S. VIMALA, J.

1. There is a dividing line between may be true and must be true , which is represented by conjectures at one end of the spectrum and concrete conclusions on the other. Ignoring this dividing line, is it proper for the trial court to have awarded the death penalty, when the circumstantial evidence did not support the hypothesis that it is only this accused and this accused alone committed murder of the deceased, and when the evidence did not even signify that the hypothesis may be true , is it right for the trial court to award a death sentence, is the issue involved in this Appeal.

2. The Sessions Court, i.e., Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, found the accused Manikandan guilty under Sections 364(A) and 302 IPC and in respect of the offence under Section 364(A) IPC, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to death.

3. Submitting the entire records in S.C.No.102 of 2015 to this Court, the trial Court has referred the proceedings for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The brief facts, as relied upon by the prosecution, are as follows:-

4.1. The accused and the father of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as P.W.1) were known to each other and their relationship soared to the extent of exchanging money. The accused used to borrow money from P.W.1 and in fact, had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from P.W.1 and on account of loss in the brick making business, he was not able to repay it. The accused felt offended, when P.W.1 made persistent demands for return of money. The accused developed a sense of revenge.

4.2. P.W.1-Paramasivam and P.W.2-Usha had a female child, by name, Pachaiammal, which was four years old. The deceased was studying in the school run by P.W.3-Sakthi.

4.3. On 13.06.2013, the accused kidnapped the deceased from Mangalam Gandhi Matriculation School, by using his Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN25-L-2391 and after murdering her, threw away the dead body in the Well of one Sundaramurthy. The child was regularly taken to school by P.W.5-Chandrasekar, the van driver. In the absence of P.W.5, some times, the accused used to take the child to and from the school.

4.4. On 10.06.2013, the deceased was promoted from L.K.G. to U.K.G. On 13.06.2013, i.e. on the reopening day, at about 01.30 pm, she was found missing from the school, about which, the parents were informed immediately. The father rushed to the school. Even while rushing to the school, the father of the deceased informed the accused that his child was missing and that he wanted his assistance to trace her out. The accused came belatedly. On reaching the school, he was informed by P.W.3-Sakthi and P.W.19-Yokesh that the deceased had been taken away from the school by the accused. However, the accused came to the place after two hours and he was also pretending to be involved in the search for the deceased and as they were not able to trace out, a complaint was lodged under Ex.P-1 to the jurisdictional police concerned.

4.5. The case was registered in Mangalam Police Station Cr.No.139 of 2013 under the head of 'child missing' and the First Information Report is Ex.P-7. Nearly a week after, i.e. on 19.06.2013, the village people informed the father of the deceased about the floating of a dead body in a Well at Aarpakkam and the father, plunging into the Well, identified that the body is that of his daughter (found out from the uniform dress of the deceased) and with the assistance of Fire and Rescue Services Personnel, the body was taken out. The father of the deceased had lodged another complaint in Ex.P-2.

4.6. Based on the said complaint, the case of Child Missing was altered into kidnapping for ransom and murder. The body of the deceased, after inquest, was sent for postmortem. T