Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution in short would be as follows:- The accused is the father of the deceased child. P.W.1 and the accused were married some nine years back and they got four female children while the fourth child was begotten, the accused was pressurising P.W.1 to abort the foetus of the said child and for which the P.W.1 refused to abort the foetus. After the birth of the fourth child, the accused told her that one day or other he would kill the child by cutting her neck. In order to execute the same on 17.07.2008 at about 08.00 a.m the accused took his 1½ year child namely Kaviya and went to petty shop and purchased beedi. Thereafter when he was nearing the N.L.C channel he cut the neck of Kaviya and the tender child died due to the cut on her throat and, the accused had thrown the body of the child Kaviya into the N.L.C channel and thereby committed offence u/s. 302 I.P.C. 3. The wife of the accused P.W.1 on hearing the version from her husband accused that he had killed the child, ran in the street shouting that her husband had killed her daughter Kaviya. She approached P.W.10 to write a complaint and lodged the same to P.W.16 and the case was registered in Cr.No.175/2008 in Mandarakuppam police station and the Investigating Officer has taken up the investigation and completed the same and the final report was filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and it was taken on file and was committed to Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and it was taken on file in S.C.No.4 of 2009 and thereafter, it was made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore for disposal in accordance with law. The said court had framed the necessary charges against the accused and had commenced the trial. 4. The said court had framed the necessary charges against the accused and had commenced the trial. 4. The case of the prosecution as spoken by the prosecution witnesses would be as follows:- P.W.1 is the wife of the accused and she was married to the accused nine years back and they were having four female children and the fourth child was Kaviya. The accused used to tell her wife that the fourth child conceived by P.W.1 did not belong to him and he wanted to abort the said foetus. He had also threatened P.W.1 to murder her if she was not willing for the abortion. The accused did not go for any work but used to consume alcohol and quarrel with P.W.1. He was also addicted to opium. When P.W.1 used to leave the child at home for going to her work the accused told her that he would kill the child as it was not born to him. On 17.07.2008, at about 08.00 a.m the accused got ten rupees to go to the petty shop and the fourth daughter was crying at that time, the accused took her along with him. When the accused returned at 10.00 a.m her daughter Kaviya was not with the accused. When she questioned about the child he told her that he had cut the neck of the child and murdered her and put in Periyakurichi channel and P.W.1 could go and take the child and by saying so he beat P.W.1. P.W.1 was weeping and immediately ran over the street crying and shouting that the accused had committed murder of her child. P.W.2 who is the brother of the accused and P.W.4 father of P.W.2 went along with P.W.1 in search of the child and when the accused came on their way P.W.2 questioned him about the child and the accused replied that child was with P.W.1 only. Petty shop owner P.W.7 had seen the accused with the child Kaviya at about 08.00 a.m when the accused came to his shop for buying beedi for him. He would also speak to the effect that the wife of the accused P.W.1 shouted in the street that her husband killed her child. P.W.9 also spoke to the effect that on 17.07.2008, at about 08.00 a.m he saw the accused taking his daughter Kaviya towards the shop belonging to P.W.7. He would also speak to the effect that the wife of the accused P.W.1 shouted in the street that her husband killed her child. P.W.9 also spoke to the effect that on 17.07.2008, at about 08.00 a.m he saw the accused taking his daughter Kaviya towards the shop belonging to P.W.7. P.W.9 is the neighbour of the accused and P.W.1. He had also spoken that the accused had escaped from the place. The father of P.W.1 examined as P.W.6 would depose that P.W.1 eloped with the accused and was living with the accused. P.W.5 who is the brother of the accused had also spoken to the effect that P.W.1 was complaining that her daughter was missing and the accused had caused the murder of her child. P.W.10 helped P.W.1 in drafting the complaint to be given to the Police and it was promptly given to P.W.16 of Inspector of Police at 11.00 a.m and on receipt of the complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.175/2008 u/s. 302 I.P.C and F.I.R has been despatched to the court. The Investigating Officer has proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined the witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P.18. In the meanwhile, the body of the deceased child was referred to post mortem and P.W.13 had conducted autopsy of the child and the Post Mortem Certificate produced in Ex.P.9. The dead body of the child was taken photographs. The accused was arrested on the same day by 07.15 p.m and gave confession in the presence of the witnesses and the accused had also given confession leading to the recovery of the knife he used for the commission of offence and his shirt. The accused was taken to N.L.C channel and he has identified the knife and the blood stained shirt and they were recovered from the said place and Seizure Mahazar was prepared. The witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 were referred to Judicial Magistrate-P.W.15, for recording statement of witnesses u/s. 164(2) Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer subsequently examined the connected witnesses and recorded their statement and had filed the final report against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C. Prosecution had examined 16 witnesses and produced 24 documents and also produced M.Os.1 to 4 in order to substantiate its case. 5. 5. Upon the incriminating evidence if the above mentioned prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied them flatly as false and there was no evidence adduced on his side. The lower court recorded conviction u/s. 302 I.P.C and sentenced as stated above. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the conviction ended against the accused u/s. 302 I.P.C and the sentence passed there on by the lower court are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.T.R.Ravi, would submit in his argument that the lower court had not completely gone through the evidence and the circumstances of the case and convicted the accused. It has not considered the circumstantial evidence carefully when especially there was no ocular evidence. He would further submit that the conviction and sentence were recorded against the accused on flimsy grounds. The lower court has not completely analysed the evidence and if it had been analysed it would have come to the conclusion of acquitting the accused because there was no concrete evidence to show that the accused was seen with the child immediately prior to the commission of such offence. He would also submit that when the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence every link connecting the accused with the crime should have been perfectly connected in order to form a complete chain so as to record conviction upon the circumstantial evidence. As far as, this case is concerned the motive is clearly absent and on that ground itself the accused is entitled for acquittal. He would further submit that P.Ws.4 to P.W.11 were closely related to P.W.1 and therefore, there is no necessity to record the statement of witnesses u/s. 164 (2) Cr.P.C and this would raise suspicion regarding prosecution case. He would also argue that circumstantial evidence cannot be relied upon, when the scientific evidence had not supported the case of the prosecution and the blood groups were found inconclusive in the serology report which would go a long way to show that the seizure of weapon would not incriminate the accused in the said offence. He would again submit in his argument that the statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate are not sustainable in view of the admission made by P.W.4 that they were given instruction by the police to depose before the Magistrate. He would again submit in his argument that the statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate are not sustainable in view of the admission made by P.W.4 that they were given instruction by the police to depose before the Magistrate. He would also submit that the dead body of the child was not found in the channel but it was already removed by the villagers. Therefore, there cannot be any recovery at the instance of the accused and it would not incriminate the accused in the alleged crime. The evidence of P.Ws.7 and P.W.9 in respect of the last seen theory would not in anyway prove the case of the prosecution and in such circumstances the said last seen theory of the accused and the deceased child cannot be helpful to the prosecution. He would further submit in his argument that the accused being the father of the child would not have elected to kill the child and the witnesses examined by the prosecution would not show any guilt on the part of the accused and therefore the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court should have been set aside and the appeal be allowed. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also heard. He would support the judgment of lower court in his argument and sought for dismissal of the appeal. We have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 9. The occurrence was said to have taken place on 17.07.2008 in the morning between 08.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m. The deceased child Kaviya was belonging to P.W.1 and accused and was living with P.W.1 and the accused. On the fateful day, when the child was at the house in the morning by 08.00 a.m the accused proceeded to go for buying beedi in the petty shop and at that time he took the child Kaviya with him to the said petty shop. The owner of the petty shop P.W.7 sold beedi for him and at that time he was holding the child Kaviya with him. When he returned to the house by 10.00 a.m the child Kaviya was not with him. When P.W.1 asked about the child, the accused had bluntly told that he had cut her neck and killed her. The owner of the petty shop P.W.7 sold beedi for him and at that time he was holding the child Kaviya with him. When he returned to the house by 10.00 a.m the child Kaviya was not with him. When P.W.1 asked about the child, the accused had bluntly told that he had cut her neck and killed her. The prosecution evidence would go a long way to show that the mother of the child P.W.1 was crying by running in the street with widened hands and shouted that accused had killed her child. P.W.6 the father of the accused had also helped by consoling her. The evidence of P.W.10 would go to show that P.W.1 was crying on seeing the dead body of the child and he had helped her to write the complaint and she had given the complaint to the police. Even though P.W.7, the petty shop owner was treated as hostile he had spoken to the effect that he had lastly seen the accused with the child while he came to his petty shop for buying the beedi. The evidence of P.W.1 would go a long way to show that the accused returned without the child after he had gone for buying beedi to petty shop. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 that the accused was seen last with the child Kaviya. 10. The evidence of P.W.9 would also support the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7. On the receipt of the complaint the body was recovered from the channel in the presence of the witnesses and inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The inquest report produced as Ex.P.18 would go to show that the death of the child Kaviya was due to the injuries caused on her neck inflicted by the accused and was thrown in the N.L.C channel. The occurrence had taken place on 17.07.2008 by 08.30 a.m whereas the complaint was given immediately by 10.00 clock on that day and the case has been registered and the F.I.R Ex.P.13 had reached the court on the same day by 11.45 a.m. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted. The occurrence had taken place on 17.07.2008 by 08.30 a.m whereas the complaint was given immediately by 10.00 clock on that day and the case has been registered and the F.I.R Ex.P.13 had reached the court on the same day by 11.45 a.m. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted. In the complaint it has been categorically stated that the accused had given extra judicial confession to P.W.1 that the accused had cut the neck of the child Kaviya and put the body on the Periyakurichi channel. The evidence of P.W.1 is supporting the ingredients of the F.I.R which would go a long way to show that the accused was seen lastly with the deceased child and it is for him to explain about the cause of death of the child. 12. Apart from that the prosecution had arrested the accused and recorded confession statement from him. In pursuance of the confession leading to recovery in Ex.P.19 the knife which was used for murdering the child Kaviya was recovered in Ex.P.20 – Seizure Mahazar and they are proved by the evidence. The said knife was produced as M.O.2. The recovery of M.O.2 with the seizure of the said knife in pursuance of the confession made by the accused would go a long way to show that the accused had committed the murder as told by the prosecution. The statement of P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 had been recorded in abundant caution despite they are relative witnesses for both prosecution witness and accused. However, P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not supported the entire case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is V.A.O who spoke about arrest of accused and recovery of weapon. Therefore, the statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate P.W.5, in Ex.P.12 could be relied upon. Since P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not entirely supported the case of the prosecution the statement given by them in Ex.P.12 would show that the accused had confessed before them that he had killed the child and thrown in the channel and went away. The blood stained shirt recovered as M.O.1 would also go to show that the accused had involved in the said crime. The recovery as spoken by P.W.3 would go to clutch the accused to the guilt as the circumstantial evidence adduced before the lower court became complete. 13. The blood stained shirt recovered as M.O.1 would also go to show that the accused had involved in the said crime. The recovery as spoken by P.W.3 would go to clutch the accused to the guilt as the circumstantial evidence adduced before the lower court became complete. 13. When the accused was put into the burden of explaining the circumstances that he was not guilty of the offence, he has not come with any acceptable explanation. On the other hand the prosecution had proved the entire links of circumstantial evidence chain complete and brought home the accused towards the commission of offence. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, evidence of P.W.1 that the accused was telling her that the child Kaviya was not born to him despite he was the father of the child had been the motive of killing the innocent child for no fault of her. Therefore the finding of the lower court in reaching the conviction against the accused u/s.302 I.P.C and the sentence passed by it against the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment are perfectly in order and there is no reason to interfere with the said judgment of the lower court. 15. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appeal preferred by the appellant/accused is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 16. In fine, the criminal appeal fails and therefore it is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.