JUDGMENT : Govinda Menon, J.- 1. This appeal is against the conviction for murder passed by the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in Sessions Case No. 13/59. 2. The charge against the appellant was that he committed the murder of a 7 months old male child by name Baby by drowning the child into the water in Killiyar river in Trivandrum. P.W. 6, Ponnu Pankajakshi is the mother of the child. Her husband Narayanan died 8 months before the birth of the deceased child. Narayanan was ill and bedridden for about 3 years before his death. P.W. 8 aged 14 is her eldest child. Some time before the birth of the deceased, the accused started having illicit intimacy with P.W. 6 and as a result of which the deceased child was born. The accused is an Ezhava and P.W. 6 is a Nadar lady. Accused wanted to marry a girl in his own caste and expressed his desire to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 was not amenable. She protested and threatened that she would take the child to his house and leave it there. A few days before the incident, two of her children were ill and were inpatients in Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Sasthamangalam. On 22-1-59 at about 8 p.m., P.W. 6 was proceeding to the hospital with her child Baby accompanied by her eldest child P.W. 8. When they reached near the first pipe at Sasthamangalam Maruthankuzhi road, the accused came on a cycle, suddenly got down from the cycle and snatched away the child from P.W. 6 and rode away with the child. P.W. 6 demanded the return of the child and followed him. While proceeding towards the house of the accused, they met P.W. 9 and another person on the way. She told them about the accused snatching away her child and requested them for their help in getting back the child. They all went to the house of the accused. When questioned, the accused told their that he had sent the child to Trichur and would be made available to P.W. 6 only after 5 years. They were not satisfied with the reply. P.W. 6 started raising a hue and cry. The mother of the accused then came out of the house crying out that she would commit suicide and ran away from the house. In the meanwhile, the accused escaped from the house. P.Ws. They were not satisfied with the reply. P.W. 6 started raising a hue and cry. The mother of the accused then came out of the house crying out that she would commit suicide and ran away from the house. In the meanwhile, the accused escaped from the house. P.Ws. 6 and 8 continued to stay in the house. Early next morning P.W. 6 went and informed her mother who was staying at Vellayambalam. After that P.W. 6 again returned to the accused's house and started crying and demanding for the return of the child. The accused was missing from the house. The whole day P.W. 6 remained in the house but the accused did not turn up. 3. On 24-1-59 at about 9-30 a.m., P.W. 6 reported the matter to the Cantonment Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 16 made an entry Ext. P. 8 in the general diary of the police station. A police constable was deputed to make enquiries, but no information was received. Next day P.W. 6 again went to the house of the accused. On reaching near the house, she was informed that the dead body of her child was seen in the river. She at once rushed to the spot and identified the corpse as that of her child. 4. At 8 a.m., on 25-1-59, she went to the police station and gave a statement Ext. P. 4 to the Sub-Inspector of police P.W. 16. A case was registered under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Ext. P. 9 is the F.I.R. P.W. 17 the Circle Inspector of police was given information and both P.Ws. 16 and 17 proceeded to the scene. The Circle Inspector conducted the inquest and Ext. P. 6 is the inquest report. The dead body was identified by P.W. 6. After inquest, P.W. 4 the doctor conducted the autopsy and Ext. P.1 is the postmortem certificate. The dead body was in a highly decomposed condition. The doctor says death must have taken place 2½ or 3 days prior to the time of postmortem. This would fix the date of death to some time during the night of 22-1-59. He detected mud and sand particles in the posterior part of the mouth, larynx and trachae. He is definitely of opinion that death was due to asphyxia due to drowning. This would fix the date of death to some time during the night of 22-1-59. He detected mud and sand particles in the posterior part of the mouth, larynx and trachae. He is definitely of opinion that death was due to asphyxia due to drowning. The medicial evidence therefore tends to show that the child met with its death on account of drowning. 5. P.Ws. 16 and 17 made enquiries about the accused, but he was not available in his house. On 29-1-59, P.W. 7 a police constable arrested the accused at 2 P.M., at a place called Manchadimoodu in Chirayinkil taluk. On getting information P.W. 16 reached the place. The accused wanted that he may be produced before the Magistrate. Accordingly at 3-30 p.m., on 29-1-59 the accused was produced before P.W. 5, the 1st class Magistrate of Attingal. P.W. 5 remanded the accused to the sub-jail with direction to produce him at 11 a.m., on 30-1-59. Ext. P. 3 is the statement given by the accused at 11 a.m. on 30-1-59 before P.W. 5. He said that he had nothing to say and that he had lot expressed any desire to confess. P.W. 16 says that while the accused was in custody, on the basis of the information received from the accused, a search of the accused's house was made on 6-2-59. M.O. 8 a blue shirt was produced by the accused and it was taken into custody under a mahazar Ext. P. 10. 6. Before the committing Magistrate's court the accused stated that he did not know P.W. 6 or the child and he denied the snatching of the child from P.W. 6. Ext. P. 12 is the statement of the accused before the committing Magistrate's Court. In the Sessions court also he denied having committed the offence. He states that he did not know P.W. 6 and he denied the kidnapping of the child according to him, on the midnight of 22-1-59, P.W. 9 and others came to his house and attempted to assault him. They demanded money from him and threatened to kill him if money was not given. He therefore left his house for Chirayinkil and he admits he was arrested by P.W. 7 on 29-1-59 at Chirayinkil and produced before P.W. 5. They demanded money from him and threatened to kill him if money was not given. He therefore left his house for Chirayinkil and he admits he was arrested by P.W. 7 on 29-1-59 at Chirayinkil and produced before P.W. 5. He admitted the evidence of P.W. 10 that he had borrowed a cycle at 6-30 p.m., on 22-1-59 and that the same was not returned as promised. He also admitted that at about 9 or 9-15 p.m., that night he took his bath in the river and did not dispute the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was seen and identified by her during the night. 7. That P.W. 6 had a 7 months old child and that the dead body of that child was seen on 25-1-59 amongst a cluster of screw-pines, in Killiyar river is proved conclusively by the prosecution. The dead body was identified by P.W. 6, mother as that of her child. She also identified M.Os. 1 to 4 and 5 as the articles which the child had when the child was snatched away from her by the accused. She stated that the child was also wearing a silver waist chain when the child was snatched away. P.Ws. 16 and 17 detected on the bank of the river among the bushes a piece of silver chain which formed part of the waist chain of the child. M.O. 3 is that broken piece and it is identified by her as a portion of the waist chain which was worn by the child. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body states that the child was only 7 months old and that death was due to drowning. The child could not have gone to the river by herself and it is clear that somebody must have drowned the child in the river. 8. The question is whether on the evidence the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the accused who dropped the child into the Killiyar ane caused the death. There is no direct evidence and several circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution to prove that it was only the appellant who caused the death of the child. In the first place there was a motive for the accused to commit the murder. There is no direct evidence and several circumstances were relied upon by the prosecution to prove that it was only the appellant who caused the death of the child. In the first place there was a motive for the accused to commit the murder. It is stated that P.W. 6 and the accused were on intimate terms and that the child was born to the accused. It has also come out it evidence that the accused wanted to marry in his own caste and when he told P.W. 6 about this, about 15 days before the date of the incident, she threatens that if he married she would take the child to his house and leave it there. The prosecution alleges that the accused, therefore, wanted to get rid of the child am for that purpose kidnapped the child from P.W. 6 on the night of 22-1-59 We are satisfied that this affords sufficient motive for the appellant to comm the murder. 9. Kidnapping of the child is spoken to by P.W. 6 and her son P.W. 8 Nothing has been suggested as to why P.W. 6 should get up a false case against the accused or as to how the child happened to be drowed in the river or what P.W. 6 should cause the death of the child. The accused would have it that 1 did not know P.W. 6 at all. We are not prepared to accept the statement of the accused and believe P.Ws. 6 and 8. 10. The evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 is fully corroborated by the evidence of the other witnesses examined in the case. P.W. 2, Parameswaran Balakrishnan a barber while returning from the Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at about 8 p.m. reached the junction where the road to Maruthankuzhi touches Sasthamangala junction and saw near the water pipe at that place, P.Ws. 6 and 8 with a child the hands of P.W. 6. Just then he saw the accused coming there on a cycle are wresting the child from the hands of P.W. 6 and proceeding along the road. He saw P.Ws. 6 and 8 going behind asking for the return of the child. P.W. 3 Appu Asari resides about a furlong away from the house of the accused. At about 8-30 p.m., he saw the accused with a child going along the bund running parallel to the Killiyar. He saw P.Ws. 6 and 8 going behind asking for the return of the child. P.W. 3 Appu Asari resides about a furlong away from the house of the accused. At about 8-30 p.m., he saw the accused with a child going along the bund running parallel to the Killiyar. On seeing the accused, P.W. 3 asked the accused as to where from he was coming and the accused replied that he was returning from a Vydian to whom the child was taken for treatment. The accused then proceeded further to the south and P.W. 3 then saw the accused keeping the cycle on its stand and getting down into the Kattakkal on the eastern side of the bund. If the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 can be accepted, it is proved that the accused snatched the child from P.W. 6 and was later seen going with the child to the Killiyar river. They are thoroughly disinterested witnesses and nothing has been shown as to why we should not accept their evidence. That the accused snatched away the child from P.W. 6 is borne out by her complaint to the police Ext. P. 8 which is the general diary entry made by the Sub-Inspector. P.W. 1 is a woman who resides on the bank of the Killiyar river. She says that at about 9 or 9-15 p.m., on that night, she saw the accused coming from the river and going to the bund along the back side of her house. She accosted him, but the accused hurriedly left the place. It was a moonlight night and she was able to identify the accused clearly. When questioned under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has admitted that it was a moonlight night and that it was a fact that P.W. 1 lad met him while he was coming from the river after his bath. This evidence coupled with the evidence of P.W. 3 would show that the accused went to the ??? with the child but came back without the child. We do not find any reason ??? reject the evidence of P.W. 1. 11. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 9 who met P.Ws. 6 and 8 soon after the child was taken by the accused. P.W. 6 complained to him and he accompanied them to the house of the accused. We do not find any reason ??? reject the evidence of P.W. 1. 11. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 9 who met P.Ws. 6 and 8 soon after the child was taken by the accused. P.W. 6 complained to him and he accompanied them to the house of the accused. P.W. 9 met the accused at about 10 P.M. and asked him to deliver the child to P.W. 6. The child was not ??? the house and the accused gave a false excuse that the child was sent to Trichur and that it would be delivered over to P.W. 6 only after 5 years. The accused ??? had no case that he had nothing to do with the child nor did he deny having kidnapped the child. When questioned in the committing Magistrate's court about the evidence of P.W. 9, the accused stated that nobody came to his house during the night of 22-1-59. But in the Sessions Court he changed his version and stated that P.W. 9 reached his house at about midnight on 22-1-59 and ??? him. Along with this we have the sudden disappearance of the accused from his house on the night of 22-1-59 at an untimely hour and his ??? by the police at Chirayinkil. He had taken a cycle in the evening of the date ??? the incident from P.W. 10 promising to return it the same night, but he went way without even returning the cycle. We have been taken through the entire evidence in the case and we do not find any reason to disagree with the appreciation the evidence of these witnesses by the learned Sessions Judge. If the evidence these witnesses is accepted then it follows that the accused kidnapped the child ??? P.W. 6, that he was later found going towards the river with the child, that subsequently he returned from the river without the child and that when demand as made for the return of the child, the accused did not return the child but gave evasive answers and appeared in a perturbed mood and suddenly left his village. All these form very strong links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which would point conclusively to the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence with which he is charged. All these form very strong links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which would point conclusively to the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence with which he is charged. The appellant's total denial of any knowledge of P.W. 6 was made to disclaim all connections with her and the child, and the court would therefore be justified in drawing an adverse inference from this, against the appellant in the circumstances of this case. 12. We have carefully considered the circumstantial evidence in the case and are of the opinion that it is consistent only which the guilt of the accused and that it is inconsistent with any other rational explanation. The only reasonable conclusion from the various circumstances proved in this case is that the appellant committed the murder. He was, therefore, rightly convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and we confirm the conviction and sentence. The learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice the decision reported in Kalaporla Saidulu v. Hyderabad Government (A.I.R. 1953 Hyd. 249) where it was held that “when the case of the prosecution is that the person abducted has been murdered by the abductor, there is no scope for further charge under Section 364 I.P.C. kidnapping or abducting in order to murder”. We respectfully agree with the proposition of law and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 364 I.P.C. 13. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.