JUDGMENT : M. Jaichandren, J. The appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.31 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge No.2, Kanchipuram. He stood charged for the offences under sections 457, 461, 380 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment, 2 dated 02.01.2012, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused for the following offences:- Sl. No. Conviction under section Sentence Awarded 1. 457 IPC To undergo 14 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. 461 IPC To undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 3. 380 IPC To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 4. 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- [a] The deceased in this case was one Loganathan. He was an employee in a Hotel by name “Sakthi Ganapathy”, in Kanchipuram. P.W.1 and the accused were co-workers. One Balasubramaniam [P.W.2] is the owner of the said Hotel. It is alleged that, on 17.08.2008, after the business in the Hotel was over, at 10.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2 had closed the Hotel and had gone to their respective homes. The deceased Loganathan was inside the Hotel, bolting the door from inside. He had gone to sleep by the side of the Cash Counter. The Hotel had two floors. The workers in the Hotel were staying in the 2nd floor. From the ground floor there was an entry to go to the 2nd floor, through the steps. The accused was also staying in the 2nd floor. By about 11.30 p.m., on the same day, the accused had gone to the ground floor for charging his cellphone, by using the plug point in the ground floor. The deceased had objected to the same. This had resulted in a wordy altercation. Then, both the accused and P.W.4 went to the 2nd floor. By about 11.30 p.m., on the same day, the accused had gone to the ground floor for charging his cellphone, by using the plug point in the ground floor. The deceased had objected to the same. This had resulted in a wordy altercation. Then, both the accused and P.W.4 went to the 2nd floor. When P.W.4 was sleeping, by about 3.30 a.m., one Neelagandan [P.W.6], who is a co-worker came to the 2nd floor of the Hotel and woke up P.W.4. Both P.W.4 and P.W.6 were about to go to the bathroom. At that time, the accused went out of the Hotel, through main entrance, by lifting the shutters, with a handbag in his possession. One Rajamannar [P.W.7] came to the Hotel. He was knocking the shutters. Therefore, P.Ws.4 and 6 came down and had found the deceased near the cash counter, in a pool of blood. A grinding stone was found near the dead body, stained with blood. The deceased was found dead. Immediately thereafter, they gave the information to P.W.1, over phone. [b] P.W.1 had rushed to the Hotel, verified the fact had gone to the police station and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint at 10.00 a.m. on 18.08.2008 and registered a case, in Cr.No.430/2008 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report [F.I.R.]. He had forwarded both the documents to the Court and had handed over the Case Diary to P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police, for investigation. [c] P.W.19, took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and a Rough Sketch, [Ex.P.15] in the presence of witnesses and had recovered the blood stained grinding stone [M.O.1] from the place of occurrence and had also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had also conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, in the presence of panchayatdars and other witnesses under Ex.P.16-Inquest Report. Thereafter, he had sent the dead body, for postmortem. [d] P.W.13, Dr. Vinodhini, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, at 4.30 p.m., on 18.08.2008. She had found the following injuries:- “External Injuries:- [1] A contusion size 4x2x2 cm in right jaw present. On dissection mandible bone fractured. [2] Lacerated wound 2x1x1 cm in right earlobe. On dissection, cartilage injury present. [d] P.W.13, Dr. Vinodhini, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, at 4.30 p.m., on 18.08.2008. She had found the following injuries:- “External Injuries:- [1] A contusion size 4x2x2 cm in right jaw present. On dissection mandible bone fractured. [2] Lacerated wound 2x1x1 cm in right earlobe. On dissection, cartilage injury present. [3] Laceration 2x1x1 m in right temparo parietal region. [4] A contusion size 4x2x2 cm surrounding the above laceration in right temperoparietal region. Hair bulbs crushed in the area. On dissection, fracture in right temperoparietal region with pointed tips. [5] Communited fracture skull involving both parietal bones, occipital and frontal bone. [6] Bone of skull fractured longitudinally. [7] A haematoma of skull [subgalial haematoma] of size 5x5x5 cm in left parietal region. Internal injuries:- Hyoid bone intact. On dissection, ribcage intact. Lungs: c/s congested. Heart: 325 gms c/s congested. Opening of Abdomen: Stomach contains 200 ml of digested food particles. Liver:1200 gm weight. C/s: congested. Spleen: 90 gms weight. Kidneys: Right-90 gms Left-90 gms c/s. Congested. Urinary Bladder-empty. External genetals-normal. Opening of head:- Scalp: Subgalial haemorrhage left parietal. Tissue fracture of right parietal bone. Communited fracture of skull involving both parietal, occipital and frontal bone. Bone of skull fractured. Extra-dural haemorrhage right side with bilateral subdural haemorrhage [front temperoparietal region]. Subarachnoid haemorrhage present on guater part of both hemisphere CSF blood stained. Brain:-contusion on right hemisphere, temperoparietal region. Intracerebral haemorrhage present in both frontotemporal region.” Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate. She had opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. [e] P.W.19, during the course of investigation, arrested the accused near Vasantha Bhavan Hotel, at Tambaram, on 24.08.2008, at about 5.45 a.m., in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused made a confession in which he had disclosed the place where he had exchanged the coins for currency notes and also he had identified the place where he had hidden the pant [M.O.21] and shirt [M.O.22] with the blood stains. Thereafter, he had taken the police to the said place and had produced a sum of Rs.2219/-, which was seized under a cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.18] and the pant [M.O.21] and shirt [M.O.22]. On returning to the police station, he had sent the accused for judicial remand, to the Court, and had handed over the material objects for chemical examination. Thereafter, he had taken the police to the said place and had produced a sum of Rs.2219/-, which was seized under a cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.18] and the pant [M.O.21] and shirt [M.O.22]. On returning to the police station, he had sent the accused for judicial remand, to the Court, and had handed over the material objects for chemical examination. He also altered the First Information Report to one under sections 302 and 380 IPC. Ex.P.18 is the altered FIR. On his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects, including the pant and the shirt, recovered from the accused. On completion of the investigation, he had laid the charge-sheet against the accused. [f] Based on the above materials, the Trial Court had framed the charge against the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 21 documents and 24 material objects were marked. [g] Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that, on 17.08.2008, after the Hotel business was over, he along with P.W.2, the owner of the Hotel, had closed the Hotel. He has further stated that the shutter was closed from inside, by the deceased and he had gone to sleep near the cash counter. He had also stated that the accused was staying in the 2nd floor of the Hotel and that, at 3.30 a.m. on 18.08.2008, the deceased was found dead, with injuries. A grinding stone was found near the deceased. P.W.3 has stated that he was also working in the same Hotel and that, on 18.08.2008, at about 3.00 a.m., when he was proceeding to the said Hotel, for the day's work, near the Railway road, the accused was found fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. He has further stated that when he had enquired the accused, he had told him that he had taken leave. P.W.4 is also an employee of the said Hotel. He has stated that he had stayed with the accused in the Hotel on the previous night. It is his further submission that, at 3.30 a.m., when P.W.6 came to the Hotel, the accused was found moving out of the Hotel. P.W.4 is also an employee of the said Hotel. He has stated that he had stayed with the accused in the Hotel on the previous night. It is his further submission that, at 3.30 a.m., when P.W.6 came to the Hotel, the accused was found moving out of the Hotel. P.W.6 has also stated so. Thereafter, P.W.6 and P.W.4 found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. P.W.5 is the cashier of the said Hotel. He had also stated that the Hotel was closed, at 10.30 p.m., on 17.08.2008 and on the next day, at about 5.30 a.m., when he came to the Hotel, he had found the accused leaving the Hotel. He has also stated that he, along with P.W.4, had found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 has also stated the same fact. P.W.8 has stated that he had found the dead body of the deceased, on the next day, i.e., on 18.08.2008. He is the son of the deceased. P.W.9 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar, the Rough Sketch and the recovery of the material objects, including the grinding stone, from the place of occurrence. P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential discovery of the material objects from his possession. P.W.11 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence. P.W.12 is the Constable who took the dead body of the deceased, to the hospital, for postmortem. P.W.13 – doctor, has spoken about the postmortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.14 has spoken about the chemical examination conducted by him and the results thereon. P.W.15 has also spoken about the chemical examination conducted on the material objects. P.W.16 has spoken about similar facts. P.W.17 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.18 has stated that, on 18.08.2008, the accused came to him and gave certain coins and got currency notes in exchange for the same. P.Ws.19, 20 and 21 have spoken about the investigation done and about the filing of the final report. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., he had denied the same, as false. His defence was a total denial. However, he did not choose to examine any witness, nor had he marked any documents on his side. 4. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., he had denied the same, as false. His defence was a total denial. However, he did not choose to examine any witness, nor had he marked any documents on his side. 4. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court had convicted the appellant herein. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the prosecution has not proved the circumstances projected by it, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and other documents, in an attempt to substantiate his contentions. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had vehemently opposed the appeal. According to him, all the circumstances projected by the prosecution has been clearly established beyond any reasonable doubt and thus, proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as an employee in “Sakthi Ganapathi” Hotel, in Kanchipuram. There is also no dispute that, on 17.08.2008, by about 10.30 p.m., the Hotel business was over and P.Ws.1 and 2 had left the Hotel. From the evidences of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, it has been clearly proved that the deceased was inside the Hotel after the closing of the shutters, from inside. It has also been clearly established that the deceased was sleeping by the side of the cash counter. 10. It is in the evidence of P.W.4 that, by around 11.30 p.m., on 17.08.2008, the accused came downstairs and he had wanted to charge his cellphone. The deceased objected to the same. This resulted in a wordy quarrel. P.W.4 separated them and thereafter, the accused had gone to the 2nd floor, where he was staying. This circumstance is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of P.W.4. 11. The deceased objected to the same. This resulted in a wordy quarrel. P.W.4 separated them and thereafter, the accused had gone to the 2nd floor, where he was staying. This circumstance is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of P.W.4. 11. According to P.W.4, by about 3.30 a.m., on 18.08.2008, P.W.6 [Neelagandan] who was staying with him, woke him up to go to bathroom, so as to be ready for the day's work. At that time, P.W.6 had told P.W.4 that, when he had entered into the Hotel, the accused was fleeing away from the Hotel. P.W.6, in turn, has deposed in his evidence that, on 18.08.2008, at about 2.30 a.m., when he had come down to the ground floor, he had found the accused fleeing away from the Hotel, with a handbag. Though P.Ws.4 and 6 have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to doubt their credibility. From these evidences, it has been clearly established that the accused was found fleeing away from the Hotel, on 18.08.2008, between 2.30 a.m., and 3.30 a.m. 12. Thereafter, P.W.3 had seen the accused near the Railway Road, at Kanchipuram. According to him, he had gone to the market, for purchasing vegetables for the Hotel. Admittedly, he was also an employee of the same Hotel. By about 3.00 a.m., on 18.08.2008, when he was coming near the Railway Road, the accused was found proceeding from the opposite direction. When P.W.3 had enquired the accused, he had told him that he had taken leave. This evidence of P.W.3 also deserves acceptance because nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination, to disbelieve him. From these evidences, it has been clearly established, by the prosecution, that the accused had escaped from the Hotel, between 2.30 a.m., to 3.30 a.m., on 18.08.2008, and thereafter, he was found missing. But, the evidence of P.W.3 would clearly go to show that the accused had told a lie to him that he had taken leave and therefore, he was fleeing away from the Hotel. This conduct of the accused is an incriminating factor against him, and it goes to prove his guilty mind. 13. It is also stated that all the witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have seen the deceased lying dead near the cash counter. M.O.1-Grinding stone was also found nearby, with blood stains. This conduct of the accused is an incriminating factor against him, and it goes to prove his guilty mind. 13. It is also stated that all the witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have seen the deceased lying dead near the cash counter. M.O.1-Grinding stone was also found nearby, with blood stains. The Doctor who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has clearly stated that the death was due to the injuries found on the head and those injuries would have been caused by dropping the said grinding stone on the head of the deceased. Thus, the death of the deceased was clearly a case of homicide. 14. The accused, had been arrested, only on 24.08.2008. Thus, between 18.08.2008 and 24.08.2008, he had been absconding. On such arrest, he had made a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place where he had hidden the two cellphones [M.Os.19 and 20. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the said cellphones [M.O.19 and M.O.20] had been recovered. However, there is no evidence to show that these cellphones had anything to do with the deceased. Even the son of the deceased, who has been examined as P.W.8, has not identified the cellphone of the deceased. Thus, the recovery of these two cellphones has got no relevance. Therefore, the same does not lend any support to the case of the prosecution. 15. Thus, from the above circumstances, it is clear that, the accused was in the Hotel, he had quarreled with the deceased and thereafter, fled away from the scene of occurrence and had given a false explanation for his fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. Further, the conduct of the accused in absconding for such a long time, for which he has got no explanation, would clearly and conclusively prove that it was this accused alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. As such, the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by the Trial Court, is hereby confirmed.