Judgment P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused, Karthick @ Karthikeyan, who was tried and convicted in S.C.No.74 of 2011 on11.10.2013 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, is the appellant before us. He was charged and convicted as follows: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Ramadoss, the deceased, aged about 70 years, was a Siddha doctor, from whose daughter, the appellant appears to have borrowed Rs.1,50,000/-on 22.01.2010. The appellant is a goldsmith by profession, and had taken on rent one room in the second floor of the house belonging to Padmanaban [P.W.1], on a monthly rent of Rs.750/-. The Section of law Conviction and sentence U/s 302 IPC for causing the death of Ramadoss around 1.30 p.m. on 30.08.2010 'Imprisonment for life' and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d one year R.I U/s 404 IPC for taking away the ornaments that were worn by the deceased One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d six months R.I. appellant's parents were living separately in another place. On 30.08.2010, around 4.30 p.m. the appellant was found with bleeding injuries in his hand and therefore, P.W.1 had taken him to a nearby hospital where he was treated by Dr. G. Elavazhagan [P.W.8]. Thereafter, the appellant went missing and his parents started searching for him. The portion in the occupation of the appellant was locked and no one was able to contact the appellant over his mobile. [a] On 01.09.2010, at the instance of the father of the appellant, Gunasekaran [P.W.6], a Locksmith was brought to the portion and the lock was broken. On opening the door, Padmanaban [P.W.1], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3], Manoharan [P.W.4], the father of the appellant [not examined], and Gunasekaran [P.W.6] the Locksmith were all shocked to find the dead body of Ramadoss with lot of injuries. The body was in a decomposed state and the room was stinking. Padmanaban [P.W.1] lodged a written complaint [Ex.P1] which was received by Ravichandran [P.W.25] the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Thittakudi Police Station Cr.No.527/2010 u/s 302 IPC at 12.30 hrs on 01.09.2010. He prepared the printed FIR which was marked as Ex.P21. The complaint [Ex.P1] and the FIR [Ex.P21] reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 2.00 p.m. on 01.09.2010, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. He prepared the printed FIR which was marked as Ex.P21. The complaint [Ex.P1] and the FIR [Ex.P21] reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 2.00 p.m. on 01.09.2010, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. [b] Investigation in this case was taken over by N. Ramadoss [P.W.29] the Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence on the same day and in the presence of Karthikeyan [P.W.11] and Jeyaraman [P.W.12] prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P23] and also Rough Sketches [Exs.P24 and P25]. From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer seized a blood stained knife [M.O.1] and other articles under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P26]. The walking stick [M.O.3] that was used by the deceased was also found in the place of occurrence and it was seized under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P27]. Certain SIM cards were also seized from the place of occurrence. In the place of occurrence, he examined Padmanaban [P.W.1], Subathira [P.W.2] wife of P.W.1, Kolanchinathan [P.W.3], Manoharan [P.W.4] and Kishorekumar [P.W.15] and thereafter, in the presence of panchayatdars conducted inquest over the body from 3.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P28. He also requisitioned the services of P.W.28, the police photographer, who came to the place of occurrence and took photographs which were marked as M.Os.18 to 35. The Compact Discs were marked as Exs.P36 and P37. The body was sent through Rajavel [P.W.20] Head Constable, to the Government Hospital, Thittakudi for post-mortem where Dr. Jeganath [P.W.24] performed the autopsy over the body. Dr.Jeganath [P.W.24] in his evidence as well in the Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P20] stated as follows: "The body was first seen by the undersigned at 1.00 P.M. on 02.09.10. Its condition then was RM passed off all four limbs. Post mortem commenced at 01.00 P.M. Appearances found at the post-mortem of a male Body, lying on its back well nourished eyes closed, mouth partially opened. The body was decomposed state, Blister present all over the body, Maggots present, Gaseous swelling present all over the body, skin peeled off. Its condition then was RM passed off all four limbs. Post mortem commenced at 01.00 P.M. Appearances found at the post-mortem of a male Body, lying on its back well nourished eyes closed, mouth partially opened. The body was decomposed state, Blister present all over the body, Maggots present, Gaseous swelling present all over the body, skin peeled off. External injuries: (1) Laceration over the below left clavicle 3x2 cm (2) Laceration over the left side neck 2x3 cm (3) Laceration over the Anterior aspect of ne4ck (1)3x3cm (2) 3x3cm (3) 3x3cm (4) Laceration over the above manubrium sterni size (1) 2x3cm (2) 2x3cm (3) 2x3cm (5) Laceration over the right chin 3 x 2 cm (6) Laceration over the right cheek 2 x 3 cm (7) Laceration over the right clavicular region 4 x 5 cm (8) Laceration over the right shoulder joint 1 x 2 cm (9) Laceration over the left side forehead 4 x 4 cm x bone depth (10) Laceration over the near left wrist joint 5 x 5 cm x bone depth (11) Laceration over the left Temporal region 5 x 3 cm x bone depth (12) Laceration over the posterior aspect of neck 2 x 2 cm (13) Laceration over the behind right Ear near mastoid process 2x3cm x bone depth (14) Laceration over the near right Ear 3 x 3 cm x bone depth Internal injuries: Fracture left Rib 6, 7, Heart-pale, Lungs-Pale, Stomach contents 50 Ml of Brownish liquid present. Liver-pale preserved, spleen congested, Kindey-pale, preserved intestine distended with gas. Bladder-emplty, Skull-intact. Hyoid bone-intact. Brain liquefied necrosis present. Time of death 72 hrs prior to pm Opinion as to cause of death-- (a) Reserved pending report of chemical analysis of viscera VPM/TOX.H.No.520/10 dt:14.10.2010 (1) Stomach and contents (2) Intestine and contents (3) Liver (4) Kidney (5) preservative Report The above five (5) articles were examined but alcohol (or) other poison was not detected in any of them. (b) The deceased would appear to have died of Hemorrhage and shock due to injures to vital organs like carotid artery and brain." (c) The seized articles were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 01.09.2010 by the Investigating Officer. He examined Manjula [P.W.7] the daughter of the deceased, and collected from her the promissory note [Ex.P2] executed by the accused in her favour evidencing the receipt of loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. He examined Manjula [P.W.7] the daughter of the deceased, and collected from her the promissory note [Ex.P2] executed by the accused in her favour evidencing the receipt of loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. He examined Gunasekaran [P.W.6] the locksmith, from whom he collected two locks, which were marked as M.O.6 and M.O.7. On 04.09.2010, the Investigating Officer examined Kanimozhi [P.W.27] and other witnesses. He also examined Dr.Elavazhagan [P.W.8] and Dr.Uthaman [P.W.9] on 05.09.2010. He arrested the appellant on 08.09.2010 at 5.30 a.m. in the presence of witnesses Pichaipillai [P.W.21] and Dhayalan [P.W.22] and recorded the confession statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P18. (d) On the disclosure made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer recovered six gold rings of various weights which were marked as M.Os.8 to 13, a gents gold bangle [M.O.14] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P17] in the presence of witnesses Pichaipillai [P.W.21] and Dhayalan [P.W.22]. The seized articles were sent to the jurisdictional Court along with an alteration report altering the offence from Section 302 IPC to Sections 302 and 392 IPC. The Alteration Report was marked as Ex.P30. The Investigating Officer took the appellant into police custody for 4 days from 18.09.2010 and based on the disclosure made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer came to know about one Hariharan [P.W.16] and Maharajan [P.W.14], from whom a gold ring [M.O.17] was recovered under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P31]. The appellant was taken to Chennai and on the disclosure made by the appellant, the police recovered a gold ring [M.O.16] from one Kishorekumar [P.W.15] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P32]. Thereafter, the appellant was returned to judicial custody. The seized articles which contained blood stains were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory through the Court. He made a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of one Senthilkumar [P.W.10] and accordingly, the statement was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (e) The Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and examined Jayanthi [P.W.23], the Scientific Expert and also made investigation with regard to the call details of two mobile phones, namely 9943133595 and 9443988440. He enquired the Nodal Officer Sunil [P.W.18] and obtained his Report [Ex.P14]. He sent a further alteration report adding Section 404 IPC and that was marked as Ex.P33. He enquired the Nodal Officer Sunil [P.W.18] and obtained his Report [Ex.P14]. He sent a further alteration report adding Section 404 IPC and that was marked as Ex.P33. He completed the investigation and filed a final report against appellant u/s 302 and 404 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, who took the same on file in PRC No.20/2010 and on appearance of the appellant, provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, from where it was made over to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vridhachalam. (f) The trial Court framed the two charges as aforesaid and when the appellant was questioned, he pleaded 'not guilty'. The prosecution examined 30 witnesses, marked 35 Exhibits and 37 Material Objects. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same and no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. The trial Judge on hearing either side and after considering the materials on record convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence the appeal. 3. Heard Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. A very significant aspect that we are bearing in mind is that the appellant, his father [not examined], Padmanaban [P.W.1], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3] and Manoharan [P.W.4] are all Goldsmiths by profession and they knew one another well. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The one and only powerful circumstance against the appellant is the fact that, the body of the deceased was found in the room that was in the occupation of the appellant. 5. Now this Court has to see whether the prosecution has proved the incriminating circumstances beyond any pale of doubt. In order to prove that the appellant had taken the room that was in the second floor portion of the house of Padmanaban [P.W.1] on rent, we have the evidence of Padmanaban P.W.1, his wife Subathira [P.W.2], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3,] Manoharan [P.W.4] and Kanimozhi [P.W.27]. All these witnesses uniformly say that the appellant was living in the second floor portion of the house of Padmanaban [P.W.1]. Padmanaban [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, 1½ years before the incident, the appellant took the room in the second floor portion of his house on monthly rent of Rs.750/-. All these witnesses uniformly say that the appellant was living in the second floor portion of the house of Padmanaban [P.W.1]. Padmanaban [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, 1½ years before the incident, the appellant took the room in the second floor portion of his house on monthly rent of Rs.750/-. Subathira [P.W.2] wife of Padmanaban [P.W.1] corroborates him on this aspect, though she has not spoken about the quantum of rent. Kolanchinathan [P.W.3] and Manoharan [P.W.4] in their evidence say that, the appellant was living in a room in the second floor portion of the house belonging to Padmanaban [P.W.1]. Kanimozhi [P.W.27] is a tenant in the first floor portion of Padmanaban's [P.W.1] house. She also in her evidence stated that the appellant was living in the second floor portion of the house. Padmanaban [P.W.1] in the cross examination accepted that there is no rental agreement between him and the appellant for letting out the room on rent. Based on this admission, the defence took a stand that the appellant was not a tenant in the said premises at all. As observed by us earlier, the main players in this case, namely the appellant, Padmanaban [P.W.1], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3] and Manoharan [P.W.4] are all goldsmiths by profession carrying on business in the nearby market and on the strength of this common bond, we are not surprised that Padmanaban [P.W.1] would have rented the room to the appellant without entering into any formal written agreement. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, we are permitted to draw a presumption, having regard to the common course of natural events, that Padmanaban [P.W.1] would have given the room on rent to the appellant without a written contract. There is nothing unusual about it as such things are very common in our State. 6. Padmanaban [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, on 30.08.2010 some time in the evening his wife told him that the appellant had suffered some cut injuries and out of concern for the appellant, he had taken him to the hospital where Dr. Elavazhagan [P.W.8] has given first aid and treatment to the appellant for the cut injuries in his hand. The appellant has told Padmanaban [P.W.1] and Dr. Elavazhagan [P.W.8] that he had accidentally sustained knife injury. Dr. Elavazhagan [P.W.8] has given first aid and treatment to the appellant for the cut injuries in his hand. The appellant has told Padmanaban [P.W.1] and Dr. Elavazhagan [P.W.8] that he had accidentally sustained knife injury. Dr. Elavazhagan [P.W.8] has clearly stated in his evidence that he knew the appellant and further stated that the appellant was brought to his hospital on 30.08.2010 by Padmanaban [P.W.1]. This conduct of Padmanaban [P.W.1] in taking the injured appellant out of sheer humanitarian concern to a Doctor for treatment fortifies our conclusion that, the appellant was a tenant occupying the second floor portion of Padmanaban's [P.W.1] house. After giving him treatment, Padmanaban [P.W.1] has brought him to his house and left him there. 7. On the same day evening at the instance of the appellant, Gunasekaran [P.W.6] the locksmith, has come to the house and has changed the lock of the portion in occupation of the appellant. Gunasekaran [P.W.6] in his evidence before the Court stated that, he is a locksmith by profession and has his shop about three shops away from the shop of the appellant. That on 30.08.2010 around 5.30 in the evening, at the request of the appellant, he went to the second floor portion of Padmanaban's [P.W.1] house and broke the Globe lock. This Globe Lock was recovered from Gunasekaran [P.W.6] by the police and was marked as M.O.6. After 30.08.2010, no one had seen the appellant. 8. On 31.08.2010 around 8.30 in the morning, the appellant's father came in search of him as deposed by Padmanaban [P.W.1]. He went to the second floor portion and found the room locked. He told Padmanaban [P.W.1] that the appellant had not come home for dinner the previous night and that is why he had come in search of him. At that time Padmanaban [P.W.1] told his father that he had taken him to the hospital the previous day for an injury in his hand. Again on 01.09.2010 around 10.00 in the morning, the appellant's father came to the house of Padmanaban [P.W.1] looking out for his son. He asked Padmanaban [P.W.1] for the keys of the portion in occupation of his son for which Padmanaban [P.W.1] told him that, there was only one key which was with the appellant. Again on 01.09.2010 around 10.00 in the morning, the appellant's father came to the house of Padmanaban [P.W.1] looking out for his son. He asked Padmanaban [P.W.1] for the keys of the portion in occupation of his son for which Padmanaban [P.W.1] told him that, there was only one key which was with the appellant. Around 11.30 in the morning the appellant's father came along with Kolanchinathan [P.W.3] and Manoharan [P.W.4] and in the presence of Padmanaban [P.W.1] the lock was broken by Gunasekaran [P.W.6]. This lock was marked as M.O.7. When the door was thus opened, they all found the dead body of Ramadoss there. The body had already started decomposing. These facts were uniformly spoken by Padmanaban [P.W.1], Subathira [P.W.2], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3] and Manoharan [P.W.4]. The appellant was nowhere seen and he had absconded. 9. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of Pihar @ Senthil Kumar [P.W.10] to whom the appellant appears to have given a confession over his mobile phone. Pihar @ Senthil Kumar [P.W.10] in his evidence stated that, he is a car driver by profession in the village and knew the appellant who had asked Rs.1,000/-from him on 29.08.2010. He further stated that around 5 o'clock he received a call from the appellant stating that he had injured himself and was going to the hospital. Again around 5.30 he received a call from the appellant who told him that he had murdered Ramadoss, who is also called Samiyar. Senthil Kumar [P.W.10] asked the appellant to surrender to the police. We are not placing much reliance on this piece of evidence, because it appears too weak and frail to us. 10. The motive for the offence has been established through the evidence of Manjula [P.W.7] the daughter of the deceased. Manjula [P.W.7] in her evidence stated that she knew the appellant through her father and that at the instance of her father, she had given Rs.1-1/2 lakhs to the appellant on a monthly interest of Rs.4,500/-on a promissory note Ex.P2 on 22.01.2010. The appellant paid interest only for 2 months and when he had not paid the interest, she told her father who said that he will handle the issue. On 01.09.2010 she was called by the police to identify her father's body and accordingly, she identified his body and collected the same after autopsy. The appellant paid interest only for 2 months and when he had not paid the interest, she told her father who said that he will handle the issue. On 01.09.2010 she was called by the police to identify her father's body and accordingly, she identified his body and collected the same after autopsy. Subsequently, she was shown the ornaments worn by her father which she identified in the police station. In the Court also she identified the gold rings [M.O.8 to M.O.13] belonging to her father and a gold bangle [M.O.14] that was worn by her father. She also identified two gold rings, two TV model gold rings, one of which had inscription "om". In the cross examination it was suggested to her that the ornaments were not that of her father and that a false case has been foisted on the appellant due to professional rivalry, which of course she denied. Based on the disclosure made by the appellant, the police have recovered the gold ornaments under the cover of Mahazars [Ex.P16 and P17]. Initially a gold ring from Kishorekumar [P.W.15] Pawn Broker, Chennai was seized on 08.09.2010 and from the said pawn broker shop further jewellery belonging to the deceased were seized by the police. All these ornaments were identified by Manjula [P.W.7] the daughter of deceased as that belonging to her father. The appellant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to how he came into possession of the ornaments belonging to the deceased. When the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that the dead body was recovered from the portion in occupation of the appellant, a burden is cast on the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how the dead body came there. Even in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has simply denied all these incriminating circumstances and has not come forward with any plausible explanation. Through the evidence of the Post-mortem Doctor the prosecution has satisfactorily established that Ramadoss, a man of about 70 years old, had suffered homicidal death. There are about 14 external injuries and there is a fracture of the left rib. 11. At this juncture, Mr. A. Padmanaban, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but should have convicted him under Section 304(ii) or 326 IPC. There are about 14 external injuries and there is a fracture of the left rib. 11. At this juncture, Mr. A. Padmanaban, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but should have convicted him under Section 304(ii) or 326 IPC. In support of this contention, he relied upon the 3rd clause of Section 300 IPC and submitted that the Post-mortem doctor has not opined which of the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in the absence of this evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. 12. He relied upon the following judgments: (1) Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1958 SC 465 ] (2) Chilamakur Nagireddy and others vs. State of A.P. [ AIR 1977 SC 1998 ] (3) Chuttan and others vs. State of M.P. [1994 SC (Cri) 1801] (4) Madhusudan Sathpathy vs. State of Orissa [1995 SCC (Cri) 155] (5) Ram Jattan and others vs. State of U.P. [1995 SCC (cri) 169] (6) State of Kerala vs. Balakrishnan [1998 SCC (cri) 571] (7) State of Rajasthan vs. Jora Ram [2005 SCC (Cri) 1633] (8) S.D. Soni vs. State of Gujarat [1992 SCC (Cri) 331] (9) State of Punjab vs. Bajan Singh [AIR 1975 SCC 258 ] 13. This argument of Mr. A. Padmanaban, learned counsel that, as the Post-mortem Doctor had not specifically stated which of the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death would automatically result in the offence falling out of the net of Section 300 IPC is indeed fallacious. This fallacy stems from the hypothesis that, the evidence of a post-mortem doctor is substantive evidence, vis-a-vis, the fact-in-issue. The evidence of a post-mortem doctor is only a relevant fact and that by itself cannot determine the fact-in-issue. Sir Stephen, the author of the Indian Evidence Act in his Magnum Opus, "The Indian Evidence Act with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence" [London: Macmillan and Company, 1872], has pointed out the distinction between a Scientific enquiry and a judicial enquiry. A Scientific Enquiry in a laboratory begins with a cause and goes to find its effect. In a laboratory, the cause can be created again and again in order to study the effects. A Scientific Enquiry in a laboratory begins with a cause and goes to find its effect. In a laboratory, the cause can be created again and again in order to study the effects. In a judicial enquiry, the cause is studied from the effect and one cannot re-create either the effect or the cause. To quote Stephens "If we wish to know what happened two thousand years ago, when specific quantities of oxygen and hydrogen were combined, under given circumstances, we can obtain complete certainty by repeating the experiment; but the whole course of human history mush recur before we could witness a second assassination of Julius Caesar." 14. The opinion of post-mortem doctor is admissible through the portal of Section 45 to prove facts that are relevant u/s 7 and 9 of the Evidence Act. "Section 45: Opinion of experts: When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Section 7: Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.-- Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. Section 9: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.-Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose." The Post-mortem Doctor is an Expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and based on the injuries found by him on the body, he gives his opinion about the cause of the death. This is relevant under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. This is relevant under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. He traces the cause from the effect. In other words, the fact-in-issue is, whether "A" murdered the deceased and the effect of murder is the death of the deceased. From the dead body, by a process of reverse engineering, the Post-Mortem Doctor decides the cause of death, that too 'in his opinion'. This is not conclusive proof of that fact, because it is once again the opinion of the expert which has been made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, when the post-mortem doctor notes the sex, the age of the deceased, they become relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of the post-mortem doctor is not a substantive piece of evidence to prove the fact-in-issue, but they are substantive evidence to prove the facts relevant under Sections 7 and 9. When there is direct evidence to prove the fact-in-issue, for example, if an eye witness says that he saw five accused cut the deceased at five specified points, and if five injuries in those specified points are noted by the post-mortem doctor during autopsy, then we say that the evidence of the eye witness has been corroborated by the evidence of the post-mortem doctor that he found the injuries on the said places. 15. On a careful reading of most of the cases relied upon by Mr. A. Padmanaban, we can find that there is direct evidence to show the overt act of each of the accused, and in those circumstances, when the Doctor had not stated which of the injury was fatal, the Courts have modified the conviction from Section 302 to 304 or 326 IPC, in respect of accused who had not caused the fatal injury. 16. In S.D.Soni Vs. State of Gujarat [1992 SCC (Cri) 331] the husband was accused of causing his wife's death. The doctor had opined that "death occurred due to pancreatic and splenic haemorrhage." Based on this finding, the Supreme Court felt that the husband would not have intended to cause the death of his wife, but would have given a blow, which had damaged the internal parts resulting in her death and therefore, had modified the conviction from Section 302 to 304(ii) IPC. 17. 17. In State of Punjab vs. Bajan Singh [ AIR 1975 SC 258 ], the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the acquittal and held that, as the prosecution had failed to prove the very identity of the dead body, the accused cannot be saddled with criminal liability. The facts that obtains in this case are totally different. The prosecution has clearly established that, the accused was occupying a room in the second floor of Padmanaban's [P.W.1] house. On 30.08.2014, the accused had an injury in his hand and he was taken by Padmanaban [P.W.1] to Dr.Elavazhagan [P.W.8] who treated him. On the same day, the accused had called Gunasekaran [P.W.6], the Locksmith, to change the lock of the house. Thereafter, the accused went missing. His father started searching for him. Only on 01.09.2010 Padmanaban [P.W.1], Subathira [P.W.2], Kolanchinathan [P.W.3], Manoharan [P.W.4] and the father of the accused broke open the lock with the help of Gunasekaran [P.W.6] and found the body of Ramadoss with injuries there. The body had already started decomposing and was found to be with maggots. The Post-mortem doctor found 14 external injuries and also internal injuries like fracture of left rib. The knife [M.O.1] was also found near the body. The ornaments of the deceased were recovered from the pawn broker's shop at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, the intention of the appellant is very clear that he has caused 14 injuries on a 70 year old man and has left him inside the house and locked it from outside and decamped with his ornaments. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the post-mortem itself was done on a decomposed body, it will not be possible for the doctor to exactly say which of the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is not the case of the accused that, he and others had committed the murder and therefore, the overt act alleged against him had not resulted in the fatal injury, warranting conversion of the conviction from Section 302 to 304 IPC. It is not the case of the accused that, he and others had committed the murder and therefore, the overt act alleged against him had not resulted in the fatal injury, warranting conversion of the conviction from Section 302 to 304 IPC. On the contrary, the accused has completely denied the entire incident and has given false explanation when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the arguments of Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel based on the aforesaid judgments that, the conviction should be converted to one under Section 304 IPC does not cut ice with us. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant on 11.10.2013 in S.C.No.74 of 2011 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam is confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.