JUDGMENT : R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J. PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 25.09.2012 in S.C.No.125 of 2011, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil. This criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order, dated 25.09.2012,in S.C.No.125 of 2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil. 2. The Trial Court framed two charges against the appellant, as detailed below: Charge Penal Provisions 1. 302 I.P.C. 2. 201 I.P.C. 3. The Trial Court, by Judgment and Order, dated 25.09.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused as under: Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 I.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four (4) years. 201 I.P.C. To undergo three (3) years rigorous imprisonment. Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months. The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by accused has been set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The prosecution story is as follows: 4.1. The deceased is one Ponnaiyan Nadar, who was 74 years old at the time of the occurrence and was living in Kalvettankuli Village. His wife died several years ago. Ponnaiyan Nadar had three daughters and one son (appellant herein) who were all given in marriage. The appellant was given in marriage to one Chandrika (P.W.4) of the same village, through whom the appellant has two daughters. The appellant was a chronic tippler and would not go for job. Since he led a wayward life, his father Ponnaiyan Nadar, settled his properties in favour of his two granddaughters (daughters of the appellant) vide settlement deed (Ex.P2), dated 31.07.2001. This was not to the liking of the appellant and therefore, the appellant was harassing his father and wife continuously for money. Unable to withstand the torture of the appellant, Ponnaiyan Nadar advised his daughter-in-law to go to her parental home with her children and live peacefully. Accordingly, Chandrika (P.W.4) and two children were living in Chandrika's parental home in the same village. Thus, Ponnaiyan Nadar and his son (appellant) were living under the same roof. Unable to withstand the torture of the appellant, Ponnaiyan Nadar advised his daughter-in-law to go to her parental home with her children and live peacefully. Accordingly, Chandrika (P.W.4) and two children were living in Chandrika's parental home in the same village. Thus, Ponnaiyan Nadar and his son (appellant) were living under the same roof. While so, it is alleged that on 28.03.2011, the appellant quarrelled with his father around 10.30 p.m., and at that time, the appellant is said to have attacked him indiscriminately and caused his death. Thereafter, on the next day, the appellant was found burning the body of his father in the open backyard of their house. Since a stench emanated, Lysa (P.W.2) a neighbour, became suspicious and she informed Renuka Daniel (P.W.1) - Panchayat President. 4.2. Renuka Daniel (P.W.1) and Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3), a Ward Member, came to the house of the appellant around 08.00 a.m. on 29.03.2011 and in the backyard, they found the appellant burning something. When they went near, they found that it was a dead body. When Renuka Daniel (P.W. 1) and Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) questioned the appellant, the appellant told them that he has indeed murdered his father and that he is burning the corpse. When they attempted to apprehend the appellant, he threatened them and escaped. 4.3. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), Mohan Kumar (P.W.8) registered a case in Kaliyakkavilai Police Station Crime No.174 of 2011 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. on 29.03.2011 at 9.00 a.m and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P7) which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day at 03.50 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. The appellant was shown as the accused in the FIR. 4.4. The investigation of the case was taken over by Suthesan (P.W.13) who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P12) and rough sketch (Ex.P14). From the place where the body was being burnt, the Investigating Officer seized the burnt ash (M.O.3) and piece of cloth (M.O.4) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P13). Inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted and inquest report was marked as Ex.P15. The body of Ponnaiyan Nadar was sent to the Government Hospital, Kanyakumari, where Dr.Rajesh (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the Post Mortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and final opinion (Ex.P10). 4.5. Inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted and inquest report was marked as Ex.P15. The body of Ponnaiyan Nadar was sent to the Government Hospital, Kanyakumari, where Dr.Rajesh (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the Post Mortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and final opinion (Ex.P10). 4.5. In his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P9), Dr.Rajesh (P.W.11) has stated as follows : "Burnt and charred body of a Male. Head was found separately. Left fore arm along with hand, lower half of right fore arm along with hand, lower half of right thigh along with right leg and foot, lower 2/3rd of left thigh along with left leg and foot were found missing. On alignment anatomatically and by contour the head and the headless truck matches each other resiprocally and they belong to one and same individual. Deep burns noted over the abdominal area and the visceral organs were exposed. Singeing of scalp hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, axillary and public hair noted. Blackening of skin noted all over the body. Base of the burnt area were pale and yellowish in colour. The following ante-mortem injuries noted :- 1) Horizontal cut fracture seen over the right parietal region measuring 10 cm. 2) Horizontal cut fracture seen over the right parietal region measuring 8 cm. 3) 6 x 2 cm x bone deep cut injury seen over the lower jaw. Vault of the skull found missing and the brain matter is mixed with blood. Nil other body injury. Other features noted :- Height : Supra sternal notch to public symphysis 51 cm.” 4.6. In the final opinion (Ex.P10), Dr.Rajesh (P.W. 11) has stated as follows : "Final Opinion : The deceased would appear to have died of Head injury. Examination of viscera has not detected Ethyl alcohol or other poison." 4.7. The appellant was arrested on 29.03.2011 at 4.00 p.m. and based on the admissible portion of the police confession (Ex.P4), the Investigating Officer seized a wooden stick (M.O.1) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P3). Again, on 31.03.2011, the Investigating Officer seized the a knife (M.O.2) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P5) from the house of the appellant. 4.8. After completing the investigation, Suthesan (P.W.13) filed a final report in P.R.C.No.8 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kuzhithurai, for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the appellant. 5. Again, on 31.03.2011, the Investigating Officer seized the a knife (M.O.2) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P5) from the house of the appellant. 4.8. After completing the investigation, Suthesan (P.W.13) filed a final report in P.R.C.No.8 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kuzhithurai, for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the appellant. 5. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil, in S.C.No.125 of 2011, for trial. 6. The Trial Court framed charges, as detailed in Paragraph No.2, supra. When questioned, the appellant pleaded "not guilty". To prove the case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, marked 22 exhibits and 4 material objects. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he admitted that he burnt the body, but stated that his father tripped, fell down and died and that he burnt the body according to Hindu rites. Of course, no witness was examined from the side of the appellant nor any document marked. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2012, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as detailed in Paragraph No.3 supra, aggrieved by which, on behalf of the appellant Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Legal Aid Counsel has filed the present appeal with a delay of 2507 days, which has been condoned by this Court in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.776 of 2020 on 13.02.2020. 8. Heard Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 9. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the following passage from the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore [ AIR 1960 SC 29 ]: “5. 9. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the following passage from the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore [ AIR 1960 SC 29 ]: “5. The mode of evaluating circumstantial evidence has been stated by this Court in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 AIR(SC) 343, and it is as follows : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." wherein, the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for appreciating a case that is based on circumstantial evidence. 10. The prosecution has proved the following facts beyond a peradventure: (i) the deceased was Ponnaiyan Nadar; (ii) the appellant is the son of the deceased; (iii) the appellant is the husband of Chandrika (P.W.4); (iv) the appellant and his father were living under the same roof in the village; (v) the appellant's wife Chandrika (P.W.4) got estranged from him and she was living with the two children in her parental home, which is also in the same village; and (vi) the death of Ponnaiyan Nadar was a homicide. 11. The short point that emerges for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence. The prosecution case is essentially predicated on the evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), Lysa (P.W.2), Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) and Chandrika (P.W.4). 12. 11. The short point that emerges for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence. The prosecution case is essentially predicated on the evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), Lysa (P.W.2), Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) and Chandrika (P.W.4). 12. Chandrika (P.W.4), in her evidence, has stated that she was given in marriage to the appellant and has two daughters; the appellant would not go for work and used to frequently beat her and his father also; once, he took away the gold chain that was worn by her daughter, sold it and consumed liquor; since the appellant was torturing her continuously, Ponnaiyan Nadar settled his property, vide Ex.P2 in favour of her children; after her father-in-law settled the property, her husband started beating her and her father-in-law also; therefore, on the advice of her father-in-law, she left the company of the appellant and returned to her parental home along with her two children. However, her father-in-law used to come and have food in her house often and on 29.03.2011, she received information and went to the appellant's house and found blood in the house and something was being burnt beneath the mango tree in the backyard of the house; the Panchayat President came there and she became nervous, fainted and fell down 13. Lysa (P.W.2), in her evidence, has stated that she lives next door and on 28.03.2011, she heard the appellant and his father quarreling in the night around 10.30 p.m; out of curiosity, she went to the appellant's house and found him standing with a stick and knife; she tried to pacify him, but he did not relent; since the appellant abused her, she returned to her house; on the next day, she smelt a stench coming from the backyard of the appellant's house and therefore, she alerted the Panchayat President, who came there; at that time, the appellant was burning something and when the Panchayat President questioned him, the appellant told her that he is burning the body of his father; later, the police came and doused the fire. 14. 14. Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), in her evidence, has stated that she was the Panchayat President of the Village, at the relevant point of time; the appellant used to frequently quarrel with his father and she used to mediate between them often and on account of the appellant's torture, his wife and children got estranged from him and they are living in his wife's parental home; on 29.03.2011, when she was at home, Lysa (P.W.2) called her over phone and asked her to come immediately to her neighbour's house and therefore, she, along with Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3), a Ward Member, went to the backyard of the house of the appellant and found the appellant burning something; when she questioned him, he told her that he has beaten his father, cut him and is burning his body; therefore, she gave a written complaint to the police and the same was marked as Ex.P1. Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) has substantially corroborated the evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1). 15. The defence has extensively cross-examined all the four witnesses and was not able to make any dent in their testimony. 16. Ms.S.Devasena, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant had attacked and murdered his father on the night of 28.03.2011. It is true that there is no direct evidence for this and that is why, we have stated above that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. 17. Ms.S.Devasena further contended that the police did not even properly conduct search of the house of the appellant and no bloodstain was noticed in the house. It is her further contention that the knife (M.O.2) was planted only after the postmortem certificate (Ex.P9) was received. She further contended that the police have not recovered the portions of the left thigh, left leg and foot of the deceased. She further contended that the appellant did not have any motive to murder his father, because, the settlement deed (Ex.P2) was executed way back in the year 2001. 18. In our view, the aforesaid submissions relate to remissness in the investigation of the case by the police and that by itself, would not enure to the advantage of the appellant. She further contended that the appellant did not have any motive to murder his father, because, the settlement deed (Ex.P2) was executed way back in the year 2001. 18. In our view, the aforesaid submissions relate to remissness in the investigation of the case by the police and that by itself, would not enure to the advantage of the appellant. The evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), Lysa (P.W.2) and Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) is to the effect that in the morning of 29.03.2011, the appellant was found burning his father's body in the backyard of the house and when Renuka Daniel (P.W.1) questioned him, he told her that he had murdered his father and was burning the body. This, in our opinion, is an incriminating circumstance, because the body was found in the backyard of the house of the appellant half burnt. The defence has suggested to these three witnesses that the deceased had tripped, fallen, sustained injuries and died. If the appellant's father had died in that manner, the natural conduct of the appellant would have been to organize for his funeral and cremation in the Panchayat crematorium. On the contrary, the appellant was found burning the body of his father in the backyard of the house. That apart, a person, who trips and falls down will not suffer cut injuries. In this case, some body parts of the deceased have been dismembered. 19. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), he has stated (It is true that I set fire. I did not murder him. He fell down and died). Thus, the appellant has admitted that he has set fire to the body of his father. But, his explanation that the death of his father was on account of his fall, sounds gibberish. A false explanation given by an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is a powerful circumstance, which will provide the missing link (See Anthony D'Souza and others vs. State of Karnataka [ (2003) 1 SCC 259 ]). 20. Ms.Devasena further contended that Chandrika (P.W.4) has stated that she went to the house of the appellant at 06.00 o'clock, but has not stated anything about the presence of the appellant there. 20. Ms.Devasena further contended that Chandrika (P.W.4) has stated that she went to the house of the appellant at 06.00 o'clock, but has not stated anything about the presence of the appellant there. Chandrika (P.W.4), wife of the appellant, was examined only to prove that her father-inlaw had settled the property in favour of her children as the appellant was leading a wayward life. In the teeth of the evidence of Renuka Daniel (P.W.1), Lysa (P.W.2) and Nelson @ Wilson (P.W.3) that Renuka Daniel (P.W.1) came with Nelson (P.W.3) around 08.00 o'clock in the morning and saw the appellant burning the body, the statement of Chandrika (P.W.4) that she went at 06.00 o'clock in the morning to the house of the appellant is insignificant. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this criminal appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court warrant no interference and the judgment and order of the Trial Court impugned in this appeal is upheld. 22. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. 23. Before parting with the matter, we place on record our appreciation to Ms.S.Devasena, learned counsel, for effectively conducting the appeal and we direct the High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai, to pay her a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as remuneration.