JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. Who was the deceased? The charred dead body was beyond recognition. The body was found in a house locked from inside. The inmates of the house broke open the doors and identified the charred dead body as that of their daughter Vasanthi (A1). The police believed the said version. After postmortem, the dead body was cremated and all religious rituals were performed by the parents. Surprisingly, Vasanthi (A1), who was believed to be dead, appeared before the police after some time with her newly married husband (A2) and sought for police protection. The police were shocked, as they were all along under the impression that Vasanthi was no more. On further investigation, the investigating officer found that Vasanthi’s college-mate by name Nithya was found missing. The investigating officer concluded that the above stated dead body was that of Nithya. He further concluded that the death of Nithya was homicide and Vasanthi and her husband (A1 and A2), were the perpetrators of the crime. The trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution as proved and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 302 IPC. Contending, inter alia, that the death of Nithya itself has not been proved, the appellants are before this Court with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: One Nithya, (the alleged deceased), the daughter of P.Ws.14 and 15, was studying in Chettinadu Arts and Science College, at Karumandapam, Trichy. The first accused (Vasanthi) was also studying in the same college. Nithya and Vasanthi were friends. According to the case of the prosecution, the second accused had fallen in love with the first accused and they got married secretly. Miss. Nithya came to know about the same and she threatened the first accused that she would disclose the marriage between A1 and A2 to the parents of A1. The accused felt that they were blackmailed. Therefore, they decided to do away with Nithya. Accordingly, it is alleged that on 26.12.2008, at about 6.15 p.m. when Nithya had come to the house of A1, both the accused gave her milk mixed with sleeping tablets. After she had fallen asleep, both the accused killed her by throttling. The accused felt that they were blackmailed. Therefore, they decided to do away with Nithya. Accordingly, it is alleged that on 26.12.2008, at about 6.15 p.m. when Nithya had come to the house of A1, both the accused gave her milk mixed with sleeping tablets. After she had fallen asleep, both the accused killed her by throttling. Then, with a view to screen the evidence, they dragged the body to the bathroom, poured kerosene and set fire to the body. With these allegations, they were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 302 IPC for having allegedly committed murder of ‘Nithya’ and for causing disappearance of evidence. Since the accused denied the charges, they were put on trial. During the trial, as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 37 documents were exhibited, besides 15 material objects. 3. P.W.1 is the father of A1/Vasanthi. According to him, on 26.12.2008, when he returned to his house, he found the main door of his house locked from inside. Therefore, he gave a phone call to his son (P.W.2) to rush to the house. Accordingly he rushed. At about 9.00 p.m. they opened the door with the help of P.W.10, by using a crowbar. When they entered into the house, they found a charred dead body. P.W.1 and other family members were under the impression that it was Vasanthi. They believed that she had committed suicide. Thus, they identified the dead body as that of Vasanthi. Then, P.W.1 went to the Cantonment Police Station, Trichy, and made a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint (Exhibit P-1), P.W.21, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case at 11.30 p.m. on 26.12.2008. Exhibit P-18 is the First Information Report. In the complaint, P.W.1 has stated that Vasanthi (A1) was alone at home and she had committed suicide by setting fire to herself. 4. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.21 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in respect of place of occurrence under Exhibit P-2 in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. Then, he prepared Exhibit P-19, rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence and from the place of occurrence, he recovered 4 material objects namely, a 6 liters capacity Plastic Can with odour of kerosene, broken padlock, broken tiles piece and a Nylon rope with plastic dollar. Then, he prepared Exhibit P-19, rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence and from the place of occurrence, he recovered 4 material objects namely, a 6 liters capacity Plastic Can with odour of kerosene, broken padlock, broken tiles piece and a Nylon rope with plastic dollar. Then, she examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the brothers of A1, who have spoken to on the same lines like P.W.1. P.W.21 conducted inquest on the dead body on 27.12.2008 at 7.00 a.m. Exhibit P-20, is the inquest report. The panchayathars too concluded that the dead body was that of Vasanthi. Then, she forwarded the body for postmortem. 5. P.W.18, Dr. Renuka Devi, who was a tutor in Trichirapalli Medical College, on 27.12.2008, at about 12.05 p.m. commenced autopsy on the dead body. She found the following injuries;- “1. Superficial burns present on the head, face, front of the trunk, both upper limb, perineum and both legs. Peeling and carbonisation of cuticle present. Base of the burnt area is reddish. Singeing of hair present. 2. Deep burns present on the back of the trunk, front of both thigh exposing the bones. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem in nature. No other external, internal and bony wound present.” Exhibit P-14 is the postmortem certificate. She opined that the deceased would have died due to Asphyxia due to burn injuries. She preserved the visceral organs for chemical analysis. Examination of visceral organs proved that there was no poison.” 6. P.Ws.1 to 3, cremated the body ceremoniously in the local electrical crematorium. They proceeded with the last rites for Vasanthi. While so, to the shock and surprise of every one, Vasanthi (A1) and her lover Mr. Venkatesan (Now married to A1) appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment, Trichy on 10.1.2009 seeking protection to their lives. Thus, it came to light that the dead body, which was all along believed to be that of Vasanthi was that of some one else. Therefore, the investigation officer had to take up the task to find out as who the dead was. 7. P.W.14, is the mother of Nithya. She has stated that Nithya was a close friend of the first accused. However, she did not know A2. Therefore, the investigation officer had to take up the task to find out as who the dead was. 7. P.W.14, is the mother of Nithya. She has stated that Nithya was a close friend of the first accused. However, she did not know A2. According to her, on 26.12.2008, when she was about to leave her house for job, she asked Nithya as to why she did not go to the college. Nithya told her that she was in search of the cycle key to leave for the college. On the same day, in the evening, when she returned home, she did not find Nithya at her home, though the college working time was over. When she enquired the other children at home, they told that Nithya had gone to the house of A1/Vasanthi. But, Nithya did not return over night. 8. P.W.14 has further stated that on the next day, that is on 27.12.2008, she was informed by yet another friend of Nithya that Vasanthi/A1 had committed suicide and her body was found at her house. Therefore, P.W.14 and P.W.15, (the mother and the father of Nithya) went in search of Nithya. But, they could not find her anywhere. Then, they went to the house of A1/Vasanthi to share the grief, on account of the alleged death of Vasanthi believing that A1 was no more. Even, thereafter, they continued the search for Nithya. Since they could not find Nithya, on 6.1.2009, P.W.14, the mother of Nithya, went to the Somarasampettai Police Station at about 10.00 p.m. and preferred a complaint alleging that her daughter Nithya was missing. Based on the same, P.W.20 registered a case in Cr. No. 7 of 2009 for girl missing. P.W.20 handed over the case diary in Cr. No. 7 of 2009 to the Inspector of Police for investigation. Thus, as on 6.1.2009, there were two cases under investigation simultaneously in two different police stations. 9. On 10.1.2009, when these two accused (A1 and A2) appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Police Station, in their written representation they had alleged that they had fallen in love with each other and finally, they got married. Since they apprehend that their life was in danger at the hands of their respective parents, they sought police protection for leading a happy married life. Since they apprehend that their life was in danger at the hands of their respective parents, they sought police protection for leading a happy married life. From 10.1.2009 to 12.1.2009 these two accused were kept in the Cantonment Police Station for safety purpose, though they were allowed to freely move out also. The Assistant Commissioner sent a message to P.W.21 regarding the above fact. Therefore, P.W.21 handed over the case to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 10. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.22, the then Inspector of Police attached to Cantonment Police Station examined the accused on 10.1.2009. These two accused gave statements to the effect that they got married and they were in need of protection since their life was in danger at the hands of their respective family members. P.W.22, therefore, altered the case in Cr. No. 981 of 2008 into one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He submitted a report under Exhibit P-22, to the Court. On 11.1.2009, P.W.22 examined these two accused again and recorded their statements. From the statements, P.W.22 came to know that the dead body was that of Nithya. Therefore, he submitted yet another report under Exhibit P-23, and altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC. 11. On 12.1.2009, it was alleged that these accused gave voluntary confession statements one after the other to P.W.22. They were independently reduced into writing by P.W.22 in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. At that time, the first accused was having a handbag. When it was searched by P.W.22, it was found that there was a pair of gold stud and a pair of gold drops (Titanic model dolak) (M.Os.5 and 6 respectively) inside the bag and they were recovered under a Mahazar (Exhibit P-8) in the presence of the witnesses. In the said confession, she disclosed the place where she had hidden, M.Os.7 to 10, i.e. Note books and other belongings of the deceased. P.W.22 recovered the same under a mahazar Exhibit P-9. 12. In his confession, A2 had disclosed the place where he had hidden, a Plastic Can and a cloth bag (M.Os.12 and 11 respectively). Then produced M.Os.11 and 12 from the place of concealment. P.W.22 recovered the same under a Mahazer-Exhibit P-10. P.W.22 recovered the same under a mahazar Exhibit P-9. 12. In his confession, A2 had disclosed the place where he had hidden, a Plastic Can and a cloth bag (M.Os.12 and 11 respectively). Then produced M.Os.11 and 12 from the place of concealment. P.W.22 recovered the same under a Mahazer-Exhibit P-10. Then, he returned to the Police Station along with the accused and forwarded the above Material Objects to the Court and sent the accused for judicial remand. Then, he made a request, on 19.1.2012 to the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, to change the name of the deceased in the postmortem certificate under Exhibit P-27. Accordingly the name was changed as Nithya. 13. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by P.W.23, who made a request for conducting DNA Test for the purpose of identification of the deceased. The mother of the deceased Nithya was asked to appear for the DNA test. But, DNA test could not be conducted as DNA could not be extracted from the visceral organs preserved at the time of postmortem. Then, P.W.24 took up the case for investigation. Exhibit P-24 is the receipt to show that the body was cremated in the Oyamare Electric Crematorium, Trichy. He collected the marriage certificate (Exhibit P-36) pertaining to A1 and A2. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against both the accused. 14. Before the Trial Court, P.Ws.4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.15 is the father of the deceased and P.W.16 is the brother of P.W.15, who have spoken to the fact that Nithya was found missing from 26.12.2008 onwards. P.W.17 has spoken to about the identification card issued to Nithya. P.W.12 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body. P.W.13 is the photographer who enlarged the photographs of the first accused. The others are official witnesses. 15. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under 313 Cr.P.C. , they denied the same as false. However, they did not chose to examine any witness on their side, or to exhibit any document. 16. Having considering all the above materials, the trial Court by judgment, dated 6.7.2012, convicted them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. However, they did not chose to examine any witness on their side, or to exhibit any document. 16. Having considering all the above materials, the trial Court by judgment, dated 6.7.2012, convicted them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 read with 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 18. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, it is bound to prove the circumstances projected beyond all reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should have a close link so as to form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. It is also essential that there should not be any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. With these broad principles in mind, let us now go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution. i) Nithya was lastly seen alive by P.W.14 on 26.12.2009 at her house and in the evening, she did not return home. The inmates of the house informed P.W.14 that Nithya had only gone to the house of A1/Vasanthi. ii) The charred dead body found in the house of P.W.1 on 26.12.2008 was that of Nithya and thus, Nithya is no more. iii) The death of Nithya is not natural and it is a homicide amounting to murder. iv) The accused were found absconding till 10.1.2009 from 26.12.2008. This conduct of the accused is an incriminating circumstance against the accused. iii) The death of Nithya is not natural and it is a homicide amounting to murder. iv) The accused were found absconding till 10.1.2009 from 26.12.2008. This conduct of the accused is an incriminating circumstance against the accused. v) The accused appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Police Station, on 10.1.2009 and made a false plea that they were not aware of the death of Nithya vi) On 12.1.2009, the first accused was found in possession of M.Os.5 and 6 (a pair of gold stud and a pair of gold drops) belonging to the deceased, for which there is no explanation by A1. A1 made a disclosure statement to the police, in which she had disclosed that she had hidden the notebooks and other material objects belonging to the deceased and accordingly, they were produced by her from the place of concealment. vii) A2 also gave a disclosure statement, in which he had disclosed that he had hidden a plastic can and a yellow cloth bag and accordingly he produced the same from the place of concealment. viii) P.Ws.14 and 15 have identified the properties, namely, the notebooks jewels etc., recovered from the accused as the ones belonging to the deceased. For the possession of the same, there is no explanation at all by the accused. 19. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, these circumstances have been clearly established by the prosecution and they form a complete chain which unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, they should be punished, he contended. 20. But, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that none of the above circumstances has been proved at all beyond all reasonable doubts. He would further submit that even assuming that some of the circumstances have been proved, they do not form a complete chain, as per the settled principles of law. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is no circumstance or chain of circumstances, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Mainly, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Nithya is dead. According to the learned counsel, it should be presumed that Nithya is only alive. 21. We have considered the above submissions carefully. Mainly, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that Nithya is dead. According to the learned counsel, it should be presumed that Nithya is only alive. 21. We have considered the above submissions carefully. Of course, from the evidences of P.W.14 to P.W.16 it has been clearly established by the prosecution that Nithya (deceased?) was found lastly alive on 26.12.2008 at the house of P.W.14. Though it is sated by the prosecution that on that day instead of going to the college she went to the house of A1, absolutely there is no evidence for the same. 22. Nextly, the charred dead body was found in the house of P.W.1 on 26.12.2008 evening. At that time, according to the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10, the house was locked from inside and they had to break open the doors to enter into the house. Had it been the case that the deceased was done to death inside the house by anybody else, it would not have been possible for the door to be locked from inside. This aspect has not been explained by the prosecution at all. P.W.21 recovered the broken padlock and broken tiles from the house. The observation mahazar prepared by her in the presence of witnesses shows that the house was locked from inside. This gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the deceased would have either committed suicide or the death would have been accidental. This alternative theory has not been ruled out by the prosecution. 23. Initially, P.Ws.1 to 3 believed that the dead body was that of A1/Vasanthi. Therefore, they went to the extent of performing the last rites believing that it was Vasanthi, who was dead. Now, it is projected by the prosecution that the dead body, which was found in the house of P.W.1, was that of Nithya. If that is so, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove this aspect beyond reasonable doubts. For this purpose, the family members of Nithya had no occasion even to see the dead body, because the dead body had already been cremated at Oyamare Electric Crematorium, Trichy after postmortem. In order to establish the identity of the deceased, an attempt was made to go in for DNA examination. For this purpose, the family members of Nithya had no occasion even to see the dead body, because the dead body had already been cremated at Oyamare Electric Crematorium, Trichy after postmortem. In order to establish the identity of the deceased, an attempt was made to go in for DNA examination. The visceral organs taken from the dead body, which were preserved by P.W.18, Doctor Renuka Devi, who conducted autopsy, were sent for DNA examination, so as to compare the DNA of P.W.14. But, unfortunately, the DNA could not be extracted from the visceral organs, because they had already decomposed. Thus, the DNA examination failed. The skull was also not preserved, so that it could have been at least sent for superimposition test. That was also not done. Since the dead body was charred beyond recognition, from its appearance in the photograph, P.Ws.14 and 15 could not identify the same. Thus, the prosecution has not at all established that the dead body so found in the house of P.W.1 on 26.12.2008 was that of Nithya. In other words, whether Nithya is dead has not been proved by the prosecution at all, beyond all reasonable doubts. 24. Nextly, the doctor (P.W.18) who conducted postmortem, would say that the death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia due to burning. She has not at all given any opinion that the death was due to manual strangulation, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was done to death and thereafter, the body was dragged to the bathroom and then, set on fire. Thus, the medical evidence also contradicts the prosecution version. 25. Next comes the conduct of the accused. According to the prosecution, from 26.12.2008 till 10.1.2009 both the accused were absconding and thus, this is a very serious incriminating circumstance against the accused. But, we do not find any force at all in this submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is the positive case of the accused that they eloped, as their respective family members opposed their marriage proposal, and got married. They have produced the marriage certificate. They were under the impression that there was threat to their life. Therefore, they did not return to their native place at once. After sometime, they went to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on 10.1.2009 seeking protection. They have produced the marriage certificate. They were under the impression that there was threat to their life. Therefore, they did not return to their native place at once. After sometime, they went to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on 10.1.2009 seeking protection. It is the case of the accused that they were hiding themselves because there was threat to their life. Thus, the absence of these two accused in the village between 26.12.2008 and 10.1.2009 has been clearly explained by the accused. Thus, the conduct of the accused in not available in the village between 26.12.2008 and 10.1.2009, is not, in any manner, incriminating. 26. Now, the possession of the material objects at the hands of the accused needs to be considered. P.W.22 has stated that the accused went to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Police Station on 10.1.2009 and they were in the custody of the police till 12.1.2009. They were interrogated on 10.1.2009 as well as on 11.1.2009 and their statements were recorded. They did not confess to the guilt of the crime and they did not make any disclosure statement. While so, it is highly unbelievable that they suddenly confessed on 12.1.2009. At that time, it was stated that, on 12.1.2009, A1 was found in possession of a hand bag in which M.Os.5 and 6 were found. When the accused was in the police station between 10.1.2009 and 12.1.2009, it is highly unbelievable that the police officer would not have noticed the hand bag till 12.1.2009. Above all, whether MOs5 and 6 belonged to the deceased or not, has not been established by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that P.W.14, during cross-examination, has admitted that she could not say whether M.Os.5 and 6 belonged to the deceased or not. P.W.15 has admitted, in his cross examination, that he had not seen the deceased wearing these two jewels at all. Thus, the link between MOs5 and 6 and the crime has not been established at all. Therefore, assuming that MOs5 and 6 were found in the hand bag of the first accused on 12.1.2009, it does not incriminate the first accused in any manner. 27. Thus, the link between MOs5 and 6 and the crime has not been established at all. Therefore, assuming that MOs5 and 6 were found in the hand bag of the first accused on 12.1.2009, it does not incriminate the first accused in any manner. 27. Nextly, it is alleged that out of the disclosure statement of the first accused, the notebooks belonging to the deceased were recovered and on the disclosure statement of the second accused, a plastic can and a cloth bag were recovered. Though P.W.14 had identified the material objects recovered from the first accused, as the notebooks and books belonging to the deceased, it is too difficult to believe that they would have been recovered from the possession of the first accused on 12.1.2007. As we have already stated, when the accused was in the custody of the police from 10.1.2009, though they were examined on two occasions, namely 10.1.2009 and 11.1.2009, they did not make any confession and so it is highly unbelievable that they would have suddenly given confession on 12.1.2009. Apart from that, so far as the recovery of plastic can and yellow colour bag is concerned, the connection between the objects and the crime has not been established and therefore, the very disclosure statement allegedly given by A2 is inadmissible. Therefore, out of the recovery also, the prosecution has not proved any incriminating circumstance against the accused. 28. Now, let us look into the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, out of the recovery also, the prosecution has not proved any incriminating circumstance against the accused. 28. Now, let us look into the judgment of the trial Court. In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the trial Court has recorded as follows: “In the confession statement A1 has stated that A1 and A2 loved each other and they performed registered marriage without knowledge of their family members and the fact of registered marriage was known to deceased Nithya and Nithya blackmailed her that she would reveal the marriage to the parents of Vasanthi and hence A1 and A2 decided to murder Nithya and accordingly, they asked Nithya to come to her house and after she came to her house she and A2 forcible taken her to the bed and closed her nose and mouth with hands and after she died they dragged the dead body to the bathroom and set fire to the dead body with an intention that if the body burned beyond recognition her family members would have thought that she (A1) committed suicide and they will not search for her and she can live peacefully with A2 in some other place. Though the confession statement is not admissible in evidence, the evidence of the witnesses corroborate the version in confession statement.” 29. This observation of the trial Court has disturbed us a lot. Though, the trial Court was conscious of the legal position that the confession of an accused made to the police officer during the course of investigation is inadmissible except to the limited extent indicated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still the lower Court has stated that the evidence of the witnesses corroborated the “version in confession statement”. This means the trial Court has used the entire confession made by the accused to the police as substantiative piece of evidence against the accused. This is undoubtedly illegal. 30. It is seen in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge has lastly enumerated 13 judgments cited by the learned counsel on the side of the defence. In one single sentence, he has given a disposal for all the points raised by citing these judgments. The learned trial Judge has recorded as follows. “There is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid down in the above rulings. Every case has to be decided on the basis its own facts”. 31. In one single sentence, he has given a disposal for all the points raised by citing these judgments. The learned trial Judge has recorded as follows. “There is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid down in the above rulings. Every case has to be decided on the basis its own facts”. 31. It is not clear from this judgment as to what are all the legal propositions, principles and precedents, which the learned defence counsel wanted to project before the trial Court by relying on all those 13 judgments of the Honourable supreme Court as well as this Court. In our considered opinion, this is not the way in which the judgments cited by the counsel for the parties could be considered. Whenever any judgment is cited by the counsel, the Court should lay its fingers on the legal principle, law laid down, etc in the judgment, apply the same to the facts of the case on hand and decide the issue. The trial Court has not done this also. We are constrained to make the above observations so that these shortcomings may not occur in future. 32. Having analysed the entire evidence available on record, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts as required in law. To be precise, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed even to prove that Nithya is dead and the said death is homicidal in nature. In view of the above, we are inclined to acquit the accused. 33. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, in S.C. No. 142 of 2010 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Appeal allowed.