Pattu Rajan V/s The State of Tamil Nadu
There must be a chain of evidence proving the circumstances so complete so   as   to   not   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   a   conclusion   of innocence of the accused  The judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court convicted the accused appellants for the abduction and murder of one Santha kumar, husband of the complainant Jeevajothi (PW1), is called into question in these appeals.Accused No. 1 is the proprietor of a chain of hotels (Saravana Bhavan). Either upon the advice of an astrologer or having become besotted with PW1, Accused No.1 had evinced a keen desire to take PW1   as   his   third   wife,   though   she   was   already   married   to Santhakumar (the deceased). In order to fulfil his desire, Accused No.1 used to financially help PW1, her family members and her husband.Accused No.1 took the help of the other appellants in order to eliminate the husband of PW1, for securing PW1 as his third wife. On 18.10.2001, PW1 as well as her husband went to the Sai Baba   temple   as   instructed   by   Accused   No.   2.   Soon   after,   two Ambassador car and a   Tata   Sumo   vehicle   came and halted behind the car in which PW1 and her husband were sitting. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, armed with knives, got out of one of the cars and forced PW1 and her husband to board the car of the accused in which Accused No.5 was sitting, and took them to Chengalpattu.At about 8.30 p.m. on the same night, a Mercedes Benz bearing Registration No. TN 10 M 7755 (M.O.4) belonging to Accused No. 1 arrived with the parents   of   PW1   along with   Accused   No.1.   Thereafter, PW2,   the mother of PW1, informed PW1 that Accused No.1 was in the said Benz car, and wanted PW1 to leave her husband and meet Accused No.1 in the car. As PW1 resisted, Accused Nos. 3 and 4 forcibly took PW1 to the Benz car, and she was taken to Tiruchirappalli in the said car.On 19.10.2001, PW1 was taken to PW9 by Accused Nos.5 and 8 at Parappadi village, to remove the alleged influence of witchcraft (black magic) which was allegedly the cause of her being in love with Santhakumar.After two days, Santhakumar spoke to PW1 over a phone call and stated that Accused No. 2 had told him about being given Rs. 5 lakhs by Accused No.1 to kill him, but Accused No. 2 had let him go unharmed   out   of   sympathy,   and   had   asked   him   to   escape to Mumbai.However, Santhakumar returned to PW1 upon her request. Subsequently, on 21.10.2001, both of them approached Accused No.1 to seek his mercy, thus revealing that Santhakumar was still alive. On 24.10.2001,   they   took   the   couple   to   the   office   of   the   Deputy Commissioner of Police to withdraw the complaint relating to the incident of abduction which had been lodged earlier that month, and also made them sign a few blank papers.On the same day, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 took Santhakumar, PW1 and her family to remove the influence of black magic on PW1, after which they reached Tirunelveli.On 26.10.2001, at about 6.30 a.m., Accused No. 5 came  and informed them that Accused No.1 had instructed Santhakumar to be brought to him. Upon reaching the Karai Illupu culvert, and upon a signal by Accused No. 5, the other vehicle stopped, and Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 alighted therefrom. Accused No.1 got out and grabbed Santhakumar by the collar,   dragging   him   out. He   pushed   Santhakumar   down   and handed him over to Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 and ordered them to “finish him off”.While PW1 was staying at her mother’s house at Velachery, Accused Nos. 5, 8 and other henchmen of Accused No.1 kept a constant   vigil   over   the   movements   of   PW1   and   her   family.She lodged the first information on 20.11.2001 stating that Accused No.1 and his henchmen had murdered her husband, and the same was registered as Crime No.1047 of 2001.On 31.10.2001, prior to the lodging of the FIR, one forester by name Raman and Forest Guard Murugusen (PW26 and 27 respectively) of the Kodaikanal Range discovered the dead body of a male near the Tiger Chola forest area. On seeing the 8 dead  body,   PW27   lodged   the   first   information,   Ext.   P42,   at Kodaikanal Police Station,Meanwhile, the accused had surrendered and confessed to the commission of Santhakumar’s murder.The Trial Court, upon evaluation of the material on record, convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 304 Part I and 201 of the IPC.The High Court while confirming the finding of guilt of the accused, modified the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I to Section 302 of the IPC. The Courts, relying on the evidence of the doctors PWs 35 and 38, who conducted the two post¬mortem examinations, concluded that the death was homicidal in nature, as the cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to throttling. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT: Whether the case in hand is merely a continuation of an earlier offence, i.e. Crime No. 1030 of 2001 relating to the abduction of PW1 and the deceased Santhakumar?Whether DNA test should have been conducted in order   to   identify   the   dead   body,   and identification merely on the basis of a superimposition test, which is not a tangible piece of evidence, is proper? RATIO OF THE COURT The court did not find any force in the arguments of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants that the incident of murder in the case in hand is merely a continuation of an earlier offence and observed that factors such as proximity of time or place, unity of purpose and design and continuity of action, in respect of a series of acts, have to be considered in order to determine whether such acts form part of the same transaction or not.Considering the factor such as the distinct intentions behind the two offences, the court observed that the incident of murder is entirely separate and distinct from the earlier incident of abduction.The court by referring to the case of  Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8 opined that the allegations and offences under this present FIR relating to the   murder   of   the   deceased   are   substantially   distinct   from   the information lodged in Crime No. 1030 of 2001 relating to abduction and there is no question of further investigation to be made in the crime of abduction by the investigating agency relating to the offence of murder   which   was   committed   during   the   subsistence   of   the investigation   relating   to   abduction.The court examined and discussed about the main evidences and observed that the evidence of PWs  1 and  2  with  regard  to  the motive  for  commission  of  the offence, the last seen circumstance and recovery as well as the identification of the dead body is consistent with the case of the prosecution.The court did not find any artificiality in their evidence. On the other hand, their evidence remains natural, consistent, cogent and probable. The court did not find any reason to disagree with the findings arrived at in that regard by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court.It was observed that if a confession is made by the accused before the police and a portion of the confession leads to the recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.The court opined that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party.The court referred to the case of Shankar  &amp;   Ors.  v. State   of   Tamil   Nadu and other relevant cases and opined that identification of the deceased through super imposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence.The court also held that the High Court was justified in observing that a superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body, because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification.The court opined that the scientific evidence of PW34 was rightly believed by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, and strengthens the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body. The court emphasized that based on the confession of Accused No.6, recoveries of a wallet containing a photograph of PW1,   gold   chain   etc.   were   effected   from   his   house,   which,   as mentioned , also stand positively identified by PW1 and her family as belonging to the deceased.It was later added that merely because the actual recovery of the body happened before the accused lead the police to the scene, it does not, in the facts and circumstances of this case, negate the validity of the recovery based on a confession, in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.The court held that   the   recovery   of   the   body   of   the deceased at the instance of Accused No. 2 and the identification of the body as that of Santhakumar by PW1, on   the   basis   of   photographs,   the   clothes   and 44 belongings of the deceased, and his scar, stand proved beyond all reasonable doubt.The court by referring to the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 observed that Failure on part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, as in the case in hand, or furnishing false explanation would give rise to a strong presumption against him, and in favour of his guilt, and would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances.It was stated by the court that the   overwhelming,   consistent, cogent and reliable testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, along with the aforementioned   corroborative   evidence,   conclusively   prove   the prosecution case.The court observed that   the   evidence   of   the   other   prosecution   witnesses (especially   PWs   7,   26,   27,   29,   32   and   33)   is   homogeneous, consistent and reliable, and corroborates the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, which leads to conclude that the chain of circumstances is complete and points solely at the guilt of the accused. DECISION HELD BY COURT: The court held that the evidence on record fully proves the case of the prosecution and that the Trial Court as well as the High Court evaluated the material on record in its proper prospective while coming to their conclusion.It was also added that the judgment of the Trial Court as modified by the High Court need not be interfered with.The appeals were failed and stood dismissed.
The judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal complainant Jeevajothi is called into question in these PW1 as his third wife though she was already married to No.1 used to financially help PW1 her family members and her gain PW1’s love and affection he frequently interfered in her personal matters. Once when she was ill under the pretext of better treatment as advised by another doctor Accused No. 1 series of tests. The deceased Santhakumar was instructed to get On 01.10.2001 PW1 and her husband were abducted by separate trial was conducted. Some of the accused therein were separately we do not propose to discuss the said incident and Subsequent to the incident of 01.10.2001 relating to abduction Accused No. 2 contacted PW1 and told her that he regretted the press reporter whom Accused No.2 personally knew in order to highlight Accused No. 1’s wrongdoings. In other words Accused Baba temple as instructed by Accused No. 2. Soon after two and TN 22 5202 and a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing and 4 armed with knives got out of one of the cars and forced PW1 No.5 was sitting and took them to Chengalpattu. At about 8.30 parents of PW1 along with Accused No.1. Thereafter PW2 the 6. On 19.10.2001 PW1 was taken to PW9 by Accused Nos.5 and 8 black magic) which was allegedly the cause of her being in love with Santhakumar. From there she was taken to Veppankulam an employee of Accused No.1 Janarthanam came and informed of Accused No.1 and his whereabouts were unknown Subsequently after spending the night at Hotel Ariyas at Tirunelveli PW1 and her family along with Accused Nos. 1 5 6 unharmed out of sympathy and had asked him to escape to Mumbai and contact him from there after fifteen days. However 21.10.2001 both of them approached Accused No.1 to seek his mercy thus revealing that Santhakumar was still alive. Later on the same day when Accused No.2 told Accused No.1 a false story destroyed the evidence on Accused No.1’s cue Santhakumar and PW1 entered the room much to the shock of Accused No.2 Disgraced and feeling betrayed Accused No.2 started assaulting Santhakumar and was joined by Accused Nos. 3 and 4. On 24.10.2001 they took the couple to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to withdraw the complaint relating to the incident of abduction which had been lodged earlier that month and also made them sign a few blank papers. On the same day Accused Nos. 5 and 6 took Santhakumar PW1 and her family On 26.10.2001 at about 6.30 a.m. Accused No. 5 came to the room in which PW1 and her family members were staying in Tirunelveli and informed them that Accused No.1 had instructed PW1 also went along with Santhakumar and Accused No.5 Registration No. TN 10 M 7755). This vehicle being driven by Accused No. 9 with Accused Nos. 5 and 8 PW1 and Santhakumar seated within was followed by another Tata Sumoas well as the apparel found on the body of the deceased were identified as Santhakumar’s by second post­mortem which was conducted by PW38. During the course of investigation the procedure of superimposition of the face of the deceased was done by PW34 Dr. Jayaprakash after which the dead body was concluded to be that of Santhakumar. After 302 364 and 201 and the trial was conducted 12. The Trial Court upon evaluation of the material on record High Court while confirming the finding of guilt of the accused modified the conviction for the offence punishable under Section High Court concluded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly that of PWs 1 and 2 along with the other supporting evidence was believable and trustworthy the motive for commission of the offence had been proved the last seen circumstance had been proved by the prosecution beyond the Courts tested the evidence of PW1 on the touchstone of the discrepancies and contradictions if any were minor in nature 13. The Courts relying on the evidence of the doctors PWs 35 and 38 who conducted the two post­mortem examinations concluded 14. Shri Sushil Kumar learned senior counsel for the appellants the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been the Trial Court have merely proceeded on assumptions and been proved in addition to the fact that the evidence relating to the recovery of the dead body is shaky. He laid more stress on the argument that the first information in the present case 3 SCR 297). A quick overview of the sequence of unfolding of the incident of Even when the two FIRs Ext. P1 and P3 are read together it on 01.10.2001. The crime of abduction commenced when the victimswere forced into captivity on the investigation of the said case on 24.10.2001 the accused brought the deceased PW1 and her family members to Tirunelveli. The and her husband Santhakumar were taken away in a car and on the direction of Accused No.1 Accused Nos. 2 to 4 6 and 7 forcibly took away Santhakumar by separating him from his wife Evidently the time and place of occurrence of the two commission of both the offences may be the same inasmuch as is evident that unity of purpose and design between the two 16. Undisputedly the first information pertaining to the incident of abduction after passing through various stages and various police officers ultimately came to be registered as an FIR on 09.11.2001 in the jurisdictional Police Station. Nevertheless the fact remains that the offence of abduction was completed on 01.10.2001 itself and the first information came to be lodged on 181 this Court has categorically held that the registration of a “19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 cognizable offence. On completion of investigation the case may be and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC However even after filing such a report if he comes into possession of further information or material he collects further evidence oral or documentary he is obliged to forward the same with one or more 20. From the above discussion it follows that 155 156 157 162 169 170 and 173 CrPC only commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station reported in the FIR but also other connected 27. A just balance between the fundamental further report or reports to the Magistrate In Narang caseCrPC. It would 156 CrPC nay a case of abuse of the statutory case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs not being a counter­case filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of is under way or final report under Section 173(2 18. However the aforementioned principles of law may not be applicable to the facts of the incident on hand as the crimes underlying the two FIRs are distinct and different. The offence punishable under Section 302 in the present case was committed the murder of the deceased are substantially distinct from the in the earlier crime registered relating to abduction since the murder has allegedly taken place during the subsistence of investigation of the crime of abduction. As mentioned supra the facts and circumstances of the matter clearly indicate that the murder were two different and distinct offences and therefore murder which was committed during the subsistence of the investigation relating to abduction. Further investigation as envisaged under Sub­section 8 of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C connotes investigation of the case in continuation of an earlier investigation with respect to which the chargesheet has already the earlier investigation which is distinct from the offence being investigated such fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of 8 wherein this Court held that the case arising out of a second FIR with a previous FIR under the clause ‘further investigation’ as In Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat 2006) 1 SCC 732 earlier judgments of this Court including T.T Antony were considered and it was held that in case the FIR there is no prohibition on accepting the second FIR. In this respect in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab “67. The second FIR in our opinion would be maintainable not only because there were different larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding as for example in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation in our opinion as and when the same surfaced it was open to the State and or the High Court to direct and separate from the one for which the FIR had “20. Thus in view of the above the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under the commencement of the investigation which ends or 170 CrPC as the case may be and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Thus it is quite possible that more than one piece of the police station in respect of the same incident In such a case he need not enter each piece of orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under the test of sameness is to be applied to find out incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However in case the contrary is proved where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or In light of the aforementioned settled legal proposition we have no hesitation in holding that the separate first information 21. Furthermore it is no doubt true that the first information the case on hand relating to murder. However we cannot accept the evidence in this matter. This is because the said document was 22. Coming to the merits of the matter it is pertinent to note that the prosecution mainly relied upon three circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused i.e. motive the last seen circumstance and recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Clearly there is no direct evidence in this matter and the whole case rests on Before we undertake a consideration of the evidence tread cautiously so as to not allow conjectures or suspicion however strong to take the place of proof. If the alleged As mentioned supra the circumstances relied upon by the such as to exclude every other hypothesis except the one to be so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion of innocence of the accused. Although it is not necessary for this Court to refer to decisions concerning this legal proposition we prefer to quote the following observations made in Sharad It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 CriLJ “Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty 2) 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 on any other hypothesis except that 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis 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 154. These five golden principles if we may say so In order to satisfy our conscience we have independently considered the evidence on record in its entirety in view of the aforementioned principles. However as we do not wish to burden the wife of the deceased. She has deposed in detail as to how matters unwarrantedly. She has narrated elaborately about the concerned she has deposed that on 24.10.2001 PW1 her parents and the deceased were taken by Accused No.1 and the other alone with Accused No. 5 went along with her husband to meet along with himself and Accused Nos. 5 and 8. On the way upon the signal of Accused No. 5 Accused Nos. 2 4 and 6 got down from the deceased. Accused No. 1 further instructed these accused to “finish him off” definitely intending to instruct them to kill the suspect the murder of her husband and led her to lodge a exhumation of the dead body and her identification of the dead the crime. In the cross­examination she has also explained the file the complaint before 20.11.2001 though her husband was abducted on 26.10.2001 because she was under the constant surveillance of Accused No. 1 and his henchmen and could only free herself after 06.11.2011. Also importantly in the first incident being the incident of abduction i.e. Crime No. 10301) her occasion also he had been spared by Accused No. 2. Thus she was hopeful that her husband would escape on this occasion as had informed her that if she married Accused No.1 he would set up In effect PW1 has deposed about the aspect of motive the last seen circumstance as well as the identification of the personal time before his death. While the date on which she saw the deceased with the accused was 26.10.2001 the dead body was found on 31.10.2001 i.e. within five days of the incident and as per the post­mortem report given by PW35 Dr. A. Sivakumar the victim appeared to have died 3­5 days prior to the examination 26. The evidence of PW1 is fully supported by the evidence of PW2 the mother of PW1. PW2 has deposed about the conduct of Accused No.1 towards her family members as well as the his third wife. She has fully corroborated the evidence of PW1 regarding the events of the day of the incident as well as the preceding days. She has testified to the fact that Accused No.5 came to their room in Tirunelveli and asked the deceased to go along with Accused No.1. However PW1 also went along with them but she returned to the room alone crying and revealed that the accused had beaten the deceased and taken him away. She has for removing the influence of black magic etc. and that she was also identified the belongings of the deceased. In her cross­ Accused No.1. She has also explained the delay in filing the FIR safely as he had previously. The evidence of PW2 fully corroborates It is evident from the above discussion that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to the motive for commission of the offence the last seen circumstance and recovery as well as the identification of the dead body is consistent with the case of the the other hand their evidence remains natural consistent cogent 27. The testimony of PW7 the Village Administrative Officer working in the office of the Tehsildar is also relevant and Police PW7 went to the Chennai Kotturpuram Police Station on 30.11.2001. In his presence Accused No.2 confessed to the Inspector of Police PW42 that if taken to Kodaikanal he would on 01.12.2001 and he pointed out the place of disposal of the body and also identified the dead body of the deceased from the photographs available with the police. PW7 further deposed that PWs 1 and 2 who came the next day i.e. on 02.12.2001 also also deposed about the recovery of one lungi from the presence of the police. Be that as it may if a confession is made by such portion of the confession relating to the recovery of certain material objects was admitted in evidence and relied upon such 28. The testimony of PWs 26 27 29 32 and 33 pertains to the vital aspect of the recovery of the body of the deceased. PW26 Raman the forester has deposed that while he was working with PW27 went to the Kodaikanal Police Station and lodged the first information with regard to the discovery of the unidentified dead body. Thereafter the police came to the spot PW29 the Sub­Inspector of Police of Kodaikanal Police Station has deposed that on 31.10.2001 PWs 26 and 27 lodged the PW29 along with other personnel went to the concerned spot at the place where the dead body was buried. In the cross­ examination he has denied the suggestion that the pictures mentioned were merely photographs of the original photographs taken on the spot of discovery. Further he has deposed that he conducted an inquest of the dead body and prepared the same blue and thus struck it out and corrected it accordingly in the PW32 the Head Constable has reiterated what has been deposed by PW29. He was present during the burial of the dead of the Tehsildar upon whose direction he kept the dead body at a place that was elevated. He also deposed that PW1 Jeevajothi PW33 who has deposed that he buried the body and put the the doctors who conducted the post­mortems of the deceased in his examination­in­chief that the hyoid bone in the neck was exhumation. PW38 deposed that while the body was being exhumed he had noticed that a wooden stick had been put up deposed that there was an old injury scar on the right lower abdomen of the dead body the hyoid bone was broken and that the fracture found in the hyoid bone was ante­mortem which was It is also relevant to note the testimony of PW36 the the deceased PW1 and her family were collected. PW36 compared accused and opined the former to belong to Accused Nos. 4 5 6 been conducted in order to identify the dead body and the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the and object of opinion evidence is to aid the Court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law science art etc. on to aspects such as ballistics fingerprint matching handwriting comparison and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques the Court may be explained by referring to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus there is a need to be not within the court s knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric the central role of an expert Undoubtedly it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons that as it may it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts.v. Pali Ram 1979) 2 SCC 158 State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors. 7 SCC 280 Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar 13 SCC 65 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors supra) Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee remember given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence with every passing day thereby making it more and more reliable we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be the superimposition test conducted in the instant case for a new phenomenon. Notably it has been employed in the investigations pertaining to the Nithari murders the Russian in 1996 and the Udhampur murder case in 2005 4 SCC 478 Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka 12 SCC 288 Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu v. John David 5 SCC 509 Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra in the above paragraph were based on circumstantial evidence involving aspects such as the last seen circumstance motive recovery of personal belongings of the deceased and so on and guilt of the accused. Indeed in Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde John David of referring to a DNA test as well as dental This is in line with the settled practice of the Courts which generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole true for the superimposition technique which cannot be regarded 36. In view of the above discussion we hold that the High Court was justified in observing that a superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification merely one piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to 37. Moreover it is evident from the testimony of PW34 Dr Jayaprakash who conducted the superimposition test that the test was conducted by using three different methods i.e. video observation and dental evidence the Courts after carefully assessing the methodology adopted accepted the finding reached by PW34 regarding the identification of the body and we see no error in such conclusion of the body of the deceased in the presence of other reliable evidence on record in favour of the prosecution version on this superimposition is improper. This is all the more true since no material is forthcoming to the effect that the parents of the deceased were alive during the relevant period so as to conduct Accused No.6 recoveries of a wallet containing a photograph of PW1 gold chain etc. were effected from his house which as mentioned supra also stand positively identified by PW1 and her No. 2 led the investigation team based on his confession about accused lead the police to the scene it does not in the facts and In our considered view the recovery of the body of the the accused on the basis of photographs the clothes and belongings of the deceased and his scar stand proved beyond all 41. As mentioned supra the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 proves the doubt apart from other circumstances. Both of them in their evidence as mentioned supra have consistently the accused who took the deceased away upon the orders of Accused No. 1. No explanation much less any plausible Section 313 of the Cr.P.C rebutting the strong evidence against the said circumstance as to when they left the company of the deceased no explanation was adduced in that regard by the accused herein. Hence an adverse inference has to be drawn the accused provides an additional link in the chain of Furthermore although it was argued by Shri Sushil Kumar under Section 313 such an argument cannot be accepted since Question No. 22 and Question No. 30 specifically relate to the so as to fully enable them to explain all the incriminating the prosecution. It is needless to observe that it has been doctrine of last seen if proved shifts the burden of proof onto the accused placing on him the onus to explain how the incident this regard as in the case in hand or furnishing false explanation would give rise to a strong presumption against him and in favour 14 SCC 434 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra petrol pump at Palani where the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 1310 was refuelled were also In our considered opinion the overwhelming consistent cogent and reliable testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 along with the aforementioned corroborative evidence conclusively prove the their testimony about the motive the last seen circumstance Moreover the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses especially PWs 7 26 27 29 32 and 33) is homogeneous consistent and reliable and corroborates the testimony of PWs 1 the appellants in murdering Santhakumar by strangulating him recalling that while it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable that such proof should be perfect and someone who is guilty some infirmity when projected through human processes. The adherence to the rule of proof inasmuch as the benefit of doubt must always be reasonable and not fanciful.(1978) 4 SCC 161 State of H.P. v Lekh Raj & Anr. 1 SCC 247 Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors. 6 SCC 145 Chaman well as the High Court evaluated the material on record in its proper prospective while coming to their conclusion. Thus the