M.Karpagavinayagam, J.: The gravamen of the charge is that both the appellant as (A-1 and A-2) refused to pay the Auto fare to the Auto Driver, the deceased and when he insisted for the payment, the appellants (A-1 and A-2) removed the bottles kept in the Tea Stall situated nearby and broke the same and then attacked the Auto Driver, the deceased on various parts of the body. This resulted in his death in the hospital. Accepting the prosecution case, the conviction was imposed by the trial Court upon both the appellants under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C. and the same is being challenged in this appeal. 2. The factual matrix, in brief, is summarised as follows: "(a) The deceased Anbu Kirubairajan, a resident of Athikulam Kurinji Nagar at Madurai, was an Auto-rickshaw Driver. P.W.I Jeganathan is his elder brother. The accused 1 and 2 belong to Bethaniapuram. (b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 24.10.1996, both the accused came and engaged the Auto-rickshaw TN 59F 2004 of the deceased fixing the fare at Rs.60 to go to Pitchaipillai Chavadi and travelled in the said Auto. P.W.I, the elder brother of the deceased also travelled along wit the accused. Opposite to the Union Bank at Pitchaipillai Chavadi, the Auto was stopped. Both the accused got down. When the deceased Anbu Kirubairajan demanded for the payment of fare, both the accused threatened him that he should not demand any money from them as he knew that they are local Rowdies. The deceased told them that having fixed the Auto fare they should make the payment. When he insisted them to pay the Auto fare, both the accused picked up quarrel with him. Having got angry over the attitude of the deceased, A-l Thennarasu went to a nearby Tea shop and brought two soda bottles and broke the same. Then, each of them with the bottle began to attack the deceased by inflicting injuries on the neck, stomach, left cheek and other parts of the body. P.W.1 who saw the ghastly sight cried aloud. Then, both of them tried to attack P.W.1. On getting frightened, P.W.1 escaped by running away from the scene. Then, both the accused on noticing that the deceased was in a serious condition, put him in the Auto itself and went to the hospital. P.W.1 who saw the ghastly sight cried aloud. Then, both of them tried to attack P.W.1. On getting frightened, P.W.1 escaped by running away from the scene. Then, both the accused on noticing that the deceased was in a serious condition, put him in the Auto itself and went to the hospital. (c) In the meantime, P.W.1 who escaped from the scene, went to the police station and gave a complaint (Ex.P-12) to P.W.21 Sub Inspector of Police. The case was registered for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. The F.I.R. is Ex.P-13. (d) Meanwhile, the victim deceased was brought by the accused in the same Auto to the hospital run by P.W.5, a private Doctor. On noticing the serious condition of the victim, P.W.5 Dr.Vijayaraj advised them to take him to the General Hospital. (e) P.W.15 Dr.Mathivawnan, attached to the General Hospital, admitted the deceased brought by the accused person and found that he was dead. He issued Ex.P-6 Accident Register. (f) P.W.22, the Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint registered for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. went to the spot at about 10.50 p.m. and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. At about 12.45 mid night on 24.10.1996, he received the intimation of death from P.W.15. Therefore, the case was altered into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. and the altered F.I.R. is Ex.P-15. (g) Then, P.W.22 went to the General Hospital and visited the place where the Auto TN 54F 2004 was found stationed. He recovered the bloodstained clothes and a Watch. On 25.10.1996 at about 7.00 a.m., he conducted inquest. After the inquest was over, the body was sent for post-mortem. (h) P.W. 17 Doctor conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He found seven injuries on various parts of the body. He issued seven injuries on various parts of the body. He issued the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-9. The Doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the external injuries 1 and 2 and the corresponding internal injuries (injury) to the neck vessels and spleen). (i) P.W.22 sent a requisition to the Finger Print Expert to take finger prints from the Auto. Accordingly, P.W.20, the Finger Print Expert came and took the finger prints from the Auto. (i) P.W.22 sent a requisition to the Finger Print Expert to take finger prints from the Auto. Accordingly, P.W.20, the Finger Print Expert came and took the finger prints from the Auto. (j) On 25.10.1996 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.22, the Inspector of Police arrested A-1 Suresh Kumar alias Thennarsu and A-2 Alagarkumar and on their confession, he recovered the bloodstained clothes, namely M.O.15 pant an M.O.16 shirt from A-1 and M.O.17 lungi and M.O.18 slack shirt from A-2. When he arrested A-l Suresh, he was found with injury on his right palm. So, he was sent to the hospital where he was given treatment by P.W.16 Doctor on 25.10.1996. P.W.16 issued the Accident Register Ex.P-7. (k) After the arrest, finger print of A-2 was sent to the office of the Finger Print Expert which was received by P.W.20 Finger Print Expert on 15.11.1996. P.W.20 sent Ex.P-10 report on 21.11.1996. He also sent the final report Ex.P-11 stating that the finger prints found on the Auto tallied with the finger print of A-2. (l) P.W.23 Inspector of Police, the successor to P.W.22 took up further investigation in the matter and examined P.W.17 Doctor as well as the other witnesses. Then, P.W.23 made arrangement to send the material objects for Chemical examination. He obtained Chemical Examiner’s Report Ex.P-23 and Serologist’s Report Ex.P-24 to the effect that the blood group of the deceased tallied with the group of the blood contained in the clothes of the accused, (m) After completion of the investigation, P.W.23 Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C." 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 23 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-24 were filed and M.Os.1 to 18 were marked. 4. Then, both the accused were questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. with regard to the incriminzating materials. They simply denied their complicity in the crime. 5. After analysis of the materials available on records, the trial Court accepted the case of prosecution and convicted both the accused for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them thereunder. This is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed by both the accused. 6. They simply denied their complicity in the crime. 5. After analysis of the materials available on records, the trial Court accepted the case of prosecution and convicted both the accused for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them thereunder. This is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed by both the accused. 6. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would take us through the entire evidence and submit that the eye witnesses examined in this case turned hostile and as such, only evidence available is some pieces of circumstantial evidence and they are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted. 7. We have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor on this aspect. 8. We have perused the records and also given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties. 9. There are two eye witnesses. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased who travelled along with the accused in the Auto. P.W.2 is another Auto Driver, who had seen the occurrence. Initially, the case was registered under Sec.307, I.P.C. on the complaint given by P.W. 1 who rushed to the police station after escaping from the scene. Unfortunately, P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile. Consequently, the complaint which has been marked as Ex.P-12 given by P.W. 1 would be of no use. 10. The prosecution examined the other witnesses to prove another aspect of the case. P.W.3 is the Proprietor of Kamadhenu Coffee Shop which is situated opposite to the place of occurrence. He was informed by a worker working in the Coffee Shop that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased Auto Driver and the accused removed the bottles from the shop and attacked the deceased. P.W.4 was a Head Constable in Armed Reserve. On 24.10.1996, he was on the guard duty of the Treasury of Union Bank which is situated very near to the place of occurrence. P.W.3, the Proprietor of Coffee shop informed P.W.4 about the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.4 came to the scene and saw that the victim was taken in the Auto by the accused persons. 11. Though these P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined to speak about the above aspect, P.W.3 did not support the prosecution. Therefore, he was treated hostile. P.W.3, the Proprietor of Coffee shop informed P.W.4 about the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.4 came to the scene and saw that the victim was taken in the Auto by the accused persons. 11. Though these P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined to speak about the above aspect, P.W.3 did not support the prosecution. Therefore, he was treated hostile. Though P.W. 1 would state that the deceased with injuires was taken in the Auto TN 59F 2004 from the scene of occurrence, he admitted that he had not seen the accused in the scene. P.W.4 who had not been treated hostile, would specifically state, as indicated above, that he did not notice the presence of the accused in the Auto. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 would not help the prosecution. 12. According to the prosecution, both the accused took the victim to the private hospital run by P.W.5 Doctor. P.W.5 on noticing the serious injuries on the body of the deceased brought by the accused persons, advised them to take him to the Government Hospital. From there, the accused persons took the victim deceased to the General Hospital where P.W.15 Doctor admitted the deceased who was brought by both the accused. After examining the deceased, P.W.15 declared him dead. He issued Accident Register Ex.P-6. 13. On behalf of the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.15, the prosecution sought to prove the fact that the deceased was taken to the hospital only by the accused persons. P.W.5 did not produce any document to show that this deceased victim was brought to him by the two accused, even though in his evidence, he stated that 1-1/2 years back, the victim which injuries was brought to the hospital by two persons informing that the deceased sustained injury due to a fall. He was not able to identify the accused persons in the Court as the persons who brought the deceased to the hospital. Consequently, P.W.5 has been treated hostile. 14. P.W. 15, the Doctor at General Hospital, who issued Ex.P-6, would note down that one Suresh, s/o.Krishnan and Kumar, s/o.Shanmuganathan brought the victim, who was dead. This document would not conclusively establish that the appellants/accused only took the deceased to the General Hospital inasmuch as A-2 would tally with the finger prints taken from the Auto. The finger print reports are Exs.P-10 and P-11. 18. This document would not conclusively establish that the appellants/accused only took the deceased to the General Hospital inasmuch as A-2 would tally with the finger prints taken from the Auto. The finger print reports are Exs.P-10 and P-11. 18. Ex.P-11 would indicate that the chance print taken from the Auto developed and marked as P-1 and P-2 on the Auto TN 59F 2004 on 25.10.1996 was compared with specimen left middle finger print taken from Alagar (A-2) sent on 15.11.1996 and found out that they are identical with each other and relate to the one and the same finger of the same person. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.20 and Exs.P-10 and P-11, the prosecution sought to prove that A-2 had accompanied the deceased to the hospital and thereafter, he absconded. 19. At the outset, it shall be stated that even according to P.W.21 Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.1 Jegannatan came to the police station at about 9.45 p.m. on 24.10.1996 and gave a written complaint against both A-1 and A-2 by mentioning their names stating hat both of them attacked the deceased. When identity of the accused persons was known to the investigating officer at about 9.45 p.m. on 24.10.1996, where is the necessity for P.W.22 to request the Finger Print Expert to come and take finger print from the Auto stationed near the hospital? 20. Further, P.W.22, the Inspector of Police arrested both the accused on 25.10.1996 at about 11.00 a.m. Till 29.10.1996, he continued the investigation and thereafter, he handed over the investigation to P.W.23, the successor Inspector of Police. According to the successor Inspector (P.W.23), he took up investigation on 30.10.1996. Both of them had not stated anything about the taking of the finger print from A-2 and sending of the same to P.W.20 for comparison. In the finger print reports Exs.P-10 and P-11, it is stated that the Finger Print Expert (P.W.20) took two finger prints from the Auto on 25.10.1996 and received the finger print of A-2 Alagar on 15.11.1996. This means, the finger print must have been taken from A-2 during the period when P.W.23 took up the investigation. P.W.20 did not state that he took the finger print from A-2 and sent the same to P.W.22. As such, the evidence relating to the taking of the finger print from A-2 is conspicuously absent. 21. This means, the finger print must have been taken from A-2 during the period when P.W.23 took up the investigation. P.W.20 did not state that he took the finger print from A-2 and sent the same to P.W.22. As such, the evidence relating to the taking of the finger print from A-2 is conspicuously absent. 21. There are provisions available for taking of finger prints from the accused giving the procedural guidelines under the Identification of the Prisoners Act as well as the Police Standing Orders. As per the Identification of the Prisoners Act, the Investigating Officer must obtain Permission from the Magistrate concerned and then, the finger prints of the accused shall be taken. Under Sec.801-K of the Police Standing Orders, the finger prints of the accused shall be taken under the orders of the Superintendent of Police. 22. These procedures contained in the Identification of the Prisoners Act and the Police Standing Orders have not been admittedly followed. As such, there are no details as to who took the finger print of A-2 and in whose presence, the same was taken and whether permission has been obtained under the Identification of the prisoners Act before taking the finger print. 23. Under those circumstances, the evidence of P.W.20 on the strength of Exs.P-10 and P-11 to the effect that the finger prints found in the Auto tallied with the finger print of A-2, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof in the absence of the evidence that any such finger prints were taken from A-2 by following the procedures by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this circumstance also would fail. 24. Yet another piece adduced by the prosecution is the recovery of the bloodstained clothes from the accused after they were arrested on 25.10.1996. P.W.22, the Investigating Officer would state that he arrested them on 25.10.1996 at about 11.00 a.m. and recovered the blood stained clothes, namely M.Os. 15, 16, 17 and 18 from both the accused. These bloodstained clothes were sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner after analysis, sent to the report Ex.P-23. As per the Serologist’s report Ex.P-24, it was found out that the clothes recovered from the accused were stained with blood containing ‘O’ group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased as found in pant and shirt of the deceased. As such, the only evidence available is the recovery of the bloodstained clothes. As per the Serologist’s report Ex.P-24, it was found out that the clothes recovered from the accused were stained with blood containing ‘O’ group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased as found in pant and shirt of the deceased. As such, the only evidence available is the recovery of the bloodstained clothes. 25. As stated above, all the eye witnesses turned hostile. As such, no eye witness is available and other evidence adduced by the prosecution is only the various pieces of circumstances. 26. It is settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahmood v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 69, Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 460 (S. C), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Rai, 2004 Crl.L.J. 2006 (S.C.) and Chandran v. State of Kerala, 1991 S.C.C. (Crl.) 245, where there is no direct evidence and the inference of guilt has to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only, the circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused and none else. 27. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave the reasonable ground and they must show in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chainis complete. 28. In this case, as stated above, the only evidence available is the recovery of the bloodstained clothes and at any rate, this piece of evidence could not be construed to be the conclusive evidence to show that the accused alone have committed the offence, especially when the other links are missing. 29. Under those circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and as such, the accused are entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused/appellants are to be acquitted. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants/accused are found not guilty of the offence under Sec.302 read with 34, I.P.C. and they are acquitted of the said charge. They are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.