Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. The appellant is the sole accused before the learned Principal Sessions Judge Erode in S.C.No.33 of 2004 and he was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo Rigourous Imprisonment for six months by the Judgment dated 01.04.2004. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the cousin brother of one Thenmozhi who was married to the deceased Murugan as third wife and the accused was threatening the deceased Murugan to live with his cousin sister Thenmozhi as they were living separately on some misunderstanding and the accused had gone to the extent of threatening the deceased Murugan that Aruval will speak if he has not lived with the said Thenmozhi and the same was conveyed to Murugan by his step mother P.W.1. 3. On 02.02.2003 at about 9.00 p.m., at Kodumudi, the deceased Murugan was followed by the accused from Mariamman Temple to the Cauvery River Bank and there, the accused cut Murugan with Aruval on the right sid of his neck and on such injury, the death of Murugan was caused and the accused flew away from the scene of occurrence. 4. As the deceased had not returned home till next day morning, P.W.1 went to kodumudi bus stand and enquired P.W.4 and P.W.5, who in turn informed P.W.1 that the deceased Murugan has not come to the bus stand on the previous night. In the afternoon P.W.1 was informed by a fruit seller that a dead body was being found at the Cauvery river bank. P.W.1 went to the Cauvery river bed and saw the dead body of her son deceased Murugan. Subsequently, P.W.1 alongwith her husband went to the office of P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer and informed the matter, who in turn reduced the same into writing. P.W.12 Head Constable of Kodumudi Police Station received the complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.Ws.1 and 3 and registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2003 under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.9, F.I.R. On 2. Subsequently, P.W.1 alongwith her husband went to the office of P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer and informed the matter, who in turn reduced the same into writing. P.W.12 Head Constable of Kodumudi Police Station received the complaint Ex.P.1 given by P.Ws.1 and 3 and registered a case in Cr.No.29 of 2003 under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.9, F.I.R. On 2. 2003, P.W.13, Investigating Officer, after the receipt of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9, (complaint and F.I.R.) took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence alongwith P.w.9 Photographer and prepared Ex.P.4 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.10 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness and recovered M.Os.2 to 4 under Ex.P.5 Seizure Mahazar. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 6.15 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.15 Inquest Report and thereafter sent the dead body of Murugan through P.W.11 along with Ex.P.2 requisition for Post mortem. 5. P.W.2 doctor has conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of deceased Murugan on 2. 2003 and found the following injuries:- External Injury: 1. A large gapping wound on the Right side starting from the occipital region running oblique upto zygomatic region cutting the muscles, vessels nerves upto vertebral column 19 cm x 5 cm x bone deep. 2. An abrasion on the right infra arbital region 3 cm x 2 cm. 3. An abrasion on the lumro sacral region 6 cm x 2 cm. Internal Examination: Thorax : Heart empty, Lungs congested. No fracture of ribs, Abdomen : Stomach contains partly digested food particles which contains alcohol odour. Liver congested. Both kidneys: contested. Spleen : Congested All the internal organs are weighing within normal limits. Intestine distended External genitalia normal Head and neck: Hyoid bone intact and normal. Skull : No fracture. Brain vessels congested. Weight normal. The doctor has given his opinion that the deceased would appeal to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy. Postmortem certificate issued by the doctor is marked as Ex.P.3. The doctor has further opined that the first injury found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by an assault by weapon like M.O.1 and that injury is necessarily fatal to cause the death of the deceased instantaneously. 6. On 2. Postmortem certificate issued by the doctor is marked as Ex.P.3. The doctor has further opined that the first injury found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by an assault by weapon like M.O.1 and that injury is necessarily fatal to cause the death of the deceased instantaneously. 6. On 2. 2003 P.W.13, Investigating Officer arrested the accused. At that time the accused has voluntarily given a confession statement which was reduced into writing in the presence of P.W.8 and his assistant. As per the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.6, the Inspector of Police had taken the accused and witnesses to the burial ground at Kodumudi river bank, where the accused took M.O.1 aruval from a bush near the banian tree and the same was recovered through Ex.P.7 seizure Mahazar in the presence of P.W.8 and his assistant. Thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. On 12. 2003, the investigating officer has sent the articles seized to the Court and gave requisition Ex.P.12 for sending the same to the lab which in turn were sent to the lab through Ex.P.13 Court letter. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the Chemical and Serological Reports received from the Forensic Lab. After completing the investigation, P.W.13 Inspector of Police filed the Charge Sheet against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 7. When the accused was put questions under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances available against him in the evidence, he denied the evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit in his argument that it is a case of circumstantial evidence in which the accused was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, in which the prosecution has not come forward with a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the lower court had convicted the accused/appellant on surmise and there is no connection in between the accused and the murder and the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused and he should have been acquitted. 9. 9. He would further submit in support of his case that P.W.1 is the step mother of the deceased Murugan and she had given the complaint only after seeing the dead body of Murugan at Cauvery River bank and her evidence would disclose that the alleged threat made by the accused towards the deceased Murugan was very much known to her and she had categorically admitted that she had not given any complaint to the police on the threatening of the accused over Murugan, but she had told Murugan to be careful with the accused Vadivelu. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellant would further submit in his argument that the prosecution witnesses which were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 are none other than the friends of the deceased Murugan and P.W.4 had deposed that the accused and one Suresh were seen alongwith the deceased Murugan on 02.02.2003 in the bus stand at 9.30 p.m. and he saw the dead body of the deceased Murugan on the next day on the Cauvery River Bank. The evidence of P.W.5 would disclose that he had seen the accused with deceased Murugan going towards Cauvery River bank on 02.02.2003 by 10.00 p.m. and after sometime he could see the accused alone had returned and he did not see the deceased Murugan accompany him and the next day he could see the dead body of Murugan at the Cauvery river bank. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the contradictory evidence regarding the last seen theory by P.w.4 and P.W.5 would bloom large into the suspicion as to the disappearance of Suresh who had accompanied the accused and the deceased Murugan half-an-hour prior to the time of occrurrence. Moreover, he would also submit that the names of P.W.4 and P.W.5 were not seen in the Inquest report conducted by the P.W.3 which is produced as Ex.P.11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are friends of the deceased Murugan, were introduced only on 12.02.2003 when they were examined in the course of investigation and the same would invite serious doubt about their evidence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are friends of the deceased Murugan, were introduced only on 12.02.2003 when they were examined in the course of investigation and the same would invite serious doubt about their evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit in his argument that the weapon which is said to have been used for the offence, cannot be connected with the offence because there is no conclusive proof of grouping of blood found in the weapon M.O.1.in the serology Report Ex.P.15, whereas the bloodstains in the clothes worn by the deceased Murugan were found to be AB Group. The non correlation of blood group in the weapon M.O.1 could also lead to suspicion, despite the said weapon was seized on the alleged confession of the accused. Moreover he would further submit in his argument that the alleged motive and the recovery of weapon on the alleged confession of the accused could not form a complete chain so as to invite conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused, since the alleged last seen theory, the witnesses viz., P.W.4 and P.W.5 are not reliable with their evidence. He would plead that in these circumstances the prosecution evidence adduced cannot implicate the accused in the alleged offence of 302 I.P.C. for the alleged commission of murder of the deceased Murugan. 11. We heard Mr.V.R. Balakrishnan learned Additional Public Prosecutor in detail. He would submit that in his reply argument that the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and M.O.1 to M.O.11 in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, and the prosecution has succeeded in his attempt to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that in his reply argument that the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and has produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and M.O.1 to M.O.11 in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, and the prosecution has succeeded in his attempt to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit in its argument that P.W.1, the step mother of the deceased Murugan had spoken about the motive for the killing of the deceased Murugan by the accused and the seizure of M.O.1 on the confession of the accused in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 would show that the weapon M.O.1 was hidden by the accused and the medical evidence viz., P.W.2 would go along with to show that the said M.O.1 was shown to him and he had given a opinion that the said injuries sustained by the deceased Murugan could have been caused by the said M.O.1 Aruval and therefore the motive, seizure and the evidence of Doctor would complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory could be teated as an additional factor for the conviction of the accused. He would also submit that the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 have spoken to the effect that the deceased Murugan accompanied by the accused and one Suresh at about 9.30 p.m. on the fateful day and P.W.5 would state that the accused was following the deceased Murugan at the Cauvery River Bank, at about 10.00 p.m. on the same day and after sometime he could see the accused alone was returning without the said Murugan and the same would go a long way to show that the said Suresh who accompanied the accused and deceased and who was seen by P.W.4, had gone away and therefore the accused though had accompanied the deceased Murugan and after the commission of offence at the Cauvery River Bank he returned alone. This would go a long way to show the completion of the circumstantial evidence. He would further submit that the examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 by the police on 12. 2003 after the arrest of the accused on 2. This would go a long way to show the completion of the circumstantial evidence. He would further submit that the examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 by the police on 12. 2003 after the arrest of the accused on 2. 2003 as the witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 were afraid of accused and there cannot be any doubt over the evidence of P.W.4 and 5 and therefore the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution would prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge may be confirmed and appeal may be dismissed. 12. We have considered the arguments advanced on either side with due caution and with careful perusal of records produced before us. 13. The main case of the prosecution depends upon the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. There is no eye witness to speak about the actual witnessing of the occurrence. There is no doubt that P.W.1 had deposed that the cousin sister of accused viz., Thenmozhi was married to deceased Murugan as third wife and they were not living together and the accused was telling the deceased Murugan to live with his cousin sister peacefully and if the said advise of the accused was not heeded by the deceased Murugan he would speak through Aruval. That was also made her to caution Murugan to be careful with the accused. Similarly it is not disputed that P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the friends of the deceased Murugan. In their evidence they have stated that the accused and the deceased have quarrelled at the bus stand and they have interfered and pacified both of them. If really P.W.4 and P.w.5 were present witnessing the accused Murugan and Suresh at the bus stand at 9.30 p.m., and accused and the deceased Murugan were seen at 10.00 p.m. on the bank of Cauvery river side they could have interfered at the time and saved Murugan especially the accused had threatened the deceased Murugan with dire consequences. The non examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 at the time of Inquest and the delayed examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 by the police during the investigation also threw serious doubts about the veracity of those witnesses. The non examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 at the time of Inquest and the delayed examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 by the police during the investigation also threw serious doubts about the veracity of those witnesses. Therefore we do not believe the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 that they have seen the accused, deceased and one suresh at the bus stand and thereafter accused and deceased in the Cauvery River Side on that day. The arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that the motive and the recovery of the weapon on the confession of the accused in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 clubbed with the evidence of Doctor who had connected M.O.1 with the injury sustained by the deceased would hold the circumstantial evidence completed cannot be accepted. It is because, the Serorlogy Report Ex.P.15 would show that the bloodstains in M.O.1 could be detected as human blood but the group in the same was inconclusive, since the grouping of blood could not connect with the blood found in the M.O.1 as well as the clothes of the deceased Murugan. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.2 the Post Mortem Doctor alone for affirming M.O.1, used in the offence. .14. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991Crl.L.J. 2191, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: ."...It is well settled that in a case pending on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Among the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, in the light of these principles we find that except the circumstance No.1, the other circumstances are not incriminating. In number of cases it has been held that the only circumstance namely that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused." .15. This Court raises serious doubts about the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime of commission of murder against the deceased Murugan as per the prosecution case. This Court raises serious doubts about the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime of commission of murder against the deceased Murugan as per the prosecution case. Therefore Mere recovery of the weapon on the confession of accused in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 clubbed with motive spoken by P.W.1 cannot warrant conviction. In these circumstances it has become necessary to come to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence produced did not complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and the link of last seen theory has not been available for the prosecution and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal as the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode dated 01.04.2004 in S.C.No.33 of 2004 and the appellant is acquitted since not found guilty. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.