JUDGMENT : S.Nagamuthu,J. The appellants are the accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Sessions Case No.8 of 2010, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, at Puducherry. Including the appellants, altogether there were six accused in this case. The trial Court framed charges under Section 342 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused. By judgement dated 6.09.2011, the trial Court convicted these appellants (accused 1 to 3 and 6) alone under Sections 342 and 302 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 342 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The rest of the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused 1 to 3, 6 and the deceased were all brothers. The accused No.4 is the sister's husband of the deceased. The fifth accused is the father-in-law of the second accused. The deceased in this case, against the wishes of these accused, had fallen in love with P.W.24 and married her. The deceased was also doing a profitable finance business. But he was not extending any help to the accused. In the ancestral house, a portion was allotted to the deceased. For quite a few months the deceased and P.W.24 were residing in the said house. But since there were frequent quarrels, the deceased and P.W.24 had shifted their residence to Mongulam Village. Even thereafter, there was a quarrel between the deceased and his brothers, which resulted in a complaint to the police, at the instance of the deceased. At the police station, the matter was compromised. But the accused had grudge against the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. It is further alleged that on the night intervening 9.10.2005 and 10.10.2005, the deceased alone was in a portion of the ancestral house at Thondamanatham Village. At the police station, the matter was compromised. But the accused had grudge against the deceased. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. It is further alleged that on the night intervening 9.10.2005 and 10.10.2005, the deceased alone was in a portion of the ancestral house at Thondamanatham Village. On 9.10.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., the accused left his house at Mongulam Village and came down to his ancestral house. Thereafter he was not seen. P.W.4, a resident from Thondamanatham Village, wanted a rental house in the said village. She heard that the ancestral house, where the deceased was residing in a portion, was available for rental purpose. Therefore, P.W.4 went to the house of the deceased at 12.30 p.m. on 10.10.2005 along with his father Mr. Durairaj. She obtained the key of the house from the wife of the deceased. She opened the house, went inside and found two human legs protruding out of the table drawer. On seeing that she rushed out of the house and fainted. Then she raised alarm. Information regarding the same reached P.W.1. P.W.1-the uncle of the deceased, rushed to the house of the deceased. The hands and legs were found tied and the face was covered by a plastic paper. The dead body was found lying on the floor. Immediately P.W.1 contacted the Villianur Police over phone and informed the same. Thereafter he rushed to the police station. At the police station, he made a complaint under Ex.P1. P.W.29, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.338 of 2005 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P41 is the First Information Report. He forwarded the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. P.W.32, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence along with a Forensic Science Expert and a Photographer. He arranged for Photographs being taken at the place of occurrence including the dead body. He prepared an Observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. But no finger print was found anywhere in the house. He recovered the material objects found at the place of occurrence under the Mahazar. He arranged for Photographs being taken at the place of occurrence including the dead body. He prepared an Observation Mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. But no finger print was found anywhere in the house. He recovered the material objects found at the place of occurrence under the Mahazar. Then he examined the family members of the deceased and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest and altered the FIR into one under Sections 147, 342, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Then, after conducting the inquest, he forwarded the body for post-mortem. 3. P.W.31 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 11.10.2005 at 1.30 p.m. He found the following injuries: External Injuries(Ante-mortem) 1. Transversely placed abrasion 7 cm X 1/2 c.m. over right forearm and 5 X 0.5 c.m. over left forearm near wrist joints. 2. Transversely placed abrasion 5 X 0.5 c.m. over lower 1/3rd of left leg and 6 X 0.5 c.m. over lower 1/3 of right leg. Internal Injuries Head (scalp, skull, brain, menings and blood vessels) : Skull Normal, Brain -Decomposing." Ex.P43 is the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P44 is his final opinion. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to suffocation. He also found that the deceased had consumed alcohol. Continuing the investigation, P.W.32 examined few more witnesses and collected the clothe materials from the body of the deceased. At 5.15 p.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and recovered a hammer, a cutter and a sharp cutter under Ex.P54 Mahazar. Then, he handed over the case diary to his successor. 4. P.W.33 took up the case for investigation and on 8.12.2015, he made request for forwarding the material objects for scientific examination. P.W.34 took up the case for investigation and recovered certain note books containing the admitted signatures of the deceased for the purpose of comparing the same with the diary entries made by the deceased under Exs.P22 to P25, which were recovered from the house of the deceased. P.W.35 continued the investigation, but he did not make any further progress in the investigation. P.W.36 completed the investigation and laid a charge-sheet against the accused. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the judgement. The accused denied the same. P.W.35 continued the investigation, but he did not make any further progress in the investigation. P.W.36 completed the investigation and laid a charge-sheet against the accused. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the judgement. The accused denied the same. The trial Court proceeded with the trial. During the trial, in order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 36 witnesses were examined, 60 documents and 26 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the uncle of the deceased and brother of P.W.24, have spoken about the fact that they have found the dead body in the house of the deceased and P.W.1 made a complaint. P.W.3 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.4 has stated that on opening the house, she found the dead body and immediately she passed on message to P.W.1. P.W.5 was an Electrician. According to him, six years before his deposition before the Court, he had gone to the house of the deceased for the purpose of doing some electrical work. P.W.7 has stated that he was a Carpenter and he was sought to be engaged by the deceased to do some wood work at his house. He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.9 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.Ws.10 and 11 have spoken about the Observation Mahazar and rough sketch. P.Ws.12 to 15 have turned hostile and they have not stated anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.16 has stated that A2 was working along with him in a private concern. P.Ws.17 to 23 have turned hostile and they have not stated anything about the occurrence. P.W.24 is the wife of the deceased. who has stated about the motive and the fact about the key of the house and that she saw the deceased leaving at 3.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence. She has identified the dead body of the deceased. P.W.25 is the mother of P.W.24 and she has also stated that the deceased was lastly seen leaving the house at Mongudi at 3.00 p.m. P.W.26 is the son of P.W.25. He has stated that Exs.P.22 to P.25, the diary entries of the deceased were recovered in his presence. She has identified the dead body of the deceased. P.W.25 is the mother of P.W.24 and she has also stated that the deceased was lastly seen leaving the house at Mongudi at 3.00 p.m. P.W.26 is the son of P.W.25. He has stated that Exs.P.22 to P.25, the diary entries of the deceased were recovered in his presence. P.W.27, the Deputy Government Examiner of Government questioned documents, has stated that the handwritings in Exs.P3 to P8 tallied with the handwritings in Exs.P22 to P25. P.W.28 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.29 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.30 has turned hostile and P.W.31-the Doctor has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion regarding cause of death and P.Ws.32 and 36 are investigating officers, who have spoken about the investigation done by them respectively. 6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. They have not chosen to examine any witness, but marked two documents, viz., Exs.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the Preliminary chance print report, marked through P.W.33 and Ex.D2 is the photo of the chance print, marked through P.W.33. Their defence was a total denial. 7. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted these appellants alone as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgement and that is why they are before this Court. 8. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully. 9. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relies on the following circumstances, which we deal with immediately one after another. 10. The first and foremost circumstance is the motive. P.Ws.24 and 25 the wife and mother-in-law of the deceased have spoken about the motive. In our considered view there is no reason to reject the motive. Thus, the first circumstance, in our considered view, stands proved by the prosecution. 11. The next circumstance is that the deceased was last found by P.Ws.24 and 25 at about 3.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. There is no reason to reject this part of the evidence of P.Ws.24 and 25. This circumstance has also been proved. 12. Thus, the first circumstance, in our considered view, stands proved by the prosecution. 11. The next circumstance is that the deceased was last found by P.Ws.24 and 25 at about 3.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. There is no reason to reject this part of the evidence of P.Ws.24 and 25. This circumstance has also been proved. 12. Thereafter P.W.4 had seen the dead body of the deceased on 10.10.2005 at 12.30 p.m. The medical evidence reveals that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to suffocation. The hands and legs were found tied. The body was inserted into a box. From these facts it has been established that the deceased had been done to death somewhere between 3.00 p.m. on 09.10.2005 and 12.30 p.m. on 10.10.2005. 13. Now the question is as to who caused the death of the deceased? 14. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution relies only on Exs.P22 to P.25. Exs.P22 to P.25 are the diary entries made by the deceased. Exs.P3 to P8 are the handwritings of the deceased, which were made during the course of his business. The handwriting expert has opined that the handwritings in Exs.P22 to P25 tallied with the handwritings in Exs.P3 to P8. Thus, the prosecution has proved that Exs.P22 to P25 were made only by the deceased. Exs.P22 to P25 were recovered only from the house of the deceased. 15. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that Exs.P22 to P.25 are not admissible in evidence, whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that they are admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence, Act, 1872. 16. We have gone through these four documents. In these documents, the deceased has stated that in the event of his death, naturally or un-naturally, his brothers, who are the accused in the case, would be responsible for the same. In our considered view, this statement of the deceased would not satisfy the requirements of Sub-Section (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so as to make it as a dying declaration. In order to make a statement as dying declaration, it is absolutely essential in law that the said statement pertains to either the cause of the death or any of the circumstances relating to the cause of the death. In order to make a statement as dying declaration, it is absolutely essential in law that the said statement pertains to either the cause of the death or any of the circumstances relating to the cause of the death. Here, in this case, the mere apprehension that if death occurred to him, it might be because of the accused, cannot be termed as a circumstance relating to the cause of the death. Therefore, in our considered view Exs.P22 to P25 are not admissible. If Exs.P22 to P25 are rejected, absolutely there is no other evidence in the case against the accused. Mere motive alone in this case would not go to establish guilt of the accused. 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that mere suspicion would not take the place of proof of the guilt of the accused. For this, the learned counsel relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2014 Crl.L.J. 2290). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an identical situation, has stated that the statement of the deceased expressing mere apprehension or suspicion about some person would not fall within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, as we have already held, Exs.P22 to P25 are not admissible, as they are not dying declarations. Apart from that, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 18. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution, are to be proved beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis, which would be inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Here in this case, except the motive, there is no other circumstance proved against the accused and thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 19. In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.8 of 2010 are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted. Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled. 19. In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.8 of 2010 are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted. Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled. Fine amounts, if any, paid by them are ordered to be refunded forthwith.