JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The appellant, who is accused in S.C. No. 13l of l999 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. in this appeal, challenges his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment awarded to him on 3.4.2002. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, he shall be called accused. 2. The prosecution version of the case may briefly be stated as under: (1) Madasamy (deceased) belonged to Thomas Nagar in Ilupaiyurani, near Kovilpatti, in Tuticorin District. Firstly, he married Muthunari. Since she had no issues, he separated from her and then, married Mariammal. Since she also has no issues, he separated from her and married his present wife, Selvi. Accused Vijayakuamr @ Kutty also belongs to Ilupaiyurani. (2) Madasamy took away P.W.6 Ruby Rani‘s daughter, Sumathi. Thereafter, he left her. In the circumstances, during July, 1998, accused chided Madasamy that already he had married thrice and was it necessary for him to marry fourth time. The infuriated Madasamy retorted that he had capacity to have one more lady and if he has such capacity, he can also do so, and that if he wish, he could send him his wife, through her, he would give him a child. Both quarrelled. P.W.2 Manikandan separated them; (3) P.W.7 Paramasivan used to lend on hire bill hooks, knives and agricultural implements. On 18.7,l998, at about 9 p.m., accused hired M.O.1 bill-hook from him stating that he need it for wood cutting. (4) On 19.7.1998, P.W.2 saw the accused with a bill-hook. Accused told him that it is for his safety. On 20.7.1998, at about 7 p.m., accused took Madasamy from his house. (5) At about 7.30 p.m., Madasamy‘s sister P.W.4 Kaliammal, came to his house. Madasamy told her that in connection with a work, accused was coming to take him. Thereafter, Madasamy‘s mother P.W.3, Malaiyammal came. Selvi told her that her husband had gone out already. The whole night Madasamy did not return home. (6) On 21.7.1998, at about 7 a.m., in the mud-pathway in Immandvel‘s land, in Ilupaiyurani, P.W.1 Muthiah, brother of Selvi, found Madasamy dead with injuries on his right neck. He informed Selvi. She came there. Seen the dead body. She told him that on the previous day night, accused took her husband with him. (6) On 21.7.1998, at about 7 a.m., in the mud-pathway in Immandvel‘s land, in Ilupaiyurani, P.W.1 Muthiah, brother of Selvi, found Madasamy dead with injuries on his right neck. He informed Selvi. She came there. Seen the dead body. She told him that on the previous day night, accused took her husband with him. (7) On 21.7.1998, at about 8 a.m., at the Kovilpatti East Police Station Selvi. gave Exhibit P-1 statement to P.W.16, Sankaranarayanan, Sub-Inspector of Police. It was attested to by P.W.1. P.W.16 registered a case in crime No. 388 of l998 under Section 302 IPC. He sent the Express FIR through P.W.14 Grade I Constable Joseph to Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kovilpatti. (8) At about 9.30 a.m., on receipt of a copy of FlR, P.W.18 Inspector, Abu Bucker Kunju, took up his investigation. At the scene place, in the presence of P.W.11 Periya Madasamy, Village Assistant and Muthusamy, V.A.O, Ilupaiyurani, he prepared Exhibit P-6 observation mahazar and drew Exhibit P-16, rough sketch. In the presence of panchayathdars, P.W.18 held inquest over the dead body (Exhibit P-7 Inquest Report). Sent the dead body with Exhibit P-8 post-mortem requisition to Govt. Hospital, Kovilpatti, through P.W.15.constable Sugumar. In the presence of witnesses, P.W.18 recovered M.Os.2 to 4 blood-stained sand, plain sand and blood-stained towel from the scene place under Exhibit P-7 mahazar. P.W.18 examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. (9) At about 2.30 p.m., at the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, P.W.12 Dr. Alagesan conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Madasamy and found a deep cut injury 10cm x 4cm x Bone deep horizontally extending from lateral half of border of right mandible to back of neck. On right side injury, major blood vessels including carotid artery, muscles exposing lower part of right mandible. Hyoid bone cut in the right side. (10) P.W.12 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained 16 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem (See Exhibit P-9 post-mortem certificate). He also opined that the said injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.1 bill-hock. (11) On 22.7.1998, at about 10 a.m., the accused surrendered before P.W.8 Rajalakshmi, VAO, Villiseri and confessed his killing of Madasamy on 20.7.1998, at about 8.30 p.m. It was recorded by her. Signed by him. It is Exhibit P-2 extra-judicial confession. He also opined that the said injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.1 bill-hock. (11) On 22.7.1998, at about 10 a.m., the accused surrendered before P.W.8 Rajalakshmi, VAO, Villiseri and confessed his killing of Madasamy on 20.7.1998, at about 8.30 p.m. It was recorded by her. Signed by him. It is Exhibit P-2 extra-judicial confession. Along with her letter Exhibit P-3, she sent him with Exhibit R-2 through her assistant P.W.9 Madasamy, to Kayathar Police Station. (12) At about 11.30 a.m., at the Kayathar Police Station, P.W.17, Amir John, Inspector received them. On coming to know that he is concerned in Madasamy‘s murder, he informed P.W.18. At about 12.30 p.m., P.W.l8 came to the Police Station and arrested him. (13) In the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11 Velusamy and Periya Madasamy, Revenue Staff, P.W.l8 recorded Exhibit P-4 confessional statement of the accused. In pursuance of that, from near Periya Mariappan‘s Pump Set, in Ilupaiyurani, accused took and produced M.O.1 blood-stained bill-hook. In their presence, P.W.18 seized it under Exhibit P-5 seizure mahazar. (14) P.W.l8, sent the accused for judicial custody. Sent the case properties through Court to Lab for analysis. He examined the post-mortem doctor; re-examined Selvi and other material witnesses, recorded their further statement, and received Exhibits P-12 to 14 scientific reports. Concluding his investigation, he filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. To sustain the charge under Section 302 IPC, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to l8, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-17 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7. 4. When the accused has been examined on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, he replied that on suspicion, the Inspector took 30 persons, with the intervention of some politicians, 10 persons were let off, rest were kept inside. At about 7 p.m., P.W.2‘s parents met the Inspector. After an hour, he was let off. Thereafter, the Inspector obtained 3 signatures from him and produced him before a Magistrate. Accused did not produce any evidence. 5. Appreciating the evidence on record and the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court held that the incriminating circumstances such as motive, extra-judicial confession and Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, medical evidence have established the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts, thus, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra 6. According to Mr. 5. Appreciating the evidence on record and the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court held that the incriminating circumstances such as motive, extra-judicial confession and Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, medical evidence have established the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts, thus, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra 6. According to Mr. A. Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the appellant, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances projected against the accused have been established. To reinforce his submission, he submitted as under: (1) A weak motive that the deceased had rebuked the accused has been stated. It is quite insufficient to provoke the accused to kill him. Actually, the deceased took away a minor girl Sumathi; he was condemned in the village. Thus, he earned enemies. Some of them would have murdered him. However, accused has been roped in for that. (2) FIR has been lodged by Selvi, wife of the deceased. But, she has not been examined; so the FIR cannot be relied. So also the prosecution case. (3) It is quite unbelievable that P.W.7 had lent M.O.1 to the accused. There is no evidence to show that it belongs to him. (4) Nothing incriminating could be found in the evidence of P.W.5, who has been examined to show that after the occurrence, the accused had absconded from the village. (5) The extra-judicial confession is not genuine and voluntary. It is the creation of P.W.18, the Investigation Officer, on an unholistic alliance with the obliging VAO P.W.8, P.W.8 is an utter stranger to the accused. No reason for his reposing confidence in her to make the confession has been stated. (6) Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, namely, M.O.1 is farce. When the extra-judicial confession itself is shaky; the recovery evidence vanish into thin air. 7. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted as under: (1) P.W.2 had clearly spoken about the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. (2) The deceased was lastly seen with the accused is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. (3) M.O.1 bill-hook has been obtained by the accused from P.W.7. P.W.l2, post-mortem doctor, corroborated the possibility of M.O.1 having been used in inflicting the cut injuries found on the neck of the deceased. (2) The deceased was lastly seen with the accused is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. (3) M.O.1 bill-hook has been obtained by the accused from P.W.7. P.W.l2, post-mortem doctor, corroborated the possibility of M.O.1 having been used in inflicting the cut injuries found on the neck of the deceased. M.O.1 also has been recovered based on the confessional statement of the accused. (4) In the facts and circumstances, all the proved circumstances, cumulatively taken, takes to the only conclusion that the accused had killed the deceased with M.O.1 bill-hook. (5) In the circumstances, the Trial Court had rightly convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of either counsel. We have carefully perused the evidence on record and the findings of the Trial Court. 9. On 21.7.1998, at about 7 p.m., near the mud-path in Immanuvel‘s vacant land, in Thomas Nagar, in Iluppaiyoorani, near Kovilpatti, in Tuticorin District, the dead body of Selvi‘s husband Madasamy was found with cut injury on his right neck. He died of homicidal violence. 10. According to the prosecution, due to prior motive, Madasamy was killed by the accused. 11. On 21.7.1998, at about 8 a.m., at the Kovilpatti East Police Station, Selvi, wife of deceased Madasamy, gave Exhibit P-1 complaint to P.W.16 Sankaranarayanan, Sub-Inspector of Police. It was attested to by her brother, P.W.1 Muthiah. Based on that Exhibit P-15 FIR has been registered. Subsequently, Selvi, left the village. Her whereabout is not known. V.A.O. certificate to that effect has also been filed. In the circumstances, during the trial, she could not be examined. So, the informant was not before the Court. 12. In this case, Selvi is the de facto complainant. State is the de jure complainant. It is not all information/report becomes First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., An information containing commission of a cognizable offence alone will be First Information Report. It sets the criminal law in motion. But it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used to corroborate its maker/author under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is examined as a witness in Court. It cannot be used to corroborate or contradict a person other than the informant. 13. But it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used to corroborate its maker/author under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if the informant is examined as a witness in Court. It cannot be used to corroborate or contradict a person other than the informant. 13. Now, in this case, Selvi‘s Exhibit P-1 complaint has been marked through her brother, P.W.1 Muthiah, who has also attested it. But, he is not the informant. The informant is not before the Court. But, on account of that, FIR cannot be discarded. Even when the informant is before the Court, it cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence. When the informant is not examined, prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Even if the FIR is not proved, still a case can be proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Even in the absence of informant of FIR, acceptability of prosecution case depends on the evidence adduced in the Court. In the circumstances, let us see whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes its case. 14. In this case, there is no eye-witness. According to prosecution, there are very many tell-tale circumstances pointing out the accused as the author of the crime. Thus, this case is based on circumstantial evidence. 15. Sir Alfred Wills In His Wills “Circumstantial Evidence“ (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: “(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.” 16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79 : (1991) SCC (Cr) 407 : LNIND 1989 SC 533 , it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) 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 (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the 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.” 17. In S.K. Yousuf v. State of West Bengal AIR 2011 SC 2283 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620 : LNIND 2011 SC 558 : (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 127 , on the aspect of circumstantial evidence, Honourable Apex Court observed as under: 32. Undoubtedly, conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the Court must bear in mind while deciding the case involving the commission of serious offence based on circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused.” 18. To inculpate the accused with the death of Madasamy, prosecution relies on the following circumstances. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused.” 18. To inculpate the accused with the death of Madasamy, prosecution relies on the following circumstances. (1) Motive (2) Purchase of M.O.1 bill-hook (3) Last seen theory (4) Abscondance of the accused (5) Extra-judicial confession (6) Section 27 Evidence Act recovery 19. We shall proceed to see the circumstances one by one, and find out whether they have been established, whether they are incriminating in nature, whether they are forming a complete chain without any missing link, unerringly proceeding towards the accused as author of the crime, excluding any hypothesis of innocence in his favour. 20. It is stated that the accused had strong motive to kill Madasamy. 21. Madasamy is a much married man. Firstly, he married Muthumari, next Mariammal; separated from each since they are issueless. Next, he married Selvi. She is also issueless. Lastly, she resided with him. 22. P.W.2 Manikandan also belongs to Thomas Nagar in Iluppaiyoorani. His evidence is that one day prior to the occurrence, when the accused questioned Madasamy of his wayward behaviour in taking away one more girl, Madasamy retorted that he had capacity and if he sends his wife, he would give him a child and the accused got offended and both quarrelled and he separated them. It is stated by the prosecution that ashamed of this, the accused had murdered Madasamy. 23. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had stated that P.W.2 himself was suspected in the death of Madasamy, police took him and kept him in the Police Station. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that he was taken to the Police Station in connection with Madasamy‘s murder, Needle of suspicion was also towards him. 24. Madasamy married thrice. Sent away one by one at his sweet will and pleasure. Then, he was 35 years old. He took away his wife Selvi‘s sister P.W.6 Mathi Ruby Rani‘s daughter Sumathi, who was then aged about 15 years and had just attained puberty. The elder‘s brought Sumathi and left her in P.W.6‘s house. P.Ws.3 and 4, Malaiyammal and Kaliammal, mother and sister of Madasamy also confirms this. Few days thereafter, Madasamy was murdered. He took away his wife Selvi‘s sister P.W.6 Mathi Ruby Rani‘s daughter Sumathi, who was then aged about 15 years and had just attained puberty. The elder‘s brought Sumathi and left her in P.W.6‘s house. P.Ws.3 and 4, Malaiyammal and Kaliammal, mother and sister of Madasamy also confirms this. Few days thereafter, Madasamy was murdered. The whole village was aggrieved over his behaviour towards a minor girl. He was atrocious in his behaviour especially towards women. Naturally, he would have earned the wrath of many. Many would have become his enemies. 25. In a ease based on the evidence of ocular witnesses, motive will not play a vital role. However, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive also will play a vital role. It will lend assurance to the quality of the evidence adduced and to the credibility of the witnesses examined to speak about the incriminating circumstances. 26. But, motive is a double edged-weapon. It could be either way (see Kailash Gour v. State of Assam AIR 2012 SC 786 : (2012) 2 SCC 34 : LNIND 2011 SC 2249 : (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 807 ). In the facts and circumstances of the case, sufficiency of motive is also required to be considered, when the motive suggested is stated to have motivated the accused to take away the life of the deceased. Now, two views or two aspects of motive have been brought out. It could be either way. In the circumstances, it cannot be said conclusively that this is the reason for his murder. Thus, in the circumstances, the motive suggested by the prosecution besides, it being not established, is highly doubtful. Thus, the first link in the chain of circumstances stated by the prosecution has been cut. 27. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is last seen theory, 28. It is the evidence of P.W.2 Manikandan, on 20.7.1998, at about, 7 p.m., Madasamy, accused and himself were near a farm in their village, at that time, P.W.1 was also standing there, then, he (P.W.2) and P.W.1 left to their houses, Madasamy and accused alone were standing there and thereafter, on the next day, P.W.2 heard that Madasamy was murdered. In Exhibit P.17 Inquest Report, P.W.18. the Investigating Officer had mentioned that P.W.1 was the person lastly seen Madasamy alive. In Exhibit P.17 Inquest Report, P.W.18. the Investigating Officer had mentioned that P.W.1 was the person lastly seen Madasamy alive. But, in his evidence, P.W.1 had stated that before Madasamy‘s death, he did not see him, 29. Madasamy‘s sister P.W.4 Kaliamal, stated that on 20.7.1998, at about 7 p.m., when she visited her brother‘s house, he told her that in connection with a work, the accused would be coming to take him, she could get rice from his wife and go away. Then P.W.4 did not see the accused in her brother‘s house. She also admits that she did not see lastly her brother alive together with the accused. 30. Madasamy‘s mother P.W.3 Malaiyammal stated that on 20.7. 1998, at about 7.30 p.m,. when she went to her son‘s house, her daughter-in-law Selvi told her that her son had already gone out. P.W.3 did not tell that Selvi told that her husband and accused went together. Selvi did not tell her that her husband was lastly seen alive with the accused. Above all, Selvi has not been examined to corroborate P.W.3. Thus, there is no acceptable evidence that the deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused. Thus, the last seen theory has not been established by the prosecution. So, one more link in the chain of circumstances stated by the prosecution has been cut. 31. Another circumstance stated by the prosecution is obtaining of M.O.1 bill hook, which is stated to have been used by the accused to kill Madasamy. 32. P.W.7 Paramasivam is hirer of bill hooks, knives and agricultural implements. M.O.1 does not have any markings to show that it belongs to him. P.W.18 also admits this. P.W.7 stated that it was lent to the accused on 18.7.1998, at about 9 p.m. But, in his cross-examination, he states that he gave it to him on 22.7.1998, subsequently, he stated that it was on 20.7.1998. 33. P.W.2 stated that he had seen the accused with M.O.1 bill-hook on 19.7.1998. He had also seen the accused on 20.7.1998. So, according to P.W.2, he had seen the accused wielding M.O.1 bill-hook always. It is. quite unnatural and artificial. 34. Thus, the circumstance with respect to M.O.1 bill-hook projected by the prosecution also has not been established. So, one more link in the chain of circumstances stated by the prosecution has broken. 35. So, according to P.W.2, he had seen the accused wielding M.O.1 bill-hook always. It is. quite unnatural and artificial. 34. Thus, the circumstance with respect to M.O.1 bill-hook projected by the prosecution also has not been established. So, one more link in the chain of circumstances stated by the prosecution has broken. 35. It is stated that immediately after the occurrence, the accused had absconded from his house. In this respect P.W. 5 has been examined. 36. The occurrence was on the night of 20.7.1998. P.W.5 Singarayar is having his petty shop, two houses after the house of the accused. His evidence is that on the date of occurrence, at about 8 a.m., accused came to his shop, purchased beedi and left, thereafter, he could not see him in his house and the house was also found locked. 37. Thus, P.W.5 had seen him on 20.7.1998, at about 8 a.m.,. During that whole day, the accused was seen in the village. On 21.7.1998, his house was found locked. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that his parents and sisters were also not there. So, the whole family was not in the house. On the next day, according to prosecution, the accused was arrested. His whole family leaving the house may be for many other reasons. 38. It is relevant here to note the observations of Hon‘ble Supreme Court made in S.K. Yousuf v. State of West Bengal (supra) at spl. page 628 wherein it is held as under: “It is settled legal position that in case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he may be running away merely on being suspected out of fear of police arrest and harassment vide Matru v. State of U.P. AIR 1971 SC 1050 : (1971) SCC (Cr) 391 , Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakahand AIR 2011 SC 200 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cr) 98 and Dara Singh v. Republic of India AIR 2011 SC 979 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 706 . Mere abscondance cannot be taken as a circumstance which gives rise to drawn adverse inference against him.” 39. So, in the circumstances, accused‘s absence cannot be an incriminating circumstance. Mere abscondance cannot be taken as a circumstance which gives rise to drawn adverse inference against him.” 39. So, in the circumstances, accused‘s absence cannot be an incriminating circumstance. Thus, one more link, in the chain of the circumstances stated by the prosecution is disconnected. 40. The other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is extra-judicial confession of the accused. Confession is also a form of admission. Admission of guilt, in other words, confession by the accused is best form of evidence. The concept of extra-judicial confession emanates from Section 24 of the Evidence Act. As to its reliability, there are certain parameters or conditions precedent. 41. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, AIR 2003 SC 3601 : (2003) SCC (Cr) 1965 : LNIND 2003 SC 662 it was observed as under: “An extra-judicial confession, if any voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to. indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words is spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” 42. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.” 42. P.W.8 Rajalakshmi is V.A.O of Villisery Village. Her evidence is that on 22.7.1998, at about 10 a.m., while she was in her office, the accused came and, confessed his killing of Madasamy on 20.7.1998 at about 8.30 p.m., in Thomas Nagar near, Vivekananda Match Factory. She wrote it. He signed it, It is Exhibit P-2 extra-judicial confession. She sent the accused along with his Assistant P.W.9 Madasamy with Exhibit P-2 with her letter Exhibit P-3 to Kayathar Police Station. 43. Exhibit P-2 contains the entire prosecution case. It is stated that when the extra-judicial confession was given, P.W.9 was also present. He did not attest it. Accused belongs to Ilupaiyurani Village. It is near to Kovilpatti. Ilupaiyurani has separate V.A.O and Village Assistant. They are P.Ws.10 and 11, Velusamy and Periya Madasamy Villisery is about 20 kms from Kovilpatti. Why the accused chose Villiseri than Ilupaiyurani. No special reason for this has been stated. 44. In her cross-examination, P.W.8 admits that prior to 22.7.1998, she has no acquaintance with the accused. She is an utter stranger to him. P.W.9 also not known to the accused. There is no reason or occasion for the accused, in his such deplorable situation to have confidence in P.W.8 and make the confession linking him with a murder charge. From the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, it is not known for what reason the accused had approached them. They did not say that the accused had requested them to save or protect him from police harassment. 45. The confession was stated to have been given to P.W.8 at Villisery. It comes under Kovilpatti Taluk. By that time, P.W.8 knows that the accused belongs to Ilupaiyurani and the occurrence was also in that village. She knows that the concerned Police station is Kovilpatti East Police Station. In such circumstances, it is quite strange why she had sent the accused to Kayathar Polite Station. No explanation for this from the prosecution. 46. By that time, P.W.8 knows that the accused belongs to Ilupaiyurani and the occurrence was also in that village. She knows that the concerned Police station is Kovilpatti East Police Station. In such circumstances, it is quite strange why she had sent the accused to Kayathar Polite Station. No explanation for this from the prosecution. 46. Further, after recording the confession and after knowing that the accused was involved in a murder case, she had simply sent him along with P.W.9 to Kayathar Police Station, P.W.9 says that he and the accused have just travelled in a bus to Kayathar. This aspect looks very very odd and exhibits unnatural conduct on the part of P.Ws.8 and 9. 47. It is relevant here to note the decision of Hon‘ble Apex Court in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 332 : (1997) SCC (Cr) 358 : LNIND 1998 SC 925 , that the prosecution has to show as to why and how the accused had reposed confidence on a particular person to give extrajudicial confession. 48. In Ravi @ Ravichandran and Another v. State, through the Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station, Salem LNIND 2007 SC 554 : (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 367 , it was observed as under: “But, in this case, it is found that there is no evidence to show that the Village Administrative Officer was known to A.1. Unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart; to such a person. Therefore, we straight away reject the untrustworthy testimony of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 that A.1 voluntarily confessed the crime to him.” 49. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2006) 1 SCC (Cr) 579 : LNIND 2005 SC 342 , the Hon‘ble Apex Court held as under: “The first and foremost aspect which needs to be taken note of is, that P.W.9 is not a person who had intimate relations or friendship with the appellant. P.W.9 says that he knew the appellant “to some extent” meaning thereby that he had only acquaintance with him. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not visit his house earlier and that he met the appellant once or twice at the bus-stand. There is no earthly reason why he should go to P.W.9 and confide to him as to what he had done.” 50. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not visit his house earlier and that he met the appellant once or twice at the bus-stand. There is no earthly reason why he should go to P.W.9 and confide to him as to what he had done.” 50. In Sunny Kapoor v State (UT of Chandigarh) AIR 2006 SC 2242 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cr) 522 : LNIND 2006 SC 364 , it was observed as under: “It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence.” 51. This Court in its judgment dated 23.7.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2008 and 356 and 379 of 2009, Kanagaraj @ Duraisamy @ Ganesh v. Erode District under similar circumstances observed as under: “11.... According to P.W.6, he did not know the accused early, and thus he was a stranger. He was also a VAO of Komarapalayam, which is situated 30 kilometers from the place of the accused....” 52. P.Ws.8 and 9 are not trustworthy. They are obliging witnesses to P.W.18. Exhibit P-2 extra-judicial confession is not genuine and voluntary. Thus, it deserves to be eschewed from our zone of consideration. Thus, there is one more disconnection in the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution. 53. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, namely, M.O.1 bill-hook. 54. Under Section 27 of the Evidences Act, so much of information leading to the recovery of a material fact alone is admissible. Non-culpatory portion in the confession of an accused alone is admissible. 55. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were stated long ago by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 . It runs as under: “It is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered‘ within the Section as equivalent to the object produced, the fact discovered within the Section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and knowledge of the accused as to this, and the informations given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that “ I will produce a knife concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission, of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A‘, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” 56. Recently, in Mustkeem alias Sirajupden v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 2769 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 473 : LNIND 2011 SC 650 : (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 151 , with reference to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, Hon‘ble Apex Court observed as under: “25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the materials object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the, conclusion!, that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the materials object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” 57. It is not all the statements connected with the production or finding of property, which are admissible; only those which lead immediately to the discovery of property, and so far as they do lead to such discovery alone are admissible. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is exculpatory/non-culpatory/non-incriminating part in the confessional statement of the accused. Inculpatory/incriminating part of the confessional statement is totally inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 58. From Exhibit P-4 confessional statement of the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, recorded that It means, if he is taken, from the concealed place, he will produce the bill-hook, which was used to kill Madasamy. Evidence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge from the recovery witness P.W.10 Velusamy, V.A.O is also on similar line. 59. 58. From Exhibit P-4 confessional statement of the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, recorded that It means, if he is taken, from the concealed place, he will produce the bill-hook, which was used to kill Madasamy. Evidence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge from the recovery witness P.W.10 Velusamy, V.A.O is also on similar line. 59. The Trial Court had admitted in evidence the culpatory part of the confessional statement of the accused also. It is the duty of the Court to dissect the evidence regarding the confession and to; divide the sentence into its component parts and only admit that part, which led to the discovery of the particular fact, viz., the hidden property. 60. In the circumstances, we shall proceed to see the exculpatory part of the confessional statement stated to have been given by the accused to P.W.18 Investigation Officer. 61. It is the evidence of P.W.18 Investigation Officer that on 22.7.1998 between 11 a.m. and 11.45 a.m., in the Kovilpatti East Police Station, the accused gave Exhibit P-4 confessional statement in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11, Velusamy and Periya Madasamy, who are VAO and Village Assistant respectively of Ilupaiyurani and at about 3.30 p.m., he took them to a pump set, near one Immanuvel‘s land in Thomas Nagar, Ilupaiyurani and dug a place and from there produced M.O.1 bill-hook. It was witnessed to by P.Ws.10 and 11 and M.O.1 was seized by P.W.18 under Exhibit P-5 mahazar. 62. M.O.1 belongs to P.W.7 Paramasivam. According to the prosecution, M.O.1 bill-hook belongs to P.W.7 and the accused hired it from him. Already, we have seen that there is nothing to link M.O.1 bill-hook to P.W.7. 63. In his cross-examination P.W.10 states that M.O.1 billhook was seized at about 1.30 p.m., whereas he had already stated that it was seized at 3.30 p.m. 64. The arrest of the accused was preceded by his surrender before P.W.8. Only, thereafter, his confessional statement was recorded by P.W.18 at the Police Station, thereafter, only M.O.1 bill-hook is stated to have been recovered. When we have not placed our reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and Exhibit P-2 Extra-judicial confession, naturally, Section 27 of Evidence Act recovery also falls to the ground. 65. Only, thereafter, his confessional statement was recorded by P.W.18 at the Police Station, thereafter, only M.O.1 bill-hook is stated to have been recovered. When we have not placed our reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and Exhibit P-2 Extra-judicial confession, naturally, Section 27 of Evidence Act recovery also falls to the ground. 65. It is relevant here to refer to the judgment dated 16.7.2009 of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2007 Ramamurthy & Deepa v. Inspector of Police, Pallikonda, Vellore District wherein it is held that when the extra-judicial confession becomes shaky and doubtful, recovery of the material objects cannot constitute any evidence. 66. Thus, the recovery of M.O.1 is stage managed. Thus, the last link in the chain of in circumstances projected by the prosecution has also been disconnected. 67. As already stated (in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances woven by the prosecution must form a complete chain and without any missing link it must proceed towards the accused, excluding any hypothesis of innocence in his favour. Now, in the present case, several circumstances, which are stated to have been incriminating and forming a complete-chain by the prosecution has been found broken. 68. Net result is the charge framed as against the accused is sans evidence. It is a mere charge. It does not make out an offence unless backed by valid and legal evidence. The consequence will be mere suspicion. Mere suspicion, however, strong or probable, it may be no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime. (See Rathinam v. State of T.N. (2011) 11 SCC 140 ). In this case, since there is no such evidence, the charge against the accused fails. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not established the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. So, the findings of the Trial Court are to be vacated. 69. In the result, (i) This criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in S.C. No. 131 of 1999 on 3.4.2002 are set aside. (iii) The fine amount, if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. 69. In the result, (i) This criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in S.C. No. 131 of 1999 on 3.4.2002 are set aside. (iii) The fine amount, if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. (iv) The appellant shall be released forthwith from the prison, if he is no longer required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed.