JUDGMENT : Sathish Kumar, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C.No.2 of 2003, vide judgment dated 24.07.2003. The trial Court convicted A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, 4 years R.I. for the offence under Section 302 IPC; 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, 9 months R.I. for the offence under Section 404 IPC and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment, and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, 21 months R.I. for the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. Similarly the Trial Court convicted A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 201 r/w 34 and 414 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment, and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, 21 months R.I. for the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 414 IPC. Since both appeals are arising out of the trial in S.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:- The deceased Arjunan was the brother of PW1 and he was the resident of Mariamman Koil Village, Thanjavur. The deceased Arjunan and PW2 were running furniture shop. Besides that they also running chit business. A1 became a member of the chit for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he became a successful bidder in the 4th bid. However, he failed to pay the 2nd installment amount about Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, PW2 and deceased Arjunan were demanding the amount prior to 15.08.1998 from A1. However, A1 did not pay the same. ii. When the matter stood thus, on 15.08.1998, the deceased requested PW1 to accompany him to A1’s house to get back the chit amount. Accordingly, PW1 accompanied the deceased, his brother, in a TVS 50/MO1, vehicle bearing registration No.45 B 6131 and went to the accused village, namely Sittarkadu and the deceased requested money from A1. ii. When the matter stood thus, on 15.08.1998, the deceased requested PW1 to accompany him to A1’s house to get back the chit amount. Accordingly, PW1 accompanied the deceased, his brother, in a TVS 50/MO1, vehicle bearing registration No.45 B 6131 and went to the accused village, namely Sittarkadu and the deceased requested money from A1. A1 became agitated over the same and replied that he should not have had a transaction with the deceased by saying so, A1 told the deceased that somebody has to pay amount to him from the village called Tulakampatti and further he told that if he accompany with him, he would get the money and pay him back. iii. PW5 and PW6 seen the deceased and A1 together travelling in a TVS Vehicle/MO1 and they also quarreling while travelling. iv. Accordingly, A1 went along with the deceased in MO1/TVS 50, towards Tulakampatti Village. However, the deceased did not return to his house. PW1 and his family members searched for him, but the search was ended in vain and the next day also the same result. Therefore, PW1 lodged a First Information Report/Ex.P1 to the police on 17.08.1998 at 07.00 a.m. and PW14 registered a case in Crime No.927 of 1998 for man missing/Ex.P16. Thereafter on the same day at 12.30 p.m. on hearing dead body found near the Mariamman temple, PW1 went to the place and identified the body of the deceased. v. When A1 accompanied with the deceased, at that time the deceased worn MO3/dollar chain, on seeing the dead body, PW1 found that the said chain was missing and the TVS 50 also missing. Therefore, again he went to the police station and gave another complaint/Ex.P2. vi. PW14, the Sub Inspector of police at the relevant time on 17.8.1989 received the 2nd complaint from PW1 at about 2 p.m. and altered the offence in Crime No. 927 of 1998 into one under Section 302 and 379 IPC and he prepared the Ex.P18/First Information Report and draw a rough sketch Ex.P17 and examined witnesses and recorded their statement and forwarded the First Information Report to the Court and to the Inspector of Police for further investigation. vii. vii. PW16/Inspector of Police, at the relevant point of time, took up the investigation on 17.08.1998 at 2.30 p.m. and went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P21 in the presence of PW8 and also seized blood stained earth, ordinary earth, blood stained cashew leaves and silper under Ex.P.4 mahazar, MOs 4 to 6 respectively. Thereafter he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars and prepared inquest report Ex.P22 and send the body to postmortem and examined the witnesses and handed over the investigation to the regular inspector Allimuthu. viii. In the meanwhile PW15, Medical Officer, attached to the Tanjore Medical College Hospital conducted autopsy on 18.08.1998 about 11.15 a.m. and found the following injuries:- “1. Incised stab wounds two in number adjacently placed 4 cms below lower border of right side of mandible each measuring 1 ½ cm & ¼ cm -muscle deep. 2. Nine incised stab wounds size ranging from 4 x 3 ½ cm x muscle deep to 2 x 1 ¼ cms x muscle deep situated one below the other from the right side of manubrium, sterni to left angle of mandible adjoining lower parotid region. The margins are clear cut and maggots are filling the whole area. Correspondingly multiple stab wounds are seen in the left side border of below callar area of the shirt and one stab wound seen over the sleeve of left munda banian in the anterior tape. 3. Stab wound 4 x 3 cms x muscle deep seen on the front of upper 3rd of left thigh. 4. On opending the neck the stab wounds noted externally found to enter into right supra clavincular fossa, piercing the apex of right lung, right side of neck involving arteries and veins and stab wounds openings of the trachea below the thyroid in the midline noticed correspondingly. The stab wound on the left side at the level of angle of mandible is found to extend to lower aspect of thyroid cartilage and entered into the lumen.” and he also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock, haemorrhage, air embolism and injury to lung and the death would have occurred 48 to 72 hours prior to autopsy. Ex.P19 is the postmortem certificate. ix. Ex.P19 is the postmortem certificate. ix. PW16/the inspector of police who conducted further investigation arrested A1 on 19.08.1998 in the presence of PW9 and one Rengarajan and recorded his confession. The admissible portion of the confession of A1 is Ex.P5. PW16 also arrested A2 in the presence of same witnesses and recorded his voluntary confession and admissible portion of confession of A2 is Ex.P6. Pursuant to the confession of A2, he seized MO3/gold chain in the presence of PW9 from PW11’s shop under Ex.P7 mahazar. It is stated that PW12 took A2 to pledge the chain in the shop belonging to PW11. On the same day he has also recovered MO1/TVS 50 from Tiruchy Cycle Stand in the presence of PW10 and one Chandru, under Ex.P9 mahazar. Thereafter he has also seized MO8/knife and MO2/lungi under mahazar Ex.P8. Thereafter he lodged a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379, 201 and 414 of IPC. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as narrated in the earlier paragraph of the judgment. Both the accused pleaded innocence. During trial, on the side of prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited besides 8 material objects. Ex.C1 is filed on the side of the Court. On the side of the defence one exhibit was marked. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found both the accused guilty as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and accordingly, punished them and that is how the appellants are before this Court with these appeals. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also carefully perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals vehemently contended that the entire case is rest on the circumstantial evidence and all the circumstances have not been established by the prosecution. The alleged recovery of MO3/gold chain is after thought, infact PW1 never stated in his earlier statement/Ex.P1 about the deceased wearing MO3/gold chain, this was introduced only during the evidence. Therefore the alleged recovery is highly doubtful in this case. The date of death of deceased also not been established by the prosecution. The alleged recovery of MO3/gold chain is after thought, infact PW1 never stated in his earlier statement/Ex.P1 about the deceased wearing MO3/gold chain, this was introduced only during the evidence. Therefore the alleged recovery is highly doubtful in this case. The date of death of deceased also not been established by the prosecution. The medical evidence clearly shows that the dead body was in highly decomposed stage and it was in the stage of beyond recognition, surrounded with maggots. Therefore when the dead body was in such a condition, identifying the same by PW1 is also highly improbable and identity of the body has also not been properly established by the prosecution. Motive projected by the prosecution has also not been properly established. All the circumstances so projected have not been established by the prosecution. The alleged seizure of the material objects suffer from serious infirmities and hence submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and simply relied upon the prosecution case and hence prayed for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submit at that the accused A1 was last seen with the deceased on 15.08.1998, thereafter the deceased has not found and the dead body was found on 17.08.1998. There was no explanation from A1. Further pursuant to the confession of A2, the Investigation Officer has seized MO1/Motor Cycle and MO3/chain, which is also clearly established. Hence, he submitted that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution unerringly pointed towards the accused. He further submitted that the judgment of the learned Trial Court is well balanced and does not require any interference. 7. In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. The prosecution has relied upon the circumstantial evidence to substantiate the charges against the accused. From the analysis of the entire evidence, the following circumstances have been relied upon by the prosecution:- 1. Motive 2. Last seen theory 3. Confession leading to discovery of fats and Recovery of material objects 9. It is also well settled that the following are the essential ingredients to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence:- 1. Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn, should be fully proved. 2. Circumstances should be conclusive. 3. Motive 2. Last seen theory 3. Confession leading to discovery of fats and Recovery of material objects 9. It is also well settled that the following are the essential ingredients to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence:- 1. Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn, should be fully proved. 2. Circumstances should be conclusive. 3. All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. 4. Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused. 5. It is also well settled that there must be a chain of evidence so complete and not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion, consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Only the above conditions being satisfied, circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for conviction. 10. In the light of the settled position of law now we deal with the evidence with regard to the motive aspect. It is the evidence of PW1, the brother of the deceased, that there was a financial transaction between the deceased and A1 with regard to payment of chit amount. As A1 did not pay the amount, the deceased took PW1 to accused house on 15.08.1998 to demand the amount payable by him. Further PW1 in his evidence has stated that A1 did not pay the chit amount and when they went to A1’s house on 15.08.1998, accused got agitated and became very angry and told the deceased that he should not have had a transaction with him by saying so he informed the deceased that somebody has to pay money in the Tulukampatty Village and if he comes with him, he will get the money and pay to him. Accordingly, the deceased accompanied A2 and thereafter did not come back. Though PW1, the brother of the deceased in his evidence stated that on 15.08.1998, the deceased accompanied the accused, the conduct of PW1 not informing the police immediately after coming to know that his brother did not come back on the same evening assumes significance. It is not that the deceased and A1 left to the Tulukampatti village in a casual manner. It is not that the deceased and A1 left to the Tulukampatti village in a casual manner. According to PW1 there was some alteraction between them, infact in the cross examination, PW1 admitted there was a quarrel between A1 and deceased about 15 minutes and thereafter they left. Having seen there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, when the deceased did not come back to the home, not reporting the same to the police for two days creates a doubt about PW1’s evidence. It is further to be noted that PW1 is a Government Servant at the relevant time. As per his evidence on 15.08.1998, it appears to be a working day. Therefore he accompanying A1 at the relevant time and again coming back and searching his brother without applying the leave is highly doubtful. PW2 in his evidence also stated that there was a financial transaction between the deceased and A1. 11. Though PW5 and PW6 in one voice stated in their evidence that they seen the deceased and accused/A1 together travelling in a TVS 50 vehicle on 15.08.1998, when their evidence carefully scanned, it could be seen that infact both of them were quarreling while traveling in a vehicle and having seen the deceased and A1 in a quarrelling position they have not informed the same to anyone, even after the deceased did not come to home on the same day. This part of evidence and their conduct is clearly against the normal human conduct. It is a normal human conduct of any witness who seen somebody fighting in the morning and one of them did not return on the same day and that factum also known to the witnesses, it is quite natural for such witnesses to inform the relatives about what has transpired in the morning. Whereas PW5 and PW6 did not inform the same to any one. Therefore merely on the basis of evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6, it cannot be stated that last seen theory has been proved. 12. It is further to be noted that though PW1 and PW2 stated that the deceased along with PW2 managing a business, no documentary evidence whatsoever was filed to prove the same. Therefore merely on the basis of evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6, it cannot be stated that last seen theory has been proved. 12. It is further to be noted that though PW1 and PW2 stated that the deceased along with PW2 managing a business, no documentary evidence whatsoever was filed to prove the same. Even assuming that there was some transaction between the accused and deceased and motive is established, we have to see other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused. 13. Though PW5 in his evidence has stated that the deceased was last seen on morning on 15.08.1998. It is to be noted that last seen theory comes into play only when the time gap, between the accused and deceased were seen together and the deceased found dead, is so small. In other words possibility of another person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. In this case, admittedly, the dead body was found after two days of the alleged last seen theory. Therefore, it is very difficult to positively establish that the deceased was lastly seen with the accused/A1. When there was a long gap and possibility of other person coming in between will also exist. Therefore, merely on the basis of evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6, with regard to the last seen theory, the prosecution cannot succeed on that score alone. 14. The conduct of PW1 even after seeing that the terms between the accused and the deceased were not well and further allowing his brother to accompany the accused and thereafter keeping silent till 17.08.1998 and then lodging a complaint, also creates a serious doubt. Similarly PW5 and PW6 evidence that they having seen the deceased and A2 allegedly quarrelling even while travelling in MO1/TVS 50, would go to show that their conduct in not informing even after knowing the missing of the deceased also create serious doubt about their version. Therefore, the motive and last seen theory as projected by the prosecution is not convincingly established. 15. It is further to be noted that the evidence of Medical Officer when carefully scanned, it could be seen that infact dead body was beyong recognition. The medical officer found out identification of the body was very difficult due to decomposition changes and also found Maggots in the whole area. 15. It is further to be noted that the evidence of Medical Officer when carefully scanned, it could be seen that infact dead body was beyong recognition. The medical officer found out identification of the body was very difficult due to decomposition changes and also found Maggots in the whole area. From the evidence of Medical Officer it could be seen that the body was in highly decomposition stage and it was beyond recognition. Therefore, PW1 identifying the body on 17.08.1998 is also doubtful. The evidence of PW1 clearly shows that he has identified the dead body only on the basis of white coloure shirt and brown colour lungi and he has also stated that the body was found with only white colour shirt and trouser alone. Only on seeing that he has identified the body. The prosecution has not taken any steps to identify the dead body scientifically. Neither any DNA test nor superimposition skull test whatsoever conducted by the prosecution. Further, when the Medical Officer evidence in entirety scanned, it could be seen that maggots are seen all over the body and he has also admitted that normally to maggots to crawl it will take about 14 to 20 days. Further he has also stated that in his experience admittedly for maggots to crawl, it will normally take 3 to 5 days and maggots to grow full it will take 6 days. So, that being the case, within two days of the death finding maggots growing all over the dead body also creates a serious doubt about the date of death of the deceased, in this case. The prosecution has not explained satisfactorily in this aspect also. So we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has not even established the date of death exactly. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that the deceased was actually missing from 15.08.1998 is also doubtful in this case. 16. Yet another aspect to be seen in this case is Ex.P.1 which was lodged on 17.08.1998 at about 7 a.m. immediately crime has been registered for man missing in Crime No. 917 of 2008 and PW14, in his evidence stated that immediately after registration of FIR under Ex.P6, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar at Sittarkadu and also examined all the witnesses. During his examination, none of the witnesses including PW1 stated about the deceased wearing chain on 15.08.1998. It is further to be noted immediately after dead body was found, another complaint was given, which is also marked as Ex.P2, based on that complaint the man missing case registered in crime No. 927 of 2008 was altered into one under Section 302 IPC. It is to be noted that two complaints for the same offence is not permissible in law. Admittedly, in this case, investigation has already commenced based on ex.P1 and ex.P16. Therefore, another complaint given by the witnesses would be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Therefore Ex.P2 and Ex.P18 cannot be considered as First Information at all. At the most, it could be treated only as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the prosecution commending investigation on the second complaint is also not according to law. 17. Be that as it may, the prosecution has relied on another circumstance i.e. seizure of MO1/TVS 50 and MO3/chain on the basis of the alleged confession of the accused A1 an A2. PW9 was examined to prove the alleged confession and recovery. PW9 in his evidence though stated that on 19.08.1998 in the morning, the Investigation Officer arrested both the accused at Tiruverumbur and both of them gave confession statement voluntarily and its admissible portion are Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 respectively. In pursuant to the same, MO3 was seized under Ex.P7 mahazar. PW9 has not stated about the seizure of MO1/TVS 50 at the instance of A2. 18. PW11, who stated to be the owner of the jewellery shop where MO3 was stated to have been pledged, his evidence when carefully scanned, it could be seen that MO3 was recovered from his shop at the instance of A2. According to the receipt, one Murugan has signed in the receipt. Though prosecution has produced Ex.P11, carbon copy receipt in this regard, on a careful perusal of the receipt would go to show that as if one Murugan has signed in the carbon copy receipt, but the particulars of the dollar has been inserted in small letters at later point of time. This fact also create some doubt about the receipt. The original receipt has not been produced by the prosecution. Further Ex.P11 is not signed by PW11. PW11 in his evidence clearly indicates that only his sister son has signed. This fact also create some doubt about the receipt. The original receipt has not been produced by the prosecution. Further Ex.P11 is not signed by PW11. PW11 in his evidence clearly indicates that only his sister son has signed. PW11 is also admitted that he has not written the receipt/Ex.P11. Ex.P11 reached to the Court only on 17.03.2003 for the first time before the Sessions Court. Though the prosecution allegedly seized the receipt book/Ex.P11 on 18.08.1998, the receipt book Ex.P11 has seen the light of the day only on 17.03.2003. The delay in submitting the material document stated to have been signed by A2, who allegedly pledged MO3, has not been explained by the prosecution. It is further to be noted that it is the evidence of PW11 that original receipt was always given to the person, who pledges the gold. That being the case, nothing prevented the prosecution from recovering the original receipt from A2. Though One Murugan said to have been signed in the receipt book, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that signature found in Ex.P11 receipt is that of A2. Nothing prevented the prosecution from getting the specimen signature of the accused/A2 during the investigation with the permission of the Court to prove that the signature found in Ex.P11 is that of A2. Therefore, merely some signature found as Murugan, it cannot be contended by the prosecution that the signature found in Ex.P11 is that of A2. According to PW11 only his sister son was present in his shop and he has prepared Ex.P11 and he has not been examined by the prosecution to establish that only A2 alone came to the shop and pledged NO3. 19. As already discussed, PW1 and other witnesses not even spoken to in the earlier complaint as well the in the statements before PW14 about the chain worn by the deceased at the relevant time. This material omission on the part of PW1 cannot be ignored all together. It is further to be noted that PW11 in his evidence categorically admitted during cross examination that on 18.08.1998 itself MO3 was handed over to the police in respect of which, he has also made an entry of the same on the back of the receipt book which is also marked as Ex.P11. It is further to be noted that PW11 in his evidence categorically admitted during cross examination that on 18.08.1998 itself MO3 was handed over to the police in respect of which, he has also made an entry of the same on the back of the receipt book which is also marked as Ex.P11. This positive assertion that he handed over MO3 to the police on 18.08.1998 itself make the confession leading to discovery is unbelievable. To rely upon the recovery based on the alleged confession of the accused, the fact which is not known to the police must have been discovered to attract Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the evidence of PW11 clearly shows that on 18.08.1998 itself MO3 was handed over to the police. Therefore, the alleged confession of A2, leading to the discovery of MO3 assumes insignificance and cannot be reliable. Therefore, the alleged recovery at the instance of A2 is also suffers from infirmity. 20. That apart as already stated PW1 at the first instance, never stated about MO3 worn by the deceased at the relevant time. Though PW12, one Dhanalakshmi, was examined to show as if she has taken A2 to PW11 for pledging, she also stated in her evidence that she identified A2 in Court only after he was shown to her in the corridor of the Court. In her cross examination PW12 clearly stated that there was serious enmity between A1’s sister family and PW12. That being the position A1 and A2 seeking help from PW12 to pledge the alleged material object is also highly unbelievable. 21. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of TVS 50 motor cycle/MO1. In this regard PW10 was examined. Though PW10 has stated that on 19.08.1998, the police came along with A2 and seized MO1, under Ex.P9 mahazar, PW10 also not identified the accused/A2 before the Court. Though prosecution has relied upon Ex.P10/register maintained in the cycle stand to show that only A2 has parked the vehicle on 15.08.1998, on a careful perusal of Ex.P.10, shows that though at Sl.No. 1939, the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 45 B6131 and one Murugan signature were found, none of the witnesses identified A2 in the Court that only A2 came there and parked the vehicle. Further, the prosecution has also not established the signature in Ex.P10 at Serial No.1939 on 15.08.1998 is that of A2. Further, the prosecution has also not established the signature in Ex.P10 at Serial No.1939 on 15.08.1998 is that of A2. Further when Ex.P10 carefully perused, it could be seen that though entries regarding MO1 was made at serial No.1939, the said number has been added after erasing the original entry. Very meticulously the original entry has been earsed and subsequently MO1 number has been included. These facts coupled with Ex.P9 mahazar for seizing MO1, we constrained to hold that Ex.P1, has been created only for the purpose of the case by the police. Ex.P9 mahazar show as if seizure was effected by PW16, the Inspector of Police. But the confession and other aspects are recorded only by the Inspector of Police, Allimuthu and not PW16. PW16 in his evidence has categorically admitted that all the confessions and recovery was effected only by Allimuthu and not by PW16, whereas Ex.P9 shows as if MO1 was seized only by PW16. It is the evidence of PW16 after 18.08.1998 that he neither seized any material objects nor recorded any confession from the accused. Whereas Ex.P9 seizure mahazar shows as if MO1 was seized by PW16 and PW16 has signed in the above mahazar. This fact coupled with the interpolation, in Ex.10, we have no other option, except to hold that the recovery is highly doubtful in this case. 22. In view of all the infirmities found in the prosecution case as discussed above, we inclined to hold that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has not been clinchingly established to substantiate the charges against the accused. We are constrained to hold that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we have no other option except to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and both the appeals are allowed. The Accused are set at liberty. 23. In view of the above we find that the appellant/A-1 and A-2 are entitled for acquittal. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in S.C.No.2 of 2003, vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 are set aside as against the appellants and the appellants, are acquitted from all the charges. The bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in S.C.No.2 of 2003, vide judgment dated 24.07.2003 are set aside as against the appellants and the appellants, are acquitted from all the charges. The bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded.