to the house of P.W.2 and took the deceased in the auto. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to some other place, where A-1 to A-5 strangulated him to death and also caused injury by beating with iron rod. Then, they escaped from the scene. (c) On 16.11.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.7 Balakrishnan, Village Munsif came to the spot, noticed the auto and the dead body near Morattandi Market line. He rushed to the residence of P.W. 1, V.A.O., and informed about the same. (d) At about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1, on receipt of the information, came to the scene and saw the dead body. He went to the police station and gave a complaint to P.W. 14 Head Constable. The same was registered by P.W. 14 in Crime No.227 of 1998 under Section 302 of I.P.C. He sent intimation to P.W. 15 Inspector of Police. (e) P.W. 15 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-24 and also seized the auto rickshaw M.O.10. Then, he conducted inquest and examined the witnesses and sent the body for post-mortem. (f) One Dr.Murugan conducted the post moretm on the same day and issued a post mortem certificate, Ex.P-8. He gave opinion in the post mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. (g) On 18.11.1998, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested A-1 and A-2 and recovered M.O.11 Iron rod and M.O.12 wire. On the same day, he arrested A-2 and A-4 at about 6.30 p.m. A-5 subsequently surrendered before the Court. He gave opinion in the post mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. (g) On 18.11.1998, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested A-1 and A-2 and recovered M.O.11 Iron rod and M.O.12 wire. On the same day, he arrested A-2 and A-4 at about 6.30 p.m. A-5 subsequently surrendered before the Court. After finishing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-5. (h) The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Secs.364 and 302 of I.P.C. and imposed three years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.500 each respectively. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellants would take us through the entire evidence and submit that the evidence available on record would not be sufficient to hold that the accused were found guilty. He would also point out various infirmities in the materials collected by the investigating agency on these aspects. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well. 5. We have given our consideration to the rival submissions. 6. The entire case would clinch upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are as follows: (i) There is enmity between A-1 and the deceased and on the complaint of A-1, the deceased and P.W.5 were arrested and released on bail. As such, A-1 had the motive against the deceased. (ii)On 15.11.1998 at about 10.30p.m., P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are the bunk boy and cashier respectively working in the petrol bunk, saw the deceased and A-2 coming in the auto and they filled the petrol and left, (iii) On 18.11.1998, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested A-1 and A-2 and recovered M.O.11 Iron rod and M.O.12 wire. 7. On the strength of the above circumstantial evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants. 8. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, we are of the view that the entire case would suffer from infirmities. 9. It is settled law that motive aspect would play a vital role in the circumstantial evidence. 7. On the strength of the above circumstantial evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants. 8. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, we are of the view that the entire case would suffer from infirmities. 9. It is settled law that motive aspect would play a vital role in the circumstantial evidence. In this case, no material has been placed by the Prosecution either through P.W.2 the father of the deceased or through P.W.5, the relative of the deceased to indicate that there was immediate motive to attack the deceased. 10. According to P.W.2 and P.W.5, eight months prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased Gandhi and P.W.5 Mohan attacked A-1 Devendran. A-1 preferred a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, the deceased Gandhi and P.W.5 Mohan were arrested and released on bail. But, to establish the same, neither witnesses have been examined nor any records have been produced to show that both of them were inimi-cally disposed of. Therefore, evidence relating to motive for murder is lacking in this case. 11. The prosecution would rely upon the evidence of P.W.2, the father of the deceased, who speaks about the fact that the deceased left the house on 15.11.1998 along with A-2. We are not able to place reliance on his evidence for the simple reason that he never stated so in the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer also does not state that such a statement was made by him during the course of investigation. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to the involvement of A-2. 12. The next piece of evidence is the deposition of P.Ws.3 and 4. According to P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused and the deceased came at about 10.30 p.m, in an auto with A-2 and filled petrol and then went. No records have been produced to show that they were working in the petrol bunk nor petrol register book has been produced to show that petrol was supplied to the auto beginning to P.W.2 or the deceased. A perusal of the evidence of both P.Ws.3 and 4 would indicate that they did not know A-2 earlier. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 did not refer to anything in the Chief examination about A-2. A perusal of the evidence of both P.Ws.3 and 4 would indicate that they did not know A-2 earlier. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 did not refer to anything in the Chief examination about A-2. It is noticed from the evidence of P.W.4 that he never knew about A-2 earlier. As such, no steps have been taken to conduct identification parade with reference to the presence of A-2 along with the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 also would not be enough to hold that A-2 has involved in this case. 13. The only remaining evidence is the recovery of M.O.10 auto rickshaw, M.O.11 iron rod and M.O.12 wire. According to prosecution, P.W. 15 Inspector of Police recovered the material objects from A-1 on 18.11.1998. Mere recovery from A-1 on his confession, would not be a ground to hold that these things might have been used for the commission of offence. Furthermore, P.W.2 would admit in the cross examination that one telephone wire (M.O.12) was found in the scene of occurrence itself. 14. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction has been imposed on the accused/appellants on the basis of insufficient materials and as such, the conviction has to be held illegal. 15. In the) result, the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A-1 to A-5 are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges. Since A-2 in Criminal Appeal No.752 of 2001 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded. The bail bond executed by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 shall cancelled.