Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.303 of 2002, whereby these three appellants stood charged as follows: 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: a) The second accused is the wife of the deceased Nehru. The first accused and the second accused developed illicit intimacy. On coming to know about the same, the deceased warned both of them and this was not liked by them. The first and second accused hatched up a plan to finish him off. Accordingly, on 7. 1993 at about 10.00 p.m., A-1 and A-3 took the deceased to a nearby tank bund and A-1 stabbed the deceased with knife and caused his death and in order to screen the evidence, they buried the body. b) When P.W.1, V.A.O., was in his office on 8. 1993 at about 7.00 a.m., A-1 appeared before him and confessed the offence orally, which was reduced into writing. The statement of the first accused was marked as Ex.P.1. Along with Ex.P.1, P.W.1 produced the first accused before the respondent police station. P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, on receipt of Ex.P.1, the report, registered a case in Crime No.519 of 1993 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.16, the F.I.R. along with Ex.P.1 was sent to the court. c) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation and he enquired the first accused. An intimation was given to P.W.13, the Tahsildar of the said place. It was the first accused who identified the place where the dead body was buried. The body was exhumed in the presence of the witnesses. After exhumation of the body, P.W.13, the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. d) Following the same, P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem at the place of occurrence itself and has issued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate. In Ex.P.18, the final opinion, it has been stated that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple punctured (stab) wounds. e) Following the same, P.W.15 arrested the third accused on 8. In Ex.P.18, the final opinion, it has been stated that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple punctured (stab) wounds. e) Following the same, P.W.15 arrested the third accused on 8. 1993 in the presence of the witnesses and he voluntarily came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the same, he produced a spade and a crowbar, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. On 8. 1993, the second accused was arrested. All the accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in three reports, namely Ex.P.12, the Chemical Analysts report and Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14, the Serologists reports. Further investigation was done by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and he examined the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 6 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearings the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and entered into the judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that there was no direct evidence on the side of the prosecution; that the prosecution rested its case exclusively on circumstantial evidence; that the main circumstance, according to the prosecution, was the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the first accused to P.W.1, V.A.O.; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 7. 1993, but the first accused suddenly appeared before the V.A.O. on 8. 1993, namely a month thereafter, and gave a confessional statement; that it is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was already known to the first accused and under these circumstances, there was no reason as to why he made such a statement before V.A.O. after a month. 5. Added further the learned counsel that according to the prosecution, on appearance, the first accused gave confessional statement and that statement was marked as Ex.P.1; that he was also produced before the police and he was also enquired; that it is the specific stand of the prosecution that it was A-1 who took the police officer along with others and identified the place where the dead body was buried; that from the evidence of P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, it would be quite clear that he is living away from the place of occurrence and that only on information, he went to the place of occurrence and that too on the previous day and thus, it would be quite clear that the occurrence could not have taken place on 7. 1993 at all; that exhumation of body has taken place on 8. 1993 and thus, all would go to show that the prosecution has not come with the true case. 6. The learned counsel would further add that according to the prosecution, on the guise of assurance to redeem the gold ring, A-1 and A-2, who is the wife of the deceased, took the deceased and on the way, the deceased was stabbed near the tank bund; that the ring was actually pledged subsequent to the death of the deceased on 17. 1993; that this would indicate that the ring could not have been recovered at the instance of the first accused; that in the instant case, the medical opinion did not support the prosecution case; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 7. 1993 and the dead body was exhumed on 8. 1993; that this would indicate that the ring could not have been recovered at the instance of the first accused; that in the instant case, the medical opinion did not support the prosecution case; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 7. 1993 and the dead body was exhumed on 8. 1993 and on the same day, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor; that according to P.W.8, he could not give final opinion as to the cause of death and further, the body was completely decomposed and that the death would have occurred about 3 days prior to post-mortem and that this would falsify the date of occurrence, namely 7. 1993, as put forth by the prosecution and thus, it is not a case where the prosecution lacked evidence, but it was the case where the prosecution had no evidence at all and so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, completely it is bereft of evidence and under these circumstances, the appellants herein are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court. 7. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also looked into the materials available. 8. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the registration of the case in Crime No.519 of 1993, P.W.13, the Tahsildar, on requisition, made arrangements for exhumation of the dead body of the deceased and following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor, who has given his opinion in Ex.P.9, the postmortem certificate. From the evidence, it would be quite clear that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. This fact was never questioned by the appellants at any stage of proceedings. Under these circumstances, no impediment is felt by the court to record so. 9. On scrutiny of the evidence available, the court is afraid whether it could sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the court below. In the instant case, the main piece of evidence, on which the prosecution rested its case, was the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the first accused to P.W.1, V.A.O. on 8. 1993. In the instant case, the main piece of evidence, on which the prosecution rested its case, was the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the first accused to P.W.1, V.A.O. on 8. 1993. The court is mindful of the settled proposition of law that even on the extra judicial confession, the single piece of evidence, the court can sustain conviction. Before accepting that evidence, the court must look into the circumstances attendant over such a confessional statement made and also must look that the evidence of the person, to whom such an extra judicial confession was made, has inspired the confidence of the court. If this test is applied in the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 has got to be rejected for more reasons than one. 10. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on the night of 7. 1993, but the extra judicial confession was alleged to have been given on 8. 1993, i.e. after a period of one month. It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was acquainted with A-1. No reason could be found as to why suddenly after a month, A-1 must come to the same village and inform to P.W.1 about the occurrence. In the instant case, according to P.W.1, A-1 appeared before him and gave confessional statement, Ex.P.1. Along with Ex.P.1, the first accused was produced before the police station. According to the police personnel, the first accused was enquired in the presence of the witnesses. The prosecution came with the consistent stand that the place were the dead body was buried was identified by the first accused and thereafter, the body was exhumed. In the instant case, it is highly doubtful whether such a thing could have happened at all. According to P.W.1, confession was made on 8. 1993. According to P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, on information, he went to the place of occurrence on the previous day and saw the dead body. Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that the dead body could not have been exhumed on 8. 1993, as put forth by the prosecution. 11. Apart from that, the medical opinion what was placed is contrary to the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 7. 1993 in night hours, but the dead body was exhumed on 8. 1993, after a month. 1993, as put forth by the prosecution. 11. Apart from that, the medical opinion what was placed is contrary to the prosecution case. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 7. 1993 in night hours, but the dead body was exhumed on 8. 1993, after a month. P.W.8, the Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem, has given his categorical opinion that the dead body was in decomposed stage and also the death would have occurred about three days prior to the autopsy. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place 30 days prior to the autopsy. Thus, the medical opinion canvassed is exactly contra to the prosecution case. Hence it would cast a doubt whether the occurrence could have taken place as put forth by the prosecution. 12. Further, the prosecution relied on the recovery of gold ring on the confession given by the first accused. According to the prosecution, the first accused went to the place of the deceased and took him along with his wife, namely A-2 for the purpose of redemption of the gold ring and on the way, the first accused stabbed him to death. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the ring was pledged with P.W.7 only on 17. 1993. Hence the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the recovery was nothing but false. In reply, the learned counsel for the prosecution would submit that originally, the ring was pledged with P.W.5 and thereafter, it was redeemed by the accused and thereafter, again it was re-pledged with P.W.7. If this circumstance has got to be accepted, the court would require the evidence of P.W.5, but P.W.5 has turned hostile. Hence the link was missing and under these circumstances, that evidence was not available for the prosecution. Hence the extra judicial confession, the alleged arrest and also the recovery of ring are completely shrouded with suspicious circumstance. Hence it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on such evidence and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 13. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the court below. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds if any executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and the fine amounts if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.