JUDGMENT : A.SELVAM, J. The convictions and sentences dated 11.11.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.164 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the parents of the de facto complainant prior to twenty years have purchased a house plot from one Kaliappan in Jawahar Nagar, Tirumangalam. In the said plot, they constructed a building in a small portion. The remaining portion has been used as its appurtenance. The accused has encroached a portion of vacant place and thereby deterred sewage water and due to that a problem has arisen between de facto complainant and accused. Further another problem has been existence between the de facto complainant and accused with regard to construction of houses in Mampatti @ Vengadasamuthiram village. On 26.03.2009, the concerned surveyor and his assistant have measured the disputed properties. At the time of measurement, the deceased namely Pandeeswari and Pitchaiammal have scolded the accused by using filthy words. Having enraged at their conduct, with intention to murder them on 29.03.2009 at about 03.45 p.m. the accused has murdered them inside the Vengadasamuthiram tank. After occurrence the de facto complainant by name Vinodkumar, who is none other than the husband of one of the deceased has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.201 of 2009. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and accordingly Dr.Kannan (P.W.18) has conducted postmortem on the bodies of the deceased and he found the following external and internal injuries on the body of deceased Pandeeswari: “1.Incised wound extending from mid of chin to right side of neck 14 x 0.5 cm. 2. Cut throat wound exposing tracheal cartilage which are cutted 6x4x4 cm at the level of C4 with blood stained near by skin. 3. Small incised wound 3 x 0.25 cm below C5 level. Cranium Normal. Hyoid bone: Horne Normal. Thoracic Cavity: Lungs normal and congested, Ribs normal. No intra thoracic bleeding. Abdomen: Stomach: Normal contains partially digested food material. Intestine: Contains partially congested food material. Liver normal, spleen normal, kidneys normal. External genetalia by external appearance normal. Uterus: Normal Cavity empty”. 3. Small incised wound 3 x 0.25 cm below C5 level. Cranium Normal. Hyoid bone: Horne Normal. Thoracic Cavity: Lungs normal and congested, Ribs normal. No intra thoracic bleeding. Abdomen: Stomach: Normal contains partially digested food material. Intestine: Contains partially congested food material. Liver normal, spleen normal, kidneys normal. External genetalia by external appearance normal. Uterus: Normal Cavity empty”. Likewise, P.W.18 found the following external and internal injuries on the body of deceased Pitchaiammal: “Abrasion with discended epidermis on left thigh and right thigh and right knee, right breast and right arm. A linear but 0.8 cm broadened, black impression mark in front of neck above clavicular region length of 6 cm. Multiple linear abrasion over right side of neck supra clavicular region. Left side of neck: cut incised wound 10 x 5 x 3 cm cut injuries. Jugular vein and sympathetic trunk with blood stained surrounding skin. Hyoid bone Horne normal. Thoracic cavity: Lungs normal Ribs normal Kidneys normal Heart normal Abdomanal cavity: Liver normal, spleen normal, stomach contains partial digested food material. Intestine: Food material partially digested. Uterus normal. Cavity empty. Vagina:No external wound and whitish fluid collected and sent for analysis. Cranium Normal” The Postmortem Certificates have been marked as Exs.P.10 and P.11. The Investigating Officer has continued further investigation and after completing the same, laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam and taken on file in P.R.C.No.16 of 2010. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Madurai Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.164 of 2010 and subsequently made over to the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.27 have been examined and Ex.P.1 to P.27 and M.O.1 to M.O.11 have been marked. 7. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.27 have been examined and Ex.P.1 to P.27 and M.O.1 to M.O.11 have been marked. 7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 8. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-on each count with usual default clause. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant. 9. The crux of the case of the prosecution is that with regard to measurement of a land an enmity has been existence between accused and Decided on : facto complainant and on the date of measuring the land by a competent surveyor, the deceased namely Pandeeswari and Pitchaiammal have hurled invectives against the accused by using filthy words and having enraged at their conduct, with intention to murder them on 29.03.2009 at about 03.45 p.m., in the tank of Mampatti @ Vengadasamuthram, the accused has murdered them by using a knife. 10. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex.P.1, complaint, wherein the motive that existed between the accused and de facto complainant has been mentioned. The author of Ex.P.1 has been examined as P.W.1, his brother, who is none other than the husband of one of the deceased has been examined as P.W.2, one Raman has been examined as P.W.3 and one Nallu @ Nalluraman has been examined as P.W.6 and all of them have spoken about the motive that existed between the de facto complainant and accused. The concerned surveyor by name Aasaithambi has been examined as P.W.17 and he deposed evidence to the effect that he measured the disputed plot. The concerned surveyor by name Aasaithambi has been examined as P.W.17 and he deposed evidence to the effect that he measured the disputed plot. On the side of the prosecution the persons namely Muthu (P.W.10), Visakadi @ Ramarajan (P.W.11) and Nathan @ Nagan (P.W.12) have been examined for the purpose of connecting the accused with the murder of the deceased. But unfortunately P.W.10 to P.W.12 have become hostile witnesses. 11. On the side of the prosecution apart from the role of the witnesses mentioned supra, the concerned Village Administrative Officer by name Karuppiah has been examined as P.W.7. The specific case of the prosecution is that after occurrence the accused has voluntarily met P.W.7 and given an extra-judicial confession statement and in pursuance of the same, he produced some bloodstained clothes. The extra-judicial confession statement alleged to have been given by the accused has been marked as Ex.P.5. 12. The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced with regard to motive and also extra-judicial confession as well as material objects produced by the accused to P.W.7 and a knife recovered in pursuance of his extra-judicial confession has found the accused guilty under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has sparingly contended that in the instant case some of the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the enmity that existed between the de facto complainant and accused and some of the alleged eye witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution have become hostile and even in the material objects alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of confession given by the accused bloodstains have not been detected and the Trial Court without considering the vital lapses found on the side of the prosecution has simply invited convictions and sentences on the basis of extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused and therefore the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside. 14. 14. In order to sustain the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused himself has voluntarily given extra-judicial confession to P.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, wherein it has been clearly mentioned about the motive and also attacks on the person of the deceased by the accused and further the accused himself has produced certain material objects to P.W.7 and further a knife has been recovered in pursuance of extra-judicial confession and even though the alleged eye witnesses have become hostile, the Trial Court has rightly invited convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused on the basis of extra-judicial confession and also on the basis of material objects given by the accused to P.W.7 and also on the basis of recovery of a knife in pursuance of confession and under the said circumstances the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court are not liable to be interfered with. 15.The case of the prosecution can be vivisected as follows: (a) motive for occurrence; (b) Evidence of eye witnesses; (c) Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused to P.W.7; (d) Material objects alleged to have been given by the accused directly to P.W.7 and a knife alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of extra-judicial confession. (e) Chemical Analysis of material objects. 16. As rightly pointed out on the side of the prosecution, by way of examining the witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6, the prosecution has clearly established a strong motive that existed between the accused and de facto complainant. 17. The alleged eye witnesses namely P.W.10 to P.W.12 have not virtually supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore the role of eye witnesses has become useless in the present case. 18. The specific evidence given by P.W.7 is that after occurrence the accused has voluntarily come to his office and given an extra-judicial confession statement, wherein he has clearly admitted to the effect that he murdered the deceased and he voluntarily handed over two material objects namely jatty and dhoti (lungi) and further the accused has stated that he has kept a bloodstained knife in a secret place. 19. 19. On the side of the prosecution the material objects alleged to have been recovered from the accused have been marked as M.O.7 to M.O.9 and the same are equivalent to items 9 to 11 mentioned in the Chemical Report (Ex.P.18), wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in items 9 to 11, no blood has been detected. 20. The consistent case of the prosecution is that M.O.7 to M.O.9 have been recovered from the accused in pursuance of his alleged extra-judicial confession. But the same have been subjected to chemical examination, wherein it has been clearly stated that no bloodstain is found on it. Further in the extra-judicial confession, it has been clearly stated that the accused has not washed the material objects handed over to P.W.7. If really M.O.7 to M.O.9 have actually been recovered from the accused and if really the accused has given Ex.P.5, alleged extra-judicial confession, definitely in the said material objects some bloodstains would have found at the time of Chemical Analysis. But as stated earlier, nothing is found out in the material objects alleged to have been produced or recovered in pursuance of the alleged extra-judicial confession given by the accused. Further in Ex.P.5 it has been clearly mentioned that the accused has handed over his bloodstained jatty to P.W.7 and the same has not been subjected to Chemical Examination nor marked on the side of the prosecution. Even assuming without conceding the fact that in Ex.P.5 it has been erroneously mentioned as jatty instead of shirt and even in the shirt also nothing has been detected through Chemical Analysis. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has not established the alleged extra-judicial confession and also the material objects alleged to have been recovered from the accused. 21. It is true that an extra-judicial confession given to a Village Administrative Officer is admissible in evidence. But at the same time, an extra-judicial confession alone is not a substantive piece of evidence and something more is required. In the instant case, M.O.7 to M.O.9 have been recovered in pursuance of extra-judicial confession and in M.O.7 to M.O.9 no bloodstain is found. If really as pointed out earlier, extra-judicial confession has been given by the accused and if really proper material objects have been recovered from him, definitely the same would have had some connection with crime. In the instant case, M.O.7 to M.O.9 have been recovered in pursuance of extra-judicial confession and in M.O.7 to M.O.9 no bloodstain is found. If really as pointed out earlier, extra-judicial confession has been given by the accused and if really proper material objects have been recovered from him, definitely the same would have had some connection with crime. But the prosecution has failed to establish the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused and also material objects given by him to P.W.7. 22. It has already been pointed out that except motive, nothing has been proved nor established on the side of the prosecution. It is also a settled principle of law that only on the basis of motive alone, the Court cannot decide the alleged culpability of accused. Apart from the motive, some more evidence is required. In the instant case, the alleged extra-judicial confession as well as recovery of material objects have not at all been established nor proved on the side of the prosecution. Since the material objects alleged to have been recovered from the accused in pursuance of extra-judicial confession have had no connection with the alleged crime, motive alone would not be sufficient for connecting the accused with the crime. 23. The Trial Court without considering the vital lapses on the side of the prosecution has erroneously invited convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused only on the basis of extra-judicial confession (Ex.P.5). The Trial Court has failed to look into the Chemical Report with regard M.O.7 to M.O.9. In the light of the discussion made earlier, this Court has found considerable force in the contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused whereas the contention putforth on the side of the prosecution is sans merit and altogether the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 24. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed in Sessions Case No.164 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted and fine amounts if any paid by him are ordered to be refunded forthwith.