Judgment RAJA ELANGO, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment made in S.C.No.19 of 2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal convicting the appellants/accused for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC., and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (i) The deceased palaniappan was a mason, residing along with his second wife/the first accused/Pappu @ Perumayee separately at Vadakku Thottam at Kullappanaickanpatti, Mesthirikadu. The witness P.W.1 Paramasivam, the elder son of deceased Palaniappan, was the son of Athayee, who was the first wife of deceased Palaniappan, and he was residing at Athanoor, Ayeepalayam village with his family separately. The deceased Palaniappan was residing separately along with the first accused Perumayee and their son Selvaraj, who was born to the first accused at Vadakadu Thottam. (ii) The first accused Perumayee developed an illicit intimacy with second accused Muthu who used to visit the farm house of the Palaniappan frequently, and the deceased Palaniappan questioned the illegal act of the first accused and scolded her in this regard. Further the deceased Palaniappan expressed his intention to settle his landed property in favour of his first wife Athayees son and for which, the accused Perumayee got annoyed and she had strong ill feeling towards the deceased Palaniappan. (iii) The first accused Perumayee came to Suriya Hospital on 18.09.2006 at about 4.15 P.M. evening and informed P.W.6 Gowrishankar that her son Selvaraj met with an accident and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Coimbatore and produced the sheet also. Then she took the P.W.6 Gowrishankar, the grandson of first wife Athayee to the bus stand Rasipuram at 4.30 P.M., evening and at that time the second accused Muthu came there and enquired the first accused. P.W.6 Gowrishankar, accused 1 & 2 joined together went to Coimbatore on the same day at 9.00 P.M. On enquiry in Coimbatore Government Hospital they learnt the said Selvaraj was not admitted. Further, they caught the bus and went to Erode early morning 3.00 A.M., then came to Rasipuram around at 4.00 A.M., and he left accused 1 and 2 at Rasipuram Bus Stand. Further, they caught the bus and went to Erode early morning 3.00 A.M., then came to Rasipuram around at 4.00 A.M., and he left accused 1 and 2 at Rasipuram Bus Stand. After words, the accused 1 & 2 went to the house of the deceased Palaniappan at Vadakkuthottam in the early morning and he questioned the illicit act of accused 1 & 2 and in the course of quarrelling, the first accused beat the stone on his forehead and the second accused Muthu inflicted cut injuries on his head indiscriminately by the weapon Koduval M.O.9 and both of them allegedly committed murder of the deceased Palaniappan, and Palaniappan died of such multiple cut injuries at 7.30 A.M., on the way to Rasipuram Hospital on 19.09.2006. 3. To substantiate charges against the accused, in the trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, Exs.P.1 to P.26 and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked and on the side of the accused two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and 2. 4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, they denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. Upon analysis of evidence, the trial Judge convicted the appellants/accused for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed fine as aforesaid in para No.(1). 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in believing the evidence of P.Ws.6 & 7 and the chain of circumstances alleged by the prosecution is nor complete to establish the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would further submit that the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 should not be believed since they were inimical towards A1. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused further submitted that the subsequent conduct of the first accused clearly shows that she has not committed the offence alleged and further contended that the presence of appellants/accused at the time of occurrence alleged by the prosecution is unbelievable. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent submits that 1st accused had illegal intimacy with A2 and both accused pre-planed to commit the murder of deceased. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent submits that 1st accused had illegal intimacy with A2 and both accused pre-planed to commit the murder of deceased. The learned Public prosecutor further submit that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants/accused by adducing evidence connecting the circumstances and also on the basis of the ocular evidence. 8. We carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the evidence and records placed before us. In every case based upon circumstantial evidence and in this case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether all the links in the chain of circumstances is so complete pointing to the guilt of the accused to rule out possibility of innocence of accused. As stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused that the evidence of P.W.7 Kannan in his evidence stated that he heard the voice of A1, A2 and deceased in the early morning by 4.30 A.M., at the place of occurrence. But P.W.7 has not stated that he has witnessed the occurrence. P.W.7 has also stated that the deceased and first accused is known to him, but he has known the second accused just three months prior to the occurrence. It may not be possible to identify a less known person by his voice. We unable to accept the evidence of P.W.7, that on merely hearing the voice of the accused and deceased, he would be able to identify the persons as accused and deceased. 9. Conduct of PW7 is quite unbelievable. After hearing the noise of quarrel in the house of Palaniappan, he proceeded on his way to attend the natures call. PW7 did not choose to inform either to the Police or anybody else about the quarrel between the accused and deceased. PW7 was examined by the Police and his statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 011. 2006. In view of the delay in examination of PW7, his evidence is to be viewed with care and caution. 10. Yet another reason for scrutinising the evidence of PW7 is to be noted. PW7 is the neighbouring land owner. It was suggested to PW7 that four months prior to the occurrence, PW7 and another neighbouring land owner Bomma Naicker have quarrelled with first accused regarding which first accused had lodged a complaint before Puduchatram Police Station. 10. Yet another reason for scrutinising the evidence of PW7 is to be noted. PW7 is the neighbouring land owner. It was suggested to PW7 that four months prior to the occurrence, PW7 and another neighbouring land owner Bomma Naicker have quarrelled with first accused regarding which first accused had lodged a complaint before Puduchatram Police Station. Though, PW7 has denied the suggestion, the suggestion put to him cannot be brushed aside. In our considered view, it would be unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of PW7. 11. In his evidence, PW6-Gowrishankar has deposed that he was in Suriya hospital and that first accused Perumayee called him stating that her son Senthil kumar was injured in an accident and he was admitted in Coimbatore hospital and first accused showed a slip of the hospital. While PW6 proceeded with the first accused, in the bus stand second accused joined them and all three of them went to the hospital. On enquiry in Government Hospital, Coimbatore, they learnt that Senthil kumar was not admitted in the hospital and all three of them came back to Erode. From Erode, they proceeded to Rasipuram and came to Rasipuram at 5.00 A.M. PW6 went to Suriya hospital and thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 are said to have proceeded to Vadakku thottam. 12. Case of prosecution is that accused No.1 planned as if she was going to Coimbatore to see her son who was not actually admitted in the hospital thereby she was attempting to create alibi and thereby planned to do away with the deceased. If really, PW6 had so planned to do away with the deceased by creating alibi, it is quite improbable that appellants would have taken PW6 along with them. 13. Evidence of PW6 is incompatible with the case of prosecution. According to the appellants, PW6 came to Rasipuram at 5.00 A.M. on 29. 2006. Admittedly, place of occurrence is 17 K.M. away from Rasipuram. Necessarily, it would take atleast 45 Minutes to One hour to reach Vadakku thottam. Case of prosecution is that occurrence was at 4.30 A.M. In our considered view, evidence of PW6 would nullify the presence of accused No.1 and 2 at the place of occurrence at 4.30 A.M. as alleged by the prosecution. 14. Subsequent conduct of accused No.1 is also incompatible with the guilt of the accused. Case of prosecution is that occurrence was at 4.30 A.M. In our considered view, evidence of PW6 would nullify the presence of accused No.1 and 2 at the place of occurrence at 4.30 A.M. as alleged by the prosecution. 14. Subsequent conduct of accused No.1 is also incompatible with the guilt of the accused. DW1-Banumathi is the neighbouring land owner [vide Ex.P15 Rough plan]. In her evidence, DW1 has stated that on hearing news, she went to the place of occurrence where she saw Palaniappan injured. DW1 further stated that when she went there, first accused Perumayee was not there and she came there in an auto about half an hour later. From the evidence of DW1, it is clear that first accused accompanied PW1 and others in taking injured Palaniappan to the hospital. In his evidence, PW8-VAO has also stated that on 19. 2006 when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw first accused Perumayee in the place of occurrence. Ex.P17-Inquest Report also contains name of the first accused as one of the witness examined. 15. Further the evidence available go to show when P.W.8 visited the place of A1 for the purpose of measuring the land owned by deceased. The same was objected by A1, so P.W.8 could not complete his work on that day. So, the terms between A1 and P.W.8 is not cordial one. While so the evidence of P.W.8 that the first accused appeared before him on 111. 2006 and confessed regarding her complicity with the offence is highly doubtful. FIR in Cr.No.413/2006 was registered on 19. 2006 and investigation commenced on the same day on 19. 2006. First appellant is alleged to have given extra-judicial confession to PW8-VAO on 111. 2006. There is no evidence to show that PW8 was already known to first accused and that first accused trusted him to confess her guilt. When investigation already commenced even on 19. 2006, the alleged extrajudicial confession by accused No.1 to PW8-VAO on 111. 2006 could hardly have any evidentiary value. So the extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.8 is of no use to help the case of the prosecution. 16. When investigation already commenced even on 19. 2006, the alleged extrajudicial confession by accused No.1 to PW8-VAO on 111. 2006 could hardly have any evidentiary value. So the extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.8 is of no use to help the case of the prosecution. 16. Further, the recovery of polyester saree, shirt and Koduval from the residence of A1 and from the residence of deceased palaniappan is also not convincing and in no stretch of imagination any one can expect a person who commit the murder conceal the blood stained saree and the weapon near by the place of occurrence. As far as M.O.9 Koduval is concerned which was recovered in Palaniappans house no blood stained deducted as per Ex.P25. 17. Further it is not the case of the prosecution that after the commission of the crime on 19.09.2006 that the appellants/accused were not available till their arrest on 111. 2006. As pointed out earlier, the inquest report also contains the name of A1 as one of the witness examined. 18. Further, to prove the case, the prosecution examined an Assistant Engineer attached to the Telephone Department to substantiate the theory that exchange of phone calls from A1 to Suriya Hospital. But the said witness has not stated anything about the telephone calls made by the accused or any calls received by the first accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence motive is also significant to prove the case of the prosecution. Here in this case, there is no evidence to prove that the accused 1 and 2 were inimical towards the deceased. The motive adduced by the prosecution by other witnesses also flimsy in nature. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case through chain of evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Suspicions however strong it may be will not take the place of proof. 19. It is settled law that the circumstances 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. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with their innocence. 20. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with their innocence. 20. Suspicion however strong, it may be, it may cannot take place of proof. The prosecution has to prove its case without reasonable doubts. This is a case wherein the doubts raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused is not merely doubts but which are reasonable doubts. 21. Therefore, the points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused in connection with the presence of the accused, involvement of the accused, time of occurrence and motive alleged by the prosecution are substantially reasonable. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants/accused is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. The appellants/accused are found not guilty of the offences for which they were charged, tried and convicted and accordingly, they are acquitted. Fine amount paid by them are ordered to be refunded to them.