JUDGMENT : S. ANANTHI, J. These Criminal Appeals have been filed by these Appellants herein/A-5, A-2 & A-4 to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.93 of 2011, dated 26.09.2018. 2. The appellants herein are arrayed as A-5, A-2 & A-4 in S.C.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and A-1 & A-3 in S.C.No.93 of 2011 were died. 3. All the three appeals arising out of one Judgment and therefore, common Judgment is passed in these three appeals. 4. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2018, has convicted the appellants herein/A-5, A-2 & A-4 for the above said offences and imposed the sentences, thus: (i) The 2nd accused is found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 120(b) of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo for Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 of IPC(2 counts). (Total 3 counts). (ii)The 4th accused is found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 120B of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo for Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 of IPC(2 counts). (Total 3 counts). (iii)The 5th accused is found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 120(B) of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo for Life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC(2 counts). (Total 3 counts). Now, challenging the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that there are material contradictions with regard to the prosecution witnesses and the versions on the exhibits. He further submit that P.W.8 who was examined as eye witness was turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there are unexplained and undue delay in sending the material documents to the Court and it is fatal to the prosecution. 7. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there are unexplained and undue delay in sending the material documents to the Court and it is fatal to the prosecution. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Chinnaiah is residing at Mookudi Village, that the deceased A-1 and A-5 are residing Mookudi village and A-2 is residing at Serangadu in Thiruppur Police Circle, A-3 is residing at Parambur in Annavasal Police Circle, that A-2, A-3 and A-4 are the friends of A-5. The deceased in this case are namely; Vellaisamy and Sekar are the sons of the complainant Chinnaiah. A-1 is said to be the friend of the deceased Vellaisamy. On 16.12.2009, A-1 has borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/-from the deceased Vellaisamy and executed a pronote, but he neither repaid the principal nor interest, while so A-1 was remanded in a robbery case, that the said Vellaisamy assured him to take him on bail, but he fails to do so, aggrieved that A-1 developed enmity with him, and intent to kill him, and he picked up quarrel with Vellaisamy after releasing from bail. On one occasion, three months prior to the alleged occurrence, the Vellaisamy demanded the money from A-1 in Bazaar and teased him. Aggrieved that, A-1 contacted his friends who are A-3 and A-4 in this case and conspired along with them to kill the said Vellaisamy. That being so, there existed so many disputes between the family of Vellaisamy and Sekar with A-5 with regard to political motive, tender, transfer of panchayat cheques, real estate etc. that in order to take revenge, the said A-5 contacted the A-1 and demanded his help to kill the said Vellaisamy, for that A-1 also agreed to help him, that based upon his assurance, on 12.01.2011 at 03.00 p.m., A-1 taken away A-2 & A-4 to the house of A-5 and introduced him and they conspired to commit murder of Vellaisamy and they have planned to execute their criminal conspiracy on the next day i.e., on 13.01.2011, at 03.00 a.m. while the said Vellaisamy who would come for cattle Chandy. On 13.01.2011 at 02.30 early morning Vellaisamy along with his elder brother Sekar went to the cattle Chandy in his Hero Honda Splendar, bearing Registration No.TN-55-R-7283, while they nearing south side of Senthangudi Mochinankulam in Aranthangi-Pudukkottai Main Road, A-1 to A-5, in order to execute their plan, A-3 driven the TATA Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN-55-D-6211, A-1 and A-4 who are travelled inside the car and A-1 and A-4 carried aruval and A-2 carried iron rod with intention to kill the Vellaisamy and travelled behind the two wheeler which was driven by the said Vellaisamy, that the Sekar was the pillion rider, that in order to execute their plan, A-3 drove his TATA Sumo car behind the two wheeler and hit against the two wheeler, that thereby both of them fell down from the two wheeler, at that time, A-3 created light by operating the Engine of that Car, that A-1 attacked the Vellaisamy on his fore head portion with the help of aruval, that while the injured Vellaisamy attempted to stand, A-4 with intention to kill him attacked Vellaisamy with aruval on his head portion, that A-2 attacked the said Vellaisamy and Sekar with the help of iron rod on their head, that thereby Vellaisamy sustained fracture injuries on his right, left, front side of his head portion, and he died on the spot due to shock and multiple injures, that Sekar also died on the spot due to shock and multiple injuries, A-5 came there who followed the TATA Sumo car, by his two wheeler and told others as OTHER LANGUAGE that immediately A-1, A-2 and A-4 as directed by A-5 disappeared of the scene and set up the as the deceased were died due to accident. At that time one Murugan who came in that way was threatened by A-1 as OTHER LANGUAGE that A-5 directed as OTHER LANGUAGE hence the accused persons taken away the said Murugan in their TATA Sumo car and A-1 also gave a sum of Rs.5,000/-to the said Murugan and warned as OTHER LANGUAGE. After completing investigation, the Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar P.S., had laid the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.9 of 2011 against the accused persons. 8. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and the complaint was marked as Ex.P.1. The complainant is father of the deceased. Both the deceased are brothers. After completing investigation, the Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar P.S., had laid the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.9 of 2011 against the accused persons. 8. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and the complaint was marked as Ex.P.1. The complainant is father of the deceased. Both the deceased are brothers. P.W.1 is only a hearsay witness. The First Information Report was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 9. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Vellaichamy and P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased Sekar. P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.2 to P.W.4 are also hearsay witnesses, but deposed about previous enmity between the deceased persons and A-5. 10. P.W.5 was turned as hostile and P.W.6 is also a witness spoken about the motive of A-5 and during cross examination he has also turned as hostile. 11. As per P.W.7's evidence he sold land to the deceased Vellaisamy and A-5 has intended to buy the said land. Therefore, A-5 has developed enmity against the deceased Vellaichamy. But, on the side of the prosecution, the sale deed was not filed to prove the said enmity. 12. P.W.8 is the eye witness. As per prosecution case, P.W.8 saw the occurrence. After the occurrence, A-5 threatened the P.W.8 and the accused persons brought him in the TATA Sumo car and gave Rs.5,000/- to hide the occurrence. But, P.W.8 was turned as hostile. 13. P.W.9 was examined as a motive witness. 14. Another important witness is the Village Administrative Officer who recorded the confession statement from A-5. The Village Administrative Officer was examined as P.W.10 and the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.2. His special report was marked as Ex.P.3. But, he has deposed in his cross examination that, OTHER LANGUAGE 15. The confession and recovery witness was examined as P.W.11. A-1 to A-4 were present at police Station and they gave confession statement in the police station. According to P.W.11, TATA Sumo car was seized on the basis of confession statement given by A-3 from Pudhukkottai market on 11.0.2011. 16. P.W.12, one Shanmugasundaram who gave TATA sumo car to A-3 on 12.01.2011. As per prosecution case, he is owner of the TATA sumo car. As per his evidence, he handed over the car to P.W.12 on the next day. 16. P.W.12, one Shanmugasundaram who gave TATA sumo car to A-3 on 12.01.2011. As per prosecution case, he is owner of the TATA sumo car. As per his evidence, he handed over the car to P.W.12 on the next day. There was some damage on the front side of the car, but, P.W.12 has not produced any document to show that the car belonged to him. 17. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem of the deceased Vellaichamy was examined as P.W.13. The cause of the death of the deceased Vellaichamy is due to shock and multiple injuries. The Forensic Scientific Assistant was examined as P.W.14. 18. The Head Constable who handed over the body of the deceased Vellaichmay was examined as P.W.15 and the Sub-Inspector of Police, who handed over the body of the deceased Sekar to post-mortem was examined as P.W.16. 19. The Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as P.W.17. During his evidence, he has stated that he inspected the vehicle after three months from the date of occurrence. 20. The Doctor who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Sekar was examined as P.W.18. As per the evidence, the cause of death of the deceased Sekar is due to shock and multiple injuries on his head. 21. P.W.19 was turned as hostile. As per prosecution case, he is the witness for motive. The Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the First Information Report was examined as P.W.20. Initially, the First Information Report was registered under Section 174 (3) of Cr.P.C. as suspicious death. 22. The Judicial Magistrate has recorded the statements of P.W.5 and one Kalimuthu.. P.W.5 was turned as hostile and the said Kalimuthu was not examined on the side of the prosecution. 23. The Investigation Officers were examined as P.W.22 & P.W.23. 24. There was previous motive between A-5 and the deceased Vellaichamy. Only PW.8 was examined as eye witness, but he turned hostile. P.W.5 gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was also marked as Ex.P. 24. P.W.5 also spoke about only the motive not the occurrence. 25. Therefore, in the case on hand, only circumstantial evidence is available and it must be continuous and cogent. 26. Only PW.8 was examined as eye witness, but he turned hostile. P.W.5 gave 164 Cr.P.C. statement which was also marked as Ex.P. 24. P.W.5 also spoke about only the motive not the occurrence. 25. Therefore, in the case on hand, only circumstantial evidence is available and it must be continuous and cogent. 26. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances woven by the prosecution must form a complete chain and without any missing link it must proceed towards the guilt of the accused excluding any hypothesis of innocence in his favour. 27. The Judgment reported in 2012 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 15 and also in AIR 1990 SC 79 and 1991 SCC (Crl) 207, it was laid down that when 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 accumulatively 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 non else; and 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation if any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistants with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 28. In this case, Initially, the First Information Report was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The complainant is the father of the deceased. In the complaint/Ex.P.1, the complainant has stated that he heard a news on 13.01.2011 at 06.00 a.m that his sons died and fell down in a pit near Mochinankulam road with head injuries. But, the complaint was preferred only at 08.00 p.m. 29. A5 was surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer and gave extra judicial confession on 04.02.2011 at 11 a.m. The Village Administrative Officer handed over A-5 to the Inspector of Police along with his confession statement, which was marked as Ex.P.2. The Village Administrative Officer was examined as P.W.10 and he denied his special report/(Ex.P.3). What is the necessity for A-5 to surrender before the Village Administrative Officer, after lapse of 20 days from the date of occurrence. 30. The Village Administrative Officer was examined as P.W.10 and he denied his special report/(Ex.P.3). What is the necessity for A-5 to surrender before the Village Administrative Officer, after lapse of 20 days from the date of occurrence. 30. As already stated in his cross examination, P.W.10 has denied the Special report/Ex.P.3. He also denied the handwriting in Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3. Then, there is no evidence for who wrote the confession and special report (Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3) and also the same were written by a different person. P.W.10 has also not disclosed the name of the writer of Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3. Therefore, it is not believable. 31. Another hole in the investigation. A-1 to A-5 came in a TATA Sumo car which was owned by P.W.12. But, no documents were filed to prove the ownership of the offending vehicle. P.W.12 has admitted that the R.C.Book is in his name. But, as per Motor Vehicle Report, the owner of the vehicle is Palanisamy and the said Palanisamy was not examined on the side of the prosecution. P.W.12 inspected the TATA Sumo car and Hero Honda vehicle after lapse of three months from the date of occurrence. 32. There is no eye witness. Extra judicial confession by the Village Administrative Officer is also not proved on the side of the prosecution. Further, the Investigation Officer/P.W.23 has admitted in his cross examination that, he recorded confession statement of four accused in the police station. 33. Eventhough, the two-wheeler was seized from the occurrence place, it was not produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector, for conducting inspection immediately. 34. Nobody seen that A-1 to A-5 in the occurrence place and also with the deceased at the time of occurrence or immediately prior to occurrence. Witnesses had deposed only about the previous motive. It alone cannot prove the offence. 35. Without any evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai, erred in convicting the appellants herein/A-5, A-2 & A-4. The circumstantial evidences also not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, we are inclined to allow these Criminal Appeals. 36. Finally, these Criminal Appeals are allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.93 of 2011, dated 26.09.2018. The Appellants/A-5, A-2 & A-4 are acquitted from the charges framed against them. Therefore, we are inclined to allow these Criminal Appeals. 36. Finally, these Criminal Appeals are allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.93 of 2011, dated 26.09.2018. The Appellants/A-5, A-2 & A-4 are acquitted from the charges framed against them. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded and bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand terminated.