Judgment T. Sudanthiram, J. 1. The appellant/accused herein who is an accused in S.C. No.98 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, stands convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 302, 201 and 404, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 366, IPC; sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under Section 302, IPC; sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 12 months for the offence under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 404, IPC . Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Sakthi. P.W.2 is the son and P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased was married to one Chinnathambi and after the death of her husband, the deceased was residing at Thurinchipatti village. The deceased was running a grocery shop. The accused had come to the village and he was staying there for a period of two months. He had eloped with one Balammal who is the relative of the deceased. For that a Panchayat was convened and a fine was also imposed on the girl. Even after that, the accused was staying as a tenant in the house of the deceased. While he was staying in that house, there was illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased. As per the Panchayat decision, the accused was ex-communicated from the village, but after a month, he came back to the house of the deceased and compelled her to come with him. The deceased went along with the accused. At that time, P.Ws. 2 and 3 son and daughter of the deceased were in the house. P.W.1 had also seen both the accused and the deceased getting into a bus together. After some time, P.W.1 mother of the deceased went and enquired P.Ws.2 and 3 about the deceased. 3. The deceased went along with the accused. At that time, P.Ws. 2 and 3 son and daughter of the deceased were in the house. P.W.1 had also seen both the accused and the deceased getting into a bus together. After some time, P.W.1 mother of the deceased went and enquired P.Ws.2 and 3 about the deceased. 3. As the deceased had not returned home for two months, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave Complaint on 01.09.2002. P.W.12, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarasampattu, on receiving the Complaint-Ex.P.1 from P.W.1., registered a case in Crime No.926 of 2002 under Sections 366, IPC and prepared the First Information Report Ex.P.19. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, on receiving the copy of the FIR, went to the Village, Thurinchipatti Village and examined the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others. On 02.09.2002, at 6.00a.m., he arrested the accused at Dideeppettai, Krishnagiri and recorded his confession given in the presence of the witnesses P.W.4 and another witness. Ex.P.20 is the admissible portion of the confession. In pursuance of the confession, P.W.13, Inspector of Police went along with the accused to the place near the telephone exchange at Karimangalam, and the accused identified the body of the deceased. He altered the case from Section 366, IPC to 302, IPC and 379, IPC and prepared the express FIR, Ex.P.21. From the scene of occurrence, he recovered M.Os.l and 11, Blouse and Petticoat of the deceased. He also prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.2 and also the Rough Sketch-Ex.P.22. He held the inquest and examined the witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P.23. As the body was in the decomposed stage, he gave requisition to the Post-Mortem Doctor for conducting autopsy. 4. P.W.8, Doctor on receiving the requisition Ex.P.8, held autopsy at 4.00p.m., and he noticed the following: "A body of female lying on its back. Body completely decomposed. Lower Jaw separated. No legs, tongue, teeth, scalp hair present about 20 cm in length. Head separated from the body. Left upper limb separated from the left elbow joint and missed. Muscle attached with upper arm. Right upper limb partially separated in their joint lower limb highly decomposed. Partially separated in their joint. External injury not made out due to high decomposed. Maggot seen all over the body. External genitalia seen, but highly decomposed. Internal Examination: Hyoid bone not seen due to high decomposition of the body. Muscle attached with upper arm. Right upper limb partially separated in their joint lower limb highly decomposed. Partially separated in their joint. External injury not made out due to high decomposed. Maggot seen all over the body. External genitalia seen, but highly decomposed. Internal Examination: Hyoid bone not seen due to high decomposition of the body. Ribs: Right side first two ribs separated from their joints other ribs separated. Heart: Not seen. Lungs: Not seen Liver: Not seen. Stomach: Not seen. Intestine: Not seen. Kidney: Not seen. Spleen: Not seen. Opening of the Head: Skull Bone: separated from their joints. Brain: Not seen due to high decomposition of body." He had issued a Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P.9 and also gave opinion that the deceased died about 50 to 60 days prior to autopsy. 5. P.W.13, Inspector of Police went along with the accused to the pawn broker shop of P.W.7. According to P.W.7, the accused had pledged the jewels M.O.2 to 6 on 01.08.2002. Exs.P.4 and P.5 are the receipts. P.W.18 seized the jewels M.Os.2 to 6 under the mahazar Ex.P.6. On 03.09.2002, he recovered a bunch of hair M.O.10 which was in front of the house of the deceased under Ex.P.7. As P.W.13 was transferred, P.W.14-Inspector of Police, took up investigation and he sent the properties for chemical analysis. Ex.P.18 is the Chemical Analysis Report. 6. P.W.10 who is the Scientific Assistant of Forensic Science Department on receiving the photographs of the deceased and also on receiving his skull with mandibles right left bone, examined them and compared the skull with photographs. On conducting the superimposition test, he opined that the skull belongs to a female individual seen in the photograph. Ex.P.13 is the report given by P.W.10. P.W.14 on completing the investigation, laid the final report. 7. The Trial Court framed the charges against the accused under Sections 366, 302, 201 and 404, IPC. 8. The prosecution examined 14 Witnesses, marked 23 Exhibits and produced 11 Material Objects. When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances available against him, the accused denied the complicity. But admitted that he had pledged the jewels and the jewels belong to him. No witness was examined on the side of the defence. 9. The Trial Court found the accused guilty for the charges mentioned above and also convicted him and sentenced as already stated. 10. Mr. But admitted that he had pledged the jewels and the jewels belong to him. No witness was examined on the side of the defence. 9. The Trial Court found the accused guilty for the charges mentioned above and also convicted him and sentenced as already stated. 10. Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the circumstance shown by the prosecution against the accused are fabricated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay in preferring the Complaint-Ex.P.1 and it is a fabricated document which was prepared only after the body was recovered. The jewels recovered from P.W.7 at the instance of the accused are not the jewels of the deceased. Ex.P.20, the alleged confession of the accused is not proved and a female body was seen even prior to the arrest of the accused. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has not established that this is a case of homicidal death. P.W.9-Post-Mortem Doctor admitted that it is not possible to give the cause of death as injuries were not found. The learned counsel also submitted that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. 11. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.Ws.l to 3 have stated in their evidence about the deceased being taken by the accused. The last seen theory has been established by the prosecution by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and subsequently the body of the deceased was also recovered from a bush nearby the National highways of Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri, only on the basis of information furnished in the confession by the accused and also by pointing out the place by himself. The jewels of the deceased also were pledged by the accused in the shop of P.W.7 and Mos.2 to 6 were recovered. In the receipts in Exs.P4 and P.5, the accused has signed. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended further that the body of the deceased traced on the basis of pointing out by the accused is a strong piece of evidence against the accused. In the absence of any explanation from the accused only inference that should be drawn is that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended further that the body of the deceased traced on the basis of pointing out by the accused is a strong piece of evidence against the accused. In the absence of any explanation from the accused only inference that should be drawn is that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in A.N. Venkatesh and another v. State of Karnataka, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1938. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that even though the Doctor has not given a clear opinion with regard to the cause of death, from the particulars mentioned in the Post-Mortem Report and from the photos marked, it is easy to decide that only due to homicidal violence, the deceased had been done to death. As the body was decomposed, no external injuries could be found by the Doctor. But, at the same time, it is to be seen that the head was separated from the body, left upper limb was also separated from the left elbow joint. With available materials, the Court should come to the conclusion that the cause of death was only due to the homicidal violence and the reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 . 14. This Court considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records carefully. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The main circumstances on which the prosecution relying upon are: (i) According to P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused came to the house of the deceased and took her along with him. P.W.1 also had seen the accused and the deceased getting into a bus. Thereafter for two months, the deceased had been missing. (ii) After the arrest of the accused, he had given voluntary confession, Ex.P.20, and in pursuance of it, the body of the deceased was traced. (iii) The body was identified as that of the deceased by P.W.1 with the help of her clothes. P.W.10, Scientific Assistant also had given superimposition report Ex.P.13 stating that the skull belongs to the female seen in the photo which is of the deceased. (iii) The body was identified as that of the deceased by P.W.1 with the help of her clothes. P.W.10, Scientific Assistant also had given superimposition report Ex.P.13 stating that the skull belongs to the female seen in the photo which is of the deceased. (iv) The jewels M.Os.2 to 6 of the deceased which were pledged by the accused, were recovered from P.W.7 on the basis of the confession given by the accused. (v) The Post-Mortem Report reveals that the death of the deceased was unnatural. 15. It is an admitted fact that a body of a female was seen and post-mortem was conducted. The said body has been identified as that of mother of P.W.1 by the clothes of the deceased which was found. P.W.10-Forensic Expert has given a Superimposition Report-Ex.P.13, and according to P.W.10, the skull belongs to the female in the photograph of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.10 has not been challenged by the defence. It is to be held now that the body which was traced and subjected to postmortem examination belongs to that of the deceased. 16. The next question is that whether the deceased died due to homicidal violence. According to the Post-Mortem Doctor, as the body was completely decomposed, the external injuries could not be made out. Maggot seen all over the body. In the said position, the Doctor has not given the cause of death. But at the same time, the head was found separated from the body and the left upper limbs was separated from the left elbow joint. 17. When positive medical evidence as to how the deceased died was not available and even without a report of chemical analyst suggesting any symptom of poisoning in the system, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded from other circumstances that the deceased had died due to poisoning in the case reported in An ant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 . The Doctor who had conducted autopsy find only a dead body before him and it is difficult for a Doctor some times to pronounce as to how the deceased died. It does not mean that in such circumstances, the Court always become helpless. It is possible for the Courts to conclude regarding the cause of death in spite of the absence of positive medical evidence. It does not mean that in such circumstances, the Court always become helpless. It is possible for the Courts to conclude regarding the cause of death in spite of the absence of positive medical evidence. Even in cases where the dead body was not traced or dead body had been cremated without conducting autopsy or skeleton alone was available for post-mortem examination, Courts have come to the conclusion, the deceased had died due to homicidal violence. 18. In this particular case, the body was completely decomposed and the parts of the body were separated especially the head was separated from the body. The prosecution also failed to elicit a detailed opinion from the post mortem Doctor. As such, it is not possible for this Court to conclude that it is not a case of homicidal death, equally it is not possible to hold that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. 19. This Court feels that it would be proper if it is decided further that whether the accused would be liable for death of the deceased, if the deceased had died due to homicidal violence. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, it was only the accused who took the deceased. The deceased had not returned for a period of two months and they have not preferred any Complaint immediately. According to Ex.P.1 given by P.W.1, the accused took the deceased on 10.07.2002 and Complaint was given only on 01.09.2002. P.W.1 in cross-examination had admitted that immediately after the deceased was missing, she had given the Complaint to the Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station and after tracing the body. The next day morning at 10.00 a.m., Ex.P.1 was prepared. P.W.1 has consistently stated that only after tracing the body, the Complaint and the FIR were prepared. P.W.2 also admitted in her cross-examination that the Complaint was given by his grandmother P.W. 1 only after tracing the body and arresting the accused. P.W.3 also admitted the same in her cross-examination. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, shows that earlier Complaint about the missing of the deceased has been suppressed and Ex.P.1 was prepared belatedly, only after tracing the body of the deceased. 20. P.W.3 also admitted the same in her cross-examination. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, shows that earlier Complaint about the missing of the deceased has been suppressed and Ex.P.1 was prepared belatedly, only after tracing the body of the deceased. 20. Though it is the case of the prosecution that after the arrest of the accused, he had given a confession Ex.P.20 to the police and on the basis of the confession given by the accused, the body was traced and the jewels were recovered. P.W.1 had stated that she was informed by the police that a body was traced and she went and identified the body. Thereafter the accused was shown in the police station being arrested. P.W.2 also had stated in the cross-examination that they were informed by the police that the body was found in the Sugarcane field at karimangalam and they went to that place at 4.00p.m., and they were asked to come on the very next day for sending the body for post mortem. On the next day, again they were taken to the place along with the accused. P.W.3 also stated in her cross-examination, in the same aspect. P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer who is a witness for the confession given by the accused and also witness for going to the scene of occurrence and for the recovery of the material objects, stated that when he went with the police to the place where the body was lying, the village people had already gathered there. This part of the evidence of P.W.4 shows that even before the accused could point out the body of the deceased lying, it had come to the knowledge of the police that the body was lying there. In the said circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the body of the deceased was traced only at the instance of the accused cannot be accepted. 21. In the decision cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor reported in A.N. Venkatesh and another v. State of Karnataka, 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1938 , in paragraph-9 is it observed as follows: "By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simplicitor, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellants (Exts.P.15 and P.16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the Investigating Officer and P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and P.W.4, the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was burried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. Presence of A.1 and A.2 at a place where ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant circumstance and are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, since as per the materials available, the body has been traced by the police even prior to the arrest of the accused. 22. The evidence let in by the prosecution that M,Os.2 to 7 have been pledged by the accused to P.W.7 has not been denied by the accused. The accused had admitted while he was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., that he pledged the jewels stating that the jewels belong to him. On the other hand, M.Os.2 to 6 have not been identified by any one of the witnesses among P.Ws.1 to 3 that the jewels belong to the deceased. Therefore, it is not established by the prosecution that the jewels which were recovered belong to the deceased. 23. For the above said reasons, we hold that the circumstances let in by the prosecution against the accused are not proved and as such the deceased who died in suspicious circumstances, even if held that she died due to homicidal violence, accused can not be held liable as the prosecution failed miserably to establish its case. 24. 23. For the above said reasons, we hold that the circumstances let in by the prosecution against the accused are not proved and as such the deceased who died in suspicious circumstances, even if held that she died due to homicidal violence, accused can not be held liable as the prosecution failed miserably to establish its case. 24. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are set aside. The accused is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.