Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the First Accused challenging the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 11.11.2010, made in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Special Court for trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore. 2. The Appellant / First Accused was charged and convicted as follows: Under Section 449 of IPC .. R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of 6 months, R.I. Under Section 302 of IPC.. R.I. for life and fine of Rs.15,000/- with default sentence of 9 months, R.I. Under Section 380 of IPC.. R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of 3 months, R.I. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was also ordered. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows: On 17.8.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the Accused namely Ramesh (Appellant/A1) and Ganesh (A2) on coming to know that Tmt.Kamalam, mother of P.W.1-Senthilvel was in the house alone, hatched a plan to murder her and steal the articles. Accordingly, both the Accused entered into the house of Kamalam with Clutch Cable Wire (M.O.27) and when Kamalam was lying in the bedroom, A2 strangled her with M.O.27 Clutch Cable Wire, A1 smothered her face with a pillow and consequently, she died of homicidal violence. Thereafter, they opened the bureau and A1 stolen two Titan Watches (M.O.3 and 4), A2-Stolen Nokia Cell Phone (M.O.5) and both the Accused also removed the Ear-Stud (M.O.1) and also Golden Bangle – M.O.2. A2 also took two hundies which contained cash and both the Accused stolen articles worth about Rs.25,000/- and thereby committed the above said offence. 4. P.W.1-Senthilvel, is the son of deceased Kamalam, P.W.2 is the daughter of deceased Kamalam, P.W.1’s elder son namely Arjun Karthik were staying in the Housing Board Tenements at Gandhipuram along with the deceased and the younger son of P.W.1 is an hosteller. The wife of P.W.1 at that time, was employed in Jamaica. 5. P.W.2 after returning from the work, went to the house of P.W.1 and she found it was bolted from outside. When she opened the door and went inside, she found that lights were switched on and T.V. was also switched on. The wife of P.W.1 at that time, was employed in Jamaica. 5. P.W.2 after returning from the work, went to the house of P.W.1 and she found it was bolted from outside. When she opened the door and went inside, she found that lights were switched on and T.V. was also switched on. She called her mother and went inside the Kitchen and she was not there, and hence she went to the bedroom. In the bedroom, she found that her mother was lying and when she called her, there was no response. P.W.2 also found the bureau was opened and she got panic. By raising alarm, she came outside and immediately contacted P.W.1 through Phone. 6. P.W.1 was employed as a driver in Karthik Travels and after attending the duty, he was returning home and at that time, he got the information. P.W.1 went to the office and after informing his superior, returned to his home and found that his mother was dead. P.W.1 also found the bureau was opened and cloths were straying around and he found that ear-stud worn by his mother (deceased) was removed and so also the gold bangle worn by her. P.W.1 also found that his and his wife’s watch were missing and also Nokia Cell phone and two hundies. P.W.1 was advised to lodge a Police Complaint and he dictated the Complaint to some person standing nearby. The Complaint was also signed by P.W.2 and he took the same to B4-Race Course Road Police Station, Coimbatore City. 7. P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes) attached to the said Police Station and she received the Complaint at about 22.30 hours on 17.8.2009 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.1480/2009 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. Printed FIR was marked as Ex.P12. P.W.13 despatched the Complaint-Ex.P1 and FIR-Ex.P12 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore and also copies of the same to his superior officials. 8. P.W.17-Inspector of Police received a wireless message at about 23.00 hours on 17.8.2009 with regard to the commission of the above said offence and took up the investigation. P.W.17 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and by that time, P.W.13 summoned the services of photographer-P.W.5 and Fingerprint Expert-P.W.4 as well as the Dog Squad to the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence was photographed byP.W.5 and the services of snuffer dog were used. P.W.17 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and by that time, P.W.13 summoned the services of photographer-P.W.5 and Fingerprint Expert-P.W.4 as well as the Dog Squad to the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence was photographed byP.W.5 and the services of snuffer dog were used. P.W.4-Fingerprint expert took fingerprints from bureau, M.O.30 Vessel as well as from the drawer. 9. P.W.17 in the presence of witnesses namely Sureshkumar and Gunasekaran, preferred the Observation Mahazar under Ex.P10 and Rough Sketch under Ex.P21 P.W.17 recovered small button used for wearing the ear-stud, pillow and a vessel (M.O.28 to 30) under the cover of mahazar Ex.P11 and also prepared Observation Mahazar, P.W.11 is one of the witnesses to the above said Mahazars. 10. P.W.17 conducted inquest at about 1.00 a.m. on 18.8.2009 in the presence of panchayatars and prepared an Inquest Report under Ex.P22. In order to find out the cause of death of the deceased, he made a requisition through P.W.12 for conducting Post-mortem. 11. P.W.14 on receipt of requisition through P.W.12, conducted Post-mortem on 18.8.2009 at about 10.45 a.m. and issued Post-mortem Certificate under Ex.P.13. As per the Post-mortem Certificate issued by P.W.14, under Ex.P13, the following features / injuries were noted: “The following ante-mortem injuries noted on the body.:Peticheal hemorrhages noted on left side conjunctiva. A complete transverse ligature pressure abrasion mark measuring 33 x 0.25 cm noted on the front, sides and back of middle of neck and crossing the midline over the back of the neck in the midline, the left lower end, 4 cms below the right upper end. The anatomical landmark of the ligature mark is as follows: - 7 cm below right mastoid. - 7 cm below left mastoid. - 9 cm below chin. On bloodless dissection of neck: The base of the ligature mark is soft with intermittent bruising of underlying soft tissues. - Transverse contusion of 3 x 2 x 1 cm noted on left side neck at the level upper border of thyroid cartilage. Left side superior cornu of thyroid cartilage found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion. - Transverse Contusion of 2 x 1 cm noted on anterior surface of the upper border of thyroid cartilage. - Contusion of 3 x 1 cm noted on right side neck at the level of right superior cornu of thyroid cartilage. Right side superior cornu of thyroid cartilage found fractured with surrounding tissue contused. - Transverse Contusion of 2 x 1 cm noted on anterior surface of the upper border of thyroid cartilage. - Contusion of 3 x 1 cm noted on right side neck at the level of right superior cornu of thyroid cartilage. Right side superior cornu of thyroid cartilage found fractured with surrounding tissue contused. - Vertical contusion of 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm noted on anterior aspect of pre-vertebral fascia at the level of C4 and C5. - A linear scratch abrasion of 1 x 0.25 cm noted on left lower and outer eye-lid. - A curve linear abrasion of 0.75 x 0.25 cm noted on left side anterior border of floor of the nose. - A curve linear abrasion of 0.75 x 0.25 cm noted on mid line of upper lip, 0.5 cm below to nose. - A vertical contusion of 1 x 0.5 cm noted on inter aspect of lower lip at the level of mid line. - Nasal Septal mucosa found contused on both sides. Other Findings: - Peritoneal & Pleural cavities – Empty. - Lungs – cut section – congested. - Heart: right side chambers contain few cc of fluid blood, Left side chambers empty. Coronaries patent. Hyoid bone intact. - Stomach contains about 150 grams of partially digested food particles (cooked rice), no specific smell, mucosa congested. - Small Intestine contains about 20 ml. of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, ucosa congested. - Liver, Spleen, Brain & Kidneys – cut section congested. - Urinary bladder – empty. - Uterus – atrophic. Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis.” As per the Post-mortem Certificate under Ex.P13, P.W.14 opined, “The deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to violent compression of neck associated with closure of external respiratory orifices. The death would have occurred at about 12.00 to 24.00 hours prior to the autopsy.” P.W.14 also opined that no poisonous substances were noted in the body as per his final opinion Ex.P15. 12. After the autopsy, P.W.12, seized Sari (M.O.31), Petticoat (M.O.32) and Blouse (M.O.33) from the body and submitted the same to P.W.17 by means of a special report under Ex.P23. The seized articles were forwarded to the Court by P.W.17. P.W.17 had examined P.W.6, P.W.3, P.W.8 and one Muthu on 19.8.2009 and examined P.W.1, P.W.2, elder son of P.W.1 on 20.8.2009 and recorded their statements. The seized articles were forwarded to the Court by P.W.17. P.W.17 had examined P.W.6, P.W.3, P.W.8 and one Muthu on 19.8.2009 and examined P.W.1, P.W.2, elder son of P.W.1 on 20.8.2009 and recorded their statements. P.W.17 during the course of investigation developed suspicion against A1 who is related to P.W.1 and deceased and on information, P.W.17 effected the arrest of both Accused on 25.8.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 16. Both the Accused volunteered to give confession statements. A1 voluntarily gave a concession statement on 25.8.2009 between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. and A2 voluntarily gave a confession statement between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.s10 and 16 had signed as witnesses. As per the admissible portion of A1’s confession statement marked as Ex.P19, M.Os3 to 5 were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P9 and as per the admissible portion A2’s confession statement marked as Ex.P20, M.O.27 – Clutch Wire was recovered under the cover of mahazar-Ex.P7 and thereafter, Ear-stud and Gold Bangle (M.Os. 1 and 2) were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P8. 13. P.W.17 made a requisition to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to conduct a Test Identification Parade and P.W.15 – Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore was assigned to perform the said duty. P.W.15 after observing procedural formalities, conducted Test Identification Parade at Coimbatore Central Prison on 25.9.2009 and the proceedings of Test Identification Parade was marked as Ex.P16. On 26.9.2009, P.W.17 recorded the statements of P.W.3 and 6 and also examined P.W.14-Doctor who conducted the autopsy and P.W.13. P.W.17 after completion of investigation, has filed the final report on 19.11.2009 charging both the Accused for the commission of the offence under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. 14. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, on receipt of the final report, has committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore and thereafter, it was transferred to the file of Special Court for trial of Bomb Blast Cases where charges were framed against the Accused on 16.11.2009 for the alleged commission of the offence under Sections 449, 302 and 380 of IPC. On questioning, both the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them. 15. The prosecution in order to sustain the charges framed against the Accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P23 and prosecution also marked M.Os. 1 to 33. 16. On questioning, both the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them. 15. The prosecution in order to sustain the charges framed against the Accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P23 and prosecution also marked M.Os. 1 to 33. 16. Both the Accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence let in by the prosecution and they denied the same as false. On behalf of the Accused no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 17. The Trial Court on taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences and the Material Objects, found the Accused guilty of all charges and imposed the sentence as stated above and aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 alone, has preferred this Appeal and no Appeal has been preferred by A2 till the date of hearing of this Appeal. 18. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/A1 would submit that the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and in order to prove the circumstances, pointing the guilt on the part of the Appellant/A1, the following circumstances were projected by the prosecution: (a) Motive for the commission of the murder, through the evidence of P.W.1- son of the deceased; (b) The accused were seen near the scene of occurrence / entering into the house of the deceased, through the testimonies of P.W.s3, 6 and 8.; (c) Test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.15-learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore; (d) Arrest of the Accused and the recovery of incriminating articles, through P.W.10; (e) The opinion of the Fingerprint Expert (P.W.4) and his Report-Ex.P4. 19. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that according to P.W.1 in his chief-examination that on 20.8.2009 he was examined by the police and he was asked whether he has got any suspicion against anybody and he disclosed the name of A1-Ramesh as the suspect for the reason that after the demise of his mother, the parents of Ramesh came and left in the half way. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that the Police asked the above said query on the evening hours of 19.8.2009 and be told the Police that about one month prior to the occurrence, A1-Ramesh asked for some money for business purpose. 20. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that the Police asked the above said query on the evening hours of 19.8.2009 and be told the Police that about one month prior to the occurrence, A1-Ramesh asked for some money for business purpose. 20. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and would submit that the last two lines of the said statement would indicate that the name of A1 figures as the suspected Accused. However, P.W.17 in his cross-examination has deposed that prior to 20.8.2009 he was not aware that A1 is the concerned Accused and in the documents prior to 20.8.2009, the name of both the Accused did not find place. P.W.17 also denied the suggestion that in the 161 (3) statement of P.W.1 recorded on 18.8.2009, two lines were inserted. It is further admitted by P.W.17 in his cross-examination the further statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. on 20.8.2009 were received by the Court on 23.11.2009. 21. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant drawing the attention of this Court to the deposition of P.Ws.1 and 17 would submit that as per the Section 161 (3) statement of P.W.1 dated 18.8.2009, the Appellant/A1 is the suspected Accused and there seems to be insertion in the last two lines of the said statement which implicate the Appellant. 22. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that though there was a specific denial by P.W.17 with regard to the said insertion, the fact remains the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 dated 20.8.2009 has reached the Court only on 23.11.2009 and though in the later portion of the cross-examination P.W.17 has deposed that the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 dated 18.8.2009 reached the Court on the same day, the fact remains that the Accused were fixed only on 20.8.2009 and reason as to the delay in dispatching the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Court, has not at all been explained by the prosecution. 23. 23. It is further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the motive as projected by the prosecution through the testimony of P.W.1 is flimsy and cannot be believed in the light of above facts and circumstances and hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive on the part of the Appellant. 24. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would further submit the case of the prosecution primarily depends upon the testimonies of P.Ws.3, 6 and 8, who said to have seen the Accused near the scene of occurrence-house of P.W.1 in which his mother / deceased was stayed. 25. P.W.3 is one of the residents of the Housing Board Tenements and in his chief-examination, deposed that on 17.8.2009 at about 6.30 p.m. from the house of P.W.1 the Accused came out and though he had seen them, he did not talk to them. P.W.3 further deposed that his son was unwell, he went to the hospital and returned at around 9.00 p.m. and he was enquired by the police on 19.9.2009. Subsequently, P.W.1 informed him on 25.8.2009 about the arrest of the Accused and he was issued with summons to participate in the Test Identification Parade and he identified the Accused. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 has deposed that till he was enquired by the police, he did not at all enquire about the seeing of the Accused near the scene of occurrence and he also did not state before the Police as to his son’s illness and the hospital visit. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that before Test Identification Parade, he was shown with the photographs of the Accused and also denied the suggestion that he did not see the Accused while they were coming out of the house of the deceased. 26. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that P.W.3 would not have seen the Accused coming out of the house of the deceased for the reason that though he has seen them at about evening hours of 17.8.2009, and that on 18.8.2009 he became aware of the death of the mother of P.W.1, he did not choose to tell anyone about the seeing of the Accused near the place of occurrence till he was examined by the Police on 19.8.2009 and hence, his conduct was very unusual. It is further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that P.W.1 had improved his version by stating that after seeing the Accused, he went to the hospital in connection with his son’s illness and whereas his statement before the Police he did not state so. The said improvement was made by P.W.3 for the reason that he is bound to explain as to why he did not immediately told anyone about the seeing of the accused near the scene of occurrence and in view of the said improvement made by P.W.3 at the time of giving evidence, he cannot be believed at all. 27. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the statements of persons who had said to have seen the Accused near the place of occurrence though recorded on 19.8.2009, reached the Court only on 26.8.2009 and the further statements of P.Ws.3 and 6 recorded don 20.8.2009, reached the Court only on 23.11.2009 and no explanation has been offered by the Investigating Officer-P.W.17 as to the belated despatch of the statements of important witnesses and it is also fatal to the case projected by the prosecution. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, P.W. 3 would not have seen the Accused at all near the place of occurrence on the evening hours of 17.8.2009 in view of his unusual conduct in not reporting it to anybody even though he was aware of the death of mother of P.W.1 even on 18.8.2009 and that he made improvements in his oral testimony from that of the statement recorded during investigation. 28. In so far as the identification of the Accused by P.W.3 in the Test Identification Parade is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the photographs of the Accused were shown to him by the Police and that the learned Judicial Magistrate who conducted the Test Identification Parade also did not ask P.W.3 as to when he has seen the Accused. 29. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the evidence of P.W.15-learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, who conducted the Test Identification Parade in which, P.W.3 identified A1 and A2. 29. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the evidence of P.W.15-learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, who conducted the Test Identification Parade in which, P.W.3 identified A1 and A2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would further submit that though P.W.3 identified A1 and A2 in the Test Identification Parade, the said identification per se will not lead to the conclusion that the Accused had committed the offences for the reason that the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and the Test Identification Parade is conducted only to check upon the veracity of the testimonies of witnesses who had seen the Accused. 30. Since the proceedings of the Test Identification Parade marked as Ex.P16 is not substantive piece of evidence, it cannot form the sole basis for convicting the Appellant/Accused is the sum and substance of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in so far as P.W.3 is concerned. 31. According to P.W.6 who had also seen the Accused near the place of occurrence on 17.8.2009, he knows the deceased and at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m., on 17.8.2009, he saw both the Accused standing near the house of P.W.1 and when he enquired them, they told that P.W.1 is to give money to them and for that purpose, they are waiting, Since P.W.6 did not wholly support the version of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile and he was cross-examined. 32. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that according to P.W.3 he has seen the Accused near the place of occurrence and he saw the Accused coming out of the house of P.W.1 at about 7.30 p.m. on 17.8.2009 and according to P.W.6 he has seen the Accused waiting near the house of P.W.1 at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. and thus, there is discrepancy as to the time of the presence of the Accused near the scene of the occurrence. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W.17 wherein he has deposed that the statement of P.W.6 though recorded on 19.8.2009 it has reached the Court only on 26.8.2009 and the further statement recorded on P.W.6 reached the Court only on 23.11.2009 and no reasons have been offered by the prosecution as to the belated receipt of the statements of important witnesses by the Court and therefore, their version cannot be believed. 33. P.W.8 was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the version of P.Ws.3 and 6 that the Accused were seen near the place of occurrence. P.W.8 at the relevant point of time, was running a grocery shop and at about 4.00 p.m. on 17.8.2009 both the Accused came to his shop, bought cigarettes and were smoking. P.W.8 advised them not to smoke in front of his shop and asked them to go away and at that time they told to P.W.8 that they are related to P.W.1 and they came to get money from P.W.1. In the cross-examination P.W.8 admitted that he did not state so before the Police at the time of investigation that at the time of the Accused burying cigarettes, he did not ask their identification and the purpose for which they came. Though P.W.8 in his cross-examination stated that the Accused told that they are related to P.W.1 and they came there to get some money from P.W.1, cross examination of P.W.17 would reveal that P.W.8 did not state so in his statement recorded under 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. 34. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant pointing to the said discrepancy, would submit that it is a vital contradiction elicited in favour of the Appellant/Accused and since P.W.8 made improvements by leaps and bounds in his testimony from that of the statement recorded during investigation on the said vital aspect, his evidence cannot be believed at all to prove the case of the prosecution that he had seen both the Accused near the place of occurrence. 35. 35. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.15-the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore who conducted the Test Identification Parade and would submit that P.W.8 did not participate in the Test Identification Parade and P.W.6 who participated in the Test Identification Parade, has identified only A1 and since the proceedings of the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence it cannot be the sole basis to convict the Appellant. 36. As regards the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that photographs were shown to P.Ws.3 and 6 before they are participated in the Test Identification Parade, the attention of this Court was drawn to the cross-examination of P.W.17-Investigating Officer, who deposed that when the Accused were in Police custody their photographs were taken on 25.8.2009 and he did not remember whether any prior permission of the Court has been obtained for taking their photographs and he also did not remember whether the photographs were dispatched to the Court. P.W.17 denied the suggestion that prior to conduct of Test Identification Parade, photographs of the Accused were shown to P.Ws.3 and 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that since P.W.15 who conducted the Test Identification Parade, did not specifically ask P.Ws.3 and 6 as to when and what time they had seen the Accused, the identification of the Appellant by P.Ws.3 and 6 is of no use and that for the vital discrepancies in their depositions vis-à-vis their statements recorded during investigation, it is wholly unsafe to rely upon their testimony as to the last seen theory projected by the prosecution. 37. As regards the arrest of Accused No.1 and 2 and recovery of incriminating articles in pursuant to their admissible portion of the confession statements, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the testimony of P.W.10. P.W.10 in his chief-examination, would submit that he and Jagadeeswar on the requisition made by P.W.17, went to Erode and at that time they found A1 and A2 and both of them had admitted their guilt and they separately given their confession statements in writing. P.W.10 in his chief-examination, would submit that he and Jagadeeswar on the requisition made by P.W.17, went to Erode and at that time they found A1 and A2 and both of them had admitted their guilt and they separately given their confession statements in writing. In pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 M.O.27-Clutch Wire was recovered and in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A2, M.O.1-Ear-stud and M.O.2-Golden bangle were recovered and both Material Objects were recovered under the cover of mahazars Exs.P8 and P9 respectively. P.W.10 was treated as hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court and on behalf of the Appellant/A1 also he was cross-examined. 38. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that M.O.27-Clutch Wire was recovered in pursuant to the admissible portion of the alleged confession given by A2 and M.Os1 and 2 were recovered in pursuant to the admissible portion of the alleged confession statement given by A1 as per the case of the prosecution and whereas P.W.10 has deposed that M.O.27-Clutch Wire was recovered in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession given by A1 and M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession given by A2 and it is a vital discrepancy and hence, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of P.W.10 and that apart P.W.10 was treated as hostile witness. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would further submit that even assuming without admitting that in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statements given by A1 and A2 recovery of incriminating articles were effected, mere arrest and recovery per se would not sustain the case of the prosecution as the case of the prosecution solely rests upon circumstantial evidence. 39. As regards the evidence of P.W.4-Fingerprint Expert and his report marked as Ex.P4 (subject to objections), learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the said aspect has been disbelieved even by the Trial Court and admittedly, prior to the lifting of sample fingerprint from the Accused no permission has been obtained by the Investigating Officer in terms of the mandatory provisions of the Identification of the Prisoners Act, 1920. Since the Trial Court itself disbelieved the testimony of P.W.4, it is of no help to the prosecution and it can be taken as a missing link in the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution. 40. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that since the case of the prosecution solely rests upon circumstantial evidence and since the chain of link is not complete, the benefit of doubt should enure in favour of the Appellant/A1 and the Trial Court is not correct in convicting the Appellant/Accused and sentenced him. 41. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution through the testimonies of witnesses, exhibits and Material Objects, had established the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt on the part of the Accused beyond any reasonable doubt. It is further submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the motive for the commission of the crime has been clearly and cogently spoken by P.W.1 – son of the deceased and presence of the Accused near the scene of occurrence has been established through the testimonies of P.Ws.3, 6 and 8. Though P.W.6 was treated as an hostile witness, still her deposition has sustained the case of the prosecution with regard to the presence of the Accused near the place of occurrence. As regards the arrest and recovery the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though P.W.10 was treated as hostile, a portion of his testimony with regard to the admissible portion of the confession statement of the Accused and recovery, has established the case of the prosecution as projected against the Accused. 42. With regard to the evidence of P.W.4-Fingerprint Expert, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though his testimony was disbelieved by the Trial Court, this Court in exercise of Appellate Powers, can reappreciate the testimony of P.W.4 and can arrive at a different finding. 42. With regard to the evidence of P.W.4-Fingerprint Expert, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though his testimony was disbelieved by the Trial Court, this Court in exercise of Appellate Powers, can reappreciate the testimony of P.W.4 and can arrive at a different finding. As regards the discrepancy pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the discrepancies pointed out are trivial and the same in any way, would not affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution and even assuming without admitting that the investigation was defective, the same would not per se, lead to the acquittal of the Accused since the prosecution has proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for confirmation of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 43. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing fort the State and also perused the oral and documentary evidences, Material Objects and also the original records. 44. The questions arise for consideration are: (a) Whether the prosecution has established their case against the Appellant/A1 by projecting the circumstances complete in all aspects beyond reasonable doubt? (b) Whether the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is sustainable? 45. Question (a): The case of the prosecution entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and it is a settled position of law that in case where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the Accused; the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and none else; and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the Accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the Accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so as complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Accused and it must be such, as to show thatwithin all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused. The said ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2957 . 46. As per the decision reported in Ram Singh v. Sonia and others, 2007 (1) MWN (Cr.) 83 (SC) : AIR 2007 1218, the principle for passing a conviction is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the Accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. 47. This court keeping in mind the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the catena of decisions, has carefully analyse the materials available on record. 48. Motive: The motive projected by the prosecution against the Accused is sought to be proved through the evidence of P.W.1 who is the son of the deceased namely Kamalam. P.W.1 on coming to know about the death of his mother through P.W.2-his sister, lodged about a Complaint under Ex. P1 on the file of the B4 Race Course Road Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore on 17.9.2009 at about 22.30 hours and a perusal of the Complaint would disclose that the names of the Accused did not find place. The Complaint was received by P.W.13-Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes), attached to the said Police Station and a case was registered by her in Crime No.1408/2009 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC at about 22.30 hours. On the next day on 18.8.2009 P.W.17 recoded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in the last two lines, it has been stated “Tamil” The Statement received by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 19.8.2009. On the next day on 18.8.2009 P.W.17 recoded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. and in the last two lines, it has been stated “Tamil” The Statement received by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 19.8.2009. P.W.17 recorded further statement of P.W.1 on 20.8.2009 where in it has been stated that A1 for the purpose of his business asked for a sum of Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- and P.W.1 has replied that since his son is getting admission in the college, it may not be possible and one week thereafter, he paid A1 who is distantly related to P.W.1 and again both of them requested for money for their business and he has explained the reasons as to the non consideration of their request and also informed this fact to his mother (deceased) and his elder sister (P.W.2). It is further recorded in the said statement that on account of the said fact, P..W.1 developed suspicion against the Accused and on enquiry, the true fact will come out. 49. A perusal of the Section 161 (3) statement, which was recorded on 18.8.2009 especially the last two lines would disclose that there appears to be insertion on last two lines. The further statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 20.8.2009 wherein P.W.1 categorically stated that he is having strong suspicion against A1 and A2. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture the further statement of P.W.1 recorded on 20.8.2009, has reached the Court only on 23.11.2009 nearly after three months from the date of recording of further statement. When P.W.17 was specifically questioned in the cross-examination, he has not come forward with proper explanation. The following proposition is laid in Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re, 1974 L W (Crl) 190: “It is imperative that the following documents should be despatched immediately, without any delay by the investigating officers to the sub-Magistrate. The Station-House Officer should record the time of the actual despatch of the various documents in the various registers, particularly, the statement recorded under Section 154 of the Crl.P.C. On receipt of the said documents, the Magistrate should initial the same, noting there in the time and date of the receipt of those documents. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. This would provide the only judicial safeguard against subsequent fabrication of such documents in grave crimes. Therefore, as the Manual of Instructions for the Guidance of Magistrates in the Madras State does not contain any instructions to the Magistrate in this regard, we suggest that the same may be brought up-to-date by incorporating in it the circulars which had been issued from time to time for the guidance of the Magistrates. The following are documents of special importance which, should be dispatched by the investigating Officers without any delay to the Magistrates, and they should bear the initials of the Magistrate with reference to both the time and date of their receipt: 1. The original report or Complaint under Section 154 of the Crl.P.C. 2. The printed form of the F.I.R. (First Information Report) prepared on the basis of the said report or Complaint. 3. Inquest reports and statements of witnesses record during the inquest. 4. Memo sent by the Station House Officers to Doctors for treating the injured victims who die in the hospital subsequently and the history of the case treatment. 5. Memo sent by the Doctor to the Police when a person with injuries is brought to the hospital, or the death-memo sent by the Doctor to the Police on the death of the person admitted into the hospital with injuries. 6. Observation Mahazars and Mahazars for the recovery of material objects, search lists and the statements given by the Accused admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, etc., prepared in the course of the investigation. 7. The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3) of the Crl.P.C. 8. Form No.91, accompanied by material objects. We would like to stress the desirability and need for preserving the pocket diaries of the Investigating Officers, the entries in the general diaries, and the despatch book with more elaborate details, for at least five years. In the interests of justice, the preservation of these documents is essential and desirable.” In respect of the case on hand though P.W.17 was specifically cross-examined on behalf of the Accused, he has failed to offer any explanation as to the said important statements belatedly reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 50. In the interests of justice, the preservation of these documents is essential and desirable.” In respect of the case on hand though P.W.17 was specifically cross-examined on behalf of the Accused, he has failed to offer any explanation as to the said important statements belatedly reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 50. P.W.17 – Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has deposed that with regard to the participation of the Accused in the commission of the crime, he became aware of their role on 20.8.2009 after recording of the statement of P.W.1 and prior to 20.8.2009 he was not aware of the Accused concerned in the commission of the offence and that the documents which came into existence prior to 20.8.2009 the name of the Accused did not find place. 51. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer of P.W.17 in his cross-examination is not supporting the case of the prosecution or the reason that P.W.1 in his statement recorded on 19.8.2009 has indicated that he has got some suspicion against A1 and A2 which was fortified his further statement recorded on 20.8.2009. If the deposition of P.W.17 in his cross-examination that prior to 20.8.2009 the name of the Accused did not figure in any document is true then the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that in that last two lines of the statement of P.W.1 recorded on 19.8.2009 some insertion was made naming the Accused as suspects, merits acceptance. In either way it affects the case of the prosecution in so far as the motive is concerned. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that though the statement of P.W.1 recorded on 19.8.2009 reached the Court on 20.8.2009, the further statement of P.W.1 recorded on the very next day on 20.8.2009 has reached the Court on 23.11.2009. As already held above, no explanation has been offered by P.W.17 in his cross-examination in spite of specific questions being put on behalf of the Accused. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive on the part of the Accused to do away with the life of mother of P.W.1. 52. As already held above, no explanation has been offered by P.W.17 in his cross-examination in spite of specific questions being put on behalf of the Accused. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive on the part of the Accused to do away with the life of mother of P.W.1. 52. Last Seen Theory: The case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 seen the Accused coming out of the house of P.W.1 at about 6.30 p.m., on 17.8.2009 and thereafter he went to the hospital in connection with his son’s illness and subsequently came to know that on 18.9.2009, Police made enquiry with the inmates of his house and on 19.8.2009 he was examined by the Police. P.W.3 also participated in the Test Identification Parade on 25.9.2009 and identified both the Accused. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 would admit that till he was examined y the Police on 19.8.2009, he did not inform anybody as to the seeing of the Accused coming out of the house of P.W.1and since he went to the hospital in connection with his son’s illness, he did not inform anybody as to the seeing of the Accused coming out of the house of P.W.1. However, in his cross-examination P.W.3 admitted that he did not make such a statement to the police at the time of investigation and in the considered opinion of the Court, it is a vital improvement. Though P.W.3 became aware that the police made enquiry in the inmates of his house, still he did not choose to inform anybody till he was examined by police on 19.8.2009 and thereby his conduct seems to be very unusual. 53. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that P.W.17-Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, has admitted that the statement of P.W.3 which was recorded on 19.8.2009 has reached the Court on 26.8.2009 and the further statement of P.W.3 recorded on 20.8.2009 has reached the Court only on 23.11.2009. It is further admitted by P.W.17 that it is correct to state that the statements recorded under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. will be despatched to the Court immediately. In spite of such an admission, P.W.17 failed to come out with any explanation as to the belated receipt of the statement of P.W.3 and it also creates a grave doubt as to the veracity of his statement. 54. In spite of such an admission, P.W.17 failed to come out with any explanation as to the belated receipt of the statement of P.W.3 and it also creates a grave doubt as to the veracity of his statement. 54. The prosecution also examined P.Ws.6 and 8 to corroborate the testimony of P.W.3 as to the last seen theory. P.W.6 in his chief-examination has deposed that at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., on 17.8.2009 he saw both Accused were standing near the house of the deceased and when she made enquiry, they told her that P.W.1 has to give some money and only for that purpose, they are waiting. Since P.W.6 did not fully support the case of the prosecution, she was treated as hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the State and also by A1. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that both Accused were coming out of the house of the deceased at about 6.30 p.m. on 17.8.2009 and according to P.W.6, they were seen near the house of the deceased between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. P.W.6 also participated in the Test Identification Parade and she identified A1 / Appellant alone. 55. P.W.8 was also examined to corroborate the version of P.Ws.3 and 6. According to P.W.8, at the relevant point of time he was running a grocery shop and at about 4.00 p.m. on 17.8.2009 both the Accused came to his ship and bought cigarettes and were smoking in front of his shop and he asked them to move away and at that time, they informed P.W.8 that they are related to P.W.1 and came there to get some money from P.W.1. P.W.8 in his cross-examination, would admit that he did not ask their identity and the did not state that they came there to get money from P.W.1. Through P.W.17 contradiction was also elicited wherein P.W.17 admitted that P.W.8 during investigation did not state that the Accused came there to get money from P.W.1. Admittedly, P.W.8 did not participate in the Test Identification Parade. 56. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture the statements of P.Ws.3. Through P.W.17 contradiction was also elicited wherein P.W.17 admitted that P.W.8 during investigation did not state that the Accused came there to get money from P.W.1. Admittedly, P.W.8 did not participate in the Test Identification Parade. 56. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture the statements of P.Ws.3. 6 and 8 which was recorded on 19.8.2009 has reached the Court only on 26.8.2009 and their further statements recorded on 20.8.2009 had reached the Court only on 23.11.2009 and in spite of specific questions being put, P.W.17 failed to offer any explanation as to the belated receipt of the statements by the jurisdictional Court. Since they are important witnesses, to sustain the case of the prosecution, their statements should have been despatched and reached the Court without any loss of time and the said position has also been admitted by P.W.17 in his cross-examination. The decision (cited supra) in Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re., 1974 LW (Crl.) 190, also lay down the proposition that the statements of important witnesses should be despatched without any loss of time. Since the prosecution failed to offer any explanation as to the belated despatch, it is unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of P.Ws.3, 6 and 8 as to the last seen theory projected by the prosecution. 57. Test Identification Parade: It is settled position of law that the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence. P.W.15 who conducted the Test Identification Parade in his cross-examination, has admitted that prior to conduct of Test Identification Parade, he did not ask the witnesses as to when they have seen the Accused. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.15 that P.W.3 identified A1 and A2 and P.W.6 identified A1 alone. P.W.17-Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, has deposed that while the Accused were in Police custody, their photographs were taken on 25.8.2009 and he did not obtain any permission from the Court for taking such photographs and he did not also despatch the photographs to the jurisdictional Court and it is also not available in the case diary. Of course, P.W.17 denied the suggestion that the photographs of the Accused were shown to the witnesses before their participation in the Test Identification Parade and the witnesses also denied the suggestion that they were shown photographs of the Accused before their participation in the Test Identification Parade. Of course, P.W.17 denied the suggestion that the photographs of the Accused were shown to the witnesses before their participation in the Test Identification Parade and the witnesses also denied the suggestion that they were shown photographs of the Accused before their participation in the Test Identification Parade. Since it has been held that the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and it has been done with a view to find the veracity of the witnesses, the identification of A1 and A2 by P.W.3 and identification of A1 by P.W.6 in any way would not advance for helping the case of the prosecution as there must be other strong circumstances to connect the Accused with the commission of the offences and the said circumstances are lacking. 58. Arrest and Recovery: The prosecution through the evidence of P.W.10 sought to prove the arrest of A1 and A2 and recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 and M.O.27. According to P.W.10, the Accused were arrested in his presence at Kaliyamuthur, Erode District on 25.8.2009 and in pursuant to the admissible portion of confession of A1, M.O.27 was recovered and in pursuant to the admissible portion of confession statement of A2, M.O.1 and M.O.2 were recovered. But according to the prosecution, the admissible portion of confession statement of A1 lead to the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 and admissible portion of confession statement of A2 lead to the recovery of M.O.27. Since P.W.10 did not fully support the case of the prosecution he was treated as hostile witness. Since it is a vital discrepancy as to the recovery of the incriminating articles in pursuant to the admissible portion of the alleged confession statements made by A1 and A2, it is not safe to rely upon his testimony as to the recovery of the incriminating articles. 59. Fingerprint: The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4 as to the lifting of fingerprint from the scene of occurrence. Admittedly, evidence of P.W.4 would disclose that he was summoned by P.W.13-Sub-Inspector of Police for the purpose of lifting of fingerprint and in his cross-examination he also admits that he is aware of the provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act and he would further admit that he is not aware that who has got the sample fingerprint of the Accused and other witnesses. In view of the said infirmities, the Trial Court itself disbelieved the evidence and this Court sees no reason to differ from the view taken by the Trial Court. 60. That apart, according to the prosecution, A2 strangled the deceased with the Clutch Cable Wire M.O.27 and A1 smathered her with a pillow which resulted in her death. Admittedly, M.O.27-Clutch cable Wire was not subjected to chemical analysis to find out whether it contains blood/tissue mark and once again, no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. 61. Question (b): This Court after careful and thorough scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials and by applying its mind independently to the said materials, is of the considered opinion that the circumstances projected by the prosecution as to the guilt of the Accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as there are many missing links in the chain of circumstances. Hence, the benefit of doubt shall ensure in favour of the Appellant/A1. 62. In the result, this Criminal Appellant is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant/A1 vide judgment dated 11.11.2010 in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Sessions Court for trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore, is set aside and the Appellant/A1 is acquitted. The fine amount paid by the Appellant/A1 is ordered to be refunded to him. The Appellant/A1 is ordered to be set at liberty unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.