Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The appellant, the sole accused in Sessions Case No.35 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, having been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, has preferred this appeal. .2. The deceased by name Maral is the wife of one Seerangan, the brother of P.W.1. After the demise of the said Seerangan, the accused had developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. In order to warn the accused not to indulge in such illicit intimacy with the deceased, a panchayat was convened and the accused was made to pay a fine of Rs.1,001/- and the accused also paid the said fine. In spite of the panchayat, the accused and the deceased continued their illicit relationship and the same was not liked by P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased. Hence, the daughter of the deceased objected the accused coming to the house. However, she was beaten by the accused for such objection. Later the deceased herself expressed her unwillingness to go with the accused and therefore the accused warned that he will do away her. With the above motive, the accused at about 10.00 p.m., on 18. 2001 had committed the murder of the deceased by pressing her neck and stabbing on her chest. After committing the murder, he threw the body into a sugarcane field. Hence he was prosecuted for the offence of murder. .3. The evidence placed before the Court below in brief is as follows:- P.W.1, the brother-in-law of the deceased, got information at about 4.00 p.m., on 18. 2001 that the body of the deceased was lying in a sugarcane field belonging to one Angammal. Immediately he went to that place and found the body of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.2 at about 4.30 p.m., on the same day and gave an oral statement, Ex.P-1 which was reduced into writing. Thereafter, P.W.2 took P.W.1 to Kodumudi Police Station and gave the complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 5.30 p.m., which was registered in Cr.No.150 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The First Information Report is Ex.P-9. Thereafter, P.W.2 took P.W.1 to Kodumudi Police Station and gave the complaint to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 5.30 p.m., which was registered in Cr.No.150 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The First Information Report is Ex.P-9. He forwarded the express reports to the higher police officials and to the Court. 4. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in this case after receipt of the First Information Report at 6.00 p.m. He proceeded to the sugarcane field namely, the scene place at about 6.30 p.m., on the same day and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-2 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-16 in the presence of P.W.7 and one Mani. He caused photographs of the scene of occurrence through P.W.11, photographer. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-17. At about 10.00 p.m., he sent the body of the deceased through Grade I Constable, P.W.13 to Kodumudi Government Hospital for conducting post-mortem. He examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. 5. P.W.10, the doctor attached to Kodumudi Government hospital, on receipt of the requisition, Ex.P-6 and the body, commenced post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 11.30 a.m., on 18. 2001 and he found the following external injury:- "A gapping wound on the left side of chest over the breast through which maggots are coming out. Eye balls bulged out. Tongue protruding out & bitten intendly." He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-7 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained about three days prior to autopsy. 6. P.W.16, continuing with his investigation, examined the other witnesses on 18. 2001 and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 18. 2001 at about 11.00 a.m., near Kodumudi Emanoor Railway gate in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8 and one Shanmugam. In pursuance of the admissible portion of his confessional statement under Ex.P-3, he seized the nylon saree, M.O.1 and soori knife, M.O.3 under the mahazar, Ex.P-4 on the same day at 1.30 p.m., in the presence of the said witnesses. He took the accused to the scene place and prepared another Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-5 and rough sketch, Ex.P-18. He examined P.W.8 and one Shanmugam and recorded their statements. He took the accused to the scene place and prepared another Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-5 and rough sketch, Ex.P-18. He examined P.W.8 and one Shanmugam and recorded their statements. He brought the accused to the police station along with the seized material objects and remanded the accused to judicial custody at 3.00 p.m. He examined P.W.4 on 18. 2001 and recorded his statement. He sent the seized material objects to the Court. He examined the other witnesses on 20.8.2001 and recorded their statements. On 28. 2001 he examined the Grade I Constable, P.W.13 and the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.14 and recorded their statements. He examined the post-mortem doctor, P.W.10 on 110. 2001 and recorded his statement. After receiving the chemical analysts report and after completing investigation and after obtaining legal opinion from the Government Advocate, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 310. 2001 for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the Court. 7. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, marked 18 exhibits and produced 9 material objects. 8. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied each and every incriminating material as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on his side. However, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him for the offence as stated earlier. 9. Mr.A.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused has submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are solely on the following three circumstances: .(i) There were illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased and a panchayat was held and in spite of the panchayat, the illicit intimacy continued and at one point of time, when the deceased refused, the accused had murdered the deceased. .(ii) The seizure of M.O.1, saree worn by the deceased in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused. (iii) The evidence of P.W.6 as to the enquiries made by the accused about the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence. 10. .(ii) The seizure of M.O.1, saree worn by the deceased in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused. (iii) The evidence of P.W.6 as to the enquiries made by the accused about the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence. 10. The learned counsel would, however, submit that all the three circumstances have not been satisfactorily established, as there are material contradictions, and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove each and every circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused in this case. So far as the illegal intimacy is concerned, the learned counsel drew our attention to the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4,5 & 6, who are either neighbours or blood relatives of the deceased, and submitted that there are so many contradictions in their evidence. While P.Ws.1, 5 & 6 have stated that a panchayat was convened and the accused paid the fine of Rs.1,001/-, they have not mentioned the date or time of convening of the panchayat. However, P.W.3 has deposed that there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and the accused after two years of the death of the husband of the deceased and the panchayat was convened within a period of three months. On the other hand, P.W.4 has stated that there was illicit intimacy between her mother and the accused after three years of the death of her father and the panchayat was convened within a period of six months. The learned counsel also submitted that none of the panchayatdars were examined. In view of the above contradictions, the theory of panchayat as one of the circumstances leading to the occurrence has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. 11. The learned counsel would submit that the above witnesses themselves have admitted that even after the panchayat, illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased continued and therefore there was no occasion for the accused to commit the offence of murder. 12. The learned counsel submitted that the second circumstance namely, the seizure of M.O.1, saree said to have been worn by the deceased just prior to the occurrence is doubtful, as P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer has stated that even while he went to the place of seizure, he saw the accused along with P.W.16, the Investigating Officer. 12. The learned counsel submitted that the second circumstance namely, the seizure of M.O.1, saree said to have been worn by the deceased just prior to the occurrence is doubtful, as P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer has stated that even while he went to the place of seizure, he saw the accused along with P.W.16, the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.16 is that only P.W.8 came first to the scene of occurrence and thereafter the accused came to that place. In view of the said contradiction, the seizure of the saree must be disbelieved and the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance relating to the seizure. 13. So far as the evidence of P.W.6 as to the enquiries made by the accused about the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that even according to P.W.6, at the time when the accused allegedly asked him about the whereabouts of the deceased, one Sankaran was also present and the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the said Sankaran is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel would also submit that when the prosecution case rests on the circumstances, the evidence must be continuous and there should not be any missing link. Even for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that the accused enquired as to the whereabouts of the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence, the body of the deceased was found after two days only and no bloodstain was traced in the scene of occurrence or nearby place or on the clothes of the accused. The failure on the part of the Investigating Officer in not tracing the bloodstain in and around the place of occurrence is a serious lapse, whereby the link has not been established. 14. The failure on the part of the Investigating Officer in not tracing the bloodstain in and around the place of occurrence is a serious lapse, whereby the link has not been established. 14. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4,5 & 6, not only the fact of illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased continued, but also the holding of panchayat on one occasion where the accused was made to pay a fine of Rs.1,001/- and in spite of the panchayat, the accused continued her illicit intimacy for sometime and at one point of time, the accused insisted the deceased for continuance of illicit intimacy, which was refused by the deceased, and such continuance of illicit intimacy was not liked by P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, and in view of the same the accused had beaten P.W.4 on one occasion and further when the deceased refused to go with the accused, he had threatened that he will do away her. In view of the above evidence, the motive aspect has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. He would also submit that so far as the seizure of M.O.1 is concerned, it has been made only in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confessional statement of the accused and there is nothing to suggest in the cross examination disputing the seizure and there is also no explanation as to how the accused was in possession of the said M.O.1, saree. He would submit that just prior to the occurrence, when the deceased left the house she worn that saree and the same has been spoken to by P.Ws.3 & 4. The seizure is also spoken to by P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer and of course, there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 16 as to the presence of the accused when P.W.8 came to that place while the confessional statement was recorded. Nevertheless, such contradiction would be very minor and would be immaterial to disbelieve the prosecution case in view of the overwhelming circumstances available in this case. He would also submit that the fact that the deceased worn the saree when she left the house just prior to the occurrence is also referred to in the inquest report. 15. Nevertheless, such contradiction would be very minor and would be immaterial to disbelieve the prosecution case in view of the overwhelming circumstances available in this case. He would also submit that the fact that the deceased worn the saree when she left the house just prior to the occurrence is also referred to in the inquest report. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the evidence of P.W.6 is clear, who has last seen the accused and the enquiries made by him about the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence, but nothing was suggested by the defence to discredit his evidence. The challenge that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be believed because one more person by name Sankaran, who was also present at that time, was not examined cannot be accepted, as it is not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to examine each and every witness and if more than one person is available to speak about a particular aspect, examination of one such person would be sufficient. For all the above reasons, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has established the circumstances without any missing link and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Judge are sustainable and need not be interfered with. .16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. As has been argued before us and also on perusal of the entire materials including the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it is apparent that the prosecution case rests only on the circumstantial evidence, as admittedly there is no eye-witness. In the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court must be very careful while scrutinising the evidence and should see whether the prosecution has established the circumstances without giving any suspicion and without there being any missing link. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, let us now consider the evidence. 17. So far as the illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.W.s.1,3,4,5 & 6 is categorical and consistent. It is not the case of the defence as well that there was no such illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased as could be seen from the cross examination. 17. So far as the illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.W.s.1,3,4,5 & 6 is categorical and consistent. It is not the case of the defence as well that there was no such illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased as could be seen from the cross examination. Though such illicit intimacy has been spoken to by all the witnesses, they have also spoken to about the convening of panchayat on an earlier occasion in regard to the illicit intimacy and the accused was made to pay a fine of Rs.1,001/-. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail their evidence solely on the ground of discrepancy namely, they are not consistent as to the place, time and period of convening of panchayat and none of the panchayatdars were examined. Of course, while P.Ws.1,5 & 6 have spoken to only as to the convening of panchayat and the accused paid a fine of Rs.1,001/-, the evidence of P.W.3 is that the deceased and the accused had illicit intimacy after a period of two years of the demise of her husband and the panchayat was held within a period of three months and while P.W.4 has stated that the deceased and the accused had illicit intimacy after a period of three years of the demise of her husband and the panchayat was held within a period of six months. In our opinion, the discrepancy in the period will not affect the case of the prosecution as it is not that much vital, especially when the witnesses are not that much literate and they hail from a village. Equally the same reason would also be applicable to the contention of the learned counsel for appellant as to the discrepancy in regard to the place of convening of panchayat. .18. So far as the submission that none of the panchayatdars were examined is concerned, again it must be kept in mind that when the convening of panchayat has been spoken to by not less than five witnesses, their evidence cannot be thrown just like that for the simple reason that no panchayatdar was examined. It will be only a repetition of evidence even if the prosecution had examined the panchayatdars. When there are overwhelming evidence atleast through five witnesses, in our opinion, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved for non-examination of any panchayatdar. It will be only a repetition of evidence even if the prosecution had examined the panchayatdars. When there are overwhelming evidence atleast through five witnesses, in our opinion, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved for non-examination of any panchayatdar. In our considered view, that cannot have any impact over the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of the witnesses as to the involvement of the accused in the offence. 19. Let us examine the evidence of P.Ws.3,4 & 5 in respect of refusal on the part of the deceased to go along with the accused. According to the prosecution, after the demise of the husband of the deceased, illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased continued and that too, even after the panchayat. But at one point of time, this was objected to by P.W.4 as could be seen from her evidence. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased and was aged about 12 years at the time of occurrence. In her evidence she has specifically stated that she did not like the accused coming to the house to see her mother and when she objected to that, she was beaten by the accused. P.W.3, who is a neighbour and independent witness, has specifically stated that as the illicit intimacy between the accused and the deceased was not liked by P.W.4, she was beaten and P.W.3 has also spoken that when the accused insisted the deceased for continuance of illicit intimacy, the deceased refused and did not yield and infuriated by that, the accused threatened by uttering that if the deceased did not come with him, he will do away her. This evidence of P.W.3 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5, the brother of the deceased. He has stated that when the deceased told the accused not to come to the house as she has got a girl, P.W.4, the accused again threatened her that if she refused to come, he will kill her. On a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws.3,4 & 5, it is clear that the continuance of illicit intimacy was not only liked by P.W.4 but also by the deceased and when the deceased refused to go along with the accused, she was threatened with dire consequences and when the continuance of illicit intimacy was questioned by P.W.4, the accused had beaten her also. Hence for the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has satisfactorily explained the motive aspect in respect of the illicit intimacy, holding of panchayat and the compulsion on the part of the accused to continue the illicit intimacy even after the panchayat was held and the refusal on the part of the deceased to go along with the accused and finally the threat made by the accused to do away the deceased. .20. The next circumstance to implicate the accused is the evidence of P.W.6. According to P.W.6, just two hours prior to the occurrence, the accused came to him and enquired as to the whereabouts of the deceased. P.W.6 is a neighbour residing just two houses from the house of the deceased and the only attack on his evidence by the defence is while P.W.6 has specifically stated that at the time when the accused allegedly enquired about the deceased, one Sankaran was also present, but the said Sankaran was not examined and therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be believed. In our opinion, the said submission cannot be accepted as, out of the two witnesses who were present when the enquiries were made by the accused, it would be sufficient for the prosecution to examine one witness and there is no compulsion for examining both the witnesses and merely because the other person has not been examined, that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6. Hence the prosecution has established the second link namely, the last seen theory of the accused and the consequential enquiry about the deceased just two hours prior to the occurrence. .21. The other circumstance isthe recovery of the saree, M.O.1. The recovery aspect has been spoken to by P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.8 is the witness for the arrest as well for recording the confessional statement of the accused. The strong piece of evidence against the accused is the recovery of M.O.1, saree and M.O.3, knife. M.O.1 is a white with blue flower designed nylon saree. P.W.3, who is an independent witness and a neighbour, has spoken that just prior to the occurrence the deceased wore the said white with blue flower designed nylon saree. The same is also spoken to by P.W.4 while she has stated that when the deceased left the house just prior to the occurrence, she wore that saree. P.W.3, who is an independent witness and a neighbour, has spoken that just prior to the occurrence the deceased wore the said white with blue flower designed nylon saree. The same is also spoken to by P.W.4 while she has stated that when the deceased left the house just prior to the occurrence, she wore that saree. P.W.6, who is yet another independent witness, has also stated that the deceased wore that saree. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that at the time when the body was found, there was no saree, as the body was decomposed with only blouse and inskirt. The Observation Mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer also indicates the same. In such circumstances, the recovery of M.O.1, saree at the instance of the accused assumes importance showing his involvement in the occurrence. The recovery is sought to be challenged on the ground of discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 16. It is true that P.W.8 has deposed that when he went to the scene place while the confessional statement was recorded, he saw the accused, but he was categorical in stating that only after he reached the spot, the confessional statement was recorded and on the basis of the admissible portion of the confessional statement of the accused, M.O.1 was recovered. To this extent, the evidence of P.W.16 also corroborates. Merely because there is a contradiction as to the evidence of P.Ws.8 & 16 as to the presence of the accused when P.W.8 came to that place would not render the very admissible portion of the confession and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 as illegal giving rise to doubt as to the recovery itself. We are conscious of the fact that a mere recovery cannot be the basis for conviction. It is equally well settled that if the evidence relating to the recovery is also substantiated and strengthened by the other overwhelming evidence, the recovery assumes importance. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC (Crl.) 582 can be usefully referred to. It is equally well settled that if the evidence relating to the recovery is also substantiated and strengthened by the other overwhelming evidence, the recovery assumes importance. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC (Crl.) 582 can be usefully referred to. In that case, while considering the recovery of crime object on the basis of information given by the accused, the Supreme Court has observed that the recovery of crime object on the basis of information given by the accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances and is seldom the foundation of the prosecution case. 22. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for appellant that failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to trace out any bloodstain in the nearby scene of occurrence would amount to a missing link in the circumstances. This aspect must be considered with the factual background namely, that the deceased left the house on the evening of 18. 2001 and her body was found on 18. 2001 at 4.00 p.m. The evidence of the postmortem doctor, P.W.10 is categorical that the body was in a decomposed stage and therefore he could not trace any bloodstain on the body. So far as the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to trace any bloodstain in the nearby place is concerned, though there was no investigation on this aspect, nevertheless, considering the fact that the body was found after two days and no useful information would have been collected by the Investigating Officer even if he had carried investigation on that further and that such act of the Investigating Officer could utmost be said as laxity in investigation or irregularity in the conduct of investigation, which cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case if the prosecution satisfies this Court with all other materials to establish its case. For the same reason, the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that though the witnesses have spoken about the two injuries on the chest, the post-mortem doctor has spoken about only one injury as the body was in a decomposed stage and the above cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case. 23. For the same reason, the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that though the witnesses have spoken about the two injuries on the chest, the post-mortem doctor has spoken about only one injury as the body was in a decomposed stage and the above cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case. 23. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused and there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. We are informed that the accused is on bail. The learned trial Judge shall take steps to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.