Judgment :- N.DHINAKAR, J. The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri, in Sessions Case No.162 of 1993. The allegation against the accused is that at 10.00 p.m. on 29.5.1990, he caused the death of Sakila by smothering and that thereafter buried the dead body to screen the offence. The learned Sessions Judge, finding the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The present appeal challenges the above conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution is this:- P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased the deceased was aged about 18 years on the date of incident. P.W.3 and the deceased were residing at Kaveripattinam. The accused was having his cattle-feed shop adjacent to the house of P.W.3 and friendship developed between the accused and the deceased. The accused and the deceased, thereafter, set up a separate family and they lived as husband and wife for about six months. After some time, quarrels arose between the accused and the deceased and the deceased used to leave the accused for P.W.3's house very often and whenever P.W.3 questioned her as to why she is quarrelling with the accused, the deceased used to tell her mother that the accused is refusing to marry her and therefore, they are quarrelling. P.W.3 requested the accused to marry his daughter; but, he refused. 3. On 29.5.1990, the accused went to the house of P.W.3, where the deceased was staying, and took her in a cycle. P.W.3 advised the deceased not to go with him; but, the deceased went along with the accused in his cycle. She did not return home. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased were seen together by P.Ws.4 and 5 (P.W.4 turned hostile and P.W.5 alone supported the prosecution version). While P.Ws.4 and 5 were sitting near a bridge, they saw the accused and the deceased going in a cycle towards Sowlur. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by anyone. 4. On 1.6.1990, P.W.1, a village assistant, was informed by the persons, who were grazing cattle that a body was seen by them near the bank of Thenpennai river. While P.Ws.4 and 5 were sitting near a bridge, they saw the accused and the deceased going in a cycle towards Sowlur. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by anyone. 4. On 1.6.1990, P.W.1, a village assistant, was informed by the persons, who were grazing cattle that a body was seen by them near the bank of Thenpennai river. He went to the spot and found a part of a leg of a buried body and a portion of a green colour skirt jutting out of the earth. He proceeded to the house of P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer, and gave him the information. P.W.2 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and found a portion of a leg, jutting out of the earth, covered with a green colour saree and a green colour skirt. P.W.2 proceeded to Kaveripattinam Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. The said complaint is Ex.P-1. P.W.8, on the basis of the complaint, Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No.383 of 1990 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by preparing express reports. Ex.P-6 is a copy of the printed first information report and investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W.13, Circle Inspector of Police, Pochampalli Circle, on the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. 5. P.W.13, on taking up investigation in the crime, reached the scene of occurrence and sent a requisition to the Tahsildhar to go over to the scene for exhuming the body and accordingly, P.W.9, Tahsildhar, Krishnagiri, went to the scene of occurrence. P.W.13 arrived at the spot with the police officers and thereafter, P.W.9 prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-7, and exhumed the dead body with the help of village assistants. Inquest was conducted by P.W.9 over the dead body of Sakila between 1.00 p.m. an 4.00 p.m. At the time of inquest, P.W.3, P.W.6 and others, including one Varadarajan, were examined and their statements were recorded. Ex.P-8 is the inquest report. P.W.9 gave a requisition to the medical authorities for conducting autopsy. 6. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, conducted autopsy on the dead body and found the following:- External Appearance:- Hair loosened for scalp about 45 cm in length. Skin easily peeled off. Tongue protruding. Lips thickened. Eyes closed. Clothes wet. Hyoid bone intact (preserved for forensic lab examination). 6. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, conducted autopsy on the dead body and found the following:- External Appearance:- Hair loosened for scalp about 45 cm in length. Skin easily peeled off. Tongue protruding. Lips thickened. Eyes closed. Clothes wet. Hyoid bone intact (preserved for forensic lab examination). On opening of skull: Brains liquified. On opening of thorax: Heart normal in size and shape. All the chambers empty. Lungs – both normal in size and shape c/s congested. On opening of abdomen: Liver – Decomposed. Spleen – normal in size and shape c/s pale. Stomach – contains partly digested food particles. Kidney – Both normal in size and shape c/s congested. Uterus – Normal in size and shape c/s, no product of conception seen. Bladder -empty. Intestine – full gas and faecal matter No signs of any external injuries due to violence or otherwise seen anywhere in the body. No signs of any visible disease found. Ex.P-10, the post-mortem certificate, was issued by the doctor and the doctor reserved his opinion and after the receipt of the report of the chemical analyst, gave his final opinion, Ex.P-24, stating that it is not possible to give any conclusive opinion as to the cause of death, as the Forensic Science Department report is not conclusive. 7. In the meantime, P.W.13 prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-18, and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-19. He seized M.O.9, a gunny bag, and M.O.10, a towel, under a mahazar, Ex.P-20, and both Exs.19 and 20 were attested by the witnesses. He examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. Meanwhile, the accused appeared before P.W.6 and one Varadarajan and fell at their feet. He requested Varadarajan to help him, after informing him that he has murdered the daughter of P.W.3. P.W.6 and Varadarajan informed the accused that they will engage an advocate so that he could surrender before the court and while they were talking, a police constable was seen coming by that side in a cycle and on seeing him, the accused ran away. P.W.6 and Varadarajan, thereafter, went to the scene of occurrence, where, as stated earlier, P.W.6 and Varadarajan were questioned and their statements were recorded by P.W.9 at the time of inquest. 8. The accused appeared before P.W.7 on 2.6.1990 and gave a statement to him. The statement was reduced into writing. P.W.6 and Varadarajan, thereafter, went to the scene of occurrence, where, as stated earlier, P.W.6 and Varadarajan were questioned and their statements were recorded by P.W.9 at the time of inquest. 8. The accused appeared before P.W.7 on 2.6.1990 and gave a statement to him. The statement was reduced into writing. The said statement is Ex.P-2. P.W.7 prepared Ex.P-3 and took the accused to Nagarasampatti Police Station, where the police officer, P.W.13, arrested him. The accused was questioned and his statement was recorded. The crime was, thereafter, altered to one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-23 is the express report in the altered crime. The accused took the police party, produced M.O.2, a spade, in the presence of P.W.7 and the same was seized under a mahazar, Ex.P-5. He questioned P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 and recorded their statements. The accused and the material objects were sent to court. The officer issued a requisition, Ex.P-12, to the court to forward the material objects for analysis. On 5.7.1990, he questioned the doctor and the photographer as well as a police constable. He obtained Ex.P-10, the post-mortem certificate, issued by the doctor, P.W.10, and since P.W.10 could not give definite opinion as to the cause of death, he contacted P.W.12, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras, and obtained her opinion under Ex.P-16. P.W.12 was questioned and her statement was recorded on 4.1.1991. The final report was filed against the accused on 18.1.1991 after the completion of investigation. 9. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused strenuously contends that since the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the cause of the death of Sakila, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC cannot be maintained and that Ex.P-2, the statement alleged to have been given by the accused to P.W.7 cannot be accepted, since a perusal of the document shows that it must have been prepared at the police station along with other documents as the paper on which Ex.P-2 is written, is similar to the papers on which Exs.P-3 to P-6 are written. On the above contentions, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. On the above contentions, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. The case of the prosecution is that Sakila died on account of homicidal violence and that the accused is responsible for her death. The prosecution, to establish the above fact, had to rely upon the circumstantial evidence, since the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is by now well-settled and suffice it for us to say that all that is expected from the prosecution is that it should establish all the links in the chain of circumstance. 12. We will now analyse the evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of circumstance, which indicate that the accused murdered Sakila and thereafter, buried her body. P.W.10 was examined to speak about the cause of the death of Sakila, but the doctor could not give any definite opinion as could be seen from his oral evidence as well as from the two documents, viz. Ex.P-10, the post-mortem certificate, and Ex.P-24, the final opinion. In Ex.P-10, the doctor has reserved his opinion as to the cause of the death of Sakila and later, on receipt of the report of the chemical analyst, gave his final opinion under Ex.P-24, stating that since the Forensic Department report is not conclusive, the cause of death could not be given. The investigating officer, thereafter, consulted P.W.12, Professor and Head of the Deaprtment of Forensic Science, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras, and she gave her opinion under Ex.P-16 opining that the death would have occurred on account of smothering. We do not place much reliance upon the said opinion given by the doctor, since she has stated that she has not given any reason for her conclusion under Ex.P-16. She has also admitted that the post-mortem certificate does not indicate that a cloth was thrust into the mouth of the deceased and that if a soft tissue injury could not be seen on account of decomposition changes, it is not possible to give an opinion that death was on account of smothering. She further admitted, in cross-examination, that the post-mortem certificate reveals decomposition of tissues. She further admitted, in cross-examination, that the post-mortem certificate reveals decomposition of tissues. In view of the above admission of P.W.12, we are of the view that P.W.12 could not have had sufficient material before her to give a definite opinion as to the cause of the death of Sakila; but, the said fact cannot deter us from holding that Sakila must have died on account of homicidal violence. There is no negative evidence that Sakila could not have died on account of homicidal violence and that her death is due to natural causes. This court finds several other following circumstances indicating that Sakila must have died on account of homicidal violence. 13. As we stated earlier, the prosecution, had to rely upon circumstantial evidence to establish that Sakila died on account of homicidal violence and that the accused caused her death. The first circumstance was sought to be established, before the trial court, through the evidence of P.W.3, the mother of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.3 is to the effect that the deceased developed intimacy with the accused, who was running a cattle-feed shop adjacent to her house and that the accused and the deceased were living as husband and wife for some time in a separate house. According to her, after six months, differences arose between her daughter and the accused and when questioned the deceased informed her that since the accused is refusing to marry her, there used to be quarrels between her and the accused. On the date of incident, the deceased was in the house of P.W.3 and the accused went there at about 10.00 p.m. and invited the deceased to accompany him. P.W.3 advised her daughter not to go with the accused; but, the deceased not heeding to the advice of her mother, went along with the accused in a cycle. According to P.W.3, her daughter was not seen alive by her, thereafter. The evidence of P.W.3 is natural and trustworthy and we find no material in her evidence to suspect that she had given false evidence before the trial court. P.W.3 has also stated that she identified the dead body as that of her daughter's after it was exhumed by P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.3, therefore, shows that the deceased, who left in the company of the accused, was not seen alive by her thereafter. P.W.3 has also stated that she identified the dead body as that of her daughter's after it was exhumed by P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.3, therefore, shows that the deceased, who left in the company of the accused, was not seen alive by her thereafter. Once we accept the evidence of P.W.3, then it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the girl, whom he had taken from her house. He had no explanation to offer. The non-explanation is an additional link in the chain of circumstances as held by the Supreme Court in DEONANDAN MISRA v. STATE OF BIHAR ( AIR 1955 SC 801 ), which was reiterated subsequently in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SURESH [2000 (1) SCC (CRI) 263]. The accused did not even given any explanation even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the flat denial only provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court in JOSEPH v. STATE OF KERALA [2000 SCC (CRI) 926]. 14. The next circumstance was sought to be established through P.Ws.4 and 5. It is no doubt true that P.W.4 turned hostile and P.W.5 alone supported the prosecution version. According to P.W.5, while he and P.W.4 were together near a bridge, they saw the deceased going along with the accused in a cycle and when further probed in cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that he had gone to the bridge after witnessing a movie, to answer calls of nature and that he saw the accused and the deceased together. The evidence of P.W.5, therefore, shows that after the deceased was taken from the house by the accused, they were seen together by P.Ws.4 and 5. The deceased was not seen alive by anyone thereafter and under the above circumstances, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to her. 15. The third circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1. According to him, he was working as a village assistant and on the morning of 31.5.1990, the persons, who were grazing cattle, informed him about seeing a part of a leg jutting out of the earth and that he went there and saw a part of a leg of a body buried under the earth, covered with a green colour skirt and that thereafter, he went and informed P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.2 supporting P.W.1, gave evidence and stated that on being informed by his assistant, P.W.1, he went to the spot and saw a part of a leg of a body protruding out of the earth and that he saw a green colour saree and a green colour skirt on the leg. According to him, on seeing this, he went to the police station at Kaveripattinam and gave a complaint, Ex.P-1, to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Investigation was taken up by P.W.13, who, after taking up investigation, requested P.W.9, Tahsildhar, Krishnagiri, to go over to the scene of occurrence to exhume the dead body and to conduct inquest. P.W.9, the Tahsildhar, has, in his evidence, stated that he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-7, and thereafter, exhumed the dead body and after the dead body was exhumed, it was identified by P.W.3 as the dead body of her daughter, who by then reached the place on getting an information that the body had been seen by the villagers. At the time of inquest, P.W.9 examined P.W.3, P.W.6 and one Varadarajan and the inquest report prepared by P.W.9 is Ex.P-8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 9 and 13, therefore, show that the deceased, who left the house of P.W.3 along with the accused at 10.00 p.m. on 29.5.1990 and was seen alive in the company of the accused by P.Ws.4 and 5, was not seen alive by anyone and later, her dead body was exhumed by P.W.9, which was identified by P.W.3 as the dead body of her daughter. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that in between the exhumation of the body and the inquest, the accused sought the help of the one Varadarajan while he was talking with P.W.6, to surrender before the police as he has murdered the deceased. Before P.W.6 and Varadarajan could render any help by engaging an advocate, the accused ran away from the place on seeing a police constable passing by that side in a cycle. Before P.W.6 and Varadarajan could render any help by engaging an advocate, the accused ran away from the place on seeing a police constable passing by that side in a cycle. The above conduct of the accused in running away on seeing a police constable, is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, is to be put against him and in fact, P.W.6 has, in his evidence, stated that after the accused ran away, he went to the scene of occurrence, where the dead body was exhumed, and informed the Tahsildhar, P.W.9, as to the information given to him by the accused. P.W.13 has, in his evidence, stated that after the inquest was over, he searched for the accused, but could not trace him. The evidence of P.W.13 that he searched for the accused, but could not trace him, shows that he was able to fix the identity of the accused immediately after the inquest was over, in view of the examination of P.W.6 by P.W.9. If P.W.6 had not been examined by P.W.9 at the time of inquest, then the investigating officer could not have fixed the identity of the accused for him to search for the accused immediately after the inquest. The evidence of P.W.6, coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 that he searched for the accused after the inquest was over, shows that the identity of the accused came to be known to the police at the time of inquest, even on 1.6.1990. 17. The next circumstance was sought to be established through P.W.7. According to P.W.7, when he was sitting in his house and talking with one Raja Gounder, the accused appeared before them and confessed to them that he murdered Sakila. The statement given by the accused was reduced into writing and the same stands marked as Ex.P-2 in the case. The accused was, thereafter, taken to the police station with Ex.P-3, the report prepared by P.W.7, and he was produced before P.W.13. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the paper on which Ex.P-2 is written and the papers on which Exs.P-3 to P-6 are written, look alike and therefore, they must have been prepared at the instance of police officers, though looks attractive, is not supported by any material. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the paper on which Ex.P-2 is written and the papers on which Exs.P-3 to P-6 are written, look alike and therefore, they must have been prepared at the instance of police officers, though looks attractive, is not supported by any material. On the contrary, the circumstances extracted above show that the accused had taken the deceased from her house and they were seen together by P.Ws.4 and 5 and that her body was later exhumed on 1.6.1990. It is no doubt true that P.W.10, the doctor could not give any definite opinion as to the cause of the death of Sakila, but the accused neither before the trial court nor before this court, has disputed the fact that the dead body, that was exhumed, is the body of Sakila. If Sakila had died a natural death, then it escapes one's comprehension as to how she could have buried herself and in our view, the person, who caused her death, must have buried her body. The deceased having been seen in the company of the accused by P.Ws.4 and 5, and the accused not having given any explanation as to what happened to the deceased, after he had taken her from her house, this court cannot but presume that the deceased must have been done to death by the accused and later, her body has been buried by him in order to screen himself from the offence of murder. The fact that the medical officer did not give any final opinion as to the cause of death, cannot be a reason for rejecting the prosecution version that the deceased died at the hands of the accused. If the deceased had died a natural death, then one would expect the accused to inform the mother of the deceased, P.W.3, or any of the close relatives of the deceased. He did neither and this conduct of the accused also indicates that Sakila could not have died a natrual death and she must have been murdered and murdered by the accused alone as she was in the company of the accused during the relevant point of time on the relevant date. 18. He did neither and this conduct of the accused also indicates that Sakila could not have died a natrual death and she must have been murdered and murdered by the accused alone as she was in the company of the accused during the relevant point of time on the relevant date. 18. Apart from the above facts, which we have noted above, we also have the evidence of P.W.6, who has deposed on oath before the trial court that the accused appeared before him and one Varadarajan and confessed to them that he murdered Sakila. P.W.6 was also examined at the time of inquest. As observed by us in the earlier part of the judgment, the identity of the accused was fixed immediately after the inquest was over, on account of the examination of P.W.6 and Varadarajan at the inquest conducted by P.W.9. Apart from the oral evidence of P.W.6 that the accused confessed to him and Varadarajan that he has murdered Sakila, we also have the evidence of P.W.7 that while he and his neighbour, by name, Raja Gounder, were sitting in his house and talking with each other, the accused appeared before them and gave a statement, which was reduced into writing. The evidence of P.W.7 that the accused gave a statement confessing his guilt in the murder, also supports the prosecution version and the circumstances, which we have considered above, coupled with the statements of the accused made to P.Ws.6 and 7, conclusively establish that Sakila died on account of homicidal violence and it was the accused, who was responsible for her death. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed. It is reported that the appellant/accused is on bail and if so, the learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit him to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.