Judgment :- (Prayer: Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 29-11-2002 made in S.C.No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Cuddalore) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Karthik @ Karthikeyan, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts which led to the conviction are as follows: (a) The prosecution party belong to Adi-dravida community. The accused is of Vanniya community. They are residing at Puliyangudi Village. The prosecution witnesses being Adi-dravidas are living in a separate colony. The accused Karthik belonging to Vanniya community was having affair with P.W.15 Prabavathi, a Hindu Adi-dravida residing in the colony. (b) On 25-05-2000 at about 9 p.m., the accused entered into the colony in order to meet P.W.15 in her house. On noticing his movements, P.W.15’s uncle’s son Murali questioned him as to why he came there. Ultimately, a quarrel ensued between both of them. P.W.14 Kuppammal @ Saraswathi, aunt of P.W.15 and P.W.13 Uma @ Kalaiselvi, daughter of P.W.14 and P.W.16 Usha witnessed this quarrel. (c) Since the colony people felt that Karthik came to the colony and trespassed into the house of P.W.15, they suspected that the accused has come to rape P.W.15. Therefore, they decided to report the matter to “Maadhar Sangam”. P.W.17 Vasantha advised them to bring this to the notice of the Panchayat President. (d) Accordingly, on 26-05-2000 at about 7 a.m., the Village people went and reported the matter to P.W.18 Soundarapandian @ Rajasoundarapandian, the Panchayat President. At about 8 a.m., P.W.18 and P.W.19 Headmaster convened the Panchayat. The Village people requested the Panchayat President to arrange for the marriage of the accused with P.W.15. The Panchayatars P.Ws.18 and 19 called for the accused. However, he was not available. So, P.W.22 Ganesan and P.W.23 Kannan, who belong to the same village were sent for searching the accused to bring him before the Panchayat. (e) Next day at about 9 p.m., P.Ws.22 and 23 came to Poompuhar. They reported to P.Ws.24 and 25 that the accused misbehaved with P.W.15 and therefore, they have come to take the accused to produce before the Panchayat. The next day both of them were able to find the accused. (e) Next day at about 9 p.m., P.Ws.22 and 23 came to Poompuhar. They reported to P.Ws.24 and 25 that the accused misbehaved with P.W.15 and therefore, they have come to take the accused to produce before the Panchayat. The next day both of them were able to find the accused. When these people asked the accused to come for Panchayat, the accused told them that he committed murder of three persons of this Village and they should not divulge it to any other persons. (f) In the meantime, in the village at about 7 a.m., there was a hue and cry from persons on seeing that Gandhi, Mathiyalagan and Rajesh @ Vellaiyan were found dead with cut injuries on their neck beneath the Banyan tree. P.W.1 Senthil, brother of the deceased Gandhi went to the Police Station and gave Ex-P2 complaint to P.W.44 Uthirapathi, Sub-Inspector of Police, suspecting that 28 named persons in the Vanniya Community might have committed the murder. A case was registered under Section 302 IPC. (g) Then, P.W.45, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation. He came to the spot, observed all the formalities and prepared observation mahazar. Then, he arranged to take photographs of the bodies and recovered bloodstained earth. He, thereafter, sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. (h) On 28-05-2000, P.Ws.30,31,32 the Doctors conducted post-mortem on the three bodies and issued post-mortem certificates, Exs-P4,P6 and P8. (i) P.W.46 Swaminathan, successor of the then D.S.P., took up further investigation. On 29-05-2000, on suspicion, he arrested P.Ws.18 and 19, the Panchayat President and the Headmaster of the School. (j) On 30-05-2000, on the orders of the higher-ups, P.W.47 Padmanabhan took up further investigation. He continued the investigation and examined the other witnesses. Then, he examined P.Ws.22 and 23 on 09-06-2000. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused alone is the culprit. On 07-07-2000, he arrested the accused and on his confession, M.O.1 Aruval, M.O.2 Pawn Broker’s Receipt and M.O.3 notebook were recovered. (k) Thereafter, P.W.47 examined the persons from whom the accused purchased the Aruval. The materials were sent for chemical examination. After concluding the investigation, P.W.47 filed the charge sheet against the accused. (l) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 47 were examined, Exs-P1 to P36 were filed and M.Os.1 to 28 were marked. (k) Thereafter, P.W.47 examined the persons from whom the accused purchased the Aruval. The materials were sent for chemical examination. After concluding the investigation, P.W.47 filed the charge sheet against the accused. (l) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 47 were examined, Exs-P1 to P36 were filed and M.Os.1 to 28 were marked. (m) When the accused was questioned with reference to the materials placed by the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the crime. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. (n) The Trial Court after analysing the entire materials placed on record found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the materials placed before the Court by the investigation agency would not connect the accused with the crime in question and since the circumstances would not form the complete chain, the accused may not be convicted and as such he is liable to be acquitted. 4. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor on the above aspect. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and gone through the records. 6. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in the case where circumstantial evidence only is available, those circumstances should be clinchingly established and all these circumstances must form a complete chain without any missing link. 7. In this case, three important circumstances were put-forth by the prosecution as against the accused. (1) Motive (2) Extra-judicial Confession (3) Recovery of the weapons used in the commission of offence. 8. The witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution would state that one day prior to the date of occurrence, i.e., on 25-05-2000 at about 9 p.m., the accused came to the colony and tried to trespass into the house of P.W.15 to have affairs with her. On finding out his movements, Murali, relative of P.W.15, questioned him and picked up quarrel. Thereafter, there was a commotion in the entire colony and all the people accused the appellant stating that he came for the purpose of raping P.W.15. Thereafter, the accused went away. The matter was reported to the Panchayat President P.W.18. On finding out his movements, Murali, relative of P.W.15, questioned him and picked up quarrel. Thereafter, there was a commotion in the entire colony and all the people accused the appellant stating that he came for the purpose of raping P.W.15. Thereafter, the accused went away. The matter was reported to the Panchayat President P.W.18. The Panchayat was convened in the presence of P.Ws.18 and 19. These P.Ws.22 and 23 were directed to bring the accused to solve the issue in the Panchayat. 9. This has been said to be the motive for the occurrence. Of course, the motive attributed by the prosecution witnesses with reference to the occurrence took place in the colony and sending persons to bring the accused to the Panchayat the next day morning, would indicate that there is a reason for the accused to have a grudge against Murali or his relatives, which created ‘galata’ when he attempted to enter into the house of P.W.15. This accused naturally would have animosity against the person, who reported the matter to Panchayat. But there is no evidence to show that these deceased Gandhi, Mathiyalagan and Vellaiyan, though they belonged to the colony, participated in the quarrel against the accused and reported the matter to the Panchayat. Therefore, this circumstance putforth as motive would not be sufficient for this Court to decide that the accused had a strong grudge against the said persons to commit the murder. 10. The next is the extra-judicial confession made by the witnesses P.Ws.22 and 23. These witnesses would speak about the extra-judicial confession that was given by the accused on 27-05-2000 at about 7 a.m. But they had not chosen to disclose it to any one of the persons either in the village or to the Police immediately on coming to know that the murders have been committed by the accused. Their evidence is artificial in the sense that they had not shown any anxiety to disclose to anyone. 11. Further, these witnesses P.Ws.22 and 23 had informed the Police only on 09-06-2000 about the statement made by the accused to them on 27-05-2000, when CBCID Police Officers enquired them. There is no material as to how P.W.47, the Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer, was able to trace out these persons as the persons to whom the accused had given the extra-judicial confession. There is no material as to how P.W.47, the Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer, was able to trace out these persons as the persons to whom the accused had given the extra-judicial confession. Admittedly, the initial investigation was done by P.W.45 and thereafter, by P.W.46. Both these officers had not traced out these P.Ws.22 and 23, who had not chosen to inform these investigating officers P.Ws.45 and 46. Therefore, the failure of P.Ws.22 and 23 to inform about the alleged extra-judicial confession immediately either to the Village Administrative Officer or to the Police Officer would indicate that their evidence is unreliable. 12. Furthermore, P.Ws.22 and 23 went to Poompuhar only with a view to fetch the accused and to produce him to the Panchayat, only at the instance of P.Ws.18 and 19, the Panchayatars. Admittedly, P.Ws.18 and 19 were arrested on suspicion. If the extra-judicial confession made to P.Ws.22 and 23 is true, they would have informed about the murder committed by the accused to the Police immediately, which is expected to be the natural conduct. At least for the sake of P.Ws.18 and 19, at whose instance, they went and met the accused should have informed that the accused alone is culprit and not P.Ws.18 and 19. Admittedly this has not been done. In the light of the above situation, we are not able to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.22 and 23. So the second circumstance also would fail. 13. The third circumstance is the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of offence. Of course, the Village Administrative Officer and other witnesses have given evidence about the recovery of M.Os.1, 2 and 3. M.Os.2 and 3 have no connection with the commission of the offence. M.O.1, Aruval was said to be used as a weapon for commission of the offence. Admittedly, there is no bloodstain in M.O.1. The occurrence took place on 27-05-2000. The accused was arrested on 07-07-2000 after nearly 40 days. The arrest of the accused and subsequent recovery of M.O.1 by itself would not be sufficient circumstance to connect the accused with the offence. So, in our view, these circumstances put-forth by the prosecution would not pass the test of credibility. 14. Thus, all the circumstances projected by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused have failed. 15. The arrest of the accused and subsequent recovery of M.O.1 by itself would not be sufficient circumstance to connect the accused with the offence. So, in our view, these circumstances put-forth by the prosecution would not pass the test of credibility. 14. Thus, all the circumstances projected by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused have failed. 15. The important thing to be noticed in this case is the earliest document, Ex-P2 complaint given by P.W.1. As per Ex-P2 complaint, 28 persons belonging to Vanniya community had committed murder of the deceased. Unfortunately, P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand, he stated in his evidence that he was simply asked to sign in the paper and he never saw those 28 persons in the scene with the Aruval. But, the curious thing in this case is that he has not been treated as hostile. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, and he is acquitted of all the charges. He is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The fine amounts, if paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded.