Judgment :- Accused 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 in S.C.128/1995 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai are the Appellants. By the Judgment dated 27.02.1997, the Appellants / accused 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 were convicted for various offences and sentenced to imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, accused 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 have preferred this Appeal. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this Appeal could be stated thus:- Deceased Amsu is the wife of A7. A8 and A9 are brothers of A7. A1 and A2 are cousin brothers of A7. Other accused are also closely related to A7. The witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 are related to deceased Amsu as noted below; | | --------------------------- | | Kaluva Thevar Ayyavoo | (P.W.3) | -------------------------------- | | | Santhanam Theivam Virumandi =Pappa (P.W.2) (P.W.5) (P.W.4) =Thangam | | Amsu (deceased) =Karuppu (A7 - Husband of the deceased) Deceased Amsu was given in marriage to A7 about eight years prior to the occurrence. A7 and Amsu have no issues. Amsu was residing with her husband in Bodinaickanur. Alleging that she has developed illicit intimacy with another person, about six months prior to the occurrence A7 had taken Amsu to Kannanur - her parents house and left her there. P.W.4 - mother of Amsu and others took back Amsu to A7 stating that Amsu would mend her ways in future. Occurrence: On 17.08.1994 - 8.30 PM in the house of A7, since Amsu was found in compromising position with her paramour - P.W.8 Kumaresan, enraged over the same, A7 and A9 beat Amsu with hands and A8 beat Amsu with M.O.3 - Kattai. To save herself, Amsu ran from the house. A7 directed A1 to A6 to get her. A1 to A6 chased Amsu and caught hold of her in Chinna Thevar Coconut Grove. A1 to A6 beat her stating A4 held her by her hands. A1 strangulated her by throat and A2 throttled her neck. A6 held her by her left leg. They carried the body of Amsu and left near Pillayar Temple. P.W.2 - Theivam and P.W.3 - Ayyavoo are the residents of Kannanur. Case of Prosecution is that on the date of occurrence - 17.08.1994 P.Ws.2 and 3 went to Bodinaickanur - 8.30 PM and witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 3, who followed A1 to A6 have witnessed the occurrence. They carried the body of Amsu and left near Pillayar Temple. P.W.2 - Theivam and P.W.3 - Ayyavoo are the residents of Kannanur. Case of Prosecution is that on the date of occurrence - 17.08.1994 P.Ws.2 and 3 went to Bodinaickanur - 8.30 PM and witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 3, who followed A1 to A6 have witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 3 informed A7 about the murder of Amsu by A1 to A6. A7 told them not to disclose it to anyone and that the body of Amsu could be burnt the next day. Complaint: P.W.1 - Gandhi is the Thalayari of Bodinaickanur. He heard that there is a body of a female lying near Pillayar Temple. At about 10.00 AM when he went near Pillayar Temple, body was found missing; but blood stains were noted in the place. P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.7 - Village Administrative Officer. P.W.7 recorded the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P-1). P.W.7 - Village Administrative Officer endorsed the same and sent to Bodinaickanur Police Station. Registration of the case:- On the basis of Ex.P-1, P.W.10 - the then Sub Inspector of Police had registered a case of Suspicious Death in Crime No.534/1994 under Section 174 of Crl.P.C. Ex.P-8 is the First Information Report for suspicious death. Investigation: P.W.12 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. Scene of occurrence - Chinna Thevar Coconut Thope was inspected in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.9 - Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. The place, where the body was found, was about 50 feet away from the Pillayar Temple. From that place, M.O.1 - blood stained mud and M.O.2 - sample mud were seized under Ex.P.3 - Seizure Mahazar. Inquest: Body of Amsu was found lying in the common burial ground ready for cremation. P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and another witness Thangam were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Amsu. Ex.P-10 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy with Ex.P.6 - Requisition. Inquest: Body of Amsu was found lying in the common burial ground ready for cremation. P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 and another witness Thangam were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Amsu. Ex.P-10 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy with Ex.P.6 - Requisition. Post Mortem: Pursuant to the requisition from the Inspector of Police, P.W.9 - Dr.Palanisamy had conducted the autopsy and noted the following external injuries; (i) Contusion over right temporal region; (ii) Lacerated wound on the left of left eye; (iii)Abrasion over right knee; (iv) Abrasion over left knee; (v) Linear abrasion on both sides of windpipe brown and dry between the chin and thyroid cartilage; (vi) Contusion below both angles of lower jaw on either side. On internal examination, the following injuries are noted: (i) Thorax: fracture of ribs; (ii) Hyoid bone: Cornua of hyoid bone fractured; (iii) Extravasation of blood below the scalp on right temporal area fracture; P.W.9 opined that the death was due to Asphyxia due to throttling. He issued Ex.P.7 - Post Mortem Certificate. Arrest of the accused: A1 to A6 were arrested on 24.08.1994 - 3.00 PM near Marimoorkalam. A7 to A9 were also arrested on the same day at 5.00 PM near the house of A8. When being interrogated, A8 had voluntarily given a confession statement. On the basis of the admissible portion of his confession statement (Ex.P.4), M.O.3 - Uruttukambu was recovered from his house under Ex.P.5 - Seizure Mahazar. Alteration of the case: On the basis of confession statement recorded from the accused, the case of Suspicious Death was altered into one under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P.12 - Express Report. P.W.13 - Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation. Upon completion of further investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 23.01.1995. 3. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-12 were marked. M.Os.1 to 7 were remanded to Court. When questioned under Section 313 of Crl.P.C., the accused stated that a false case is foisted against them. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W.2 as reliable and found that the Prosecution has established the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 and A7 to A9. M.Os.1 to 7 were remanded to Court. When questioned under Section 313 of Crl.P.C., the accused stated that a false case is foisted against them. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W.2 as reliable and found that the Prosecution has established the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 and A7 to A9. The discrepancies and inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of P.W.2 were rejected as of no significance. In the view of the trial court, though P.W.6 has turned hostile, her evidence of seeing the deceased and four persons chasing her in two TVS 50 Motor cycles cannot be discarded. Upon the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 6, the learned Sessions Judge found A1 to A3 and A7 to A9 guilty for various offences. The charges framed against the accused and the findings of the trial court are as noted below; 4. Aggrieved over the conviction, the Appellants have preferred this Appeal. 5. Taking me through the evidence and judgment of the trial court, the learned counsel for the Appellants / accused assailed the findings of the trial court contending that when the charge relates to only the occurrence in Chinna Thevar Coconut Thope, the judgment of the trial court proceeds as if the occurrence was in the house of A7 and also in the Coconut Thope of Chinna Thevar. Seriously assailing the approach of the trial court in accepting the evidence of P.W.2 as reliable, the learned counsel interalia raised the following contentions; (i) the inquest was held on 18.08.1994. Though the accused were named in Ex.P.10 - Inquest Report, P.W.2 was examined only on 24.08.1994 and whose statement was received in the Court only on 25.08.1994, clearly suggesting that he is suborned to depose on behalf of the Prosecution; (ii) during the questioning under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C., A1 and A2 have stated that they have defence witnesses and the judgment was pronounced without giving opportunity to the accused for examination of defence witnesses; (iii) Prosecution has not come forward with true facts and reasonable doubts arise at every point, particularly as to the registration of the case and has suppressed the statement recorded from P.W.4; (iv) Non-compliance of procedure to be followed by the Village Administrative Officer as per the Board Standing Order 567. 6. 6. In response to the arguments, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has submitted that the trial court has well appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 and that the appreciation of evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.P-1 and registration of Ex.P.8 - First Information Report, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Criminal Law was correctly set in motion by P.W.1 - Village Assistant. Answering the various points urged by the accused, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the inconsistencies and improbabilities pointed out by the accused would not in any way undermine substratum of the Prosecution case and that the finding of guilt and conviction is to be sustained. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions, judgment of the trial court, the evidence and materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal: (i) Whether the trial court was right in accepting the sole testimony of P.W.2 in finding A1 to A3 and A7 to A9 guilty ? (ii) Whether the guilt of A1 to A3 and A7 to A9 is proved beyond reasonable doubt ? (iii) Whether the conviction of A1 to A3 and A7 to A9 could be sustained ? 8. Motive: Deceased Amsu was given in marriage to A7 Karuppu about eight years prior to the occurrence. They have no issues. Amsu is alleged to have developed illicit intimacy with P.W.8 - Kumaresan. Despite chastisement by A7, Amsu did not mend her ways. About six months prior to the occurrence, A7 took Amsu to her parents house in Kannanur. Complaining about her illicit intimacy, A7 informed P.W.1 - mother of Amsu and stated that he was not willing to live with her. So saying A7 left Amsu in her parents house at Kannanur. 9. About one month thereafter, P.W.4 - Pappa, mother of the accused and P.W.5 Virumandi, Paternal uncle of deceased Amsu and his wife Thangam took back Amsu to A7 and left her saying that she would mend her ways in future. Case of Prosecution is that despite such advice, Amsu continued her illicit intimacy with P.W.8. Due to which, A7 is alleged to be nurturing grouse against the deceased. P.W.4 - Pappa had spoken about the alleged complaint by A7 complaining about the illicit intimacy with Amsu. Case of Prosecution is that despite such advice, Amsu continued her illicit intimacy with P.W.8. Due to which, A7 is alleged to be nurturing grouse against the deceased. P.W.4 - Pappa had spoken about the alleged complaint by A7 complaining about the illicit intimacy with Amsu. On this aspect, though A7 was nurturing grouse against the deceased, evidence of P.W.4 stands in isolation. 10. P.W.8 Kumaresan, with whom Amsu is said to have developed illicit intimacy, is unmarried and resident of Bodinaickanur. P.W.8 is the key witness to speak to the fact of his illicit intimacy with Amsu. But P.w.8 Kumaresan has not supported the case of Prosecution. In the light of unwillingness of P.W.8 to support the Prosecution case, the Prosecution is handicapped in proving the illicit relationship of deceased Amsu with P.W.8 Kumaresan. 11. Likewise Prosecution has examined P.W.5 - Virumandi, junior paternal uncle of deceased Amsu, who accompanied P.W.4 in taking Amsu back to the house of A7. P.W.5 has also not supported the case of the Prosecution. He has confined his evidence to the limited extent of saying that Amsu was given in marriage to A7. Thus the Prosecution is further handicapped in proving the ill-will of A7 towards the deceased on account of her illicit intimacy with P.W.8. 12. Case of Prosecution is that out of ill-will towards the deceased, A7 and his brothers - A8 and A9 and other accused, who are closely related to A7, have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 17.08.1994 when Amsu was found to be in compromising position with P.W.8 Kumaresan. Even if we accept the sole testimony of P.W.4 that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy and that A7 was nurturing grouse against her, it could only be a piece of evidence against the accused, suggesting the possibility that A7 and others might have developed ill-will towards the deceased. 13. But mere proof of motive and ill-will would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The crucial point for determination is whether the ire swelled up in the mind of the accused to the extent of committing the murder of the deceased on the night of 17.08.1994 and whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused? 14. The crucial point for determination is whether the ire swelled up in the mind of the accused to the extent of committing the murder of the deceased on the night of 17.08.1994 and whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused? 14. To bring home the guilt of the accused, Prosecution relies upon the following direct and circumstantial evidence:- (i) evidence of eye witness - P.W.2, Theivam and his paternal uncle P.W.3 - Ayyavoo; (ii) that Amsu ran away to save herself through East Street and Chathram Road and that four persons chased her in TVS 50 - two vehicles (evidence of P.W.6); (iii) on hearing about the death of Amsu, P.W.4 Pappa and P.W.5 Virumandi went to Bodinaickanur; on 18.08.1994 - 6 AM near Pillayar Koil they found the body of Amsu with blood oozing from her nose; (iv) that death of deceased Amsu was homicidal; (v) A7 and his men removed the body of Amsu to burial ground; (vi) arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.3 - Uruttu kambu at the instance of A8; It is to be seen whether the above direct evidence and the circumstances are proved by convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. 15. Evidence of eye witness – P.W.2 Theivam: Entire case of the Prosecution revolves around the solitary version of P.W.2 - Theivam. According to him, to see his niece Amsu, he and his paternal uncle P.W.3 - Ayyavoo came to Bodinaickanur on 17.08.1994 - 8.30 PM and at that time, witnessed the occurrence in the house of A7. P.W.2 has stated that A7 and A9 beat Amsu with hands and A8 with M.O.3 Kattai. Further, according to P.W.2, on the direction of A7, A1 to A6 chased her and in a coconut Thope A1 to A6 surrounded and attacked Amsu. P.W.2 has narrated the occurrence in Chinna Thevar Coconut Thope also. P.W.2 has elaborated the minute details of the occurrence in the Thope - that A4 held Amsu by hands while A1 strangulated her by throat and A6 held her by left leg and A2 throttled her neck and that they carried the body and left near Pillayar Temple. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of P.W.2 as reliable. Evidence of P.W.2 is subjected to strong attack. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of P.W.2 as reliable. Evidence of P.W.2 is subjected to strong attack. In the light of various inconsistencies and improbabilities pointed out, evidence of P.W.2 is to be tested for its reliability and credibility. 16. P.W.3 - Ayyavoo, who is said to have accompanied P.W.2 to Bodinaickanur, had not supported the case of Prosecution and he was treated as hostile. Thus evidence of P.W.2 stands in isolation. Whether the solitary testimony of P.W.2 could form the basis of conviction? As noted earlier, P.W.2 is the paternal uncle of deceased Amsu and closely related to her. Evidence of closely related witness is to be carefully scrutinised and analysed. In the judgment of the trial court, there is nothing to indicate that the learned Sessions Judge had that caution in the mind in carefully analysing the interested testimony of solitary witness - P.W.2. 17. This Court carefully re-assessed the evidence of P.W.2. While the evidence of P.W.2 is scrutinised carefully, it does not pass the test of reliability nor credibility. P.W.2 is a resident of Kannanur, which is about 75 kms. away from Bodinaickanur. He is employed in a Rice Mill in Karaikal. It is stated that on the date of occurrence - 17.08.1994 accompanied by P.W.3 P.W.2 is said to have come down to Bodinaickanur. P.W.2 is alleged to have reached Bodinaickanur - house of A7, exactly at the time of occurrence - 8.30 PM and is said to have witnessed the occurrence. His presence in Bodinaickanur at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. He is not a natural witness; but only a chance witness. He had no reason to be present in Bodinaickanur on the date and time of occurrence. This is all the more so, when P.W.3 Ayyavoo, who is said to have accompanied him, has not corroborated his version. 18. P.W.2 has narrated the two fold occurrence - (i) the occurrence in the house of A7; (ii) that as per the direction of A7, A1 to A6 have chased Amsu and caught hold of her in the Coconut Thope and attacked her. According to P.W.2, he and his paternal uncle Ayyavoo followed them and witnessed the occurrence in coconut thope also. According to P.W.2, he and his paternal uncle Ayyavoo followed them and witnessed the occurrence in coconut thope also. According to P.W.2, after the occurrence in coconut thope, he went back to the house of A7 and informed A7 that A1 to A6 have killed Amsu and that A7 asked them not to inform to anyone and that the body could be cremated the next day. It is relevant to refer to the following version of P.W.2; 19. By any reasonable standard of appreciation of evidence, the above evidence of P.W.2 is unnatural and unbelievable. His own brother's daughter was beaten in the house of A7 and violently attacked by A1 to A6 in the coconut thope; but P.W.2 simply witnessed the occurrence. He is the silent spectator to the violent attack on the helpless lady in the coconut thope. After silently witnessing the occurrence, P.W.2 quietly comes back to the house of A7 and informs him about the attack on Amsu and that Amsu was murdered. The inaction and unnatural conduct on the part of P.W.2 throws serious doubts on his presence in Bodinaickanur on the night of 17.08.1994 and on his version. It is not as if P.W.2 was stunned or dumb-founded. He runs after the accused and Amsu, but only to remain as a silent spectator. His hardened inaction remaining silent to the occurrence is unnatural and not inconsonance with the natural human conduct. The unnatural conduct on the part of P.W.2 coupled with the fact he is a chance witness in Bodinaickanur and other circumstances only indicate that P.W.2 is suborned in support of the Prosecution case. 20. The above conclusion is fortified by other aspects also. Upon hearing the noise about the lying of the body of a female near Pillayar Temple, P.W.1 - Village Assistant informed P.W.7 - Village Administrative Officer. The statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P-1) was recorded at 10.30 AM on 18.08.1994. A case of Suspicious Death was registered in crime No.534/1994 under Ex.P-8 under Section 174 of Crl.P.C.at 11.00 AM by P.W.10 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bodinaickanur. P.W.2, who witnessed the occurrence on the night of 17.08.1994, must have been very well available in the Village on the morning of 18.08.1994 also. A case of Suspicious Death was registered in crime No.534/1994 under Ex.P-8 under Section 174 of Crl.P.C.at 11.00 AM by P.W.10 - the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bodinaickanur. P.W.2, who witnessed the occurrence on the night of 17.08.1994, must have been very well available in the Village on the morning of 18.08.1994 also. His brother's daughter having been mercilessly done to death and having witnessed the occurrence, P.W.2 would have definitely come forward to the Investigating Officer to narrate the occurrence. But his statement under Section 161(3) of Crl.P.C.was recorded only on 24.08.1994 - only after the arrest of the accused, clearly indicating that he was secured to bolster the Prosecution case. If really P.W.2 had witnessed the occurrence, he would have either lodged the complaint by approaching the Village Administrative Officer or would have approached the Investigating Officer to inform about the complicity of the accused. Conduct of P.W.2 is unnatural and does not pass the test of reliability. 21. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2 against the general tenor of the case, I find, evidence of P.W.2 suffers from several infirmities. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence of P.W.2 for its inherent consistency with probabilities. Upon careful analysis of the evidence, it does not pass the test of reliability. While so, it is unsafe to base the conviction upon the evidence of P.w.2. This is all the more so, when the Prosecution has not examined other independent witness like Kubendran, who is said to have witnessed the occurrence. 22. Evidence of P.W.6 - Mariammal:(Circumstance (ii) This second limb of evidence is adduced by the Prosecution to bring home the point that Amsu ran through the East Street. P.W.6 is alleged to have seen a woman running from west to east. P.W.6 was examined to prove mainly two aspects; (i) that she saw Amsu with bleeding injuries and running towards vasal of P.W.6; (ii) that the other persons in two TVS 50 have chased her. On the important aspect of identification of the woman running as 'Amsu' and that the accused have chased her, P.W.6 has not supported the Prosecution case. In her evidence, she has only stated that she saw a woman running. In her evidence, she has not identified the woman whom she found running. On the important aspect of identification of the woman running as 'Amsu' and that the accused have chased her, P.W.6 has not supported the Prosecution case. In her evidence, she has only stated that she saw a woman running. In her evidence, she has not identified the woman whom she found running. On important aspect of identification of Amsu and that the accused have chased her, P.W.6 was treated as hostile. With the hostility of P.w.6 on those crucial aspects, the Prosecution is seriously handicapped in establishing the link that Amsu was chased by A1 to A6. 23. Even when P.W.6 has not identified deceased Amsu and was treated as hostile, the learned Sessions Judge counted the evidence of P.W.6 as one of the circumstances against the accused. By the evidence of P.w.6 that she saw a woman running, the trial court stretched its reasoning to presume that Amsu ran in the street and that she was chased by the accused. Such approach of the trial court in interpreting the evidence to adapt to the missing link is erroneous and cannot be endorsed with. The learned Sessions Judge has not carefully analysed the evidence of P.w.6 and erred in basing its conclusion upon the statement recorded from P.W.6 during investigation. 24. Circumstances (iii), (iv) and (v): Death of Amsu is proved to be homicidal by the medical evidence. P.w.9 - Dr.Palanisamy had conducted the autopsy and issued Ex.P.7 - Post Mortem Certificate. He has noted the following external injuries; (i) Contusion over right temporal region; (ii) Lacerated wound on the left of left eye; (iii)Abrasion over right knee; (iv) Abrasion over left knee; (v) Linear abrasion on both sides of windpipe brown and dry between the chin and thyroid cartilage; (vi) Contusion below both angles of lower jaw on either side. On internal examination, the following injuries are noted: (i) Thorax: fracture of ribs; (ii) Hyoid bone: Cornua of hyoid bone fractured; (iii) Extravasation of blood below the scalp on right temporal area fracture; P.W.9 is of definite opinion that the death was due to Asphyxia due to throttling. Thus death of Amsu, proved to be homicidal by the definite medical evidence, is only a circumstance against the accused. But the crucial point is whether the accused are proved to be responsible for the homicidal death of Amsu. 25. The case of Prosecution is surrounded by several infirmities and improbabilities. Thus death of Amsu, proved to be homicidal by the definite medical evidence, is only a circumstance against the accused. But the crucial point is whether the accused are proved to be responsible for the homicidal death of Amsu. 25. The case of Prosecution is surrounded by several infirmities and improbabilities. Firstly, we may refer to the manner in which the law was set in motion, which throws serious doubts upon the Prosecution case. As discussed earlier, though P.W.2 and his paternal uncle P.W.3 Ayyavoo are said to have witnessed the occurrence, no complaint was forthcoming from them. In her evidence, P.W.4 - mother of Amsu has stated that a Statement was recorded from her by the Police when she saw the body of Amsu. It is not known whether the same was recorded prior to Ex.P-1 or subsequently. Whatever be the time of recording the statement of P.W.1, the same also is not placed before the Court. 26. Upon hearing the news that Amsu was caught red handed by her husband while she was in the company of her paramour and that A7 has confined her, P.W.4 and her brother-in-law P.W.5 Virumandi and his wife Thangam came to Bodinaickanur on the small hours of 18.08.1994 - 4.00 AM. According to P.W.4, at that time some unidentified persons came shouting that Amsu was found dead near Pillayar Temple. At about 6.00 AM, P.w.4 went near Pillayar Temple and saw the body of Amsu with bleeding injuries and neck congested. If P.W.4 had really found the body of Amsu with bleeding injuries at 6.00 AM, she would have definitely approached either the Village Administrative Officer to inform about the suspicious death of Amsu or she would have lodged a complaint to the police; but that was not to be so. The fact that P.W.4 has not set the law in motion immediately on knowing about the murder of Amsu raises doubts about the Prosecution case. 27. Case of Prosecution is that P.W.1 - Village Assistant heard the news about the body of a female lying near Pillayar Temple. At about 10.00 AM when P.W.1 and other Village Assistant - Kadhirvel went to Pillayar Temple, the body was found missing. Only the blood stains were found near Pillayar Temple. P.W.1 learnt that the body was removed from that place to the burial ground. At about 10.00 AM when P.W.1 and other Village Assistant - Kadhirvel went to Pillayar Temple, the body was found missing. Only the blood stains were found near Pillayar Temple. P.W.1 learnt that the body was removed from that place to the burial ground. According to P.W.4, after she found the body of Amsu at 6.00 AM, she positioned herself near the body and was weeping. While so, it is quite improbable that A7 and his men would have shifted the body from the Pillayar Temple to the burial ground. Absolutely, there is no evidence as to who shifted the body from Pillayar Temple to burial ground. There is serious lapse on the investigation on this aspect also. 28. Circumstance (vi): A1 to A6 were arrested on 24.08.1994 - 3.00 PM near Marimoorkalam. So also A7 to A9 were arrested on the same day at 5.00 PM. Confession statement of A8 led to the recovery of M.O.3 - Uruttu kambu under Ex.P.5 - Mahazar. P.W.12 - Inspector of Police had spoken about the arrest and the confession and recovery. When the Prosecution case bristles with several infirmities and improbabilities, arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.3 is of no great help to the Prosecution. 29. The learned counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of the court to an unreported decision in C.A.658/1985 in support of his contention that the Village Administrative Officer has not complied with the procedure contemplated under Order 567 of Board Standing Order as to the procedure of recording and reporting the occurrence of crime in the villages. Since it is held that the case of the Prosecution is unsatisfactory on other aspects, this Court does not propose to go into this aspect - compliance or otherwise of the Board Standing Order 567. 30. All the charges relate to the occurrence in Chinna Thevar coconut Thope. But the learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence as if the charge relates to the occurrence at the house of A7 also. No doubt, the preluding occurrence in the house of A7 is a part of the same transaction; but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the evidence in the proper perspective that the charge relates to the main occurrence in Coconut Thope. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution is not tested against the probabilities and nature of human conduct. No doubt, the preluding occurrence in the house of A7 is a part of the same transaction; but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the evidence in the proper perspective that the charge relates to the main occurrence in Coconut Thope. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution is not tested against the probabilities and nature of human conduct. That Amsu had illicit relationship with P.W.8 - Kumaresan and that the death is homicidal throws doubt about the involvement of the accused. But suspicion itself cannot take the place of proof. 31. From the facts and evidence detailed above, it is clear that the Prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused. Evidence of P.W.2 was not tested for its inherent consistency with other circumstances and natural human conduct. The learned Sessions Judge erred in placing reliance upon the evidence of P.w.6 to complete the chain of evidence. Serious doubts arise as to the Prosecution case, the benefits of which are to be given to the accused. The finding of guilty and the conviction cannot be sustained. 32. Therefore, the judgment of II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.128/1995 (dated 27.02.1997) convicting A1 to A3 and A7 to A9 under various charges is set aside and this Appeal is allowed. The Appellants / accused 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 are acquitted of all the charges for which they are convicted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.