JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No. 306 of 2006 is the 2nd accused and the appellant in Cr. A. (MD) No. 465 of 2006 is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 90 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. The 1st accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and the 2nd accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. By judgment dated 16.05.2006, the trial Court acquitted the 1st accused from the lone charge framed against her. However, the trial Court convicted the 2nd accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC. By the same judgment, the trial Court confiscated the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN-57F 4425, belonging to the 1st accused. 2. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the 2nd accused has come up with Crl. A. (MD) No. 306 of 2006 and challenging the order of confiscation, confiscating the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN-57F 4425, the 1st accused has come up with Crl. A. (MD) No. 465 of 2006. The State has not made any appeal against the acquittal of the 1st accused. The wife of the deceased in this case, namely P.W.2, has come up with Crl. Rc. (MD) No. 640 of 2006, challenging the acquittal of the 1st accused. That is how all the above three matters are before this Court, for disposal. Since these two criminal appeals and the criminal revision arise out of the same judgment, we have heard them altogether and dispose of them by means of this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The 1st accused in this case is a woman. She was running an Non-Governmental Organization. She had secured loan from banks to the members of the Organization. But, without disbursing the said loan amount to the beneficiaries, it is alleged that the 1st accused herself misappropriated the same. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The 1st accused in this case is a woman. She was running an Non-Governmental Organization. She had secured loan from banks to the members of the Organization. But, without disbursing the said loan amount to the beneficiaries, it is alleged that the 1st accused herself misappropriated the same. (b) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Pandiyarajan. He was the Secretary of Nilakottai Taluk Branch of Communist Party (Marxist). P.W.4 is the Branch Secretary of Kattakamanpatti Communist Party (Marxist). Led by the deceased, the members of the community Party (Marxist), sent a number of petitions to the authorities, including the Collector, regarding the above misconduct of the 1st accused. There were lot of posters and placards put-up by the Party, headed by the deceased. Because of the action taken in this regard by the authorities, the 1st accused had to repay the entire amount to the bank. Because of the above agitation, headed by the deceased, the 1st accused had developed enmity towards the deceased. This is projected as the motive for the occurrence. (c) It is further alleged that the 1st accused was owning a van bearing Regn. No. TN-57F 4425 and the 2nd accused was employed under the 1st accused, as driver of the said vehicle. It is further alleged that on 16.9.2003, the 1st accused instigated the 2nd accused to kill the deceased, by dashing him with the said van, as and when he was found anywhere on the road. On this allegation, the 1st accused was charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. (d) It is further alleged that on 16.9.2003, at about 8.15 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on the Battalagundu - Periyakulam Main Road, near Hanuman Temple, the 2nd accused, who was driving the above said vehicle in the same direction, dashed against the deceased and his cycle. The deceased fell down, sustaining serious injuries. The 2nd accused did not stop the vehicle but, fled away from the scene of occurrence, along with the vehicle. (e) P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, on 16.9.2003, at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased left for Battalagundu, in his cycle. The deceased fell down, sustaining serious injuries. The 2nd accused did not stop the vehicle but, fled away from the scene of occurrence, along with the vehicle. (e) P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, on 16.9.2003, at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased left for Battalagundu, in his cycle. Thereafter, according to P.W.1, he heard that the deceased was found lying with injuries by the side of the road near Hanuman Temple on the Battalagundu Road. Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the daughter of the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence. They found the deceased lying unconscious, with injuries on his head. Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 took the deceased to the Battalagundu Hospital. (f) P.W.18 Dr. Tamilarasan was an Assistant Civil Surgeon at Battalagundu Government Hospital. On 16.09.2003, at about 8.45 p.m., he examined the deceased. At that time, the deceased was fully unconscious. He noticed the following injuries. “1. Left eye swollen and bulging. 2. Contusion behind the head, size 10 x 10 cm. 3. Bleeding from the nose and mouth present. 4. Abrasion over both knee.” Exhibit P-16 is the Accident Register. Since the condition of the deceased was critical, P.W.18 advised him to be taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. Accordingly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Others took the deceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. (g) In the meanwhile, on receipt of intimation from hospital, P.W.15, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Battalagundu Police Station, proceeded to the Government Hospital at Battalagundu. P.W.1 gave a complaint in respect of the occurrence to P.W.15, under Exhibit P-1. On returning to the police station, at 9.45 p.m. on 16.9.2003, P.W.15 registered a case in Crime No. 491 of 2003 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Exhibit P-12 is the FIR. He forwarded Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-12 to the Court. (h) Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.15 proceeded to the place of occurrence and at 10.15 p.m., he prepared an Observation Mahazar (Exhibit P-2) and a Rough Sketch (Exhibit P-13), in the presence of P.W.10 and Another witness. But, P.W.15 did not recover any material objects from the place of occurrence, such as cycle or bloodstained earth. He examined P.Ws.1, 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. While so, the deceased, who was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai died at 23.15 hours, on 16.9.2003 itself. But, P.W.15 did not recover any material objects from the place of occurrence, such as cycle or bloodstained earth. He examined P.Ws.1, 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. While so, the deceased, who was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai died at 23.15 hours, on 16.9.2003 itself. Then P.W.15 altered the case into one under Section 304-A IPC and handed over the Case Diary to P.W.19, for further investigation. (i) P.W.19, who was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Battalagundu Police Station, on 17.9.2003, at 6.30 a.m., taking up the case for further investigation, went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar. At that time, according to him, he found a cycle lying near the place of occurrence. He recovered the cycle, in the presence of witnesses, under a Mahazar (Exhibit P-11). On the same day, at 7.00 a.m., P.W.19 recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth (M.Os.2 and 3) from the place of occurrence, under a mahazar (Exhibit P-10). Then he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai, where he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 Noon. Exhibit P-17 is the Inquest Report. Then he forwarded the body for postmortem. (j) P.W.17 Dr. G.Natarajan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, on 17.9.2003 at 12.10 p.m. He found the following injuries. “Abrasion noted on the following areas: Two abrasions each measuring 4cm x 3cm noted on front of right knee. Multiple abrasions of varying sizes and shapes noted over an area of 12cm x 10cm on front of left knee. Two abrasions each measuring 3cm x 2cm noted on back of left elbow. Two abrasions each measuring 3cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of left ankle. 2cm x 3 cm on front of chin.” Exhibit P-15 is the Postmortem Certificate. P.W.17 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries. (k) Continuing the investigation, P.W.19 recovered dress materials found on the body of the deceased under Form 95 and forwarded the same to the Court. (l) While so, on 24.9.2003, at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.12, the Village Administrative Officer of Battalagundu, was in his office. It is stated that at that time, the 2nd accused appeared before him and made a voluntary confession. P.W.12 reduced the same into writing and obtained the signature of the 2nd accused. (l) While so, on 24.9.2003, at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.12, the Village Administrative Officer of Battalagundu, was in his office. It is stated that at that time, the 2nd accused appeared before him and made a voluntary confession. P.W.12 reduced the same into writing and obtained the signature of the 2nd accused. Exhibit P-7 is the said Extra Judicial Confession. Along with his report under Exhibit P-8, P.W.12 took the 2nd accused and Exhibit P-7 to Battalagundu Police Station. (m) On 24.9.2003 at 7.30 p.m., when P.W.19 was in his office, P.W.12 produced the 2nd accused and also handed over Exhibits P-7 and P-8. Immediately, P.W.19 arrested the 2nd accused. Then, in the presence of witnesses, the 2nd accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had left the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN-47F 4425 and in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the 2nd accused took P.W.19 and the witnesses to the house of the 1st accused and identified the vehicle which was parked in front of the house of the 1st accused. Accordingly, the said vehicle (M.O.6) was seized under a Mahazar (Exhibit P-20). Then based on the confession of the 2nd accused, P.W.19 altered the case into one under Sections, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC. Exhibit P-19 is the altered FIR. P.W.19 forwarded the same to the Court. He took the vehicle to the police station. In the mahazar, he did not mention anything about the damage, if any, found on the vehicle or bloodstains, if any, found on the vehicle. The vehicle was kept in the police station. P.W.19 made a request to the Forensic Expert to examine the vehicle. (n) P.W.13, Forensic Expert, examined the vehicle on 25.09.2003. On examination, he found bloodstains on the Number Plate and on the front bumper of the vehicle. He collected the same by using blotting papers. P.W.19 recovered them and sent the same to the Court. The bloodstained clothes recovered from the body of the deceased and the bloodstained earth recovered from the place of occurrence and the bloodstains collected from the vehicle were sent for chemical examination. Exhibit P-25 is the Chemical Examiner’s Report and Exhibit P-26 is the Serology Report. P.W.19 recovered them and sent the same to the Court. The bloodstained clothes recovered from the body of the deceased and the bloodstained earth recovered from the place of occurrence and the bloodstains collected from the vehicle were sent for chemical examination. Exhibit P-25 is the Chemical Examiner’s Report and Exhibit P-26 is the Serology Report. As per the Expert Opinion, the bloodstains found on the vehicle were of human origin and belong to “B” Group and it tallied with the blood group of the deceased, as found in the dress materials of the deceased. (o) P.W.14 is another important witness. He was working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Control Room at Theni. According to him, on 16.9.2003, along with three other police constables, he was standing near Devadanapatti Police Station Check-Post. At that time, the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 57F 4425 crossed the said check-post, at 10.10 p.m. The said vehicle was proceeding from Battalagundu. When he checked the said vehicle, he found milk cans in the vehicle. When he examined the inmates of the said vehicle, they told him that they found a person lying by the side of the road, having met with an accident. They also made a request to him to leave the vehicle since milk would get spoiled. Therefore, P.W.14 allowed the vehicle to proceed further. (He has not identified either P.W.5 or anybody else as persons who travelled in the vehicle). (p) P.W.20 is the successor to P.W.19 and he took-up the further investigation in the case. Accused No. 1 surrendered before the Court. She was taken into police custody, on the orders of the Judicial Magistrate. While she was in custody, she gave a confession to the police in which she disclosed that she had kept the documents relating to the vehicle at her house. They were all seized by P.W.20. (q) P.W.9 is another witness for the prosecution. According to him, the 2nd accused confessed to him after four days of the occurrence. But, he was examined by P.W.20 on 20.11.2003. (r) P.W.20 collected medical records and examined few more witnesses and finally he laid charge sheet against the accused. 4. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against both the accused and they denied the same and pleaded innocence. Therefore, they were put on trial. But, he was examined by P.W.20 on 20.11.2003. (r) P.W.20 collected medical records and examined few more witnesses and finally he laid charge sheet against the accused. 4. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against both the accused and they denied the same and pleaded innocence. Therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charge, on the side of the prosecution, 20 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were marked, besides 6 material objects. 5. Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.9 and P.W.12 have spoken to about the extra-judicial confessions made to them by the 2nd accused. P.W.4 has spoken to, extensively, about the motive. P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken to about the fact that the deceased was lying by the side of the road, with injuries. Others are official witnesses. 6. When the above incriminating evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied them as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side, nor marked any documents. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court acquitted the 1st accused but, convicted the 2nd accused alone. In the same judgment, the trial Court ordered confiscation of the vehicle in question, namely van bearing Regn. No. TN 57 F 4425, owned by the 1st accused. That is how these two criminal appeals and the criminal revision are before this Court for disposal. 7. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and respondent No. 1 criminal revision and the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Criminal Revision and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the records, carefully. 8. As we have already pointed out, so far as the 1st accused is concerned, the charge is under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC on the allegation that on 16.9.2003, the 2nd accused was instigated by the 1st accused to commit murder of the deceased, by dashing against him, by using the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 57F 4425. Admittedly, accused No. 2 was employed under accused No. 1. In order to prove this charge, the prosecution relies only on two circumstances. No. TN 57F 4425. Admittedly, accused No. 2 was employed under accused No. 1. In order to prove this charge, the prosecution relies only on two circumstances. The first circumstances is the motive as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4 and the second circumstance is the extra judicial confession allegedly given by the 2nd accused to P.W.12, on 24.09.2003 under Exhibit P-7 and Another oral extra judicial confession said to have been given by the 2nd accused to P.W.9. 9. Assuming that these two extra judicial confessions are believable, even then, it is too difficult to convict the 1st accused based on the said extra judicial confessions. Under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, an extra judicial confession of a co-accused can only be used for a limited purpose and the same cannot be the foundation for conviction. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1952 SC 159 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the proper course to be adopted by the Court, while appreciating extra judicial confession of a co-accused, is to keep the said extra judicial confession aside and to evaluate rest of the evidences available. If, from other evidences, the Court can safely come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, then, in order to further strengthen the said conclusion, the Court may look into the extra judicial confession given by the co-accused. If there is no such evidence at all, then the extra judicial confession given by the co-accused is of no use against the other accused. Applying this well settled position of law, if we look into the facts of the present case, except the so-called extra judicial confessions given by the 2nd accused to P.Ws.12 and P.W.9, there is no other evidence available against accused No. 1. P.Ws.1 to 4 have spoken to only about the motive. Mere motive will not go to prove that the 2nd accused was instigated by the 1st accused. Thus, in our considered opinion, the trial Court was right in acquitting the 1st accused. Therefore, Criminal Revision (MD) No. 640 of 2006 deserves only to be dismissed. 10. P.Ws.1 to 4 have spoken to only about the motive. Mere motive will not go to prove that the 2nd accused was instigated by the 1st accused. Thus, in our considered opinion, the trial Court was right in acquitting the 1st accused. Therefore, Criminal Revision (MD) No. 640 of 2006 deserves only to be dismissed. 10. Now coming to the Criminal Appeal filed by the 2nd accused, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd accused that the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the 2nd accused to P.W.12 cannot be true and similarly, P.W.9 also cannot be believed in respect of the extra judicial confession said to have been made to him by the 2nd accused, four days after the occurrence. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that P.W.12 is a stranger to the 2nd accused and therefore the 2nd accused would not have chosen to appear before P.W.12 to make a confession. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rahim Beg v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 343 : (1972) 3 SCC 759 , wherein, the Supreme Court has made the following observations: “There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would go to Mohmed Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession.” Following the said judgment, subsequently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Heramba Brahma and Another v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1982 SC 1595 : (1982) 3 SCC 351 , rejected the extra judicial confession which was allegedly made to a total stranger. 11. Very recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Rajendran v. State, by Inspect of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai, reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 10 , has taken the similar view. In paragraph No. 13 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: “13. The undisputed fact remains that the extra judicial confession was recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1, who is said to have been in charge of the occurrence village. In paragraph No. 13 of the judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: “13. The undisputed fact remains that the extra judicial confession was recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.1, who is said to have been in charge of the occurrence village. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, P.W.1 has not produced any document to show that he was incharge of the occurrence village at the time of recording the extra judicial confession, Exhibit P-1. Further, the vehement contention put-forwarded by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.1 is a total stranger to the first accused and there is absolutely no reason put-forward by the prosecution as to how the first accused had reposed confidence in going to the extent of giving confession before P.W.1. P.W.1 has also stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say under what circumstances or reasons, the accused appeared before him and P.W.1 also stated in his cross-examination that he cannot give any specific reason for the first accused to give the confession to him. The learned counsel in respect of this aspect has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), wherein, the Apex Court has held that, 15. The third contention of Mr.Sodhi viz., that it is highly improbable that Jaspal Singh (A1) would have gone to this witness along with his co-accused to confess the guilt, is equally formidable. Chhota Singh, (P.W.7) has not given any reason as to why and how Jaspal Singh (A1) and other co-accused have reposed such a confidence in him and confessed their guilt. After going through the evidence of Chhota Singh (P.W.7), we do not find it safe to hold any of the appellants guilty in the present crime.” Applying the said principles stated in the above judgments, if we look into the evidence of P.W.12, P.W.12, the Village Administrative Officer, has categorically stated that the 2nd accused was not known to him prior to the alleged occurrence. Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that the 2nd accused would have gone to P.W.12 to make a voluntary confession. Therefore, we hold that Exhibit P-7 is a doubtful document. 12. It is in the evidence of P.W.12 that even on 17.9.2003 itself, there was a large scale agitation by the Community Party (Marxist) workers. Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that the 2nd accused would have gone to P.W.12 to make a voluntary confession. Therefore, we hold that Exhibit P-7 is a doubtful document. 12. It is in the evidence of P.W.12 that even on 17.9.2003 itself, there was a large scale agitation by the Community Party (Marxist) workers. He has further stated that the demand made by the agitators, headed by P.W.4, was for the arrest of these two accused alleging that the deceased had been murdered by them. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the 2nd accused that it is because of the large scale agitation conducted by a powerful political party, out of pressure, P.W.19 had implicated the 2nd accused in this case of murder. To some extent, we find some force in the said argument advanced by the learned senior counsel. It is on record that between 16.9.2003 and 24.09.2003, P.W.19 could not collect any material suggesting that the deceased was done to death, intentionally. The investigation was proceeding as though it was only a motor vehicle accident. No eye-witness had seen that the vehicle in question was involved in the said occurrence. For the first time, only from the above extra judicial confession said to have been made by the 2nd accused to P.W.12, P.W.19 came to know that it was a case of murder and that is why he has altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC. In our considered opinion, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the 2nd accused to P.W.12 is a doubtful document and therefore no reliance can be made on the same. 13. Nextly, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.9. According to P.W.9, four days after the occurrence, he had an occasion to meet the 2nd accused and at that time, accused No. 2 confessed to him that he killed the deceased by dashing the vehicle against him at the instigation of the 1st accused. But, P.W.9 did not inform the same to police or to any close relatives of the deceased, immediately after such confession was made to him by the 2nd accused. He was examined by the police on 20.11.2003, i.e. after two months of the occurrence. At that time, it is alleged that he disclosed that accused No. 2 made such a confession to him. He was examined by the police on 20.11.2003, i.e. after two months of the occurrence. At that time, it is alleged that he disclosed that accused No. 2 made such a confession to him. There is absolutely no explanation offered as to why for about two months he did not disclose about the alleged confession made by the 2nd accused to him to anybody and therefore in our considered opinion, P.W.9 cannot be believed at all and we firmly hold that P.W.9 has been planted by the prosecution only to, in an attempt, to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 14. Nextly, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd accused would contend that P.W.15, after registering the case, went to the place of occurrence on 16.9.2003 at 10.15 p.m. and prepared an observation mahazar and at that time, he did not recover any cycle or bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence. Had it been true that the deceased went by cycle and the cycle was available at the place of occurrence, certainly P.W.15 would have seized them. But, only after the death of the deceased in the hospital and after the case was altered into one under Section 304(A) IPC, P.W.19 went to the place of occurrence and found the cycle. It was only P.W.19 had seized the cycle from the place of occurrence at 7.00 a.m. on 17.9.2003. It is not explained to the Court as to how the cycle came into picture at 7.00 p.m. on 17.9.2003, when the cycle was not available at the place of occurrence on 16.9.2003 at 10.15 p.m. when P.W.15 visited the scene of occurrence. This is a grave flaw in the case of the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no explanation in this regard. Had it been true that the deceased had gone in his cycle and he was dashed by a vehicle while he was riding the cycle, certainly, the cycle would have been available on the spot itself. P.Ws.1 to 4 have not stated at all anything about the availability of the cycle at the place of occurrence. P.W.15 also did not notice the cycle at the place of occurrence. Thus, from these admitted facts, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether the deceased would have gone in his cycle at all, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.15 also did not notice the cycle at the place of occurrence. Thus, from these admitted facts, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether the deceased would have gone in his cycle at all, as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4. This circumstance creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. 15. Nextly, the prosecution relies on the bloodstains found in M.O.6 Vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was seized by P.W.19 at 7.00 p.m. on 17.9.2003. At that time, P.W.19 did not notice any bloodstains on the number plate or the bumper of the vehicle. Had it been true that bloodstains were on the vehicle at the time when it was seized, certainly P.W.19 would have noticed the same and he would have mentioned about the same in the mahazar prepared on the spot. But, only on 25.9.2003, when the vehicle was in the police station, P.W.13 noticed bloodstains on the number plate and the bumper of the vehicle. In the interregnum period, the vehicle was only in the police station in the custody of P.W.19. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that during the said period, bloodstains came to be made on the vehicle by the police in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Since there is no explanation as to why no bloodstains were noticed on the vehicle’s number plate and bumper on 17.9.2003, we find force in the argument of the learned senior counsel that when the vehicle was in the custody of the police between 17.9.2003 and 24.9.2003, bloodstains would have been made on the vehicle. Thus, this circumstance projected by the prosecution is also doubtful. 16. Nextly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would rely on the evidence of P.W.14. He was the Special Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Theni Control Room. According to him, on 16.9.2003 at about 10.10 p.m., the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 57F 4425 was found crossing the check post in front of Devadanapatti Police Station. But, he has not identified any of the inmates of the vehicle, more particularly he has not stated that he found the 2nd accused in the vehicle. Thus, in our considered opinion, the evidence of P.W.14 does not help the prosecution, in any manner, to substantiate the charges against the 2nd accused. 17. But, he has not identified any of the inmates of the vehicle, more particularly he has not stated that he found the 2nd accused in the vehicle. Thus, in our considered opinion, the evidence of P.W.14 does not help the prosecution, in any manner, to substantiate the charges against the 2nd accused. 17. From the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has not proved any of the important circumstances projected by it. First of all, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased went to the place of occurrence in his cycle and he was hit by a vehicle. The prosecution has failed to prove that the confession allegedly made by accused No. 2 to P.Ws.12 is true and voluntary. Similarly, as we have pointed out, the evidence of P.W.9 is also highly unbelievable. All other circumstances projected, as we have discussed earlier, have not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has succeeded in proving only the motive, that too against the 1st accused. There is no motive between accused No. 2 and the deceased. 18. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution should be proved beyond reasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances should have a close link so as to form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, if we look into the facts placed before us, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances projected by it, so as to unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the 2nd accused cannot be sustained and the same requires to be set aside. 19. Now turning to Criminal Appeal (MD)No. 465 of 2006, since there is no proof that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and since no crime had been proved involving the said vehicle, the confiscation order passed by the lower Court also deserves to be set aside. 20. In the result, (a) Crl. A. (MD) No. 306 of 2006 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant (Thangapandi) are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded. 20. In the result, (a) Crl. A. (MD) No. 306 of 2006 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant (Thangapandi) are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by him is ordered to be refunded. The bail bonds executed by him shall stand discharged. (b) Crl. A. (MD) No. 465 of 2006 is allowed and the order of the trial Court confiscating the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 57F 4425 is set aside. It is directed that the said vehicle shall be returned to the appellant, namely Jeeva. (c) Crl. RC. (MD) No. 640 of 2006 is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court, insofar as acquitting Respondent No. 1/accused No. 1, is hereby confirmed. Appeal allowed.