Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. The State has preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.596 of 2003, acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 451, 302 and 380 IPC. 1. The occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 17.03.2003 morning at the house of the deceased, Dharanishankar at No.12/24, Ramanuja Garden Street, Pattalam, Chennai – 12. The accused is said to have strangulated the deceased with the telephone receiver wire and also pressed on the face of the deceased with lungi and bed sheet causing suffocation resulting the death of the deceased and thereby liable to be punished under Sections 302 and 451 IPC. 2. In pursuance of the same occurrence, the accused is said to have taken gold ring, bracelet, VCD cassette worn by the deceased and also taken the chain and wrist watches from bureau and thereby liable to be punished under Section 380 IPC. 3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 9, filed Exs.P.1 to P.23 besides marking M.Os.1 to 10. 4. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows : (i) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1. The accused is the friend of the deceased, Dharanishankar. The deceased was living along with his mother, P.W.1, sister, P.W.2 at 12/24, Ramanajua Garden Street, Pattalam, Chennai. The deceased was a B.A. Graduate and he was also studying M.Com., course through correspondence. P.W.1 was working in P.T.C. as she got job on compassionate ground due to the death of her husband. P.W.2, sister of the deceased, was working in a Company called, United Engineers at Ashok Nagar, Chennai. (ii) On the fateful date of occurrence, i.e. on 17.03.2003, P.W.1, mother of the deceased, left for her work at 7.00 a.m. P.W.2, sister of the deceased, left for her work on that day at 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 returned to her house after work at 5.30 p.m. and found the door was slightly opened. Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside the house and found the deceased was lying dead with underwear and his head was covered with bed sheet and dhothi and also found bloodstains. Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside the house and found the deceased was lying dead with underwear and his head was covered with bed sheet and dhothi and also found bloodstains. She removed the bed sheet from the head of the deceased and found a telephone wire was tied on the neck of the deceased and there was bleeding from the nose and mouth. Thereafter, P.W.1 rushed to her sister one Shanthi’s house situated in the same street and informed about the occurrence. P.W.1’s father, mother, sister and brother, P.W.3, rushed to the scene house. P.W.3 removed the wire from the neck of the deceased and found the deceased already dead. Thereafter, they have cleaned the bloodstains from the body and covered the body with another cloth and placed the same on a sofa. They have also informed P.W.2, sister of the deceased, and she returned to the house at 8.30 p.m. PW1 also informed about the occurrence to one Harikrishnan, friend of the deceased, over the phone. She found the gold bracelet, gold ring and Titan wrist watch worn by the deceased were missing from the body of the deceased. P.W.2 found the keys of the steel bureau were also missing. The bureau was found opened and the gold chain, one ladies watch, one gents watch, nose ring, gold ring and bracelet were missing from the bureau. P.W.2 raised hue and cry stating that her brother was murdered for jewellery. (iii) P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to P-1, Pulianthope Police Station on 17.03.2003 at 9.30 p.m. and gave the report, Ex.P.1 to P.W.9, Inspector of Police. (iv) P.W.9 registered the case in Crime No.182 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC and 392 IPC. Ex.P.20 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the higher police officials and to the Court. P.W.9 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.13, Rough Sketch, Ex.P.21 in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased at K.M.C. Hospital on 18.03.2003. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. P.W.9 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.13, Rough Sketch, Ex.P.21 in the presence of witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased at K.M.C. Hospital on 18.03.2003. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. (v) The Doctor, P.W.8, conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 18.03.2003 at 2.30 p.m. and found the following injuries : Injuries : (1)Horizontal ligature mark dark red in colour seen encircling the neck width of the ligature mark is 0.5 cm. On front the ligature mark is 10 cm above the Supra sternal notch, on right side the ligature mark is 8 cm below the right mastoid process, on left side the ligature mark is 8 cm below the left mastoid process. Posteriorly the ligature mark lies 9 cm above the spine of 7th Cervical Vertebra. On dissection : the soft tissues under the ligature mark shows dark red contusion. On further dissection : Fracture of superior cornu of thyroid cartilage seen on the right side with surrounding soft tissue contusion (Dark red). Hyoid Bone – Intact. (2)On dissection of head ; Dark red contusion 4 X 3 X 0.5 cm seen in the left temporal region of scalp. Dark red contusion 8 X 4 X 0.5 cm seen in the left parietal region of scalp close to the parietal prominence. Skull Bones : Intact. Brain : Oedematous. Surface vessels congested. Cut Section : Nil. Abnormal. (3)Dark red contusion seen over inner surface of upper lip on right side measuring 2.5 X 1 X 0.5 cm. Eye : Bilateral sub conjunctival haemorrhage present. Heart : Normal in size. Chambers contain fluid blood. Coronaries patent. Lungs : Congested and oedematous. Stomach : Empty. Mucosa – Congested. Bladder : Empty. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys : Congested." The Doctor, P.W.8, opined that the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Ex.P.17 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. (vi) In continuation of his investigation, on 19.03.2003, P.W.9 went to the scene of occurrence and recovered the letter pad of the International Associations of Lions Club, wherein the name of the deceased was written. On 20.03.2003 at 6.45 am., P.W.9 arrested the accused. Ex.P.17 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. (vi) In continuation of his investigation, on 19.03.2003, P.W.9 went to the scene of occurrence and recovered the letter pad of the International Associations of Lions Club, wherein the name of the deceased was written. On 20.03.2003 at 6.45 am., P.W.9 arrested the accused. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused under Ex.P.23, he recovered, M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3, gold ring, M.O.4, Titan gents wrist watch, and M.O.5, Titan ladies wrist watch, etc. P.W.9 recovered letter pads with the name of the International Associations of Lions Club and in the letter pads, the name of the accused was written several times and the same was recovered under Ex.P.16. (vii) After examining P.W.8 and other witnesses, after receiving the Post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.17, chemical examination reports, Exs.P.18 and P.19, and after completing the investigation, P.W.9 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 451, 302 and 380 IPC. 5. When the accused was examined 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 circumstance as contrary to the facts and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused has not chosen to examine any witness on his side. 6. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by assigning several reasons. 7. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and clinching circumstances implicating the accused and the learned learned trial Judge has erred in overlooking the materials. It is contended that the accused was lastly seen by the neighbour, P.W.7, as the accused was coming out from the house of the deceased at 1.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 17.03.2003. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the recovery of the jewellery, M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3, gold ring and two wrist watches, M.Os.4 and 5 at the instance of the accused is also a incriminating circumstances put forward by the prosecution which establishes the guilt of the accused coupled with the last seen theory. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the recovery of the jewellery, M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3, gold ring and two wrist watches, M.Os.4 and 5 at the instance of the accused is also a incriminating circumstances put forward by the prosecution which establishes the guilt of the accused coupled with the last seen theory. It is contended that as per the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.8, the deceased died due to strangulation and except the accused no one was seen lastly near the scene house. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and clinching circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and the learned trial Judge has overlooked all these circumstances. 8. Per contra, Mr.A.Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent 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 for acquitting the accused. The learned senior counsel would submit that the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not put forward clear and cogent circumstances and there are several missing links in the chain of circumstances. It is contended that the prosecution has not proved the motive. The learned senior counsel further submitted that even the last seen theory said to have been spoken by P.W.7 is unbelievable as he has been examined two months after the occurrence and till such time, he has not disclosed about seeing the accused on the date of occurrence to anyone. It is also pointed out that P.W.7 has stated to the police that the name of the accused was not known to him. It is contended that the alleged recovery of jewellery and wrist watches at the instance of the accused is also unbelievable and unacceptable as pointed out by the learned trial Judge as there are several infirmities in the prosecution version. It is contended that there are contradictions between the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.6 in respect of the arrest and recovery from the accused. Therefore, it is contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused by pointing out the above said infirmities and inconsistencies and no ground made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Therefore, it is contended that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused by pointing out the above said infirmities and inconsistencies and no ground made out for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal. 10. The entire prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution placed reliance on the following circumstances: (i) Motive to the effect that the deceased was compelling the accused to have homosex and as a result, the accused provoked and killed the deceased by strangulating his neck with telephone receiver wire ; (ii) Last seen theory said to have been spoken to by P.W.7 is to the effect that he had seen the accused was coming out of the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 17.03.2003. (iii) The recovery of gold jewellery, namely, M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3 gold ring and M.Os.4 and 5, wrist watches, in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused. 11. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquittal, namely, 1)The prosecution has failed to establish the motive as there is no material available on record to show that the deceased insisted the accused to have homo-sex. 11. The learned trial Judge has assigned the following reasons for acquittal, namely, 1)The prosecution has failed to establish the motive as there is no material available on record to show that the deceased insisted the accused to have homo-sex. 2)In the report, Ex.P.1, which was given by P.W.1 there is no suspicion raised against the accused 3)The body of the deceased was cleaned and kept ready for burial and no suspicion raised till even at the time of giving the report, Ex.P.1; 4)Till the arrival of P.W.2, sister of the deceased, at 8.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 3 have not found any missing of jewellery worn by the deceased as well as kept in the bureau and as such the prosecution version of missing jewellery is unbelievable; 5)Last seen theory spoken by P.W.7 is unbelievable as P.W.7 has not disclosed to anyone about seeing the accused coming out of the house of the deceased till he was examined by the police two months after the occurrence; 6)The accused was implicated only on the basis of the alleged admissible portion of confession recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, after the alleged arrest of the accused and except that piece of material, there is no material produced by the prosecution to implicate the accused. 7)The recovery of gold jewellery, M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3, gold ring and wrist watches, M.Os.4 and 5 was made in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused is also not proved by the prosecution through acceptable and clear evidence as there are contradictions between the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.9 and the mahazar witness, P.W.6; 8)Several lapses on the part of the investigating officer as the finger prints were not taken from the scene of occurrence as the occurrence claimed to have taken place inside the house of the deceased; 12. At the outset, it is to be stated that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are based on materials available on record. We are unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge. 13. At the outset, it is to be stated that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are based on materials available on record. We are unable to see any infirmity or illegality in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge. 13. It is relevant to refer a decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 1294 in respect of the powers of the appellate Court in interfering with the judgment of acquittal, wherein the Honble Apex Court 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. 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 Honble Apex Court in a latest decision in Mahesh s/o Janardhan Gonnade V. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (2) Supreme 898 , by referring to a catena of earlier decisions of the Honble Apex Court, reiterated the principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal as hereunder : "21. In Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , on consideration of a catena of earlier decisions of this Court and Privy Council, the following general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1)An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of low. (3)Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4)An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5)If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 16. The Honble Apex Court has held in respect of circumstantial evidence 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 )." 17. If we scrutinize the materials available on record coupled with the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in the light of the above principle of law regarding the powers of this Court in an appeal against acquittal as well as the settled principle of of law regarding the reliability of circumstantial evidence, we are constrained to state that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment of acquittal. 18. It is to be seen that there is not an iota of evidence available on record to establish the alleged motive against the accused. 18. It is to be seen that there is not an iota of evidence available on record to establish the alleged motive against the accused. It is also pertinent to be noted that there is not even a suspicion raised against the accused in the report, Ex.P.1, till the date of arrest of the accused and till the date of recording the admissible portion of the confession of the accused, the name of the accused was not implicated and such being the position inadmissible portion of the accused cannot be placed reliance by the prosecution. 19. The last seen theory is spoken only by a solitary witness, namely, P.W.7. The undisputed fact remains that P.W.7 was examined only two months after the occurrence and till such time, P.W.7 has not whispered a word about seeing the accused on the date of occurrence coming out of the house of the deceased and such conduct of P.W.7 is highly unnatural and abnormal and it is most unsafe to place reliance on his evidence and the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected his evidence. 20. Yet another piece of circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the alleged recovery of M.O.1, gold chain, M.O.2, gold bracelet, M.O.3, gold ring and wrist watches, M.Os.4 and 5, at the instance of the accused. The fact remains that there are contradictions in respect of arrest and recovery at the instance of the accused between P.W.9, the Investigating Officer and P.W.6, the mahazar witness. Added to these infirmities and inconsistencies, it is also to be borne in mind that the alleged missing of jewellery itself was not raised by the prosecution witnesses immediately and only after the arrival of P.W.2 at 8.30 p.m., such version was raised. There are several lapses on the part of the investigating agency as the investigating officer has not taken any steps to take fingers prints though the occurrence is claimed to have taken place inside the house. The entire prosecution case surrounded by suspicious circumstances and there are several missing links in the circumstances put forward by the prosecution. 21. There are several lapses on the part of the investigating agency as the investigating officer has not taken any steps to take fingers prints though the occurrence is claimed to have taken place inside the house. The entire prosecution case surrounded by suspicious circumstances and there are several missing links in the circumstances put forward by the prosecution. 21. For all the above said reasons, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge cannot be stated to be wholly unreasonable or perverse or it cannot also be stated that the findings suffer from any serious infirmity or the misreading of evidence on record warranting interference of this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal and as such we are constrained to dismiss the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.