Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023same, A1 gave a complaint before Sankari Police Station against the deceased and P.W.10. The police enquired and directed the parties to settle the issue in a civil Court. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the deceased went to the house of A1 and demanded either the property or money. According to her, her husband informed her that he scolded A1 in filthy language.2.3.P.W.3, Mohan, who owns a hotel nearby has deposed that on 17.12.2024 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was standing in the Sankari main road, he saw the deceased proceeding in his two wheeler and following him a omni van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 was proceeding. The same was driven by A-2, who is the driver of A-1, and A-3 to A-5 were sitting on the back side. Later, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house and returned back on next day. On seeing the crowd in front of the house of P.W.1, he went there. P.W.1 informed him that her husband was missing. He informed P.W.1 that he saw the deceased on the previous day. When the police came to the house of P.W.1, P.W.3 informed the police about the same. The police has prepared Ex.P.2, observation mahazar, in his presence. The car driven by A-2 is M.O.5 and the two wheeler of the deceased was marked as M.O.4.6/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/20232.4.P.W.2 who is the daughter of deceased and P.W.1, is also aware of the purchase of the property and the dispute between the deceased and A1. In the meanwhile, when P.W.4, Rajendran who was the Village Administrative Officer of Sankari, was in his office along with his assistant on 19.12.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., A-2 appeared before him and gave an extra judicial confession voluntarily and the same was recorded by P.W.4, who obtained the signature of A-2 and the said extra judicial confession is Ex.P-3. Later, P.W.4 handed over A-2 to the police with a special report which is Ex.P.4. At about 09.00 p.m., the police arrested A-2 and recorded his confession in the presence of P.W.4 and his assistant. Thereafter, pursuant to the confession of A-2, they proceeded to the house of A-1 and the Inspector of Police arrested all other accused. Thereafter, the confession statement of A-1 was recorded in the police station at 12.30 a.m., on 20.12.2014 and at 01.30 a.m., the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-3, at about 02.45 a.m., the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of A-4 and at about 04.00 a.m., the confession statement of A-5 was recorded. In pursuance of confession of A-3 to A-5, the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the Cauvery river was identified by the accused which is 7/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023near Kumarapalayam Kalaimagal street and with the help of P.Ws.7 to 9, fishermen, three pieces of body parts, namely, head, two hands with middle portion of the body and other part below the hip were recovered under a separate seizure mahazars in the presence of P.W.4 and his assistant. Thereafter, in the presence of P.W.4, a knife was recovered from the house of A-4 Subramani under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter a about 02.00 p.m., a knife and gold chain were recovered from the house of A-3 under mahazar and at about 02.45 p.m., a gold ring of the deceased was recovered from A-5 under a seizure mahazar. Thereafter at 3.15 p.m. the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 was recovered as identified by A-5 under a cover of a seizure mahazar. Thereafter, at about 04.15 p.m., the omni van having registration No.TN 30 AT 7192, as identified by A-3, was seized by the police in the presence of P.W.4 and his assistant. On the same day at about 05.00 p.m., two sim cards and a Samsung mobile phone of the deceased were recovered from A-2 under mahazar. Thereafter, at 06.00 p.m., in the presence of P.W.4 and his assistant, the Inspector of Police prepared observation mahazar at a place where the deceased was kidnapped. The signature of P.W.4 in the confession statement of A-1 is marked as 8/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023Ex.P.5 and the admitted portion of the confession statement of A-2 is Ex.P.6 and the seizure mahazar prepared in the house of A-2 is Ex.P.7. The seized cell phone is marked as M.O.3. The admitted portion of the confession statement of A-3 is Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 is the seizure mahazar prepared in the house of A-3. M.O.1 is the gold chain and M.O.6 is the knife recovered from A-3. The admitted portion of the confession statement of A-4 is Ex.P.10 and M.O.7 knife is seized and the seizure mahazar prepared in his house is marked as Ex.P.11. The admitted portion of the confession of A-5 is marked as Ex.P.12 and M.O.2 is the gold ring which is seized under Ex.P.13, seizure mahazar. The bike of the deceased is marked as M.O.4 and the same was seized under Ex.P.14, seizure mahazar. M.O.5 is the omni van bearing registration number TN 30 AT 7192 which was recovered from the house of P.W.5 and the seizure mahazar is Ex.P.15. The body parts of the deceased, namely head, middle portion and lower portion of the body, were recovered under seizure mahazars, namely Ex.P.16 to P.18. The observation mahazar prepared on 20.12.2014 at 6.00 p.m is marked as Ex.P.19.2.5.P.W.11 Ganesamoorthy, while proceeding to a temple via Mavelipalayam, in his motor cycle, on 17.12.2014, near the railway 9/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023bridge, a omni car bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192, came in a rash manner to hit against his motor cycle and when P.W.11 immediately questioned the omni van driver, he found that the same was driven by A2 and he saw the deceased sitting in the center and in both sides of the deceased, A-3 and A-4 were sitting. Following the omni van, A-5 was driving the motor cycle of the deceased. He was under the impression that all of them are going for the purpose of real estate business. Later, he went to the temple and returned back on 20.12.2014 and thereafter, he came to know about the death of the deceased. On 21.12.2014 around 07.30 a.m., when P.W.11 was proceeding for his work via police station, on hearing that the accused were arrested, he went to the police station and saw that the accused were there and informed the police about what he has seen on 17.12.2014.2.6.P.W.5 has deposed that A-3 and A-2 have approached P.W.5 on 17.12.2014 at about 12.30 noon and took his omni van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 on rent of Rs.1000/-. On the next day when P.W.5 was not in his house, both the accused A-2 and A-3 came and left the omni van in his house. A-2 and A-3 informed P.W.5 over phone and P.W.5 asked them to hand over the key to his neighbour 10/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023P.W.6 Muthusamy. They handed over the key and the money of Rs.1000/- to P.W.6. P.W.6 received the same and handed over them to P.W.5. Later on 20.12.2014, the police came and seized the omni van M.O.5. 2.7.P.W.10 is the partner of the deceased in the real estate business. He along with deceased and one Marimuthu have purchased 2.46 acres of land for sum of Rs.40 lakhs from A-1. After the purchase, A-1 has filed a case through his mother and sisters. Though P.W.10 and deceased requested for settlement, the matter has prolonged. When the matter stood thus, A-1 tried to sell his share which was objected to by deceased and P.W.10 which resulted in a police complaint and finally, the police directed them to settle the issue in a civil court. 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased went to A-1 and demanded either money to be returned or the property to be given and the deceased also scolded A1. 2.8.P.W.12 Elamparuthi is running a transport. On 13.12.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., while he was proceeding to his aunt's house along with his friend in a motorcycle, near the Mavelipalayam railway bridge, he saw A-1 and other accused were discussing something and thereafter, he proceeded and later, on coming to know about the incident, had given a 11/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023statement to the police above the gathering of the accused.2.9.P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of P.W.5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.14 is the person in whose presence the two wheeler M.O.8 bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298, was handed over by P.W.16, Sankarbabu, in the police station. P.W.15 is the sister of A-1. According to her, her brother (A-1) sold 2.10 acres of ancestral land without their knowledge and therefore, they challenged the same by way of a civil suit. P.W.16 is running a hardware shop. On 18.12.2014, A-1 came there and left the Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 28 C 1298. Later, P.W.16 handed over the bike to the police and the same was seized and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate under Form 91 which is marked as Ex.P.26. 2.10.P.W.17 who is the photographer, in his deposition, has stated that at the instructions of the police, he took photographs Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.27 series. The medical officer who had conducted postmortem was examined as P.W.19. According to him, the dead body was in decomposed stage and rigor mortis is absent. He found the following external injuries while doing postmortem:12/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023'Injuries:-1.A stab injury seen on front of the left shoulder M -4 CMS x 3 CMS x 6 CMS.2.A Stab injury seen on the outer aspect of center of left arm M- 3 CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep.3.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of left hand A)The upper M- 3 CMS x 0.5 CMS x bone deep, B) 1 CMS below another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep. C) 1 CMS below the another cut injury M 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, D)1 CMS below the another cut injury M 3 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep. E) 2 CMS below the another cut injury M 5 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, F) 1 CMS below another cut injury M 2 CMS x 0.5 CMS x Muscle deep.4.A stab injury seen on the outer aspect of the left side chest M 3 CMS x 1 CM x Cavity deep, with underlying cut fracture of 4th and 5th Ribs over the anterior axillary line.5.Multiple cut injuries seen on the palmar aspect of right hand A)The outer M-4 CMS x 1.5 CMS x bone deep, B)1 CMS inner another cut injury M- 10 CMS x 2 CMS x bone deep. C) 1 CM inner another cut injury M- 4 CMS x 1 CMS x bone deep, D) 2 CMS inner another cut injury M -2 CMS x 1 CMS x muscle deep, (In all above stab and cut injuries, there is extravasation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues – Antemortem).6.Crush injury of right side of face extending from the inner aspect of the left eye along the right cheek and right ear up to the upper aspect of the right side of the neck, exposing underlying compound communitted fracture of the right side cheek bones, 13/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023soft tissues with liquefied brain seen over the roof or right side orbit, along with fracture dislocation of right side of lower jaw with no extrvasation of blood postmortem.7.Complete transection of the the neck at the level of C2, and C3, all the structures at that level completely severed with no extravasation of blood over the transected end surfaces. - Postmortem. The edges of the transected ends are clean cut. The transected head with portion of neck reciprocally aligns with the neck portion of the trunk at the vertebral level.8.Postmortem transection of thoracic and abdominal cavity anteriorly with devoid of internal organs of thorax and abdomen with no extravasation of blood over the transected edges.9.Complete transection of abdomen at the level 1 CM below the umbilicus with corresponding transection of lumbar vertebra with no extravsation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues – Postmortem, the transected portion of the abdomen reciprocally aligns with the distal pelvis at the vertebra level. The colour and contour of the transected the segments matches with the each other.'The internal injuries are as follows:'Internal Examination:O/D Head:- Scalp- Contusion seen over the frontal region M- 2 CMS x 1 CMS x 0.5 CMS and occipital region M- 8x4x0.5 CMS. Cranial vault – Compound comminutted fracture of right side frontal bone along with crush injury of anterior and middle cranial fossa. Brain- Portion of liquefied brain present.14/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023O/D Neck:- Vide injury column, on dissection of Hyoid bone there is a fracture at the junction of right greater horn with the body and fracture at the junction of left greater horn with the body with surrounding soft tissue contusion.O/D Thorax – Vide external examination.O/D Abdomen :- Vide external examination, Pelvis – Pelvic cavity intact.'P.W.19 opined that the deceased died due to strangulation and also due to multiple incised wounds and cut into three parts after dead. He issued Ex.P.29 postmortem certificate.2.11.P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police has received the alteration report in Crime No.799 of 2014 and handed over it to the Judicial Magistrate Court. P.W.21 who is the Sub Inspector of Police has deposed that he received the request from the Inspector of Police and handed over the same to the Duty Doctor of Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem. He accompanied the Doctor and identified the dead body. During the process of postmortem, he was with the Doctor and after postmortem, he handed over the dead body to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. 2.12.P.W.22, who is the Head Constable, in his deposition has stated that he had typed all the statement of witnesses and the 15/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023confessions of accused in a laptop during the investigation. P.W.23 was the Sub Inspector of Police. While he was incharge of the police station, on 08.08.2014 at about 09.30 a.m., A-1 Ramachandran gave a complaint against the deceased and P.W.10 in respect of a land dispute and based on his complaint, CSR No.197 of 2014 was registered and both sides were summoned to the police station and both agreed to settle the issue before the civil court. The complaint given by A-1 is Ex.P.30 and the CSR Receipt is Ex.P.31. Exs.P.32 and P.33 are statement of parties. 2.13.P.W.24, who was the Sub Inspector of police during the relevant point of time deposed that on 18.12.2014 at 09.00 a.m., he received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered Crime No.799 of 2014 for man missing and registered FIR is Ex.P.34. He forwarded the FIR to the court and copies to higher officials. P.W.25, Inspector of Police, took up the initial investigation and went to the house of the deceased and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P.35. He has prepared notices with the photograph of the deceased with his identification marks and he has also done arrangements to make a publication in the daily newspaper. Ex.P.36 is the said notice. He had also formed a special team. On 19.12.2014, P.W.4 VAO along with his 16/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023assistant handed over A-2 with the special report. Thereafter, he altered the crime from man missing to Sections 147, 148, 120B, 341, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.37. He arrested A-2 and recorded his confession and in pursuant to the same, he had also arrested A-1, A3 to A-5 and recorded their confessions separately. Pursuant to the confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered with the help of fishermen P.W.7 to P.W.9 and the dead body was identified. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the three pieces and the whole body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest reports Exs.P.38 to P.41. He had also requested the medical officer to conduct autopsy on the dead body. Pursuant to the confession of A-4, he seized 40-1/2 cm length of sharp knife under seizure mahazar. In pursuance of the confession of A-3 Karuvamani, he seized a long knife and also a gold chain weighing 37.300 grams under seizure mahazar. Pursuant to the confession of A-5, P.W.25 seized a gold ring weighing about 15.700 grams and he had also recovered a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 52 A 2949 pursuant to the confession of A-5. In pursuance of confession of A-3, he seized the omni van bearing registration No. TN 30 AT 7192. Thereafter, in pursuance of confession 17/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023of A-2, he seized a Samsung cell phone with two sim cards. He had also prepared Observation mahazar and rough sketch from the place where the deceased was taken. Thereafter, P.W.25 sent the accused to judicial custody and the material objects were also sent to Court. After completing the investigation, he has filed the final report against all the accused under Sections 120B, 341, 341 read with 120B, 364, 364 read with 120B, 302, 302 read with 34, 302 read with 120B, 404 read with 120B and 201 read with 302 IPC. 2.14.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.101 of 2015 and was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem for trial. Charges against the accused :3.The trial Court framed the following charges against the accused:AccusedChargesA1Sections 120B, 341 r/w 120B, 364 r/w 120B, 302 r/w 120B, 404 r/w 120B and 201 r/w 302 IPCA2Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and 18/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023201 r/w 302 IPCA3Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPCA4Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302, 404 r/w 120B and 201 r/w 302 IPCA5Sections 120B, 341, 364, 302 r/w 34, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.25 and marked 48 documents, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.48 and produced 8 material objections, namely M.O.1 to M.O.8. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the deceased were also marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2.5.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating circumstances. On the side of the defence, no evidence was recorded and no documents were marked.6.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 23.08.2018, found all the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and 19/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023sentenced them to undergo imprisonments as stated above. 7.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.612 of 2018 is filed by A1, Crl.A.No.760 of 2018 is filed by A3, A4 and A5 and Crl.A.No.761 of 2018 is filed by A2. Crl.R.C.No.831 of 2023 is filed by the wife of the deceased (who is the defacto complainant) for enhancement of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Submissions on the side of Appellants :8.It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel and counsel appearing for appellants that though the prosecution has relied on seven circumstances, as far as motive is concerned, the evidence of witnesses, namely P.Ws.1,2 and 10 are highly improbable. In order to show that a civil case filed by A-1 before the civil court is pending, no materials have been placed. The evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate that though there were some disputes with regard to the land purchased by the deceased and P.W.10 and they were asked to approach the civil court for settling their dispute, such being the position, the same cannot be taken as motive to commit such a grave crime. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 10 are highly improbable with regard to motive. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 11 who have allegedly last seen the accused with the deceased is also 20/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023highly improbable. The last seen theory relied on by the prosecution is also highly improbable. There is a long time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen together and the dead body of the deceased was found. Their evidence is highly artificial in nature. 9.The learned senior counsel further contended that the extra judicial confession of A-2 relied on by the prosecution is highly improbable which creates a serious doubt. Such confession of A-2 suffers from serious defect as the signature of A-2 found in Ex.P.3 and the signature of A-2 obtained by the police on the same day differs with each other on bare comparison by the Court. It is the further contention that though the extra judicial confession was said to have been recorded by P.W.4 on 19.12.2014, it was not recorded as per the procedure to be followed. Further, the extra judicial confession was sent to the Court only on 21.12.2014 with an inordinate delay. This clearly creates a doubt about the very extra judicial confession. The difference in the signatures of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and before the police creates a strong doubt about the very extra judicial confession. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is conspiracy. Though P.W.12 21/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023has stated as if all the accused were seen together on 13.12.2014 and were discussing, his evidence does not even show that there was conspiracy. Therefore, his evidence is in no way helpful to show that there was conspiracy. The recovery of gold jewels from A-3 and A-5 is also highly doubtful and P.Ws.1 and 2 have also not clearly identified the same and that the description was not given at the earlier point of time. There is a lot of difference with regard to the weight of jewels. In respect of the recovery of omni van said to be belonging to P.W5, though P.W.5 has stated as if the vehicle has been hired by A-3 and A-2, the evidence of P.W.5 clearly indicates that he has purchased the vehicle from one agent but the fact remains that the vehicle has been registered in the name of his wife and the R.C. book has not been produced. Whereas the report of R.T.O clearly shows that the vehicle is a diesel vehicle. This fact clearly shows that the evidence of P.W.5 is also highly doubtful with regard to the use of omni van. 10.It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that though the prosecution has alleged that the dead body was admittedly recovered from the river, the evidence of P.W.17, photographer clearly shows that while he has taken photograph, the head of the deceased was 22/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023floating. Therefore, it cannot be said that only on the basis of the confession of the accused, the dead body was recovered and hence, the recovery is also highly doubtful. Therefore, the circumstances relied on by the prosecution is doubtful and every witnesses are highly interested and their version is improved at every stage. P.W.4 having allegedly recorded the extra judicial confession, he was the witness for all the confessions continuously made by all the accused and also the recovery, which is highly improbable and attached with artificiality. The recovery of gold articles though allegedly recovered on 20.12.2024, they were sent to Court only on 21.12.2024 and in the complaint, the description of jewels was not mentioned. It is contended by learned senior counsel that in order to show that P.Ws.5 and 6 had conversation with regard to handing over of omni van by A-2 and A-3, the prosecution has not made any attempt to get the call details from the mobile phone. Further, Ex.P.47 clearly shows that the omni van was registered in the name of Manimekalai which has been suppressed by P.W.5, whereas he has stated as if after the purchase of the vehicle from the agent, he has not changed name. This fact clearly shows that his evidence is doubtful. Hence the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are highly doubtful and the 23/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023entire edifice of the prosecution case on the so-called extra judicial confession, on the face of it, creates serious doubt. Therefore, the prosecution case is highly doubtful and the witnesses P.Ws.3 and 11 who have allegedly last seen the accused in the car have not identified the accused properly as the identification parade has also not been conducted. Hence the learned senior counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is highly doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Submissions of respondent in Criminal Appeals:11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would submit that P.Ws.1,2,10 and 23 have clearly spoken about the civil dispute between the parties. Exs.P.30 to P.33 proved the fact that there was an earlier complaint between the parties in respect of the property purchased by the deceased from A-1. Their evidence has clearly proved the motive aspect. P.Ws.3 and 11 have spoken about seeing the deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly established the last seen theory also. The evidence of P.W.4 has clearly proved the extra judicial confession given by A-2. In fact, A-2 has appeared voluntarily and has given the extra judicial confession 24/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023which has been recorded by P.W.4 and the same has been marked as Ex.P.3. Thereafter, P.W.4 had handed over A-2 to the police and then, the Investigating Officer P.W.25 has recorded the confession of all the accused and effected seizures. Further, P.W.1 has also clearly identified the jewels worn by the deceased. The recovery aspect has also been clearly established and that the evidence of P.W.5 has clearly spoken about the fact that he has given the car to A-3 and A-2 and that the car has been handed over by the accused the next day, which fact has also been spoken by the other witness, namely P.W.6. P.W.16 has also spoken about the handing over of bike of A-1 in the police station. P.W.12 has spoken about the conspiracy theory. 12.It is the further contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the corpse has been recovered at the instance of the accused. The confession made by the accused led to the recovery of the dead body from the Cauvery river. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is the clinching evidence to prove the prosecution case. P.Ws.7 to 9 fishermen have also spoken about the retrieve of body from the river. All the above facts have clearly established the chain of link and therefore, the prosecution has clearly established all the 25/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023circumstances connecting to the crime.13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in support of his submissions, has relied on the following case laws:(i)State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180;(ii)Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 10 SCC 604;(iii)Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610;(iv)Ram Gopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 5 SCC 534;(v)Baban Shankar Daphal Vs. The State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 97];(vi)K.P.Tamilmaran Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 958;(vii)Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2025) 9 SCC 31.14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on Raja Ram case to say that the extra judicial confession if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court and that the value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence 26/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. If the evidence is found to be credible, it can solely form the basis of conviction. Sansar Chand case has been relied on to say that there is no absolutely rule that the extra judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction although ordinarily an extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other materials.15.Satpal case has been relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in regard to the circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory and the explanation to be given by the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act and on non compliance, the conviction can be sustained on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and Ram Gopal case has also been relied on for the very same proposition. The prosecution has relied on Chetan case to argue that where the circumstantial evidence is the basis for any case, where no eyewitness account is available and when the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused, if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers the explanation that is found to be false, it provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances. 27/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/202316.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied on K.P.Tamilmaran case to point out that the related witnesses are not necessarily interested witnesses and merely because the witnesses are interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their testimony. Baban Shankar Daphal case has been relied on as to how the evidence of a related witness has to be evaluated and that the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony.Submissions on the side of revision petitioner :17.Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the motive has been clearly spoken by the witnesses and the same has been clearly established. The evidence of P.W.3 lends corroboration to show that the accused was following the deceased in a car and the recovery of jewels also has been clearly established. P.W.1 has identified the jewels. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased who is the best person to narrate the occurrence, in Ex.P.1 has narrated about the jewels. The recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused is also another clinching circumstances and factor to prove the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused. The learned Senior counsel, hence, submitted that the prosecution has clearly 28/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023established all the circumstances leading to the crime committed by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court requires no interference and the same be sustained. Discussions and Findings :18.We have perused the entire materials and paid anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides. We have also perused the charges framed by the trial court against the accused which has been extracted supra.19.Though the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the charges are superflous and have not been framed properly by the trial court, however, the appellants have not raised any prejudice and their arguments have been made only with regard to the merits of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 had sold his property to the deceased, P.W.10 and one Marimuthu. A-1, having received Rs.40 Lakhs, had later set up his mother and sisters to file a partition suit. Therefore, there arose a dispute between the deceased and A-1. When the case is pending before the civil court, A-1 tried to sell 29/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023the property to one third party, which was objected by the deceased and P.W.10 which had resulted in a quarrel between them, as a result of which a complaint came to be filed before P.W.23 and a CSR has been registered. Thereafter, both sides have agreed to settle the dispute in a civil court and gave an undertaking Exs.P.32 and 33. 10 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded either the property to be given or the money be returned back. He had also scolded A-1 in filthy language. This was the motive for the occurrence. A-2 was the driver of A-1 and they engaged A-3 to A-5. Therefore, all the accused conspired together. On 17.12.2014, they kidnapped the deceased in M.O.5, a silver colour Maruti van which was owned by P.W.5 and thereafter, A-2 to A-5 killed the deceased in the van and went to Kamarapalayam Bhavani Cauvery river and A-1 also came there and gave instruction to all the accused to cut the deceased into pieces and to throw him in the river and after a thorough investigation, the final report has been laid.20.The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove their case, namely, motive, last seen theory, extra judicial 30/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023confession, conspiracy among the accused, recovery of jewels from A-3 and A-5, recovery of omni van from P.W.5 and the recovery of dead body of the deceased pursuant to the confession made by the accused persons. 21.As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is well settled that 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. Once the above condition has been satisfied, the circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis for the conviction. In the light of the above well settled proposition, this Court has dealt with all the circumstances one by one. Motive:22.Insofar as the motive aspect is concerned, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased, P.W.10 [Selvam] and one Marimuthu have purchased a property from A-1 and later, A-1 tried to sell the property to a third party, namely Marimuthu. The deceased and P.W.10 had objected to the same, as a result of which 31/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023A-1 lodged a complaint before P.W.23. In the police station, all of them have agreed to settle the matter before the civil court. According to the evidence of P.W.1, a few days prior to the date of occurrence, her husband, namely deceased went to the house of A-1 and demanded back either the land or money and had also scolded the A-1 in filthy language. The purchase of land from A-1 by the deceased and P.W.10 has been spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.10. The suit filed in respect of the same land by the mother and sisters of A-1 for partition was also spoken to by them. P.W.10 in his evidence has clearly stated that the purchase was made in the year 2008 and thereafter, the suit came to be filed. P.W.15, the sister of A-1 in her evidence has also stated that they filed a civil suit. The above evidences clearly indicate that after the sale of the property by A-1 to deceased and P.W.10 and subsequently, when A-1 attempted to sell the property to one Marimuthu, there arose some quarrel and dispute between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1 which resulted in a complaint being lodged by A-1 under Ex.P.30. In fact, A-1 has given the complaint against the deceased and P.W.10. In the said complaint, A-1 has clearly stated that in respect of the purchase of the property, there was dispute between the parties over the sale of the property. To be noted, the sale 32/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023was made in the year 2008 and that the dispute was simmering between the parties till 2014 which resulted in a complaint and CSR being registered by P.W.23 in CSR No.197 of 2014. When both the parties were enquired by the police, they agreed to settle the matter in a civil court. The above facts and the evidence in this regard clearly indicates that there was some previous enmity existing between the deceased and A-1 in respect of the land. However, it is to be noted that the motive is a double edged weapon and it may either be used by the accused or deceased's family members to implicate them it cannot also be ruled out. Be that as it may. Therefore, insofar as the motive aspect as projected by the prosecution is concerned, from the evidence of the above witnesses, it has been clearly established that there exist motive with regard to the dispute between the deceased, P.W.10 and A-1.Last seen theory :23.The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory. According to the prosecution, the deceased left his house as per the evidence of P.W.1, at about 03.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 as usual and never returned home. Immediately, P.W.1 called P.W.2 her daughter and other relatives and they all have made a search in the entire night to 33/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023find out the deceased. Since they could not locate him, the next day, i.e., on 18.12.2014, P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 in the police station. In the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 had never whispered anything about the accused. In her evidence, though P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had left the house at 03.00 p.m., in Ex.P.1 complaint, she never stated as to when the deceased left the house but she had stated that her husband was wearing 5 sovereign gold chain and 1-1/2 sovereign gold ring. Further apart from giving details about the mobile phone and two mobile numbers, no other description whatsoever was given with regard to jewels worn by the deceased. Be that as it may.24.According to the evidence of P.W.3 who was running a hotel in the nearby place, on 17.12.2014at 06.00 p.m., while he was standing in the Sankari main road, his neighbour Duraisamy was proceeding in Vadugapatti road in a two wheeler. At that time, a omni car bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192 has followed the two wheeler of the deceased. The said car was driven by A-1 and the other three accused, namely A-3 to A-5 were sitting in the back seat of the car. It is relevant to note that the accused Nos.3 to 5 were not known to P.W.3 prior to the same. Though it is stated that he had identified them in the Court, no 34/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023identification parade was conducted. After seeing the deceased travelling in the motor cycle, P.W.3 went to his daughter's house and returned back to his place the next day morning. According to his evidence, as there was crowd in front of the house of the deceased, he came to know about the missing of deceased. It is clear from his evidence that he has not seen the deceased and accused travelling together. The evidence of P.W.3 would show the fact that TN 30 AT 7192, omni car was driven by A-2 at the relevant point of time and three of the accused were sitting in the back. Though his evidence lends some support to show that he has seen the accused at Vadugapatti road at about 06.00 p.m., it is relevant to note that P.W.1 in her evidence has categorically stated that she tried calling her husband in his cellphone but his mobile was switched off and was not reachable. Though the evidence of P.W.1 is that she tried to contact her husband till evening, whereas P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in her cross examination has stated that she had spoken to her father in the evening. The evidence of Investigating Officer if seen carefully, he has admitted that at 05.55 p.m., the deceased called her daughter and it shows the tower location in nearby Shanmuga Complex where the office of the deceased is located. P.W.25, Investigating Officer, in his cross 35/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023examination has clearly admitted that he has ascertained that the deceased was around the Shanmuga Complex at 05.55 p.m. The relevant part of his evidence reads as follows:'17/12/2014 md;W khiy 05/55 kzpf;F. filrpahf. m/rh/2 kPdht[ld; Jiurhkp ngrpa[s;shh;/ r';ffphp. g[J vlg;gho nuhL. rz;Kf fhk;g;sf;rpy; cs;s lth; gFjpapypUe;J ngrpa[s;shh;/ nkw;go miHg;g[ gl;oay; go Jiurhkp. filrpahf r';ffphp g[J vlg;gho nuhL gFjpapy; ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;W cWjpg; gLj;jpf;bfhz;nlhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/'25.The fact remains that having ascertained that at 05.55 p.m., the deceased was available in Sankari New Edapadi road, the call details obtained by the Investigating Officer has not been exhibited for the reasons best known to him. Be that as it may. The Shanmuga Complex is situated in Edpadi Road. P.W.3, in his evidence has stated as if he saw the deceased riding his bike in Vadugpatti road which is in the other direction. The fact as to how the deceased had reached the other place within five minutes also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court. 36/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023Even assuming that P.W.3 's evidence lends some support to corroborate the fact that the deceased was followed by so-called accused, he has also indicated that the accused 3 to 5 are unknown to P.W.3 and he has seen them while they were travelling in the car. But, No identification parade in this regard was conducted thereafter to identify the accused and P.W.3 has not identified them. This aspect of the matter was not explained by the prosecution. 26.The other key witness is P.W.11, Ganesamoorthy, who was working with the deceased. According to him, on 17.12.2014, he and his friend one Srinivasan were proceeding to Kalipatti Murugan temple via Mavelipalayam. At that time, under the railway bridge, one omni van came in a rash and negligence manner as if dashing against his two wheeler and the same was questioned by P.W.11. At that time, he found that the van was driven by A-2 and the deceased was seated back in the omni van and both A-3 and A-4 were sitting on either side of the deceased in the van bearing registration No.TN 30 AT 7192. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.11 indicates that P.W.11, in his evidence has clearly stated that he was earlier working with the deceased 20 years before and he has stated that immediately after seeing the 37/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023accused and deceased together, he left for Murugan Temple and thereafter, went to Sabarimala temple and he later reached his place only on 20.12.2014 and on reaching only he came to know that the deceased was murdered. Thereafter, on 21.12.2014, as usual when he was going for his job, he was going in front of the police station and on seeing the crowd in the police station, he entered the police station and informed the fact of seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van on 17.12.2014. It is relevant to note that the explanation given by P.W.11 for delayed information to the police that he went to Sabarimala temple and on return on 20.12.2014, he came to know about the occurrence is nothing but a clear improvement made during his examination. P.W.25, Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has clearly stated that P.W.11 has not stated in his statement that he went to Sabarimala temple on 17.12.2014 and returned back on 20.12.2014. 27.The evidence of P.W.11 is clearly unbelievable. It is clearly seen from the analysis of the evidence that the explanation given by P.W.11 is only to strengthen the prosecution case. Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.11 is true that he went to Sabarimala temple and 38/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023came back on 20.12.2014 to his place, his immediate reaction and conduct should be that on coming to know about the death of deceased with whom he was earlier working, he should have informed the fact of seeing the deceased and accused together in the omni van, to the police or at least to the relatives of the deceased. He has clearly stated in his evidence that on 20.12.2014, he returned back from the temple and was aware of the brutal murder of the deceased but he did not inform the fact of seeing the deceased and accused together on 17.12.2014 to any one. However, casually on the next day, he left for the job and at that time, on seeing the crowd in the police station, he went there and informed the above said fact. This conduct of P.W.11, in our mind, is against the normal human behaviour and this aspect cannot be ignored altogether. It is further to be noted that even assuming that he has given the statement only on 21.12.2014, his statement has reached the Judicial Magistrate court only on 20.03.2015. This fact creates some doubt about the very fairness in the investigation. If really the statement of P.W.11 was recorded on 21.12.2014, that statement should have been reached the court on the same day or at least the next day but the statement of the witness was sent to court only on 20.03.2015. The delay in despatching 39/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023section 161 Cr.P.C statement to the Court has also not been explained properly by the prosecution. 28.It is further to be noted that according to P.W.11, he saw the deceased alive in the company of A-2 to A-4 under the railway bridge at Mavelipalayam. On looking at his entire evidence, it is clear that he has not even whispered anything about when he saw the deceased and accused together. Even assuming the evidence of P.W.11 to be true and lends some support to the prosecution case of the last seen theory aspect, it is to be noted that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen together and the deceased was alive at that time and when the deceased was found dead, is too long.Extra Judicial Confession and other circumstances :29.The prosecution has mainly relied on Ex.P.3, the so-called extra judicial confession given by A2 before P.W.4 (Village Administrative Officer) and the same was recorded by P.W.4. In his evidence, P.W.4 has never stated as to what is the nature of the statement given by A4 but has stated that A4 appeared before him and gave the statement, which was 40/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023recorded and thereafter, with the special report, A4 was handed over to the police. The extra judicial confession, if it is given to a person who is responsible person and if it does not suffer from any infirmity, no doubt, can be the sole basis for conviction and the same can also be taken as substantive evidence.30.The Hon'ble Supreme Court on various occasions considered and laid down the principles governing the evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession and the circumstance under which such extra judicial confession can be made as a sole basis for conviction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) 3 SCC 565, in paragraphs 24 and 25, has dealt with the aspect of extra judicial confession and when the evidence regarding the same can be considered and paragraphs 24 and 25 read as follows:'24.Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was again examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] That was also a case where conviction was based on extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall 41/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. However, the confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. 25.This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such evidence should not be considered. This Court held as follows : (Sahadevan case [Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1839] , SCC p. 410, para 14)“14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, 42/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.” 31.In the case on hand, in the extra judicial confession relied on by the prosecution, it is recorded as if the accused had kidnapped the deceased near Uppupalayam Mariamman temple. The extra judicial confession also shows that to reach the Mariamman temple, a railway bridge has to be crossed, whereas P.W.11 evidence shows as if he saw the accused under the railway bridge. Therefore, it also creates some doubt in his evidence. If the entire extra judicial confession as recorded by P.W.4, is scanned would show that it is handwritten and the signature of A2 was obtained. The signature obtained in the extra judicial confession Ex.P.3 would clearly show that all the contents have been accommodated just above the signature. This clearly indicates that the contents of the extra judicial confession have been written after the signature was obtained. As already indicated, if the extra judicial 43/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023confession is free from any infirmity or doubt, the same can be the basis for conviction but when the extra judicial confession suffers from some infirmities which have not been explained properly, then it is unsafe to rely on the same. It is relevant to note the signature of A2 found in the so-called extra judicial confession and the scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:32.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that immediately after the confession of A2 is recorded, he handed over A2 to the police. Thereafter, all the other accused have been arrested one by one and the Investigating Officer has recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of P.W.4 and the other witness and in pursuance of the same, all recoveries have been made. The confession of A-2 has also been recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day in the police 44/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023station, wherein the signature of A2 was also obtained. The signature of A-2 in the said confession statement is also scanned and reproduced below:33.Though this Court cannot assume the role of the expert in comparing the signatures found in the documents, on bare perusal of both the signatures of A-2 in the extra judicial confession and the confession recorded by the Investigating Officer would indicate that there is a lot of difference in both the signatures. The letter 'r' and the other letters in Ex.P.3 is totally different from the signature found in the confession of A2 given by the Investigating Officer which is marked as Ex.P.6. This fact creates a serious doubt about the alleged extra judicial confession. Though the prosecution has also relied on the entire recovery said to have been made pursuant to the confession made by the accused [namely recovery from A2 under Ex.P.7 seizure mahazar and recovery from A3 45/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023under Ex.P.9 seizure mahazar], they were all recovered in the presence of P.W.4 and the other witness. The dead body was also recovered at the instance of the accused from the Cauvery river. It is relevant to note that the so-called extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.4 has been handed over to the Investigating Officer and it is only on the basis of the same, the Investigating Officer P.W.25 recorded further confessions of accused and effected all the recoveries of Material Objects and also the dead body in three pieces. 34.On careful perusal of the so-called extra judicial confession of A2, it is seen that A2 has stated that he was driving the omni van and the other accused were sitting in the back seat and they kidnapped the deceased. While proceeding in the car, near Bhavani, A4 Subramani caught hold both the legs of the deceased and A3 Marimuthu @ Karuvamani strangulated the deceased and when the same was thwarted by the deceased, A4 Subramani stabbed him on the left chest, shoulder and left hand and killed him. Thereafter, they removed gold chain and ring and cell phone of the deceased. Thereafter, when they were going in the same car along with the dead body and were waiting in the Cauvery new bridge, at that time, A1 came there and informed them that since the 46/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023deceased insulted him, he should be cut into pieces and be thrown into the river. Accordingly, the accused took the dead body from the car, got into the river, kept the body in the Coracle and took the body to the center of the river and kept the same on the rock and cut the dead body into three pieces and have thrown into the river. Having come to know that the deceased was murdered in the car and the dead body was carried in the car and later, the dead body was cut into pieces after keeping the body on the rock, no investigation whatsoever was made by the Investigating Officer to find out any bloodstains or the other traces found in the car. 35.M.O.5, omni van was allegedly owned by P.W.5 and hired by A2 and the other accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on the next day, i.e., on 18.12.2014, the car was left in the place of P.W.5 and the key was handed over to P.W.6 as P.W.5 contacted P.W.6 and asked him to receive the key of the van. Thereafter, the omni van was seized by the police. It is relevant to note that in the evidence of P.W.5, he has stated that he had purchased the same from one agent and therefore, he has not changed the name of the omni van but he has suppressed the fact that the omni van has already been registered in the 47/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023name of his wife. The fact that M.O.5, van belonged to the wife of P.W.5 has also been established under Ex.P.47 but the said fact has been suppressed by P.W.5. Be that as it may. The evidence of P.W.5 would clearly indicate that his wife has filed a petition for return of the vehicle. In the evidence, P.W.5 has clearly admitted that the petition was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court to the effect that they have no knowledge about the crime and only after the police seized their vehicle, they came to know that their vehicle was used for the crime and therefore, they filed the petition for return of property and got back the same. This fact has clearly been admitted by P.W.5 himself during the cross examination, whereas in the chief examination, he has deposed that he had never transferred the car into his wife's name since he has purchased it from the agent. This aspect also creates some doubt in the evidence of P.W.5. Even assuming that the evidence of P.W.5 is believable and it also lends some help to the prosecution case, having come to know the fact of the murder committed in the omni van and the dead body was carried in the said vehicle and having seized the same from P.W.5, no attempts whatsoever have been made to find out any bloodstains in the omni van. It is not the case of the prosecution that the 48/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023vehicle was washed and handed over to P.W.5. As per the version of the prosecution, the deceased was stabbed in the omni van itself and in such a case, the blood would have been scattered and bloodstains would have been found in the seat and even if the van was washed, some bloodstains in the seat would remain there and would not go. But P.W.25 Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to verify this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 also does not inspire the confidence of the Court.36.The prosecution has also relied on the other circumstance, namely recovery of jewels [M.O.1 and M.O.2] and M.O.3, cellphone. M.O.1, gold chain recovery from A3 under Ex.P.9 and M.O.2, gold ring from A5 under Ex.P.13 weighing about 15.700 grams. Though P.W.1 would say that these jewels were worn by her husband, while giving the complaint, no description has been given. Further, the weight of the gold ring is also not tallying. P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that she has not identified these jewels in the police station. Be that as it may. Merely on the basis of some identification of these jewels by P.W.1, we are of the view that the same cannot be a ground to hold that the prosecution has proved the entire case beyond all 49/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023reasonable doubt, for the reason that the very edifice of the prosecution case, namely the extra judicial confession, the two signatures of A2 and the manner in which P.W.4 was made as a witness in all recoveries create a strong doubt.37.It is also pertinent to note that though the knife said to have been used by one of the accused, namely A4 was also seized under Ex.P.11 and one knife from A3 under Ex.P.9, no attempt whatsoever was made by the Investigating Officer to find out if there is any bloodstains found in the weapon. There is no biology report or serology report obtained. This also creates some doubt in the prosecution case. Admittedly, according to the prosecution, the seized items, namely knife recovered from the house of one of the accused and the jewels said to have been worn by the deceased also do not contain any bloodstain and there was no attempt whatsoever made by the prosecution to unearth the truth. Be that as it may.38.The main circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the corpse, as according to the prosecution, pursuant to the confessions of the accused, the body parts were fished out from the river near Kumarapalayam in the morning of 20.12.2014. P.W.7 to P.W.9, in their 50/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023evidence, have stated that they retrieved the dead body at the place pointed out by the accused persons. The photographer [P.W.17] in his evidence in the cross examination, has stated that the head was floating at the time when he was taking photograph. Therefore, when the dead body was thrown into the river near Kumarapalayam, the floating of the head part could have been noticed by many people. Though P.W.7 to P.W.9 have stated in one voice that they retrieved the corpse from the place pointed out by all the five accused, it is relevant to note that A-1 pointing out such a place is highly improbable, as according to the prosecution case, A-1 gave instructions to the other accused to cut the dead body into pieces and to throw it into the river. Therefore, the other accused persons took the body in a Coracle for some distance and kept the body on the rock and cut the same into three pieces. But, no attempt whatsoever was made to seize the Coracle which was available near the river to find out any bloodstains. Further, having known the fact from the confessions of the accused that the dead body was kept in the rock and cut into pieces, the Investigating Officer had not even made any attempt to find out any bloodstains in the particular rock, for the reasons best known to him. 51/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/202339.In the normal circumstances, the recovery of corpse pursuant to the confession statements of the accused persons itself is sufficient to base the conviction but the prosecution story as projected was based on the extra judicial confession. A perusal of the extra judicial confession Ex.P.3 indicates that the murder was committed in the omni van and the dead body was carried in the same, but no attempt whatsoever was made to examine the said omni van to find out any bloodstains and equally, no attempt was made to find out any bloodstains in the rock where the dead body was allegedly cut into pieces. No doubt, the evidence of Postmortem doctor would clearly indicate that the dead body was cut into pieces and such thing could have been done after the dead of the person and that the murder is a ghastly and gruesome one and admittedly, there is no dispute about the same. But the fact remains that merely on the basis of some evidence which creates some doubt in the mind of the court and merely on the basis of the alleged recoveries, we are unable to accept the entire prosecution case. 40.Yet another important reason is that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased was done away in the night of 17.12.2014 52/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023and the body was cut into pieces. In the evidence of P.W.25, Investigating Officer, he has clearly admitted as follows:'18/12/2014 Mk; njjp. Jiurhkp filrpahf bra;j ,uz;L miHg;g[fs; ahUf;F bra;Js;shh; vd;w tptuj;ij ehd; tprhhpj;J bjhpe;Jbfhz;nldh vd;why;. tprhuiz bra;njd;/ mth; ahh; vd;W jw;nghJ "hgfk; ,y;iy/ ehd; egh;fis tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;. mthplk; thf;FK:yKk; bgw;nwd; vd;Wk;. miyg;ngrp miHg;g[ tptu';fis tprhhpj;jjhf brhd;dhy;. mJ tHf;fpw;F ghjfkhfptpLk; vd;gjhy;. jw;nghJ khw;wp rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ filrp ,uz;L vz;fSf;Fz;lhd chpikahsh;fis ehd; tprhhpj;njd; vd;Wk;. mg;nghJ gy cz;ikfs; bjhpa te;jJ vd;Wk;. mtw;iw ehd; kiwj;Jtpl;nld; vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ mjdhy;jhd; eP/rh/M/1 kw;Wk; 2Mtz';fis. muR jug;gpy; Mtz';fshf FwpaPL bra;atpy;iybad;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ nkw;go filrp ,uz;L vz;fSk;. m/rh/2 kPdhtpd; bry;nghd; vz;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy;. mij jw;nghJ Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;y KoahJ/'53/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/202341.From the above evidence, it is clear that the cellphone of the deceased was used on 18.12.2014. Though the Investigating Officer was aware of the said fact and examined some of the witnesses, he has not cited them as witnesses for the reasons best known to him. Further, no investigation has been done in this regard. It is further to be noted that though the call details for the period upto 17.12.2014 were obtained, the same has not been filed as prosecution documents, whereas his evidence would clearly indicate that the Investigating Officer was also aware of the fact that on 18.12.2014 also, there were two calls made in the cellphone of the deceased. Despite knowing the said fact, he has not obtained the call details for 18.12.2014 and that the call details obtained till 17.12.2014 also has not been filed as prosecution documents. A perusal of the call details obtained upto 17.12.2014 would indicate that the deceased was very much alive at 05.55 p.m on 17.12.2014 and he had spoken through his phone near Shanmuga Complex which is situated in the other direction. Therefore, the prosecution story that he was kidnapped near Mavelipalayam is also highly doubtful.42.With regard to the circumstance relating to conspiracy theory, it is to be noted that except the evidence of one witness saying that all the 54/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023accused were talking together, there is no other evidence in this regard to prove that all the accused have conspired and as a result of which they have committed the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy aspect by producing a valid evidence. There is no evidence at all in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a circumstance pointing out the guilt of the accused.43.The case laws relied on by the prosecution if analysed on case to case basis, it is not applicable to the case on hand. Each of the case laws turned on their own peculiar facts and circumstances and if analysed in proper perspective, it is evident that the ratio therein does not advance the prosecution case in the present factual matrix of the case and each decision must be appreciated in the light of its own factual context. 44.In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that though the motive aspect of the matter, i.e., there was previous dispute between the parties, has been established, the other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is not so complete and suffers from serious infirmities as discussed above. No doubt, the nature of the crime is so ghastly and gruesome. However, when the circumstances relied on by the prosecution is not complete and the evidence relied on 55/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023by the prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and is doubtful, it is unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of the above circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case being based solely on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused. However, the circumstances relied on are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and do not form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. In the absence of such a complete chain, the court cannot sustain the conviction based on the above circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the Investigating Officer would clearly indicate that there were two calls in the cellphone of the deceased on 18.12.2024 but this aspect of the matter has not even been investigated by the Investigating Officer and the investigation in this regard is missing. If the investigation has been carried out in the direction of tracing the place of the phone calls and the location from which the calls were made and whether such calls have been made by the accused after the alleged murder, it would have thrown some light on the investigation. But this aspect has not been investigated at all. All the above points would clearly create serious doubts in the entire prosecution case. As the 56/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023circumstances brought by the prosecution have not been established and the chain of circumstances is not so complete, merely on the basis of some dispute between the deceased and A1 and the motive in this regard, we are unable to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. 45.With regard to the motive aspect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh alias Vijay Kr. Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623 has held in paragraph 35 as follows:'35. As regards motive, we may suffice to say that motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. Moreover, the motive in the present matter could operate both ways. The accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same family and the presence of a property related dispute is evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword. We say no more. '57/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/202346.In a recent decision in Subhash Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2025) 8 SCC 440, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the consequences relating to the motive and the relevant paragraph in this regard is paragraph 29 and the same reads as follows:'29.The declaration in the cited decisions and the decisions relied on therein, is to the effect that if the case is built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal. When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence. '(Emphasis supplied)47.In the present case, the cumulative analysis of the evidence of witnesses would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is complete missing of link in the chain to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no corroborative material to prove the last seen theory. It is to be noted that no 58/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023identification parade was conducted. Further, in order to prove the evidence of witnesses and the recovery of material objects, particularly the weapon used for the crime by the accused, no scientific analysis or examination was carried out. Bloodstains from the place of occurrences, i.e., any bloodstains either from the vehicle where the deceased was said to have been killed or from the rock where the deceased was alleged to have been cut into three pieces, have not been recovered in order to send the same to forensic examination. When the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the forensic evidence can strength the chain of circumstances, it will connect the accused with the crime and it will be a corroborative piece of evidence but no such thing has happened in the case on hand. It is also pertinent to note that when the prosecution relies on the last seen evidence, the identification of the accused by the witnesses through test identification parade adds great weight to the evidence. Therefore, it is clear that without identification parade, the last seen theory may become weak.48.The other piece of evidence, the prosecution has failed to produce is the call details in the cell phone of the deceased relating to 59/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/202318.12.2014. From the evidence of witnesses, namely the witnesses relating to the last seen theory, the accused and deceased were seen together in the evening of 17.12.2014 and thereafter, the deceased went missing and not found. But it is also to be noted that there were two calls in the mobile of the deceased on 18.12.201. This aspect of the matter has not even been investigated by the prosecution and the call details pertaining to 18.12.2014 have not been collected by the prosecution. 49.In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to all the accused. 50.In the light of the above, these three Criminal Appeals are allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 23.08.2018 made in S.C.No.101 of 2015 is set aside and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand discharged. In the light of criminal appeals being 60/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023allowed, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise and consequently, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)27.10.2025 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes vvkTo1.II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem2.The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District-637 301.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.61/62 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.612, 760 and 761/2018 and Crl.R.C.No.831/2023N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.andM.JOTHIRAMAN, J.vvkCriminal Appeal Nos.612, 760 and 761 of 2018andCriminal R.C.No.831 of 2023 27.10.202562/62