Judgment :- 1. The Appellant-Govindan is the sole Accused in Sessions Case No.261 of 2007 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Kallakkurichi and he has preferred this Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 31.12.2009 in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the Appellant will be referred to as Accused. 2. Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against the Accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the Accused guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 3. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1. 4. Briefly the prosecution case is stated as follows: The Accused Govindan is one of the sons of deceased Valliammal. P.W.11 Rangasamy is the other son of the deceased Valliammal. P.W.3 Malar alias Malarkodi is the wife of the Accused. On 1.5.2006 at about 9 am, P.W.1 – Village Administrative Officer Gurunathan was in his office at Koogaiyur and at that time, Accused-Govindan appeared before him and gave a confessional statement to the effect that he dropped a stone repeatedly on the head of her mother, resulting in her death. PW.1-VAO Gurunathan recorded the said Ex.P1 Confession Statement given by the Accused Govindan and prepared Ex.P2-Report and went to the occurrence place and thereafter took the Accused to Chinnasalem Police Station and produced the Accused along with Exs.P1 and P2 at 10 am on 1.5.2006 and P.W.12-Inspector Charles received them end registered a case in Crime No.187/2006 under Section 302, IPC and prepared Ex.P10 – First Information Report and arrested the Accused and took up investigation and went to the occurrence place at 11 am and prepared Ex.P5-Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam. Ex.P11 is the Rough Sketch drawn by him. He conducted inquest on the body of Valliammal from 12 noon to 2 pm and prepared Ex.P12 – Inquest Report. He seized M.O.1-Blood stained Stone from the occurrence place at 2.30 pm in the presence of P.W.6 Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam under Ex.P13-Seizure Mahazar. He sent the body for post-mortem with Ex.P14-requisition through P.W.10-Head Constable Nedunchezhian. P.W.8-Dr. He conducted inquest on the body of Valliammal from 12 noon to 2 pm and prepared Ex.P12 – Inquest Report. He seized M.O.1-Blood stained Stone from the occurrence place at 2.30 pm in the presence of P.W.6 Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam under Ex.P13-Seizure Mahazar. He sent the body for post-mortem with Ex.P14-requisition through P.W.10-Head Constable Nedunchezhian. P.W.8-Dr. Udayakumar conducted autopsy on the body of Valliammal at 4.25 pm on 1.5.2006 and found the following: TAMIL The Doctor obtained Ex.P7-Viscera Report and Ex.P8-Hyoid Bone Report and expressed opinion stating that the deceased would appear to have died 12-24 hours prior to Post-Mortem due to shock and hemorrhage consequent upon the injuries sustained and issued Ex.P9 – Post Mortem Certificate. P.W.12-Inspector Charles brought the Accused to Police Station at 17 hours on 1.5.2006 and examined him in the presence of PW.4-Annamalai and PW.5-Natarajan and recorded the statement given by him. He was transferred and PW.13- Inspector Arivanandain continued the investigation and examined PW.3 Malar alias Malarkodi, PW.9-Head Constable Mayavan and PW.10-Head Cosntable Neduncheshian and recorded their statements. He completed the investigation and filed final report on 18.7.2006 against the Accused. 5. The Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and he denied complicity and the testimonies of witnesses as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on his side. 6. The Trial Court found the Accused guilty of the charge under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him as stated earlier. Challenging the same, the Accused has preferred the present Appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused submits that the case is based on circumstancial evidence and the only circumstance let in by the prosecution is the alleged extra-judicial confession of the Accused given before PW.1-Village Administrative Officer and even that evidence is not reliable and in the absence of corroboration in any form, the said evidence cannot be relied on and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the extra-judicial confession was made by the Accused to the Village Administrative Officer who is not a stranger and the conviction imposed on the basis of extra-judicial confession, is sustainable. 9. Valliammal died of violence is established by the testimony of Post-mortem Doctor. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the extra-judicial confession was made by the Accused to the Village Administrative Officer who is not a stranger and the conviction imposed on the basis of extra-judicial confession, is sustainable. 9. Valliammal died of violence is established by the testimony of Post-mortem Doctor. PW.8-Udaykumar conducted autopsy on the body of Valliammal and he found a depressed, crushed injury on the right of the skull, measuring 15 x 10 cms and on internal examination, he saw temporo paraito bone fractured into pieces and the right side of the brain lacerated with hematoma. He also found a contusion on right chin and on further internal examination, he found fracture of right lower jaw bone. He has testified that the injuries are anti-mortem and could have occurred due to fall of a stone on the head. Accepting his testimony, it is clear that Valliammal died of injuries. 10. The case of the prosecution is that the Accused-Govindan repeatedly attacked his mother Valliammal with M.O.1 Stone on the head, resulting in injuries. Nobody has witnessed the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows: “(i) The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the Accused to P.W.1 VAO Gurunathan. (ii) Seizure of M.O.1 Stone, which is stated to be the weapon of offence.” 11. P.W.1-Gurunathan is the Village Administrative Officer of Koogaiyur Village, in which the Accused Govindan resides. According to P.W.1-VAO, he was in his office at 9 am on 1.5.2006 and the Accused Govindan appeared before him and gave Ex.P1-Confessional Statement that he repeatedly attacked his mother Valliammal by dropping stone on her head, resulting in death and he recorded the same and prepared Ex.P2-Report and after visiting the occurrence place, he took the Accused to Chinnasalem Police Station and produced him along with Exs.P1 and P2 documents. P.W.12-Inspector Charles has testified that he registered a case at 10 am on 1.5.2006 on Ex.P1 – Confessional Statement and prepared Ex.P10 – First Information Report and arrested the Accused and conducted investigation. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused mainly relies on the testimony of P.W.2-Village menial Periyasamy and submits that the testimony of P.W.1-VAO that he came to know about the occurrence only on the statement of Accused, cannot be true and the testimony of P.W.1-VAO is unreliable. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused mainly relies on the testimony of P.W.2-Village menial Periyasamy and submits that the testimony of P.W.1-VAO that he came to know about the occurrence only on the statement of Accused, cannot be true and the testimony of P.W.1-VAO is unreliable. P.W.2 Periyasamy is the village menial working under P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan. According to P.W.2-Periyasamy, he received information about the occurrence in the early morning on 1.5.2006 and he gave intimation to P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan at 6 am itself through telephone and P.W.1-VAO immediately came to the occurrence place and prepared a report and went to the Police Station. As per his testimony, P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan knew the occurrence at 6 am itself on 1.5.2006 and visited the occurrence place and prepared a report and handed over the same to the Police Station and thereafter, at 9 am, the Accused appeared before him. If that, is so, Ex.P1 – Confessional Statement could not have been the First Information about the occurrence. 13. It has to be seen as to whether the Accused could have voluntarily surrendered before P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan and gave Ex.P1-Confessional Statement. P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan, in his cross-examination, has stated that 15 persons accompanied the Accused when he surrendered before him and he did not mention their names to the police, though he knew them and they were present when he recorded the Confessional Statement given by the Accused. It is relevant to note that Ex.P1-Confessional Statement is not attested by witness. No other witness is examined on the side of the prosecution to speak about the recording of Ex.P1-Confessional Statement. It is doubtful as to whether the Accused could have gone voluntarily to P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan and confessed the crime. The vital contradiction in the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2, would belie the version of P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan regarding Ex.P1 – Confessional Statement. 14. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is seizure of M.O.1 Stone, which is said to be the weapon of offence. From the testimony of Investigation Officer PW.12-Inspector Charles, it is seen that M.O.1 Stone weighs about 26 ¾ Kilograms and it was blood-stained but not sent to chemical examination. M.O.1-Stone is said to have been seized from the occurrence place by PW.12-Inspector Charles in the presence of P.W.6-Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam, whereas the witnesses did not state so. According to P.W.6-Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam, they have attested Ex.P5-Observation Mahazar alone. M.O.1-Stone is said to have been seized from the occurrence place by PW.12-Inspector Charles in the presence of P.W.6-Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam, whereas the witnesses did not state so. According to P.W.6-Arumugam and P.W.7-Dharmalingam, they have attested Ex.P5-Observation Mahazar alone. They have not spoken about their attestation in Ex.P13 – Seizure Mahazar and they have also not been declared as hostile. P.W.6 Arumugam, in chief-examination itself has stated that he put signature only in one document and that is Observation Mahazar. P.W.7-Dharmalingam speaks ignorance of document, in which, he put his signature. Hence, it is doubtful as to whether M.O.1 Stone was seized as spoken to by the P.W.12-Investigation Officer. 15. Moreover, P.W.2-Periyaswamy in his testimony has stated that P.W.1-VAO Gurunathan came to the occurrence place in the early morning on 1.5.2006 and prepared a report and also took a stone from the occurrence place. If that is so, M.O.1-Stone could not have been seized as spoken to by P.W.12-Investigation Officer. The prosecution has not proved this circumstance also. 16. In the absence of corroboration in material particulars or in general, Ex.P1-Extra-judicial Confession, cannot be relied on. It is unsafe to base the conviction on such a statement. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused Govindan in Sessions Case No.261 of 2007 on the file, of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Kallakurichi are set aside and the Appellant/Accused Govindan is acquitted of the charge of murder and the fine amount paid, if any, is to be refunded to him. The Appellant/Accused Govindan is directed to be released forthwith if his custody is not required in any other case.