JUDGMENT S. Jagadeesan, J.: The appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein, who was the accused in S.C. No. 215 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore. 2. Initially, the appellant was charged for the offences under Secs. 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the charge under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that he caused the death of one Indirani and thereafter, as he tried to commit suicide, a charge under Sec. 309 was framed. On the materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. So far as the charge under Sec.309 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in view of the then existing law of the land made by the Apex Court finding that Sec.309 of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the appellant was discharged from the said charge. Now, we are concerned only with the charge under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working in the grocery shop of P.W. 6 -his uncle. The deceased is the wife of P.W. 6. On 31.7.1992, P.W. 1 - the brother of the deceased received a telephonic message at about 4 p.m. from P.W.7 that the deceased was lying dead in her house, which is behind the grocery shop and the appellant also sustained injuries and was fighting for his life. 5. Immediately on receipt of the information, P.W. 1 along with his wife reached the house of the deceased at 4.15 p.m. When P.W. 1 reached the scene of occurrence, his another sister, her husband, and his mother were there. P.W. 1 noticed that the deceased was lying dead with cut injuries on her neck. The appellant was lying on the chest of the deceased, who also sustained injuries on his neck. P.W. 1 sent for the ambulance. Within half an hour, the appellant was taken to the hospital along with his cousin one Sakthivel. 6. Before the appellant was removed to the hospital, P.W. 1 enquired the appellant, who was in a semi-conscious state, with regard to the incident. P.W. 1 sent for the ambulance. Within half an hour, the appellant was taken to the hospital along with his cousin one Sakthivel. 6. Before the appellant was removed to the hospital, P.W. 1 enquired the appellant, who was in a semi-conscious state, with regard to the incident. As the accused was unable to speak out, by exchange of sings, the appellant conveyed to P.W. 1 that he caused the injuries on the deceased and also self inflicted on him. At that time when the accused was removed to the hospital, one constable came there and he also accompanied the accused to the hospital. Thereafter, the constable directed to P.W. 1 to go to B-3 police station and give a complaint. 7. P.W. 1 went to B-3 police station at 6.30 p.m. and gave the statement, which was recorded by P.W. 12 - the Sub-Inspector of Police-in-charge. After recording the statement from P.W. 1, P.W. 12 obtained signature from P.W. 1, which is Ex.P-1 and the same was registered as Crime No. 2503 of 1992 under Secs. 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. After registering the complaint, P.W. 12 prepared the printed first information report Ex.P-14 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate as well as to the higher authorities. He also furnished a copy of Ex.P-1 to P.W.1. Further, he sent information through wireless with regard to the incident to the Inspector of Police, B-4 Police Station, since he was in charge of B-3 police station at that relevant point of time. 9. P.W. 13, who received the wireless information from P.W. 12 at about 7 p.m., reached B-3 police station at 7.15 p.m. He received the copy of Ex.P-14 - the printed first information report and took up the investigation. At 7.30 p.m. he reached the scene of occurrence with P.W. 1 and after inspecting the place, he prepared Ex.P-6 -the observation mahazar attested by P.W. 8 and another. He also prepared the rough sketch Ex.P-15 and caused the photographs to be taken, which are Ex.P-16 series. Ex.P-17 is the negative. Till about 11.15 p.m., he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He enquired P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.W. 6 and some other witnesses. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report. Thereafter, with Ex.P-2 - the requisition for post mortem, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the hospital. Ex.P-17 is the negative. Till about 11.15 p.m., he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He enquired P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.W. 6 and some other witnesses. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report. Thereafter, with Ex.P-2 - the requisition for post mortem, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the hospital. At 11.30 p.m., he seized M.O.1 knife; M.O.4 broken bottle; M.O. 5 blood stained cement mortar; M.O. 6 sample cement mortar: M.O. 7 blood stained lime mortar; M.O. 8 sample lime mortar under Ex.P-7 mahazar attested by P.W. 8. On 1.8.1992, he examined P.W. 7, who gave the telephonic message to P.W. 1 and recorded the statement. 10. On 31.7.1992 at 6 p.m., the appellant was admitted in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The doctor P.W. 5 examined the appellant and found an injury of 5 × 3 × 3 cms on the front side of the neck. The accident register pertaining to the accused is Ex.P-4, which is as follows: “5 × 3 × 3 cm lacerated injury in front of neck running across exposing deeper structure. 26.10.1992: Exploration of cut throat injury done on 1.8.1992. Trachea totally divided just below cricoid cartilage esophagus was cutanterior aspect. Anterior jugular and external jugular veins cut. Spur. Thyroid artery on either side cut. Post Op. E.N.T. Exsm. Both; vocal cords paralysed. (n.c.)nil; grievous injury” He sent the intimation to the police, which is Exs.P-5. 11. On 1.8.1992, P.W.4 - the doctor attached to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital received Ex.P-2 - the requisition for post mortem and commenced the post mortem at 11.15 a.m. He found as many as six injuries on the neck of the deceased. Ex.P-3 is the post mortem certificate. The injuries found and the opinion of the doctor are as follows: “(1) Small irregular abrasion ½ × ½ cm 2 Nos. One below the other seen on the left side of chin. (2) Curved scratch mark 2 cm above the left wrist. (3) Two abrasion ¼ × ¼ cm each seen on the middle of right lateral surface of neck. (4) Horizontal linear scratch ½ cm in the right side of neck lower end. (5) Horizontal linear incised wound 4 cm long ? cm width and skin deep on the left lateral surface of the neck. (3) Two abrasion ¼ × ¼ cm each seen on the middle of right lateral surface of neck. (4) Horizontal linear scratch ½ cm in the right side of neck lower end. (5) Horizontal linear incised wound 4 cm long ? cm width and skin deep on the left lateral surface of the neck. (6) Horizontal cut throat injury extending from the left lateral surface of the neck to the right lateral surface of the neck in the middle of the neck. 10 cm × 5 cm bone deep with severance of the soft tissues of the front and sides of the neck along with the trachea at the level of the 1st tracheal ring. The margins of the wound are regular. The inter vertebral disc between C-4 and C-5 is also cut horizontally over the anterior surface in the direction of the cut injury blood clots seen in the floor of the cut injury. Hyoid bone intact all organs pale. Heart chambers contains few ml fluid blood. Stomach contained about 100 gm undigested cooked rice particles nil; specific odour small intestine contain watery fluid proximally. No odour U.B. empty. Skull no fracture. Brain pale. Blood preserved. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Uterus: Enlarged and contained a dead female foetus about 24 weeks size. Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage as a result of the cut throat injury. Death should be instantaneous.” 12. The continuity of the investigation was handed over to P.W. 14, who was the regular Inspector of B-3 police station. After taking the investigation, P.W. 14 on 2.8.1992 examined the doctor P.W.4, who conducted the post mortem and recorded his statement. He also visited the scene of occurrence on 3.8.1992 and examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 4.8.1992, he examined P.W. 10 and others. At about 3 p.m. on 4.9.1992, with the assistance of P.W.11, he examined the appellant. 13. P.W. 11, who was employed in the translation section of this Court in respect of the cases relating to deaf and dumb, was earlier employed as a Head Master in the deaf and dumb school. P.W. 11, in his evidence, stated that the appellant was not in a position to speak out and as such, he examined him by signs. P.W. 11, who was employed in the translation section of this Court in respect of the cases relating to deaf and dumb, was earlier employed as a Head Master in the deaf and dumb school. P.W. 11, in his evidence, stated that the appellant was not in a position to speak out and as such, he examined him by signs. The appellant was only able to whisper and from that also, P.W. 11 was able to understand certain matters. Ultimately, P.W. 11 expressed that the appellant informed that he caused injuries on the deceased and also he self inflicted injuries on him. The said statement was recorded by P.W. 14. 14. On 5.9.1992 at 6.15 p.m., the appellant was arrested. On 17.10.1992, P.W. 14 sent the requisition Ex.P-8 to the Judicial Magistrate No.2 for sending the material objects for chemical examination. On 22.10.1992, P.W. 14 examined P.W. 5 - the doctor, who examined the accused and recorded his statement. Finally, after the receipt of the chemical examiner's report Ex.P-10 and the serologist's report Ex.P-11, the charge sheet was filed on 30.10.1992. 15. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 and M.Os. 1 to 13. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, against which, the present appeal has been filed. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 are not the eyewitnesses for the occurrence and there are no incriminating circumstances available on record connecting the appellant with the alleged crime. In the absence of any eyewitness as well as circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be found guilty for the alleged offence. At the most, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.W. 6 can be taken that the prosecution had established some motive. However, it is for the Court to consider as to whether such motive can be a ground for the appellant to commit such a grave offence of causing death of the deceased. Further, the investigation also reveals that there are certain discrepancies and omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer. However, it is for the Court to consider as to whether such motive can be a ground for the appellant to commit such a grave offence of causing death of the deceased. Further, the investigation also reveals that there are certain discrepancies and omissions on the part of the Investigating Officer. In a case of this nature where the eyewitnesses were absent, it is for the Court to consider as to whether the omissions made on the part of the prosecution to connect the appellant with the alleged offence are vital and the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the same. 17. It is further contended that prosecution case established the presence of the constable at the scene of occurrence, when the appellant was removed to the hospital and the said constable accompanied the appellant to the hospital and give a memo for the medical examination. In such a case, the constable was present at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and might have come there pursuant to an earlier complaint lodged by somebody else. The prosecution has not come out with the true case by producing the earlier complaint or offering any explanation for the presence of the said constable at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident. In such a case, Ex.P-1 cannot be treated as the first information report. Consequently, a grave doubt arises in the case of the prosecution with regards to the reliability of Ex.P-1. The seizure of M.O. 4 - broken bottle also gives rise to a conclusion that some other third person may be present in the scene of occurrence except the accused, especially when the case of the prosecution is that the appellant might have used M.O. 1 alone. Hence, when the prosecution case is totally based on the circumstantial evidence and in the absence of and eyewitness, the discrepancy pointed out by the counsel would entitle the appellant for an order of acquittal. 18. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly established the motive for the appellant to do away with the deceased. The prosecution evidence also discloses that there is illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased. 18. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly established the motive for the appellant to do away with the deceased. The prosecution evidence also discloses that there is illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased. When, at the time of incident, the appellant was with the deceased, it is for the appellant to come out with the true version by offering his explanation as to not only his presence, but also the incident. For the failure on the part of the appellant to offer any explanation for the injuries on him and the blood stained clothes, a reasonable presumption can be drawn that the appellant did not want to come out with the true case. If really any third party was involved in the incident, nothing prevented the appellant from giving out his name or at least the identification of the concerned person. The deliberate omission on the part of the appellant to give any explanation for his presence with the deceased at the relevant point of time in the house of the deceased establishes the guilt of the appellant in all probabilities. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below have to be confirmed. 19. We have carefully considered the above arguments of both the learned counsel. 20. It is true that there is no eyewitness for the occurrence. P.W. 1 - the brother of the deceased, on information, reached the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying with cut injuries and the appellant lying on her chest with injuries fighting for his life. 21. P.W.2, who is the neighbour of the deceased, and who usually purchases grocery from the shop of the husband of the deceased, deposed that she went to the shop of P.W.6 at 2.45 p.m. No one was there in the shop, but the shop was opened. Even though she called, no one was present and hence, thinking that the deceased may be inside the house, she entered into the house through the back side of the house. She also found the deceased lying in the floor with cut injuries on her neck and the appellant lying on the chest of the deceased with cut injuries on his neck also. 22. She also found the deceased lying in the floor with cut injuries on her neck and the appellant lying on the chest of the deceased with cut injuries on his neck also. 22. P.W.3, who is residing on the back of the house of P.W.6, also deposed that on hearing the cry of P.W.2 from the house of the deceased, she went to the house of the deceased where she saw the deceased lying in the floor with cut injuries on her neck and the appellant lying on her chest with cut injuries. 23. Even though the prosecution witnesses speak about the demand of Rs. 30, 000 by the appellant from P.W. 6, who is his uncle, and the refusal on the part of the deceased to part with the said sum of Rs. 30, 000, which is the motive for the appellant to do away with the deceased, we are not inclined to traverse the same in detail. Similarly, the prosecution witnesses speak about the illicit intimacy between the appellant and the deceased, which is also of no relevance so far as we are concerned. 24. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. There are no eyewitnesses on record. The vital circumstance against the appellant is that he was seen with the deceased immediately after the occurrence by P.Ws.1 to 3. There is suggestion in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3 with regard to this aspect. Hence, there cannot be any dispute that the deceased and the appellant were seen together immediately after the occurrence. 25. As stated by P.Ws.1 to 3, the deceased was dead and the appellant was lying on her chest fighting for his life. P.W. 1 had deposed that he enquired the appellant about the incident and the appellant informed him by sign that he cut the deceased and also cut himself. This evidence is corroborated by P.W. 11, who examined the appellant on 4.9.1992 i.e., more than one month after the incident. P.W. 11 also deposed that when the appellant was in the hospital, P.W. 14 sought the assistance of P.W. 11 to examine the accused, as the accused was not in a position to speak out, since his vocal cord was affected because of the self inflicted injuries on the neck. P.W. 11 also deposed that when the appellant was in the hospital, P.W. 14 sought the assistance of P.W. 11 to examine the accused, as the accused was not in a position to speak out, since his vocal cord was affected because of the self inflicted injuries on the neck. P.W. 11, who was a retired Head Master of the deaf and dumb school, deposed that he made enquiries with the appellant and the appellant explained through signs and whispering that he committed the murder of the deceased and self inflicted injuries on him. 26. From these materials, the presence of the appellant with the deceased had been clearly established at the scene of occurrence. In our view, when this has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, it is for the appellant to explain his presence with the deceased at the time of occurrence. 27. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that even during the statement of the appellant under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant was not in a position to speak out and that it the reason as to why the appellant had not come out with any explanation, we are unable to agree with the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the appellant. 28. A perusal of the question put to the appellant under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly reveals that the appellant answered to certain questions in detail. Particularly, question No.2 is pertaining to going with the deceased to cinema theatre and other places. The appellant admitted about his going with the deceased in the moped. Further, he added that P.W. 1 never objected for the same. When the questions were put with regard to his presence in the scene of occurrence along with the deceased with injuries, the appellant had come out with a total denial by saying that the case of the prosecution is false. 29. When that be so, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of M.O.4 would lead to an inference of presence of the third party at the scene of occurrence, who might have caused the death of the deceased as well as inflicted injuries on the appellant. 29. When that be so, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of M.O.4 would lead to an inference of presence of the third party at the scene of occurrence, who might have caused the death of the deceased as well as inflicted injuries on the appellant. If really some third party is involved in the incident, nothing prevented the appellant from coming out with the explanation or version as to the presence of the third person. 30. Even assuming that he was unable to speak out, he could have at least given out the details by writing the message in a piece of paper. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not in a position to write. When, explicitly the prosecution had established the presence of the appellant with the deceased at the time of occurrence, it is for the appellant to come out with proper explanation, especially when he was also injured. The failure on his part to offer any explanation especially the presence of the third party, which is within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant leads to the conclusion that except the appellant, no one is involved in the incident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the serologist's report Ex.P-11, which discloses that the accused's clothes were stained with human blood of ‘B’ group as that of the deceased's clothes and the non explanation of the appellant for his presence with cut injuries at the scene of occurrence lends support to the case of the prosecution. 31. We drew support for our view from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala 2002 L.W. (Crl.) 783, wherein in paragraph 14, it has been held as follows: “The incriminating circumstances enumerated above unmistakably and inevitably lead to the guilt of the appellant and nothing has been highlighted or brought on record to make the facts proved or the circumstances established to be in any manner in consonance with the innocence at any rate of the appellant. During the time of questioning 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 when those circumstances were brought to his notice by the Court not only lost the opportunity but stood self condemned. Such incriminating links of facts could, if at all, have been only explained by the appellant, and by nobody else they being personally and exclusively within his knowledge. Of late, Courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the claim of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed (see: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000)1 S.C.C. 471 . That missing link to connect the appellant - accused, we find in this case provided by the blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances pointed out, which, in our view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the cause for the death of Gracy.” 32. From the above dictum, it is clear that the appellant himself, by his own conduct, contributed the missed link, thereby establishing his guilt. Hence, we do not find any illegality of infirmity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 33. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed. The criminal appeal is dismissed. Since, the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to secure his presence to serve the remaining period of sentence. S.S.-----Appeal dismissed.