(1) THE appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for having caused the murder of deceased Leela Bai, sister-in-law of the appellant on 7-10-1986. (2) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that on 3-10-1986, the accused and the deceased left together for the jungle and by evening time the accused returned back alone. When the daughter of the deceased, PW 10 made a query, the accused replied that the deceased would come later but the deceased never returned. On 7-10-1986, the accused himself lodged a complaint with the Village Chowkidar about the missing of the deceased. Later on the matter was reported to the police on 14-10-1986 whereafter the police started investigation. The accused was thereafter arrested and while in custody made a statement to the police, ultimately giving discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the jungle. In fact the dead body was in a skeleton form but the sister of the deceased identified the same to be that of the deceased on the basis of the blouse which was there on the body which was alleged to have been given by the sister to the deceased. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Through the evidence of PWs 9 and 10, the prosecution has been able to establish the fact that on that fateful day the accused and the deceased left together and went towards the jungle. From the evidence of PW 10, the prosecution, further, has been able to establish that in the evening when the accused came alone, to the query of PW 10, he gave a false explanation that the deceased would come later. The third circumstance is the statement of the accused while in custody giving discovery of the dead body from the jungle. (3) ON these three circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and on appeal the said conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the High Court. (4) IN addition to the aforesaid three circumstances, we find that the accused on being asked has given a false explanation stating that he had never gone to the jungle with the deceased and as such he was not aware what happened to the deceased. Such false explanation is an additional link to the chain of circumstances completing the chain. (4) IN addition to the aforesaid three circumstances, we find that the accused on being asked has given a false explanation stating that he had never gone to the jungle with the deceased and as such he was not aware what happened to the deceased. Such false explanation is an additional link to the chain of circumstances completing the chain. (5) IN the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment to be interfered by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.