Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge Mahila Court made in S.C.No.19/2009. The Trial court had convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution would the that the deceased Vijayalakshmi was the wife of the accused and the complainant Duraisamy is the cousin brother of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the accused had taken place on 11.04.2008 and while running the marital life, the accused developed illicit intimacy with one Vasanthi and on knowing the said affair, the deceased got angry and quarrelled with the accused and went to her parents house. Panchayat was convened and accordingly the father of the accused executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the marriage expenses of the accused and deceased Vijayalakshmi. When the matter being so on 12.06.2008, when the accused and the said Vasanthi met together the accused promised her to live with her after ending the life of his wife Vijayalakshmi. For that purpose, the accused went to the house of Vijayalakshmi and made her to believe that he stopped all bad habits and connection with Vasanthi and the relatives of Vijayalakshmi had believed his words and left her at the house of the accused. On that day there was a pooja held by 10.00 p.m and thereafter, the said Vijayalakshmi was left with the accused in a bedroom and during that night the accused had compulsory sexual intercourse with his wife Vijayalakshmi and in continuation of the same and in order to execute his plan he had throttled her neck and caused her death on the same night by 01.00 a.m. On 21.06.2008, the accused came out of the house as if he had not committed any offence, and went away, pretending go for passing urine. 3. The death of Vijayalakshmi was found by the witnesses who went to the room and switched on the light and they found nail marks on her both side of the neck. On that day at about 11.30 a.m P.W.1 went to the Police Station along with the villagers and gave complaint to the Police. 3. The death of Vijayalakshmi was found by the witnesses who went to the room and switched on the light and they found nail marks on her both side of the neck. On that day at about 11.30 a.m P.W.1 went to the Police Station along with the villagers and gave complaint to the Police. The complaint was received and the case has been registered in Cr.No.42/2008 u/s. 302 I.P.C and the investigation was been proceeded. After the investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C and the committal court had committed the case to the Sessions court and it was taken on file by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and was made over to Sessions and Mahila Court of Cuddalore for disposal. 4. Accordingly, necessary charges were framed against the accused and the lower court had examined P.Ws.1 to 23 and admitted documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 and M.Os.1 to 12. 5. The case of the prosecution as spoken by the witnesses of the prosecution would be as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the complainant and he is the cousin brother of the deceased Vijayalakshmi the deceased was his mothers sisters daughter. P.W.15 is the father of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. P.W.1 would speak to the effect that his cousin sister Vijayalakshmi was married to the accused on 11.04.2008 at the house of the accused in Kanchanakulam and they have lived together for twenty days. The accused had developed illicit intimacy with one Vasanthi, the daughter of one Balu who was running a tea stall at Kanchanakulam, taking advantage that her husband Murugan was in abroad. When the deceased Vijayalakshmi came to know the said affair she got angry with the accused and she came to her mother house at Mapuddayur. Accused had eloped with the said Vasanthi to Madras since the deceased Vijayalakshmi came to the house of her parents. .(b) Father of the accused had convened a Panchayat in which Duraisamy, Rajamanickam and others have participated and on the side of the accused his father, tea stall owner Balu, Vasanthi, accused and others were present. Accused had eloped with the said Vasanthi to Madras since the deceased Vijayalakshmi came to the house of her parents. .(b) Father of the accused had convened a Panchayat in which Duraisamy, Rajamanickam and others have participated and on the side of the accused his father, tea stall owner Balu, Vasanthi, accused and others were present. In the said panchayat, it was decided that the accused should pay a sum of Rs.75,000/-to the said Vasanthi and a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid to the said Balu and the remaining sum of Rs.70,000/-should be paid within one month as directed in the panchayat and for that the father of the accused had signed in the blank paper and it was given to the said Balu. (c) Panchayatars had promised that the accused will thereafter promptly live with his wife Vijayalakshmi and therefore P.W.3 had decided to send her daughter to the house of the accused after she obtained permission from her husband P.W.15 who was in Dubai at that time. After fifteen days the accused and his father came to P.W.3s house for taking the said Vijayalakshmi to their house and accordingly they sent Vijayalakshmi and P.W.3, P.W.1 and his wife Sangeetha had also accompanied them to the house of the accused situated at Kanchirangulam as per the wishes of the panchayat. Doraisamy and the father of the accused wanted to perform pooja at their house for ensuring the discontinuance of the relationship of the accused with Vasanthi and accordingly P.W.8 was brought and pooja was performed for the accused and Vijayalakshmi. After performing poojas P.W.8 has gone and at about 10.00 p.m P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.1s wife were offered dinner but they did not take, as they had their dinned already. Therefore, the accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi were sent to the bedroom located on the southern side and the father of the accused and his wife had gone to their bed on the northern side. The accused had raised the audio volume of the television and gone to bed. Therefore, the accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi were sent to the bedroom located on the southern side and the father of the accused and his wife had gone to their bed on the northern side. The accused had raised the audio volume of the television and gone to bed. P.W.3 and others had taken their bed on the verandah of the house and at about 12.00 clock Vijayalakshmi came out and was talking to P.W.3 that she was not willing to live with the accused as he has got illicit intimacy with the other woman and she pacified her daughter and sent her to the said room where the accused was having his bed. Thereafter, at about 03.00 a.m in the morning the accused had opened the door and came out and P.W.3 asked him. For that he said that he would go for passing urine and by saying so he had gone away and thereafter he did not return. Since he did not return, P.W.3 and others went inside and put the light and they found that Vijayalakshmi was dead and she had injuries on both sides of her neck and on her right knee and the chain weighing two sovereign put on her neck was also not available. The father of the accused and his wife had also come to the scene. He would request P.W.3 not to disclose to anybody and they would settle it in the panchayat. When they contacted the people in their village they stated that there cannot be any panchayat for the commission of murders and they instructed them to give a complaint and accordingly P.W.1 gave complaint to the Sirupakkam police station which was received by P.W.21 on 21.06.2008 at 11.00 a.m and case was registered in Cr.No.42/2008 u/s. 302 I.P.C. Investigation was commenced by P.W.22 and he had inspected the place of occurrence by 12.00 noon on that delay and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.18 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.19 and had conducted inquest on the dead body of Vijayalakshmi, examined witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P.20. Thereafter, he had sent the dead body of Vijaylakshmi to Vridachalam Government hospital for post mortem through P.W.20-Head Constable. He had also examined witnesses and recorded their statement. .(d) On 22.06.2008, P.W.19- Doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and issued the report Ex.P.12. Thereafter, he had sent the dead body of Vijaylakshmi to Vridachalam Government hospital for post mortem through P.W.20-Head Constable. He had also examined witnesses and recorded their statement. .(d) On 22.06.2008, P.W.19- Doctor conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and issued the report Ex.P.12. In the meanwhile, on the same day on 22.06.2008 morning 10.00 a.m when P.W.5 was working at the Puyanapadi Village Administrative Office, the accused belonging to Kanchanagulam had appeared before him and had given confession regarding the commission of murder of his wife. The accused had given confession statement to him in detail and he had also recorded the same. Thereafter, on his intimation to the police, police came there and arrested the accused Ayyapan by 15.30 hours and also the accused gave confession statement to the police. In the said confession statement given by the accused to P.W.22 the accused had disclosed that he would identify the saree and turkey towel used to tie the hands and the mouth of his wife Vijayalakshmi at the time of commission of the offence. He had also given a confession to identify and recover the gold chain which was buried by him in the earth near Puyanapadi Andavar Temple. Accordingly, on that day itself by 06.00 p.m, he had identified the place where he had buried the 15 grams of the gold chain and on his identification it was seized in the presence of the witnesses. Thereafter by 07.00 p.m, he had also identified the turkey towel and the nylex saree in pursuance of the confession leading to recovery through respective Seizure Mahazar. Thereafter, at about 08.00 p.m the accused had surrendered the clothes worn by him after he obtained the dress materials for his wearing. The said surrendered clothes were seized thereafter by 11.00 p.m when he was brought to the police station and statements were recorded and the accused was sent to judicial custody. P.W.22 had sought for sending the material objects for chemical examination, viscera and hyoid bone for scientific examinations. The said surrendered clothes were seized thereafter by 11.00 p.m when he was brought to the police station and statements were recorded and the accused was sent to judicial custody. P.W.22 had sought for sending the material objects for chemical examination, viscera and hyoid bone for scientific examinations. P.W.23 had continued the investigation and after examination of the Doctor and other official witnesses he had filed the charge sheet against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C. On the incriminating substances shown through the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C to which the accused had flatly denied the evidence of prosecution as false and he had not chosen to examine any defence witnesses nor to produce any documentary evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit in his argument that the lower court did not approach the case properly and had wrongly ended in conviction against the appellant. The lower court had drawn presumptions in favour of the prosecution and it had not actually discussed the evidence. The lower court, with the intention to convict the accused, had approached the case and it had not stated any reason for bringing the accused guilty. He would further submit that when there was no eye witness for the said offence committed, the circumstantial evidence should have been full and should not be any snap in the chain of links. The motive for commission of murder of his own wife was not made known to the court since the said Vasanthi, examined as P.W.7, did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Poojari examined as P.W.8 would go to show that after conducting pooja he had instructed the accused and deceased Vijayalakshmi to be separated for five days and then left the house of the accused. Whereas, it is strange to accept the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that they were sleeping in a separate room. The evidence of P.W.3 would be an interesting one and it cannot be sustained for reaching a conviction against the accused who was not in the house at the time of the alleged commission of offence. Whereas, it is strange to accept the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that they were sleeping in a separate room. The evidence of P.W.3 would be an interesting one and it cannot be sustained for reaching a conviction against the accused who was not in the house at the time of the alleged commission of offence. He would also draw the attention of the court that the evidence of P.W.6, the father of the accused would go to show that the accused was sleeping in the temple as instructed by the poojari, P.W.8, and therefore, he was not present at the house on the fateful night. He would also raise the doubt regarding the veracity of P.W.1 and P.W.3 since they deposed falsely that the accused stayed at his house during the said night. He would again submit in his argument that the last seen theory as spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3 cannot be drawn in this case as P.W.6 and P.W.7 did not support the case of the prosecution. The failure of proving the motive since not supported by P.W.7, would also not in anyway form a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. He would again submit in his argument that the evidence regarding the panchayatars P.W.9 to P.W.14 cannot also be relied upon. The extra judicial confession said to have been recorded by P.W.5 the V.A.O cannot be sustainable because it was recorded in the presence of the Investigating Officer P.W.22. The said extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon because it was a stage managed drama arranged by the Investigating Officer through P.W.5. The evidence of the Doctor would go to show that there was no trace of semen in the smear taken from the private parts of the deceased and there could not be any compulsory sexual intercourse with the deceased Vijayalakshmi by the accused and therefore the presumption of the presence of the accused cannot be drawn. The conviction reached by the lower court on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3,12,15 and P.W.17 are not sustainable and the circumstantial evidence as spoken by the witnesses cannot be relied upon since the motive was not proved. The conviction reached by the lower court on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3,12,15 and P.W.17 are not sustainable and the circumstantial evidence as spoken by the witnesses cannot be relied upon since the motive was not proved. The chain of evidence cannot be deemed to be complete and therefore, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused and accordingly lower court ought to have acquitted the accused but it had convicted and sentenced the accused and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court should be set aside and this appeal be allowed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard and his arguments were also considered anxiously. 8. The case of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi were married on 11.04.2008 and they lived together only for twenty days was not disputed. The death of deceased Vijayalakshmi had taken place at the house of the accused which is also not disputed. Observation Mahazar produced by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.18 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.19 would go to show that the death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi had taken place only at the house of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.19 the post mortem Doctor would go to show that the death of Vijayalakshmi was caused due to asphyxia by throttling the neck of the deceased person. Ante mortem injuries and the cause of death mentioned in Ex.P.12 supported by the evidence of Doctor-P.W.19 would go to show that death of Vijayalakshmi was caused due to strangulation. It is no doubt true that the father of the accused P.W.6 was also staying at the same house on the fateful night. It is also not disputed that on the date of death of deceased Vijayalakshmi, pooja was conducted by P.W.8 and the said pooja was arranged by P.W.6 for the purpose of driving away the evils. The poojari was examined as P.W.8. In his evidence he has stated that he had asked the accused and the deceased Vijayalakshmi to be away for five days. He would also speak to the effect that P.W.1 and P.W.3 were also present on the same night in the house of the accused. In the said circumstances, the presence of the accused and his father and P.W.1 and P.W.3 were spoken by P.W.8 who is an independent person. He would also speak to the effect that P.W.1 and P.W.3 were also present on the same night in the house of the accused. In the said circumstances, the presence of the accused and his father and P.W.1 and P.W.3 were spoken by P.W.8 who is an independent person. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 spoken regarding the stay of the accused with the deceased Vijayalakshmi cannot be set aside. In the aforesaid circumstances, the death caused at the house of the accused should have been explained by the accused as well as his father P.W.6. P.W.6 had not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was treated as hostile. According to the evidence of P.W.6 the accused had stayed at the temple on the whole night and thereby pleaded not guilty. For the said evidence, there was no other corroborative evidence on the part of the accused. P.W.1 would speak to the effect that he was present at the house of the accused along with P.W.3. They would speak to the effect that the deceased Vijayalakshmi came out at 12.00 clock in the night and she was them that she was not willing to stay with the accused. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that she had pacified her and asked her to go to bed with the accused. Thereafter, the accused is found to have come out of the room where he had stayed with the deceased Vijayalakshmi for passing urine and he had slipped away. As already discussed the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 at the house of the accused was proved through the evidence of P.W.8. The evidence adduced for the purpose of proving that the accused was lastly seen at the southern room of the house and he was seen going out from the said house by saying some excuse and thereafter he did not return, cannot be refused. More over, the evidence of Doctor who performed the autopsy on 28.08.2008 had spoken to the effect that the death would have occurred thirty to thirty six hours prior to post mortem. The evidence of P.W.6 who turned hostile would also go to show that the deceased Vijayalakshmi was found dead after performance of pooja at the house of the accused. Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 cannot be refused at any stretch of imagination. 9. The evidence of P.W.6 who turned hostile would also go to show that the deceased Vijayalakshmi was found dead after performance of pooja at the house of the accused. Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 cannot be refused at any stretch of imagination. 9. In the background, the evidence adduced by the panchayatars, examined as P.W.11 to P.W.13 would speak to the effect that they have participated in the panchayat and the panchayat was held in respect of the illicit intimacy had by the accused with one Vasanthi wife of Murugan and in the said panchayat it had been discussed about the compensation to be paid to the said Vasanthi for discontinuing the relationship with the accused and accordingly a sum of Rs.75,000/-was decided to be paid to the said Vasanthi and accordingly Rs.5,000/-was paid to the parents of the Vasanthi and the parents of Vasanthi had taken her after receiving the money and the balance was directed to be paid within a period of one month. P.W.13 who is one of the Panchayatar is the father in law of the said Vasanthi. P.W.13 had spoken to the effect that he had adviced his son not to have the marriage with Vasanthi but he had taken daughter in law with him. The argument that P.W.7 Vasanthi was not having any illicit intimacy with the accused cannot be a sound explanation offered by the defence when there was no enmity for P.Ws.11 to P.W.13 against the said Vasanthi P.W.7 and the accused to depose against them. When the death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi had taken place at the house of the accused after performance of the pooja conducted by the accused father, P.W.6 and the presence of the accused was spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3 through their evidence, no explanation is offered by the accused and his father P.W.6 for the death of vijayalakshmi. When the death of the deceased Vijayalakshmi had taken place at the house of the accused after performance of the pooja conducted by the accused father, P.W.6 and the presence of the accused was spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.3 through their evidence, no explanation is offered by the accused and his father P.W.6 for the death of vijayalakshmi. Apart from that the accused had given extra judicial confession to P.W.5, the V.A.O. According to the evidence of P.W.5 and Investigating Officer that the V.A.O had recorded the confession in the morning by 10.00 a.m and on intimation from P.W.5 he had gone to the said place and arrested the accused and the accused also gave confession to the investigator leading to recovery of the chain found in the neck of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the saree and the turkey towel used by him for the purpose of tying the hands and for closing the mouth of deceased Vijayalakshmi. According to his confession said material objects 1 to 12 were recovered. In the background, we could also see that the complaint was given in morning by 11.00 a.m and it was registered immediately and the F.I.R was despatched to the court on the same day without any delay and the inquest was conducted at the house of the accused and it also reached the court without delay. Therefore there cannot be any doubt over the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 8 and their evidence were corroborated by the recovery of material objects through the confession of the accused leading to recovery and the overall evidence would prove the guilt of the accused and the links of the circumstantial evidence have been promptly connected and completed by the prosecution. 10. In these circumstances, we are in a considered opinion that the prosecution had proved the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and bring home the accused to guilt. Therefore, there is no impediment for us to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the lower court. 11. In fine, the criminal appeal fails and it is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.