Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. Both the appellants were tried in S.C.No.259 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, for the offence under Sections 120(B), 302(2 counts, 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) and 201 I.P.C. by Judgment dated 01.08.2005. A-1 found guilty under Section 120(B) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C. sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three month on each count and for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. A-2 found guilty, convicted under Section 120(B) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) I.P.C. sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count and for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence they are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 2. The accused were put on trial on the following prosecution case: a) The first deceased Valarmathi @ Sivakumari is the wife of A-1 and the second deceased Palaniammal is the mother-in-law of A-1. A-2 is the adopted daughter of A-1 and the first deceased. Contrary to the wish of both the accused, the first deceased had made arrangements for the marriage of A-2 with one Senthilkumar, son of P.W.11. Hence, there were frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. With the above motive, both the accused had committed murder of the deceased and in order to conceal the offence A-1 had closed the mouth of A-2 with clothes and tied her hands and legs and also caused minor injury. At the early morning on 212. Hence, there were frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. With the above motive, both the accused had committed murder of the deceased and in order to conceal the offence A-1 had closed the mouth of A-2 with clothes and tied her hands and legs and also caused minor injury. At the early morning on 212. 2001, P.Ws.1 and 2 happened to come to the house of the accused and the deceased and saw A-1, standing in front of the house and pressing the calling bell and thereafter, opened the door. Thereafter, it came to be known that both the deceased were murdered. The bodies were cremated by the villagers on the same day evening. A-1 lodged a complaint, Ex.P.23 to P.W.24, alleging that somebody aged approximately about 23 years had entered into their house in order to steal away the jewels and other valuables, committed murder of both the deceased and he also tied the hands and legs of A-2 and in order avoid her shouting, her mouth was closed with clothes and thereafter he escaped from the scene. b) P.W.24, Inspector of Police, In Charge, Dharmapuri Police Station registered the said case in Cr.No.2208 of 2001 under Sections 3-2, 342, 323, 506(ii) and 379 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P.3. He went to the scene of occurrence along with Finger Print Experts, Sniffer Dog and Photographers on the same day and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 in the presence of the witnesses. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m. To 6.30 p.m. He conducted inquest on the dead body of first deceased viz. Valarmathi @ Sivakumari in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared inquest report, Ex.P6. Before that, he sent A-2 to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri for treatment through the Head constable. On the same day from 6.45 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. he also conducted inquest on the dead body of the second deceased Palaniammal in the presence of the panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Inquest Report, Ex.P.27. Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital,Dharmapuri through Grade I,Police Constable for post-mortem. He also recovered material objects from the scene of occurrence under the cover of Mahazars Ex.Ps.7 and 8. Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital,Dharmapuri through Grade I,Police Constable for post-mortem. He also recovered material objects from the scene of occurrence under the cover of Mahazars Ex.Ps.7 and 8. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri at 11.45 p.m. and recovered the blood stained in-skirt, blood stained Half Saree, blood stained yellow colour simmi and blood stained rose colour blouse under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P.9 from A-2. On 212. 2001, he examined, A-1 and A-2 and other witnesses recorded their statements. On 20.01.2002, P.W.24 Investigation Officer sent the material objects for chemical examination through court concerned. c) P.W.16 the Doctor who conducted post-mortem had found the following injuries on the dead body of first deceased Valarmathi @ Sivakuamri 1)An incised would over the neck from left side, front and right side of the neck just below the lower jaw above the hyoid bone about 21 c.m. X 5 c.m. X depth about 10 c.m. severing all the vessels, muscles, nerves and oral cavity exposed. Larynix, phalanx opened. 2) An incised wound over the back of the neck and left side of the neck about 6 c.m. Below the injury No.1 about 12 c.m. X 4 c.m. X bone deep severing vessels, muscles. 3) An lacerated injury left ear 2 x 1 x ½ c.m. No other injuries present. External Genitalia normal. All the limbs intact. d) He also found the following injuries on the dead body of second deceased Palaniammal:- 1. An incised wound about 15 c.m. Length from the left side of the neckto the front side of the neck and right side of the neck, 4 c.m. Breadth, depth 5 c.m. Severing left common cartoid, left jugular vein and muscles & vessels and anterior wall of trachies 2. An incised wound over the left side of the frontal and parietal region about 10 c.m. X 2 x 2 c.m. 3. An incised wound 5 c.m. behind the injury No.2 over the left parietal region about 7 x 2 x 2 c.m. No other external injuries. All four limbs intact. External genitalia normal. He issued Post-mortem Certificates Ex.Ps.4 & 5 respectively in respect of the injuries on the dead bodies. He also opined that both the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained about 20 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. All four limbs intact. External genitalia normal. He issued Post-mortem Certificates Ex.Ps.4 & 5 respectively in respect of the injuries on the dead bodies. He also opined that both the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained about 20 to 26 hours prior to autopsy. d) As the investigation conducted by P.W.24, did not show any progress and the assailant was not apprehended, it was transferred to P.w.25 on 7. 2002. However, by the order of the Superintendent of Police Salem, C.B.C.I.D., it was transferred to P.W.27 the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Salem with effect from 29.08.2002. As the investigation still did not show any progress and the assailant was not apprehended, the Villagers along with A-1 submitted a petition before the Human Rights Commission as to the failure on the part of Investigating Officers, the investigation was transferred to P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapuri. e) P.W.27 who took up further investigation has examined the witnesses again and he submitted the case records to P.W.28, Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapuri as per the order of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Madras dated 29.08.2002. He took up further investigation on 03.09.2002. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 03.05.2003, at about 9.30 a.m. both the accused appeared before P.W.22, the village Administrative Officer and gave extra judicial confession, confessing their involvement in the murder and also the concealment of the occurrence. On the basis of the oral extra judicial confession, P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer, prepared a report, Ex.P.20 and produced both the accused before the Investigation Officer, P.W.28 and he arrested both of them and recorded their voluntary confession statements in the presence of P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant. Pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1, P.W.28 recovered a steel knife, M.O.28 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P.22. Thereafter, he sent both the accused for judicial custody on 07.05.2003. He has taken the both the accused under police custody on 15.05.2003 and 20.05.2003 respectively and examined the accused to find out the truth. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet under Section 302 r/w 109, 120(B) and 201(2) I.P.C. against the accused on 07.07.2003. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses and marked 29 exhibits and produced 31. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet under Section 302 r/w 109, 120(B) and 201(2) I.P.C. against the accused on 07.07.2003. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 28 witnesses and marked 29 exhibits and produced 31. On behalf of the accused neither document was marked nor any witness was examined. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they totally denied them as false. However, learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. 4. In questioning the legality of the conviction and sentence, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Selvarangan for the Appellants has submitted that the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case:- 1. The extra judicial confession said to have been given by both the accused to P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer. 2. The motive viz. both the deceased had made arrangements for the marriage of A2 with one Senthilkumar son of P.W.11 contrary to the wish of both the accused, they joined together and committed the murder of the deceased. 3. The murders were said to have taken place only for gain viz., to steal the jewels. 5. As far as the first circumstance viz., the extra judicial confession is concerned, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the trial court itself has rejected the case of the prosecution as to the alleged extra judicial confession given by both the accused to P.W.22. In so far as the second circumstance viz., the motive is concerned, learned Senior Counsel submitted it is being a double edged weapon and in this case it could be very difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that the both the accused had committed the murder of the deceased since, both the accused had objected to the marriage of A-2 to one Senthilkumar son of P.W.11, the motive is as such flimsy and in case of a circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role and in the absence of concrete evidence to prove the motive, the conviction and sentence is totally unsafe, placing reliance on the circumstances relating to the motive as put forth by the prosecution in this case. 6. 6. In so far as the occurrence is concerned, P.Ws.1 and 2 had except stated that they saw A-1 in front of the house and pressing calling bell of his house at the time of occurrence, there is nothing to indicate the involvement of A-1. There is nothing wrong in A-1 pressing the calling bell of his house which was situated at the compound wall to enter into the house. The trial Judge had erred in accepting the evidence as to the suspicious circumstances where A-1 was found in front of the house viz., when the door was opened, there was no reason to press the calling bell. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that even the location of the calling bell is not established as P.W.1 has stated that the calling bell was fixed in the front side of the house and the evidence of P.W.2 is that the calling bell was fixed on the compound wall of the house. Even if the door was locked or opened, there is contradiction between their evidence and the mere presence of A-1 at the entrance of the house, the prosecution cannot put it as one of the circumstance for the implication of the accused. He would submit that both the accused were present in the scene of occurrence and they were not escaped, causing any doubt. Moreover, A-1 himself has lodged the complaint, Ex.P.23 to P.W.24 wherein he has stated that somebody had entered into the house and committed the murder for gain and the same version is also spoken to by A-2 and in fact, all the villagers had jointly cremated the bodies. Since, the Investigation Officer, P.W.24 did not investigate the case properly, the case was thereafter handed over to P.W.25 and thereafter to P.W.27. As the investigation did not show any progress and the assailants were not apprehended, people in the village numbering more than 30 had submitted a petition to the Human Rights Commission, wherein A-1 also signed in, they have prayed for fair investigation to bring the assailants before the court of law as it is a case of double murder and that too happened inside the house for gain. Only when the villagers had made such a petition, the investigation was transferred to the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapui viz., P.W.28 on 29.08.2002 i.e. Nearly after 10 months from the date of occurrence. Only when the villagers had made such a petition, the investigation was transferred to the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapui viz., P.W.28 on 29.08.2002 i.e. Nearly after 10 months from the date of occurrence. He would also submit that even immediately after the complaint Ex.P.23 was lodged by A-1, the police came to the scene of occurrence and sniffer dog was also brought. Though both the accused were present, the sniffer dog did not catch both the accused. If the prosecution case is true as to the implication of A-1 & A-2, the sniffer dog would have caught both of them and on the contrary it just went outside the house and sat after a long distance near railway gate without moving further. He would also submit that the prosecution has not explained the injury on A-2 which is a cut injury on her head. Even the clothes seized from A-2 did not contain the blood group O of A-2 and though some of the jewels worn by both the deceased were missing, the Investigation Officer has not seized any of the jewels. In case of a circumstantial evidence, the recovery plays an important role. On the whole, as the prosecution case rests only on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstances without any break in chain of circumstances and the absence proof of each circumstance the appellants/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly learned Senior Counsel would submit that the none of the circumstance spoken to by the prosecution was proved and therefore, the accused are entitled to benefit and consequently acquittal. .7. Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand would submit that it is true that the trial court had not accepted the extra judicial confession said to have been given by both the accused before P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer and on other hand it has proved the last seen theory of A-1 in front of the house as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2. The prosecution has also established the motive viz., that A-2 did not like to marry one Senthilkumar, the son of P.W.11, suggested by both the deceased. Equally, A-1 who had illicit intimacy with A-2 also did not like, A-2 given in marriage to any other person. 1 and 2. The prosecution has also established the motive viz., that A-2 did not like to marry one Senthilkumar, the son of P.W.11, suggested by both the deceased. Equally, A-1 who had illicit intimacy with A-2 also did not like, A-2 given in marriage to any other person. The evidence of P.W.11 also would clearly prove that the marriage arrangements between A-2 and the said Senthilkumar and therefore, both A-1 & A-2 joined together and committed murder. Therefore, the prosecution has established the motive beyond any reasonable doubt. Insofar as the missing of jewels is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that the jewels are missing and therefore, the failure on the part of the investigating officer to recover the missing jewel does not arise. The further circumstance that the prosecution has relied upon is the serology report which discloses the blood group of the first deceased in the clothes recovered from A-2. 8. For all the above reasons, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt without any missing link as to the involvement of both the accused in the murder and also their attempt to conceal the offence. The trial court has rightly found both the accused guilty and has imposed the appropriate sentences. For all the above reasons, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf the appellants/accused as well as the State. Insofar as the circumstance relating to the extra judicial confession said to have been given by both the accused to P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer, Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the same and consequently did not rely upon as one of the circumstances for conviction. .10. It leads us to the other grounds which were put against the accused for conviction and sentence. The first circumstance put forth by the prosecution is the motive. As far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.W.4 and 13. P.W.4 is the neighbor to the accused and the first deceased. He has stated that the first deceased had made arrangements of the marriage of A-2 and A-1 did not like that marriage due to the financial constraint. P.W.13 is the brother of the first deceased and son of the second deceased. P.W.4 is the neighbor to the accused and the first deceased. He has stated that the first deceased had made arrangements of the marriage of A-2 and A-1 did not like that marriage due to the financial constraint. P.W.13 is the brother of the first deceased and son of the second deceased. He has stated that though the marriage was arranged, A1 was not interested in the marriage. Except the above witness, there is no evidence to speak about the motive. Even in respect of the motive, according to P.W.4, A-1 did not like the marriage only due to his financial constraint. On the other hand, according to P.W.13, A¬1 did not like the marriage and he has not elaborated as to the reason for A-1 to oppose the marriage. In fact, the learned trial Judge had framed charge against both the accused, since A-1 had illicit intimacy with A-2, both of them did not like the marriage of A-2 with some other person and therefore with the said motive they had committed the offence. The prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove the illicit relationship between A-1 and A-2. The motive put forth by the prosecution is flimsy and that too in a case of double murder. Even the evidence of the two witnesses P.W.4 and 13 are not consistent and in fact they are contradictory to each other as to the motive. In our opinion, the prosecution has not established the motive. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove the motive as one of the circumstances and the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive may lead to suspicion on the implication of the accused for the offence. 11. The next circumstance put forth against the appellants/accused is the last seen theory viz., the evidence of P.W.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the sister of the first deceased. It is her evidence that on 212. 2001 she along with P.W.2 and her elder sisters daughter viz., Suganya came to Thirupathur to see her sister by name Valarmathy @ Sivakumari, the second deceased and stayed in her house over night. Thereafter, on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. they left to Dharmapuri to see her another daughter namely the first deceased. 2001 she along with P.W.2 and her elder sisters daughter viz., Suganya came to Thirupathur to see her sister by name Valarmathy @ Sivakumari, the second deceased and stayed in her house over night. Thereafter, on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. they left to Dharmapuri to see her another daughter namely the first deceased. At that time when they reached the house, she saw A-1 was standing just 10 feet away from the house.. When P.W.1 heard the noise, she suspected something going on in the house and therefore, she asked A-1, but A-1 denied of hearing any such noise. Nevertheless, even when the doors were opened , he pressed the calling bell. Thereafter all the three viz., A-1, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had gone inside the house only to see both the deceased were murdered and the legs and hands of A-2 were tied and her mouth was closed with a cloth. The learned trial Judge had relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 as one of the circumstances since, A-1 even after knowing that the doors of the house were opened, had pressed the calling bell, giving suspicion about his implication for the offence. Whether the said circumstances could be taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion as to the involvement of A-1, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 must be considered put in together as both of them happened to come to the place at the same time. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the calling bell was located in front of the wall of the house. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that the calling bell was located on the compound wall of the house viz., at the main entrance near the gate. Consequently as far as the opening of the door when A-1 pressed the calling bell, it is the categorical evidence of P.W.2 that she did not know whether the doors of the house were opened or closed. There is no concrete evidence to prove even while, the doors were opened and A-1 pressed the calling bell only to conceal his involvement in the offence. There is no concrete evidence to prove even while, the doors were opened and A-1 pressed the calling bell only to conceal his involvement in the offence. Apart from the above contradiction, it is the consistent evidence even when they entered into the house and after they witnessed both the deceased were murdered, the cloth was removed from the mouth of A-2 by A-1 and the hands and legs were untied by P.W.2 and on questioning, A-2 had informed both P.W.1 and P.W.2 that somebody had entered into the house for the purpose of committing dacoity and in the process he had murdered both the deceased and since, A-2 pleaded with him that she has been engaged with a boy for marriage, she was left out, after her hands and legs were tied and a cloth was put on her mouth so that she could neither escape nor shout. A-2 has also stated the above fact to P.W.7 who was working as a Head Constable in Hogenekkal Police Station at the time of occurrence. From the above evidence, it is clear that P.W.1 and 2 were not specific as to the place where the calling bell was located and whether the doors were opened or closed to create the suspicious in the mind of the Court as to the presence of A1 after committing the murder of the deceased. It is well settled in law that the last seen theory alone cannot be the ground for conviction and sentence in a case of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory must be corroborated by further materials viz., the other circumstances. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 would also show that A-2 also had cut injury on her head. In fact, immediately after P.W.1 and 2 came to the house, the villagers had gathered and A-2 was taken to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri where she was treated by P.W.15. Before the Doctor, A-2 had informed the Doctor that she was attacked by an unknown person in her house on 212. 2001 at about 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.1 is the Wound Certificate issued in respect of the injuries sustained by A-2. In fact, she has been admitted to the hospital by a police memo. Before the Doctor, A-2 had informed the Doctor that she was attacked by an unknown person in her house on 212. 2001 at about 11.00 a.m. Ex.P.1 is the Wound Certificate issued in respect of the injuries sustained by A-2. In fact, she has been admitted to the hospital by a police memo. Though it is not the general rule that in all cases the prosecution has to prove the injuries sustained by the accused, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the explanation of injury on the accused is one of the strongest circumstances as to the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence and in the absence of any explanation as to the injury on the accused would not only result in suspicion over the prosecution case but, also will result in break in chain of circumstances. The failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the head injury sustained by A-2 at the time of occurrence would lead us to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the chain of circumstances implicating the accused for the offence. 13. We may here point out that after both the deceased were found dead and the legs and hands of A-2 were untied and the clothes were removed from her mouth, both A-1 and A-2 were present in the scene of occurrence and they were in the same village till the investigation was completed. There was nothing to doubt about their conduct. In fact, A-1 himself had gone to the police station and lodged Complaint, Ex.P.23. The occurrence had taken place at about 11.00 a.m. on 212. 2001 and the complaint was given at 1.30 p.m. on the same day. In the said complaint, A-1 has stated that both the deceased were murdered by a person aged about 25 years and he came into the house for committing theft of jewels and other valuables and the person, after committing the murder had removed one thalikodi, one chain worn by the second deceased and one chain worn by A-2 and the fact that A-2 had informed him has also mentioned in the complaint. He has also mentioned that nearly 14 sovereigns of jewels were stolen by the said person. He has also mentioned that nearly 14 sovereigns of jewels were stolen by the said person. In fact, the evidence of P.W.2, who was present along with P.W.1 and A-1, when all of them saw both the deceased were murdered and A-2 was also inside the house with the hands and legs were tied and the mouth was closed with cloth as stated, A1 had immediately informed the police over phone. If really, the murders were committed by A-1 in conspiracy with A-2, they could have made attempt to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, their conduct was otherwise. Apart from the above, it is the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 as well as P.W.6 that immediately after the information, the police came to the scene of occurrence with sniffer dog. According to P.w.1, the sniffer dog came into the house and ran upto a railway station and thereafter it did not move further. The evidence of P.W.2 is also on the same line. Equally, the evidence of P.W.6, a neighbor shows that the sniffer dog left the house, went upto a S.T.D. Booth, after crossing the railway line. In fact, if both the accused had involved in the crime in all probability, the sniffer dog would have identified them and caught hold of them. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 also shows that A-1 and A-2 were present when the sniffer dog was brought. 14. The next circumstance would be in respect of missing of jewels. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that some of the jewels were missing from the house and this evidence is also corroborated by P.W.2 while she stated that one Thali weighing about 7 sovereigns, one gold chain weighing about 4 sovereigns and one pair of stud were missing. Though, it was argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no articles were found missing, in our opinion, the said submission cannot be accepted in the wake of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that as the investigation was not properly conducted by the investigating officer, a complaint was given by the villagers to the Human Rights Commission, wherein it is stated that the murder was committed for gain and the jewels which were stolen were not recovered by the investigating officer. The evidence of P.W.2 is also on the same line. The evidence of P.W.2 is also on the same line. The fact that the villagers had signed in the complaint given to the Human Rights Commission is established by the fact that only after the said complaint was received, the investigating officers P.W.24 and 25 were changed and the case was entrusted to C.B.C.I.D., and consequently it was finally investigated by P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Dharmapuri with effect from 29.08.2002 nearly after 10 months from the date of occurrence. However, neither the Investigating Officer, P.W.24 nor P.W.25 or P.W.27 and for all that matter P.W.28, the Investigating Officer from C.B.C.I.D., had recovered any of the jewels. In a case of circumstantial evidence and that too in a case of dacoity and murder for gain, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish its case through recovery. The failure on the part of the investigating officers to recover the stolen jewels throw serious doubt about the case of the prosecution in implicating A-1 and A-2. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the murders were committed for gain by A-1 and A-2 and the motive attributed was only against the Appellants/accused in respect of the marriage of A-2 and not for murder for gain. 15. The one of the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that blood stains were found in the clothes of A-2 viz., Group A belongs to the first deceased. However, it is evident from Ex.P1 that A-2 also sustained head injury and the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.15 shows that he found a lacerated wound 3 c.m. X 0 .05 c.m. X scalp deep over occipital area. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 also shows that at the time when they saw A-2, blood was coming out of the said injury. If that be the case of the prosecution , certainly, the blood stains of A-2 also should have found in her cloth. Of course, in order to prove that A-2 had blood group of O, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused relied upon the evidence of P.W.23. P.W.23 has stated that he had examined the blood group of A-2 and had certified that the blood group as O. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor questioned the said evidence on the ground that it was obtained only on 010. 2002 after the occurrence. P.W.23 has stated that he had examined the blood group of A-2 and had certified that the blood group as O. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor questioned the said evidence on the ground that it was obtained only on 010. 2002 after the occurrence. It must be kept in mind that P.W.23 was examined on behalf of the prosecution and the accused is entitled to take advantage of the evidence in their favour. In fact, the said evidence was only at the instance of the prosecution and there is nothing to indicate any doubt as to the blood group of O belonged to A-2. 16. From the above discussions, the following conclusions are evident:- 1.Though the prosecution has put forth motive as one of the circumstances, the same has not been established. 2.In a case of murder for gain, the prosecution has failed to recover the stolen articles. 3.The conduct of both the accused in the scene of occurrence until the investigation was over and they have not made any attempt to escape from the village. 4.The sniffer dog which was brought immediately after the occurrence, but it did not catch hold of both the accused, who were admittedly present in the scene of occurrence. On the other hand, it went to the railway station and thereafter did not move further. 5.Immediately, after the occurrence, the first accused himself has given a complaint alleging that some one person aged about 25 years entered into the house and attacked both the deceased for committing murder. 6.Not only the villagers numbering about 36, but also P.W.12 Sivaraj who is the son of the second deceased Palaniammal gave a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and also the Honble the Chief Minister complaining that the investigation was not properly conducted and the accused were not identified and the stolen jewels were not recovered. 7.The theory of extra judicial confessions put forth by the prosecution recorded only after two years and five months from the occurrence i.e. on 5. 2003 by P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer was not believed by the trial Court. 8.The last seen theory of A-1 put forth through P.Ws.1 and 2 has not established. 17. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstances without any missing link. 2003 by P.W.22, the Village Administrative Officer was not believed by the trial Court. 8.The last seen theory of A-1 put forth through P.Ws.1 and 2 has not established. 17. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstances without any missing link. Honble Apex Court in a case of circumstantial evidence has placed heavy burden on the prosecution in 2007 (3) Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 101 [Manjunath Chennabasappa Mudali Vs. State of Karnataka]. As we have found that the prosecution has not proved any one of the circumstances to implicate the accused, we hold that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently entitled to acquittal. 18. Before parting with the judgment, we may feel we should mention the total lethargy in the attitude of the Investigating Officers to investigate the case effectively in time. The occurrence had taken place on 212. 2001 and police came to the scene immediately after the occurrence and the investigating officer P.W.24 has taken up investigation and sniffer dog was also brought and in spite of the above, the investigating officer has failed to break through in the investigation which ultimately led to the villagers giving a complaint to the Honble Chief Minister as well as the Human Rights Commission complaining that the investigation was not properly done and the assailants were not apprehended and also the stolen jewels were not recovered. Had the investigating officers taken effective investigation then and there properly, the real culprits could have been apprehended and brought before the court of law. Due to their failure, P.W.28, the new investigating officer happened to be appointed, that too at the direction of the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., who took up investigation only on 29.08.2002 i.e. nearly after nine months of the occurrence and therefore, he was not in a position to collect all incriminating materials to implicate the accused which has resulted in failure of the investigation and consequently the prosecution case. Only under the above circumstance, we are constrained to hold that the investigation was not carried out properly immediately after the occurrence and in that process, the real accused had escaped from the clutches of law. 19. For all the above reasons, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by judgment dated 01.08.2005. 19. For all the above reasons, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by judgment dated 01.08.2005. The fine amount paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded to them after appeal time is over. The bail bonds executed by the appellants/accused shall stand canceled.