JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are arrayed as A1 and A2 in SC.No.95/2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. A1 stood charged for the offence u/s.302 IPC and A2 stood charged for the offence u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. By judgment dated 21.02.2013, the Trial Court convicted A1 for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and convicted A2 for the offence u/s.302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are 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. Gnanasekaran. P.W.2 [Malarvizhi] is his wife. They were residing at Sederapet village. A1 [Sivakumar] hails from Sederapet Village and A2 [Krishnan] hailsfrom Kalapet village. A2 is the brother-in-law of A1 as the sister of A2, by name, Kalaiselvi, was married to A1. A1 and his wife, Mrs. Kalaiselvi, were residing at Sederapet village. Sometime after the marriage, it came to light that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with Mrs. Kalaiselvi. A1, on many occasions, reprimanded his wife as well as the deceased in this regard. But, they did not stop their illicit relationship. Finally, it is alleged that Mrs. Kalaiselvi disappeared from the Village. The accused had suspicion that the deceased had taken her with him and he was keeping her elsewhere. The children born to Mrs. Kalaiselvi, were left behind with A1. Because of the same, it is alleged that A1 and A2 decided to do away with the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. [B] It is the further case of the prosecution that on 25.12.2009, at about 18.00 hrs. the deceased was proceeding in his motorcycle towards Morattandi Iyyanar temple in the village. These two accused followed him in another motorcycle. Around 20.45 hrs., when the deceased was nearing the temple, A1, sitting from his motorcycle, kicked the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The deceased fell down. The, A1 dropped a stone on the head of the deceased and caused an injury. These two accused followed him in another motorcycle. Around 20.45 hrs., when the deceased was nearing the temple, A1, sitting from his motorcycle, kicked the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The deceased fell down. The, A1 dropped a stone on the head of the deceased and caused an injury. Both the accused dragged the deceased to the vacant site behind the temple. Keeping the deceased in their custody, the accused wanted the deceased to disclose as to where Mrs. Kalaiselvi [wife of A1] was kept by him. The deceased was evasive. A2 attacked the deceased. Since the deceased did not tell anything about the whereabouts of Kalaiselvi, it is alleged that both the accused had attacked the deceased on his eyes, on his testicles and killed him on the spot. A2 facilitated A1 to cause the death of the deceased. Abandoning the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence, it is alleged that the accused persons fled away from the scene of crime. [C] It is alleged that P.W.19 [Sathish], at about 22.00 hrs. on 25.12.2009, contacted A1 over phone in the usual manner and enquired as to where he was then. A1 responded and said that he was keeping the deceased in his custody, behind the Morattandi Iyannar Temple and he was enquiring the deceased about the whereabouts of his wife. According to P.W.19, he took the TVS-50 motorcycle belonging to A1 and went to the temple. Since it was dark, A2 came in front of the temple and took P.W.19 behind the temple. He handed over the TVS-50 motorcycle to A1. At that time, P.W.19 found the deceased lying unconsciously. He returned to his house. He did not disclose the same to anybody. [D] P.W.2 [Malarvizhi], the wife of the deceased was at her house, when the deceased left the house in his motorcycle at 18.00 hrs. on 25.12.2009. In normal course, the deceased should have returned home by 21.00 hrs. Since he did not return, P.W.2 contacted him through his cellphone at 21.00 hrs. But the deceased did not pick up the call. Again, at 22.30 hrs. when she gave a ring, the cellphone of her husband was picked up by A1. A1 told P.W.2 that her husband/the deceased was in his custody and he had no idea of leaving him as he had planned to kill him. But the deceased did not pick up the call. Again, at 22.30 hrs. when she gave a ring, the cellphone of her husband was picked up by A1. A1 told P.W.2 that her husband/the deceased was in his custody and he had no idea of leaving him as he had planned to kill him. P.W.2 requested A1 not to cause any harm to her husband [since deceased] as his wife was not with the deceased. P.W.2 immediately informed P.W.1 [Thangaraj], the brother as well as the neighbour of the deceased. [E] P.W.1, in turn, contacted A1 over his cellphone, by around 23.00 hrs. A1 told P.W.1 that he had already killed his brother and abandoned the dead body behind Morattandi Iyannar Temple. Therefore, P.W.1 and others went to the temple and searched for the deceased behind the temple. But, they could not find him anywhere. Therefore, P.W.1 returned home. On the next day morning, i.e., on 26.12.2009, at about 05.00 hrs., when he again went to the vacant site behind the temple, he found the dead body of the deceased. Near the dead body, a cutting instrument and a rope were found. There were injuries on his fingers and other parts of the body. From there, P.W.1 immediately went to Auroville Police Station and made a complaint [Ex.P.1]. [F] P.W.21-Kulasekaran, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Auroville Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on receipt of the said complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No. 203/2009 for the offence u/s.302 IPC against A1 alone. Ex.P.21 is the printed FIR. Then, he forwarded both the documents, viz., the complaint [Ex.P.1] and the printed FIR [Ex.P.21] to the Court concerned and to his higher officials. [G] P.W.22-Sakthivel, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the said police station, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 06.15 hrs. on 26.12.2009 and in the presence of P.W.10-Anbazhagan [Retired VAO] and one Venkatesan, he prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and a Rough Sketch [Ex.P.22]. He also arranged for a photographer, viz., P.W.5-Pasupathi, to take photographs in the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. The photographs were marked as M.O.1 series. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 07.00 hrs. and 09.00 hrs. He also arranged for a photographer, viz., P.W.5-Pasupathi, to take photographs in the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. The photographs were marked as M.O.1 series. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 07.00 hrs. and 09.00 hrs. in the presence of panchayatdars and other witnesses and prepared Ex.P.23 [Inquest Report]. He recovered M.O.3 [Blood stained palm thatch] ; M.O.4 [Cutting instrument] ; M.O.5 [Sony Quartz watch] ; M.O.6 [Blood stained thorn] ; M.O.7 [Nylon rope] ; M.O.8 [Nokia cellphone] ; M.O.9 [blood stained pant] ; M.O.10 [inner garment] ; M.O.11 [Baniyan] ; M.O.12 [TVS 50 bearing Registration No. PY-01-K-0956] ; M.O.13 [Blood stained earth] ; and M.O.14 [sample earth] in the presence of the same witnesses, under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.3]. He then forwarded the dead body of the deceased for postmortem through P.W.17-Manickam [Head Constable]. [H] P.W.11-Dr.Udit B. Das, who was the Professor as well as the Head of the Department of Forensic Science, at PIMS Hospital at Kalapet, during the relevant point of time, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 14.00 hrs. on 26.12.2009. He found the following injuries:- “External Examination:- [1] Bruise 4cm x 4 cm below the right eye with swelling all around. [2] Bruise 4cmx6cm with abrasion over the right cheek. [3] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 8cmx5cm over the right side of the face and chin. [4] Contused abrasion 3cmx4cm over the right side of forehead. [5] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 7cmx3cm over the left side of forehead. [6] Multiple abrasion with contusions all around over an area 7cmx7cm on the left cheek and outer aspect of the left eye. [7] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 6cmx6cm on the left side of the face and chin. [8] Contusion of the conjunctiva of the right eye. [9] Multiple contused lacerations on the inner aspect of upper and lower lips. [10] Multiple parallel, horizontal abrasion on the left side of neck 10 cm below the mastoid process. [12] An 'L' shaped abrasion over the left side of the neck 2 cm below the left angle of jaw. [13] Multiple contused abrasions on the right side of the neck over an area 7 cm x 4 cm. [14] Multiple bruises found below the right and left angle of jaw on the neck. [12] An 'L' shaped abrasion over the left side of the neck 2 cm below the left angle of jaw. [13] Multiple contused abrasions on the right side of the neck over an area 7 cm x 4 cm. [14] Multiple bruises found below the right and left angle of jaw on the neck. [15] Multiple bruises seen over the chest and abdomen. [16] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 8cmx12cm on the outer aspect of right arm. [17] Multiple contused abrasions around the right wrist joint measuing 16cmx2cm, 23cm below the elbow joint. [18] Laceration at the tip of all the fingers and nail beds of the right and left hand sparing the middle finger of the right hand and index and middle fingers of the left hand. [19] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 10cmx7cm on the outer aspect of right elbow. [20] Multiple contused abrasion over an area 20cmx10 cm on the outer and upper aspect of right thigh and hip. [21] Laceration at the route of penis measuring 7cmx7cm exposing the shaft of the penis and testicles with contusion of the muscles and tissues around. [22] On reflection on the chest muscles, contusions seen over the chest on the right and left side in the 4th to 8th ribs areas. [23] Fracture of the 3rd, 4th rib on the right side fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th on the left side along the mid clavicular line. [24] Fracture of the ribs 4th to 12th on both side along the vertebral column. [25] On reflection of the neck showed a contusion 4cmx3cm on the stap muscles just below the left jaw coinciding with injury No.12 mentioned above. Internal Examination:- Brain - Showed extensive subarachnoid hemorrhage and subtentorial hemorrhage. Brain in oedematous and hyperaemic, cut section showed petechial hemorrhages over the gray matter. Heart - No abnormality detected. Lungs - Both lungs are pale on cut section. Larynx & Trachea - Contained blood with mucus Hyoid cartilage & Hyoid bone - Fracture of the posterior horn of thyroid on the left side. Hyoid bone intact. Thorax - Entire diaphragm contused. Peritoneal cavity- Contained 500 ml of frank blood, entire mesentery contused. Stomach - Stomach contained 100 ml of frank blood. No specific odour perceived. Sub mucosa congested. Larynx & Trachea - Contained blood with mucus Hyoid cartilage & Hyoid bone - Fracture of the posterior horn of thyroid on the left side. Hyoid bone intact. Thorax - Entire diaphragm contused. Peritoneal cavity- Contained 500 ml of frank blood, entire mesentery contused. Stomach - Stomach contained 100 ml of frank blood. No specific odour perceived. Sub mucosa congested. Liver - Contusion 3cmx2cm on the anterior aspect of right lobe seen with contusion extending upto 3 cm deep into the tissue. Cut section pale. Spleen - Cut section pale. Kidneys - On cut section pale. Intestines - Contained fas and faecolith Bladder - Contained 200 ml of urine.” Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to him, the death of the deceased was due to the multiple injuries sustained to head and abdominal organs. [I] P.W.22, in continuation of the investigation, arrested A1 on 26.12.2009 at about 16.00 hrs., in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession statement [the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.4], in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the blood stained shirt and the stone. In pursuance of the same, A1 took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced a stone [M.O.15] and the bloodstained shirt [M.O.17], which were recovered under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.5]. A1 also produced the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-R-0102 [M.O.16], [vide evidence of P.W.22] which was recovered by P.W.22 under a cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.7]. Then, he forwarded A1 for judicial remand. He also recovered the blood-stained cloth worn by the deceased, which was handed over to him by the Head Constable NO.1125. On 09.02.2010 at about 09.00 hrs., P.W.22 arrested A2 in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. At the time of arrest, A2 was in possession of a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-AC-6324. The said vehicle was recovered by P.W.22 under a cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.8]. He also collected the call details of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. [J] Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. He also collected the call details of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. [J] Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined, 25 documents and 19 material objects were also marked. [K] Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he has stated that by around 23.00 hrs., on 25.12.2009, P.W.2 told him that her husband, viz., the deceased, had not returned home. He has further stated that at 23.00 hrs., he contacted A1 and A1 had told P.W.1 that he had already killed the deceased and left the body behind the temple. He has also stated that he went in search of the deceased behind the temple ; but, he could not find the dead body. On the next day, i.e., on 26.12.2009, he went to the police station and made a complaint. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She has stated that at about 21.00 hrs., when she contacted her husband over phone, he did not pick up. Again, at 22.30 hrs., when she contacted him, the cellphone of her husband was picked up by A1, who in turn, told her that he had been keeping her husband and he had no idea of leaving him. A1 had further told her that he had planned to kill him. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. He has also spoken about the phone call between P.W.1 and A1. P.W.4, a neighbour of the deceased, has stated that he went along with P.W.1 in search of the deceased. He has further stated that he also over heard what was stated by A1 to P.W.1. P.W.5 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the scene of crime. P.W.6 has stated that he took the dead body in his Ambulance to the hospital. P.W.7 is the vital witness for the prosecution. He has stated that on 25.12.2009, at about 21.00 hrs. to 21.30 hrs., near the Morattandi Iyannar temple, he found the deceased in the company of A1. P.W.6 has stated that he took the dead body in his Ambulance to the hospital. P.W.7 is the vital witness for the prosecution. He has stated that on 25.12.2009, at about 21.00 hrs. to 21.30 hrs., near the Morattandi Iyannar temple, he found the deceased in the company of A1. P.W.8 has spoken of the hearsay information and P.W.9 has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch at the place of occurrence and also the recovery of the material objects from the scene of crime. He has also spoken about the arrest of A1 and A2 on two different dates and the recovery of the material objects, on their confession. P.W.12 is the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanan, who has stated that he recorded the statement of P.W.19-Sathish u/s.164 Cr.P.C. P.W.13 is the Assistant in the Forensic Department, who has spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects. P.W.14 has spoken about the fact that he gave certificate about the ownership of the vehicles seized under the cover of Mahazars. P.W.15 has spoken about his selling of his TVS-50 motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-K-0596. P.W.16 has stated that he took the FIR to the Court concerned which was entrusted to him by P.W.21. P.W.17 has spoken about the factum of his taking of the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. P.W.18 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by him. P.W.19 is another important witness in the prosecution. He has stated that on 25.12.2009, he, in a usual course, contacted A1 over phone at about 22.00 hrs. A1 told P.W.19 that he was behind the Morratandi Temple and the deceased was in his custody. A1 wanted P.W.19 to come with his TVS-50 motorcycle. Accordingly, P.W.19 went to the place of occurrence with TVS-50 motorcycle, where he found the deceased lying behind the temple and A1 and A2 were present at the time of occurrence. P.W.20 is the Nodal Officer of the Vodafone Company Limited, who has stated about the mobile call details of the Number 9843164445. P.W.21, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. P.W.22, the Inspector of Police has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of the final report by him. 3. P.W.21, is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. P.W.22, the Inspector of Police has spoken about the investigation done and the filing of the final report by him. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. Their defence was a total denial. However, on their side D.W.1 [Ganesan] was examined, who has stated that at 18.00 hrs., on 25.12.2009, he was in the company of A1 in a Hotel in Puducherry from where, by about 22.00 hrs., police took him to their custody. On the side of the accused, the Case History dated 05.01.2010, issued by Auroville Police Station and the Case History dated 24.02.2010, issued by the very same Police Station, were marked as Exs.D1 and D2 respectively. 4. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced A1 for the charge u/s.302 IPC and A2 for the charge u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court. 5. We have heard Mr. L. Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we also perused the materials placed on record carefully. 6. This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the wife of A1, viz., Kalaiselvi [sister of A2], was missing. Prior to that, the deceased had illicit relationship with her. The accused had grudges against the deceased and they believed that the deceased had taken A1's wife. In our considered view, through the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, the prosecution has proved the motive. 7. The next circumstance is that the deceased left the house in his motorcycle at 18.00 hrs. on 25.12.2009. This has been spoken to by P.W.2. This is not under serious dispute. Thus, in our considered view, this circumstance has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The next circumstance is that the evidence of P.W.7, who has stated that he found A1 and the deceased together between 21.00 hrs and 21.30 hrs near Morattandi Temple. The learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the evidence of this witness cannot be believed for more than one reason. We fully agree with him. 8. The next circumstance is that the evidence of P.W.7, who has stated that he found A1 and the deceased together between 21.00 hrs and 21.30 hrs near Morattandi Temple. The learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the evidence of this witness cannot be believed for more than one reason. We fully agree with him. First of all, when there was such a grave motive between A1 and the deceased, the deceased would not have accompanied A1 near the temple. Secondly, this fact, which is very vital in nature, was not informed by P.W.7 to anybody, within a reasonable time. Had it been true that he found A1 and the deceased together, he would have certainly informed the same to P.W.1 and other relatives. The very fact that he kept silence for a long time, would go to show that there is no truth in his evidence. Therefore, we reject his evidence. 9. Then comes the evidence of P.W.19. He has stated that on 25.12.2009, at about 22.00 hrs, when he contacted A1 over phone, A1 told him that he was behind the Morattandi temple and the deceased was in his custody. He has further stated that when he went to meet A1, taking TVS-50 motorcycle, he found the deceased lying. Had it been true, going by the natural human conduct, he would have raised alarm or at least, he would have informed the same to the family members of the deceased. He did not do so either. He kept silence for a long time. The very fact that even after knowing that the deceased was lying dead, he did not inform about the occurrence, for such a long time and he kept silence without informing the same even to the family members of the deceased, would go to show that there is no truth in his evidence. Further, P.W.19, during cross-examination, has further stated that the police had told him that unless he make such a statement against the accused, he would be added as an accused in the case. Only out of fear, he made such a statement to the police against the accused. This admission of P.W.19 would further strengthen the case of the defence that what P.W.19 has now deposed before the Court, cannot be true. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.19 is also rejected. 10. Only out of fear, he made such a statement to the police against the accused. This admission of P.W.19 would further strengthen the case of the defence that what P.W.19 has now deposed before the Court, cannot be true. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.19 is also rejected. 10. Then comes the evidence of P.W.2, the wife of the deceased. She has stated that at about 21.00 hrs., on 25.12.2009, when she contacted her husband over phone, he did not pick up the phone. Then, at 22.30 hrs., when she contacted him again, the cellphone of her husband was picked up by A1. A1 had told her that he was going to kill her husband who was in his custody behind the temple. She claims that she informed the same to P.W.1. P.W.1 went in search of the deceased to the temple. Had it been true, then they would have found the deceased lying there just behind the temple. But, according to them, they could not find the deceased and therefore, they returned home. If really A1 had informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that he was going to kill the deceased or he had already killed the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have slept peacefully for the whole night until the dead body was found on the next day. The very fact that the dead body was found only on the next day and till then, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others did not make any effort to find the deceased, would go to show that there is no truth in the evidence of these witnesses, when A1 told them that he had already killed the deceased behind Morattandi temple. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would next rely upon the call details of the cellphone of the deceased. But, a perusal of the same would go to show that it does not satisfy the requirements of section 65-B of the Evidence Act. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anvar Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others reported in 2014 [10] SCC 473, the evidence of the Nodal Officer with regard to the call details, which were not been properly certified, are not admissible in evidence. Therefore, the same is rejected. Apart from the above, there is no other evidence against the accused. P.K. Basheer and Others reported in 2014 [10] SCC 473, the evidence of the Nodal Officer with regard to the call details, which were not been properly certified, are not admissible in evidence. Therefore, the same is rejected. Apart from the above, there is no other evidence against the accused. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 12. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on A1 for the offence u/s.302 IPC and the conviction and sentence imposed on A2 for the offence u/s.302 r/w 34 IPC, by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in SC No. 95/2012 dated 21.02.2013, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. 13. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Bail bonds executed by them, shall stand discharged. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to them.