Judgment :- C. NAGAPPAN, J. The appellant Rajkumar is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.110/2009, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 11.8.2010, in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused. 2. Charges under Sections 364 and 302 IPC were framed against the accused. Learned Principal Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of both the charges, convicted him as per the charges and sentenced him: a) to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment, for the charge under Section 364 IPC and b) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment, for the charge under Section 302 IPC. Learned Principal Sessions Judge also ordered the sentences to run concurrently with the benefit of set-off. 3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 4. 4. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: P.W.3 Devi is a resident of Athipattu Village and she married one Karuna and out of the wedlock, a male child was born to them. On account of difference of opinion, P.W.3 Devi got separated from her husband and was residing along with her 6 year old son Thamizh. In the meanwhile, she developed intimacy with accused Rajkumar and started living with him. One year prior to occurrence, accused took the jewels of P.W.3 Devi and pledged them. Fifteen days prior to occurrence, P.W.3 Devi asked the accused for the return of her jewels. There was a wordy quarrel between them, during which P.W.3 told the accused that she would not live with him any further and she would be lodging a complaint to the police. In response, the accused Rajkumar threatened to kill her son. On 11.12.2008 in the evening, P.W.3 Devi accompanied by her son Thamizh, attended the first year birthday celebration of her younger sister's daughter held in her house, and Thamizh was playing in front of the said house, but inside the compound wall. At that time, accused Rajkumar came there and kidnapped Thamizh in his motorcycle. On 11.12.2008 in the evening, P.W.3 Devi accompanied by her son Thamizh, attended the first year birthday celebration of her younger sister's daughter held in her house, and Thamizh was playing in front of the said house, but inside the compound wall. At that time, accused Rajkumar came there and kidnapped Thamizh in his motorcycle. On seeing this, P.W.4 Malar shouted and informed P.W.3 Devi and they all searched him. P.W.6 Simson is a person known to the accused. He went to Paandeswaram Village on 11.12.2008 at 8.00 P.M. in connection with his real estate business and since the concerned party was not available, he was proceeding to meet another person at Avadi. On his way to Avadi, he saw the accused standing near Veerapuram Bridge along with the child and motorcycle. When P.W.6 Simson enquired the accused, he told him that he came there to attend the birthday function and he brought the child for shopping. P.W.3 Devi lodged Ex.P11 complaint, with P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, at 11.30 P.M. on 11.12.2008, and he registered a case in Crime No.188/2008 under Section 363 IPC, prepared Ex.P16 First Information Report, and despatched the same. He went to the occurrence place at 00.45 hours on 12.12.2008, and prepared Ex.P14 observation mahazar, in the presence of P.W.8 Anbarasan and another. Ex.P17 is the rough sketch drawn by him. He enquired P.W.3 Devi, P.W.4 Malar, P.W.8 Anbarasan and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested accused Rajkumar at 5.30 A.M. on the same day, near Paandeswaram Paruthipattar Chamber and examined him in the presence of P.W.5 Siva and another and recorded the confession statement voluntarily given by him. Ex.P12 is the admissible portion in the confession statement of the accused. Accused took them to Paandeswaram Veerapuram Bridge and on his information, the body of Thamizh was taken out from the channel by P.W.7 Raghu. P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, also recovered M.O.1 motorcycle, from the said place under Ex.P13 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. On his return to the Police Station, he altered the case by adding the offence under Section 302 IPC, prepared Ex.P18 alteration report and despatched the same. P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, also prepared Ex.P15 observation mahazar, at the place where the dead body was found, in the presence of P.W.9 Rajini and another. Ex.P19 is the rough sketch drawn by him. P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, also prepared Ex.P15 observation mahazar, at the place where the dead body was found, in the presence of P.W.9 Rajini and another. Ex.P19 is the rough sketch drawn by him. He conducted inquest on the body of Thamizh and prepared Ex.P20 inquest report. He seized two half litre plastic bottles under Ex.P21 mahazar, in the presence of P.W.5 Siva and another. He once again examined P.W.3 Devi, P.W.4 Malar and one more witness and recorded their further statements. He took photographs of the occurrence place through Constable Mullaivendan. M.O.2 series are the photographs. He sent the body to K.M.C. Hospital through Constable Narasimman for postmortem. P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, examined P.W.5 Siva, P.W.6 Simson, P.W.7 Raghu and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the accused for judicial remand. P.W.2 Dr. W.Harry Santhaseelan conducted autopsy on the body of Thamizh at 3.20 P.M. on 12.12.2008, in the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and found the following: "Injury: Multiple contusion over the front of neck about 2, 3 cm dia in the neck. Loss of tissue around eyes, lobule of ear, around nostrils and upper lip. No other injuries made out externally. Heart blood clots in both chambers. Lungs normal c/s congested. Hyoid bone intact. Trachea empty and normal. Stomach 30 ml of milk coloured fluid. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys are normal in size, c/s congested. Bladder empty. Pelvis, Scalp, Bones, Membranes and Spinal Column are intact. Brain normal." The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Ex.P9 is the postmortem examination certificate issued by him. P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, seized M.Os.3 and 4, clothes of Thamizh, produced by Constable Narasimman and also despatched the material objects to Court under Form 95. On 15.12.2008, he examined Constable Narasimman and recorded his statement. He gave requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statements of P.W.3 Devi, P.W.4 Malar, P.W.5 Siva, P.W.6 Simson and some other witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On their production on 9.1.2009, P.W.1 Tmt. R.Sathiya, the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, recorded their statements. Exs.P2 to P8 are the statements. On 6.2.2009, P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, examined P.W.2 Dr. W.Harry Santhaseelan and recorded his statement. He completed the investigation on 17.2.2009 and filed the final report against the accused. 5. R.Sathiya, the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, recorded their statements. Exs.P2 to P8 are the statements. On 6.2.2009, P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, examined P.W.2 Dr. W.Harry Santhaseelan and recorded his statement. He completed the investigation on 17.2.2009 and filed the final report against the accused. 5. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he denied his complicity. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on his side. 6. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced him as stated earlier. Challenging the same, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 7. The prosecution case is that the accused Rajkumar kidnapped Thamizh in his motorcycle and committed his murder. Nobody witnessed the occurrence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, are: (a) Motive as spoken to by P.W.3 Devi; (b) Kidnapping of young boy Thamizh by accused Rajkumar as spoken to by P.W.3 Devi and P.W.4 Malar; (c) While he was alive, the deceased Thamizh was seen last in the company of the accused Rajkumar, as spoken to by P.W.6 Simson; (d) Arrest of the accused, securing the body of Thamizh and recovery of M.O.1 motorcycle, on the information furnished by him and (e) Death of child Thamizh due to homicidal violence. 8. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, has laid down the conditions for recording a conviction, based on circumstantial evidence. They are as follows: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts constituting 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 probablise any other hypothesis except the one 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 events so complete without leaving any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must show that in all probability, the act must have been done by the accused. Keeping in mind the above said principles, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, have to be analysed. 9. Keeping in mind the above said principles, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, have to be analysed. 9. P.W.3 Devi was married to Karuna and Thamizh was born to them out of the wedlock. Due to misunderstanding between the spouses, P.W.3 Devi left her husband and was residing separately along with Thamizh. She developed relationship with accused Rajkumar and was living with him. According to P.W.3 Devi, one year prior to occurrence, accused Rajkumar took her jewels and pledged them and a few days prior to occurrence, she asked the accused for the return of the jewels as she wanted them to attend the first year birthday celebration of her younger sister's daughter and the same led to a wordy quarrel. P.W.3 Devi told the accused that she did not want to live with him any further and she would be lodging a complaint to the police for getting back the jewels. Pursuant to which accused Rajkumar threatened to kill her son. That has culminated in the kidnapping and murdering of Thamizh by the accused. Ex.P11 is the complaint lodged by P.W.3 Devi about the act of kidnapping committed by accused Rajkumar. In the said complaint, P.W.3 Devi has averred about the pledging of her jewels by accused Rajkumar, her demand for the return of the jewels just prior to occurrence, which led to the wordy quarrel and the challenge made by the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W.3 Devi in this regard and the prosecution has established the motive for the occurrence. 10. It is the testimony of P.W.3 Devi that on 11.12.2008 in the evening, she and her son Thamizh attended the first year birthday celebration of her younger sister's daughter held in her house and Thamizh was playing inside the compound wall in front of the house; that while she was inside the house, P.W.4 Malar on seeing the accused Rajkumar kidnapping Thamizh in his motorcycle, rushed inside and informed her and that they went in search, but could not trace Thamizh. P.W.4 Malar is a neighbour of Radhika, the younger sister of P.W.3 Devi. P.W.4 Malar is a neighbour of Radhika, the younger sister of P.W.3 Devi. She has testified that she went to the house of Radhika on 11.12.2008, to attend the birthday celebration of the daughter of Radhika; that she found Thamizh playing in front of the house and at that time, accused Rajkumar came in his motorcycle and kidnapped Thamizh by putting him in his motorcycle; that on seeing it she ran inside the house shouting about the kidnapping by the accused and informed P.W.3 Devi and others; that they all searched, but could not find Thamizh and that thereafter P.W.3 lodged the police complaint on the same night. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Radhika was not examined in the case and no invitation relating to the first year birthday celebration of her daughter was marked and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the said fact. It is his further contention that Ex.P11 complaint, could not have come into existence as stated by the prosecution. 12. It is true that Radhika, the younger sister of P.W.3 Devi, was not examined as a witness on the side of the prosecution; but, that does not affect the prosecution case in any way. P.W.4 Malar is a neighbour of Radhika and her testimony corroborates the testimony of P.W.3 Devi in all aspects. There is no necessity to print invitation for the first year birth day celebration of the child and even oral invitation would be enough and more so, when the ceremony itself was held in the house of Radhika. P.W.4 Malar is an independent witness and nothing is elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. There is no reason for her to falsely depose against the accused. She has categorically testified about the kidnapping of Thamizh by accused Rajkumar in his motorcycle and her witnessing the same. The said act of kidnapping was committed at about 8.30 P.M. from the house of Radhika. Thereafter, Ex.P11 complaint, came to be lodged by P.W.3 Devi at 11.30 P.M. on the same day and the case came to be registered by P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, for kidnapping. Hence the contention that Ex.P11 complaint, could not have come into existence as stated by the prosecution, is devoid of merit. The second circumstance projected by the prosecution, is also established. 13. Hence the contention that Ex.P11 complaint, could not have come into existence as stated by the prosecution, is devoid of merit. The second circumstance projected by the prosecution, is also established. 13. P.W.6 Simson is doing real estate business in Paandeswaram Village and he knew accused Rajkumar as well as the family of P.W.3 Devi. He has testified that he went to Paandeswaram Village at 8.00 P.M. on 11.12.2008 to meet a party; that since the said party was not available, he was proceeding to Avadi for meeting another and on his way to Avadi, he saw accused Rajkumar standing near Veerapuram Bridge with child Thamizh; and that the motorcycle was found parked by his side. It is his further evidence that he enquired accused Rajkumar and accused told him that after attending the birthday celebration of Radhika's daughter, he took the child Thamizh for shopping; and that while returning on the next day morning at about 6.00 A.M., he saw the police personnel and the accused near Veerapuram Bridge and came to know about the occurrence. 14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that P.W.6 Simson could not have seen accused Rajkumar along with the child Thamizh as claimed by him, and his testimony is doubtful. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that P.W.6 Simson, who was dealing in real estate business at Paandeswaram Village, knew the accused and while on his way to Avadi to meet a party, he happened to see the accused along with the child near Veerapuram Bridge and there is nothing to suspect in it. It is his further submission that there is no delay in the examination of P.W.3 Devi, P.W.4 Malar and P.W.6 Simson by the Investigation Officer and their statements also reached the Court on 12.12.2008 itself. The testimony of P.W.6 Simson that he has seen accused Rajkumar along with the child Thamizh near Veerapuram Bridge on the occurrence night is natural and it is not shattered during the cross-examination. It is also relevant to point out that he is an independent witness and there is no motive for him to falsely depose against the accused. 15. The testimony of P.W.6 Simson that he has seen accused Rajkumar along with the child Thamizh near Veerapuram Bridge on the occurrence night is natural and it is not shattered during the cross-examination. It is also relevant to point out that he is an independent witness and there is no motive for him to falsely depose against the accused. 15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that if the circumstance that the accused was last seen with the child Thamizh is established, the onus shifts on the accused to show that either he was not involved in the occurrence, or he had left the child at his home or at any other reasonable place and the accused has not discharged the burden. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ARABINDRA MUKHERJEE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2012 CRI. L.J. 1207). The Supreme Court in the said decision, held as follows: "7. The statements of these two witnesses read along with the medical evidence on record fully support the case of the prosecution. Once the appellant was last seen with the deceased, the onus is upon him to show that either he was not involved in the occurrence at all or that he had left the deceased at her home or at any other reasonable place. To rebut the evidence of last seen and its consequences in law, the onus was upon the accused to lead evidence in order to prove his innocence. It was also for the accused to establish that he was falsely implicated. The stand taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was a complete denial of involvement and a result of false charges by the appellants. Once the prosecution had established its case, it was expected from the appellant to prove his defence of false implication. The conduct of the accused-appellant also is suspicious in the sense that after the occurrence he was absconding and with difficulty the police could trace and arrest him." 16. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.6 Simson deserves acceptance and if it is so, the accused Rajkumar was last seen with the child Thamizh and the onus is upon him to lead evidence in order to prove his innocence. Accused Rajkumar has failed to do so. In the present case, the testimony of P.W.6 Simson deserves acceptance and if it is so, the accused Rajkumar was last seen with the child Thamizh and the onus is upon him to lead evidence in order to prove his innocence. Accused Rajkumar has failed to do so. His stand is one of denial while he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 17. According to the Investigation Officer P.W.10 Astrin, Inspector of Police, he arrested accused Rajkumar at 5.30 A.M. on 12.12.2008, near Paandeswaram Paruthipattar Chamber and examined him in the presence of P.W.5 Siva and another and recorded the confession statement containing Ex.P12 admissible portion, given by him, in the presence of the said witnesses. The accused took them to Veerapuram Bridge and on his information, the body of Thamizh was taken out from the channel by P.W.7 Raghu and M.O.1 motorcycle was recovered from the said place under Ex.P13 mahazar, in the presence of same witnesses. P.W.5 Siva also in his testimony, has confirmed that the accused gave information in his confession statement in his presence, to the Investigation Officer, which led to the recovery of M.O.1 motorcycle and the body of Thamizh. P.W.7 Raghu has testified that he took the body of Thamizh from the channel on the information furnished by the accused Rajkumar. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the arrest claimed by the prosecution cannot be true in the light of the testimonies of P.W.3 Devi and P.W.4 Malar made in their cross-examination. The testimony of a witness has to be read as a whole and any stray answer given in the cross-examination cannot be viewed in isolation. The testimonies of P.W.3 Devi and P.W.4 Malar in the cross-examination that accused Rajkumar was seen on the occurrence night along with the police, were stray answers and that would not belie the arrest claimed by the Investigation Officer. As already seen, P.W.5 Siva and P.W.7 Raghu have testified about the information furnished by the accused on his arrest, which led to the recovery of the body as well as M.O.1 motorcycle. Thus the prosecution has established the said circumstance. 18. The autopsy on the body of Thamizh was conducted by P.W.2 Dr. As already seen, P.W.5 Siva and P.W.7 Raghu have testified about the information furnished by the accused on his arrest, which led to the recovery of the body as well as M.O.1 motorcycle. Thus the prosecution has established the said circumstance. 18. The autopsy on the body of Thamizh was conducted by P.W.2 Dr. W.Harry Santhaseelan and according to him, multiple contusion about 2, 3 cm diameter in size was found over the front of neck and he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Ex.P9 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. From the medical evidence, it is clear that Thamizh died of homicidal violence. 19. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Rajkumar kidnapped the young boy Thamizh and committed his murder and the chain of circumstances projected by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is complete. The conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court, are correct and proper and no interference is called for. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court, are confirmed.