Judgment :- (PRAYER: Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore District in S.C.No.434 of 2002, dated 24.1.2003.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellants herein, by name, Vijaya Saravanan and Asaithambi have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and Section 450, IPC. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- (a) The deceased Arul was running a dying factory in the premises let out by P.W.1 Murugasamy. The accused Vijaya Saravanan and Asaithambi were working under the deceased in the said factory. The deceased used to frequently change the workers, as he did not use to pay their salary regularly. Both the accused were working under the deceased for some days. As usual, the salary was not paid to them in time. So there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused with reference to the payment of salary. (b) On 28.4.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.1 came to the factory and on finding that both the were accused quarrelling with each other, he intervened and advised the deceased to pay their salary. Thereafter, he went away. On the same night, i.e. on 28.4.2002, both the accused came to the factory, attacked the deceased and caused the death. Next day, i.e. on 29.4.2002 at 9.00 a.m. P.W.2 Arukkani, who was working under P.W.1, found the deceased dead inside the factory. Immediately, she informed the same to P.W.1. P.W.1 came to the scene and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, he gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, suspecting the involvement of Accused 1 and 2. (c) On receipt of the complaint Ex.P.1, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.211 of 2002 under Section 302, IPC. Ex.P.18 is a copy of the printed First Information Report. He despatched the express reports to the higher police officials. (d) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur West Circle, who took up the further investigation in the case, reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.19, the observation mahazar. Ex.P.20 is the rough sketch prepared by him. He also recovered two baniyans, M.O.3, bloodstained cement platform, M.O.4, sample cement platform, M.O.5 and one pair of chappal, M.O.6 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.21. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex.P.20 is the rough sketch prepared by him. He also recovered two baniyans, M.O.3, bloodstained cement platform, M.O.4, sample cement platform, M.O.5 and one pair of chappal, M.O.6 under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.21. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex.P.22 is the Inquest Report. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem. (e) On receipt of the requisition, Ex.P.15, P.W.7, the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, conducted post-mortem on 30.4.2002 and found 12 external injuries on the body of the deceased. She issued Ex.P.16, the post-mortem certificate reserving her opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased and after receiving the report of the Chemical Analyst under Ex.P.17, she gave her final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and head injury sustained about 36 to 40 hours prior to autopsy. (f) In the meantime, P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, took steps to arrest the accused. He came to know that both the accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur on 02.5.2002. On the basis of the application filed by P.W.9, police custody was granted on 14.5.2002. On the confession of A.1, he recovered the spade, M.O.1 and the motor fan belt, M.O.11. He also recovered spade handle, M.O.2 on the basis of the confession of A.2. The material objects were sent for chemical examination. Ultimately, P.W.9 filed the chargesheet against both the accused for the offence under Section 450 and 302 read with 34, IPC on 10.7.2002. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.34 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. 4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. 5. The trial Court, having analysed the materials placed by both the parties, concluded that the prosecution has established their case beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted both the accused thereunder for the offences referred to above. Hence, this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 8. Hence, this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 8. There is no eyewitness in this case. P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day i.e. on 28.4.2002 at 5.00 p.m. Next day, both of them found the body of the deceased inside the factory. Only on 14.5.2002, M.Os.1, 2 and 11, the weapons used for the commission of the offence were recovered on the basis of the confession of A.1 and A.2. The complaint given by P.W.1 would indicate that they entertained a suspicion as against the accused in view of the quarrel ensued between the deceased and the accused on the previous day. P.W.1 would admit that Arul, the deceased, was in the habit of not disbursing the salary regularly to the workers employed under him. That was the reason as to why the persons who come and worked under him had not worked continuously. The accused were working under him only for ten days. Under those circumstances, the mere quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day could not be taken as a material to connect the accused with the commission of crime. Of course, M.Os.1, 2 and 11 were recovered on the confession of A.1 and A.2 on 14.5.2002 i.e. long after the date of occurrence. But, however, P.W.1 would admit that the weapons of offence were not found available on the scene even on the date of filing of the FIR, namely, on 29.4.2002. So, under those circumstances, we are of the view that there are no enough circumstances to hold that the prosecution has proved the case as against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. In our view, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 9. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of both the accused and the consequent sentence imposed upon them. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.