Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment in S.C. 262 of 2006 on the file of Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Dharmapuri convicting the appellant/accused tinder Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Case of prosecution in nutshell are as follows:- (i) PW 1-Ponnaiya Gounder is the father of deceased Venkatasamy. A1 and A2 are the close associates and Venkatasarhy had enmity with A1 over stealing of mangoes by A1 in the mango groove of deceased Venkatasamy. 3. Case of prosecution is that on 20.5.2002, at about 8.00 p.m near Seeriampatty Kandar Kadu Mariamman Koil first accused assaulted Venkatasamy with MO1-Stone on his chest and second accused beat him with hands and deceased Venkatasamy died instantaneously due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 4. On 25. 2002, brother of deceased got information from one Madhappan that his brother deceased Venkatasamy was found lying with injuries near Kandarkadu Mariamman temple. PW2 immediately went to the place and found that his brother Venkatasamy was dead. PW2 went to PW6-VAO and gave statement which was recorded as Exhibit P-1. PW6 went to Marandahalli Police Station and handed over Exhibit P-1 complaint to PW8-Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, PW8 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case for suspicious death in Cr. No. 232 of 2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-9). 5. PW9-Inspector of Police had taken up investigation. PW9 inspected scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-6-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-10-Rough Plan. He also conducted Inquest over the body of deceased and Exhibit P-11 is inquest report. After inquest the body was sent to autopsy. PW5-Dr.Pandurangan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. PW5 noticed fracture in right side ribs 1 to 5 and left side ribs 1 to 3. Sternum fracture of the middle was also noticed. PW5 opined that deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organ brain and issued Exhibit P-3-Post Mortem Certificate. 6. On receipt of Exhibit P-3-Post Mortem Certificate, PW9-Investigating Officer altered the Section of law into 302 IPC and sent Exhibit P-12-Express report. A1 was arrested on 25. 2002 near Mariamman Kovil. On being interrogated accused had voluntarily given confession statement which lead to recovery of MO 1-stone under Exhibit P-7-Mahazar. 6. On receipt of Exhibit P-3-Post Mortem Certificate, PW9-Investigating Officer altered the Section of law into 302 IPC and sent Exhibit P-12-Express report. A1 was arrested on 25. 2002 near Mariamman Kovil. On being interrogated accused had voluntarily given confession statement which lead to recovery of MO 1-stone under Exhibit P-7-Mahazar. On completion of investigation final report was filed against first and second accused under Section 302 IPC. 7. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the Trial Court prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9. Exhibits P-1 to 12 and Mos 1 to 5 were marked. Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and stated that false case was foisted against them. 8. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has not adduced evidence proving the guilt of second accused and as such second accused was acquitted of the charges. Based on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and oral extra-judicial confession-allegedly made to PW4, learned Sessions Judge held that guilt of appellant/first accused has been proved by the prosecution and found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted him aforesaid as in para (1). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K. Gandhikumar, submitted that circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not convincingly establish the guilt of line accused. It was further submitted that non-examination of material witness viz., Chinnakkannu would snap the vital link in the circumstances. Assailing prosecution case it was mainly argued that oral extra judicial confession allegedly made to PW4 is very unnatural and the Trial Court erred in basing conviction upon the evidence of PW4. 10. Supporting the findings of the Trial Court the learned Public Prosecutor (In charge) Mr. P. Kumaresan, submitted that evidence of PW4 and oral extra-judicial confession coupled with motive would certainly establish the guilt of the accused and the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and the verdict of conviction warrants no interference. 11. It is settled law that in case based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. 11. It is settled law that in case based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. Yogesh Narain Saxena v. State of Uttranchal, (2007) AIR SCW 2092, C. Chenga Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 3390 : (1996) 10 SCC 193 : (1996) SCC (Cr) 1205 : (1997) 1 MLJ (Crl) 396. 12. To establish the guilt of the accused in the Trial Court, prosecution relied upon following circumstances: Motive and that Al proclaimed in the village that he would do away with the de-ceased. Death homicidal Oral Extra-judicial confession of the accused and evidence of PW4. Arrest of the accused No. I and recovery of MO1- stone. 13. PWs 1 to 3 — father, brother and wife of the deceased are to speak about the motive. Speaking about motive, PWs 1 to 3 stated that there was a wordy quarrel between deceased Venkatasamy and the first accused over the stealing of mangoes by A1 from the mango groove of deceased Venkatasamy. PWs 1 and 3 have also spoken about another instance that sometime before the incident PWs 1 and 3 were setting fire to the ends of sugar cane “Tamil” for threatening forest elephants. PWs 1 to 3 have further deposed that A1 came there and quarrelled with them stating that sugarcane were taken from his land regarding which first accused is said to have developed enmity towards the deceased. According to prosecution impelled by the motive, on the date of occurrence 20.5.2002, the appellant committed the offence. Though the prosecution has adduced motive, the circumstance-proof of motive by itself would not be a ground for presuming guilt of the accused. 14. In their evidence PWs 1 and 2 have stated that on the date of occurrence 20.5.2002, one Chinnakkannu had taken deceased from the house and thereafter deceased Venkatasamy did not return back. Though the said Chinnakkannu was examined during investigation, during trial the said Chinnakkannu was not examined as a witness. 14. In their evidence PWs 1 and 2 have stated that on the date of occurrence 20.5.2002, one Chinnakkannu had taken deceased from the house and thereafter deceased Venkatasamy did not return back. Though the said Chinnakkannu was examined during investigation, during trial the said Chinnakkannu was not examined as a witness. Where a case rests upon circumstantial evidence that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused is one of the vital circumstances to connect the accused. By non-examination of Chinnakkannu, one of the vital link evidence is snapped. 15. By perusal of records, we also find that during investigation one Perumal Karian was examined and his statement under Section. 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Investigating Officer. By perusal of records, it is seen that Perumal @ Karian is to speak to the fact that there was wordy quarrel between deceased Venkatasamy.and the accused No. 1 and 2 on the evening of 20.5.2002. During trial, the said Perumal @ Karian was not examined as a witness by the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no plausible explanation for non-examination of the said Chinnakkannu and Perumal @ Karian. In our considered view, that non-examination of material witnesses like Chinnakkannu and Perumal @ Karian would adversely affect prosecution case. 16. Prosecution mainly relied upon the oral extra judicial confession allegedly given by the first accused to PW4-Vetrayan. For appreciation of Extra-Judicial Confession, Court has to look into the surrounding circumstances and the relevant facts like- (i) Person to whom confession is made; (ii) Time and place of making it; (iii) Circumstances in which it was made; and (iv) Actual words used by Accused. 17. In his evidence, P,W4 had stated that on the day of occurrence on the wee hours of 25. 2002 -3.00 a.m. first accused came to his house and gave a statement confessing his guilt. PW4 has further stated that he went along with first accused to the scene of occurrence and saw the body from distance. Though the first accused is alleged to have made oral extra-judicial confession to PW4 on the same night, PW4 has not volunteered to disclose the same. Only when PW4 was examined on 25. 2002, PW4 is said to have disclosed extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the first accused. 18. Though the first accused is alleged to have made oral extra-judicial confession to PW4 on the same night, PW4 has not volunteered to disclose the same. Only when PW4 was examined on 25. 2002, PW4 is said to have disclosed extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the first accused. 18. It is well known that confessions are normally made to a person in Authority or near relation or friend, who would be inclined to help the one who makes confession before him. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that PW4 was already known to appellant or related to appellant. PW4 is a resident of Thandukadu, nearby place of Seriampetti. Appellant is a resident of Seriampatti, Admittedly, PW4 is not a Oor Gounder. While so, it is highly doubtful whether Appellant would have approached PW4 to make extra-judicial confession. 19. Observing that it was wholly unlikely that accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person, who they never knew in Sanjay Kapoor v. State (2006) 3 SCC (Crl) 522, Supreme Court has held as under: "17. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence." 20. Rejecting extra-judicial confession made to Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State, (2007) I LW (Crl.) 555 : (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1287, Division Bench of this Court observed that unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person and on those reasonings Division Bench has rejected untrustworthy testimony of VAO. 21. The Honble Supreme Court in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37 : (1991) SCC (Cr) 659, has held as follows:- "An extra judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. It is true that the Court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness to accept the evidence or not. When the Court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, conviction can be founded on such evidence." In the subsequent case Kavitha v. Tamil Nadu AIR 1998 SC 2473 : (1998) SCC (Cr) 1421 : (1998) 4 SCALE 246 , the Honble Supreme Court reiterates the stand taken in the aforesaid authority pronounced in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana (supra) case. 22. As we have pointed out earlier, there is nothing on record to show that PW4 was known to AI. It is significant to note that PW4 has not come forward to disclose the extra-judicial confession till he was examined oh 25. 2002. Appellant had retracted from his confession statement. A retracted confession may form the legal basis of conviction. If the Court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made and the particular circumstances of a case, Court may be convinced of truthfulness of a confession and act upon it; but the Court must be satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made. In the facts and surrounding circumstances of the instant case, the making of extra-judicial confession to PW4 appears to cast a doubt. 23. Learned Sessions Judge has not tested evidence of PW4 and alleged extra-judicial confession for its trustworthiness. It is quite improbable that after knowing about heinous offence committed by appellant PW4 would have remained quiet (sic) without disclosing it to others. There is no satisfactory materials to show that the alleged extrajudicial confession to PW4 is true and voluntarily made and while so, it would be unsafe to base the conviction upon the extra-judicial confession. 24. Yet another piece of circumstance re-lied upon by prosecution is the arrest of Appellant and recovery of MO1-Stone. PW9-Investigating Officer has stated that Appellant was arrested on 25. 24. Yet another piece of circumstance re-lied upon by prosecution is the arrest of Appellant and recovery of MO1-Stone. PW9-Investigating Officer has stated that Appellant was arrested on 25. 2002 and confession statement lead to the recovery ofMO1-Stone. In his evidence, PW1 has stated that accused was taken to custody the next day. The arrest of accused on 25. 2002 and recovery of MO1 cannot be said to be free from doubt. Great care must betaken in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, in evaluating the evidence. Circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency unerringly pointing to guilt of accused. Several vital links connecting Appellant are not established. Alleged extra-Judicial Confession to PW4 does not inspire the confidence of Court. Reasonable doubts arise as to complicity of Appellant in offence. Giving the benefit of doubt to appellant, the verdict of conviction recorded by Trial Court is set aside. 25. In the result, (i) the Conviction of Appellant in S.C. No. 262 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, is set aside. (ii) Appellant is acquitted of Charge under Section 302 IPC and this Appeal is allowed. (iii) Fine amount paid by him is ordered to be refunded to him. (iv) The Bail Bond executed by the Accused shall stand cancelled.