Judgment Common Judgment R. Banumathi, J 1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment in S.C.No.143/2007 dated 310. 2007 convicting the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 U/s.302 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.1000/-each. Appellants/accused No.1 to 3 were acquitted of the charges U/s.120(B) and 201 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell are as follows:- Deceased Kesavan and the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 were associates. Deceased was addicted to drinks and frequently asking for money. On 01. 2007, deceased asked for money from the second accused and threatened them. Since, deceased was frequently asking for money, second accused retorted saying that they would finish him. 3. After taking tea, on 05.01.2007 at 9.00 P.M., PW5-Ashok and PW6-Sivakumar were talking to PW4-Ganesan. Accused No.1 to 3 came there and deceased was talking to first accused. First accused and deceased went to garbage dumping yard. Within short while, second accused had taken knife from the shop of PW4 and followed first accused and deceased. Third accused-Sahayaraj later proceeded to garbage dumping yard. PWs.4 to 6 continued to be talking with each other. At about 11.00 P.M., accused No.1 to 3 alone came and on seeing PWs.4 to 6, they went away. 4. On 01. 2007, PW3-Alauddin went to garbage dumping yard, noticed foul smell emanating. On seeing the body in that place, PW3 informed PW1-Rajagopal [VAO]. PW1 went to the place where the body was lying, lodged Ex.P1-Complaint before the Coimbatore B11 Police Station. On the basis of Ex.P1-Complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.28/2007 for suspicious death U/s.174 Cr.P.C.[Ex.P15]. 5. PW18-Inspector of Police had taken up investigation. He has inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of PWa11-Kumar and another witness and prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P16-Rough Plan. Photographs were also taken. In the presence of panchayatdars, witnesses were examined and Inquest was held on the body of the deceased Kesavan. Ex.P17 is the Inquest Report. After Inquest, body was sent for autopsy. MO2-bloodstained tar and MO3-sample tar were seized under Ex.P3-Mahazar. 6. On requisition from Inspector of Police, PW14-Dr.Malliga conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Kesavan. PW14 noticed the following injuries:- "Horizontally oblique incised wound 4 x 1 x 1cm over the middle of neck below chin. "Oblique cut wound 16 x 6-2cm over top of left shoulder. MO2-bloodstained tar and MO3-sample tar were seized under Ex.P3-Mahazar. 6. On requisition from Inspector of Police, PW14-Dr.Malliga conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Kesavan. PW14 noticed the following injuries:- "Horizontally oblique incised wound 4 x 1 x 1cm over the middle of neck below chin. "Oblique cut wound 16 x 6-2cm over top of left shoulder. "Vertically oblique cut wound 3 x 1cm over inner aspect of left eyebrow. "Abrasions over right forehead, tip of nose, left cheek, front of lower part of neck and upper chest, back of right elbow and below the medial aspect of right knee. After obtaining viscera report, PW14 gave final opinion opining that deceased died of multiple injuries sustained by him and PW14 issued Ex.P12-Post mortem certificate. From the body of the deceased Kesavan, MO9-bloodstained shirt, MO11-Jatty and MO12-Banian were seized. 7. On 01. 2007, accused No.3 [Sahayaraj] alleged to have gone to PW12-Ravindrarajan and gave extra-judicial confession [Ex.P4] which was reduced into writing. Thereafter, PW12 handed over accused No.3 along with Ex.P4 to the Police Station. Accused No.3 was arrested by the Investigating Officer-PW18. On being interrogated, accused No.3 voluntarily given confession statement which led to recovery of MO5-bloodstained white colour shirt and MO10-bloodstained jeans pant which were seized under Ex.P6-Mahazar. 8. On 01. 2007 at 12.30 noon, PW18 arrested accused No.1. On being interrogated, accused No.1 had voluntarily gave confession statement which led to recovery of MO8bloodstained knife, MO6-bloodstained shirt and MO4-bloodstained jeans pant which were seized under Ex.P8-Mahazar. On the same day [01. 2007] at 14.30 hours, PW18 arrested accused No.2. On being interrogated, accused No.2 had voluntarily given confession statement which led to recovery of MO1-bloodstained bill hook, MO9bloodstained shirt and MO10-bloodstained jeans pant which were seized under Ex.P10-Mahazar. 9. Since accused No.2 was having injury on his left leg, he was sent to treatment. PW15-Dr. Saravanakumar treated second accused and opining that the injury sustained by the second accused was simple in nature, PW15 issued Ex.P14-Accident Register. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of due investigation, Investigating Officer filed final report U/s.120(B), 302 and 201 IPC. 10. To substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 19. Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 12 were marked. Accused were questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of due investigation, Investigating Officer filed final report U/s.120(B), 302 and 201 IPC. 10. To substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 19. Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 12 were marked. Accused were questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case was foisted against them. 11. Upon consideration of evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that evidence of PWs.4 to 6 and other circumstances convincingly establish that appellants were responsible for the death of deceased Kesavan and convicted the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 as stated in Para (1). Learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 from the charges U/s.120(B) and 201 IPC. 12. Mr. C.D. Sugumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.3 in C.A.No.1152/2007 and Mr. R. Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 in C.A.No.60/2008 contended that PWs.4 to 6 being the stock witnesses, their evidence cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction. Drawing our attention to the evidence of PW12, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since investigation already commenced, it would be unsafe to base conviction upon Ex.P4-extra judicial confession. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that there was no proper analysis of evidence by the trial court and conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 13. Taking us through the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 and 8, Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor [i/c] submitted that prosecution has adduced cogent and consistent evidence to establish the motive and complicity of the appellants in the crime. Drawing our attention to the Serology Report [Ex.P20], learned Public Prosecutor submitted that presence of same group of blood as that of the deceased in the clothes of appellants is clearly suggestive of the complicity of the appellants in the occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that upon proper analysis of evidence, trial court convicted the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 and there is no reason warranting interference. 14. Accused No.1 to 3 and deceased Kesavan were associates. Deceased being addicted to drinks was frequently asking for money which caused ire to accused No.2. In his evidence, PW8-Raman has stated that on 01.01.2007, he had seen the accused and deceased talking to each other and deceased was asking for money. 14. Accused No.1 to 3 and deceased Kesavan were associates. Deceased being addicted to drinks was frequently asking for money which caused ire to accused No.2. In his evidence, PW8-Raman has stated that on 01.01.2007, he had seen the accused and deceased talking to each other and deceased was asking for money. Second accused told him that he has no money and deceased threatened them that if they do not give money, he will do away with them. Second accused retorted saying that if deceased asked for money, he would finish him off. Frequent asking for money by the deceased naturally caused ire to the accused. Proof of motive satisfies judicial mind about the authorship of crime and probabilises the prosecution version. 15. Case of prosecution mainly hinges upon evidence of PWs.4 to 6 who saw the deceased going along with the accused. PW4-Ganesan is resident of Eru Company, knows accused as well as deceased Kesavan and PW4 running scrap iron shop. On 01. 2007 – 9.00 P.M., PW4 saw the accused and deceased talking near his shop. PW5-Ashok is resident of the same area Eru Company and doing Real Estate business. PW6-Sivakumar is also the resident of Mettupalayam road, Eru Company. On the night of 01. 2007, PWs.5 and 6 went to take tea and they were talking with PW4-Ganesan near his shop. PWs.4 to 6 have spoken in one voice that they saw the appellants and deceased talking together and first accused and deceased went to garbage dumping yard. Second accused asked for knife from PW4 and after taking knife, accused No.2 also proceeded towards garbage dumping yard. Accused No.3 also followed them. PWs.4 to 6 continued to be talking to each other. At about 11.00 P.M., PWs.4 to 6 saw the appellants coming from garbage dumping yard and on seeing PWs.4 to 6, appellants left the place. 16. Evidence of PW4 was assailed contending that PW4 is habitually receiver of stolen goods and number of criminal cases are pending against him. Evidence of PW5 was assailed contending that he has been indulging in Kattaipanchayat in Eru Company area and that he was also detained under MISA. Evidence of PW6 was assailed contending that he is a chance witness. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PWs.4 to 6 are stock witnesses and that they are not truthful witnesses. Evidence of PW5 was assailed contending that he has been indulging in Kattaipanchayat in Eru Company area and that he was also detained under MISA. Evidence of PW6 was assailed contending that he is a chance witness. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PWs.4 to 6 are stock witnesses and that they are not truthful witnesses. It was further argued that evidence of PWs.4 to 6 cannot be relied upon to base the conviction. 17. The above PWs.4 to 6 are residents of Eru Company area. They have satisfactorily explained their presence near the scene of occurrence. Merely because some cases are pending against PW4-Ganesan and that PW5-Ashok has acquaintance with local Police. PWs.4 to 6 cannot be termed as unreliable witnesses. 18. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. We find no weighty and formidable reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 on the ground of minor variations or infirmities. 19. PWs.4 to 6 were examined by the Investigating Officer and their statements U/s.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 01. 2007 and their statements were received in Court on 27. 2007 at the time of filing of charge sheet. Drawing our attention to the date of receipt of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.4 to 6, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that delay in receipt of statement of witnesses would throw serious doubts about the prosecution case. Delay in receipt of statement of witness is only lapse on the part of Investigating Officer. Question of delay in examining the witnesses during investigation and delay in receipt of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement is material only if it is indicative of unfair practice by the Investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a planted witness to falsely support the prosecution case. 20. In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest any such unfair practice by the Investigating agency. PWs.4 to 6 being the residents of Eru Company area are natural and probable witnesses to speak about the deceased going along with the accused. There is nothing to show that PWs.4 to 6 are planted witnesses to falsely support the prosecution case. In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest any such unfair practice by the Investigating agency. PWs.4 to 6 being the residents of Eru Company area are natural and probable witnesses to speak about the deceased going along with the accused. There is nothing to show that PWs.4 to 6 are planted witnesses to falsely support the prosecution case. That apart, as rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, both Investigating Officer and PWs.4 to 6 have no reason to falsely implicate the appellants/accused No.1 to 3. 21. As pointed out earlier, MO9-bloodstained black colour shirt, MO11-Jatty and MO12-Banian were seized from the body of the deceased Kesavan. Pant/Lungi was not seized. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that deceased Kesavan would not have gone with merely shirt and under-wear and non-seizure of Pant/Lungi throws serious doubts about the prosecution version. Because of non-seizure of Pant/Lungi, no doubt could be entertained. Pant/Lungi might have either been removed or in the struggle might have been torn. Non-seizure of Pant/Lungi would not materially affect the consistent version of PWs.4 to 6. 22. From the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, prosecution has established that deceased was last seen alive with the accused and that deceased had gone with the appellants. While so, it is for the appellants to explain the homicidal death of Kesavan. Prosecution succeeded in leading evidence that shortly before commission of crime, deceased was last seen alive with the appellants. 23. Observing that if person who is last found in the company of another and if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company, in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 861 (SC) [State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram], the Supreme Court held as follows:- "P.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. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of Evidence Act. 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 failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of 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. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatiable with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Re.Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras 218." 24. Placing reliance upon (2003) MLJ (Crl) 1085 [Pachaimuthu v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Mettur], learned counsel for the appellants submitted that last seen theory could be applied only if the deceased and accused were seen together in a closed room or in a closed house or fenced area where others had no entry or in other words others entry was ruled out. It was further contended that garbage dumping yard is a public place where others having access and garbage dumping yard has some other entrance and while so, last seen theory cannot be made applicable. 25. If the prosecution has established that deceased had gone with the accused and shortly thereafter deceased died of unnatural death by process of reasoning, Court could draw presumption that accused have committed the murder. 26. PWs.4 to 6 saw deceased going along with accused No.1 and thereafter, accused No.2 armed with knife and accused No.3 proceeded towards garbage dumping yard. After some time, PWs.4 to 6 saw, accused No.1 to 3 alone coming back. What happened to the deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants and no reasonable explanation from the appellants/accused No.1 to 3. 27. Prosecution relied upon yet another circumstance of extra-judicial confession made by accused No.3 to PW12 on 01. 2007. On 01. After some time, PWs.4 to 6 saw, accused No.1 to 3 alone coming back. What happened to the deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants and no reasonable explanation from the appellants/accused No.1 to 3. 27. Prosecution relied upon yet another circumstance of extra-judicial confession made by accused No.3 to PW12 on 01. 2007. On 01. 2007, when PW12-Ravindrarajan was in DMK Youth Wing Office at K.K.Pudur, accused No.3 went to him and said to have confessed his guilt which was reduced in writing [Ex.P4] by PW12. 28. FIR in Cr.No.28/2007 was registered even on 01. 2007 itself. Extra-judicial confession made after commencement of investigation is a very weak piece of evidence and is not of much evidentiary value. Ex.P4 extra-judicial confession does not inspire confidence of court and learned Addl. Sessions Judge also rightly discarded Ex.P4. However, discarding of extra-judicial confession [Ex.P4] would not adversely affect the core of prosecution nor does it snap the chain of evidence adduced by the prosecution. 29. Yet another strong circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is arrest of the accused and confession leading to recovery as contemplated U/s.27 of Indian Evidence Act. On 01. 2007, accused No.3 was arrested. Confession statement led to recovery of MO5-Shirt and MO10-Pant. MOs.9, 11 and 12-bloodstained clothes of the deceased contained "B" group blood. Presence of "B" group blood in MO5-shirt recovered from accused No.3 is strong militating circumstance against accused No.3. Confession statement of accused No.2 led to recovery of MO9-bloodstained shirt and MO10-bloodstained jeans pant. In all three material objects, "B" group blood was detected. Presence of "B" group blood in MOs.9 to 11 is a strong circumstance indicative of complicity of accused No.2. 30. Based upon the confession statement of accused No.1 led to recovery of MO4bloodstained jeans pant, MO6-bloodstained shirt and MO8-bloodstained knife. Presence of "B" group blood in MO6-Shirt of first accused is a strong circumstance indicative involvement of first accused in the commission of offence. Presence of same group of blood in the various material objects seized from the appellants is unimpeachable piece of evidence connecting the appellants with the crime that deceased going away with the appellants followed by unnatural death of the deceased coupled with silence of accused would constitute a complete chain of evidence unerringly pointing towards guilt of the appellants/accused No.1 to 3. 31. Upon analysis of evidence, learned Addl. 31. Upon analysis of evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 U/s.302 IPC and the same is to be confirmed. 32. In the result, conviction of the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 U/s.302 IPC and imposing sentence of life imprisonment on each of them in S.C.No.143/2007 is confirmed and both the appeals are dismissed. Fine amount imposed shall stand confirmed. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore is directed to take steps to secure the presence of appellants/accused 1 to 3 and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail bond executed by the appellants/accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.