JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.44 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 20.07.2012, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 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.Thiyagarajan. The wife of the accused is one Mrs.Valli. Mr.Thiyagarajan had illicit intimacy with Mrs.Valli. The accused reprimanded Mr.Thiyagarajan and wanted him to disconnect his relationship with his wife. But, he did not stop with that. This is stated to be the motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. (ii) On 11.07.2011, it is stated that when the accused returned to his house in the night, he found his wife Mrs.Valli and Mrs.Thiyagarajan in a compromising position in the house of the accused. On seeing them so, without raising any alarm, he went into the house, took out an aruval, came near the deceased and his wife and mounted attack with aruval on the deceased. Having received the injury, the deceased started running. He went into the lane by the side of the house of one Mr.Ramasamy, fell down and died on the spot. The wife of the accused also escaped from the scene of occurrence. (iii) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. According to him, on 11.07.2011, when he was sleeping in his house, his wife came and told him that the deceased was found lying dead with cut injuries in the lane by the side of the house of Mr.Ramasamy. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place and found the dead body. Then, he proceeded to the Police Station and made a complaint. (iv) P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.377 of 2011, under Section 302 I.P.C. at 07.00 a.m. on 12.07.2011. Ex.P.9 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. Ex.P.9 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. (v) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, took up the case for investigation on 12.07.2011 at 08.00 p.m. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence P.W.1 and another witness. He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He also recovered the other material objects from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13, Report. He forwarded the body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.12, Dr.Rajaselvam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 12.07.2011 at 01.45 p.m. He found the following injuries: “1)A large cut injury over the posterior lower aspect of right thigh 8cm x 4cm x depth of 6 cms. (25 cm below right gluteal fold and 6 cm above knee joint) On exploring the wound, all the muscles had been cut, all the blood vessels cut and a 2 cm cut over lower end of femur. 2)Cut injury over lower end of left arm anterior aspect 6 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm depth with tail of 10 cms runs upwards from the injury. A linear cut injury parallel to the injury 8 cm long. On exploring the wound all the muscles had been cut. 3) Another linear cut injury over right side of the shoulder 4 cm x 1 cm x skin depth tailing down wards. 4) Another cut injury over upper aspect of left scapula. 5) Irregular abrasion over right side of chest. 6) Abrasion over right side of nose”. Ex.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to injury No.1. He further opined that the death would have occurred between 12 to18 hours prior to autopsy. (vii) P.W.15 recovered the dress materials from the dead body of the deceased. Then, he handed over the investigation to his successor. (viii) P.W.16 took up the case for investigation on 14.07.2011. The accused had surrendered before the Court. On 20.07.2011 at 03.00 p.m. he took police custody of the accused on the orders of the learned Magistrate. (vii) P.W.15 recovered the dress materials from the dead body of the deceased. Then, he handed over the investigation to his successor. (viii) P.W.16 took up the case for investigation on 14.07.2011. The accused had surrendered before the Court. On 20.07.2011 at 03.00 p.m. he took police custody of the accused on the orders of the learned Magistrate. While in custody, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where, he had hidden a drawer and an aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and produced the same from the hide-out. P.W.16 recovered the same under a mahazer in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He collected the medical records and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 18 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 18 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased. They have stated only about the motive and the fact that the dead body with injuries was found in the lane by the side of the house of Mr.Ramasamy. P.W.1 has further stated about the complaint preferred by him. They have only stated that they had suspicion that the deceased would have been done to death only by the accused. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law and P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. They have also spoken only about the motive. P.W.5 is a relative of the deceased. He has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. P.W.6 and P.W.7 have stated that on 12.07.2011, the accused spoke to them over phone and told them that the conduct of the deceased was not good for him. Again from their evidences, the prosecution tries to prove only the motive. P.W.8 and P.W.9 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 has spoken about the motive. Again from their evidences, the prosecution tries to prove only the motive. P.W.8 and P.W.9 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 has spoken about the motive. P.W.11 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 and also the disclosure statement made by the accused, while in police custody and the consequential discovery of aruval and a drawer. P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13 is the Constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court. P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.15 and 16 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. P.W.17 and P.W.18 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. 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. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case of no evidence at all and the Judgment of the Trial Court is a classic example of perversity. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the circumstances projected by the prosecution were found to be sufficient for the Trial Court to convict the accused. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. We find every force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. As we have pointed out herein above, except the motive, the prosecution has not established any other circumstances so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Motive is always a double edged weapon and the same cannot be the sole basis for the conviction. As we have pointed out herein above, except the motive, the prosecution has not established any other circumstances so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Motive is always a double edged weapon and the same cannot be the sole basis for the conviction. There is no other evidence to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. Even to prove the alleged illicit intimacy and that at the time of occurrence, the deceased and the wife of the accused were found together, absolutely there is no evidence. The recovery of aruval and the clothe also would not in any manner go to improve the case of the prosecution. It is too well settled that it is not every fact that is discovered out of the disclosure statement made by the accused to the police, makes the statement admissible. It is only the discovery of a relevant fact, that makes the statement admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against the accused. Such relevancy is to be proved by establishing the link between the fact discovered and the crime. Here, in this case, there is no such link established between the facts recovered and the crime. Thus, the statement of the accused does not fall within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence. But, the Trial Court has failed to consider these aspects and has given much weightage for the same. 11. It is settled law that 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 have a close link with the other, thereby forming 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, absolutely there is no evidence to prove any circumstance indiscriminating the accused. Though, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the death was a homicide, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the homicide was caused by the accused. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 12. Here, in this case, absolutely there is no evidence to prove any circumstance indiscriminating the accused. Though, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the death was a homicide, absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the homicide was caused by the accused. Thus, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, made in S.C.No.44 of 2012, dated 20.07.2012, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand terminated.