JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2015 passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichirappalli.) Common Judgment: R. Hemalatha, J. 1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.5/2015 passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Trichy District. The Trial Court framed six charges, as detailed below. Charge Penal Provisions Accused 1 406 IPC A1, A2, A3 2 120(b) IPC A1, A2, A3 3 302 r/w 201 IPC A1, A2, A3 4 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act A1 & A2 5 302 r/w 392 IPC A1 & A2 6 302 r/w109 IPC A3 2. By judgment and order dated 25.04.2019, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed below: Section of Law Accused Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 120(b) r/w 302 IPC A1 to A3 Life Imprisonment. Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. 302 r/w 34 IPC A1 & A2 Life Imprisonment. Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. 201 r/w 302 r/w 34I PC A1& A2 Simple Imprisonment for three years Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in these Criminal Appeals. 3. The prosecution case unfolds the following sequence of events. i. The victim Sasikala was a resident of Sudhanthirapuram, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. She was residing with her maternal aunt Ilanjiyam (P.W-24) since she had lost her mother when she was very young. On 14.12.2013, she had reportedly left her home along with her friend Sathya (A3) and two other acquaintance of Sathya, namely, Saravanan @ Renganathan(A1) and Marimuthu @ Suresh(A2). She (deceased) informed P.W-24 that she would be visiting Umayal temple but she did not return that evening when P.W-24 came back home from her work. After verifying from other relatives, she (P.W-24) along with the victim's sister Radhika (P.W-25) went to Pudhupatti Police Station and gave an oral complaint and also requested the police not to register any FIR since it involves the reputation of their family. P.W-25 was a resident of Irumpanadu near Embal. After verifying from other relatives, she (P.W-24) along with the victim's sister Radhika (P.W-25) went to Pudhupatti Police Station and gave an oral complaint and also requested the police not to register any FIR since it involves the reputation of their family. P.W-25 was a resident of Irumpanadu near Embal. Subsequently, both the women went to the tailor shop of Sekar (P.W-18) where the victim used to work and to the broiler shop of Vasantharajan (P.W-15) and enquired them. Both of them had seen the victim going along with Sathya(A3) and two other youngsters (A1 & A2). Since the victim did not return even on 15.12.2013, both the women approached the police again and informed them that they suspected foul play by Sathya (A3). However, no written complaint or FIR was prepared. Thiru.Sundarjaperumal (P.W-30) Inspector of Police, K.Pudhupatti Police Station, on 17.12.2013 summoned Sathya (A3) and the two accused (A1 & A2), who were seen with the victim on 14.12.2013 morning by P.W-15 and P.W-18. However, all the three accused claimed ignorance of the whereabouts of the victim. On 21.12.2013 as the victim was really missing P.W-24 gave a written complaint (Ex.P28) and requested the police to find the victim. P.W-30 received the complaint from P.W-24 and registered an FIR (Ex.P31) in Crime No.101/13 under 'woman missing'. Subsequently, on 24.12.2013, P.W-30 was summoned by Kabilan (P.W-48), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy, for enquiry in connection with the Crime No.101/13 of K.Pudhupatti Police Station. ii. In the meanwhile, on 18.12.2013, at about 4.00 p.m., Narayanan(P.W-1) the Village Administrative Officer of Thennur, Trichirappalli and his Assistant Palanisamy(P.W-2) on an information, found a decapitated body of a lady in a rainwater pond near Trichy Fort Railway Station Residential quarters, which prompted them to rush to the Thillainagar Police Station and P.W-1 gave a written complaint (Ex.P1). iii. Thiru.Rajkumar (P.W-42) Sub Inspector of Police, Thillainagar Police Station received Ex.P1 from P.W-1 and registered an FIR (Ex.P47) in Crime No.461 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thiru.Cheran(P.W-43), Inspector of Police and Thiru.Vijayakumar (P.W-29), Sub Inspector of Police, went to the scene of offence immediately. iii. Thiru.Rajkumar (P.W-42) Sub Inspector of Police, Thillainagar Police Station received Ex.P1 from P.W-1 and registered an FIR (Ex.P47) in Crime No.461 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Thiru.Cheran(P.W-43), Inspector of Police and Thiru.Vijayakumar (P.W-29), Sub Inspector of Police, went to the scene of offence immediately. P.W-43 prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P16) and a Rough sketch (Ex.P48) in the presence of witnesses P.W-1 and P.W-2.On the instructions of P.W-43 and P.W-29, Shivakumar (P.W-6), Marthandam (P.W-7) and Palaniyappan (P.W-8) fished out bloated and decapitated body and thereafter searched for missing head along with Balamurugan (P.W-3) and Srinivasan (P.W-4) which they could not find. Similarly Thiru.Sampath (P.W-11) on the instructions of the police, searched for the head in the nearby thorny bushes. But he could not find out the head. The body was without a dress except for a panty (M.O-8). Thiru.Kumar (P.W-9), a photographer, took photographs of the decapitated body and the same were marked as Ex.P24 series. Thiru.Vasanth (P.W-23) a constable, who is working in dog squad took the dog Spark to the place of occurrence. Spark after sniffing the body, turned around and went through a narrow foot pathway which led to the rain water pond and barked. The body was thereafter shifted to the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Trichy in an ambulance with the help of Ebinezer (P.W-10), the Ambulance driver. On the next day P.W-43 conducted inquest (Ex.P49) on the body of the deceased in the mortuary and thereafter sent the body for postmortem through Padmanathan(P.W-31) Head Constable of Police to the Government Hospital, Trichy. He gave publication in all the leading newspapers like Dinamalar and in All India Radio through Thiru.Jayakumar(P.W-49), Head Constable of Police, Trichy Fort Police Station. iv. He gave publication in all the leading newspapers like Dinamalar and in All India Radio through Thiru.Jayakumar(P.W-49), Head Constable of Police, Trichy Fort Police Station. iv. Dr.Saravanan (P.W-40) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “i. Complete, obliquely horizontal, postmortem cut injury on the entire circumference of middle third of neck; the injury was 6 cm above the level of suprasternal notch; the injury was at the level of C7 cervical spine on the back of the neck; the edges of the injury were clean cut and pale; there was no bleeding or extravasation of blood on the soft subcutaneous soft tissues, ribbon muscles and muscles of back of the neck; the injury was exposing the decomposed, cut and severed edges of underlying soft tissues, muscles, tendons, blood vessels, nerves oblique, complete, cut edges of upper part of thyroid cartilage and oblique, complete cut edge of middle third of body of C7 cervical vertebra with completely cut end of cervical spinal cord; the injury was postmortem in nature. ii. On further dissection of neck, hyoid bone was not found anywhere inside the neck tissues, irregular multiple fractured fragments of entire cricoid cartilage and adjoining 1st and 2nd tracheal rings with extravasation of blood on the surrounding soft tissues; few, small blood clots adherent with inner aspect of upper part of trachea; the injury was ante mortem in nature. iii. No other external or internal injuries anywhere on the body. iv. Heart:soft and flabby; decomposed;C/s; All chambers were empty; valves and great vessels intact; Coronaries: patent; Lungs:soft and flabby; multiple subpleural petechial hemorrhages on the surface of both lungs; C/s.; decomposed; Stomach:contained few ml of thick, pale, brownish fluid with no definite smell;Mucosa:decomposed; All internal organs; soft and flabby; C/s. Decomposed; external genitalia : intact; no injuries; vagina canal; intact; no injuries; uterus; normal in size; c/s. cavity empty; Urinary Bladder; Empty; Pelvis; intact.” The postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P43. Dr.Saravanan(P.W-40) sent the visceral organs for forensic analysis. He also took smears and swabs from vagina and anus for detection of spermatozoa. After getting the results from the experts, the Doctor opined that “the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to external compression of neck”. The final opinion of the doctor was marked as Ex.P44. Dr.Saravanan(P.W-40) sent the visceral organs for forensic analysis. He also took smears and swabs from vagina and anus for detection of spermatozoa. After getting the results from the experts, the Doctor opined that “the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to external compression of neck”. The final opinion of the doctor was marked as Ex.P44. v. P.W-43 thereafter altered the FIR to Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sent the alteration report (Ex.P50) to Court. vi. On 23.12.2013, when P.W-1 and P.W-2 were in the office of P.W-1, Saravanan (A1) came down to his office and gave an extra-judicial confession (Ex.P2), which was countersigned by both P.W-1 and P.W-2. The counter signatures of P.W-1 and P.W-2 were marked as Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 respectively. In the extra-judicial confession, A1 had stated that he and A2 murdered Sasikala (the deceased) in the wee hours of 16.12.2013 after a heated arguments that arose between A1 and the victim. A1 had also confessed that four of them (A1 to A3 and the deceased) left Sudhanthirapuram by boarding a bus at Puthuvayal bus stop on 14.12.2013 morning and went to Trichy to meet the mother of A3, who was hospitalised. During the journey, A3 took the gold chain of the victim under the pretext of keeping it safe. Without the knowledge of the victim, A3 had pledged it in a pawn shop in Trichy and shared the money amongst the three of them(A1 to A3). Subsequently, the two accused A1 and A2 hired a taxi belonging to Ganesan (P.W-17) and planned to drop the victim Sasikala and asked A3, who was in the hospital with her mother to come directly to Pudukkottai. Karthik (P.W16) was the driver of the taxi. Though A1 to A3 and the victim planned to go to Madurai, they changed their plan enroute and directly proceeded to Pudukkottai. A3 also joined them at Pudukkottai. All of them went to Karaikudi in the same taxi and thereafter came back to Samayapuram, Trichy and stayed there overnight. P.W-16, the driver of the taxi, dropped them at Samayapuram and went. On the next day, ie., 15.12.2013, all of them went to Samayapuram Mariamman temple and proceeded to Velankanni by bus and returned to Trichy the same night. All of them went to Karaikudi in the same taxi and thereafter came back to Samayapuram, Trichy and stayed there overnight. P.W-16, the driver of the taxi, dropped them at Samayapuram and went. On the next day, ie., 15.12.2013, all of them went to Samayapuram Mariamman temple and proceeded to Velankanni by bus and returned to Trichy the same night. On returning to Trichy, the victim kept insisting A1 to marry her, A1 refused to marry her for the reason that the victim belonged to SC community while he was from padayachi community. In the circumstances, the victim kept insisting for the return of her gold chain which A3 had taken out from her. A1 to A3, thereafter, conspired to eliminate the victim and accordingly, A1 and A2 took the victim to A1's house. On the way, near Railway quarters, they (A1 and A2) strangulated her and dumped her body in the rain water pond near Railway gate. Subsequently, A3 received a telephone call from Puthupatti police station. As per the directions of the police, A1 to A3 and the husband of A3 went to Puthupatti police station on 17.12.2013 and as already agreed, they claimed ignorance of the whereabouts of the victim. Thereafter, both A1 and A2 sensing danger from the police went back to Trichy, disrobed the body leaving the body with the panty(M.O8) and beheaded the victim with a knife(M.O5) and carried the severed head and disposed the same in Uyyakondan river canal. Thereafter A1 and A2 cleaned the knife (M.O5) and hidden it in a thorny bush near Railway Kalyana Mandapam. vii. After recording the confessional statement of A1, P.W-1 and P.W-2 took A1 to Thillainagar Police Station. viii. Since this case attracted the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Inspector of police (P.W-43) altered the FIR to Sections 302, 379, 201 and 120(b) IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and sent the alteration report (Ex.P51) to Court. As per the proceedings (Ex.P57) of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, Kabilan(P.W-48), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy, took up the investigation in Thillainagar Police Station Crime No.461/2013. A1 was produced before P.W-48 by P.W-1 and P.W-2 along with the extra judicial confession (Ex.P2) of A1. P.W-1 also submitted a special report (Ex.P3). As per the proceedings (Ex.P57) of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, Kabilan(P.W-48), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy, took up the investigation in Thillainagar Police Station Crime No.461/2013. A1 was produced before P.W-48 by P.W-1 and P.W-2 along with the extra judicial confession (Ex.P2) of A1. P.W-1 also submitted a special report (Ex.P3). P.W-48 arrested A1 and recovered a mobile phone (M.O1) from him under under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P14) in the presence of P.W-1 and P.W-2. He also recorded his police confessional statement (admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P4), based on which, A1 was taken to Periyanayaki Pawn shop owned by Muralidharan (P.W-5), which was located behind Periya Milagu Parai, where A1 had pledged the ear studs and nose ring (M.O-2 to M.O-4) worn by the victim and the receipts (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) under the cover of mahazars (Ex.P8 and Ex.P20) respectively. He also recovered a knife(M.O5) hidden by A1 and A2 beneath a thorny bush near a Marriage Hall(which was under construction), Thillainagar 5th Cross Extension, Trichirappalli, under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P9). A1 was thereafter produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody. P.W-48 made enquiries about Sasikala with the Inspector of Police, Pudhupatti Police Station. ix. On 24.12.2013 at about 6.00 a.m., A2 and A3 were arrested near Aristo Roundana, Cantonment, Trichy, in the presence of P.W-1 and P.W-2. Their mobile phones (M.O9 and M.O10) were seized under the cover of mahazars (Ex.P12 and Ex.P13) in the presence of the same witnesses. He recorded the police confessional statements of both the accused, admissible portions of which were marked as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 respectively, based on which, both the accused were taken to Sri Muthiah Swami Corporation Pawn Shop where the third accused had pledged the gold chain belonging to the deceased and recovered the receipt bearing No.5572 (Ex.P58) under the cover of a mahazar(Ex.P15). Further, both the accused were taken to Shop No.3, Periyasamy Towers, Chatram Bus stand and recovered a Nokia cell phone (M.O6) sold by the second accused under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P14). Thereafter, both the accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody. Further, both the accused were taken to Shop No.3, Periyasamy Towers, Chatram Bus stand and recovered a Nokia cell phone (M.O6) sold by the second accused under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P14). Thereafter, both the accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody. x. P.W-48 showed the recovered items, viz., Cell phone (M.O6), gold chain(M.O7), ear stud(M.O4), nose ring(M.O3) and panty(M.O8) to the maternal Aunt of Sasikala(P.W-24) and her sister's husband, who confirmed that all these items belonged to the deceased Sasikala. xi. P.W-48 obtained community certificates(Ex.P36, Ex.P37 and Ex.P41) of A1 to A3 from Ravichandran (P.W-33) and Bavani (P.W-36) both Thasildars of Trichy East and Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District, respectively. He also obtained community certificate(Ex.P35) for the deceased Sasikala from Lourdhusamy(P.W-32) Thasildar, Thirumayam. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for nominating a Judicial Magistrate to conduct a Test Identification Parade in the Central Prison, Trichy. Accordingly, Thiru.Dilip(P.W-44), Special Judicial Magistrate(Land Grabbing Cases), Trichy, was nominated by the Chief Judicial Magistrat vide his proceedings, dated 17.01.2014(Ex.P54). P.W-44 sent summons to the witnesses, Sekar (P.W-18), Tamilarasan (not examined), Chandran(P.W-19) and Vasantharajan(P.W-15) and conducted Test Identification Parade on 24.01.2014. According to P.W-44, all the witnesses identified both the Accused 1 and 2 and his report was marked as Ex.P53. xii. After obtaining various reports from the experts and after completing the investigation, P.W-48 filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichirappalli in PRC.No.III/15. The learned Judicial Magistrate complied with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, took the case on file in S.C.No.5/15 and made over the case to the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichirappalli, for trial. xiii. In order to establish the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 51 witnesses, marked 60 documents and 10 material objects. xiv. When the appellants were questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied of having committed any offence. However, they did not examine any witness on their side. xv. xiv. When the appellants were questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied of having committed any offence. However, they did not examine any witness on their side. xv. The learned Sessions Judge after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 120(b) r/w 302 IPC, 302 r/w 34 IPC and 201 r/w 302 r/w 34 IPC., and sentenced them as stated in paragraph No.1. Challenging the same, the appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.516 of 2019 is filed by the appellants(A2 & A3) along with a petition to condone the delay of 113 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Crl.M.P(MD)No.9138 of 2019. The said petition was allowed on 23.10.2019. Similarly, the appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.458 of 2022 is filed by the appellant(A1) along with a petition to condone the delay of 1125 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Crl.M.P(MD)No.8266 of 2022. The said petition was allowed on 19.07.2022. 3. Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the first accused, Mr.R.Manickaraj, for Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the second accused and Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing for the third accused and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent in both cases. 4. The prosecution rested the case on the extra-judicial confession made by A1 before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W-1) and his Assistant (P.W-2). They have also tried to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 through P.W-15, P.W-18 and P.W-19, who had last seen the victim along with the three accused on 14.12.2013 boarding a bus. Reliance was also placed on the taxi driver (P.W-16), who had been with all the three accused and the victim till 15th morning. Yet another witness by name, Jayachandran(P.W-21) had also deposed of having seen the three accused along with the victim, when he was coming out of Samayapuram temple on 15th morning. Chinnaiya @ Senthilkumar (P.W-14) a resident of Jeeva Nagar also claimed of having seen the accused 1 and 2 along with the victim in the wee hours of 16.12.2013. The depositions of all these witnesses along with the extra-judicial confession point out the fact that there was no eyewitness to the crime. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Chinnaiya @ Senthilkumar (P.W-14) a resident of Jeeva Nagar also claimed of having seen the accused 1 and 2 along with the victim in the wee hours of 16.12.2013. The depositions of all these witnesses along with the extra-judicial confession point out the fact that there was no eyewitness to the crime. The case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govinda Reddy and another vs. State of Mysore ( AIR 1960 SC 29 ) has held that “In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the cirumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to the proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”. 5. The extra-judicial confession(Ex.P2) necessarily be supported with the chain of events made out through the circumstantial evidence leading to the one and only conclusion about the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has made an extensive investigation without knowing where it started and where it ended. For the sake of clarity, at the cost of repetition, the prosecution version reconstructed from the entire range of oral and documentary evidence is that a woman by name Sasikala(victim), who was physically challenged and 28 years old went missing from her home, where she was living with her maternal aunt. She along with her friend Sathya (A3) and two other men (A1 and A2), who are known to Sathya (A3) had left for Trichy though she had told her acquaintances P.W-15 and P.W-18 that she was visiting Umayal temple. She did not return home that night causing concern to her aunt and family members. She along with her friend Sathya (A3) and two other men (A1 and A2), who are known to Sathya (A3) had left for Trichy though she had told her acquaintances P.W-15 and P.W-18 that she was visiting Umayal temple. She did not return home that night causing concern to her aunt and family members. However, the prosecution has been able to establish through a DNA test (Ex.P45) that the missing woman was the one who was found without a head in a rain water pond at Trichy. It is also stated by the prosecution that the victim along with the three other accused had travelled extensively for two days visiting places of worship in Samayapuram, Trichy and Velankanni. In order to substantiate that the victim along with the three accused visited Samayapuram temple on 15.12.2013, the deposition of P.W-21 has been relied upon. P.W-21 during the course of cross-examination has deposed that he never knew any one of the accused or of the victim and that he remembered them only after reading the newspapers. He was also not sure about whether the photographs of the accused or of the victim were published in the newspaper. All these aspects clearly indicate that he was not a reliable witness and there has been no specific reason as to how or why he saw them in Samayapuram temple that too when the temple was crowded as admitted by him. The witnesses P.W-15 and P.W-18 are definitely crucial as they knew the victim and A3 very well and by name also. It is also very much possible for them to remember the faces of A1 and A2 because the victim herself was an employee of P.W-18 and their identification of A1 and A2 was relatively easier and therefore their depositions as to seeing the victim along with A1 to A3 on 14.12.2013 at 10.00 a.m., can be believed. Both these prosecution witnesses were amongst three of the prosecution witnesses, who were able to identify A1 and A2 in the Test Identification Parade. 6. However, the depositions of Chandran (P.W-19) and Manickam (P.W-38) are not convincing. Both these prosecution witnesses were amongst three of the prosecution witnesses, who were able to identify A1 and A2 in the Test Identification Parade. 6. However, the depositions of Chandran (P.W-19) and Manickam (P.W-38) are not convincing. While P.W-19 in his deposition has stated that he had seen the victim along with the three accused at Puthuvayal bus stand, P.W-38 had deposed that he was with P.W-19 in a tea shop in the bus stand and both of them saw the victim and the three accused at Puthuvayal bus stand and also informed the police about the same. According to P.W-38, he identified A1 and A2 in Pudhupatti Police Station. However, during the course of cross-examination, P.W-38 had deposed that he knew the accused 1 & 2 only after reading the newspaper. The evidence of Chinnaiya @ Senthilkumar was that he saw both A1 and A2 with a lady a t about 1.00 a.m., on 16.12.2013. The place where he saw the accused Nos.1&2 along with the lady has not been spoken to by him. 7. The version of Karthick(P.W-16) the taxi driver, who had taken the victim along with the three accused to different places from 14.12.2013 till the early morning, ie., 2.00 a.m., on 15.12.2013, is also not convincing because there is no record of travel to the different places as claimed by him, though Ganesan (P.W-17), the owner of the taxi, has also tried to support the version of his driver P.W-16. According to P.W-17, his vehicle was booked over phone by A1 and that he knew both A1 and A2. Karthick (P.W-16) was with the victim and the three accused and had deposed that he overheard the conversation amongst them while travelling in the car regarding the marriage of the victim and the caste barrier. According to him, he had completed the trip after dropping them at Samayapuram at 2 a.m., on 15.12.2013. However, it is pertinent to point out that there was no trip sheet for this journey which was admitted by P.W-16. The toll receipt for the Viralimalai gate was not also produced by the prosecution. The driver of the car (P.W-16) was the only prosecution witness who had spent the maximum time with the accused and the victim, but surprisingly, he was not called upon to identify the accused in the Test Identification Parade. 8. The toll receipt for the Viralimalai gate was not also produced by the prosecution. The driver of the car (P.W-16) was the only prosecution witness who had spent the maximum time with the accused and the victim, but surprisingly, he was not called upon to identify the accused in the Test Identification Parade. 8. The Investigation Officer, who seized the mobiles of the three accused and also that of the victim to trace out the calls if any and also different locations/towers, which were touched by the mobile, but could not substantiate much with the details. The case of the prosecution is that the following are the mobile numbers of the deceased and A1 to A3. *Cellphone number of the deceased:9159043408. *Cellphone number of Saravanan @ Renganathan (A1): 8122362534. *Cellphone number of Suresh @ Kozhi Suresh (A2): 8220329186. *Cellphone number of Sobana @ Sathya (A3):9150133858. Except the deceased's cellphone number-9159043408, all other cellphone numbers in the case stand in the name of different persons as admitted by the nodal officers (P.W-34, P.W-35, P.W-45& P.W-46) and the Inspector of Police CBCID (P.W-47). According to the prosecution, the deceased and A1 to A3 stayed in Samayapuram on the night of 14.12.2013 and left Samayapuram on 15.12.2013. However, in Ex.P38, there is no entry of Samayapuram tower location of the deceased cellphone number from 9.27 p.m., on 14.12.2013 to 9.10 a.m., on 15.12.2013. while the cellphone number of Sathya(A3) shows the tower location of Umayal Complex, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, the deceased's cellphone number shows the tower location of Kandanur, Trichy District at 10.45 a.m, on 14.12.2013. Likewise, there are difference in the tower location of the three accused and the deceased as is seen from the entries in Ex.P38 thereby making the evidence of Chandran (P.W-19) and Manickam (P.W-38) that they saw the accused and the victim in Puthuvayal bus stop is highly doubtful. 9. It is understandable that P.W-24 and P.W-25 were perturbed by the fact that the victim, who was their close relative did not return home and had approached the police to trace her. However, it is not known as to why Puthupatti police did not insist for a written complaint and register an FIR on 14.12.2013 itself which by all means would have expedited the process of tracing the victim. However, it is not known as to why Puthupatti police did not insist for a written complaint and register an FIR on 14.12.2013 itself which by all means would have expedited the process of tracing the victim. It is also not comprehensible as to how and why P.W-24 waited till 21.12.2013 to give a written complaint. However, according to the prosecution P.W-24 and P.W-25 had orally on 16.12.2013 named the suspect as Sathya (A3) based on which Puthupatti police had reportedly summoned A1 to A3 and all of them had claimed ignorance on the whereabouts of the victim. It is not clear as to why P.W-24 and P.W-25 did not mention about the victim leaving Sudhanthirapuram along with the three accused under the pretext of going to Umayal temple on 14.12.2013 in their complaint (Ex.P28) since as per their deposition, they had already enquired P.W-15 and P.W-18 about Sasikala on 14.12.2013. According to P.W-15 and P.W-18, both P.W-24 and P.W-25 had come down to their shops on 14.12.2013 itself and were clearly told that the victim went with A3 and the two other men. It is also puzzling as to how the Puthupatti police was convinced with the reply of the three accused about the missing victim. Prosecution has tried to mix and match bits and pieces of the available evidence and made a mess of it. 10. P.W-1 and P.W-2 have deposed that they were the ones, who found the dead body of a woman without a head floating in a rain water pond and that they immediately informed Thillainagar police. Furthermore, the prosecution is not sure in its own about the date or time of the death. The body was found in a decomposed state and that too without the head. The extra-judicial confession is the only evidence they rely on not only to reconstruct the sequence of events but also to claim the date and time of of death. The headless body of the victim was found only by the evening of 18th. According to the prosecution, the place, where the body was found was not a remote place. It was near the railway quarters and the railway track. The railway track was a busy one with a number of trains passing through daily. P.W-7 saw children gathered near the pond by which he was also curious to know what was there. According to the prosecution, the place, where the body was found was not a remote place. It was near the railway quarters and the railway track. The railway track was a busy one with a number of trains passing through daily. P.W-7 saw children gathered near the pond by which he was also curious to know what was there. He reached the spot and found the headless body in the pond. Assuming that the victim was murdered on 16th early morning, it is intriguing to note that the body was in the pond for two days till 18th evening before it was found. The extra-judicial confession is dated 23rd. It is the prosecution theory that A1 went to P.W-1's office and confessed. The body by then was already buried. There was no pressure on the accused to surrender. They were already let off the hook by the Pudupatti police on 18th after the grilling on 17th and 18th. Had they really committed the crime; how did they manage to appear in the Pudhupatti police station and get through the interrogation without spilling the beans. It is also the version of the prosecution that after the grilling on 17th and 18th, the accused got panicky and went back to Trichy to make the victim unidentifiable. They reportedly cut the head and threw it in the Uyyakondan canal. How was it possible for the accused to be present in the Pudhupatti police station and also at the crime scene simultaneously. The entire sequence narrated by the prosecution smacks of fiction lifted out of some movie. The accused do not appear to have any criminal track record. The reasons cited for their planning and murder are the insistence of the victim to A1 to marry her and the demand for the gold chain reportedly taken by the A3 for safekeeping. The pledge of the chain by A3 and other jewellery by A1 are all mysterious. The pawn broker P.W-5 handing over the two pledge receipts to the police when actually they were supposed to be with the pledgor ( A1) arouses suspicion on the veracity of this version. The one witness, Chinnaiya @ Senthilkumar (P.W-14), who claimed to have seen the victim with the accused in the wee hours of 16th near the railway quarters also was not called upon to identify the accused in the Test Identification Parade. The one witness, Chinnaiya @ Senthilkumar (P.W-14), who claimed to have seen the victim with the accused in the wee hours of 16th near the railway quarters also was not called upon to identify the accused in the Test Identification Parade. The post-mortem certificate mentions the cause of death as strangulation. If strangulation was done by A1 and A2 when was it done, because, on both days, they were with the pudhupatti police. The theory of beheading the victim after her death does not carry any conviction. It has to be borne in mind that they were not professional killers and there was no convincing reason for the alleged act. The victim was a friend of A3 only. The other two accused were known to A3. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the victim pestered A1 to marry her. In fact, the confession of A1 says that A1 was in an illicit affair with A3. The death of the victim is unfortunate. The motherless victim appears to be a happy go lucky girl. She was not married even at 28 and that was in the mind of both P.W-24 and P.W-25. It also appears that she was also very independent. She had informed P.W-24, her local guardian that she was going to Umayal temple. The manner in which P.W- 24 and P.W- 25 reacted after knowing that the victim did not return home on 14th is logical. The victim was having her mobile phone. The phone records would have shown if she had informed her aunt or not after she was getting late on 14th night. There is not a whisper about it. The victim was missing from Sudhandirapuram, Pudukottai District from 14th morning, while the body was recovered from Trichy on 18th evening. The sequence of events are not very clear. The sniffer dog could not do much in tracking down the culprit. The stand alone evidence in the form of extra judicial confession is not ably supported by other evidence. In such cases, where reliance is placed in the circumstantial evidence coupled with the extra-judicial confession, perfect harmony of the evidences is expected. The police did not take a written complaint in the first instance on 14th itself is unbecoming of the police. Much damage could have been averted had the police done their duty properly. In such cases, where reliance is placed in the circumstantial evidence coupled with the extra-judicial confession, perfect harmony of the evidences is expected. The police did not take a written complaint in the first instance on 14th itself is unbecoming of the police. Much damage could have been averted had the police done their duty properly. The body of the victim was buried even without trying to find out who it was. There is no clarity as to why it was not handed over to her close relatives. Disposal of any dead body, which is yet to be identified and which is under suspicion in such a haste causes serious doubt about the prosecution theory. The 'last seen together’ theory is only partly applicable. It is convincing as to the extent of the version of P.W-15 and P.W-18. But that was on 14th. These two witnesses knew the victim and A3. Therefore, some credibility can be accorded to their depositions. The remaining prosecution witnesses did not know any of the four. They have also tried to support the ‘last seen together’ concept. Jayachandran (P.W-21), who claimed to have seen them in the temple has not clarified as to how he could remember them when he had reportedly seen them in a crowd. If the statements of all these witnesses were true, why they were not called for Test Identification Parade by the police is a million dollar question. The taxi driver P.W-16 not being summoned to identify the accused is also perplexing. The police have made a futile attempt to build a strong case on a weak and crumbling foundation. A3 reportedly was also not at home on 14th and 15th. She had a reason to be away from home as her mother was in a hospital in Trichy. But when she was summoned by the Pudhupatti police on 17th and 18th, she appeared before the police with her husband. The enquiry was about the missing victim. The two accused A2 and A3 were also summoned on both the days. In such a scenario, how the husband of A3 remained a mute spectator and why he was not enquired on these aspects are all suspicious. The motive for murder as put up by the prosecution is flimsy. According to the confession of A1, they had initially planned to drop the victim in Pudukkottai. In such a scenario, how the husband of A3 remained a mute spectator and why he was not enquired on these aspects are all suspicious. The motive for murder as put up by the prosecution is flimsy. According to the confession of A1, they had initially planned to drop the victim in Pudukkottai. If that is true, why there was a change in the plan and what was the desire of victim in the sense whether she was coerced to continue to travel with them also needs an answer. There is also no record as to the medical treatment of A3's mother and that A3 had come down to see her mother. 11. In other words, there is more to it than that meets the eye. The entire bunch of documentary evidence reminds us of history answer papers where 'more the volume more the marks' was a belief. Similarly, instead of focussing on the real issue and investigation, more voluminous work has been done to present a theory, which is shabby and illconceived making us to wonder what went wrong. 12. In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Trichirappalli, cannot be sustained and the appeals deserve to be allowed. 13. In the result, (i) These Criminal Appeals are allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P(MD)No.8467 of 2022 is closed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichirappalli, in Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2015, dated 25.04.2019, is set aside. (iii) The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if their custody is not required in any other case. (iv) Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.