DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Heard.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu questions, the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode had found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case at hand rests on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which was highlighted by the prosecution was that PWs. 1 and 2 allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused around 11 O clock in the night. The second was an alleged extra judicial confession before PW3 the village head. Though the trial Court placed reliance on these factors to find the accused guilty, the High Court found the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 to be unreliable so far as the claim to have seen accused add the deceased together around 11 oclock in the night. Similarly the High Court found that the so-called extra judicial confession has not been established by PW3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence o