Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Challenging the conviction for the offences under Sections 302 and 404 IPC and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and fine of Rs.50,000/- respectively, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) Accused Balasubramaniam and the deceased Abbas Ali were friends. They are the residents of Paramathivelur village. They engaged in the business of buying and selling vans and cars. Both the deceased and accused contacted a van owner and had a deal with him to purchase a van for Rs.1,60,000/-. Subsequently, that proposal was dropped. (b) Thereafter, without the knowledge of the accused, the deceased approached the vendor and settled the price at Rs.1,82,000/- and took delivery of the vehicle after paying advance of Rs.40,000/-. On coming to know of this deal, the accused felt that he was cheated and as such, he had a grouse against the deceased. (c) On 5.8.1998, both the accused and deceased, in order to have some other deal in the business, left Paramathivelur and came to Chennai. Next day, i.e. on 6.8.1998 at about 6.00 a.m., they reached Chennai and took Room No.207 of the lodge known as "Vasantha Lodge" at Purasawalkam, Chennai. At about 11 O'Clock, the accused alone came out of the room and came down and took tea and went back. (d) P.W.1 Murali is the Manager of the lodge. P.W.2 Jegan is the Room Boy. Next day, i.e. on 7.8.1998 at about 12 noon, P.W.1, the Lodge Manager wanted the said room to be given to some other party for rent. Therefore, he asked P.W.2 Room Boy to go to Room No.207 to ascertain as to whether the parties staying there would vacate on that day. (e) Surprisingly, the room was found locked. Then, P.W.1 Manager came to the room and peeped into the ventilator and found that one dead body was lying down in the bed. On entertaining suspicion, he contacted his owner, who in turn asked P.W.6 Ramesh Chetty, the Assistant Manager to go along with P.W.1 Manager to break open the lock. Accordingly, both of them broke open the lock and entered inside the room and found the dead body of the deceased. On entertaining suspicion, he contacted his owner, who in turn asked P.W.6 Ramesh Chetty, the Assistant Manager to go along with P.W.1 Manager to break open the lock. Accordingly, both of them broke open the lock and entered inside the room and found the dead body of the deceased. (f) On noticing that the deceased was done to death by a wooden reeper, which was found near-by, P.W.1 Manager went to Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police. This was at about 1.00 p.m. Subsequently, a case was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. (g) P.W.15 Inspector of Police came to the scene at about 1.45 p.m., drew Ex.P-15 rough sketch and prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar. Then, inquest was conducted and the body was sent for post-mortem. (h) P.W.12 Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P-13 post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries. (i) Since the identity of the accused was not established, P.W.15 Doctor took out P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police with M.O.16 parking token of the vehicle TVS-50 and also the photograph of the dead person, to trace out the identity of the person as well as to trace out the culprit. (j) With the help of M.O.16 parking token, P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police made enquiries and came to Paramathivelur village and verified with P.W.4 Sangameswaran, a resident of that village. Then, he examined P.W.3 Alishah, the brother of the deceased. After enquiry with both of them, P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police came to know that the deceased person is one Abbas Ali and the person who has caused his death is one Balasubramaniam, the accused herein. (k) This was immediately informed to P.W.15 Inspector of Police. P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police went to the house of the accused and came to know that he was not available and he had left for Chennai. P.W.15 Inspector of Police examined P.W.3 Alishah and recovered the R.C. book of T.V.S-50 vehicle from him and also recovered Ex.P-19 delivery letter relating to the sale of the load-vehicle in question. (l) Then, with the help of P.W.2 Room Boy, on 9.8.1998 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested the accused at the Thiruvallur Bus Stand (near Chennai). (l) Then, with the help of P.W.2 Room Boy, on 9.8.1998 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested the accused at the Thiruvallur Bus Stand (near Chennai). Since the bunch of hairs sticking to the comb found on the scene was available and seized, in order to verify that the said hair belongs to the person of the accused, on 10.8.1998, P.W.13 Bharathan, the Scientific Assistant Inspector of the Forensic Sciences Department, was requested as per Ex.P-17 requisition by P.W.15 Inspector of Police to come and take some portion of the hair from the scalp of the accused. (m) Accordingly, P.W.13 Scientific Assistant Inspector came and took some samples of the hair from the scalp of the accused. In the meantime, the accused took P.W.15 Inspector of Police to his house at Paramathivelur and on his confession, P.W.15 Inspector of Police recovered M.O.1 key, M.O.27 xerox copy of the driving licence with the photograph of the deceased and M.O.26 series (cash of Rs.11,700/-). (n) P.W.15 Inspector of Police continued the investigation and also received Ex.P-20 report from the Forensic Sciences Department to show that the bunch of hairs found sticking to the comb in the scene, would tally with that of the hair of the accused. After finishing investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 404 IPC. (o) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed and M.Os.1 to 30 were marked. (p) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he merely pleaded not guilty. (q) The trial Court, after appraising the evidence available on record, accepted the case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 404 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr.A.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would take us through the entire evidence and point out various suspicious features in order to establish that the circumstances brought out in this case, would not connect the accused with the crime, since various pieces of circumstances available on record, would suffer from infirmities. The gist of his contentions is as follows: (a) Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is artificial. The gist of his contentions is as follows: (a) Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is artificial. (b) Though the accused was arrested on 9.8.1998, identification parade was conducted only on 11.9.1998 with delay, which has not been properly explained. (c) Admittedly, the accused reported to P.W.9 Magistrate that he was shown in the Police Station to the witnesses and the witnesses were also asked by the Police Officer to give evidence without any fear against the accused. (d) The Lodge Register has not been produced. (e) In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 SC 51 (Prabhu Babaji vs. State of Bombay) and the decision of the Caltutta High Court reported in 1986 Crl.L.J. 622 (Himangshu Pahari vs. State), the opinion of the expert, namely P.W.13 Scientific Assistant Inspector, cannot be considered to be a conclusive proof in the absence of the reasons for the same. (f) Though P.W.15 Inspector of Police would state that the accused was arrested on 9.8.1998 and recovery was made only on 12.8.1998, P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, in his cross-examination, would admit that the arrest of the accused was made by P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police on 8.8.1998. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that any one of the circumstances had been clearly established and as such, "benefit of doubt" has to be extended to the accused. 4. On the above aspects, we have heard Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel on either side. 6. Entire case would hinge upon the circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish each and every circumstance clearly and clinchingly, beyond reasonable doubt and those circumstances from which the inference of guilt is drawn, must form a complete chain without any missing link and they must be such that they unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the accused alone, without giving room for any hypothesis or innocence of the accused to the crime in question. 7. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the materials available on record have to be appreciated. 8. 7. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the materials available on record have to be appreciated. 8. The circumstances placed by the prosecution are as follows: (i) P.Ws.1 and 2, the Manager and Room Boy of the Lodge, would speak that both the accused and deceased came and occupied Room No.207 of the Vasantha Lodge. Next day, accused disappeared, but the body of the deceased alone was found in the Room. The accused was identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 in identification parade. (ii) The accused was arrested on 9.8.1998 by P.W.15 Inspector of Police and on his confession, M.O.1 key of the Room No.207 of the Lodge and M.O.26 series (cash) were recovered, as spoken to by P.W.15 Inspector of Police. (iii) The bunch of hairs found available in the Room and also the hair sticking to the comb found near the dead body tallied with the hair of the accused, which was removed by P.W.13 Scientific Assistant Inspector after the arrest of the accused. 9. Now, let us analyse the said circumstances one by one. 10. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been attacked on the reason that the Register of the Lodge has not been produced and P.Ws.1 and 2 in identification parade reported to P.W.9 Magistrate that the accused was shown to them earlier. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the evidence of P.W.9 Magistrate, who conducted identification parade, P.W.6 Ramesh Chetti, the Assistant Manager of the Lodge and also on a perusal of Ex.P-11 identification proceedings, it is clear that no infirmity is found in the identification proceedings. 11. Of course, arrest was made on 9.8.1998 and identification parade was conducted only on 11.9.1998. This cannot be said as unusual delay. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1995 (2) Crimes 473 (Radha Ballabh & Ors. vs. State of U.P.), held that identification is only a part of the investigation and unless there are good reasons to doubt the proceedings, the same cannot be rejected on mere suspicion that the accused might have been shown to the witnesses. 12. vs. State of U.P.), held that identification is only a part of the investigation and unless there are good reasons to doubt the proceedings, the same cannot be rejected on mere suspicion that the accused might have been shown to the witnesses. 12. In the light of the said observations made by the Supreme Court, we are unable to persuade ourselves to sustain the point raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the validity of the identification parade and the identity of the accused in the parade. On the other hand, if we look at the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Ex.P-1 complaint, it is quite clear that the evidence adduced by those witnesses are natural and there is nothing to indicate that there is any necessity for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. As a matter of fact, even in Ex.P-1 complaint, which has been lodged at about 1.00 p.m. on 7.8.1998, P.W.1 Murali, the Manager of the Lodge gave some identifiable features of the accused. Ex.P-1 complaint and the subsequent statement of the witnesses would indicate that they would be able to identify the accused in the parade. 13. Under those circumstances, we are inclined to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who had spoken about the evidence of "last seen alive" of the deceased in the company of the accused. 14. The next piece of evidence is recovery of M.O.1 key, M.O.27 xerox copy of the driving licence and M.O.26 series (cash). M.O.1 is the key relating to Room No.207 of Vasantha Lodge. According to P.W.15 Inspector of Police, accused was arrested on 9.8.1998 near Thiruvallur Bus Stand, as pointed out by P.W.2 Room Boy and on his confession, P.W.15 Inspector of Police and other Police Officials were taken to the house of the accused at Paramathivelur Village and from his house, M.O.1 key as well as M.O.27 driving licence xerox copy belonging to the deceased with the photograph of the deceased were recovered. P.Ws.1 and 2 would identify that M.O.1 is the key of Room No.207 of the Lodge. 15. Ex.P-10 mahazar also would indicate the following relevant particulars: 16. P.Ws.1 and 2 would identify that M.O.1 is the key of Room No.207 of the Lodge. 15. Ex.P-10 mahazar also would indicate the following relevant particulars: 16. Thus, the above details, namely, recovery of xerox copy of the driving licence with the photograph of the deceased and also the key containing the number as 505795, would show that accused was staying along with the deceased in the Room of the Lodge and subsequently, the Room key as well as xerox copy of the driving licence of the deceased with his photo, was found in the possession of the accused. When once it is established that the accused was found in the company of the deceased, and also that the articles of the deceased and the key of the Room were found in possession of the accused, it is for the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of these articles. 17. As a matter of fact, not only the key of the Room and other things, but also cash of Rs.11,700/- (M.O.26 series) was recovered. Admittedly, there is no claim by the accused that the said cash belongs to him. In fact, accused merely denied his complicity in the crime in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning. No explanation whatsoever was offered. 18. Apart from the said evidence, we have got Ex.P-20 opinion of the expert (P.W.13 Scientific Assistant Inspector). The observation mahazar which was prepared on the same day by P.W.15 Inspector of Police would indicate that there was a bunch of hairs found in the comb recovered from the scene of occurrence. The recovery mahazar as well as the observation mahazar would indicate the same. On noticing the bunch of hairs, in order to verify as to whether that hair which was recovered from the scene belongs to the deceased, some hair was removed from the deceased also on the same day and the hair was removed from accused after the arrest of the accused was made, and all the hairs, namely that of the accused as well as the hairs in the comb were sent for comparison, and subsequently, Ex.P-20 report of the expert was also obtained, which shows that the bunch of hairs sticking to the comb found available in the Room, did not tally with that of the hair of the deceased and the same tallied only with the hair of the accused. 19. 19. It is contended that the abovesaid Ex.P-20 is not the conclusive opinion and there is no reason specified on the same. But it must be stated that under Section 293 Cr.P.C., expert's opinion can be admitted as evidence and the contents of the same can be acted upon. Of course, it is true that it cannot be considered to be a conclusive opinion but it can be considered for corroboration of the evidence with the other evidence available on record in the case. Therefore, Ex.P-20 is a corroborative piece of evidence which supports the other materials. 20. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime, who also removed the cash from the deceased and left the place along with the key of the Lodge and the other related evidence. 21. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for the offences, by the trial Court. 22. Since it is pointed out that the trial Court ordered confiscation of the properties, namely M.Os.17 to 20, which properties admittedly belong to the accused, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to return the same. Accordingly, direction is given.