Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Challenging the conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of one Palaniappan, Archikaran @ Nagappan, the accused has filed this appeal. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- (a) The deceased, Palaniappan and the accused, Nagappan are adjacent land owners. The accused has got two wives. The first wife was residing in her parent's house and the second wife, Selvi, P.W.9 was residing with the accused. There used to be frequent quarrels between them. P.W.9 used to complain about the behaviour of the accused to both the deceased and P.W.3, Koundiyappan. One month prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.9 came to the house of the deceased and P.W.3 and complained that the accused used to drink and beat her. At that time, the accused also came there. Both P.W.3 and the deceased questioned the accused as to why he was beating his wife often. Thereafter, the accused went away. P.W.9 was asked by P.W.3, Koundiyappan to stay there itself and leave to her parent's house the next day morning. Accordingly, she stayed in the house of P.W.3 and left to her parent's house the next day morning. Thereafter, P.W.9 gave a complaint with reference to the torture meted out to her at the hands of her husband. Then, the deceased, P.W.3 and P.W.10, Velusamy intervened and compromised the matter. Ultimately the accused settled 1½ portion of the property in favour of P.W.9, the second wife. (b) One day prior to the date of occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased and requested P.W.2, the wife of the deceased to lend some money. The deceased, who was present at that time, asked P.W.2 not to give money since the accused was not a good person. Accordingly, P.W.2 refused to give any money to the accused. Therefore, the accused had a grudge against the deceased and warned him that he will teach a lesson to him. Thereafter, he left the place. (c) On the early morning of 26.7.2002, at about 2.30 a.m., after watering the field, the deceased went to the cattle shed and was sleeping in a cot. At that time the accused came there and assaulted him and caused injury on the head with a roof post. The deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, he left the place. (c) On the early morning of 26.7.2002, at about 2.30 a.m., after watering the field, the deceased went to the cattle shed and was sleeping in a cot. At that time the accused came there and assaulted him and caused injury on the head with a roof post. The deceased died on the spot. On 26.7.2002 morning, on noticing that the deceased did not turn up in time, P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, asked P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased to go to the cattle shed and verify as to whether the deceased was available there. When P.W.1 went to the cattle shed, she saw the deceased lying dead on the cot with head injuries. This was informed to the other witnesses. (d) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the P.W.12, the Village Administrative Officer and gave the complaint, Ex.P-1. The same was sent to the police at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police, received the complaint Ex.P-1 and registered a case for an offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. (e) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the case. He came to the scene of occurrence at about 12 noon and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-13 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-21 and observed other formalities. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by examining witnesses. The body was sent for post-mortem along with a requisition Ex.P-10 to the doctor P.W.11 to conduct autopsy. (f) P.W.11, Senior Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Velur, on receipt of the body, conducted post-mortem and found the following injuries:- "(1) Head disfigured. (2) Lacerated injury of 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm below right eye brow. Extravasation of blood present. (3) Lacerated injury of 15 cm x 5 cm x bone depth extending from centre of forehead, left parietal and to the centre of occipital region of head. Brain come out. (4) Lacerated injury of 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm over left eye lobe. Extravasation of blood present. O/D skull - skull fractured throughout the middle from frontal to occipital bone including left temporal and left parietal hones. Blood clots present underneath the fractures. Thorex - no injury to ribs & lungs. Abdomen - no injury to visceral organs. Extermities - no injury. Brain has come out. Extravasation of blood present. O/D skull - skull fractured throughout the middle from frontal to occipital bone including left temporal and left parietal hones. Blood clots present underneath the fractures. Thorex - no injury to ribs & lungs. Abdomen - no injury to visceral organs. Extermities - no injury. Brain has come out. On cut section all internal organs pale. Bladder empty. Stomach empty. Heart chambers empty. Hyoid bone intact. No injury to scrotum and penis. No injury to spinal cord." The doctor issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-11 with her opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury 14 to 16 hours prior to autopsy. (g) On 9.8.2002, P.W.19 arrested the accused and on his confession the roof post, M.O.9 was recovered from the well pointed out by the accused. The material objects were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, P.W.19 filed a final report against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-22 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. 4. The plea of the accused is one of total denial while he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. S. Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the entire evidence, pointed out the various inconsistencies in the prosecution case and pleaded for the acquittal of the appellant. 6. On this aspect, we have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 7. According to the prosecution, the accused came to the cattle shed and attacked the deceased, who was sleeping on the cot on 26.7.2002 at 2.00 a.m. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The prosecution relies upon only the circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question. The motive aspect has been spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5, 9 & 10. According to the prosecution, the deceased and P.W.3 intervened in the family affairs of the accused and compelled him to settle the property in favour of P.W.9, Selvi, the second wife of the accused. It is also stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 & 5 that one day prior to the date of occurrence, the accused came and demanded money from P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, and the same was refused. Hence the accused threatened the deceased and went away. It is also stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 & 5 that one day prior to the date of occurrence, the accused came and demanded money from P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, and the same was refused. Hence the accused threatened the deceased and went away. On going through the records it is clear that a panchayat was convened and the matter was settled not by the deceased and P.W.3, but only by P.W.10. According to P.W.9, Selvi, she gave a complaint to the police against her husband and at that time, P.W.10, the Panchayat Board President intervened and settled the matter. P.W.17, the Constable also would speak about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.9 and only with the help of P.W.10, the matter was settled. P.W.10 also would support this version made by P.Ws.9 & 17. Therefore, the motive aspect with reference to the involvement of the deceased and P.W.3, in our view, has not been established. 8. The next aspect is with reference to the threatening incident which is alleged to have taken place on the preceding evening of the date of occurrence. P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, P.W.3, the neighbour and P.W.5, the wife of Koundiyappan, P.W.3, would speak about the threatening incident which took place at about 6.30 p.m. on 25.7.2002. Admittedly, the complaint was given by P.W.1, who speaks about the threatening incident in the Court, but unfortunately there is no reference about the threatening incident in the complaint, which is the earliest document in this case. On the other hand, it has been clearly stated that someone had committed the murder of her father. So the threatening incident as referred to in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 has not been divulged by any other witnesses. On the other hand, their statements are belated. Therefore, we do not want to give any importance with reference to this aspect. 9. The next aspect of the evidence is the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8, who have stated that they saw the accused at 3.00 a.m. near the place of occurrence. On the other hand, their statements are belated. Therefore, we do not want to give any importance with reference to this aspect. 9. The next aspect of the evidence is the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8, who have stated that they saw the accused at 3.00 a.m. near the place of occurrence. According to P.W.7, at about 3.00 a.m. on 26.7.2002, in the dark hours, he heard the barking sound of a dog and at that time when he came out of the house, he saw the accused coming and telling him that he was going to Jedarpalayam for taking tea. P.W.8, the tea shop owner, in his evidence has stated that at about 4.00 a.m. on 26.7.2002, the accused came and asked for a tea. Admittedly, P.Ws.7 & 8 were not examined during the course of inquest, but, on the other hand, they were examined only on 27.7.2002. Further, P.W.8 is having the tea shop just in front of the police station. Merely because the accused was seen in the village at about 3.00 a.m. by P.W.7 and was seen in the tea shop of P.W.8 at about 4.00 a.m., it cannot be stated that he came there after committing the murder of the deceased. 10. The other aspect which the prosecution proposes to rely upon is the recovery of M.O.9, roof post. Mere recovery, in our view, would not be enough to hold that this weapon was used by the accused to cause the death of the deceased. In our view, when all these circumstances have not been fully established, it cannot be stated that it is the accused and accused alone, who has committed the murder of the deceased. 11. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient material to connect the accused to the crime in question and consequently, he is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded.