Judgment R. Regupathi, J. These Criminal Revision Appeals have been filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 15/3/2005 passed in S.C.No.84 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.2, Tuticorin. 2. The learned trial Judge framed six charges against the accused under Sections 364, 328, 379, 302 (as against A.2), 302 r/w. 34 (against A.1) and under Section 201 IPC on the allegation that on 26/2/2002 at 7.00 a.m., both the accused who are masons by profession, took the deceased, who was working along with them as Assistant, from the residence in a two wheeler; both of them administered sleeping pills to the deceased by mixing the same in tea; on the deceased becoming unconscious, they removed her clothes and jewels worth Rs.11, 000/-; A.1 with the help of A.2, cut the deceased on the neck and caused her death and thereafter, both the accused in order to screen the offence, severed the hands and thrown the same in a water tank. 3. Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied the commission of the offence and pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up. The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.Ws.1 to 33, marked Exs.P.1 to P.48 and produced M.Os.1 to 26. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides; convicted both the accused under Section 364, 328, 379, 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced them (i) to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 364 IPC; (ii). Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo R.I for two months for the offence under Section 328 IPC (iii). R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 379 IPC. (iv). to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and (v). to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been preferred. 4. to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been preferred. 4. The case of the prosecution, as spoken to by its witnesses, is briefly narrated below:- P.Ws.2 and 3 are mother and son of the deceased/Thangalakshmi. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the marriage between the deceased and one Mariaselvam was performed and out of the wed-lock, the deceased had given birth to a male child, P.W.3. After the death of the husband of the deceased, the deceased was doing masonry work. Two years prior to the occurrence, the deceased got married to P.W.12, changed her name as 'Rosy' and tattooed in one hand her name and in the other, the name of P.W.12. On being abandoned, she was given in marriage to a fruit merchant with whom she led life for few days, thereafter, got separated and started living with P.W.2. P.W.2 sold a portion of the land owned by her and out of the sale proceeds, purchased anklets and ear stud for the deceased and deposited the balance with Bank in the name of the deceased and P.W.3. The accused were working as masons and they used to take the deceased along with them for masonary work. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 26/2/2002 at 7.00 a.m., the deceased accompanied the accused for work, after informing P.W.2 that she is going to Tiruchendur for two days and, while leaving, the deceased was wearing a chain, ear stud and anklets. After two days, the deceased did not return back. P.W.3 asserted the information divulged by P.W.2. P.Ws.4 to 9 in their evidence had stated that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused prior to the occurrence, however, they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 has been examined for the sale of sleeping pills to the second accused and he also did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 the second husband of the deceased stated that he lived with the deceased for six years. He did not support the prosecution case, hence treated hostile. P.W.10 has been examined for the sale of sleeping pills to the second accused and he also did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 the second husband of the deceased stated that he lived with the deceased for six years. He did not support the prosecution case, hence treated hostile. P.W.13 Panchayat President, Servaikaranmadam has stated in her evidence that she came to know about the death of the deceased through paper publication. P.W.1, the Village Assistant at Sethukkuvaithan Village, on 1/3/2002 at 1.00 p.m., near the river bed, found dead body of a woman, aged about 35, without cloths, face totally disfigured and hands cut off i.e., both arms were missing. Immediately, he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.28 the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 1/3/2002 at 2.00 p.m., received the complaint given by P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.47/2002 for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, prepared Ex.P.39 First Information Report and despatched copies thereof to the Court as well as to the superior Officers in the Department through P.W.27. P.W.33 the Investigating Officer on receipt of copy of the First Information Report on 1/3/2002, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 4.15 p.m., prepared Observation Mahazar and rough sketch under Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.46 respectively, recovered blood stained earth M.O.7 and sample earth M.O.8 under Ex.P.3 and examined the witnesses present there. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P.47 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased through P.W.26 Sankaranarayanan Police Constable to the Government Hospital, Srivaikundam, for Post-mortem. The Investigating Officer photographed the scene of occurrence through P.W.14 and examined the witnesses. P.W.24 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 2/3/2002 at 12.30 p.m., and issued Ex.P.16 Post-mortem certificate, wherein he noted down the following:- Face: 1. Disfigured and both orbits, cheek and upper part of jaw all crushed. Uprooting of teeth in upper jaw present and teeth could not be identified. Lower jaw teeth present. 2. Cut injury present from region of left eye to lower end of mandible 6 cm x 6 cm x 2 cm. 3. Punctured wound over right side of face near right ear 2 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. 4. Uprooting of teeth in upper jaw present and teeth could not be identified. Lower jaw teeth present. 2. Cut injury present from region of left eye to lower end of mandible 6 cm x 6 cm x 2 cm. 3. Punctured wound over right side of face near right ear 2 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. 4. Multiple cut injuries on face of varying sizes and fracture of facial bones present. 5. Gasping cut injury (torn) from forearm seen in front of neck (torn) from right (nc) region wind pipe and underlying major vessels, nerves and muscles and thyroid cartilage cut. Hyoid bone intact. Left shoulder cutting 3 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm near (nc) end of clavicle. The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrahage due to multiple cut injuries 3 – 4 days prior to post-mortem. P.W.20 while working as a Village Administrative Officer at Perungulam Village, on 5/3/2002 came to know through his Assistant/P.W.21 that human hands were floating in the pond of the Village and finding two severed hands, immediately went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint/ Ex.P.20 with P.W.30. P.W.30 on receipt of the complaint given by P.W.20, registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2002 for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Ex.P.40 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.41 is the Observation Mahazar prepared while recovering the left hand under Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43 is the Observation Mahazar prepared for the right hand recovered under Ex.P.44 in the presence of witnesses. P.W.30 forwarded both the hands for medical examination. P.W.24 Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Srivaikundam, on receipt of requisition Ex.P.17, on 5/3/2002 at 4.30 p.m., commenced post-mortem and issued Ex.P.19 post-mortem certificate, wherein he noted down the following:- Right Upper limb: Found cut at middle of upper arm underlying muscles, nerves, blood vessels and shaft of humerous found cut completely. External appearance: Complete peeling of skin present with tattoo mark Vijayakumar on front of right forearm. No other injury noted in forearm, wrist and hand. Length of forearm from hand tip of middle finder 38 cm. Length of upper arm from elbow 12 cm. Left upper limb: Tattoo mark Rosy present over forearm peeling of skin present over left hand back of left forearm. No other injury noted in forearm, wrist and hand. Length of forearm from hand tip of middle finder 38 cm. Length of upper arm from elbow 12 cm. Left upper limb: Tattoo mark Rosy present over forearm peeling of skin present over left hand back of left forearm. Left wrist – Ante mortem contusion of 5 cm x 5 cm seen on outer aspect and front of wrist. Left arm cut at middle of humerous and measures cut completely length of forearm to elbow from tip of hand 38 cm. The Doctor has opined that "Comparing with anatomical position of already examined dead body of unknown female and now examined both upper limbs matches anatomically with that of the body." 5. P.W.33, Investigating Officer, On 17/3/2002, at 5.00 p.m., arrested A.1, who gave a voluntary confession statement and produced silver anklets M.O.3 from his pocket and the same was recovered under Ex.P.6. He also produced Aruval M.O.12 and shirt M.O.13 which were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.7. On 11/4/2002, at 3.00 p.m., the Investigating Officer arrested the second accused. Pursuant to the voluntary statement, he produced saree-M.O.6, jacket- M.O.4, inner-garment M.O.5 and blood stained Aruval - M.O.14 in the presence of P.W.16 Village Administrative Officer and the same had been recovered by the Investigating Officer. Subsequent to his statement, P.W.33 recovered gold chain and ear stud that have been pledged with P.W.19 pawnbroker under Ex.P.11. P.W.33 also recovered M.O.16 sleeping pills, M.O.17 Diary, M.O.18 hand bag, M.O.19 Shirt and M.O.20 pant under Ex.P.12. P.W.32 Inspector of Police, who took over investigation of the case in Crime No.61 of 2002, after examination of Post-mortem Doctor and other witnesses, filed final report under Ex.P.45. Photographs of both the hands are marked as M.O.23 and M.O.24 and M.O.10 is the negative thereof. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 and P.W.3 identified the jewels and clothes as that of the deceased. During the course of investigation, P.W.33 recovered a diary of the second accused, wherein, he has written about the purchase of sleeping pills as well as how he committed the death of the deceased. To compare handwriting in the diary, sample signatures under Ex.P.48 were received from A.2 in the presence of P.Ws.17 and 18. During the course of investigation, P.W.33 recovered a diary of the second accused, wherein, he has written about the purchase of sleeping pills as well as how he committed the death of the deceased. To compare handwriting in the diary, sample signatures under Ex.P.48 were received from A.2 in the presence of P.Ws.17 and 18. P.W.25, the Court Clerk, on receipt of the Material Objects, forwarded the same for chemical analysis and the diary for receiving opinion from the hand writing expert. Exs.P.22 and P23 are Chemical analysis report and serelogical report. Ex.P.26 is the opinion of hand writing expert. Ex.P.31 is the report received with regard to the sleeping pills. P.W.29 chemical analyst has issued Ex.P.34 report to the effect that human blood was found on M.Os.3, 5 and 7. P.W.31 the hand writing expert by comparing Ex.P.17 with sample signatures obtained from A.2 gave his opinion under Ex.P.26. The Investigating Officer, after examination of the witnesses receiving opinion from the Medical Officer, chemical analyst and hand writing expert, and on conclusion of the investigation, filed final report against the accused. 6. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating materials produced by the prosecution, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. The second accused filed a written statement to the effect that he is innocent. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. The learned trial Judge, after assessing the materials placed, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned; hence, the present Criminal Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that though P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated before Court that the accused accompanied the deceased on 26/2/2002, they never said so when examined by the Police. Further, P.W.3 has stated in his evidence that he was tutored by the Police to state so in that regard. Under such circumstances, their evidence should not be taken as true coupled with the fact that they are mother and son of the deceased. Though the prosecution has examined P.Ws.4 to 10, 12, 19 and 23 to substantiate that the deceased was last seen alone in the company of the accused prior to the commission of the offence, none of them has supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, they have been treated as hostile. Though the prosecution has examined P.Ws.4 to 10, 12, 19 and 23 to substantiate that the deceased was last seen alone in the company of the accused prior to the commission of the offence, none of them has supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, they have been treated as hostile. P.W.15 and P.W.16 namely Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer were examined to substantiate the arrest, statement and recovery of the material objects including the weapon of offence. Though such recoveries were effected from A.1 and A.2 on 17/3/2002 and 11/4/2002, their statement reached the Court only on 2/9/2002. P.W.21 and P.W.22 Village Assistants were examined for the purpose of recovery of hands of the deceased. Their statements also reached the Court only on 2/9/2002. Therefore, the delay in despatching the statement of these material witnesses creates a great doubt about the manner in which those statements came into existence and recovery of the material object has been made. The diary of the second accused marked as Ex.P.17 has been recovered and to prove the writing therein as that of A.2, sample hand writing has been received by the Police Officer in the presence of P.Ws.17 and 18. However, P.Ws.17 and 18 did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, they had been treated as hostile. P.W.19 has been examined to substantiate the pledging of the jewels M.Os.1 and 2 and those material objects did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated as hostile. Though P.W.2 had stated that the material objects were identified by her in the Police Station ten days later, other contemporaneous materials would indicate that the same were recovered much later. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem and also the severed hands. However, there is no positive opinion received from the post-mortem Doctor that the severed hands are exactly as that of the deceased. Under such circumstances, learned counsel submits that, in the absence of direct eye witnesses to substantiate the offence and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution not being sufficient and strong enough to connect the appellants with the crime. It may be concluded that the prosecution has not substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, learned counsel submits that, in the absence of direct eye witnesses to substantiate the offence and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution not being sufficient and strong enough to connect the appellants with the crime. It may be concluded that the prosecution has not substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the reasons given by the trial Court in convicting the accused are not well founded and submitted that the appellants are liable to be acquitted. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused are known persons to the deceased and the deceased used to accompany them for masonry work. After the arrest of the accused, material objects were recovered including the cloths as well as the jewels of the deceased. Such a recovery has been made in pursuance of the statement given by the accused and the same has been recovered from the places which are within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The jewels and cloths of the deceased were identified by P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with recovery and other materials would very well substantiate the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances put forth by the prosecution are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 9. Perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made on either side. 10. In a case of this nature, where there is no eye witness and the matter rests on the 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 a 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." 11. 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." 11. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, who is the first witness to speak about the deceased to the effect that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Though she has stated so in the evidence before the Court, this information has not been divulged to the Investigating Officer at the time when she interrogated during investigation. Therefore, her evidence may be accepted only to the extent that the accused used to accompany the accused for doing masonry work. Further, P.W.2 also stated that on several occasions, the deceased accompanied the accused. Since P.W.2 did not inform this vital information to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, we are unable to believe her statement as true and P.W.3 also did not inform the Investigating Officer that she accompanied the accused prior to the date of occurrence. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely on their testimonies with reference to important aspect of circumstantial evidence viz., "last seen alive with them". The body as well as the severed hands of the deceased were recovered in two different places. Two separate cases were registered. Both trunk as well as the hands were sent to the Doctor P.W.24 for conducting post-mortem examination. Though post-mortem examinations were conducted on different dates, it is the paramount duty of the Medical Officer to give opinion as to whether the severed hands are that of the trunk. In the cross-examination, the post-mortem Doctor has admitted that a positive and absolute opinion could be given only when the trunk and the hands are available at the same time. The prosecution has not taken any effort to receive such final opinion from the Medical Officer. Admittedly, both the trunk as well as the severed hands were in a highly decomposed condition. The blood sample of the trunk and the hands should have been taken and sent for chemical analyst's opinion in order to substantiate that the severed hands belong to the trunk. Admittedly, both the trunk as well as the severed hands were in a highly decomposed condition. The blood sample of the trunk and the hands should have been taken and sent for chemical analyst's opinion in order to substantiate that the severed hands belong to the trunk. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt that the severed hands are that of the dead body of the deceased. The face of the deceased has been disfigured in such a way it was difficult to fix the identity of the deceased. P.Ws.2, 3 and 13 never identified the trunk as that of the deceased. On seeing the photographs of the severed hands though we could see the names on the hands, it appears that the same were written subsequently. There is no material even to substantiate that the two hands are of the same person. Though jewels and cloths of the deceased were recovered in pursuance of the statement given by the accused, those statements reached the Court after an inordinate delay. P.W.19 who is alleged to have received the stolen property also turned hostile. Hence, we are unable to believe the recovery aspect as projected by the prosecution. On a perusal of the diary, alleged to have maintained by the second accused, we are of the considered view that such passages written by the second accused would not have been written at the relevant point of time. The occurrence took place during 2002 and those passages were written in a diary of 2001. On perusal of other passages, it is apparent that A.2 was not in the habit of writing diary on a day-to-day basis and we are at a loss to understand how such passages were written by the second accused in those pages. In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence must be cogent and convincing and the chain of such circumstances must be so complete, leading to an irresistible conclusion, pointing towards the guilt of the accused and in the absence of the same, when there is no material to connect the appellants to the crime, conviction in a grave offence cannot be based. In the present cases, there may be suspicion against the accused, but suspicion cannot take the place of evidence. The approach of the trial Court in appraisal of the evidence is not satisfactory. In the present cases, there may be suspicion against the accused, but suspicion cannot take the place of evidence. The approach of the trial Court in appraisal of the evidence is not satisfactory. The evidence on record is not strong enough and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court as against the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. A.2 shall be released forthwith unless he is required otherwise. Bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled.