Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The appellant, sole accused in the case was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/=, in default, to undergo 6 months S.I. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred. 2. As per the charge framed against the appellant, he was allegedly having illicit intimacy with the deceased who was staying alone near the Bhavani Sagar Dam Park. She was working in the said Park as a Sweeper. On 17. 2006 between 2.00 pm., to 3.00 pm., the appellant took the deceased to her residence and indulged in quarrel demanding money and since the deceased refused to pay, assaulted her on her cheek, due to which she fell down. Thereafter, the appellant strangulated with her saree, in the result, she died and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. When the appellant was questioned initially, he denied the complicity of commission of the offence and pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up and during the course of the trial; the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21, marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 and produced material objects M.Os.1 to 6. 4. The case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses is that the deceased was working as a Sweeper in Bhavani Sagar Dam Park and was staying alone near the Park. The accused was having illicit intimacy and was frequently visiting her at her residence. Under such circumstances, on the date of occurrence also the appellant met the deceased and took her to her residence, and demanded money. On her refusal to give money, slapped on her cheek and when she fell down, strangulated with her saree and thereby committed the murder. Since the deceased was absent at her working place, she was searched and her dead body was found in a putrefied condition in her residence after 4 to 5 days. The investigation of the case was taken up and witnesses have been examined and materials have been recovered to fix up that the appellant is the assailant. 5. P.W.11 was working as an Assistant Engineer at Bhavani Sagar Dam Park where the deceased was working as a Sweeper. According to him, on 17. The investigation of the case was taken up and witnesses have been examined and materials have been recovered to fix up that the appellant is the assailant. 5. P.W.11 was working as an Assistant Engineer at Bhavani Sagar Dam Park where the deceased was working as a Sweeper. According to him, on 17. 2006, the deceased attended the work and left the park at 12.00 noon for attending a function at the residence of her colleague, thereafter she did not turn out. On 17. 2006, since she was continuously absent, he requested P.W.4, who is a casual labour in the same park to enquire about the absence of the deceased for 4 or 5 days. Accordingly, P.W.2, the sister of the deceased was contacted and on enquiry she replied that the deceased did not turn up to her place. P.W.2 in turn informed her brother P.W.1. P.W.1 enquired about the deceased with his relatives and at 5.00 pm., came to the residence of the deceased, which was locked outside, and since the kitchen window was also locked, on opening the window of the kitchen, he found the dead body of the deceased in a putrefied condition. Thereafter, he reported the same to the police. P.W.1 further stated in his evidence that after the death of her husband, the deceased was living alone and she was given the job in the Park on compassionate ground. 6. P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police, Bhavani Sagar Police Station, received the complaint on 17. 2006 at 10.00 pm., and registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2006 under the caption "suspicious death" and Ex.P.14 is the printed FIR and dispatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate and superior police officers. 7. P.W.20 is the Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the FIR, reached the scene of occurrence and since it was dark with the help of Torchlight, found the dead body of the deceased in a decomposed state and directed a Constable to guard the place and summoned the Scientific Assistant and Fingerprint Expert. On 17. 2006, in the presence of VAO, he prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15. 8. P.W.18 is the Fingerprint expert. He examined the marks found in the locks of outer door and Kitchen Room door and took the same for examination. On 17. 2006, in the presence of VAO, he prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.15. 8. P.W.18 is the Fingerprint expert. He examined the marks found in the locks of outer door and Kitchen Room door and took the same for examination. The Inspector of police recovered the locks M.Os.1 and 2 under Ex.P.7 mahazar and given the same to the Fingerprint expert for examination. He has summoned PW.15, Photographer who took photographs at the scene of occurrence. M.O.3 series is the negatives. Thereafter, P.W.20 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 14 and others. Since the dead body of the deceased was in a highly putrefied condition, sent a requisition through P.W.16, constable, to the Medical Officer to conduct postmortem at the scene of occurrence itself. 9. P.W.12 is the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital. On receipt of the requisition in Ex.P.3 from the Investigating Officer, on 17. 2006, conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. He found the dead body in a highly putrefied condition and seen maggots all over the body. He also found the saree tied around the neck of the deceased. He has preserved the hyoid bone and on receipt of report in Ex.P.5, opined that the same is intact. He also stated in Ex.P.2, Postmortem Report that the death of the deceased would have occurred 5 to 10 days prior to the date of postmortem and therefore could not give any reason as to the cause of death since the body was highly and totally decomposed. 10. M.Os. 4 to 6 are the dress and apparels worn by the deceased were recovered under Ex.P.10 mahazar. The incriminating materials were forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.17 is the Court Clerk, who on receipt of the same dispatched the material objects to the Chemical Analyst and received the report in Ex.P.5. On 20.7.2006 and 27. 2006, the Investigating Officer has examined P.Ws 4 to 9 and recorded their statements, who have given information about the illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased. 11. P.W.6 was working as a Ticket Examiner at Bhavani Sagar Dam Park. He has stated in his evidence that on 17. 2006 at 11.00 am., the deceased left from the Park and returned back by 12.00 clock. 11. P.W.6 was working as a Ticket Examiner at Bhavani Sagar Dam Park. He has stated in his evidence that on 17. 2006 at 11.00 am., the deceased left from the Park and returned back by 12.00 clock. Thereafter, she again left the Park by 12.30 pm., for lunch and did not return back. He has further stated that he knew about the illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased. Though P.W.5 has been examined to speak about the illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased, he has been treated as hostile since he did not support the version put forth by the prosecution. 12. P.W.7 was working as a Watchman in the Bhavani Sagar Dam Park and it is his evidence that he knew about the accused and the deceased. On 17. 2006 at 8.30 pm., he has seen the accused near the Park and at that time he was fully drunk. P.W.8 is a casual labour at the Park and it is his evidence that on 17. 2006 at 12.00 noon the deceased attended a function at her residence and after lunch he left and thereafter she was found missing. He has also spoken about the illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased. 13. P.W.9 was having a Tea Shop near the Park gate and it is evidence that he knew about the accused and the deceased and on 17. 2006 at 12.30 pm., he has seen them talking beneath a tree, near the gate, and thereafter they were preceding towards the residence of the deceased. Thereafter, he came to know about the death of the deceased. P.W.10 is residing opposite to the Park and neighbour of the deceased. She has been examined to substantiate that she has seen the accused on 17. 2006 at 4.00 p.m., rushing out of the residence of the deceased. However, she has been treated as hostile since she did not support the case of the prosecution. 14. The accused on 27. 2006 at 9.00 a.m., appeared before P.W.14, Village Administrative Officer and has given a confession statement that it is he who committed the murder of the deceased. The VAO recorded his Statement under Ex.P.8 and also prepared a covering letter Ex.P.9. 14. The accused on 27. 2006 at 9.00 a.m., appeared before P.W.14, Village Administrative Officer and has given a confession statement that it is he who committed the murder of the deceased. The VAO recorded his Statement under Ex.P.8 and also prepared a covering letter Ex.P.9. It was informed to the Inspector of Police who came to the office of the VAO and took the custody of the accused at 11.30 a.m., Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the accused in the presence of the VAO and Village Assistant and thereafter received the fingerprints of the accused in the Police Station. 15. P.W.18, Fingerprint expert on receipt of sample finger prints of the accused produced by the Investigating Officer and on comparison of the fingerprints lifted from M.Os.1 and 2 Locks, has given the final report in Ex.P.13, wherein he has opined that M.Os.1 and 2 contain the fingerprints of the accused. 16. P.W.21, took up further investigation of the case and after receipt of the opinion from the Medical Officer and Report from the Fingerprint Expert concluded the investigation and laid final report on 19. 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 17. During the course of trial before the he learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating materials produced by the prosecution, the accused denied complicity of the crime and pleaded innocence. Neither oral, nor documentary materials were produced by the defence. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and aggrieved against the same, the present appeal is filed. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.9 has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate that both the accused and the deceased were seen together prior to the commission of the offence. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17. 2006 and the deceased was found missing thereafter. It is his evidence that he came to know about the death of the deceased only on 17. 2006. The evidence of P.W.9 is highly artificial and unreliable. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17. 2006 and the deceased was found missing thereafter. It is his evidence that he came to know about the death of the deceased only on 17. 2006. The evidence of P.W.9 is highly artificial and unreliable. The dead body of the deceased was found inside the locked residence of the deceased and there is every possibility of an unknown assailant entering into the residence and such unknown assailant would have committed such offence. Even if the allegation of illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased is accepted for the sake of argument, in the absence of any material to substantiate that it is a homicidal violence and materials connecting the appellant with the crime, on surmises and conjectures, conviction cannot be ordered in a grave case like this. P.W.4, is the Village Administrative Officer, who attested the mahazar in the rough sketch etc., He was present on 16. 2006 and he has participated in the investigation and was assisting the Investigating Officer and under such circumstances, it is curious that the accused appeared before him on 27. 2006 and given the confession statement and the same is highly artificial. According to the learned counsel, the alleged confession is a concocted document. 19. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the medical evidence, there is no fracture of the hyoid bone and under such circumstances, the allegation put forward by the prosecution that the appellant strangulated the deceased and committed the death of the deceased has not been substantiated. In a case which rests on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are not complete and the accused is entitled for acquittal. 20. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is the Medical opinion that the death of the deceased was due to homicidal violence. As per the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.6 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.8, the house of the deceased was locked. In the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and Scientific Assistant, finger prints found on the locks were subjected to examination by the Fingerprint Expert and after arrest of the accused, sample fingerprints were obtained, and on comparison, opinion was received that the locks (M.Os.1 and 2) contain the fingerprints of the accused. This is a very strong piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. This is a very strong piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased has been proved through several witnesses. The accused was seen in the company of the deceased on the date of occurrence. Even subsequent to the date of occurrence the accused was seen near the residence of the deceased. Though P.W.14, VAO has participated in the investigation, there is nothing wrong in recording the extra judicial confession in the event of the accused appearing before him. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has established its case and the circumstances put forth are sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime. 21. We have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both sides. 22. The illicit intimacy of the accused with the deceased has been established and the deceased was living alone and; witnesses have seen the accused in the company of the deceased prior to the occurrence and even on the date of occurrence. It is the positive evidence of P.W.9 that the accused was in the company of the deceased on the date of occurrence. Thereafter the deceased was found missing and her house was locked. It is the evidence of P.W.11 that the deceased was not attending her work from the date of occurrence and only on suspicion and on his instruction P.W.14 given information to P.Ws.1 and 2, brother and sister of the deceased respectively and only thereafter enquiries were made and after seeing the dead body of the deceased in a putrefied condition inside her residence, the investigation has been taken up. Even at the initial stage, since the assailant was unknown, the complaint given by P.W.1 has been treated as a case of "suspicious murder". It is only thereafter, during the course of investigation, and after examination of the witnesses, who are neighbours, the complicity of the accused came to light. There are positive evidence to substantiate that the accuses was moving closely with the deceased. Though the external injuries on the dead body of the could not be found out since it was in a highly and totally decomposed condition, the Doctor himself has stated that saree was found tied around the neck of the deceased. It is the positive evidence of the Doctor that the death was due to strangulation. Though the external injuries on the dead body of the could not be found out since it was in a highly and totally decomposed condition, the Doctor himself has stated that saree was found tied around the neck of the deceased. It is the positive evidence of the Doctor that the death was due to strangulation. It is also pertinent to note that fracture of hyoid bone depends on the area of pressure applied. If the saree compresses the hyoid bone it may fracture. On the other hand, if the saree compresses the neck below hyoid bone it will not fracture. Therefore, it cannot be contended that since there is no fracture on the hyoid bone, there could not have been strangulation. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the deceased therefore died on homicidal violence by the accused. 23. Further, the opinion of the Fingerprint Expert is positive that not only in the outside door lock, but also in the lock of the kitchen room where the dead body was found contain the fingerprints of the deceased. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution put forth several circumstances and we are of the considered view that all the circumstances are strong enough and the chain of circumstances are so complete pointing an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone has committed the offence. The reasons given by the Sessions Court to convict the accused are well founded and while agreeing with the findings, we confirm the conviction and sentence on the appellant. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed the confirming the judgment dated 12. 2007 made in S.C.No. 191 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-2), Gobichettipalayam.