Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, made in S.C.No.40/2009 whereby the Accused/Appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 120-B, IPC and 302 r/w 34, IPC (2 counts) and awarded two years. Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 120B, IPC and life imprisonment (two counts) for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count, in default, to undergo six months’ Rigorous Imprisonment each for each count. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal can be stated as follows: (a) The deceased Selvaraj and his wife Parvathi were the residents of Soorakuzhi Village, situate within the jurisdiction of the Respondent-Police; that both of them were doing brick work, that the First Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/- from one Ravi through the deceased Selvaraj; that when a demand was made, the First Accused did not repay the same and hence, there arose enmity between them; that the First Accused outraged the modesty of the deceased Selvaraj’s wife and equally, the deceased Selvaraj also attempted to outrage the modesty of the sister of the First Accused; that on that account, both were angry withy each other; that on 8.3.2009 at about 5.00 a.m., when both the deceases were going for brick work and while they were passing the cart pathway in the cashewnut field of one Thillaigovindan, both the Accused, armed with aruval, waylaid them, that A1 and A2 attacked the deceased Selvaraj and Parvath7y indiscriminately with aruval and caused cut injuries and both the deceased died instantaneously; that thereafter, the Appellants ran away from the place of occurrence; that P.Ws. 2 and 3 heard the distressing cry of the both the deceased and when they went nearby the place, they found the dead bodies of the deceased Selvaraj and Parvathi; that when P.W.4 was proceeding to his work at about 5.00 a.m. on 8.3.2009, he saw both the Accused along with the weapons of crime. (b) P.W.1 gave a Complaint-Ex.P1 to P.W.14-Head Constable of the Respondent-Police. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.146/2009 under Section 302, IPC, 2 counts. The First Information Report Ex.P11 was sent to Court. (C) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. (b) P.W.1 gave a Complaint-Ex.P1 to P.W.14-Head Constable of the Respondent-Police. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.146/2009 under Section 302, IPC, 2 counts. The First Information Report Ex.P11 was sent to Court. (C) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.3 and also drew a Rough Sketch-Ex.P14 in the presence of witnesses. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the first deceased Selvaraj and prepared the Inquest Report-Ex.P15 and thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the second deceased Parvathi and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.16 in the presence of witnesses. (d) While the matter stood thus, both the Accused appeared before P.W.9 Village Administrative Officer and gave confessional statement on 9.3.2009 and the same was recorded, which was marked as Ex.P5 and on their production before the Investigator-P.W.17, the Accused gave confessional statement, pursuant to the confessional statement, they produced M.Os. 3 and 4-Aruvals and the same were recovered under a cover of mahazar and the appellants/Accused were sent for judicial remand. All the Material Objects were placed before the Court and they were subjected to analysis and Ex.P17-Serologist Report was received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the Accused, the prosecution examined 17 Witnesses and relied on 17 Exhibits and 8 Material Objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The Trial Court, on hearing the arguments on either side, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of both the Accused/Appellants and rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as referred to above. Hence, this Appeal at the instance of the Appellants/A1 and A2. 4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the Appellants, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon two circumstances. Hence, this Appeal at the instance of the Appellants/A1 and A2. 4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the Appellants, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon two circumstances. Firstly, P.W.4 would say that he saw both the Accused/Appellants along with the weapons of crime nearby the place of occurrence at about 5.00 a.m. on 8.3.2009. The prosecution much relied on the evidence of P.W.4. The occurrence had taken place at about 5.00 a.m. on 8.3.2009. According to the prosecution, immediately, when the Accused were proceeding after the crime. P.W.4 say them and to that effect, he has clearly given statement to the Investigator and also deposed before the Court. But the evidence of P.V.4 should have been rejected by the Trial Court for the reasons that even at the time of chief examination, P.W.4 has stated that at 5.00 a.m. when he proceeded for his daily work, both the Accused persons joined him and at that time, they were having some weapons, by which, it cannot be inferred that the Accused were proceeding after commissio9n of offence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 is no way worthwhile to be relied on by the prosecution. 5. Learned Counsel would further submit that the second circumstance, which according to the prosecution was strong, is that on 9.3.2009, when P.W.9-Village Administrative Officer was in his office, A1 and A2 appeared before him and gave confessional statement which was recorded and P.W.9 prepared a statement Ex.P.5. Thereafter, the Accused were produced before the Police and both the Accused came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily and the same was also recorded by the Investigator-P.W.17. Then the Accused produced M.O.3 and M.O.4, the weapon of crime respectively. Much reliance was placed before the Trial Court on the confessional statement given by the Accused before the V.A.O. and the Trial Judge accepted the same as the strong piece of evidence but the Trial Court should have rejected this piece of evidence for the reason that according to P.W.9-Village Administrative Officer, both the Accused persons appeared before him on 9.3.2009. According to P.W.9, he produced both of the Accused before the Police Officer along with the statement given by them and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered originally. According to P.W.9, he produced both of the Accused before the Police Officer along with the statement given by them and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered originally. Pointing to the evidence of P.W.5, learned Counsel would submit that according to P.W.5, on the date of occurrence both the Accused appeared before the V.A.O. at 8.45 a.m. on 8.3.2009. But according to the V.A.O. the Accused appeared before him only on 9.3.2009 i.e., on he next day of the occurrence. Therefore, it is quite clear that such a confessional statement could not have been given by the Accused to the V.A.O. or the V.A.O. could not have recorded the same. This would clearly indicate that the alleged confession statement was introduced in order to strengthen the prosecution case as possible but in vain. The alleged confession and recovery were all false. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. The Trial Judge should have rejected the case of the prosecution but has taken an erroneous view and found the Accused guilty of the charges. Hence, the Accused/Appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that two dead bodies (1) Selvaraj, and (2) Parvathi were found in the place of occurrence on 8.3.2009 at 8.30 a.m. and following the registration of the case by the Respondent Police for murder, 2 counts, investigation was taken up by P.W.17-Inspector of Police. He proceeded to the spot and prepared the inquest reports and sent the dead bodies for Post-mortem, P.W.15, Doctor conducted autopsy and gave opinion in Exs.P.12 and P.13-Post-mortem Certificate of Selvaraj and Parvathi respectively that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to major arteries and vessels, 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the Appellants before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Judge is perfectly correct in recording that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. 8. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the Appellants, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but relied upon the circumstantial evidence. Hence, the Trial Judge is perfectly correct in recording that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. 8. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the Appellants, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but relied upon the circumstantial evidence. At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that in a given case like this, the prosecution should place and prove necessary circumstances which should constitute a chain, without a snap, pointing to the hypothesis that except the Accused no one could have committed the offence. If this principle is applied, the Court is afraid to sustain the conviction and sentence made by the Trial Court. In the instant case, the occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 a.m. on 8.3.2009, in which, both Selvaraj and Parvathi were done to death and the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. According to the prosecution, when P.W.4 went for work, he saw both the Accused nearby the place of occurrence and they were having weapons in their hands. Merely because they were having weapons in the hand, it cannot be inferred that the Accused were proceeding from the place of occurrence after commission of offence. Thus the evidence of P.W.4 was not useful to the prosecution. 9. Insofar as the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the Accused before the P.W.9, V.A.O is concerned, it cannot be relied upon for the following reason. It is settled principle of law that when the extra-judicial confession inspires the confidence of the Court, the Court can act upon and sustain the conviction, but in the instant case, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court. According to the prosecution when P.W.9 was in his office on 9.3.2009, i.3., on the next day of the occurrence, both the Accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement and he recorded the same and it was marked as Ex.P5. On the contrary, P.W.5 has stated that both the Accused persons appeared before the V.A.O. at 8.45 a.m. on 8.3.2009 itself but according to P.W.9, they appeared before him only on 9.3.2009, apart from the same, according to P.W.9, thereafter, both the Accused were taken to the Police Station and it was he, who gave a report and on the strength of the report, a case came to be registered. It is pertinent to point out that the case was already registered on 8.3.2009 but according to the testimony of P.W.9 only on his report on 9.3.2009, a case came to be registered. Hence, it would caste a doubt whether the Accused appeared at the office of V.A.O. and gave statement to V.A.O. end it was recorded by V.A.O. in Ex.P5. It is also seen from the records that Ex.P.5 statement of V.A.O. has reached the Court only after 20 days from the date of occurrence. All would indicate that after both the Accused were secured, the service of P.W.9, V.A.O. was taken by the Police in order to strengthen the case. Hence, it cannot be given any evidentiary value. Apart from that, the prosecution had no further circumstance to place or prove against the Accused. Though the prosecution has proved that both the deceased died out of homicidal violence, the prosecution has miserably failed to place or prove necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the Accused or nexus of the Accused with the crime. The Trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and found them guilty of the charges. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Trial Court has got to be undone only by upsetting the same and the Appellants are entitled for acquittal. 10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction end sentence imposed on the Appellants/A1 and A2 by the Trial Court is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. They are directed to be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any case. First amount if any paid by the Appellants is ordered to be refunded to them.