Circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if it is inconclusive, not corroborated, or capable of innocent explanation.

ANANTANARAYANAN, J. :- This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1959 on his file, convicting the first accused in that case (Marudai) both of murder (Section 302 I. P. C.) and causing disappearance of the evidence of crime (Section 201 I. P. C.), and sentencing him to death upon the first charge, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years upon the second. At the outset itself, it is important to note that the prosecution related to the murder of one Sellayee, the wife of this accused 1, aged at about 18 when she was killed, and to the disposal of her body. Further, that accused 2 in the case, who was tried upon the charge under S. 201 I. P. C. alone but acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, was the Village Munsif of Irunagalur (Lalgudi Taluk), apparently a man of some influence and some local status. The appeal of the condemned prisoner is also before us.

2. The case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and those pieces of evidence have to be carefully set forth, and considered in their cumulative effect. Another difficulty in this case relates to the very imperfect police investigation at crucial stages, which has led us to consider anxiously the nature of the comments that we feel constrained to make, in the interests of justice, upon this aspect, particularly as the tinge or suggestion is also present that the local influence of accused 2 might not be unconnected with the lethargy of the police.

We may add, at this stage itself, that the case, in its original frame as presented by prosecution, also depended in large measure for its strength upon the evidence of Nallu (P. W. 19), the approver, whose confessional statement had been judicially recorded (Exhibit P. 25). But, unfortunately for the prosecution, P. W. 19 declined to stand by the confession in his testimony at the trial, and had to be treated as a hostile witness by the Public Prosecutor in the Court below. That certainly added to the difficulties of the prosecution, in this already difficult and somewhat complicated case upon the facts. The learned Sessions Judge has attempted to deal with the pieces of circumstantial evidence appearing against the present accused in a careful and lucid manner, but, unfortunately, he has not set forth the facts in their details, in a chronological sequence.

The result of this is that the exact relationship between the facts of evidence, as gathered and presented at trial, and the manner in which the Police investigation was conducted, has not been fully brought to light in the judgment. We think that this is very important. We have no doubt that the most unfortunate apathy displayed by the Police authorities, at critical stages, has not merely affected the entire case even against the present appellant, but also rendered certain facts themselves somewhat doubtful. We hence propose both to set out the facts chronologically, and, subsequently, to analyse them critically, in order to see how far guilt has been brought home to the appellant before us.

3. Sellayee (deceased) was the eldest daughter of Veeran (P. W. 1) and she was married to the appellant at Perumalmalai in June-July 1958. A jacket (which, in a torn condition is M. O. 2) was presented by P. W. 1 to her before her marriage. When she came with her newly-married husband to the house of P. W. 1, a few days after the marriage, she was also wearing a saree (M. O. 1), which was said to have been presented to her by accused 2. Later, the deceased and the appellant again came to the house of P. W. 1 for 18th of Adi (July-August 1958), when P. W. 1 presented her with a bead necklace (M. O. 3). At this visit, for the first time Sellayee complained that accused 1s mother (her mother-in-law) was asking her to have illicit intimacy with the Village Munsif (accused 2), and that accused 2 was also attemptng to seduce her.

A week after this, P. W. 1 received a letter from Sellayee to the effect that the appellant and h