Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These two appeals are by the two who stand convicted and sentenced by the Court of Session for offences punishable on different counts in relation to the alleged murder of the victim as alleged by the prosecution. The other accused stands acquitted by the court below.

2. Heard the learned senior advocate for the first accused, the learned advocate for the second accused and the learned public prosecutor. We have gone through the entire material evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned public prosecutor had argued the matter quite in extenso, on different aspects of the case.

3. The alleged victim of the incident was found by PW 10, lying in shallow waters, in a paddy field amidst a coconut grove. Following the statement given by the father of that victim, investigation followed the registration of that crime. Thereafter, the father of the deceased sought for an investigation, indicting the first accused, a close relative of the deceased. The final report was laid on conclusion of the investigation that followed.

4. The gist of the prosecution case is that deceased Vinayan is the husband of the 1st accused's sister and the 1st accused wanted the couple to divorce, though the deceased was against such a proposal; accused persons 2 and 3 are friends of the 1st accused and they having hatched up a conspiracy in that regard, the 2nd accused enticed the deceased soliciting him for immoral activity in a paddy field, from where 3rd accused provided liquor mixed with sodium cyanide and accused persons 1 and 2 forcibly administered that substance to the deceased and thereafter, all the three accused persons took the victim to the waters and dipped his head in the water.

5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The guiding principle in that regard is necessarily that the chain of circumstances has to be established to come to the settled conclusion pointing to the guilt of the accused of having committed the offence alleged.

6. Here, the offence charged is one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. On the basis of the legal evidence on record, here and now, we note that there is considerable doubt on the basis of the materials on record as to what was the nature of death of the deceased. Before we proceed to the other grounds of the appeals, we go to that aspect. Going by Ext.P15 postmortem certificate and the evidence of PW18, who conducted postmortem, the reason for the death is, clinchingly, by drowning. Now, to take the case of unnatural death of the deceased to be a case of homicide, it needs to be shown, either by way of direct evidence, or otherwise, that it is a case of homicide; excluding the possibility of the case in hand being one of suicide or an instance of accidental death. On the basis of the materials on record, there is no legal evidence whatsoever, of any overt act, or otherwise; clinchingly pointing out the direct route of evidence to fix the case as one of homicide. Therefore, we have to rest satisfied of the possibility of the case being one where accidental death or suicide, has not been ruled out to conclude that the case is one of homicide.

8. PW10 is the person who saw the deceased lying upside down in the water. Ext.P4 inquest prepared by PW23 shows that froth and blood had flown through the nostrils and mouth. But, it needs to be noted that by the time Ext.P4 inquest report was prepared, the body was not in the position where it was originally, as seen by PW10. Ext.P4 inquest report also says that the inquest was not conducted from the place where the body was originally lying as stated and the depth of the water where the head of the deceased was originally seen had 31 cm.

9. With this, we go to the opinion expressed in Ext.P15 which we have already noted. The postmortem findings, according to that lecturer in forensic medicine, who conducted the postmortem, are consistent with death due to drowning. There are six in