Judgment :- M. Jeyapaul, J. The accused stands convicted for offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 2. The charge is that the accused, who developed illicit intimacy with the deceased Annakodi, robbed away the jewels worn by the deceased when she was found fainting after taking liquor on 12. 2000 and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the same transaction, the accused with an intention to cause the death of Annakodi, smothered and strangulated her to death and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. .3. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined besides marking 29 documents and 19 material objects. The case in brief of the prosecution as unfolded by the witnesses examined on their side is as follows: Selvam- P.W.6 is the husband and Kumutha-P.W.7 is the daughter of the deceased Annakodi. The accused had a goldsmith workshop in front of the house of P.W.6. The accused and the deceased developed illicit intimacy. Kumutha – P.W.7 has spoken to the fact that she witnessed the accused sharing the bed of her mother. 4. Mani – P.W.18 has a goldsmith workshop by the side of the goldsmith workshop of the accused. He witnessed the accused and Annakodi/the deceased near a tea shop in front of his workshop. The accused purchased liquor from the wine shop. The accused and the deceased chatted for some time and thereafter they left the said place. 5. Ramdoss – P.W.8 lives in Kattukottaipudur. On 12. 2000 at about 7.15 a.m. he boarded a bus bound for Vadachennimalai at Attur bus stand. One Thangavel also boarded the bus along with him. The accused got into the bus. A female flower vendor also was found travelling in the very same bus. The accused and the said female flower vendor were talking with each other in the bus. 2000 at about 7.15 a.m. he boarded a bus bound for Vadachennimalai at Attur bus stand. One Thangavel also boarded the bus along with him. The accused got into the bus. A female flower vendor also was found travelling in the very same bus. The accused and the said female flower vendor were talking with each other in the bus. At about 8.30 a.m., the accused and the said flower vendor alighted the bus at Vadachennimalai. Thereafter, at 12 noon on the very same day, P.W.8 came to the tea shop for taking tea. He witnessed the accused coming all alone. 6. Pitchaikannu – P.W.12 is residing at Vadachennimalai. He has a tea shop at Vadachennimalai. On the fateful day, at about 9.00 a.m., he found the accused along with another woman going towards the temple. The woman had worn a red colour saree. The accused and the said woman sat behind the temple for some time. Thereafter, they went down the road leading to the hillock. He also found the accused alone returning at about 12.30 p.m. on the said day. 7. Aadhimoolam – P.W.3 was serving as a watchman at Bala Dandayuthapani Temple at Vadachennimalai. On 112. 2000 at about 6 p.m., he was informed by the people, who used to collect fire wood from the forest that a dead body was lying in the forest area. Immediately there upon, he passed on this information to Chockalingam P.W.2, who was serving as a Clerk in the said temple. Chockalingam – P.W.2 along with the watchman – P.W.3 went to the forest and found the trunk and limbs and head portion of the dead body strewn around. He then proceeded to Sathasivapuram Village Administrative Office and informed Mohana sundaram – P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer about the information he received and the dead body found in the forest area. .8. P.W.1 having recorded the statement of P.W.2, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and found a female dead body. He thereafter went to Thalaivasal Police Station at about 8.00 am. on 112. 2000 and submitted a report Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police P.W.21. P.W.21 having received the said report registered a case in Crime No.1835 of 2001 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He prepared the printed first information report Ex.P.24 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate. on 112. 2000 and submitted a report Ex.P.1 to the Inspector of Police P.W.21. P.W.21 having received the said report registered a case in Crime No.1835 of 2001 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He prepared the printed first information report Ex.P.24 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate. He rushed to the scene of occurrence at about 8.30 a.m. on the same day and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of Palanivel, P.W.5. He also drew sketch Ex.P.25 reflecting the scene of occurrence. He recovered the coins M.O.9, bus ticket – M.O.10, bangle – M.O.11, and a cluster of hair M.O.12 under relevant seizure mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.5. P.W.21 held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P.26. 9. On the basis of the requisition Ex.P.5 given by the Inspector of Police - P.W.21, P.W.9 commenced post-mortem on the dead body of a female unknown body at 4.00 p.m. on 112. 2000. He found the following symptoms on the dead body. "Appearance found at the post-mortem Body mostly presented as skeleton. Skull attached with spinal column. Both clavicles, Ribs cage present. Greasy light of skin present. Right Arm forearm scapula in situ. Right lower 1/3 of forearm and Right Hand missing. Left scapula Humerus detached. Left forearm and hand missing. Spinal muscle are black in colour. Mandible detached. Hair incluster present. Seperately. Lower Limbs: Right Iliac bone detach from spinal column and attached with right forearm. Upper part of right leg with Flobby muscle mass black in colour. Lower part of right leg & foot missing. Left Iliac bone detached from sternum and attached with femur & left leg. Left part missing with muscle. Skull: empty of brain. Heart inside pericardium seen remaining of soft heart prsent. Lungs: Membranes seen as black. Stomach found and cavity contain paster like particles. Intestines remains present. Other visceras could not be found out. Skull and mandible. Both Iliac bones. Left femur, fibula, Tibia and pettalla preserved. Suspected stomach & intestines preserved." He opined in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.6 that the deceased appeared to have died three to four weeks prior to autopsy. 10. Stomach found and cavity contain paster like particles. Intestines remains present. Other visceras could not be found out. Skull and mandible. Both Iliac bones. Left femur, fibula, Tibia and pettalla preserved. Suspected stomach & intestines preserved." He opined in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.6 that the deceased appeared to have died three to four weeks prior to autopsy. 10. On 20.12.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.6, who is the husband of the deceased came down to the police station after reading the news item flashed in the newspaper and identified the chappal – M.O.2, Saree – M.O.5, Jacket – M.O.4 and Muthu Jewellers Purse – M.O.1 as that of his wife. He also produced two photographs of Annakodi and the same was recovered under Form 95 by P.W.21. 11. Boopathi – P.W.13 is doing electrical work. He is the friend of the accused. Three months prior to the trial proceedings in this case, one fine morning, the accused came to his shop at about 7.00 a.m. and demanded a sum of Rs.100/-. When he enquired as to why he demanded a sum of Rs.100, the accused informed him that he had to go over to Chennai, as the police were on the look out, for he had committed the murder of Annakodi. He thereafter paid a sum of Rs.100/- to him. 12. The Inspector of Police Mr.Singaraj, P.W.20 attached to Attur Police Station was entrusted with the duty to unearth certain undetected cases. On 212. 2000 at about 10.00 a.m., he went along with the Head Constable – P.W.19 and was watching the movements of the public. When the police party headed by P.W.20 was proceeding near Pudupettai bus stand, the accused was apprehended on suspicion. The accused had worn a chain and a ring. Those objects were recovered and P.W.20 came to understand that those two material objects related to crime No.2715 of 2000 of Attur Police Station. The accused was interrogated in the presence of Muthusamy- P.W.14. He gave confession statement voluntarily. On the basis of the admissible portion found in the confession statement of the accused, he went to Balu Jewellers at Attur and interrogated Senthil Kumar – P.W.16 and recovered a gold chain – M.O.13 in the presence of P.W.14. The said gold chain related to a case in crime No.1835 of 2000 of Thalaivasal Police Station. On the basis of the admissible portion found in the confession statement of the accused, he went to Balu Jewellers at Attur and interrogated Senthil Kumar – P.W.16 and recovered a gold chain – M.O.13 in the presence of P.W.14. The said gold chain related to a case in crime No.1835 of 2000 of Thalaivasal Police Station. Thereafter, the accused took the Inspector of Police along with the aforesaid witness to M.R. Jewellers. P.W.20 interrogated Govindan – P.W.15 and recovered gold Thali – M.O.14, a pair of ear stud- M.O.15, nose screw – M.O.16, a ring – M.O.17 and anklets – M.O.18 under relevant seizure mahazar in the presence of P.W.14. Thereafter, the accused identified Balu – P.W.17. On interrogation, P.W.20 recovered Omex Watch – M.O.19 from him under relevant seizure mahazar. He examined P.W.s 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and recorded their statements. As the aforesaid material objects related to a case in Thalaivasal Police Station crime No.1835 of 2000, he entrusted the accused along with the material objects to the Head Constable – P.W.19 to hand them over to the Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station. As per the orders of P.W.20, P.W.19 took the accused and the material objects and entrusted them to P.W.21 at about 7.00 p.m. on 212. 2000. Thiruvengadam - P.W.11 is the Head Clerk attached to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur. He has spoken to the receipt of the requisition Ex.P.14 to send the material objects for chemical examination. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur despatched the material objects along with the covering letter Ex.P.15 to the chemical examiner for the purpose of examining the material objects. P.W.11 also has spoken to the chemical report Ex.P.16 received from the chemical examiner. 13. Ms.AlarmelMangai – P.W.10 was working as Grade – I Assistant in the Forensic Science Department, Chennai. She has spoken to the special qualifications she has acquired for the purpose of conducting super imposition test. She having received the skull along with the photographs of a female – M.O.8 compared the same and has returned a verdict that the skull belongs to the woman found in the photograph sent for comparison. The detailed report submitted by the aforesaid Forensic Science Expert is marked as Ex.P.13. 14. She having received the skull along with the photographs of a female – M.O.8 compared the same and has returned a verdict that the skull belongs to the woman found in the photograph sent for comparison. The detailed report submitted by the aforesaid Forensic Science Expert is marked as Ex.P.13. 14. P.W.21 having received the report from P.W.9 and having perused the same filed the final report as against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The incriminating portions found in the testimony of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution were put to the accused in compliance with the mandates of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Trial Court. The accused has submitted that he had not authored the crime as alleged by the witnesses. He has set up a defence plea of total denial. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of defence. .16. The Trial Court having adverted to the testimony of P.Ws. 6 and 7 has come to the conclusion that there had been some illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased prior to the occurrence. Relying upon the testimony of Ramadoss – P.W.8 and Pitchaikannu – P.W.12, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that they had seen the accused and the deceased together prior to the occurrence and witnessed the accused coming all alone after the occurrence was over. The Trial Court has given credence to the extra judicial confession alleged to have given by the accused to Boopathi – P.W.13 and the arrest and the confession of the accused and the recovery effected from him by P.W.20. The Trial Court has ultimately returned the verdict of conviction. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant, who was appointed by us from the Legal Aid Panel would submit that in the absence of ocular testimony, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the accused by establishing beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The last seen theory projected by the prosecution is found to be artificial. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to P.W.13 does not inspire judicial conscience. The last seen theory projected by the prosecution is found to be artificial. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to P.W.13 does not inspire judicial conscience. The arrest and confession of the accused and the recovery alleged to have been effected at the instance of the accused are not at all found to be trustworthy. She would also bring to the notice of the Court that P.Ws. 8, 12, 13 and 18 had been examined long after the dead body was spotted by P.W.s 1 to 4. The statements recorded from them by the investigating officer had reached the Court long after the day of their examination by the investigating officer under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, their testimony will have to be completely eschewed from the records. 18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently submit that there is evidence to show that the accused had developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. The last seen theory, which was accepted by the Trial court cannot be lightly ignored. There is no reason to reject the version spoken to by the witnesses about the arrest and confession of the accused and the recovery effected through him on the basis of the admissible portion found in the confession statement given by the accused. P.Ws. 15, 16 and 17, the independent witnesses in this case, have spoken cogently about the recovery of the material objects from their custody and the same cannot be discarded. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the verdict recorded by the Trial Court. .19. It is true that P.W.7, the daughter of the deceased, has spoken the fact that she had witnessed the accused sharing the bed of her mother. But surprisingly, it is her version that she disclosed this material fact to her father Selvam – P.W.6 only after her mother was found missing. P.W.6 would state that he was not aware prior to the information received from his daughter about the illicit relationship his wife had developed extra maritally. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there had been an illicit relationship between the deceased and the accused, there is no reason for the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. The illicit relationship cannot be a motive for the murder. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there had been an illicit relationship between the deceased and the accused, there is no reason for the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. The illicit relationship cannot be a motive for the murder. It is not the case of the prosecution that the illicit relationship had been objected to by the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased had gone to the place of occurrence happily to enjoy the extra marital relationship. Therefore, the motive for the murder has not been established by the prosecution. 20. Coming to the last seen theory projected by the prosecution, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ramadoss – P.W.8, Pichaikannu – P.W.12 and Mani – P.W.18 had been examined long after the investigation had been embarked upon by P.W.21 and the 161 statement recorded by the investigating officer from them on interrogation had reached the Court long thereafter. On a careful perusal of the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 12, we find that they have categorically deposed before the Trial Court that they also went to the scene of occurrence immediately on receipt of information that a female dead body was lying in the forest area. It is their version that they disclosed the fact that they had seen the accused and the deceased together and after some time, the accused alone emerging from the forest to the police officer, who was present at the scene of occurrence, when the dead body was located. But quite unfortunately those witnesses had been officially examined only after a long gap of interval. 21. Analysing the testimony of P.Ws. 8 and 12, we find that both of them were strangers to the deceased. It is their version that they had seen many persons boarding the bus and alighting there from. Therefore it is quite impossible for them to register in their mind about the identity of a stranger who boarded the bus. Very strangely they have stated before the Trial Court that they also witnessed the accused coming all alone from the forest immediately after the occurrence was over. Such a statement made by those witnesses is found to be totally artificial. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the testimony of Ramadoss – P.W.8 and Pitchaikannu – P.W.12. .22. Very strangely they have stated before the Trial Court that they also witnessed the accused coming all alone from the forest immediately after the occurrence was over. Such a statement made by those witnesses is found to be totally artificial. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the testimony of Ramadoss – P.W.8 and Pitchaikannu – P.W.12. .22. Coming to the alleged extra judicial confession given by the accused to Boopathy – P.W.13, we find that the said witness could not withstand the rigours of cross examination. P.W.13 would categorically admit during the course of his cross examination that he had never gone to the house of the accused, nor had the accused come to his house. Likewise, both of them had not visited the respective business place of theirs. It is his version that no shop would be opened at 7.00 a.m. He would depose that he parted with a sum of Rs.100/- near his shop. The testimony of P.W.13 would disclose that he was not the close chum of the accused. It is highly doubtful whether the accused would have unburdened his heart to such a person. It is also found to be totally artificial to say that a goldsmith had chosen to beg for a sum of Rs.100/- from an electrician to go over to Chennai. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had started pledging the jewels retrieved from the dead body. Then there would not have been any necessity for the accused to demand a sum of Rs.100/- to come down to Chennai. We find under the above circumstances that the testimony of P.W.13 does not inspire confidence. 23. Coming to the arrest and confession of the accused and the recovery alleged to have been effected from him on the basis of the admissible portion in the confession statement of the accused, we find that the accused was not arrested by the investigating officer, who has taken up the investigation in this case. Very strangely, an Inspector of Police attached to Attur Police Station has accidentally come across the accused when he was closely watching the movements of the public and apprehended him and came to know that he was not only involved in a case relating to his police station, but also involved in a case of murder relating to Thalaivasal Police Station. On the one hand, the prosecution would come out with a version that the accused had got a sum of Rs.100/- from P.W.13 to go over to Chennai. On the other hand they would project a case as though the accused was arrested at Pudupettai bus stand. P.W.15 is the proprietor of M.R. Jewellers. P.W.16 is the proprietor of Balu Jewellers. They would state that the accused, who was a goldsmith by profession, came with jewels and pledged them and received some amount. The accused himself is admittedly a goldsmith by profession. There would have been no necessity for a goldsmith to pledge the jewels with the jewellers. Even if the accused had intended to pledge the jewels, he having chosen to approach M.R. Jewellers first in point of time, would have pledged all the jewels with the said jewellers. The prosecution has come out with a case that part of the jewels was pledged with P.W.15 and the other part of the jewels was pledged with P.W.16 within a span of half an hour. Such a story of the prosecution is not found to be totally unreliable. 24. The prosecution has examined one Balu – P.W.17 to speak to the fact that the accused entrusted a wrist watch with him to keep it in safe custody. Here is the accused who allegedly was in dire need of money to go over to Chennai. Would such a person simply entrust the wrist watch with a friend without taking any steps to pledge it to mobilise some amount is a million dollar question. There is self contradiction in the approach of the prosecution. At any rate, the version of the prosecution that the accused entrusted the wrist watch -M.O.19 with P.W.17 is found to be totally untrustworthy. 25. To top it all, we find that the prosecution has not honestly produced the first information report which had been lodged by P.W.6 on the allegation that his wife was missing. A receipt was passed on to P.W.6 for having given a complaint, but the said complaint has not seen the light of the day. Such a complaint given by P.W.6 would definitely throw some light on the nature of suspicion afflicted the mind of P.W.6. 26. P.W.18 would state that the accused and the deceased, who were spotted by him, proceeded on a different direction after they chatted for some time. Such a complaint given by P.W.6 would definitely throw some light on the nature of suspicion afflicted the mind of P.W.6. 26. P.W.18 would state that the accused and the deceased, who were spotted by him, proceeded on a different direction after they chatted for some time. It is not his case that both of them joined together and then left for some destination. His evidence does not improve the case of prosecution. 27. We find that the last seen theory, the alleged extra judicial confession and the recovery of material objects from P.Ws. 15, 16 and 17 at the instance of the accused were not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we find that the Trial Court without adverting to the aforesaid inconsistency and artificiality writ large in the version of the prosecution has come to the wrong conclusion that the accused authored the crime of murder and theft. Such a verdict of the Trial Court will have to be necessarily upset by us. 28. In the result, we set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court in S.C.No.271 of 2003 and consequently, we acquit the accused of the charge of murder and theft and set him at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. The property order passed by the trial Court Is maintained. 29. While appreciating the services rendered by Mrs. Jayasri Baskar, learned counsel, we direct the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards the fee of the said counsel.