Judgment : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The accused who were tried in S.C.No.79/2011 by the Additional Sessions Court, Salem [Fast Track Court No.I, Salem] and convicted on 07.02.2012, are the appellants before us. 2. The first accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment; both the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The first accused is the son of the second accused. The deceased Subramani is the father of the first accused and the husband of the second accused. It is alleged that Subramani got married to one Lakshmi [P.W.5], and through her has children. On account of this, there was misunderstanding in the family and the accused were not happy with the deceased spending most of his time with Lakshmi [P.W.5]. This is one motive that was projected by the prosecution. [a] Another motive is, some time in December 2009, it is alleged that the deceased had consumed the liquor that was purchased and kept by his son A1, on account of which there was a quarrel between them, and in that quarrel it is alleged that, A1 had throttled the neck of the deceased with his hands and caused his death. It is further alleged that after the commission of the crime, A1 and A2 buried the body of the deceased behind their house in order to screen the offence. [b] The prosecution story begins with the evidence of Krishnaveni [P.W.1] the Village Administrative Officer of Banapuram village, where the accused live. She received information on 05.04.2010, that the hand of a person was found protruding from a garbage pit near the house of the deceased. On receiving this information she went to the place and she was informed by one Pazhani [P.W.2] that, during a quarrel he had with A1 the previous night, A1 threatened him by saying that he would bury him also like how he had buried his father four months back in the garbage pit. On receiving this information she went to the place and she was informed by one Pazhani [P.W.2] that, during a quarrel he had with A1 the previous night, A1 threatened him by saying that he would bury him also like how he had buried his father four months back in the garbage pit. Narrating these facts, P.W.1 lodged a written complaint [Ex.P1] with the Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station and a case in Cr.No.180/2010 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. was registered on 05.04.2010 at 1.30 p.m. and the printed FIR [Ex.P10] was prepared and sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate, who received the same on the same day at 6.45 p.m. as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. [c] Investigation was taken over by Arokyaraj [P.W.12] the Inspector of Police, who informed the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate of Mettur to come to the place where the body was found for exhuming the body and conducting investigation. On 06.04.2010, G.Subramani [P.W.8] the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate of Mettur, came to the spot and had the body exhumed and during the inquest proceedings, he examined Krishnaveni [P.W.1], Lakshmi [P.W.5], Govindaraj [A1], Chellammal [A2] and other witnesses. The photographs of the body and the place were taken by Senthilkumar [P.W.10] and the photographs were marked as Ex.P19. [d] During the inquest it is stated that, Govindaraj [A1] confessed to the commission of the offence of murder of Subramani and Chellammal [A2] confessed to the disposal of the body along with A1 by digging a trench and burying it. The Inquest Report dated 06.04.2010 prepared by G.Subramani [P.W.8] was marked as Ex.P18 along with the confession statements of the accused. [e] After the inquest was over, G.Subramani [P.W.8] Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, despatched the body to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem for postmortem, where Dr.Angayarkkanni [P.W.6] performed the autopsy on 06.04.2010 from 4.00 p.m. In her evidence as well in the Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P10], it is stated: "It was a mummified body of a moderately nourished male, aged about 55 years. The body was found lying on its back over a rope cot with wooden legs. Head facing south, feet facing north. The body was covered with a black coloured bed sheet with light sandal coloured design. Brick red coloured sand seen over the bed sheet and the exposed parts of the body. The body was found lying on its back over a rope cot with wooden legs. Head facing south, feet facing north. The body was covered with a black coloured bed sheet with light sandal coloured design. Brick red coloured sand seen over the bed sheet and the exposed parts of the body. On removal of the bed sheet, the body was found covered with green coloured shirt, light green coloured brief. The body was found with both hands crossed across palms, right over the left, in front of the abdomen. Both legs crossed across the lower third of leg, right leg above left leg. Red colour rope (sacred) seen around the neck and on the left wrist. Spot post-mortem conducted on the mummified body revealed: O/D Head : Scalp hair easily pluckable. Scalp - intact. Cranial vault and dural membranes intact. Brain - found in small greyish masses attached to the skull bones. Base of the skull intact. Neck : Strap muscles found contused and haemorrhagic. Contusion measuring 5 x 4 x 0.5 cms noted over right side of the neck. Contusion measuring 6 x 4 x 0.5 cms noted over left side of the neck. Fracture thyroid cartilage noted with surrounding soft tissue contusion. Hyoid bone intact. O/D Thorax : No rib fracture. Heart - flabby, decomposed. Lungs -adherent to the rib cage on both sides. O/D Abdomen : Stomach - decomposed, Liver -Shrunken, found as dark grey coloured mass; spleen, kidneys - decomposed. Intestines - decomposed. External genitalia - no injuries made out. Pelvis and spinal column - intact. Multiple superficial incisions made all over the body. No underlying contusion elsewhere. Available viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Long bone preserved for DNA fingerprinting and skull preserved for superimposition technique. OPINION : RESERVED PENDING CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT." After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report, she has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of compression of neck. [f] Arokyaraj [P.W.12] the Inspector of Police, continued with the investigation and in the presence of witnesses Krishnaveni [P.W.1] and Azhagappan [not examined], prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P21]. On the same day, (i.e. on 06.04.2010) he examined Pazhani [P.W.2], Dhanraj [P.W.3], Natesan [P.W.4], Lakshmi [P.W.5], Rajamuthu [P.W.9] and other witnesses. [f] Arokyaraj [P.W.12] the Inspector of Police, continued with the investigation and in the presence of witnesses Krishnaveni [P.W.1] and Azhagappan [not examined], prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P21]. On the same day, (i.e. on 06.04.2010) he examined Pazhani [P.W.2], Dhanraj [P.W.3], Natesan [P.W.4], Lakshmi [P.W.5], Rajamuthu [P.W.9] and other witnesses. After examining the witnesses, he sent an Alteration Report [Ex.P22] altering the case from one of suspicious death to one under Section 302 and 201 IPC and the same was received by the Judicial Magistrate, Salem on 07.04.2010. [g] On 06.04.2010 at 11.00 in the night, the Investigating Officer arrested A1 near Sengattur Junction in the presence of witnesses Krishnaveni [P.W.1] and Azhagappan [not examined] and recorded his confession statement. Based on the admissible portion of the confession statement, he recovered a crow bar [M.O.1], spade [M.O.2] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P5]. On 06.04.2010 around 22.30 hrs, the Investigating Officer arrested A2 near Koppam Pudur junction and in the presence of Krishnaveni [P.W.1] and Azhagappan [not examined] recorded the confession statement and based on the admissible portion of the confession statement, he recovered the iron crucible [M.O.3] that was used for removing the earth that was dug out for making a pit, under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P6]. [h] The Investigating Officer made a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for having the statements of Pazhani [P.W.2], Dhanraj [P.W.3] and Natesan [P.W.4] recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and accordingly, their statements were recorded by Nandini Devi, Judicial Magistrate [P.W.7] on 22.04.2010. Their statements were marked as Exs.P7, P8 and P9. [i] The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the Doctor who conducted postmortem and completed the investigation on 11.05.2010 and filed a Final Report for the offence under Sections 302, 201 r/w 302 IPC against A1 and A2 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Mettur, who took the same on file in PRC No.5/2010. On the appearance of the appellants/accused, they were furnished with the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The case was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, where two charges were framed against the accused, namely: 1. (1) Against A1 under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Subramani some four months prior to 05.04.2010; 2. The case was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, where two charges were framed against the accused, namely: 1. (1) Against A1 under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Subramani some four months prior to 05.04.2010; 2. (2) Against A1 and A2 under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence of murder. [j] The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 23 Exhibits and 5 Material Objects were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances against them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same. After considering the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convictred and setneced the accused as aforesaid and hence this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. There is no direct evidence in this case and it is completely based on circumstantial evidence. The body was not found in the house of the accused. It was found in the place behind the house of the accused. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no satisfactory material to establish that the dead body was that on Subramani, the father of A1 and the husband of A2. We saw the photographs [Ex.P19 series] and found that it is a completely mummified body and can be categorised as a skeleton of a human being wearing a shirt with a bed sheet over it. 6. Pazhani [P.W.2] is the nephew of the deceased. In his evidence before the Court, he identified the accused as his relative. He stated that on 4th April 2010 while he was going for work with A1, a quarrel ensued, in which A1 assaulted him. During the quarrel, A1 threatened him by saying that he would bury him in the garbage pit in the same way in which he had done to his father. Thereafter, on 05.04.2010 Pazhani [P.W.2] dug the garbage pit and found a human hand protruding out. After seeing that he went to Krishnaveni [P.W.2] the Village Administrative Officer, and brought her to the place. Thereafter, the police came and on the next day, the Tahsildar came to the place and dug out the body from the pit. Thereafter, on 05.04.2010 Pazhani [P.W.2] dug the garbage pit and found a human hand protruding out. After seeing that he went to Krishnaveni [P.W.2] the Village Administrative Officer, and brought her to the place. Thereafter, the police came and on the next day, the Tahsildar came to the place and dug out the body from the pit. He found a black bed sheet [M.O.5] over the body and the body had a while colour full hand shirt with light green checks [M.O.4]. Pazhani [P.W.2] identified the body only on the basis of the shirt and bed sheet. We also saw the photographs [Ex.P19 series] and found that it is merely a human skeleton with a full arm shirt. In the cross examination he stated that A1 and his father would go for quarrying work and will not return for four or five months at a stretch. Dhanraj [P.W.3] who was sought to be examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 7. Natesan [P.W.4] who lives in the same village in his evidence stated that, he knew the deceased and the accused well and that he would tap toddy and drink with A1, and on one such occasion he picked up a quarrel with A1. He further stated that one day while he was going along with Pazhani [P.W.2] and Govindaraj [A1] for work, a quarrel ensued between Govindaraj [A1] on one side; and Pazhani [P.W.2], Dhanaraj [P.W.3] and himself on other side. At that time Govindaraj [A1] told them that he would kill and bury them in the garbage pit like the way he had done to his father. On this insinuation, Pazhani [P.W.2], Dhanaraj [P.W.3] and he started to dig the garbage pit the next day and discovered the body. In his evidence he stated that the body is that of Subramani. 8. Admittedly Pazhani [P.W.2] is a close relative of the deceased. In his evidence he did not state that Dhanraj [P.W.3] and Natesan [P.W.4] were with him when the quarrel with Govindaraj [A1] took place. He gave his evidence as if he was alone when Govindaraj picked up quarrel with him and in the heat of the quarrel, Govindaraj told him that he would bury him in the same way he had done to his father. He gave his evidence as if he was alone when Govindaraj picked up quarrel with him and in the heat of the quarrel, Govindaraj told him that he would bury him in the same way he had done to his father. Whereas, Natesan [P.W.4] in his evidence stated that he was present along with Pazhani [P.W.2] and fought with Govindaraj [A1] and also heard the insinuation made by Govindaraj. This sounds very improbable to us and we are not able to place credence on their testimonies. Pazhani [P.W.2] in his evidence stated that he went and fetched Krishnaveni, the Village Administrative Officer [P.W.1] to the place of occurrence, but whereas, Krishnaveni [P.W.1] in her evidence stated that on 05.04.2010 she was informed by her Assistant [not examined] that as he was coming through Banapuram village, he found a crowd gathered near the house of Subramani and learnt of the death of Subramani, which he informed to her. Thereafter, they both left to Banapuram village to make enquiry. This runs contrary to the evidence of Pazhani [P.W.2]. It may be relevant to state here that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Pazhani [P.W.2] on 06.04.2010 and the same was sent to Court only on 14.05.2010. Pazhani [P.W.2] was not present during the inquest by the Tahsildar. We are afraid that the circumstances in which Govindaraj is alleged to have told Pazhani [P.W.2] that he would bury him in the same way as he had buried his father cannot be treated as an extra judicial confession. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2, he has deposed that during the quarrel, A1 told him that he would bury him like how he had buried his father. It is not P.W.2's evidence that A1 told him that he killed his father and buried him. Whereas, P.W.4 in his evidence stated that during the quarrel, A1 told that he would cut them like how he had cut his father and would bury them. It is not the prosecution case that A1 had caused death of his father with any cutting weapon and it is the specific case of the prosecution that A1 caused the death of his father by throttling his neck with his hands. We find the evidence of both P.W.1 and P.W.4 too weak to fasten criminal liability on A1. 9. It is not the prosecution case that A1 had caused death of his father with any cutting weapon and it is the specific case of the prosecution that A1 caused the death of his father by throttling his neck with his hands. We find the evidence of both P.W.1 and P.W.4 too weak to fasten criminal liability on A1. 9. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no scientific evidence to establish that the body that was exhumed was that of Subramani. The identification of P.W.2 based on a shirt is too weak. P.W.2 is not an immediate family member of the deceased so as to speak about the apparels worn by the deceased and no specific evidence was adduced by him to show that the shirt was that of his uncle Subramani's. The doctor who conducted the postmortem has specifically stated that the thigh bone has been preserved for DNA test and the skull was also preserved for superimposition technique. The police could have easily obtained the blood samples from A1 and could have established the identity of the dead person, which they had not done for the reasons best known to them. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pressed into service the confession given by A1 and A2 to the Tahsildar [P.W.8] during the inquest. Even according to the prosecution, after the commencement of the investigation by the police, the services of the Tahsildar as Executive Magistrate was requested by P.W.12 the Inspector of Police, for the purpose of conducting inquest. P.W.12 the Inspector of Police, admitted in the cross examination that he was also present along with the Executive Magistrate [P.W.8] when the inquest was conducted. The inquest was conducted by G.Subramani [P.W.8] between 11.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on 06.04.2010. G.Subramani [P.W.8] also admitted that the Sub Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police of Mecheri Police Station were with him when he went to the place where the body was found. 11. It may be relevant to state here that even in the FIR, Govindaraj has been shown as a suspected accused. While so, a statement which is confession in nature given with the police people around him, even if it is addressed to the Tahsildar, would become irrelevant under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. 11. It may be relevant to state here that even in the FIR, Govindaraj has been shown as a suspected accused. While so, a statement which is confession in nature given with the police people around him, even if it is addressed to the Tahsildar, would become irrelevant under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. We are aware that a statement, which is confession in nature, if given to an Executive Magistrate during Inquest can be treated as extra judicial confession as held in Ramaswami Reddiar in re [ AIR 1953 Mad 138 = 1952(2) MLJ 814 ] . In this case the facts show that the police were present throughout during the Inquest proceedings with the Tahsildar and therefore, we are unable to hold that the alleged confession was voluntarily made by the accused.Though the prosecution may say that A1 and A2 were arrested only in the night of 06.04.2010, we are unable to buy that story because, the complaint [Ex.P1] and the FIR [Ex.P20] clearly disclose the involvement of Govindaraj and therefore, in the facts of this case, he will be deemed to have been in the custody of the police though formal arrest was done subsequently. Even according to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer [P.W12], Govindaraj [A1] was present during inquest and if that is so, he should have arrested A1 and A2 immediately thereafter. No specific explanation has been given by the Inspector of Police as to why had did not arrest A1 and A2 and allegedly arrested them late in the night at two different roadway junctions. From this we draw two inferences: (a) either A1 and A2 were never present during inquest; or (b) in order to get over the bar under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the arrest was deliberately shown as if they came into police custody only in the late night of 06.04.2010. In either case, the benefit of it would go to the accused. 12. The last piece of evidence that was relied upon by the prosecution is that of one Rajamuthu [P.W.9] who in his evidence stated that, he lives opposite the house of the deceased and some four months prior to 05.04.2010, when he got up to attend the nature's call around 2.00 in the morning, he found A1 and A2 digging a pit near their house. He did not say that he saw A1 and A2 burying anything, anybody etc. His statement was recorded by the police on 06.04.2010 and it was sent to the Court only on 14.05.2010. Based on this weak piece of evidence, we cannot draw an inference that A1 and A2 had dug the pit and hidden the body of Subramani in it. 13. Coming to the motive projected by the prosecution, the defence has established through the cross examination of Lakshmi [P.W.5] -the second wife of the deceased that, she had a stronger motive against the deceased. Lakshmi [P.W.5] in her cross examination stated that the house in which the accused were living belongs to Subramani. She admitted that she was asking the deceased to write that house in favour of the children born to her through him, which was refused by Subramani. She also admitted that on account of this, she had some misgivings towards the deceased. This completely demolishes the prosecution theory that the deceased was more inclined towards the family of Lakshmi [P.W.5] and he was neglecting the accused. P.W.5 identified the body as that of Subramani, the basis for which we are not able to fathom. 14. To sum up, none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution individually or collectively inspire our confidence. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Additional Sessions Court, Salem [Fast Track Court No.I, Salem] in S.C.No.79/2011 on 07.02.2012 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges levelled against them and they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.