JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The short facts are that the deceased was an unmarried girl. She was working as a labourer in Lanjiberna quarry of Rajgangpur Cement Factory. The accused is an unmarried young man. The accused and the deceased were admittedly in love at least for a period of one year before the date of occurrence. On 4-1-1967 at about 7 P.M. the deceased was returning back from the place of work in the company of p.w. 9. At a place called Natti Nala, which is at a distance of 3 miles from Lanjiberna, the accused was waiting. The accused callout hold of the hand of the deceased and asked p.w. 9 to leave the place and to inform the relations of the deceased that both of them were going to a relation's house in village Raibahal. Next morning while p.w. 9 and others were going to work in the quarry, they found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her body. P.w. 8 came to the village and informed the villagers about the death of the deceased. The accused himself went to the Thena and produced the knife (M.O. I.) and the handkerchief (M.O. VI). Both the articles have been found to have been stained with human blood. In M.O. VI 15 glass beads of a necklace M.O. VII and a pais of nose rings M.O. VIII were tied. The accused was arrested. On the statement of the accused, the I.O. (p.w. 11) drew up the F.I.R. (Ext. 6). The prosecution case is that it is the accused who killed the deceased. The defence is one of denial. The learned Sessions Judge held that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the circumstantial evidence was complete in establishing that the accused killed the deceased. 3. There were about 7 punctured wounds on the body of the deceased, as found by the Doctor (p.w. 2) on post mortem examination. The injuries were ante mortem and the Doctor was clear in his evidence that these injuries could be caused by the knife (M.O. I). The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as the result of the injuries which were fatal. The injuries were ante mortem and the Doctor was clear in his evidence that these injuries could be caused by the knife (M.O. I). The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as the result of the injuries which were fatal. On the aforesaid evidence, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the death was homicidal. 4. The only question for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The conviction is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence. A large part of the evidence against the Appellant is practically admitted. In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the accused admits that he was in love with the deceased for a period of one year prior to the date of occurrence. He further admits that on 4-1-1967 at about 7 P.M. the deceased was coming in the company of p.w. 9 from Lenjiberna quarry to the village and that he himself was waiting at Natti Nala. He also accepts the position that at Natti Nala he calloht hold of the hand of the deceased and asked p.w. 9 to go away to the village and to inform at the house of the deceased that both he and the deceased were going to Raibahal to a relation's house. He further accepts the position that next morning: he appeared at the Thena and produced the knife (M.O. I). It is in the evidence of the Serologist that this knife was stained with human blood. It is not necessary to refer to the handkerchief, the beads and nose-rings, as no identification of those articles, as belonging to the deceased has been made. The Pant (M.O. V) of the accused was seized. It contained human blood on serological test. The accused gave an explanation that the pant had blood marks as he was Buffering from itches. The learned Judge rightly rejected this explanation as not having been substantiated. The accused also gave an explanation that next morning he learnt from p.w. 9 that the deceased had been murdered by somebody, he went to the spot, picked up those articles and produced them at the Thena. P.w. 9 denies to have given any such information to the accused. In fact it is p.w. 8 who informed the villagers about the fact of murder. 5. P.w. 9 denies to have given any such information to the accused. In fact it is p.w. 8 who informed the villagers about the fact of murder. 5. The question for consideration now is whether on the aforesaid evidence the reasonable hypothesis would be that it is the accused who killed the deceased, and not anybody else. A significant feature of this case is that admittedly the accused and the deceased were lovers, and the love continued for a substantial period prior to the date of occurrence. The accused and the deceased were last seen together at about the evening on 4-1-1967 when p.w. 9 was asked by the accused to go to the village and to inform the relations that the deceased and the accused would go to village Raibahal. In fact the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the Nala, the very place where the deceased parted with p.w. 9. It is the duty of the accused to furnish reasonable explanation as to what happened to the deceased and how she was murdered. If somebody else would be the murderer, the accused as a lover would naturally intervene and protect the deceased. On the contrary, the accused furnished no explanation as to how the deceased got the fatal injuries. The Doctor's evidence is that with the knife produced by the accused various injuries on the deceased could have been caused. The aforesaid pieces of evidence leave absolutely no doubt in our mind that it is the accused who killed the deceased. The circumstantial chain is complete. 6. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Ray, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed