JUDGMENT :- D. Murugesan, J. The appellant is the sole accused who was put on trial in S.C.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. She was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: a) The accused is the third wife of the deceased Nallaiya Gownder. Due to the dispute regarding partition of property, she had grudge against the deceased and with an intention to murder him, at about 12.00 noon on 5. 2004, the accused, while the deceased was sleeping in a steel cot in the front side of the house had cut him with the billhook indiscriminately. Due to the multiple injuries sustained, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage. b) P.W.2. is the second wife of the deceased and elder sister of the accused. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and accused. P.W.2 informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, in turn P.W.1 informed the same to the Police at 3.45 p.m. on 5. 2004 through phone. The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 5. 2004 and P.W.1 gave a complaint to him which is Ex.P.26. P.W.23-the Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode, has received the complaint and registered the same in Cr.No.236 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. at 10.00 a.m. on 5. 2004 and forwarded the copies of F.I.R to his higher officials and has taken up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m. alongwith photographer who took photographs of the deceased and the occurrence place. He has prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.28 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.29 in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14. He has also recovered bloodstained clothes and earth M.Os.8 to 13 in the presence of the above witnesses under Mahazar Ex.P.30. He also conducted Inquest in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P.31. Thereafter he sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem through the Head Constable along with a requisition letter Ex.P.6 and sent the recovered material objects to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode under Form-95. He also sent the material objects worn by the deceased after the post-mortem to the Judicial Magistate, Tiruchengode on 5. 2004. Thereafter he sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem through the Head Constable along with a requisition letter Ex.P.6 and sent the recovered material objects to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode under Form-95. He also sent the material objects worn by the deceased after the post-mortem to the Judicial Magistate, Tiruchengode on 5. 2004. He examined withnesses Chandran, Subramani, Natesan, Chengoda Gownder, Chellammal on 15. 2004 and recorded their statements. On 15. 2004 he arrested the accused at about 1.00 p.m. at Tiruchengode, Kozhikkal Natham Road, near siththampalayam road and recorded her confession statement in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.24, P.W.23 recovered billhook, saree and jacket of the accused (M.Os.3 to 5) worn at the time of occurrence under Mahazar Ex.P.25. On 16. 2004 he examined P.W.16-the Post Mortem Doctor and obtained final opinion of Post Mortem report-Ex.P.10. c) P.W.16 Dr. Tamilselvan, who conducted the post mortem has found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) A clop wound of the size 3 x 2 x bone deep over (Rt.) side of face below the (Rt) over eye (t) (2) # of (Rt). Zygomatic bone (t) (3) chop wound of the size of 7 cm x 4 cm bone deep over the left face external from left side of nose to the left cheek (4) fracture of left Nexille bone (5) A chop wound of 3x2x1cm (x) over and below the tip of Nose (6) Left laver deformed and of the left Mondible (x) (7) Bleeding seen from the left ear. He also opined that the deceased would appear to have died 24 to 48 hours prior to autopsy, as a result of shock and hemorrhage, due to injury of vital structures of head and face including skull and base of brain. Upon completion of investigation, PW.23 the Inspector of Police laid Charge Sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichengode for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses, marked 32 exhibits and produced 13 M.Os. On behalf of the accused three witnesses were examined and 5 Exhibits were marked. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses, marked 32 exhibits and produced 13 M.Os. On behalf of the accused three witnesses were examined and 5 Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials available against her, she denied that the above evidence of witnesses is false. As if the learned Judge found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced her as stated earlier. 4. Mr. K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case rests on only two circumstantial evidence viz., 1. The Motive and 2. The Recovery 5. As far as the motive is concerned though P.Ws.2,4 and 6 have spoken about the motive, as per their evidence, even the marriage of P.W.1 was arranged by the accused and deceased and they have performed the betrothal. They have also deposed that till the date of occurrence both the accused and deceased were living very happily and the dispute which has been put against the accused occurred 10 years prior to the date of occurrence and therefore the prosecution has not established the motive. 6. He would also submit that insofar as the recovery is concerned, the accused was present in the scene of occurrence when the police came to the place of occurrence. Even when the sniffer dog was brought, it did not catch the accused. But on the other hand it had gone to the house of P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.Ws.3 and 4 were taken to the police station on suspicion. They were enquired alongwith P.W.1. When the prosecution had brought up the case based on the presence of the bloodstains in the cloths of the accused viz., M.Os.4 and 5 (Saree and Jacket), if she was the real assailant, the sniffer dog could have easily caught hold of the accused and therefore the story of recovery is only invented for the purpose of false implication of the accused. He would also submit that though the Investigating Officer-P.W.23 has admitted that the report was obtained from the officer who brought the sniffer dog and he has also known the reasons adduced therein, the said report has been suppressed. He would also submit that though the Investigating Officer-P.W.23 has admitted that the report was obtained from the officer who brought the sniffer dog and he has also known the reasons adduced therein, the said report has been suppressed. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even according to the Investigating Officer, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that finger prints were also collected from the scene of occurrence and the report to that effect was also obtained. But again for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the said report was not filed, throwing serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case to implicate the accused. He would also submit that even the arrest of the appellant was shown on 15. 2004 is totally false as P.W.1 has spoken that the accused was also taken to the police station on the same day of the occurrence and kept by the police. After P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 6 were let off, the arrest of the accused was shown, which would indicate the falsehood of the prosecution case. 7. It is a case of the circumstantial evidence. But the prosecution has not proved the motive as well as the recovery and in the absence of any other material to prove the same, accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. He would also relied upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2006(3) SCC (Crl.) 512 [Ram Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh] and submit that even assuming the motive is proved, the same would not be a ground for conviction in a case of a circumstantial evidence. He would also rely upon the Apex Court reported in 2003 SCC (Crl.) 74 [Ravinder Parkash & Anr. V. State of Haryana] and submit that mere recovery cannot be the sole ground for the conviction and sentence. 8. Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that the motive has been spoken to by P.Ws.1, 3,4 and 6 and the recovery of M.Os.3, 4 and 5 viz., billhook, saree and jacket which contained bloodstains, cannot be doubted as the Mahazar witness P.W.21-the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the same. In any event the motive and recovery are established. In any event the motive and recovery are established. He would further submit that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances regarding the involvement of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 9. We have considered the above submissions carefully. Before we deal with the contentions relating to the motive, we are inclined to discuss the submissions on the recovery. The accused appellant was arrested on 15. 2004 when the occurrence had taken place on 5. 2004 at mid night. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had left away from the scene of occurrence till she was taken into custody on 15. 2004. The case of the prosecution is that on arrest, the accused had given confession statement and the admissible portion of the confession statement is Ex.P.24 and based on the said statement, M.O.3 billhook M.O.4 saree and M.O.5 jacket were produced by the accused and the same were seized under Ex.P.25 recovery mahazar and all M.Os contained bloodstains. Of course the arrest and recovery have been spoken to by the attesting witness P.W.21-the Village Administrative Officer. But how far the prosecution case as to the arrest and recovery is proved is a matter for consideration in view of the challenge to the arrest and recovery. As far as the arrest of accused is concerned, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he, P.W.2 and the accused were taken to the police station on 15. 2004 and only after the relatives had sent telegrams, P.Ws.1 and 2 were only let off by the police in the early morning on 15. 2004. If the evidence of P.W.1 is accepted, certainly the arrest of the accused as shown by the police on 15. 2004 itself is a false one and it has been created for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused. 10. Immediately after the arrest, according the prosecution the accused has given a confession statement and the recoveries were made on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.24 under the Recovery Mahazar Ex.P.25. It is the case of the prosecution that M.Os.3 to 5 contained bloodstain. However, the Serology Report Ex.P.22 shows that the result of grouping test is inconclusive. In this context, it would be relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.23-the investigating Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that M.Os.3 to 5 contained bloodstain. However, the Serology Report Ex.P.22 shows that the result of grouping test is inconclusive. In this context, it would be relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.23-the investigating Officer. He had admitted that on receipt of the information relating to the occurrence he visited the scene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m. and saw the accused who was also present in the place of occurrence. He had also enquired the accused at the time of inquest which was conducted immediately and the Investigating Officer has not found any bloodstains on her clothes viz.,M.O.4 saree and M.O.5 jacket. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the commission of offence of Murder the accused had changed the clothes and concealed the saree and jacket in the place from where she is allegedly said to have produced the same pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement. Secondly it is also admitted by the Investigating Officer that the sniffer dog was brought to the scene of occurrence and the sniffer dog did not catch the accused. If the clothes of the accused contained bloodstain, the sniffer dog would have caught her immediately. 11. It is also suggested by the defence that P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the real assailants and alongwith P.W.1, they were also taken by the police for interrogation and were kept for three days in the police station and after the arrest of the accused they were let off. In this context, the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.23 should be again considered. He would state that a report was obtained from the official of sniffer dog. But surprisingly the said report has not been filed. According to the evidence of P.W.1,2 and 4 sniffer dog went to the house of P.W.3 and 4 and caught hold of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and therefore they were taken to the police station for enquiry. Strangely the Investigating Officer has come forward with a different version viz., that the sniffer dog did not went to the house of P.W.3 and P.W.4. That apart, even according to the investigating Officer, no finger print could be taken from the place of occurrence. But he has obtained the report to this effect and strangely he has not filed the report. That apart, even according to the investigating Officer, no finger print could be taken from the place of occurrence. But he has obtained the report to this effect and strangely he has not filed the report. The withholding of both the reports viz., report of the official who brought the sniffer dog as well as the report of the finger print expert, throws serious doubt about the prosecution case as the investigating officer has not placed all materials before the court to find out the truth. In this context it is also to be noted that P.W.3 and P.W.4 have denied that any sniffer dog coming to their house. Of course as the evidence is against them, they would certainly deny the sniffer dog having come to their houses. But when the other witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, who have deposed against the accused in the court have categorically deposed as to the fact that the sniffer dog had gone to the houses of P.Ws.3 and 4 and caught hold of them, the denial of the same by P.Ws.3 and 4 throw serious doubt about their conduct. Hence the case of the prosecution that the accused had produced M.Os.3 to 5 containing bloodstain as well is highly doubtful. Hence for the above reasons the prosecution case has filed to prove the arrest of the accused and recovery of M.Os.3 to 5. 12. Coming to the motive, though the prosecution has come forward with a case that the accused had committed the murder due to the property dispute, we are of the considered view that the motive aspect has not been established beyond any reasonable doubt. One of the circumstances for the motive as suggested by the prosecution is that there was a dispute relating to partition of the property between the accused and deceased. After the said dispute, admittedly, till the date of occurrence, both the accused and deceased were living together. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2, goes to show that both the accused and deceased were living happily and there is no misunderstanding between them. As it is a heinous crime of murder, the prosecution is bound to bring a strong motive. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2, goes to show that both the accused and deceased were living happily and there is no misunderstanding between them. As it is a heinous crime of murder, the prosecution is bound to bring a strong motive. On the other hand as suggested by the defence, P.W.1 who is the son of the third wife of the deceased had grudge against the deceased for not giving any share from the income as the deceased was used to spend all those money towards consumption of alcohol. This is spoken by P.W.4 who is the son of the first wife of the deceased. In fact P.W.6, who is the wife of P.W.4 , on the other hand, stated that the deceased and the accused had made arrangements for the betrothal of P.W.1. She has also admitted in her evidence that there was no cordial relationship between their family and the deceased and there was no contact for some time. From the above evidence, it is seen that the motive, being a double edged weapon, in fact, can be considered against P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and not against the accused. 13. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to prove all the circumstances without any missing link. As the prosecution has put forth its case only on two circumstances viz., motive and recovery and we have found that both motive and recovery having not been established beyond reasonable doubt, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In this context the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 (3) SCC (Crl.) 512 [Ram Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh] can also be usefully referred to. In that case, the Apex court held that mere motive alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Similarly, the Apex Court has held in 2003 SCC (Crl.)74 [Ravinder Parkash & Anr. V. State of Haryana] that a mere recovery alone would not be sufficient to sustain the conviction unless such recovery is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. 14. Hence for all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the Judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. V. State of Haryana] that a mere recovery alone would not be sufficient to sustain the conviction unless such recovery is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. 14. Hence for all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the Judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.31 of 2005 dated 30.11.2005 are set aside. The appellant shall set at liberty. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated.