JUDGMENT : S.Nagamuthu, J. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.351 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.No.2), Cuddalore. The first accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and the second accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. By judgment dated 31.03.2011, the trial Court convicted the first accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and convicted the second accused for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Selvakumar. P.W.1 is his wife. They were residing at Periyapurangani Village in Neyveli Taluk. The deceased had a brother by name Mr.Arulprakasam. A.2 is the wife of Mr.Arulprakasam. Mr.Arulprakasam had gone Abroad for a job. The deceased, P.W.1 and A.2 were residing in the same ancestral house but, separately. The deceased and P.W.1 were living in a room on the Western portion of the house and A.2 was residing in a room on the Eastern portion of the same house. 3. A.1 used to visit the house of A.2 frequently. It also came to light that A.2 along with A.1 was enjoying their days roaming around joyfully outside. This illicit intimacy between A.1 and A.2 came to light to some of the Villagers and they informed the deceased about the same and wanted him to correct A.2. The deceased with a view to bring A.2 to right track, tried to persuade her. But A.2 did not stop going out with A.1. Thus, the illicit intimacy between A.1 and A.2 continued. Since the above conduct of A.2 had brought shame and disrespect to the family, the deceased locked the room where A.2 was living and forced her out of the house. This happened one month prior to the occurrence. While leaving the house, A.2 challenged the deceased that she would do away with him shortly. The deceased did not take it seriously. This happened one month prior to the occurrence. While leaving the house, A.2 challenged the deceased that she would do away with him shortly. The deceased did not take it seriously. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 4. On 26.03.2010, Kadambuliyur Temple festival was celebrated. P.W.1, the deceased, their children and P.W.2 had gone there to participate in the festival. They had a Dharshan at 9.00 pm and then they wanted to return home. The deceased told P.W.1 that there was going to be a patti mandram (debate) and therefore, he would witness the same and then return to the home. The patti mandram (debate) was to commence at around 11.00 pm. Therefore, P.Ws.1,2 and the children of P.W.1 returned home by 10.00 pm. But, her husband/deceased stayed back to watch patti mandram (debate). 5. On 27.03.2010, at about 7.00 am, P.W.2 found the dead body of the deceased near Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall in the cashewnut grow. There were also injuries on the body of the deceased. On receiving the said information, P.W.1 immediately, rushed to the said cashewnut grow and found her husband's dead body. There were blood stains on the mouth and there was a contusion on the neck as well as on the testicles of the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and made a complaint in this regard. 6. P.W.13, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kadambuliyur Police Station received the said complaint at 8.30 am on 27.03.2010 and registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2010 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He forwarded the complaint and the F.I.R., to Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 7. P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence and a blue colour panties lying on the side of the dead body. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem. 8. P.W.11, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.03.2010 and found the following injuries:- “External Injuries:- 1. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem. 8. P.W.11, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.03.2010 and found the following injuries:- “External Injuries:- 1. Ligature mark starting below left ear running obliquely in front of neck extending towards right side of neck 12 x 1 cms. On dissection underlying tissue pale nad patchment like 2. Abrasion with contusion upper 1/3rd of left thigh 3. Abrasion 1x0.5 cm in gland penis 4. Lower jaw right side 2 incisors absent and canine loosened. Gum oedematus.” 9. Ex.P.9 is the post mortem certificate. P.W.11 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. 10. P.W.15, during the course of investigation examined many witnesses including P.Ws.1 to 3 on 27.03.2010 at 3.00 pm. Near Kadambuliyur Sub Registrar's Office, he arrested A.2 in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. On such arrest, she made a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed the place where she had hidden a polyster saree. In pursuance of the same, she took the Police and witnesses to her house and produced M.O.5 -saree. 11. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded A.2 to Court for judicial remand. On 28.03.2010, at 6.30 pm, he arrested A.1 at Pillaiyarkuppam Bus stop, in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which, he disclosed the place where he had concealed a towel. In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witness to the said place and he produced a yellow colour towel (M.O.6). On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded A.1 to Court for judicial remand. At his request, the above Material Objects were sent for chemical examination. The results revealed that there were human bloods on the Material Objects. 12. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 9 Material Objects. 13. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the motive. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 9 Material Objects. 13. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the motive. P.W.2, the Cousin of the deceased has stated that he also went along with P.W.1 and deceased to the Kadumbaliyur Temple festival and returned home by 10.00 pm on 26.03.2010. He has further stated that, he found the dead body of the deceased on the next day near the Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall in the cashewnut grow. P.W.3 is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has stated that on receiving intimation, he visited the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4, has spoken about the observation mahazar. P.W.5 who is the cousin of the deceased has spoken that on 26.03.2010, at about 11.00 pm, he found A.1 and A.2 standing near the Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall. P.W.6 is a Villager and he has spoken that he also participated in the Kadambuliyur Temple festival on 26.03.2010 and at about 11.00 pm the deceased saw him and spoke to him and when he enquired where he was going, the deceased replied that A.2 had brought brandy and waiting for him near the Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall. P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.8 has spoken about the arrest of A.2 and the disclosure statement made by her and the consequential recovery of M.O.5 (saree). P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of A.1 and the disclosure statement made by him and the consequential recovery of M.O.6 (Towel). P.W.10 – a person belonging to sniffer dog battalion. According to him, on the request of the then Inspector of Police (P.W.15), he brought the sniffer dog to the place of occurrence however, the said exercise went futile. P.W.11 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by her on the body of the deceased and she also gave opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. P.Ws.12, 13 & 15 have spoken about the investigation done by them and the final report filed in this case. P.W.14, Scientific Officer has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by her. 14. P.Ws.12, 13 & 15 have spoken about the investigation done by them and the final report filed in this case. P.W.14, Scientific Officer has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by her. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did they marked any documents on their side. Their defence was a total denial. 15. Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charges and accordingly, sentenced them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved over the same, the accused 1 and 2/appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 16. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused 1 & 2/appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 17. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The relationship between these two accused have been spoken by P.W.1. The motive between the accused and the deceased have also spoken by P.W.1. We do not find any reason to doubt the evidence of this witness. Thus, the prosecution has proved that these accused were inimical towards the deceased. 18. The evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 would further go to show that the deceased was lastly seen in the Temple at 11.00 pm on 26.03.2010. They have stated that the deceased told them that he wanted to see “Patti mandram” (debate) which was to commence by 11.00 pm and then, he would return home. On 26.03.2010, after 11.00 pm, nobody had seen the deceased. Thus, the deceased was lastly seen alive at 11.00 pm on 26.03.2010. This has been clearly proved by the prosecution. 19. The next circumstance is that, the dead body of the deceased was found in the Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall cashenut grow at about 6.00 am., by P.W.2. There is no denial of this fact. Thus, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the deceased would have died some time between 11.00 pm on 26.03.2010 and 6.00 am on 27.03.2010. 20. From the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. The time of death has also been approximately stated by the Doctor. Thus, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the deceased would have died some time between 11.00 pm on 26.03.2010 and 6.00 am on 27.03.2010. 20. From the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. The time of death has also been approximately stated by the Doctor. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased was killed by means of strangulation between 11.00 pm on 26.03.2010 and 6.00 am on 27.03.2010. 21. Now, the question is who caused the death of the deceased. To prove this fact, the prosecution relies only on the evidences of P.Ws.5 & 6. P.W.5 is the Cousin of the deceased and P.W.6 is a Villager. They have stated that they also participated in the temple festival on 26.03.2010 and at about 11.00 pm, when they went near Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall, they found these two accused standing near the marriage hall. Except, this circumstance, there is no other evidence incriminating the accused. 22. Even at that stage, it is not as though the deceased was found in the company of the accused. The dead body of the deceased was not found in front of the Kadambuliyur Muthukumarasamy Chettiar Marriage Hall where the accused were seen. The dead body of the deceased was found in the cashewnut grow. Therefore, from out of this only circumstance, assuming that the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is believable, it cannot be conclusively held that the deceased was done to death by these two accused. Recovery of M.Os.5 and 6 also would not help the case of the prosecution since, the link between the recovered Material Objects and the crime has not been established. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 23. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 & 2/appellants by the learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.No.2), Cuddalore District in S.C.No.351 of 2010, dated 31.03.2011, is set aside and the accused 1 & 2/appellants are acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused 1&2/appellants, shall stand discharged.