Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This State appeal challenges the judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi, made in S.C.No.5 of 2008 whereby the sole respondent stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder (3 counts) and on trial, he was acquitted. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Rajeswari. 20 years prior to the occurrence, she was given in marriage to the accused/appellant and they had two sons viz., Sivakumar and Santhoshkumar. The accused went to foreign countries and earned money. He came back and purchased landed property. The wife insisted that the properties should be settled in her favour along with the sons to which course the accused was not amenable. The accused /appellant entertained suspicion over the fidelity of his wife and tortured her. A report was also given to the respondent Police Station. The police called the spouse and advised them to lead a peaceful life. The accused had grudge over his wife since he entertained suspicion on her fidelity. (b) On 3. 2005, when the Village Administrative Officer of Malapuram was in his office at about 7.00 a.m. along with P.W.6 Village Assistant, the accused appeared before them and gave confessional statement that he took his wife Rajeswari and two sons and pushed them into the well and thereafter, he had thrown a big stone into the well and caused their death. The confessional statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 prepared a report Ex.P2. On coming to know about the same, P.W.2-mother and P.W.3-elder sister and also P.W.12-father of the deceased Rajeswari went to the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies. P.W.1 took the accused and Ex.P1-extra judicial confessional statement and Ex.P2 -report prepared by him and produced before the respondent Police, pursuant to which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.59 of 2005 under section 302 I.P.C. (3 counts). Ex.P59 -F.I.R. was despatched to Court. (c) P.W.24 Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram was additional charge of that circle. He arrested the accused pursuant to which, the accused came forward to give confessional statement. Following the confession statement, the accused produced the material objects which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Ex.P59 -F.I.R. was despatched to Court. (c) P.W.24 Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram was additional charge of that circle. He arrested the accused pursuant to which, the accused came forward to give confessional statement. Following the confession statement, the accused produced the material objects which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Apart from that, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P10 and drew a rough sketch Ex.P60 and Ex.P61. He conducted inquest on the dead body of Rajeswari-D1 and prepared Ex.P62 inquest report and thereafter conducted inquest on the dead body of Sivakumar-D2 and prepared Ex.P63 inquest report and he also conducted inquest on the dead body of Santhoshkumar and prepared Ex.P64 inquest report. Thereafter, the dead bodies were sent for post mortem. (d) P.W.15 conducted autopsy on the dead of Rajeswari (D1) and gave the post mortem certificate Ex.P15 wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased died out of injuries sustained to her. P.W.16 doctor conducted post mortem on the deceased (D2) Sivakumar and issued Ex.P25 post mortem certificate wherein the doctor has opined that she died out of injuries sustained by him. Further P.W.17 doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body of Santhoshkumar-D3 and the post mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P.20 and he also gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. All the material objects were subjected to analysis by the Forensic Department. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (e) The case was committed to the court of sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and relied on 66 exhibits and 15 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side took the view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused/respondent. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State. 3. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side took the view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused/respondent. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the State. 3. Advancing the argument on behalf of the State, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit, it is true that the prosecution has no direct evidence to offer but the prosecution has brought forth the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 12 in respect of the motive part. The accused /respondent went to foreign countries and when he came back, he actually suspected the fidelity of the deceased Rajeswari. Apart from that, the accused tortured her. He also purchased the property out of the money he earned in foreign countries. When the property was purchased, his wife insisted to make settlement in her favour and also in favour of her children, to which course, he was not amenable. 4. Insofar as this motive part is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to prove the same. It is not in controversy that the accused lived with his wife-D1 and children-D2 & D3, when the dead bodies were actually found in the well. Under such circumstances, it is for him to explain how they sustained injuries and how the dead bodies happen to be in the well, but he had no explanation to offer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that in the instant case, he went to the office of P.W.1 - V.A.O. and in the presence of P.W.6 Village Assistant, he gave extra judicial confession which was marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P1 would indicate that it is he who committed the crime. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, his evidence fully corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6. The lower Court should have accepted the extra judicial confession and should have rendered an order of conviction but not done so. Apart from that, all the other circumstances placed by the prosecution before the trial Court were pointing to the guilty of the accused but the trial Court has taken an erroneous in a case of triple murder and has acquitted the accused. Hence, the judgement of the trial court acquitting the accused is without any reason. Apart from that, all the other circumstances placed by the prosecution before the trial Court were pointing to the guilty of the accused but the trial Court has taken an erroneous in a case of triple murder and has acquitted the accused. Hence, the judgement of the trial court acquitting the accused is without any reason. Therefore, the judgement of the trial Court has got to be set aside and it has got to be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent who has made his sincere attempt to sustain the judgement of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Court considered the submissions made on either side and made thorough scrutiny of the entire materials available. 6. The case of the prosecution, in gist, was that the dead bodies of D1, D2 and D3 were found in the well. On 3. 2005 at 7.00 a.m., when P.W.1 -V.A.O. was in his office, the accused/appellant appeared before him and gave extra judicial confession and the same was reduced into writing and was marked as Ex.P1 and also the report prepared by the V.A.O. was marked as Ex.P2 and thereafter the V.A.O.-P.W.1 produced the accused along with Exs.P1 and P2 before the respondent Police Station, pursuant to which, a case came to be registered. 7. Before the trial Court, the prosecution much relied on the said extra judicial confession. It is well settled principle of law that before accepting the extra judicial confession, to sustain conviction, the Court has to apply two tests. Firstly, to whom and under what circumstances the extra judicial confession was given. Secondly, whether the evidence of the person to whom the extra judicial confession is alleged to have been given inspires the confidence of the Court. If the test was applied, the Court is afraid whether it could accept either the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused or the evidence of P.W.1. 8. The case of the prosecution is that the accused appeared before P.W.1 when P.W.6 was present and extra judicial confession was made by the accused and it was reduced into writing. So far as the extra judicial confession is concerned, there are discrepancies in the versions given by the witnesses. 8. The case of the prosecution is that the accused appeared before P.W.1 when P.W.6 was present and extra judicial confession was made by the accused and it was reduced into writing. So far as the extra judicial confession is concerned, there are discrepancies in the versions given by the witnesses. According to P.W.1, part of the extra judicial confession was recorded in his office and the other part at the police station. The investigating officer P.W.24 denies the same totally. He has stated that nothing was written in the Police Station. Contrary to both the statement, P.W.6 has stated that the extra judicial confession and all the documents were prepared only at the police station. Therefore, if all these three versions which are inconsistent to each other are put together, it would clearly indicate that the extra judicial confession could not have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution. Hence, their evidence has got to be rejected. 9. The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the strained relationship, the deceased-D1, D2 & D3 were thrown into the well but the post mortem certificates would indicate that they have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. Therefore, they have been killed earlier and the bodies should have been thrown in to the well. Thus, the cause of death also was not proved. 10. Further, it is seen that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive of the accused. Under such circumstances, it can be well stated that the prosecution has neither placed necessary the circumstances nor proved the nexus between the accused and the crime in question. 11. It is true that it is a case of triple murder but the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court is of the opinion that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is sustained. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.