Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C.No.660 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2020 of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, convicting him under Sections 440, 449, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] for the murder of a 21 year old girl who had refused to marry him.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Neethu was staying with her grandmother and uncle at her maternal home at Chiyyaram, Thrissur District. On 04.04.2019 at about 06.45 a.m, the accused trespassed into the bathroom attached to the bedroom of Neethu and murdered her by stabbing her with a knife on her neck, chest and abdomen. After inflicting the fatal stab injuries, he went on to pour petrol on her and set her ablaze. The prosecution states that the accused had made all preparations for a planned murder by purchasing a knife, petrol etc. on the days immediately prior to the date of commission of the crime and the refusal on the part of Neethu to marry the accused is stated to be the motive behind the crime.

3. Ext.P1 FI Statement was given by PW1 Sahadeva Menon, the uncle of the deceased at 09.28 a.m. on 04.04.2019, and on the basis of the said statement, Ext.P45 FIR was registered. The appellant/accused was formally arrested at 03.30 p.m. on 04.04.2019 as evidenced by Ext.P46 arrest memo. On culmination of the investigation that followed, a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Thrissur in C.P.No.12 of 2019. The learned Magistrate, after furnishing copies of the relevant prosecution records to the appellant/accused, committed the case to the Sessions Court in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.]. Before the Sessions Court, a further investigation was conducted at the instance of PW1 Sahadeva Menon, who had invoked the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and a further report was filed by the Investigating Officer. In the said report, Section 324 IPC was deleted and Section 440 IPC was added. The copies of the further report and other relevant prosecution records were also furnished to the appellant/accused.

4. The charges under Sections 439, 302, 440 and 324 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 38 and marked Ext.P1 to P56 documents. MOs.1 to 31 were also identified. In the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the appellant/accused denied all the incriminating circumstances that was brought out in the prosecution evidence against him and filed a written statement as follows:

                  "He was in love with Neethu, since 2016. Neethu was a frequent visitor at his residence and she was acquainted with all his family members and neighbours. His parents were treating Neethu as their daughter. The family members of Neethu, except her maternal uncle Sahadevan were in favour of their relationship. Neethu used to frequently travel with the accused on his bike to his residence and workplace. Neethu had given him certain hints regarding the conduct of her uncle in approaching her with sexual desire. But, the accused pacified her. On 01.03.2019 and 02.03.2019, Neethu was totally upset as she had to face some filthy experience from her uncle, Sahadevan. She had also communicated the said fact to his mother on 02.03.2019 over phone, after which Sahadevan had threatened himself and his mother over phone. Uncle Sahadevan had continued the illegal act on Neethu. But the accused had given an assurance to Neethu that he will arrange a rental premise near to his workplace and take her to that residence. On 02.04.2019 morning, Neethu called him over mobile phone and asked him to reach her college. By 1.00 p.m, the accused reached the college and at that time, Neethu was very sad and angry towards the accused for the reason that the accused did not take her to the rented premises, as agreed. When she gets angry, she used to pinch, scratch and pull his hair. She kept her face touching his face and conveyed her agony. He pacified Neethu and left the college. By 05.00 p.m., a message was received from Neethu that she is offering a visit to his residence. He conveyed the fact to his mother and by 6.30 p.m Neethu reached his home and told his mother that she is not willing to go back to Chiyyaram. She created a pandemonium, and his parents pacified her and assured that on 4th morning the accused will come and pick her and ultimately, she returned to her residence. On 04.04.2019 by 06.45 a.m., he started from his house and reached at Chiyyaram at 8.30-8.45 a.m to bring Neethu. When he reached near to the residence of Neethu, he uploaded their intimate photos and videos on You Tube and face book using his mobile phone and changed his WhatsApp status. When he reached the compound of Neethu's home, her uncles namely Sahadevan and Vasudevan assaulted him and he was tied up there and he fell unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he was in the Nedupuzha Police Station, from where, he came to know about the death of Neethu. According to him, the crime was committed by Neethu's uncle Sahadevan, on a suspicion that Neethu will disclose the illegal act committed on her by him to the general public. This case is foisted on account of the influence of Neethu's uncles. According to him, the Mobile phone No.6282219231 was used by Neethu, though the connection was taken in the name of his mother. His mother had been using the mobile phone No.9562835008. The SIM card used by Neethu was regularly recharged by him. His mobile phone containing the WhatsApp messages and video calls between himself and Neethu was taken by uncle Sahadevan and the same was not returned".

                  The trial court also heard the appellant/accused and the prosecution under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C, and finding it to be not a fit case to acquit the appellant/accused, the matter was posted for defence evidence. On behalf of the appellant/accused, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1, Ext.P57, Ext.P57(a), Ext.P58, Ext.P58(a) and Ext.P58(b) documents were marked on the side of the defence. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as defence counsel were then heard before entering a finding of guilt against the appellant/accused under Sections 440, 449, 324 and 302 of the IPC and convicting him accordingly. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was heard on the aspect of sentencing, and he was sentenced to undergo (a) rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.5 lakhs, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and (b) rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 440, 449 and 324 of the IPC. The substantive terms of sentences were to run concurrently and the appellant/accused was also entitled to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. The fine amount, if realised, was directed to be given to PW6 Valsala Menon, the grandmother of the deceased under Section 357(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C.

5. In the appeal before us, we have heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri.P.K.Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Smt.Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. We have also gone through the evidence on record and considered the precedents cited by counsel on either side.

6. PW21 Dr. Sheeju P.A., who conducted post mortem on the deceased, issued Ext.P23 post mortem certificate, wherein, the following are noticed as anti-mortem injuries:

                  “1.  Incised wound 2.3 x 0.5 x 2.5 cm, horizontal on right side of front of neck inner end 3 cm outer to midline and 2.5 cm below jaw margin. It had cut the subcutaneous tissue. Cervical fascia and neck muscles underneath.

                  2. Incised wound 2 x 0.8 x 3.5 cm oblique on right side of neck, lower inner end 3.5 cm outer to midline and 6 cm below jaw margin. It had cut the subcutaneous tissue. Cervical fascia and neck muscles underneath.

                  3. Incised wound 3 x 0.6 x 4 cm, oblique on right side of front of neck lower inner end at midline and 1 cm below lower margin of thyroid cartilage. There was another incised wound 3 cm long and 4 cm deep, obliquely intersecting the former at its outer one third. The upper inner end 1.5 cm outer to midline at the level of thyroid cartilage.

                  The wound had cut the inner border of sternocleidomastoid muscle. Sterno-hyoid and sterno-thyroid muscles for a length of 3.3 cm and the right lobe of thyroid gland for its full thickness, cut the carotid sheath and transected the common carotid artery and partially cutting internal jugular vein.

                  4. Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm, oblique on front of neck across midline, upper inner end 0.8 cm left of midline and 0.5 cm below injury No.3, the inner end was sharply cut and other end rounded. It had cut the cervical fascia, strap muscles underneath and through suprasternal space reached the anterior mediastinum. The wound was directed downwards and had a total minimum depth of 5.5 cm.

                  5. Incised penetrating wound, 2 x 1 cm, oblique on right side of root of neck, upper inner end at midline and 1.7 cm below injury no.4. The outer end was sharply cut and inner end rounded. The wound cut strap muscles and entered chest cavity through suprasternal space and terminated by making a superficial cut at the hilum of left lung. The wound was directed downwards and had a total minimum depth of 8 cm.

                  6. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm, oblique on left side of front of chest, lower inner end 1.5 cm outer to midline and 3 cm below the inner end of injury no.5.

                  7. Incised penetrating wound 2 x 1 cm, oblique on left side of front of chest, lower inner end placed 9 cm outer to midline and 3 cm below collar bone and was blunt, upper outer end was sharply cut. The wound entered chest cavity by cutting the second intercostal space muscles (3 cm in length) and terminated by entering the upper lobe of left lung on its front surface. The wound had a total minimum depth of 3 cm and was directed downwards and inwards. Left chest cavity contained 300 ml of fluid blood and 100 gm of blood clots.

                  8. Incised penetrating wound 3 x 2 cm, vertical on right side of front of chest, lower end was sharply cut and placed 10 cm outer to midline and 9 cm above costal margin. It had cut the 5th intercostal space muscles and 6th rib (3 cm long) and entered the chest cavity. Cut the right dome of diaphragm 2.5 cm long and terminated by entering the antero-superior surface of right lobe of liver (3 cm long and 2 cm deep). The wound was directed downwards and inwards and had a total minimum depth of 5 cm. Right chest cavity contained 250 ml of fluid blood and 150 gms of blood clots.

                  9. Incised penetrating wound 5 x 3 cm, oblique on right side of front of abdomen. Upper inner end placed 3 cm outer to midline and 4 cm below costal margin and was blunt. Lower outer end was sharply cut and showed a tailing for a length of 3.2 cm directed obliquely outwards. The wound entered the abdominal cavity and cut the serosa of transverse colon. There was smearing of blood over intestinal loops. The wound had a total minimum depth of 3 cm.

                  10. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 x 1 cm vertical on back of left hand towards outer aspect, lower end 2 cm above the web space between index and thumb finger.

                  11. Incised 2 x 0.2 x 1 cm on left palm at its outer quadrant. 2 cm below root of thumb.

                  12. Multiple  abrasions  over  an  area  4.5  x  3  cm  on  left  cheek.

                  13. Dermo-epidermal burns seen on right side of face, across front of neck, at places over front of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs sparing left shoulder and palm involving 40% of body surface area. There were postmortem burns on back of trunk and buttocks and patchy over lower limbs. Perineum was spared.”

                  In the light of the anti-mortem injuries noticed, he opined that the death was due to the multiple incised wounds sustained to the neck and chest [injuries nos.3, 7 and 8 above]. In particular, he points out that the incised penetrating wound on the neck had cut the blood vessels on the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He added that injuries nos.7 and 8 as also the stab wound on the chest were also sufficient to cause death. Although the burn injuries sustained were also independently sufficient to cause death, he was of the opinion that the burn injuries might have been sustained after the stabbing since he had noticed an aromatic smell at the time of examination. He confirmed however that the stab wounds found on the deceased could have been caused with a weapon like MO1 knife that was seized from the scene of occurrence. It is clear from the evidence of PW21, therefore, that the death of the deceased Neethu was a case of homicide, and when considered along with the nature of the injuries and the place on the human body where they were inflicted, that this was a clear case of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

7. As already noticed, the instant is a case where the evidence on record to prove the murder is entirely circumstantial. It is trite that in cases where circumstantial evidence is used to enter a finding of conviction for murder against an accused, the evidence must satisfy the following tests, namely, (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulative, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) the circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence [Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh - [AIR 1952 SC 343], Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & another v. State of Maharashtra - [(1973) 2 SCC 793], Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - [(1984) 4 SCC 116], Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. - [AIR 1989 SC 1890], State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal - [AIR 1992 SC 2045], Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra - [(2009) 11 SCC 637] and Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh - [(2024) 3 SCC 481]].

8. Similarly, in a case involving circumstantial evidence, we must also bear in mind that proof of motive would supply a link in the chain of circumstances notwithstanding that the absence of motive cannot be a ground to altogether reject the prosecution case. Our criminal jurisprudence has recognized that most often it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain cause of action leading to the commission of a crime and therefore treated motive as an important element in a chain of presumptive proof where the evidence is purely circumstantial although motive may lose the importance in a case where there is direct evidence by witnesses implicating the accused [Jan Mohammad and another v. State of Bihar - [(1953) 1 SCC 5]; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar - [1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80], Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab - [(2019) 15 SCC 622] and Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi - [(2025) 8 SCC 440]].

9. When we consider the evidence on record against the backdrop of the aforesaid principles that must guide us while deciding the instant case, we find that the trial court had considered the preparatory steps taken by the appellant/accused for (i) the purchase of MO1 knife on 02.04.2019, (ii) the purchase of an insecticide on 02.04.2019 and (iii) the purchase of petrol on 03.04.2019. The findings of the trial court with regard to the preparatory steps proved against the appellant/accused are recorded in paragraphs 81 to 86 of its judgment which read as follows:

                  “81. The investigating officer has exerted all his efforts and gathered sufficient evidence and brought the same before court to prove the plan made by the accused for committing the crime. As per the information conveyed by the accused, the investigating officer had reached "Decathlon sports", from where the accused had purchased the weapon for inflicting the fatal injuries on the deceased. There is direct evidence in this connection through the testimony of PW14, the cashier in the counter of the shop on 02.04.2019. He has identified the accused as a customer who came to the shop on 02.04.2019 at 6.00 p.m and purchased a knife after effecting payment by swiping. This witness had identified MO1 before court as the knife purchased by the accused. He has also identified the cover of the knife before court as MO17. His evidence would reveal that the accused did not answer to the query put by him as to for what purpose, he purchased that particular knife. Though the accused did not reply, he added that it is intended for mountaineering purpose. He had also identified Ext.P15 as the bill issued by him. But Ext.P15 does not bear any writing as the ink on a computer generated bill will be vanished within a week. According to the witness, the visuals pertaining to the transaction between him and the accused were seen by the investigating officer in the CCTV. Therefore, the investigating officer had received the copied version in CCTV in a pen drive.

                  82. Since the admission of electronic evidence by way of Ext.P3 and P5 is seriously challenged by the learned defence counsel on account of the failure on the part of the investigating officer to adopt the requisite scientific methods with regard to the seizure. This aspect will be dealt with in the coming paragraphs of the judgment on discussion about another pen drive received as Ext.P5.

                  83. The investigating officer had also reached "AMA Fuels" the petrol pump located at Vadakekkad, from where the accused had purchased petrol in a plastic bottle which was used for commission of the brutal crime.

                  84. PW3 is the salesman of the above petrol pump. His testimony would show that he had acquaintance with the accused being a customer of the petrol pump. According to him, on 03.04.2019 by 6.30 a.m the accused came to the petrol pump and purchased petrol in a plastic bottle. This witness had identified the accused and also MO5, the bottle in which this witness had filled the fuel for him before this court. The counsel for the defence had assailed the testimony of PW3 on the allegation that the identification of this witness in court cannot be safely accepted since anybody can identify an accused in court as he is placed in the dock. A matter cannot be viewed with such a preconceived notion. This witness had testified before court that he was acquainted with the accused as a customer of the petrol pump. He further added that he had stopped the practice of providing petrol in bottles after this incident. He had the opportunity of seeing the accused when brought at the petrol pump by the investigating officer also. In evaluating the evidence brought out through this witness, this court could find his testimony as the most natural one because he has testified that the accused being a customer of his pump, he had acquaintance with him and the practice of supplying petrol in bottles was stopped, after this incident. Since the identity of the accused is already made by previous acquaintance, the argument of the defence that his identification of the accused in court is as the person standing in the dock is only a futile exercise. The testimony of PW3 gives clear evidence about the preparations made by the accused in executing the crime.

                  85. The investigating officer had also collected evidence about the purchase of poison from a shop by name "Farmate" situated at Kalamassery by the accused. The testimony of PW7 and 8 are available in this regard and PW7 is the salesman of the said institution. He gave evidence that on 02.04.2019 by 5 p.m the accused came to his shop for the purchase of poison. But he replied that only insecticide is available there and thereupon, the accused purchased MO3. The details of the customer were to be entered in the register and entries were made in the relevant register. Ext.P7 is the register. Ext.P7(a) and (b) are the relevant entries. Ext.P7 was seized by the police during investigation on the strength of Ext.P8. The investigating officer has tendered evidence that the entries made in Ext.P7(a) and (b) were effected by the accused himself. This particular version does not appear to be true as PW7 has no case that the entries contained in Ext.P7(a) and (b) were made by the accused. The impression of the investigating officer has no significance as the witness never spoke before court that the writings were made by the accused. The testimony of PW7 with regard to the purchase of MO3 is further fortified through the testimony of PW8, the manager of the said institution. He had also tendered evidence that on 02.04.2019 he had issued Ext.P9, bill with regard to the purchase of insecticide Tafbor 250 ml. PW8 also added that he had occasion to identify the accused when he was brought before his shop along with police officials. Therefore, the evidence let in by PW3, 7 and 8 and also the evidence of PW14 would incriminate the accused in the crime with regard to the planning and preparations made by him for committing the crime. The accused had gone to "Farmate" the fertilizer shop at 5.00 p.m on 02.04.2019 and purchased the insecticide from where he sought for a knife as spoken to by PW7, but being dissatisfied with the quality of the knife, he had dropped the plan to purchase it. Thereafter by 06.00 p.m, the accused went to “Decathlon” and purchased MO1 where he denied to answer the query as to the purpose for which the knife was purchased by him. The purchase of petrol in a bottle by the accused at 06.00 a.m on the next day stands proved through the evidence of PW3. It is also pertinent to note that all these preparations were made by the accused on the same day after the alleged quarrel had taken place at the entrance of the college of the deceased as spoken to by PW10.

                  86. As per Section 8 of the Evidence Act, motive or preparation for any fact in issue has strong relevance. Illustration (c) in Section 8 of the Evidence Act shows a case in which 'A' was tried for the murder of 'B' by poison. The fact that before the death of B, 'A' procured poison similar to that which was administered to 'B' is relevant. Here, the accused had purchased MO1 from “Decathlon Sport India" at Kalamassery, which fact is proved through the testimony of PW14. The very same weapon was identified by PW14, PW1, PW6 and investigating officer. Therefore, the purchase of MO1 two days before the date of occurrence by the accused would definitely incriminate him in the crime. Likewise, he had purchased petrol from "AMA Fuels", Vadakkekad which fact is proved through the evidence led by the salesman. He had occasion to get acquainted with the accused as he was a customer of the said petrol pump. There is no reason to discredit the testimony of PW3 in this regard. According to him, the accused had purchased petrol in a bottle on 03.04.2019 by 6.30 a.m. Subsequently, he had seen the accused when he was brought by the police in the petrol pump. The learned defence counsel assailed the evidence let in by the identification of the accused by this witness during trial on the ground that since the witness had occasion to see the accused during investigation and that the accused was standing alone in the dock, it was easy for the witness to identify him before court. While considering the evidence let in by a crucial witness in the trial of a murder case, matters cannot be approached in such a manner. During cross examination, PW3 has stated that he never supplied petrol in a bottle after this incident. Therefore, PW3 has got specific reason to remember the purchase made by the accused and that is why he testified that never did the supply petrol in bottles after that. No reason could be attributed against PW3 for wrongly implicating the accused in the crime.”

10. As for the motive of the appellant/accused to commit the murder, the same was brought out through the testimony of PW10 Sini, who was a sweeper at an Engineering College and who specifically stated that on 02.04.2019, she had seen the appellant/accused and the deceased quarreling at the entrance of the College and that she could understand that the quarrel was in respect of a mobile phone. The said evidence which has withstood cross-examination, when taken together with the preparatory steps of the appellant/accused noticed above, add weight to the prosecution case against the appellant/accused.

11. A crucial fact to be proved in the instant case is whether or not the appellant/accused was present at the house of the deceased at 06.45 a.m. on 04.04.2019 ? Although there is the eyewitness testimony of PW1 Sahadeva Menon, the uncle of the deceased and PW6 Valsala Menon, the grandmother of the deceased, who were both residents in the same house as the deceased, as also the testimony of PW9 Vasudevan, another uncle of the deceased, who lived in a neighboring house, that they apprehended the appellant/accused when he ran out of the bathroom in the house after inflicting the injuries on the deceased, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused has vehemently contended that the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses suffer from serious inconsistencies especially with regard to their narration of how the appellant/accused was apprehended. It is pointed out that the testimonies of PW1, PW6 and PW9 have to be seen as those of interested witnesses especially when the case of the appellant/accused in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C was that he had come to the house of the deceased only by 08.45 a.m. on the same day. The said explanation offered by the appellant/accused, together with the evidence  let  in  through  the  mother  of  the  appellant/accused  DW1 Ratnakumari demonstrates an attempt on the part of the appellant/accused to prove that he was not there at the crime scene at 06.45 a.m. on 04.04.2019. In other words, the appellant/accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C read with the evidence tendered through his mother DW1 Ratnakumari, tries to bring in a plea of alibi to escape from the impact of the eye witness testimonies of PW1, PW6 and PW9 with regard to his presence at the scene of crime.

12. We must admit that, on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we were also initially inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the inconsistencies in the depositions of PW1, PW6 and PW9 as regards the manner in which the appellant/accused was apprehended that morning were so material that they would take away from the credibility to be attached to the said evidence. This was more so because the appellant/accused had already admitted that he had come to the scene of crime at 08.45 a.m and hence the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove his presence there was not of much assistance unless it also showed that he was present at the crime scene at 6.45 a.m. on the same day. However, we cannot ignore the testimony of PW12 Narayanan, a neighbour residing opposite to the house of PW9 Vasudevan, who deposed to having seen the appellant/accused being restrained by PW1 and PW9 at about 6.45 a.m. when he had returned from his morning walk. Although the learned counsel for the appellant/accused has pointed to certain omissions and improvements in the testimony of PW12, we find that in respect of the materially relevant evidence regarding the presence of the appellant/accused at 6.45 a.m. at the crime scene, his evidence is unimpeachable. The credibility attached to the testimony of PW12 Narayanan also automatically validates and corroborates the testimonies of PW1, PW6 and PW9 on this aspect. Against the backdrop of the testimony of PW12 regarding the presence of the appellant/accused, the minor inconsistencies in the versions of PW1, PW6 and PW9 cannot be said to be so material as to affect the very credibility of their respective testimonies.

13. We also find from the forensic evidence adduced that skin tissues were obtained from the nail clippings taken by PW21 doctor who conducted the post mortem on the deceased. The evidence of PW34 Sreevidhya K.V., Assistant Director DNA, also shows that the nail clippings contained cells and tissues belonging to both the appellant/accused and the deceased as evidenced by their DNA profiles. There is also the evidence of the fingerprint expert, who confirms that it was the fingerprint of the appellant/accused that was found on the helmet placed on the motorbike that was found parked in front of the house of PW9 around the time of the incident. When holistically read, the corroboration offered by the forensic evidence to the eyewitness testimonies of PW1, PW6, PW9 and PW12, read along with the unsatisfactory explanation given by the appellant/accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, completes the chain of circumstances that point unerringly to the role of the appellant/accused in the crime and his guilt in relation to the crime. It is also relevant to note that the unsatisfactory explanation by the appellant/accused, through his failure to prove his defense of alibi, goes to strengthen the prosecution case against him as noticed in Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat - [2013 KHC 4451] and Biju @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala - [2019 KHC 2613].  As is trite, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, while the non-explanation or false explanation of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C cannot be used independently as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances, it can certainly be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances [Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh - [(2024) 3 SCC 481]].

14. Before parting with this case, we must also record that there was a feeble attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused to try and demonstrate that there was no continuous chain of custody of the forensic material in this case, and hence, the possibility of forensic evidence being vitiated on account of contamination cannot be ruled out. We find however that the above objection was gone into in detail by the trial court, which found as follows at paragraphs 90, 95 and 96 which read as follows:

                  “90. The next challenge of the learned defence counsel is that the evidence tendered by PW21, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. In Ext.P23, the doctor stated that he had handed over the articles such as viscera, nail clippings, swab etc. to PW25, the civil police officer. But he has not stated that these articles were handed over in a sealed condition. Neither he spoke in court that those articles were handed over in a sealed condition. But in Ext.P22 seizure mahazar, it is recorded that the articles were in a sealed condition. There is an omission on the part of the forensic Surgeon to tender evidence that he had sent those material objects through the CPO in a sealed condition. But that alone cannot be taken into account to jump into a conclusion that the prosecution has manipulated evidence. It is a fact that the viscera, nail clippings etc of the deceased were collected by PW21 and handed over to PW25 after the post-mortem examination. Both witnesses being Government servants, their acts while exercising the duties can only be treated as done in good faith unless otherwise proved. PW21 had identified MO25 series in court as the objects collected by him and handed over to PW25. The defence lawyer has not pointed out any particular mode of manipulation possible if the articles are not handed over in sealed condition.

                  95. A serious challenge is raised by the learned defence lawyer about the procedure resorted to by the DNA expert examined as PW34. She has not given evidence regarding the exact test conducted by her to retrieve DNA. According to the learned counsel, there is no clarity in the report issued by PW34 regarding the number of nail clippings as to whether it is in respect of the right hand or left hand. She hasn't clarified the origin of tissue or cells, whether it is dermis or epidermis. PW34 has clarified in cross examination that DNA profile can be abstracted from a meagre quantity of cells or tissues. While cross examining the witness on that aspect, the defence counsel has not unearthed any irregularity. Whether dermis or epidermis the sample need to be examined and no variations in this regard has been pointed out by the defence. A DNA expert is a Government Officer selected and appointed through competitive examination and engaged in conducting tests on DNA. No doubt could be placed on the test conducted by such experts.

                  96. According to the defence, the date of Ext.P39 report is 13.07.2020. But in the covering letter the date is seen recorded as 15.07.2020, which is not clarified by the prosecution and hence, the report marked cannot be accepted. The report by the DNA expert has been issued in July 2020 after almost 16 months after the commission of crime and the difference of date in the covering letter will not affect the authenticity of Ext.P39 in any manner. The DNA examination was done by PW34, the expert who has given evidence that two samples were received in a sealed condition and she added that the seal was intact and it would tally with the specimen seal provided. The entire material objects were initially received at the serology division and PW35, the concerned official had verified all the thondi articles and made certification that the same are intact and tallied with the specimen seal provided. The defence counsel has challenged the veracity of Ext.P39 and P40 stating that PW35, the first recipient of material objects had not forwarded item No.26, the specimen seal of the doctor who had examined the accused and collected the samples from him to the DNA expert and hence the comparison of the samples with specimen seal as deposed by PW34 is a false statement. This contention of the defence is found incorrect because Ext.P40 contains duplicate entries in respect of the sample collected from the accused under item Nos.22 and 26. Item No.22 was sent for examination and there is no meaning in raising a complaint that the contents in the duplicate entry were not sent. In this context, the lay out and the contents of Ext.P53 have to be scrutinized The first column of Ext.P53 contains the "serial number of exhibits column No.2 "the description of the exhibits", column No.3 "How, when and by whom found" and column No.4 "source of exhibits". Under Serial Nos.22 and 26 the description of exhibits in column No.3 are the same and the date, time and details of the officials who found are the same. Hence serial No.26 was not opened and opening of item under a duplicate entry is not possible. The defence counsel also raised an allegation that as per the evidence elicited through PW35, item No.28 of Ext.P40 also was not forwarded to the DNA Division. But such a statement has not been made by PW35 in court. In Ext.P40 prepared by PW35, the items prepared for DNA examination alone are mentioned. Since item No.28 is the specimen seal impression of the police surgeon, no examination on it is contemplated and hence it need not be mentioned under the entry (b) in "methods and procedures" adopted. No question is seen put to PW35 in this regard and therefore, the examination and comparison done by PW34 cannot be doubted. PW34 and 35 are the officials working in the same laboratory and since verification of the seals by comparing with the specimen seal with respect to the 26 items was carried out by PW35, the first recipient and therefore, the possibility of any tampering of evidence is out of question. The official acts are presumed to be done in good faith and in the proper manner. Therefore, the challenge raised by the learned defence counsel in this regard cannot be accepted so as to eschew the evidence tendered by the DNA expert.”

                  In the result, we find that the evidence on record clearly establishes a chain of circumstances that unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant/accused and there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellant/accused and none else. We therefore see no reason to differ from the view taken by the trial court in the matter of conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused. This Criminal Appeal therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed by upholding the conviction and sentence entered by the trial court.