JUDGMENT N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 09.04.2008, made in S.C.No.117 of 1998 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: 2.1. P.W.1-Madhusoodhanan, is a taxi driver by profession. He is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram. On 28.10.1992, at about 05.00 p.m., five people, aged about 22-25 hired his taxi to go to the place called 'Athankarai Pallivasal'. Three persons sat on the back seat and two on the front seat. When the car reached at the place called 'Urari', P.W.1 was asked to stop the vehicle. All the accused alighted from the car and they pointed a pistol and dagger towards P.W.1. They tied his hand and legs using plastic wire and put P.W.1 on the back seat. They tied the face of P.W.1 covering his mouth. One among the five accused drove the vehicle. At about 03.30 a.m., when the vehicle reached Kovilpatti, the knot at the hands of P.W.1 loosened and he tried to over power the person driving the vehicle. At that time, the vehicle met with an accident and fell down from the bridge. At the time of escaping, they also decamped with the records of the vehicle, Rs. 6,000/- cash and SEIKO'5 watch of P.W.1 (M.O.1). Thereafter, he was rescued by the police and admitted in the hospital. His statement was recorded as Ex.P.1. 2.2. P.W.2, a fire man, on 29.10.1992 went to the place of occurrence and found that the car was capsized and P.W.1 was tied inside the car and they also defused the country bomb tied in the hip of P.W.1. 2.3. P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, in their evidence, deposed that they have also seen the car capsized in the place of occurrence. 2.4. P.W.9, the Head Constable, attached to Kovilpatti East Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on intimation from the Kovilpatti Government Hospital, went to the hospital and recorded the statement (Ex.P.1) from P.W.1, pursuant to which, registered a case in Crime No.1174 of 2003 under Section 395 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act under Ex.P.13-First Information Report. 2.5. P.W.16, the Village Administrative Officer, attested the confession of one Abdulmuthaleep and other two accused, which are marked as Exs.P.14 to P.16. 2.6. 2.5. P.W.16, the Village Administrative Officer, attested the confession of one Abdulmuthaleep and other two accused, which are marked as Exs.P.14 to P.16. 2.6. P.W.20, the Medical Officer, attached to the Kovilpatti Government Hospital at the relevant point of time, had treated P.W.1 on 29.10.1992 and noted 3 x 2 x 1 cm laceration on his upper lip right side; 2 x 1/2 x 1 cm stab injury on the left shoulder; 5 x 3/4 cm abrasion on the right forearm; 1 x 1 cm abrasion on the forehead; and C/o. pain on the neck region and tenderness present and issued Ex.P.26-Wound Certificate stating that injury No.5 is grievous in nature. He also intimated the police. 2.7. P.W.23 treated P.W.1 for cervical spine injury and issued Ex.P.34- Certificate in that regard. 2.8. P.W.24 treated one of the accused, viz., Abdulmuthaleep on 14.12.1992 and found a scar on the left eye brow and issued Ex.P.35-Wound Certificate. 2.9. P.W.25 - the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, at the relevant point of time, arrested the first accused (Hyder Ali) and recorded his confession and remanded him to judicial custody. 2.10. P.W.26 was the P.A. to Collector at the relevant point of time. According to him, sanction was accorded by the Collector under Ex.P.36 to launch prosecution under the Explosive Substance Act. 2.11. P.W.27 was examined to show that sanction was accorded under Ex.P.37. 2.12. P.W.28-Inspector of Police, at the relevant point of time, reached the spot where the car was capsized and on receipt of First Information report in the place of occurrence itself, took up the case for investigation, examined the witnesses, prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.38 and rough sketch-Ex.P.39 and also seized Material Objects under Athatchis. On 11.12.1992 he took the custody of three accused from Chennai Court and recorded their confessions and recovered Rs. 1,200/- cash from A-2 (Abdulmuthaleep), pursuant to his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.52. Thereafter, pursuant to the confession of A-3 (Scent @ Mohamed Abdul Kader), he seized SEIKO'5 watch and Rs. 800/- cash. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A-3 is marked as Ex.P.53. Similarly, he seized Rs. 1,000/- cash from A-4 (Jahir Hussain), pursuant to his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.54 and also sent a requisition to Forensic Department. 2.13. P.W.29 continued further investigation. 800/- cash. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A-3 is marked as Ex.P.53. Similarly, he seized Rs. 1,000/- cash from A-4 (Jahir Hussain), pursuant to his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.54 and also sent a requisition to Forensic Department. 2.13. P.W.29 continued further investigation. After examining the other witnesses, he handed over the case file to his successor. 2.14. P.W.30 remanded A-1 (Hyder Ali) to police custody and examined him thereafter and handed over the case file to P.W.31. 2.15. P.W.31 took up the case for further investigation and obtained permission to examine one Imam Ali (since deceased) and thereafter, examined him and finally, laid final report as against the accused. 2.16. In this case, totally there were five accused. One Imam Ali died pending trial and only four accused faced trial. 2.17. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 307, 395 r/w 397 IPC, Section 3 r/w 25 of Arms Act, Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.31 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.59 and M.O.1 to M.O.66 were marked. 2.18. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, they neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document. 2.19. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty under Sections 420 r/w 120-B IPC, 307 r/w 120-B IPC, 392 r/w 397 r/w 120-B IPC, Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act r/w 120-B IPC and Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act r/w 120-B IPC and accordingly, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as detailed below: Sl. No. Conviction Sentence 1 420 r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 2 307 r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 2 307 r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 3 392 r/w 397 r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each 4 Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 5 Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act r/w 120-B IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. [All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 19.09.2018, it was reported that the second appellant-Scent @ Mohamed Abdul Kader died and a memo was filed to prove the said fact. In view of the same, charges against the second appellant stand abated and the appeal is dismissed as abated as against the second appellant. 4. Heard Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that out of 31 witnesses examined by the prosecution, except the Investigating Officer, none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution. P.W.1, the victim of the alleged crime, has also not identified any of the accused in the Court. No test identification parade was conducted. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove the conspiracy between the accused to kidnap P.W.1 and commit various offences. The Trial Court, merely on the basis of assumption and surmises, convicted the accused for all the charges. Hence, it is submitted that the accused are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused are fundamentalists. The Trial Court, merely on the basis of assumption and surmises, convicted the accused for all the charges. Hence, it is submitted that the accused are entitled for acquittal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused are fundamentalists. They have kidnapped P.W.1 and the possession of country bomb, which was defused and the Material Objects seized by the Investigating Officer, clearly prove the complicity of the accused in the crime and hence, it is submitted that the Trial Court has considered all these aspects and rightly found the accused guilty under various charges and the same needs no interference. 7. In the light of the above submissions, the evidence of the prosecution, when carefully seen, no doubt, P.W.1 was the victim. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that he is a resident of Thiruvananthapuram and is a taxi driver by profession. His car was hired by five Muslim people, aged about 22-25 on 28.10.1992. When the car was proceeding near the place called 'Urari', at about 08.30 p.m., all the accused stopped the car and tied P.W.1 and put him on the back seat, covered his face and when the car reached Kovilpatti, P.W.1 loosened the knot tied to over come the driver. At that time, the car met with an accident and fell down from the bridge. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that country bomb also placed in the car at the relevant point of time. After the accident, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence and decamped Rs. 6,000/- from him, besides SEIKO'5 watch (M.O.1). The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, when carefully seen, the fact that the car met with an accident has been clearly established. Further, P.W.1 also rescued by the police party after the accident and he was admitted in the hospital and the injuries were also noted by the Medical Officer. 8. Further, the evidence of P.W.20 and P.W.23, Medical Officers, clearly show that P.W.1 sustained injuries. No identification parade whatsoever conducted by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. P.W.1 has also not identified any of the accused. Except mentioning the name of one of the accused, who is not before this Court, P.W.1 has not whispered anything about the identity of any of the accused. No identification parade whatsoever conducted by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. P.W.1 has also not identified any of the accused. Except mentioning the name of one of the accused, who is not before this Court, P.W.1 has not whispered anything about the identity of any of the accused. Though the prosecution has examined as many as 31 witnesses, no other witnesses supported the prosecution, except the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer's (P.W.28) evidence, when carefully seen, he has conducted investigation and except seizing some Material Objects, namely M.O.8 to M.O.23, 24 to 43, 44 to 50 and 51 to 58 in the car, no other incriminating materials seized by him. The Material Objects seized from the car are only the sky bags, shirt, gloves and hat, etc. These Material Objects no way connected the complicity of the accused in any of the charges. 9. Similarly, P.W.29's, evidence, when carefully seen, except conducting further investigation, he has not collected any incriminating evidence as against the accused. P.W.30 said to have examined one of the accused viz., Hyder Ali and recorded his confession. However, no incriminating material was seized. P.W.31 examined one Imam Ali (since deceased) and recorded his confession. But, no Material Objects were seized. Apart from the above Material Objects, P.W.28 is said to have seized Rs. 3,000/- from three of the accused and one SEIKO'5 watch from one of the accused, viz., Scent @ Mohamed Abdul Kader (third accused) (who is now dead). P.W.1, of course, identified the SEIKO'5 watch. Except that, there is no incriminating evidence found against any of the accused. Of course, he has seized M.O.17 from the car, which is stated to be a driving licence of one of the accused. It is to be noted that though P.W.28 has stated that the licence of one of the accused, viz., A-2 was already seized in the car, in his substantive evidence, he has not spoken about the seizure of the licence specifically. Further, the above particular evidence, the alleged seizure of M.O.17, that is said to be the licence of one Abdulmuthaleep (A-2), is not put to the accused in 313 Cr.P.C., questioning. Therefore, merely on the basis of M.O.17, the guilt cannot be inferred against the accused. 10. The Trial Court, in fact, mainly relied on M.O.17, to convict A-2- Abdulmuthaleep. Further, the above particular evidence, the alleged seizure of M.O.17, that is said to be the licence of one Abdulmuthaleep (A-2), is not put to the accused in 313 Cr.P.C., questioning. Therefore, merely on the basis of M.O.17, the guilt cannot be inferred against the accused. 10. The Trial Court, in fact, mainly relied on M.O.17, to convict A-2- Abdulmuthaleep. Whereas, no question was put to A-2 in that regard. The purpose of examination in 313 Cr.P.C., questioning is to bring the substance of the accusation to notice of the accused to explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. The above opportunity is a valuable one and cannot be ignored. The incriminating circumstances are intended to base the conviction and when the above incriminating evidence was not put to the accused, the same cannot be used against him. 11. Admittedly, in this case, the Trial Court has not put any incriminating question with regard to M.O.17 specifically. Therefore, the Trial Court, merely on the basis of M.O.17, said to be the licence of A-2 (Abdulmuthaleep) found in the car, has come to the conclusion that A-2 (Abdulmuthaleep) is also found guilty of various charges. Similarly, the Trial Court has also drawn the presumption about the other accused based on their surrender before the Court. Merely because the other accused voluntarily surrendered before the Court and they have been examined subsequently by the Investigating Officer, such voluntary surrender of the accused before the Court of law apprehending arrest cannot be a ground to presume the guilt against them. Such approach of the Trial Court is also against the fundamental principle of criminal law. When the Trial Court relies upon circumstantial evidence, it is well settled that all the circumstantial evidences should form a complete chain, without any break, unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and such circumstantial evidences should be strong, convincing, unassailable leading to the inference and conclusion that the crime should have been committed only by the accused and not given any chance even to doubt about the involvement of the parties. Merely on the basis of some materials seized from the car, which are not incriminating against the accused, the Trial Court simply held that those articles were in possession of the accused and holding so, the Trial Court convicted all the accused. 12. Merely on the basis of some materials seized from the car, which are not incriminating against the accused, the Trial Court simply held that those articles were in possession of the accused and holding so, the Trial Court convicted all the accused. 12. As I have already pointed out, except one incriminating evidence, seizure of M.O.1 from one of the accused, who is no more, pursuant to the alleged confession of the said accused, no other incriminating evidence was found against any of the accused. The charges are grave in nature starting from 120-B IPC. Of course, it is true that the conspiracy in general is hatched in secrecy and, therefore, the Court, under all circumstances, cannot expect direct eye witnesses to prove the conspiracy. But, the various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to unearth the conspiracy have to be proved in a chain of circumstances. But, on scanning of the entire evidence, this Court is unable to find any incriminating material except seizure of one of the materials from one of the accused, who is no more and the same cannot be a ground to hold that the other accused also present in the place of occurrence. Of course, explosive materials were also seized from the car, which has been clearly established on record. But the fact remains that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that these appellants have travelled in the car at the relevant point of time and caused injury to P.W.1. P.W.1 has also not supported the prosecution in any manner. The identification parade was also not conducted by the prosecution. In view of the above, this Court is unable to approve the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court and the same is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4, by Judgment dated 09.04.2008, made in S.C.No.117 of 1998 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovilpatti, are set aside and the appellants/accused Nos.2 to 4 are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by them and the sureties shall stand terminated.