JUDGMENT : SUNDER MOHAN, J. Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the Judgment passed in S.C.No.407 of 2018 dated 02.04.2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused. The sole accused has filed the above appeal challenging the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence imposed on him for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.407 of 2018 dated 02.04.2019. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2016 at about 11.45 p.m, the appellant/accused with an intention to cause the death of his friend Ramesh called him to help him in committing murder of another person and took him in his bike bearing Reg.No.TN-76-D-6495 by concealing Knife and Aruval in his dress to cause his death. The appellant/accused parked the vehicle about 100 metres away from the town and when the people of the village were witnessing temple festival, the appellant took the deceased to a nearby farm belonging P.W.4 and attacked the deceased by using the Knife and Aruval. After causing death, the appellant cut the private part of the deceased and stuffed it in his mouth. Thereafter, he set fire to the body of the deceased by pouring petrol. The motive, according to the prosecution, is that on 27.08.2016, at about 10.00 a.m, the deceased had misbehaved with the daughter of the appellant, aged about 1-1/2 years, by touching her private part. That was witnessed by the appellant and hence, he decided to cause death of the deceased. 3. The appellant was charged and convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; for the offence under Section 364 IPC, he was sentenced to 10 years R.I; and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to 3 years R.I. 4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.28 and M.O.Nos.1 to 11. The defence marked Exs.D.1 to D.3. The appellant did not examine any witness on his side. 5. The prosecution sought to prove the case as stated earlier by examining 20 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1. P.20. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.28 and M.O.Nos.1 to 11. The defence marked Exs.D.1 to D.3. The appellant did not examine any witness on his side. 5. The prosecution sought to prove the case as stated earlier by examining 20 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1. P.20. P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer, who saw the body of the deceased on information from one Ayyamperumal (P.W.4) in whose land, the body of the deceased was found on 29.08.2016 at about 05.00 a.m. The Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) lodged the complaint (Ex.P.1). P.W.2 is the Special Tashildar, who handed over the details of voters list, in which, the name of the deceased was found. P.W.3 was witness to the arrest and recovery of M.O.No.1-Aruval, M.O.No.2-Knife and M.O.No.3-Lungee and M.O.No.4- Shirt, which were recovered pursuant to the confession of the accused. P.W.4 is the land owner in whose farm, the deceased was found dead. P.W. 5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazer and to the Rough Sketch. P.W. 6 is a native of the deceased, who is said to have seen the deceased at the Narayanasamy Temple Festival on 27.08.2016 afternoon. P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased, who said to have seen the deceased along with the appellant at the temple festival on the night of 27.08.2016 and thereafter, saw him taking the deceased alone. P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased, who saw the deceased near the appellant at the temple festival on 27.08.2016 at 11.00 p.m. P.W.9 is the Scientific Expert, who had given Ex.P.9-Report. P.W.10 is the Assistant Director working in the Forensic Science Department, Ramanathapuram, who had examined the blood samples found in M.O.No.3-Lungee and M.O.No.4-shirt and gave his report Exs.P.13 to 15. P.W.11 who works in Sub-Court, Valliyoor, speaks about the receipt of the Forensic Science Report. P.W.12 is the Village Administrative Officer, before whom, the appellant is said to have appeared on 19.10.2016 at about 09.00 a.m and given a Extra Judicial Confession. P.W.12 prepared special report, based on the confession and took the appellant to the respondent police along with the confession recorded by her. P.W.12 is the Village Administrative Officer, before whom, the appellant is said to have appeared on 19.10.2016 at about 09.00 a.m and given a Extra Judicial Confession. P.W.12 prepared special report, based on the confession and took the appellant to the respondent police along with the confession recorded by her. P.W.13, who is working in a hotel and related to the deceased is said to have seen the appellant near the deceased in the hotel on 27.08.2016 at about 11.45 p.m, when both the appellant and the deceased bought parotta from his hotel. P.W.14 is said to be running a two-wheeler stand, wherein two wheelers and cycles are parked and he would say that on 27.09.2016 at about 05.30 p.m the appellant parked his bike bearing Tenkasi registration and thereafter, on 19.10.2016 at about 11.45, the appellant came with Radhapuram Police Inspector and took away the bike. P.W.15 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who handed over the Express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor on 29.08.2016 at about 10.00 p.m. P.W.16 is the Constable, who handed over the body of the deceased to the Mortuary since no one claimed the body. P.W.17 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report. P.W.18 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the initial stage of investigation. P.W.20 completed investigation and filed final report. The prosecution sought to prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had established the circumstances and held the appellant guilty of the offences charged. 6(a). Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the prosecution case has not proved the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstance relied upon by the prosecution are (i) that the deceased and the appellant/accused were last seen together by P.W.7 (mother) and P.W.8 (brother) of the deceased at the temple festival on the night of 27.08.2016. (ii) P.W.13 saw the appellant and the deceased when they bought parotta, from the hotel, where, he was working. (iii) The recovery of the Aruval and Knife from the appellant pursuant to the confession. Apart from the above said circumstances, the prosecution relied upon the Extra Judicial Confession of the appellant said to have given to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.12) on 19.10.2016 at about 09.00 a.m. Based on the confession, P.W.12 filed a special report, which was marked as Ex.P.18. 6(b). Apart from the above said circumstances, the prosecution relied upon the Extra Judicial Confession of the appellant said to have given to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.12) on 19.10.2016 at about 09.00 a.m. Based on the confession, P.W.12 filed a special report, which was marked as Ex.P.18. 6(b). The learned counsel for the appellant/accused further submitted that witnesses who had allegedly last seen the deceased and the appellant together cannot be believed; The statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of P.Ws.7 and 8 were recorded only on 03.09.2016 and the said statements reached the Court with the final report much later. That apart, P.W.7 (mother of the deceased) would state in her cross examination that she did not remember whether she told the police about seeing of the deceased at the temple festival. She would also state that the police did not examine her. P.W.20-Investigating Officer would state that P.W.7 did not state that she had seen the appellant and the deceased at the temple festival on 27.08.2016. P.W.20 further would state that P.W.7 identified the body of the deceased at Asaripallam Government Hospital, which would suggest that she did not say anything about seeing the appellant and the deceased. Hence, her subsequent statement is an after thought. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the statements of P.W.7 and P.W.8, who are the brother and mother of the deceased, cannot be believed. P.W.3 also is not a reliable witness. His evidence is artificial. His 161 statement was recorded on 19.10.2016, there is no reason why P.W.13 did not state earlier about the fact that the deceased and the appellant came together on 27.08.2016 to his hotel. Further, P.W.14 is related to the deceased. Therefore, his evidence is also not reliable. 6(c) The learned counsel further submitted that the Extra Judicial Confession said to have been given by the appellant to P.W.12 cannot be believed, since the appellant had not signed the confession. The alleged confession, which is said to have been recorded as special report, has been typed by P.W.12. A reading of the said report would show that the confession is neither voluntary nor truthful. Further, the arrest is doubtful and there is no reason for the appellant to give confession to the Village Administrative Officer. The alleged confession, which is said to have been recorded as special report, has been typed by P.W.12. A reading of the said report would show that the confession is neither voluntary nor truthful. Further, the arrest is doubtful and there is no reason for the appellant to give confession to the Village Administrative Officer. In any case, the appellant did not sign in the confession and thereby, throwing serious doubt on the valuntariness of the alleged confession. The recovery of weapons by itself is a weak circumstance. That apart, the blood group in the material objects could not be ascertained. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not established the circumstances and in any event, the circumstances did not form a complete chain which point out only to guilt the accused. 7. Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the Judgment of the Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of facts and law which does not call for any interference. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the natural witnesses and their presence at the temple festival, where the appellant and the deceased were found together, cannot be doubted. P.W.13, who had seen the appellant and the deceased in his hotel has given cogent evidence. The defence had not shaken his credibility in the cross examination. The extra judicial confession contains the details, which the accused was only aware and hence, is reliable. That apart, the evidence of P.W.14 would show that the appellant had parked his vehicle on 27.08.2016 at about 05.30 p.m and did not take the vehicle thereafter till 19.10.2016, which would establish absconding and it is yet another circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. Therefore, Ex.P.18 the special report of Village Administrative Officer along with the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8, 13 and 14, form a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case and hence, the judgment and conviction does not call for interference. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidences oral and documentary. 9. In this case, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the land belonging to P.W.4. On information from P.W.4 to P.W.1, P.W.1 visited the scene of occurrence. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidences oral and documentary. 9. In this case, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the land belonging to P.W.4. On information from P.W.4 to P.W.1, P.W.1 visited the scene of occurrence. On the information of P.W.1, complaint (Ex.P.1) was lodged on 29.08.2016 and registered as Ex.P.22, First Information Report. Thereafter, it appears that the accused appeared before the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.2) and had given a confession. P.W.12 prepared a special report stating that the appellant appeared before him on 19.10.2016 at about 09.00 a.m and confessed to the crime. The said special report was marked as Ex.P.18. In the special report, P.W.12 has recorded the confession of the appellant. He did not obtain signature of the appellant as according to him it was prepared as a special report and not recorded as a confession of the appellant. Before we advert to the value that has to be given to Ex.P.18, we would examine the other circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution. 10. The first circumstance is that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on 27.08.2016 at about 11.00 p.m in the temple festival said to have taken place in Narayanapuram Village where the appellant and the deceased were residing. P.W.7, the mother of the deceased would say that she saw the appellant and the deceased together. At that time, she saw the appellant parking his bike few yards away from the place, where the temple festival was conducted and took the deceased along with him somewhere. He was carrying yellow colour cloth bag at that time. The evidence of P.W. 8, who is the brother of the deceased is similar to the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.7 had admitted in the cross examination that she did not remember as to whether she told the police about seeing the appellant and the deceased at the temple festival. The Investigating Officer also admits that P.W.7 did not inform him when he examined her that she saw the appellant and the deceased at the temple festival. He would further add that P.W.7 identified the body of the deceased at Asaripallam Government Hospital, after the body was found in the farm of P.W.4. The Investigating Officer also admits that P.W.7 did not inform him when he examined her that she saw the appellant and the deceased at the temple festival. He would further add that P.W.7 identified the body of the deceased at Asaripallam Government Hospital, after the body was found in the farm of P.W.4. The above would show that P.W.7's version that she saw the appellant and the deceased, is an after thought. Admittedly, she had not stated there facts to the police when she was at the hospital to identify the deceased. Thereafter also, P.W.7 had not informed the police about this fact. Further, P.W.7 was examined by the police on 03.09.2016 nearly 4 days after the body of the deceased was found. This statement reached the Court only at the time of filing of the final report. Similarly, P.W.8, the brother of the deceased would admit that the police enquired him immediately after the occurrence and he had not stated that he last saw the deceased with the appellant. His statement dated 03.09.2016 also reached the Court along with the final report in 2017. Therefore, we are of the view that the version P.W.7 and P.W.8 is highly doubtful and cannot be relied upon to conclude that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together, on the night of 27.08.2016. 11. Likewise, P.W.13 speaks about the appellant and the deceased buying parotta from his hotel on the night of 27.08.2016. It is unsafe to rely upon his evidence also since his statement was recorded by the police only on 19.10.2016 after the appellant allegedly surrendered along with P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer. He is also admittedly a close relative of the deceased. His version about seeing the deceased and the appellant in his hotel was not disclosed earlier. Therefore, for the above reason, the evidence of P.W.13 also cannot be believed. 12. The recovery of M.O.Nos.1 to 4 on the confession of the appellant sought to be projected as a second circumstance. M.O.Nos.1 to 4 are said to have contained blood stains. However, the report of the expert (P.W.10) would show that the blood group could not be identified. In the light of the said evidence, this recovery cannot be used as a circumstance to implicate the accused. 13. M.O.Nos.1 to 4 are said to have contained blood stains. However, the report of the expert (P.W.10) would show that the blood group could not be identified. In the light of the said evidence, this recovery cannot be used as a circumstance to implicate the accused. 13. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.14 who runs a bike stand and had stated that the appellant had parked his bike in his bikestand on 27.09.2016 bearing Tenkasi registration. He did not however, specify the registration number. The vehicle was removed by the appellant along with the police only 19.10.2016. This witness in the first place would state that his vehicle was in his stand for 20 days. He would also state that the police had not obtained his signature to evidence the recovery of vehicle from his bike-stand. From his evidence, it is seen that the vehicle was parked on 27.09.2016 and it was in his stand for 20 days. From this, we cannot infer that the accused absconded. His evidence further appears to be improbable. He would have certainly informed the police, if the bike had been parked for such long time. That apart, the police would have also traced the vehicle much earlier, if the bike had been really parked in the stand. Therefore, for the above reason, we cannot believe the evidence of P.W.14. 14. The next piece of evidence is the alleged confession said to have been given to P.W.12, which is extracted in Ex.P.18 special report prepared by P.W.12. There was no reason for P.W.12 not recording the alleged confession verbatim and obtaining his signature. The method adopted by the Village Administrative Officer throws suspicion as to whether the appellant gave a confession to him. A reading of the extract of his confession throws doubt on the voluntariness of the confession as well. The alleged confession further does not confirm the presence of the appellant and the deceased at the temple festival and their going together to the Parotta shop of P.W.13. Thus, the confession has not been corroborated by the circumstances projected by the prosecution. It is well settled that extra judicial confession has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It is not supported by the circumstances projected by the prosecution. Therefore, we cannot rely upon the confession. 15. Thus, the confession has not been corroborated by the circumstances projected by the prosecution. It is well settled that extra judicial confession has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It is not supported by the circumstances projected by the prosecution. Therefore, we cannot rely upon the confession. 15. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has not established the circumstances against the appellant conclusively. There is reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment of Conviction of the Trial Court in S.C.No.407 of 2018 dated 02.04.2019 is set aside and the accused is acquitted from all the charges and set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.