JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—The State is in appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The respondents were charged with the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Sessions Judge has found on evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt in as much as the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, acquitted. 2. We have heard Mr. G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. On a complaint lodged by P.W. 6 a case is registered as against the respondents for the aforesaid offences. Ex. P4 is the complaint, which would disclose that when the complainant was trying to contact his brother and sister over the telephone, he was not in a position to get in touch with them. The complaint would disclose that he telephoned them several times in the day to talk to them including his wife. But however, since there was no response, the complainant had to come down from Canada and on coming from Canada found that the door of the house was locked from inside and a foul smell was coming out of the house where his brother and sister were residing. He contacted the police immediately thereafter, the police came alongwith a lock repairer who broke open the door and they entered the house and found two decomposed bodies, i.e., the brother and sister of the complainant. Before this exercise was done, the complainant was in touch with some of his relatives to ascertain as to the non-response from the residence of his brother and sister. It is the case of prosecution that; he got a prepaid ticket from Indian Airlines on Monday August 5th by 6.45 a.m. flight he reached Bangalore with his wife and his friend one A.C. Subramani came to Airport to pick them up and came to their house in a taxi and found that the door was locked from inside and there was a foul smell coming out of the house. Immediately thereafter, he lodged a complaint with the Ulsoor Police station and a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code as against unknown persons. 4. Immediately thereafter, he lodged a complaint with the Ulsoor Police station and a case has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code as against unknown persons. 4. The investigation was taken up and certain recoveries were made from the accused. Hence, charge sheet was filed as against, the respondents and matter is committed to Sessions. All the accused persons were produced before the Court. It is noticed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no means to engage a counsel and requested for legal assistance. The legal assistance was provided. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to establish the case has examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 28. Exs. P1 to P32 were marked and M.Os 1 to 51 were produced and the statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 was recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Indeed, the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 6. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had a common intention to commit murder of Ramkumar and his elder sister Kasturi Bai, who were residing in the house bearing No. 13, Car Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore and to commit dacoity of valuables. In furtherance of the said common intention, two weeks prior to 5.8.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., accused No. 2 stood as guard in front of the house and accused No. 3 as guard at the rear side of the house. Accused No. 1 entered the said house with a hammer and cutting pliers and assaulted on the head of Ramkumar and Kasturi Bai and disconnected the telephone wire and committed theft of golden jewels, silver jewels, wrist watches, time pieces, clothing, cash etc. 7. On 6.8.2002 a spot mahazar as per Ex. P5 before panchayathdars was drawn and he found the dead bodies of his brother and sister, i.e., Ramkumar and Kasturi Bai in the Pooja Room. An inquest mahazar was conducted in respect of the body of Kasturi Bai as per Ex. P8 and inquest mahazar in respect of the body of Ramkumar as per Ex. P1, the bodies were sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, the records were handed over to CW53 for investigation. An inquest mahazar was conducted in respect of the body of Kasturi Bai as per Ex. P8 and inquest mahazar in respect of the body of Ramkumar as per Ex. P1, the bodies were sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, the records were handed over to CW53 for investigation. CW53 investigated the case in part and handed over the case to one Puttaswamy, the Police Inspector for further investigation as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 28.1.2003. The Police Inspector partly investigated the case and handed over the case to CW54 one H. Siddappa, the Police Inspector for further investigation. CW54 arrested accused Nos. 1. and 2 on 4.5.2003 and accused No. 3 on 8.5.2003 and recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1. to 3 and in pursuance of the voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 seized the golden, silver jewels, wrist watches, time pieces, clothings and cash in all. valued at Rs. 2,00,000/-. 8. The prosecution in order to establish a case has examined P.Ws. 1 to 28. P.W. 1 is the inquest mahazar witness in respect of the dead body of deceased Ram Kumar. P.W. 2 is one of the relative of the deceased and also inquest mahazar witness. P.W. 3 is the maternal uncle of deceased Kum. Kasturi Bai and also inquest mahazar witness. P.W. 4 is one of the relative of the deceased persons and was present at the time of inquest mahazar witness in respect of the dead bodies of Kasturi Bai and Ram Kumar. P.W. 3 is the inquest mahazar in respect of the dead body of Kasturi Bai. P.W. 6 is the complainant who is the younger brother of deceased Kasturi Bai and the elder brother of deceased Ram Kumar. P.W. 7 speaks about, the spot mahazar Ex. P5 and who was supplying newspapers to the house of the deceased. 9. In support of the prosecution many witnesses have been examined. But, however, for the purpose of consideration whether the order of acquittal is just and proper in the circumstances of the case, we are required to look into the evidence of the Doctor, i.e., P.W. 21. The post mortem reports are at Exs. P18 and 19. 10. 9. In support of the prosecution many witnesses have been examined. But, however, for the purpose of consideration whether the order of acquittal is just and proper in the circumstances of the case, we are required to look into the evidence of the Doctor, i.e., P.W. 21. The post mortem reports are at Exs. P18 and 19. 10. Indeed, the doctor would depose that he has been working since 1997 in the Bowring Hospital and on 6.8.2002 the body of Kasturi Bai aged 63 years old was sent for Post Mortem. On the same day he performed the post mortem and found on her person one pair of gold ear rings, three metal bangles and six yellow and red colour plastic bangles. He also found a cotton jacket on the person of the dead body and also a saree. He found that the height of the dead body is 5 ft. He has also deposed that the body was highly decomposed and was emitting foul smell. He has also deposed that the tongue was protruding from the mouth and the better part of the head and neck were all decomposed. He also found that there were no eye-balls and the hair on the head had all become brittle. Indeed, he has also deposed that he did not find any external injuries on the person. He also found that the kidneys as well as the urinary tract were decomposed. He would also further depose that the death of Kasturi Bai was neither due to poisoning nor due to any strangulation. 11. Insofar as post mortem in respect of the dead body of Ram Kumar, which is at Ex. P19 is concerned, it would indicate that the body was highly decomposed and he was not in a position to make a fair assessment whether it was homicidal death or otherwise. He also states that the poisoning is also ruled out. With this evidence we are required to consider whether the acquittal of the accused would be justified. 12. Mr. G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor submits that even though the case would rest, entirely on circumstantial evidence, the fact that there was recovery from the accused itself would go to show that they were involved in the crime. He further submits that notwithstanding the evidence of Doctor, i.e., P.W. 21 and Exs. 12. Mr. G. Bhavani Singh, learned State Public Prosecutor submits that even though the case would rest, entirely on circumstantial evidence, the fact that there was recovery from the accused itself would go to show that they were involved in the crime. He further submits that notwithstanding the evidence of Doctor, i.e., P.W. 21 and Exs. P18 and P19, the post mortem reports, the other attending circumstances and the voluntary extra judicial confession before P.W. 10 would clearly establish every link in the chain, 13. Learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the entire ease of the prosecution would rest on circumstantial evidence. He submits that once it is established that there is no homicidal death and poisoning is also ruled out, the other attending circumstances including extra judicial confession recorded before P.W. 10 will not assume importance and the prosecution has failed to drive home the guilt. Indeed, the following point arises for our consideration: (i) Whether the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered? 14. We have already referred to the evidence of P.W. 21, the Doctor and also Exs. P18 and P19, the post-mortem reports. Insofar as evidence of P.W. 1 is concerned, he is a witness to the inquest mahazar at Exs. P1 and P8 so also P.W. 2-Saraswathi. P.W. 3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. Insofar as P.W. 4 is concerned she has turned hostile. P.W. 5 is the signatory to the inquest. P.W. 6 as observed is the complainant who identifies M.Os 1 to 19. P.W. 7 has turned hostile, P.W. 8 who has opened the lock of the house. P.W. 9-Nandakumar is a friend of P.W. 6. Indeed, his evidence can be looked into only for the purpose of ascertaining whether P.W. 6 had really contacted him for the purpose of ascertaining the well being of the deceased brother as well as sister. P.W. 10 is before whom the accused have given extra judicial confession. P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the friends of P.W. 6 with whom he was in touch to ascertain well being of his deceased brother as well as sister. P.W. 17 is the Engineer who has prepared the sketch. P.W. 22 is the recovery witness. The other witnesses are all police witnesses. 15. P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the friends of P.W. 6 with whom he was in touch to ascertain well being of his deceased brother as well as sister. P.W. 17 is the Engineer who has prepared the sketch. P.W. 22 is the recovery witness. The other witnesses are all police witnesses. 15. Indeed to drive home the offence in a case of circumstantial evidence, the investigating agency or the prosecution is required to prove all the links in the chain. Indeed, in this case we notice that there are absolutely no eyewitnesses, hence, the prosecution case would rest only on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance, which the prosecution would rely, is only one that is recovery from accused Nos. 1 to 3. We are of the view that by itself would not be a ground for us to hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence. 16. Indeed, the doctor who is a witness has deposed that he is not in a position to ascertain as to the cause of death inasmuch as he would concede that it is not a case of homicidal death. The fact that certain articles are recovered from the accused by itself will not be a conclusive proof and cannot be used as a circumstance that they have committed the offence. If that part of the evidence is eschewed, what is left is only the other evidence, which does not conclusively prove that the accused were involved in the said offence. 17. Insofar as the other two grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied is that, the extra judicial confession which was made before P.W. 10 cannot be accepted inasmuch as that would be weakest evidence. Indeed, the conviction certainly cannot be based on the said extra judicial confession. More so, when the medical evidence runs contrary to the said extra judicial confession. Another factor, which would certainly weigh with us is the delay in lodging the complaint inasmuch as the Doctor has opined that the death must have occurred about two weeks prior to his conducting of post mortem. But, however, the delay in lodging a complaint per se may not be very important. Another factor, which would certainly weigh with us is the delay in lodging the complaint inasmuch as the Doctor has opined that the death must have occurred about two weeks prior to his conducting of post mortem. But, however, the delay in lodging a complaint per se may not be very important. But nevertheless when P.W. 6 was trying to get in touch with his brother and sister, he was also trying to get in touch with his friend but he did not get any response and had to come down from Canada and went to his house and found foul smell coming out of the house. This itself prompted P.W. 6 in lodging the complaint. Thus, the delay in filing the complaint may find importance. 18. Indeed, the case of the prosecution would indicate that all the accused were working as servants of the deceased. But, however, we notice that the evidence in this regard is inconsistent inasmuch as some of the witnesses would depose that they were the tenants and some others deposed that they were the servants. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this inconsistent evidence cannot be made a ground to drive home the guilt. This also cannot be termed as circumstance on which we can hold that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were involved in the crime. Having said so, we are of the view that the judgment of acquittal cannot be faulted. 19. Appeal stands dismissed. 20. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.9.2010, respondent No. 1 was committed to prison. We also note that respondent No. 3 was produced before this Court under the non-bailable warrant. Respondent No. 3 was discharged and was directed to execute bond for Rs.1,00,000/- before the Trial Court to bind himself during the pendency of this appeal 21. Since, we have upheld the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the respondent. No. 1 shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. 22. Insofar as respondent. No. 3 is concerned, the bail bond stands cancelled.