JUDGMENT : S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ. Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment, dated 29.01.2018, passed in S.S.C.No.69 of 2015 by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Thanjavur, and to acquit the appellants. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Judgment of the I-Additional District and Sessions Court(PCR), Thanjavur, made in S.S.C.No.69 of 2015, dated 29.01.2018, convicting and sentencing the appellants as follows: Sl.No. Rank of the Accused Offence under which convicted Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 1. A1 Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC (2 counts) Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment for each count. Under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment. 2. A2 Under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment for each count. Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment. 3. A3 Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment. Under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo one year further Imprisonment for each count. 4. A4 Under Section 201 and 302 IPC Three years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further Imprisonment for six months. All the accused persons were acquitted for the charge under Section 120(b) of IPC. The trial Court further held that A1 to A3 (appellants 1 to 3) shall not be released unless they complete 30 years of actual imprisonment without any statutory remission or commutation. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief: A1, A2 and A4 belong to a most backward class community and A3 belongs to a backward class community. A1 and A2 are brothers and A4 is their relative. The deceased Palaniappan (D1) is the brother of A1 and A2. The deceased Amirthavalli (D2) belongs to a scheduled caste community and she had a male baby (D3) through D1. D1 had left his wife and children and is said to have had relationship with many women and this had caused heartburn in the family. The deceased Palaniappan (D1) is the brother of A1 and A2. The deceased Amirthavalli (D2) belongs to a scheduled caste community and she had a male baby (D3) through D1. D1 had left his wife and children and is said to have had relationship with many women and this had caused heartburn in the family. D1 started living with D2 and a child was also born to them which is D3. 2.1. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 to A3 conspired together on 10.12.2014 to murder D1 to D3 and pursuant to the meeting of minds, they waited for the deceased to reach Tiruvarur in a private bus and this was informed by A2 to A1. A1 and A3 came in a two wheeler (M.O.3) and at about 11.00 p.m., near Kaliyammal field situated at Vedapuram Road, when the deceased persons were coming, A2 abused D1 and slapped him on his cheek. Immediately, D2 intervened and she had the child in her hand. She was pushed and she fell on the field of Kaliyammal. There was a scuffle and A1 and A3 pushed D1 also in the field and they started strangulating him by pressing his face on the mud and thereby, causing his death. At the same time, A2 strangulated D2 and also the baby D3, in the same manner and caused their death. Thereafter, A4 was brought in the motorcycle to the scene of crime and the body of D2 was taken in the motorcycle. The body of D3 was kept inside a bag (M.O.1) and it was also carried in the same motorcycle. 2.2. The bag carrying D3 was thrown near a paddy field situated near Kunniyur graveyard. The body of D2 was thrown into Sumaithangi Harichandra River. 2.3. The Village Administrative Officer of Kopiralayam village (P.W.7) was informed by the Village Assistant, Mathiyalagan (P.W.14), at about 6.30 a.m., on 11.12.2014 that a male dead body is found in the field belonging to Kaliyammal. Immediately, he went to the spot and with the help of the local people, he ascertained that it is the dead body of D1. Immediately, he gave a complaint (Ex.P3) to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station (P.W.28), at about 12.00 noon and an FIR (Ex.P34) came to be registered in Crime No. 217 of 2014 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. Immediately, he gave a complaint (Ex.P3) to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station (P.W.28), at about 12.00 noon and an FIR (Ex.P34) came to be registered in Crime No. 217 of 2014 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The express FIR was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi. 2.4. In the meantime, the father of D2 (P.W.1) gets an information from the villagers to the effect that his daughter's dead body is found near the Harichandra River and he immediately rushed to the spot and identified the dead body. The police were also present in that place and the dead body was taken to Mannargudi Government Hospital. Based on his compliant (Ex.P1) given to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.28), an FIR (Ex.P33) came to be registered in Crime No.216 of 2014 for an offence under Section 302 IPC, at about 11.30 a.m., on 11.12.2014. The express FIR was immediately sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi. 2.5. It is the further case of the prosecution that all the four accused persons appeared before the Village Administrative Officer, Kottur, on 12.12.2014, at about 10.00 a.m., and in the presence of the Village Assistant (P.W.14), they are said to have given an extra-judicial confession explaining the entire incident. The confession statement of A1 and A2 was also recorded (Exs.P7 &P8). Based on this, a special report(Ex.P6) is said to have been prepared by P.W.13 and it was handed over to the Inspector of Police (P.W.29) along with the accused persons and they were arrested. 3. Complaint and evidence collected in the course of investigation: The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.29), based on the FIR registered in Crime No.217 of 2014. He immediately informed the Sniffer dog, Forensic Department and also the photographer about the incident and asked them to come to the scene of occurrence. He ascertained the fact that both FIRs in Crime Nos.216 and 217 of 2014 have been sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court. He reached the field belonging to Kaliyammal and in the presence of P.W.11 and P.W.12, he prepared the observation mahazer (Ex.P35) and rough sketch (Ex.P36). He conducted the inquest on the body of D1, in the presence of panchayatars between 1.45 p.m., to 4.00 p.m., and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P37). He reached the field belonging to Kaliyammal and in the presence of P.W.11 and P.W.12, he prepared the observation mahazer (Ex.P35) and rough sketch (Ex.P36). He conducted the inquest on the body of D1, in the presence of panchayatars between 1.45 p.m., to 4.00 p.m., and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P37). He thereafter had sent the dead body with a requisition to conduct a postmortem through the constable (P.W.23) to Mannargudi Government Hospital. He also collected the material objects available in the scene of occurrence under seizure mahazer-Ex.P.38 (M.Os.1,4,6,8 to 19). In the meantime, he collected the information with regard to the incident. He received the clothes found in the dead body of D1 and sent it under Form-95 with a requisition to forward it to the Forensic Department (M.O.5, M.O.7, M.O.22 and M.O.23). 3.1. He received the information regarding the extrajudicial confession that was made to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.13) and he came to the police station and at about 12.00 noon, the accused persons were produced by P.W.13. The Village Administrative Officer (P.W.13) also gave the confession made by A1 and A2 and his special report (Ex.P6 to Ex.P8). At that point of time, A1 is said to have given a confession voluntarily and had informed the investigating officer that the body of the child (D3) was kept in a bag and thrown near the graveyard and the body of D2 was thrown near the Harichandra river. The admissible portion in the confession was marked as Ex.P40. Thereafter, the investigating officer took A1 to the graveyard at Kunniyur village and they reached the place at about 1.50 p.m., and an observation mahazer (Ex.P41) and a rough sketch (Ex.P42) was also prepared. Thereafter, at about 2.20 p.m., in the presence of witnesses, A1 is said to have identified the bag (M.O.20) and it was seized under seizure mahazer Ex.P.10. The inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased baby (D3) between 2.30 p.m, to 3.30 p.m., and he prepared the inquest report (Ex.P43). 3.2. The body of D3 was sent through Head Constable (P.W.25) with a requisition for postmortem to Mannargudi Government Hospital. A1 was thereafter brought back to the police station. 3.3. Thereafter, A2 is said to have voluntarily given a confession and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P.44. A1 was thereafter brought back to the police station. 3.3. Thereafter, A2 is said to have voluntarily given a confession and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P.44. He is said to have identified the motorcycle of A1 (M.O. 3) and also his motorcycle (M.O.2). The accused persons were brought to the police station along with all the material objects that were recovered. 3.4. The investigating officer came to know about the FIR registered in Crime No.216 of 2014 for the death of D2 based on the place of occurrence and he took up the investigation in the case after recording the statement of the Inspector of Police of Edayar Police Station. He also recovered the material objects that were collected in the meantime and produced it before the Court under Form-95 along with a special report (Ex.P47). He also ascertained the fact that the deceased Amirthavalli (D2) belongs to Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the FIR was altered by adding the offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the alteration report (Ex.P. 49) was submitted before the concerned Court and he stopped the investigation in the case. The case was thereafter handed over for investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.31). As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District (Ex.P.54), the investigation was handed over to him and he proceeded further with the investigation and gave a requisition to conduct the chemical analysis, before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi (Ex.P.55). The case was thereafter transferred to the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.32). 4. P.W.32 took over the investigation and recorded the further statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. He also collected the postmortem certificate (Ex.P27, Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32), after recording the statements of the Doctors (P.Ws.20,26 and 27). On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi. 5. The case was committed to the file of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Thanjavur, and it was taken on file in S.S.C.No.69 of 2015. The copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution was furnished to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The following charges were framed against the accused persons: SL. 5. The case was committed to the file of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Thanjavur, and it was taken on file in S.S.C.No.69 of 2015. The copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution was furnished to the accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The following charges were framed against the accused persons: SL. No. Rank of the Accused Offence for which charges were framed 1. A1 120(b) IPC, 302 IPC, 201 r/w 302 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC (2 counts) 2. A2 120(b) IPC, 302 IPC (2 counts) and 302 r/w 34 IPC 3. A3 120(b) IPC, 302 IPC, and 302 r/w 34 IPC (2 counts) 4. A4 201 r/w 302 IPC. No charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989. 6. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.32 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.56 and exhibited M.O.1 to M.O.28. The Court also marked three specimen signatures of P.W.14 and the same was marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. 7. The trial Court questioned the accused persons under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting all the incriminating materials before them, collected during the course of trial and they denied the same as false. 8. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Submissions: 9. Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made the following submissions: *The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstantial evidence and there are too many gaps in the prosecution story and therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. *The trial Court itself has disbelieved the story of conspiracy and all the accused persons were acquitted of the said charge under Section 120(b) of IPC. *The so called extra-judicial confession, which is said to have been made before P.W.13 is totally unnatural, since P.W.13 is a total stranger to the accused persons and there was absolutely no requirement for the accused persons to go and confess about the crime to P.W.13. *The so called extra-judicial confession, which is said to have been made before P.W.13 is totally unnatural, since P.W.13 is a total stranger to the accused persons and there was absolutely no requirement for the accused persons to go and confess about the crime to P.W.13. *The witnesses (P.Ws.4 and 5), who were examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the last seen theory, did not support the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to establish this link in the chain of circumstances. *The material witnesses namely, the bus conductor, driver and co-passengers, who were said to have been examined during the investigation, were not examined before the Court and the material witnesses have been intentionally kept out by the prosecution and hence an adverse inference must be drawn by this Court. *The evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that the accused persons were in the custody of the police even before the alleged extra judicial confession and Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 were actually prepared in the police station and signed by P.W.13 and P.W.14. *The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that he could not have seen the body of D1 and D2 as claimed by him and Ex.P1-complaint could not have been given on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. The same is clear from the serial number that is found in the FIR, where Crime No.216 shows the serial number 4780125 and Crime No.217 shows the serial number 4783901. *There is a delay in the material documents reaching the Court and that has not been explained by the prosecution. *According to P.W.7, he received the information about the dead body of D1 on 11.12.2014, at 6.30 a.m., and by 7.00 a.m., the police came there and seized the body of the deceased. However, the FIR came to be registered only at 12 noon and therefore, the earliest information that was received by the police warranting them to visit the place, where the body of D1 was found, has not been placed before the Court. *In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following Judgments: (a) K.Dhanavel v. Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District, reported in 2011 (1) MLJ (Crl) 609. (b) Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 59. *In order to substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following Judgments: (a) K.Dhanavel v. Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District, reported in 2011 (1) MLJ (Crl) 609. (b) Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 59. (c) State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported in 2007 (3) SCC 755 . (d) Sathish and another v. State of Haryana, reported in 2018(2) SCC (Cri) 652. (e) Suresh and another v. State of Haryana, reported in 2019(3) SCC (Cri) 204. (f) Debapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2017 (3) SCC (Cri) 832. (g) Nadimuthu and others v. State, reported in 1997 (2) MWN (Cri) 149. (h) Kavita v. State of Tamilnadu, reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1421. (i) Kattu Raja v. State, reported in 2013(1) LW (crl) 633. (j) Vasanthi and another v. State, reported in 2013(1) MLJ (Crl) 435. (k) Gour Mani Roy and another v. State of Tripura, reported in 2014 CRL L.J.2843. 10. Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions: *This is a clear case of honour killing and therefore, the accused persons must be dealt with strictly and sternly. *Many witnesses had turned hostile only fearing the dominant community in the village and therefore, the case of the prosecution must be seen through the avilable evidence, which clearly establishes the circumstances through which the case has been established. *The motive for the crime has been clearly spoken by P.W.1 and P.W.5 and they talk about the illicit relationship between D1 and D2, which was not liked by the family of D1. *D2 belongs to scheduled caste community and fearing backlash, they did not even stay in the village and when they entered the village, they were done to death by the accused persons. *The prosecution has established the case through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7, 13 and 14, apart from the official witnesses and the prosecution heavily relies upon Ex.P6 to Ex.P8 and also the observation mahazers and rough sketch, which have been marked before the Court below. *The deceased baby (D3) was identified only based on the confession of A1 and A2 and this link in the chain of circumstances has been clearly proved. *The deceased baby (D3) was identified only based on the confession of A1 and A2 and this link in the chain of circumstances has been clearly proved. *The postmortem certificates (Ex.P27, Ex.P31 and Ex.P32) clearly establishes the reason behind the death of D1 to D3 and the same has been spoken by the postmortem Doctors P.Ws.20,26 and 27. *The so called discrepancies and contradictions that have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and they do not in any way discredit the evidence of the witnesses, who supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has proved every circumstance and established the case beyond reasonable doubts and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Discussion: 11. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the circumstantial evidence in this case. The circumstances that have been relied upon by the prosecution is listed hereunder: (a) motive, (b) conspiracy, (c) last seen theory, (d) extra- judicial confession given to the VAO(P.W13), (e) recovery of the body of the male child(D3) and (f) recovery of M.O.2 and M.O.3 motorcycles based on the disclosure made by A2 and A3. 12. Before proceeding further to appreciate the evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution, in order to prove the case, it must be borne in mind that in a case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused persons. It will be relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported in 2007(3)SCC 755, wherein, the Supreme Court has laid down the following tests to be satisfied before convicting the accused person, based on circumstantial evidence. It will be relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another, reported in 2007(3)SCC 755, wherein, the Supreme Court has laid down the following tests to be satisfied before convicting the accused person, based on circumstantial evidence. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: “The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and it is a well-settled proposition of law that when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [See : State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114 , Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 ].” 13. Keeping the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court will proceed to analyse and see if the prosecution has proved every circumstance that has been relied upon in this case. 14. In the considered view of this Court, the most important circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the extra-judicial confession that is said to have been given by the accused persons to P.W.13. It should be seen as to whether this circumstance has been proved, since any failure on the part of the prosecution to prove this circumstance, will substantially weaken the case of the prosecution. It should be seen as to whether this circumstance has been proved, since any failure on the part of the prosecution to prove this circumstance, will substantially weaken the case of the prosecution. It must also be borne in mind that an extra-judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence and the Courts must analyse it very closely and carefully before coming to a conclusion as to whether it can be relied upon. 15. It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of D1 that he saw the accused persons (A1 and A2) in the police station on 12.12.2014, when he went along with P.W.5, at about 10.30 a.m. He was there in the police station till 4.00 p.m., and during this entire period, A1 and A2 were in the lock up. The relevant portion of the evidence is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” It is clear from the above evidence that A1 and A2 were in the police station on 12.12.2014 from 10.30 a.m., onwards. 16. With this background, we will now venture to analyse the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.13). P.W.13 in his chief examination, states as follows: “TAMIL” 17. It is also relevant to extract the portions of the cross examination: “TAMIL” 18. It will also be relevant to extract the evidence of the Village Assistant-P.W.14 in this regard: “TAMIL” 19. The evidence of P.W.13 reads as if the accused persons came to the office on 12.12.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., and voluntarily confessed and the confession was recorded in Ex.P.7 for A1 and Ex.P.8 for A2 and a special report was prepared in Ex.P.6 and all the accused persons were handed over to the police along with Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 and P.W.29-investigating officer in his evidence states that they were produced in the police station on 12.12.2014 at about 12.00 p.m. 20. Both P.W.13 and P.W.14 have only admitted their signatures found in Ex.P6 to Ex.P8. In fact, P.W.13 states that Exs.P6 to P8 were actually written by the police and his signature was obtained thereafter. Even P.W.14 states that the police had prepared the statements and their signatures were obtained in about 10-15 pages. P.W.14 also talks about the presence of A1 to A4 in the lockup of Kottur Police Station at about 11.00 a.m., on 12.12.2014. 21. Even P.W.14 states that the police had prepared the statements and their signatures were obtained in about 10-15 pages. P.W.14 also talks about the presence of A1 to A4 in the lockup of Kottur Police Station at about 11.00 a.m., on 12.12.2014. 21. A cumulative reading of the above evidence throws a lot of doubt on the so called extra judicial confession that was made by the accused persons before P.W.13. If really, the accused persons had appeared before P.W.13 and made the extra-judicial confession on 12.12.2014 at 10.00 a.m., and they were taken to the police station at 12.00 noon, there is absolutely no explanation as to how the accused persons were found in the lock-up on 12.12.2014 from 10.30 a.m., to 4.30 p.m., as spoken by P.W.1 and corroborated by P.W.14. This doubt gets confounded by the fact that P.W.13 admits only the signature found in the Exs.P6 and P8 and he says that it was already prepared by the police in the police station. Even when the Court was putting him questions, he categorically admits only the signature found in Exs.P6 to P8 and he states that he never wrote anything in Exs.P6 to P8. 22. At this juncture, it will be relevant to rely upon the inquest report that was prepared with regard to D2 on 11.12.2014, at about 01.30 p.m., by P.W.29. In this inquest report, there is reference to the names of the accused persons. If really, the police came to know about the involvement of the accused persons only on 12.12.2014, after they were brought to the police station by the Village Administrative Officer (P.W13) at 12 noon, it is indeed strange that the names of A1 and A2 is found reference in the inquest report. This goes to show that the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the presence of the accused persons in the lock-up on 12.12.2014, at 10.30 a.m., is actually correct. 23. The above evidence clearly shows that the so called extra-judicial confession itself becomes highly questionable and it is very unsafe to rely upon the same. 24. That apart, the accused persons did not know P.W.13 and it is very unnatural for the accused persons to have appeared before the Village Administrative Officer-P.W.13 and given such a statement. 23. The above evidence clearly shows that the so called extra-judicial confession itself becomes highly questionable and it is very unsafe to rely upon the same. 24. That apart, the accused persons did not know P.W.13 and it is very unnatural for the accused persons to have appeared before the Village Administrative Officer-P.W.13 and given such a statement. It will be useful to rely upon the judgment of this Court in K.Dhanavel v. Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District, reported in 2011 (1) MLJ (Cri)609. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: “16. ..... Therefore, we are of the considered view that there are serious dobuts in this case about the g enuineness of the earliest document Exhibit P-1 and FIR. In view of the contra evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 6 and in view of the categorical admission of P.W.6 that the police came to the scene of occurrence even at the earliest point of time viz., at 6.00 a.m., and recorded her statement and obtained signatures also, coupled with the version of yet another witness viz., P.W.5 to the effect that P.W.1 went to the police station even at the early morning, we are of the considered view that in this case, the FIR, is nothing but a fabricated document. 17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, ( AIR 1980 SC 638 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 985), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder: “The High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the entire fabric off the prosecution case would collapse if the FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into existence long after the occurrence and any bumber of witnesses could be added without there being anything to check the authenticity of their evidence.” 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court, in respect of such extrajudicial confession, in Ravi @ Ravichandran and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Police Station, Salem (2007) 1 MLJ(Crl) 1002 : 2007 (1) LW(Crl) 555; wherein this Court has held as follows at p. 1009 of MLJ(Crl). “28. But, in this case, it is found that there is no evidence to show that the Village Administrative Officer was known to A1. “28. But, in this case, it is found that there is no evidence to show that the Village Administrative Officer was known to A1. Unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person. Therefore, we straightaway reject the untrustworthy testimony of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 that A1 voluntarily confessed the crime to him”. 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC (Cr) 579, has held hereunder' “7. The first and foremost aspect which needs to be taken note of is that P.W.9 is not a person who had intimate relations or friendship with the appellant. P.W.9 says that he knew the appellant “to some extent” meaning thereby that he had only acquaintance with him. In Cross-examination, he stated that he did not visit his house earlier and that he met the appellant once or twice at the bus-stand. There is no earthly reason why he should go to P.W.9 and confide to him as to what he had done.” 21. In yet another decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SCC 332 :1997 SCC (Cr)358, has held hereunder: “15. The third contention of Mr.Sodhi viz., that it is highly improbable that Jaspal Singh (A1) would have gone to this witness along with his co-accused to confess the guilt, is equaly formidable. Chhota Singh (P.W7) has not given any reason as to why and how Jaspal singh(A1) and other co-accused have reposed such a confidence in him and confessed their guilt. After going through the evidence of Chhota Singh (P.W7), we do not find it safe to hold any of the appellants guilty in the present crime/” 22. In yet another decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) AIR 2006 SC 2242 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cr)522 has held as follows: “17. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence.” 23. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence.” 23. The above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as in this case also, P.W.4 is not having close acquaintance or relationship with the first accused and as such, it is improbable for the first accused to repose confidence on P.W.4 to give extra-judicial confession. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5.” 25. It is clear from the above judgments that unless a person trusts another, there is no question of unburdening his heart to such a person. Here the accused persons do not have any acquaintance or relationship with P.W.13 and it is highly impossible for them to appear before P.W.13 and give an extra-judicial confession. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon the so called extrajudicial confession and more particularly, when it has been found by this Court that it is highly improbable for the accused persons to have appeared before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.13), since they were found in the lock-up at that relevant point of time even as per the evidence of P.W.1. 26. The last seen theory of the prosecution has not been established, since P.W.4 and P.W.5, who were examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution. 27. The other circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution was the theory of conspiracy based on the evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16. This has been disbelieved even by the trial Court and infact, the accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 120(b) of IPC. 28. The only other circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the body of the child (D3) based on the alleged confession of A1 and the recovery of the motorcycles based on the confession of A2 and A3. 28. The only other circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the body of the child (D3) based on the alleged confession of A1 and the recovery of the motorcycles based on the confession of A2 and A3. The so called confession and recovery by itself cannot form the basis of the case of the prosecution, if the other circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution. 29. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased person (D1 to D3) came in a private bus. P.W.29 in his evidence states as follows: “TAMIL” 30. The subsequent investigating officer P.W.31 in his evidence has stated as follows: “TAMIL” 31. It is clear from the above evidence that both the investigating officers had taken the statements of the driver, conductor and the passengers, who travelled in the same bus. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, none of them were examined before the Court. These witnesses are very material, since the same will establish the fact that the deceased persons came in the bus and got down and only thereafter, they were attacked by the accused persons. By not examining these material witnesses before the Court, the prosecution is attempting to withhold an important evidence before the Court and this Court has to take adverse inference of the same. 32. The totality of the circumstances and the evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the case at the best, only throws a strong suspicion on the accused persons. It is a settled proposition of law that in criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot be substituted for proof and the Courts should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 33. It is true that the prosecution has attempted to establish a case of honour killing against the accused persons. However, it has miserably failed to prove the important circumstances leading to the loss of three lives. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 59, has held as follows: “4. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstancial evidence the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and hasto be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations,, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof. It is in the context of the above settled principles, that we shall analyse the evidence led by the prosecution.” 34. It is clear from the above judgment that a Court cannot be swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof. 35. This Court finds that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and there are a lot of gaps in the prosecution story, left incomplete or insufficiently proved and doubtful and therefore, it will not be safe to convict the accused persons based on the evidence that has been placed before us and therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons. 36. In the result, the judgment of the I-Additional District and Sessions Court(PCR), Thanjavur, made in S.S.C.No.69 of 2015, dated 29.01.2018, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted from all charges. It is seen from the records that except A4 all the other three accused persons are in confinement and are suffering the sentence. In view of this judgment, A1 to A3 are directed to be released forthwith, if their confinement is not required in any other case. The bail bonds executed on behalf of A4 shall stand cancelled and fine amount if any deposited by him shall be refunded. 37. This Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.