Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

47. We have already observed that since the High Court had interfered with the conviction of the ap- pellant under Section 376A IPC the question whether the rest of the incriminating circumstances formed a complete chain leading solely to the guilt of only appellant in exclusion of all hypothesis in favor of his innocence, as held by the High Court. We have already considered in detail all the incriminating circumstances and materials available to support them that weighed with the High Court. It is absolutely unnecessary to refer to each of them again. Suffice it to say that they would go to show that despite what are eschewed a continuous and complete chain of circumstances and materials supporting them, is available and they are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and consistent only with his guilt. Above all, it is evident that an addi- tional link is available in this case owing to the failure on the part of the appellant to explain all the aforesaid incriminating circumstances. While be- ing examined under Section 318, Cr.P.C. in respect of all questions his answers were either ‘it is false’ or ‘I do not know’. There is absolutely no case for the appellant that all the incriminating circum- stances were not put to him. In view of Pattu Rajan’s case (supra) and other decisions such as, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006 AIR SCW 5300) offering no explanation on incriminating cir- cumstances mentioned above would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The cumulative effect of all the aforesaid circumstances, referred to in detail hereinbefore, would definitely justify the finding of the High Court as to the guilt of the appellant.