JUDGMENT : M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 47 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence Under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. The Trial Court, vide impugned Judgment dated 07.01.2013, convicted and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The sole accused/appellant, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 3. The facts leading to this Criminal Appeal in brief are as follows: PW1's daughter Kanagalakshmi was studying B.A. English Literature second year in Idhaya College, Sengam Pudhupalayam. Usually Kanagalakshni travelled by bus from Paambaaru Dam bus stop to her college. PW-1 Kanagalakshmi's father used to drop her in his two-wheeler in the bus stop and she used to walk back home from bus stop on the return. 4. On 21.01.2011 at 07.30 a.m. PW-1 dropped her in the bus stop. Till 07.00 p.m. she had not returned from the college. PW-1 along with his neighbour Krishnan PW-2 made search for Kanagalakshmi and went to Mittapalli where her classmates namely Devibala PW-3 and Chithra used to travel along with her daughter and enquired about his daughter. On enquiry, PW-3 stated that all of them had travelled back from the college in the bus and they had alighted in their bus stop and Kanagalakshmi was in the bus and she proceeded further, since her bus stop was next to their bus stop. Thereafter desperate search was made, PW-1 was unable to find her. Thinking that she would have gone to her relatives place, PW-1 returned home. 5. On 22.01.2011 at about 06.30 a.m. PW-1 received information that a body was found in the mango grove of one Rathna Gounder. PW-1 rushed and found his daughter her face had been smashed and she was lying near the road off mango grove. Her dress, foot wear, bangles and hair clips were seen all over and a stone with blood marks. It appeared that she was raped and murdered by someone. PW-1 rushed and found his daughter her face had been smashed and she was lying near the road off mango grove. Her dress, foot wear, bangles and hair clips were seen all over and a stone with blood marks. It appeared that she was raped and murdered by someone. Thereafter PW-1 had gone to the Police station lodged a complaint with PW-18, who registered FIR. PW-19 on receipt of information proceeded to the scene of occurrence. Senior Officers had also reached the scene of occurrence and thereafter, witnesses were examined, their statements recorded. Observation mahazar and rough sketch were prepared in the presence of the witnesses, articles in the scene of occurrence seized, inquest was conducted and the body was sent to postmortem, report was obtained from the Doctor. Crime No. 47 of 2001 for offence under Sections 302 IPC registered. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. 6. In this case PW-1 to PW-21 have been examined. Ex. P1 to P24 was marked. M.O.1 to M.O.20 have been marked on the side of the prosecution. None were examined on the side of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. The Trial Court on conclusion of trial had convicted the appellant as stated supra. 7. PW-1 is the father of the deceased who had lodged the complaint Ex. P1 he used to drop his daughter in the bus stop and his daughter had not returned back from the college on 21.01.2011 even after 7.00 p.m. He made search for his daughter along with PW-2 his neighbour in various places. PW-3 stated that his daughter had travelled in the bus and returned home. PW-4 conductor of the bus has stated about the deceased getting down from the bus at Paambaaru Dam bus stop. Thereafter, PW-9 tractor driver had seen PW-10, Village Administrative Officer with a black colour hand bag in which the photo ID card of the deceased was found. Around the place chapels, bangles and the dress of the deceased were seen all over and found that the head was smashed and injuries were found on the deceased and her dress being removed, the blood stained stone was also found in the scene of occurrence. 8. PW-7 informed PW-9, who had informed PW-1 about the body of the deceased lying in the mango grove of PW-12. 8. PW-7 informed PW-9, who had informed PW-1 about the body of the deceased lying in the mango grove of PW-12. By the time the local villagers also gathered there. 9. PW-18, on receipt of the complaint registered FIR Ex. P22 at about 08.00 a.m. on 22.01.2011. PW-19 Inspector of Police on receipt of the information at 08.45 a.m. proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 09.00 a.m., prepared observation mahazar Ex. P2, PW-5 is the witness to the observation mahazar and also seized the articles from the scene of occurrence vide seizure mahazars Ex. P3 and P4. He had also prepared rough sketch Ex. P23, conducted inquest Ex. P24 and sent the body for postmortem through PW-17. He had also examined eye witnesses PW-7 and PW-8 in the scene of occurrence, who have seen the appellant at the relevant time. 10. PW-7 in his statement has stated that he had seen the appellant who is the son of Swaminathan of Chennappanayakanur wearing M.O. 19 and he had kept something in the tanker cover of the TVS 50 M.O.18, he had seen him near the bridge and also stated that he can identify the person. 11. PW-8 is the watch man of Paambaaru Dam who had seen the accused taking bath between 08.45 and 09.00 p.m. on 21.01.2011 near the scene of occurrence and after taking bath the appellant moved away from the place. 12. PW-14 Inspector of Police, P6 Peelamedu Police Station who arrested the accused in Crime No. 341 of 2011 on 02.03.2011, during investigation the accused had confessed his involvement in murdering the deceased in this case. Thereafter, the same was informed to the respondent police. 13. In the mean while, PW-19 was transferred and PW-21 had taken over the investigation. On coming to know about the accused in this case, he made formal arrest of the accused on 08.03.2011, who was already confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore in another case. Thereafter, police custody was taken on 09.03.2011 and the accused had given confession Ex. P5 on 10.03.2011 in the presence of PW-10. On his confession, M.O.19 was recovered from the scene of occurrence vide Ex. P6 seizure mahazar. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and the postmortem report Ex. P8 was obtained. Thereafter, police custody was taken on 09.03.2011 and the accused had given confession Ex. P5 on 10.03.2011 in the presence of PW-10. On his confession, M.O.19 was recovered from the scene of occurrence vide Ex. P6 seizure mahazar. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and the postmortem report Ex. P8 was obtained. The articles found in the scene of occurrence were sent for Forensic Department for obtaining Serology and Biological report and the reports are Ex. P9 to Ex. P20. The articles found on the deceased were received through a special report from the escort constable PW-17. The postmortem report Ex. P8 was obtained from PW-11. Thereafter on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Additional District Sessions Court, Krishnagiri. 14. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that there is no eye-witness in this case and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Though PW-7 and 8 have been shown as eye-witnesses who had seen the appellant along with a TVS 50. M.O.18, the two-wheeler is a TVS XL and not a TVS 50. Further, there was no Identification Parade conducted in this case and hence their evidences are unreliable. Further contended that the occurrence had taken place on 21.01.2011, the appellant was shown arrest in Crime No. 341 of 2011 on 02.03.2011 by B6, Peelamedu Police, Coimbatore and he was arrested in this case by PW-14, a confession was obtained. Based on the confession the appellant he has been made as an accused in the above case. No reason was given as to why the appellant was not arrested from 21.01.2011 to 02.03.2011, even though he was available in his Village. There are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses. 15. PW-9 driver of the tractor who informed that PW-7 at 05.30 a.m. on 22.01.2011 saw PW-10 carrying a black handbag which was found near the mango grove of PW-12. In the said handbag photo ID card of the deceased was found and he had also seen the broken bangles, hair clips and also blood stained stone and the smashed head of the deceased. Thereafter, PW-7, had reached the scene of occurrence. PW-1 father of the deceased has not stated who had informed him about his daughter's death. 16. In the said handbag photo ID card of the deceased was found and he had also seen the broken bangles, hair clips and also blood stained stone and the smashed head of the deceased. Thereafter, PW-7, had reached the scene of occurrence. PW-1 father of the deceased has not stated who had informed him about his daughter's death. 16. PW-14 Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station has stated that the appellant was produced before him by one Jayaram Krishnan, Village Administrative Officer of Coimbatore South Taluk and this Village Administrative Officer has not been examined in this case. Further confession of the appellant in Crime No. 341 of 2011 has not been produced in this case. 17. From the inquest it is found that one Venkatraman had lastly seen the deceased on 21.01.2011, the said Venkatraman had not been examined in this case. There have been contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and 2. Further except for M.O.19 black colour stripe shirt nothing was recovered from the appellant. The TVS 50 vehicle which is said to have been used by the appellant was not seized from him. PW-13 has stated that the vehicle M.O.18 has been financed by him and the vehicle was seized from him. 18. PW-20 had given his TVS 50 i.e. M.O.18 to the appellant on 21.01.2011 and when the vehicle was returned back to him the appellant has not mentioned anything to him. Further in his evidence he has stated that the Vehicle i.e. M.O.18 was pledged with him by one Setu, who has not been examined in this case. 19. The appellant was shown formal arrest in this case and police custody was taken on 09.03.2011, his shirt M.O.19 was shown recovered in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer through Ex. P6, which are highly artificial. 20. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, motive and recovery have to be proved by chain of links leading to irresistible conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence. But in this case there is no chain of links and the Lower Court had convicted the appellant on surmises and conjectures. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case the appellant had committed a grave gruesome murder of rapping a young girl Kanagalakshmi, who was pursuing second year B.A. English Literature in Idhaya College, Sengam Pudhupalayam. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case the appellant had committed a grave gruesome murder of rapping a young girl Kanagalakshmi, who was pursuing second year B.A. English Literature in Idhaya College, Sengam Pudhupalayam. She used to commute to the college by bus and returned back to her house by walk which is two kilometers away from the bus stop. On the fateful day, PW-3 her classmate travelled along with her in the bus. PW-4 conductor of the bus had stated that the deceased travelled in his bus and got down in the Paambaar Dam Bus stop. Thereafter she did not reach home. While she was proceeding back to her home she had been way laid forcibly raped in the mango grove of PW-12 in the dark hours. PW-12 heard some barking sound of his dog. As it was dark, he could not proceed further in the dark. The rape has been committed in the mango grove and her dress have been removed, her belongings chapels, bangles, hair clips were strewn around the place. After committing the rape the appellant had smashed the head of the deceased with the stone M.O.3, which was seized from the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW-5. The evidence of the witnesses are cogent trustworthy proving the fact of appellant's involvement in the gruesome act ravishing a young girl nipping her life at bud. The trial Court on proper analysis of the evidence has rightly convicted the appellant. 22. Considering the rival submissions, on perusal of evidence and materials this Court finds that PW-1 to 4 have clearly spoken about the missing of the deceased on the fateful day. PW-7 is the local resident, who knows the accused saw him at the scene of occurrence with his vehicle TVS 50 M.O.18 and he had identified the accused. PW-8 is the watch man of the Paambaaru Dam, who saw the accused taking bath nearby the scene of occurrence along with his vehicle TVS 50 M.O.18. Though there seems to be some discrepancies in naming M.O.18 as TVS 50 and not TVS XL, the accused and the vehicle were identified by them in the Court. 23. PW-8 is the watch man of the Paambaaru Dam, who saw the accused taking bath nearby the scene of occurrence along with his vehicle TVS 50 M.O.18. Though there seems to be some discrepancies in naming M.O.18 as TVS 50 and not TVS XL, the accused and the vehicle were identified by them in the Court. 23. PW-20 categorically has stated that on 21.01.2011 at about 06.00 p.m. the accused had taken TVS 50 XL TN38 BP 4189 to visit his aunt and the dress he wore on that day was M.O.19 and a lungi, which has been corroborated by PW-7 and 8. These witnesses had categorically stated about the appellant, M.O.18 and M.O.19. Thus the discrepancies with regard to the seizure of M.O.18 will not affect the case. The certain evidences of PW-7, 8 and 20 would prove the fact of the appellant using the vehicle of PW-20 and the dress he was wearing. Further on the confession of the appellant M.O.18 had been recovered and seized in the presence of PW-10. 24. PW-11 Doctor had conducted postmortem and submitted her report. The forensic reports are in conformity to the case of the prosecution. Thus, in this case PW-7 and 8 had categorically identified the appellant, as also PW-20, since the appellant is known to the above said witnesses and no Identification Parade is necessary. These witnesses had categorically identified the appellant. The deceased in this case has been rapped and murdered by the appellant. The articles have been seized from the scene of occurrence and were sent to forensic study. 25. Missing of the deceased has been proved by the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, identification of accused by PW-8 and PW-20, seizure of articles from the scene of occurrence before the presence of PW-5 and PW-6, articles recovered on the confession of the appellant are proved by PW-10. Thus on the evidence of the witnesses and materials collected and seized, chain of links completely proves the fact that the appellant has committed the rape and murdered the deceased. 26. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution, through the cogent evidence both oral and documentary has proved that the appellant/accused had committed the rape and the gruesome murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution, through the cogent evidence both oral and documentary has proved that the appellant/accused had committed the rape and the gruesome murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly reached the conclusion of convicting the appellant/accused and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 27. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the judgment dated 07.01.2013 made in S.C. No. 47 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Krishnagiri is hereby confirmed. No costs.