JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.233 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli Division at Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302, 316 and 404 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 04.09.2008, the Trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Section 316 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Suganya. The appellant is her husband. At the time of her death, the deceased was seven months pregnant. According to the prosecution case, much against the wish of her parents, the deceased had fallen in love with the accused and eloped with the accused. With great difficulty, P.W.1 and P.W.2, namely, the parents of the deceased located her and brought her back to their house. Then, they arranged for marriage between the deceased and one Saravanan. Saravanan is the brother of P.W.2. After the marriage, the deceased was residing with her parents. But, the accused was continuing his love with the deceased. The deceased also reciprocated. Again, they eloped. It is stated that thereafter, the deceased married the accused without the knowledge of her parents. She was, thereafter, residing with the accused in Karur. After six months of their living together, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had gone to Karur, pacified the deceased and brought her back to their house. By that time, the deceased was pregnant. On 28.11.2006, as usual, P.W.1, who was then working in B.S.N.L., had gone to his office in the morning. His wife, namely P.W.2, had gone to Kottapalayam. Thus, the deceased alone was at the house of P.W.1. By that time, the deceased was pregnant. On 28.11.2006, as usual, P.W.1, who was then working in B.S.N.L., had gone to his office in the morning. His wife, namely P.W.2, had gone to Kottapalayam. Thus, the deceased alone was at the house of P.W.1. In the evening, by about 06.00 p.m., P.W.1 returned to his house. The main entrance of the house was kept open. He called his daughter, namely, the deceased, by name, Suganya. But, there was no response from inside. Then, he went in search of her daughter inside the house as well as outside. Since, the deceased was not seen, hoping that she would return, according to P.W.1, he slept in the house for the whole night. 3. On 29.11.2006, early in the morning, at about 06.00 a.m., P.W.1 went to one of the bedrooms in his house. There, he found the deceased lying as though she was sleeping. But, he found froth coming through her mouth. Then, he went to Tiruchirappalli Toll Gate and met one Kareem Kutty. On the advice of Mr.Kareem Kutty, he made a complaint to P.W.12. P.W.12 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Cantonment Police Station, Tiruchirappalli. On receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.. Ex.P.18 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both these documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. 4. P.W.13, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cantonment Police Station, took up the case for investigation at 12.15 p.m. on 29.11.2006. Since the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of her marriage and since it appears to be an unnatural death, he sent a report to the Revenue Divisional officer/Executive Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli to hold inquest under Section 176 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, P.W.10, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 30.11.2006. During the said inquest, he examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements. Ex.P.11 is the statement of P.W.1, recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ex.P.12 is the Inquest Report. He concluded that the death of the deceased was not out of any demand for dowry or harassment. Ex.P.14 is his report. 5. During the said inquest, he examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements. Ex.P.11 is the statement of P.W.1, recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ex.P.12 is the Inquest Report. He concluded that the death of the deceased was not out of any demand for dowry or harassment. Ex.P.14 is his report. 5. Continuing the investigation, P.W.13, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch from the place of occurrence, in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. Then, he recovered a wooden slab (M.O.3) from the next room in the house. He also recovered broken bangles (M.O.1) from the place of occurrence. 6. The body was sent for postmortem. P.W.11, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.11.2006 at 05.05 p.m. He found the following injuries: “Wounds: 1. A transverse, dark brown colour, ligature mark, 17 cm x 1 cm, on the front and right side of neck, below the level of thyroid cartilage on the front of neck, 6 cm below the right angle of mandible and 3 cm below the hairline on the back of neck present. 2. A transverse, dark brown colour abrasion, 5 cm x 1.5 cm, on the front neck, above the level of thyroid cartrilage. 3. A transverse, dark brown colour abrasion, 6 cm x 1 cm, on the back of left side of neck, 3 cm below the hairline. 4. A transverse, dark brown colour abrasion, 4 cm x 1 cm, on the side aspect of left side of neck, 5 cm below the angle of mandible with interruption between wound no.1 and 3, 3 and 4, and 4 and 1 – ligature mark absent. Wound no. 1,3 and 4 are in the same plane. 5. Dark brown colour abrasions, of varying dimensions, on both lip with swelling present. O/D Bruising of the underlying soft tissues – dark red. Blood clots at the gums present and not washable. Bruising of the soft tissues around the nostrils – dark red. 6. Bruising on the front of upper part of chest wall – dark red. 7. Bruising on the right parietal and left side of occipital region of the scalp – dark red. 8. Sub dural and Sub arachnoid haemorrhage, on both parietal lobe of cerebrum. On bloodless dissection of the Neck: (9) Bruising of the soft tissues of the neck – dark red. 7. Bruising on the right parietal and left side of occipital region of the scalp – dark red. 8. Sub dural and Sub arachnoid haemorrhage, on both parietal lobe of cerebrum. On bloodless dissection of the Neck: (9) Bruising of the soft tissues of the neck – dark red. Diffusion of blood into the soft tissues of the neck. Inward compression fracture of hyoid bone on both side of the body at the junction with the greater horn and fracture of left greater horn present. Vertical fracture of lower laryngeal cartilages present. Bruising of the wind pipe and oesophagus present. Haemorrhagic spots in the mucus membrane of the wind pipe and oesophagus present. The above mentioned wounds are ante-mortem in nature. No other external, internal or bony wound present. Other findings: Peritoneum – intact, cavity – empty; Pleura – intact, cavity – blood stained fluid; Pericardium – intact, cavity – straw colour fluid; Heart – normal in size, early decomposed, Myocardium – normal, Chambers – fluid blood, Valves – normal, Coronary vessels – patent, Great Vessels – normal; Lungs – c/s congested, early decomposed, Haemorrhagic spots in the inter lobar surface of both lungs; Larynx, Trachea, Hyoid bone, Oesophagus and mucosa – vide wound column; Stomach – light brown colour fluid, no specific smell, mucosa – congested, early decomposed; Pancreas – intact, pale; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys – c/s congested, early decomposed; Gall Bladder – full, no stones; Omentum and Mesentery- intact, early decomposed; Small intestine – yellowish chyme, no specific smell, mucosa – congested, early decomposed; Appendix – intact, early decomposed; Large intestine – filled with gas; urinary bladder – intact and empty; UTERUS – enlarged, 28 cm x 17 cm x 6 cm, c/s – Male dead fetus – 33 cm in length {crown to heel}, circumference of head – 22 cm, external genitalia – penis appeared, calcaneus bone – ossification centre appeared, age – 6 to 7 months of intra uterine life; Pelvis – intact; Skull Bones – intact, Scalp, Membranes, Brain, sinuses and Brain Vessels – vide wound column, CSF – blood stained; Vertebral column and cord – intact. All other internal organs on c/s pale and early decomposed”. Ex.P.16 is the Postmortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased would have died of cumulative effects of ligature strangulation, manual strangulation, smothering, traumatic asphyxia and head wounds. 7. All other internal organs on c/s pale and early decomposed”. Ex.P.16 is the Postmortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased would have died of cumulative effects of ligature strangulation, manual strangulation, smothering, traumatic asphyxia and head wounds. 7. On receiving the said opinion from the Doctor, P.W.13 altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.20 is the alteration report. The accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri on 01.12.2006. During the course of investigation, P.W.13 forwarded all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence to the Court. Then, he handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Cantonment Police Station, Tiruchirappalli. 8. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, took up the case for investigation on 08.12.2006. On a request made by him, the learned Judicial Magistrate handed over custody of the accused to P.W.14 on 11.12.2006. On 11.12.2006 and 12.12.2006, the accused was in the custody of P.W.14. While in custody, in the presence of P.W.6, on 12.12.2006, the accused made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed that he had hidden a nylon rope (M.O.4) in a bush. He also disclosed that he had pledged a gold chain weighing 12.3 grams with Muthoot Finance, Thuraiyur. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.14, P.W.6 and another witness to the said place and produced M.O.4, nylon rope. That was recovered under a mahazer. Then, from Muthoot Finance, Thuraiyur, M.O.5 was recovered in the presence of the same witnesses. He examined few more witnesses and finally, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 316 and 404 I.P.C. 9. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 316 and 404 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. 10. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 14 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited, besides 5 Material Objects. 11. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased, who have stated about the fact that earlier the deceased eloped with the accused out of love, she was brought back, she was given in marriage to one Saravanan against her wish, eloped with the accused, married him, lived in Karur and came pregnant and thereafter she was brought back to their house. P.W.1 has further stated that on the crucial date of occurrence, P.W.2 was not at home. P.W.1 had gone to his office in the morning and in the evening when he returned to his house, he did not find the deceased. P.W.1 has further stated that on the next day morning, he found the dead body of the deceased in the bedroom. P.W.1 has also spoken about the complaint. P.W.3 is an employee of B.S.N.L., who has spoken about the misunderstanding between the deceased and the accused. P.W.4 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer prepared and recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 is residing opposite to the house of P.W.1. She has stated that on a particular day, in the morning, at about 11 O' Clok, she found the accused entering into the house of P.W.1. P.W.6 has spoken about the confession of the accused, disclosure statement made by him and the consequential recovery of the nylon rope and the gold chain. P.W.7 is an official of Muthoot Finance, who has stated that M.O.5 was pledged by the accused and the same was explained to the police by him. P.W.8 is the practicing advocate, who has stated about some legal aid sought for by the deceased. P.W.9 has also spoken about the same. P.W.10, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, has spoken about the inquest held by him. P.W.11, Dr.A.Karthikeyan, has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.13 and P.W.14 have spoken about the investigation done. 12. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. On his side, he examined himself as D.W.1 and one Ganesan and Chandradevi as D.W.2 and D.W.3. According to his evidence as D.W.1, ten days prior to the alleged date of death of the deceased, P.W.1 had taken the deceased to his house under the guise of getting employment for her. He has further stated that after he received a notice from the Legal Services Authority, Tiruchirappalli, he appeared before the said Authority in response to the same. He has further stated that thereafter her parents took away his wife. He has further stated that thereafter on 30.11.2006, he learnt from newspapers that his wife was no more. He has further stated that after he received a notice from the Legal Services Authority, Tiruchirappalli, he appeared before the said Authority in response to the same. He has further stated that thereafter her parents took away his wife. He has further stated that thereafter on 30.11.2006, he learnt from newspapers that his wife was no more. D.W.2 is a staff working in Thuraiyur Legal Services Authority. He has stated that the accused gave a petition on 06.04.2006, stating that his in-laws had separated his wife. The same was still pending. D.W.3, yet another officer of the Legal Services Authority, has stated the same facts. However, the accused did not choose to mark any document on his side. Thus, according to the accused, he is innocent. 13. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly punished him. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this being a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove all the circumstances projected beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a close link with each other, thereby making out a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the prosecution has failed to do so. Two vital circumstances placed by the prosecution are that according to P.W.5, the accused was seen entering into the house of the deceased and the other one is the recovery of M.O.5, gold chain, at the instance of the accused on his disclosure statement made. The learned counsel would point out that P.W.5 during cross-examination had given a goby to her chief examination. Absolutely there is no acceptable evidence through P.W.5 that the accused was found anywhere near the scene of occurrence on the crucial date of occurrence. So far as, M.O.5, the gold chain is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that it was a stolen property. Thus, according to the learned counsel, absolutely there is no evidence in this case. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this appeal. According to him, the motive between the accused and the deceased has been clearly established. Thus, according to the learned counsel, absolutely there is no evidence in this case. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this appeal. According to him, the motive between the accused and the deceased has been clearly established. Similarly, the accused was lastly seen by P.W.5 entering into the house of the deceased. This has also been clearly established, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended. Lastly, according to him, it has been established that murder and robbery had takenplace in one and the same occurrence. In this case, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the gold chain belonging to the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused, which would go to show that he had only committed the murder as well as robbery. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has clearly established the case beyond reasonable doubts. 17. We have considered the above submissions. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution should be proved beyond reasonable doubts and every such proved circumstance should form a close link with each other, thereby making out a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which will be inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. In this case, initially the deceased eloped with the accused out of love. She was separated only by her parents. Thereafter, much against her wish, it appears that she was given in marriage to one Saravanan. After that marriage, again she eloped with the deceased and married him. There is no controversy that she became pregnant out of the said wedlock. She was residing in Karur. Until this stage, there is no controversy between the parties. It is also the admitted case of the accused as well as P.W.1 and P.W.2 that thereafter the deceased was taken back to the house of P.W.1. It was only thereafter, what happened remains to be a misty. On the date of occurrence, according to P.W.1, he left for his office early in the morning by 6 O' Clock. He returned to his house in the evening by 06.00 p.m. According to him, he found that the house was kept open. When, he searched for the deceased inside the house, she was not found. On the date of occurrence, according to P.W.1, he left for his office early in the morning by 6 O' Clock. He returned to his house in the evening by 06.00 p.m. According to him, he found that the house was kept open. When, he searched for the deceased inside the house, she was not found. He searched for her outside also. But, she was not found. According to him, on the next day morning, by about 06.30 a.m., he found the dead body of the deceased in the bedroom. It is too difficult to believe that P.W.1 would not have seen the dead body in the night in the room. The sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer clearly shows that the house is such a small house, which contains two bedrooms, a hall and a kitchen. Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that P.W.1 would not have noticed the dead body of the deceased in the bedroom. It is quite natural for any father to search for the daughter in the bedroom, where she used to stay. He did not explain as to whether P.W.1 had gone into the room during night hours or not. Assuming that there is evidence to the effect that he did not look into the bedroom, it would only be unbelievable. At any rate, the theory projected by the prosecution that the dead body which was lying much in the middle portion of the house was not noticed by P.W.1 for the whole night, is highly unbelievable and it remains to be a misty as to what had happened in the meanwhile. 19. The next circumtance projected by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.5 is residing in the opposite house of P.W.1. In chief examination, P.W.5 has stated that on one day, she found the accused entering into the house of the deceased. There is nothing incriminating in the same. After-all the son-in17 law had gone to the house of the father-in-law. Even, P.W.1 himself has admitted during cross-examination that on few occasions, the accused came to his house in order to take his wife. Further, during cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that she had not seen the accused either before or after the occurrence. She did not know even the name of the accused. There was no test identification parade held. Even, P.W.1 himself has admitted during cross-examination that on few occasions, the accused came to his house in order to take his wife. Further, during cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that she had not seen the accused either before or after the occurrence. She did not know even the name of the accused. There was no test identification parade held. Above all, the evidence is not to the effect that the accused was found anywhere near the place of occurrence or entering into the house of P.W.1 on the date of occurrence. In view of the same, the evidence of P.W.5 would not in any manner go to incriminate the accused. 20. Then comes recovery of M.O.5, gold chain. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was taken into police custody on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate on 11.12.2006. It is the further case of the prosecution that on his disclosure statement, M.O.5, jewel was recovered from Muthoot Finance. Admittedly, the chain was pledged with Muthoot Finance. But, whether this chain was worn by the deceased or not? has not been explained by the prosecution, through any evidence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not stated that M.O.5 was worn by the deceased or at-leat it was owned by her. In Ex.P.1, there is no mention that any chain was worn by the deceased and the same was missing. P.W.1 has been duly contradicted with the said statement. In their evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that one chain was missing. Whether M.O.5 is the chain, which was missing or not, had not been established by the prosecution. Thus, this circumstance also does not incriminate the accused in any manner. In effect, the prosecution has not proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubts and there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The evidences of D.W.1 to D.W.3 would go to show that the accused was trying to get back his wife to continue the marital life, whereas P.W.1 and P.W.2 were separating the deceased from the accused. Absolutely, there is no material to show that there was no love lost between the deceased and the accused. From these facts, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. Thus, the Trial Court was in error in convicting the accused. 21. Absolutely, there is no material to show that there was no love lost between the deceased and the accused. From these facts, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused. Thus, the Trial Court was in error in convicting the accused. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in S.C.No.233 of 2007, dated 04.09.2008, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him. 22. Before parting with this case, we would like to appreciate the excellent service rendered by Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned counsel, who has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel. The Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench, is directed to pay his remuneration.