Judgment :- M.Thanikachalam, J. The accused suffered a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, in the hands of Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C.No.90/94 and the result is this appeal, impugning the same. 2. The respondent/complainant compelled the accused to face the trial, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., by filing a final report alleging that the accused who is the husband of one Selvi, requested her to get money from her father for the purchase of auto and on her failure, he tortured, inflicted cruelty and that he has further suspected her fidelity and therefore, in order to commit murder, he assaulted his wife on her head, then by using a rope, strangulated her to death on 13.6.1993 at about 2.00 a.m. and therefore, he should be dealt with accordingly. 3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, upon considering the materials, framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and on questioning, the accused refused to plead guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution to prove the offence. 4. The trial Court after recording the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and marking 11 documents and 17 material objects, came to the conclusion, on assessment, that the accused had committed the murder of his wife and therefore, he should be visited with the punishment under Sec.302 IPC. and slapped life imprisonment, which is impugned in this appeal. 5. Prosecution case in brief: (a) Thiru Ramu (P.W.1) is the father of one Selvi, who is the wife of the accused. The marriage between the accused and Selvi was performed 2 « years ago, prior to the date of incident on 13.6.1993. The accused is an auto driver. Selvi was working as a midwife at Sankararaman Hospital, Palani. The accused suspected her fidelity and therefore, he committed cruelty to her, not only by words, but also by physical act. Further, the accused also demanded money from his wife. Tmt. Selvi unable to bear the torture of her husband, informed the same to her father P.W.1, who advised her to go to her husband's house, promising to settle the dispute. (b) The accused who was unable to get any money from his wife Tmt. Further, the accused also demanded money from his wife. Tmt. Selvi unable to bear the torture of her husband, informed the same to her father P.W.1, who advised her to go to her husband's house, promising to settle the dispute. (b) The accused who was unable to get any money from his wife Tmt. Selvi and having suspicion regarding her fidelity, decided to commit murder of his wife and therefore, on 13.6.1993 at about 2.00 a.m., he beat her by M.O.1, over her head and thereafter, strangulated her by using M.O.2 rope. After committing the murder of his wife, he removed M.O.3 ring, M.O.4 ear stud and absconded from the scene of crime i.e. where they were living, as husband and wife viz., at Ayakudi. (c) The fact that Tmt. Selvi was done to death was informed to P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.1 went to her daughter's house, and after ascertaining the fact, fixing that the husband was the cause for the death of his daughter, preferred Ex.P.8 complaint, subscribing his signature (Ex.P.1), to the police. (d) On 13.10.1993, when Thiru Jayaraman P.W.5, was working as the Head Constable at Ayakudi Police Station, he received the complaint Ex.P.8 and on that basis, he registered a case in Cr.No.133/93, under Section 302 I.P.C., for which he submitted the FIR, Ex.P.9, to the Court concerned, marking the copies to the higher authorities also, for investigation. (e) P.W.6, Thiru Namperuman, the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, who was in charge of Chattirapatti Police Station, in whose jurisdiction, Ayakudi comes, took up the case for investigation on 13.6.1993, on receipt of the copy of the FIR. On the same day, at about 1.30 p.m, he inspected the place, where the crime was committed, prepared Ex.P.6 mahazar and sketch Ex.P.10 in the presence P.W.4 and also recovered M.Os.5 to 7 under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.7. Between 14.30 hours and 18.00 hours, he conducted inquest over the body of Selvi and the results are incorporated in Ex.P.11. In continuation of the investigation, P.W.6 examining the witnesses, recording their statements, then and there, made arrangements for autopsy. (f) Dr. Between 14.30 hours and 18.00 hours, he conducted inquest over the body of Selvi and the results are incorporated in Ex.P.11. In continuation of the investigation, P.W.6 examining the witnesses, recording their statements, then and there, made arrangements for autopsy. (f) Dr. K. Sengodan, P.W.2 at the request of the Inspector of Police, Palani, under Ex.P.2, conducted the postmortem, on the body of Selvi, on 14.6.1993 at about 11.00 a.m. The inspection of the dead body by P.W.2 and the dissection revealed " a ligature mark below the thyroid cartilage horizontally extending around the neck and is complete and 1 cm width - dark brown in colour. In addition, he had noticed an abrasion over the skin, over the front. It revealed further, mastoid muscles, both side under the marks are crushed though hyoid bone was in tact. On the basis of the above injury, P.W.2 opined, that Selvi died due to asphyxia by strangulation, which are incorporated in Ex.P.3. (g) On 18.6.1993, when Mr. Balasubramanian (P.W.3), Palani Town Village Administrative Officer was in his office, the accused went there, confessed about his guilt, viz., murdering of his wife, which was reduced into writing under Ex.P.5. Thereafter, on the basis of the extra judicial confession given to P.W.3, on surrender of the accused, P.W.6 examined him in the presence of P.W.3. The accused confessed, about the concealment of the weapon used by him, to murder his wife viz., M.O.1 & M.O.2 as well as the jewels, removed by him from the body of his wife. On the basis of the confession, M.Os.1, 2, 3 & 4 were recovered, in the presence of P.W.3 under Ex.P.4 mahazar. The examination of the witnesses, the recovery of material objects, revealed that the accused had committed the murder of his wife, since she failed to bring money, from her parents' house, as well as conducted herself, creating doubt about her conduct. On the above basis, P.W.7 who took up the subsequent investigation, filed the final report. (h) On the basis of the final report filed by the police, the learned Sessions Judge, Dindigul, satisfying himself, that a case is made out for trial, framed charges , questioned the accused, for which the accused refused to admit the offence. Therefore, on behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined, seeking aid from 11 documents and 17 material objects. Therefore, on behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined, seeking aid from 11 documents and 17 material objects. (i) The analysis of the above materials on proper appreciation, brought to surface the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. ordering to undergo life imprisonment, which is impugned in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. P. Suresh appearing for the appellant and Mr. J. Karuppaiah appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits, that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, either directly or indirectly and despite the fact, the trial Court had committed an error, in convicting the accused, which requires setting aside, by the interference of this Court, since the finding has no base. He further pointed out, though there is no eyewitness, the circumstances relied on, to prove the guilt of the accused, also failed to point out that the accused alone, as the murderer of his wife and despite this fact, on the basis of the unproved circumstantial evidence, conviction slapped upon the accused shall go. He has further pointed out, so many contradictions in the evidence and loop holes in the investigation, and on that basis, claiming benefits of doubt, the judgment of the trial Court is questioned. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor would submit, that the accused and the deceased were living under the same roof, as husband and wife and after committing the murder of his wife, the accused absconded, thereafter given an extra judicial confession statement before the Village Administrative Officer, leading to recovery of certain jewels, belonged to the wife, which are sufficient to sustain the conviction. In this view, he sought the affirmation of the conviction rendered by the trial Court. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that Tmt. Selvi was done to death by her husband on 13.6.1993 at about 2.00 a.m. It is an admitted fact that, there was no eye witness. The prosecution sought the help of circumstantial evidence, for convicting the accused. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that Tmt. Selvi was done to death by her husband on 13.6.1993 at about 2.00 a.m. It is an admitted fact that, there was no eye witness. The prosecution sought the help of circumstantial evidence, for convicting the accused. True, circumstantial evidence could be more reliable, provided all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, pointed out the accused alone, as the culprit, ruling out the interference of third parties, without any snap in the chain of events clearing all the reasonable doubts. On the other hand, if the circumstances relied on by the prosecution stood separately, not linking itself, giving crack, what ever may be the strong suspicious circumstances towards the accused, that will not take the place of proof, the fact being, court could not convict an accused, on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 10. In this case, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are that (i) the husband (accused) and the wife (deceased) were living under the same roof on the date of incident viz., 13.6.1993, (ii) there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, due to non compliance of certain demands by the wife as well, the husband, doubted her fidelity, thereby creating a motive. (iii) some of the jewels belonged to the deceased were covered only on the basis of the confession statement given by the accused, which would indicate the involvement of the accused and (iv) the accused voluntarily gave an extra judicial confession before the Village Administrative Officer, confessing the guilt. 11. The learned Government Advocate would submit, that the above aspects are proved, therefore, the conviction slapped by the trial Court, is sustainable. 12. The only witness examined on behalf of the prosecution, to prove the motive or the husband suspecting the fidelity of his wife is, P.W.1, the father in law of the accused, and the father of the deceased. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile. He would state even during the examination in chief, that he suspected that her daughter might have died by committing suicide. He would further state, that since he wanted to take the body of his daughter, at the request of Natamaidars, he preferred a complaint. He further asserts that he has not implicated the accused, as the person, cause for the death of his daughter. He would further state, that since he wanted to take the body of his daughter, at the request of Natamaidars, he preferred a complaint. He further asserts that he has not implicated the accused, as the person, cause for the death of his daughter. If really the husband had committed the murder of his wife, viz., the daughter of P.W.1, there would be no reason, for the father turning hostile and not supporting the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence available also appears to be not certain and positive, whether the death was, due to suicide or homicidal violence, though cause of death is stated as asphyxia due to strangulation. To prove the strangulation, except the postmortem certificate, in which it is stated "strangulated", we find nil evidence on record to prove the alleged strangulation by the accused, using the rope M.O.2. No other witness has been examined, either to prove the demand, said to have been made by the accused to his wife or his suspicion regarding her fidelity. In this view, the motive vanishes automatically. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive should play an important key role. If the motive is not proved, then we have to say there is a break in the chain of events, leading to the occurrence. 13. The investigating officer, has not examined any witness to prove at least, that the husband and wife lived under the same roof, on the fateful day and husband alone came outside, from the house alive, leaving the dead body of his wife. They lived in a residential area, where there are number of houses. Therefore, some body might have seen about their joint living or at least when the accused had left the house alone. If evidence had been let in to that effect, at least the Court could have had a chance of concluding that the husband and wife were seen last together and when the wife was murdered, the husband would have involved in the event. To draw this kind of inference also, no evidence is let in. In this view, another chain is broken or snapped. 14. The strong piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is, the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused before P.W.3. Investigation in this case, commenced on 13.6.1993. To draw this kind of inference also, no evidence is let in. In this view, another chain is broken or snapped. 14. The strong piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is, the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused before P.W.3. Investigation in this case, commenced on 13.6.1993. The confession statement is said to have been given on 18.6.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, prohibits recording a confession statement, after the investigation has begun by the Village Administrative Officer. Therefore, placing reliance upon the extra judicial confession alone, without corroboration, convicting the accused may not be possible. As an answer to this point, the learned Government Advocate would rely upon a decision in Sakthivel v. State (2003 M.L.J. (Crl.) 752) wherein this Court has held though the extra judicial confession was given subsequent to the beginning of the investigation, it is not inadmissible in evidence, but its evidentiary value is reduced. In the case involved in the above decision, conviction was sustained, not only on the basis of extra judicial confession, but also on the basis of the corroboration, provided by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 5. For sustaining the conviction, extra judicial confession alone had not been taken as the only piece of evidence. It is the settled position, that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless it is corroborated by other witnesses, directly or otherwise, placing reliance upon the extra judicial confession, to convict an accused, may not be safe and legal. Therefore, in our opinion, the above ruling will not come to the aid of the prosecution, either in proving the extra judicial confession or to completely rely upon this document, to sustain the conviction. 15. As aforementioned, the only witness examined on behalf of the prosecution viz., P.W.1, turned hostile and therefore, the averments contained in extra judicial confession, stand uncorroborated. In this view, we are not inclined to rely upon the extra judicial confession, said to have been given by the accused, to P.W.3, whose evidence has not inspired us, to accept as such. It is unbelievable that the accused after five days or so, that too, went to a Village Administrative Officer who is not known to him and gave confession, regarding his guilt. It is unbelievable that the accused after five days or so, that too, went to a Village Administrative Officer who is not known to him and gave confession, regarding his guilt. In our considered opinion, Ex.P5 must be the document prepared by the police using the service of the obliging Village Headman. In this view, the extra judicial confession should go. Further since Ex.P.5 was recorded, during the course of the investigation, it should be held inadmissible, as contemplated under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Thus on both count, namely, the extra judicial confession is not corroborated, and the same is inadmissible in evidence, Ex.P.5 goes as, unworthy of credence and unreliable. If Ex.P.5 is eschewed, then there is nothing on record, to implicate the accused. The trial Court unfortunately, without going into the legal aspects of this document, simply reproduced the same, as if all the allegations contained in Ex.P.5, are gospel of truth, proved and should be acted upon, which is not acceptable to us, in view of the unnaturalness and other attending circumstances. 16. It is the case of the investigating officer that on the basis of the extra judicial confession, a further confession was recorded, leading to the recovery of M.Os.3 & 4. It is highly unbelievable, that the accused would have concealed the gold ring and ear stud under some stone in an unknown place, without safety, as narrated in the recovery mahazar, at a distant place. If really he had committed the murder and took away the jewels, for his benefit, he ought to have removed all the jewels, from the body, but it is not the case. The improbability and unnaturalness available in the alleged recovery of M.Os.3 and 4 would suggest that the extra judicial confession, was planted only for the purpose of the case, if possible to prove the commission of the offence. Even accepting the case of the prosecution that M.Os.3 and 4 were recovered on the basis of the confession, we are unable to understand still how these two material objects, would connect the accused, with the crime. These two material objects, were not identified even by P.W.1, as if they belong to the deceased Selvi. Unless it is identified so, then proved that the same were recovered on the basis of the confession given by the accused, connecting the accused with the crime, is beyond one's comprehension. These two material objects, were not identified even by P.W.1, as if they belong to the deceased Selvi. Unless it is identified so, then proved that the same were recovered on the basis of the confession given by the accused, connecting the accused with the crime, is beyond one's comprehension. Further, the accused is the wife of the deceased, and therefore, even it could be said, though it is not the case of the accused, that he came to be in possession of these items legally, since the recovery and the place, appear to be a myth. 17. The doctor has opined that Selvi would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. It seems, it is the case of the prosecution, that M.O.2 was used for strangulating Selvi. As seen from the oral evidence of P.W.2, the rope is not even shown to him, to probabalise the case, that M.O.2 might have been used, for strangulating or causing the external injuries, or the marks noted by the doctor over the neck of the deceased. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the doctor has noticed some blood clotting dark brown in colour. He has also noticed ligature mark. Ligature mark could be possible, even while committing suicide. The rope said to have been recovered from the accused, on the basis of the confession statement, has not been sent for chemical analysis, to find out the stain of blood, if any. Therefore, it is purely impossible to say, that M.O.2 rope was used to strangulate Selvi. The investigation conducted by P.W.6 also not to the satisfaction of the Court. He has not examined the local witnesses, at the time of the inquest and has not examined the material witnesses, to connect the crime with the accused. 18. As pointed out by us supra, the investigating officer has not taken any pain, to investigate the crime as it required to be investigated, but sought the help of the obliging Village Administrative Officer, to obtain an extra judicial confession, which is not sufficient to convict the accused, as aforementioned. 18. As pointed out by us supra, the investigating officer has not taken any pain, to investigate the crime as it required to be investigated, but sought the help of the obliging Village Administrative Officer, to obtain an extra judicial confession, which is not sufficient to convict the accused, as aforementioned. Unfortunately, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and other attending circumstances, the trial Court, purely relying upon the extra judicial confession, which does not have the support or corroboration from any quarters, erred in our view, in convicting the accused, and therefore, our interference is a must, to set aside the same, to erase the injustice. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, to rope in the accused were not at all proved, by acceptable evidence, and even assuming that they are proved, they stand independently, not encircling the accused, within the four walls of the crime, and therefore, we have no option except to set aside the conviction and sentence slapped by the trial Court under Section 302 I.P.C. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence slapped by the trial Court in S.C.No.90/1994 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and he is acquitted. The bail bond executed by the accused, if any, shall stand discharged.