JUDGMENT : V. BHARATHIDASAN, J. 1. The appellant, a sole accused, in S.C. No. 52 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, stood charged and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo six month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased Vasantha @ Muthulakshmi, is the wife of PW-1 and they are agriculturists. On 11.01.2012, both of them were working in the agricultural field and PW-1 left earlier, leaving the deceased in the agricultural field alone, the deceased did not return home till evening, hence, PW-1 along with others searched for her and on 12.01.2012, at 4.00 a.m. they found the deceased dead in the field and the ear studs and nose studs were found missing. Immediately, PW-1 has given a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the respondent police. 3. Based on that complaint, an F.I.R. has been registered by one Singaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No. 9 of 2012, under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. and he has prepared the First Information Report (Ex.P.8), sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and sent the copies of the F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police and other higher officials. 4. PW-9, Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.9), called the finger print expert and the scientific expert to the scene of occurrence. Then he, conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars, prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.10), examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and sent the body of the deceased for conducting postmortem autopsy to Government Hospital at Sivakasi. 5. PW-7, Doctor, working at Government Hospital at Sivakasi. He conducted postmortem autopsy and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.6), noting the following injuries: “External Examination: 1. Lacerated Lt. Ear lobule (Torn) of 1 x 1cm size. 2. 5. PW-7, Doctor, working at Government Hospital at Sivakasi. He conducted postmortem autopsy and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.6), noting the following injuries: “External Examination: 1. Lacerated Lt. Ear lobule (Torn) of 1 x 1cm size. 2. A piece of cotton cloth (Towel) loosely present around the neck with one end tied with her hair. Ligature mark seen. 3. Abdomen distend. Internal Examination: Opening thorax: On opening the layers of neck no subcutaneous bruise seen. Few contusion with muscle haematoma present in muscles of the neck in anterior aspect. Hyoid bone preserved. Pharynx intact. Lungs congested. Peri cardium in tact. Heart empty. Opening Abdomen: Distended: Liver congested. Gall bladder intact. Stomach contain 300gms partially digested rice particles seen. Spleen congested. Kidneys congested. Intestine distended with gas. Uterus and Womb present. Blader empty. Spleen and Cranium: No # found in spleen? Cranium 5 x 6 cm spread haemotoma present in rt. tumble inside the muscle. Membrane intact. Brain normal. Vaginal smear taken and preserved. Hyoid, stomach e coli, small intestine e coli, sample of kidney preserved.” He was of the opinion that the cause of death could not be ascertained by postmortem examination. 6. After his transfer, PW-9 handed over the investigation to PW-10. On 09.01.2014, at 2.30 p.m. when PW-10, conducting vehicle inspection, the accused came in a two wheeler and after seeing the police, he tried to escape. However, PW-10, secured the accused and arrested him. On such arrest, he voluntarily gave a confession, admitting the crime and based on the admissible portion of the confession, stolen jewels were recovered from PW-8, a jewelry shop owner, which was also identified by PW-1. After completion of the investigation, he filed the final report on 28.08.2014 for the offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. 7. Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, marked 10 documents and also produced 7 material objects. 8. Out of the witnesses examined, PW-1, husband of the deceased, is the author of the complaint. According to him, on 12.01.2012, at 4.00 p.m. he found the dead body of the deceased in their field and he lodged the complaint. PW-2 is the neighbour of PW-1. 8. Out of the witnesses examined, PW-1, husband of the deceased, is the author of the complaint. According to him, on 12.01.2012, at 4.00 p.m. he found the dead body of the deceased in their field and he lodged the complaint. PW-2 is the neighbour of PW-1. According to him, he along with PW-1 searched for the deceased and on the next day morning, they found the body of the deceased, then, he along with PW-1 went to the respondent police station and has given the complaint. PW-3 is another neighbour of PW-1. According to him, at about 12.30 a.m., they found the dead body of deceased in the agricultural field with blood injuries and both ear studs and nose studs were found missing. 9. PW-4, brother of PW-1, turned hostile. PW-5, is the witness to the observation mahazar. PW-6, Village Administrative Officer, witness to the arrest, confession and recovery of M.O.1 - ear studs and M.O.2 - nose studs. PW-7 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem autopsy. PW-8, jewelry shop owner, to whom the accused said to have sold the stolen jewels of the deceased, but, he turned hostile. PW-9, Inspector of Police, who conducted initial investigation. PW-10, another Inspector of Police of the respondent of Police Station, arrested the accused and recovered the stolen articles and finally filed the final report. 10. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the same as false. The accused did not chose to examine any witness nor did he mark any documents on his side. 11. Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused/appellant guilty under the above said charges and accordingly sentenced him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the appeal. 12. We have heard Mr. Ponramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 13. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.11.2012, the deceased was working in the agricultural field alone, the accused has stolen her ear studs and nose studs, strangulated her with her towel, and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Subsequently, on 09.01.2014, he was arrested by PW-10 and based on his disclosure statement, the stolen articles were recovered through PW-8, jewelry shop owner. Subsequently, on 09.01.2014, he was arrested by PW-10 and based on his disclosure statement, the stolen articles were recovered through PW-8, jewelry shop owner. This is the only strong circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. However, the accused was arrested after two years of the occurrence, and based on his disclosure statement the stolen jewels were said to have been recovered through PW-8, but he turned hostile. For arrest and recovery except the evidence of PW-6, Village Administrative Officer, no other witness has been examined by the prosecution, and the prosecution failed to prove the recovery. 14. So far as the cause of death is concerned, according to PW-7, cause of death could not be ascertained and there is no ligature mark present in the body of the deceased. 15. It is settled law that in a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove that the circumstances relied upon by them. The circumstances should be fully established and the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and it should exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and the chain of circumstances must be complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a leading case of circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , held as follows: “153. (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 17. The prosecution relied upon, one and only circumstance that recovery of stolen articles. (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 17. The prosecution relied upon, one and only circumstance that recovery of stolen articles. The recovery was made after two years of the occurrence and PW-8, from whom the jewels were recovered turned hostile. Considering those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 18. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in S.C. No. 52 of 2015, by the judgment dated 09.09.2019, are hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. The appellant/accused is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence of custody or detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings. As ordered by the trial Court, after the expiry of appeal time or appeal M.Os. 3 to 7 are ordered to be destroyed and M.Os. 1 and 2 are ordered to be retained by the legal heirs of the deceased.