JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.57 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. She stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 26.11.2015, the trial Court convicted him under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the 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 Pavadai. P.Ws.1 to 4, are the wife, son-in-law, daughter and son respectively of the deceased. P.W.5 is his niece. All of them are residing at Setunthankuppam village in Cuddalore District. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The accused was already married to one Ganesa Gounder. She was aged about 40 years at the time of occurrence. For about seven years, prior to the occurrence, the deceased had illicit intimacy with the accused. P.W.1 and other family members were objecting to the same. Ten days prior to 10.09.2014, the deceased invited the accused to their meeting place to have sexual intercourse. The accused refused telling that she was unwell. In retaliation, the deceased told that she could send her daughter to him for sex. This infuriated the accused. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (b) On 10.09.2014, it is alleged that the deceased spoke to the accused over phone and wanted her to come to the usual place viz., cashewnut grove of one Kalaiselvan. The deceased told P.Ws 1 to 4 that he was going to meet the accused. Accordingly, he left the house in his motorcycle. In normal course, he should have returned in a short while, but he did not return. (c) P.W.1 and other family members went in search of the accused, but the deceased was not seen anywhere, but P.W.1 found the motorcycle of the deceased just in front of the house of the accused. When she enquired about the deceased, the accused told that the deceased had gone elsewhere and she did not know about the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W.1 became perplexed. She went to Neyveli Town Police Station at 2.00 a.m on 12.09.2014 and made a complaint. When she enquired about the deceased, the accused told that the deceased had gone elsewhere and she did not know about the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W.1 became perplexed. She went to Neyveli Town Police Station at 2.00 a.m on 12.09.2014 and made a complaint. P.W.26, the the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.281 of 2014 for man missing. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.16 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to Court, which was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 8.30 a.m on 12.09.2014. (d) P.W.27, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation. He went in search of the deceased. The deceased was lying dead with injuries on his body in the cashew nut grove of one Kalaiselvan in the same village. He went to the place of occurrence at 9.00 a.m, prepared Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses. Since there were injuries on the body of the deceased, he altered the case into one under Sec.302 IPC. Ex.P.17 is the alteration report. At his request, Dog Squad came to the place of occurrence. It did not provide any lead and and it proved futile. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for Post Mortem. He recovered a beer bottle, a strip containing 10 tablets, a Brandi Bottle, Empty Miranda Bottle and a pair of chappals which were found near the body of the deceased. He recovered them under a Mahazar. (e) P.W.23 Doctor Dr. Sudhakar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 12.09.2014 at 4.30 p.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: External Injuries: 1. Laceration of frontal 7x3x1/2 2. Laceration of chin 2x3x2m 3. Abrasion scalp 3x3cm, RM Present. General Appearance: Do tally time of death 40 to 48 hours prior to PM. Scalp loosening of scalp hair, eye lids bulging, nose purging of PM fluid, mouth, lip closed, tongue protruded, teeth intact, Abd distended, Sign of decomposition : 1.Peeling of skin all over the body 2) loosening of scalp hair 3) Abd clotted, 4) Purging of PM fluid from nose 5) prolapsed rectum 6) stomach distended 7) Maggots all over the body. Internal examination: Abd distended. Cavity pale, Ribs intact, Heart, Lung decomposing, Hyoid Bone 9/4527/12.9.14, Stomach contains decomposing. Internal examination: Abd distended. Cavity pale, Ribs intact, Heart, Lung decomposing, Hyoid Bone 9/4527/12.9.14, Stomach contains decomposing. Liver, Spleen, Kidney, Intestine decomposing, skull intact, membrance decomposing, Brain sub dural hacmotome, lacerated injury brain 6x3x3 cm, viscera preserved. 1) stomach & its contents 2) Intestine and contents 3) liver 4) kidney 5) preservative 6) hyoid bone PM concluded at 5.30 p.m on 12/9/14. Opinion: Pending Chemmical analysis report. (f) Ex.P.11 is the Postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the head injury. He further stated that the said injuries could have been caused by a hit with a wooden log. (g) P.W.27, during the course of investigation, recovered blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court. On 13.09.2014 at 10.30 a.m at Setuthankuppam village, near the house of one Kalaiselvan, P.W.27 arrested the accused. On such arrest, while in the custody, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed the place where she had hidden a wooden log, blood stained saree, blood stained handbag, blood stained shirt, banian and a motorcycle. She also produced some tablets. In pursuance of the same, she took the police and witness to the place of occurrence and produced the above material objects. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects to Court. At his request, the finger print of the accused was compared with the finger print, which was found on the bottle, recovered from the place of occurrence. According to the expert, they tallied. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed lone charge for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 27 witnesses were examined and 19 documents and 18 material objects were also marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 have stated that on 10.09.2014 around 4.00 p.m the deceased told them that he had received a phone call from the accused and therefore, he wanted to meet the accused. Accordingly, he left. Thereafter, he was not seen. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 have stated that on 10.09.2014 around 4.00 p.m the deceased told them that he had received a phone call from the accused and therefore, he wanted to meet the accused. Accordingly, he left. Thereafter, he was not seen. However, according to these witnesses, the motorcycle of the deceased was found in the house of the accused. The accused told that she was not aware of the whereabouts of the deceased. They have also stated that the dead body was found lying in the cashew nut grove on 12.09.2014. 5. P.W.3, the daughter of the deceased has spoken about the hearsay information. P.W.5, niece of the deceased and P.W.6 have stated that they found the dead body near cashew grove. P.W.7 has stated that as requested by the accused he brought motorcycle from Nandukuzhi to the house of the accused. But he has not identified the motor cycle. P.W.8 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 has stated that during the relevant time, he was working in a pharmacy. The police came to his shop along with the accused and asked to explain why he supplied the drugs without prescription of the doctor. He told the police that he never sold any drug without prescription. P.W.10 has stated that he purchased the motorcycle, in question, on behalf of the deceased and thus, according to him, the motorcycle, in question, was in the possession of the deceased. 6. P.W.11 as spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.12 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.13 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.14, a Head Constable, has stated that he handed over the material objects to the Court, as directed by the Investigating Officer. P.W.15 has stated that he helped the investigating officer during the course of investigation. P.W.16, a Constable has stated that he handed over the dead body for postmortem. P.W.17, a Constable has stated that he handed over the material objects to Forensic Science lab for examination. P.W.18, the Head clerk, has stated that as the Head clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, he forwarded the material objects to Forensic Science Lab for examination. P.W.16, a Constable has stated that he handed over the dead body for postmortem. P.W.17, a Constable has stated that he handed over the material objects to Forensic Science lab for examination. P.W.18, the Head clerk, has stated that as the Head clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, he forwarded the material objects to Forensic Science Lab for examination. P.W.19, a Science Expert of the Regional Forensic Lab, has stated that he examined the material objects and found blood stains on the same. P.W.20, the Finger Print Expert, has stated that he compared the fingerprint, found on the bottle recovered from the place of occurrence with the finger print of the accused and stated that they tallied. P.W.21, a Head Constable, has spoken about the earlier complaint made in respect of the previous motive. P.W.22, the Head of the Sniffer Dog Squad has spoken that he brought the sniffer dog to the occurrence, but the same did not produce any result. P.W.23, the Doctor, has spoken about the the post mortem conducted and the final report regarding the cause of death. P.W.24, yet another expert from Forensic Lab, has spoken about test conducted on the visceral organs which revealed that there were traces of (sleeping) tablets. 7. P.W.25, a Serologist, has spoken about the examination conducted on the material objects. P.W.26, the Sub Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.27, the Inspector of Police has spoken about the investigation done by him and the final report filed. 8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., she denied the same as false. Her defence was a total denial. She did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any document on her side. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 10. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The foremost circumstance is that the deceased was last seen alive on 10.09.2014 around 4.00 p.m by P.Ws.1 and 4. At that time, the deceased told that he was going to meet the accused. 10. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The foremost circumstance is that the deceased was last seen alive on 10.09.2014 around 4.00 p.m by P.Ws.1 and 4. At that time, the deceased told that he was going to meet the accused. He went in his motorcycle, but he did not return. The body of the deceased was found only on 12.09.2014. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that there were number of injuries and the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage and due to head injury. He has further opined that the said injuries could have been caused by hit with a wooden log. From these evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was done to death some time between 5.00 p.m on 10.09.2014 and 9.00 a.m on 12.09.2014. Thus, the death of the deceased is a homicide. 11. Now the question is, “who are the perpetrators of the crime? In order to prove that it was the accused, the prosecution relies mainly on three circumstances. 12. The first circumstance is that the deceased told P.Ws.1 and 4 that he was going to meet the accused. In our considered view, this circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating one against the accused because the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased actually went to the house of the accused. Nobody had seen the deceased in the company of the accused at all. 13. The next circumstance is that the motorcycle of the deceased was found near the house of the accused. P.W.7 has stated that he brought one motorcycle from Nandukuzhi to the house of the accused, as requested by the accused. But, he has not identified the motorcycle. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 is of no use for the prosecution. But the fact remains that the motorcycle of the deceased was found in front of the house of the accused. However, the presence of the motorcycle near the house of the accused cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused, because it is in evidence that for about seven years, the deceased used to visit the house of the accused. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the deceased would have left the motorcycle in front of the house of the accused. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the deceased would have left the motorcycle in front of the house of the accused. When P.Ws.1 and 4 enquired the accused as to where the deceased was, the accused had explained that she was not aware of the whereabouts of the deceased. Thus, there is no evidence as to how the motorcycle had come near the house of the accused. Unless it is established that the accused had some connection with the presence of the motorcycle in front of her house, this circumstance also cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance to hold the accused guilty. 14. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the fingerprint found on the bottle, recovered from the place of occurrence tallied with the admitted fingerprint of the accused. The enlarged photographs of the chance Finger Prints and the Finger Prints of the accused and the reasoning sheet have not been proved in evidence. Therefore, no weightage could be given to the opinion of the finger print expert. This part of the case of the prosecution also thus deserves to be rejected. 15. Apart from the above three circumstances, which we have declined to accept, there is no other circumstance to prove the prosecution case. In a case of this nature which is based wholly on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is bound to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. 16. In this case, absolutely, there is no circumstance which could go to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The trial court had convicted the accused only on mere suspicion and therefore same should not be allowed to sustain. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal. 17. In the result, (i) The appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam in S.C.No.57 of 2015, dated 23.06.2015 are set aside and the accused is acquitted. (ii) The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to her.