Circumstantial evidence, including forensic analysis, extra judicial confession, and recovery of material objects, can be used to establish guilt in criminal cases.

S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 28.2.2013, the trial Court convicted him under both charges and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Amudha. P.W.1, is her husband. They were working in a private Textile Mill, known as 'M.R. Textiles', at Karunkalpalayam, Erode. The deceased was employed in the ironing Section. The accused hailed from Adiyanendhal Village, in Paramakudi Taluk. He was also working in the same mill in the same Section, where the deceased was employed. P.W.1 was working in a different Section. Since the deceased and the accused were working in the same Section, in due course, they became close to each other. The accused, in due course, extended sexual overtures towards the deceased. She also positively responded. The accused had chosen a bathroom situated on the back of the company, for their meeting. As and when her husband had gone out of the company, on receiving positive signal from the accused, the deceased would go to the said bathroom, where the accused and the deceased used to have sexual intercourse. On every such occasion, as a consideration, the deceased used to receive money from the accused. The accused also paid so. After sometime, the deceased wanted the accused to get her a gold chain, weighing two sovereigns. The accused was evasive. The deceased started to threaten the accused that she would inform her husband and others that the accused had sexually misbehaved her and see to that he lost his job. The accused was unable to bear the threat. He was afraid of the above allegations. Therefore, according to the case, he decided to do away the deceased.

(b) It is alleged that on 31.7.2008, at about 2.00 p.m., P.W.1 had gone out of the company. The accused gave a signal to the deceased. The deceased, in response to the same, had gone to the bathroom. In the bathroom, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. She renewed her demand for gold chain. This resulted in a quarrel. The accused, as per his plan, had already kept a rope in the bathroom. He took out the same, put it around the neck of the deceased and constructed her neck. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased was wearing a pair of gold ear studs, weighing half sovereign. The deceased removed the same by force, which resulted in injury to both the ears. Leaving the body inside the bathroom, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.

(c) P.W.1 returned to the company and found his wife missing. He was under the belief that the deceased would have gone elsewhere in the company for work. P.W.8, who was working in the company, by about 5.00 p.m., had gone to the bathroom. The bathroom door was closed and the same was not bolted either from outside or inside. When P.W.8 opened the bathroom, to her shock, she found the deceased lying. She raised hue and cry. The people from the company rushed to the bathroom. They brought the deceased into the company premises. Believing that there was life in the body, they gave some first aid. But it turned out that the deceased was no more. They also found contusions on the neck of the deceased. The pair of ear studs were also found missing. P.W.1 noticed the same. P.W.1 believed that the deceased had been killed by somebody. Therefore, h