JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.217 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. The second accused is his wife, by name, Mrs.Gandhiyammal. They stood charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 13.10.2010, the Trial Court convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 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: (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Muniyasamy. The accused are husband and wife respectively. The first accused had borrowed money from the deceased. The deceased demanded repayment of the same by the first accused. But, he did not repay the same and he was very evasive. The deceased was a drunkard. He used to visit the house of the accused and abused the first accused in filthy language, demanding the repayment of the loan amount. This put the accused in shame. This is stated to be the motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. (ii) On 26.04.2008, it is alleged that by around 07.00 p.m. the deceased was at his house. P.W.1 (his wife) and P.W.2 (his daughter) were also in the house. By about 07.00 p.m., he received a phone call from the first accused. The first accused invited him on the assurance that he would pay the loan amount. The deceased told P.W.1 that he was going to meet the first accused to receive back, the loan amount. Accordingly, he left the house at 07.00 p.m. It is alleged that the first accused had purchased brandy and mixed poison with the same. He kept it ready. As soon as the deceased came to meet him, he took him to Elanthaikoottam Road. The second accused also was available at the place of occurrence. Both the accused gave the brandy mixed with poison to the deceased. The deceased consumed the same and returned to his house. (iii) On his returning to his house, he felt something abnormal in his stomach. He developed pain. The second accused also was available at the place of occurrence. Both the accused gave the brandy mixed with poison to the deceased. The deceased consumed the same and returned to his house. (iii) On his returning to his house, he felt something abnormal in his stomach. He developed pain. Therefore, he told P.W.1 that the accused had mixed poison with brandy and gave the same to him to consume, which he consumed. He wanted P.W.1 to take him to the hospital. (iv) P.W.1 took the deceased to the Primary Health Centre, Devipattinam at 11.00 p.m. on 26.04.2008. P.W.9, Dr.Muneeswari, examined the deceased. He was unconscious. There was sweating from his body. The deceased was very tired also. P.W.9 was told by P.W.1 that on her way to the hospital, the deceased had vomited twice and he also had diarrhoea. Since, his condition was serious, P.W.9 immediately referred him to the Government Hospital at Ramanathapuram. (v) According to P.W.1, she then took him to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, where he was admitted as inpatient. He died on 27.04.2008 at 04.00 a.m. (vi) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station to make a complaint. P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police at Devipattinam Police Station, received the complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2008 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (vii) P.W.13 took up the case for investigation on 27.04.2008 at 10.30 a.m. He proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses, during which, he examined P.W.1 and P.W.2. Then, he forwarded the body through P.W.5 to the hospital for postmortem. (viii) P.W.8, Dr.Sadiq Ali, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.04.2008 at 02.00 p.m. There were no external injuries and there were also no internal injuries. He preserved the viscera for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was 37.71% volume/volume of ethyl alcohol and monochrotophos poison in the same. Based on the said Analysis Report, P.W.8 gave opinion that the deceased had died due to poison. Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P.8 is his Final Report. He preserved the viscera for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was 37.71% volume/volume of ethyl alcohol and monochrotophos poison in the same. Based on the said Analysis Report, P.W.8 gave opinion that the deceased had died due to poison. Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P.8 is his Final Report. (ix) During the course of investigation, at 04.00 p.m. on 27.04.2008, P.W.13 arrested the first accused at Elanthaikoottam Bus Stop, in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he had hidden a brandy bottle at his house. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to his house and produced M.O.1, brandy bottle. P.W.13 recovered the same under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the first accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material object to the Court. At 05.00 p.m., at Siddharkottai Bus Stop, he arrested the second accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. On such arrest, she gave a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed that he had hidden a brandy bottle at her house. In pursuance of the same, she took the police and witnesses to her house and produced M.O.2, brandy bottle. P.W.13 recovered the same under a mahazer. Then, he forwarded the second accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material object to the Court. Then, he made a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for Chemical Examination. Then, he handed over the Case Diary to P.W.14 for further investigation. P.W.14 took up the case for investigation on 18.03.2009. He examined the Doctor, collected medical records and finally filed final report against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 14 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 2 Material Objects. 4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. 4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced them accordingly. That is how, the appellant/first accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 6. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated about the ill-feeling between the deceased and the first accused. Assuming that the same is true, that by itself would not go to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution relies mainly on the oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased to P.W.1. According to P.W.1, by about 07.00 p.m., on 26.04.2009, the deceased told that he was going to meet the first accused for the purpose of demanding money. Then, he returned to his house by about 10.00 p.m. At that time, it is alleged that he told P.W.1 that both the accused had given brandy mixed with poison and he wanted her to take him to the hospital. This is the oral dying declaration, upon which, the prosecution relies on. The question is whether to believe the version of P.W.1. In our considered view, for many reasons, the said evidence of P.W.1 deserves to be rejected. First of all, at 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 had taken the deceased to the hospital. P.W.9 enquired about the history of the patient. At that time, the deceased was unconscious. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the deceased would have been conscious at 10.00 p.m., when the so-called dying declaration was orally made by the deceased to P.W.1. Then, at 11.00 p.m., when P.W.9 enquired about the history of the patient, P.W.1 had told that the deceased had vomited twice and he also had diarrhoea. Had it been true that the deceased told her that he had consumed poison as given by these accused, certainly, P.W.1 would have told the Doctor about the same and would have requested her to give treatment for poison. Had it been true that the deceased told her that he had consumed poison as given by these accused, certainly, P.W.1 would have told the Doctor about the same and would have requested her to give treatment for poison. The very fact that the deceased had told the Doctor that the deceased had vomited twice and had diarrhoea, would go to show that P.W.1 had no information that the deceased had taken poison. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the condition of the deceased was serious, the Doctor did not make further enquiry and she did not give any further treatment. The fact remains that he was, therefore, taken to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, where he underwent treatment, till he breathed his last. It is not known whether treatment was given for poison or mere for diarrhoea. What was the statement made by P.W.1 to the Doctor, has also been suppressed. The medical records such as, Accident Register and treatment records pertaining to the deceased, maintained at the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, have not been produced in evidence at all. It is not known whether in the hospital, he regained the consciousness or not. If only the medical records were produced, all these facts would have come to light. Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why they have not been produced. 7. Had it been true that the deceased had told P.W.1 that the accused had administered poison, nothing would have prevented her from going to the Police Station and to make the complaint. In this case, the complaint was made only on 27.04.2008 at 10.00 a.m., that is, after several hours of the demise of the deceased. The First Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 27.04.2008 at 01.00 p.m. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the same also. 8. From these infirmities in the case of the prosecution, we find it difficult to believe the story propounded by P.W.1 that the deceased told her that the accused had administered poison on him. In our considered view, it is highly improbable that the deceased would have been in a position to say anything to P.W.1, because he would have been unconscious. 9. In our considered view, it is highly improbable that the deceased would have been in a position to say anything to P.W.1, because he would have been unconscious. 9. Apart from the above piece of evidence, the prosecution relies on the recovery of two brandy bottles in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by the accused 1 and 2. But, the bottles were not sent for Chemical Examination to find whether there are traces of poison in the bottles. The bottles have not been connected to the crime. It is too well settled that it is not every fact discovered out of the confession admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is only the discovery of a relevant fact, that makes the statement admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Here, in this case, the relationship between the bottles and the crime has not been established. As we have already pointed out that there were no traces of poison noticed in the bottles. In view of the same, this piece of evidence also would not in any manner help the prosecution. 10. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, should be proved beyond reasonable doubts and every such proved circumstances should have a close link with each other, so as to form 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. Here, in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove any other circumstances. The other hypothesis that the deceased would have committed suicide by consuming poison also, has not been ruled out. For these reasons, we find that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, is not sustainable and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 11. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred only by the first accused. The second accused Mrs.Gandhiyammal has not made any appeal challenging her conviction and sentence. But, the fact remains that the case against her, is inseparable. In this regard, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999 (7) SCC 69 , wherein, in paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “25. But, the fact remains that the case against her, is inseparable. In this regard, we may refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999 (7) SCC 69 , wherein, in paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “25. The mother of the appellant Narayanamma is languishing in jail at present pursuant to the conviction and sentence awarded to her in this case. Of course her conviction is not before us as she did not file any special leave petition. But this Court has set up a judicious precedent for the purpose of averting miscarriage of justice in similar situations. On the evaluation of a case, if this Court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to his co-accused also though he has not challenged the order by means of an appeal petition to this Court. (vide Rajaram v. State of M.P.)” In view of the said settled position of law, though, in the instant case, the second accused has not made any appeal, she is also entitled for the benefit of acquittal. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused also. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused as well as the second accused, by name, Mrs.Gandhiyammal, who has not made any appeal, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, made in S.C.No.217 of 2009, dated 13.10.2010, is set aside and both the accused are acquitted. The fine amounts, if any, paid by them, shall be refunded to them.