Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment in S.C.319/2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri convicting the appellant/first accused U/s.302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.5000/- for the conviction U/s.302 IPC and RI for 2 years for the conviction U/s.201 IPC and also imposing fine Rs.1000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell are as follows:- A1 is the son of deceased Vellachiammal. PW2-Govindan, and PW3-Rajendran, are the brothers of A1 and sons of deceased Vellachiammal. A1-Murugan and deceased Vellachiammal were residing at Kollahallipudur village. Partition was effected in the family house and a portion was allotted to PW2-Govindan and deceased Vellachiammal. A1 has been demanding from his mother Vellachiammal to give the house to him which was refused by the deceased. Therefore, A1 and A2 are alleged to have developed enmity towards Vellachammal and decided to do away with her. 3. On 06.03.2004 at about 05.30 a.m in front of the house of deceased-Vellachiammal, out of enmity A1 assaulted deceased-Vellachiammal with MO7-Uruttukattai and throttled her neck with left hand. A1 and A2 are alleged to have put the body of deceased Vellachiammal in a plastic gunny bag and tied with thread rope. A1 took the bag on the backside of the carrier of his cycle and the gunny bag containing body of Vellachiammal was thrown in Morappur-Salem railway track. 4. From Village Assitant, PW1-VAO came to know about the occurrence. PW1 then prepared Ex.P1 complaint in the prescribed form and lodged the complaint with Dharmapuri Police Station. PW18-Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.259/2004 u/s.302 and 201 IPC under Ex.P16-FIR. PW21-Inspector of Police taken up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2-Observation mahazar and Ex.P18-Rough plan. MO2-Chappal and MO1-Artificial teeth set were seized under Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar. 5. In the meanwhile on 06.03.2004, one Kannan attached to Morappur Railway Station found dead body of a female lying at K.M.270/29-271/1, at Puttireddipatti-Morappur line and informed the same to Station Master of Morappur Railway Station [PW11], who in turn sent a message to Salem Railway Station. On receipt of complaint, PW8-Salem Station Master lodged EX.P9-Complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Salem Railway Police. On receipt of complaint, PW8-Salem Station Master lodged EX.P9-Complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Salem Railway Police. On the basis of EX.P9-Complaint, PW19-Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.90/2004 u/s.174 Cr.P.C. On 06.03.2004, PW19 took up investigation and prepared Rough plan regarding the place where body was found. Inquest was held on the female body (then unidentified) and Ex.P19 is the inquest report. After inquest, body was sent to Post Mortem. On receipt of requisition, PW20-Dr.Ravishankar conducted autopsy on the body of deceased. Opining that deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and that injuries are ante-mortem. PW20 issued Ex.P23-Post Mortem Certificate. On receipt of Post Mortem Certificate, PW19 altered the section of law into one u/s. 302 IPC and sent Ex.P20-Express Report to the Court. In the meanwhile PWs 2 and 3-sons of deceased Vellachiammal identified the body of the deceased. 6. On receipt of information PW21-Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri went to the place where the body of the deceased was found and he prepared Ex.P5-Observation Mahazar on 09.03.2004 and first accused was arrested. His confession statement led to recovery of Mos5 to 9 under Ex.P5 to P9 Seizure Mahazar. On receipt of chemical report and on completion of investigation, PW21 filed final report against accused under section 302 and 201 IPC. 7. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the Trial Court prosecution has examined PWs1 to 21. Exs.P1 to P25 and MOs 1 to 16 were marked. PWs.1 to 3 and 6 who saw the appellant/first accused carrying the gunny bag and others are examined. Accused were questioned u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, about incriminating circumstances and evidence. The accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty. 8. Upon consideration of evidence the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that guilt of first accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant/1st Accused u/s.302 and 201 IPC and imposed sentence and fine as aforesaid in Para 1. Finding that there is no incriminating evidence to connect second accused with the crime, learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the second accused. 9. Mr. A.E. Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no one has given complaint setting law in motion. Finding that there is no incriminating evidence to connect second accused with the crime, learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the second accused. 9. Mr. A.E. Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no one has given complaint setting law in motion. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that to base conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish all pieces of incriminating circumstances and in this case, prosecution has not conclusively established guilt of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that prosecution case is driven with several contradictions and infirmities, which raise serious doubts about the prosecution version. 10. Contending that prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution has proved vital circumstances like motive and evidence of PW6 which would clinchingly point to the guilt of the first accused and based upon the circumstantial evidence, trial court rightly convicted the appellant/first accused U/s.302 and 201 IPC. 11. It has been consistently laid by the Apex Court that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 12. In AIR 1954 SC 621 [Bhagar Ram v. State of Punjab], it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. 13. A reference may be made to decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 ). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of Apex Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of Apex Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 14. The above aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, AIR 2003 SC 3601 : (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; State of Haryanan v. Jagbir Singh and another, AIR 2003 SC 4377 : (2003 ) 11 SCC 261). 15. Whether the trial court was right in holding the facts and circumstances conclusively point to the guilt of the accused is the point falling for consideration. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness and the entire case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. 16. Prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances and adduced evidence:- "Motive "Prior to the occurrence i.e. on 03. 2004, deceased Vellachiammal was assaulted by A1 and A2 and that she reported the same to PWs.2 & 3 and PW3-Rajendran warned first accused not to assault the mother. "Death is homicidal. "PW6-Deepakrishnan has spoken about A1 carrying the gunny bag containing body of the deceased. "Dead body of Vellachiammal was recovered from railway track. "Subsequent conduct of the accused in absconding. 17. Insofar as motive, prosecution has examined brothers of A1 i.e. PW2-Govindan and PW3-Rajendran. Both PWs.2 and 3 have spoken in one voice about the allotment of one portion of the house to accused and PW3-Rajendran and another portion to PW2-Govindan and Vellachiammal. "Dead body of Vellachiammal was recovered from railway track. "Subsequent conduct of the accused in absconding. 17. Insofar as motive, prosecution has examined brothers of A1 i.e. PW2-Govindan and PW3-Rajendran. Both PWs.2 and 3 have spoken in one voice about the allotment of one portion of the house to accused and PW3-Rajendran and another portion to PW2-Govindan and Vellachiammal. Admittedly, PW3-Rajendran had given his portion to appellant/first accused himself. Pws.2 and 3 have consistently spoken that first accused was insisting upon his mother-deceased Vellachiammal to give away another portion of the house also to the first accused. Reluctant to part with another portion resulted in frequent quarrel between accused and the deceased-Vellachiammal. 18. On 03. 2004 also deceased-Vellachiammal was assaulted by A1 and A2 and she reported the matter to Pws.2 and 3. About 2 days prior to the occurrence PW3-Rajendran brought the mother back to the house and warned first accused not to ill-treat the mother. 19. In cases of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. Proof of motive that first accused was having an eye on the house property and was frequently quarrelling with his mother is a strong piece of evidence which probabilises the prosecution version. 20. Body of the deceased Vellachiammal was recovered from the railway track between Puttireddi patti railway station and Morappur railway station on 3. 2004 at 11.45 hours. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar conducted autopsy and noticed abrasions on the right chest, left chest, left side lower jaw, middle of chin, back of right elbow, right hip ...... and laceration over vertex of scalp and four contusions on the right side of lower jaw was also noticed. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar noticed the following corresponding internal injuries:- 1. Contusion over temporal and whole of occipital region of scalp. 2. Obliquely placed fissured fracture over the middle of right half of occipital bone of vault of skull. 3. Sub-dural and sub-arachnoid over the entire surface of both cerebral hemisphere of brain. 4. Internal injury No.2 was found continuing as fissured fracture over the whole of floor of middle of right posterior cranial fossas up to the rim of forearm magnum of base of skull. 5. Comminuted fracture involving the left half of lower jaw with extensive contusion involving the surrounding muscles. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 5. Comminuted fracture involving the left half of lower jaw with extensive contusion involving the surrounding muscles. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar was cross examined at length suggesting that injuries could have been caused due to hit by a train. PW20-Dr.Ravisankar categorically stated that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased Vellachiammal were Antemortem. PW20 also emphatically denied the suggestion that injuries were due to hit by a train. By definite opinion evidence of PW20-Dr.Ravisankar, prosecution has established homicidal death. 21. Defence plea that death could have been caused due to hit by a train is also improbabilised by lie of the body from where it was recovered. We have carefully examined, Ex.P25-Rough plan. By perusal of Ex.P25-Rough plan, we find that dead body was found away from the railway track improbabilising plea of run over as suggested by the defence. It is also pertinent to note that MO5-Gunny bag, MO6-Electrical wire and MO7-Uruttukattai were also recovered about 80 feet away from the place where body was found. 22. Appellant was arrested on 03. 2004. His confession statement led to the recovery of Mos.5 to 7 from railway track. In fact, during questioning U/s.313 Cr.P.C. accused never stated that he was arrested by the Police even on 3. 2004 itself. 23. Drawing our attention to the evidence of PW2, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the cross examination, PW2 has stated that he has learnt that accused was arrested on 3. 2004 itself and that PW2 had seen first accused on 3. 2004. It was therefore contended that the variation regarding time of arrest throws a serious doubt upon prosecution case. It was therefore contended prosecution case is falsified, since accused could not have been arrested in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. By perusal of evidence of PW2, we find that at the fag end of the cross examination, PW2 has stated that he has learnt about the arrest of the accused on the evening of 3. 2004. After lengthy cross examination, overawed by the court atmosphere, PW2 might have been slightly confused about the date. Statement of PW2 that he saw the accused in the Police station on 3. 2004. After lengthy cross examination, overawed by the court atmosphere, PW2 might have been slightly confused about the date. Statement of PW2 that he saw the accused in the Police station on 3. 2004 would not in any way affect substratum of prosecution case nor does it affect the version of Investigating Officer regarding arrest of the accused and seizure of Mos.5 to 7. 24. Death being homicidal is a strong circumstance militating against the accused. Accused and deceased mother were residing in adjacent portions of the house i.e. Door No.4/48 & 4/46. Mother being resident of next adjacent portion, first accused being son of the deceased is bound to explain as to missing of the mother. If really, deceased was hit by a train, it is for the appellant to explain as to how and when deceased went and what is the response from the appellant. Absolutely, there is none. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the subsequent conduct of the accused in absconding till 3. 2004 is yet another strong circumstance militating against the accused. 25. Evidence of PW6-Deepakrishnan is yet another piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Case of the prosecution is that appellant had taken the dead body in a gunny bag and carried the same in the carrier of his cycle. On 3. 2004 at about 7.00 A.M., PW6-Deepakrishnan, native of the same area Rajapettai saw the first accused carrying gunny bag in the carrier of his cycle. Learned Sessions Judge rightly relied upon the evidence of PW6 as one of the link evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the offence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the defence plea that PW6 is an interested witness, his brothers daughter was married to the son of PW3-Rajendran. As such we do not find any reason to take a different view. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution witnesses have stated that they seen the Police in the village at 8O clock whereas FIR was registered at 10.00 A.M. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that variation in the time of registration of FIR and visit by the Police would throw serious doubt about the prosecution case and it is clearly suggestive that prosecution has not come out with true facts of the case. It was further argued that earlier FIR was suppressed by the prosecution. It was further argued that earlier FIR was suppressed by the prosecution. We are not impressed by the above submission. When the witnesses have deposed before the court after a lapse of time, we cannot expect them to exactly remember time and date of inspection of Police officers. In our considered view any variation in the time as stated by the witnesses would not affect the core of the prosecution case. 27. Upon analysis of facts and evidence and by evaluating the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that prosecution has convincingly established the circumstances. Proved circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The offence is heinous one. First accused committing murder of his own mother and thereafter effacing the traces evidence by throwing the body in the railway track. In our considered view, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant/accused U/s.302 and 201 IPC and conviction and sentence of imprisonment does not warrant any interference. 28. In the result, Judgment in S.C.319/2005 convicting the appellant/first accused U/s.302 & 201 IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant/first accused is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the appellant and commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.