A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.: The appellant/ accused, who was charged in Crime No. 108 of 1987 on the file of the Bommidi Police Station for an offence under Sec. 302,I.P.C., for causing the death of his concubine by name Kannammal at about 9.30 p.m. on 2nd August, 1987, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.92 of 1995. The Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Sec. 302, I.P.C. as charged and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The aggrieved accused has preferred the above appeal. 2. The prosecution case can be set out in a nutshell as under: The deceased is the concubine of the accused. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased while P.W.2 is the aunt of the deceased. The deceased was originally married to one Ratnam, who survived only for five years. Through Ratnam, the deceased had three children by name Chandra, Sumathi and Velu. After the demise of Ratnam, the deceased and the accused became intimate and started living together. There used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. About six months prior to the occurrence, in a quarrel that ensued between the accused and the deceased, the accused stabbed the deceased with a glass bottle, and in that regard, the deceased gave a complaint before the police. The police registered a case against the accused and that was pending. After that incident, the deceased and the accused were living separately in the same village viz., Pillparithi. Even thereafter, there used to be quarrels between them. The accused used to threaten the deceased that she should withdraw the criminal case, as otherwise he would stab her. P.W.3 is a neighbour of the accused, living in the said village and a cooly by profession. P.W.4 is the daughter of P.W.3. About 10 hours prior to their examination, in the evening, at about 6 p.m., the deceased came to the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 and asked for fire. The accused then came there and took the deceased. Again at about 8 p.m., the deceased came to their house and P.W.3 enquired her as to whether the deceased had finished her dinner for which she gave reply in the negative. Then P.W.3 asked P.W.4, her daughter to give some food to the deceased. P.W.4, gave food to the deceased in a vessel. Again at about 8 p.m., the deceased came to their house and P.W.3 enquired her as to whether the deceased had finished her dinner for which she gave reply in the negative. Then P.W.3 asked P.W.4, her daughter to give some food to the deceased. P.W.4, gave food to the deceased in a vessel. The accused who was there by then took the vessel from the deceased and ate. Then the accused told the deceased to go and cook food in the house and thereafter both of them left. P. W.2 is the aunt of the deceased, residing in the same village. About 10 hours prior to the examination of this witness, at about 9.30 p.m., the 2nd daughter of the deceased viz., Sumathi asked for food. P.W.2 then took Sumathi to the house of the deceased. Standing from outside, she shouted "Kannamma, Kannamma", but however, there was no reply. P.W.2 went inside the house and saw the deceased lying on a cot and by her side, the accused was also lying. P.W.2 then in an attempt to wake the deceased up, touched her feet and shaked her legs and called her by name. The accused then told P.W.2 not to wake up the deceased as she was in a deep sleep. P.W.2 grew suspicious, brought a chimney lamp which was available in the corner of the room near the deceased and found a green colour saree tied around the neck of the deceased and the face of the deceased was covered. P.W.2 shouted and hearing her noise, P.W.3 came to the scene and thereafter, the accused immediately ran away. P.W.2 then informed about this to P.W.1, who proceeded to the house of the accused and in the house saw the deceased lying dead. The body of the deceased was brought outside the house. As it was late night by then, he could not go out and only on the next day at about 10 a.m., P.W.1 went to Bommidi police station and gave the complaint Ex.P-1. One Venkatachalam was the Sub Inspector of Bommidi Police station at the relevant point of time. On 3.8.1987 at about 10-00 a.m. he received the complaint Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 and registered Cr.No.108 of 1987 under Sec. 174, Crl.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-8 the printed F.I.R. and dispatched the same to all the officials concerned. One Venkatachalam was the Sub Inspector of Bommidi Police station at the relevant point of time. On 3.8.1987 at about 10-00 a.m. he received the complaint Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 and registered Cr.No.108 of 1987 under Sec. 174, Crl.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-8 the printed F.I.R. and dispatched the same to all the officials concerned. P.W. 11, the then Inspector of Police went to the police station on 3.8.1987 at 11.00 a.m. and then proceeded to the scene of occurrence. The Inspector prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P-4 and sketch Ex.P-9 in the presence of witnesses. The Inspector also made arrangements to secure the assistance of P.W. 7 Photographer for the purpose of taking photographs. Inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted between 13.30 and 14.30 hours, and Ex.P-10 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he took steps to send the body to the Hospital with Ex.P-2 requisition for the purpose of conducting post-mortem. On the same day, at about 4.45 p.m., he seized M.O.4 lantern, M.O.5 thatched coconut sheet, M.O.6 Saree, M.O.7 Gunny Bag, M.O.8 thatched coconut sheet under Ex.P-5 mahazar attested by P.W.9. P.W.7 is the Doctor at the Government Hospital, who, on receipt of the requisition Ex.P-2 from the Inspector of Police, commenced the postmortem at 2 p.m., on 4.8.1987. Ex.P-3 is the post mortem certificate. In the said certificate, the Doctor has noted the following: "External Injuries: No external injury has been made out since the body is highly decomposed. The whole body swollen, abdomen distended. Blebs all over the body, face, upper and lower limbs and trunk, peeling of cuticles. On opening the thorax, all the organs are normal in position. Heart: 75 grams, Lungs: Right 360 grams, left 320 grams. Hyoid: broken at the centre into two pieces. Stomach: 300 grams with undistest chola coozh. Liver 1000 grams. Spleen: weight 85 grams. Kidney: 75 grams, Bladder: empty. Uterus: Normal; Brain: 960 grams Normal. Cut section of all the internal organs were congested." The doctor had opined therein that the deceased would have died about 39 to 40 hours prior to autopsy due to asphyxia due to throttling. P.W.6 is a business man and a resident of the same village viz., Pillparithi, who knew the accused well. Uterus: Normal; Brain: 960 grams Normal. Cut section of all the internal organs were congested." The doctor had opined therein that the deceased would have died about 39 to 40 hours prior to autopsy due to asphyxia due to throttling. P.W.6 is a business man and a resident of the same village viz., Pillparithi, who knew the accused well. On 7.8.1987 at about 7 p.m., he was standing near Kadathur bus stop, when he saw the accused roaming about. When questioned, the accused told him that he had murdered his wife and not knowing where to go, he is just roaming about. P.W.6 advised him to go to the Village Administrative Officer or the police and inform them. P.W.10 is the Village Administrative Officer of Mallapuram at the relevant time. On 8.8.1987 at about 6 a.m., when he was in the office along with one Venkatesan, the accused came there and gave Ex.P-7 which P.W.10 reduced to writing. The accused signed that statement also. P.W.10 then took the accused to Bommidi police station and handed over his custody. The complaint Ex.P-1 as well as Ex.P-7 were also delivered to the officer in the police station. P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, hearing about the arrest of the accused, went to the police station and enquired him. The Inspector thereafter proceeded with further investigation and recorded the statements of other witnesses. After completing the investigation, he filed the final, report on 31.3.1988. 3. When questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, the accused pleaded innocence. 4. P.W.7 is Dr.Meena, working as Assistant Surgeon at the relevant time in the Government Hospital, Harur. On the basis of the requisition made by the Inspector of Police, Ex.P-2, she conducted the post-mortem on 4.8.1987. We have already extracted the notings of the Doctor made in the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-3. In the said certificate, the Doctor has mentioned that the hypoid bone was broken at the centre into two pieces. The doctor has categorically opined that the deceased would have died of asphyxia due to throttling. P.W.7 has deposed before Court to the same effect. In the cross examination, the Doctor has stated that in the case of throttling, there may be nail marks and thumb marks, but that need not necessarily be so in all cases. The medial evidence adduced by the prosecution would amply prove that the deceased died only by homicidal violence. 5. P.W.7 has deposed before Court to the same effect. In the cross examination, the Doctor has stated that in the case of throttling, there may be nail marks and thumb marks, but that need not necessarily be so in all cases. The medial evidence adduced by the prosecution would amply prove that the deceased died only by homicidal violence. 5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The settled legal position is that all the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Further, the proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so established must bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Let us proceed to consider the circumstances relied on by the prosecution and as to whether the prosecution has established the same. (i) The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who saw the accused and the deceased together at about 8 p.m., on the fateful day that was on 2nd August, 1987. (ii) The evidence of P.W. 1 who gave the Ex.P-1 complaint before the police on the next day at about 10 a.m. (iii) The evidence of P.W.6 to whom the accused made an extrajudicial confession. (iv) The evidence of P.W. 10, the village Administrative Officer to whom the accused gave the Ex.P-6 statement, admitting his guilt. (v) Failure on the part of the accused to come forward before Court as to what happened on the night of 2nd August, 1987. 6. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.4, both residing in the same house. P.W.4, in her evidence, has categorically stated that on the fateful day,the deceased came at about 6 p.m., and asked for fire. Shortly, thereafter, the accused came there and questioned the deceased as to whether she had finished cooking, and took her with him. It is the further evidence of P.W.4 that again the deceased came at about 8 p.m., to their house, when P.W.3 asked the deceased whether she had finished her dinner. Shortly, thereafter, the accused came there and questioned the deceased as to whether she had finished cooking, and took her with him. It is the further evidence of P.W.4 that again the deceased came at about 8 p.m., to their house, when P.W.3 asked the deceased whether she had finished her dinner. The deceased gave reply in the negative and as instructed by P.W.3, P.W.4 gave food in a vessel to the deceased. The accused, who came there at that time took the food provided and both of them left that place. It has to be pointed out that even though P.W.4 was subjected to cross examination, the claim of P.W.4 that the accused and the deceased left her house at about 8 p.m., has not been challenged. Of course, the mother of P.W.4 viz., P.W.3 has been treated as hostile. A perusal of the testimony of this witness would clearly show that in the chief examination, she has categorically stated that at 8 p.m., the deceased came to the house and she questioned the deceased as to whether she had finished her dinner and when reply came in negative, she asked her daughter to give her food. This witness has also deposed that the accused, who came there took the food so given to the deceased and thereafter the accused told the deceased to go and cook food in their house and that thereafter both of them left. In fact, it has to be pointed out that this witness has not been cross-examined by the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 would clearly show that at about 8 p.m. on the day in question, the accused after taking food provided by P.Ws.3 and 4, left along with the deceased. 7. The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.1. According to him, P.W.2 came and informed him on the fateful day at about 9.30 a.m., to the effect that when P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased and called her by name from outside, as there was no reply, she entered the house and found the deceased dead. The accused who was present inside the house, left that place. According to this witness, when he received this information from P.W.2, he went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead. The accused who was present inside the house, left that place. According to this witness, when he received this information from P.W.2, he went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, he went and gave complaint on the next day morning as by that time it was late in the night. Inasmuch as P.W.2 has been treated as hostile, this circumstance cannot in any way advance the case of the prosecution and point towards the guilt of the accused. 8. P.W.6 is a resident of the same village. He has categorically deposed before Court that on 7.8.87 at about 8 p.m., when he was in Kadathur bus stand, he saw the accused roaming about there and when questioned, he replied that he murdered his wife. According to P.W.6, he suggested to the accused to go and inform the Village Administrative Officer or to the Police. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that inasmuch as P.W.6 was not a close friend or a close relative, it would be rather impossible to accept that the accused would have made the extrajudicial confession after five days. The counsel would further submit that if really the accused made such a confession to P.W.6, one would expect P.W.6 to inform about the same to the Police immediately, but that not having been done by P.W.6, it would be rather unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W.6. Time and again, the supreme Court has pointed out that sometimes even civilized people are insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. Such persons keep themselves away unless it is inevitable since they think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. The Supreme Court also pointed out that instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness, the Court must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the Court should bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly and their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the Court should bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly and their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. In fact, nothing has been elicited in the cross examination which would persuade this Court to reject his testimony. It is not as if that this witness had any grudge against the accused or in any way ill disposed of towards the accused. There is not even a suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of police. A bald suggestion put to this witness to the effect that thee is some money dispute, has been emphatically denied. We do not find any reason to reject this testimony of P.W.6. We hold that the accused did make an extrajudicial confession to P.W.6. 9. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer of that place. This witness has deposed that on 8.8.1987 at about 6 a.m., when he was in his office along with one Venkatesan, the accused came and gave Ex.P-6 statement and thereafter, he forwarded it along with his note Ex.P-7. As far as this circumstance is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the occurrence was on 2.8.1987 and the complaint was given before the police on the next day at about 10 a.m. The Inspector of Police took over the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and proceeded with the investigation in a full swing. According to him, even on the very same day, he went in search of the accused. P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer, who resides just 1 k.m. away from the scene of occurrence, certainly would have come to know that police has been in search of the accused in connection with the murder of the deceased. In this case, in the cross-examination, P.W.10 has categorically stated that he has passed the test prescribed for the Village Administrative Officer and that he knew very well the Rules and procedure. He would further admit that he had the printed Forms with him, but however, he did not prepare the said Form and for which he had no reason. In this case, in the cross-examination, P.W.10 has categorically stated that he has passed the test prescribed for the Village Administrative Officer and that he knew very well the Rules and procedure. He would further admit that he had the printed Forms with him, but however, he did not prepare the said Form and for which he had no reason. The witness has also admitted that he ought to have sent one copy to the Judicial Magistrate, but however, he did not send it and again for which he had no reason. Under Rule 72 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, “the Village Magistrates are prohibited from reducing to writing any confession or statement whatever made by an accused person after the police investigation has begun”. This provision has been intended to prevent false extrajudicial confessions being secured through the help of the Village Munsif after the commencement of the investigation. The value of the extra judicial confession becomes less when it is obtained by a person in the position of the village Munsif after investigation of the case by the police has started. On a careful examination of the relevant provisions relating to the matter, it is not possible to state it is illegal or inadmissible in evidence, but what should be the probative value of such confession depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. (Also see: (i) The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 304 to 311 of 1991, dated 28th August, 1992; (ii) Raju and others v. State, etc., (1995) 2 L.W. (Crl.) 513. Coming to the present case, as already referred above, P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer, even though knew very well about the procedure to be adopted, did not do so and for which he had no reason to offer. A suggestion was put to this witness in the cross-examination to the effect that the accused did not appear on 8th August, 1987 as claimed by him and also give a statement, which has been denied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on a careful consideration, this Court is of the view that no reliance can be placed to the alleged extra judicial confession. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on a careful consideration, this Court is of the view that no reliance can be placed to the alleged extra judicial confession. 10. According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased left the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 at 8 p.m. In fact, P.W.3 has categorically stated that just before leaving, the accused told the deceased to go home and cook food and that thereafter both of them left. This part of the prosecution case has not been challenged by the accused. In the observation mahazar, it is stated that the body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused and this has not been challenged. This incriminating circumstance certainly points the finger only towards the guilt of the appellant/ accused. However, the accused at the time of questioning under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, instead of making an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating him and connecting him with the crime, by his adamant attitude of total denial of everything, not only lost the opportunity but stood self condemned. The appellant/accused should have informed the Court as to what happened on the night of the fateful day. It has to be further pointed out, as to where he was on that night and as to what happened on the night of the fateful day in his house were exclusively within his personal knowledge. The missing link to connect the accused/appellant in this case has been provided by the flat and blunt denial by the accused and failure to come forward with a statement before Court as to what happened on the night of the fateful day. (Please refer: (i) Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2000 S.C.C. (Crl.) 926; (ii) State of Maharashtra v. Damu, 2000 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1088). 11. To sum up, the accused and the deceased left the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 at 8 p.m. on the fateful day that was on 2nd August, 1987 and that thereafter the body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused and that on 7th August, the accused made an extrajudicial confession to P.W.6. 11. To sum up, the accused and the deceased left the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 at 8 p.m. on the fateful day that was on 2nd August, 1987 and that thereafter the body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused and that on 7th August, the accused made an extrajudicial confession to P.W.6. Yet another important aspect of the matter is that the accused when examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. has not come forward with any statement as to what happened after 8 p.m. on the fateful day or at least as to where was he on the night on 2/3.8.1987. We are of the considered view that the above circumstances proved by the prosecution would form a chain and the failure on the part of the accused to come forward with a plausible explanation would provide a missing link in the chain and that all the above circumstances would lead to the only irresistible and inescapable conclusion that it was the accused who caused the murder of the deceased on the night of 2/ 3.8.1987. We are in entire agreement with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Sec. 302,I.P.C. shall stand confirmed.