JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 61 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 15.11.2012, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section201 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted him, as detailed below:-- Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 404 IPC To under rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs. 1, 000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-- "The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs. Soundararani. She was already married to one Mr. Balan. But, the deceased deserted Mr. Balaln and returned to her parental home. The accused developed illicit intimacy with her. In due course of time, the deceased started pressuring the accused to marry her. But, the accused was not willing for the same. While so, on 08.01.2010, the deceased had gone to the Computer Centre. The accused came there and took her in his TVS XL Super, bearing Registration No. TN-48-6310 to Kollimalai Puliyancholai and stopped the vehicle near a rock at Kollimalai. The accused and the deceased were in conversation for some time. At that time, it is alleged that the deceased wanted him to take her to his house as his wife. The accused got enraged over the same. He suddenly gave a slab on her left cheek. The deceased fell down. Then, the accused strangulated her to death. Thereafter, the accused removed the Gold Thali Chain, a gold ring and ear studs, all weighing 73/4 sovereigns worn by the deceased. Then, he threw the dead body into a bush in the forest area and fled away from the scene of occurrence." 2.1. PW-1 is the husband of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased was a graduate having B. Lit Degree to her credit. She was studying a computer course in the CSI Computer Centre at Thapettai. Then, he threw the dead body into a bush in the forest area and fled away from the scene of occurrence." 2.1. PW-1 is the husband of the deceased. He has stated that the deceased was a graduate having B. Lit Degree to her credit. She was studying a computer course in the CSI Computer Centre at Thapettai. She used to go to the Computer Centre by 09.00 AM and return back in the evening by 05.00 PM. According to him, on 08.01.2010, in the usual course, the deceased went to the Computer Centre for her class. But, in the evening, she did not return. PW-1 and the other family members went in search of her at various places including the houses of their relatives. But, the deceased could not be traced. Therefore, on 11.01.2010, PW-1 went to the Thapettai Police Station in Namakkal District and made a complaint. 2.2. PW-30, the then Inspector of Police at Thapettai Police Station, received the complaint at 07.00 PM from PW-1 under EX-P1 and registered a case in Crime No. 9 of 2010 under woman missing. EX-P22 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-30 went in search of the deceased at various places, but, he was not able to secure her. While so, on 22.05.2010, he received intimation that there was a case registered on the file of the Valavanthi Police Station, Namakkal District, in Crime No. 64 of 2010, under Section 174of the Code of Criminal Procedure [suspicious death]. In the said intimation, it was stated that the skeletal remains of a woman being was found at Ulkombai Ayyar Bridge. PW-30 took PW-1 and the witnesses to the said place and from the Chudithar recovered by the Valavanthi Police, he came to know that it must be the dead body of the deceased in the instant case. The case in Crime No. 66 of 2010 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [suspicious death] came to be registered in the following circumstances. 2.3. PW-2 was a Forest Guard in Gundur Bit in Namakkal District during the year 2010. On 29.04.2010, at 08.00 AM, when he was inspecting Ulkombai area in Puliyancholai Forest, he noticed a blue colour chudithar [MO-3] near a bush. He along with PW-5, the Forest Watchman went near the same. 2.3. PW-2 was a Forest Guard in Gundur Bit in Namakkal District during the year 2010. On 29.04.2010, at 08.00 AM, when he was inspecting Ulkombai area in Puliyancholai Forest, he noticed a blue colour chudithar [MO-3] near a bush. He along with PW-5, the Forest Watchman went near the same. To his shock, he found a skull and few skeletal remains of a human being. PW-2 enquired the people in the said area. But, nobody had any clue regarding the same. Then, he went to the Police Station, on 29.04.2010 and made a complaint at 06.30 PM. 2.4. PW-22, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 66 of 2010, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [suspicious death] on the complaint of PW-2. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. According to PW-22, PW-1 came to the Police Station and identified the clothes as that of the deceased. EX-P3 is the complaint made by PW-2. 2.5. PW-29, the then Inspector of Police at Moovanur Police Station, took up the case for investigation in Crime No. 64 of 2010, on 29.04.2010. On 30.04.2010, he visited the place of occurrence at 06.00 AM and prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the skull and the other skeletal remains. EX-P21 is the inquest report. During inquest, PW-1 identified the dead body as that of the deceased. This identification was made based on the chudithar found near the place, where the skull was found and a pair of silver anklets was found. A blue colour jatti [MO-11] was also found. They were all recovered under a separate mahazer. Then, he collected the skull and the skeletal remains and forwarded the same to the Government Hospital at Namakkal for postmortem. 2.6. PW-25, Dr. N. Vivekanandan, conducted autopsy on the skeletal remains. But, from the skeletal remains including the skull, he was not able to make out any identity or to know the cause of death. He forwarded the skeletal remains for DNA examination. But, the DNA examination could not be conducted by the experts, because DNA could not be extracted from the skeletal remains. But, the skull was sent for superimposition examination. He forwarded the skeletal remains for DNA examination. But, the DNA examination could not be conducted by the experts, because DNA could not be extracted from the skeletal remains. But, the skull was sent for superimposition examination. The photograph of the deceased was used for superimposition, which revealed that the skull was that of the deceased. Thereafter, PW-25 gave opinion that the cause of death could not be given. Since already a case of woman missing had been registered by PW-28 at the Tahpettai Police Station and since the same was under investigation by PW-30, he handed over the case diary to PW-30. PW-30 altered the case in Crime No. 9 of 2010 into one under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.7. While so, according to the case of the prosecution, on 25.05.2010, the accused appeared before PW-13, the then Village Administrative Officer of Arayichi Village and made extra judicial confession. According to the further case of the prosecution, PW-13 recorded the same in the presence of his Village Assistant and then produced the accused along with the extra judicial confession to PW-30. 2.8. PW-30 arrested the accused at 08.00 AM, on 25.05.2010. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed that he had pledged a pair of gold jewels [MO-4] weighing half sovereign in Karur Vaisya Bank through PW-15. He also disclosed the place, where he had hidden the TVS XL Super, bearing Registration No. TN-48-6310. In pursuance of the same, he took PW-30 and PW-13 to his house and produced the motorcycle and identified PW-15. PW-15 in turn told that the accused gave the above gold ear studs weighing half sovereign on 12.01.2010 and pledged the same in his name in the Karur Vaisya Bank at Thapettai. In pursuance of the same, the above gold ear studs [MO-4] was recovered. EX-C1 is the loan application and EX-C2 is a copy of the loan register and the same were recovered under a mahazer. He has further stated that he had given a gold thali chain, [MO-5] weighing 4 grams, thali coins [MO-6] four in numbers, weighing eight grams and a gold ring [MO-8] weighing four grams to PW-16. PW-16 pledged the same in the very same bank. They were all recovered from the bank. He has further stated that he had given a gold thali chain, [MO-5] weighing 4 grams, thali coins [MO-6] four in numbers, weighing eight grams and a gold ring [MO-8] weighing four grams to PW-16. PW-16 pledged the same in the very same bank. They were all recovered from the bank. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the material objects to the Court. He examined many more witnesses. Then, he handed over the case diary to his successor. PW-31 continued the investigation and finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.9. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 31 witnesses were examined, 39 documents and 13 material objects were marked. The jewel pledged receipt was marked as EX-C1. 2.10. Out of the said 31 witnesses, PW-1 is the husband of the deceased. He has stated that lastly on 08.01.2010, at 09.00 AM, she left the house for the Computer Centre and thereafter, she did not return back. He has further stated that he made a complaint on 11.01.2010 at Thapettai Police Station. He has further stated that on 24.04.2010, he found the skull of the deceased as that of his wife. He has identified [MO-4 to MO-9] jewels belonging to the deceased. The photographs [MO-1 series] produced by PW-1 were used for superimposition examination. MO-2 is the chudithar top. MO-3 is the chudithar bottom. MO-10 and MO-11 are the chudidaht sawri and Jatti. PW-1 has identified the same as that of his wife. These clothes were found near the skull and the other skeletal remains. 2.11. PW-2 is the Forest Guard, who has stated about the fact that he had found skeletal remains and the chudithar on 24.04.2010 at 08.00 AM at Ulkombai Forest Area. He has further stated that he made a complaint to the police in respect of the same. PW-3 is the father of PW-1. He has also stated about the missing of the deceased. He has further stated that he had identified the clothes of the deceased. PW-4 is the father of the deceased. He has further stated that he made a complaint to the police in respect of the same. PW-3 is the father of PW-1. He has also stated about the missing of the deceased. He has further stated that he had identified the clothes of the deceased. PW-4 is the father of the deceased. He has also stated about the missing of he deceased. He has also identified the jewels belonging to the deceased. 2.12. PW-5 is a Forest Watchman, who accompanied PW-2 and found the skull near the place of occurrence. PW-6 is the brother of the deceased, who has identified the material objects belonging to the deceased. PW-7 and PW-8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-9 was the Trainer in the CSI Computer Centre at Thapettai. According to her, On 06.01.2010, the deceased came to the Computer Centre by 09.00 AM and left the Centre by 01.30 PM itself. PW-10 is an important witness for the prosecution. According to him, on 08.01.2010, at about 12.30 PM, when he was standing near the Girls Higher Secondary School at Mettupalayam, the accused took a woman in TVS XL Super Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-48-6310 towards Puliyancholai. PW-11 and PW-12 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. 2.13. PW-13 and PW-14 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. They were examined to speak about the alleged confession made by the accused and the consequential discoveries of the material objects. PW-15 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. He was the one, who pledged the gold ear studs in the Karur Vaisya Bank. He was expected to say that the gold jewels were handed over to him by the accused, on 12.01.2010. But, he has not stated so. PW-16 has also turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. He was examined to speak about the fact that the other jewels were handed over to him by the accused and he in turn pledged the same in the Karur Vaiysa Bank. But, he has stated that these jewels belong to his wife and he pledged the same in the Karur Vaiysa Bank. 2.14. He was examined to speak about the fact that the other jewels were handed over to him by the accused and he in turn pledged the same in the Karur Vaiysa Bank. But, he has stated that these jewels belong to his wife and he pledged the same in the Karur Vaiysa Bank. 2.14. PW-17 is the Manager of the Karur Vaiysa Bank at Thapettai. He has stated about the pledging of the jewels on 13.04.2009 by PW-16. PW-18 and PW-19 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-20 has stated that he was running a digital photo studio at Thapettai. He has stated that on one occasion, the deceased came to his photo studio and took photographs. At that time, according to him, she was wearing a blue colour chudithar. MO-1 series, the photographs were taken in his photo studio. PW-21 is the photographer, who took photograph of the skull. PW-22 has spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No. 66 of 2010, on the complaint of PW-2. PW-23 is the Head Constable, who has stated that he handed over the skull to the Forensic Lab at Chennai, for the purpose of superimposition examination. 2.15. PW-24 has stated that he handed over the altered First Information Report on 22.05.2010 to the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW-25, Dr. N. Vivekanandan has stated that he conducted autopsy on the skull and the other skeletal remains, but he could not find out the cause of death. PW-26 is the Scientific Analyst, who has stated that from the examination of the skull, he opined that there was possibility to opine that the skull was that of a female. But, he also conducted superimposition of the photographs of the deceased and found that it tallied. PW-27 has stated that he was not able to extract DNA from the skeletal remains and therefore, he could not conduct DNA examination. PW-28 is the Head Constable, who carried the skull and the skeletal remains to the Namakkal Government Hospital for postmortem. PW-29 is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Moovanur Police Station, who conducted investigation in the case in Crime No. 64 of 2010. He has spoken about the same vividly. PW-30 and PW-31 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of the final report. 2.16. PW-29 is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Moovanur Police Station, who conducted investigation in the case in Crime No. 64 of 2010. He has spoken about the same vividly. PW-30 and PW-31 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of the final report. 2.16. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against him, he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 4. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is too well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and the proved circumstances should establish a close link with each other and 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. Keeping this broad principles in our mind, let us now examine the circumstances projected by the prosecution so as to see whether such circumstances have been proved. 5. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased left the house on 06.01.2010, at 09.00 AM. This has been spoken to by PW-1. PW-9 has stated that she was the Trainer in the CSI Computer Centre at Thapettai. According to her, the deceased came to the CSI Computer Centre, at 09.00 AM, on 06.01.2010 and left the Computer Centre at 01.30 PM. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 01.30 PM, on 08.01.2010. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen by anybody. PW-10 has stated that on 08.01.2010, at 12.30 PM, he found the accused riding the TVS XL Super Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-48-6310 towards Puliyancholai and at that time, a woman was travelling in the said vehicle as a pillion rider. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen by anybody. PW-10 has stated that on 08.01.2010, at 12.30 PM, he found the accused riding the TVS XL Super Motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-48-6310 towards Puliyancholai and at that time, a woman was travelling in the said vehicle as a pillion rider. But, he has not stated as to whether it was the deceased or not. Thus, the evidence of PW-10 does not go to any help for the prosecution. 6. The next circumstance is that the dead body was found on 29.04.2010, at 08.00 AM, by PW-2 at Puliyancholai Ulkombai Forest Area. PW-2 has stated that he found skull and few skeletal remains. The superimposition examination conducted has revealed that the skull belonged to the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the skull and the other skeletal remains found were that of the deceased. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the deceased would have died somewhere between 08.01.2010 and 24.04.2010. 7. The next circumstance is that the deceased died of a homicidal violence. According to the charge, the deceased was strangulated to death. But, the doctor, who conducted postmortem, has stated that he was not able to give any opinion regarding the cause of death. In view of the said evidence, the accidental fall of the deceased from the rock down in the hill cannot be ruled out. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is more essential for the prosecution to prove the cause of death and to rule out that the death was due to any natural cause or due to the accident. Here, in this case, the prosecution has not ruled out that the death was either due to accident or due to some other natural cause. The prosecution has failed to prove that the death was a homicide. The prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance. 8. The next circumstance is that it is stated that the accused surrendered before PW-13, on 25.05.2010 in the presence of PW-14 and made a voluntary confession. Thus, the prosecution wants to rely on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused. But, unfortunately, PW-13 and PW-14 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-13 has stated that in a written statement prepared by the police, his signature was obtained. Thus, the prosecution wants to rely on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused. But, unfortunately, PW-13 and PW-14 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-13 has stated that in a written statement prepared by the police, his signature was obtained. PW-13 is a responsible Village Administrative Officer and PW-14 is his Village Assistant. But, they have turned hostile and they have disowned the alleged confession made to them by the accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that such an extra judicial confession was made to PW-13 and PW-14 by the accused. 9. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW-13 produced the accused along with the extra judicial confession to the Inspector of Police and in the presence of the witnesses, the accused gave a voluntary confession. In the said confession, he disclosed that he had handed over the gold ear studs to PW-15 and the other jewels to PW-16. According to the case of the prosecution, PW-15 had pledged the gold ear studs to Karur Vaisya Bank, from where it was recovered and the other jewels pledged by PW-16 were also recovered. But, PW-15 has turned hostile and he has not stated that the accused had handed over the above jewels to him. Thus, there is no connection between the gold ear studs recovered from the bank and the accused. Similarly, PW-16 has turned hostile. According to him, the other gold jewels pledged by him through PW-17 in the Karur Vaisya Bank, belong to his wife. He has further stated that these jewels were not handed over to him by the accused. Therefore, there is no evidence at all that the accused handed over these jewels to PW-16. 10. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if it is proved that the accused was found in possession of the stolen articles soon after the commission of the theft, the Court may presume that the articles were stolen by the accused, if the accused is not able to explain his possession. In the instant case, absolutely, there is no evidence that these jewels were in the possession of the accused soon after the commission of the theft, as PW-15 and PW-16 have completely turned hostile. In the instant case, absolutely, there is no evidence that these jewels were in the possession of the accused soon after the commission of the theft, as PW-15 and PW-16 have completely turned hostile. To repeat, from the evidences of PW-15 and PW-16, the prosecution has succeeded that these gold jewels were in the possession of PW-15 and PW-16 and not in the possession of the accused. Thus, presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could not be drawn against the accused. If this part of the evidence goes, there is no other evidence available against the accused. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died of homicidal death and that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. Absolutely, there is no evidence against the accused so as to convict the accused. 12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by Judgment dated 15.11.2012 made in S.C. No. 61 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand terminated.