JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Suresh who is the sole accused in S.C. No.5 of 2012 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam which arises out of Crime No.60 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station. The allegation is that he committed patricide. After trial, Court below came to a conclusion that the appellant herein is guilty for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with a default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution is as follows: On 25/01/2009 at 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein committed murder of the deceased Sasidharan who is none other than the father of the appellant, by stabbing with a knife below the ear. The incident took place inside the house having door no. XVI/140 of Kadungallur Panchayath belonging to the deceased. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. To prove the allegations against the appellant, prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 as witnesses, marked Exts.P1 to P13 and identified MO1 to MO5 objects. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). He denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He stated that himself and his father together consumed liquor on the previous day of the incident and by midnight, they went to sleep. On the next day, before going to the temple, his mother woke him up. Again himself and his father started consuming alcohol. At that time, Varghese came there to compromise a dispute between Varghese and his father. His father gave some liquor to him and asked him to go. Varghese told that both of them came from southern part of the State and there is no necessity to pick up quarrel among them. Thereafter, they sat there together. Since the appellant was tired of sleeplessness and he was over-drunk, he fell on the sofa. In the afternoon, he heard some sound. He neglected it thinking it as a cat which used to come there. Again he heard some sound and he found his father lying in a pool of blood. He could not lift him. Since the appellant was tired of sleeplessness and he was over-drunk, he fell on the sofa. In the afternoon, he heard some sound. He neglected it thinking it as a cat which used to come there. Again he heard some sound and he found his father lying in a pool of blood. He could not lift him. So, he went to the house of George. Since he was not aware what had happened, he told George that his father vomitted blood. George and his wife came to his house. They lifted the deceased to the cot. George asked the appellant to call an autorickshaw. By that time, local people gathered there. Nobody came inside the house. The appellant asked them to inform the police so that his father would be taken to hospital. Police came and took his father to hospital. No evidence is adduced by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case is a false one and there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. Admittedly there is no eyewitness to the incident. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. Motive for the crime is not proved by the prosecution. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased. Merely because the appellant was staying with the deceased, he was implicated. It can be seen that he had informed the matter to the neighbours and took the initiative to take his father to the hospital. Circumstances relied on by the trial Court is insufficient to hold the appellant guilty for a grave crime like murder, that too his own father. He pleaded for an acquittal. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.S.U.Nazar argued that prosecution proved the case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The presence of the appellant is an admitted fact. Even otherwise, there is enough evidence to show that the appellant was in the company of his father at the time of occurrence. MO1 knife used to commit the offence is found to be blood-stained. Blood-stains are also traced on the dress of the appellant for which he has no explanation. Evidence of PW6 who conducted the autopsy of the victim reveals that the injury inflicted on the victim was fatal. Motive for the commission of offence is also proved. MO1 knife used to commit the offence is found to be blood-stained. Blood-stains are also traced on the dress of the appellant for which he has no explanation. Evidence of PW6 who conducted the autopsy of the victim reveals that the injury inflicted on the victim was fatal. Motive for the commission of offence is also proved. Trial Court is fully justified in convicting the appellant. He pleaded to dismiss the appeal. 6. Evidence adduced by the prosecution, in short, are as follows: CW1 who gave first information statement to police was dead at the time of trial and hence he could not be examined. PW1 is an attestor to Ext.P1 inquest report. PW2 is the mother of the appellant and wife of the deceased. She turned hostile to the prosecution. PW3 and PW4 are neighbors of the deceased. PW5 is a photographer who deposed that he had taken photographs of the victim. PW6 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy of the deceased and Ext.P4 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. PW7 is the then Assistant Surgeon, Taluk Hospital, Aluva. He collected blood sample and nail clippings of the appellant. PW8 is a witness to Ext.P5 scene mahazar. PW9 is the S.I. of Police, Binanipuram police station who registered Ext.P6 FIR based on the FIS given by one Varghese. PW10 is the then Special Village Officer, Kadungalloor who prepared Ext.P7 site plan. PW11 conducted major part of the investigation of the case. He conducted the inquest of the corpse on 26/01/2009 at 08.30 a.m and Ext.P1 is the report. Ext.P5 is the scene mahazar prepared by him. MO4 mat and MO3 sickle were seized as per Ext.P5. Ext.P8 is the mahazar prepared for the seizure of blood cotton swab collected by the Scientific Assistant, DCRB, Aluva from the scene of crime. Ext.P9 is the chemical analysis report. On the same day, at 01.15 p.m., the appellant/accused was arrested from Muppathadam Junction. Blood-stained dresses worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest was seized as per Ext.P10 mahazar. MO2 is the shirt and MO5 is the dhothi. Based on Ext.P11(a) disclosure statement of the accused, MO1 knife was recovered. PW14 is an attestor to it. Photographs were also taken for the said recovery. Ext.P12 is the arrest memo of the accused. PW12 completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. MO2 is the shirt and MO5 is the dhothi. Based on Ext.P11(a) disclosure statement of the accused, MO1 knife was recovered. PW14 is an attestor to it. Photographs were also taken for the said recovery. Ext.P12 is the arrest memo of the accused. PW12 completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. PW13 is the then Judicial First Class Magistrate – I, Kottayam who recorded the 164 statements of Varghese and PW3 which are marked as Exts.P13 and P3 respectively. 7. First of all, let us see whether the death of Sasidharan was a homicide as alleged by the prosecution. Ext.P1 is the inquest report. PW6 conducted the autopsy of the victim on 26/01/2009 and prepared Ext.P4 post-mortem certificate. He deposed that he noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the corpse of the victim: “Incised puncture wound 2x0.2cm horizontally placed on left side of neck 3 cm below angle of mandible and 6 cm outer to midline. The ends of the wound were cleanly cut. Underneath the sternocleidomastoid muscle was seen pierced and the internal carotid artery cleanly cut on its outer front and inner aspects. The pharyngeal wall on left side was seen pierced in its whole thickness and ended by making a nick 0.3x0.1cm on the inner aspect of right pharyngeal wall. The wound track was directed downwards to the right for a depth of 4.5cm.” He opined that death was due to injury sustained to the neck. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also deposed that the said injury could be caused by MO1 as weapon of offence. During cross-examination, he stated that death would have occurred 6 to 18 hours prior to keeping the body in the cold chamber. The left artery was clearly cut. There was only one injury. The blood group was determined as O+ve. He stated that the investigating officer did not ask him about the possibility of causing the injury with any other weapon. The above evidence clearly establishes that the death of Sasidharan was a homicide. 8. To arrive at the conclusion in the impugned judgment, the Court below relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in addition to the medical, recovery and forensic evidence. To appreciate the factual situation properly, it is appropriate to look into the evidence of the witnesses in detail, especially that of PW2 and PW3. 9. 8. To arrive at the conclusion in the impugned judgment, the Court below relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in addition to the medical, recovery and forensic evidence. To appreciate the factual situation properly, it is appropriate to look into the evidence of the witnesses in detail, especially that of PW2 and PW3. 9. PW2 is the wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant. She turned hostile to the prosecution. She stated that her husband died on 25/01/2009. On that day, she and her younger son Sudheesh went to a temple at 08.30 a.m. and her husband and the appellant were there in the house at the time they were leaving to temple. She came back by noon time and by that time, people gathered at her house and she found her husband lying inside a room in the house in which the deceased and the accused usually sleep. Both her husband and son had the habit of consuming alcohol. On the date of incident, there was no quarrel. She could not find the appellant at the time when she reached the place by noon. She saw the appellant only when he was produced before Aluva Court. Ext.P2 portion of previous statement is marked through her. She admitted that MO1 knife is one used in her house. It was not a sharp one. During cross-examination, she stated that the key of the room was with the police on the day of incident and also the next day. She also stated that firewood was not kept inside her house nor was bought at the relevant time. 10. PW3 stated that he is a resident of Thandirikkal Colony. On 25/01/2009, Sasidharan died. PW3 was there in his house at that time. It is his version that the accused came to him and told that his father vomitted blood. He identified the appellant in Court. PW3 went to the house of the deceased and saw Sasidharan lying inside the house. He found blood there. There was blood on the shirt of Suresh, the appellant herein. By the time he reached the house of the deceased, Suresh and Sasidharan alone were found there. Police came to the spot and took the injured to hospital. It was only when police came and wiped off the blood, they could see the wound on the neck. There was blood on the shirt of Suresh, the appellant herein. By the time he reached the house of the deceased, Suresh and Sasidharan alone were found there. Police came to the spot and took the injured to hospital. It was only when police came and wiped off the blood, they could see the wound on the neck. He deposed that the accused is a habitual drunkard and Sasidharan and the appellant used to quarrel. It is his version that Suresh was taken by police. Thereafter, he saw the appellant next day. He saw police arresting Suresh on 26/01/2009 during noon time at Muppathadam. He is a signatory to the arrest memo. Ext.P3 is the 164 statement given by him to PW13. During cross-examination, he stated that it was not possible to see from his house, the room in which Sasidharan was lying. A question was put to the witness as to whether he had given statement before the Magistrate that Suresh came to call him in the noon time by 01.00 and he replied that he might have given such a statement which he does not remember. To another question whether the appellant and PW3 reached the house together, PW3 stated that Suresh reached on the courtyard prior to him reaching the house. By the time PW3 went to inform Naufal, Suresh was standing in the courtyard. Police reached the spot within 10 minutes. Police firstly asked Suresh certain things. Police took Suresh and brought ambulance. It is his version that S.I. of Binanipuram asked PW3 to wipe off the blood on the neck of Sasidharan. PW3 wiped blood using a cloth found there. The said statement is found to be an omission. 11. PW4 deposed that the incident happened on 25/01/2009. He was watching T.V. In his house. PW3 and PW4's mother came and told him that Sasidharan was lying in a pool of blood and asked to inform police. Accordingly, he informed the matter to police. PW4 reached the spot and he saw only Suresh there. He identified the appellant in Court. During cross-examination, PW4 stated that he went to the house of Sasidharan and he did not see Sasidharan. He saw Suresh sitting on sofa or set. Within 5-10 minutes, police reached there. Suresh was there by the time police reached there. 12. PW5 is conducting a studio at Muppathadam. He identified the appellant in Court. During cross-examination, PW4 stated that he went to the house of Sasidharan and he did not see Sasidharan. He saw Suresh sitting on sofa or set. Within 5-10 minutes, police reached there. Suresh was there by the time police reached there. 12. PW5 is conducting a studio at Muppathadam. He stated that he had taken photographs in connection with the case on 25/01/2009. As per the direction of S.I. of Police, Binanipuram, he took the photograph of the room in which the death took place. Thereafter, he went to hospital at Aluva and took the photograph of the dead body. On the next day, he had taken the photograph of Suresh taking MO1 knife from the room from among wasteful items. During cross-examination, he stated that while taking photograph of the scene of crime on the previous day, he did not take the picture of firewood. According to PW5, at the time of recovering MO1, there was nobody else except himself, policemen and Suresh there. 13. PW9 is the then S.I. of Police, Binanipuram. Ext.P6 is the FIR registered by him based on Ext.P6(a) F.I. Statement of Varghese. In cross-examination, he stated that by 02.25 p.m., he received information about the incident. He reached the spot at 02.30 p.m. At that time, the appellant was not there. He admitted that Varghese had given the following statement to him: He stated that he did not remember whether he had asked PW3 to clean blood from the body of victim. He denied the suggestion that he called photographer. He admitted that the injury on the neck was not seen at the time the victim was taken to hospital. He denied the suggestion that Ext.P6(a) is not first information. 14. During cross-examination, PW11, the Investigating Officer admitted that Varghese was questioned by him on 26/01/2009. He also stated that in FIS, Varghese had stated that he had gone to the house of Suresh on the date of incident at 12.40 p.m. PW11 further admitted that he did not investigate into whether the deceased Sasidharan was there at the time when Varghese had gone to Suresh's house. He stated that he investigated about the involvement of Varghese in the crime and found that it is false. He stated that he investigated about the involvement of Varghese in the crime and found that it is false. He stated that he did not investigate as to how many knives were there in the house in which the incident took place. He stated that the certificate issued by the Doctor of Taluk Hospital showing the blood group of the appellant as O+ve is not produced before Court. He also admitted that no photograph was produced in Court. 15. There is no dispute to the fact that there is no direct evidence for the crime. Prosecution relies on certain circumstances to prove their case. 16. As far as motive for the crime is concerned, prosecution has a definite case that the appellant asked his father for money to consume alcohol which the deceased refused to give due to which the appellant inflicted the injury on his father. But no evidence is available on record to show the said motive as alleged. Motive remains as mere allegation. 17. Prime question to be considered is whether the last seen theory comes into play in the case at hand. PW2 stated that on 25/01/2009 at 08.30 a.m., by the time they were leaving their home to temple, appellant and Sasidharan were there. She did not say that the appellant and the deceased alone were there. Even assuming for a moment that the appellant and deceased alone were there, it only shows that they were seen together in their house by PW2 till 08.30 a.m. Prosecution could show through the evidence of PW7 that death of the victim occurred 6 to 18 hours prior to his body being placed in cold chamber. Hence, time of death is also not conclusively proved. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together prior to the taking place of death of the victim. Unfortunately, Varghese, who gave Ext.P6(a) statement was no more at the time of trial to prove the contents of FIS. Hence, the prosecution argument that the appellant was seen sleeping after consuming alcohol in the house of the deceased at 12.40 p.m. is not to be taken as evidence. Unfortunately, Varghese, who gave Ext.P6(a) statement was no more at the time of trial to prove the contents of FIS. Hence, the prosecution argument that the appellant was seen sleeping after consuming alcohol in the house of the deceased at 12.40 p.m. is not to be taken as evidence. PW11, the Investigating Officer stated that in FIS, Varghese had stated that he had gone to the house of Suresh on the date of incident at 12.40 p.m. PW11 further admitted that he did not investigate into whether the deceased Sasidharan was there at the time when Varghese had gone to Suresh's house. Hence, there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant was present in the house after he was seen by PW2 at 08.30 a.m. Of course, the appellant in his 313 explanation, stated that he had seen his father lying in a pool of blood and he virtually admits his presence around 02.00-02.15 p.m. There is evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 to show that the appellant was present there. There is a time gap of more than 5½ hours between PW2 seeing the appellant and the deceased together and the victim being found dead. Prosecution itself develops its case on the basis that the appellant herein informed PW3 and others about his father being found vomitting blood. All witnesses stated that he was present at the time when police reached the spot. The case of PW11 and PW9 that the appellant was absconding from the scene is proved to be false in the light of the evidence of other witnesses. A sickle with blood-stains was found at the place of occurrence. 18. Coming to the recovery evidence, PW11 has a case that PW5 had taken the photograph of the alleged recovery of MO1 knife from the house of the appellant which is the place of occurrence. PW5 stated that he was asked by PW9 to take photographs. Accordingly, he came to the spot on 25/01/2009 and took photographs of scene of crime. He also had taken the photograph of dead body at the hospital. On the next day, he had taken photographs of alleged recovery of MO1 knife. But it is pertinent to note that no photograph is produced before Court. Defence has a definite case that the alleged recovery is a stage show organized by PW11. He also had taken the photograph of dead body at the hospital. On the next day, he had taken photographs of alleged recovery of MO1 knife. But it is pertinent to note that no photograph is produced before Court. Defence has a definite case that the alleged recovery is a stage show organized by PW11. Evidence on record probabilizes the contention of defence as far as recovery of MO1 is concerned. PW14 who is a police personnel alone is the witness examined for the alleged recovery. Independent witnesses categorically deposed that the appellant was taken into custody by the police from the spot itself on 25/01/2009. The alleged recovery is effected on the next day, that too after 'arresting' the appellant from Muppathadam junction. PW9 admitted that he did not ask PW5 to take any photographs. It contradicts the evidence of PW5. PW2 deposed that firewood is not used in her house and there was no firewood in her house at the relevant time. All these would show that the alleged recovery is only a planted recovery and hence it is liable only to be discarded. 19. Next aspect pointed out by the prosecution as incriminating circumstance is the presence of blood in the shirt of the appellant at the time when he met witnesses PW3 and PW4. But admittedly, the appellant informed the matter to PW3. At that time, blood was found in his short. He was there with the police party in helping them to take the victim to hospital. According to PW3, the appellant approached PW3 for arranging a vehicle to take the victim to hospital. Blood-stains found on his shirt do not reveal much about his involvement. We do not think it safe to consider it as an incriminating circumstance in the facts and circumstance of this case. 20. Having gone through the entire evidence placed before us, we are of the view that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Motive is not proved. No evidence is available to conclude that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased before he was found dead. There is no evidence to exclude the possibility of a third person committing the offence. The alleged recovery is proved to be a mockery and drama played by the police party. Motive is not proved. No evidence is available to conclude that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased before he was found dead. There is no evidence to exclude the possibility of a third person committing the offence. The alleged recovery is proved to be a mockery and drama played by the police party. We are unable to hold the appellant guilty for the sin of patricide in the light of available evidence. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if his presence is not required in connection with any other case.