Judgment :- JUDGMENT M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai passed in S.C. No.41 of 2009, whereby the accused/appellant stood charged, tried along with other accused shown as second accused for the offences under Sections 392 read with 397, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused/appellant was found guilty for the offences under Sections 392 read with 397, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Though the second accused participated in the trial till the examination of witnesses on the prosecution side, he absconded thereafter. A Non Bailable Warrant was issued, but he could not be secured. Under the circumstances, the case was split up and proceeded as against this appellant and trial was concluded and after following the procedural formalities, he was found guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:- (i) P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the sister and P.W.6 is the father of the deceased Karthik. The accused/appellant was his friend. The deceased joined the City Bank at T. Nagar Branch just two weeks prior to the occurrence as a Collection agent. P.W.8 Bank Manager has deposed that Karthik used to come for work at about 10 O Clock and used to go for collection and then returned at about 5 O clock. The accused/appellant was his friend. The deceased joined the City Bank at T. Nagar Branch just two weeks prior to the occurrence as a Collection agent. P.W.8 Bank Manager has deposed that Karthik used to come for work at about 10 O Clock and used to go for collection and then returned at about 5 O clock. (ii) On 24.4.2008, the deceased went for collection, but he did not come back. On the said date, P.W.6 father took his son Karthik as billion rider and left him at the bus stop where he left him in the company of the accused/appellant. P.W.6 has left from there. That evening since Karthik did not return till 7 O clock and P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 made a search. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pondy Bazaar Police station and informed the same. In turn, the Police Officials told that their son Karthik was missing from Aminjikarai and hence they should go there and give a complaint. Accordingly, they proceeded to Aminjikarai police Station and gave complaint Ex.P12 to P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint at about 9.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.245 of 2008 for "Man Missing"and the First Information Report in that regard is marked as Ex.P12. (iii) While the matter stood thus, P.W.1, who is the President of that area, in which the house of the accused/appellant is situated, was informed by the people of that area at about 8 p.m. that a bad smell was emanated from the house of the accused/appellant, which is kept under lock. P.W.1, who went over there, ascertained the same and proceeded to Pondy Bazaar Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.21 Inspector of that Circle, on receipt of information, proceeded to the spot and broke open the lock and found the dead body of a youngster inside the house. He ascertained that it was the dead body of the deceased. Immediately, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 were informed. They came to the place of occurrence and ascertained that it was the deceased. (iv) A complaint was given by P.W.1 and a case in Crime No.278 of 2008 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P19 First Information Report was despatched to the Court. P.W.21 Inspector of that Circle continued the investigation, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P20 Observation mahazar and Ex.P21 Rough sketch. (iv) A complaint was given by P.W.1 and a case in Crime No.278 of 2008 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P19 First Information Report was despatched to the Court. P.W.21 Inspector of that Circle continued the investigation, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P20 Observation mahazar and Ex.P21 Rough sketch. He has also taken M.O.9 series photographs through P.W.11. Thereafter, P.W.21 recovered M.O.12 blood stained cement floor, M.O.13 sample cement floor under the cover of mahazar Ex.P22 and also recovered M.O.5 series pair of slippers under seizure mahazar Ex.P23 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and inquest report is marked as Ex.P24. (v) Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to autopsy and P.W.20 Doctor issued postmortem Certificate Ex.P18 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him. Pending investigation, P.Ws.18 and 19 came forward to give their respective statements. According to them, both of them were residents of the same street where the house of the accused is situated. At about 7 p.m., the accused/appellant along with other accused Paranthaman was moving out of the house of the accused/appellant after locking the door and the accused Paranthaman was injured. When P.W.18 and 19 asked the accused/appellant, he did not give any answer. Thereafter, they left the place. (vi) The further investigation would also reveal that the accused Paranthaman was given treatment by P.W.12 Doctor attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital at about 8.30 p.m. Ex.P11 is the Accident Register. Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital on 25.4.2008. Pending investigation, the second accused was arrested on 28.4.2008 at Gudiyatham. Then, he came forward to give confession statement voluntarily and the same is recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P29. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.7 series fifteen 100 rupees notes and M.O.8 knife and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P30. On the confession statement given by the accused Paranthaman, investigator came to know as to the involvement of the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the accused/appellant surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannarkudi on 2.5.2008. Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.7 series fifteen 100 rupees notes and M.O.8 knife and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P30. On the confession statement given by the accused Paranthaman, investigator came to know as to the involvement of the accused/appellant. Thereafter, the accused/appellant surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannarkudi on 2.5.2008. Thereafter, the accused/appellant has given confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P36. He also produced M.O.10 knife and M.O.6 bike, which belong to the deceased and the same were recovered in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazat. Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis. Ex.P17 is the Biological report annexed with Serology report was received. (vii) On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused. At that stage, second accused Paranthaman was absconding and a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against him and the same is pending for long time. Hence the necessity arose for splitting up the case and the case was split up and proceeded against the appellant/accused and trial was concluded. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and relied on 41 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 13. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. 5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinising the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Sections 392 read with 397, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. The appellant/accused was arrested only on the confession statement given by the other accused Paranthaman. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. The appellant/accused was arrested only on the confession statement given by the other accused Paranthaman. In a given case like this, if a person has been fastened with liability, ordinarily, the confession statement given by the co-accused cannot be used against him, if at all it has any evidentiary value and it must be corroborated with the materials available on record. In the instant case, nothing of that sort has been noticed. 7. Learned counsel added further that in the instant case what are all recovered from the accused/appellant was M.O.10 knife and M.O.6 bike. Insofar recovery is concerned, P.W.16 Carpenter was examined as witness. In respect of the description of M.O.10 knife is concerned, he has categorically stated that it was a bill hook. The Carpenter would clearly know the difference between the bill hook and the knife. Hence, the recovery of the same is not done. 8. Learned counsel added further that the dead body was in the house of the appellant was not correct. During the relevant time, the accused/appellant was occupying the rented house and key was with both the deceased and the appellant. The deceased used to open the door. It cannot be said that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant. In respect of last seen theory, the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 19, pointing to the guilt of the accused, cannot be believed. Even assuming, their evidence has got to be true, they have seen the accused, who was proceeding in the street, which, cannot, by itself, in any way help the prosecution to point out the nexus of crime to the accused. The prosecution evidence was in no way connect the crime to the accused. It was the other accused, who was arrested and only on his confession, this accused has been roped in. Since this accused was the friend of the deceased, only on surmise, this accused has been falsely implicated. But the Trial Court has taken an erroneous view. This has got to be considered by this Court. 9. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 10. Since this accused was the friend of the deceased, only on surmise, this accused has been falsely implicated. But the Trial Court has taken an erroneous view. This has got to be considered by this Court. 9. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 10. It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Karthik, the son of P.W.6 was found dead at Door No.73, Seeranipuram, T. Nagar, Chennai as put forth by the prosecution and after registration of the case originally under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was subsequently altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following the inquest made by the Inspector of Police P.W.21, the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.20 doctor, who has opined in the postmortem Certificate that the said Karthik died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to the injuries sustained by him. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the Trial Court and equally here also. Hence, it was recorded so and rightly too. 11. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but rested on circumstantial evidence. The Court is mindful of caution to the Ruling of the Apex Court and also settled principles of law that in a given case like this, when the prosecution exclusively rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place necessary evidence pointing to the hyposis that except the accused, no one could have committed the offence. 12. Admittedly, the deceased Karthik was employed in the branch of City Bank at T. Nagar branch as Collection agent. From the evidence of P.W.8, Manager of City Bank, it is clear that the deceased Karthik came for work on 24.4.2008 and he left the Bank during the day hours for the purpose of collection and at 5 p.m. he did not return. On the date of occurrence, the collection was to the extent of Rs.4,500/-. P.W.6 the father of the deceased Karthik has categorically stated that on the date of occurrence, he took his son as billion rider and left him at the place where the deceased joined the company of the accused/appellant. 13. On the date of occurrence, the collection was to the extent of Rs.4,500/-. P.W.6 the father of the deceased Karthik has categorically stated that on the date of occurrence, he took his son as billion rider and left him at the place where the deceased joined the company of the accused/appellant. 13. P.Ws.18 and 19 are the residents of the same street where the accused/appellant was residing in his house. From their evidence, it is clear that the accused has already known to them. According to both the witnesses, at about 7 O clock, the accused and the absconding accused were moving in the street and the accused has placed his hands in the forehead of the absconding accused Paranthaman. When both of them questioned separately, he gave evasive answer. Since the deceased did not return, P.W.6 and others went to Pondy Bazaar Police Station and gave intimation, but they were asked to go to Aminjikarai police station where they gave a complaint to P.W.13, pursuant to which a case in Crime No.245 of 2008 for Man missing was registered. First Information Report Ex.P12 was despatched to the Court. Everybody has searched the deceased. 14. It is pertinent to point out that P.W.1, the President of the area, where the accused/appellant was residing, was informed by the residents of that area that some bad smell was emanated from the house of the appellant/accused. After ascertaining the same, he informed the same to the police Officer. The Police Officer of the respondent-station made a visit. After ascertaining the fact, he broke open the lock and found the dead body. The identity of the dead body was ascertained through P.Ws.2, 3 and 6. Thereafter, a case was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the earliest point of time. The further investigation reveals as to the involvement of both the accused. 15. The dead body was found in the house of the accused/appellant. From the evidence available, it was the own house of the appellant. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a rented house and the key was actually with the deceased and the key cannot be recovered by the police Officer cannot be countenanced. Such a plea was never taken before the Trial Court. From the evidence available, it was the own house of the appellant. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a rented house and the key was actually with the deceased and the key cannot be recovered by the police Officer cannot be countenanced. Such a plea was never taken before the Trial Court. While the dead body was found inside the house of the accused/appellant, it was the accused/appellant to explain as to how the body of the deceased was found inside his house. 16. After the occurrence on 24.4.2008, P.Ws.18 and 19 have seen the accused/appellant along with other accused, who were proceeding from the house, which is kept under lock for few days and some bad smell was emanated from the said house. The other circumstance is that the helmet of the deceased was identified by P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 and the same was found in front of the house of the accused/appellant. Pending investigation, not only the weapon of crime M.O.10 knife, but also M.O.6 Two Wheeler of the deceased was recovered from the accused/appellant. Hence, it is for the accused/appellant to explain as to how M.O.6 Two Wheeler of the deceased came to his custody and the helmet was also found place in front of the house of the accused. 17. Thus, the materials objects M.O.10 knife and M.O.6 Two Wheeler were recovered from the accused/appellant in the presence of the witnesses. It is true, P.W.16 was the Carpenter. In his evidence, there was a description. In view of the evidence available, much importance cannot be attached to such a minor discrepancy. All put together, the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 19 stood fully corroborated with the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor attached to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and also Accident Register marked as Ex.P11. Thus, it is quite clear that the accused Paranthaman was admitted in the Hospital on 24.4.2008 and he was given treatment in his forehead and he was discharged from the hospital on 25.4.2008. These are all clinching circumstances. At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily agree with the settled preposition of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, if one or few circumstances are within the knowledge of the accused, it is for him to explain. These are all clinching circumstances. At this juncture, this Court has to necessarily agree with the settled preposition of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, if one or few circumstances are within the knowledge of the accused, it is for him to explain. If he comes with the false version or suppression of those circumstances, the Court can infer those circumstances against the accused and he will be responsible for the same. 18. In the instant case, the above circumstances would point out that the appellant was fully involved in the crime of murder and also taken the amount of Rs.4,500/- and also screening the evidence. The Trial Court has perfectly correct in marshalling the evidence and awarded the punishment referred to above. This Court finds no infirmity in the findings rendered by the Trial Court either legally or factually. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.