Judgment :- (Prayer: Criminal appeal against the judgment dated 12.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Chengalpattu.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. The appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. A few facts leading to the conviction of the accused are as follows: (a) The deceased is the wife of the accused. Their marriage took place on 03.02.1999. P.W.7 is the adoptive father of the accused. After marriage, the deceased was not inclined to have sexual intercourse with her husband/accused. However, the accused went on compelling her to have sexual intercourse by behaving cruelly. The deceased complained about this to her sister/P.W.5. P.W.5 informed this to her brother/P.W.1. The deceased was told that this would be alright in due course of time. (b) On 13.04.1999 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased, her husband/accused and others came in a car, after visiting a temple, to their house. P.W.7, P.W.7''s wife, the deceased and her husband/accused were residing in the same house. However, the deceased and the accused were allotted a separate room in the upstairs of the said house. (c) On 14.04.1999 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.7''s wife heard some noise from the back side of the house. When she reached there, she saw the accused hanging inside the well and crying. This was informed by P.W.7''s wife to P.W.7. Immediately, P.W.7 brought a rope/M.O.6 and with the help of one Kumar, took the accused out of the well. When P.W.7 enquired the accused as to what happened, the accused told him that a thief entered his room; murdered his wife and threw him inside the well. (d) When P.W.4/Doctor was contacted, he came to the house of the accused and found that the wife of the accused was already dead. On being requested by P.W.7, P.W.2, the servant of P.W.7, informed P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, that he should come to the house of P.W.7 immediately, since the wife of the accused was not well. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of P.W.7, where he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her body. P.W.1 enquired the accused about this. But, the accused did not give any reply. Then, P.W.1 enquired P.W.7, who informed P.W.1 what the accused stated to him. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of P.W.7, where he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her body. P.W.1 enquired the accused about this. But, the accused did not give any reply. Then, P.W.1 enquired P.W.7, who informed P.W.1 what the accused stated to him. P.W.1 entertained a suspicion that the accused would have killed the deceased. Therefore, he gave a complaint to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police. (e) On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.12 registered a case against the accused for offences under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C in Crime No.500/1999. Then, he prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch. P.W.12 examined the witnesses between 11.30 a.m and 1.30 p.m on 14.04.1999 and recorded their statements. He prepared the inquest report and then sent the dead body for postmortem. (f) P.W.10 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and issued Ex.P.7, the postmortem certificate. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "Contusions: 1) 2 cm x 1 cm below left eye. 2) 4 cm x 3 cm over left side of lower jaw. 3) 3 cm x 2 cm over lower lip. 4) 2 cm x 2 cm over right arm. Abrasions: 1) 0.5 cm curved abrasion in front of left ear. 2) 0.5 cm curved abrasion below left side of mendible. 3) 4 cm x 1 cm abrasion just above thyroid cartilage over centre of the neck. 4) Both the conjuctive were congested. 5) Both finger and toenails were congested. On Exploration of the Neck: Horizontal 4 cm x 1 cm abrasion just above thyroid cartilage 8 cm above the supra sternal notch and and 6 cm below symphysis ments. Contusion of 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm seen just above thyroid cartilage corresponding to external abrasion. Hyoid Bone: Intact. Cricoid, thyroid and other laryngeal cartilages were intact. Lungs: Congested and oedamatour with peticheal haemorrhagic spots seen between the lobes. Lungs belooned out with sharp edges. Brain: Surface vessels congested and peticheal haemorrhagic spots over the entire surface seen. Stomach: 10 ml brownish fluid without any specific odour. All the internal organs congested on cross section. Uterus & Bladder: Both were empty. Viscera: Sent for chemical analysis. Lungs: Congested and oedamatour with peticheal haemorrhagic spots seen between the lobes. Lungs belooned out with sharp edges. Brain: Surface vessels congested and peticheal haemorrhagic spots over the entire surface seen. Stomach: 10 ml brownish fluid without any specific odour. All the internal organs congested on cross section. Uterus & Bladder: Both were empty. Viscera: Sent for chemical analysis. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to manual compression of the neck/throttling and occlusion of all external orifices of respiration by manual compression. (g) P.W.9 is the Doctor, who treated the accused for the injuries sustained by him. She gave Ex.P.6A, the accident register. (h) P.W.12 arrested the accused on 14.04.1999. Since the accused had an injury on his tongue, he was sent to the Doctor for treatment. (i) P.W.13 took up further investigation from P.W.12 on 15.04.1999. P.W.13 reached the scene of occurrence. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the material records to the court. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet in court on 27.04.1999. (j) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. (k) When the accused was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied having participated in the crime. He also stated that on the date of occurrence, he was not available in the house and he had been to Perambur to attend his ailing mother. (l) The trial court, after having considered the materials available on record, concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the accused accordingly. This is the subject matter of the appeal before this court. 3. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the entire materials available on record and contended that the circumstances available in this case would not be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and as such, he is liable to be acquitted. This is the subject matter of the appeal before this court. 3. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the entire materials available on record and contended that the circumstances available in this case would not be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and as such, he is liable to be acquitted. He pointed out that though P.W.7 is the core witness in this case as projected by the prosecution, he has not been examined initially and he has been examined only one day later by P.W.13, who took up further investigation and not by P.W.12. The material witness Kumar, who took the accused out of the well along with P.W.7, has not been examined. P.W.2, the servant of P.W.7, is an interested witness, since he is working under P.W.7 and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. The hair found in the fist of the deceased has not been sent for chemical examination, which would clearly indicate that the prosecution has not compared the hair found in the fist of the deceased with the hair of the accused. On the above noted facts, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and as such, he is liable to be acquitted. 4. On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties. 6. It is well settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances have to be clearly established and those circumstances must form a complete chain, without any missing link. In the light of the above principle laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, we have to analyse the materials available on record. The circumstances are as follows: (1) The accused and the deceased were living in the same house and they were last seen together on the night of 13.04.1999 as spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 7. (2) The accused and the deceased were not living happily because, the deceased was not co-operating for his sexual cohabitation with her as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 5. (3) No explanation whatsoever is given by the accused regarding the injuries sustained by him. (2) The accused and the deceased were not living happily because, the deceased was not co-operating for his sexual cohabitation with her as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 5. (3) No explanation whatsoever is given by the accused regarding the injuries sustained by him. (4) The evidence of P.W.7 regarding the conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence. (5) The statement made by the accused to P.W.9, the Doctor, that he sustained injuries at the hands of his wife on the day of the occurrence at his house and the statement given by the accused to P.W.7 that a thief came to his room and killed his wife and pushed him inside the well are false. (6) The accused has pleaded alibi and the same has not been established by the accused. 7. On going through the above circumstances, we are of the view that the evidence of P.W.7 assumes significance. P.W.7 is none-else than the adoptive father of the accused. When P.W.7 saw the accused inside the well, he immediately brought a rope/M.O.6 and with the help of one Kumar, he brought the accused out of the well. When P.W.7 enquired the accused as to what happened, the accused told him that a thief entered his room; murdered his wife and threw him inside the well. On the request made by P.W.7, P.W.2 informed P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, that he should come to the house of P.W.7 immediately, since the wife of the accused was not well. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of P.W.7, where he found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her body. P.W.1 enquired the accused about this. But, the accused did not give any reply. When P.W.1 enquired P.W.7, he told P.W.1 what the accused told him. 8. Ex.P.1 is the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.12 and it contains the said statement. Admittedly, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, did not examine P.W.7 and he was examined by P.W.13/Investigating Officer, who took up further investigation, only on 15.04.1999. The statement given by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 stands clearly established by the deposition of P.W.7, who supports the prosecution case. 8. Ex.P.1 is the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.12 and it contains the said statement. Admittedly, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, did not examine P.W.7 and he was examined by P.W.13/Investigating Officer, who took up further investigation, only on 15.04.1999. The statement given by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 stands clearly established by the deposition of P.W.7, who supports the prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 would clearly show that the accused was living with his wife in the same house; they were seen together on the night of 13.04.1999 and that on the next day i.e., on 14.04.1999, the wife of the accused was found lying dead with injuries. Therefore, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries. 9. Admittedly, no explanation whatsoever has been given by the accused on this aspect. On the other hand, the accused has stated that he sustained injuries at the hands of his wife. The accused was sent to the Doctor on 15.04.1999. P.W.9 found an injury on the tongue of the accused and nail marks all over his body. When the injuries found on the accused stand established by the evidence of P.W.9, it is for the accused to explain as to how he sustained the injuries. But on the other hand, the case of the accused is that he sustained injuries at the hands of his wife and that he was not examined by the Doctor at all. There is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, since she has specifically stated that she examined the accused on 15.04.1999 and issued Ex.P.6-A, the accident register. 10. In this context, it is contended that, when the accused gave such a statement, Police Constables were there. It is not the case of the defence that the accused was compelled by the police officials, who were present there, to give such a statement. Therefore, it has to be taken that the injuries found on the accused have not been explained and this can be taken as one of the important link to form a complete chain. 11. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2000 Vol.1 SCC Pg.263 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh), wherein it has been held as follows: "27. 11. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2000 Vol.1 SCC Pg.263 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh), wherein it has been held as follows: "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. A false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance tenders 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." 12. In the present case, the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever for the injuries sustained by him. On the other hand, he has stated that he was not examined by the Doctor. In such a situation, as held by the Supreme Court in the said judgment, a false answer can also be counted as providing "a missing link" for completing the chain. 13. Apart from this, the conduct of the accused, as pointed out by P.Ws.1 and 7, would also support the prosecution case. According to P.W.7, when he asked the accused as to how the thief entered his room when the room was locked from inside, the accused did not answer properly. P.W.1 would state that when he enquired the accused as to how the occurrence took place, the accused did not reply and went away. From the above, it can be inferred that the statement made by the accused to P.W.7 that a thief entered his room and murdered his wife and then threw him inside the well, is false. If really, the thief had entered his room, he would have not only caused harm to the life of the accused, but also removed the jewels found on the person of the deceased and other valuable articles found in the room. 14. If really, the thief had entered his room, he would have not only caused harm to the life of the accused, but also removed the jewels found on the person of the deceased and other valuable articles found in the room. 14. The last circumstance, viz., alibi, pleaded by the accused has not been established. It is well settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, when alibi is pleaded by the accused, it is for the accused to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, a mere suggestion has been put to P.W.7 that on the date of occurrence, the accused was not available in the house and he had been to his mother''s house at Perambur. Though in the statement given by the accused, he has stated that he went to his mother''s house at Perambur on the day of the occurrence, he has not established the same. 15. The facts noted above would clearly establish that the accused alone had murdered the deceased in this case and made it appear as though a thief had committed the murder and threw him inside the well. 16. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court upon the accused/appellant for offences under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.