JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.28 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge -2, Kancheepuram. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 31.10.2012, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/ appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: [a] The deceased in this case was one Mr. Viji. The accused had a suspicion that Mr. Viji had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused by name Pachayammal. Enraged over the same, it is alleged that on 28.11.2010, around 12 midnight, he stabbed the deceased with knife and killed him. The dead body was found on the next day. [b] P.W.1 made a complaint to the police on 29.11.2010 at 10.00 a.m. P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.715 of 2010 u/s 302 IPC at 10.00 a.m., on 29.11.2010. Ex.P8 is the FIR. He forwarded the Complaint [Ex.P1] and the FIR [Ex.P8] to the Court, which were received by the learned Magistrate at 1.00 p.m. on 29.11.2010. P.W.18 took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem. P.W.17 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 29.11.2010 at 2.20 p.m.. He found the following injuries: "Vertical cut injury seen on the back of head measuring 12cm x 2 cm x bone deep with clear cut margins and acute ends; O/D -Dura found cut beneath the cut injury and diffuse subdural haemorrhages seen over he surface of whole brain; corresponding to the cut injury cerebrum found cut. (2) Abrasions 3 cm x 2 cm seen over right frontal region." Ex.P16 is the Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P17 is his Final Opinion. He gave opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O1-knife. (2) Abrasions 3 cm x 2 cm seen over right frontal region." Ex.P16 is the Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P17 is his Final Opinion. He gave opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O1-knife. He further opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to these injuries. [c] P.W.18 arrested the accused on 30.11.2010 in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife, the shirt and the lungi. In pursuance of the said confession, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.Os.1 to 3. P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court. Then, at his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there were blood stains on all the material objects, including the knife. On completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 IPC. 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 24 documents were exhibited, besides 8 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer has stated that on 29.11.2010 at 8.00 a.m. he was informed by the Village Panchayat Board President -P.W.2 that the dead body of the deceased was found near Selliyammaal kulam in a hut. According to P.W.1, he went to the place of occurrence, found the dead body of the deceased and then made a complaint to the police. P.W.2 is the Panchayat Board President of the said Village. He has stated that the villagers had told him that the dead body was found in the hut. Therefore, he went to the place of occurrence, found the dead body and informed P.W.1 about the same. P.W.3 is a villager, who has stated that he found the dead body on 29.11.2010 at 10.00 a.m. at the place of occurrence. He has stated that the villagers had told him that the dead body was found in the hut. Therefore, he went to the place of occurrence, found the dead body and informed P.W.1 about the same. P.W.3 is a villager, who has stated that he found the dead body on 29.11.2010 at 10.00 a.m. at the place of occurrence. P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.5 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.6 is the Scientific Assistant, who has stated that on examining the material objects, he found blood stains on the material objects including the knife, except sample earth. P.W.7 has stated about the arrest of the accused on 30.11.2010 at 8.00 a.m. and the disclosure statement made by him. He has also stated about the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 on the disclosure statement made by the accused. P.Ws.8 and 9 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 is the Forensic Expert, who has stated that he visited the place of occurrence, but, he was not able to get any clue from there. P.W.11 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.12 has stated that he carried the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.14, the Serologist Expert, has stated that the blood stains found on the material objects were all "O" group. P.W.15 has stated that he examined the internal organs of the deceased, which revealed that there was neither poison nor alcohol. P.W.16, the Judicial Magistrate has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses u/s 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.17 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and P.W.18 has spoken about the investigation done and the Final Report. 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 nor he did mark any document on his side. His defence was a total denial. 6. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused for a lone charge u/s 302 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 7. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did mark any document on his side. His defence was a total denial. 6. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused for a lone charge u/s 302 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 8. As we have narrated, in the evidence let in by the prosecution, we find absolutely there is no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The sum and substance of the evidence let in was that, the dead body was found at the place of occurrence by the Village Panchayat Board President, the villagers and the Village Administrative Officer on 29.11.2010 and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and investigation was taken up. On the arrest of the accused, he made a disclosure statement, out of which M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered. But, unfortunately, the link between M.Os.1 to 3 and the crime has not been established. Thus, the statement of the accused would not attract the ingredients of section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the relevancy of the fact discovered, has not been established. Apart from that, there is no other evidence at all against the accused. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would go to show that the trial Court relied on the confession given by the accused to the police to hold that the accused had committed the crime. It is unfortunate that the trial Court has ignored the rudimentary principles of Evidence Act, which states that a confession made to a police is not relevant and the same is not admissible in evidence. Absolutely there is no legal evidence against the accused. As it has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the life and liberty of an individual cannot be deprived of without following the procedure established by law. The Courts of law, cannot convict an accused on mere surmises and conjectures. In this case, the trial Court has convicted the accused on the basis of an evidence, which is inadmissible and on the basis of mere surmises. The Courts of law, cannot convict an accused on mere surmises and conjectures. In this case, the trial Court has convicted the accused on the basis of an evidence, which is inadmissible and on the basis of mere surmises. Therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him.