JUDGMENT : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Appellant Jagjit Singh was tried along with Smt. Inderjit Kaur wife of one Tara Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 324, Indian Penal Code The trial court acquitted the other accused but convicted the appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The appellant and the deceased Rajinder Kumar were friends. They were living in two adjoining rooms of Quarter No. 777/5-2 in B.S.L. Colony, Sundernagar. Three days before the occurrence, Smt. Inderjit Kaur, the acquitted accused, came from Punjab to meet the appellant and she was staying with him. Neither the appellant nor the deceased had their families with them and were living alone. On 9th March, 1975, the deceased Rajinder Kumar, one Kulwant Singh and the appellant were having drinks in the evening in the room of Rajinder Kumar, deceased. The deceased had an eye on Smt. Inderjit Kaur, which led to a quarrel between them and the appellant gave blows with a dagger on the person of the deceased which proved fatal. The dead body was left in the room of the appellant along with bloodstained turban and blood-stained dupatta belonging to Smt. Inderjit Kaur. Immediately at the time of the commission of the crime, Smt. Inderjit Kaur is alleged to have come out of the quarter crying "Bachao Bachao, Mar Diya Mar Diya" which attracted the attention of the neighbours PWS 4 and 5, who came out but Smt. Inderjit Kaur was so perplexed that she could not say anything. They noticed that her hands also were stained with blood. In the meantime, the appellant came out and took Smt. Inderjit Kaur inside. Kulwant Singh also came out of the room soon after the incident and he was terror-stricken and he was shouting that the appellant had murdered the deceased. This was seen by PWs2 and 3 who were also neighbours. Kashmiri Lal, PW1, learnt about the incident and he along with others went to the quarter where the incident took place. He peeped into the room of the appellant and saw the dead body of Rajinder Kumar lying. The appellant and Smt. Inderjit Kaur were not to be seen. At 10.45 p.m., PW 1 went and gave a report to the police. PW 16, the S.H.O. registered the crime and immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence. He peeped into the room of the appellant and saw the dead body of Rajinder Kumar lying. The appellant and Smt. Inderjit Kaur were not to be seen. At 10.45 p.m., PW 1 went and gave a report to the police. PW 16, the S.H.O. registered the crime and immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence. He found the main gate of the quarter of the appellant locked. He broke open the lock and found the dead body of the deceased inside and he took photographs. He also inspected the adjoining room in which the deceased had been residing, collected the blood- stained earth, and held inquest. He searched for the accused but they were not to be found. Then ultimately they were arrested in Punjab. Dr. Jatinder Kumar, PW12 who conducted the post-mortem, found a stab punctured wound on the left side of the chest. The depth was 19.5 cm. He found another incised wound in the same region, three punctured wounds on the right hypochondrium and large and small intestines were protruding out. The fourth incised wound was on the right back. On internal examination he found that left lung was cut and paricardium was also cut. The heart was having an incised punctured wound. He opined that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant after his arrest was examined by the Doctor and on him he found an incised wound on the palm of the left hand and another incised wound in the region of second metacarpal bone of left hand. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Kulwant Singh and he was also produced for medical examination on 12th March, 1975 and the Doctor found an incised wound on the back of his left lower leg in the region of the calf muscle. According to the prosecution case, when Kulwant Singh tried to intervene, he was also stabbed by the appellant. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code he stated as under : "On 9-3-1975 myself and Smt. Inderjit Kaur accused were sitting in our kitchen and were preparing our meals, in the meanwhile Rajinder Kumar Bakshi came running towards our residential room uttering 'Bachao Bachao, Mar Diya'. At that time my wife and children were present in the quarter. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code he stated as under : "On 9-3-1975 myself and Smt. Inderjit Kaur accused were sitting in our kitchen and were preparing our meals, in the meanwhile Rajinder Kumar Bakshi came running towards our residential room uttering 'Bachao Bachao, Mar Diya'. At that time my wife and children were present in the quarter. Rajinder Kumar Bakshi was followed by Kulwant Singh and one other whose name I do not know, came there after him and both of them were carrying knife in their hands. I tried to save Rajinder Kumar Bakshi from their attack i.e. of Kulwant Singh and his companion and in that efforts I received injury from Kulwant Singh's knife at my palm. Because of fear of Kulwant Singh and his companion I went to police post colony to lodge a report there that Rajinder Kumar Bakshi had been killed by Kulwant Singh. I was detained by the police in the police post and thereafter I do not know what proceedings were gone into by the police. I was detained by the police in the police post from 9-3-1975 to 14-3-1975 and on 14-3-1975 I was produced before the Magistrate. I have not committed this offence of murder of Rajinder Kumar Bakshi. Hardayal Singh (PW) is the real brother of Kulwant Singh and other PWs are their associates. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated." Kulwant Singh could not be examined as he left for Saudi Arabia and never came up before the court to give evidence. Relying on the circumstantial evidence the trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted Smt. Inderjit Kaur. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. 3. From the above narration, it can be seen that at the relevant time the appellant and Smt. Inderjit Kaur were in the same quarter where the occurrence took place. Kulwant Singh was also present and they were taking drinks. The dead body was found with fatal injuries in the quarter occupied by the appellant. Up to this stage there is no dispute. Kulwant Singh was also present and they were taking drinks. The dead body was found with fatal injuries in the quarter occupied by the appellant. Up to this stage there is no dispute. While it is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Inderjit Kaur came out shouting "Bachao Bachao, Mar Diya Mar Diya", the case of the accused is that Rajinder Kumar, deceased came running to his quarter shouting "Bachao Bachao Mar Diya" and according to him it was Kulwant Singh who stabbed the deceased. 4. The case ultimately rests on the circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below have held that the plea set up by the appellant is a false one. In a case of this nature where the dead body with fatal injuries was found in the room of the appellant, he has to give an explanation which should at least look probable. Having gone through various circumstances established by the independent evidence, we agree with the High Court that the explanation given by the appellant is a false one. However, we shall proceed to consider some of the submissions made by the learned counsel. 5. It is contended that the prosecution having put forward a case based on the direct testimony of Kulwant Singh cannot later make it appear a case based on circumstantial evidence. We see no force in this submission. Obviously the presence of Kulwant Singh cannot be secured at all but that does not prevent the prosecution from relying on the evidence though circumstantial in nature and if such evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt, the conviction should follow. Some of the important circumstances proved are as follows : "1. The appellant and the deceased were friends and they were living in the adjoining rooms in the same quarter. 2. Inderjit Kaur had come to stay with the appellant who was at that time living all alone in his room. 3. The recovery of bottles of liquor and glasses which were smelling of liquor from the room of the appellant shows that before the incident some persons were taking liquor in that room. 4. At about 7.45 p.m. loud cries and wailings of a woman were heard coming out from the appellant's quarter. 5. Inderjit Kaur was soon crying "Bachao Bachao Mar Diya Mar Diya" and her hands were smeared with blood. 6. 4. At about 7.45 p.m. loud cries and wailings of a woman were heard coming out from the appellant's quarter. 5. Inderjit Kaur was soon crying "Bachao Bachao Mar Diya Mar Diya" and her hands were smeared with blood. 6. Before Inderjit Kaur could answer the queries, she was taken away by the appellant to his room and at that time the hands of the appellant were also smeared with blood and his clothes were seen to have stains of blood. 7. Soon after the incident Kulwant Singh was seen coming out of the room of the appellant and shouting and that the appellant had killed the deceased and others should run away in order to save their lives, and as a consequence of fear Gurcharan Singh and Harjit Kaur locked their quarter and went away to the Bazar. 8. The dead body was found in the room of the appellant. 9. The appellant as well as Inderjit Kaur were found missing after the incident and could not be traced. " 6. It may not be necessary to discuss the evidence of PWs 2 to 5, the neighbours or even the evidence of other witnesses. The presence of the deceased and the appellant in the quarter of the appellant where the dead body was found is not in dispute. If these circumstances are accepted then they sufficiently incriminate the appellant and in the absence of any explanation by the appellant they are sufficient to establish his guilt. 7. Learned counsel submits that the burden is always on the prosecution and that there were two more persons there namely Kulwant Singh and Smt. Inderjit Kaur who were also in the same quarter and therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that the appellant alone is responsible for the death of the deceased. We are unable to agree. The dead body with fatal injuries was found in the room of the appellant and even when the offence was being committed, the neighbours were attracted by the cries. Their evidence is that Smt. Inderjit Kaur came out running shouting and it would show that she could not have participated in the occurrence at all. Then coming to Kulwant Singh, it is the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that he also came out shouting that the deceased was killed by the appellant. Their evidence is that Smt. Inderjit Kaur came out running shouting and it would show that she could not have participated in the occurrence at all. Then coming to Kulwant Singh, it is the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 that he also came out shouting that the deceased was killed by the appellant. There is no reason why this evidence should be rejected. That apart Kulwant Singh himself had an injury. If Kulwant Singh was the assailant as alleged by the appellant, he could not have received the injury. Though the appellant stated in his statement that he went to the Police Station, there is no material whatsoever to affirm the same. On the other hand, he was found to be absconding. The explanation given by the appellant is palpably false. Therefore there is sufficient material to show that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel, however, submitted that the circumstances indicate that there must have been quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as the deceased tried to molest Smt. Inderjit Kaur and because of sudden and grave provocation the appellant might have stabbed the deceased in which case Exception I to Section 300 is attracted. We see absolutely no force in this submission. There is no basis whatsoever for such a theory. On the other hand, a number of injuries on vital parts which are very serious would show that the appellant acted in a cruel manner. There are absolutely no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.