JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 9, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, have come up with Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 182, 185, 197, 218 of 2015, 131, 232, 395 and 419 of 2016, challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, by Judgment dated 10.04.2015. The State has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.353 of 2015, challenging the acquittal of these accused under various provisions. The de facto complainant, namely, the son of the deceased, has come up with Crl.A.(MD).No.269 of 2015, challenging the acquittal of these accused under various charges. The Trial Court framed as many as ten charges against all the nine accused, as detailed below. Charge No. Accused No. Penal Provisions 1 1 to 9 149 and 120-B IPC 2 1 and 6 419 and 468 IPC 3 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 9 364(A) IPC 4 1 387 IPC 5 2 and 3 341 IPC 6 1 to 5, 7,8 and 9 365 IPC 7 1 and 5 506(i) and 294(b) IPC 8 1 and 2 302 IPC 9 1 to 3 302 r/w 201 IPC 10 4 to 9 201 r/w 302 IPC By Judgment dated 10.04.2014, the Trial Court acquitted all the nine accused from some of the charges, as detailed below. Accused No. Penal Provisions 1 120-B, 365, 419, 506(i) and 294(b) IPC 2 120-B, 341 and 365 IPC 3 120-B, 341, 365 IPC 4, 7, 8 and 9 120-B, 365, 201 r/w 302 IPC 5 120-B, 365, 294(b), 506(i), 201 r/w 302 IPC 6 120-B, 419, 201 r/w 302 IPC However, the Trial Court convicted all the nine accused and sentenced them, as detailed below:- Accused Section of Law Sentence Fine amount 1 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 364(A) IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 387 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. To undergo imprisonment for life. 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2 and 3 364(A) IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. To undergo imprisonment for life. 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2 and 3 364(A) IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. months. 201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 364(A) IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 6 468 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Dr. Baskaran, aged about 71 years. He was a very popular Doctor in Dindigul Town. He was also owning vast extent of properties both in Dindigul as well as in Kodaikanal. PW-1 - Dr. Ganesh is his son and PW-2 - Mrs. Vanitha is his wife. PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased were residing at Door No.34-J, AMC Road, Dindigul Town. PW-1 and the deceased were running their clinic under the name and style "Kasi Clinic", at Palani Road in Dindigul. Opposite to the house of the deceased, i.e., on the other side of the road, Cosmopolitan Club Building is situated. The deceased was, incidentally, the President of the said Club. The deceased used to start around 05.15 AM from his house to go to the Cosmopolitan Club for playing Tennis. This practise of the deceased was known to all in the said locality. 2.1. On 30.04.2009, early in the morning, when PW-1 and PW-2 were in the house, the deceased started from his house to go to the Club. PW-2 was getting ready to go to Naidu Marriage Hall to do her routine morning exercise. It was her practise to leave the house early in the morning, after ten minutes of the departure of her husband. It was also the practise that the deceased, while leaving the house, would lock the door and take the key with him. PW-1 used to go out from the northern gate of the house, after locking the same. 2.2. It was her practise to leave the house early in the morning, after ten minutes of the departure of her husband. It was also the practise that the deceased, while leaving the house, would lock the door and take the key with him. PW-1 used to go out from the northern gate of the house, after locking the same. 2.2. As usual, on 30.04.2009, when the deceased left the house around 05.15 AM, PW-2 saw him leaving. The deceased, as usual, carried a handbag containing Tennis Balls. He was wearing a black colour T-shirt, a light green colour shorts with printing "Reebox, white colour socks and sports shoes. Within few minutes of his departure, PW-2 heard the barking of a dog. Immediately, PW-2 rushed out of her house. She found PW-3 and PW-4 near the gate. They informed her that the handbag, containing Tennis Balls, taken by the deceased, were lying on the road and in a White colour TATA Sumo Car, one person was abducted by somebody. From the handbag, PW-2 realized that her husband, namely, Dr. Baskaran had been abducted. 2.3. Immediately, PW-2 rushed into the house and informed PW-1 about the same. Then, PW-1, PW-2 along with PW-3 and PW-4 went to the Cosmopolitan Club. Since they realized that the deceased had been abducted by somebody, PW-1 immediately informed his Manager [PW-6] and along with him, he rushed to the Dindigul North Police Station and made a complaint [vide EX-P1]. On the said complaint, a case in Crime No.504 of 2009, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by PW-80 - Mr. Rajasekaran, the then Sub-Inspector of Police. EX-P108 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.4. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-91, Mr. Purusothaman, the then Inspector of Police, proceeded to the place of occurrence, where from the deceased was abducted and prepared an Observation Mahazer [EX-P145] and a Rough Sketch [EX-P146] in the presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, a Special Team was formed under the then Additional Superintendent of Police to trace out the deceased. Though a number of witnesses, including the suspects were examined, there was no progress made in the investigation. Thus, PW-91 was not able to make any breakthrough. 2.5. Thereafter, a Special Team was formed under the then Additional Superintendent of Police to trace out the deceased. Though a number of witnesses, including the suspects were examined, there was no progress made in the investigation. Thus, PW-91 was not able to make any breakthrough. 2.5. While so, on 08.05.2009, around 01.00 PM, at Aanaimalai in Coimbatore, underneath of a bridge, across Aliyar River, in the stagnated water, in a gunny bag, a dead body was found and the same was floating. The head of the dead body was protruding out of the gunny bag. The Village Assistant of Aanaimalai North noticed the same and informed the Village Administrative Officer - PW-69. He went to the said place and found a gunny bag floating, containing the dead body of a male and the head alone was protruding out. Immediately, he rushed to the Aanaimalai North Police Station and made a complaint at 02.00 PM. [vide EX-P.91]. Based on the same, on the file of the Aanaimalai North Police Station, a case in Crime No.208 of 2009, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the then Sub-Inspector of Police [vide Ex.P.105]. 2.6. PW-87 - Mr. N. Somanathan took up the case for investigation. Immediately, he went to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of PW-69 and another witness. EX-P92 is the Observation Mahazer and EX-128 is the Rough Sketch. He took photographs of the dead body from various angles with the help of an official photographer. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. He found that both the legs of the deceased were tied so tightly with a nylon rope and in between the legs, there were two stones tied with the same rope. Both the hands of the deceased were kept on the front side and tied with a nylon rope. The mouth and eyes were closed by inserting sponge and pasting plasters. There were also injuries on the dead body of the deceased. A black colour T-Shirt, a shorts with the printing Reebox, VIP Jatti and two white colour dirty socks on each leg were found on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was found in a decomposed condition. The identity of the dead body could not be made out. A black colour T-Shirt, a shorts with the printing Reebox, VIP Jatti and two white colour dirty socks on each leg were found on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was found in a decomposed condition. The identity of the dead body could not be made out. Then, at his request, PW-67 - Dr.V.Murugaboopathi, an Assistant Surgeon at Vettaikaranputhur Government Hospital, went to the place, where the dead body was lying and as requested by the Investigating Officer, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 04.50 PM, on 08.05.2009, on the spot itself. He found the following injuries:- "A nylon rope tied transversely over the centre of mouth and encircling backwards and tied over the occipital region on removal of the rope a transverse ligature abrasion mark noticed on both side cheek measuring 10 cm right side and 11 cm left side of cheeks. The base of the ligature mark shows intermittent bruise on examination of the mouth it is occluded by cotton pieces, on removal of the cotton pieces the mucosa of the mouth found contused. 1. Contusion noted on the inner aspect of the both lips. 2. Contusion noted on the inner aspect of the both (NC) of noses. 3. A contusion of size 3cm x 2 cm noted on the left upper side of neck. On bloodless dissection of neck: Contusion of size 6 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm depth noted on the left side of upper part of neck muscle. Left side hyoid bone found fractured at the level of upper third of greater corner with surrounding tissue contused". EX-P90 is the postmortem certificate. He preserved the skull for the purpose of superimposition test. He collected the hyoid bone and sent the same for histopathogical examination. 2.7. PW-84, Dr. J. Jeyasingh, the then Head of the Department of Forensic Science, conducted Histopatholigal examination on the hyoid bone of the dead body and noted that there was antemortem fracture in the hyoid bone. He further opined that the age of the deceased would have been around 60 years. Based on the said report and the postmortem findings, PW-67 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to combined effect of violent compression of the neck and closure of the respiratory orifices about 3 to 4 days prior to autopsy. 2.8. Based on the said report and the postmortem findings, PW-67 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to combined effect of violent compression of the neck and closure of the respiratory orifices about 3 to 4 days prior to autopsy. 2.8. PW-87 immediately forwarded the material objects found on the body of the deceased to the Court. Then, in an attempt to find out the identity of the dead body, he made wide publicity of the photographs of the dead body in newspapers as well as the television channels. He forwarded the copies of the photographs to the District Crime Record Bureau and informed the other Police Stations. 2.9. On 09.05.2009, having seen the photograph of the dead body in the newspapers, PW-1 and his other family members rushed to the Aanaimali Police Station. In the meanwhile, after the postmortem was over, PW-87 had buried the dead body. From the personal belongings recovered from the dead body, such as, T-shirt, shorts, Jatti and foot socks, PW-1 identified that the dead body, which was found in the photographs, was that of the deceased Dr.Baskaran. Therefore, PW-87 made a request to the Executive Officer of Aanaimalai Panchayat and to the very same doctor, who conducted autopsy to be present for the purpose of exhumation. At his request, the Executive Officer, namely, the Tahsildar, Pollachi had also come to the place, where the dead body was found. In his presence, the dead body was exhumed from the place, where it was buried by PW-87. On seeing the dead body, PW-2 identified the same as that of the deceased. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to PW-1 for giving a decent burial. 2.10. PW-87, thus, came to know that in respect of the abduction of the deceased - Dr. Baskarran, on the file of the Dindigul North Police Station, a case had already been registered in Crime No.504 of 2009, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. PW-87, in the meanwhile, had examined many more witnesses, including PW-1. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, he transferred the case diary to the Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station for being investigated along with Crime No.504 of 2009. 2.11. PW-87, in the meanwhile, had examined many more witnesses, including PW-1. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, he transferred the case diary to the Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station for being investigated along with Crime No.504 of 2009. 2.11. Based on the above report of PW-87, PW-91, the Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station, altered the case into one under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted the alteration report to the Court [vide EX-P147]. 2.12. When the investigation was in progress in the hands of PW-91, the Director General of Police passed an order transferring the investigation to the Inspector of Police, CBCID. Accordingly, PW-94, the then Inspector of Police, CBCID, Dindigul, took up the case for investigation, on 20.06.2009. He informed PW-1 that he had taken up the case for investigation. He submitted a report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate in this regard. 2.13. On 21.06.2009, PW-91 visited the place of occurrence and in the presence of the witnesses, he prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch [vide EX-P152 and EXP153 respectively]. He examined the witnesses already examined by his predecessors and recorded their statements. 2.14. Now, reverting back to the happenings on the day of alleged abduction, after the registration of the case, it needs to be mentioned that when PW-2, the wife of the deceased was at her house on 30.04.2009 around 07.30 p.m. she received a phone call to her cellphone from the mobile number of the deceased. The person, who spoke from the other end, was not her husband, but, someone else. It was a male voice. When PW-2 picked up the phone, the man, who spoke from the other end, enquired as to whether it was Mrs.Vanitha, who was speaking. PW-2 answered in the affirmative. Then, he asked her whether she needed her husband or not. PW-2 answered that her husband should be safe. The man told that if that be so, "Why the manager of her husband did not pick up the phone?" the caller questioned. PW-2 told that he was not aware of the same. He, in turn, told PW-2 that her husband had given the details of all the properties, including a Cottage in Kodaikanal. He wanted her to say as to whether it was true or not?. She said "Yes". PW-2 told that he was not aware of the same. He, in turn, told PW-2 that her husband had given the details of all the properties, including a Cottage in Kodaikanal. He wanted her to say as to whether it was true or not?. She said "Yes". Then, he demanded that PW-2 should give "Five 'C'" for releasing her husband. Innocently, PW-2 enquired as to what did he meant by "Five 'C'". He told that he meant five crores. PW-2 begged to release her husband after taking all his properties. But, the caller told her that he was in need of only cash and if cash of Rs. 5 crores was paid, he would take the money and release her husband. PW-2 begged to him to give the phone to her husband, but, he refused. The caller further warned her that if she did not pay rupees five crores and instead, if she thought of catching him hold with the help of police, he would kill her husband. At the end, he cut off the phone connection. 2.15. Thereafter, on 01.05.2009, again, there was a phone call from the cellphone of the deceased to the cellphone of PW-2. The caller asked her as to whether she had made arrangements for Rs.5 crores. She told that since First day of the month of May was a Government holiday, she was unable to mobilize the funds immediately and she would make it soon. Then, the caller disconnected the phone call. Once again, he called her over phone through the same cellphone of her husband and asked her whether she had mobilized rupees five crores. She told that she had mobilized only Rs.22 Lakhs. The caller disconnected the phone. Again, within five minutes, he called PW-2 from the very same mobile number of her husband. This time, he scolded PW-2 and shouted that Rs.22 Lakhs was not an amount at all to save the life of such a rich doctor. He further warned her that she may have to wear only white saree and take the dead body of the deceased, if the money demanded by him was not given. 2.16. He further told that he would kill her husband by strangulating him. Again, he cut off the phone connection. He further warned her that she may have to wear only white saree and take the dead body of the deceased, if the money demanded by him was not given. 2.16. He further told that he would kill her husband by strangulating him. Again, he cut off the phone connection. He further told PW-2 that he had tied the legs and hands of her husband and made him to lie down in the car. PW-2 begged to him not to cause any harm to her husband, for which the caller told her that she should come with money, if it all she wanted to save her husband. She further begged to him to give time till 02.05.2009, since 01.05.2009 was a government holiday. 2.17. On 03.05.2009, the same caller called her from the cellphone of her husband. This time PW-2 wanted to record the conversation. Since her cellphone instrument had no such facility, he received the cellphone from PW-82. In the said cellphone, the Simcard of PW-2 was inserted. As expected on 03.05.2009 the same caller called her to her cellphone from the cellphone of her husband. This time, the entire conversation made by the caller to PW-2 was recorded. PW-2, on one such conversation, wanted the caller to give the cellphone to her husband so that she could speak to him. But, the caller told her that he would not give the cellphone to her husband. However, he would play the recorded voice of her husband. PW-2 could hear only a murmur. Then, the caller asked her as to whether she was ready with the cash. PW-2 told him that she had mobilized one crore cash. 2.18. The caller told her to be prepared to pay the amount to him on the next day. He further directed her to come near Dindigul bus stand around 06.00 a.m. on 04.05.2009. On 04.05.2009 around 06.15 a.m. P.W.2 went in a car belonging to her driven by her driver. As instructed by the cellphone caller, the car was stopped near MGR statue at Dindigul. Around 06.45 a.m., there was a phone call to the cellphone of P.W.2. This time, the caller scolded her in obscene language. P.W.2 told her that as instructed by him, she was waiting in her ambassador car with her driver. The caller asked her about the colour of the dress of P.W.2. P.W.2 told those particulars. Around 06.45 a.m., there was a phone call to the cellphone of P.W.2. This time, the caller scolded her in obscene language. P.W.2 told her that as instructed by him, she was waiting in her ambassador car with her driver. The caller asked her about the colour of the dress of P.W.2. P.W.2 told those particulars. He accordingly asked P.W.2 to handover the cellphone to the driver and the caller instructed the driver to drop P.W.2 at that place and vanish away from the scene of occurrence with the car. The driver returned the phone to P.W.2. The caller told her to engage an auto. Accordingly, she engaged an auto and sat with the suitcase containing rupees one crore. The caller wanted her to handover the cellphone to the auto driver. He told the auto driver (P.W.7) to drive the auto to Forest Hospital at Dindigul. Accordingly, P.W.7 drove the auto to Forest Hospital. As instructed by the caller, the driver of the auto parked the auto near main gate of the hospital. Then, the caller instructed P.W.2 to give Rs.20/- to the driver towards auto fare and got down from the auto. Accordingly, after leaving the auto, P.W.2 was standing with the cash in the suit case at the same place. The caller again instructed her through cellphone to pick up another auto. Accordingly, P.W.2 took another auto. The driver of the auto was P.W.9. As instructed by the caller the auto was driven to a church near Valakkai patti Pirivu. The caller wanted her to leave the auto and to stand near the bus stop. Accordingly, she was standing alone in the bus stop. The caller again called her over cellphone and inquired as to whether there was an yellow colour carton bag with cellphone in it the bus stop. There was nobody else by that time in the bus stop, except P.W.2. P.W.2 found that there was no yellow carton box in the bus stop. She told the same to the caller. At that time P.W.2 could over hear the caller calling some one as Peter and asking him as to whether he had kept the cellphone. When P.W.2 searched for, she found in the dust bin, a yellow bag containing a cellphone. The caller wanted her to take that cellphone and put it on. He further instructed her to keep her cellphone in the yellow bag. When P.W.2 searched for, she found in the dust bin, a yellow bag containing a cellphone. The caller wanted her to take that cellphone and put it on. He further instructed her to keep her cellphone in the yellow bag. Accordingly, she kept her cellphone in the bag. The cellphone which was in the bag was thus now in the hands of P.W.2. [At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that when P.W.2 left her house on 04.05.2009. She did not bring the cellphone instrument of P.W.82 with the feature of recording the conversation and instead, she had brought an ordinary cellphone with her SIM Card]. 2.19. When P.W.2 was still standing in the bus, the caller called her through her cellphone which was in the bag. The caller scolded her as to why she had not put off her cellphone. He wanted her to remove and throw the battery, put her cellphone instrument alone in the yellow bag and keep the same in the same place. Then, he spoke to her through the cellphone which she took up from the bag. He wanted her to get into another auto. He wanted her to give the cellphone to the driver. The driver of the auto spoke to him. The caller wanted the driver to drive the auto to the Dindigul railway station. The auto was accordingly parked behind the railway station. The caller wanted her to go to the railway platform. The driver of the auto carried the suitcase containing cash and handed over the same to her on the platform. The caller again spoke to her and wanted her to go by Vaigai Express to Trichy. But, before she could reach, Vaigai Express took off from the railway station. Then, the caller wanted her to get into a goods-train. She went to the Guard of the goods train and requested him to permit her to travel in the goods train to Trichy as she was in a hurry to go to Trichy since her husband had been abducted. But, the railway guard refused to permit her to travel in the goods train and the goods train also took off. Then, the caller told her over phone that if anything untoward had happened to her husband, he would not be held responsible. Vexed over the above happenings, P.W.2 sat on the platform of the railway station. But, the railway guard refused to permit her to travel in the goods train and the goods train also took off. Then, the caller told her over phone that if anything untoward had happened to her husband, he would not be held responsible. Vexed over the above happenings, P.W.2 sat on the platform of the railway station. The caller told her that she should not pick up the phone till 10.45 a.m. Meanwhile, the cellphone bell rang. As instructed by the caller, she did not pick it up. Then, she purchased a ticket to go to Trichy and was waiting in the railway station itself for a call from the caller. 2.20. At 10.55 a.m., the caller again called her. This time, he told that some persons sent by him had come to meet her in the railway station, but, they found that she had arranged for police people in civil dress around her. He wanted her to go by the next train to Trichy. At 11.30 a.m. she boarded a train to Trichy. On reaching at Trichy railway station, till 01.45 p.m. she was sitting on the platform. After she boarded the train, she did not receive any phone call from the caller. She was waiting for somebody to come and receive the money as spoken by caller. Since nobody turned up, she called her grand son who was in Dindigul over phone and informed him that she was in Trichy railway station and nobody had turned up to receive the money. She further told that the deceased also could not be found out. That information was in turn passed on by her grand son to the police. The police, accordingly, came and rescued her. She went back to Dindigul. 2.21. On 06.05.2009 around 11.00 a.m., there was a phone call to her cellphone. Her grand son Arun [P.W.5] picked up the phone. When he pleaded to the caller to release the deceased, the caller told that he was not prepared to speak to him. Then, he handed over the phone to P.W.1. The caller asked P.W.1 as to where P.W.2 was? He told that P.W.2 was taking rest. The caller then told that he was not prepared to speak to P.W.1 and cut off the connection. Within a short while, there was a call to the cellphone of P.W.1. from an unknown cellphone number. Then, he handed over the phone to P.W.1. The caller asked P.W.1 as to where P.W.2 was? He told that P.W.2 was taking rest. The caller then told that he was not prepared to speak to P.W.1 and cut off the connection. Within a short while, there was a call to the cellphone of P.W.1. from an unknown cellphone number. This time, the caller told P.W.1 that when P.W.2 had come to Trichy with money, she was accompanied by police and, therefore, they did not receive the money. He further warned him not to track his movement through GPRS. He threatened to blast everyone. P.W.1 told him that he was prepared to pay money to him. But, the caller refused to accept the said offer. The caller further told him that the deceased was struggling a lot as his hands and legs had been tied and wrapped in a gunny bag. He further told that the deceased was passing urine and motion in the gunny bag itself. The caller told that he was taking the deceased to a hospital at Bangalore. Then, he cut off the connection. Again around 12.00 to 01.00 p.m., he called P.W.2 through cellphone. This time, the caller scolded her that she was pretending as though she had not informed the police about the telephone calls. He further told her to come with money. P.W.2 told that she had returned the money to the person from whom she had borrowed and she would again receive the said amount from them and come with money. She further told that it would take another 4 - 5 hours. The caller cut off the connection. On 08.01.2009, again, the caller called P.W.2 over phone and asked her whether she was ready with money. He further told her that she should come with money to the place which would be intimated to her later. On 09.05.2009, P.W.2 was ready with cash of rupees one crore. At 06.10 a.m., he received the phone call from the same caller. The caller told her that this time, the deal could be completed. P.W.2 wanted to speak to her husband. The caller told that it was not possible. P.W.2 replied that if she could not speak to her husband, she would not come out with money. Then, the caller cut off the connection. 2.22. The caller told her that this time, the deal could be completed. P.W.2 wanted to speak to her husband. The caller told that it was not possible. P.W.2 replied that if she could not speak to her husband, she would not come out with money. Then, the caller cut off the connection. 2.22. On 09.05.2009, from the news paper reports, P.W.13 and 82 informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that a dead body was found under the bridge in Azhiyar at Anamalai. That is how, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went to Anamalai Police Station and identified the dead body as that of the deceased from out of the photographs and the personal wearing apparels. As we have already narrated, thereafter, the body was exhumed and the same was identified by P.Ws.1 and 2. After the dead body was exhumed, the skull and femur were collected by the doctor. They were sent for DNA examination along with the blood samples of P.Ws.1 and 2. The result of DNA analysis proved that the dead body was that of the deceased. 2.23. On 21.06.2009, P.W.53, the then Village Administrative Officer of Balakrishnapuram Village was informed by his Assistant that a Tata Sumo Car was found abandoned near Karpaga Vinayagar Temple at Karunanidhi Colony in Dindigul District, for about 3 days. P.W.53, along with his Village Assistant, went to the said place and found that the Tata Sumo car bearing Regn. No.TN 59 AK 1246 was parked. When P.W.53 inquired, the people in that locality told that the said car had been parked there for about 3 days. When he peeped through the windscreen of the car, he found in the middle seat of the car 3 cell phone instruments and 2 chargers lying. A sticker with the printing xxx; A black bag containing a pants and shirt were also lying. P.W.53 made a report to Dindigul North Police Station under Ex.P.60. Based on the same, a case was registered in Crime No.633 of 2009 under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. The FIR is Ex.P.61. P.W.99, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, rushed to the spot. He opened the doors and found the material inside the car: (1) Nokia mobile phone (3 Nos.); (2) Number plates containing Regn. NO.TN 38 AD 8476 (2 Nos.); and Yellow colour number plates with the number TN 10 AK 3773. P.W.99, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, rushed to the spot. He opened the doors and found the material inside the car: (1) Nokia mobile phone (3 Nos.); (2) Number plates containing Regn. NO.TN 38 AD 8476 (2 Nos.); and Yellow colour number plates with the number TN 10 AK 3773. There was a sticker on the number plate with the writing xxx; (3) Cellphone chargers (2 Nos.); (4) Vodafone SIM cards 9655741903 and 9655741905; (4) yellow colour brief; (5) a jockey and few more things. They were recovered by the Sub Inspector of Police who was investigating the case in Crime No. 633 of 2009 on the file of Dindigul North Police Station. 2.24. During the course of investigation, P.W.99 came to know from out of the IMEI numbers and mobile phone numbers that these two mobile phones had been used to talk to P.Ws.1 and 2 during the above stated conversations. Therefore, P.W.99 took up that case also for investigation. He forwarded all the material objects to court. Till this time, the perpetrators of the crime were not known. 2.25. On 14.06.2009, on the complaint of one Mr. Rajkumar (P.W.62), a case was registered on the file of Kundadam P.S. in Crime No.232 of 2009 under Sections 342, 392, 394 r/w 397 of IPC. P.W.62, the de facto complainant in Crime No.232 of 2009 was a resident of Coimbatore. He was a driver by profession. On 14.06.2009 at 06.00 a.m. he was in the car stand near Geetha Garden at Coimbatore Railway Station along with the car. His uncle-Mr. Kumar was also there. Yet another person, by name Mr. Paramasivam, came to the car stand driving his car carrying four persons. Mr. Paramasivam told that the above stated four passengers were to go to Trichy. Mr. Paramasivam expressed his inability to engage his car to go to Trichy because of the arrival of his sister. Mr.Kumar spoke to all the four passengers and fixed the rent. According to P.W.62, A1 to A3 and A6 are those four passengers. They told that they wanted to go to Trichy. After fixing the fare, P.W.62 carried those four passengers (A1 to A3 and A6) in his Tata Sumo Car bearing Regn. No.TN 38 AT 8476. Mr.Kumar spoke to all the four passengers and fixed the rent. According to P.W.62, A1 to A3 and A6 are those four passengers. They told that they wanted to go to Trichy. After fixing the fare, P.W.62 carried those four passengers (A1 to A3 and A6) in his Tata Sumo Car bearing Regn. No.TN 38 AT 8476. He took off the journey around 05.30 a.m. to 06.00 a.m. When the car had just passed Palladam enroute to Trichy, they wanted to stop the car as they wanted to pass urine. Accordingly, he stopped the car by the side of the road. All the four got down, passed urine and then returned to the car. One person sat by the side of the driver in the front seat. The other three sat on the back seat. When the car was about to be moved, 3 persons who were sitting on the back seat pulled P.W.62 to the back seat and closed his mouth using plaster. Then, the person who was sitting in the front seat started driving the car. At a distance of 30 km from the said place, the car was stopped. P.W.62 came to know that the said place was known as "Kundadam". They attacked P.W.62 again. They tied his legs and threw him by the side of the road into a bush and fled away from the scene of occurrence with the car. P.W.62, however, managed to untie the rope and remove plaster. He went to a near by shop from where through the public telephone booth, he contacted his uncle-Mr. Kumar who was the owner of the vehicle and informed him about the happenings. When they took off the car, cash of Rs.2,500/-. a mobile phone of P.W.62 with the mobile number 97913 83933, an ATM card on Union Bank of India in the name of P.W.62 were also taken away by the assailants in the same car. With these allegations, P.W.62 made a complaint upon which the case in Crime No.232 of 2009 was registered on the file of Kundadam Police Station under Sections 342, 392, 394 and 397 of IPC. P.W. 99 took up that case in Crime No.232 of 2009 also for investigation along with the murder case of Dr.Baskaran as per the order of the Director General of Police. P.W. 99 took up that case in Crime No.232 of 2009 also for investigation along with the murder case of Dr.Baskaran as per the order of the Director General of Police. From the records, it is seen that the case in Crime No.232 of 2009 was investigated and final report was filed against A1 to A3 and A6 and the same is pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Erode, in S.C.No.5 of 2010. 2.26. During the course of investigation, it turned out that on 02.02.2009 by using the identity card of a police man, a male aged about 20 years, purchased two SIM cards bearing phone numbers (1) 99524 30032 & 99524 29926. The former is vodafone SIM card and the latter is Aircel SIM card. It also turned out that when the ATM cards were purchased, the purchaser was in police uniform. The investigation further revealed that the identity card of a policeman was misused for the purpose of purchasing these SIM cards. The said identity card was that of one Manikandaraja. 2.27. Mr. Manikandaraja examined as P.W.16 has stated that during the relevant period, he was working as Grade II Constable in the Armed Reserve at Perambalur. When he was sent for duty to Coastal Guard at Vedaranyam, his higher officer wanted his two photographs for official purpose. Accordingly, he handed over his two photographs to him. One Ms. Balanagajothi [P.W.19] was then working as a Head Constable. She was the one who was maintaining the service records of P.W.16. After six months, he was transferred to C-Company. From there, on 03.12.2008, he was transferred to Perambalur Armed Reserve. It is the further case of the prosecution that those two photographs handed over by P.W.16 at his office had been misused by Ms. Balanaga Jothi (P.W.19). According to P.W.19, A1 is her cousin, i.e., her mother and the mother of A1 are sisters. A4 is her nephew. A5 is already known to her. A5 is the son of Sub Inspector of Police, who, in turn, was a tenant at the house of P.W.19. [This witness was treated hostile as she did not state anything more]. According to the case of the prosecution, A1 informed her over phone that he would send a girl for a short stay at her house. Accordingly, A6 came and stayed at the house of P.W.19. [This witness was treated hostile as she did not state anything more]. According to the case of the prosecution, A1 informed her over phone that he would send a girl for a short stay at her house. Accordingly, A6 came and stayed at the house of P.W.19. On the next day morning, P.W.19 warned her not to make any more visit to her house. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.19 had brought the personal file of Mr. Manikandaraja (P.W.16) and kept the same at her house to do some work. From that personal file the photographs of P.W.16 had been removed. Out of the two photographs of Mr. Manikandaraja, in one photograph he was in police uniform. 2.28. P.W.99 recovered the personal file of P.W.16-Mr. Manikandaraja, one Mr. Panneerselvam and Ms. Rajeswari. It also turned out that A1 had deserted Indian Army. The Army Commanding Officer had sent a letter to take action against A1. That letter was collected during investigation [vide Ex.P.167]. From these materials collected, P.W.99 had reasons to believe that A1had a hand in the killing of the deceased Dr. Baskaran. Therefore, he went in search of him. 2.29. On 22.08.2009, at 04.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W. 51 and another witness, he arrested A1 near Taj Teatre at Udumalpet. On such arrest, P.W.99 made a personal search on A1. It was found that he was in possession of a Voter Identity Card, PAN card, driving license, ATM card, a Sony Ericsson black colour mobile phone with SIM card and a small piece of paper containing the writings, Karthick, Umar, Mugil. As against the name of Karthik, the mobile phone number 96598 17090 was written; as against Umar, the mobile phone number 96256 77352 was written; as against Mugil, the mobile phone number 90256 77352; as against mobile phone number 90256 77353, the name of one Manju; as against the mobile phone number 96297 75132, the name of Mugil and as against the mobile phone number 96264 27416, the name of Karthick and as against the mobile phone number 96260 35473, the name of one Umar; and as against the mobile phone numbers 96261 50946 and 96264 27116 the name of one Umar were written. That piece of paper was recovered vide (Ex.P.168). A1 was also found in possession of cash of Rs.1,150. That was also recovered. 2.30. That piece of paper was recovered vide (Ex.P.168). A1 was also found in possession of cash of Rs.1,150. That was also recovered. 2.30. On the same day at 06.30 p.m. P.W.99 in the presence of the same witnesses arrested A3 at Udumalpet bus stand. He was found in possession of a Nokia mobile phone with IMEI Number 35984 50122 26226 without any SIM card. A Nokia mobile phone instrument with IMEI Number 35134 43012 61183 without SIM card and a driving license. P.W.99 recovered all the documents and materials under a mahazar. A1 made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed that he had pledged a gold chain weighing 11.5 grams at Muthoot Fincorp at Coimbatore. Accordingly, A1 took P.W.99 and the witnesses to Muthoot Fin Corp. One Mr. Mani Venkatesh (P.W.71) was the Customer Service Executive of the said company. P.W.71 on referring to the records and the computer records in the said finance company found that 11.5 grams of gold chain was pledged by one Sabeer Ahamed (A2). The photograph of A2 was also recorded in the computer through the web camera at the time of pledging. P.W.99 recovered the said gold chain (M.O.6) weighing 11.5 grams from Muthoot Fincorp. He also recovered copies of the photographs of A2 recorded through web camera. In his disclosure statement A1 further told that he had thrown a hand gun near Azhiyar at Anamalai Road. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.99 and the witnesses to the said place and identified. But, despite search, no such gun or its parts could be recovered by the police. Then, A1 to A3 took the police and witnesses and identified a place as the place where they had thrown the dead body of Dr. Baskaran, the deceased. P.W.99 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in respect of the said place. Then, A1 took the police and the witnesses to Palani and produced a Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 07 AK 8687. P.W.99 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, P.W.99 made house search of the house of A1 at Dindigul and during such search, he recovered a laptop of A1 (M.O.78) with wire (M.O.79) and the bag (M.O.80). Then, A1 and A3 were sent to court for judicial remand. On the same day, at 03.15 p.m. at Chettiarpatti Village, he arrested A4-Sankar in the presence of witnesses. Then, P.W.99 made house search of the house of A1 at Dindigul and during such search, he recovered a laptop of A1 (M.O.78) with wire (M.O.79) and the bag (M.O.80). Then, A1 and A3 were sent to court for judicial remand. On the same day, at 03.15 p.m. at Chettiarpatti Village, he arrested A4-Sankar in the presence of witnesses. A4 identified a place at the first floor of his house and disclosed that was the place where the deceased was confined for some time. P.W.99 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch (Vide Ex.P.171). Then, A4 out of the disclosure statement produced, a plastic bottle and one air freshener (M.O.22). P.W.99 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P.172). Then, he recovered the driving license of A4, Nokia mobile phone with IMEI No.358671183011214238 with mobile SIMs bearing phone numbers 97892 67939 and 97517 97190. He recovered these material objects under Ex.P.81 and Ex.P.82 mahazars. On the instructions from P.W.99 on the same day, at 08.00 p.m. the Inspector of Police (P.W.96) arrested A5-Mugilan and A9-Vivek at Chettinaickkenpatti in the presence of P.W.53 and another witness. On such arrest, A5-Mugilan gave a voluntary confession. From him, he recovered a Motorola mobile phone instrument with Airtel mobile SIM nearing phone number 9994177070. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he took the police and the witnesses to Ottanchatram bus stand and identified the motor cycle bearing Regn. TN 59 Y 4287 which was parked near Hotel Abirami. P.W.96 recovered the same under a mahazar. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by A1, on 27.08.2009, P.W.96 recovered a rolling bag (travel bag)-M.O.66 from the house bearing D.No.20/135, Palacode Main Road, Palacode. In that bag, a forged identity card in the name of a police man by name G.Soundarajan was found. P.W.96 recovered the same. In that card khaki uniform with a police hat were found. They were later on identified to be that of P.W.16-Mr.Manikandaraja. Further, in the very same bag, pawn receipt issued by Muthoot Fincorp for pledging the gold jewel bearing Receipt No.5026348 was found. A sketch pen, 2 pencils, executive bond papers (35 Nos.) and few other materials were found. They were all recovered [Vide Mos.68 to 73]. Similarly, in yet another travel bag, which was later on identified to be that of A2, was recovered in which few more material objects were recovered (vide M.Os.74 & 75). A sketch pen, 2 pencils, executive bond papers (35 Nos.) and few other materials were found. They were all recovered [Vide Mos.68 to 73]. Similarly, in yet another travel bag, which was later on identified to be that of A2, was recovered in which few more material objects were recovered (vide M.Os.74 & 75). P.W.99 collected those materials objects seized by P.W.96. 2.31. On the same day, at 04.30 p.m. A7-Rajkumar was arrested by P.W.97 as instructed by P.W.99. In the presence of the witnesses, from A7, a mobile phone with IMEI No.35249 80216 31828 was recovered. On the same day at 10.30 p.m. A8-Duraipandi was arrested by P.W.94. From him, mobile phone with IMEDI No. 35586 50221 33117 with mobile SIM bearing phone number 99445 79150 was recovered. P.W.99 collected the said material from P.W.94. On 24.08.2009, A6-Manju Parkavi was arrested by P.W.99. She also gave a voluntary confession. From her, a mobile phone with IMEI No.35484 30161 12141 with mobile SIM phone No. 96989 43493 was recovered. Then, he forwarded all these accused to court for judicial remand. 2.32. At the request made by P.W.99, P.W.89, the then Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, conducted test identification parade for A2 Sabeer Ahamed and A3-Umar Mukthar, in which, P.W.35 Balamuali, P.W.38 Balamurugan ; Rajkumar and Kumar were asked to identify the assailants. P.W.35 identified A3 alone. Then, P.W.38 identified A2 as well as A3. Witness-Rajkumar identified A2 and A3 correctly. Witness -Kumar identified A2 and A3 correctly. 2.33. Again, on 14.09.2009, P.W.89 conducted test identification parade for A2, A4 and A7. Balamurali (P.W.35), Balamurugan (P.W.38), Mothilal, Rajkumar and Kumar were asked to identify the assailants. P.W.35 identified A1. But, he did not identify the other accused. P.W.38 identified A1 & A4. Witness Mothilal identified A1; witness Rajkumar identified A1 and A7; witness Kumar identified A1 and A7. 2.34. Again P.W.89 conducted test identification parade for A6 Manjuparkavi. Witness Nagarani (P.W.54), Saravanakumar were asked to identify. They identified A6 correctly. 2.35. P.W.99, took the accused A1 & A3 into police custody as per the order of the learned Magistrate on 27.08.2009. While in custody, in the presence of witnesses Savadappan (P.W.45) and another, A1 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a gold dollar and a silver dollar. They identified A6 correctly. 2.35. P.W.99, took the accused A1 & A3 into police custody as per the order of the learned Magistrate on 27.08.2009. While in custody, in the presence of witnesses Savadappan (P.W.45) and another, A1 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a gold dollar and a silver dollar. He told that he had put both the material objects into a hundial at Sirkali Sattainathar Temple on 08.05.2009. He further identified the place where he had hidden two knives, a monkey cap, rope, a stainless steel tumbler and a sticker. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to a bush near Kodaikkanal Road Tharaippalam and produced the same. On 27.08.2009 P.W.99 took A1 to Sikali Sattainathar Temple were he identified the hundial into which he had put the silver and gold dollars. On the request made by P.W.99, the temple authorities opened the hundial and produced those two material objects from the hundial. They were later on identified as the belongings of the deceased. P.W.99 recovered the same. Then, A1 took the police and the witnesses to Kodaikkanal and produced two knives, money cap, rope, stainless steel tumbler and the sticker. P.W.99 recovered the same from the place of hide out. On returning to the police station at 03.00 p.m. he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. 2.36. On 01.09.2009, at 01.30 p.m. he took the police custody of A5 Mugilan, A8-Duraipandi. While in custody, A8 Duraipandi gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had thrown the key of the Tata Sumo car bearing Regn. No.TN 38 AD 8476. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness and identified the place from where, the key was recovered. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand. During the course of investigation, he recorded the specimen voice of A3 and A5 with the help of P.W.81. It is alleged that they were similar to the control voice of A1. The voice of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 were also recorded. Similarly, the voice of A3 was also recorded. They were sent for comparison. On completing the investigation, P.W.99 laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.37. It is alleged that they were similar to the control voice of A1. The voice of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 were also recorded. Similarly, the voice of A3 was also recorded. They were sent for comparison. On completing the investigation, P.W.99 laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.37. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, which the accused denied. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 99 witnesses were examined, 174 documents and 83 material objects were marked. 3. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the son, and P.W.2, the wife of the deceased have stated that lastly the deceased left their house around 05.00 a.m. on 30.04.2009 to go to the nearby Cosmopolitan Club with a bag containing tennis balls and other material objects. They have also identified the gold chain, gold dollar and the silver dollar worn by the deceased lastly. P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the cellphone calls received by them and the complaint made and all other details. P.W.3, the watchman, working under the deceased and P.W.4, the Tennis Master of Cosmopolitan Club have stated that in a Tata Sumo Car a male person was, by force, abducted near the Cosmopolitan Club. But, at that time, they did not know that it was the deceased. But, a hand bag containing tennis balls was lying on the road, from out of which, P.Ws.3 and 4 came to know that the person abducted was the deceased. Thereafter, they informed the same to P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.5 is the grand son of the deceased. He has also spoken about the cellphone calls and the missing of the deceased. He has further stated that from Trichy when P.W.2 informed him that nobody turned up for receiving the money, he informed the same to the police and the police rescued P.W.2 from Trichy Railway Station. P.W.6 has spoken about the missing of the deceased and the cellphone calls which were received by P.W.2. P.W.7, the auto driver has stated that he took P.W.2 in his auto. P.W.8 is yet another auto driver. He has also stated that he took P.W.2 in his auto when she was going with cash of rupees one crore. P.W.9 is also an auto driver. P.W.7, the auto driver has stated that he took P.W.2 in his auto. P.W.8 is yet another auto driver. He has also stated that he took P.W.2 in his auto when she was going with cash of rupees one crore. P.W.9 is also an auto driver. He has also stated that he took the deceased in his auto. [Regarding the evidences of these three witnesses, we have already dealt with in the earlier paragraphs]. 3.1. P.W.10 is an Auditor by profession. He has stated that he was a friend of the deceased. He came to know about the occurrence on 30.04.2009 around 05.45 a.m. When he was in the cosmopolitan club around 04.00 p.m. on the same day, from the cellphone of Dr. Baskaran [the deceased] to his cellphone, there was a call. One SMS was also received in his cellphone from the cellphone of the deceased. He handed over the same to the police. P.W.11 is yet another member of the cosmopolitan club. He has spoken about the properties owned by the deceased in Kodaikkanal. P.W.12 is also a member of the cosmopolitan club and a friend of the deceased. According to him, on the day of occurrence, around 04.30 p.m. [after coming to know that the deceased was missing] from his cellphone, he sent a SMS to the cellphone of the deceased asking as to where he was. On the same day, at 04.15 p.m. there was a message to his cellphone from the cellphone of P.W.2 to the effect that the deceased was going to Chennai. P.W.13 has stated that he is a friend of the deceased. On 08.05.2009, he came to know that in the Azhiyar River at Anamalai, a dead body was found. He informed the same to P.Ws.1 and 2 which was later on identified by them as that of the deceased. P.W.14 has stated that on 30.04.2009, when he was proceeding near cosmopolitan club in his motor cycle, one person wanted him to stop the motor cycle. He told him that one person was taken by force in a Tata Sumo Car. He has not stated anything incriminating. P.W.15 has also stated that he heard that one person was by force taken in a Tata Sumo Car. He has also not stated anything incriminating. 3.2. P.W.16 is an important witness for the prosecution. He told him that one person was taken by force in a Tata Sumo Car. He has not stated anything incriminating. P.W.15 has also stated that he heard that one person was by force taken in a Tata Sumo Car. He has also not stated anything incriminating. 3.2. P.W.16 is an important witness for the prosecution. According to him, when he was working in the Armed Reserve, he gave two photographs for Office purpose. In one such photograph, he was in police uniform. Those photographs were subsequently used by the accused to purchase mobile SIM cards. P.W.17 is yet another police constable. He has stated that the Head Constable Balanaga Jothi was maintaining his personal file. M.O.5 is the said file. P.W.18 is the another constable. Her personal file was in the custody of P.W.19. P.W.19 has stated that she was maintaining the personal files of P.Ws.16, 17 and 18. She has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. She turned hostile. 3.3. P.W.20 has stated that he was selling mobile SIM cards. One male person came to him on 02.02.2009 and purchased one Aircel SIM card bearing phone number 96598 17090 and a Vodafone SIM card bearing phone number 96261 50996. For purchasing the same, the said person produced an identity card in which the person was in police uniform. He also produced one police identity card. The form was filled up by him wherein he signed as "Karthikeyan". Based on the identity card and the photograph, he sold the SIM cards to him. He has identified A1 as the one who purchased the said mobile SIM cards. P.W.21 has also spoken about the sale of the SIM cards to A1. P.W.22 has stated that on 02.02.2009 around 04.00 p.m. a female aged about 20 -22 years purchased two mobile SIM cards from him. One such SIM card is of vodafone bearing phone number 6264 27116. He has further stated that he identified A6 during test identification parade as the one who purchased the SIM cards. P.W.23 has also spoken about the purchase of SIM cards in the name of one Soundarajan. He sold the same based on the police identity card in the name of Soundarajan. The SIM card sold was bearing phone number 97860 16416. P.W.24 has also spoken abut the sale of SIM card bearing phone number 90256 77352 and 90256 77363 to one Soundarajan. He sold the same based on the police identity card in the name of Soundarajan. The SIM card sold was bearing phone number 97860 16416. P.W.24 has also spoken abut the sale of SIM card bearing phone number 90256 77352 and 90256 77363 to one Soundarajan. P.W.25 has spoken about the fact that he was having a driving license and by produced a copy of his drive license he purchased a mobile SIM card bearing phone Number 97510 88850. P.W.26 is a pawn broker. He was also selling mobile SIM cards. On 02.02.2009, he sold the SIM card bearing phone number 97510 8850 to one Abbas Manthiri. P.W.28 was the Superintendent in BSNL. According to him, on the request made by the police, he gave the call details for the cellphone number 94431 41504 for a period between 01.01.2009 to 29.06.2009. P.W.29 is the Senior Executive Officer of Vodafone. He has stated that he gave the call details for the cellphone numbers 97510 97190, 96264 27116, 96261 50946, 97860 16416, 96260 35473, 99434 24740 & 98432 92199. Accordingly, he gave the call details [vide Exs.P. 22 to 28]. P.W.30 was working a Technician in the Highways Project. He has state that A8 is his nephew. He has further stated that he purchased the SIM card bearing phone number 99445 79150 in his name and gave the same to A8. P.W.31 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.32 was running a mobile phone selling shop. He has stated that he sold the SIM card bearing phone number 96260 35473 to one Soundarajan. P.W.33 has stated that he was selling mobile phone SIM card. On 28.12.2007 he sold the SIM card bearing phone number 99445 79150 to one Mr. Babu. P.W.34 has also stated that he was also selling mobile SIM cards. On 17.12.2007, he sold the SIM card bearing phone number 97905 26054 to one Mr. Babu. 3.4. P.W.35 has stated that A1 and A3 were previously known to him. P.W.35 was doing gunny bag business. According to him, on one day, these two accused came to his shop and wanted to purchase a gunny bag with the length of 6 feet and breath of 3 feet. He accordingly sold a gunny bag to them. [But, he has not identified the gunny bag in court]. P.W.35 was doing gunny bag business. According to him, on one day, these two accused came to his shop and wanted to purchase a gunny bag with the length of 6 feet and breath of 3 feet. He accordingly sold a gunny bag to them. [But, he has not identified the gunny bag in court]. However, he identified A1 and A3 during test identification parade. 3.5. P.W.36 was the Dindigul Town President of Democratic Youth Federation of India and also a member of CPI (M). He has stated that A1 and A8 used to come play ground to play games and thus, he knew them. During the 2nd week of October, 2009, when he asked these two accused as to why they did not come to play ground to play game, they had stated that they had no time. At that time, he over heard that they were talking about rupees one crore and 5 crores. P.W.37 is a resident of Dindigul. He has stated that on 30.04.2009 around 05.00 a.m. 5 - 6 persons, aged some where between 18 - 22, came in a Tata Sumo Car and unloaded a gunny bag at the house of A4 and took it to the first floor. P.W.38 has stated that during the month of January 2009, near Shanthi Theatre, a Tata Sumo Car bearing Regn. No. TN 58 P 1144 was coming. The person who drove the car left the car at the work shop for the purpose of tinkering. A4 was one among those persons. After tinkering work was over, they took the car back after three days. P.W.39 has stated that A4 on one occasion wanted him to remove the thatches in the cattle shed belonging to him. For a coolie of Rs.1,200/- he performed the said work. P.W.40 was working as Operation Coordinator in the Reliance Mobile Company. He has stated that he gave the call details of two mobile phone numbers namely 90256 77353 and 90256 77352 for the period between 11.06.2009 to 16.06.2009 and between 01.04.2009 and 16.05.2009. P.W.41 is an official from Aircel Mobile Company. He has stated about the call details of the cellphone numbers 96989 43493, 97506 35050, 98421 32438, 99767 08912 and 96598 17090. He gave the said details. 3.6. P.W.42 has stated that he was working as a watchman at the house of the deceased. P.W.41 is an official from Aircel Mobile Company. He has stated about the call details of the cellphone numbers 96989 43493, 97506 35050, 98421 32438, 99767 08912 and 96598 17090. He gave the said details. 3.6. P.W.42 has stated that he was working as a watchman at the house of the deceased. He has stated about the some dispute between one contractor and one Raju Mesthiri while performing the contract work at the house of the deceased. His evidence is no way helpful for the prosecution. P.W.43 has stated that he used to sell chips in gunny bags. He has not identified any gunny bag in court. P.W.44 was working in a private company in Chennai. When he was working as Site Engineer in Chennai, A1 became friendly to him. Then, he was working as a supervisor. He has stated that after some time, A1 left the company. 3.7. P.W.45 has spoken about the arrest of A1 and A2, the confessions made by them and the consequential recoveries of the material objects. P.W.46 has spoken about the arrest of A4, confession made by him and the consequential recovery of material object from his possession. P.W.47, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the disclosure statement made by A5 and A8 and the consequential recoveries of material objects. P.W.48 was running a lorry booking office. A7 was working in the company for some time. He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.49 has turned hostile. He has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.50 has spoken about the arrest of a2 and A7, the confessions made and the consequential recoveries of material objects. P.W.51, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the confession made by A1 and the consequential recovery of material objects. 3.8. P.W.52 was running a two-wheeler work shop. A3 was already known to him. He purchased a motor cycle from A3 bearing Regn. No TN 07 AK 8687. P.W.53, the Village Administrative Officer of Balakrishnapuram, has stated that the dead body of the deceased was found on 21.06.2009. He has further stated about the complaint made, the recoveries of material objects from the place of occurrence and other details. P.W.54 was working as Warden of a private Women's Hostel at Dindigul. According to him, A6 Manjuparkavi was staying in the said hostel. From 21.06.2009 onwards, she absconded. He has further stated about the complaint made, the recoveries of material objects from the place of occurrence and other details. P.W.54 was working as Warden of a private Women's Hostel at Dindigul. According to him, A6 Manjuparkavi was staying in the said hostel. From 21.06.2009 onwards, she absconded. P.W.55 has stated that A1 is a classmate of his brother. During the month of January 2009, A1 came and gave him a police identity card and a passport size photograph of a man in police uniform. A1 wanted him to make a similar identity card for him. P.W.55 was working as a designer and had degree in Visual Communications. He has further stated that A1 told about his sister Balanaga Jothi. Accordingly, he prepared one identity card in the name of one G.Soundarajan. That identity card is M.O.54. [This was the card which was later on used by A1 to purchase the mobile SIM cards]. 3.9. P.W.56 was working as a Cashier in Sirkali Sattainathar Temple. According to him, on 28.08.2009 P.W.99 came along with A1. A1 identified the hundial and stated that he had put a gold dollar and a silver dollar. After having obtained orders from the higher authorities, P.W.56 opened the hundial and produced the said material objects to P.W.99. P.W.57 was working as salesman in Cloth Centre at Palacode. A2 and A3 were already known to him. He has not stated anything incriminating. He has turned hostile. P.W.58 was engaged in the business of selling mobile SIM cards. He purchased a Demo card from Airtel. The phone number is 99949 20525. For purchasing the same, he handed over his driving license and his photographs. Thereafter, he gave that SIM card to one Mahesh Selvaraj. P.W. 59 is the friend of A5. He has stated that he purchased the mobile SIM card No. 99949 20525. He purchased the said SIM from P.W.58. He, in turn, gave the same to A5. P.W.60 was the Principal of Sourashtra Women's Arts College at Pasumalai in Madurai. She has stated that A6 Manju Parkavi studied in that college during the year 2008. P.W.61 was working in the same college. He has stated that A6-Manju Parkavi was staying in the college hostel. He produced the attendance register to the police. 3.10. P.W.62 has stated that he was working as a driver under one Kumar. She has stated that A6 Manju Parkavi studied in that college during the year 2008. P.W.61 was working in the same college. He has stated that A6-Manju Parkavi was staying in the college hostel. He produced the attendance register to the police. 3.10. P.W.62 has stated that he was working as a driver under one Kumar. He has stated that his Tata Sumo Car was engaged by four persons on 14.06.2009. He was tied, his mouth was closed with a plaster and he was thrown out from the car and the car was taken away the said Tata Sumo Car bearing Regn. No. TN 38 AD 8476. P.W.63 was an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. He has given the details of the water released in Azhiyar between 30.04.2009 and 03.05.2009. P.W.64 has spoken about the registration of the case in crime No.232 of 2009 under Section 342, 392, 394 r/w 397 of IPC on the complaint of Rajkumar (P.W.62). 3.11. P.W.65 was the Inspector of Police of Kundadam Police Station during the relevant period. He has stated about the registration of the case in Crime No.633 of 2009 under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. in respect of Tata Sumo Car bearing Regn. No.TN 38 AD 8476 which was abandoned in Dindigul Town. P.W.66 was running a studio. He has stated that he videographed the statement made by the accused to the police. P.W.67 Dr. V. Murugabharathi has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased on 08.05.2009. He has further stated that he opined that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation and also smothering. The death would have occurred 3 - 4 days prior to the autopsy. 3.12. P.W.68 was the Inspector of Police, Perunthurai Police Station. He has spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.225 of 2008 for offence under Section 397 of IPC. P.W. 69 was the then Village Administrative Officer of Anamalai Village. He has stated about the fact that the dead body of the deceased was found and thereafter he made a complaint to the police. P.W.70 has spoken about the photograph of the dead body taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.71 was working as Sales Executive in Muthoot Fincorp at Coimbatore. He has stated that on 06.05.2009 A1 pledged a gold chain weighing 11.5 grams. It was pledged in the name of A2. P.W.70 has spoken about the photograph of the dead body taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.71 was working as Sales Executive in Muthoot Fincorp at Coimbatore. He has stated that on 06.05.2009 A1 pledged a gold chain weighing 11.5 grams. It was pledged in the name of A2. He gave the photograph of A2 which was recorded through the web camera. 3.13. P.W.72 has spoken about the superimposition test conducted by him. According to him, the photographs of the deceased tallied with the skull of the dead body. P.W.73 has spoken about the DNA examination conducted. According to him, the DNA extracted from P.Ws.1 and 2 and the DNA extracted from the bones of the dead body were examined which revealed that the deceased was the biological father of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the biological mother of P.W.1. 3.14. P.W.74 was working as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank at Madurai. He has stated that A6 had SB Account in his bank. P.W.75, the then Tahsildar of Pollachi, has spoken about the exhumation of the dead body. P.W.76, the police constable, has stated that he carried the requisition letter for postmortem and handed over the same to the doctor. He has further state that after the postmortem, he buried the dead body as directed by his higher officers. P.W.77 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station. He has spoken about the registration of the present case in Crime No.208 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 of IPC on 08.05.2009 on the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.78 has spoken about the house search conducted at the house of P.W.19 and the recovery of personal files of Manikandaraja, Panneerselvam and Rajeswari. P.W.79, the Sub Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station has spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.683 of 2009 under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. on the complaint of Mr.Ziauddeen, Village Administrative Officer, Chettnaickkenpatti Village, reporting that the car bearing Regn. No.TN 59 AK 1246 was found abandoned for 3 days. 3.15. P.W.80 has spoken about the initial investigation done in the present case. P.W.81, an Expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai has stated that he compared the voice recordings of A1 and the Compact Disc containing telephonic conversations and found that the voice tallied. No.TN 59 AK 1246 was found abandoned for 3 days. 3.15. P.W.80 has spoken about the initial investigation done in the present case. P.W.81, an Expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai has stated that he compared the voice recordings of A1 and the Compact Disc containing telephonic conversations and found that the voice tallied. P.W.82 has stated that he gave his cellphone which had the feature of recording the conversation for the use of P.W.2. P.W.83 has spoken about the recovery of material objects and the preparation of the mahazar under Ex.P.2. P.W.84, the Expert from the Forensic Medicines at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, has stated that he examined the hyoid bone of the deceased which on examination, found to have broken. P.W.85, the Head Clerk of the Court of Magistrate has stated that he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Lab, on the order of the learned Magistrate, for chemical examination. P.W.86, yet another Head Clerk of the Court of Magistrate has stated that he also forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination. P.W.87 Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station has stated about the initial investigation done by him in Crime No.208 of 2009. 3.16. The then Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul [P.W.88], has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses Manikandaraja and Balanaga Jothi under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.89 has spoken about the test identification parades conducted in this case. [We have already elaborated the details of test identification parades conducted, in the earlier paragraph of this judgement]. The then Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District [P.W.90], has stated about the recording of the judicial confession of A9. According to him, at the request made by P.W.99, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, had directed him to record the judicial confession of A9. On 20.10.2009 at 03.00 p.m. A9 was produced before him. On that day, he gave all statutory warnings as required under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and sent him back thereby giving time to relax. On 21.10.2009 at 04.00 p.m. A9 was again produced before him. Despite statutory warnings, A9 having understood the warnings, A9 wanted to confess voluntarily. Having satisfied that A9 was in a mood to voluntarily confess, he allowed him to confess. He recorded the said confession [vide Ex.P.144]. 3.17. On 21.10.2009 at 04.00 p.m. A9 was again produced before him. Despite statutory warnings, A9 having understood the warnings, A9 wanted to confess voluntarily. Having satisfied that A9 was in a mood to voluntarily confess, he allowed him to confess. He recorded the said confession [vide Ex.P.144]. 3.17. In the judicial confession [Ex.P.144], A9 stated that he was doing II year Diploma in Engineering at Balamurugan Polytechnic College, Palani. His father was working as aHead Constable in Mulanur Police Station, Tiruppur District. A5 Mugilan, a friend of him, is from Palani Town. He was his classmate in the Polytechnic College. In the said confession, A9 has narrated all the events involving all these accused. [The details of the confession would be extracted and discussed a little latter]. But, the learned Magistrate had not affixed the memorandum as provided in Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to record his belief that the accused had voluntarily confessed. He has further stated that the confession was read over to the accused and he admitted the same to be correct. P.W.91, the Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station, has spoken about the initial investigation done by him in the present case. P.W.92, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Special Unit, Dindigul District, has spoken about the call details obtained by him in respect of various cellphone numbers about which also we have already elaborated in the earlier paragraphs of this judgement. 3.18. P.W.93 was working as Lecturer in Balamurugan Polytechnic College at Palani. He has stated that A4 and A9 were the students of the said college. He has further stated about the attendance details of these accused. P.W.94 has spoken about the part of the investigation done by him. P.W.95, yet another Inspector of Police, has spoken about the house search conducted at the house of P.W.19 and the recovery of personal files of Manikandaraja, Panneerselvam and Rajeswari. P.W.96, another Inspector of Police, has spoken about the arrest of A5 and A9 and the consequential recoveries of the material objects. P.W.97 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar, arrest of A1 and A2 by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 99) and has spoken about the confession made by the accused and the consequential recovery of material objects. P.W.98 has spoken about the sale of SIM cards. P.W.99 has spoken about the investigation done by him and the filing of final report against the accused. P.W.98 has spoken about the sale of SIM cards. P.W.99 has spoken about the investigation done by him and the filing of final report against the accused. 4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side, 3 witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 and 4 documents were marked. 4.1. D.W.1 is a Professor in Gandhigram Rural University. He has stated that the accused Duraipandi (A8) was studying in the said university in B.Com., course. According to him, A8 had attended the college till 20.08.2009. On 20.08.2009, according to him, A8 participated in the Placement Programme. At that time, from the campus, according to him, A8 was taken into police custody. 4.2. D.W.2 is the mother of A9. She has stated that her husband was working as Head Constable at Mulanur Police Station in Tirupur District. He has stated that from 12.08.2009 onwards, her husband was hospitalized at Dharapuram Government Hospital. On 22.08.2009, she went along with A9 to the hospital to visit her husband. When they returned home, C.B.C.I.D., police came and took A9 into custody. 4.3. D.W.3 was working as the Head of the Sniffer Dog Squad in Dindigul District Police. On 21.06.2009, at the request made by Dindigul North Police, he took a sniffer dog to the place of occurrence where the car bearing Regn. No.TN 59 AK 1246 was abandoned. But, he has stated only about the place where the dog ran. 4.4. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants herein as stated in the first para of this judgement. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we also perused the materials placed on record. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/P.W.1. 6. The narration of facts culled out from the records, which we have made herein above, would clearly go to show that the instant case is a very sensational case wherein a doctor was abducted for ransom and killed and the body was disposed after removing the valuable properties from his body. We are sure that this incident would have sent shock waves across State. We are sure that this incident would have sent shock waves across State. There were lot of twists and turns in the case. The story of the prosecution case goes like a crime novel. But, unfortunately, both the investigation and conduct of the trial before the court below were very poor and as a result, this court has been made to struggle a lot to separate the grains from the chaff. If at all, any of these accused, who stand convicted by the trial court, gets the benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal despite the fact that really he is one of the culprits, the failure of justice in the instant case, should be attributed solely to the indifference and lethargy on the part of the investigating agency and also the one who conducted trial before the court below. 7. Now, let us go into the evidences available on record. In a case of this nature, the prosecution is bound to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond all reasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any missing link so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Keeping this broad principle in mind, let us now analyse the circumstances projected by the prosecution. 8. The first and the foremost circumstance is the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 wherein P.W.1 and 2 have stated that 30.04.2009 around 05.00 a.m. the deceased left the house to go to the nearby Tennis Club in tennis suit. Within ten minutes after his departure, there was a commotion on the road in between the tennis club and the house of P.W.1 which attracted P.Ws.3 and 4. When they reached the place, they found a Tata Sumo Car fleeing away from the scene of occurrence carrying an abducted person. P.Ws.3 and 4 did not see that it was the deceased who was actually taken by force in the Tata Sumo Car. The hand bag of the deceased containing tennis balls and other items was found lying on the road at the said place. From out of the said hand bag, P.Ws.3 and 4 inferred that some untoward incident had happened to the deceased and, therefore, they informed P.Ws.1 and 2. The hand bag of the deceased containing tennis balls and other items was found lying on the road at the said place. From out of the said hand bag, P.Ws.3 and 4 inferred that some untoward incident had happened to the deceased and, therefore, they informed P.Ws.1 and 2. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 also rushed to the place of occurrence and then went to the police station and made complaint. From these evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 05.00 a.m. on 30.04.2009 near his house in Dindigul Town. At the time when he left the house, the deceased was wearing a gold chain (M.O.6). 9. The next circumstance is the evidence of P.W.69, the Village Administrative Officer. According to him, on 08.05.2009 when he was at his office, his Village Assistant informed him that a dead body in a gunny bag was found in water in Azhiyar under the bridge at Anamalai within his jurisdiction. Immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body in the water wrapped in a gunny bag. The head was protruding. The body was in a highly decomposed condition. He made a complaint (Ex.P.91) upon which a case was registered by P.W.77 on the file of Anamalai Police Station in Crime No.208 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. According to the doctor who conducted autopsy, the death of the deceased was due to smothering and manual strangulation. He has further opined, the death would have occurred 4 - 5 days prior to the date of postmortem. The identity of the dead body was not then known. After the postmortem, the body was buried, which was later on exhumed by the Tahsildar. The skull was subjected to superimposition test which established the identity of the dead body as that of the deceased. Similarly, the DNA extracted from P.Ws.1 and 2 and compared with the DNA extracted from the bones of the dead body revealed that P.W.1 is the biological son of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has established that the dead body which was found on 08.05.2009 was that of the deceased and the death was a homicide. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the death of the deceased had occurred some time after 05.00 a.m. on 30.04.2009 and at 01.30 p.m. on 08.05.2009. Thus, the prosecution has established that the dead body which was found on 08.05.2009 was that of the deceased and the death was a homicide. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the death of the deceased had occurred some time after 05.00 a.m. on 30.04.2009 and at 01.30 p.m. on 08.05.2009. In the dead body, M.O.6 gold chain with dollar was missing. From that it is to be presumed that the removal of the jewel and causing of the death had occurred in one and the same occurrence. This presumption, of course, is rebuttable. But, there is no material on record to rebut such presumption. 10. Now, the question is, Who are the perpetrators of the crime' In order to establish the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution again relies on certain circumstances. The foremost circumstance is the judicial confession made by A9 to P.W.90, the then Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. According to the leaned Magistrate, A9 was produced on 20.10.2009 on which date he gave statutory warnings as required under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent A9 back to prison for relaxation. According to the learned Magistrate, A9 was again produced before him on 21.10.2009 at 04.00 p.m. He has further stated that he again gave statutory warnings as required under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Since the accused wanted to confess despite the warnings, he recorded the said confession [vide Ex.P.144]. A perusal of the said judicial confession [Ex.P.144] would go to show that after recording the said confession, the learned Magistrate has not recorded his belief that the confession was made by A9 voluntarily. The footnote recorded by the learned Magistrate, in vernacular language, reads thus:- xxx The translated version of the above said foot-note appended by the learned Magistrate to the judicial confession is as follows:- "In respect of the Day-1 and Day-2 proceedings, preliminary questions were asked to the Accused - Vivek [A9] and having understood the said questions, he answered the same. Therefore, this court decided to record the statement of the accused and accordingly, it was recorded. Then, the recorded statement was read over and explained to the accused and since he accepted the same, his signature was obtained on the same." 11. Therefore, this court decided to record the statement of the accused and accordingly, it was recorded. Then, the recorded statement was read over and explained to the accused and since he accepted the same, his signature was obtained on the same." 11. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the said foot-note does not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel. Sub-section (4) of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which is mandatory reads as follows:- 164. Recording of confessions and statements. (1) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:- "I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (Signed) A.B. Magistrate." 12. A plain read of this foot-note which is part of subsection (4) of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. would go to show that the learned Magistrate should record his belief that the confession was made voluntarily by the accused. Thus, the belief of the learned Magistrate on satisfying his judicial conscience alone attaches solemnity to the judicial confession. If any such judicial confession made voluntarily could be the sole foundation for conviction even in the absence of any corroboration. In the instant case, the foot-note of the learned Magistrate nowhere reflects his belief that the confession was made voluntarily by the accused. He has only recorded that the accused understood the questions put to him and answered them. The learned Magistrate decided to record the confession because, he answered the questions correctly. In the instant case, the foot-note of the learned Magistrate nowhere reflects his belief that the confession was made voluntarily by the accused. He has only recorded that the accused understood the questions put to him and answered them. The learned Magistrate decided to record the confession because, he answered the questions correctly. In the absence of the belief of the learned Magistrate that the confession was made voluntarily, it cannot be given any weightage of because voluntariness of the confession is sine qua non for its admission and acceptance. In this regard we may refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandran v. The State of Madras, AIR 1978 SC 1574 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the learned Magistrate who recorded the confession, though had substantially complied with the requirement of Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in the foot-note, instead of certifying that he "believed" that the confession was made voluntarily, recorded that he "hoped" that the confession was made voluntarily. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found a marked difference between the expressions "hope" and "belief" and held that the hope of the Magistrate would not reflect the voluntariness of the confession of the accused. 13. In the instant case, not only the learned Magistrate had not certified that he believed that the confession of A9 was made voluntarily, in oral evidence also, he has not stated that the said confession was made by A9 voluntarily. Therefore, in our considered view, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandran v. State [cited supra], the said judicial confession (Ex.P.144) cannot be considered as a voluntary confession and so the same is inadmissible and liable to be eschewed from consideration. 14. Assuming that the said confession needs consideration, for two more reasons, the same cannot be given any weightage of. First of all, a reading of the confession also would go to show that it is fully exculpatory and he has not admitted his guilt in the same. 14. Assuming that the said confession needs consideration, for two more reasons, the same cannot be given any weightage of. First of all, a reading of the confession also would go to show that it is fully exculpatory and he has not admitted his guilt in the same. He has stated that under the guise of taking him to Trichy to a computer centre to undergo training, A4, who is his classmate, took him to Dindigul and under pistol point, A1 to A3 and A5 kept him under constant threat and took him to the Cosmopolitan Club and in his presence, they abducted the deceased in the car, brought the deceased to the house of A4, kept the deceased in the thatched shed on the terrace at the house of A4 and after leaving A2, A3 and A9, A1 and A5 left for Chennai and thereafter, A4 wanted A1 and A2 to immediately remove the deceased and then, A2 and A3 took A9, under threat in the car, took the deceased also by tying his hands and closing his mouth with plaster to various places and finally, to Udumalpet. He has further stated that he begged to leave him as well as the deceased safely, but, A2 and A3 refused to do so. They further stated that lastly they would speak to A1 and then they would release. A9 has further stated that he started crying and begging to release him. At last, A1 and A5 came to the spot, A5 took A9 to the bus stand and left him. Even at that time, when A5 gave a sum of Rs.2,500/- which A1 had given to A5, A9 refused to receive. When A5 gave Rs.500/- from his pocket, that also, A9 refused to receive. Even at that time, according to the confession, he begged to the other accused to safely leave the deceased at his house. Thus, the entire narration would go to show that A9 has not implicated himself in the crime. He has stated that he was under constant threat under pistol point, taken to various places and thus he was not a party to the crime. After he returned to Dharapuram, when he inquired A5 as to what had happened to the deceased, A5 told him that deceased was undergoing treatment in a hospital. He has stated that he was under constant threat under pistol point, taken to various places and thus he was not a party to the crime. After he returned to Dharapuram, when he inquired A5 as to what had happened to the deceased, A5 told him that deceased was undergoing treatment in a hospital. After that he came to know from television news that the deceased was killed and the body was found in Azhiyar. But, no where in the confession he admitted to his guilt. It is a pure and simple exculpatory statement and thus, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. If the entire statement (Ex.P.144) is accepted, then, A9 is only entitled for acquittal as there is nothing in Ex.P.144 to suggest to his guilt. For this reason also, Ex.P.144 cannot be used against A9. 15. There is yet another ground also in favour of A9. As we have already narrated, there is no other evidence against A9 except Ex.p.144. Thus, as we have already stated, Ex.P.144 needs to be either eschewed from consideration as inadmissible or rejected as unbelievable. Assuming that it needs to be considered, since it is a very weak piece of evidence, in the absence of any other corroboration, we cannot afford to act solely on Ex.P.144 and to sustain the conviction of A9. A9 has been convicted only for offence under Section 364A of IPC. Since there is no evidence against A9, he is entitled for acquittal. 16. So far as A6 is concerned, she stood charged for offence under Sections 419, 468 and 201 r/w 302 of IPC. But, she has been convicted only for the offence under Section 468 of IPC. The allegation is that she helped the other accused to get two bogus identity cards to enable them to purchase mobile SIM cards. In order to prove this charge, we find no evidence at all on record. There is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to prove that A6 was a party to the forgery. It is the case of the prosecution that the service records of three police constables by name Manikandaraja (P.W.16), Panneerselvam (P.W.17) and Rajeswari (P.W.18) were maintained by P.W.19-Balanagajothi. In order to prove this charge, we find no evidence at all on record. There is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to prove that A6 was a party to the forgery. It is the case of the prosecution that the service records of three police constables by name Manikandaraja (P.W.16), Panneerselvam (P.W.17) and Rajeswari (P.W.18) were maintained by P.W.19-Balanagajothi. It is the further case that A6 stayed at the house of P.W.19 on one day and it is also the case that during that time, she removed the photographs and the identity cards from the service records of P.W.16 to P.W.18. But, P.W.19 has turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. It is true that implicating A6 she made statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. But, that statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence. At the most, it could be used only for corroboration or for contradicting P.W.19 Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that A6 removed the photographs and the identity cards from the service records of P.W.16 to P.W.18 from the house of P.W.19. There is no other evidence against A6. Therefore, she is also entitled for acquittal from the charge under Section 468 of IPC. 17. So far as A4, A5, A7 and A8 are concerned, they stood charged for offences under Section 149, 120-B, 364-A, 365, 201 r/w 302 of IPC. A5, in addition, was charged for offences under Sections 506(i) and 294(b) of IPC. The trial court has convicted them only for offence under Section 364-A of IPC. As we have already discussed, as against these accused there is no evidence. The trial court has relied on the confession made by A9 as against these accused. As provided in Section 30 of The Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against others. As we have already discussed, as against these accused there is no evidence. The trial court has relied on the confession made by A9 as against these accused. As provided in Section 30 of The Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against others. In this regard, we may refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proper approach towards confession of a co-accused is to keep the same aside first, to marshal all other evidences against the accused and if, on such marshaling, the court is able to find that the accused is guilty, in order to add strength to the said conclusion, the court may consider the confession of the co-accused as the last resort. In other words, the confession of a co-accused cannot be the foundation for conviction. 18. In the instant case, as against A4, A5, A7 and A8 except the judicial confession of A9, there is no other evidence. We have already held that Ex.P.144 is not at all a confession and, therefore, the same would not fall under Section 30 of The Evidence Act. Apart from the judicial confession, the prosecution relies on the recoveries of certain material objects on the confession made by these accused. But, the relevance of these material objects recovered from the possession of these accused have not been proved. In this regard, we may state that it is not every fact that is discovered out of a disclosure statement that makes the disclosure statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is only the discovery of a relevant fact that makes the disclosure statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In other words, the nexus or link between the discovered fact and the crime should be established by the prosecution. In this case, there is no such link established between the recovered material objects such as motor cycle, mobile SIM cards, cellphones, etc. with the crime. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence against these accused. 19. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.27 to 29 who have spoken about the call details of various cellphones allegedly used by these accused. with the crime. Thus, absolutely, there is no evidence against these accused. 19. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.27 to 29 who have spoken about the call details of various cellphones allegedly used by these accused. But, the evidence of P.Ws.27 to 29 and the call details furnished by them, though marked, are liable to be eschewed from consideration as they are inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act which mandates that to treat these electronic records as primary evidence there has to be certificate obtained from the competent authority. In Anvar P.V. v. Basheer P.K. (2014) 10 SCC 473 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the contents of electronic record stand apart without certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. In view of the same, the cellphone calls and the other electronic records produced in this case are not admissible. Therefore, we reject the same. Thus, as against A4, A5, A7 and A8, absolutely there is no evidence to sustain any charge including the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, A4, A5, A7 and A8 are entitled for acquittal from all the charges. 20. Now, turning to the case against A3, he stood charged for offences under Sections 149, 120-B, 364-A, 341, 365 and 302 r/w 201 of IPC. There was no charge under Section 302 of IPC for murder. Neither there was charge for offence under Section 120-B r/w 302 of IPC. The charge framed against him is not for murder at all even to fasten constructive liability. The trial court has, however, convicted A3 under Section 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. As against this accused, again the prosecution relies on the confession made by A9. Since the confession was exculpatory in nature and there is no evidence to show that it was made voluntarily, we have already rejected the same. If the same is once rejected as against A3 there is no other evidence except the recovery of certain material objects. As we have already elaborated herein above, there is no link established by the prosecution between the recovered material objects and the crime. The disclosure statement made by A3 is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. 21. The trial court has convicted him for offence under Section 302 of IPC though there was no charge framed against him for murder. As we have already elaborated herein above, there is no link established by the prosecution between the recovered material objects and the crime. The disclosure statement made by A3 is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. 21. The trial court has convicted him for offence under Section 302 of IPC though there was no charge framed against him for murder. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the absence of a charge for murder, the trial court was not right in convicting him. In this regard we may refer to Section 464 of Cr.P.C. which states that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 22. In this regard, we have to state that fair procedure as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that the accused should be put on notice as to the allegations against him so that he could effectively defend himself. In the instant case, though the trial court had not framed a specific charge under Section 302 of IPC, the accused was well informed and put on notice that he was a party to the murder of the deceased Thus, having understood the same and having taken notice of the fact that there was allegation of murder against him, he faced the trial without raising any objection to the nature of the charge framed. From these facts, we are of the view that failure of the trial court to frame a charge under Section 302 of IPC against him has not occasioned in any failure of justice and, therefore, on that ground, the conviction of A3 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC cannot be set aside. But, we are inclined to set aside the conviction on the ground, as we have already discussed, that there is no evidence against him. Thus, A3 is entitled for acquittal from all the charges. 23. Now, turning to the case against A1 and A2, the prosecution relies on certain scientific evidences. But, we are inclined to set aside the conviction on the ground, as we have already discussed, that there is no evidence against him. Thus, A3 is entitled for acquittal from all the charges. 23. Now, turning to the case against A1 and A2, the prosecution relies on certain scientific evidences. The cellphone conversations made to P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses are said to have been made by A1 through the cellphone of the deceased. The conversations were recorded by P.W.2 in her cellphone. She has stated that she downloaded the said conversation recorded in the cellphone into a computer and then recorded the same in a compact disc and handed over the same to the police. That was used for voice test. This compact disc is a computer out put and as such, the same should have been certified as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Since there is no certificate obtained under Section 65-B of the Act, the said compact disc containing statements made for ransom allegedly made by the accused through cellphone is inadmissible in view of the law laid don by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Anvar's case cited supra. Therefore, this evidence is inadmissible. 24. The next circumstance is the confession of A9 wherein he has implicated A1 and A2 throughout transaction. As we have already concluded, Ex.P.144 is not a confession and the same is liable to be rejected, it cannot be used as against A1 and A2 also. 25. There is one strong circumstance against A1 and A2. On the arrest of A1, he gave a disclosure statement. In that disclosure statement, he stated that he had pledged M.O.6 in Muthoot Fincorp Ltd in the name of A2 with his help. A receipt was recovered from his possession from the place where he stayed in Palacode. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, M.O.6 was recovered from Muthoot Fincorp. The officials from Muthoot Fincorp Ltd have stated that it was pledged by A2. The photographs of A2 and the ledger were also found in the records. The recovery was made in the presence of P.W.51 under Ex.P.57 mahazar. P.W.1 has identified the same to be that of the deceased. The officials from Muthoot Fincorp Ltd have stated that it was pledged by A2. The photographs of A2 and the ledger were also found in the records. The recovery was made in the presence of P.W.51 under Ex.P.57 mahazar. P.W.1 has identified the same to be that of the deceased. Though this witness has been cross examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to discredit to the said witness and thus, we do not find any reason to reject this part of the case of the prosecution. 26. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the disclosure statement made by A1 which led to the discovery of M.O.6 and the receipt Ex.P.162 have not been proved in evidence at all. It is true. This reflects the obvious illequipment or ignorance of the public prosecutor who conducted the case. It is not known as to why the public prosecutor omitted to request the court to mark the disclosure statement which led to the discovery of M.O.6 and Ex.P.162. But, on that sore, we cannot reject the evidence of P.W.51 and P.W.99. Assuming that the statement of A1 which was reduced into writing has not been brought on record by proving the same, the fact remains that A1 took P.W.57 and P.W.99 to Muthoot Fincorp Ltd at Coimbatore and identified P.W.71. P.W.71 an Official of Muthoot Fincorp Ltd admitted that M.O.6 was in their custody. From the records, it becomes crystal clear that it was pledged by A2 and A1 accompanied A2. This conduct of A1 and A2 falling under Section 8 of the Evidence Act is a very strong circumstance against them. Thus, it has been clearly established that soon after the commission of theft, A1 and A2 were in possession of the stolen article namely, M.O.6 and then pledged the same in the name of A2 under Ex.P.162 with Muthoot Fincorp Ltd at Coimbatore. As we have already concluded in the earlier paragraph, the murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same transaction. In other words, the one who committed robbery had committed the murder also. As we have already concluded in the earlier paragraph, the murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same transaction. In other words, the one who committed robbery had committed the murder also. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, we have to raise a presumption that it was these two accused who were the perpetrators of the crime because they were found in possession of stolen property soon after the commission of robbery for which they had no explanation to offer. This single circumstance, in our considered view, by itself would be sufficient to hold that these two accused, namely, A1 and A2 alone had kidnapped the deceased, robbed him of, killed him and disposed of the dead body in Azhiyar river. 27. So far as the offence of forgery is concerned, P.W.55 has stated that A1 came, produced passport size photographs and model identity card and wanted to prepare an identity card of the police. This has been spoken by P.W.55 very elaborately. There is no reason to reject the same. Thus, A1 is liable to be punished for offence under Section 468 of IPC. So far as A2 is concerned, there is no evidence for forgery and, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal from the said charge and the trial court itself has acquitted him from the said charge. 28. In conclusion, the conviction of A1 for offence under Section 468, 387, 302, 201 and 364-A of IPC are liable to be confirmed and the conviction of A2 for offence under Section 364-A and 302 and 201 of IPC are also liable to be confirmed. 29. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial court has imposed minimum punishment taking into account of the mitigating as well as the aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the sentences imposed by the trial court also do not require any interference at the hands of this court. 30. Though the de facto complainant has prayed for enhancement of sentence, since we concluded that the trial court has imposed reasonable sentences on A1 and A2 for the proved offences and since it is not a rarest of rare case warranting extreme penalty of death sentence, we find no grounds to interfere with the quantum of sentences imposed on the appellant/A1 and A2 by the trial court. 31. 31. Before concluding this judgement, we wish to express our anguish over the way in which the police officer in the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police had investigated the case and the way in which the case was conducted by the public prosecutor before the trial court. The trial court was also in error on many counts. As we have pointed out in the first paragraph of this judgement, the trial court has framed charges against all nine accused under Section 149 of IPC as well as under Section 120-B of IPC. We are unable to understand as to how the trial court was justified in framing charge under Section 149 of IPC when there were no materials, at all in the police report that all the nine accused were together at the time when the murder was committed. It is not known as to why the trial court did not frame charge under Section 302 r/w 120-B of IPC against all the nine accused. It is also not understandable as to why, the trial court had not framed any charge under Section 364-A r/w 120-B against all the accused. The charge No.9 is against A1, A2 and A3 for offence under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC whereas, the charge No.10 is as against A4 to A9 for offence under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC. We are unable to understand the rational between these two charges. The appropriate charge would have been for offence under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC against those persons who really disposed of the dead body. When the body was disposed of only by A1 to A3 and A5, which is reflected in the police report, it is not known as to why the trial court framed charge under Section 201 r/w 302 of IPC against the other accused. Similarly, according to the police report the murder was committed by A1 to A3 whereas the trial court framed charge against A1 and A2 alone under Section 302 of IPC and there was no charge framed against A3 under Section 302 of IPC. Similarly, according to the police report the murder was committed by A1 to A3 whereas the trial court framed charge against A1 and A2 alone under Section 302 of IPC and there was no charge framed against A3 under Section 302 of IPC. These would only go to show that the trial court as well as the Public Prosecutor had not scrupulously followed the mandate of Section 226 of Cr.P.C. Had there been arguments advanced opening the case as required under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. by the Public Prosecutor, these defects in the charges would not have occurred. Similarly, while recording the evidences, the Public Prosecutor had not even proved the confession of A1 as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the case is though very sensational, adequate attention was not bestowed by the agencies including the investigating agency. Without realizing as to what are all the evidences which would be useful to prove the charges and what amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove the charges, the investigation had been done in a very careless manner. Though we feel that the kidnapping for ransom, murder and disposal of the dead body of the deceased would not have been done only by two persons and few more persons would have joined A1 and A2, for want of evidence and because of the failure of the investigating agency to collect sufficient evidences, we are unable to convict the other culprits who joined hands with A1 and A2. We are only hoping that in the days to come, the investigating officers will be properly trained in legal matters so that there shall occur no failure of justice. 32. In the result, (i) Crl.A.(MD) No.419 of 2016: This criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant/A1 - Karthikeyan for offences under Sections 468, 364-A, 387, 302 and 201 of IPC by the trial court are hereby confirmed. (ii) Crl.A.(MD) No.131 of 2016: This criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant/A2-Sabeer Ahamed for offences under Sections 364-A 302 and 201 of IPC by the trial court are hereby confirmed. (iii) Crl.A.(MD) Nos.395 of 2016, 218 of 2015, 232 of 2016, 182 of 2015, 185 of 2015, 197 of 2015: These criminal appeals are allowed. (iii) Crl.A.(MD) Nos.395 of 2016, 218 of 2015, 232 of 2016, 182 of 2015, 185 of 2015, 197 of 2015: These criminal appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court on these appellants/A3, A4, A5, A7, A8 and A9 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount already paid, if any, shall be refunded to them. (iv) Though A6-Manju Parkavi has not filed any appeal as against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on her, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999 (7) SCC 69 since we find no evidence as against her, we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against her and she is acquitted from the charge under Section 468 of IPC. Fine amount already paid, if any, shall be refunded to her. (v) Crl.A.(MD) No.353 of 2016: The criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed. (vi) Crl.A.(MD) No.269 of 2015: The criminal appeal filed by the de facto complaint/P.W.1 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. Ordered accordingly.