JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 28 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. He stood charged for offences under Sections 364, 302, 394 read with 397 and 201 IPC. The trial Court by judgment, dated 30.1.2003, found the accused guilty under Sections 364, 302, 394 read with Section 397 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 364 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 394 read with 397 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Rani. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the mother and sister respectively of the deceased. The accused is the husband of the deceased. The marriage between them was celebrated on 16.4.1994. The accused belongs to a village known as Nelveli village in Kanyakumari District, whereas the deceased hails from a village known as Pazhavilai in the same district. The accused was employed in Indian Army and he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. After the marriage, the deceased was not taken to Jammu and Kashmir and instead, she resided with her parents. The accused used to visit his native place while on leave. During such time, the deceased used to come to stay with him at the house of the accused at Nelveli village. After his return to Jammu and Kashmir, she used to go back and stay with her mother at Pazhavilai village. 2.1. During the month of January 1995, the accused had come to his native place on vacation. During such time, the deceased used to come to stay with him at the house of the accused at Nelveli village. After his return to Jammu and Kashmir, she used to go back and stay with her mother at Pazhavilai village. 2.1. During the month of January 1995, the accused had come to his native place on vacation. On 4.2.1995, it is stated that he had requested P.W.1 to send the deceased to Marthandam for the purpose of searching for a job. In pursuance of the same, it is alleged that on 5.2.1995, at 5.30 a.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 saw her off at Kuzhithurai bus stand, when she left to Marthandam by a bus. Thereafter, the deceased did not return. Therefore, P.W.1 went in search of the deceased to various places. She also enquired the parents of the accused. She was informed by the parents of the accused that on 4.2.1995, the accused came to his house stayed over night and on 5.2.1995, at 5.30 a.m. itself, he left for Jammu and Kashmir. Even thereafter, P.W.1 went in search of the deceased. Since, she could not locate the deceased, she preferred a complaint on 12.2.1995 at Kaliakavilai police station alleging that the deceased was found missing. P.W.10, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kaliakavilai police station, registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No. 56 of 1995 for ‘woman missing’. P.W.10, took up the case for investigation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the family members of the accused. But, he was not able to get any clue regarding the deceased. 2.2. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to P.W.11, who was the Sub Inspector of Police attached to All Woman Police Station at Nagercoil. P.Ws.3,4 and 5 were examined by P.W.11. She also examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few more witnesses. She also could not make any break through. Thereafter, on the orders of the Superintendent of Police investigation was transferred to P.W.16 on 30.3.1995. On 31.3.1995, it is stated by P.W.16, that he examined the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. During such examination, the accused confessed to the guilt. From the possession of the accused, two material objects, namely, M.Os.6 and 7, (gold chain and golden ear stud) were recovered under Exhibit P-3 mahazar. The accused was arrested at a place known as Chennithottam at Kanyakumari District. During such examination, the accused confessed to the guilt. From the possession of the accused, two material objects, namely, M.Os.6 and 7, (gold chain and golden ear stud) were recovered under Exhibit P-3 mahazar. The accused was arrested at a place known as Chennithottam at Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, P.W.16 returned to the police station and forwarded the accused to the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand. Accordingly, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.16 prepared Exhibit P-20 alteration report thereby altering the case to one under Section 302 IPC. He forwarded the alteration report also to the Court. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. He handed over the investigation to P.W.12. 2.3. P.W.12 took up the case for investigation on 20.4.1995. On the same day, he made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. I, Kuzhithurai, seeking police custody of the accused. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted the custody of the accused on 20.4.1995. 2.4. Be that as it may, in the meanwhile, the dead body of a woman was found within the police limits of Neredmet in Andhra Pradesh by P.W.14 on 7.2.1995. On his information, one Sherif, Additional Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Neredmet police station, Andhra Pradesh, registered a case in Crime No. 11 of 1995. P.W.9, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Sherif died before the trial commence in this case) P.W.9 has spoken to about the investigation done by Sherif, based on the case diary. Exhibit P-11 is in Telugu. Exhibit P-13 is the translated version of the First Information Report. Taking up the case for investigation, Mr.Sherif proceeded to the place where the dead body was found. He arranged to take photographs of the dead body. M.O.1 is the series are the photographs. Then on the same day, between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., in the presence of Panchayatdars, Mr.Sherif conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Exhibit P-12 is the inquest report. The body was thereafter sent for postmortem. 3. P.W.18 conducted postmortem and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: “Injuries: Blood oozing from the nostrils and mouth. 1.3 oral contusion 2 x 3 cms over the forehead 2. Ligature mark of 20 x 0.5 cm seen below the thyroid in front of neck going to back horizontally and incomplete at the back. Ligature is double line in front. 3. 1.3 oral contusion 2 x 3 cms over the forehead 2. Ligature mark of 20 x 0.5 cm seen below the thyroid in front of neck going to back horizontally and incomplete at the back. Ligature is double line in front. 3. Capsized abrasion 24 x 6 c.m. 4. Capsized abrasion 5 x c.m over the rt upper limb. 5. Abrasion 12 x 5 cm of lt thigh 6. Linear abrasion 8 x 1 c.m. At the outer aspect of rt thigh. Head and Neck : Collection of blood underneath the scalp corresponding to injury No. 1. 1. Skull intact-brain and meninges congested. 2. Nothing particular 3. Congested with froth. 4. Hyoid bone intact. 5. Both lobes of thyroid cartilege froth with contusion sorrounding froth multiple contusion underneath skin of ligature mark. Chest: Diapharm: Nothing particular Oesophagus:congested with froth Trachea and bronchi:multiple contusion over the pluera both sides. Lungs: Multiple contusion over the both sides. Heart and pericardial sac:Nothing particular Large blood vessels:Nothing particular Abdomen: Nothing particular Stomach contents: empty without any specific smell, gastric, mucosa is normal. Small intestine: contusion of small and large bowel with blood clot over mesentry. Spleen: nothing particular. Kidneys rental pelvis ureters: Rt- collection of blood around the kidney. lt. Nothing particular. Adrenals: Nothing particular Urinary Bladder and urethra: Nothing particular; contusion over the uterus; Uterus: Normal in size. Not pregnant Genital organs: with blood clot in the uterine cavity. Spinal Cord: Nothing particular Additional Observation: Nothing particular. Vaginal swab taken for examining the presence of semen or spermatazoa. He opined that the death was due to manual strangulation.” 4. From the dead body, the material objects, M.Os.9 to 23 were recovered. They are as follows: M.O.9 – gold covering ear tops, M.O.10- gold covering locket, M.O.11-white skirt, M.O.12-Pale blue skirt, M.O.13-Blue blouse, M.O.14-Biscuit colour blouse, M.O.15-Black cut panty, M.O.16 series -Two brassieres, M.O.17-Peacock model top pin, M.O.18-Two pins, M.O.19-Nine side pins, M.O.20-old pin, M.O.21-Comb, M.O.22-Vicks Inhaler and M.O.23-Pink skirt These properties were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate in Andhra Pradesh State. On 8.2.1995, P.W.9 took up the case for further investigation. Since there was nobody to take the dead body, after the postmortem, body was kept in the mortuary for some time. On 23.2.1995, the body was sent to municipal burial ground, where it was buried by Municipal Authorities. On 31.3.1995, he received the postmortem certificate. On 8.2.1995, P.W.9 took up the case for further investigation. Since there was nobody to take the dead body, after the postmortem, body was kept in the mortuary for some time. On 23.2.1995, the body was sent to municipal burial ground, where it was buried by Municipal Authorities. On 31.3.1995, he received the postmortem certificate. Based on the same, on 4.4.1995, he altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC and to that effect, he forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Exhibit P-13. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by one Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, the then Inspector of police, attached to the said police station. Thus, the investigation was in progress. 5. Now, turning back to the investigation done by P.W.12, after getting police custody of the accused on 20.4.1995 in pursuance of the confession of the accused, along with P.W.1, P.W.7 and one Mani along with few more police constables, he proceeded to Andhra Pradesh in a jeep. On 21.4.1995, at 7.00 a.m., according to P.W.12, the accused identified the place where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased. P.W.12 prepared an observation mahazar under Exhibit P-4 as well as rough sketch under Exhibit P-15 showing the place of occurrence. Somewhere near the place of occurrence, the accused produced a stainless steel chain (M.O.5) from the hide out. Thereafter, P.W.12, took the accused to Neredmet police station where P.W.12 examined Mr. Abdul Sherif, who registered the case, Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan Inspector of Police, who has investigated the case in Crime No. 11 of 1995 and recorded their statement. He also examined the photographer and collected the photographs of the dead body. On seeing the photographs, P.W.1 identified that the dead body was that of the deceased. Then, he collected M.Os. 2 to 4, 8 to 21 and 24 from the Inspector of Police, Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan. Thereafter, he returned to Kaliyakavilai along with the accused and witnesses. On 24.4.1995, he forwarded the accused to judicial custody. 6. On 2.6.1995, P.W.13 took up the case for further investigation. He collected the leave particulars of the accused from his Commander under Exhibit P-18. He also made a request to the Commanding Officer to open the box of the accused and find as to whether any jewels were available, which belonged to the deceased. The reply was that no such jewels were available. He collected the leave particulars of the accused from his Commander under Exhibit P-18. He also made a request to the Commanding Officer to open the box of the accused and find as to whether any jewels were available, which belonged to the deceased. The reply was that no such jewels were available. Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by P.W.17 on 12.5.1995. On completing the investigation, he filed a final report against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai on 18.1.1999. 7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 364, 302, 394 read with Section 397 and 201 IPC. The accused denied the charges and so he was put on trial. 8. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited on the side of the prosecution. 9. All these witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, as we have narrated, have spoken to about the fact that the deceased lastly left for Marthandam in a bus on 5.2.1995 at 5.30 a.m. P.W.3 has stated that she saw the deceased at 6 a.m. travelling in the bus and then she saw the deceased in the company of the accused at Marthandam bus stand for some time. P.W.5 has stated that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused in the bus while she was travelling. P.W.4 has stated that at 9.15 a.m., on 5.2.1995, he found the accused and the deceased together in the Thiruvananthapuram railway station. According to her, she is a fruit vendor in the railway station and she knew the deceased and her family for about 15 years. P.Ws.6 and 16 have spoken to about the arrest of the accused and the recovery of M.Os. 6 and 7 on 31.3.1995. P.W.12 has spoken to about the accused identifying the place in Andhra Pradesh. P.W.7 has also spoken to about this fact. 10. When the above incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. In his statement, he told that on 4.2.1995, he had sent his wife to her parents home. Thereafter, he went to Thiruvananthapuram and by Jammu-Dhavi Express Train, which left Thiruvananthapuram at 9.40 a.m., he left for Jammu and Kashmir. 10. When the above incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. In his statement, he told that on 4.2.1995, he had sent his wife to her parents home. Thereafter, he went to Thiruvananthapuram and by Jammu-Dhavi Express Train, which left Thiruvananthapuram at 9.40 a.m., he left for Jammu and Kashmir. He would further state that he reported for duty in Kashmir on 7.2.1995 at 2.00 p.m. While he was there, he received a message from his parents that his wife was found missing. Thereafter, he made a request to the Commanding Officer to immediately take steps to make a search for his missing wife. Then, he returned to his village on 27.3.1995. According to him, he was taken into custody by the police on 27.3.1995 itself. He has further stated that he did not give any confessional statement at all, as it is stated by the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that no material objects were ever recovered at his instance. He has pleaded innocence. 11. On his side, the accused has examined himself as D.W.1, wherein he has stated that he had sent a letter on 29.11.2002 to his Commanding Officer to send a letter as to when he did report for duty after leave. For that, the Commanding officer has sent a letter under Exhibit D1, wherein, the Commanding Officer has stated that the accused reported for duty on 7.2.1995 at 2.00 p.m. 12. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found him guilty under all the charges and accordingly punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, the appellant is before us with this appeal. 13. We have heard Mr. V. Gopinath, the (sic) learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 14. Admittedly, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution would rely on the following circumstances to sustain the conviction imposed on the appellant: (1) The deceased left for Marthandam on 5.2.1995 in a bus from Kuzhithurai bus stand at 5.30 a.m. as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. (2) The deceased was found travelling in the bus by P.W.5. The prosecution would rely on the following circumstances to sustain the conviction imposed on the appellant: (1) The deceased left for Marthandam on 5.2.1995 in a bus from Kuzhithurai bus stand at 5.30 a.m. as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. (2) The deceased was found travelling in the bus by P.W.5. (3) Thereafter she was found at around 6.30 a.m. at Marthandam bus stand by P.W.3, at that time, the deceased was found in the company of the accused. (4) The deceased was found in the company of the accused at Thiruvananthapuram Railway Station at 9.15 a.m. as spoken to by P.W.4. At that time, the deceased told P.W.4 that she was accompanying her husband elsewhere in search of a job. (5) The deadbody of the deceased was found on 7.2.1995 within Neredmet police station in Andhra Pradesh. (6) According to P.W.8, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, the deceased would have died due to manual strangulation and thus, the deceased died of homicidal violence. (7) The accused was arrested on 31.3.1995, during which, he was found in possession of M.Os.6 and 7. (8) On 21.4.1995, he identified the place where the dead body had been thrown by him. (9) M.O.5 iron chain was recovered from the hide out at the instance of the accused. (10) Lastly, the absconding of the accused showing his adverse conduct. 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that none of the above circumstances has been proved. At the outset, he would point out that no motive has been alleged at all by the prosecution against the accused as to why he should decide to kill his wife. The learned senior counsel would nextly contend that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 cannot be believed because they did not come forward with any statement immediately after the occurrence or atleast when the police as well as P.Ws.1 and 2 were searching for the deceased. He would further state that they are close friends of the deceased family and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence. 16. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the arrest of the accused on 31.3.1995 cannot be true and the consequential recovery of material objects on both the occasions also cannot be relied on. He would further state that they are close friends of the deceased family and therefore, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence. 16. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the arrest of the accused on 31.3.1995 cannot be true and the consequential recovery of material objects on both the occasions also cannot be relied on. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned senior counsel would point out that P.W.12 has tacidly admitted that even on 27.3.1995, he had phone message that the accused had returned to his village. When he went in search of him, he was attacked by the villagers, on a complaint made by him a case of attempt to murder was registered against the villagers. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the accused, who had reported for duty on 7.2.1995, returned to the village on 27.3.1995 on hearing the message that the deceased was missing. This conduct of the accused, according to the learned senior counsel, would also go along way to show that the accused would not have committed the heinous crime of murder of his wife. 17. The learned senior counsel would further point out that assuming that the accused was arrested on 31.3.1995, and that the M.Os.6 and 7 were recovered from his possession, there is no evidence connecting M.Os.6 and 7 with the deceased as well as the crime. For that the learned senior counsel would point out that P.Ws.8 and 7 have been identified, M.Os.6 and 7 that the jewels, were worn by the deceased lastly when she was found alive. The learned senior counsel would further point out that M.O.5 also has not been proved to have got some relevancy with the alleged crime. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Magistrate made in Cr.M.P. No. 120 of 1995 granting police custody between 19.4.1995 to 28.4.1995 is illegal, as it violates not only Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the information passed by the accused in respect of the place of occurrence and also the recovery of M.O.5, were allegedly made while the accused was in the illegal custody of the police, no weightage could be given to the same. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the information passed by the accused in respect of the place of occurrence and also the recovery of M.O.5, were allegedly made while the accused was in the illegal custody of the police, no weightage could be given to the same. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, none of the circumstances projected by the prosecution has been established beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances projected beyond all reasonable doubt. He would submit that there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. He would further submit that the arrest of the accused on 31.3.1995 has been spoken to by an independent witness as well as by P.W.16. There is no reason to reject the evidence of these witnesses. In respect of absence of evidence for connecting link between M.Os.6 and 8 and the alleged crime as well as the deceased, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has got no explanation to offer. In respect of recovery of M.O.5 also, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no explanation to offer, Lastly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though the accused was remanded to judicial custody on 31.3.1995, the police custody was given only on 19.4.1995 i.e. during the second remand period. 19. We have considered the above submissions. 20. As rightly pointed out by the appellant, admittedly, no motive has been projected by the prosecution as to why, the accused should kill his wife. Of course, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased left for Marthandam by bus at 5.30 a.m. on 5.2.1995. Even the learned senior counsel for the appellant does not very seriously dispute the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in this regard. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had told P.W.1 that he would accompany the deceased from Marthandam to elsewhere in search of a job. The request made by the accused to P.W.1 was that the deceased should be sent to Marthandam in search of a job. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had told P.W.1 that he would accompany the deceased from Marthandam to elsewhere in search of a job. The request made by the accused to P.W.1 was that the deceased should be sent to Marthandam in search of a job. Therefore, it was not at all the case of the prosecution that at the very inception, the accused would take the deceased from Marthandam bus stand nor other place in search of a job. 21. Now turning to the evidence of P.W.5, she has stated that she saw the deceased in the bus proceeding to Marthandam. Regarding this evidence, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has got no serious dispute. But the learned senior counsel would dispute the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 alone. P.W.3 has stated that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused at Marthandam bus stand. Similarly, P.W.4 has stated that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused in Thiruvananthapuram Railway station. The learned counsel would rightly point out that these two witnesses did not come forward to make any statement about their witnessing the deceased in the accompany of the accused at the earliest point of time, when they were enquired by P.Ws.1 and 2. It is not as though P.Ws.3 and 4 were strangers to the families of P.Ws.1 and 2. As has been admitted by them they were very close to the family of the deceased. That be so, when the search of the deceased was going on for several days, quite naturally P.Ws.3 and 4 would have told P.W.1 about their witnessing the deceased in the company of the accused at Marthandam bus stand or in the Railway station, had it been true that they had seen them in the bus stand as well as in the railway station. These two witnesses were examined by the police only after the body was recovered. In the absence of any explanation for the non disclosure of their witnessing the accused in the company of the deceased for such a long time, we find it difficult to place any implicit reliance on the evidences of these two witnesses. Therefore, we are constrained only to reject the evidences of P.Ws.3 and 4. 22. In the absence of any explanation for the non disclosure of their witnessing the accused in the company of the deceased for such a long time, we find it difficult to place any implicit reliance on the evidences of these two witnesses. Therefore, we are constrained only to reject the evidences of P.Ws.3 and 4. 22. The next circumstance projected by the prosecution is that the accused was arrested on 31.3.1995 at a place, namely, Chennithottam in Kanyakumari District. But the evidence of P.W.16 during the cross examination would go to show that the accused was found in the village on 27.3.1995 itself. It is the positive case of the accused himself that he returned to his village from Jammu and Kashmir on coming to know that his wife was missing. He was in the village on 27.3.1995 and he was taken into custody by the police on the same day itself. This statement of the accused made under Section 313, gains support from the admission made by P.W.16. Thus, it is doubtful that the accused would have been arrested only on 31.3.1995. Assuming that the accused was arrested on 31.3.1995 and at his instance, M.Os.6 and 7 were recovered from his possession, we are at a loss to find any connecting link between M.Os.6 and 7 and the deceased as well as the crime. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted the case before the trial Court did not even make an attempt to bring to the notice of P.Ws.1 and 2 and to invite them to speak about the fact as to whether these M.Os.6 and 7 were lastly worn by the deceased, when she was found alive. In the absence of any such evidence, the recovery of M.Os.6 and 7 from the possession of the accused, even assuming to be true, cannot be considered as an incriminating evidence at all against the accused. 23. Nextly, the accused was remanded to judicial custody on 31.3.1995. The first period of remand expired on 15.4.1995. It is the settled law that not only as provided under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., but also it is a fundamental right that the accused shall not be given in the custody of the police, after the expiry of the first period of 15 days of remand. The first period of remand expired on 15.4.1995. It is the settled law that not only as provided under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., but also it is a fundamental right that the accused shall not be given in the custody of the police, after the expiry of the first period of 15 days of remand. In this case, the custody of the accused was given on 19.4.1995, which is beyond the initial period of 15 days, which is not in consonance with law. Therefore, we find some force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the custody given to the police on 19.4.1995 is illegal and therefore, the recovery of the material object, namely, M.O.5 as well as the discovery of the place from where the dead body had been thrown becomes irrelevant. In this regard, we may state that though it may be true that the custody was illegal, but that by itself would not automatically vitiate the consequential discovery of facts made at the instance of the accused. We are not prepared to reject the discovery or the place of occurrence as well as the discovery of M.O.5 at the instance of the accused on the ground that the custody of the accused on 21.4.1995 was illegal. On the contrary, we are constrained to reject these two circumstances because, as we have already contended that the arrest of the accused on 31.3.1995 itself is highly doubtful and accordingly we have already rejected the case projected by the prosecution in this regard. 24. PW-8, conducted autopsy, to find out whether there was semen or spermatozoa. The Assistant Director, Forensic Sciences, Laboratory, Hyderabad, on examining the same, has issued Exhibit P-9 report, wherein, she had opined that the semen and spermatozoa were detected. She has further opined that the said semen detected is of human origin. She has also opined that the blood group of the accused could not be determined. From this, it is clear that the deceased had sexual intercourse prior to her death. But, the prosecution could not establish as to with whom she lastly had sexual intercourse. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had sexual intercourse with her prior to her death. Thus, this piece of evidence also does not help the prosecution in any way to prove the charges. 25. But, the prosecution could not establish as to with whom she lastly had sexual intercourse. In other words, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had sexual intercourse with her prior to her death. Thus, this piece of evidence also does not help the prosecution in any way to prove the charges. 25. Now coming to the defence of the accused, from Exhibit D-1, it is crystal clear that the accused rejoined duty on 7.2.1995 itself. While on duty, he had made a request to his Commanding Officer to give protection to his parents and also to search for his wife. This letter came to be written because the accused had received information from his parents that the deceased was found missing. The conduct of the accused in returning to the village on 27.3.1995 in search of his wife also is only consistent with the innocence of the accused. 26. Further, as we have already pointed out, the accused was very cardial towards the deceased. Not even slightest displeasure on the part of the accused towards the deceased or her family members have been spoken to by any witness. It is in evidence that when he lastly visited his native place on leave, the deceased stayed with him happily and there was no ill feeling. When that be so, it is not explained to the Court by means or any evidence as to why the accused should kill the deceased. Thus, absence of motive is a strong circumstance, which is again consistent only with the innocence of the accused. 27. In view of all the above, we hold that the prosecution has not proved the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts. As has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court on several occasions, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond all reasonable doubt and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain pointing unerringly the guilt of the accused and there should be no other hypothesis, which is consistent with the innocence of the accused. 28. Applying the above tests to the facts of the case, we find that the prosecution has not proved the circumstances projected by the same unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed. 28. Applying the above tests to the facts of the case, we find that the prosecution has not proved the circumstances projected by the same unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed. In view of all the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C. No. 28 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed.