Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of verdict of conviction in S.C.No. 364 of 2004 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge convicting appellant/Accused No. 1 to 3 under Section 302 read with.34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing fine of Rs.2,000/- 2. Case of prosecution in nutshell are as follows: P.W.2-Murugambal and P.W.3-Lakshmi are mother and sister of deceased Senthil Kumar. P.W.1-Selvam is the husband of P.W.3-Lakshmi and brother-in-law of deceased Senthil Kumar. P.W.4-Kalaimathi and P.W.5-Vedi are relatives of deceased Senthil Kumar. Accused No. 1-Shanmugam, deceased Senthil Kumar and P.W.7-Palani were close friends. Accused No. 2-Velu is also friend of accused No, 1, deceased Senthil Kumar and P.W.7-Palani. Accused No. 3-Sampath Kumar is friend of Accused No. 2-Velu. 3. Usha younger sister of accused No. 2 fell in love with Senthil Kumar. Usha was very firm in marrying Senthil Kumar which was not to the liking of Second accused. Accused No. 2-Velu came to his house on leave from Military. On coming to know about his sister’s love with deceased, accused No. 2 called accused No. 1 and asked him to tell Senthil Kumar to stop the love affairs with his sister or otherwise he would break his hands and legs. 4. After three months, accused No. 2-Velu came back to his house from Military on leave and he began to develop closeness with P.W.1. P.Ws.1 to were informed by Balammal mother of Usha and accused No. 2 that they had made up their mind to give Usha in marriage to Senthil Kumar. Balammal also asked P.Ws.1 to 3 to come to their house to see the bride in the month of Avani and for other talks. P.Ws.1 to 3 were waiting till passing of Tamil month Adi. 5. After three days of Balammal so informing to P.Ws.1 to 3 i.e. on 27. 2002, P.Ws.1 and 3 and their neighbour Mala and accused No. 1-Shanmugam had been to cinema theatre for a evening show and came back to their house at 9.30 p.m. After their dinner, P.Ws.1 to 3 retired to bed inside their house. 6. Usually accused No. 1-Shanmugaam, deceased and P.W.7-Palani used to sleep together in the frontage of house of P.Ws.1 to 3 at night time. Usually Accused No. 1 would also take food in the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3. 6. Usually accused No. 1-Shanmugaam, deceased and P.W.7-Palani used to sleep together in the frontage of house of P.Ws.1 to 3 at night time. Usually Accused No. 1 would also take food in the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3. On the fateful day on 27. 2002, accused No. 1 did not come to bed. P.W.7-did not come for dinner nor came to sleep till 11.00 p.m. 7. On 27. 2002 at about 2.45 a.m. P.W.7-Palani heard stone sound as “dammar”. When P.W.7 awoke, he saw Accused No. 1-Shanmugam standing near the head of the deceased and Accused No. 2- Velu was found standing near his stomach whereas Accused No. 3-Sampath Kumar was standing near the legs of deceased Senthil Kumar. Accused No. 2 threatened P.W.7 that if he discloses the occurrence others, they would kill P.W.7 also. P.W.7 got frightened and shouted and raised alarm and ran and hidden himself on the rear side of his house. 8. P.Ws.1 to 3 who were sleeping inside the house heard stone hurling sound outside their house and they thought that it might be handiwork of the thief and so they shouted for help. P.W.8-Poongavanam, resident of opposite house heard stone hurling sound and also alarm sound of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.8 went there and opened the door of P.W.1’s house so as to help them to come out. After they came out, P.Ws. 1 and 8 went to rear side of the house wherein Accused No. 1-Shanmugam was found lying in the midst of plantain tree with his hands tied with a cloth. He was pretending as if he was affected with fits.9. 9. On seeing him, P.W.1 was under the impression that somebody could have beaten him. P.W.1 went and saw his brother-in-law deceased Senthil Kumar lying will head injuries. P.W.2 removed the blanket covering deceased Senthil Kumar and screamed that some body had dropped stone. Stone was found lying by the side of his head. Again P.W.1 came back to Accused No. 1-Shanmugam and asked him as to who had assaulted. Accused No. 1-Shanmugam replied that some unknown person had beaten him. Accused No. 2-Velu and Accused No. 3-Sampath Kumar were standing in the crowd and threatened P.W.7 showing signal like cutting the throat, being frightened, P.W.7 did not disclose the facts to others. Again P.W.1 came back to Accused No. 1-Shanmugam and asked him as to who had assaulted. Accused No. 1-Shanmugam replied that some unknown person had beaten him. Accused No. 2-Velu and Accused No. 3-Sampath Kumar were standing in the crowd and threatened P.W.7 showing signal like cutting the throat, being frightened, P.W.7 did not disclose the facts to others. Since deceased Senthil Kumar appeared to be alive, P.W.1 had taken him to the hospital in an auto and Senthil Kumar succumbed to injuries on his way to hospital. 10. Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Senthil Kumar. Exhibit P-12 is the Inquest Report. In the inquest report, it was concluded that Senthil Kumar must have been done to death due to his live affairs with Usha or due to enmity on account of financial transactions. After the inquest, body was sent to autopsy. 11. P.W.15-Partheepan, Inspector of Police seized blood stained earth, sample earth and stone from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P-3-Seizure Mahazar. P.W.15 collected blood found on the stone with cotton swab. On requisition from Investigating Officer P.W.13-Dr. Masilamani had conducted autopsy on the dead body and noted bleeding from left ear; discharge of froth from the nostrils; lacerated injury on the scalp just behind left ear; and deep laceration just close and parallel to injury No.3. Opining that the death was due to injuries to skull and brain, P.W.13 issued Exhibit P-10-Post Morterm Certificate. After autopsy, M.O.10-Silver Waist cord and M.O.11-Black trouser was seized from the body of deceased Senthil Kumar. 12. On 8. 2002 at about 6.00a.m., P.W.15 arrested accused No. 1-Shanmugam. On being interrogated Accused No. 1 had given confession statement which led to recovery of M.O.2-Blue metal stone from plantain tree on the rear side of house of deceased Senthil Kumar under Exhibit P-6-Mahazar. Accused No. 2 was also arrested on the same day. On being interrogated, Accused No. 2 had voluntarily given confession statement which led to recovery of M.O.9-Pillow from the rear side of house of deceased Senthil Kumar. The seized material objects were sent to chemical analysis. After receipt of chemical report and after completion of due investigation, final report was filed against the accused under Section 120-B and 302 read with 109 of IPC. 13. To substantiate the charges against accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18. The seized material objects were sent to chemical analysis. After receipt of chemical report and after completion of due investigation, final report was filed against the accused under Section 120-B and 302 read with 109 of IPC. 13. To substantiate the charges against accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18. Exhibits P-1 to 22 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. On the side of the accused Exhibit D-1-Accident register of accused No. 1 was marked. Accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused No. 1 had stated that somebody had beaten him and that he had become unconscious and he gained consciousness on the next day morning after that he was admitted in the hospital. 14. In his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused No. 2 had stated that he was taken from his house on 27. 2002 and that a false case was foisted against him. Accused No. 3 had stated that on 27. 2002 at the time of occurrence he was employed in a bakery in Udumalpet and that a false case has been foisted against him. 15. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that love affairs between deceased Senthil Kumar and Usha was not to the liking of second accused and second accused had strong motive to do away with the deceased Senthil Kumar. First accused had not come to bed as usual was taken as one of the strong circumstance against the first accused. Arrest and recovery of M.O.2-Stone and M.O.9-Pillow was also taken as incriminating evidence against the accused No. 1 to 3. Exhibit P-22-letter allegedly written by first accused from prison to mother of the deceased was taken as one of the incriminating circumstance. Holding that evidence adduced by the prosecution form a complete chain proving guilt of the accused No. 1 to 3, learned Sessions Judge convicted the first accused under Section 302 IPC and accused No. 2 and 3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. 16. Mr. Abudukumar Rajajathinam, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and evidence of so called eye-witness (P.W.7-Palani) is totally unbelievable as he made improvements during his examination. 16. Mr. Abudukumar Rajajathinam, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and evidence of so called eye-witness (P.W.7-Palani) is totally unbelievable as he made improvements during his examination. Laying emphasis upon Exhibit D-1-Accident Register, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the same transaction, first accused also sustained injuries and absolutely there was no explanation for the injuries sustained by the first accused which throws serious doubt about the prosecution case. 17. Drawing our attention to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor (i/c) submitted that because of love affairs between Usha and deceased Senthil Kumar, second accused had ill-will and enmity towards the deceased which is a strong circumstance which was rightly taken by the trial Court. Taking us through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that conduct of first accused was so unnatural and unacceptable. Submitting that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is unimpeachable, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the conclusion arrived by the trial Court is based upon the evidence and there is no reason warranting interference. 18. Case of prosecution relies upon both direct and circumstantial evidence: Motive. On the night of 27. 2002, first accused did not come to bed as usual to sleep along with deceased Senthil Kumar and P.W.7-Palani. Evidence of P.W.7-Palani as to presence of A-1 to A-3. Pretension of first accused on the rear side of house of deceased Senthil Kumar as if he was beaten after tying his hands and suffering from fits. Arrest of the accused and recovery of incriminating articles. Apart from the above circumstances, trial Court placed much reliance upon the letter (Exhibit P-22) allegedly written by the first accused from prison to mother of the deceased Senthil Kumar confessing his guilt. We will shortly refer to the erroneous approach of the trial Court in taking into account Exhibit P-22 letter allegedly written by first accused. 19. Cogent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 would establish that deceased fell in love with Usha-sister of second accused Velu which was not to the liking of second accused. We will shortly refer to the erroneous approach of the trial Court in taking into account Exhibit P-22 letter allegedly written by first accused. 19. Cogent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 would establish that deceased fell in love with Usha-sister of second accused Velu which was not to the liking of second accused. Second accused who was in Military service was not willing to give his sister in marriage to the deceased Senthil Kumar and therefore, second accused threatened deceased Senthil Kumar through first accused to snap his live affairs with Usha or otherwise, he would break his legs and hands. 20. In her evidence, P.W.3-lakshmi has stated that first accused Shanmugam himself had fallen in one sided love with Usha for which she has not responded. Usha was sticking on her position that she would only marry Senthil Kumar. 21. Occurrence on 27. 2002 – one day prior to the occurrence was the immediate impelling force for commission of the offence. On the previous day evening i.e. on 27. 2002-5.30 p.m., P.W.9-Ramesh saw Usha and Senthil Kumar were hugging and kissing with each other in a room of newly built house of P.W.3. P.W.9 who was doing wiring work in the house saw Senthil Kumar and Usha hugging and kissing each other. In his evidence, P.W.9 has stated that first accused also saw Senthil Kumar and Usha together and first accused had left the place. 22. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, second accused Velu had strong motive against the deceased. Based upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, learned Sessions Judge rightly held that accused No. 1 to 3 conspired to do away with the deceased Senthil Kumar. 23. Drawing our attention to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when family of second accused expressed their willingness to arrange for a marriage of Usha and deceased Senthil Kumar, the case of prosecution that second accused conspired to do away with Senthil Kumar is improbable. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia raised the contentions: First accused had no motive against Senthil Kumar and that on the fateful night of 28/27. 2002, first accused himself was attacked by unknown persons and first accused himself sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia raised the contentions: First accused had no motive against Senthil Kumar and that on the fateful night of 28/27. 2002, first accused himself was attacked by unknown persons and first accused himself sustained injuries. Second accused and their family members agreed to give Usha in marriage to the deceased and while so, there was absolutely no motive for the second accused. Suggested motive is not feasible. Motive came out during Inquest i.e. on account of enmity in the finance Senthilkumar must have been done to death was not properly investigated. 24. In the trial Court also the same points were raised. Observing that “motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime”’ learned Sessions Judge said that “in a case where there is clear proof of motive for commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the Court that accused was guilty for the offence charged with.” We endorse the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in Para (88) of the judgment. 25. Second accused was originally strongly opposing the love affairs of Usha with deceased Senthil Kumar. About 2-3 weeks prior to the occurrence, second accused pretendingly changed his mind and sent news through his mother Balamma as if they agreed to give in marriage of Usha to deceased Senthil Kumar and asking their family members to come for talks. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he has entertained doubts as to sudden change of attitude of first accused. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants nextly contended that when the second accused has agreed to give in marriage, it is highly improbable that he would have conspired with other accused to do away with the deceased. 27. Proof of motive is a material consideration in case based on circumstantial evidence. Motive is something which is locked up in the mind of the culprit and some times, it would not be possible to have any trace of it. There cannot be any guideline to decide as to what will operate as the sufficient motive for commission of the crime. Motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the prosecution case. 28. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that love affairs of Usha and Senthil Kumar was not to the liking of second accused adds to the weight of prosecution case. Motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the prosecution case. 28. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that love affairs of Usha and Senthil Kumar was not to the liking of second accused adds to the weight of prosecution case. Motive established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is a strong militating circumstance against accused No. 1 to 3 that they had development animosity towards deceased Senthil Kumar. 29. Conduct of the first accused prior to and subsequent to the occurrence is yet another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. First accused-Shanmugam and P.W.7-Palani were in the habit of sleeping together during night hours in the frontage of house of P.Ws.1 to 3. On the fateful day 27. 2002, first accused went along with P.Ws.1 to 3 and neighbour Mala to view Cinema. After viewing cinema, first accused went away and thereafter he did not come back to sleep along with deceased Senthil Kumar and P.W.7-Palani. Conduct of first accused assumed significance. On the wee hours of 27. 2002 – 2.45 a.m., P.W.7 heard sound as ‘demar’ and on hearing the noise, he awoke and happened to see first accused standing near the head of Senthil Kumar, second accused standing near the stomach and third accused was found standing near his legs. 30. Evidence of P.W.7 is strongly objected contending that he has not earlier spoken about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 and P.W.7 has improved his version. Speaking about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 in the place of occurrence, P.W.7 has stated as under: TAMIL Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the above version of P.W.7 is entirely a new version introduced by P.W.7 and cannot be relied upon. 31. The above version of P.W.7 about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 was not earlier stated by him in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement before the Police. P.W.7 has explained the reason for not disclosing to the Police about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3. In his evidence, P.W.7 has clearly stated that second accused had threatened him showing signs that he would cut the throat and that he got frightened and therefore, he did not disclose the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 in the place of occurrence to the Police. 32. In his evidence, P.W.7 has clearly stated that second accused had threatened him showing signs that he would cut the throat and that he got frightened and therefore, he did not disclose the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 in the place of occurrence to the Police. 32. Placing reliance upon Alamgir v. State (NCT Delhi) AIR 2003 SC 282 : (2003) SCC (Cr) 165: (2003) Crl.LJ 456, learned Sessions Judge held that evidence of witness otherwise creditworthy cannot be discarded merely because it was not available in the statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In our considered view, though P.W.7 has omitted to state about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3, the fact remains that P.W.7 was sleeping along with the deceased Senthil Kumar which has been proved by P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.7 is well known to both the accused as well as the deceased. Therefore, when his evidence is natural in respect of other aspects, his evidence cannot be rejected on the ground that he has not mentioned about the presence of accused No. 1 to 3 in his earlier statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Evidence to be construed from the point of trustworthiness. Once the same stand satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence of the Court. Learned Sessions Judge rightly taken into account that portion of evidence which is compatible with other circumstances as creditworthy. Since, P.W.7 is a natural and probable witness, we do not find any reason to take a different view. 33. P.W.8-Poongavanam is residing just opposite to the house of deceased Senthil Kumar. At about 2.30 a.m. on 27. 2002, P.W.8 heard running sound in the street and raising hue and cry and on hearing the sound, he came out of his house and found shouting inside the house of Senthil Kumar who were raising alarm to open door. P.W.8 opened the outer bolt of the door and helped them to come out. P.Ws.1 and 8 went to the rear side and found first accused Shanmugam lying with hands tied with cloth. Evidence of P.W.8 would also show that he herd the noise and that accused No. 1 was found outside the house of the deceased Senthil Kumar. Presence of first accused on the rear side with hands tied with cloth is unnatural. 34. Evidence of P.W.8 would also show that he herd the noise and that accused No. 1 was found outside the house of the deceased Senthil Kumar. Presence of first accused on the rear side with hands tied with cloth is unnatural. 34. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, unnatural conduct of first accused itself supplies missing link to the proved circumstance, because first accused had not stated anything how he was beaten up, lifted and put near the compound wall of the house of the deceased Senthil Kumar. First accused allegedly sustained 1 x 1 x 4cm lacerated injury right parietal region of scalp. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that first accused himself sustained injury in an attack by unknown persons and while so, first accused cannot be faulted for not coming forward to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased Senthil Kumar. 35. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, first accused has stated that he was assaulted by some unknown persons and that he became unconscious and he gained consciousness only in the hospital. Statement of first accused during 313 Cr.P.C. questioning is as under: TAMIL 36. Statement of first accused is to be tested from its realistic angle. Injury sustained by first accused was only 1 x 1 x 4cm lacerated injury right parietal region of scalp. It is quite improbable that after sustaining such trivial injury, first accused would have become unconscious. During crow examination of P.W.18-Dr. Ashok Kumar was not questioned on this aspect. In fact, it was not elicited from P.W.18-Dr. Ashok Kumar through whom Exhibit D-1- was marked about possibility of becoming unconscious after sustaining such trivial injury. 37. Much arguments were advanced on the injuries sustained by the first accused contending that prosecution has not explained the injury on the person of the accused. It is not necessary that in all cases where the accused sustained injury, invariably, prosecution has to explain the injuries. In his evidence, P.W.7 has stated that first accused was pretending. As we pointed out earlier, the unnatural conduct of first accused supplies the missing link. It is seen from Exhibit D-1 that first accused was given first aid treatment by Dr. Senthil Kumar. No intimation was sent to the Police either by first accused or by his brother who had taken him to the hospital. As we pointed out earlier, the unnatural conduct of first accused supplies the missing link. It is seen from Exhibit D-1 that first accused was given first aid treatment by Dr. Senthil Kumar. No intimation was sent to the Police either by first accused or by his brother who had taken him to the hospital. Pointing out the surrounding suspicions, learned Sessions Judge rightly held that Exhibit D-1 does not inspire confidence of the Court and it acts against the first accused. No substantial grounds are made out before us to take a different view. 38. How accused No. 1 was beaten and how he was shifted to the rear side of the house in the midst of plantain tree are exclusively within the knowledge of first accused. In this case, we find there is blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances by the first accused. In view of (sic) blunt and outright denial of all incriminating circumstances, the Court is to draw adverse inference against the 1st accused. 39. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 8. 2002 at 6.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.12-VAO and Village Menial. Confession statement of accused No. 1 led to recovery of M.O.2-Stone near bath room of deceased Senthil Kumar. Accused No. 2 was arrested on the same day (8. 2002) at 8.30 a.m. and his confession statement led to recovery of M.O.9-Pillow. No human blood was detected in M.O.2-Stone or M.O.9-Pillow. It was contended that since no human blood was detected in the Stone or Pillow (M.Os.2 and 9), recovery of M.Os.2 and 9 (Stone and Pillow) may not be taken as incriminating circumstance. There is no legal ratio that in all cases where there was non-detection of the blood, recovery of weapon would stand relegated to its utility. 40. Referring to the confessional statements of accused No. 1 and 2, learned Sessions Judge was not right in saying that “in the confessional statements, accused No. 1 and 2 have admitted everything and their involvement in the gruesome murder.” Referring to various decisions, learned Sessions Judge held that confession statements in question could be taken as “an admission of fact” and can be put against the accused. 41. Under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession statement made to a Police Officer is absolutely inadmissible in evidence. 41. Under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession statement made to a Police Officer is absolutely inadmissible in evidence. Section 25 does not exclude all statements by an accused to the Police, it shuts out confessions only. There is a distinction between admissions and confessions which are statements either directly admitting guilt or substantially all the facts constituting the offence. 42. Stating the statements by accused 1 to 3 could be taken as admission of fact, learned Sessions Judge placed reliance upon the confession statements recorded from accused No. 1 to 3. We have carefully gone through the statements recorded from the appellants. We are of the view that in those statements, appellants have clearly confessed their guilt and the statements ought to be regarded as confession under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In our considered view, learned Sessions Judge erred in placing reliance upon the confession statements recorded from the accused 1 to 3 which is not admissible under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. 43. One important aspect which in our view needs to be highlighted. Appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 18. 2007. After questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was over, P.W.1-Selvam has sent a Petition stating that his mother-in-law (P.W.2) received a letter from accused No. 1 from Prison admitting his complicity in the crime and that accused No. 2 was responsible for causing death of the deceased Senthil Kumar. 44. After Petition was filed by P.W.1, P.Ws.1 and 2 were recalled on 28. 2007. Petition filed by P.W.1 was marked as Exhibit P-21. Chinnappu, Supervisor of Salem Central Prison was examined as P.W.17 and through P.W.17 letter sent by the first accused was marked as Exhibit P-22 (19. 2002). In his evidence, P.W.17 has stated that normally one post card would be given to the prisoners once in 15 days and that the letters written by prisoners would be audited and sent to their relatives. P.W.17 further stated that in such normal course, Exhibit P-22-Letter was written by the writer (accused No. 1) addressed to T. Vedi, Bharathiyar Nagar, 3rd Cross Street, Krishnagiri Namasparai, Dharmapuri District. Learned Sessions Judge placed very much reliance upon Exhibit P-22-Letter to hold that in Exhibit P-22-Letter, accused No. 1 had admitted certain material facts. P.W.17 further stated that in such normal course, Exhibit P-22-Letter was written by the writer (accused No. 1) addressed to T. Vedi, Bharathiyar Nagar, 3rd Cross Street, Krishnagiri Namasparai, Dharmapuri District. Learned Sessions Judge placed very much reliance upon Exhibit P-22-Letter to hold that in Exhibit P-22-Letter, accused No. 1 had admitted certain material facts. Referring to sections 17 and 21 of Indian Evidence Act, learned Sessions Judge held that the contents of Exhibit P-22-Letter would amount to admission of fact by the first accused and that it would be a strong piece of evidence against the first accused. 45. We are constrained to express our dis-approval in the approach of the trial Court admitting material emanating independently from prosecution witness. Investigating agency is the master of the investigation to Produce the materials before the Court. If the Court is to receive any such material from prosecution witnesses or other sources, there would be no end for such materials being placed before the Court. In our considered view trial Court may not admit any such extraneous materials independently emanating from the prosecution witnesses or other sources. Because Court may not have mechanism to verify the credentials of such materials before the Court. This is all the more so, Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning of the appellants/accused were already over. 46. That apart, the circumstances under which first accused had written the letter is not known. In our considered view, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have placed reliance upon Exhibit P-22-Letter. More so, when first accused had denied having written such letter and resiled from contents in Exhibit P-22-Letter. 47. Though, learned Sessions Judge has adopted erroneous approach in relying upon the confession statements (which is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act) and admitting Exhibit P-22-Letter, in our considered view, the verdict of conviction which is otherwise based upon cogent evidence cannot be interfered with. 48. Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the considered view that evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 7 cumulatively form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellants/ accused No. 1 to 3 and the conviction of the appellants is to be confirmed. 49. In the result, conviction of the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. 49. In the result, conviction of the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Fine amount imposed upon the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 shall hold good. Learned Prl. Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 and commit them into prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail Bond executed by the appellants/ accused No. 1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.