Judgment :- This revision has been preferred by the Poplin (P.W.1) against the order of acquittal of the accused, who was facing the charges under Sections 364,302 and 201 of IPC in S.C.No.241 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. 2) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that in order to satisfy the lust against P.W.2 Mary a neighbour, the accused had kidnapped Joselin Prince 3 = years old minor second son of Poplin and in furtherance of it, the accused had murdered the child by causing suffocation to him by throttling his neck with a rope and has also screened the offence by putting the body of the deceased boy into a well. Hence the accused has been charged under Sections 364,302 and 201 of IPC. 3) The case was taken on file by the trial Court and on appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. 4) Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 16 were examined and Exs P1 to P25 were exhibited and M.Os 1 to 12 were marked. 5) P.W.1 would depose that his first son Perlin Prince was studying in Second standard at the time of occurrence and his second son Joselin Prince was aged 3 years and 5 months and he (P.W.1) and his wife were employed and second son, Joselin Prince was looked after only by his mother and sister. On 21. 2004, when he was out of station to Coimbatore, he was informed that his second son was found missing and immediately he had preferred a complaint with Kanchikoil Police Station under Ex P1 and the corpse of the child was seen floating in the well on 31. 2004. He could see ligature mark on the neck of the child,. He has identified M.O.1 shirt worn by the child and M.O.2 is the waist rope and M.O.3 is the inner garment of the child. 5a) P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1. She has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that her brother and his wife were employed. He could see ligature mark on the neck of the child,. He has identified M.O.1 shirt worn by the child and M.O.2 is the waist rope and M.O.3 is the inner garment of the child. 5a) P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1. She has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that her brother and his wife were employed. They used to leave the second son , aged three years and five months in the house and she and her mother used to look after him till, her brother and his wife returned from their workplace. According to her, on 21. 2004, Thursday at about 10.00a.m., the second son of P.W.1 Joselin was playing in front of the house, but later, he was found missing. Thereafter, since she was failed to support the case of the prosecution, she has treated as hostile witness. 5b) P.W.3 is owning 3 1/2 acres of dry land at Karukanthottam wherein there is a well and on 31. 2004, he saw a gunny bag floating in the well and the leg of the child was protruding out from the gunny bag. Immediately, he rush up to Kanchikoil, Village Administrative Officer and informed the same. The Village Administrative Officer and his assistant Ravichandran immediately came to his land and retrieved the gunny bag from the well and on opening of the gunny bag , he could find a corpse of a child with ligature mark on his neck. 5c). P.W.4,P.W.5,P.W.6, P.W.7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer in this case, who had took up investigation and the first information report registered under Crime No.12 of 2004 by P.W.15 on 30.1.2004 at about 20.30 hours. Ex P21 is the first information report. P.W.15 has proceeded to the place of occurrence and drawn a rough sketch Ex P22. He has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the basis of the information received from the Village Administrative Officer, he had proceeded to the well belonging to P.W.3 with the help of the Assistant of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9. Retrieved the gunny bag which was floating in the well. P.W.1 had identified the corpse as his child. Ex P23 is the altered first information repot. 5d) P.W.16 is the successor of P.W.15. Retrieved the gunny bag which was floating in the well. P.W.1 had identified the corpse as his child. Ex P23 is the altered first information repot. 5d) P.W.16 is the successor of P.W.15. He has also visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P3 Observation mahazar and also another rough sketch Ex P24 in the presence of same witness P.W.9 Palanisamy. He has conducted inquest before the panchayatars on the corpse of the deceased boy from 6.30 p.m., till 9.30p.m., on 31. 2004. Ex P.25 is the inquest report,. He had recovered M.O.4 gunny bag . M.O.6 wearing apparel of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness. He has examined the other witness and recorded their statements. On 2. 1994 at about 7.00 a.m, he had recovered blood stained sand M.O.8 and sample sand M.O.9 in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness under Ex P5 mahazar. He had arrested the accused on 2. 2004 at about 4.oop.m., and had recorded the voluntary confession statement of the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Ex P6 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. On 2. 2004 at about 6.00p.m., On the basis of the confession statement, the accused had took him and other witnesses to his place and produced a plastic bag M.O.10, Trouser M.O.11 and a piece of inskirt cloth.M.O.12 which were recovered under Ex P7 in the presence of witnesses. He had sent the corpse for postmortem through P.W.13. P.W.13 had identified the corpse to the post mortem doctor P.W.11. The wearing apparels from the corpse were recovered by P.W.13 after post mortem and handed over to the Investigating Officer under his special report Ex P11. 5e) P.W.11 had conducted autopsy on 2. 2004 at about 8.30a.m., exhibited Ex P9 his post mortem report. The doctor has opined that the boy would have died 72 hours prior to the commencement of post mortem. The doctor has opined that due to asphyxia, the boy would have died . His final report is Ex P10. The doctor has further opined that due to strangulation, asphyxia would have been caused to the victim boy. 5f) P.W.14 is the head clerk of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrates Court, Perunthurai . The doctor has opined that due to asphyxia, the boy would have died . His final report is Ex P10. The doctor has further opined that due to strangulation, asphyxia would have been caused to the victim boy. 5f) P.W.14 is the head clerk of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrates Court, Perunthurai . He had forwarded the material objects connected with this case with a requisition letter Ex P13 to the Court to forensic laboratory for chemical examination. Ex P20 is the report regarding the hyoid bone. Exs P18 and P19 are the requisition letters. 5g) P.W.8 is the photographer who had taken photos at the place of occurrence. M.O.4 series are positives and M.O.5 series are the negatives. P.W.16, after completing the formalities, had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 7. 2004 under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. 6) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would totally deny his complicity with the crime. He has not examined any witness on his side. 7) After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused under Sections 364,302 and 201 IPC have not been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly, giving benefit of doubt to the accused has acquitted from the charges levelled against him which necessitated P.W.1, the father of the victim boy to prefer this appeal before this Court. 8) Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the judgment of the trial Court is perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court? 9) Heard Mr. M.M.Sundresh,learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.N.Kumaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-R1 and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for R2 and considered their rival submissions. 10) The Point: There is no eye witness to the crime. According to the evidence of postmortem doctor P.W.11, the boy had died due to strangulation of the neck. According to P.W.1, he was not in his house at the time of the occurrence and that he was out of station at Coimbatore and he received the information only through phone at about 5.30p.m., on 30.1.2004 as to the missing of his second son Joseline Prince, aged 3years 5 months. According to P.W.1, he was not in his house at the time of the occurrence and that he was out of station at Coimbatore and he received the information only through phone at about 5.30p.m., on 30.1.2004 as to the missing of his second son Joseline Prince, aged 3years 5 months. 10a) P.W.2 is the aunt of the deceased boy/sister of P.W.1 in whose custody the child was left by P.W.1, when he left for Coimbatore. According to P.W.1 both P.W1 and his wife are employed and since both of them used to be away during day time, they used to leave the younger boy who is aged only 3 years 5 months under the care of P.W.2 who is the sister of P.W.1 also living with P.W.1 under the same roof. P.W.2 is the witness who had seen the victim boy lastly. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence was treated as hostile witness. According to the prosecution the accused who is the neighbour had lust over P.W.2 and in order to invite P.W.2 to his house, the accused had kidnapped the victim boy on the date of the occurrence. But P.W.2 in her cross examination by the accused would depose that she had no intimacy with the accused and the accused had never moved with her with any ill feeling. According to her, she had suspicion over one Savithri, wife of Joel and that she had informed the Inspector of Police about this, and made a request to the Inspector of Police, to arrest Savithri and tom enquire her. 11) The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon Ex P6, the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. On the basis of the confession statement, M.O.10 to M.O.12 were recovered in the presence of two witnesses. The witness of the confession statement of the accused are the Village Administrative Officer P.W.10 Shanmugasundaram and another witness Mr.Ravichandran. According to the prosecution in their presence, the accused had given the said confession. The Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his house and produced M.O.10 plastic bag, M.O.11 trouser and M.O.12 piece of inskirt cloth. The witness of the confession statement of the accused are the Village Administrative Officer P.W.10 Shanmugasundaram and another witness Mr.Ravichandran. According to the prosecution in their presence, the accused had given the said confession. The Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his house and produced M.O.10 plastic bag, M.O.11 trouser and M.O.12 piece of inskirt cloth. But P.W.9 in whose presence the observation mahazar Ex P2 was prepared would depose that the police have recovered M.O.6 piece of cloth said to have been used in the occurrence for strangulating the boy was recovered from the place of occurrence. 12) Under Ex P6 confession statement, the accused said to have confessed with that after committing the crime, he had placed the remaining portion of the cloth used for strangulating the boy and the trouser of the victim boy in a plastic cover. But absolutely, there is no evidence on record produced by the prosecution to show that the accused had kidnapped the boy, who was playing in front of the house on the date of missing. The wife of P.W.1, the mother of the victim, according to the prosecution, was available on the date of missing of the boy. But no explanation is forthcoming on the side of the prosecution for the non examination of the mother of the victim boy who was rightly available in the house on the date of missing of the boy . There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any search has been conducted in the house of the accused regarding the missing of the boy either by P.W.1 or by P.W.2 or by the wife of P.W1 before informing P.W.1 about the missing of the boy. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the accused had kidnapped the boy from the place of P.W.1. P.W.1 has also admitted in the cross examination about the corrections in the date of the complaint. He would depose before the Court that he had prepared a complaint on 21. 2004 but the date in the complaint has been corrected as 30-01-2004. P.W.1 would further admit in the cross examination that Ex P1 recitals were written by his brother Selvaraj. But the said Selvaraj was not examined as a prosecution witness. P.W.15 has not given any explanation for the corrections in the date of the complaint. 2004 but the date in the complaint has been corrected as 30-01-2004. P.W.1 would further admit in the cross examination that Ex P1 recitals were written by his brother Selvaraj. But the said Selvaraj was not examined as a prosecution witness. P.W.15 has not given any explanation for the corrections in the date of the complaint. 13) The motive under which the prosecution has inducted the accused into the crime has not been proved in the case as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge. Even though, P.W.10 has admitted in the cross examination that the services of the sniffer dog and the finger print expert were utilised in this case. But there is no evidence let in that aspect. Neither handler of the sniffer dog nor the finger print expert was examined to fasten the liability on the accused against the charges levelled aginst him. 14) Further the confession and the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act will also falls to the ground because P.W.1 has admitted that the accused, Savithri, Joseph, Jaya Mani,Babu @ Ravi, Manoharan, Jacklin, w/o Ravi, were kept in the police station for one week for suspicion and except the accused and others were released on 15th January 2004. So it goes with out saying that even before the alleged date of arrest of the accused on 2. 2004, and the recording of the confession statement, it cannot be believed because even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the accused along with other suspects were found in the police station from the date of occurrence till 12. 2004. So absolutely, there is no evidence on record against the accused to convict him under the charges levelled against him as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge. So I do not find any perverseness in the findings of the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused against all the charges levelled against him. The point is answered accordingly. 15) In the result, the revision is dismissed, confirming the Judgment in S.C.NO.241 of 2004 on the file of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.