JUDGMENT :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C. No.04 of 2010, whereby the appellant shown as second accused stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 201 read with 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accused 1, 3 to 5 stood charged, tried for the offences under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, and 201 read with 302 of the Indian Penal Code and found the second accused guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded punishment to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and acquitted the second accused in respect of other charges and acquitted accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 in respect of all charges. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus: (i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. The third accused is the wife of first accused. The second accused is the father of third accused and also fifth accused. The fourth accused is the brother of third accused. A month or two prior to the occurrence, the deceased, who developed illicit intimacy with the third accused, who is the wife of the first accused, eloped from the village. When it came to the knowledge of the villagers, they secured both of them, brought to the village and a panchayat was convened and a fine of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the deceased and he has also paid the same. Thereafter, the deceased went to Bangalore along with his wife. (ii) On 10th January, 2008, the deceased came to the village for attending the pongal festival. On 12.1.2008 at about 6 O' clock, in the morning hours, he took his cattles for grazing and he was just coming in the evening hours. At that time, all the five accused, in furtherance of common object of causind the death of the deceased Lakshmanan, attacked the deceased and caused his death and buried the dead body in the land, which was in the enjoyment of first accused. At that time, all the five accused, in furtherance of common object of causind the death of the deceased Lakshmanan, attacked the deceased and caused his death and buried the dead body in the land, which was in the enjoyment of first accused. (iii) On 16.1.2008, when P.W.3, who was ploughing the land, which was in the enjoyment of first accused, he found the dead body and immediately, he informed the same to P.W.1, who, in turn, informed the same to P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer and they found the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.6 got complaint from P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1 and presented the same before the respondent-police. P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 147, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Express First Information Report Ex.P12 was despatched to the Court. (iv) On receipt of copy of the First Information Report, P.W.10 Inspector of Police, went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P13. P.W.8 Tahsildar, on receiving requisition letter from Eriyur Police Station, has conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and inquest report is marked as Ex.P10. Thereafter, she forwarded a requisition letter to the Doctor to conduct autopsy. P.W.7 Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 final opinion, where he has opined that the death would be caused due to head injury and due to shock and hemorrhage. (v) Pending investigation, accused 1 and 5 were intercepted on 21st January, 2008, when they were going in a Two wheeler. The first accused escaped from the clutches and fifth accused was arrested, who gave confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. He also produced M.O.1 Two Wheeler and the same was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P3. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. The first and second accused surrendered before the Judicial magistrate Court, Pennagaram. Both of them were taken to police custody after obtaining necessary orders. Thereafter, the second accused has given confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P14. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. The first and second accused surrendered before the Judicial magistrate Court, Pennagaram. Both of them were taken to police custody after obtaining necessary orders. Thereafter, the second accused has given confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P14. Following the same, he has produced M.O.2 wooden log and the same was recovered in the presence of witnesses under the cover of Ex.P15 mahazar. Thereafter, the other accused were arrested. (vi) P.W.11, Inspector of Police, who took up investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 15 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 6. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. 4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinizing the materials available on record, found the second accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the punishment as referred to above and acquitted the second accused in respect of other charges and acquitted accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 in respect of all charges. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came up with a specific story that accused 1 to 5 have involved in the crime. At that time, they have taken the deceased to the place of occurrence, where he was attacked, which was witnessed by P.W.5. It is pertinent to point out that P.W.5 has turned hostile. The prosecution has come up with a specific motive that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the third accused and eloped with her and the same was secured by the villagers and thereupon a panchayat was convened, in which P.W.5 was a Panchayatar and the deceased was fined a sum of Rs.50,000/-and the deceased has also paid the same. The prosecution has come up with a specific motive that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the third accused and eloped with her and the same was secured by the villagers and thereupon a panchayat was convened, in which P.W.5 was a Panchayatar and the deceased was fined a sum of Rs.50,000/-and the deceased has also paid the same. The prosecution has further added that on the date of occurrence, P.W.5 found the deceased and the third accused were talking with each other and the same was witnessed by him. It is pertinent to point out that the motive attributed in the entire story of prosecution is that the third accused, who is the wife of the first accused, had illicit intimacy with the deceased and it is not the wife of the second accused. Hence, there is no motive against the second accused. However, the learned Trial Judge was not ready to believe the case of the prosecution insofar as first and other accused are concerned and acquitted all of them, but found the second accused guilty. 6. Learned counsel added further that according to the prosecution, it was P.W.3, who found the dead body in a piece of land, which was in the enjoyment of first accused, while he was ploughing during the relevant time, but the Village Administrative Officer has categorically deposed that neither evidence nor record is available to indicate that it was in the enjoyment or possession of second accused during relevant time. In the absence of the same, it cannot be stated that the land, in which the deceased was found, was not in the enjoyment of the first accused. 7. Learned counsel added further that the learned Trial Judge has found the second accused guilty only on the confession statement of fifth accused that it was the second accused, who attacked the deceased with wooden log and caused his death. According to the learned counsel, it is pertinent to point out that the confession statement given by the co-accused can be accepted provided there is available evidence to ensure that there are truth of materials and particulars found therein. In the instant case, there is no evidence available at all to prove the case of the prosecution that it was the second accused, who attacked the deceased with wooden log. In the instant case, there is no evidence available at all to prove the case of the prosecution that it was the second accused, who attacked the deceased with wooden log. It can be well stated that it is bereft of evidence to find the second accused guilty. 8. Learned counsel added further that it is a matter of surprise to note that the learned Trial Judge has acquitted fifth accused, but convicted second accused only, which was not supported by any piece of evidence. The medical opinion canvassed through post-mortem Certificate would be available for the prosecution is to the extent that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to head injury and nothing more. In the instant case, there is nothing to connect the second accused to the crime in question. Learned Trial Judge has taken an erroneous view. The appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of the Court. 9. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 10. It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Lakshmanan was found in the piece of land, which was ploughed by P.W.3. After registration of the case, the inquest was made by P.W.8 Tahsildar and after preparation of inquest report, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem and P.W.7 Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, gave his categorical opinion in Ex.P9 final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died five or six days prior to the autopsy due to head injury and due to shock and hemorrhage. The prosecution was successful enough in proving the said fact. 11. The gist of the prosecution case was that the third accused, who is the wife of the first accused, had illicit intimacy with the deceased and they eloped from the village and the villagers secured them. Thereafter, there was a panchayat, where a fine of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the deceased and he has also paid the same. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the entire episode relates to first and third accused and nothing could be attributed insofar as second accused is concerned. 12. Added further, the entire case of prosecution rests on the confession statement alleged to have been given by fifth accused at the time of interception by the investigator. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the entire episode relates to first and third accused and nothing could be attributed insofar as second accused is concerned. 12. Added further, the entire case of prosecution rests on the confession statement alleged to have been given by fifth accused at the time of interception by the investigator. The prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. At the time of confession statement, the fifth accused has stated as to be involvement of second accused, who attacked the deceased with wooden log. It is settled preposition of law that in order to find the accused guilty on the confession statement of the co-accused, it cannot ordinarily be done. In order to accept the confession statement, the other evidence is to be available. In the instant case, no iota of evidence is available to prove that the second accused attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence. 13. The added circumstance, which stood against the prosecution, was the motive. Insofar as motive was concerned, nothing is available as against the second accused. Added further, the deceased was found in the land, which was under the enjoyment of the first accused during the relevant time. But P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer has categorically stated that there was no record or evidence to show that the land was under the enjoyment of first accused during the relevant time. 14. Added further, the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, on 12th January, 2008. P.W.1 or anybody from the family has not made a complaint to the police in respect of the missing of the deceased. Only on 16th January, 2008, when the deceased was found, P.W.3 informed the same to P.W.1, who in turn informed the same to P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer and thereafter, a case was registered directly under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and not registered as suspicious death. Insofar as the recovery is concerned, nothing is incriminating against second accused. 15. Insofar as the recovery is concerned, nothing is incriminating against second accused. 15. When the learned Trial Judge was not ready to believe the case of the prosecution that there was any common object between the accused and acquitted the second accused in respect of offences under Sections 147, 148 of the Indian Penal code and acquitted accused 1, 3 4, and 5 in respect of all the charges levelled against them, as a matter of surpise, the learned Trial Judge has found guilty only second accused on the confession statement alleged to have been given by fifth accused, which was not supported by any evidence. In such circumstances, without any hesitation, the Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned Trial Judge has got to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the above criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C. No.04 of 2010 and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant/second accused viz. Manickam, who is confined in Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence/custody is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him.