JUDGMENT : Jobin Sebastian, J. The sole accused in S.C.No.269/2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against her for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution's case in brief is as follows: The accused and CW3, who were in a close relationship, began residing together as husband and wife from January 2013 onwards at CW3’s house bearing No.XVI/633 (old No.XII/39) of Elappara Grama Panchayat. Subsequently, on 17.10.2013, they got legally married in a communal wedding ceremony held at Kalarcode in Alappuzha. After the marriage on 17.10.2013 itself, both the accused and CW3 returned to CW3’s house. On the same day at about 6.15 p.m., the accused, who was then pregnant, gave birth to a male and a female child. However, out of the said children, the male child was born dead. Immediately after the delivery, the accused, with an intention to conceal the birth, inflicted cut injuries on the necks of both the still-born male child and the liveborn female child with a knife, thereby causing the death of the latter. Thereafter, with the intention of causing the disappearance of evidence, the accused concealed the dead bodies of both the infants and the knife used in the commission of the offence. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC . 3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Peermade. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, issued process to the accused, and in response to the same, the accused appeared. On the appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P19. MO1 and MO2 were exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which she denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against her. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, the accused was directed to enter on her defence and to adduce any evidence that she may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC , and she was acquitted on the said charge. However, she was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC , and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused has come up with this appeal. 5. We heard Sri.Sunny Xavier, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt. Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The matter involved in this case was brought to light pursuant to a statement given by a member of the local Grama Panchayat, within whose ward the accused, as well as her husband, were residing. Acting on the basis of the said statement, the Civil Police Officer in charge of G.D of Peermade Police Station has registered an FIR under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for unnatural death. Subsequently, based on the materials and leads received in the investigation, the Station House Officer, Peermade, filed a report before the Judicial Magistrate, incorporating Section 302 IPC and deleting Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 7. Subsequently, based on the materials and leads received in the investigation, the Station House Officer, Peermade, filed a report before the Judicial Magistrate, incorporating Section 302 IPC and deleting Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 7. When the Member of the Panchayat who gave the first information statement was examined as PW1, he deposed that during the year 2013, he was serving as a Member of Ward No.16 of the Elappara Grama Panchayat. He was acquainted with the accused, as she and her husband were residing within his ward. In the year 2013, certain local residents informed him that two newborn infants had died and requested him to convey the matter to the Police. Learning about the incident, he immediately proceeded to the house of the accused but found it locked, and no one was present there. Consequently, he went to the Police Station and reported the matter. Ext.P1 is the statement given by him to the Police. On the following day, at about 10.00 a.m., he reached the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, where he saw the dead bodies of two children. One was a boy child, and the other was a girl child. He also witnessed the Police preparing the inquest. He did not know the cause of the children’s death. He had an acquaintance with Praveen(PW3), the husband of the accused. The accused was residing with Praveen. He came to understand that the accused had been taken to the hospital due to excessive bleeding. 8. This is a case in which there is no direct evidence to prove the exact incident that led to the death of the newborn children of the accused. The prosecution, therefore, mainly relies on circumstantial and medical evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Before delving into a discussion regarding the materials relied upon by the prosecution to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused, it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the newborn children. 9. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination was examined as PW9. The certificates issued by him pertaining to the examination of the bodies of the male and female children were marked as Ext.P7 and Ext.P8, respectively. Referring to Ext.P7, PW9 deposed that he noticed an incised wound 9.5x5x3 cm horizontal across the front of the neck above the level of the thyroid cartilage. The certificates issued by him pertaining to the examination of the bodies of the male and female children were marked as Ext.P7 and Ext.P8, respectively. Referring to Ext.P7, PW9 deposed that he noticed an incised wound 9.5x5x3 cm horizontal across the front of the neck above the level of the thyroid cartilage. He opined that there was no evidence of live birth in respect of the said male child. 10. Likewise, referring to Ext.P8 postmortem certificate, PW9 deposed that on examining the body of the female child, he noted an incised wound measuring 4.5x2x2cm, horizontal across the front of the neck below the level of thyroid cartilage. The right end of the wound was placed 1.5cm outer to midline and 1.5cm above the middle of the collar bone, and the left end was placed 7.5cm below the parietal eminence. The trachea just below thyroid cartilage, left sternocliedo muscle, left jugular vein and carotid artery were cut, and the 4th cervical vertebrae seen partially cut. According to PW9, the air passages contained blood, and the lungs were covered with mediastinum. The Doctor opined that the body was that of a live-born female child above eight months and below nine months of intrauterine life, who died of injury sustained across the neck. While PW9 was confronted with a knife allegeldy to have been used in the commission of the offence, he stated that the injuries noted by him could have been caused by a weapon like that. PW9 further opined that the injuries noted by him are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P8 postmortem certificate issued by him clearly establishes that the death of the newborn female child was homicidal in nature. 11. Coming to the investigation aspect of the case, it can be seen that originally, the FIR in this case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. by the Senior Civil Police Officer attached to Peermade Police Station. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement given by PW1. The said Senior Police Officer who registered the FIR was examined as PW10. The Station House Officer, Peermade Police Station, who conducted the initial part of the investigation, was examined as PW11. He prepared Ext.P10 inquest report after examining the dead body of the stillborn male child. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement given by PW1. The said Senior Police Officer who registered the FIR was examined as PW10. The Station House Officer, Peermade Police Station, who conducted the initial part of the investigation, was examined as PW11. He prepared Ext.P10 inquest report after examining the dead body of the stillborn male child. During the examination before the court, he deposed that he had noticed a deep cut injury on the neck of the said child. Consequently, he filed a report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, deleting Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and incorporating Section 302 IPC . 12. The Circle Inspector of Police, Peermade, who conducted the major chunk of the investigation, was examined as PW13. According to PW13, he took over the investigation in this case on 19.10.2013. As part of the investigation, he conducted an inquest on the dead body of the newly born female child of the accused at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Ext.P10(a) is the inquest report prepared by him. Thereafter, he forwarded the dead bodies of both children for postmortem examination. Immediately thereafter, he proceeded to the house where the accused had been residing and prepared Ext.P12 scene mahazar. During the inspection of the bathroom, he found an underskirt kept in the gap between the eastern wall and the roof of the bathroom. MO2 is the said underskirt. In addition, a knife was found kept beneath the roofing sheet of the bathroom. He took the knife into custody after describing it in Ext.P13 mahazar. PW13 identified the said knife and the same was marked as MO1. According to PW13, as part of the investigation, he interrogated the witnesses and recorded their statements. The Circle Inspector of Police, Peermade, who verified the investigation conducted by PW13, his predecessor in office, and laid the final report before the court, was examined as PW14. 13. Before entering into a discussion regarding the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, it is necessary to refer to the settled legal principles and guidelines governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. 13. Before entering into a discussion regarding the circumstances relied on by the prosecution, it is necessary to refer to the settled legal principles and guidelines governing the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. In Sarad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622 ], the Apex Court discussed the nature, character, and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone and held as under: (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must show that, in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 14. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Bodh Raj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [ AIR 2002 SC 3164 ], State of Uttarpradesh v. Satish [ AIR 2005 SC 1000 ], and Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu [ (2009) 14 SCC 415 ]. 15. In cases founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances is a requisite. Moreover, the proved circumstances when taken together must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused, and none other than, could have committed the offence. In other words, to sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be comprehensive and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. Keeping in mind the above said principles, the crucial question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the prosecution has fully and conclusively established the circumstances relied upon to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. Keeping in mind the above said principles, the crucial question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the prosecution has fully and conclusively established the circumstances relied upon to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Furthermore, it must be examined whether these circumstances, when taken cumulatively, lead inexorably to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt, to the exclusion of any other plausible explanation, including that of innocence. 16. Taking the above into account, while reverting to the present case, it can be seen that, the fact that the accused and PW3 were living as husband and wife in the house of PW3 for about two years prior to the incident stands fully established in this case. Moreover, the said fact is not disputed from the side of the accused. Notably, the incident in this case was revealed when the accused was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, on account of profuse bleeding. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it has been clearly proved that though the accused was initially taken to a hospital at Kanjirappalli, from there she was immediately referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. 17. PW8 is the Doctor attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who medically examined the accused after the incident. On examination before the court, PW8 deposed that on 18.10.2013, while he was working as Additional Professor in Gynecology in Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he examined the accused in this case and later issued Ext.P5 treatment certificate. According to PW8, the accused was admitted to the said hospital with excessive vaginal bleeding, and clinical examination revealed signs of recent delivery. Later, relatives of the accused brought to the hospital two near-term dead foetuses, whereupon he intimated the matter to the Police. The accused was discharged from the hospital on 22.10.2013, and the discharge certificate issued by him was marked as Ext.P6. During cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he noticed something unusual and insisted the relatives to produce the delivered child. Consequently, on 18.10.2013 at 1.15 p.m., the relatives of PW3 brought two near-term foetuses, one male child weighing 1.2 kg and a female child weighing 1.5 kg. According to the Doctor, both the foetuses had visible cut injuries on their necks. 18. During cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he noticed something unusual and insisted the relatives to produce the delivered child. Consequently, on 18.10.2013 at 1.15 p.m., the relatives of PW3 brought two near-term foetuses, one male child weighing 1.2 kg and a female child weighing 1.5 kg. According to the Doctor, both the foetuses had visible cut injuries on their necks. 18. During the course of the trial, PW8 was recalled, and in his further chief examination, he deposed that the accused was brought to the hospital on 17.10.2013 at 10.30 p.m. with a complaint of vaginal bleeding. On examination, he found that the vagina was patulous and that there were vaginal tears on both sides. Moreover, a paraurethral tear was found on the left side. PW8 added that evidence of lactation was present, and there was milk discharge on the breast. 19. The consistent defence of the accused is that she had not delivered any children, as alleged by the prosecution. In her statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., she took a stand that she was not even pregnant. However, the evidence of PW8, discussed above, clearly establishes that the accused had, in fact, undergone a recent delivery. The medical findings recorded by PW8 conclusively belie the plea of the accused and expose the falsity of her version that she had not delivered any child. 20. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss the testimony of PW3, the husband of the accused. On examination before the court, PW3 deposed that from the middle of 2012 onwards, he and the accused had been residing together as husband and wife in his house. According to him, while so, on 17.10.2013, their marriage was formally solemnized in a community marriage function held at Kalarcode, Alappuzha. He further deposed that for the said function, he, along with the accused and his relatives, had gone to Alappuzha in a jeep driven by one Sarathkumar (PW7). After the marriage ceremony, he and his relatives returned to his residence at about 6.00 p.m. Thereafter, he went to ‘Vagamon’, a nearby town in the same jeep. His father also went to the town immediately after his departure. Subsequently, he received a phone call informing him that his wife had fallen down. On learning this, he immediately returned home in the same jeep and took the accused to a hospital at Kanjirappally. His father also went to the town immediately after his departure. Subsequently, he received a phone call informing him that his wife had fallen down. On learning this, he immediately returned home in the same jeep and took the accused to a hospital at Kanjirappally. From there, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The Doctor at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, examined his wife and informed him that she had delivered a child. The Doctor further told that he would treat his wife only if he produced the children. Then he informed the same to his father (PW5) and asked him to check where the children are. After a short while, the father telephoned him and told him that the children were found underneath the cot in the bedroom of him and his wife. Then he asked his father to bring the children to the hospital. On the next day at noon, his father and mother reached the hospital with the children. The children were brought in a big plastic cover wrapped in cloth. Both the children were already dead. 21. During cross-examination, PW3 deposed that when his father brought the children to the hospital, the Police had also accompanied his father. He further admitted that he was aware of the fact that his wife, the accused, was pregnant; however, no one else was aware of it. PW3 further explained that since the accused was of a stout build, nobody noticed her pregnancy. He also stated that during the entire period of pregnancy, the accused had not been taken to any hospital for medical check-up. In the re-examination, PW3 further deposed that it was because of the reason that the marriage was not legally solemnized, Vijeesha (accused) did not disclose the pregnancy to anyone. 22. The evidence of PW7, the driver of the jeep in which the accused and PW3 went to Alappuzha for solemnizing their marriage, also corroborates the version of PW3 on material aspects. PW7 deposed that on 17.10.2013, he took the accused and PW3 along with their relatives, in his jeep to Kalarcode, Alappuzha, where their marriage was conducted as part of a community wedding ceremony. In the evening, he dropped them back at PW3’s residence. A short while thereafter, Satheesh (PW6) contacted him over the phone and informed that the accused was bleeding profusely and asked him to reach PW3’s house immediately. In the evening, he dropped them back at PW3’s residence. A short while thereafter, Satheesh (PW6) contacted him over the phone and informed that the accused was bleeding profusely and asked him to reach PW3’s house immediately. Accordingly, he went to the house of PW3 and took the accused in his jeep first to a hospital at Kanjirappally and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. PW3, his mother (PW2), and his aunt (PW4) also accompanied him to the hospital. PW6 also accompanied them to the hospital. Therafter, PW3 said that the Doctor informed him that the accused delivered children. In the morning of 18.10.2013, he returned to PW3’s house along with PW2, PW4, and PW6. On the same day, between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., the owner of the jeep contacted him over the phone and asked him to take the parents of PW3 again to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Accordingly, he took PW3’s father and mother to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, in the jeep. At that time, he noticed a large plastic cover in the hands of PW3’s mother. Then the father of the PW3 told him that the accused had killed her two newborn children, whom she had delivered. 23. Notably, the evidence of PW3 clearly reveals that he was aware of the fact that his wife was pregnant. From his evidence, it is further established that apart from him and the accused, nobody else was aware of her pregnancy. Moreover, PW3 deposed that, as the accused was stout, her pregnancy went unnoticed by others. The evidence of PW3 further reveals that, during the entire period of pregnancy, the accused was never taken to any hospital for medical checkup. Significantly, in the re-examination, PW3 further stated that the fact of the accused’s pregnancy was not disclosed to anyone by the accused because their marriage had not been legally solemnized. Likewise, from the evidence of PW3, it stands proved that on the next day, i.e., on 18.10.2013 at noon, his father and mother together brought the dead bodies of two newborn babies to the Medical College Hospital. That apart, the evidence of PW7, the driver of the jeep in which the parents of PW3 travelled to the Medical College Hospital, corroborates the above fact. That apart, the evidence of PW7, the driver of the jeep in which the parents of PW3 travelled to the Medical College Hospital, corroborates the above fact. PW7 candidly deposed that it was he who took PW3’s father and mother to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, in his jeep, and at that time, he noticed that the mother of PW3 was holding a plastic cover in her hand. Moreover, the testimony of PW8, the Doctor, that the relatives of the accused brought the dead bodies of two children to the hospital, must also be read conjointly with the evidence of PW3 and PW7. Thus, a holistic reading of the above- discussed evidence clearly establishes that it was the accused who had delivered the newborn babies and that the dead bodies of those babies were produced in the hospital by the parents of PW3. 24. When the father and mother of PW3 were examined as PW5 and PW2, respectively, both of them had shown disloyalty to the prosecution case by deposing that they had not taken the dead bodies of the newly born babies to the hospital. However, PW5 admitted that “?(cid:2)?(cid:4)? ?(cid:8)??(cid:2)? ?(cid:12)?(cid:12)??(cid:16) ??(cid:19) ??(cid:21) (cid:8)??(cid:2)? ???(cid:28) ?(cid:29)?(cid:31)?”(cid:19) . (It was the babies delivered by Vijeesha that were buried in my land). The testimony of PW5, in this regard, substantially strengthens the prosecution's case by affirming that it was indeed the accused who had delivered the children. Furthermore, the fact that the dead bodies of the children were buried in the property belonging to PW5 lends additional support to the case that the deceased children were born to the accused. 25. Moreover, as already stated, during examination before the court, PW3 consistently maintained that the accused was pregnant during the relevant period. He categorically deposed that it was his parents who brought the dead bodies of his children to the hospital. The testimony of PW7 also provides corroboration to the evidence of PW3 that it was the parents of PW3 who produced the dead bodies of the children before the hospital. Notably, there is nothing on record to suggest that either PW3 or PW7 bore any grudge or animosity towards the accused that could have prompted them to falsely implicate her in a case of this nature. Notably, there is nothing on record to suggest that either PW3 or PW7 bore any grudge or animosity towards the accused that could have prompted them to falsely implicate her in a case of this nature. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that even after the occurrence of the present incident, upon securing bail, the accused continued to reside harmoniously with PW3, and a child was subsequently born to them. In these circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 and PW7, which appears consistent and trustworthy. 26. One of the main circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is her conduct in deliberately concealing the fact that she was pregnant and had delivered children. It remains highly doubtful what prompted the accused to conceal the pregnancy. The conduct of the accused in concealing the said facts is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the conduct of the accused in not disclosing to the Doctor at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, that she had delivered two children, even when she was brought there with excessive vaginal bleeding, unmistakably indicates that she had something to hide. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strenuously contended that the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the accused to murder her newly born children and that in the absence of such proof, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. While considering the question whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving any motive for the accused in the commission of the offence, it is pertinent to note that the conduct of the accused in concealing her pregnancy even from the close relatives of PW3 itself suggests that she intended to keep it undisclosed for reasons best known to her. We are not unmindful of the deposition of PW3 during re- examination, wherein he stated that the reason for not disclosing the pregnancy was that the accused had conceived prior to their formal marriage. The evidence brought out in this case clearly indicates that the accused had been extremely cautious in concealing her pregnancy from others. 28. Moreover, motive and intention are essentially states of mind. Nobody, not even a court, can directly probe into the mind of an individual to ascertain the precise motive or intention behind a particular act. The evidence brought out in this case clearly indicates that the accused had been extremely cautious in concealing her pregnancy from others. 28. Moreover, motive and intention are essentially states of mind. Nobody, not even a court, can directly probe into the mind of an individual to ascertain the precise motive or intention behind a particular act. We do agree that proof of motive often goes a long way in proving the guilt of the accused, particularly in cases resting upon circumstantial evidence. In such cases, the proof of motive may form an important link in the chain of circumstances. However, there is no rigid or inflexible rule that a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence cannot be recorded unless the motive is proved. On the contrary, when the circumstances proved by the prosecution are overwhelming and conclusive in nature, non-proof of motive by itself is not a ground for acquittal. In the case at hand, the proved circumstances clearly demonstrate that the accused was very particular in concealing her pregnancy from others. This conduct, viewed in the backdrop of the overall evidence, unmistakably reflects her aversion to the pregnancy which occurred prior to her formal marriage. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the motive for the commission of the offence is established in this case. 29. We have already found that it stands fully established in this case that the accused had delivered the two newly born children. The evidence of the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of both children, clearly reveals that both had a cut injury on the neck. His testimony further discloses that out of the two children, the male child was stillborn, whereas the female child was born alive and died subsequently due to the injury sustained on her neck. 30. There is absolutely no evidence to show that when the accused was found with vaginal bleeding, she was in a disoriented or unconscious state. PW4, the aunt of PW3, who was present in the house of PW3, at the material time, categorically deposed that on the alleged date of the incident, at about 6.00 p.m., while she was engaged in household chores, she heard a sound. PW4, the aunt of PW3, who was present in the house of PW3, at the material time, categorically deposed that on the alleged date of the incident, at about 6.00 p.m., while she was engaged in household chores, she heard a sound. When she rushed to the room from where the sound emanated, she found the accused lying on the floor, and when she asked what had happened, she stated that she was bleeding. Likewise, PW2, the mother of PW3, also deposed that while she was in the kitchen along with PW4, she heard a sound and, on checking, she found Vijeesha (accused) lying in her room. According to PW2, then she helped the accused to get up and noticed that she was bleeding. Moreover, Vijeesha said that she was bleeding. A conjoint reading of the testimony of PW2 and PW4 reveals that the accused was conscious and capable of speaking after the incident. 31. As already stated, the evidence adduced in this case indicates that the accused was extremely cautious in concealing the fact that she had delivered children, not only from PW2 and PW4, who were present in the house at the relevant time, but even to the Doctor who treated her thereafter. Notably, the Doctor who treated the accused is also not having a case that when the accused was brought to the hospital, she was unconscious. 32. In short, the evidence of PW3 clearly establishes that his wife was pregnant. Likewise, the medical evidence establishes that the accused had recently undergone delivery. The evidence of the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the newly born children, as well as the postmortem certificates issued by him, clearly reveals that both infants had sustained incised wounds on their necks. In this factual backdrop, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain how such cut injuries came to be inflicted on the necks of her both children. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act casts a burden on the accused to explain what happened to the children, as the same is a fact especially within her personal knowledge. In the present case, instead of offering any plausible explanation, the accused, during her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had filed a written statement under Section 313(5) of the said Act, falsely stating that she was never pregnant. In the present case, instead of offering any plausible explanation, the accused, during her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had filed a written statement under Section 313(5) of the said Act, falsely stating that she was never pregnant. It is well settled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, when an accused offers a false explanation regarding material circumstances connected with the crime, such falsehood may itself constitute an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to guilt. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there exist overwhelming and cogent circumstances as well as medical evidence proving the guilt of the accused. Likewise, the proven circumstances lead inexorably to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of any other plausible explanation, including innocence. 33. The act of the accused in inflicting a cut injury on the neck of the newly born children speaks for itself regarding her intention to murder the children. The nature of the weapon used and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted cannot be undermined while considering the intention that the accused conceived. Her act will not come under any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC . On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the act of the accused falls squarely under clause 1 of Section 300 IPC , rendering her liable for punishment under Section 302 of the said code.