JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 136 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 08.06.2011, the trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the sole accused is now before this court. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Sowdamma. She was already married to one Mr. Marappa. She had children through Mr. Marappa. Fifteen years before the occurrence, the accused developed illicit intimacy with her and took her to Kottai Village in Thenkanikottai Taluk. They lived together as husband and wife without any valid marriage for about 15 years, during which children were born. In due course of time, the children born to her through Mr. Marappa started visiting her. This was not to the liking of the accused. This resulted in frequent quarrel. The deceased expressed her willingness to stop all her connections with the accused. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 3. It is further alleged that on 02.10.2009 at about 2.30 p.m. when the deceased was in her hut, the accused attacked her with a wooden reeper and also caused injuries with a knife. The deceased died on the spot. But, the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody. 4. P.W.1 is the resident of the said village. He is the brother of the owner of the land where the deceased and the accused were residing by putting up a hut. According to him, he lastly found the deceased alive at 11.00 a.m. when she was working in the field near her hut. At about 05.00 p.m. he noticed the accused going towards the field. It is his further case that at 07.00 p.m. when he went to the house of the deceased it was pitch dark. With the use of lighted matchstick when he peeped inside the hut, he found the deceased dead. Then, he proceeded to the police station and made a complaint to P.W.9. 5. It is his further case that at 07.00 p.m. when he went to the house of the deceased it was pitch dark. With the use of lighted matchstick when he peeped inside the hut, he found the deceased dead. Then, he proceeded to the police station and made a complaint to P.W.9. 5. P.W.9, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thenkanikottai Police Station, on receiving the complaint (Ex.P.1) registered a case in Crime No.277 of 2009 under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.9 is the printed FIR. Then, he forwarded both the complaint and the FIR to the court and handed over the case diary to P.W.10 for investigation. P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and at 07.00 a.m. on 03.10.2009, he prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2 ), rough sketch (Ex.P.10) showing the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. Then, he recovered a wooden reeper (M.O.1) which was found at the place of occurrence under Ex.P.3 Mahzar. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, during which, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 6. P.W.8, Dr. Rajkumar, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 03.10.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:- External injuries:- (1) Lacerated injury 5 x 2 x 2 cm on the left frontal region. (2) Lacerated wound 7 x 3 x 3 cm on the right temporal region. (3) A stab injury over right cheek 5 x 3 x 2 cm. (4) A stab injury over the right cheek 6 x 3 x 2 cm. (5) Cut injury over the right ear lobe present. (6) Abrasion over right knee joint 1 x 1 cm. (7) Abrasion over left knee joint 1 x 1 cm (8) Contusion 6 x 5 cm over the middle of the manubrium stern (9) Mandible fractured on both sides. Internal examination :- (1) On opening of thorax -Ribs intact; Heart3 grams; Lungs right 400 grams, left 450 grams; cut section pale. Hyoid bone intact. (2) Stomach -200 grams of undigested ragi food particles present. Mucosa present. (3) Liver 1200 gram cut section pale. (4) Spleen -100 grams cut section pale. (5) Kidneys 100 grams each cut section pale. (6) Uterus cavity empty cut section pale. Hyoid bone intact. (2) Stomach -200 grams of undigested ragi food particles present. Mucosa present. (3) Liver 1200 gram cut section pale. (4) Spleen -100 grams cut section pale. (5) Kidneys 100 grams each cut section pale. (6) Uterus cavity empty cut section pale. (7) On opening of skull -membranes intact (a) Hematoma 8 x 8 cm over the right tempero parietal region (b) Hematoma 4 x 4 over left parietal region; based of the skull fractured. Ex.P.8 is the postmortem certificate. She opened that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. 7. Thereafter, P.W.10, arrested the accused on 03.10.2009 at about 02.00 p.m. at Thali Koot Road in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.6 and another witness to Oddarpalayam where he identified a tamarind tree and then took out a knife (M.O.2) from a bush situated near the tamarind tree and produced the same. P.W.10 recovered the same under Ex.P.5 mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the court and handed over the material objects also for chemical examination. On completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused before learned Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai. 8. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone charge under Section 302 of IPC. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined, 11 documents and 4 materials objects were marked. 9. Out of the said witness, P.W.1 has stated that he found the dead body of the deceased at the hut at about 07.00 p.m. Before that at 11.00 a.m., he found the deceased working in the field. He has also stated that he found the accused proceeding towards the field at 05.00 p.m. He has also spoken about the complaint made by him. P.W. 2 is yet another villager. He has stated that P.W.1 informed him that the dead body of the deceased was found in the hut. He has further stated that he visited the hut and found the dead body and thereafter he took P.W.1 to the police Station where P.W.1 made the complaint. P.W. 2 is yet another villager. He has stated that P.W.1 informed him that the dead body of the deceased was found in the hut. He has further stated that he visited the hut and found the dead body and thereafter he took P.W.1 to the police Station where P.W.1 made the complaint. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased born through Mr. Marappa. He has stated that the deceased was living along with the accused. He has further stated that at 06.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence he found the accused in the village wearing dhoti and shirts with blood stains. P.W.4 is a resident of the same village. He has stated that at 07.00 p.m. he found the accused in the village wearing dhoti and shirts with blood stains. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch at the place of occurrence and the recovery of a wooden reeper under a mahazar from the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has stated about the arrest of the accused, his disclosure statement and the consequential recovery of Knife (M.O.2) at his instance. P.W.7 is a Police Constable attached to Thenkanikottai Police Station. He has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.8 Dr. Rajkumar has stated about the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased and also his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.9 has spoken about the registration of the FIR and handing over the case diary for investigation to P.W.10. P.W.10 the Investigating Officer has spoken about the entire investigation and the final report filed by him. 10. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor did he mark any document. His defence was a total denial. 11. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of IPC and accordingly punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 13. That is how, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 13. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. According to P.W.1, the deceased was found alive at 11.00 a.m. on 02.10.2009 when she was working in the field. After that, there is no connecting evidence to prove that at what time, she returned to her hut. It is in evidence that the accused was found somewhere in the field at 05.00 p.m. This is what has been stated by P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 have stated that they found the accused at about 06.00 or 07.00 p.m. in the village and at that time, he was found wearing dhoti and shirts with blood stains. These two witnesses cannot be believed at all inasmuch as they have not stated so when they were examined by the police during investigation. This part of their evidence is only an improvement. Thus, except the fact that there is only one piece of evidence of P.W.1 who has stated that the accused was found some where in the field on 02.10.2009 at 5.00 p.m., it is not even in evidence that the deceased was found anywhere near the accused. In our considered view this part of evidence of P.W.1 by itself cannot be the foundation for conviction. Though from the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicide, absolutely, there is no evidence at all to prove that it was this accused who has caused the death of the deceased. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by judgment dated 08.06.2011 in S.C. No. 136 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, is hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted from the charge. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. Bail Bond executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.