Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The appellant in this Appeal stands convicted in S.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 394 r/w 397 and 302 I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment; to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2010 at about 08.30 a.m, the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased, which is situated behind Thiyagaraja Mill at Vilnayakkanpatti, Nilakottai Taluk and had stolen the valuables and cash of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), totalling a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and fled away from the place of the occurrence in the two wheeler of the brother of the defacto complainant, bearing Registration No.TN-58-C-4165, and thereby, committed the offences as stated supra. 3. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased, who belongs to Vilnayakkanpatti. She is working as maid in the noon meal centre and also run a poultry in the said village. The accused was working in the said poultry farm for the past 1¾ years. On 03.02.2010, she went to the school. At about 11.00 am, on receiving a phone call, P.W.1 came back to her house and saw the accused Sivaraj taking the two wheeler M.80 and going away from that place and when P.W.1 questioned him, he ran away. When P.W.1 entered into the house, she found the dead body of her mother, whose neck was throttled by using a nylon rope. She also found that some valuables and cash of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) were missing. 4. P.W.2 deposed that he knew the deceased and the accused and on 03.02.2010, he heard the alarm raised by P.W.1 and on P.W.1 opening the door, they saw the deceased lying on the floor. She also found that some valuables and cash of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) were missing. 4. P.W.2 deposed that he knew the deceased and the accused and on 03.02.2010, he heard the alarm raised by P.W.1 and on P.W.1 opening the door, they saw the deceased lying on the floor. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that the distance between the house of P.W.1 and his garden would be 200 meters and P.W.1 opened the door, after they went there and the brother of P.W.1 came at 05.00 p.m., along with his wife. 5. P.W.3 deposed that on 03.02.2010 at 11.00 a.m., he, his brother and his sister-in-law were bundling the crops and on hearing the alarm raised, they went to the house of P.W.1 and found the deceased Rajammal dead. During the cross-examination, he further deposed that P.W.2 informed Jeyalakshmi over phone. 6. P.W.4, is the wife of P.W.2. She deposed that she knew about the deceased and the accused and the accused was working in the garden of Ravi, the brother of P.W.1. On 03.02.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., while she along with P.W.2 and P.W.3 were bundling, they heard the alarm and we went to the house of the deceased and her neck was tightened with M.O.5 and she died. In the cross-examination on the side of the accused, she deposed that it is not correct to state that when they went to the house of the deceased, she only knew about the death of the deceased and she was tutored by the police to depose about the theft of articles. 7. P.W.5 deposed that he knew the deceased and the accused. On 03.02.2010 at 12.30 p.m., he received a phone call and he went to the garden of the deceased and found the deceased. He came to know that after murdering her, the accused robbed her jewels and articles. At that time, the accused was not there. In the cross-examination, he deposed that when he went there, 20 persons were there and the daughter-in-law of the deceased, namely, Jeyalakshmi, belonged to his place and it is not correct to state that he only knew about the death of the deceased and on the instructions given by the police, he had deposed about the theft of the household articles. 8. P.W.12, is the Special Sub Inspector of Police. 8. P.W.12, is the Special Sub Inspector of Police. On 03.02.2010, at about 11.30 a.m, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave a complaint which was registered as Ex.P1 in Crime No.39 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report. He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. 9. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer, who received the FIR from the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.12) and went to the place of occurrence at about 18.30 hours. In the presence of P.W.6 and one Nagu Ali, he prepared the rough sketch and the same is marked as Ex.P11. He conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased before the Panchayatars. The inquest report is Ex.P.12. At about 21.15 hours, he sent the dead body to Government Hospital, Batlagundu, through Pandian (P.W.10), Head Constable, for conducting post-mortem under a requisition Ex.P.3. After post-mortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives. 10. P.W.7, is the duty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital, Batlagundu, 04.02.2010 at 12.00 noon and she did post-mortem on the dead body on its receipt along with the requisition. During the post-mortem, she found various symptoms noted by her as hereunder: “1.Rope mark around the neck seen Double mark of rope seen on the right side neck starting from middle of the neck (ne) below the right ear. 2) Bleeding from the nose and mouth seen dried. 3) Laceration on the upper lip and the lip swollen. 4) Linear injury 4 cm length on the right elbow 5) Contusion on the left maxilla 6) Bleeding in the left conjunctive 7) Diffused bleeding below the skin over the left carotid artery 8) Contusion on the left parietal region. Opening and thorax and abdomen: Hyoid intact, stomach empty. All internal organs are congested. Utatrophie, viscera taken for chemical analysis. Opening of skull contusion on the left parietal region present membranes intact. Brain congested. Time of death – The deceased would appear to have died about 26-30 hours prior to autopsy. Cause of death opinion pending for want of chemical analysis report”. (extracted as such) 11. P.W.13, was continuing his investigation. He recovered four feet brown colour nylon rope with one hair (M.O.5) in the presence of P.W.8 and one Thavaseelan under Ex.P.5 - mahazar from the place of occurrence, at about 21.15 hours. Cause of death opinion pending for want of chemical analysis report”. (extracted as such) 11. P.W.13, was continuing his investigation. He recovered four feet brown colour nylon rope with one hair (M.O.5) in the presence of P.W.8 and one Thavaseelan under Ex.P.5 - mahazar from the place of occurrence, at about 21.15 hours. On receiving information, at about 22.30 hours, he seized a Merun Colour M.80 bearing Registration No.TN-68C-4165 (M.O.6) in the presence of the said witnesses under Ex.P6/mahazar. He examined some occurrence witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, handed over the file to the Inspector of Police, (P.W.14) Nilakkottai, for further investigation. 12. P.W.14, who was the Inspector of Police, on 04.02.2010, took up the case registered in Crime No.39 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC from Nilakottai Police Station and on the same day, at about 5.00 am, arrested the accused at Nilakottai bus stand and recorded his confession statement before one Nagaraj and Jeyakumar (P.W.9) and the admissible portion of his confession statement was marked as Ex.P.7. Pursuant to his confession statement, M.O.1, Laptop, M.O.2, ear studs, M.O.3, an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and M.O.4, Nokia Cell Phone were recovered in the presence of the above said witnesses under Exs.P.8 and P.9 and recorded their statements. The arrested accused and the incriminating objects were brought to the police station and the accused was sent for judicial remand. The Material Objects were sent to Court under Form-95. After completing all the other legal formalities, he filed the final report in Court on 04.05.2010, charging the accused for the commission of offences under sections 448, 394 r/w 397 and 302 I.P.C. 13. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstance put up against him as false and contrary to facts. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was brought before Court at the instance of the appellant/accused. 14. The prosecution in order to substantiate their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to 12 and M.Os.1 to 4. 15. The trial Court, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 394 r/w and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentences as stated above. 15. The trial Court, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 394 r/w and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentences as stated above. Against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 16. Heard Mr. M.Daniel Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.S.Duraipandiyan,learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 17. Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would mainly focus his arguments on four grounds. Firstly, he raised a question as to the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the prosecution has not explained such a delay. To examine this position, this Court has to look into the material records. The occurrence took place at 11.30 a.m on 03.02.2010, whereas, the complaint has been made by P.W.1 at 18.00 hours, after a delay of 6.30 hours and Ex.P.10 - FIR would clearly indicate the time of occurrence and the Express FIR marked as Ex.P.1 would give the clear position as there is a delay of 6.30 hours in lodging the complaint, which the prosecution has not explained from the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 13 and therefore, this point goes in favour of the appellant/accused on the point of delay. 18. Secondly, it is his contention that the vital witnesses namely, Sugapriya, who gave the first information to P.W.1 and the son of the deceased viz., Ravi, have not been examined and also no efforts have been taken to examine them to cull out the truth. Similarly, his wife Jeyalakshmi has not been examined by the prosecution. In this aspect, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the non-examination of the vital witnesses is fatal to the prosecution, because the first information given by Sugapriya could be a credible evidence to be taken into account, for which, the prosecution has not made any attempt. It is also important that the witnesses examined are interested and not even one independent witness has been examined and those witnesses who are available, are living nearby the scene of occurrence. This could be an another factor which would distort the prosecution case to prove the guilt in the manner known to law. 19. It is also important that the witnesses examined are interested and not even one independent witness has been examined and those witnesses who are available, are living nearby the scene of occurrence. This could be an another factor which would distort the prosecution case to prove the guilt in the manner known to law. 19. As to the point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at a third instance, is that the presence of P.W.1 is doubtful. The reason being, when P.W.5/Veerapandian, a hearsay witness, was examined, he has not spoken about the presence of the P.W.1 and P.Ws 2 to 4 are the adjacent land owners and they have also not spoken about the presence of P.W.1 and all of them have seen the dead body. Therefore, in that count also, the prosecution has not proved its case with a clinching evidence to link the guilt of the accused to the occurrence by corroborating the evidence of witnesses. Further, alibi is created as to the unwarranted calling of sniffer dog to the place of occurrence for identification. Normally, it could be the case of identifying the accused, then the prosecution will bring such dog for proving the case. But there is no warranting circumstances to bring the dog to the place of occurrence and the purpose for which the sniffer dog was taken to the place of occurrence has not been explained by the prosecution. 20. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant attacked the case of the prosecution on the cause of death, as they have failed to prove it clearly what would be the real cause for the death of the deceased. P.W7, post-mortem Doctor, after giving all the identification marks and the nature of injuries, gave the opinion that “on opening thorax and abdomen: Hyoid intact, stomach empty. All internal organs are congested. Utatrophie, viscera taken for chemical analysis. Opening of skull contusion on the left parietal region present membranes intact. Brain congested.” Ultimately, he informed the position that the deceased would appear to have died about 26-30 hours prior to autopsy. However, the Medical Officer, has not opined about the cause of death, since the opinion for cause of death pending for want of chemical analysis report. Opening of skull contusion on the left parietal region present membranes intact. Brain congested.” Ultimately, he informed the position that the deceased would appear to have died about 26-30 hours prior to autopsy. However, the Medical Officer, has not opined about the cause of death, since the opinion for cause of death pending for want of chemical analysis report. When we enquired that at the time of trial, the report was available or not, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the report has not been received/available. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that correlating the evidence of P.W.7 with the evidence of P.W.13, the prosecution failed to prove that what is the cause of death by getting the chemical analysis report. On that score also, the prosecution has not brought the accused for guilt to prove its case. 21. Mr. K.S.Duraipandiyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor taking us through all the evidences, would impress upon the Court by pointing out the evidence of P.W.1 and recoveries made M.O.1, Laptop, M.O.2, Gold ear stud, M.O.3, a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), M.O.4.CellPhone, M.O.5.Nylon Rope and M.O.6.Bajaj two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-58-C-4165 and submit that all these recoveries would give a clear position of the prosecution case and the trial Court has given a credible attachment to those recoveries and taken into account the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 13 which have clearly linked the prosecution case and proved the guilt of the accused and hence, the decision arrived at by the trial Court on any count cannot be disbelieved even though there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. He further contended that based on the circumstantial evidence and the presumption arrived at to prove the guilt as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court concluded on the existence of the facts and the same would clinchingly prove the guilt of the appellant/accused. 22. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have gone through the entire records. 23. 22. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have gone through the entire records. 23. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and she received the first information from one Sugapriya (not examined) and proceeded to lodge a complaint with P.W.12 (Special Sub Inspector of Police) and then P.W.13 the Investigating Officer has proceeded with the investigation and the body was entrusted to P.W.7, the Medical Officer for post-mortem and the prosecution made efforts to prove the guilt to link the accused, at the time of occurrence at 11.30 a.m and the complaint was lodged to P.W.12 at 18.00 hours and the delay of 6.30 hours in making the complaint, was not explained by the prosecution. 24. Then, the examination of P.W.1 and her deposition would reveal as to how she had received the information from one Sugapriya and further her intimation to his brother Ravi and his wife Jeyalakshmi and the prosecution had not taken efforts to bring all the crucial witnesses to the witness box and examine them further. This is another factor which the learned counsel for the appellant has put forth, how the prosecution has not proved the guilt in a circumstance where there was not even an eyewitness and only on seeing the body of the deceased hanging and on information from Sugapriya, the case has been put up with a link to the issue. But, at the same time, it is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances. 25. But, at the same time, it is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances. 25. It is a well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should, in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved and there must be a chain of evidence so far complete from the time of occurrence to the conclusion of the entire investigation and the prosecution is having every burden to prove the guilt and then perhaps the prosecution may raise a point that these are all points which would be minor in nature and such a discrepancy would not vitiate the prosecution case. Therefore, always the Court should have an approach if the evidence of the witness is really in its entirety and the same appears to have in a ring of truth and then, it may become necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence, more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiency, the drawback, infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole and evaluate them separately to determine whether the same clearly expressed the nature of evidence provided by all the witnesses. 26. Further, the credibility of prosecution version could be tested when the evidence is to be far crucial for being tested on the touch stone of the credibility, the discrepancies sometimes would give an impression that it is of a curable one, but, at the same time, every factor involved in the process of prosecution should have a live link and to get a complete truth. But in the instant case, it is not only a delay in lodging the complaint, but also the presence of P.W.1 is doubtful and nobody has spoken about her presence. Further, the cause of death is another important factor, which the prosecution has not placed till date anything on record that they had received the opinion of chemical analysis and come to a conclusion what should be the real cause of death of the deceased. Further, the cause of death is another important factor, which the prosecution has not placed till date anything on record that they had received the opinion of chemical analysis and come to a conclusion what should be the real cause of death of the deceased. This factor is another important material for the prosecution to prove its case. Further, certain irrelevant things have also been done by the prosecution by inviting the sniffer dog to the place of occurrence for identification of the accused. This aspect also raises a doubt in proving the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused as well. These vital factors would fall on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt and they would also create much suspicion as to how the prosecution has taken the case from the time of occurrence till the end of investigation. 27. All the above factors would give a considerable suspicion that the prosecution would not be in a position to explain the incriminating circumstances and failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt would give a reasonable doubt which could always be in favour of the accused. 28. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation at all to conclude that the evidence of the witnesses and non-examination of the vital witness and the failure to produce the chemical analysis report to prove the cause of death, would result in failure of prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused and thereby, incriminated him to the cause of death of the deceased and therefore, benefit could be extended in favour of the appellant/accused. 29. For all the above reasons and considering the entire materials on record made available before this Court, we find that there is a substantial doubt in the prosecution case and accordingly, giving benefit of that doubt to the accused, he is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged, tried and convicted, by setting aside the judgment under challenge. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by him, is ordered to be refunded to him and bail bond, if any, executed by him, shall stand cancelled.