ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellant/accused, viz., Gokul alias Venkatesan has been convicted for the offences under Secs.302, 404 and 449, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo life sentence with a fine of Rs.1,000, one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000, and two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000 and the sentences imposed on the appellant/accused were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed. 2. Few facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) Deceased Kanthammal, aged about 75 years, was staying with her grand-son in her house. Next portion of the house is occupied by her son Venkataraman and the other portion is occupied by P.W.3, a tenant. P.W.1 Dharani is the wife of the said Venkataraman. P.W.2 Latha is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.2, after the death of her husband, married second time and is living separately. Every morning and evening, she used to come and attend the household duties to help the deceased. (b) The accused is the son of one Ramaiah Naidu, who belongs to the same place where the prosecution witnesses reside and used to come frequently to the house of the deceased and demand money from her. The properties belonging to the deceased have been mortgaged with the family of the accused. (c) The fateful occurrence took place on 21.10.1997. P.W.1 left the house for giving food to her children in the school. At that time, she found the deceased talking with the accused and thereafter, she went outside and at about 4o’clock in the evening, when she came back, she saw the inner door locked outside and she opened the door and went inside and saw the body of the deceased with bleeding injuries. She cried aloud and came out and P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased also came by that time and then, the matter was informed to P.W.4, the grand-son of the deceased, who also came and saw the dead body of the deceased. She cried aloud and came out and P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased also came by that time and then, the matter was informed to P.W.4, the grand-son of the deceased, who also came and saw the dead body of the deceased. (d) P.W.1 then went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint to P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.5925 of 1997 for the offences under Secs.302 and 380, I.P.C. (e) P.W.18 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message from P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and came to the scene of occurrence and he recovered material objects found in the scene of occurrence. P.W.18 prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and drew Exs.P-12 and 13 rough sketches and he also found the bloodstained knife, which was also recovered. (f) P.W.18 conducted inquest and during the course of inquest, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. P.W.18 investigating officer found out that the accused Gokul was last seen in the company of the deceased and there was a quarrel between them and in that quarrel, the accused murdered the deceased and took away the “thali charadu” and bangles worn by the deceased. (g) On the basis of the said suspicion, P.W.18 took steps to arrest the accused. On 4.11.1997, he came to know that the accused himself surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvellore on 29.10.1997. The Police custody was obtained for six days from 6.11.1997. On 7.11.1997, after giving confession, the accused took the Police to Oothukottai and identified the Pawn Broker Shop, which was owned by P.W.9 and from P.W.9, the “thali charadu” was recovered under Ex.P-16 mahazar. (h) Then, the accused took the Police to his house and produced two bangles (M.O.2), M.O.13 bloodstained pant, M.O.14 shirt and Ex.P-8 pawn broker shop receipt, which were subsequently recovered. (i) On 8.11.1997, the accused took the Police to Porur and from the place near the pumpset, he took out the knife and handed over the same. M.Os.8 and 9, pant and colour shirt were also recovered from him. Thereafter, he took them to P.W.12 and identified him as a person from whom the knife was purchased. (j) On coming to know that the accused sustained injury on the little finger, a bite injury, he was sent to Kilpauk Government Hospital where he was treated by P.W.15 Doctor, who issued Ex.P-10 accident register. Thereafter, he took them to P.W.12 and identified him as a person from whom the knife was purchased. (j) On coming to know that the accused sustained injury on the little finger, a bite injury, he was sent to Kilpauk Government Hospital where he was treated by P.W.15 Doctor, who issued Ex.P-10 accident register. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. Then, all the material objects were sent for chemical examination. (k) P.W.19, the successor of P.W.18 Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and ultimately, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences referred to above. (i) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed and M.Os.1 to 16 were marked. (m) When the accused was questioned with regard to the incriminating materials under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., he simply denied his complicity in the crime in question. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of defence. (n) The trial Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated above. This is under challenge before this Court in this appeal. 3. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused took us through the entire evidence and contended that the various pieces of circumstances put forth by the prosecution would not establish the guilt of the accused and due to the inconsistencies found during the course of investigation, the entire prosecution case would bristle with infirmities and ultimately, the accused is entitled to be given the “benefit of doubt” and consequently, he is liable to be acquitted of the charges. 4. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, the evidence of P.W.1 Dharani and P.W.5 Kanna, who speak about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused, cannot be accepted, since they are not specific about the date and time at which the accused was seen in the company of the deceased. Further, the evidence relating to the recovery of the material objects cannot be acted upon, especially when P.W.9, the owner of the pawn-broker shop, turned hostile. Further, the evidence relating to the recovery of the material objects cannot be acted upon, especially when P.W.9, the owner of the pawn-broker shop, turned hostile. The learned counsel would also point out that even P.W.2 Latha would state that the deceased would prefer to hand over her jewels to the accused in the event of the deceased not able to give money to him and as such, the jewels had been handed over by the deceased to the accused and in that context, the jewels have been recovered. 5. On these aspects, we have heard Mr. E. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions urged by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 7. 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 towards the guilt of the accused and the accused alone, without giving any room for hypothesis of the innocence of the accused to the crime in question, 8. Let us now analyse the evidence available with regard to the various circumstances, which are as follows: (i) The deceased last seen alive in the company of the accused at about 12.15 p.m. has been spoken to by P.W.1. (ii) P.W.5 Kannan has seen the appellant/ accused coming out of the house of the accused at or about the time of occurrence. (iii) P.W.12 Dhandapani, the knife seller, identifies the accused as purchaser of the knife. (iv) Recovery of M.O.2 bangles from the accused, Ex.P-8 receipt from the pawn broker shop, M.O.1 “thali charadu” from P.W.9 pawn broker shop owner and M.Os.8 and 9 pants from the accused. (v) The identification of the jewels by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased. 9. With reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it has to be stated that from the beginning, they have entertained suspicion on the accused. According to P.W.1, at about 12.15 p.m., the accused was seen talking with the deceased inside the house. (v) The identification of the jewels by P.Ws.1 and 2 as that of the deceased. 9. With reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it has to be stated that from the beginning, they have entertained suspicion on the accused. According to P.W.1, at about 12.15 p.m., the accused was seen talking with the deceased inside the house. According to P.W.2 Latha, the daughter of the deceased, the deceased told her that the accused came and demanded money and if she was not able to give money, she would hand over the jewels worn by her and when the deceased told P.W.2 about that, P.W.2 asked her not to give the jewels, because she was wearing those jewels on sentimental basis. Of course, when Ex.P-1 complaint was given by P.W.1, she did not mention about this. 10. During the course of inquest, P.W.2 has given statement to the Police, which was supported by P.W.1 and others that the accused used to come often and compel the deceased to give money. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 would clearly indicate that when the grandson of the deceased was not in the house, she used to bolt the door from inside and she will not allow anybody to come inside unless she verifies the identity of the person through the window. This would make it clear that unless the accused is a known person to the deceased, there is no possibility for the accused to come and enter into the house of the deceased and attack her. 11. Further, the occurrence had taken place inside the kitchen. Several injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, to attack the deceased, the accused would have spent some time inside the house so as to enable him to drive her to the kitchen and attack her causing serious injuries on the stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased and thereafter, he removed M.O.1 “thali charadu” from her neck and M.O.2 bangles. So, the investigation conducted during the course of inquest by P.W.18 Inspector of Police would clearly disclose that a known person, viz., the accused who used to frequently come and quarrel with the deceased, must have come and murdered her and removed those jewels. As a matter of fact, in Ex.P-1 complaint, P.W.1 would specifically mention about the missing of M.O.1 “thali charadu” and M.O.2 bangles. As a matter of fact, in Ex.P-1 complaint, P.W.1 would specifically mention about the missing of M.O.1 “thali charadu” and M.O.2 bangles. 12. The next piece of the evidence is with reference to the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused. The witness who speaks about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused, is P.W.5 Kannan. We are not very much impressed on the evidence of P.W.5 for the reason that though in the chief-examination, he states that he came at or about the time of occurrence and he has seen the accused coming out with a bag and locking the door from outside, he was not able to give the exact date on which the accused was seen in the house; on the other hand, in the cross-examination, P.W.5 stated that he did not go to the house at 1.15 p.m. It is also not known as to why P.W.5 had to go to the house of the deceased at that point of time, though he stated that he went to see the owner of the house which is situated next to the house of the deceased and the purpose of going there according to him, is to effect some repairs in the house as requested by the deceased. Despite that, there is no reason as to why he did not enter into the house to meet the deceased to effect some repairs as requested by her. Therefore., we cannot give any importance to the evidence of P.W.5, especially when in the cross-examination, he was not quite sure about his having come at 1.15 p.m. and seen the accused coming out. 13. Next important piece of evidence is with reference to the recovery of the jewels identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the members of the family of the deceased. 14. The occurrence had taken place on 21.10.1997. The inquest was conducted on the very same day. During the course of inquest, the investigating agency fixed the accused. 13. Next important piece of evidence is with reference to the recovery of the jewels identified by P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the members of the family of the deceased. 14. The occurrence had taken place on 21.10.1997. The inquest was conducted on the very same day. During the course of inquest, the investigating agency fixed the accused. The accused was absconding from 21.10.1997 and ultimately, he surrendered only on 29.10.1997 before the concerned Magistrate and on 4.11.1997, P.W.18 Inspector of Police came to know that he surrendered before the Court and on 5.11.1997, the Police filed an application seeking for Police custody and consequently, they obtained the same on 6.11.1997 for a period of six days and during those days, the accused, after giving confession, took P.W.18 to P.W.9, the pawn broker shop owner before whom M.O.1 “thali charadu” belonging to the deceased was pledged. Only after P.W.9 being pointed out by the accused, P.W.18 interrogated P.W.9 and from him, M.O.1 “thali charadu” has been recovered. Thereafter, the accused took the investigating officer P.W.18 to the house of the accused and from there, Ex.P-8 the pledge receipt issued by P.W.9 and the bangles (M.O.2) were recovered. 15. Of course, P.W.9 did not identify the accused as the person who came and pledged the said M.O.1 with him. But very clinchingly, the evidence that we could notice from the cross-examination of P.W.9 is that he admits that Ex.P-8 which has been recovered from the house of the accused, was issued from his shop. The evidence of P.W.18 and the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 in pursuance of the confession of the accused and Ex.P-8 receipt and M.O.2 bangles from the house of the accused, would clearly show that the jewels belonging to the deceased, which were stolen on 21.10.1997, which have been mentioned in Ex.P-1 complaint itself, have been recovered only at the instance of the accused. 16. Further, as indicated above, P.W.9, the pawn broker shop owner though not identified the accused, identified Ex.P-8 receipt, which has been recovered from the house of the accused as that of the receipt issued from his shop. Furthermore, Ex.P-8 receipt also would show that the pledge was made on 21.10.1997 and this would make it clear that the jewels were in possession of the accused from 21.10.1997. 17. Furthermore, Ex.P-8 receipt also would show that the pledge was made on 21.10.1997 and this would make it clear that the jewels were in possession of the accused from 21.10.1997. 17. So, when the jewels were in the possession of the accused immediately after the occurrence, it is for him to explain as to how they came to his possession. As a matter of fact, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased told P.W.2 that if the money is not available, she would be prepared to give her jewels to the. accused and as such, the jewels might have been found in the possession of the accused as they might have been given by the deceased herself. This argument, in our view, may not merit acceptance for the reason that such an explanation has not been given by the accused: on the other hand the accused simply answered the question in Sec.313, Crl.P.C., with reference to the evidence of P.W.18 and others, stating that he did not know anything. In the said circumstances, we have no other go except to hold that the possession of the stolen jewels by the accused has not been properly explained by the accused. 18. One other circumstance shown by the prosecution is the injury found on the accused in his little finger. The accused was taken into Police custody on 6.11.1997 for a period of six days and when P.W.18 found the injury on his finger, he came to know that it was a bite injury and immediately, he was sent to hospital and P.W.15 Doctor examined the accused and issued Ex.P-10 accident register, which would indicate that the accused told the Doctor that there was a bite injury in the accident which took place in the address of the house of the deceased, which is admittedly the place of the deceased. When this aspect of evidence has been put to the accused when he was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., no explanation has been offered by him and the reply of the accused is only evasive. 19. It is held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000)1 S.C.C. 471 . that the injury sustained by the accused is a formidable incriminating circumstance and the false answer given by the accused could be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. 19. It is held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000)1 S.C.C. 471 . that the injury sustained by the accused is a formidable incriminating circumstance and the false answer given by the accused could be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. It is also stated in that decision that if the accused does not tell the Court about how he came into possession of the stolen jewels, then naturally, the presumption under Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into play. Relevant observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision is as follows: “ 26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal Court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal Court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it. the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal Court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. 27. It is regrettable that the Division Bench had practically nullified the most formidable incriminating circumstance against the accused spoken to by P.W.22 Dr. Nand Kumar. We have pointed out earlier the injuries which the doctor had noted on the person of the accused when he was examined on 25.12.1995. The significant impact of the said incriminating circumstance is that the accused could not give any explanation whatsoever for those injuries and therefore he had chosen to say that he did not sustain any such injury at all. We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.22 Dr. Nand Kumar. The significant impact of the said incriminating circumstance is that the accused could not give any explanation whatsoever for those injuries and therefore he had chosen to say that he did not sustain any such injury at all. We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.22 Dr. Nand Kumar. A false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. In a situation like this such a false answer can also be counted as providing “a missing link “for completing the chain.” 20. It is also relevant to notice the decision of this Court reported in Thavaraj Pandian v. State 2003 Crl.L.J. 2642, wherein, this Court in para.29 held as follows: “ 29. Whether a presumption under Sec.114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, is drawn in a given situation is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. The nature of the stolen articles, the nature of its identification by the owner, the places and circumstances and its recovery, the intervening period between the date of offence and date of recovery, the explanation of the person from whom the recovery is made, are all factors which are to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision of this Court.” 21. In this case, the prosecution has established that the stolen jewels which have been identified by P.W.2 Latha, a family member of the deceased as that of the jewels worn by the deceased on the date of occurrence, and when the accused declines to tell the trial Court as to how he came into possession of the same, then the presumption is well-justified to be adopted by the criminal Court that he only murdered the deceased and mortgaged the stolen jewels. 22. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who speak about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused and the fact of his often coming and demanding money from the deceased and also the recovery of the jewels from the deceased at the instance of the accused, would clearly establish that the murder has been committed only by the accused and the jewels have been stolen by him. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed. 23. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused are liable to be confirmed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. V.S.-----Appeal dismissed.