JUDGEMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU. J, The appellant is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.90 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. One Mr. Gopal @ Rajagopal was the 2nd Accused. The trial court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 302 of IPC against A1; the second charge was under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC ; and the third charge was under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC against both A1 and A2. By judgement dated 10.08.2012, the trail court convicted A1 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five months for offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. However, A2 was acquitted from both the charges. Challenging the said conviction and the sentence, A1 is, now, before this court with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The deceased in this case was a minor boy, by name, Pradeep Kumar. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.3's husband was one Mr. Ramachandran. He died few years before the year 2007. The deceased was being brought up by P.W.3 and he was studying in a local school in VI standard. After the demise of her husband, P.W.3 had developed illicit intimacy with A1. A1 belongs to Pennikkal Village. A2 is his associate. Out of the said illicit relationship between P.W.3 and A1, PW.3 became pregnant. But, P.W.3 did not want to continue the same, as it, according to her, would have brought shame to her family. Therefore, she informed P.W.8, who is the paternal uncle of her husband to help her to terminate the pregnancy. P.W.8 took her to one Dr. Shankar. Three months prior to the occurrence in this case, Dr. Shankar terminated the pregnancy by giving injection. This came to the knowledge of A1. A1 had desired to have a heir through P.W.3. Therefore, she informed P.W.8, who is the paternal uncle of her husband to help her to terminate the pregnancy. P.W.8 took her to one Dr. Shankar. Three months prior to the occurrence in this case, Dr. Shankar terminated the pregnancy by giving injection. This came to the knowledge of A1. A1 had desired to have a heir through P.W.3. Since P.W.3 had terminated the pregnancy, it is alleged that A1 decided to take revenge on her by killing her son. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 3. It is alleged that on 06.11.2007 at 07.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to his school. When he returned from the school by about 05.30 p.m., it is alleged that A2 met him, induced him and took him to A1, as instructed by A1. Then, both A1 and A2 killed the deceased. According to the charge, A2 held the deceased and A1 strangulated him to death. After causing the death of the deceased, it is alleged that with a view to erase the evidence, they took the dead body of the deceased and buried the same near Kundal Lake by digging a pit and thereafter, they left the place of occurrence. 4. P.W.3 returned home after her farm work in the evening on 06.11.20007. Since the deceased had not returned home, she went in search of him, but, she was not able to find him anywhere. According to her, she went to the police station for giving a complaint in respect of the same, but, since she was informed to come with any one of the VIPs of the village, she did not go to the police station again. She continued to search for the child. On 21.07.2011, a skull and few bones of a human being with a khaki trousers and a blue colour shirt with VI standard Text Book were found near Kundal Lake. On getting information, the then Village Administrative Officer, Bairamangalam Village, rushed to the place of occurrence, where, in the land comprised in S.No.257, he found a skull of a human being and the VI standard text book wherein the name of the deceased was found. On his inquiry, he came to know that the deceased was found missing from 06.11.2007. He suspected that the skeletal remains found there were that of the deceased. On his inquiry, he came to know that the deceased was found missing from 06.11.2007. He suspected that the skeletal remains found there were that of the deceased. Therefore, he rushed to Kelamangalam Police Station and made a complaint on 21.11.2007 at 05.00 p.m. P.W.11, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kelamangalam Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.174 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The name of the assailant was then shown as "unknown". Ex.P.13 is the FIR. She forwarded both Ex.P.1-complaint and Ex.P.13-FIR to the court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 07.30 p.m. on 21.11.2007. P.W.11 thereafter handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 5. P.W.13, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence at 06.00 a.m. on 22.11.2007 and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P.14) in the presence P.W.1 and another witness. He also recovered M.O.1 to M.O.3 under a mahazar (Ex.P.3) in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness. Thereafter, he made a request to the Doctor attached to Government Hospital at Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District, to come to the place occurrence to conduct postmortem. He dug out the skeletal remains found at the place of occurrence and placed them before the Doctor for postmortem. 6. P.W.6-Doctor conducted autopsy on the skeletal remains and preserved the skull and the other skeletal remains for the purpose of further examination. But, from the skeletal remains P.W.6 could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death. 7. P.W.13, in the course of investigation, collected the photograph of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Forensic Lab through court. The skull was also sent for superimposition test. The superimposition report revealed that the skull tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased. Thus, he ascertained that the skeletal remains were that of the deceased. It was further ascertained by the mother and the other relatives of the deceased who identified that the trousers and shirt and the book found near the skeletal remains were that of the deceased. On 24.11.2007, at 09.00 a.m. it is alleged that A1 surrendered before P.W.2 and gave a voluntary confession admitting his guilt. It was further ascertained by the mother and the other relatives of the deceased who identified that the trousers and shirt and the book found near the skeletal remains were that of the deceased. On 24.11.2007, at 09.00 a.m. it is alleged that A1 surrendered before P.W.2 and gave a voluntary confession admitting his guilt. It is further alleged that P.W.2 reduced the same into writing and produced the accused along with the extra confession statement of A1 to the Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation, P.W.13 arrested A2 and recorded his confession statement. But, no discovery of fact was made out of his confession. He forwarded all the material objects to the court. In the mean time, P.W.13 got transferred and P.W.17, the successor of P.W.13, took up the case for further investigation. He examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements. He also examined the Doctor who conducted autopsy and other official witnesses, collected medical records and expert opinion and on completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused. 8. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed as many as three charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 4 materials objects were marked. 9. Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.1, the then Village Administrative Officer of Bairamangalam Village, has stated that the skeletal remains along with a shirt and trousers and a VI standard science book were found near Kundal Lake on 21.11.2007. P.W.2, who was examined to speak about the extra judicial confession allegedly given by A1, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. She has spoken about the missing of the deceased from 06.11.2007 onwards. She has further stated that from the shirt and trousers and the text book found at the place of occurrence, she identified the skeletal remains as that of the deceased. P.W.4 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared at the place of occurrence and the consequential recoveries of material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3. P.W.5 has stated about the arrest of A2 on 24.11.2007. P.W.4 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared at the place of occurrence and the consequential recoveries of material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3. P.W.5 has stated about the arrest of A2 on 24.11.2007. P.W. 6 Doctor has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him on the skeletal remains. He has further stated that he was not able to find out the cause for the death. P.W.2 is the stock witness for the prosecution. He has stated that on 06.11.2007 at about 05.30 p.m. when he was sitting in a tea shop belonging to one Mr. Venkatasappa at Pennigal Village, he found A1 and A2 taking the deceased towards Kundal Lake. He has further stated that on 21.11.2007, he came to know that the skeletal remains were found at the place of occurrence. P.W.8 is the younger paternal uncle of P.W.3 He has stated about the illicit relationship between A1 and P.W.3 and the fact that out of such illicit relationship P.W.3 had become pregnant. He has further stated that he only took her to P.W.3 to Dr.Shankar and the Doctor terminated the pregnancy. He has further stated that even after that P.W.1 continued to have illicit relationship with A1. 10. P.W.9, the Head Clerk of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, has stated that on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of examination. P.W.10 has stated that he led the Doctor (P.W.) to the place of occurrence as required by P.W.13, the investigating officer. P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.12, an expert in Forensic Science Lab, has stated that the skull found at the place of occurrence tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased on superimposition test. P.W.13 has stated about the substantial portion of the investigation done by him in this case. P.W.14, P.W.15 and P.W.16 turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.17 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the filing of final report against the accused. 11. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any document. 11. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any document. Their defence was a total denial. 12. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted A1 alone under sections 302 and 201 of IPC and accordingly punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. A2 was acquitted by the trial court. That is how, A1 alone is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the records carefully. 14. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. As narrated above, the illicit relationship between P.W.3 and A1 has been spoken to by P.W.8. P.W.3 has not stated so. It is the further evidence of P.W.8 that P.W.3 had become pregnant on account of the illicit relationship with A1 and he only took her to the Doctor for termination of pregnancy. But, P.W.3 has not stated so. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether A1 had any such illicit relationship with P.W.3. At any rate, in our considered view, the motive for the occurrence has not been established by the prosecution. Assuming that the said motive stands proved by the evidence of P.W.8, that by itself would not go to establish the guilt of A1. 15. The prosecution has established that in superimposition examination the skull found at the place of occurrence tallied with that of the photograph of the deceased. Thus, it has been proved that the skeletal remains were that of the deceased. This has been further proved by means of shirt and trousers and the text book found at the place of occurrence. But the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death. In a case where the accused is facing a charge of murder, essentially, the prosecution is bound to prove that the case of the deceased was a homicide. Here, in this case, the same has not been proved for want of medical evidence. 16. Apart from the above, the prosecution relies on only the evidence of P.W.7. In a case where the accused is facing a charge of murder, essentially, the prosecution is bound to prove that the case of the deceased was a homicide. Here, in this case, the same has not been proved for want of medical evidence. 16. Apart from the above, the prosecution relies on only the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.7 has stated that on 06.11.2007, at about 05.30 p.m. when he was sitting in the tea shop belonging to one Mr. Venkatesappa, he found A1 and A2 taking the child-the deceased, towards Kundal Lake. His evidence has been disbelieved by the trial court as against A2. He has admitted during cross examination that on 07.11.2007 itself he came to know that the deceased was missing and P.W.3 was searching for him. P.W.7 was not a stranger to P.W.3. Even then, he did not inform P.W.3 that he had seen A1 and A2 taking the deceased towards Kundal Lake. Absolutely there is no explanation as to why he did not disclose this vital information to P.W.3 or anybody else for such a long time. He has stated that for the first time he disclosed the said information only on 24.11.2007 when he was examined by the police. He has further stated that on 21.11.2007 itself the skeletal remains were found at the place occurrence by one Ms. Ellammal. Even then, he did not disclose anything about the above vital fact to anybody. From this fact, it is crystal clear that there is no truth in the evidence of this witness. Therefore, no reliance could be made on the evidence of P.W.7. Except the above, there is no other incriminating evidence as against the appellant/A1 to connect him with the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution, in our considered view, has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant/A1 is also entitled for acquittal. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/A1 by judgement dated 10.08.2012 in S.C.No.90 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from both the charges. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail Bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.