Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The appellant, who is the sole accused, has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, by the judgment dated 210. 2006 made in S.C.No.61 of 2006 convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 17.04.2005 at 2.00 pm at the Thatched shed of Muthu Naicker Thottam at Ammasipalayam village. 3. The charge against the accused is that the accused, due to property dispute, beat his father, the deceased, Rangasamy, on his head with M.O.5, Karuvelam wooden log, resulting in the death of the deceased and thereby said to have committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 21, filed Exs.P.1 to P.26 and marked M.Os.1 to 11. 5. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows: (i) This is a case of patricide. The accused is none else than the son of the deceased. P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased as he married the sister of the deceased, P.W.16. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.10 is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of P.W.1. (ii) On 17.04.2005, P.W.1, along with his wife, P.W.16, went to the house of the deceased and he was informed that the deceased had gone to Thiruchengode at 12 noon. The deceased, Rangasamy, came to his house with a bandage in his left hand stating that he was having sprain in his hand and as such he had taken treatment and put bandage at Thiruchengode. The deceased had taken only water and left the house. At 3.30 p.m., P.W.1 with a view to inform the deceased that he is going to his village, went to the Thatched shed situated at Muthu Naicker Thottam and found the deceased was lying on a cot. While P.W.1 went near the cot, he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on his left ear, head and also an abrasion near the eye. Thereafter, P.W.1 went and informed P.W.4, who is also related to the deceased, and P.W.16, wife of P.W.1 and they came and saw the body of the deceased. While P.W.1 went near the cot, he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on his left ear, head and also an abrasion near the eye. Thereafter, P.W.1 went and informed P.W.4, who is also related to the deceased, and P.W.16, wife of P.W.1 and they came and saw the body of the deceased. (iii) P.W.1 went to Molasi Police Station on 17.04.2005 at 6.00 p.m. and a statement was recorded from him by P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police, under Ex.P.21. P.W.1 affixed his thumb impression in Ex.P.21. P.W.20 registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2005 for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.22 is the Printed copy of the Express First Information Report. He sent the same to the higher police officials and to the Court. (iv) P.W.21, on receipt of the First Information Report at 6.30 p.m. on 17.04.2005, took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.2 and the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.23 in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and others. Ex.P.26 is the inquest report. He sent the body for post-mortem. (v) The Doctor, P.W.9, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 18.04.2005 at 7.00 a.m., and found the following injuries : External Injuries: (1)3 cm L.W. on the middle of the pinna of left ear cutting (torn) cartilage making the pinna into two parts. 1 cm L.W. at the upper end of left pinna. (2)3 cm X 1 1/2 cm X bone deep L.W. behind the left ear. O/D Diffused subcutaneous haematoma is seen over the left side of back of scalp and fissured. Fracture from (torn) oozing of blood from inside the skull is seen. Fracture running from left side of the skull cross the occipital bone up to the right temporal bone is seen. (3)7 X 2 cm abrasion over the cheek in front of the left ear present. (4)2 cm X 1 cm abrasion over the back of the right wrist with surrounding swelling is seen. O/D subcutaneous haemotoma seen. Bones normal. (5)Left wrist after removing the creepe bandage appears normal. Skull: On opening the fissured fracture running from the left temporal bone crossing the occipital bone up to the right temporal bone is confirmed. (4)2 cm X 1 cm abrasion over the back of the right wrist with surrounding swelling is seen. O/D subcutaneous haemotoma seen. Bones normal. (5)Left wrist after removing the creepe bandage appears normal. Skull: On opening the fissured fracture running from the left temporal bone crossing the occipital bone up to the right temporal bone is confirmed. Diffused subdura haemotoma over the left temporal and occipital lobe of brain seen. Brain pale 1000 gms, fracture of base of skull from left temporal bone upto the middle seen. Thorax : Hyoid bone intact. Bony cage intact. Lungs pale right 450 gms, left 350 gms. Heart pale 150 gm, Abdomen : Liver pale 1200 gm, spleen pale 120 gm, kidney pale each 75 gm. Stomach : 500 ml of partly digested rice food seen. Bladder empty." The Doctor, P.W.9, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Ex.P.10 is the Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P.12 is the final opinion of the Doctor. (vi) P.W.21, in continuation of his investigation, examined the other witnesses. Meanwhile, the accused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.5, on 04.05.2005 and gave the extra-judicial confession which was recorded by P.W.5 under Ex.P.4. Thereafter, P.W.5 took the accused to the Police Station and produced him before P.W.21 on 04.05.2005 at 12.00 noon and handed over Ex.P.4, the extra-judicial confession, recorded by him. P.W.5 took his Assistant one Manickam along with him to the Police Station at the time of producing the accused and Ex.P.5. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.6, P.W.21, recovered M.O.5, Karuvelam Wooden log under Ex.P.7. Thereafter, P.W.21 altered the offence from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.24 is the altered First Information Report and he sent the same to the higher police officials and to the Court. He also recovered bloodstained cot, M.O.1, bloodstained cloth, M.O.2, bloodstained earth, M.O.3 and sample earth, M.O.4 under Ex.P.3. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.21 after examining the other witnesses including the Doctor, P.W.9, who has conducted the post-mortem and after receiving the Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.10, Viscera Report, Ex.P.11, Final Opinion, Ex.P.12, Chemical Examination Report, Ex.P.18 and the Serologist Report, Ex.P.19 and after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC on 08.07.2005. 6. P.W.21 after examining the other witnesses including the Doctor, P.W.9, who has conducted the post-mortem and after receiving the Post-mortem Certificate, Ex.P.10, Viscera Report, Ex.P.11, Final Opinion, Ex.P.12, Chemical Examination Report, Ex.P.18 and the Serologist Report, Ex.P.19 and after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC on 08.07.2005. 6. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied each and every circumstances as contrary to the facts and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side. 7. Mr. K.V. Sridharan, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in this case and the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not put forward any clinching circumstances implicating the accused. It is submitted that almost all the witnesses including P.W.2, brother of the deceased and P.W.3 wife of the deceased, have turned hostile. It is contended that P.W.1, who alleged to have given the report, has disowned his report and only admitted his signature which was marked as Ex.P.1. The learned counsel further contended that the witnesses namely, P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 14 and 15, said to have been spoken about the last seen theory, have turned hostile. It is submitted that even the witnesses to speak about the motive, namely, P.Ws.8, 11, 12, 14 and 16 have also turned hostile. It is contended that it is not safe to rely upon the alleged extra-judicial confession, said to have been recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, as the accused has no reason to choose P.W.5 for giving such extra-judicial confession. The learned counsel would further point out that P.W.2, brother of the deceased, stated in his cross-examination that after the death of the deceased/his father and during inquest, the accused was present. P.W.2 stated that he was kept under illegal custody by the police for 10 days and the accused was also brought to the police and as such there is no question of giving extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4 to P.W.5. P.W.2 stated that he was kept under illegal custody by the police for 10 days and the accused was also brought to the police and as such there is no question of giving extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4 to P.W.5. It is also contended that even P.W.4 stated in his cross-examination that the accused was kept under illegal custody by the police. The learned counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no material available on record to implicate the accused and the prosecution has not produced any clinching circumstances leading to the only inference of the guilt of the accused. 8. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is submitted that though the main witnesses have turned hostile, the fact remains that the law was set in motion by the report given by P.W.1. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, said to have been recorded, as per the statement of the accused, by P.W.5. The accused has implicated himself clearly in his extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4 and the version of the accused is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.9, who has conducted postmortem and the postmortem certificate, Ex.P.10, discloses corresponding injuries. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in all aspects. 9. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 10. The entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution put forward the following circumstances: (i) Motive: As far as the motive is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused caused the death of the deceased due to property dispute as the deceased, his father, settled the property in favour of his aunt, P.W.16. In respect of this circumstance, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.8, 11, 12, 14 and 16. (ii) The last seen theory, by placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 14 and 15. (iii) The extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, said to have been recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, from the accused. (iv) Arrest and recovery. 11. In respect of this circumstance, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.8, 11, 12, 14 and 16. (ii) The last seen theory, by placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 14 and 15. (iii) The extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, said to have been recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, from the accused. (iv) Arrest and recovery. 11. Before proceeding to scrutinize and analyse the circumstances put forward by the prosecution, it is relevant to refer the well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of circumstantial evidence. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a latest decision in Krishnan V. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in ( 2008 (4) Supreme 25 ) that, “This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:- i.the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established ; ii.those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused ; iii.the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else ; and iv.the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir V. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1982 SC 1157 )." 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said decision also referred an earlier decision and incorporated the same as hereunder: 14. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy V. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193 ), wherein it has been observed thus: (SCC pp.206-207, para 21) "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence." 14. Bearing the above principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let us now scrutinize and examine the circumstances put forward by the prosecution against the accused, as stated above. 15. The first circumstance put forward by the prosecution is the alleged motive. The motive, as per the prosecution version, is the property dispute as the deceased, the father of the accused, said to have settled the property in favour of his sister, P.W.16 without the knowledge of the accused. It is to be borne in mind that all the witnesses, P.Ws.8, 11, 12, 14 and 16, who have been examined by the prosecution to speak about the motive, have given a total go-by to their earlier version and they have completely turned hostile. It is pertinent to be noted that even in the earliest document, the report, Ex.P.1, which was given by P.W.1, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, it is specifically mentioned that no one was having any enmity with the deceased. Therefore, there is not an iota of evidence available on record to put forward any motive, much less the property dispute between the accused and the deceased. It is needless to state that in a case of circumstantial evidence in the absence of any other clinching materials, the motive for the occurrence assumes much importance. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Borthakur V. State of Assam reported in (2008 AIR SCW 3301) has held as follows: "33. A finding of guilt cannot be based on a presumption. Before arriving at an inference that the appellant has committed an offence, existence of materials therefor ought to have been found. No motive for committing the crime was identified which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was relevant. A finding of guilt cannot be based on a presumption. Before arriving at an inference that the appellant has committed an offence, existence of materials therefor ought to have been found. No motive for committing the crime was identified which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was relevant. How the links in the chain of the circumstances led to only one conclusion that the appellant and the appellant alone was guilty of commission of the offence has not been spelt out by the learned trial Judge." 17. The next circumstance is the last seen theory. We are constrained to state that the prosecution has also miserably failed to establish the last seen theory said to have been spoken by P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 14 and 15. The fact remains even the witnesses on this aspect have completely turned hostile and as such there is absolutely no material to show that the accused was lastly seen with the deceased at or about the time of the alleged occurrence. 18. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the alleged extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, said to have been recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer. It is pertinent to be noted that the occurrence took place on 17.04.2005 at 2.00 p.m., whereas the extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, was recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, only on 04.05.2005 nearly after 17 days. It is seen that P.W.5 is not closely known to the accused and it is highly improbable for the accused to repose confidence on P.W.5 to give such extra-judicial confession. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab reported in (1997 SCC (Cri.) 358), that the prosecution has to show as to why and how the accused had reposed confidence on a particular person to give extra-judicial confession. 20. The Honble Apex Court in Sunny Kapoor V. UT of Chandigarh reported in ( 2006 (10) SCC 182 ) has held that it is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. 21. It is also relevant to note that P.W.5 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has initially prepared a draft and thereafter, recorded Ex.P.4. 21. It is also relevant to note that P.W.5 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has initially prepared a draft and thereafter, recorded Ex.P.4. Further, it is admitted by P.W.5 that at page 2 of Ex.P.4, the sentences and words were in a congested manner, whereas at page 3, there were sufficient gaps between the lines and words. Therefore, this suspicious circumstance throws serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex.P.4, the alleged extra-judicial confession. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, said to have been recorded by P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer. 22. The last but not the least circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the arrest and recovery from the accused. We have already disbelieved the evidence of P.W.5 in respect of the alleged extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4. It is the version of P.W.5 that he only produced the accused along with the extra-judicial confession, Ex.P.4, to the police. But the fact remains, as per the specific admission of P.Ws.2 and 4, that even before the date of arrest, the accused was kept under illegal custody along with P.Ws.2 and 4. Though P.Ws.2 and 4 have turned hostile, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto as it is well settled that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be washed off altogether and any portion either in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the defence could be relied. In view of the specific admission of P.Ws.2 and 4, the entire process of arrest and recovery is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is not strengthened even on the basis of the alleged arrest and recovery. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to allow the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.61 of 2006 dated 210. 2006 are hereby set aside. Bail bond executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellant.