JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandran (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvalllur, in S.C.No.288 of 2014.) P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandran (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvalllur, in S.C.No.288 of 2014. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case is Anubharathi, a 17 year old girl, who was studying 12th standard in a school in Tiruvallur District. She is the daughter of Krishnaveni (P.W.1) and Inbaraj (P.W.2). The family of Inbaraj (P.W.2) was from Thiruvazhuthi Village in Tuticorin District and for employment, they had relocated to the first floor portion of the house bearing No.121/11, 270th block, Manali Pudu Nagar, Tiruvallur District. 2.2. The appellant/accused viz., Jeyaraman, is a distant relative of Inbaraj (P.W.2), who also hailed from Thiruvazhuthi Village. Jeyaraman was in love with Anubharathi and wanted to marry her. 2.3. On Sunday, the 16th of March 2014, Jeyaraman came to the house of Inbaraj (P.W.2) in Manali Pudu Nagar, Chennai and sought the hand of Anubharathi. Inbaraj (P.W.2) told him that Anubharathi is still undergoing schooling and that they could think of her marriage, only after she completed her studies. So saying, Inbaraj (P.W.2) left the house on some work. 2.4. Krishnaveni (P.W.1) also advised Jeyaraman on the same lines and since Jeyaraman was from their native village, she did not want to send him off without offering anything and so, leaving him in her house, she went to buy milk from a nearby shop. The time then was around 10.30 a.m. 2.5. Krishnaveni (P.W.1) returned with the milk and while she was climbing up the staircase, she heard a weird noise and when she went inside her house, she saw Jeyaraman cutting Anubharathi indiscriminately in the bedroom saying, “the girl whom I did not get, should not be got by anyone Krishnaveni (P.W.1) raised a hue and cry, Jeyaraman barged out of the house with a knife in hand and hurriedly climbed down the staircase. 2.6. 2.6. At that time, Inbaraj (P.W.2) was coming up the stairs and he saw Jeyaraman running down with a bloodstained knife in his hand and Inbaraj (P.W.2) went to his house, where, he found Anubharathi in a pool of blood. Jeyaraman was also seen by Yesodha (P.W.3), the landlady of Inbaraj (P.W.2), who was residing in the ground floor. Anubharathi died on the spot. 2.7. On a complaint Ex.P1 given by Krishnaveni (P.W.1), K.Sivamani (P.W.15), Inspector of Police, registered a case in M-7 Manali Pudu Nagar P.S. Crime No.220 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC against Jeyaraman and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P18), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.00 p.m. on the same day i.e., 16.03.2014, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. 2.8. The Investigating Officer viz., K.Sivamani (P.W.15), Inspector of Police, went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P6) and rough sketch (Ex.P7). From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) seized a bloodstained bed sheet (M.O.1), bloodstained piece of tile (M.O.2) and a tile without bloodstain (M.O.3), under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P8). 2.9. Inquest was conducted over the body of Anubharathi and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P20. The appellant was caught by Deenadayalan (P.W.8) and other public on the same day around 5.00 p.m. and was handed over to the police. Jeyaraman was placed under arrest at 05.45 p.m. and based on his disclosure, the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) seized a bloodstained knife (M.O.4), bloodstained jeans pant (M.O.5), shirt (M.O.6), banian (M.O.7) and an underwear (M.O.8), under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P10). 2.10. Dr.Murugesan (P.W.12), Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, performed autopsy on the body of Anubharathi on 17.03.2014 and in his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P14), has noted 32 cut injuries on the body of Anubharathi. After getting the viscera report, which showed that no poison was detected in any of the visceral organs, Dr.Murugesan (P.W.12) gave his final opinion as to the cause of death, which is as under: “The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut throat injury (viscera sent for chemical analysis report).” 2.11. The bloodstained clothes of Anubharathi viz., churidar top (M.O.10), leggings (M.O.11), black colour petticoat (M.O.12) and panty (M.O.13) were handed over to the police after post-mortem. The bloodstained clothes of Anubharathi viz., churidar top (M.O.10), leggings (M.O.11), black colour petticoat (M.O.12) and panty (M.O.13) were handed over to the police after post-mortem. These items, along with the seized items, were sent through the jurisdictional Magistrate to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, for examination and the serology report shows that blood group “A” was detected in the knife (M.O.4), jeans pant (M.O.5), leggings (M.O.11). Serology report (Ex.P12) showed that human blood was detected in all the items and blood group “A” was detected in bed sheet (M.O.1), bloodstained knife (M.O.4), jeans pant (M.O.5) and leggings (M.O.11). 2.12. After examining various witnesses and collecting various reports of the experts, the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.15 of 2014 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, under Section 302 IPC. 2.13. On the appearance of Jeyaraman, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session, in S.C.No.288 of 2014 and was made over to the Mahila Court (Sessions Level), Tiruvallur, for trial. When the trial Court framed a charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC, Jeyaraman denied the same. 2.14. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 23 exhibits and 13 material objects. 2.15. When Jeyaraman was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same, but, when the trial Court questioned him, as to whether he has anything to say about the case, he stated as follows : (English translation) “I went to Anubharathi’s house, I asked her parents for her hand, they refused. Anubharathi and I decided to end our lives. She herself cut her neck slightly. I also cut my neck slightly. I was given treatment in the hospital. ” 2.16. On his behalf, he examined his grandmother Panchavarnam as D.W.1, in order to show that right from childhood, the parents of Anubharathi promised to give her in marriage to Jeyaraman, but, cheated and that is why, Jeyaraman and Anubharathi attempted to commit suicide. 2.17. After hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.12.2018, convicted Jeyaraman under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2.17. After hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.12.2018, convicted Jeyaraman under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.N.Ganeshmurthy, learned counsel for Jeyaraman and Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 4. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that the entire case is based on direct evidence and not on circumstantial evidence. 5. Krishnaveni (P.W.1), in her evidence, has stated inter alia that she is residing with her husband Inbaraj (P.W.2) and two children viz., Anubharathi and Balabharathi in Manali Pudu Nagar; on 16.03.2014 (Sunday), while they were all at home, the accused, who resides in the opposite house to their house in Thiruvazhuthi Village, came around 10.30 a.m. to her house and asked her husband Inbaraj (P.W.2) to give Anubharathi in marriage to him; Inbaraj (P.W.2) told him that Anubharathi is still studying and they can discuss about her marriage after she completed her studies; saying so, Inbaraj (P.W.2) went out; in order to offer coffee to the accused, she went out to buy milk and while she was climbing up the staircase after purchasing milk, she heard her daughter's hollering; when she went to purchase milk, Anubharathi was studying in the bed room and the accused was waiting outside the bed room; when she climbed up the staircase, the door was slightly opened; she pushed the door and went inside; at that time, she saw the acccused sitting on Anubharathi and cutting in a pool of blood and carried her (Anubharathi) on her lap; Anubharathi was found dead with cut injury on her neck; on hearing her outcry, her landlady, her husband and other neighbours rushed to the house; she went to the police station and lodged a complaint; she identified the knife (M.O.1) as the one that was used by the accused in the offence. 6. In the cross-examination, she (P.W.1) accepted that the accused was a distant relative and was known to Anubharathi from her childhood. It was suggested to her that Anubharathi was also in love with the accused and that is why, the accused used to send birthday gift every year, which suggestion, she denied. 6. In the cross-examination, she (P.W.1) accepted that the accused was a distant relative and was known to Anubharathi from her childhood. It was suggested to her that Anubharathi was also in love with the accused and that is why, the accused used to send birthday gift every year, which suggestion, she denied. She denied the suggestion that she saw the accused with injuries around his neck. Ultimately, it was suggested to her that the accused and Anubharathi decided to commit suicide and that is why, both of them had sustained injuries, which suggestion also she denied. 7. The evidence of Krishnaveni (P.W.1) has been substantially corroborated with the evidence of Inbaraj (P.W.2) on what had happened in their house before he left. Inbaraj (P.W.2) has further stated that while he was talking to his landlady Yasodha (P.W.3) in the ground floor, he heard a noise and when he rushed up, he saw the appellant coming down with a knife in his hand. Yasodha (P.W.3) has also corroborated the evidence of Inbaraj (P.W.2) on this aspect. 8. Deenadayalan (P.W.8), a relative of Krishnaveni (P.W.1), has stated that he had chased the accused for sometime, but the accused escaped and hid himself in some bushes and could not be caught; however, on the same evening, he, along with the public there, caught the accused and handed him over to the police. 9. Mr.Ganeshmurthy submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. But, we are afraid that we cannot hold so because, the evidence of Krishnaveni (P.W.1) is to the effect that she herself saw the attack. The learned counsel contended that the conduct of Krishnaveni (P.W.1), Inbaraj (P.W.2) and Yasodha (P.W.3) in not apprehending Jeyaraman immediately, would make their testimony suspect. He also contended that Krishnaveni (P.W.1), Inbaraj (P.W.2), Yasodha (P.W.3) and Renuka (P.W.4) have not stated that Deenadayalan (P.W.8) had chased Jeyaraman. 10. We do not find anything unusual in the conduct of the witnesses in not trying to apprehend the appellant or the witnesses in not saying that Deenadayalan (P.W.8) had chased the appellant. In this regard, felicitous it is to point out that in Rana Partap Vs. 10. We do not find anything unusual in the conduct of the witnesses in not trying to apprehend the appellant or the witnesses in not saying that Deenadayalan (P.W.8) had chased the appellant. In this regard, felicitous it is to point out that in Rana Partap Vs. State of Haryana [ (1983) 3 SCC 327 ], the Supreme Court has held unequivocally that no fixed pattern of natural conduct in response to an incident can be laid down as different witnesses would react in different manner in the same situation. 11. The learned counsel took us through the statement of Krishnaveni  (P.W.1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and stated that there are some discrepancies between the said statement and the evidence of Krishnaveni (P.W.1). We pointed out to the learned counsel that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and that it could, at the most, be used for either corroborating the testimony of the witness under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or for contradicting the witness in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. We also explained to the learned counsel that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be kept in the left hand and the deposition of the witness in the right hand and a comparison made between the two, in order to fish out contradictions. To be noted, a contradiction between the evidence of a witness and his previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has to be established only via the procedure set out in Section 145 of the Evidence Act, which has not been done in this case. 12. The learned counsel submitted that the seized material objects were sent by the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) to the Court only on 21.03.2014 and that the delay has not been explained. We are unable to fathom as to how remissness in investigation can, by itself, affect the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 13. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (1982)2 SCC 351 ] and SK.Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal [ (2011)11 SCC 754 ] and contended that the circumstantial evidence must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. 14. State of Maharashtra [ (1982)2 SCC 351 ] and SK.Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal [ (2011)11 SCC 754 ] and contended that the circumstantial evidence must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence case. 14. We are afraid that the aforesaid two judgments cannot be applied to the present case, because, this is not a case based on circumstantial evidence, as stated by us above. This is a case where the appellant himself has admitted that he came to the house of Anubharathi to speak to her parents for giving her in marriage to him. Therefore, even in the crossexamination of Krishnaveni (P.W.1) and Inbaraj (P.W.2), he has not denied this fact. It is his case that Anubharathi and he decided to commit suicide and therefore, they inflicted cut injuries to themselves. This theory of the appellant sounds gibberish in the light of the fact that Anubharathi was a 17 year old girl studying XII standard and 32 cut injuries were found on her person. Therefore, this defence defies credulity and common sense. 15. To cap it all, the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted his presence in the house of Anubharathi at the relevant point of time and has further stated that both of them had decided to end their lives because Anubharathi's parents were not willing for their marriage. Anubharathi's parents did not suspect that he would go to such an extent and therefore, as a gesture of courtesy, her mother went down to buy milk for preparing coffee for the appellant and in that interregnum, he has attacked Anubharathi and caused her death. We have no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. The defence has not made any dent in the evidence of Dr.Murugesan (P.W.12), who conducted the post-mortem. In fine, we find no merit in this criminal appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.