Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3358 (MAD)

C. Chinnadurai v. State

2015-10-12

S.NAGAMUTHU, V.S.RAVI

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.92 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. Altogether, there were four accused in the case. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges, as detailed below. Charge Accused Penal Provisions 1 1 to 4 120(B) IPC 2 1 302 IPC 3 2 to 4 302 r/w 109 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 15.12.2011, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4, but convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2, as detailed below:- Accused No. Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 1 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years 2 302 r/w 109 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. S. Rajasekaran. He was a Teacher by profession. The daughter of the second accused was one Ms. A. Edward Deisy. She was studying tuition under the deceased. In course of time, it was widely spoken that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with Ms. A. Edward Deisy. Therefore, the second accused reprimanded the deceased as well as his daughter. After some time, it is alleged that the daughter of the second accused committed suicide. It is further alleged that she was forced to commit suicide, because of the rumour about her chastity. Because of this, it is alleged that the second accused had decided to commit murder of the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 3.1. It is further alleged that in the month of June 2008, in the new house, under construction, all the four accused conspired to commit the murder of the deceased by dashing against him a vehicle and to make it appear as though it were a simple motor vehicle accident. Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, all the four accused are liable for punishment for conspiracy under Section 120(B) r/w Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.2. Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, all the four accused are liable for punishment for conspiracy under Section 120(B) r/w Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 04.07.2008, the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN-65-C-9553 from his house to go to Thondi. By about 08.00 AM, as soon as the deceased left his house in his motorcycle, the fourth accused, who noticed the same, informed the first accused through phone that the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle on the Madurai -Thondi Road. On receiving the said intimation, the first accused decided to accomplish the conspiracy. The first accused took a car and proceeded on the Madurai -Thondi Road. When the deceased was proceeding towards east from west, at a place, known as, "Pavachi Vilakku Road", the first accused came from the opposite direction driving his car. The accused Nos.2 and 3 went ahead of the said car in a motorcycle. On noticing the deceased coming from the opposite direction, the accused Nos.2 and 3 gave a signal to the first accused, thereby identifying the deceased that he was the one to be killed. On getting signal, it is alleged that the first accused drove the Ambassador Car in a great speed, turned it towards the deceased and dashed it against the motorcycle, in which the deceased was proceeding from the opposite direction. The deceased sustained serious injuries, fell on the spot and died instantaneously. The accused Nos.2 and 3 did not stop the motorcycle and they fled away from the scene of occurrence. The first accused stopped the vehicle at a distance of 200 feet away and then, escaped from the place of occurrence. 3.3. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. At or about at the time of occurrence, she was in her house. One Mr. Kasbar, a resident of Kadayanenthal Village, informed PW-1 about the occurrence. PW-1, along with her family members, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the motorcycle, the deceased as well as the car. The deceased was found dead with serious injuries. Then, she came to the Police Station at 01.15 PM and made a complaint under EX-P1. One Mr. Kasbar, a resident of Kadayanenthal Village, informed PW-1 about the occurrence. PW-1, along with her family members, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the motorcycle, the deceased as well as the car. The deceased was found dead with serious injuries. Then, she came to the Police Station at 01.15 PM and made a complaint under EX-P1. In EX-P1, she mentioned about the enmity between the second accused and the deceased and she expressed his doubt that it would not have been a mere motor vehicle accident. 3.4. PW-9, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Devakottai Police Station, received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2008, under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P20 is the First Information Report, in which the first accused was shown as the driver of the vehicle, who was responsible for the accident. PW-9 forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 3.5. Taking up the case for investigation, at 01.30 PM, on 04.07.2008, PW-11, the then Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-3 and another witness. He recovered the motorcycle, the car and the other material objects from the place of occurrence. Then, the dead body was taken to the Government Hospital at Devakottai, where PW-11, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatars. EX-P28 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined many more witnesses, including PW-2. Then, he forward the dead body for postmortem. 3.6. PW-8 -Dr. P. Rajasekaran conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He noticed the following injuries:- "1. Multiple, liner long [10 cm length] involving upper left lateral wall of chest near axilla extending to upper arm upto deltoid. 2. An abrasion measuring 5 X 5 cm left side of umbilicus to limbar region [red in colour]. 3. An abrasion measuring 7 X 6 cm right libar to right iliac region [red in colour]. 4. An abrasion right upper forearms -ulnar size 3 X 2 cm, [red in colour]. 5. A multiple linear, scratch abrasion an extension aspect of right forearm distal end ulnar side. 6. 3. An abrasion measuring 7 X 6 cm right libar to right iliac region [red in colour]. 4. An abrasion right upper forearms -ulnar size 3 X 2 cm, [red in colour]. 5. A multiple linear, scratch abrasion an extension aspect of right forearm distal end ulnar side. 6. A multiple linear, abrasion [10X 1 cm] left arm, lower end extended to near elbow. 7. Blister [5 X 3] medial side of left elbow and middle of left forearm. 8. An abrasion measuring 10 X 3 cm left lower end of forearm in the left redal side of wrist joint. 9. An abrasion measuring 3 C 1 cm upper 1/3 of right leg anterior aspect of 3 X 1 cm of upper medial aspect. 10. A multiple linear abrasion [19 cm length] medial side of left knee extending left upper and [torn]. 11. A multiple scratch abrasion on the left mid leg medial. 12. Blister [nc] left lower end of leg, antero medial aspect. Laceration wound. 1. Left arm lower end, internal aspect 3 X 2 cm 2. A lacerated wound left eyebrow [torn] cut injury. 3. Right elbow lateral aspect 3 X 2 cm. 4. Left lower thigh medial 3 X 2 cm 5. Right leg near fibular 3 X 1 cm". EX-P18 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of acute severe hypolimpya shock due to multiple injuries. 3.7. During the course of investigation, PW-11 found that it was not a mere motor vehicle accident, but it was a murder. Therefore, he altered the case into one under Section 120(B) r/w Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on 04.07.2008 itself. EX-P31 is the alteration report. In the said alteration report, PW-11 reported that these four accused had conspired together to kill the deceased and it was only out of the said conspiracy, the first accused dashed the car against the deceased. PW-2 continued the investigation and examined many more witnesses. 3.8. While so, the first accused surrendered before PW-6, [Village Administrative Officer], on 09.07.2008, at 02.00 PM. On his appearance, the first accused wanted to give a voluntary confession to PW-6. Accordingly, he made a oral confession, which was reduced to writing by PW-6. EX-P7 is the said extra judicial confession. PW-2 continued the investigation and examined many more witnesses. 3.8. While so, the first accused surrendered before PW-6, [Village Administrative Officer], on 09.07.2008, at 02.00 PM. On his appearance, the first accused wanted to give a voluntary confession to PW-6. Accordingly, he made a oral confession, which was reduced to writing by PW-6. EX-P7 is the said extra judicial confession. PW-6, then, produced the first accused before the Inspector of Police along with the extra judicial confession recorded by her. When PW-11 interrogated him, the first accused gave a voluntary confession to PW-11 in the presence of PW-6 and another witness. In pursuance of the same, the first accused produced bloodstained dhoti [MO-16] and bloodstained shirt [MO-17]. PW-11 recovered the same under a mahazer. In the confession, he had also disclosed the place, where he had hidden two currency notes of five hundred denominations at his house and a Cellphone. In pursuance of the same, he produced the currency notes -MO-18 series, a car key -MO-19 and a Cellphone MO-24. PW-11 recovered the same under a mahazer. Then, he returned to the Police Station and forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. 3.9. On 10.07.2008, the second accused appeared before PW-6 at 01.00 PM at his house. On such appearance, he wanted to give a voluntary confession. Accordingly, he gave a voluntary confession to PW-6 and the same was reduced to writing. EX-P11 is the said extra judicial confession. Along with a report, PW-6 produced the second accused and the extra judicial confession recorded by her before PW-11. While in custody, the second accused gave a voluntary confession in the presence of PW-6 and another witness, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-E-1697 [MO-20] and a Nokia Cellphone with Sim Card No.94436 85201, [MO-21]. In pursuance of the same, he produced the motorcycle and the Cellphone, which were recovered under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded the second accused to the Court for judicial remand. 3.10. On 10.07.2008, at 06.15 PM, PW-11 arrested the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the presence of PW-6 and another witness. On such arrest, the third accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the Cellphone with Sim Card No.98421 95884 [MO-25] and a sum of Rs.500/-[MO-22]. 3.10. On 10.07.2008, at 06.15 PM, PW-11 arrested the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the presence of PW-6 and another witness. On such arrest, the third accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the Cellphone with Sim Card No.98421 95884 [MO-25] and a sum of Rs.500/-[MO-22]. They were all recovered under a mahazer, on being produced by the third accused. Similarly, the fourth accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the Motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN-63-U-6590 [MO-23] and a Nokia Cellphone with Sim Card No.97877 60233 [MO-26]. On being produced by the fourth accused, they were all recovered from the hide out. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused Nos. 3 and 4 to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court with a request to forward the same for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood on all the dress materials. PW-11, on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against all the four accused, on 19.02.2009. 3.11. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined, 32 documents and 26 material objects were marked. 3.12. Out of the said 11 witnesses, PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who has stated about the motive and she has also stated that she came to know from Mr. Kasbar that the deceased was dashed by the car and he died on the spot. She has also spoken about the complaint made by her. PW-2 is the star-witness for the prosecution. According to him, he was owning a lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-04-D-1949. On 04.07.2008, between 07.00 and 07.30 AM, according to him, he was driving the said lorry from C.K. Mangalam to Pallithambam on the Thondi to Madurai Road. When the lorry was passing through Kakkalathur Village, he found a motorcycle overtaking the lorry. The motorcycle was driven by the second accused and the third accused was sitting as a pillion rider. On 04.07.2008, between 07.00 and 07.30 AM, according to him, he was driving the said lorry from C.K. Mangalam to Pallithambam on the Thondi to Madurai Road. When the lorry was passing through Kakkalathur Village, he found a motorcycle overtaking the lorry. The motorcycle was driven by the second accused and the third accused was sitting as a pillion rider. While going ahead of the said lorry, the second accused was waiving his hands, giving some kind of signal to somebody. Then, a white colour ambassador car overtook his lorry. At that time, he found the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction. The car took a turn towards the said motorcycle and dashed against the same. He noticed the car running in a wrong direction and dashing against the motorcycle and then, it came to a halt. The rider of the motorcycle was thrown and he fell down with serious injuries. According to him, he stopped the lorry and rushed towards the deceased. He found him dead. There were extensive injuries on his body. Then, he rushed towards the place, where the car came to a halt. At that time, he found the driver of the car breaking the front side wind screen of the car. When he questioned the driver as to why he was doing so, the driver told him not to interfere, as it was none of his business. PW-2 has identified the first accused as the driver of the car, who did so. At that time, according to him, Mr. Kusbar, a resident of Kadayanenthal Village came. PW-2 narrated the above incident to him. 3.13. It is the further evidence of PW-2 that Mr. Kasbar, after having seen the deceased, told him that the deceased was related to him. Then, he requested Mr. Kasbar to go and inform the relatives of the deceased. Immediately, PW-2 left the place of occurrence, taking the lorry. He also found the driver of the car escaping from the place of occurrence in a bus. On reaching his native village, according to PW-2, he told about the occurrence to his relatives. Then, around 10.15 AM, again, he returned to the place of occurrence. At that time, there was a huge crowd of people. Then, according to him, he was examined by PW-1. On reaching his native village, according to PW-2, he told about the occurrence to his relatives. Then, around 10.15 AM, again, he returned to the place of occurrence. At that time, there was a huge crowd of people. Then, according to him, he was examined by PW-1. Thus, according to PW-2, he is an eye-witness to the occurrence and according to his further evidence, the way in which the car took a turn towards the wrong direction, dashed against the motorcycle and came to a halt would indicate that it was a not a mere accident. 3.14. PW-3 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazer and the rough sketch and the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. 3.15. PW-4 is a resident of Puliayadithambam Village. The deceased was the son of the sister of his wife. The mother of the deceased is one [PW-1]. According to PW-4, eight months prior to the occurrence, Mrs. Arul Mary called him over phone and informed him that when the deceased was going to his school, a tractor had hit him and escaped from the place of occurrence. She had further stated that she had suspicion that it was not a mere accident. Therefore, PW-4 held an enquiry with the second accused. The second accused confessed to him that he only made arrangement for such an accident in order to kill the deceased. PW-4, in the panchayat, compromised the matter between the parties by imposing Rs.50/-each as fine to both parties. 3.16. PW-5 has stated that on 04.07.2008, at 07.00 AM, the second accused was found talking to somebody over phone. PW-5 is none else than a close relative of the second accused. Equally, the deceased was also closely related to him. The brother of the deceased had married the daughter of PW-5. According to him, he found the second accused calling one Mr. Chinnadurai, over phone, to come immediately, on 04.07.2008, at 08.00 AM itself. He has further stated that later on, he came to know that the deceased died. 3.17. PW-6 is the star-witness for the prosecution. PW-6 was the then Village Administrative Officer of Kakkalathur Village. According to her, on 09.07.2008, the first accused appeared before her and gave a voluntary confession, under EX-P7. She has further stated that on 10.07.2008, the second accused appeared before her and gave a voluntary confession under EX-P11. 3.17. PW-6 is the star-witness for the prosecution. PW-6 was the then Village Administrative Officer of Kakkalathur Village. According to her, on 09.07.2008, the first accused appeared before her and gave a voluntary confession, under EX-P7. She has further stated that on 10.07.2008, the second accused appeared before her and gave a voluntary confession under EX-P11. She has further stated that she produced both the accused before PW-11. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the first accused, MO-16 and MO-17 were recovered. She has further stated that in the confession, the second accused had disclosed the place, where he had hidden two currency notes of five hundred denomination at his house and a Cellphone. In pursuance of the same, he produced the currency notes -MO-18, car key -MO-19 and a Cellphone -MO-21. She has further stated that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested by PW-11 and they also gave voluntary confessions. On the confession made by the third accused, a cellphone [MO-25] and a sum of Rs.500/-[MO-22] were recovered. On the confession made by the fourth accused, a cellphone [MO-26] and a motorcycle [MO-20] were recovered. 3.18. PW-7 has stated about the motive. He is the panchayatar of the village. He has also stated about the earlier occurrence in respect of the hitting of the tractor against the deceased. PW-8 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-9 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of PW-1. PW-10 is the Head Clerk of the Court, who has spoken about the forwarding of the material objects for chemical examination, as per the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW-11 has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of the final report. 3.19. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. On their side, two witnesses, by name, Mr. P. Victor and Mr. S. Chellamuthu were examined. DW-1 is the son of DW-2. According to him, on 03.07.2008 and 04.07.2008, PW-2 was staying along with him at Tiruchencode. On 04.07.2008, at 03.00 PM, PW-2 received a phone call about the death of the deceased. Thereafter, he returned to the village. On their side, two witnesses, by name, Mr. P. Victor and Mr. S. Chellamuthu were examined. DW-1 is the son of DW-2. According to him, on 03.07.2008 and 04.07.2008, PW-2 was staying along with him at Tiruchencode. On 04.07.2008, at 03.00 PM, PW-2 received a phone call about the death of the deceased. Thereafter, he returned to the village. Thus, according to him, as on the date of the occurrence, PW-2 was in Tiruchencode and therefore, he would not have witnessed the occurrence at all. DW-2 is a resident of Sevvaypettai Village. He has stated that PW-7 is not a panchayatar and his evidence that he held panchayat and resolved the disputes between the parties in respect of the hitting of the tractor is absolutely false. 3.20. On the side of the prosecution, four documents were marked. EX-D1 and EX-D2 are the signatures of DW-1 in the claim statements given by PW-1 to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein PW-1 has stated that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. This claim was made by her on 22.09.2008. From the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was received by PW-1, on the ground that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. EX-D3 is the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar. PW-6 has admitted that it is in her handwriting. EX-D4 is the call details of the phone number of the second accused, [MO-24]. 3.21. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4, but convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be believed, since his conduct is highly unbelievable. He would further submit that the evidence of PW-6 cannot be believed, because it is highly unnatural that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would have gone to her in quick succession, on 09.07.2008 and 10.07.2008, respectively. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be believed, since his conduct is highly unbelievable. He would further submit that the evidence of PW-6 cannot be believed, because it is highly unnatural that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would have gone to her in quick succession, on 09.07.2008 and 10.07.2008, respectively. The learned counsel would further submit that PW-6 has categorically admitted that EX-D3 is in her handwriting, whereas EX-P7 and EX-P11, the so-called extra judicial confessions said to have been given by the accused Nos.1 and 2 are in total variance in the matter of handwriting. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, these two confessions would not have been reduced to writing by PW-6 at all. He would further submit that the case was altered into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on 04.07.2008 itself by the Inspector of Police, though there was no evidence collected at that time, even to remotely come to the conclusion that it was a murder. Apart from the above, the learned counsel would point out that the motive alleged by the prosecution also has not been proved. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, first of all, from the evidence of PW-1, the motive for the occurrence has been clearly established. He would add that the second accused had a clear motive against the deceased. He would further submit that on an earlier occasion, a tractor hit the deceased, as instigated by the second accused. Going by the sequence events, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the present occurrence would not have been a mere motor vehicle accident and it was a pre-planned murder. He would further submit that there is no inconsistency or improbability in the evidence of PW-2 so as to disbelieve the same. He would further submit that the first accused had gone to PW-6, on 09.07.2008 and made a confession voluntarily. Similarly, the second accused had gone to PW-6 and made a confession voluntarily. He would further submit that there is no inconsistency or improbability in the evidence of PW-2 so as to disbelieve the same. He would further submit that the first accused had gone to PW-6, on 09.07.2008 and made a confession voluntarily. Similarly, the second accused had gone to PW-6 and made a confession voluntarily. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is nothing unnatural in the same, because the accused Nos.1 and 2 reposed confidence in PW-6, as PW-6 happened to be the Village Administrative Officer of that area. Thus, according to him, the evidence of PW-2, coupled with the extra judicial confessions, under EX-P7 and EX-P11, have clearly established the guilt of the accused. He would further submit that in the absence of the expert opinion, the handwriting of PW-6, as found in EX-P7 and EX-P11, cannot be doubted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while concluding his arguments, would submit that the prosecution has clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.1 and 2 is liable to be confirmed. 7. We have considered the above submissions. 8. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW-2. According to PW-2, he was driving his lorry at the crucial time at the place of occurrence on Madurai -Thondi Road. It is his further evidence that at that time, a motorcycle overtook his lorry. The person, who was sitting as the pillion rider, was waiving his hands, thereby making some signal to somebody. The motorcycle was followed by a car. According to him, at that time, yet another motorcycle came from the opposite direction and the car dashed against the motorcycle by taking a right turn. After hitting the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle, the car came to a halt at a distance of 200 feet. He has further stated that he stopped the lorry and went near the place, where the motorcyclist had fallen. He found the deceased dead. Then, he rushed towards the car, which was also stopped. The first accused came out of the car and he started breaking the front side wind screen of the car. Here comes the crucial part of this evidence. He found the deceased dead. Then, he rushed towards the car, which was also stopped. The first accused came out of the car and he started breaking the front side wind screen of the car. Here comes the crucial part of this evidence. He has further stated that while he was standing at the place of occurrence, one Kasbar came to the place of occurrence and thereafter, the said Kasbar had gone to inform the relatives of the deceased. It is the further evidence of PW-2 that immediately, he left the place of occurrence abruptly taking his lorry. This conduct of PW-2 makes his evidence unbelievable, for the simple reason that he is not a stranger to the deceased. He is closely related to the deceased. Had it been true that he had seen the occurrence, when the deceased was related to him, he would not have left the deceased abruptly in the place of occurrence, as there was nobody else in the place of occurrence. He did disclose about the occurrence to anybody. Further, the said Kasbar has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known. From the above unnatural conduct of PW-2, we are of the considered view that he would not have seen the occurrence at all and therefore, we reject the evidence of PW-2. 9. Now, what remains for the prosecution is only the extra judicial confessions said to have been given by the accused Nos.1 and 2 to PW-6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.07.2008, the first accused had gone to PW-6 and made a voluntary confession, which was reduced to writing by PW-6. Similarly, it is the case of the prosecution that on the very next day, that was on 10.07.2008, the second accused went to the office of PW-6 and gave a voluntary confession, which was also reduced to writing by her. 10. The learned counsel would submit that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would not have chosen a stranger to make such confessions. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is in evidence that the accused had no prior acquaintance with PW-6. Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would have chosen a stranger to give confession about the occurrence. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is in evidence that the accused had no prior acquaintance with PW-6. Therefore, it is too difficult to believe that the accused Nos.1 and 2 would have chosen a stranger to give confession about the occurrence. Above all, according to PW-6, in her chief-examination, both the confessions were reduced to writing by her in her handwriting. During cross-examination, EX-D3, which is a document admittedly written by her, has been marked. EX-D3 is the community certificate issued by her in her own handwriting. The learned counsel would submit that the handwriting found in EX-D3, EX-P7 and EX-P11 are in total variance. 11. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the absence of expert opinion, the plea of the accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be accepted by this Court. But, we are not persuaded by the said argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, because, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, [for brevity, "the Evidence Act"], this Court has been empowered to compare the disputed handwriting with that of the admitted handwriting. In respect of the proof of handwriting or signature, we have two other modes provided under the Evidence Act. Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the opinions of the experts specially skilled in such science will be relevant for forming an opinion by the Court on such points. Under Section 47 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, will be relevant for the purpose of the Court forming an opinion whether a particular document was written or signed by him. Section 73 of the Evidence Act provides the third method. Thus the Court can form opinion in respect of handwriting either (a) on the opinion of an expert or (b) on the opinion of a person acquainted with the handwriting or (c) by comparison by the Court itself. Under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to form an opinion on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court by its own comparison of writings has to form its opinion. Under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to form an opinion on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court by its own comparison of writings has to form its opinion. But, at the same time, since the Court is not an expert in the field of comparison of handwritings, in the event the Court finds it difficult to make physical comparison of the disputed handwritings with the admitted handwritings, the Court may seek the opinion of an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In a case, where the Court is able to compare the disputed handwriting and the admitted handwriting, without any difficulty, as provided in Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court can very well form an opinion on such comparison. In the instant case, even for a naked eye also, the handwritings in EX-D3 on one side and EX-P7 and EX-P11 on the other side are drastically different. In such view of the matter, we hold that EX-P7 and EX-P11 are not in the handwriting of PW-6 at all. This also creates doubt as to whether the accused Nos.1 and 2 would have gone to PW-6 and made such confessions. 12. Assuming that these two extra judicial confessions could be taken into account, even then, it is too difficult to sustain the conviction based on these two confessions. The extra judicial confession, by its very nature, is a weak piece of evidence. But, at the same time, it can form the sole basis for the conviction, provided, it inspires the confidence of the Court. In a case, where the extra judicial confession is shrouded by doubts, then, the Court shall look for corroboration from independent sources. It is, of course, a rule of prudence. Unless such corroboration is found, then, it will not be safe for this Court to rely on the extra judicial confession, which has got many doubts, inherently. In the case on hand, EX-P7 and EX-P11 have got a lot of doubts and therefore, in the absence of any corroboration from other sources, it is not safe for this Court to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants on the basis of these two documents alone. 13. Apart from the above, the prosecution has proved that there was some enmity between the second accused and the deceased. 13. Apart from the above, the prosecution has proved that there was some enmity between the second accused and the deceased. Simply because there was enmity between the second accused and the deceased and simply because the prosecution has proved the motive between them, on that score, we cannot rush to the conclusion that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed the crime, as the motive is always a double edged weapon. In such view of the matter, in the instant case, though the prosecution has succeed in proving that there was enmity between the second accused and the deceased, on that ground, we cannot sustain the conviction, as there is no other evidence available against the accused Nos.1 and 2. For all these reasons, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. 14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, by Judgment dated 15.12.2011, made in S.C.No.92 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants and the sureties shall stand terminated.