Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 4.3.2003 passed in S.C.No.241 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram. 2. Murugan, the appellant herein was arrayed as A2 and he was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. along with A1. A1 has not preferred any appeal. The appellant, A2, alone has preferred the above appeal. 3. The short facts leading to the conviction are summarised as follows: (a) The deceased Rajasekar is the son of P.W.2 Kaliyan. He fell in love with Jeevitha, the daughter of A3 Ganesan. A1 and A2 are close relatives of A3. (b) When the love affair came to be known to A3's family, the same was objected to. However, the love affair continued. Having disliked this, A3 Ganesan, instigated A1 Palanivel, and A2 Murugan, the appellant herein, to kill the deceased, so that he can put an end to the love affair of both the deceased and Jeevitha. (c) Accordingly, on 23.1.2001 at 10.15 p.m., A1 Palanivel, came to the house of the deceased and informed him that Jeevitha, his lover, wanted to tell something to him and so saying, he asked the deceased to come along with him. Accordingly, the deceased came out of the house and went along with A1 Palanivel. (d) A1 Palanivel, took him to Lakeshore. Murugan A2, who was waiting near the Lakeshore, also joined them. When they came near the Lakeshore, A1 pushed the deceased down and caught hold of his hands and A2 removed his dhoti, put it around his neck and strangulated him to death. Then, both of them took the body and threw it in the Sembiamadei Lake. (e) The next day, i.e. on 24.1.2001, P.W.2 Kaliyan, the father of the deceased, on coming to know that his son, the deceased, went along with A1 on the earlier night did not turn up, went to the police Station at about 4.00 p.m. and gave a complaint to P.W.12, the Head Constable. The case was registered as a 'man-missing' case. Thereafter, the police took up investigation and took efforts to search for the deceased. The case was registered as a 'man-missing' case. Thereafter, the police took up investigation and took efforts to search for the deceased. (f) In the meantime, on 25.1.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., A1 Palanivel, went to the office of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, and gave extra judicial confession Ex.P.1, mentioning the incident implicating A2 Murugan and A3 Ganesan also. P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, in the presence of P.W.4 Sarkarai and P.W.10 Palanivel, reduced the extra-judicial confession into writing and prepared the report. (g) Thereafter, on the same day, i.e. on 25.1.2001 at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.1, V.A.O., took A1 to the Police station and handed over the extra-judicial confession Ex.P1, given by A1, to P.W.12, the Head Constable. At that time, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, came there and received the extra-judicial confession Ex.P.1. Then, the case was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. (h) At about 11.30 a.m., A1 took P.W.11 to the place of occurrence, where the body was found. P.W.11 prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P5 and rough sketch Ex.P18. (i) Thereafter, P.W.11 went to the house of A1 and recovered Rs.200/- and a torch light. (j) Then, P.W.11 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem and A1 was sent for remand. (k) On 25.1.2001 at about 4.10. p.m., P.W.8, the Doctor, conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued Ex.P.14, postmortem certificate. (l) On 26.1.2001, P.W.11 arrested A2 and A3 and recovered Rs.200/- from A2 and the watch belonged to the deceased was recovered from A3. (m) P.W.14 Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W.11, took up further investigation. After completion of the investigation, he filed the final report against the first and second accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and against the third accused under Section 302 r/w.109 IPC. (n) During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined, Exs.P1 to P27 were filed and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. (o) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime in question. (n) During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined, Exs.P1 to P27 were filed and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. (o) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime in question. (p) However, rejecting the defence case, the trial Court, on placing reliance on the materials brought on record by the prosecution, found A1 and A2 guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder and acquitted A3 on the ground that since the evidence as against A3 was not sufficient. This judgment of conviction and sentence is the subject matter before this Court. 4. Ms.Beula Rajakumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while taking us through the entire evidence, would contend that the only evidence available is the extra-judicial confession Ex.P.1, given by A1, implicating A2 and A3 and the extra-judicial confession given by A1, implicating A2 and A3 cannot be the basis for conviction, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions in 1. Haricharan Kurmi 2. Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar (1964(2)Cri.L.J.344) and State of M.P. Through CBI etc., vs. Paltan Mallah and others (2005 AIR SCW 455) 5. On the above aspect, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged on either side. 7. On going through the entire records, we are of the view that the extra-judicial confession given by A1, implicating A2 and A3, which is the basis for the conviction, would suffer from grave infirmities and as such, we are constrained to conclude that there is no acceptable sufficient evidence at all, as against A1 and A2. 8. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at 10.15 p.m. on 23.1.2001. With reference to this, a complaint has been lodged by P.W.2, the father of the deceased, on 24.1.2001 at 4.00 p.m. The case was registered as 'man-missing' by the Head Constable, P.W.12. On 25.1.2001 at 8.00 a.m., A1 went to the office of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and gave the extra-judicial confession, implicating himself as well as the other accused. 9. It is to be noted in this context that A3, who has been implicated in the extra-judicial confession, has been acquitted by the trial Court. On 25.1.2001 at 8.00 a.m., A1 went to the office of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and gave the extra-judicial confession, implicating himself as well as the other accused. 9. It is to be noted in this context that A3, who has been implicated in the extra-judicial confession, has been acquitted by the trial Court. According to P.W.1-V.A.O., A1 was stranger to him and he did not talk to him earlier. P.W.1, in his deposition would categorically state that P.W.4 Sarkarai and P.W.10 Palanivel took A1 to his office and then A1 gave extra-judicial confession, in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.10. But, a reading of Ex.P1, the extra-judicial confession and the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.10, who attested Ex.P.1, the extra-Judicial confession, would indicate that the accused himself came to P.W.1's office and gave extra-judicial confession, in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.10. But, P.W.1 himself admits that he is stranger to A1. There is no reason as to why A1 had chosen to go to the office of P.W.1., instead of approaching any other person, who is known to him. The chief examination of P.W.1 would go to show as if P.W.10 knew the first accused earlier and therefore, he took him to P.W.1. This evidence is falsified by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.10, who stated that when P.W.4 and P.W.10 were there already in the office of P.W.1, the first accused came and gave the extra-judicial confession. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1, who speaks about the extra-judicial confession. 10. Further, the important aspect of the matter found in Ex.P1 has not been corroborated by the other evidence. According to A1, he caught hold of the hands of the deceased and A2, the appellant herein, removed the dhoti worn by the deceased and then put the same around the neck and strangulated him to death. On the other hand, Ex.P5, the Observation Mahazar, would indicate that the dhoti was not removed, but both the shirt and dhoti were found on the body of the deceased. 11. It is noticed that A3 has been acquitted mainly on the reason that the watch recovered from him was not proved to be that of the deceased. In the same way, the currency notes recovered from both A1 and A2 have also not been proved to be the same which were possessed by the deceased. 11. It is noticed that A3 has been acquitted mainly on the reason that the watch recovered from him was not proved to be that of the deceased. In the same way, the currency notes recovered from both A1 and A2 have also not been proved to be the same which were possessed by the deceased. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the evidence available on record would not be considered to be a sufficient evidence as against both the accused, since we feel that the extra-judicial confession recorded by P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, subsequent to the registration of the case by P.W.12, cannot be said to be voluntary. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, both A1 and A2 are entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 13. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 and 2 by the trial Court are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges, even though the first accused has not filed any appeal and the second accused alone has filed the above appeal. The first accused is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. The bail bond executed by the appellant/second accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amounts, if paid, shall be refunded to the accused 1 and 2.