Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Villupuram made in S.C.No.242 of 2009 whereby the appellants/A1 and A2 stood charged, tried and A1 and A2 were found guilty under section 302 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment each and A3 was found guilty under section 203 I.P.C and awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (i) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Natarajan. A1 and A2 are the cousin brothers of P.W.1. A3 is the close relative of A1 and A2. During the relevant time, P.W.1 was employed in a quarry at Andhra. Al and the deceased Natarajan were employed in a quarry at Vedur. During the relevant time, P.W.10, contractor was constructing a School. A1 was demanding the dues i.e., a sum of Rs.10,000/- payable by the deceased. Often there was quarrel in that regard. On the date of occurrence, that was, on 29.12.2008 at about 5.00 p.m., A1 and A3 on the one side and the deceased on the other side quarrelled with each other and the same was noticed by the villagers of Vedur including P.Ws. 7 to 9. The villagers advised them that they should not quarrel and thereafter, they left the place. Accordingly, the deceased accompanied by A1 to A3 proceeded to the village Akkarapalayam. The next day morning P.W.8, Supervisor who was carrying on the construction work questioned A1 to A3 about the deceased but they answered that he would come later. The deceased did not come on that day. (ii) The next day, on receipt of the information that the dead body of Natarajan was found in the nearby hill which was in between Vedur and Akkarapalayam, P.W.2 and others proceeded to the spot and found the dead body and brought the dead body home in the evening hours. Thereafter, P.W.1 was informed. P.W.1 rushed from Andhra and found the dead body with bleeding injuries. Thereafter, P.W.1 was informed. P.W.1 rushed from Andhra and found the dead body with bleeding injuries. Immediately, he proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave a complaint,Ex.P1 to P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police who was on duty at about 11.00 p.m. On the strength of Ex.P.1 complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.162/2008 under sections 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. and the express F.I.R., Ex.P14 was despatch to Court. (iii) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R., P.W.15, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.15 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P.16. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Natarajan and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P17 in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars. Following the same, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.6. doctor attached to Government Hospital, Kallakuruchi, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Natarajan and found the following injuries. Antimortem injuries: 1. A lacerated injury 2 x 1 cm in the left ear. 2. Abrasion 3 x 2 c.m. Left cheek 3. Contusion 4 x 2 c.m. Right shoulder 4. Contusion 5 x 4 c.m. Left chest 5. Contusion 2 x 2 c.m. Centre of chest 6. Contusion 4 x 3 c.m. right side of chest. 7. Contusion 4 x 3 c.m. left side of lower chest. 8. Abrasion 4 x 2 c.m. Centre of abdomen] 9. Abrasion 5 c.m. X 2 c.m. In the centre of abdomen near wound 8. 10. A laceration 4 x 2 c.m. Left knee 11. contusion 4 x 2 c.m. Left occipital region. 12. Multiple abrasion of varying sizes seen over the whole back. The doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained, 36 to 48 hours prior to post-mortem. (iv) Pending investigation, A2 and A3 were arrested on 5.1.2009. A2 came forward to give confessional statement and the same was recorded in Ex.P3. He produced the blood stained shirt which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, they were sent for judicial remand. Following the same, on 17.2.2009, A1 was arrested. He gave confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P10. He produced the blood stained shirt which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, they were sent for judicial remand. Following the same, on 17.2.2009, A1 was arrested. He gave confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P10. Pursuant to which, he produced M.O.3 blood stained dhoti and M.O.4 series , stones which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Thereafter, he was also sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to analysis and two reports were received viz., Chemical report and viscera report, Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.6 respectively. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has filed a final report. (v) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused/appellants, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied 24 exhibits and 4 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found A1 and A2 guilty of murder and A3 guilty of offence under section 203 I.P.C. and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants/A1 and A2. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants/A1 and A2, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied only on circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstance putforth by the prosecution is the motive attributed on the part of the accused pointing to the guilt of the accused. Insofar as the motive part is concerned, the prosecution had few witnesses to indicate that there was a quarrel between A1 and the deceased since A1 demanded Rs.10,000/-from the deceased which was payable to him towards coolie and the deceased was evading the same. As far as the motive part was concerned, no witness has spoken about A2 and A3 in that regard. According to the prosecution, the dead body was first seen by one Manjula who informed the same to one Raju and Raju informed the same to P.W.2 and others. As far as the motive part was concerned, no witness has spoken about A2 and A3 in that regard. According to the prosecution, the dead body was first seen by one Manjula who informed the same to one Raju and Raju informed the same to P.W.2 and others. But the said Manjula was not examined by the prosecution though her name was found in the list of witnesses. 4. Added further learned counsel, though Raju was examined as a witness, he has not spoken anything about the role attributto the accused. According to P.W.1, he came home from Andhra Pradesh at about 6.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence and found the dead body with bleeding injuries. Hence, he went to the Police Station at 11.00 p.m. and gave a complaint. At that time, he saw all the three accused present in the police station. If it is true that the police has actually taken A1 to A3 to the police station before Ex.P1 report has come into existence, the alleged arrest of A2 and A3 on 5.1.2009, arrest of A1 on 17.2.2009, the alleged confessional statement recorded from them and the recovery of material objects from them, were all false. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the prosecution wanted to project its case through P.Ws 7 to 9. According to the prosecution, P.Ws 7 to 9 actually witnessed the quarrel between A1 to A3 on the one side and the deceased on the other side. If the evidence of P.Ws. 7 to 9 were scrutinized, it would show that all the witnesses have given a different version. According to P.W.7, in the evening hours, there was quarrel between A1 and the deceased. According to P.W.8, in the evening hours, there was quarrel between all the accused and the deceased. According to P.W.9, a quarrel had taken place in the noon hours. All put together would go to show that all are planted witnesses. Added circumstances is the 161 statement of these witnesses, but the 161 statement which was recorded from the witnesses has reached the Court only in the month of March 2009 which would clearly indicate the fact that they all are planted witnesses to strengthen the prosecution case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances indicating the involvement of the accused in the crime. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the circumstances indicating the involvement of the accused in the crime. Hence, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquittal but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and convicted the accused. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that the dead body of Natarajan was found in the hill nearby the village Vedur and the dead body was taken to the house of the deceased. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by P.W.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered. On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. P.W.15,Inspector of Police took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Natarajan and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.17. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.6, doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and gave his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. The fact that Natarajan died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant before the trial court at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, the trial Court is perfectly correct in recording that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. 8. In order to substantiate that the accused had committed the crime of murder, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied only on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, according to the prosecution, pointing to the guilt of the accused, is on the last seen theory i.e., the deceased was last found along with the accused at about 5.00 p.m. on 29.12.2008. The second circumstance was the arrest and confessional statement, pursuant to which, the recovery of material objects was made. After careful scrutiny of the evidence available, the Court is afraid to sustain the conviction passed by the trial court on the above alleged circumstances. 9. Insofar as the first circumstance is concerned, P.Ws. 7 to P.W.9 were examined to speak about the last seen theory. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses. According to P.W.7, the quarrel was between A1 and the deceased. 9. Insofar as the first circumstance is concerned, P.Ws. 7 to P.W.9 were examined to speak about the last seen theory. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses. According to P.W.7, the quarrel was between A1 and the deceased. According to P.W.8, the quarrel was between the deceased and A1 to A3 in the evening hours. According to P.W.9, there was a quarrel in the noon hours. Though the investigator claim that 161 statement of the witnesses were recorded within few days from the date of crime, their statement have reached the Court only in March,2009. All these discrepancies found in the evidence of P.Ws. 7 to 9, coupled with the fact that the statement of these witnesses reached the Court nearly about three months later, would go to show that they were actually planted witnesses. 10. Insofar as the other circumstance is concerned, the evidence putforth by the prosecution has got to be brushed aside in view of the evidence made by P.W.1 at the time of cross examination. According to the investigator, A2 and A3 were arrested on 5.1.2009, while A1 was arrested on 17.2.2009 and at the time of arrest they came forward to give confessional statement and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. It is true that one of the witness was also examined in that regard, but P.W.1 has categorically stated at the time of cross examination that on 30.12.2008, when he went to the police station to give a complaint, he saw A1 to A3 inside the police station which would clearly indicate the fact that the accused was taken to the police station even earlier to the complaint Ex.P1 given to the police by P.W.1 in respect of the crime. All would go to show that Ex.P1 could not be the first information in the hands of the police. On the face of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the confessional statement, arrest and the recovery, were all false. Hence, the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused. It is highly unsafe to declare that the accused had committed the crime based on the above evidence, which is thoroughly doubtful and shrouded with suspicion. On the face of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the confessional statement, arrest and the recovery, were all false. Hence, the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused. It is highly unsafe to declare that the accused had committed the crime based on the above evidence, which is thoroughly doubtful and shrouded with suspicion. The trial Court has taken an erroneous view and has rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as referred to above which has got to be made undone by upsetting the same. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the accused are entitled for acquittal. 11. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the benefit of this judgment has to be given to the third accused also. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. The benefit of this judgment shall be given to the third accused also. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A1 & A2 and A3 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in S.C.No.242/2009 is set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants/A1 & A2 and A3 are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded.