JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Has Charles Darwin gone wrong, in propounding the 'theory of evolution' that 'Man' has taken shape from the 'Apes'? Could it not be from the 'Beasts', is our doubt, if the finding of the Trial Court is sustained, justifying the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. We are making the said observation, not with a preconceived mind on the guilt of the appellant, but with regard to the fate of the victim, an infant girl of just 'seven months' may be the child of a 'Lesser God', having no shelter, who was raped and murdered by the assailant. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased little child was sleeping with her parents in the intervening night of 8th and 9th July 2004, on the 'veranda' of a way-side shop, situated on the side of the road leading from Kodungallur to Trichur. The father of the child, by about 11.30 p.m. suddenly woke up and found that the child was missing. The mother also got up, who cried aloud stating that somebody had kidnapped the child and made a frantic search for the child. An old man who was sleeping nearby on the Veranda and two others, who were engaged 0n security duty, also made some efforts. The parents searched for the child in the nearby Temple compound as well, but in vain. The mother was sent by her husband to the nearby police station for reporting the incident and the father continued the search. The mother of the child gave Ext.P1-F.I. statement, which was re coded by P.W.15, who registered Ext.P13 FIR then and there. The sum and substance of the statement given by the mother, who was examined as P.W.1, was that she suspected one Babu, who, about one week prior to the incident, had asked her in presence of her husband, when they were sitting in the Temple compound, whether the child would be sold to him for Rs. 500/-. When she said 'No', he had enquired whether it could be for Rs. 5000/-. Immediately she took guard of the child, when Babu left the scene, stating that the child will be lifted one day, somehow or the other. 500/-. When she said 'No', he had enquired whether it could be for Rs. 5000/-. Immediately she took guard of the child, when Babu left the scene, stating that the child will be lifted one day, somehow or the other. The mother of the child also stated that she was told that a 'tall man' wearing white 'mundu' and shirt was seen proceeding towards south with a tender child on his shoulder. She added that the child might have been kidnapped by Babu and requested to trace out the missing child. 3. Based on Ext.P1 F.I. statement, the machinery of investigation was set in motion, registering the Crime as borne by Ext.P13 FIR. Police questioned witnesses and submitted the final report. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked Exts.P1 to P27, besides, producing M.Os.1 to 16. Two witnesses were examined on the side of defence as D.Ws.1 and 2, besides marking Exts.D1 to D4. Dr. Aravindakshan, who issued Ext.X1 was examined as Court witness (C.W.1). On completion of the trial, the Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 364, 376 and 302 IPC. After completing the procedural formalities, the accused was inflicted with the punishment of life imprisonment in respect of the offences both under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and 10 years rigorous imprisonment, in respect of the offence under Section 364 IPC. This in turn is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the accused, who is undergoing imprisonment from 10.02.2007. 4. Heard Mr. K. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ambika Devi S, the learned Spl. Prosecutor (for offences against the women and children) for the respondent/State. 5. Coming to the evidence on record, P.W.1, the mother of the deceased child has deposed before the Court, almost in terms of Ext.P1 F.I. statement. She has stated that she delivered the girl (deceased, who was named as Manimeghala) about 7 months' back in the Government hospital, Kodungallur. She was residing in Kodungallur for more than a decade, along with her husband, virtually spending the nights on the 'veranda' of the nearby shop-rooms, having no dwelling place. It is also stated that she and her husband are eking out their livelihood from the meagre income generated from selling scraps/waste papers/empty bottles. She was residing in Kodungallur for more than a decade, along with her husband, virtually spending the nights on the 'veranda' of the nearby shop-rooms, having no dwelling place. It is also stated that she and her husband are eking out their livelihood from the meagre income generated from selling scraps/waste papers/empty bottles. On the fateful day, i.e. 8th July, 2004, she was sleeping along with her husband and child on the veranda of a garment shop by name 'Lemon'. Between 11.30 p.m. and 12.00 p.m., her husband looked for the child, but the child was missing. P.W.1 also got up and searched for the child. They proceeded to the nearby Temple compound in search of the child and on hearing the hue and cry, the persons engaged on security duty in the nearby shops' premises, came nearby, who were told of the incident. The said security personnel told P.W1 and her husband that shortly ago, a tall man was seen proceeding with a child on his shoulder and that he was wearing a white dothi and a blue shirt. It has been deposed by her that she was sent by her husband to the police station, while the husband was still searching for the missing child. It was accordingly, that she went to the police station and gave statement, which is marked as Ext.P1. P.W.1 also identified the accused, who was standing at the dock of the Court; also revealing his name as 'Babu', who was known to her for quite long. She deposed that the accused was a fisherman and that she had seen him about one week prior to the incident. The witness stated that she was sitting along with her husband and the child in the southern compound of the temple, when the accused came to their side and asked whether she was willing to sell the child for Rs. 500/-. When she refused, he asked whether the child could be sold for Rs. 5000/-. P.W.1 still refused, when he took the child and after fondling the child for a short-while, he left the place stating that the child will be lifted on one day, somehow or the other. It is stated that on the fateful day, the child was wearing a Banyan and light rose undergarment. She was wearing some Aluminium bangles and a ring on the mid-finger. It is stated that on the fateful day, the child was wearing a Banyan and light rose undergarment. She was wearing some Aluminium bangles and a ring on the mid-finger. The child was also wearing some threads on the hand, on the leg and on the waist. The child was of dark complexion and despite their best efforts, they could not trace out the child. By about 9.30 a.m. in the next morning, she had to witness the child lying supine behind the residence of a lady by name Radha (P.W. 5), beneath a tamarind tree and that the child had already bid farewell to the world by that time. Froth was coming from the mouth and there was blood between the legs. The child was naked. The witness identified the Banyan as M.O.1 and the undergarment as M.O.2. The thread which was on the wrist of the child was marked as M.O.3 and the other belongings of the child were also identified as M.Os.5, 6 and 7. 6. P.W. 1 deposed before the Court that she had occasion to see the accused again on the 15th of July 2004 in the Police Station and that she had identified him. The witness also added that one of the security persons was known to her, who was one Mr. Babu (P.W.3) and the name of the other security person was Unnikrishnan. The witness added that there was sufficient street light in the area. Though the witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing contrary could be elicited from her. The only discrepancy sought to be made out is that the colour of the shirt which was worn by the accused at the relevant time was 'blue', whereas it has been categorically made out that the information furnished by P.W.1 before the police at the time of giving statement as per Ext.P1 was 'as told to her' by the 'security person'. This fact that such an information was given to her, is deposed by the said 'Security person', when he was examined as P.W.3 before the Court. The version of the father of the child, when examined as P.W.2 before the Court, is also almost in similar lines. This fact that such an information was given to her, is deposed by the said 'Security person', when he was examined as P.W.3 before the Court. The version of the father of the child, when examined as P.W.2 before the Court, is also almost in similar lines. The sequence of events as occurred on 8th July, 2004, followed by the events on the next day as to the recovery of the body of the deceased child and such other aspects, as deposed by P.W.1 stand asserted and corroborated by P.W. 2 as well. The place of occurrence in this regard as deposed by the above witnesses is found substantiated by virtue of the description of the place by the Village Officer, who was examined as P.W.13 and as reflected from Ext.P11 site plan/sketch. The said witnesses also deposed before the court, as to the existence of a post with electric light in the area and that the premises in question, particularly the premises of the Temple were sufficiently lighted. The fact that the child was lying naked, there was froth in the mouth, there was blood between the legs and such other aspects are also deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. The recovery of the belongings of the child, such as bangles, garland, the threads which were marked as M.O.1 to MO.7 was spoken to by the said witness. Acquaintance with the accused for the past several years is also spoken to by P.W.2. The factum of interaction with the accused nearly one week back, in the premise of the Temple, the instance when he came there and asked whether the child would be sold for Rs. 500/- and thereafter whether the deal could be struck for Rs. 5000/-, which was refused, has been categorically asserted by P.W.2. The proclamation made by the accused that the child would be lifted one day, is also deposed by P.W.2. The said witness deposed that he had occasion to see the accused on the 15th of July 2004 in the police station and that he had identified him. The cross examination of the said witness also did not bring out anything to contradict his version or to elicit anything in favour of the accused. 7. The other material witnesses who could speak about the involvement of the accused are P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.20 and hence their evidence is being dealt with together. The cross examination of the said witness also did not bring out anything to contradict his version or to elicit anything in favour of the accused. 7. The other material witnesses who could speak about the involvement of the accused are P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.20 and hence their evidence is being dealt with together. P.W.3 is a person, who was doing security duty in the shops near the Temple premises. So also is the case with regard to P.W. 4 and P.W.20. P.W.3 has deposed that he was doing duty on 08.07.2004 night and that he had occasion to see the appellant/accused proceeding with a child on his left shoulder by about 11.30 p.m. The appellant/accused was stated as wearing light 'blue shirt' and a 'white dothi' at that point of time. It was deposed that he could see the accused in the street light and that the latter had proceeded towards the South along the road. About half an hour later, he saw a man and a lady, who came there asking whether their child was seen. They were crying and immediately P.W.3 intimated the position to another security staff by name Unnikrishnan, who was discharging similar duty on the eastern side of the Temple premises. The fact that P.W.3 had seen a person proceeding towards the South with a child on his shoulder was conveyed to the above person. The description of the person concerned (accused) that he was a tall man, was also a fact which was conveyed to the persons who came in search of the child, besides telling them about the nature of the dress which was worn by the accused at that point of time. The witness was questioned by the police, when the above particulars were revealed to them as well. On the next day, he had occasion to see the deceased child lying in the property concerned. The witness added that he had occasion to see the accused again on 15.07.2004 in the Police Station, Kodungallur and that he had identified the accused. He also identified the shirt and dhothi belonging to the accused, which were worn by the accused when he was proceeding with the child (M.O.8 & 9). The witness added that he had occasion to see the accused again on 15.07.2004 in the Police Station, Kodungallur and that he had identified the accused. He also identified the shirt and dhothi belonging to the accused, which were worn by the accused when he was proceeding with the child (M.O.8 & 9). During the cross examination, it was suggested to the witness, whether he was having any chance to see the photograph of the accused, which was stated as widely published in the newspapers/local dailies, to which the witness gave a categoric answer that he was not aware and that he was not having sufficient time to read the newspapers as well. Almost similar version has been putforth by the other security staff by name Iqbal, who was also on duty on the relevant date in the nearby premises. When he saw the accused, the latter was stated as proceeding with a child on the left shoulder and that he was wearing 'light blue shirt' and 'white dhothi'; which was by about 12.00 p.m. The subsequent events as to the interaction with the parents of the child, i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2, the fact that it was drizzling at that point of time, that he had seen the accused again on 15.07.2004 in the Police Station; and that he had identified him are also spoken to by the witness. Besides identifying the banyan and the undergarments of the child, (produced as M.Os 1 and 2), the witness also asserted and identified the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused at the relevant time (M.OS.8 and 9). During the cross examination, he has asserted that the accused, standing in the dock, was the same person who was taking the child at that point of time. The suggestion that he had chance to have seen the accused in the newspaper stands negated in the cross examination. It was added that the child was only aged about 5 to 6 months and further that he had seen the accused and child at close distance. The witness had also occasion to see the child lying dead. 8. Coming to the deposition of P.W.20, he was also a person, who was on security duty on the relevant date. It was added that the child was only aged about 5 to 6 months and further that he had seen the accused and child at close distance. The witness had also occasion to see the child lying dead. 8. Coming to the deposition of P.W.20, he was also a person, who was on security duty on the relevant date. His version is that, by about 11.30 p.m. on 08.07.2004, he had seen the appellant coming from the opposite side and when he asked about his destination, the latter did not say anything and he hastily proceeded along the road. It is deposed that there was light in front of the nearby shop and there was street light as well. The appellant/accused was stated as wearing a 'white dhothi' and a 'blue shirt' at that time. The witness added that he was a 'tall man' and that he could identify him, if he got a chance. Accordingly, he identified the appellant who was standing in the dock of the court. It is stated that he had also occasion to interact with the parents of the child, who came near in search of the child and the factum of having seen the appellant was conveyed to them. It has been asserted by the witness that the appellant was not having the child in his hands at that time. The dress of the appellants (M.Os 8 and 9) were also identified by the said witness. The appellant was further seen in the police station and the witness identified him then as well. In the course of cross examination, P.W. 20 has stated that he cannot fully assert the dress of the appellant/accused, whether it was M.O. 8 and 9, however adding that the dress of the appellant at that time was 'white dhothi' and 'blue shirt'. 9. The attack made by the defence with regard to deposition of P.W. 4 and P.W.20 is that, names of the said witnesses have not been spoken to by P.W. 1 or P.W.2 at any point of time. On the other hand, the person named by P.W.1, another person on security duty, was one Mr. Unnikrishnan, who has not been examined by Prosecution and as such, much weight cannot be given to the version given by the aforesaid witnesses. 10. On the other hand, the person named by P.W.1, another person on security duty, was one Mr. Unnikrishnan, who has not been examined by Prosecution and as such, much weight cannot be given to the version given by the aforesaid witnesses. 10. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is absolutely no merit in the said contention, in so far as the persons who had interacted with P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been spoken to by the said witnesses, particularly P.W.3 and merely for not mentioning the names of others concerned, it cannot tilt the balance in any manner. That apart, the mental condition of the parents, their one and only child of seven months was found missing, is also to be taken note of. Merely for the reason that the names of P.W.4 and P.W.20 were not mentioned by the witnesses, cannot lead to any inference that P.W. 4 or P.W.20 would not have or could not have seen the accused proceeding with the child. The said fact has to be asserted and analysed in the light of the evidence given by the other witnesses, which clearly comes in favour of the prosecution and there is no effective cross examination of the witnesses in this regard. 11. P.W. 5 is the owner of a nearby stationary shop, who saw the dead body of the child on 09.07.2004. She has deposed that the deceased child was lying beneath a Tamarind tree. She called others including her daughter and thereafter caused the matter to be informed to the police. The lie and location of the property and nearby places was also described by the witness, who added that the deceased child was lying naked and was of 5 to 6 months' old. P.W.6 is an attester to Ext.P2 Scene Mahazar (prepared by the C.I.) who is the brother in law of P.W.5. P.W. 7 is an attester to Ext.P3 Inquest Report prepared by P..W 16 on 09.07.2004. The attester to Ext.P4 Seizure Mahazar in respect of M.Os. 1 and 2 has deposed in terms of the said Mahazar when examined as P.W.8. 12. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted the 'potency test' of the appellant as borne by Ext.P5 dated 15.07.2004, which certifies it positive and that the appellant was a person having a height of 5 Feet 9 Inches (to be called as a 'tall man' ) with 65 Kg weight. 12. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted the 'potency test' of the appellant as borne by Ext.P5 dated 15.07.2004, which certifies it positive and that the appellant was a person having a height of 5 Feet 9 Inches (to be called as a 'tall man' ) with 65 Kg weight. The site inspection conducted by the Sr. Inspector Forensic Science is brought on record, when the said officer was examined as P.W. 10. P.W. 11 is the Doctor who conducted the Autopsy. Ext.P7 is the Postmortem certificate which revealed that the deceased child was having a height of 59 Cm with just 6Kg weight and that rigor mortis had been established and retained all over the body. White froth was found coming from the mouth and nostrils. The witness has deposed the injuries and other relevant aspects in terms of the certificate. As part of general examination, antemortem injuries were also given therein, which are reproduced below: "1. Linear oblique abrasion, 1.5 c.m. long, over back of left forearm with upper outer end 2 cm. below elbow.. 2. Lacerated wound, 2 x 0. 5 x 0.5 c.m, of vagina at 6'0 clock position, extending upto a distance 0.3 c.m in front of anal orifice. Abrasion, 1 x 0.5 cm, sagittal, one each along each major lip of vulva, touching outer margin of each minor lip. Vaginal, infantile, normal in size to age, admitting one finger easily and with reddish blood oozing out. Vulva infantile and normal in size to age". The other aspects noted in the said certificate is also relevant which is reproduced below: "Bones, cartilages, membranes and neck structures intact. Arteries of circle of willis, coronary vessels and biliary passages patent. White froth in mouth, pharynx and air passages-mucosae bleached. Brain (1200g) and lungs (right 90g; left 80g) congested and oedematous. Heart (80g) and aorta normal. Liver (300g), spleen (30g) and kidneys (30 g. each) congested. Stomach contained 2 cc colourless mucus emitting no unusual smell-mucosa pale. 1 cc cloudy urine in bladder. Uterus with appendages congested, infantile and normal in size to age. All other organs congested." After getting the Chemical Analysis report vide Ext.P8, PW.11 had issued Ext.P9 certificate as to the 'cause of death' stating that it was due to obstruction of air passages by water and that the deceased had undergone recent vaginal sexual intercourse. Uterus with appendages congested, infantile and normal in size to age. All other organs congested." After getting the Chemical Analysis report vide Ext.P8, PW.11 had issued Ext.P9 certificate as to the 'cause of death' stating that it was due to obstruction of air passages by water and that the deceased had undergone recent vaginal sexual intercourse. It has been clearly deposed by the said witness with regard to pressure effect of sexual intercourse with the child of a tender age and that such an act on a baby of 7 months can contribute to the death or can be cause of the death in addition to the already stated cause of death. With regard to the question whether water entry was during the vaginal intercourse, it has been replied that as per the Autopsy findings, the obstruction by water appeared to be at or around the sexual intercourse; adding that the time of death appeared to be approximately more than 7 hours and less than 18 hours prior to the commencement of Autopsy. The witness added further that the pain from 'injury No.2' in Ext.P7 can be, as a general rule, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 13. In the Cross Examination, the suggestion put to the witness as to whether the 'injury No.2' in the ordinary course of nature could be by virtue of introduction of finger, it has been answered in the negative; stating that it would stand excluded due to the presence of human semen and spermatozoa in the vagina swab as per Ext.P8. In response to the question whether oozing out of blood from the vagina could be due to various reasons, the answer given is that in the case of baby of 7 months, in the pressure of injuries, the oozing out of blood is due to that injury and nothing else. As against the suggestion, if the vaginal portion hits on a rough and hard object, there may be chance for oozing out of blood from the vagina, the witness answered that in such a case, the blood will ooze from the vulva, than vagina. The obstruction of air passage by water is stated as could be one among the causes of death. It is stated that since the stomach was empty of milk, the death has occurred approximately 2 hours after the last breast feeding. 14. The obstruction of air passage by water is stated as could be one among the causes of death. It is stated that since the stomach was empty of milk, the death has occurred approximately 2 hours after the last breast feeding. 14. P.W. 12 is a signatory to Ext.P10 Mahazar. The said recovery was effected pursuant to the information passed on by the appellant/accused while in custody. Based on the said information, stating that he had kept the material objects concerned at such places and if he was taken to the said places, he will retrieve them and hand over the same to the Investigating Officer, he was taken to such place, from where M.O.8- blue shirt and M.O. 9 white dhothi, M.O.15-undergarment and MO.16-Bicycle were recovered. It was in respect of such recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that Ext.P10 was prepared. P.W.12 has deposed in terms of Ext.P10. The Investigating Officer, C.I. of Valappad, who was also having charge over the Circle Office, Mala at the relevant time and who was examined as P.W.18, had effected the said recovery and has proved the said fact. The necessary ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act have been made out and it was based on the information passed on by the accused in custody, that such recovery was effected. P.W.12 himself had arrested the accused/appellant on 15.07.2004 and submitted Ext.P23 report as to the actual address of the appellant/accused. As a matter of fact, Ext.P1 FIS was recorded by PW.15 (Head Constable) who registered Ext.P13 FIR on 09.07.2004, since the concerned C.I. of Police had gone for some personal requirements, handing over charge to P.W.17. But since the said officer was not available on that day, P.W.16, the Dy.S.P. took over the matter, conducted investigation and prepared Ext.P3 Inquest Report, besides taking possession of M.Os.3 to 7 and Mos.10 to 14. The said witness also recorded the statement of some of the witnesses. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by P.W. 17 who prepared Ext.P2 Mahazar and recorded statement of some of the witnesses. The investigation was continued by P.W.18 and the investigation was completed by P.W.19 (through whom Ext.P24 Chemical Analysis Report and Ext.P25 report as to inclusion of the officer under Section 302 were marked). The said witness submitted the final report before the Court. 15. P.W. 21, the Asst. The investigation was continued by P.W.18 and the investigation was completed by P.W.19 (through whom Ext.P24 Chemical Analysis Report and Ext.P25 report as to inclusion of the officer under Section 302 were marked). The said witness submitted the final report before the Court. 15. P.W. 21, the Asst. Chemical Examiner, referring to Ext.P8 Chemical Analysis Report, has deposed before the trial Court that human semen and spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal swab, covered by item No.5 mentioned in the report. The blood spotted on the cotton gauze mentioned as Item No.6 was identified to be of 'A' group, which was of the deceased child. The witness identified the signature and office seal on Ext.P8. A case was put up from the part of the defence, that the parents of the deceased child examined as P.Ws 1 and 2, were virtually deposing against the appellant/accused only because of their personal vengeance. Reference is made to an occasion when the appellant had to beat the PW.2, when there was an attempt from his part to steal some utensils from the house of the appellant. In order to establish this case, the mother of the appellant/accused was examined as D.W.1. She has stated that PWs.1 and 2 are well known to her. The suggestion put to P.W.2 in this regard was blatantly denied by him, also stating that he did not know the place of residence of the appellant/accused. P.W.1 also has deposed that she did not know the whereabouts of the appellant/accused, though the appellant was known to her for nearly a decade, by virtue of his avocation as a Fisherman in the locality. 16. D.W.2 who is a close relative of the appellant/accused deposed that the appellant/accused had come to his residence on 08.07.2004 ; that they had watched a movie till late in the night; that he had spent a night with him on that day and it was only thereafter that he left the house in the morning. The witness was subjected to cross examination, when the apprehension, in respect of murder stated as effected by Babu, the accused, was also expressed by him. The witness was subjected to cross examination, when the apprehension, in respect of murder stated as effected by Babu, the accused, was also expressed by him. The fact that the appellant was residing along with his mother; that he was having his wife and three children have also been brought out in evidence; besides that his place of residence was situated nearly 1/2' Km from the mother's residence; whereas Babu's (accused) residence was situated nearly 5 Kms' away. The evidence tendered by the said witness does not inspire confidence of this Court, but for the Statement made that the accused was perfectly alright on the date of occurrence, which may have some connection/importance in connection with the attempt made by the defence to set up a case with reference to 'unsoundness of mind', to be discussed in the due course.: 17. It is brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that when the appellant was in jail, he was having mental problem, which was brought to the notice of the authorities of the jail then and there. He was caused to be examined by Dr.Aravindakshan, who has issued Ext.X1 certificate dated 11.01.2007 to the effect that the accused was not in a position to undergo trial at that point of time. Subsequently, the appellant was caused to be examined further and a detailed medical check up was conducted by admitting him as an inpatient in the hospital from 17.01.2007 to 24.01.2007. The medical examination revealed that there was nothing wrong and it was accordingly, that the matter was certified as per Ext.P26, which reads as follows: "Mr. Kamalakshy Babu @ Babu (Accused in S.C.960/05) was admitted to the psychiatry ward on 19.01.2007 and was observed till 24.01.2007 as per the court order. Repeated Mental State Examinations done during the observation did not reveal any abnormality. Apart from complaints of sleep disturbance, no other symptoms were reported. Patient reported that he was hospitalized and treated by psychiatrist for alcohol abuse four years back. Records of the treatment were not available with him. His wife needs to be interviewed for getting more information regarding his mental health in the past. It is not clear whether he had psychiatric symptoms in the past. This needs to be clarified........" 18. These facts have been brought out in the evidence tendered by Dr. Records of the treatment were not available with him. His wife needs to be interviewed for getting more information regarding his mental health in the past. It is not clear whether he had psychiatric symptoms in the past. This needs to be clarified........" 18. These facts have been brought out in the evidence tendered by Dr. Shaji, when he was examined as P.W.22. Ext.X1 certificate was issued pursuant to Ext.P26 letter sent by C.W.1. The contents of Ext.P26 and deposition of P.W.22 Psychiatrist stand confirmed and corroborated by virtue of the assertions made by D.W.2 to the effect that the appellant/accused was perfectly sane on the date of occurrence. Even otherwise, no case is established that the appellant/accused was in any way entitled to have the benefit of 'General Exceptions' under Section 84 IPC and that the position/mental status/condition as on the date of occurrence in the year 2004 stands intact. The evidence tendered by the prosecution and the defence have been subjected to meticulous analysis by the Trial Court and it was found that there was no missing link in connecting the same to form a common chain as noted below: (a) Admittedly this is a case resting on the circumstantial evidence alone. It can also be called indirect evidence. It is trite that circumstantial evidence can be conclusive or presumptive. It is conclusive when there is a connection between the principal fact and the evidentiary fact. (b) Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are: (i) circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (ii) circumstances should be conclusive; (iii) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with innocence of the accused; (iv) circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the accused (See State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal [ AIR 1992 SC 2045 ]. All the later decisions on this point by the Apex Court as well as this Court also follow the same principles. In this case, the reliable prosecution evidence forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant and no other hypothesis is possible. 19. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond 'reasonable doubt', in so far as no Test Identification Parade' was conducted. In this case, the reliable prosecution evidence forms a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant and no other hypothesis is possible. 19. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond 'reasonable doubt', in so far as no Test Identification Parade' was conducted. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Kanan and others v. State of Kerala [ AIR 1979 SC 1127 ] was cited across the Bar in support of the said contention. We have gone through the same. The factual situation discussed therein stands entirely on a different footing and the finding rendered by the Court was that the evidence tendered by the accomplice cannot be accepted without corroboration. The importance of 'Test Identification Parade' was discussed in the said background. The position revealed from the discussion in para 1 of the above verdict is extracted below: "It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court". 20. Such a situation is not prevailing in the instant case, in so far as the identity of the person concerned was suggested by P.W.1 herself specifically giving the name, within a few hours of occurrence, trying to connect him with the incident occurred nearly one week ago. The child was found missing at about 11.30 p.m. on 08.07.2004 and after the futile search for sometime, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave Ext.P1F.I. Statement. In the F.I. statement she has clearly stated that she had some doubts about the appellant. The doubt was expressed with reference to the act of the accused when he asked P.Ws. The child was found missing at about 11.30 p.m. on 08.07.2004 and after the futile search for sometime, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave Ext.P1F.I. Statement. In the F.I. statement she has clearly stated that she had some doubts about the appellant. The doubt was expressed with reference to the act of the accused when he asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 about one week ago, while sitting on the southern side of the Temple compound, whether they were prepated to well the child for Rs. 500/- and when refused, whether they were prepared to sell the child for Rs. 5000/-. It was also stated that he had left the scene adding that the child would be lifted on one day. Such a thought came to the mind of P.W1 as a natural instinct and there was no room or chance for having her tutored. The investigation was conducted proceeding in the said line and the evidence collected have been connected together to arrive at the guilt of the accused. That apart, the witnesses examined before the Court, particularly P.Ws.3, 4 and 20 have identified the accused in the police station itself, i.e. immediately after his arrest on 15.07.2004 and this fact has been deposed by the witnesses. This being the position, the decision sought to be relied on as to the necessity to conduct a 'Test Identification Parade' does not come to the rescue of the appellant in any manner. 21. After hearing both the sides, we find that the finding rendered by the Trial Court that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused is perfectly based on the materials available on record. The said finding and reasoning is not assailable under any circumstance. We confirm the conviction and sentence ordered by the Court below. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.