A.Kulasekaran, J.: The appellant, who was arrayed as the first accused in Sessions Case No.81 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, was tried along with one Subramanian, who stood arrayed as the second accused for the offences punishable under Secs.302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On being convicted, for the offence under Sec.302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, each of them were directed to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000 carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code each of them were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence, the appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the first accused and Subramanin will be referred to as the second accused, in the same rank, as they were referred to before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The first accused, who is the wife of one Sekar, was residing at Chavadi Street Koothsppankudikadu, Thittakudi village. The husband of the first accused Sekar was employed in a foreign country. The second accused was a worker under the first accused. He developed illicit intimacy taking advantage of the absence of the husband of the first accused. 4. On 24.2.2000 at 2.30 p.m. accused 1 and 2, after having sexual intercourse, were talking with each other, which was seen by Krithika, the third daughter of the first accused, the deceased in this case, who threatened her mother, the first accused, that she would inform her father. Aggrieved over this, the first accused caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and slapped on her cheek and pushed her on account of which the deceased dashed against the wall and on the grinder and sustained injuries on her right eye brow. The second accused sat on the deceased and pressed the temple region of the deceased, due to which her left eye got diluted and ultimately she died. The second accused sat on the deceased and pressed the temple region of the deceased, due to which her left eye got diluted and ultimately she died. After the death of the deceased, the first accused along with P.W.1, who is the son of her husband’s elder brother, went to the police station and gave Ex.P-17, complaint to P.W.13, the Head Constable attached to Thittakudi police station at 9.00 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution that after returning from the police station, both the accused hid the body of the deceased under wooden logs at 11.00 p.m. on the same night and at 4.00 a.m. on the next morning took out the body of the deceased from there and hid the same near a drainage passage of the house belonging to one Alavandan. 5. In the meantime, P.W.13, the Head Constable, on receipt of Ex.P-17, the complaint, registered a case in crime No.52 of 2000 as ‘baby missing’. He also prepared the printed first information report, Ex.P-18 and forwarded the same to the higher officials. 6. P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, having territorial jurisdiction over Thittakudi police station, on receipt of Ex.P-18, the first information report at 10.00 p.m. on 24.2.2000, went to the house of the first accused and recorded her statement. He made arrangements to search the missing child. He also examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 25.2.2000 at 7.30 a.m., the first accused appeared before the police station and gave a report (not marked) stating that the body of the deceased was found near a drainage of a house belonging to Alavandar. Thereafter, P.W.14 has altered the crime to one under Sec.174, Crl.P.C., and proceeded to the house of Alavandar at 8.30 a.m., where he examined the witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-5 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-20. He came over to the house of the first accused at about 10.00 a.m. and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P-21 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body through a constable along with a requisition, Ex.P-12 to the doctor for conducting postmortem. 7. P.W.12, the doctor attached to Thittakudi Government Hospital, on receipt of Ex.P-12, requisition letter from P.W.14, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “1. Ex.P-21 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body through a constable along with a requisition, Ex.P-12 to the doctor for conducting postmortem. 7. P.W.12, the doctor attached to Thittakudi Government Hospital, on receipt of Ex.P-12, requisition letter from P.W.14, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “1. Bluish black contusion over the right side of scalp 3 2/2” above the right ear 5“x 3”. 2. Cut injury over the lateral aspect of right eye-brow 1“x 1/4” x bone depth. Oozing of blood is seen underlying tissues are echymosed. 3. Black contusion over the centre of forehead 3 1/2“x 2 1/2”. 4. Left eye ball is swollen. Conjunctiva fully congested. 5. Sub-conjunctival haemorrhage in right eye is seen. 6. Bluish black contusion over the centre of the chest crossing the nipple on left side 7“x 4 1/2”. 7. Irregular laceration over the mucosa of upper and lower lips. 8. Black contusion over the left side of forehead 5“x 4”. 9. Black contusion over the left side of face just below the left eye 4“x 3”. 10. Reddish black abrasion over the right side of neck 1“below the right mandible 5” x 1/4“.” Ex.P-16 is the postmortem certificate issued by the doctor, in which the doctor has opined that the death would have occurred due to shock, haemorrhage and injuries to parietal, frontal bones and injury to blood vessels. 8. In the meanwhile, P.W.10, a resident of the same village, came to the police station and reported to P.W.14 that a gunny bag was lying near the drainage of the house of Alavandar. P.W.14 proceeded there and recovered the said gunny bag, M.O.1 under a mahazar, Ex.P-7 attested by the witnesses. He prepared a requisition, Ex.P-22 to the Court requesting the Court to forward the material objects for chemical analysis. He also questioned P.Ws.10, 11 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 5.3.2000 he questioned P.W.12 and recorded her statement. On 8.4.2000 he arrested the first accused and she voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-9. He also questioned P.Ws.10, 11 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 5.3.2000 he questioned P.W.12 and recorded her statement. On 8.4.2000 he arrested the first accused and she voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-9. Pursuant to the said statement, the first accused took the police party to her house, and from the rear side of her house she took out a polythene bag, in which a slate, silver anklets and an yellow bag, M.Os.4 to 7 were found, which was recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P-10. Thereafter, he altered the crime into one under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and prepared express reports and sent a copy of that to the Court. Printed first information report in the altered crime is Ex.P-25. On 11.4.2000 at 9.00 a.m., P.W.14 arrested the second accused near Thittakudi bus stand. After the completion of the investigation, P.W.14 filed the final report on 10.8.2000. 9. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances when put to him under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. No witness was examined on the side of the defence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness in this case; that the prosecution, though examined 14 witnesses and marked 24 exhibits and 8 materials objects, of the witnesses so examined, P.Ws.1 to 5, 8 and 9 turned hostile; that as there is no, eye witness, the prosecution attempted to prove the case by circumstantial evidence, but it failed to prove the guilt of the accused; that the trial Court failed to note that the appellant has taken genuine efforts to trace the child and met P.W.6, the teacher of the school where the deceased was studying; that though it is stated that some blood stains were found in the house of the first accused, the police waited and arrested the first accused only on 8.4.2000 and that therefore the trial Court was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 11. On the above contentions we have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 12. The prosecution, to prove that the death of the deceased was on account of homicidal violence, examined P.W.12, the doctor who conducted postmortem and issued Ex.P-16, postmortem certificate. The evidence of the doctor and Ex.P-16 disclose that the deceased died due to the injuries found on her body, which were caused by homicidal violence. 12. The prosecution, to prove that the death of the deceased was on account of homicidal violence, examined P.W.12, the doctor who conducted postmortem and issued Ex.P-16, postmortem certificate. The evidence of the doctor and Ex.P-16 disclose that the deceased died due to the injuries found on her body, which were caused by homicidal violence. Hence, we hold that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no eye witness in this case and only circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court must be very cautious and has to scrutinise thoroughly as to whether the prosecution has connected all the links in the chain of circumstances. 14. Keeping the above principle in mind, we analysed the evidence of the witnesses as well as the documents, which were relied upon by the prosecution. Though it is alleged that on the date of the occurrence, the first and the second accused, after having sexual intercourse, were sitting together and talking with each other, which was witnessed by the deceased and that the deceased allegedly threatened her mother to convey the same to her father, who is employed in a foreign country, no witness has spoken about the same. Indeed, the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution did not even speak about the illicit relationship between the first and the second accused. P.W.1, who is said to have accompanied the first accused to the police station, has stated that on the instructions given by the first accused, a complaint has been written by him and he accompanied the first accused, where they handed over the same to P.W.13. When we look at the complaint, Ex.P-17, it is mentioned clearly that the deceased who was aged 5 years was studying 1st standard in the Thittakudi Panchayat Union School and on 24.2.2000 she attended the school and came to the house for mid-day meals and thereafter went back to the school, but she did not turn up till 6.30 p.m. Hence, the complaint was preferred. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.6, the teacher of the said school, who was taking class for the 1st standard, where the deceased was studying that the appellant herself went to the school and inquired P.W.6 about the deceased. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.6, the teacher of the said school, who was taking class for the 1st standard, where the deceased was studying that the appellant herself went to the school and inquired P.W.6 about the deceased. Hence, the said evidence of P.W.6 discloses that the appellant has made bona fide efforts to trace her child. After meeting P.W.6, the appellant contacted P.W.1 to prepare a complaint, which was later lodged with P.W.13, the Head Constable. The said evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 dismantles the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has also examined P.W.7, a resident of that area, who saw the dead body of the deceased first on 25.2.2000 at,6.30 a.m. It is his evidence that when he went there to attend the nature’s call, the body was found near a drainage of the house belonging to one Alavandan and therefore he went and informed the first accused. The evidence further discloses that after the receipt of the intimation about the dead body of the deceased lying in the drainage, the first accused rushed up to the place and took the child and came back to her house. Though the prosecution relied upon the recovery of M.O.1, the gunny bag, which contained the slate and other material objects on 26.2.2000 the police has not taken any action to arrest the appellant on that day itself. The appellant was arrested only after the lapse of two months, i.e., on 8.4.2000. 15. In the absence of any other circumstance and in view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not connected all the links in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court are, therefore, set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The criminal appeal is allowed. 16. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. The bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to her.