JUDGMENT : JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 951/2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The deceased Binu was a widow having two children. After the death of her husband she developed an affair with the accused and they lived together as husband and wife. While so, the accused started to doubt the fidelity of Binu and hence their relationship got strained. Then the accused demanded back the money which he had lent to Binu and also spread scandalous rumours against her. Then Binu warned and threatened the accused to desist from spreading such rumors. As a result, the animosity of the accused towards Binu was further inflamed. On 29.05.2013 at 7.15 a.m. Binu, as usual, left her house for work by walking along a pathway passing through a rubber estate. Then the accused, followed her and struck on her head with a granite stone. Due to the impact, Binu fell down to the ground, face down. Then the accused caught hold on her tuft and repeatedly slammed her face into the ground inflicting severe injuries and she succumbed to the injuries. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. Being satisfied that the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Kollam under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has altogether examined 27 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-27. Exts.P1 to P19 were exhibited and marked, and MO1 and MO2 were produced and identified. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. Exts.P1 to P19 were exhibited and marked, and MO1 and MO2 were produced and identified. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. he was called upon to enter his evidence. From the side of the accused one witness was examined as DW-1. 5. After trial, the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 6. The matter involved in this case was brought to light when the body of the deceased was found lying in a suspicious circumstance at a pathway passing through a rubber estate at Karavur Verukuzhy. Originally the FIR was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. as unnatural death on the strength of the information given by the father of the deceased. 7. When the informant was examined as PW-1, he vividly recalled the matters which are within his knowledge. The deceased in this case was his widowed daughter, who had two children. The incident in this case occurred on 29.05.2013. He came to know about the incident in this case on the same day at 11.00 A.M. His daughter was residing at Verukuzhy and the accused was her close neighbour. His daughter was in a romantic relationship with the accused. His daughter was a housemaid and usually, she would leave for her work between 6.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. In September 2009, the accused attacked his daughter, hacking her hands, and a case was registered in connection with the said incident. The accused threatened her daughter to withdraw the case. When his grandchildren asked the accused not to visit their mother, the accused threatened to kill her. The accused also demanded back the money he had lent to his daughter, which she subsequently returned. The accused also doubted the deceased’s fidelity. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had only hearsay knowledge that the accused threatened his daughter to withdraw the case registered against him. The accused also demanded back the money he had lent to his daughter, which she subsequently returned. The accused also doubted the deceased’s fidelity. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had only hearsay knowledge that the accused threatened his daughter to withdraw the case registered against him. He further admitted that the place of occurrence is located near a forest area prone to wild animal attacks. However, he denied the suggestion that his daughter’s death was caused by a wild animal attack. 8. PW-2, the daughter of the deceased deposed that her mother died on 29.05.2013. The accused is her neighbour. Her mother and the accused were in a romantic relationship. However, she and her sister warned the accused to desist from visiting their house. The accused would often visit their house to recharge his mobile phone. When her sister (PW-3) questioned it, the accused took her phone to his house. When her mother asked about the same, the accused threatened to harm her mother. On the evening of the same day, the accused telephoned her mother and asked her to give him food. Thereafter, the accused came to their house to eat. While eating, PW-3 asked the accused why he could not cook his own food. Then the accused became angry, dashed away the food, and threatened that he would show them. Later that evening, the accused telephoned her mother and asked whether she would be going to work the next day. Her mother replied that she would go to work. On the next morning at 6.15 a.m. the accused telephoned her mother and asked whether she was ready to go to work. Thereafter, PW-2 saw the accused following her mother who had left the house for her job. Shortly after, the accused rushed back to his house through the courtyard of their house. PW-2, further deposed that two years prior to the incident in this case, the accused had attacked her mother hacking her hands. On several occasions, the accused threatened to harm her mother. Even after those incidents, the accused used to visit her mother at their house because of their relationship. The accused had repeatedly requested her mother to withdraw the case and had also demanded money from her. On several occasions, the accused threatened to harm her mother. Even after those incidents, the accused used to visit her mother at their house because of their relationship. The accused had repeatedly requested her mother to withdraw the case and had also demanded money from her. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that the accused would often visit their house when her mother was alone in the said house and both of them were very close. She further deposed that her mother was a housemaid. However, PW-2 admitted that at the time of the incident she was not in her house as she went to take a bath. 9. Another daughter of the deceased when examined as PW-3 testified as follows: Her mother was a housemaid. The accused, who is her neighbour, was in love with her mother. When she warned the accused not to come to her house, he threatened her, saying he would show her. On the next day, the accused contacted her mother over the phone and asked whether she would give him food. When he arrived at her house, she told him that there was no food and asked why he could not cook for himself. The accused used to come to her house to recharge the phone. On the previous day of the incident, the accused telephoned her mother and asked if she was going to work the next day. Then her mother replied that she would. In the early morning on the day of the incident, the accused telephoned her mother and asked if she was about to leave for job. Her mother told him that she was about to leave the house. Thereafter, she saw the accused following her mother, who went for her work. It was in that morning, she found her mother and the accused together. During cross examination, she stated that there is a distance of 500 meters from her house to the place where her mother was found lying dead. She further admitted that she is residing near a forest area prone to wild animal attacks. 10. When PW-4 was examined, she testified that she is a 7th standard student. She had acquaintance with the deceased and the accused in this case, as both of them are her neighbours. She further admitted that she is residing near a forest area prone to wild animal attacks. 10. When PW-4 was examined, she testified that she is a 7th standard student. She had acquaintance with the deceased and the accused in this case, as both of them are her neighbours. On the day of the incident, she went to draw water from a nearby stream and saw the accused coming through the road. Thereafter, the accused descended into the stream and washed his hands, legs and face and then she noticed blood stains on his hands. 11. PW-5 is another independent witness examined from the side of the prosecution. PW-5 deposed that he had acquaintance with both the accused and the deceased, who resided together as husband and wife. On 29.05.2013, at around 8.00 A.M. when he was standing near a shop at Verukuzhi, the accused came to the said shop and purchased cigarettes. While the accused made the payment, his hands were found to be shivering. When he asked the accused about the same, the accused replied that he had a fever and was going to purchase medicine. Then a jeep came and the accused signalled to stop the said jeep. The accused then boarded the jeep and left. Thereafter, he contacted the accused to inform him about the death of Binu but his phone was switched off. Usually, the accused would go to his job after coming to the bus stop at Verukuzhi accompanied by the deceased. The accused did not attend the funeral ceremony of Binu. During the chief examination, when a stone was shown to PW-5, he identified it as the stone taken and handed over by the accused to the Police, and the same is marked as MO1. During cross-examination, PW-5 testified that when MO1 stone was taken into custody by the police, he was present at the scene of occurrence although he was not a signatory to the recovery mahazar. 12. When the shop owner at Verukuzhy junction was examined as PW-6, he deposed that he had acquaintance with the accused and deceased in this case and they lived together as husband and wife. He would often meet them when they came to the bus stop near his shop. On 29.05.2013 at 8 a.m., the accused came to his shop and purchased two cigarettes for Rs.10/-. He would often meet them when they came to the bus stop near his shop. On 29.05.2013 at 8 a.m., the accused came to his shop and purchased two cigarettes for Rs.10/-. On that day, the accused came through a route which he normally did not use. When PW-6 asked the accused why he did not go to work that day, he replied that on the previous day, he was having concrete work. 13. PW-7 deposed that upon knowing about the incident, he visited the scene, and found the deceased's body. He then contacted the accused via phone and the accused asked whether he would face any problems. Then the accused told him that he was going to his sister’s house due to a fever. 14. PW-8 deposed that the accused is his friend. On the alleged date of the incident, while he reached Ali junction on his motorcycle, the accused asked for a lift and he dropped him at Pathanapuram on his motorcycle. Thereafter, on knowing about the incident in this case, he contacted the accused and the accused told him that he was at his sister’s house. During chief examination when a dhoti was shown to PW-8, he deposed that he could not say whether the dhoti was the one the accused was wearing when he saw the accused. 15. When the contractor under whom the accused worked was examined as PW-9, he deposed that till the previous day of the incident, the accused worked with him. However, on the alleged date of the incident, the accused did not come to work, but the accused called him over the phone at 12.30 p.m. PW-9 also stated that he was aware of a case registered earlier against the accused for attempting to murder Binu, the deceased in this case. 16. The Station House Officer, Pathanapuram Police Station who registered the present case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. for unnatural death when examined as PW-23 deposed as follows: On 29.05.2013, the father of the deceased in this case gave a statement to the effect that his daughter was found lying in a pathway passing through a rubber estate. On the strength of the said information, he registered the present case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Ext.P7 is the FIR registered. Thereafter, he visited the scene and conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased. On the strength of the said information, he registered the present case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Ext.P7 is the FIR registered. Thereafter, he visited the scene and conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased. Ext.P8 is the inquest report. Thereafter, on 30.05.2013, he again visited the scene of occurrence and collected blood-stained soil from the scene with the help of a scientific assistant and prepared Ext.P3 mahazar recording the same. Thereafter, he interrogated the Forensic Surgeon, who conducted an autopsy examination on the body of the deceased and on the basis of the clues received from him, he altered Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. to Section 302 of the IPC. Ext.P9 is the report sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate adding Section 302 of the IPC and deleting Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The nail clippings and foreign particulars collected by the Doctor during postmortem examination were seized by him as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. The further part of the investigation in this case was conducted by PW-27. 17. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy examination on the body of the deceased was examined as PW-22. According to PW-22, on 30.05.2013, while he was working as Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine at MCH, Thiruvananthapuram, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Binu and issued Ext.P6 postmortem certificate. Referring to Ext.P6 postmortem certificate, the Doctor opined that he had noted 32 ante-mortem injuries in the postmortem examination. The Doctor further opined that the death of Binu was due to the combined effects of blunt injuries sustained to the head and around the mouth and nostrils. He clarified that the death was due to the combined effect of injury Nos.1 to 21. When MO1 stone was shown to PW-22, he opined that injury No. 17 found on the back of the right side of the head of the deceased could be inflicted by using a weapon like MO1. During cross-examination, when a question was posed to the Doctor whether the injuries noted by him could be caused by an attack by a wild animal like wild boar, the Doctor replied that it was very unlikely. 18. PW-27, the Circle Inspector of Police, Punalur, who conducted the major part of the investigation in this case deposed as follows: He took over the investigation in this case on 31.05.2013. 18. PW-27, the Circle Inspector of Police, Punalur, who conducted the major part of the investigation in this case deposed as follows: He took over the investigation in this case on 31.05.2013. As part of the investigation, he verified the investigation conducted by PW-23. He visited the scene of occurrence and also interrogated and recorded the statements of witnesses. Thereafter, on the basis of secret information, on 31.05.2013, he arrested the accused from the terrace of an uninhibited house at Venmala, where the accused was hiding. During interrogation, the accused admitted that the dhoti he was wearing was the same one he had worn at the time of the alleged offence. Hence the said dhoti was seized after describing in Ext.P5 seizure mahazar. PW-27 identified the said dhoti and marked in evidence as MO2. Thereafter, on the basis of another disclosure statement given by the accused, PW-27 proceeded to the scene of occurrence as led by the accused and the accused, then took a granite stone from a location 14 metres and 7 cms away from the place of occurrence and handed over the same to PW-27. The said stone was hence recovered by describing in Ext.P2 scene mahazar. The relevant portion of the confession statement of the accused as deposed by PW-27 which led to the discovery of MO1 stone is separately shown in Ext.P2 scene mahazar. The accused also pointed out the crime scene to PW-27. Thereafter, the MO2 dhoti seized and MO1 granite stone recovered in this case were produced before the jurisdictional court along with Ext.P19 forwarding note, after describing it in Ext.P18 property list. The materials collected during the inquest were also produced before the court. 19. During cross-examination PW-27 stated that he verified the phone calls of the accused after collecting the call details. Similarly, he admitted that PW-4, in her 161 statement, did not state that she found blood stains on the hand of the accused. To a specific question put by the defence counsel, PW-27 admitted that a blood sample of the accused was collected during the medical examination conducted after his arrest. According to him, after collecting the said blood sample, though the same was sent for examination, the report of the said examination has not been produced before the court. 20. This is admittedly, a case in which there is no direct evidence to prove the occurrence. According to him, after collecting the said blood sample, though the same was sent for examination, the report of the said examination has not been produced before the court. 20. This is admittedly, a case in which there is no direct evidence to prove the occurrence. Instead, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s guilt. Before delving into the details of the circumstantial evidence presented in this case by the prosecution, it is essential to examine the principles and guidelines governing the evaluation of such evidence. 21. In Sarad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the nature, character, and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone and held as under: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (v) 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. 22. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Bodh Raj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2002 SC 3164 , State of Uttarpradesh v. Satish, AIR 2005 SC 1000 and Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 14 SCC 415 . 23. In cases built upon circumstantial evidence a complete and unbroken chain of evidence is a requisite. This chain must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused, and none other than, could have committed the offence. In other words, to sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be comprehensive and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. 24. In other words, to sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be comprehensive and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. 24. Keeping in mind the above principles, the crucial question in the case on hand is whether the prosecution has fully and exhaustively established the circumstances relied upon to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Furthermore, it must be ascertained whether these circumstances lead inexorably to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt, to the exclusion of any other plausible explanation including innocence. The circumstances relied upon by the trial court to connect the accused with the offence allegedly committed in this case are the following: (i) That, the accused had a strong motive to kill the deceased. (ii) That, on the evening prior to the incident, the accused contacted the deceased over the phone and enquired if she intended to go to work the following day. (iii) That, in the early morning of the alleged incident, the accused again called the deceased to ask if she was ready to leave for work. (iv) That, on the day of the incident, when the deceased left for work, the accused was seen following her, and the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. (v) After the incident, PW-4 witnessed the accused washing his blood-stained hands in a river. (vi) After the incident, PW-5 found the accused in a perplexed mood with his hands shivering. (vii) That, blood stains of human origin were detected in the serological examination of the dhoti seized from the accused and which was allegedly worn by him at the time of the commission of offence. (viii) Recovery of MO1 stone, the weapon of offence, on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. 25. It is now imperative to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the aforementioned circumstances relied upon by the trial court to find the accused guilty. (viii) Recovery of MO1 stone, the weapon of offence, on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. 25. It is now imperative to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the aforementioned circumstances relied upon by the trial court to find the accused guilty. To verify this, each circumstance must be examined separately and scrutinised meticulously: (i) That, the accused had a strong motive to kill the deceased: (a) The case of the prosecution is that while the accused and deceased were living as husband and wife the accused began to harbor doubt about the deceased’s fidelity and hence their relationship started to turn bitter. It is further alleged that the accused then spread some scandalous rumours about the deceased, prompting her to warn and threaten him and the same fueled the accused’s animosity towards her. Additionally, during the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence regarding a prior incident in which the accused hacked at the hands of the deceased which led to the registration of a criminal case against the accused at Pathanapuram Police Station. PW-1 to PW-3 categorically deposed about such an incident. Furthermore, PW-1 deposed that, the accused had threatened the deceased to withdraw the said case registered in connection with the previous incident. In order to prove the registration of such a case, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram Police Station, was examined as PW-21. When examined, PW-21 testified that a case as crime No. 599/2009 was registered with respect to the above-mentioned incident and the final report has already been laid in that case. (b) However the registration of such a case approximately four years prior to the incident in question does not, by itself, provide a sufficient basis to infer that the accused nurtured a motive to commit the murder of the deceased especially when the evidence adduced in this case clearly establishes the fact that despite the previous incident, the deceased remained in a good relationship with the accused till the evening prior to her death. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, the female children of the deceased, reveals that the accused used to visit the deceased’s residence regularly and maintained a relationship with her until her death. Even on the previous day of the incident the accused visited the deceased at her residence and had a meal there. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, the female children of the deceased, reveals that the accused used to visit the deceased’s residence regularly and maintained a relationship with her until her death. Even on the previous day of the incident the accused visited the deceased at her residence and had a meal there. Therefore, the allegation that the accused harbored a grudge against the deceased due to a criminal case stemming from an incident that occurred approximately four years prior, strains credulity. Similarly, there is no evidence to substantiate the case that the accused spread rumours about the deceased and she warned and threatened him to desist from spreading such rumours. (c) A thorough examination of the evidence reveals that the accused and the deceased maintained their relationship until the date of her death despite objections from PW-2 and PW-3, the deceased’s daughters. Therefore, it is implausible to believe that the accused harbored animosity of such a nature that it would have driven him to murder the deceased. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed in proving the motive for the commission of the offence alleged in this case. When a case relies on circumstantial evidence the prosecution’s failure to establish a motive is particularly significant, unlike cases that are built on direct evidence. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. (ii) That, on the preceding day of the incident, the accused made a phone call to the deceased and enquired whether she would go to work on the next day. (iii) That, on the early morning of the alleged incident, the accused made a phone call to the deceased enquiring whether she is ready to go for the work. (a) It was by relying on the oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, the children of the deceased, the prosecution attempted to establish that the accused made two phone calls to the deceased. Specifically, it was alleged that on the day preceding the incident, the accused called the deceased and inquired whether she would be going to work the following day. Furthermore, on the morning of the incident, the accused allegedly contacted the deceased again via phone and asked if she was ready to leave for work. Specifically, it was alleged that on the day preceding the incident, the accused called the deceased and inquired whether she would be going to work the following day. Furthermore, on the morning of the incident, the accused allegedly contacted the deceased again via phone and asked if she was ready to leave for work. (b) When the investigating officer was examined he was asked about the investigation conducted by him regarding the said phone calls. Then he admitted that, as part of the investigation he collected the call records of both the accused and deceased. However, during the examination, he stated that he did not submit the call detailed report before the court along with the final report. It is highly suspicious what prevented the investigating officer from producing the evidence regarding call records before the court. The withholding of this crucial evidence is significant, particularly in light of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act which deals with general presumptions. As envisaged under Section 114 G of the said Act, the evidence which could be produced and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that if the call records had been produced they might have been unfavourable to the prosecution. Of course, the said inaction on the side of the investigating officer casts serious doubt regarding the alleged phone calls. (c) Moreover, even if it is accepted that the accused inquired about the deceased’s plan for the next day this alone does not necessarily imply that the accused intended to monitor the deceased’s movements. The evidence suggests that the accused and the deceased were in a close relationship and maintained regular contact. The testimony of a shop owner who was examined as PW-6 reveals that he had seen the accused and the deceased leaving for work from the same bus stop together on multiple occasions. Therefore, the accused’s enquiry about the deceased’s work plans in itself does not demonstrate an intention to track her movements. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the house of the accused and the deceased are situated closer. If the accused had an evil intention, even without making any inquiry over the phone, he could have traced her movements. Therefore, the accused’s enquiry about the deceased’s work plans in itself does not demonstrate an intention to track her movements. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the house of the accused and the deceased are situated closer. If the accused had an evil intention, even without making any inquiry over the phone, he could have traced her movements. (iv) That, on the day of the incident, when the deceased left for work, the accused was seen following her and the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused: (a) One of the important circumstances relied on by the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence alleged in this case is that on the alleged date of the incident when the deceased left for work the accused was seen following her. It was by relying on this evidence, the trial court concluded that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and the burden shifted to the accused to explain what happened to the deceased thereafter or when they parted ways. (b) The prosecution is solely relying on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 to show that the accused was found following the deceased when she left for work. Now the crucial question which is required to be addressed is whether the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 in the above regard is reliable. While considering the said question it is noteworthy that during the cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that at the time of the incident in this case, she was not in the house as she had gone to take a bath. Therefore, her statement during the chief examination that she witnessed the accused following her mother from her house is not believable. Moreover, PW-2 and PW-3 are daughters of the deceased. Although their familial relationship with the deceased, by itself, does not render their evidence suspicious, their close familial bond does suggest that their testimony warrants careful scrutiny. (c) In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 512 the Supreme Court observed as under: “Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously.” (d) In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animosity or for some other reasons. (e) Keeping in mind the above-mentioned principles enumerated by a series of judicial pronouncements while analysing the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 it could be seen that both of them disapproved of their mother’s relationship with the accused. Their testimony further shows that they warned the accused from visiting their house and their mother. PW-3 even confronted the accused on the previous day of the incident for visiting their home and eating there. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly reveals that they harbored a strong dislike against the accused and his relationship with their mother, despite their mother’s close bond with the accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the evidence of the PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be believed without corroboration from other sources. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 clearly reveals that they harbored a strong dislike against the accused and his relationship with their mother, despite their mother’s close bond with the accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the evidence of the PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be believed without corroboration from other sources. However, in the case on hand apart from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, there is no evidence to show that the accused followed their mother when she left for her job. Moreover, the earlier incident in which the deceased was hacked by the accused may have created a bias in the deceased’s children’s mind, leading them to genuinely suspect that the accused was responsible for the death of their mother. As a result, they may have had a vested interest in seeing the accused convicted, which further undermines the reliability of their testimony. (f). Furthermore, during the chief examination, PW-2 deposed that on the alleged date of the incident, in the morning she saw the accused going behind her mother. Thereafter, she voluntarily added that [ ] it was on that day morning the accused and her mother were found together). The phrasing of this statement particularly including the words ‘found together’ suggests a deliberate attempt on her part to invoke the last seen alive theory. When a naive girl from a rural background testifies in court with such calculated articulation, explicitly expressing her intention to attract a specific provision of law or a legal theory, it inherently suggests that her testimony has been rehearsed or tutored. On the basis of the above discussion we have no hesitation in holding that the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is not sufficient to enter into a conclusion that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. (v) After the incident, PW-4 witnessed the accused washing his blood-stained hands in a river: (a) Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the act of the accused washing his blood-stained hands in a stream after the alleged commission of offence. It was PW-4, who deposed that she found the accused washing his hands, legs, and face from a stream and at that time blood was found on his hand. It is noteworthy that PW-4 was a child witness. It was PW-4, who deposed that she found the accused washing his hands, legs, and face from a stream and at that time blood was found on his hand. It is noteworthy that PW-4 was a child witness. Though a child witness is competent to testify if they are capable of understanding the questions and providing rational answers, the court must exercise caution and careful scrutiny while evaluating their evidence. This is because child witnesses are generally susceptible to tutoring and may testify in a rehearsed manner regarding matters about which they have been tutored. Keeping in mind the same while considering the evidence of PW-4 it could be seen that what PW-4 deposed is that she saw blood stains on the accused’s hands on the alleged date of the incident at 7.30 a.m. while she went to draw water from the stream. However, the said statement of PW-4 is not in conformity with her earlier statement given to the police. When the Investigating Officer was examined, he admitted that PW-4 did not give a statement that blood stains were found on the hand of the accused when he was found washing his face, legs, and hands in a stream. Therefore, the evidence of PW-4 in the above regard cannot be acted upon. (vi) After the incident, PW-5 found the accused in a perplexed mood with his hands shivering: (a) During examination PW-5 deposed that, on the date of the incident, while he was standing near to the shop of PW-6, the accused came to the shop and purchased cigarettes. According to PW-5, then the accused was found in a perplexed mood and his hands were shivering. Anyhow, PW-5 further testified that when he asked about the same, the accused replied that he had a fever and was going to purchase medicine. However, it is important to note that when the shop owner was examined as PW-6 he was not having a case that the accused was found either in a perplexed mood or his hands were shivering. Therefore, we are of the view that the feeble evidence of PW-5 that he saw the accused’s hand shivering when purchasing cigarettes from PW-6 alone is not a reason to conclude that the same is a crucial circumstance to fasten criminal liability on the accused. Therefore, we are of the view that the feeble evidence of PW-5 that he saw the accused’s hand shivering when purchasing cigarettes from PW-6 alone is not a reason to conclude that the same is a crucial circumstance to fasten criminal liability on the accused. (vii) That, blood stains of human origin were detected in the serological examination of the dhoti seized from the accused and which was allegedly worn by him at the time of the commission of offence. (a) PW-27, the Investigating Officer categorically deposed that after the arrest of the accused, on interrogation, the accused disclosed that the dhoti worn by him was the same one which he had worn at the time of the commission of offence. Hence PW-27 seized the said dhoti after providing the accused another one. The mahazar by which the said dhoti was seized was marked as Ext.P5 and the said dhoti was marked as MO2 through PW-27, the Investigating Officer. When the Assistant Director of FSL was examined as PW-26, referring to Ext.P12 report, he deposed that in the serological examination, human blood belonging to O+ve was detected in the examination of MO2 dhoti which was shown as item No. 16 in the said report. (b) However, while considering the above evidence, the most crucial thing which could not be ignored is that, during the trial, MO2 dhoti was neither shown to any of the witnesses nor identified by any of them. More specifically none of the witnesses identified MO2 dhoti as the one worn by the accused at the time of commission of the offence. In the absence of any evidence linking the accused with the dhoti seized in this case, we believe that the scientific evidence will not lend any support to the prosecution case. Moreover, the accused has a specific case that the said MO2 dhoti was purposefully planted in this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant after the arrest of the accused and as part of the investigation, the blood sample of the accused was also collected during the medical examination of the accused and the said blood sample was used for manipulating the evidence. (c) The evidence of PW-27 also reveals that during the medical examination of the accused apart from the accused’s nail clippings his blood sample was also collected. (c) The evidence of PW-27 also reveals that during the medical examination of the accused apart from the accused’s nail clippings his blood sample was also collected. But the report of the examination of the said blood sample was not produced before the court along with the final report. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the planting of evidence and manipulations in the investigation could not be ruled out outrightly especially when the evidence adduced from the side of the accused shows that the blood group of the accused also belongs to O+ve the same blood group of the deceased. When staff in charge of the Laboratory section of Taluk Head Quarters was summoned at the request of the defence and examined as DW-1, referring Ext.D1 OP card and Ext.D2 investigation register she categorically deposed that the blood group of the accused is O+ve. Therefore, we also find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the chance of manipulations cannot be ruled out in this case. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that after the seizure of the MO2 dhoti on 31.05.2013 the same was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 07.06.2013. The delayed production of the dhoti also raises suspicion. Therefore, we are of the view that the above-mentioned scientific evidence is not sufficient to link the accused with the commission of offence alleged in this case. (viii) Recovery of MO1 stone, the weapon of offence, on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. (a) PW-27, the Investigating Officer categorically deposed that he arrested the accused on 31.05.2013 and on the basis of a disclosure statement given by the accused during interrogation, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence as led by the accused and the accused took and handed over a stone from a location 14 metres and 7 cm south of the place of occurrence. PW-27 further stated that it was the accused who pointed out the crime scene to him. According to PW-27, he prepared Ext.P2 scene mahazar and the relevant portion of the confession statement of the accused which led to the recovery of MO1 stone is separately noted in Ext.P2 scene mahazar. MO1 stone was also recovered by PW-27 by describing it in Ext.P2 scene mahazar and not by a separate seizure mahazar. According to PW-27, he prepared Ext.P2 scene mahazar and the relevant portion of the confession statement of the accused which led to the recovery of MO1 stone is separately noted in Ext.P2 scene mahazar. MO1 stone was also recovered by PW-27 by describing it in Ext.P2 scene mahazar and not by a separate seizure mahazar. The disclosure statement allegedly given by the accused was also deposed by PW-2 while examined before the court. PW-5 and PW-12, the independent witnesses also deposed that they saw the accused taking and handing over MO1 stone to the police. (b) While assessing the reliability of alleged recovery of MO1, based on the purported disclosure statement and its admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act it is noteworthy that the incident occurred on 29.05.2013. From the evidence it stands fully established that Police reached the crime scene on the same day itself, secured the said area and deputed a policeman for scene guard duty. Moreover, the Station House Officer, Pathanapuram (PW-23) visited the scene of occurrence on 29.05.2013 and prepared an inquest report after examining the body of the deceased. Thereafter, on the next day PW-23 again visited the scene of occurrence and collected blood stain soil from the crime scene with the help of a scientific assistant. (c) In short, the prior presence of Police at the crime scene is well established. MO1 stone was allegedly recovered from a location 14 metres 7cm south of the scene of crime. PW-2 and PW-12 who allegedly witnessed the recovery of MO1 have no case that the said recovery was from a location slightly away from the crime scene. The prosecution case itself is that the crime scene is a public pathway passing through a rubber estate. The Investigating Officer who recovered MO1 stone does not claim that MO1 stone was taken and produced by the accused from a concealed state. Instead, it is established that stone was recovered from a location accessible to the public, near to the crime scene. Given these circumstances, the recovery of MO1, allegedly 14 metres and 7 cm away from the crime scene is highly doubtful. The prior presence of the Police at the crime scene is well-established and raises concerns about potential manipulations. Furthermore, the fact that the recovery was effected from near a public pathway very close to the crime scene also cannot be overlooked. The prior presence of the Police at the crime scene is well-established and raises concerns about potential manipulations. Furthermore, the fact that the recovery was effected from near a public pathway very close to the crime scene also cannot be overlooked. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively stated that the recovery was based solely on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. 26. The upshot of the above discussion is that, though the prosecution had highlighted and attempted to bring several circumstances to connect the accused with the offence alleged in this case, none of the circumstances stand fully and convincingly established. The recovery evidence as well as the scientific evidence are also clouded with suspicion for reasons which we have detailed above. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith from the prison concerned, if his continued detention is not required in connection with any other case. Registry shall communicate this judgment forthwith to the Jail Superintendent concerned, where the appellant is undergoing incarceration.