JUDGMENT : T. Krishnavalli, J. 1. By the judgment dated 17.07.2017 rendered in S.C.No.280 of 2007, the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur had convicted accused 1 & 3, thereby acquitting the other accused, namely 2 and 4 to 6. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants/A1 & A3 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as follows:- Sl.No. Rank Offences Sentence, Imprisonment and Default Punishment 1. A1 Section 302 r/w 34 IPC Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- 2. Section 201 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- Sl.No. Rank Offences Sentence, Imprisonment and Default Punishment 1. A3 Section 302 Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- 2. Section 201 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellants/A1 & A3 are before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the first accused were friends and on account of the jealousy developed by A1 over the sudden growth of the deceased, he decided to do away with the life of the deceased, as the deceased had refused to accede to certain demands, namely, sale of the land of the deceased at lowest price to A1 and making him as an agent in the Pest Control business of the deceased. On 24.09.2007 at 06:15pm, the first accused in connivance with other accused strangulated the deceased to death by using Nylon Rope, took away a 22 gram gold chain, wrist watch and cell phone of the deceased and threw the body of the deceased near river bridge. 3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences against the accused, has relied upon the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 25, Exhibits 1 to 55, M.Os.1 to 11 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 (Court documents). On the side of the accused persons, there is no evidence. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, has chosen to convict the accused 1 and 3 as stated above and has acquitted the rest of the accused. 5. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the materials available on record. 6. 5. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 submitted that the investigation conducted by PW25 is not merely defective, but it is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and no material was produced to show that the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, in compliance with Section 36 of Cr.P.C, directed PW25 to take up the investigation; that the deceased had so many business competitiors and hence, there was business animosity between the deceased and other business-men outside the State; that there was cordial relationship between A1 and the deceased; that there was no motive as alleged by the prosecution between the deceased and A1; that there was no evidence to infer that there was conspiracy prior to the alleged commission of offence; that as per the evidence of PW6, A1 dropped the deceased in Bangaru Car Care Centre at 5:30 pm, on 24.09.2007; that further, PW6 said that the deceased and A1 were last separated from each other at the said place and hence, the deceased was not last seen alive in the company of A1 and the witnesses happened to see the Car of the deceased in which the deceased got into the Car, turned hostile; that the disclosure of facts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was not proved coupled with the circumstances leading to the chain of events and the subsequent recovery pursuant to the said statements are of no significance to connect all the accused in the commission of the offence; that the prosecution has failed to establish the genuineness and the manner in which the finger prints of A1 and A3 have been obtained; that the specimen signatures of A1 and A3 were not obtained as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act; that there is no proof for the Investigating Officer to show that he adopted the procedures as mandated in the Police Standing Order, while taking the specimen finger prints of A1 and A3; that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants/A1 and A3 are entitled to acquittal. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecuting agency has brought home the guilt of the appellants/A1 and A3 beyond all reasonable doubt with unassailable evidences and that the trial court had also, after analysing the evidences, both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty and the appellants/A1 and A3 were also rightly and fairly convicted and sentenced appropriately, which do not require any interference and therefore, he has prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial court. 8. PW1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and PW2 is the wife of the deceased. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Hence, motive plays vital role. Circumstance-I: 9. In this case, PW2 has spoken about the motive. PW2 during her evidence stated that her husband told her that A1 asked the deceased to make him as a partner in the business, but it was refused by her husband and further A1 asked her husband to sell his property to A1 at lowest price, but it was refused by her husband and due to it, A1 caused the death of her husband. But the above fact was not stated by PW2 in her earlier 161(3) Statement and thus it is contended that the evidence is an after-thought; therefore, it is not safe to accept the evidence of PW2, being the wife, having personal knowledge about the motive would not have omitted to mention the same in the 161 statement if it is really true. We are of the view that only to find out a motive, there had been some deliberations based on which PW2 has spoken about the motive for the first time in the Court. 10. PW2 has not stated that she had direct knowledge with regard to the above fact and only her husband told the above fact to her. No explanation was given on the side of the prosecution as to why the above statement was not spoken by PW2 at the time of recording her first 161(3) statement. 11. In this case, both PW1 and PW2 have stated in their evidence that the deceased had business rivalry. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the cross examination of PW1 and PW2. 12. PW1 during his cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 13. PW2 during her cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 14. 11. In this case, both PW1 and PW2 have stated in their evidence that the deceased had business rivalry. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the cross examination of PW1 and PW2. 12. PW1 during his cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 13. PW2 during her cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 14. The case of the prosecution is that in order to grab the property of the deceased, A1 murdered the deceased. In this regard, it is significant to note that A1 was not a partner in the business of the deceased and further, he is not the legal-heir of the deceased. Hence, the contention put forth on the side of the prosecution that in order to grab the property, A1 committed murder is not believable. 15. Further, PW2 during her cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 16. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it reveals that the prosecution failed to prove the motive that A1 asked the deceased to make him as a partner in his business. 17. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that A1 asked the deceased to sell his property at lowest price and due to it, A1 with the help of A2 to A6 murdered the deceased. Circumstance-II: 18. The further case of the prosecution is that on 22.09.2007, all the accused conspired together in the P.L.A. Hotel at Trichy and it was overheard by PW4. But in this case, PW4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged conspiracy against the accused persons. 19. In this case, PW2 stated during her evidence that her husband left his residence at about 4.20 p.m, on 24.09.2007 to take his Car TN-02-P-8326 from the Bangaru Car Centre and PW3 took her husband from his residence. 20. PW3 stated during his evidence that the deceased in order to take back his vehicle in the Car Shed, took him in his two wheeler and at the time, the deceased received a phone call and he got down near the Railway Station and asked him to take his two wheeler and he has not seen any of the accused persons, in this case, in the Railway Station. He has not stated during his evidence that the deceased received a phone call from A1, while he was travelling along with the deceased in his two wheeler. 21. Further, it is to be noted that PW3 during his cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 22. Further, in this case PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, much importance cannot be given to the evidence of PW3. The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was seen in the company of A1 just before his death. Circumstance-III: 23. The next circumstance put forth on the side of the prosecution is that after PW3 left the deceased at the Railway Station, the deceased went to Bangaru Car Centre to take his Car along with A1 and they were last seen alive together by PW6 and PW7. According to the prosecution, the said circumstance is based on last seen theory. 24. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/A1 and A3 argued that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time, when A1 and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than A1 being the author of the crime becomes impossible and as such the trial Judge erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was 'last seen' together in the company of A1 on the basis of the depositions given by PW6 and PW7. In fact, as per PW6, A1 dropped the deceased at the Bangaru Car Shed at 5.30 pm on 24.09.2007 and immediately thereafter, he also saw A1 left that place leaving the deceased at the said place. In fact, as per PW6, the deceased and the A1 were 'last separated' from each other at the said place. Therefore, it is erroneous to hold that the deceased was ''last seen'' alive in the company of A1. 25. PW6 stated that on 24.09.2007 at 5.00 pm, the deceased along with A1 came to his Car Shed and A1 left and the deceased told him that he and A1 decided to go out and the deceased left his Car in the Car Shed at 5.30 pm. PW6 has produced the Carbon copy of the Car bills, which was marked as Ex.P55. 26. PW6 has produced the Carbon copy of the Car bills, which was marked as Ex.P55. 26. On careful perusal of Ex.P55, it is found that the some bills are anti-dated. The bill bearing No.415 is dated 24.09.2007. But the Bill No.416 is dated 19.09.2007. In this regard, PW6 stated that for claiming compensation by their customers, they gave such type of anti-dated bills. 27. Further, PW6 during his cross examination stated as follows:- “TAMIL” 28. Hence, there are discrepancies in issuing bills by PW6. Hence, it creates doubt about the genuineness of Exs.P54 and P55. 29. Further, PW7 stated that A1 and the deceased came to the Car Shed and A1 left the deceased and he went away. Hence, from the evidence of PW6 and PW7, it reveals that A1 and the deceased separated from the Car Shed. Hence, it is held that the evidence of PW6 and PW7 did not prove the theory of last seen together and that in fact, it is proved that both of them got separated prior to death. Circumstance-IV: 30. The next circumstance put forth on the side of the prosecution is that PW8 happened to see the Car of the deceased near Medical College 3rd Gate and A1 got into the said Car and the above Car proceeded to Vallam Road on Thanjavur-Pattukottai Road at 5.30 pm, on 24.09.2007. But in this case, PW8 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Circumstance-V: 31. The next circumstance put forth by the prosecution is that on 24.09.2007 at 6.15 pm, PW9 and PW16 saw the MO8 Red colour Chevrolet Car parked nearby the corner of Mannargudi Road near Vadachery Vaikal situated on Thanjavur-Pattukottai Road and near the Car, A2 to A6 were standing and at the time, A1 and the deceased came there in MO1 Santro Car and parked it behind the Red Colour Car. PW9 stated that he saw on the back side of the Santro Car, it was written as 'Pest Company Engineer'. 32. In this case, PW10 was cited as a witness to speak that a Red Colour Chevrolet Car was found in front of his buildings. But PW10 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 33. PW9 stated that he saw on the back side of the Santro Car, it was written as 'Pest Company Engineer'. 32. In this case, PW10 was cited as a witness to speak that a Red Colour Chevrolet Car was found in front of his buildings. But PW10 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 33. PW12 stated that while he proceeded to Thugili, at the time, he saw the Santro Car and Red Colour Car and in the Santro Car, it was written as 'Engineer Arul Pest Control' and the above two Cars overtook him. But PW12 during his cross examination stated that he did not know the type of Red colour Car. PW12 is not able to say the type of Red colour Car. Hence, it creates suspicious as to whether he saw the Car of the deceased and the Car of A1 near Kumbakonam. Further, in this case, PW9 to PW11 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. 34. Further, in this case, PW12 was cited as one of the witnesses, who saw MO1 and MO8 Cars near Thiruvalangadu Sivan Temple Arch at Kumbakonam- Myladuthurai Road. On the basis of the evidence of PW12, the evidence of PW12 did not connect A1 with the alleged crime. 35. In this case, PW17 and PW18 are the witnesses to speak about the arrest, confession and recovery of MO1 Santro Car, MO4 Car Key and MO9 Nylon Rope, based on the disclosure made by A1. But they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 36. As per the prosecution, based on the disclosure made by A1, A2 to A4 were arrested near the Petrol Bunk, Sanoorapatti and MO8 Car and MO3 Titan Watch and MO10 Current Notes (series) were recovered from them. 37. In this regard, it is relevent to refer Exs.P39 and P41, the admitted portion of confession alleged to have given by A1 and A3. The admissible portion of Ex.P39 of A1 reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 38. The admissible portion of Ex.P41 of A3 reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 39. 37. In this regard, it is relevent to refer Exs.P39 and P41, the admitted portion of confession alleged to have given by A1 and A3. The admissible portion of Ex.P39 of A1 reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 38. The admissible portion of Ex.P41 of A3 reads as follows:- “TAMIL” 39. From the perusal of Exs.P39 and P41, the appellants/A1 and A3 have not specifically stated about the description of the place at which the body was thrown and the place from which they would recover the body or they will show the body, the Car of the deceased and the Nylon Rope used for murdering the deceased and handing over of the above material objects to the police. On careful perusal of Exs.P39 and P41, it is evident that there is no fact/discovery, leading to recovery of the missing articles. Hence, the arrest, confession and recovery made by the prosecution agency is highly doubtful. 40. It is to be noted that according to the prosecution, there was no shirt on the body of the deceased and hence, the deceased was not having a mobile phone with him. But there is no investigation with regard to missing of mobile phone and the shirt in the body of the deceased. There is no fact leading to recovery of mobile phone and missing of shirt in the body of the deceased. No explanation is offered in this regard on the side of the prosecution. Hence, it is fatal to the prosecution case. Circumstance-VI: 41. The next circumstance of the prosecution is that the specimen finger prints of A1 and A3 and chance finger prints of A1 and A3 were taken and compared by the Finger Print Expert. As per the opinion of the Finger Print Expert (PW14), the specifimen finger prints of A1 and A3 and the chance finger prints of A1 and A4 tallied and hence, on the basis of the opinion of the Finger Print Expert (PW14), the prosecution has proved the case. 42. As per the opinion of the Finger Print Expert (PW14), the specifimen finger prints of A1 and A3 and the chance finger prints of A1 and A4 tallied and hence, on the basis of the opinion of the Finger Print Expert (PW14), the prosecution has proved the case. 42. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel for the Appellants/A1 and A3 contended that where, when and how the specimen finger print impressions of the fingers of the appellants were taken, was not spoken by PW14 and in the absence of proof regarding the manner prescribed for taking the finger print impressions had been followed, Ex.P7 and C1 to C6 are inadmissible with respect to the specimen finger prints obtained from the appellant/A1 and A3 and the opinion of the Expert (PW14) thereon. In order to establish the credibility of the specimen finger print obtained from A1 and A3, the prosecution has to establish the genuineness and the genuine manner, in which such finger prints have been obtained from A1 and A3. This aspect has been completed overlooked by the Court below and simply placed reliance on the finger prints, based on the evidence of PW14. Ex.P7 and C1 to C6 are inadmissible, not because those specimen finger prints of the appellants/A1 and A3 were obtained before the Magistrate concerned as per Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, but it is inadmissible because the said specimen finger prints were not taken as per the requirements of Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. There is no proof that PW25 adopted the procedures mandated in the provisions under Police Standing Order, while taking the specimen finger prints of the appellants/A1 and A3. 43. It is also the admitted case of PW14 that he was not aware of the fact that where, when and how the specimen finger print impressions of the fingers of the appellants/A1 and A3 were taken. PW25 deposed that he took the specimen finger prints of A1 and A3 at the police station on 01.10.2007 and he forwarded the same to PW14. However, no document was exhibited to show that PW25 has obtained the specimen finger prints of the appellants/A1 and A3 on 01.10.2007. PW25 deposed that he took the specimen finger prints of A1 and A3 at the police station on 01.10.2007 and he forwarded the same to PW14. However, no document was exhibited to show that PW25 has obtained the specimen finger prints of the appellants/A1 and A3 on 01.10.2007. Exs.P7 and C1 to C6 do not show that the specimen finger prints of the appellants/A1 and A3 were obtained by PW25 on 01.10.2007 and hence, on the basis of Finger Print Expert opinion, the appellants/A1 and A3 cannot be convicted. 44. At this juncture, it is relevent to refer the cross examination of PW14, which would run thus:- “TAMIL” 45. In this regard, it is relevent to refer the judgment reported in (2014)12 SCC 133 (Prakash vs. State of Karnataka), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- 28. Assuming Prakash's fingerprint was in fact obtained by D'Souza, it was clearly not given voluntarily, but perhaps unwittingly and in what seems to be a deceitful manner. To avoid any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the fingerprint so taken or resort to any subterfuge, the appropriate course of action for the investigating officer was to approach the Magistrate for necessary orders in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. In Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan [ (1997)10 SCC 44 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 777], this Court referred to the possibility of the police fabricating evidence and to avoid an allegation of such a nature, it would be eminently desirable that fingerprints were taken under the orders of a Magistrate. We may add that this would equally apply to the creating evidence against a suspect. This is what this Court had to say: (SCC p.49, para 8) “8. Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate.” 29. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate.” 29. The Karnataka High Court has taken the view (State V. B.C.Manjunatha, ILR 2013 KAR 3156) that it is not incumbent upon a police officer to take the assistance of a Magistrate to obtain the fingerprints of an accused and that the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act are not mandatory in this regard. However, the issue is not one of the provisions being mandatory or not-the issue is whether the manner of taking fingerprints is suspicious or not. In this case, we do not know if Prakash's fingerprint was taken on 07-11-1990 as alleged by him or later as contended by the investigating officer, or the circumstances in which it was taken or event the manner in which it was taken. It is to obviate any such suspicion that this Court has held it to be eminently desirable that fingerprints are taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. As far as this case is concerned, the entire exercise of Prakash's fingerprint identification is shrouded in mystery and we cannot give any credence to it.” 46. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW14 and Ex.P7, it reveals that the Finger Print Expert has not proved that the provisions mandated under the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and the Police Standing Order have been strictly followed and hence, this court is of the considered view that on the basis of the report given by PW14, we cannot come to the conclusion that the appellants/A1 and A3 have committed crime in this case. 47. Keeping in view of the above facts, this court finds that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the appellants/A1 and A3. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court are not supported by credible evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants/A1 and A3. 48. In the result, both Criminal Appeals filed by A1 and A3 are allowed. 48. In the result, both Criminal Appeals filed by A1 and A3 are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants/A1 and A3 by Judgment, dated 17.07.2017 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur, are set aside and the Appellants/A1 and A3 are directed to be released forthwith unless they are wanted in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.