Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction dated 16.4.2002 made in S.C.No.26 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Appellants/A1 and A2 have been convicted for the offence under 302 read with 34 IPC. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- i) The deceased Udayakumar had some misunderstanding and quarrel with the brother of A2 Jayaraman. However, the matter was settled among themselves. Even then, A2 was not satisfied with the said settlement. The said Jayaraman A2 had a grudge against the deceased who quarreled with his brother. ii) The occurrence took place on 27.7.2000 at about 5.00 pm. The deceased finished his work and came back home. He along with PW13 went in a bicycle and took arrack in an arrack shop. At that time, A1 and A2 PW12 were present and questioned PW13 as to why he had accompanied Udayakumar as he quarrelled with his brother. Thereafter, A1 and A2 with PW12 left the arrack shop. Similarly PW13 and the deceased also left the arrack shop after consuming arrack. When both the deceased and PW13 were proceeding in bicycle, A1 and A2 concealed themselves in a bush and threw mud cubes on them. When the deceased questioned their act, A1 and A2 pushed him down and threatened PW13. PW13 thereupon left the place fearing danger to his life. A1 and A2 dragged Udayakumar to the nearby canal and pushed him inside water and caused his death. iii) Since the deceased did not turn up to the house, PW1, father and PW2, mother of the deceased along with PW3, a relation went to the police station and gave an oral complaint to PW16, Sub Inspector of Police. iv) On 29.7.2000 at about 8.30 am, PW1 father of the deceased was informed that a a naked male body was floating in the Oduthurai canal. PW1 went to the canal and identified the dead body of his son. At about 9.30 am on the same day, PW1 went to the police station and gave a complaint to PW16 Sub Inspector of Police. Based on that, a case was registered under section 302 IPC. PW1 went to the canal and identified the dead body of his son. At about 9.30 am on the same day, PW1 went to the police station and gave a complaint to PW16 Sub Inspector of Police. Based on that, a case was registered under section 302 IPC. v) PW17 took up investigation and went to the scene, observed all the formalities, conducted inquest upon the dead body and the body was sent for post mortem. PW10 Doctor conducted post mortem and opined that he found five injuries over the dead body and death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Ex.P11 is the post mortem certificate. vi) On 30.7.2000, PW17 arrested A1 and on his confession, M.O.1 bicycle was recovered from the canal. Thereafter, A1 was sent for judicial remand. vii) On 7.8.2000, A2 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai. On coming to know about that, PW17 filed application to take him under police custody and accordingly, police custody was obtained and on the confession of A2, PW17 recovered M.Os.2 and 3 shirt and lungi respectively which were identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased. viii) The material objects were sent for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, PW17 laid charge sheet against the accused under section 302 read with 34 IPC. ix) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P1 to P14 were filed and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. The plea of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of total denial. x) The Trial Court, placing reliance upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted both the accused under section 302 read with 34 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard the counsel for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor. According to the prosecution, the deceased was dragged to the canal and both the accused drowned him and put his head inside the canal and thereby caused his death. 4. There is no eyewitness for the occurrence. The only witnesses examined by the prosecution are PWs.12 and 13 who speak about the last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused. Unfortunately, P.Ws.12 and 13 turned hostile. As a matter of fact, PW13 was pushed by the accused and thereby PW13 left the scene immediately thereafter. 5. So, the only evidence available is the recovery of cycle M.O.1. Unfortunately, P.Ws.12 and 13 turned hostile. As a matter of fact, PW13 was pushed by the accused and thereby PW13 left the scene immediately thereafter. 5. So, the only evidence available is the recovery of cycle M.O.1. and clothes M.Os.2 and 3 from A1 and A2. This also cannot be relied upon for the reason that according to prosecution, A1 was arrested on 30.7.2000, the cycle was recovered and A2 was taken on custody on 10.8.2000 and clothes were recovered. But, PW4 would state in the cross examination that both A1 and A2 were detained in police station and he was asked to come to Police Station on 28.7.2000. 6. So, in view of the statement made by PW4, we cannot give any credence to the evidence relating to the recovery of cycle and clothes. Virtually, it is to be concluded that it is a case of no evidence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.