Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The State has preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 211. 2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thirupathur, Vellore District, made in S.C.No.242 of 2001 acquitting the respondents, namely, A-1 and A-2, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 IPC. 2. P.W.1, in this case, has preferred a Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.420 of 2005 challenging the judgment of acquittal. 3. The charge against the respondents, namely, A-1 and A-2 is that A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased, Padmanathan, on his head with wooden log with the intention of causing the death and thereby liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC, in pursuance of the above said occurrence, A-1 and A-2, with a view to screen the offence and to escape from the punishment, set fire to the body of the deceased and thereby they are punishable for the offence under Section 201 IPC. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P.1 to P.19 besides marking M.Os.1 to 10. 5. The brief facts of the case, as unfolded during the course of trial through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, are as follows: (i) A-1 and A-2 and the deceased were friends. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the neighbouring land owner of A-1 and A-2. The deceased is also related to P.W.2 as he is the sisters son of P.W.2. Both A-1 and the deceased were also related to P.W.2. A-1 and A-2 were having illicit intimacy with P.W.2, Sampoornam. P.W.2 also developed illicit intimacy with the deceased, Padmanathan, which was not liked by A-1 and A-2. Therefore, there were strained feelings between A-1, A-2 and the deceased. (ii) On 29.06.2000, while P.W.1, father of the deceased, was working in his field, he had seen A-1 and A-2 were proceeding along with deceased from P.W.2s house. Thereafter, the deceased had not returned to the house. Therefore, P.W.1 enquired A-1 and A-2 about the whereabouts of his son, the deceased, for that A-1 and A-2 informed him that they went to Ponneri and as no bus was available, they came in a tempo to Thirupathur and from Thirupathur, the deceased Padmanathan went to Hosur after getting Rs.200/- from them. Therefore, P.W.1 enquired A-1 and A-2 about the whereabouts of his son, the deceased, for that A-1 and A-2 informed him that they went to Ponneri and as no bus was available, they came in a tempo to Thirupathur and from Thirupathur, the deceased Padmanathan went to Hosur after getting Rs.200/- from them. It is further informed by A-1 and A-2 that the deceased told them that he was going to meet his brother, Govindan. Even after four days, the deceased had not returned to the house of P.W.1 and as such P.W.1 went and informed the Village Panchayat President, P.W.10. P.W.10 advised him to go and find out from the house of his son, Govindan at Hosur and thereafter P.W.1 went to Hosur and his son Govindan informed that the deceased had not come to his house. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed P.W.10 that the deceased used to go to the house of P.W.2 frequently and P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.2 along with P.W.10 and one Raj Gounder. On enquiry, P.W.2 informed them that the deceased had not come to her house. At that time A-1 was found standing near the house of P.W.2. P.W.2 informed that A-1 and A-2 had taken the deceased on 29.06.2000 at 10.00 a.m. from her house. When P.W.1 started to give a report, P.W.10, in turn, directed the accused to search and find the deceased. A-1 and A-2 agreed to search and bring the deceased on or before 15.07.2000, but they have not produced the deceased on that day. (iii) P.W.1 went to Vaniyambadi police station along with his another son, P.W.5, and gave a report, Ex.P.1, at 7.30 a.m. on 17.07.2000. P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, registered the case in Crime No.455 of 2000 for the offence of man missing. Ex.P.13 is the Express First Information Report. (iv) P.W.14 took up investigation and examined the witnesses including P.W.5 and others. Thereafter, he searched for the accused. On the same day, i.e. on 17.07.2000, he arrested A-1 at Kalandira bus stop in the presence of witnesses. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A-1, he recovered M.O.6, a tin containing poison, under Ex.P.14. Thereafter, A-1 took P.W.14 and others to the scene of occurrence, namely, Jaloripallam at Yelagiri Hills and they found burnt skeleton. P.W.14 prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 and the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15. He held inquest on the skeleton. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A-1, he recovered M.O.6, a tin containing poison, under Ex.P.14. Thereafter, A-1 took P.W.14 and others to the scene of occurrence, namely, Jaloripallam at Yelagiri Hills and they found burnt skeleton. P.W.14 prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 and the Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15. He held inquest on the skeleton. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. He sent the Skeleton for post-mortem. (v) The Doctor, P.W.7, examined the skeleton on 18.07.2000 at 12.40 p.m. and found the following appearance of the bones : O/E : Skull, Jaw Bones, both upper limb bones vertebral column with some ribs attached to it both lower limbs bones, pelvis and tuft of hair seen. Skull : Fractured over the lower part of the Right parietal region. Fissured type of fracture. Right upper incisor and canine teeth are absent. Upper left premolar tooth absent. Lower incisor and right lower premolar teeth absent. Ribs : Nos.1 to 5 ribs are present on both sides other ribs absent. Right leg bone : Tibia is found missing from its lower 1/3 skull, lower jaw bone. The Doctor opined that the deceased died of head injury and multiple fractures. Ex.P.8 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. (vi) P.W.14, in continuation of investigation, again went to the scene and recovered bloodstained earth, M.O.2. Sample earth, M.O.3, burnt lungi, M.O.4. Etc. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.14, altered the offence to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.17 is the altered First Information Report. P.W.14, thereafter, sent the case records to Yelagiri Police Station. (vii) The investigation was taken over by one Inspector, Gunaseelan and as he was not well, P.W.16, another Inspector, was examined. He stated that the said Inspector examined P.W.2 and others and recorded their statements on 19.07.2000. At 2.00 p.m., on the same day, he arrested A-2 in the presence of witnesses. A-2 produced a photograph which was taken along with the deceased. He sent the skeleton for chemical examination through the Court. After examining all the remaining witnesses and after receiving the post-mortem certification, Ex.P.8, Anthro report, Ex.P.9, and after completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. 6. He sent the skeleton for chemical examination through the Court. After examining all the remaining witnesses and after receiving the post-mortem certification, Ex.P.8, Anthro report, Ex.P.9, and after completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. 6. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both the accused denied each and every circumstances as contrary to the facts and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Both the accused have not chosen to examine any witnesses on their side. 7. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by assigning various reasons. 8. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the impugned Judgment of acquittal suffers from several infirmities. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has overlooked the materials available on record through P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the last seen theory to the effect that the deceased was last seen along with A-1 and A-2. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has also erred in brushing aside the recovery of skeleton at the instance of A-1. It is submitted that A-1 and A-2 said to have left the house of P.W.2 along with the deceased, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but there is absolutely no probable explanation given by A-1 and A-2 in respect of the whereabouts of the deceased. It is submitted that the medical evidence coupled with the Anthro report clearly show that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. 9. Mr.S.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner (P.W.1) in the revision petition filed challenging the order of acquittal, reiterated the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered as there are incriminating materials available on record. 10. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the appeal, namely, A-1 and A-2 contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the appeal, namely, A-1 and A-2 contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has assigned valid reasons based on the materials available on record for acquitting the accused. The learned counsel would contend that the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to put forward incriminating circumstances by completing the chain leading to the only inference of guilt of the accused. It is contended that even in respect of last seen theory, P.W.1 has come forward with such version only for the first time before the Court. It is pointed out that P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, admitted in his examination that P.W.1 has not stated that he has seen A-1 and A-2 along with the deceased on 27.06.2000. It is further contended that P.W.2 was not examined by P.W.14. P.W.16 stated that except one witness, no other witnesses were examined. It is contended that the occurrence took place on 29.06.2000 and the skeleton was said to have been found only on 17.07.2000 and further the alleged recovery of skeleton at the instance of A-1 is also highly doubtful, since the same was recovered in the open field and as such the recovery would not come under the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that there are several missing links in the circumstances put forward by the prosecution. 11. We have given our careful 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 acquittal. 12. The entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. 13. It is relevant to refer the settled principles of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in respect of power of the appellate court in interfering the judgment of acquittal and a case which rests on the circumstantial evidence. The Honble Apex Court in Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 has held as follows : ".... The Honble Apex Court in Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 has held as follows : ".... As a practical proposition, in an appeal against acquittal, it is always necessary that the reasons given by the trial Court for recording an acquittal should be examined by the High Court. If the conclusions of the trial Court are not based upon any evidence or they are such as no reasonable body of men, properly instructed in law, can reach, on the evidence, or they are so palpably wrong as to shock the sense of justice, the High Court will be justified in taking a contrary view by giving its own reasons. It is not enough that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view. While interfering with acquittal the judgment of the High Court should demonstrate clearly the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial Court having regard to all the relevant evidence in record." 14. In yet another decision in State of Karnataka V. K.Gopalakrishna reported in 2005 (9) SCC 291 the Honble Apex Court has held as follows : "17. .... If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffer from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the appellate court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal." 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the following tests have to be satisfied where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence in a latest decision in Krishnan V. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 25 . The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the following tests have to be satisfied where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence in a latest decision in Krishnan V. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2008 (4) Supreme 25 . The Honble Apex Court has held as follows : “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 )." 16. It is also equally well settled by the Honble Apex Court in Gade Lakshmi Mangraju alias Ramesh V. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2001 SC 2677 that, "In a case based on circumstantial evidence one circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances which could matter. Hence, it is not proper for the Court to cull out one circumstance from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it." In the light of the above principles of law regarding the circumstantial evidence as well as appeal against acquittal, we shall scrutinize the materials available on record and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquitting the accused : (i) Motive, alleged by the prosecution is to the effect that A-1, A-2 were having illicit relationship with P.W.2 and P.W.2 also developed intimacy with the deceased. Therefore, A-1 and A-2 were on inimical terms with the deceased. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquitting the accused : (i) Motive, alleged by the prosecution is to the effect that A-1, A-2 were having illicit relationship with P.W.2 and P.W.2 also developed intimacy with the deceased. Therefore, A-1 and A-2 were on inimical terms with the deceased. But P.W.6, brother of the deceased, has admitted in his cross-examination that he had no knowledge about the alleged intimacy of A-1 and A-2 with P.W.2 and P.W.2 has also not stated anything about the alleged intimacy. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the motive. (ii) The last seen theory said to have been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2 is unbelievable. P.W.1 has stated about the last seen theory for the first time before the Court as per the admission of P.W.14. The evidence of P.W.2 in respect of last seen theory is highly doubtful in view of several infirmities and inconsistencies as there is no other material in respect of the last seen theory. (iii) The skeleton was recovered by the Investigating Officer, P.W.14, only on 17.07.2000 whereas, the occurrence took place on 29.06.2000. Further, the skeleton was admittedly, recovered at the instance of A-1 from an open field and as such the same would not come under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (iv) The alleged recoveries made by the police are highly doubtful. Though, the body was said to have been fully burned, M.O.1/shirt was found intact and there is no material to connect the recovery of materials objects with the accused. 11. At the outset, we have to state that the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are based on the materials available on record and the learned trial Judge has not overlooked or ignored the evidence available on record. 12. It is pointed out by the learned trial Judge that the motive part is not proved by the prosecution. P.W.1 has not whispered a word about the alleged intimacy. P.W.2 has stated that her relationship with the deceased is like that of a mother and son as both of them were closely related to each other. P.W.6, brother of the deceased, fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he has totally unaware about the alleged intimacy of A-1, A-2 and the deceased with P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that her relationship with the deceased is like that of a mother and son as both of them were closely related to each other. P.W.6, brother of the deceased, fairly admitted in his cross-examination that he has totally unaware about the alleged intimacy of A-1, A-2 and the deceased with P.W.2. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive as the motive is one of the vital piece of evidence in respect of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the cirme. 13. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the prosecution case in respect of last seen theory. As far as the last seen theory is concerned, we are having the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is closely related to the deceased as well as A-1. P.W.1 stated that the deceased left the house of P.W.2 along with A-1 and A-2 on 29.06.2000 at 10.00 a.m. and thereafter, he had not returned back to the house. P.W.2 also stated that the deceased left her house along with A-1 and A 2. It is pertinent to be noted that in his report, Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has not stated that he has actually seen the deceased going along with A-1 and A-2, on the other hand, it is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that only on enquiry P.W.2 informed him that the deceased left along with A-1 and A-2 on 29.06.2000. It is also pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has not stated to the police during the investigation that he has seen the deceased going along with A-1 and A-2 in person and such version was given by P.W.1 only for the first time before the Court. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, it is stated by her in the chief examination that the deceased left along with A-1 and A-2 on 29.06.2000 and thereafter, the deceased had not returned back and A-1 and A-2 returned back to their house. It is pertinent to be noted that admittedly as per the version of P.W.2 only after a week, P.W.1 brought the Village President and one Raji Gounder and enquired her about the whereabouts of the deceased. It is pertinent to be noted that admittedly as per the version of P.W.2 only after a week, P.W.1 brought the Village President and one Raji Gounder and enquired her about the whereabouts of the deceased. Added to this infirmity, namely, the delay in enquiring P.W.2 by P.W.1 and others, P.W.2 has also categorically admitted that she has not stated about seeing that the deceased was going along with A-1 and A-2 at the time of examination by the police as well as by the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is also not inspiring our confidence and as such we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of last seen theory. 14. Yet another reason assigned by the learned trial Judge is to the effect that the skeleton was recovered long after the occurrence, i.e., only on 17.07.2000 whereas, the occurrence took place on 29.06.2000, and that too from an open field and as such it cannot be stated that the recovery was made as per the provision under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is pertinent to be noted that the prosecution has not proved the skeleton of the deceased in this case as this Court is of the considered view that there is no sufficient material available on record to connect the skeleton as that of the deceased. The recovery of the said skeleton in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-1 is also surrounded by suspicious circumstances apart from the delay in making such recovery. The other recovery said to have been made by the investigating officer, P.W.14, is also highly doubtful. It is claimed by the investigating officer, P.W.14, that he has recovered, apart from other material objects, the burnt lungi, M.O.4, ashes from the burnt plants. It is the prosecution version that the body was burnt and as such the recovery of M.O.1, bloodstained shirt which was found to be intact raises serious doubt about the entire recovery made by the investigating officer in this case. 17. Apart from the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, we are also constrained to state that the conduct of the accused is also relevant to be taken into consideration. 17. Apart from the above said reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge, we are also constrained to state that the conduct of the accused is also relevant to be taken into consideration. It is the categorical version of P.W.1, father of the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.10, Village Headman that A-1 and A-2 were very much present after the occurrence and they were not absconding and such conduct of the accused shows their innocence. 18. Therefore, in view of the above said factors, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and the findings of the learned trial Judge cannot be stated to be perverse or learned trial Judge has overlooked any material evidence or misread evidence warranting interference of this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal as such the appeal is dismissed liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected revision filed by P.W.1 is also dismissed.