Judgment : V.S. Ravi, J 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.93 of 2003, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 01.08.2003 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows:- PW-1 is the wife of the deceased Rajadurai. Both the accused and the deceased are the residents of Otthai Street in Malaiyuruppu Puliyampettai village, comes within the jurisdiction of Thiruvidaimarudur Police Station, Thanjavur District. On.06.11.2001 at 9.00 a.m. when the deceased Rajadurai, put up a thatched roof for his house, there arose a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At 8.30 p.m. on 06.11.2001, accused came and scolded the deceased in front of his house and at that time, when the deceased came out of the house the appellant/accused said to have assaulted the deceased with an aruval (MO1) and PW-1 to PW-4 are stated to be the eye witnesses for the said occurrence. 3. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-16 and also marked exhibits Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 along with MO-1 to MO-6. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused has been questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. 4. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that she is the wife of the deceased and she has also seen the occurrence. On 06.11.2001 at 09.00 a.m. there arose a dispute between the deceased and the accused, regarding putting up a thatched roof and then the accused has left the place after scolding her husband. Thereafter, again, at 08.30 p.m. due to previous enmity, the accused has assaulted her husband with aruval and PW-1's daughter Renuka Devi/PW8, PW-2/Jeyalakshmi and Baskar/PW-3 have taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. There, the deceased has been given medical treatment. Thereafter, again, at 08.30 p.m. due to previous enmity, the accused has assaulted her husband with aruval and PW-1's daughter Renuka Devi/PW8, PW-2/Jeyalakshmi and Baskar/PW-3 have taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam. There, the deceased has been given medical treatment. Thereafter, the deceased has been referred to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, for further treatment and on 07.11.2001 at 12.00 Noon, her husband has expired in Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital and she has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-1. 5. Further, PW-2/Jeyalakshmi, PW-3/Baskar, and PW-4/Sundar, have deposed regarding the dispute and wordy quarrel happened between the deceased and accused and also about the assault caused by the deceased with aruval and they have also deposed, corroborating with the evidence of PW-1. 6. Further, PW-5, has deposed about the attesting in the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P-2 and also for taking sand in the place of occurrence with blood and without blood under Ex.P-3 mahazar. Further, PW-6, has stated that on 08.11.2001 he has signed in the Mahazar Ex.P-4 which has been marked for recovery made by the police with regard to the bloodstained cloth of the deceased person. PW-7 has stated that he has heard about the incident from PW1, Gomathi, and thereafter, he has gone to Thanajvur and on 07.11.2001 at 12.00 Noon, deceased expired in the Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital. 7. Further, PW-8, Renukadevi, has stated that the deceased is her father and she has deposed, corroborating with the evidence of PW-1. PW-9, Dr.Arulmozhi has stated that she has worked in Kumbakonam Government Hospital as Assistant Surgeon and the deceased has been brought to the Hospital on 06.11.2001 at 09.30 p.m. by PW-3/Baskar and they have stated that 5 known persons have attacked the deceased with aruval and she has issued accident register Ex.P-5. PW-10/Ganesan, has stated about attesting the mahazar/Ex.P-7 and also about the recovery of aruval MO-1/aruval, MO-2/dhoti and MO-3/shirt. PW-11/Baskar, has deposed that on 06.11.2001, he has worked as plumber in the Panchayat and also about switching on the street lights on 06.11.2001. PW-12, Dr.Elangovan has stated that on 06.11.2001 he has worked in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and at 11.30 p.m. the deceased has been brought from Kumbakonam Medical Government Hospital for further treatment and at that time, the deceased has got consciousness, and he has issued accident register as per details mentioned in Ex.P8. PW-12, Dr.Elangovan has stated that on 06.11.2001 he has worked in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and at 11.30 p.m. the deceased has been brought from Kumbakonam Medical Government Hospital for further treatment and at that time, the deceased has got consciousness, and he has issued accident register as per details mentioned in Ex.P8. PW-13, Dr.Vijayalakshmi has stated that she has worked as a Doctor in the Thanjavur Government Medical College. She has conducted postmortem of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate as per Ex.P-9. 8. PW-14, Sub Inspector of Police, has stated that on 07.11.2001 at 06.00 a.m. he has received the message from Kumbakonam East Police Station through the Head Constable Gunasekaran about the incident and thereafter, he has gone to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital. As the deceased has not been found to be in a fit condition, to give statement, he has recorded the statement from PW-1 at early morning at 08.00 a.m. and thereafter, registered a case in Cr.No.282/2001 under Section 307 IPC and also sent the FIR/Ex.P-10 to the concerned Magistrate and other Higher Officials. 9. PW-15 has stated that he has worked as a Head Constable and he has handed over the express report regarding alteration of the Cr.No.282 of 2001 registered under Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC to the learned Judicial Magistrate and also to the Higher Officials on 07.11.2001. PW-16/Inspector of Police, has stated that he has conducted further investigation in the present case and examined witnesses and also obtained the forensic expert opinion as per Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15. He has also filed final report on 29.11.2001 10. Having considered the materials available on record, the Trial Court has convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated in the beginning of this judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come forward with the above appeal. 11. Brief averments made in the memorandum of appeal and also the submissions made on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are as follows: 11.1 The lower Court has totally neglected the evidence of PW-9 Dr.Arulmozhi, who has seen the deceased for the first time, when he has got consciousness in the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam and the deceased himself has told her that he has been assaulted by five known persons, when questioned him about the cause of injury. The Lower Court has further failed to consider the said statement of the deceased before the Doctor. 11.2 The Lower Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused that whether the deceased has been assaulted by five persons as stated by the deceased himself or assaulted by the accused as stated by the prosecution witnesses one day after the occurrence before the police. 11.3 The Lower Court failed to observe that Ex.P-1 is a concocted document which has been prepared as a result of an after thought with an ulterior motive to implicate the appellant/accused in the present case. 11.4 The Lower Court ought to have totally discarded the material object No.1/aruval which is said to have been recovered on 13.11.2001 by PW-16, namely, the investigation officer, in the light of the evidence of PW-9, who has deposed that she has been examined by the police on 07.11.2011, wherein an aruval has been shown to her, as the material object used by the appellant/accused for assaulting the deceased. 11.5. The Lower Court ought to have observed the contradictions in the date of examination of PW-9 by PW-16 the investigation officer. PW-9 submitted that she has been examined by the police on 07.11.2001, whereas PW-16, investigation officer, has submitted that he examined PW-9 on 08.11.2001. The Lower Court has failed to give the benefit of doubt under the said aspect also to the appellant/accused. 11.6 The Lower Court ought to have observed that only the un-examined Grade I constable Mr.Gunasekaran alone could say about the information he has received about the deceased and also about the real cause of the death of the deceased. 11.7 The Lower Court ought to have observed that the evidence of Gunasekaran has been suppressed by the prosecution for reasons best known to the Investigation Officer, PW-16. 11.8 The Lower Court ought to have considered about the possibility of the cause of death of the deceased, due to the assault by five known persons which could have been confirmed by the said Gunasekaran, if he has been examined in the Trial Court by the prosecution. 11.9 The prosecution version is loaded with number of vital contraventions which create number of doubts in the case which cut the prosecution version as to the root of the present case. 12. 11.9 The prosecution version is loaded with number of vital contraventions which create number of doubts in the case which cut the prosecution version as to the root of the present case. 12. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidences of prosecution are quite natural and there are no reasons to disbelieve the same. There are eye witnesses to occurrence. Further, motive has been established by the prosecution. Having an overall consideration of the facts, he would further submit that the prosecution has proved the case as against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the Trial Court has convicted the accused, after properly appreciating the evidences and materials on record. 13. The points that arise for consideration are:- i) Whether appeal has to be allowed for the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and also for the reasons and grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal? ii) Whether the judgment of conviction has been passed by the Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and materials on the record, in proper perspective? iii) Whether the prosecution has proved the alleged offence committed by the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubts? 14. According to the prosecution, PW-1 is the wife of the deceased and she is the prime eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-1 has admitted in her evidence that on 06.11.2001 at 9.00 a.m., i.e. on the date of alleged occurrence stated to be occurred at 08.30 p.m., there has been a wordy quarrel and dispute between the accused, and the deceased person regarding putting up a thatched roof. In such circumstances, the interested witnesses namely, PW-1/wife, PW-2/neighbour, PW-3/cousin of the deceased and PW-4/Sundar (deceased Rajadurai is his uncle), who has resided in the house of the deceased and also carried on the work of wiring, have to be scrutinized with much care and caution, in order to avoid the false implications. 15. Further, it is the settled law that the motive is a double edged weapon and it may be a ground for the accused to attack the deceased and also it may be a ground for PW-1 and his close relatives to make wrong statements as against the accused. 15. Further, it is the settled law that the motive is a double edged weapon and it may be a ground for the accused to attack the deceased and also it may be a ground for PW-1 and his close relatives to make wrong statements as against the accused. PW-1 has stated that they have admitted the deceased, initially at Kumbakonam Government Hospital on 06.11.2001 and after giving certain medical treatment, the deceased has been referred to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital, and he has given a complaint on 07.11.2001 as per Ex.P-1 and the deceased has expired at Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital on 07.11.2001 at 12.00 Noon. 16. PW-14, the Special Sub Inspector has stated that he has received message on 07.11.2001 at 06.00 p.m. from Kumbakonam East Police Station through constable Gunasekaran about the incident and he has gone to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital and also seen the deceased and the deceased has not been found to be in a fit condition, to give statement and therefore, he has recorded the statement from PW-1 and registered the FIR as per Ex.P-10. However, he himself has admitted that FIR has been received by the learned Judicial Magistrate only on 07.11.2001 at 07.30 p.m. As per the averments made in Ex.P-10/FIR admittedly, PW-1 has stated that the accused has assaulted the deceased on 06.11.2001 at 08.30 p.m. The First Information Report has been received by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned only at 07.30 p.m. on 07.11.2001. The delay in sending the First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate has not been properly explained by the prosecution. Further, PW-15, has stated that he has handed over the Express Report, changing the charges in Crime No.282/2001 into one under Section 302 IPC, to the Judicial Magistrate at 19.30 hrs on 07.11.2001 and he has stated that he has informed the Inspector about the details about certain delay in handing over the express report to the learned Judicial Magistrate. However, the Inspector has not specifically stated anything about the same in his statement. In this regard it is useful to extract the following judgments; i) RAMASAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1982 L.W. (Criminal) 63, wherein it is held as follows; “Eye witnesses, though injured, cannot be relied on, due to enmity between the parties. However, the Inspector has not specifically stated anything about the same in his statement. In this regard it is useful to extract the following judgments; i) RAMASAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1982 L.W. (Criminal) 63, wherein it is held as follows; “Eye witnesses, though injured, cannot be relied on, due to enmity between the parties. If there is doubt about the F.I.R. being fabricated or brought into existence to implicate as many persons as possible, after deliberation the entire fabric of the prosecution case collapses.? ii) MARUDANAL AGUSTI v. STATE OF KERALA reported in 1980 SCC (Criminal) 985), wherein it is held as follows;- “Omission to mention names of eye witnesses in F.I.R. giving minute details, and unexplained delay in dispatch of the F.I.R. to magistrate besides other infirmities, held, would throw serious doubt on prosecution case.” In the present case also, there are serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, as pointed out in the grounds of the memorandum of the appeal. 17. Further, PW-1 has stated that she has not stated that 5 persons have attacked her husband in the Kumbakonam Government Hospital. Further, PW-3 has also stated that he has not stated that five persons have attacked the deceased in the Kumbakonam Government Hospital. Similarly, PW-4 has also stated that they have not informed that five persons have attacked the deceased. However, PW-9, Dr.Arulmozhi, has categorically stated in her evidence that on 06.11.2001 at 9.30 p.m. the deceased has been admitted in the said hospital and she has worked as a Government Dotor in the said Hospital and the deceased has been brought by PW-3/Baskar and they have informed that at about 08.30 p.m. five known persons have attacked the deceased with aruval and she has also issued accident Register as per Ex.P-5 and she has also informed the police about the said details. Further in Ex.P-5, also PW-9 has stated that the deceased has been brought to the hospital by PW-3, and it has been reported that five known persons have attacked the deceased on 06.11.2001 at about 08.30 p.m. Further PW-1 has admitted in her evidence that for further treatment, the deceased has been admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Further in Ex.P-5, also PW-9 has stated that the deceased has been brought to the hospital by PW-3, and it has been reported that five known persons have attacked the deceased on 06.11.2001 at about 08.30 p.m. Further PW-1 has admitted in her evidence that for further treatment, the deceased has been admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. Further, PW-12, Doctor, has examined the deceased at Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital and he has issued Ex.P- 8/accident register and it has been stated that the deceased has got consciousness at the time of making admission in the Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital i.e. at 11.03 p.m. on 06.11.2001. Further in Ex.P-5/accident register, the Kumbakonam Governemnt Doctor namely, PW-9 has stated that police has been informed about the incident. However, the Special Sub Inspector examined as PW-14, has stated that he has received the message only on 07.11.2001 at 06.00 a.m. from the Kumbakonam East Police Station through constable Gunasekaran. For the above mentioned reasons only, it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that there are vital contradictions in the said evidences of the prosecution. In her evidence the doctor (PW-9) has stated that at the time of admitting the deceased in Kumbakonam Government Hospital, it has been stated that five known persons have attacked the deceased with aruval, whereas PW-1 to PW-4 have categorically stated that only the sole accused has attacked the accused with MO-1 aruval. Further PW-1 has stated that, at Kumbakonam Government Hospital, she has not been enquired about the incident. However, PW-1, has further stated that when her husband has taken medical treatment, he has given statement to the Sub Inspetor of Thiruvamadurai Police Station. Further, PW-1 has stated that on 07.11.2001 at 08.30 p.m., her husband and the accused have entered into a wordy quarrel and it is not correct to state that her husband has beaten the accused and at the time of the occurrence, Jayalakshmi (PW-2) has also seen the occurrence. However, PW2/Jeyalakshmi, has stated that the deceased Rajadurai has beaten the accused 10 or 15 times and she has informed about the said details to the police. Further, PW-3 has stated that when the accused has challenged the deceased, the deceased has not spoken anything. Further, PW-2 has stated that after the expiry of Rajadurai, only on the third day, police have examined her. Further, PW-3 has stated that when the accused has challenged the deceased, the deceased has not spoken anything. Further, PW-2 has stated that after the expiry of Rajadurai, only on the third day, police have examined her. Further, PW-3 has stated that in the place of occurrence in the western and eastern direction, street lights have been burning and therefore, he has seen the occurrence. However, such details have not been specifically stated by the prime witness, namely PW-1. Even in Ex.P-1, it has been stated that at 08.30 p.m. on 06.11.2001, the incident has happened. However, the details, about sufficient light, have not been mentioned so as to witness the scene of occurrence, as alleged to be caused by the accused. Hence, it is found that PW-3 has made improvements at the stage of giving evidence before the Court. Material details are very much absent in Ex.P-1 complaint, itself. 18. Further, PW-4 has clearly admitted in his evidence that he has stayed in the house of his uncle namely, the deceased and also done the wiring work. Further, he has also stated that he has not informed the doctor that five persons have attacked the deceased with aruval. PW-1 only has informed about the incident to the police. PW-8, Rukmanidevi, has also admitted that the deceased is her father and after the death of her father, the police have examined her after 3 days only and 5 persons have not attacked her father with aruval. 19. Further, PW-10 has stated that on 13.11.2001, the accused has given confessional statement and material object has been recovered, as per the mahazars/ Ex.P-7 and PW-10, has attested the same. However, PW- 9/Dr.Arulmozhi, Kumbakonam Government Doctor, has stated that on 07.11.2001, itself the police have shown the aruval and enquired her about the injuries caused to the deceased person. Hence, the said doctor has clearly stated in her evidence that on 07.11.2001 itself, the police have shown the aruval and asked about the injuries caused to the deceased. However, the confessional statement has been stated to be recorded and recovery or weapon MO-1/aruval has been alleged to be recovered only on 13.11.2001 under Ex.P-7/mahazar. Further, PW-13, postmortem Doctor has stated that he has issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P9. However, the confessional statement has been stated to be recorded and recovery or weapon MO-1/aruval has been alleged to be recovered only on 13.11.2001 under Ex.P-7/mahazar. Further, PW-13, postmortem Doctor has stated that he has issued the postmortem report as per Ex.P9. However, it is found that there are material contradictions between the Doctor evidence and also mahazar witnesses regarding the recovery of material objects as per the confessional statements given by the accused, for the above mentioned reasons. In this regard, it is useful to mention the various requirements of the Section 27:-(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act. (4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible." In the case on hand, also, it is seen that the prosecution has failed to establish the recovery of MO-1 based upon the admissible portion of confession statement of the accused, in accordance with law, for the above mentioned reasons. 20. Further, the Inspector of Police namely PW-16 has admitted in this evidence that after the death of Rajadurai, the evidence of Jeyalakshmi/PW-2, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-11 Observation mahazar and rough sketch respectively, have been received only on 09.11.2001 by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. However, the prosecution has not furnished any acceptable explanation for the said delay in sending the material records to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Further, PW16 has admitted in his evidence that PW3 has not stated about the sufficient lights, in the place of occurrence, during the course of his enquiry. However, the prosecution has not furnished any acceptable explanation for the said delay in sending the material records to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Further, PW16 has admitted in his evidence that PW3 has not stated about the sufficient lights, in the place of occurrence, during the course of his enquiry. Further, PW-1 has not stated that about sufficient lights in the place of occurrence at 08.30 p.m. on 06.11.2001, from the street lights during the Investigation. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KAPILDEO MANDAL & ORS v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2008-1- L.W. (Crl.) 686, wherein it is held as follows:- “the medical evidence will assume importance while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, by the Court and will have priority over the ocular version ? it can be used to repel the testimony of the eye-witnesses as it goes to the root of the matter having an effect to repel conclusively the eye-witnesses version to be true.” In this case also, it is found that there are materials to substantiate contradictions in the evidence of PW-9/doctor and also evidence of PW1 to PW-4. 22. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in UMESH SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it is held as follows; “Opinion given by a medical witness need not be conclusive of the issue. Such an opinion should be tested by Court.” However, in this case, it is found that PW-9/Dr.Arulmozhi, Kumbakonam Government Doctor, has categorically stated in the accident register/Ex.P-5 as well as in her evidence that both the deceased and PW3, have stated that 5 known persons have assaulted the deceased, whereas, PW1 to PW-4 have categorically stated that they have not stated that five persons have attacked and only the appellant has attacked. In the above mentioned facts, it is found that the citation relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not applicable to the present case. 23. Further on a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not clinching and trustworthy. In this regard it is useful to extract the following judgments;- 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 10 (DB) (Srikanth & others v. The State, rep . 23. Further on a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not clinching and trustworthy. In this regard it is useful to extract the following judgments;- 2006(2) MWN (Cr.) 10 (DB) (Srikanth & others v. The State, rep . by Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station), it is held as follows:- "No cogent evidence to connect accused to crime - Prosecution miserably failed to establish its Case. Conviction set aside." 24. It is also useful to the extract the following judgments; a) 1976 SCC (Cri) 629 (ISHWAR SINGH V. STATE OF U.P.), wherein it is held as follows;- “In this case the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when one finds that the case made in Court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the FIR. The FIR does not mention anything like this. These variations relate to vital parts of the prosecution case, and cannot be dismissed as minor discrepancies.” b) 1975 SCC (Cri) 571 (RAM NARIAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB), wherein it is held as follows; “For these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the evidence of Pws Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh is not worthy of credence, and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their evidence. If we disbelieve their evidence, then it follows that the evidence of Mohinder Singh and other witnesses which is only of corroborative type would not in any way improve the prosecution case.” c) 1995 SCC (Cri) 151 (STATE OF HARYANA v. INDERAJ AND ANOTHER), wherein it is held as follows;- “Prosecution case based on evidence of highly interested witnesses. Their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful. Their presence at the scene of occurrence doubtful. Witnesses making certain improvements regarding nature of weapon used.” d) 1989 SCC (Cri) 585 (STATE OF U.P. V. MADAN MOHAN AND OTHERS), wherein, it is held as follows;- “Be that as it may, the fact remains that the genesis of the crime is suppressed andno witness from the locality whose presence would be natural is examined which creates a doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.” e) 1988 SCC (Cri) 361 (AWADHESH AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH), wherein it is held as follows;- “Delay in filing, even though all the concerned officers reached the spot soon after the occurrence, police station situated at a short distance and eye witnesses also claim to be present at the spot. No satisfactory explanation given by prosecution. Held, circumstances make the presence of the eye witnesses at the place and time of occurrence doubtful.” f) (2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 290 (SAIRA ZACKIRA V. JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) wherein it is held as follows;- “There are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.” 25. Further, an appellant Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the judgment of conviction is founded. Furthermore, an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. On a careful analysis of above mentioned prosecution witnesses, this Court is unable to agree with the prosecution version. 26. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and no tangible motive as stated by the prosecution has been established for the accused to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The doubts have not been clearly explained by the prosecution in any manner 27. In the present case, it is seen that the trial Court has not passed the Judgment on proper appreciation of evidence and also not furnished cogent reasons for convicting the accused herein. The doubts have not been clearly explained by the prosecution in any manner 27. In the present case, it is seen that the trial Court has not passed the Judgment on proper appreciation of evidence and also not furnished cogent reasons for convicting the accused herein. In a murder case like the present one, right from the date of the First Information Report and upto the stage of trial, there is no consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also materials on record, with regard to the complicity of the accused/appellant in the above mentioned crime. Further, it is seen that there is no relevant material available on record, to accept the prosecution case. Hence, owing to all the above discussions and principles laid down in the above decisions this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 01.08.2003 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur, in S.C.No.93 of 2003 is set aside. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.