JUDGMENT : A.SELVAM, J. The conviction and sentence dated 14.09.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 by the Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The epitome of the case of the prosecution is that due to money transaction the accused has had animosity with the deceased by name Abdul Majith. On 12.12.2008 at about 06.00 p.m. under the guise of getting employment to the deceased, the accused has taken him from his house and subsequently the accused has murdered him in a graveyard. After occurrence, one Gobalakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.805 of 2008. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer viz., P.W.17 has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly Dr.Karthikeyan, viz., P.W.16 has conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and he found the following external and internal injuries: “1.A Transverse, dark brown colour ligature mark, 28 cm x 1.5 cm, on the front and sides of neck, at the level of thyroid cartilage, 5 cm below the right angle of mandible, 6 cm below the left angle of mandible and on the back of neck the ligature mark is absent. On Blood less dissection of Neck:- Bruising of soft tissues of neck - Dark red. Diffusion of blood in to the soft tissues of neck. Fracture of lamina of thyroid cartilage vertically at the midline. Blood clots are fissured adherent at the fractured ends and not washable. Hemorrhagic spots in the mucous membrane of wind pipe and Oesophagus. Bruising of esophageal wall - Dark red. Hyoid bone - intact. 2. Fracture of nasal bones, both side maxilla bone, upper jaw and lower jaw bone, right Zygomatic arch present. Hair line fracture of right temporal bone present. Fracture of right orbital bone present. 3. Hair line fracture of floor of anterior cranial fossa. 4. Ant bite marks on both upper and lower extremities, front of trunk and genitalia present. O/E The edges are irregular. Base is pale and no signs of lividity. In wounds No.2nd and 3rd the fractured ends are pale. No Blood clots present. No surrounding area bruising. The wound No.1 is ante-mortem. Wounds No.2, 3 and 4 are post-mortem in nature. Ant bite marks on both upper and lower extremities, front of trunk and genitalia present. O/E The edges are irregular. Base is pale and no signs of lividity. In wounds No.2nd and 3rd the fractured ends are pale. No Blood clots present. No surrounding area bruising. The wound No.1 is ante-mortem. Wounds No.2, 3 and 4 are post-mortem in nature. No other external, internal or bony wound present. Other findings: Peritoneum - intact, early decomposed, cavity - empty; Pleura - intact, early decomposed, cavity - empty; Pericardium - intact, early decomposed, cavity - straw colour fluid; Heart - Anatomical configuration altered, flabby, decomposed, Chambers - clotted blood; Valves - normal, Coronary - patent, Great vessels - normal; Lungs – Anatomical configuration altered, early decomposed; Larynx, trachea and mucosa – vide wound column; Stomach - light brown colour semisolid food material with few undigested cooked rice particles, no specific smell, mucosa - congested, early decomposed; Oesophagus - vide wound column; Pancreas - intact, early decomposed; Gall bladder - full, no stones; Omentum and Mesentery - intact, early decomposed; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys - intact, early decomposed; Small intestine - yellowish chyme, no specific smell, mucosa - early decomposed; Appendix - intact, early decomposed; Large intestine - filled with gas; Urinary bladder - intact, empty, early decomposed; Pelvis - intact; Scalp, Skull Bones, Membranes, Sinuses, Brain Vessels and Brain - vide wound column; Vertebral column - intact, cord - intact, early decomposed; All other internal organs on c/s early decomposed”. The Postmortem Certificate has been marked as Ex.P.8. The Investigating Officer has continued investigation, examined the remaining witnesses and after completing investigation, has laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.VI, Tiruchirappalli and taken on file in P.R.C.No.6 of 2009. 4. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 and subsequently made over to the Trial Court. 5. 4. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 and subsequently made over to the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed first charge against the accused under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and second charge against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.O.1 to M.O.9 have been marked. 7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 8. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- with usual default clause. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused in respect of the charge framed under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant. 9. The consistent case putforth on the side of the prosecution is that due to money transaction the accused has had previous enmity against the deceased and in pursuance of the same with intention to murder him on 12.12.2008 at about 06.00 p.m. the accused has taken the deceased from his house under the guise of getting an employment to the deceased and subsequently in a graveyard he murdered him. 10. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. The wife of the deceased by name Asanammal has been examined as P.W.3. The last seen witnesses have been examined as P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.12. 10. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. The wife of the deceased by name Asanammal has been examined as P.W.3. The last seen witnesses have been examined as P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.12. The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses mentioned supra coupled with medical evidence has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as mentioned in the Judgment. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant/accused: (i) The wife of the deceased viz., Asanammal has been examined as P.W.3 and on the basis of her evidence, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that she is a believable witness. (ii) The prosecution has examined one Sahul Hameed as a last seen witness. During the course of cross-examination, he would say that he does not know the name of the accused and no identification parade has been conducted in his presence. (iii) The other last seen witness has been examined as P.W.12 and eye witness has been examined as P.W.10 and their specific evidence is that they have not immediately disclosed the fact that they have seen both the accused and deceased together and therefore their evidence cannot be accepted. (iv) In the instant case, a bicycle has been recovered, but the same has not been identified to the effect that it belongs to the deceased. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that even though the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence given by P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.10 and P.W.12 has clearly established the culpability of the accused punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Trial Court after considering the overall evidence available on record has rightly found the accused guilty under the said Section and therefore the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court need not be interfered with. 13. As stated earlier, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that if a case is purely based upon circumstantial evidence, there should not be any missing link. 14. 13. As stated earlier, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that if a case is purely based upon circumstantial evidence, there should not be any missing link. 14. On the side of the prosecution, the wife of the deceased viz., Asanammal has been examined as P.W.3 and her specific evidence is that prior to occurrence, the accused has come to her house and taken her husband on a bicycle under the guise of getting an employment. Apart from the evidence given by P.W.3, the prosecution has examined one Sahul Hameed as P.W.7 and his specific evidence is that prior to occurrence he has seen both the accused and deceased together. The prosecution has examined one Velmurugan as eye witness and his specific evidence is that he has seen the occurrence. The another last seen witness by name Kumarappa has been examined as P.W.12 and he has also deposed to the effect that he has seen both the accused and deceased together. 15. The first and foremost contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that P.W.3 is not a reliable witness. In fact this Court has perused the entire evidence given by P.W.3 and her specific evidence is that prior to occurrence the accused has come to her house and taken her husband through a bicycle under the guise of getting employment. Since P.W.3 has given a consistent evidence, her evidence cannot be discarded and therefore the first and foremost contention putforth on the side of the appellant/ accused cannot be accepted. 16. The second contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that P.W.7 during the course of cross-examination has clearly admitted to the effect that he does not know the name of the accused. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the entire evidence given by P.W.7. In chief-examination, he clearly stated to the effect that he has seen both the accused and deceased together. It is true that in the cross-examination he admitted to the effect that he does not know the name of the accused, but on the other hand he clearly stated to the effect that the accused is residing in Kamarajar Nagar. In chief-examination, he clearly stated to the effect that he has seen both the accused and deceased together. It is true that in the cross-examination he admitted to the effect that he does not know the name of the accused, but on the other hand he clearly stated to the effect that the accused is residing in Kamarajar Nagar. Considering the fact that P.W.7 has already known the accused, identification parade need not be conducted in his presence and therefore the second contention urged on the side of the appellant/ accused goes out without merit. 17. The third contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that even though P.W.10 has claimed to be an eye witness and P.W.12 is said to be a witness of last seen, they have not disclosed the fact immediately to anybody and under the said circumstances their evidence cannot be believed in. 18. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/accused, both P.W.10 and P.W.12 have not disclosed the factum of occurrence immediately to another. Under the said circumstances, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that P.W.10 and P.W.12 are believable witnesses. Therefore the third contention putforth on the side of the appellant/ accused is really having subsisting force. 19. The fourth contention putforth on the side of the appellant/accused is that nobody has identified the bicyle which belongs to the deceased. It is nothing, but a flimsy mistake on the part of the prosecution and the same would not militate the case of the prosecution. 20. It has already been pointed out that the consistent evidence given by P.W.3 is that prior to occurrence, the accused has come to her house and taken her husband under the guise of getting employment. In fact the evidence given by P.W.3 remains unshattered. Likewise, P.W.7 has also equally given a consistent evidence to the effect that prior to occurrence he has seen both the accused and deceased. Simply on the basis of the fact that he does not know the name of the accused, his evidence cannot be belittled. 21. At this juncture, the Court has to look into Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein it has been clearly stated that if a person knows a particular fact or if a particular fact is within his knowledge, the entire burden lies upon him. 21. At this juncture, the Court has to look into Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein it has been clearly stated that if a person knows a particular fact or if a particular fact is within his knowledge, the entire burden lies upon him. In the instant case, on the side of the prosecution reliable evidence is available for the purpose of showing that the accused has taken the deceased prior to occurrence and further the prosecution has clearly established both the accused and deceased are seen together. Since the said aspects are very much present in the present case, as per the said Section the entire burden lies upon the accused, but the accused has not discharged the same. Since the accused has not discharged the same, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that there is no missing link in pointing out the guilt of the accused. 22. The Trial Court after considering the available evidence on record has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and altogether the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 23. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.154 of 2009 by the Second Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps so as to imprison the appellant/accused to serve out the remaining period of sentence.