Judgment :- Koshy, J. An unmarried 34 year old poor woman, who was not mentally steady, was missing after she went for work on 5-7-1993. On 13-7-1993, the deadbody was seen buried. In the postmortem report it was found that she was pregnant by about two months and she was killed by strangulation. The appellant accused was charge-sheeted under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. for murdering her. The prosecution allegation was that since the accused wanted to avoid the threat and nuisance from the deceased Radha as the deceased Radha had conceived illegally from the accused, the accused with the full knowledge that by his acts, death would be caused on 5-7-1993 at about 10.30 a.m. tied around the neck of Radha tightly at a place in the rubber plantation at Anakudi and caused by strangulation and thereafter, the accused with the intention of causing disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence and to screen the accused from the clutches of Law, took away the deadbody of the deceased Radha to a place called Parappil and buried the deadbody in the property of Gangadharan, the father of the accused, thereby he committed the offence under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. The trial court found him guilty of the offences charged against him and accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for two years under section 302 IPC and he was also convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. There was also a direction to run the sentences concurrently. While convicting the accused, the court below relied upon the following circumstances: i) Motive – appellant impregnated her. Therefore he wanted to get rid of her. ii) An anonymous letter, Ext.P4, found to have been seen by one Ambily. iii) Extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW3, brother of the deceased. iv) The deadbody was seen buried in the property belonging to the father of the accused. Therefore he wanted to get rid of her. ii) An anonymous letter, Ext.P4, found to have been seen by one Ambily. iii) Extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW3, brother of the deceased. iv) The deadbody was seen buried in the property belonging to the father of the accused. v) the accused attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison in the morning of 12-7-1993, the previous day of exhumation of the body. 2. No doubt, the crime is committed in a gruesome manner. A poor woman with some mental abnormalities was impregnated by somebody and she was killed by strangulation and her body was buried. The persons who actually killed her deserve serious punishment. But, even if crime is committed in a most cruel and gruesome manner, the court should not be biased unconsciously and involuntarily on the accusation. As held by the Apex Court in Mundrika Mahto & Others v. State of Bihar (2002 AIR SCW 2093) in spite of shocking nature of the crime, there should be judicial consideration of evidence in a cool and detached manner. Mere suspicious circumstances alone is not enough to convict a person guilty of murder. It is true that commission of offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence. But as held by the Apex Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1996 SC 607) that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations. For convicting the accused generally on the basis of circumstantial evidence, court should be satisfied that all the links in the chain are complete and the only hypothesis possible on the basis of the evidence adduced is that accused and the accused alone is guilty of the offence. (See C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala (JT 1999 (9) SC 408) and Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Admn) (AIR 1979 SC 190). Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence as held by the Apex Court in Mangleshwari v. State of Bihar (AIR 1954 SC 715). (See C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala (JT 1999 (9) SC 408) and Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Admn) (AIR 1979 SC 190). Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence as held by the Apex Court in Mangleshwari v. State of Bihar (AIR 1954 SC 715). It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the distinguishment between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration and each link must be established by clear and unobjecting circumstances before the accused is considered as a culprit. As the first appellate court, we may go through the entire evidence adduced in this case to find out whether there are unimpeachable circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that the accused and accused alone is guilty of the charges leveled against him. 3. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, out of which the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 18 were relied on by the trial court. PW1 is the youngest sister of the deceased. PW2 and PW3 are brothers of the deceased. PW2 gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement. PW8 is the husband of one of the sisters of the deceased, who lives in the house along with the deceased, her mother etc. PWs. 4 to 7 became hostile. Other witnesses are mainly official witnesses like mahazar witnesses, doctor who conducted postmortem, investigating officer etc. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied to have committed the offence. He has further stated that he had financial difficulty. He had promised the creditors to pay off the debts on 12-7-1993. However, he could not get money though he asked so many persons on 11-7-1993. His wife and children did not allow him to dispose of his property. On 12-7-1993, he had gone to his family house. At that time, he thought of taking poison kept there for agricultural purposes and accordingly, he consumed the poison. The police did not question him or suspect him till 12-7-1993. The police had suspected him only because he had consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide on the previous day of exhumation of the body of the deceased. He is having only 10 cents of property. His daughter is presently 19 years old. The police did not question him or suspect him till 12-7-1993. The police had suspected him only because he had consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide on the previous day of exhumation of the body of the deceased. He is having only 10 cents of property. His daughter is presently 19 years old. He is innocent and that he has been falsely made as an accused in this case. 4. PW1 deposed that the deceased was her eldest sister. There are two other elder sisters to her, except deceased Radha the others were married. She also deposed that the deceased Radha used to go for cutting grass at 7.30 a.m. to Karinjakattukunnu and come back at 5.30 p.m. On 5-7-1993, she did not return after work. Therefore, she and her mother enquired in the nearby house of the accused Sasidharan alias Vasha at 7 P.M. since the Sasidharan’s wife, was not well, the deceased used to go for work in his house also. When they went to the house of the accused, the deceased was not there. Thereafter, she went to the house of the brother of the accused, PW5. He was the Vice-President of the Panachayat. The deceased used to go to his house also for doing work. When PW1 and her mother went to the house of PW5, they were told that deceased did not come there on that day. Accused came to the house at 8 P.M., when he was sitting in his house after closing the door. He stated that the deceased did not come to his house or his mother’s house on that day. PW1 further stated that two weeks prior to the missing of the deceased, she revealed that she is pregnant and the accused is responsible. She deposed as follows: She also stated that she conveyed the message to her sister and mother. She further stated that except the deceased, the other sisters were married. In the cross examination, she deposed that she was not aware that the deceased goes to any another houses than the accused and PW5’s house for work. She also deposed that she enquired not only in the house of the accused and PW5, but also in the house of others like Soman Pillai etc. She further stated that Radha was not married because of her slight mental illness. 5. She also deposed that she enquired not only in the house of the accused and PW5, but also in the house of others like Soman Pillai etc. She further stated that Radha was not married because of her slight mental illness. 5. PW2, brother of the deceased, who gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement, on 7-7-1993 at 5.15 P.M. regarding missing of his sister Radha. He was not residing in the family house. In the family house, his mother, her sister Sudha, her husband (PW18), their two children and another sister (PW1) and the deceased were residing. He also deposed that when he got information on 6-7-1993 at 6 A.M. that the deceased after going for work on 5-7-1993, he enquired about the matter with the relatives and also went to Karinjkakattukunnu where she used to go for grass cutting and his brother found a sickle (MO.1) used by Radha (the deceased) for cutting grass. That sickle was taken to the family house and shown to her mother and the mother identified the sickle as the same was used by deceased. He also stated that he heard from the people that the accused had illicit relationship with Radha. In Ext.P1 it is stated that Radha had no proper mental growth. In Ext.P1 he had no suspicion about A1 or anybody regarding the missing of his sister, even though two days were over. In Ext.P1 it is stated that he and relatives and friends enquired about her in the house of relatives and Karinjakattukunnu where she used to go for work. It was not stated that she had gone for work in the house of accused or he or his relatives enquired about her in the house of the accused, but it is stated that one Kausallya (not examined) told him that she saw the deceased going to Karinjakattukunnu at 10 A.M. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared by police and MO1 is the sickle seized by the police. 6. PW3 is another brother of deceased Radha. He also deposed that on 5-7-1993 she went for work, but she did not come back in the evening and since she was not found out in the house of the relatives, he along with his brother and friends went to Karinjakattukunnu hill on 6-7-1993 and during search the sickle was found from the Karinjakattukunu where some plants were seen in a broken condition. He deposed that his friend one Ambili (not examined) gave him an unsigned, anonymous letter found out near the shop of Ambili wherein it is stated that the accused and one shop owner digging a pit at 2 A.M. in the property of the father of the accused which reads as follows: This letter was marked as Ext.P4. In cross-examinations he stated that the letter was received by Ambili (CW9) from an open place near her shop near to the bus stop. On the date of missing of Radha and for 8 to 9 days thereafter there was heavy rain. He further deposed that the distance between the place where her sister was killed and buried is about 150 metres. This letter was entrusted to him by Ambily early morning before 6.15 of 12th and it was handed over to the police. But no mahazar was prepared When he went to the police station for submitting Ext.P4 letter, Purushan was in the Police station. He also disclosed in chief examination that on the same day morning the accused confessed that the accused and the deceased had illicit relationship and she was pregnant. Hence he has killed her by pressing her neck. He deposed as follows: This is the extra judicial confession relied on by the prosecution. 7. PW4 is the President of Kallara Panchayat, who became hostile. PW5 is the Vice President of Kallara Panchayat, who is the brother of the accused. He also became hostile. But he deposed that after the incident he went to his mother’s sister’s house, but he was not absconding. He further stated that the property in which the deadbody was buried belonged to their father and that is now possessed and shared his brothers and sisters other than the accused. The accused is living apart from there. PWs.6 and 7 are also relatives of the accused and they also became hostile. PW8 is the witness to Ext.P9 scene mahazar. He stated that he signed the mahazar at 3 p.m. at the office of the Crime Branch. PW9 was hostile. PW10 deposed that accused purchased insecticide having the name ‘HIMOSA’ from him on 10-7-1993. PW11 was the Civil Surgeon of Primary Health Centre, Kallara who proved Ext.P11 and deposed that by 10 a.m. on 12-7-1993 accused was brought to the hospital in a serious condition after consuming poison. PW9 was hostile. PW10 deposed that accused purchased insecticide having the name ‘HIMOSA’ from him on 10-7-1993. PW11 was the Civil Surgeon of Primary Health Centre, Kallara who proved Ext.P11 and deposed that by 10 a.m. on 12-7-1993 accused was brought to the hospital in a serious condition after consuming poison. PW12 was the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine and Deputy Police Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram who issued Ext.P13 certificate after examining the accused stated that there is nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing sexual acts. PW 15 was the Tahsildar, Nedumangad who exhumed the dead body on 13-7-1993 at 11.20 a.m. and made Ext.P16 inquest report. Mos.2 to 6 were the dresses etc. taken from the exhumed body. PWs. 13 and 14 were the Assistant Director of Biology and the Scientific Assistant (Ballistic) in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, who examined the material objects of this case and issued Ext.P14 and P15 report. PW16 was the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P17 scene plan and Ext.P17 (a) plan of the place from where the dead body was exhumed. PW17 was the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Radha on 13-7-1993 at 1.35 p.m. and issued Ext.P18 postmortem certificate. The opinion as to the cause of death of Radha according to PW17 is ligature strangulation. PW17 has stated that injury No.1 in Ext.P18 can be caused by ligature strangulation. He also proved Ext.P19 certificate issued after conducting the chemical examination of the Viscera, Vaginal swab and smear of the deceased and also the soil of the place where the dead body was seen buried. Ext.P19 would show that no poison was detected in the Viscera and semen in the Vaginal swab and smear of the deceased. Postmortem report also shows that uterus measured 15 x 12 x 5 cm., cavity contained a foetus 13 cm. long, placenta and membranes intact. Right ovary contained corpus luteum 1.5. cm. diameter. This shows that she was pregnant by about two months. PW18 is the brother-in-law of the deceased Radha. He was living in the same house with his wife (sister of the deceased), wife’s mother as well as the deceased. He stated that Radha used to go to the house of the accused for work. He also deposed that he had doubt that the accused had illicit relationship with the deceased. PW18 is the brother-in-law of the deceased Radha. He was living in the same house with his wife (sister of the deceased), wife’s mother as well as the deceased. He stated that Radha used to go to the house of the accused for work. He also deposed that he had doubt that the accused had illicit relationship with the deceased. During cross-examination Ext.D2 was marked indicating that he stated before the police that he got suspicion about the accused, because he attempted to commit suicide. 8. The first circumstance relied on against the accused is the motive. Proof of motive is not relevant when there is direct and credible evidence as held by the Supreme Court in Molu v. State of Haryana (AIR 1976 SC 2499). In ordinary human conduct without adequate motive, none is expected to kill another. When the proof of murder case rests on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role, unless there are other reliable and cogent circumstances to show that accused alone is guilty of the offence. Apex Court in Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 656) held that if in a criminal case, motive as a circumstance is put forward, it must be fully established like any other circumstances. The motive alleged by the prosecution in this case is that the accused was a married man with two children. He impregnated the deceased. But absolutely no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that accused impregnated the deceased. At the time of postmortem, though foetus was seen, DNA test was not done. The only evidence to that effect was that PW1 deposed before the court that two weeks prior to the death, deceased disclosed that she is pregnant by the accused. PW1 is the sister of the deceased. She also deposed that she disclosed this to her another sister and mother; but, to nobody else. Her mother as well as the other sisters were not examined. But it is very strange that when her sister was missing from 5th onwards and intense search was made and on 6th her sister was found in the rubber plantation, she did not disclose the same to PW2 or any other brothers. If the deceased told to her that she was pregnant by the accused, at least when she was missing and her sickle was found, she would have disclosed the same. If the deceased told to her that she was pregnant by the accused, at least when she was missing and her sickle was found, she would have disclosed the same. When PW2 gave FI statement, he was not aware of the same. The evidence shows that none of the family members were aware that she was pregnant before postmortem was conducted. Only after postmortem was conducted, PW1 disclosed that the deceased told her about the same two months ago. Even accepting the case of the prosecution, before 12th, nobody has any suspicion that A1 has impregnated her. Further case of PW1 in Ext.P1 and totality of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 show that she usually goes to Karinjakkattukunnu for grass cutting in the morning and returns by 5-30 in the evening. She was not a maid servant in the house of accused even though witness stated that she used to go for work in the house of accused, PW5, mother of accused, one Somarajan Pillai etc. That will not show that she was impregnated by the accused. It is true that she had no full mental growth. She was a 35 year old woman and going to work in the morning in rubber plantation and comes in the evening to the house. Whether the accused or any person or persons made physical contact with her in the hill or any other place and who is responsible for the pregnancy etc. are only a mere guess. But, her alleged disclosure to PW1 is unbelievable. It is only a make believe story of the prosecution. She deposed that she mentioned the matter to her mother and to another sister. They were also not examined. Therefore, alleged motive is not proved with certainty. There is no reliable evidence to prove the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. 9. The second circumstance is Ext.P4 letter, which is an unsigned anonymous letter. Who is the author of that letter is not known. Genuineness of Ext.P4 is not proved. No investigation is also conducted on that aspect. Whether the letter was intended to mislead or suspect somebody by the real culprit is also not known. It is the case of PW3 that the letter was picked up by his friend Ambili on the morning of 12-7-1993 at 6-00 a.m. That Ambili was not examined. No investigation is also conducted on that aspect. Whether the letter was intended to mislead or suspect somebody by the real culprit is also not known. It is the case of PW3 that the letter was picked up by his friend Ambili on the morning of 12-7-1993 at 6-00 a.m. That Ambili was not examined. It is stated that PW3 entrusted the letter on the same day. But, no mahazar was prepared. It suggests that the letter was subsequently manipulated. As per prosecution evidence, there was rain for nine days from the date of missing of the deceased. But how this letter remained unwet is another question. In the letter it is stated that accused and one shop owner Purushan was digging a pit in the night at 2-00 a.m. The date of the letter and date of digging of the pit is not mentioned. No investigation was conducted with respect to shop owner Purushan. It is also deposed by PW3 that when he went to the police station with the anonymous letter, Purushan was in the police station. We are not aware that why Purushan was spared. According to the counsel for the accused, he is a rich shop owner. Ext.P4 letter cannot be relied upon as it is not admissible in evidence. Even if that letter is believed it is only connected with the burial of the deadbody. The role of Purushan, who is mentioned in the letter has to be explained by Prosecution. Ext.P4 letter which is not proved properly cannot be taken as a link to connect the accused with the crime. 10. The third major circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the extra-judicial confession made to PW3. It is deposed by PW3 that one Ambili handed over Ext.P4 letter before 6-15 a.m. on 12-7-1993 and he went to the police station in the morning itself and handed over the letter. On his return, he found that accused was taken to the hospital. Then, his case is that on that day early morning accused made the confession to him. So, it must be before 6-15 a.m. before Ext.P4 was received. It is difficult to believe that for no reason whatsoever that the accused went to the brother of the deceased and stated that he is responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased and he has killed her by strangulation of neck. So, it must be before 6-15 a.m. before Ext.P4 was received. It is difficult to believe that for no reason whatsoever that the accused went to the brother of the deceased and stated that he is responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased and he has killed her by strangulation of neck. The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence as held by the Apex Court in Jagta v. State of Haryana (AIR 1974 SC 1545); State v. Bhagan (AIR 1975 SC 258). Admissibility of the same would rest upon the time, circumstances, credibility of the witness who spoke to such a confession. Usually such confessions are made to persons in intimacy or relative or a responsible person in the locality. There should be some reason to make such confession. Here, even though PW3 says that the extra-judicial confession was made early morning on 12-7-1993, he did not disclose the same to the police when he went to entrust Ext.P4 letter. He did not also react though accused allegedly confessed that he killed his sister. The Apex Court in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar (AIR 1959 SC 18) held that as a rule of caution, courts usually require some material corroboration to an extra-judicial confession. Only if the court is satisfied that the witness is speaking the truth, it can be accepted without corroboration. There is no reason to confess his guilt to the brother of the deceased. According to PW5, after the death of the father, the family property was shared and owned by other brothers and sisters excluding the accused. That evidence was also unchallenged. Here, the fact that the body was found out from the father’s property is not a circumstance to incriminate the accused. There is no reliable evidence to show that accused made extra judicial confession to the brother of the deceased. He did not act or disclose the above for a long time. Even in the statement under Section 164 given to the Magistrate or at the time of handing over of Ext.P4 to the police, he has not disclosed about the confession. So, this imaginary story of extra judicial confession cannot be relied on at all and this link of circumstance relied on by the prosecution is broken. 11. According to the prosecution, she was strangulated at Karinjakattu kunnu and the body was taken to the place of burial. So, this imaginary story of extra judicial confession cannot be relied on at all and this link of circumstance relied on by the prosecution is broken. 11. According to the prosecution, she was strangulated at Karinjakattu kunnu and the body was taken to the place of burial. This is a strange circumstance and it will not connect the accused with the murder. Karinjakattukunnu is a rubber plantation having an extent of about 15 acres. Prosecution witness stated that it is full of trees. According to the prosecution she was killed in this plantation. Accused could have buried the deceased at the place itself instead of burying the body in the property of the father of the accused. The property was also not in the possession of the accused. According to the prosecution witness, the place where dead body was buried is an open place near the road. As seen from the post mortem report, she was having a well-built body. According to PW2, the distance is 150 meters from the place of incident and the burial place. According to the Village Officer it is 107 meters. For removing the body and for burying the body after taking a pit, one must have taken assistance. Ext.P4 says bout two persons. 12. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that accused attempted to commit suicide on 12-7-1993, a day prior to the exhumation of the body. It is true that subsequent condition of the accused can be used against him as a connecting circumstance. According to the accused, he attempted to commit suicide because of debts and financial difficulties. Counsel for the accused also suggested that he was a family man with a grown up daughter and son and when accusation was made at him by the police allegedly on the basis of Ext.P4 letter and police questioning, he must have been worried. Even innocent people may become desperate due to humiliation of being involved in a crime falsely. It is true that his conduct is suspicious. But, merely on surmises one cannot be found guilty for offences under section 302. Evidence shows that he was suspected by the relative of the deceased only because he attempted to suicide. We are of the opinion that even though this circumstance can be used to corroborate other cogent evidence, there is no other reliable circumstance to connect the accused with the crime. Evidence shows that he was suspected by the relative of the deceased only because he attempted to suicide. We are of the opinion that even though this circumstance can be used to corroborate other cogent evidence, there is no other reliable circumstance to connect the accused with the crime. Merely on the basis that he attempted to commit suicide, we cannot hold that he has committed the murder. There is no evidence to show that how the body was taken to the burial place. Even though it is stated that the deceased went for work early morning at 7.30 a.m. to Karinjakattukunnu, nobody has seen the accused with the deceased on that day at the Krinjakattukunnu Mala (hill) or thereafter. It has further come out in evidence that one Kausallya has seen that the deceased going to the Karinjakattukunnu Mala at about 10.30 a.m. on that day. Kausallya was not examined. Nobody gave evidence that they saw the accused going to that Mala on that day and they were seen together at any time on that day. There is no reliable legal evidence to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. 13. PW1, sister of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased was not mentally grown up. The same is stated in Ext.P1 given by PW1. She remained unmarried and was aged 35 years at the time of death. Who impregnated the deceased is a matter of imagination. Learned counsel for the accused argued that because of the attempt to commit suicide if suspicion can be raised, such suspicion can be raised against many persons like PW5, brother of the accused. He is unmarried. PWs1 to 3 deposed that she used to go for work in the house of PW5 also. His subsequent conduct was that he absconded. According to him, immediately on the date of missing of the deceased, he stayed away in his aunt’s house for about ten day. This is also a strange suspicious circumstance. Dead body was buried in the property of his father and he during evidence deposed that it is possessed by his family to the exclusation of accused. Here, genuine suspicion can be raised against PW5 than against accused. But, police did not make him an accused because he had political influence being Panchayat Vice President. In Ext.P4 anonymous letter one Purushan is named. Here, genuine suspicion can be raised against PW5 than against accused. But, police did not make him an accused because he had political influence being Panchayat Vice President. In Ext.P4 anonymous letter one Purushan is named. When PW3 went to the police station, Purushan was there. He is a shop owner and rich and he is also spared. According to the counsel, even role of PW18 who is living in the same house is not beyond suspicion. Whatever be, we are of the view that totality of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution or any one of the circumstance or circumstances in combination with other will not show that only hypothesis possible is that the accused, he alone and nobody else is guilty of the offence alleged. From the evidence adduced in this case, we cannot categorically and conclusively hold that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He is entitled at least to the benefit of reasonable doubt. 14. We are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. In the result, the appeal is allowed. We acquit the accused. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.