Judgment :- K.N. BASHA, J. 1 The appellant, who has been arrayed as A-1, has come forward with this Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur by the judgment dated 30.09.2008 made in S.C. No. 43 of 2007, convicting the appellant/A-1 under Section 302 I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), in default to undergo further one year rigorous imprisonment. 2 The background facts of this case as unfolded by the Prosecution through the evidence of eye witnesses are hereunder: P.W.1 - Balanis the father of deceased - Rajendran. P.W.6 - Rajeswari is the mother of the deceased. P.W.4 - Rajamanickam is the son of PW.5 - Ganesan. The deceased is the Aunt‘s son of P.W.4. P.W.4 claimed that A-1-Dhanavel is also related to him. A-1, who is a cousin of A-2, is a friend of the deceased. There was illicit intimacy between A-2‘s daughter and the deceased. Therefore, P.W.1 went to the house of A-2 and asked his daughter for marriage to his son, the deceased. But, A-2 informed P.W.1 that his daughter was studying and as such, he was not inclined to arrange marriage for her. Subsequently, A-2’s daughter was given in marriage to a person, who was in abroad. Even after the marriage, there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and A-2’s daughter viz., Kanagavalli, As a result of which, A-2 made a complaint to A-1 about the conduct of the deceased. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the accused and the deceased. 3 On the fateful day of occurrence viz., on 3.8.2006, A-1 came to the house of the deceased and both of them consumed liquor. P.W.1 was at Ayyampettai tea stall and returned at 2.00 p.m. to his house. At that time, he found both the deceased and A-1 under intoxication. P.W.1 found that his son was under severe intoxication. Both A-1 and the deceased taken food in his house. The deceased asked his mother P.W.6 to provide more food and sweet to A-1. Thereafter, both A-1 and the deceased went separately. When P.W.1 returned to his house during night time, he found that his son was coming opposite to him. He brought back his son to the house. Both A-1 and the deceased taken food in his house. The deceased asked his mother P.W.6 to provide more food and sweet to A-1. Thereafter, both A-1 and the deceased went separately. When P.W.1 returned to his house during night time, he found that his son was coming opposite to him. He brought back his son to the house. At about 10.00 p.m., A-1 came to the house of P.W.1 and called the deceased for Ayyampettai. P.W.6, who is the mother of the demised, prevented his son to accompany A-1. For that, A-1 stated that he would take the deceased safely and bring him back. P.W.1 has given the two wheeler purchased in his name to A-1 and thereafter, both of them left in the said two wheeler towards eastern side. Till 3.30 a.m., on the next day, both the deceased and A-1 had not returned back to P.W.1’s house. P.Ws.4 and 5 came to the house of P.W.1 and woke him up. They Informed P.W.1 that A-1 attacked the deceased and thereafter P.W.1 and P.W.6 went to Iluppakorai village and found the deceased lying on the road near Iluppakorai Kuppai Medu. P.W.1 requested P.W.4 to bring a Taxi. P.W.4 brought the taxi and in the said taxi, they have taken the deceased to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where the Doctor, who examined him, declared that the deceased already dead. 4 P.W.l went to Ayyampettai Police Station on 04.08.2006 at 09.00 a.m., and gave a written complaint under Exhibit P-1 to P.W.16 - Inspector of Police. On receipt of the said complaint under Exhibit P-1, P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.210 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 302 and 109 Sections 302 and 109 I.P.C., Exhibit P-12 is the printed F.I.R. He has forwarded the F.I.R to the Court as well as to the higher officials. 5 P.W.16 - Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. He prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch under Exhibits P-6 and 13 in the presence of witnesses. He recovered blood stained earth under M.O.1 and sample earth under M.O.2 from the scene of occurrence. He also recovered pair of rubber chappals of the deceased under M.O.3 series in front of the house of Saroja in the presence of witnesses. He recovered blood stained earth under M.O.1 and sample earth under M.O.2 from the scene of occurrence. He also recovered pair of rubber chappals of the deceased under M.O.3 series in front of the house of Saroja in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he went to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and held Inquest on the dead body of the deceased at the Mortuary of the hospital in the presence of witnesses. Exhibit P-14 is the Inquest Report. During Inquest, P.W.16 examined P.Ws.1 and 4 and others and recorded their statements. Then, he sent the dead body of the deceased for conducting Post Mortem through a Head Constable along with a requisition. 6 P.W.9 - Dr. Jayalakshmi, Professor of Forensic Medicine, attached to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, on receipt of the requisition, conducted Post Mortem on 4.8.2006 at 5.10 p.m., and found the following injuries: “ External Injuries: 1. Hay particles. Mud and sand particles were found spread over the body surface. 2. Bleeding from both nostrils and mouth noted. 3. An abraded contusion below the right eye, right cheek, right parotid region and right mandibular regions over an area of 12 cm x 10 cm x bone deep. On dissection - Thick bluish black contusion of the underlying muscles noted. 4. An abraded contusion over the whole of left cheek, Left mandibular regions, left parotid, left side mastoid region, upper part of left side front of neck and the adjoining occipital region of scalp over an area of 20 cm x 14 cm x muscle deep. On dissection - Bluish black colour contusion of the underlying muscles noted. 5. An irregular laceration of whole of left ear lobule with fresh bleeding with contusion of whole of left ear pinna. 6. An abraded diffuse bluish black colour contusion over the whole of left side of neck, left side infra clavicular area and over left side front of chest over an area of 18 x 12 cm x.bone deep. On dissection - bluish black colour contusion of the underlying muscles noted. 7. Swelling and deformity of whole of right thigh with fracture of the middle of right femur bone with contusion of the surrounding muscles. 8. Cresenteric Abrasions - Nail markings five numbers noted over the chin, right side angle of Mandible, right Mandibular region and right side of neck. 9. 7. Swelling and deformity of whole of right thigh with fracture of the middle of right femur bone with contusion of the surrounding muscles. 8. Cresenteric Abrasions - Nail markings five numbers noted over the chin, right side angle of Mandible, right Mandibular region and right side of neck. 9. Multiple fresh abrasions of various sizes noted over the back of right elbow, front of both sides lower half of chest, left leg, left ankle, left side back of abdomen, both hip regions and both sides scapular areas. 10. Conjunctival congestion noted in both eyes. 11. Diffuse contusion bluish black in colour over the whole of back of neck, occipital region inter scapular and both scapular areas with underlying contusion of the muscles. Internal Injuries: 12. On reflecting the scalp skin - Thick sub scalp contusion noted over the whole of scalp. On opening the vault of skull sub dural and sub arachnoid haemorrhages over the whole of both sides cerebral hemispheres with bilateral subdural basal blood clots. Intra cerebral haemorrhage in both sides also noted. 13. On dissection of Neck -Bluish black colour contusion of both sides neck muscles. Thyroid Gland, Thyroid cartilage, pre and para vertebral muscles with fracture dislocation of C4 C5 Cervical vertebrae and laceration of the underlying spinal cord. ” Opining that the deceased would appear to have died due to multiple injuries involving many of the vital structures and the death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to Post Mortem, the Doctor issued Exhibit P-5 -Post Mortem Certificate. 7 P.W.16 - Inspector of Police, in continuation of his investigation, on 4.8.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., arrested A-2-Kasthuri at Ganapathi Agraharam Bus Stand and at that time, A-2 gave a Complaint. On receipt of the same, P.W.16 went to Ayyampettai Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 211 of 2006 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. He has produced A-2 before the Court for remand on 5.8.2006. At 8.00 p.m., in the presence of witnesses, he recovered a pair of rubber chappals of the accused under M.O.4 near the house of P.W.1. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent a requisition under Exhibit P-16 to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.16 received the Post Mortem Certificate under Exhibit P-5 and also examined the Doctor P.W.9, who had conducted the Post Mortem. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent a requisition under Exhibit P-16 to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.16 received the Post Mortem Certificate under Exhibit P-5 and also examined the Doctor P.W.9, who had conducted the Post Mortem. On 23.11.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., he arrested A-1 near Ganapathy Agraharam New Street Cauvery Bridge in the presence of witnesses. At that time, A-1 voluntarily gave a confession statement and the same was recorded by P.W.16 in the presence of the witnesses. Exhibit P-18 is the admissible portion of the said Confession Statement. On the basis of Exhibit P-18, P.W.16 recovered Bajaj Motor Cycle M.O.9 under Exhibit P-19, a Casuarina stick M.O.10. He has produced A-1 before Court for remand. P.W.16 received Chemical analysis report under Exhibit P-2, Serology Report under Exhibit P-3 and Biological Report under Exhibit P-3. After examination of the witnesses and after completion of his investigation, P.W.16 laid the Charge Sheet against the appellants/accused on 28.11.2006. 8 The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charges were framed under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C against A-1 and under Section 302 read with 109 and 34 I.P.C against A-2 by the trial Court and in order to substantiate the charges levelled against them, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.16 and filed Exhibits P-1 to 19 and marked M.Os.1 to 10. On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they have come forward with the version of total denial. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any documents. 9 Having considered the evidence available on record both oral and documentary, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur by holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt and extending the benefit of doubt to A-2, acquitted him of the charge and found A-1 guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal before this Court. 10 We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 11 Mr. 10 We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 11 Mr. M. Karunanithi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the prosecution has failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent material and put forward the following contentions: 1. The eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 have completely turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, who have spoken about the last seen theory to the effect that A-1 came to the house of the deceased and both of them took food and thereafter left the house is surrounded by serious infirmities and inconsistencies and their evidence is unbelievable. 3. P.W.1stated that A-1 came to the house during the afternoon time on 3.8.2006 and both the deceased and A-1 left the house separately. Again A-1 came to the house of P.W.1 at 10.00 p.m. However, P.W.6, who is the mother of the deceased, has categorically stated that A-1 came to their house in the morning itself and both the deceased and A-1 were very much available in and around the house till 10.00 p.m., and as such there is a material contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. 4. There is also another material contradiction to the effect that P.W.1 stated that both the deceased and A-1 left in his two wheeler, but P.W.6 has stated that both of them left the house by walk and she has not whispered any word about the taking of the two wheeler and as such the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is unbelievable and unreliable. 5. P.W.1 claimed that he went to the police station at 9.00 a.m. and gave the written complaint under Exhibit P-1 to P.W.16 - the Inspector of Police. But, P.W.6 has stated that the Police came to the scene even at 6.00 a.m., itself and recorded her statement and obtained her signatures also, but the said statement was suppressed. Therefore, there is not only a material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, but also suppression of the statement recorded from P.W.6. 6. P.W.5 gave yet another version to the effect that P.W.1 went to the police station at the early morning itself. Therefore, there is not only a material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, but also suppression of the statement recorded from P.W.6. 6. P.W.5 gave yet another version to the effect that P.W.1 went to the police station at the early morning itself. However, it is the version of P.W.1 that he went to the police station at 9.00 a.m., and gave the written complaint under Exhibit P-1 to P.W.16. 7. There is inordinate and unexplained delay in not only giving the complaint to the police, but also despatching the F.I.R to the Magistrate Court as the occurrence is said to have taken place on 4.8.2006 at about 3.00 a.m., the written complaint was given by P.W.1 to P.W.16 only at 9.00 p.m., and the distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station is only 3 K.M and the F.I.R reached the Magistrate’s Court only at about 2.30 p.m., on 4.8.2006. Absolutely, no reason whatsoever is forthcoming from the Prosecution either in respect of the delay in lodging the complaint to the police or the delay in despatching the F.I.R to the Magistrate’s Court. 8. P.W.1 came forward with a version before the Court that P.W.4 informed him that A-1 came to his house and informed that there was a quarrel between himself and the deceased, in which he attacked the deceased. But the said version is not mentioned in the earliest document in Exhibit P-1 by P.W.1 and as such, P.W.1 has improved his version before the Court. 9. P.W.4 claimed that A-1 gave the Extra Judicial Confession to him. However, he has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he is not close to A-1 and he has not participated in any function in the family of A-1, who is only a distant relative to him and as such, it is highly improbable for A-1 to repose confidence on P.W.4 to give the alleged Extra Judicial Confession. 10. P.W.5, who is the father of PW.4, who is residing along with PW.4, has categorically stated about the visit of A-1 to his house on 4.8.2006, but he has not whispered any word about the Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by A-1 to P.W.4, as such the version of P.W.4 is unbelievable and unreliable. 11. 10. P.W.5, who is the father of PW.4, who is residing along with PW.4, has categorically stated about the visit of A-1 to his house on 4.8.2006, but he has not whispered any word about the Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by A-1 to P.W.4, as such the version of P.W.4 is unbelievable and unreliable. 11. The recovery of the two wheeler viz., Bajaj Motor Cycle under M.O.9 is unbelievable as the witness examined by the prosecution to speak about the recovery viz., P.W.14 has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Another witness viz., P.W.13, who has been examined to speak about the recovery of M.O.9, has simply stated that A-1 came in a Bajaj two wheeler and he has not stated anything about the recovery of M.O.9 at the instance of A-1. The recovery of Casuarina stick under M.O.10 is also unbelievable and unreliable as P.W.13 could not identify the same. 12 Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though the eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 and 3 turned hostile, the Prosecution had adduced evidence through P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6. It is contended that P.Ws.1 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased, have categorically stated about the last seen theory to the effect that A-1 came to their house and both of them had taken food and liquor and thereafter, A-1 alone took the deceased from the house at 10.00 p.m. It is further contended that even in the earliest document in Exhibit P-1, P.W.1 has stated about the taking of the deceased by A-1 at 10.00 p.m in a two wheeler and the said motor cycle was recovered under M.O.9 only at the instance of A-1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the evidence of P.W.4 discloses that A-1 went to the house of P.W.4 and informed that there was a quarrel between himself and the deceased, as a result of which, he has attacked the deceased. The version of P.W.4 is also corroborated by the father of P.W.4 viz., P.W.5, who has stated about the visit of A-1 on 4.8.2006. The version of P.W.4 is also corroborated by the father of P.W.4 viz., P.W.5, who has stated about the visit of A-1 on 4.8.2006. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is no delay in lodging the complaint under Exhibit P-1 as the deceased was initially taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and the Doctor, who had examined him, declared that the deceased already dead. Thereafter only P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the written complaint under Exhibit P-1 to P.W.16 and as such the prosecution has explained the delay in lodging the complaint to the police. It is also contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the two wheeler (M.O.9) and the Casuarina stick (M.O.10) have been recovered only at the instance of A-1 and the two wheeler belongs to P.W.1 and A-1 has not given any explanation for the possession of the two wheeler with which he has taken the deceased as per the prosecution case from the house of P.W.1. 13 We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and thoroughly scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 14 The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3, but the fact remains that they have given a total go-bye to their earlier version and they have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the Prosecution is left with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 6, who have spoken about the last scene theory and P.W.4 and P.W.5, who have spoken about the alleged Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by A-1 to P.W.4 respectively. The fact remains that P.Ws.1 and 6 are none other than the parents of the deceased and P.Ws. 4 and 5 are the distant relatives of the deceased and as such, they are interested witnesses. Therefore, this Court has to consider their evidence with great care and caution. 15 Now, let us analyse and assess the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, who are the father and mother of the deceased, who have spoken about the last seen theory. 4 and 5 are the distant relatives of the deceased and as such, they are interested witnesses. Therefore, this Court has to consider their evidence with great care and caution. 15 Now, let us analyse and assess the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, who are the father and mother of the deceased, who have spoken about the last seen theory. It is seen that P.W.1 has stated that A-1 came to the house of the deceased on 3.8.2006 afternoon and both of them had taken food and liquor together and thereafter, both of them left from the house separately. It is the version of P.W.1 that when he returned from his shop to his house during night time, he has seen the deceased coming in the opposite direction and he has brought him back to his house. At 10.00 p.m., A-1 came to his house once again and thereafter had taken the deceased in his two wheeler from his house to Ayyampettai. On the other hand, P.W.6 has given a contrary version. P.W.6, who is the wife of P.W.1, has categorically stated that A-1 came to their house on 3.8.2006 morning and he was present in the house throughout till 10.00 p.m., as both the deceased and A-1 wandering in and around the house itself. P.W.6 has not whispered a word about A-1 and the deceased leaving the house in Bajaj Motor Cycle. However, she has categorically stated that both of them left the house only by walk. Yet another important factor to be borne in mind of this Court is that P.W.6, who is the wife of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased, who was present all along with P.W.1 in their house, has not whispered any word about the visit of P.W.4 and the information given by P.W.4 as if A-1 came to his house and had given the Extra Judicial Confession to him, as claimed by P.W.1. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no consistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. In view of the same, we are of the considered view that it is highly unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no consistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. In view of the same, we are of the considered view that it is highly unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. 16 Yet another disturbing feature in the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 has come forward with a specific and categorical version that initially he has taken the deceased to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and thereafter, he went to Ayyampettai Police Station at about 9.00 a.m., and preferred the written complaint under Exhibit P-1 to P.W.16 - the Inspector of Police. But, P.W.6 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that the police came to the scene of occurrence even at 6.00 a.m., and recorded her statement and also obtained her signatures. But, the said Statement was burked by the prosecution. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the delay in lodging the complaint to the police. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 3.00 a.m., on 4.8.2006 and whereas the written complaint under Exhibit P-1 was lodged to the police only at 9.00 a.m., on 4.8.2006 and the distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station is only 3 K.M. There is also further delay in the F.I.R reaching the Magistrate’s Court as the same reached the Court at about 2.30 p.m., on 4.8.2006. The prosecution has not come up with any satisfactory explanation either for the delay in lodging the complaint or for the delay in despatching the F.I.R to the Magistrate’s Court. The delay assumes greater importance in view of the version of P.W.6 to the effect that the police came to the scene of occurrence even at about 6.00 a.m., and they have recorded her statement and obtained signatures also. The delay assumes greater importance in view of the version of P.W.6 to the effect that the police came to the scene of occurrence even at about 6.00 a.m., and they have recorded her statement and obtained signatures also. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there are serious doubts in this case about the genuineness of the earliest document Exhibit P-1 and F.I.R. In view of the contra evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 and in view of the categorical admission of P.W.6 that the police came to the scene of occurrence even at the earliest point of time viz., at 6.00 a.m., and recorded her statement and obtained signatures also, coupled with the version of yet another witness viz., P.W.5 to the effect that P.W.1 went to the police station even at the early morning, we are of the considered view that in this case, the F.I.R., is nothing but a fabricated document. 17 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala AIR 1980 SC 638 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 985 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder: “ The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric off the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any number of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence. ” The principle laid down in the case cited supra is squarely applicable to the instant case as in this case also, in view of the reasons assigned by us earlier, we have held that the F.I.R in the instant case is nothing but a fabricated document and as such the entire prosecution case would collapse. 18 Now, in order to test the credibility of the version of P.Ws.4 and 5, let us scrutinise their evidence. As far as P.W.4 is concerned, the deceased is his Aunt’s son. P.W.4 has stated that A-1 came to his house on 4.8.2006 at about 3.00 a.m., and informed that there was a quarrel between himself and the deceased, as a result of which, he attacked the deceased and asked him to go and see the deceased. As far as P.W.4 is concerned, the deceased is his Aunt’s son. P.W.4 has stated that A-1 came to his house on 4.8.2006 at about 3.00 a.m., and informed that there was a quarrel between himself and the deceased, as a result of which, he attacked the deceased and asked him to go and see the deceased. P.W.4 claimed that he went to the house of P,W.1 and informed him about the same. P.W.1 also stated so in his chief-examination. But, he has not whispered a word about the Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by A-1 to P.W.4 and he in turn informing him in the earliest document viz., Exhibit P-1. It is pertinent to note that P.W.4 is residing along with his father P.W.5. P.W.5 has merely stated about the visit of A-1 to his house and he has not whispered any word about the Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by A-1 to P.W.4. Added to all these infirmities and inconsistencies, it is relevant to note that P.W.4 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he is not having close acquaintance or relationship with A-1 and he has not participated in any good or bad occasion in the family of A-1. P.W.4 has further admitted that he is a distant relative of A-1. When such being the position, we are of the considered view that it is highly improbable for A-1 to repose confidence on P.W.4 to give such a Extra Judicial Confession. 19 At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court, in respect of such extra-judicial confession, in Ravi @ Ravichandran and Another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station, Salem (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1002 : 2007 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 555; wherein this Court has held as follows at p. 1009 of MLJ (Crl): “ 28. But, in this case, it is found that there is no evidence to show that the Village Administrative Officer was known to A1. Unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person. Therefore, we straightaway reject the untrustworthy testimony of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 that A1 voluntarily confessed the crime to him. ” 20 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC (Cr) 579, has held hereunder. “ 7. Therefore, we straightaway reject the untrustworthy testimony of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 that A1 voluntarily confessed the crime to him. ” 20 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC (Cr) 579, has held hereunder. “ 7. The first and foremost aspect which needs to be taken note of is that P.W.9 is not a person who had intimate relations or friendship with the appellant. P.W.9 says that he knew the appellant “ to some extent ” meaning thereby that he had only acquaintance with him. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not visit his house earlier and that he met the appellant once or twice at the bus-stand. There is no earthly reason why he should go to P.W.9 and confide to him as to what he had done. ” 21 In yet another decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 332 : 1997 SCC (Cr) 358, has held hereunder: “ 15. The third contention of Mr. Sodhi viz., that it is highly improbable that Jaspal Singh (A1) would have gone to this witness along with his co-accused to confess the guilt, is equally formidable. Chhota Singh (P.W.7) has not given any reason as to why and how Jaspal singh (Al) and other co-accused have reposed such a confidence in him and confessed their guilt. After going through the evidence of Chhota Singh (P.W.7), we do not find it safe to hold any of the appellants guilty in the present crime. ” 22 In yet another decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) AIR 2006 SC 2242 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cr) 522 has held as follows; “ 17. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence. ” 23 The above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as in this case also, P.W.4 is not having close acquaintance or relationship with the first accused and as such, it is improbable for the first accused to repose confidence on P.W.4 to give extra - judicial confession. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. 24 The next piece of evidence available on record is only the recovery of M.O.9 - Bajaj Motor Cycle said to have been belonged to P.W.1 and M.O.10-Casuarina stick said to have been recovered at the instance of A-1. The Prosecution has chosen to examine P.Ws.13 and 14 to speak about the recovery of M.Os.9 and 10. As far as P.W.13 is concerned, he has not whispered any word about the recovery of M.O.9 at the instance of A-1. He has merely stated that A-1 came to the place in a Bajaj two wheeler and he has not stated anything further about A-1 giving any confession leading to the recovery of M.O.9. P.W.13 has merely stated that he simply signed in the Mahazar and as per his categorical statement made even in the Chief examination, he has not even identified M.O.10-Casuarina stick. P.W.14, yet another witness examined by the Prosecution to speak about the recovery of M.Os.9 and 10 has turned hostile. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recoveries made by the Investigating Officer. 25 In the light of our discussion referred to above, it will be highly unsafe and hazardous to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6 to render a conviction in a grave offence like murder. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recoveries made by the Investigating Officer. 25 In the light of our discussion referred to above, it will be highly unsafe and hazardous to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 6 to render a conviction in a grave offence like murder. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A-1 by the judgment dated 30.9.2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C. No. 43 of 2007 are liable to be set aside. 26 Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. The Conviction and Sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C. No. 43 of 2007 dated 30.9.2008 are hereby set aside. The appellant/first accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in this case. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant is in jail. Therefore, the appellant/first accused is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant/first accused forthwith.