JUDGMENT : Dua, J. - Golam Majibuddin alias Majnu Mia and Mohd. Siddique have appealed to this Court with special leave against their conviction under Section 302/34. Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of Majidunisa mother of Sk. Fazley Rahaman alias Batu of Narendrapur on November 28, 1962. The trial Court had convicted the present appellants along with one Maddassar under Section 302 and also under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code for the aforesaid murder but the High Court convicted them all under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302, Indian Penal Code simpliciter and acquitted them of the charge under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Maddassar has not appealed to this Court with the result that we are not concerned with his case. It may, however, be mentioned that he was also convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code for being in possession of a stolen cycle. This appeal was heard ex parte because the State of Bengal did not choose to be represented by a counsel in this Court. As the parties are closely related and the motive for the crime is stated to be some dispute relating to property it is desirable to state their inter se relationship. 2. Fazley Rahman alias Batu whose real mother was the victim of the offence appeared in this case as P.W. 1. His father Sk. Saidur Rahaman who died in 1948 had two wives, the second one, by name Majudinnisa Bibi (deceased) was Batu's real mother Majudinnisa had also a daughter Sugura Bibi. From his first wife Sk. Saidur Rahaman had two daughters by name Kulsum Bibi and Fatima Bibi. His first wife had predeceased her husband. Saidur Rahaman had also two brothers, Sk. Abdur Rahaman and Sk. Musaddir Rahaman both of whom were issueless. Of the three brothers Sk. Abdur Rahaman was the eldest and Musaddir Rahaman, the youngest, Mussaddir Rahman died lone ago. Sk. Saidur Rahman and his brother used to live in the same compound, their respective houses being only separated by a space of about a few feet. There was a door in the partition wall which separated the houses. There was also a pucca compound wall around the houses. Saidur Rahaman's house is one storeyed whereas that of his brother is two storeyed. There was a door in the partition wall which separated the houses. There was also a pucca compound wall around the houses. Saidur Rahaman's house is one storeyed whereas that of his brother is two storeyed. Kulsum Bibi was married to Alo Miya, the marriage having been performed during her father's lifetime. Fatima Bibi was married to Majnu Mia after her father's death. Alo Mia and Majnu Mia are real brothers and both lived in the house of Sk. Abdur Rahaman as domesticated sons-in-law. Batu's real sister Sukura Bibi was married to one Abdul Basir of Middhapara. Batu's real mother's sister (Totarunnisa Bibi, also known as Tota Bibi) lives in Hafizpur and Maddasser lived with her in the same hut being her adopted son. Mohd, Siddique is the son-in-law of Alo Mia and according to Batu he used to live with his father-in-law as domesticated son-in-law. On Abdur Rahman's death in 1956 Alo Mia and Majnu Mia relied on an unregistered will for laying claim to the property of the deceased, whereas Batu claimed 12 annas share in that property. According to Batu who appeared as P.W. 1 soon after his father's death in 1948. Alo Mia had started giving trouble to him and his mother. As a result there were also some court proceedings between the parties, to which no detailed reference is necessary. It is in this background that the events immediately preceding and leading to the occurrence have to be examined. Batu and his sister's husband Basir used to work in a tea shop in Chandni Chak Street in Calcutta. Batu used generally to reside in Calcutta leaving his mother all alone in her house in village Narendrapur. It appears that on October 30, 1962, Batu came home from Calcutta and on the following morning at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. after consulting his mother he cot plucked about 50 or 60 coconuts (some of which were green) from the house belonging jointly to the parties and called Alo Mia and Majnu Mia to take their share. They declined to do so and showed their resentment at Batu's high-handed conduct and also held out a threat to him and to his mother pointing out that Batu's mother lived all alone in the village. Batu Mia thereupon went to the police station and made a report which was recorded in the general diary' Ex. 11. They declined to do so and showed their resentment at Batu's high-handed conduct and also held out a threat to him and to his mother pointing out that Batu's mother lived all alone in the village. Batu Mia thereupon went to the police station and made a report which was recorded in the general diary' Ex. 11. Thereafter he left for Calcutta leaving his mother and maternal grandmother in the village. His maternal grandmother used of and on to come to stay with her daughter for short durations. There can be no manner of doubt about the incident which happened on October 30, 1962 as Ex. 11 amply supports it. Batu used to visit his village about once a month though sometimes he would come even twice a month. The murder of the deceased is said to have taken place on November 22, 1962 which has been described as Thursday 6th Agrahayan 1369 B. S. There are no eye witnesses to the murder and the entire case depends on circumstantial evidence. The principal witness for the prosecution is Kazi Noor Mohammad (P.W. 3) on the value of whose evidence the fate of the whole case mainly depends. According to him on Thursday 6th Agrahayan, 1369, B. S. (the date of occurrence in question) at about 2 or 2.30 p.m. he had gone to take delivery of tea from Majnu Mia and Alo Mia. The witness who was a canvasser of tea went to the parlour of Alo Mia but did not find him there. While he was standing outside that parlour he saw Majnu Mia, Siddique, Maddasser and another man whom he did not know, coming out of Batu's house and proceeding towards north. Majnu was carrying a green cycle which he was lifting. Maddasser was wearing a pyjama and a howai shirt which were blood stained. The clothes of Majnu Siddique and the fourth unknown person were also stained with blood. On seeing the witness those persons stopped for a while, apparently feeling embarrassed. On enquiry by the witness about the cause of the blood stains on their clothes and about the cycle being dragged by them Majnu replied that Batu's mother had a sudden fall on the verandah and had broken her head. As in spite of their best efforts bleeding could not be stopped they were going to the doctor on the cycle. As in spite of their best efforts bleeding could not be stopped they were going to the doctor on the cycle. The witness thereupon asked for delivery of tea to which Majnu Mia replied that he was making arrangements for the same. Then Majnu's nephew Allauddin. (Alo Mia's son) came and gave the witness 8 pounds of tea. After distributing that tea the witness went to his father-in-law's house at Hafizpur. Two days later he heard that Batu's mother had been murdered. According to Batu (P.W. 1) after October 30, 1962 he came to his village on November 25, 1962. On that day one Abdul Rashid had come to his shop in Calcutta and informed him that his mother was missing for the last few days and the door of the house was locked. It was on getting this information that he came to his village by a taxi. He was accompanied by Basir (his sister's husband) who broke open the lock. The middle door of the dalan was also locked and that was also broken open. On entering the dalan Batu saw his mother lying dead on her back. Her throat was cut and there were injuries on the dead body. Batu and Basir then went to the police station Jagatballabhpur and lodged the first information report (Ex. 1/1). The post-mortem was held on November 27, 1962 and the post-mortem report showed inter alia the dead body to be bloated up due to decomposition and the tongue was protruding out. There were two lacerated wounds and two incised wounds on the face and the neck. Maggots both mature and immature were present in large numbers over the face, around the wounds and natural orifices of the body. There were crack fractures on the frontal bone, right side with fracture of base of the skull. There was also fracture of the left side of the occipital bone. Death was said to be due to ante mortem injuries. The cycle was recovered from Maddassar. This cycle belonged to Batu who had purchased it on October 22, 1962. It was locked with a Godrej lock, the key of which was with Batu. The broken lock was recovered from the shop of Bijoy Krishna Chakravarti (P.W. 2). Death was said to be due to ante mortem injuries. The cycle was recovered from Maddassar. This cycle belonged to Batu who had purchased it on October 22, 1962. It was locked with a Godrej lock, the key of which was with Batu. The broken lock was recovered from the shop of Bijoy Krishna Chakravarti (P.W. 2). cycle repairer from whom Maddassar had got it broken on 6th Agrahayan, 1369, B. S. (22nd November, 1962) the date of the murder at about 4.30 p.m. It was recovered pursuant to the information given by Maddassar, accused. The blood stains on the howai shirt of Maddassar were found to be of human blood. The nail cuttings of Majnu Mia were also taken and on examination blood marks were found on them. On account of disintegration the serologist could not give any opinion as to whether or not these marks were of human blood. 3. Both the courts below believed the testimony of P.W. 3. as they could find no cogent reason for discrediting it, which was described as disinterested. The High Court relied on : (1) Motive of the accused persons to commit the crime; (2) the accused having been seen along with a stranger on Thursday the 6th Agrahayan, 1369, B.S. by Kazi Noor Mohammad (P.W. 3) while coming out of Batu's house with blood stained clothes and a cycle which was being dragged by Majnu Mia as its rear wheel was chained and locked; (3) the embarrassment of the accused on being seen by P.W. 3 and the false explanation given by them about the existence of blood stains on their clothes : (4) the fact that the cycle was taken by Maddassar on the day of the occurrence about 4 p.m. to (the cycle repairer. Bijoy Chkarvarti whose shop is close to Majnu's house and that the lock of the cycle was got broken at that shop : (5) recovery of the broken lock from Bijoy's shop pursuant to the information given by Maddassar; (6) the recovery of the cycle from Maddasar; (7) false explanation by Maddassar that the cycle had been given to him by Batu's mother : (8) the existence of stains of human blood on the howai shirt worn by Maddassar at the time when P.W. 3 saw him on the day of the alleged murder : (9) the presence of blood marks on Majnu's nail cuttings : (10) the opinion of the foot-print expert (P.W. 22. B. Chakravarti attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory) that some of the foot prints found near the dead body resembled those of Maddassar : (11) the fact that in the afternoon of 6th Agrahayan 1369 B. S. after the accused had come out of Batu's house that house was found locked and on the lock being broken open after three days the dead body was found lying in decomposed condition. For holding that the circumstantial evidence led to no other conclusion except that of the guilt of the accused. 4. At this stage it may be pointed out that Majida Khatoon (P.W. 6) used to work as maid-servant in Batu's house and for that purpose she used to go there occasionally. According to her, Batu's mother alone lived in that house. On Thursday in the month of Agrahayan she went there at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. for taking paddy from her for getting the same husked at the mill and after getting it husked went back to the house at about 10 a.m. In the afternoon she again went, there but saw the main door locked. The next day when she went there late in the morning the main door was again found locked. In the evening also the main door was under lock. Same was the position on Saturday evening. She then went to Majnu's house and inquired about the whereabouts of Batu's mother. Majnu expressed his ignorance. According to her she later went to Batu's sister's house and informed her that her mother's house was locked from outside. It is noteworthy that this witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the accused persons. 5. She then went to Majnu's house and inquired about the whereabouts of Batu's mother. Majnu expressed his ignorance. According to her she later went to Batu's sister's house and informed her that her mother's house was locked from outside. It is noteworthy that this witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of the accused persons. 5. Shri Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants Majnu Mia and Siddique, submitted that no test identification parade with respect to Siddique, appellant, had been held in this case and that since he was not previously known to Kazi Noor Mohammad (P.W. 3) his identification in court without corroboration previous test identification parade cannot be considered to be safe enough to connect him with the murder. The short answer to this contention is that it is not even the appellant Siddique's own case that he was not known to P.W. 3 previously. On the other hand the evidence of P.W. 3 clearly shows that he already knew Siddique before he saw him on 6th Agrahayan, 1369, B. S. The witness was not specifically questioned on behalf of this appellant on this aspect. It was perhaps for this very reason that the point of absence of identification parade with respect to Siddique was not argued in the High Court there being no mention of any argument on this point in the judgement under appeal. If Siddique was already known to P.W. 3 then it is not disputed that test identification parade would serve no useful purpose. The argument that the point relating to the absence of identification test parade for the identification of Siddique by P.W. 3 was taken in the memorandum of appeal in the High Court cannot help the counsel for the simple reason that there is nothing to surest that it was in fact pressed in the High Court. In this Court it is not complained in the grounds of appeal that this point, though argued in the High Court, was not considered by it. 6. Shri Mukherjee next contended that the fact that false explanation was given by the accused to P.W. 3 when they were seen by him on the day of the alleged murder did not corroborate any incriminating evidence : and that the evidence of false explanation could only be used as primary evidence and as such it was of very little value. It was thus contended that it would be highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of false explanation for the appellant's conviction. We are unable to appreciate this argument. The evidence of false explanation is, in our view, not only relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act but it is of considerable importance on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. It was given soon after the alleged occurrence and it was apparently designed to give to the facts an appearance favourable to the accused. A faint attempt was also made by the learned counsel to show that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled and there was no longer any controversy relating to the property which could serve as a motive for the crime. It was argued that there was an arbitration to amicably settle the dispute and the same was actually so settled. Reference in this connection was made to two receipts Exs. A and A-1 for Rs. 390/- and Rs. 30/- respectively said to have been given by Batu on account of his share of the income upto 1367 B. S. of the property left by Abdul Rahaman. We are not impressed by this argument. Batu appearing as P.W. 1 has categorically denied that there was any settlement by the arbitrators and indeed no such settlement has been produced in court. On the contrary it was conceded even by the appellant's learned counsel that there was no settlement in writing. These two receipts relating to 1960-61 in our opinion do not show that the dispute relating to property between Batu and Alo Mia and Majnu Mia had been settled amicably to the satisfaction of both parties. There is convincing evidence to the contrary which has been believed by the courts below. 7. The circumstances on which the High Court has relied are in our view sufficient to brine home the offence of the murder in question to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court in our opinion rightly convicted them. The chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants with the crime is complete with no missing link suggesting consistently with it any reasonable hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. 8. The chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants with the crime is complete with no missing link suggesting consistently with it any reasonable hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. 8. The present appeal, it may be recalled, is by special leave and we are unable to find any cogent ground for re-examining for ourselves the evidence and conclusions of the courts below and coming to our own independent findings. No illegality and no other special reason suggesting failure of justice has been pointed out. This appeal must, therefore, fail and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.