JUDGMENT : (P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.) This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.598/2018 on the files of the Special Court for the Trial of SC/ST(PA) Act Cases, Kozhikode challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST(POA) Act' for short). Prosecution case 2. Deceased Chandran is a coconut climber belonging to the Scheduled Caste-Pulayan community. On 10/4/2018, the accused who is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, called the deceased for plucking coconut in his property. After completion of work, the accused offered country liquor to the deceased. Thereafter, an altercation took place between the deceased and the accused in connection with the wages to be paid. Some time between 13.00 hours and 15.45 hours, the accused with an intention to kill the deceased, took a chopper and aimed at the neck of Chandran. When he evaded the attack, it fell upon his jaw causing a deep injury. When Chandran fell backwards, his head hit the step causing another injury. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly aimed the neck of the deceased, which was timely prevented by him using his hands. The accused also repeatedly kicked the chest and abdomen of the deceased thereby causing serious injuries to his internal organs, resulting in the deceased succumbing to his injuries. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST(POA) Act. Proceedings in the trial court 3. On appearance of the accused, charge was framed against him under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW29 were examined, Exts.P1 to P40 and MO1 to MO14 were marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in evidence and pleaded innocence. He stated that the deceased had plucked the coconuts and he collected the same, and thereafter, he does not know what had happened. Even though the accused was called upon to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced from his side. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Even though the accused was called upon to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced from his side. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC read with section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Contentions of the appellant 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant Adv.A.Muhammed by relying on the decision in Ansar V.K. v. State of Ker. (2024 SCC OnLine Kerala 5423 ) contended that since the prosecution has not proved the entire chain of circumstances to make an inference of guilt, the conviction as such cannot be sustained. He submitted that there is no evidence to connect MO1 with the crime and the prosecution has not proved the origin of the blood found in it or its ownership. He argued that the last seen theory is also not attracted in this case since there is no evidence to show that the deceased and the accused were seen together alive at any point of time. He further by relying on the decision in Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ (1978) 4 SCC 435 ] submitted that since there is no convincing evidence to show that the samples taken by the scientific assistant has reached the court and subsequently to the laboratory in a tamper proof condition, no reliance can be placed upon the FSL report. He also submitted that the hair samples taken from the accused by PW13 on 12/4/2018 had been planted/introduced as the hair samples taken from the deceased's palm and produced in court to falsely implicate the accused. He further submitted that there is delay in producing MO12 before the Court and chances of it being tampered cannot be ruled out. He contended that even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted as true, the offence under Section 302 IPC will not lie since, PW20, has not opined that any of the injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He contended that even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted as true, the offence under Section 302 IPC will not lie since, PW20, has not opined that any of the injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He argued that since there is no motive to kill the deceased and since there was no preparation and the incident has taken place during a scuffle, at the most, the offence which will be attracted is Section 304 Part II. He, by relying on the decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2023 KHC 6216) argued that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the trial court has erred in relying upon the alleged confession thus made by the accused to PW19. Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed. Contentions of the Prosecutor 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Adv.Ranjith.T.R argued that the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be safely found against the accused. He submitted that the accused was found sitting on the verandah near the dead body with MO1 chopper containing blood. The hairs of the accused were also found in the right palm of the deceased. Blood stains were found in the body and dhothi of the deceased and his blood stained footprint was also detected at that place. Apart from the above, the accused also confessed to PW19 regarding his committing the crime and there is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from his side regarding all these facts. He submitted that as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a burden is cast upon the accused to explain these circumstances and failure to do so is fatal. Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be dismissed. A conspectus of the material evidence adduced by the prosecution 6. PW1 is a relative of deceased Chandran. He deposed that at about 3.30 pm on 10/4/2018 he was informed by one Babu that someone was lying dead in the verandah of the house of the accused. Subsequently, Babu called him and told him that it was Chandran who is thus lying dead. He immediately went to the house and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Subsequently, Babu called him and told him that it was Chandran who is thus lying dead. He immediately went to the house and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. At that time, the accused was sitting in the built-in seat of the verandah and a chopper with blood stains was lying nearby. On the western side of the house, the coconuts plucked were seen piled up and nearby, the chopper of the deceased was also seen. Thereafter, he went to the police station and gave Ext.P1 FIS. During cross examination he stated that, when he along with Jayesh and Babu went to the spot, only the accused was present there. He also noticed blood in the steps and the accused sitting in a helpless condition. 7. PW4 deposed that he came to know about the incident at about 3.45-4.p.m and went to the spot immediately. On reaching there, he saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the verandah of Suresh's house. The body was lying supine, with the head pointing towards the steps. The towel and the rope-noose used for climbing coconut trees belonging to the deceased, along with a blood stained chopper were also there. He also saw a black mobile phone in the built-in seat of the verandah. Outside, the plucked coconuts were seen piled up and the chopper of the deceased was lying nearby. He identified the chopper which he found on the built-in seat of the verandah with blood stains as MO1, the towel as MO2, the rope noose used for climbing coconut trees as MO3 series, the other chopper as MO4 and the mobile phone as MO5. During cross examination, he stated that he had also noticed blood in the towel. 8. PW7 is the scientific officer, who visited the scene and collected samples on 11/4/2018. She deposed that she thus collected six items, packed, labelled and sealed it and handed it over to the investigating officer, along with Ext.P3 report. She identified item Nos. 3 to 6 as MO6 to MO9 and stated that the receipt of the items were acknowledged by the investigating officer in Ext.P3. 9. PW8 is the fingerprint expert, who examined the scene on 11/4/2018. He deposed that the photograph of a blood foot impression was taken with the help of the police photographer and he identified the same as MO10. 9. PW8 is the fingerprint expert, who examined the scene on 11/4/2018. He deposed that the photograph of a blood foot impression was taken with the help of the police photographer and he identified the same as MO10. He also received MO11 specimen of the enlarged thumb of the left leg of the accused . Thereafter,he made a comparison and found both of them identical and gave Ext.P4 report. During cross examination, he stated that he could not find any prints in the weapon and the chance print was found as one leading into the house . 10. PW12 is the Junior Medical Consultant attached to PHC,Koyilandy. She deposed that on 10/4/2018 at about 9 pm, she had examined the accused in this case, who was brought by the police and has issued Ext.P10 certificate. She found blood stains on both his legs below the knee joint and an abrasion 3x2 cm below the left knee joint. She also collected blood samples, nail clippings, hair of the accused and took samples from the blood stains found in his body. She handed over all these samples to the investigating officer along with Ext.P9 report. 11. PW13 was the medical officer attached to the Taluk Hospital, Koyilandy. He deposed that on 12/4/2018 at about 5.15 pm, the accused was brought before him for medical examination, with a requisition for taking scalp hair. He took the scalp hair of the accused and issued Ext.P11 certificate of examination. He also prepared Ext.P12 report for forwarding the same for chemical examination. 12. PW14 was the ASI attached to Atholi police station on 10/4/2018. He deposed that at about 5.15 pm, he registered Ext.P1(a) FIR on the basis of the statement given by the PW1. At about 11.30 am, he witnessed the handing over of the samples (MO6 to MO9) taken by the scientific assistant to the SI and signed in Ext.P13 mahazar at that time. At about 7 pm, he also witnessed the SI seizing MO12 dhothi worn by the accused and signed in Ext.P14 mahazar. During cross examination he stated that he had seen some stains in MO12 resembling blood stains at that time. 13. PW19 deposed that on 10/4/2018 at about 3 pm, he came to know about the incident and went to the spot. During cross examination he stated that he had seen some stains in MO12 resembling blood stains at that time. 13. PW19 deposed that on 10/4/2018 at about 3 pm, he came to know about the incident and went to the spot. There he saw Chandran lying in a pool of blood in the verandah and the accused sitting in the built -in seat of the verandah. When he asked the accused as to what happened, he replied that 14 . PW20 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and issued Ext.P17 certificate. He deposed that on examination, he found 20 ante mortem injuries of which, injury Nos. 1, to 5 & 17 to 19 were blunt injuries sustained to head, chest and abdomen, which are the cause of death of the deceased. He further stated that injury Nos.7 & 11 to 13 which are sharp cut injuries can be caused by MO1 and injury Nos. 17 to 19 which are blunt injuries can be caused by kicking on that part of the body. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 are possible due to a strike with the blunt side of MO1. 15 . PW25 is the police officer, who conducted the initial part of the investigation. He deposed that on getting information, he went to the spot and saw the deceased and the accused. There was blood in the dresses and legs of the accused and on the belief that the accused had some role in the crime, took him into custody. He also prepared Ext.P24 custody memo for the said purpose. On the next day, he prepared the inquest report and questioned the witnesses present at that time. Later, he seized the dresses worn by the accused as per Ext.P14 mahazar and collected the samples taken by the scientific assistant as per Ext.P13 mahazar. He also seized the samples taken by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and produced them in the court as per Ext.P25 property list. The articles seized as per Ext.P13 were forwarded to the court as per Ext.P26 property list and MO12 was produced before the court as per Ext.P27 property list. He also seized MO1 to MO5 from the place of occurrence and MO 13 and MO14 dresses worn by the deceased and produced them before the court as per Ext.P29 property list. 16. He also seized MO1 to MO5 from the place of occurrence and MO 13 and MO14 dresses worn by the deceased and produced them before the court as per Ext.P29 property list. 16. PW 26 is the Dy.SP who took over the investigation from PW25. On 25/4/2018, he obtained the accused in custody and collected his foot prints and sent them to the finger print bureau and obtained Exts.P4 and P5 reports. He also prepared Ext.P33 forwarding note for sending the material objects to FSL and obtained Ext.P34 report from the F.S.L. Thereafter, he received Ext.P35 report of examination of blood samples and viscera and after completing the investigation, laid the charge. 17. PW 28 is another officer, who conducted investigation in this case. He deposed that on 12/4/2018 he visited the scene and prepared Ext.P8 scene mahazar. Later on that day, he arrested the accused by preparing Exts.P37 & P38 documents and filed Ext.P39 report. He also seized the hair samples taken by the doctor from the accused as per Ext.P16 mahazar and produced them before the court as per Ext.P40 property list. 18. PW29 was the Assistant Director, Biology, attached to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur. He deposed that on 25/5/2018, he received 11 sealed packets and after examining them, issued Ext.P34 report. Evaluation of evidence 19. The first question to be considered in this case is whether the cause of death of Chandran is homicidal or not. While considering this aspect, the evidence of PW20 coupled with Ext.P17 postmortem certificate assumes much relevance. PW20 noted 20 ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which injury Nos. 1 to 5 and 17 to 19 were blunt injuries sustained to heart, chest, abdomen which are the cause of death of the deceased. The evidence of PW20 is very specific and shows that Chandran has died due to injury Nos. 1 to 5, and 17,to 19 the description of which are given below: 1. Abraded contusion 3x2x1cm on right side of head, 6 cm vertically above right ear and 7 cm from midine. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5x0.5x0.5 cm on back of right side of head, 8cm behind right ear and 13 cm above root of neck. There was surrounding contusion 8x5x0.5 cm around the injury. 3. Abraded contusion 3x2x1cm on right side of head, 6 cm vertically above right ear and 7 cm from midine. 2. Lacerated wound 1.5x0.5x0.5 cm on back of right side of head, 8cm behind right ear and 13 cm above root of neck. There was surrounding contusion 8x5x0.5 cm around the injury. 3. Lacerated wound 2x0.5x0.5 cm with surrounding contusion 4x3x0.3 cm over left parietal eminence of head, 8 cm above top of left ear and 4cm outer to midline. 4. Contusion 10x8x1.3cm over left side of forehead, temple and left eyelids, upper inner end 3 cm outer to midine and 3 cm above eyebrow. 5. Abraded contusion 5x3x1cm over left side of forehead, lower inner end 3cm outer to midline and 1cm above eye brow. xxxxxxx 17.Chest contusion 10x6cmx full thickness on left side with underlying fracture of ribs 7,8, 9 along mid-axillary line. Fracture ribs 4-11 on right side at multiple sites with surrounding blood infiltration. Multiple contusions on front of right lung over an area 7x5x0.1-0.5cm 18.Mesenteric contusion 7x5cmx full thickness at mesocolon 6cm distal to appendix 400ml of fluid blood in the abdominal cavity. Liver laceration, 9x2cmx full thickness, separating right and left lobes with adjoining areas of subcapsular hemorrhage (7x6cm). Multiple superficial stretch laceration on right dome of liver over an area 12x8cm 19. Subarachnoid haemorrhage on both side of brain, thicker on right side.” The doctor also noted a few sharp cut injuries on the body of the deceased(injury Nos. 7 & 11 to 13) and opined that the same can be caused by MO1. He further opined that injury Nos. 17 to 19 can be caused by kicking at that part of the body and injury Nos. 1 to 3 can be caused by striking with blunt side of MO1. PW20 categorically ruled out the possibility of the deceased falling from a coconut tree with the weapon on a pile of coconuts and sustaining the injuries as suggested by the defence. Therefore, from the afore evidence of PW20, it can be safely concluded that death of Chandran is nothing but homicidal. 20. The evidence on record in the present case shows that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, from the afore evidence of PW20, it can be safely concluded that death of Chandran is nothing but homicidal. 20. The evidence on record in the present case shows that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4,PW5 & PW19 reveals that on getting information when they went to the house of the accused they had witnessed the body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the steps. They also saw the accused sitting nearby and a chopper containing blood stains lying there. The evidence of PW4 further shows that, apart from the chopper with blood stains(MO1), he had also noticed a towel (MO2), nooses made of rope (MO3 series), MO4 chopper and MO5 mobile phone lying there. PW6, the son of the deceased, identified MO2, MO3 series and MO4 as the articles belonging to the deceased. It is very pertinent to note that absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the accused as to how Chandran sustained injuries and died in the courtyard of his house. It is also to be taken note that the accused is admitting the fact that Chandran had come to his house for plucking coconuts and he has no case that there was anyone else with them during the relevant time. 21. The evidence of PW25 shows that at about 5.15 pm on 10/4/2018, he had received information regarding the incident and had registered the FIR. His evidence also reveals that immediately thereafter, he had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen the body of the deceased in a pool of blood and the accused sitting there, by wearing an ochre coloured dhoti. On noticing blood stains in the body and dresses of the accused, he took him into custody and kept him under observation in the police station, after preparing Ext.P24 custody memo. On the very same day, at about 9 pm, he produced the accused before PW12, the doctor, and collected samples from the blood stains found on his body and his nail clippings, hair and blood samples. Ext.P9 is the report forwarded with the material objects to be sent for chemical analysis and the Ext.P10 is the report of examination given by PW12. Ext.P9 is the report forwarded with the material objects to be sent for chemical analysis and the Ext.P10 is the report of examination given by PW12. The evidence of PW17 would go to show that he has received the samples, which were kept in sealed covers from the hospital on 18/4/2018, and has handed over the same to the investigating officer as per Ext.P16 mahazar. Ext.P34 report from the FSL confirms the fact that the stain collected from the body of the accused was blood . 22. As stated earlier, the evidence of PW25 reveals that when he went to the spot he had seen the accused sitting there with blood on his body and clothes. It also shows that he had detained the accused thereafter and had seized the dhoti worn by him containing stains as per Ext.P14 mahazar, on 11/4/2018 at about 7 pm. The evidence of PW14 and PW15, who are the witnesses to the seizure , also confirms the same and the evidence of PW14 also shows that he had noticed the stains in the dhoti. The dhothi thus worn by the accused was identified by them as MO12. MO12 was forwarded to the Court as per Ext.P27 property list and from there to the FSL for examination as per Ext.P33 forwarding note. Ext.P34 FSL report categorically shows that the blood stains in MO12 dhothi worn by the accused at the relevant time belong to deceased Chandran. 23. Apart from the above and most importantly, it is to be seen that the evidence on record also reveals that the sample hair, which was recovered from the right palm of the deceased by the scientific officer,belongs to the accused. The evidence of PW7, the scientific officer, shows that he had visited the scene on 11/4/2018 and had collected six items from there. He had thus collected hairs from the right and left palms of the deceased, cellophane tape impressions from both palms, blood stains and hair from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he packed, sealed and labeled them, and handed it over to PW25, the investigating officer, along with Ext.P3 report. Ext.P3 also contains the specimen seal thus affixed by the scientific officer and the acknowledgment of the receipt of the sealed packets by PW25. The evidence of PW25 shows that he had seized the afore samples by preparing Ext.P13 mahazar on the very same day. Ext.P3 also contains the specimen seal thus affixed by the scientific officer and the acknowledgment of the receipt of the sealed packets by PW25. The evidence of PW25 shows that he had seized the afore samples by preparing Ext.P13 mahazar on the very same day. The said fact is also corroborated by the evidence of PW14 and PW15, the witnesses to Ext.P13 mahazar. Thereafter, the samples were forwarded to the court as per Ext.P26 property list and from there to the FSL as per Ext.P33 forwarding note. Ext.P34 report categorically shows that the hair samples taken from the right palm of the deceased belong to accused Suresh Kumar. 24. Be that as it may, the evidence on record also goes to show that the foot impression taken by PW8 from the scene on 11/4/2018 matches with the foot impression of the accused's leg. The evidence of PW8 coupled with Ext.P4 report shows that he had thus collected MO10 blood impression of foot print from the floor in front of the house and that it tallies with MO11 the right foot impression of the accused. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the side of the accused regarding all these incriminating facts. No explanation is offered by the accused as to how his hair came to be found in the right palm of the deceased, as to how his dhoti seen worn at the relevant time contained the blood of the deceased, as to how blood was found in his body and as to how his foot impression with blood came in the floor near to the place of occurrence. These facts undoubtedly are specifically within the knowledge of the accused and the burden is upon him to give a cogent explanation. 25. The afore evidence let in by the prosecution also gets support from the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW19. The evidence of PW19 reveals that when he went to the scene and asked the accused, who was sitting there, as to what had happened, the accused had replied that a mistake had happened from his part and anyway he had to go to jail. It is true that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence . But, it is upto the court to assess the credibility of the witness and determine whether his/her evidence is reliable. It is true that an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence . But, it is upto the court to assess the credibility of the witness and determine whether his/her evidence is reliable. If, after a proper and careful evaluation, the court comes to a conclusion that the witness before whom the confession was made is credible and the confession was voluntarily, clear, specific and unambiguous, the court can very well act upon and a conviction can be based on such evidence. The court must also be satisfied that the extra judicial confession was voluntarily made, without any coercion or undue influence. The extra judicial confession can form the basis of conviction, if persons before whom it is stated to be made appear to be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. Ultimately, it is for the court to judge the credibility of the witness and thereafter decide whether his/her evidence has to be accepted or not.( See Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra [ (2009) 11 SCC 262 ] , Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (cited supra) and Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar (2023 SCC OnLine SC 259 ]. In the present case, it is to be seen that PW19 is not a stranger to the accused or a person, who is having animosity with the accused. It is also to be seen that the confession thus made by the accused to PW19 is voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. The confession thus made was immediately after the commission of the offence when PW19 went to the scene and enquired with the accused. The substance of the confession is also very clear and unambiguous, which proves the culpability of the accused. In the afore circumstances, considering the fact that the extra judicial confession made to PW19 is also corroborated by the other evidence on record, we find no impediment in acting upon it. 26. The upshot of the afore discussions is that the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances leading this court to safely infer the guilt of the accused. The facts, thus established, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and nothing else and shows that the accused has committed homicide of the deceased. 26. The upshot of the afore discussions is that the prosecution has proved the entire chain of circumstances leading this court to safely infer the guilt of the accused. The facts, thus established, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and nothing else and shows that the accused has committed homicide of the deceased. As stated earlier, the evidence of PW20 coupled with Ext.P17 unerringly shows that the bodily injuries inflicted on the deceased and especially injury Nos. 1 to 5 and 17 to 19 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC. Hence, we find that this appeal lacks merit and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.