When the deadbody of the victim was found naked and it was proved that she was raped, strangulated and later thrown into the river, which caused her death and the accused produced MO1 from a hidden place, it can be safely inferred that it was the appellant, who committed the crime. Otherwise, he should come up with a proper explanation as to how MO1 blouse came to his hand and why he hid it under the grass. We find that he has not given any explanation whatsoever, for hiding MO1 blouse under the grass in a “purayidom” near the scene of occurrence. The medical evidence, concerning the injuries on the body of the appellant including those on his penis, would further corroborate the case of the prosecution. He sustained the injuries, which could be caused by the victim, while struggling to save herself. Going by the medical evidence, he has given a false explanation for the injuries sustained by him. So, the presence of injuries on the body of the appellant, for which a false explanation has been given by him, is a very strong circumstance against him. Further, the presence of the victim and the appellant, at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time on the fateful day, is also spoken to by independent and reliable witnesses. We feel that the prosecution can be asked to prove, only what it can prove. We cannot ask them
