Judgment R. Banumathi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment in S.C.No.11/2002 convicting the first appellant/first accused U/s.302 IPC and second appellant/second accused U/s.302 r/w.109 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. 2. Briefly stated case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 are close associates and doing business of preparing wash and selling to sellers of illicit arrack. Deceased Yesubalan is distiller of illicit arrack and owed a sum of Rs.500/-to A1 and A2 towards purchase of wash. On the morning of 5. 2001, A1 and A2 demanded money from the deceased. Deceased Yesubalan told them that he has stopped distillation of illicit arrack and requested time for paying the amount which resulted in wordy quarrel. PW1-Prakasam and PW2-John (wife and brother of the deceased) asked deceased to give back money to the accused. On 05. 2001, deceased took meal at about 8.00 P.M. and left for shop and did not return back. Later deceased was found dead with bleeding injuries in the field of Chinnalagan. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of 5. 2001, due to enmity A1 [Philip @ Johnwilliam] assaulted deceased with stone on his face, forehead, head and eyes and caused bleeding injuries and again assaulted Yesubalan with MO3-Big stone, when he turned facing the earth. A2 abetted the Commission of offence by holding the legs of the deceased. Yesubalan succumbed to injuries instantaneously. 4. On the morning of 5. 2001, PW1-Prakasam learnt about lying of body of her husband. After seeing the body, PW1 went to Bommidy Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-Complaint at about 10.00 A.M., on the basis of which Ex.P13-FIR was registered in Cr.No.216/2001 U/s.302 IPC. 5. PW13-Suresh Kumar, Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation and on inspection of scene of occurrence, PW13 prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P14-Rough plan. Bloodstained mud [MO1], sample mud [MO2] were seized under Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar. In the presence of panchayatdars, Inquest was held on the body of Yesubalan and Ex.P15 is the Inquest Report. After Inquest, body was sent for autopsy. 6. On requisition from PW13-Investigating Officer, PW8-Dr.Meena had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Yesubalan. PW8 noticed lacerated wounds on the right side of forehead, right eye, right cheek and right temporal region and occipital region. PW8 also noticed fracture of lower jaw cut centre into two pieces. After Inquest, body was sent for autopsy. 6. On requisition from PW13-Investigating Officer, PW8-Dr.Meena had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Yesubalan. PW8 noticed lacerated wounds on the right side of forehead, right eye, right cheek and right temporal region and occipital region. PW8 also noticed fracture of lower jaw cut centre into two pieces. On opening of the skull both sides of the frontal and parietal and occipital bones and both sides of the anterior and posterior are fractured. Opining that death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the head injuries, PW8 Dr. Meena issued Ex.P12-Post-mortem certificate. 7. On 15. 2001, first accused surrendered before PW6-Natarajan[VAO] and has given confession statement which was reduced into writing [Ex.P4]. PW6-VAO handed over Ex.P4 and first accused to Bommidi Ps. On being interrogated, first accused gave a confession statement which led to recovery of Mos.3 and 4-Stones from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P6-Seizure mahazar. On 15. 2001, Investigating Officer has examined and recorded statement of PWs.3 and 4 U/s.161 Cr.P.C. who saw the deceased in the company of the accused. Upon receipt of chemical analysis report and on due completion of investigation, PW13 has filed the charge sheet. 8. To substantiate charges against the accused, PWs.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 8 were marked. Accused were questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Accused denied all of them and pleaded that false case is foisted against them. 9. Upon consideration of evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants/accused U/s.302 and 302 r/w.109 IPC respectively and imposed life sentence and fine as aforesaid in Para (1). 10. Challenging the conviction of the appellants, Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel for the appellants contended that trial court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. It was mainly argued that there was delay in examination of PWs.3 and 4 and also receipt of their statements in Court and while so, trial court ought not to have relied upon their evidence. It was also argued that the alleged extra-judicial confession is totally unreliable. 11. We have heard Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor [i/c]. It was mainly argued that there was delay in examination of PWs.3 and 4 and also receipt of their statements in Court and while so, trial court ought not to have relied upon their evidence. It was also argued that the alleged extra-judicial confession is totally unreliable. 11. We have heard Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor [i/c]. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on motive and other circumstances prosecution adduced cogent convincing evidence and based on that evidence, trial court rightly convicted the appellants U/s.302 and 302 r/w.109 IPC respectively. It was further argued that delay in examination of witnesses would not affect the core of prosecution case. 12. It is settled law that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with their innocence. 13. In the instant case, prosecution relies upon the following circumstances:- "Motive; "Deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused; "Death was homicidal; "Extra-judicial confession of A1 to PW6-VAO; "Arrest and confession of first accused and recovery of Mos.3 and 4[Stones]. 14. Whether, learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in holding that circumstances and evidence adduced conclusively establish the guilt of the accused is the point falling for our consideration. 15. PWs.1 and 2-Wife and brother of deceased have spoken about the deceased engaged in distillation of illicit arrack and selling to the accused and owed money of Rs.500/- to the accused. PWs.1 and 2 have spoken in one voice about demand of money by the accused 1 and 2 on the morning of 05. 2001 and threat meted out to the deceased. PW2-John pacified both of them and asked his brother-deceased to pay back the money. At about 8.00 P.M. deceased has taken his night meal and went out. Case of prosecution is that refusal of deceased to pay back the money and wordy quarrel in the morning impelled the accused No. 1 and 2 to commit the offence. 16. In a case of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive assumes significance. At about 8.00 P.M. deceased has taken his night meal and went out. Case of prosecution is that refusal of deceased to pay back the money and wordy quarrel in the morning impelled the accused No. 1 and 2 to commit the offence. 16. In a case of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive assumes significance. Evidence of PW1 brings home enmity of accused 1 and 2 which heightens probability of the offence and that accused 1 and 2 was impelled by that motive. Proof of motive strengthens the prosecution case. 17. PWs.3 and 4 are key witnesses for the prosecution. Evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is to the effect that on the night of 05. 2001 – 9.00 P.M., while they were returning after cutting sugarcane, they have seen the accused 1 and 2 and the deceased in the field of Chinnalagan. PWs.3 and 4 have stated that accused 1 and 2 were quarrelling with the deceased demanding money. In their evidence, PWs.3 and 4 have further stated that they pacified the accused 1 and 2 and deceased and settle their problem in the morning. Evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is very much relied upon by the prosecution to prove vital link that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. 18. PWs.3 and 4 being key witnesses, their evidence was assailed on various grounds:- "PW4-Selvakumar is the sisters son of deceased Yesubalan. "PW3-Johnpeter is also closely related to the deceased. Therefore, evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that they are interested witnesses and it would be unsafe to rely upon their evidence. 19. Relationship is not a factor affecting the credence of witness. Mechanical rejection of evidence on the ground that witness is related would invariably lead to injustice. Judicious approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence. 20. Observing that relationship of a witness is not a ground to reject the testimony of witness, in (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1562 [Salim Sahab v. State of M.P.], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "14. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singhs case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 . We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel. 21. To the same effect is the decision in Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) MLJ (Crl) 312; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407 : (1974) 3 SCC 277 : (1974) MLJ (Crl) 150; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76 and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa AIR 2002 SC 3633 : (2002) 8 SCC 381 . 22. In our considered view, PWs.3 and 4 being the relative witnesses cannot be characterised as partisan or interested witnesses. We find no force in the contention that trial court erred in relying upon the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW3-Johnpeter was very well present during Inquest and if really he had seen the deceased and the accused 1 and 2 on the night of 09.05.2001, he would have certainly volunteered to come forward to state about seeing of deceased with the accused 1 and 2 on the night of 09.05.2001. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW3-Johnpeter was very well present during Inquest and if really he had seen the deceased and the accused 1 and 2 on the night of 09.05.2001, he would have certainly volunteered to come forward to state about seeing of deceased with the accused 1 and 2 on the night of 09.05.2001. It was further argued the circumstance that PWs.3 and 4 have not volunteered to give statement before the Investigating Officer would throw serious doubts about their credibility and it would be unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. 24. Of course, PWs.3 and 4 have not volunteered to give statement before the Investigating Officer, at the threshold of investigation. Both of them were examined only on 15. 2001. Criminal offences are committed in secrecy. In these days when everybody is busy in their pre-occupation, witnesses may not volunteer to give statement as to the occurrence which they have witnessed. At times, it may happen that after witnessing the occurrence, fearing arduous process involved in the investigation process by the Police and the Court procedure, witnesses may disincline to come forward to state as to what they have witnessed. The general apathy of a common man also to be kept in mind. In our considered view the fact that the circumstance PWs.3 and 4 have not come forward to give a statement as to what they have witnessed on the night of 09.05.2001 is not a ground to doubt their testimony. 25. PWs.3 and 4 happen to see the deceased with the accused 1 and 2 on the night of 05. 2001. Investigating Officer has examined PWs.3 and 4 on 15. 2001 and their statement was received in Court on 26. 2001. Drawing our attention to the delay in receipt of statement of PWs.3 and 4, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was inordinate delay in examination of PWs.3 and 4 and also receipt of their statement recorded U/s.161 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court. 26. Insofar as, contention as regards delay in examination of PWs.3 and 4, during trial Investigating Officer has to be categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of witnesses. By careful reading of evidence of PWs.3 and 4, we find that Investigating Officer was not questioned as to the reason for delay in recording statement of PWs.3 and 4. By careful reading of evidence of PWs.3 and 4, we find that Investigating Officer was not questioned as to the reason for delay in recording statement of PWs.3 and 4. In any event, it cannot be said that delay in recording statement of witnesses would seriously affect the credibility of those witnesses. 27. Dealing on the question of delay in examination of witnesses by the Investigating Officer, in 2005 AIR SCW 905 [State of U.P. v. Satish], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "19. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion." 28. The same effect is the decision in Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1973 SC 1409 ], Bodhraj alias Bodha and others v. State of J & K [ 2002 (8) SCC 45 ] and Banti alias Guddu v. State of M.P. [ 2004 (1) SCC 414 ]. 29. Evidence of PWs.3 and 4 clearly establishes that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused 1 and 2. Therefore, it is for the accused 1 and 2 to explain the missing of deceased Yesubalan. 30. Observing that if deceased was last seen alive with the accused, he must offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 861 (SC) [State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram], the Supreme Court held as under:- "22. ...... Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. ...... Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden case upon him by Sec.106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. ....... " In the instant case, prosecution has proved that accused 1 and 2 and deceased were seen together prior to the occurrence. While so, it is the duty of the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased. 31. Case of prosecution is that first accused surrendered himself on 15. 2001 before PW6-VAO and said to have given Ex.P4-Confession statement. Thereafter, PW6-VAO produced the first accused before the Police. Confession statement of the first accused led to recovery of Mos.3 and 4-Stones. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that accused were taken to police custody even on 15. 2001. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that extra-judicial confession [Ex.P4] allegedly recorded by PW6-VAO and the arrest and recovery are concocted to bolster the prosecution case. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that investigation already commenced on 5. 2001 and accused were taken to police custody on 15. 2001 and while so, the alleged extra-judicial confession recorded on 15. 2001 is false and cannot be relied upon to record conviction. Placing reliance upon 2007 (1) LW (Crl) 555 [Ravi @ Ravichandran and another v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Steel Plant Ps. Salem], learned counsel for the appellants further argued that unless a person trusts another, there is no question of confessing his guilt to that person. It was therefore contended that there is no evidence to show that PW6-VAO was known to first accused and in the absence of such evidence, no credence could be attached to Ex.P4-Confession statement. 33. In 2002-(2)-LW (Crl) 746 [Ganesan v. State rep. It was therefore contended that there is no evidence to show that PW6-VAO was known to first accused and in the absence of such evidence, no credence could be attached to Ex.P4-Confession statement. 33. In 2002-(2)-LW (Crl) 746 [Ganesan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Harur Ps.], Division Bench of this Court ruled that though it is not possible to state that the confession statement recorded by the Village Administrative Officer is illegal or inadmissible, the probative value would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus making it clear a confession statement be recorded after the investigation has begun, despite the prohibition contained in Rule 72 and its probative value has to be tested, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 34. In 1995-(2)-LW (Crl) 513 [Raju & 2 others v. State, etc.], Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "..... Confession made to Village Administrative Officer, two weeks after the occurrence is unreliable. But, in our case the confession statement was said to have been recorded on the very next day, and therefore, if the confession statement is proved to be true, and genuine relying upon that statement may be permissible, to certain extent." 35. The main thrust of arguments of the appellants is that even assuming that VAO is not totally barred from recording an extra-judicial confession by Rule 72, if the statement is recorded after the investigation has begun, then it should be hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C. which prohibits totally the use of any such statement. 36. Ex.P13-FIR was registered even on 09.05.2001 and investigation already commenced. Observing that after commencement of investigation any statement recorded by VAO is inadmissible in evidence and referring to various decisions in 2004-(2)-LW (Crl) 830 [Arumugam v. State by Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station], Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- "25. .... The Criminal Rules of Practice are framed by the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the previous approval of the Governor and therefore, generally it should have the enforcing effect. .... The Criminal Rules of Practice are framed by the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the previous approval of the Governor and therefore, generally it should have the enforcing effect. Rule 78 says "Village Magistrates are absolutely prohibited from reducing to writing any confession or statement whatever made by an accused person after the police investigation has begun." Thus it is seen, a prohibition is imposed upon the Village Magistrates from recording any statement that too, confession also. Admittedly in this case as spoken by PW7 the extra judicial confession was recorded on 30.9.91 at about 6 am, that is, after the investigation has begun. ....." 29. .... Though Ex.P4 was not recorded by the Police Officer, since the extra judicial confession is said to have been recorded during the course of investigation, we are of the opinion, Ex.P4 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and in this view it is inadmissible in evidence which should follow, this could not be the strong piece of evidence, to inflict a conviction or to sustain the same." In the instant case also, VAO has recorded confession statement after the investigation has begun and we are of the considered view that no credence could be attached to Ex.P4-Confession statement and the arrest and recovery of Mos3 and 4. 37. Even if Ex.P4-Confession statement recorded by PW6-VAO and recovery of Mos.3 and 4-Stones are eschewed from evidence, we find that there are formable circumstances connecting the accused 1 and 2 with the commission of offence. Cumulative circumstances – motive and occurrence on the morning of 05. 2001 and that deceased was last seen alive with the accused 1 and 2 lead to irresistible conclusion guilt of the accused. Upon analysis of facts and evidence and other circumstances, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 U/s.302 and 302 r/w109 IPC respectively. 38. In the result, conviction of the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 U/s.302 and 302 r/w.109 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants/accused respectively in S.C.No.11/2002 is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused and commit them in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.