Judgment :- 1. This case has come before us in appeal and for confirmation of the death sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Alleppey on the appellant Kuttappan for the murder of one Sarada. The appellant was also convicted under S.392, I.P.C. for robbery and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. 2. The deceased Sarada Amma was a young Nair girl of 18, studying for her B.Sc. Degree in the Marthoma College, Thiruvella. She was living with her mother, aunt and others in the village of Nedumpuram about three miles from Thiruvella and used to make her daily trips to the college and back by bus. When returning from college she used to alight from the bus at the stop near Podiyadi junction and walk the rest of the distance to her house along a narrow path in a sugar-cane plantation. On 3rd September 1959 Sarada returned from the college by the 5-30 bus. She was seen getting down from the bus and proceeding in the direction of her house through the sugar-cane plantation, but she failed to reach home. 3. The accused Kuttappan is an Ezhava boy aged 19, a toddy tapper by profession. The prosecution case is that the accused who was a neighbour of the deceased and who in his dire need for money had decided to kill Sarada and rob her of the gold ornaments she usually wore, was lying in wait for her in the dense sugar-cane growth. He pounced on the unsuspecting girl, strangled her and took away the gold chain from her neck and also her earrings which he removed by cutting off the ear-lobes with his tapping knife. He left the dead body in a channel where water was about 21/2 feet deep, hid the tapping knife and its case in another part of the sugar-cane field and after washing himself went home with the jewels. The next morning the accused left Nedumpuram for Karukachal and later visited Kidangara, Pulinkunnu and other places where he either sold or pledged the ornaments he had taken from Sarada. 4. In the meanwhile, upset by Sarada's failure to return home, her mother and others began to make enquiries about her. They learned that she had alighted at the bus stop and was last seen walking homewards through the sugar-cane garden. 4. In the meanwhile, upset by Sarada's failure to return home, her mother and others began to make enquiries about her. They learned that she had alighted at the bus stop and was last seen walking homewards through the sugar-cane garden. They looked for her along the pathway, but a thorough search was not possible in the night. The search was resumed the next morning when Pw. 20, Vasudevan Pillai, one of those who took part in the search discovered the body in the channel. Pw.13 Parameswaran Pillai another member of the search party conveyed the information to the Thiruvella Police. 5. Though at first the culprit was unknown further investigation brought to light certain suspicious circumstances against the accused and he was arrested at Thiruvella on the morning of 10th September 1959. Acting on the information given by the accused the police recovered the various items of jewellery pledged by him and also his knife and its cover from the place near the scene of occurrence where he had hidden them after the incident. On 12th September 1959 the accused was produced before the Thiruvella Sub-Magistrate to whom he made a full and detailed confession of the crime. 6. The accused's plea in the Sessions Court is one of total denial. He stated that the prosecution witnesses are perjuring against him at the instance of the police. He also alleged that the torture by the police was responsible for his confession as well as his statement in the committal court where he admitted some of the circumstances appearing against him. 7. There is ample evidence to prove Sarada's death which is not disputed by the defence. Ext. P.19 the postmortem certificate describes eight injuries. They are: 1. The entire lobule of the right ear with a portion of the skin and subcutaneous tissue 1/211x1/2" on the cheek below the lobule is cut and removed by an incised wound. 2. The entire lobule of the left ear with a portion of the skin and subcutaneous tissue 11/4"X 1/2" of the cheek below the lobule is cut and removed by an incised wound. 3. A crescentic abrasion with its convexity outwards on the right side of the neck 1/3rd inch long and situated 1/2" below the right angle of the mandible and two bruises 1/4"x 1/10th inch situated one above the other in front of the crescentic abarsion. 4. 3. A crescentic abrasion with its convexity outwards on the right side of the neck 1/3rd inch long and situated 1/2" below the right angle of the mandible and two bruises 1/4"x 1/10th inch situated one above the other in front of the crescentic abarsion. 4. Three small bruises 1/4"x 1/10 inch on the leftside of the neck and placed side by side in a line directed downwards and outwards; the upper one is 1" below the left angle of the mandible. 5. An abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" over the right side of the lower lobe. 6. An abrasion 1/4" x 1/10 inch on the right of the upper lobe. 7. Brusises 4" x 1/10th inch on the right cheek 1/2" outside the angle of the mouth. 8. Lacerations of the mucuous membrane inside both lips and inside the right angle of the mouth. According to Pw. 37, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy, injuries 3 to 8 could have been caused while the assailant was throttling Sarada with one hand and covering her nose and mouth with the other. The doctor gave his opinion that death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation and suffocation and has described the injuries both external and internal which led him to the above conclusion. Though it was not pressed before us the defence seems to have put forward a suggestion in the trial court that the cause of death might have been accidental strangulation or suffocation resulting from an attack of epileptic fits. This theory was however ruled out by the doctor who gave evidence that there were clear indications on the body to show that Sarada died as result of homicidal strangulation. The learned Sessions Judge was clearly right in accepting the opinion of this witness as to the cause of Sarada's death. 8. Though there are no eye-witnesses, there is circumstantial evidence of a conclusive nature which proves the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. 9. The most important circumstance and one which goes a long way in bringing home the guilt to the accused is that he was seen in possession of Sarada's ornaments soon after her death. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to prove that Sarada was wearing the ornaments in question when she alighted from the bus near Podiyadi junction at about 5-45 p. m. on 3rd September 1959. Pw. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to prove that Sarada was wearing the ornaments in question when she alighted from the bus near Podiyadi junction at about 5-45 p. m. on 3rd September 1959. Pw. 7 Gowri Amma is Sarada's aunt with whom Sarada and her mother were living. She swears that when Sarada left for college in the morning on 3rd September 1959 she was wearing M.O.1 gold chain around her neck and a pair of gold studs in her ears. These studs were of the 'mango pattern' and had ten stones (nine white and one blue) embedded in each of them. She further swears that while the ear-studs were Sarada's own the gold chain belonged to her (the witness) and that she had given it to Sarada a few days before the incident in the place of Sarada's necklace which she had pledged in a bank. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by Pw. 42 Ponnappan Asari the gold-smith who made both the chain and the ear-studs. He swears that he made M.O.1 gold chain for Pw. 7 some eight years before the incident and that some four years later he made a pair of ear-studs for Sarada at the instance of her uncle. The witness further stated that the studs were of the 'mango pattern' having ten stones each (nine white and one blue). He gave the weight of these two studs including the stones as 'seven panavidas". Pw. 10 Mary Mathew is a classmate of Sarada. She swears that on the date of the incident she, Sarada and another girl returned from college by the bus which leaves Thiruvella at 5-30 in the evening. Sarada was then wearing M.O.1 chain and a pair of 'mango pattern' ear-studs. The witness further stated that at about 5-45 p. m. Sarada alighted at the stop in front of the house of Pw. 8 a little to the east of Podiyadi junction and started walking towards her house. Her evidence is corroborated by Pw. 8 and also by Pws. 14 and 15, the driver and conductor of the bus in which she travelled Pw. 8 a little to the east of Podiyadi junction and started walking towards her house. Her evidence is corroborated by Pw. 8 and also by Pws. 14 and 15, the driver and conductor of the bus in which she travelled Pw. 18 Thankappan aged 14, swears that in the evening of the day of the incident he was in the Pulinthanathu purayidom a little to the north of the way which leads to the foot-path in the sugar-cane plantation, engaged in the game of cards with some of his friends including Pw. 17 while Pw. 16 was standing by, watching the game. He swears that at about 6 p. m. he saw Sarada pass-by on her way to the plantation carrying some books and an umbrella. Pws. 16 and 17 corroborate his evidence. We thus find an impressive number of witnesses who corroborate each other on material particulars and whose evidence proves beyond doubt that at about 5-45 p. m. on 3rd September 1959 Sarada alighted from the bus and walked towards her house through the sugar-cane plantation and at that time she was wearing M.O.1 gold chain and a pair of ear-studs made in the 'mango pattern' each studded with ten stones (nine white and one blue.) 10. It is not disputed that these ornaments were missing from Sarada's body when it was recovered the next morning. Pw. 20 Vasudevan Pillai who was the first to see Sarada's body swears that there was no chain round her neck and that her ear-lobes had been cut off. This fact is also spoken to by the police officers who prepared the inquest report and the other witnesses who were present at the time. 11. To appreciate the evidence connecting the accused with these ornaments we have to follow closely the movements and the activities of the accused from 4th September 1959 till his arrest on the 10th. The prosecution case is that on the morning of 4th September 1959 the accused went to the house of Pw. 26 and borrowed a tapping knife from there on the pretext that his own knife had become blunt. He then went over to the house of Pw. 28, some of whose cocoanut trees the accused used to tap for toddy. After the tapping was over the accused went back to the house of Pw. 26 and returned the knife he had taken from there. He then went over to the house of Pw. 28, some of whose cocoanut trees the accused used to tap for toddy. After the tapping was over the accused went back to the house of Pw. 26 and returned the knife he had taken from there. He then borrowed a cycle belonging to Pw. 26 and left the place. At about noon he went to the jewellery shop of Pw. 11 at Karukachal and handed over a pair of ear-studs to Pw. 11 and had them melted down after removing the stones. When Pw. 11 in the absence of the shop-owner declined to make a ring with that piece of gold the accused went to another jewellery shop nearby belonging to Pw. 12. Here also he was unsuccessful in getting a ring in return for the piece of gold. He then cycled over to the toddy shop of Pw.1 at Kidangara, for a drink and left the gold chain there as security for his unpaid bill. From there he went to the tea shop of Pw. 30 and after leaving the cycle there proceeded to the house of his sister, Pw. 2. He spent the night there and left in the morning for his uncle's place at Pulinkunnu after leaving the key of the cycle with Pw. 2 and requesting her husband to return the cycle to its owner, Pw. 26. He reached his uncle's house at about 10-30 a. m. A little later he and Pw. 3 his uncle's son went to the Pulinkunnu market where Pw. 3 sold the piece of gold to Pw. 4 for Rs. 14-12-0. They then went to the shop of Pw. 34 and purchased a "lunghi". They returned home and after lunch went to the toddy shop of Pw.1 where the accused paid the previous day's bill and got back the gold chain. The accused after a visit to his sister's house went back with Pw. 3 to his house at Pulinkunnu. The next day when Pw. 3 had gone out for work, the accused and Pw. 6 the brother-in-law of Pw. 3 who was staying in the same house went over to the Pulinkunnu market. There they approached Pw. 4 and tried to pledge the gold chain with him. Pw. 4 offered only Rs. 10. They then went to the house of Pw. 5 where Pw. 6 pledged the chain for Rs. 6 the brother-in-law of Pw. 3 who was staying in the same house went over to the Pulinkunnu market. There they approached Pw. 4 and tried to pledge the gold chain with him. Pw. 4 offered only Rs. 10. They then went to the house of Pw. 5 where Pw. 6 pledged the chain for Rs. 60. Once again they returned to the house of Pw. 3 where the accused stayed for a couple of days. Finally in the morning of 10th September 1959 the accused left his uncle's house and went to his sister Pw. 2 at Mampuzhakari. After giving his sister the "lunghi" he had purchased earlier and also Rs. 20 in cash the accused went to the shop of Pw. 30 with whom he had left the cycle. As the cycle was locked and the key had been taken away from Pw. 2 by the accused's father he had to get the help of Pw. 31 to break open the lock. He then left the place on the cycle and some hours later was arrested at Thiruvella. 12. Everyone of the large number of the witnesses referred to above has come forward to swear to the prosecution case. We shall now deal with the evidence of some of those who identify the ornaments and who speak about the accused's possession of them. 13. Pw. 11 Sreedharan Asari a goldsmith working in a shop on the Karukachal-Malappally road sixteen miles from Nedumpuram swears that at about noon on 4th September 1959 the accused came to his shop on a bicycle. The accused then handed over to him a pair of ear-rings and asked him to remove the stones from them to find out the weight of the gold. The witness noticed that the studs were of the "mango pattern" and had ten stones (nine white and one blue) embedded in each of them. He removed the stones and melted down the gold. The ingot was found to weigh five'panavidas'. The accused then asked the witness to make a ring for him with the piece of gold adding some more gold from the shop if necessary. The witness replied that to do so he would have to get the permission of the Manager of the shop who was not there at the time. The ingot was found to weigh five'panavidas'. The accused then asked the witness to make a ring for him with the piece of gold adding some more gold from the shop if necessary. The witness replied that to do so he would have to get the permission of the Manager of the shop who was not there at the time. After waiting for some time the accused left the shop taking the piece of gold and allowing the witness to keep the stones for his services. The witness kept the stones with him till 17th September 1959 when the police accompanied by the accused came to the shop and took them into custody. He identifies M.O.5 as the stones that were removed from the studs and states that M.O.4 looks like the ingot into which he had melted down the studs. From the shop of Pw. 11 the accused is alleged to have gone to the nearby jewellery shop of Thomas Pw. 12. This witness swears that at about noon on 4th September 1959 the accused came to his shop on a bicycle. He handed over to the witness a piece of gold and wanted him to weigh it. The weight of the piece was found to be five'panavidas'. The accused then took off a gold chain from around his neck and wanted to know the weight of that also. The chain weighed one and a half sovereigns. Then the accused asked the witness if he would give a ring weighing half a sovereign in return for the piece of gold and a portion of the chain. The witness could not oblige him as there was no such ring in stock. The accused then left the shop. This witness identified M.O.1 and M.O.4 as the gold chain and the gold piece he had weighed for the accused. Pw.1 Damodaran is the manager of the toddy shop No. 29 at Kidangara. He swears that at about 4 p.m. on 4th September 1959 the accused went to his shop and had some drinks. His bill came to Rs. 1-2-0. The accused borrowed from him four annas and offered a gold chain as security for the amount due (Rs.1-6-0). The accused promised to redeem the chain without delay and so the witness agreed to keep the chain. His bill came to Rs. 1-2-0. The accused borrowed from him four annas and offered a gold chain as security for the amount due (Rs.1-6-0). The accused promised to redeem the chain without delay and so the witness agreed to keep the chain. He identified M.O.1 as the chain which the accused removed from his neck and handed over to him. He further swears that on the next day at about 4 p. m. the accused and Pw. 3 Kesavan came to his shop and redeemed the chain. Pw. 3 Kesavan is the son of the accused's uncle. He swears that on 5th September 1959 at about 10 O'clock the accused came to his house. After tea both of them went over to Pulinkunnu. The accused snowed him a piece of gold and sought his help in selling it. They went to the jewellery shop of Pw. 4 who bought it for Rs. 14-12-0. The same afternoon he and the accused went to the toddy shop of Pw.1 where the accused redeemed a gold chain by paying Pw.1 Rs. 1-6-0. The witness identified M.O.4, as the gold piece he helped the accused to sell and.O.1 as the chain the accused redeemed from the toddy shop. Pw. 6 Vasoo is the brother-in-law of Pw. 3 the accused's cousin. He swears that on 5th September 1959 the accused came to the house of Pw. 3 where the witness was also living. The next day he and the accused went over to the Pulinkunnu market. The accused then removed a gold chain from his neck and asked the witness whether he could pledge it for some money. They went to the shop of Pw. 4, but as they could produce no bill for the chain Pw. 4 offered them only Rs. 10. They then went to Kavalam where the witness approached Pw. 5 who was known to him and managed to pledge the chain for Rs. 60. Of this money the witness kept Rs.20 and gave the rest to the accused. He identified M.O.1 as the chain he pledged with Pw. 5 for Rs. 60. Pw. 4 Philip is the owner of the jewellery shop at Pulinkunnu. He swears that in the afternoon of 5th September 1959 the accused and Pw. 3 came to his shop and sold him a small block of gold for which he gave them Rs. 14-12-0. He identified M.O.1 as the chain he pledged with Pw. 5 for Rs. 60. Pw. 4 Philip is the owner of the jewellery shop at Pulinkunnu. He swears that in the afternoon of 5th September 1959 the accused and Pw. 3 came to his shop and sold him a small block of gold for which he gave them Rs. 14-12-0. His evidence on this point is corroborated by Ext. 4 P. 2 the carbon copy of the bill No. 138 issued by Pw. 4 which also bears the signature of Pw. 3. He further swears that on the next day the accused accompanied by Pw. 6 came to his shop and wanted to pledge a gold chain for Rs. 40. The witness ascertained that the chain weighed 11/2 sovereigns, but as he was suspicious about the accused he offered them only Rs. 10. The accused and Pw. 6 then left the shop. This witness identifies M.O..4 as the piece of gold he had bought from the accused for Rs. 14-12-0 and M.O.1 as the chain for which he offered Rs. 10. Pw. 5 Govinda Pillai swears that on 6th September 1959 Pw. 6 came to his house and wanted to pledge the gold chain for some money. He took the chain and gave Rs. 60. This witness also identifies the chain as M.O.1. His evidence is corroborated by Ext. P-5 the pledge-note executed by Pw. 6 and the entry in his accounts Ext.P-6. We may mention here the defence contention that these records were fabricated by the police. We do not think there is much force in this contention for it stands to reason that if the police were out to fabricate evidence and Pw. 5, the type of man who could be prevailed upon to give false evidence, they would have made the records show that it was the accused himself and not Pw. 6 who actually pledged the chain. 14. There can be little doubt about the identity of the ornaments. M. 0.1 gold chain is identified by its owner as also the goldsmith who made it. A class-mate of Sarada identifies it as the chain her friend was wearing shortly before death, and Pws.11,12,1, 3, 4 and 6 say that they saw it in the possession of the accused. There can be little doubt about the identity of the ornaments. M. 0.1 gold chain is identified by its owner as also the goldsmith who made it. A class-mate of Sarada identifies it as the chain her friend was wearing shortly before death, and Pws.11,12,1, 3, 4 and 6 say that they saw it in the possession of the accused. The defence tried to make much of the alleged difference in the length of the chain as given by Pw. 42 the goldsmith who made it, and Pw. 5 with whom it was pledged. While Pw. 42 gives its length as sixteen 'pidis' (the width of a closed fist) according to Pw. 5 it was only eight 'pidis'. Pw. 42 himself has explained this by saying that while the length of the chain in full is sixteen 'pidis' if it is measured when the ends are hooked together, i. e., measuring both sides of the loop together, the length will naturally be only eight 'pidis' or half its total length. Another circumstance pointed out by the learned defence counsel is that while Pw. 7 says her chain weighs 13/4 sovereigns Pw. 12 the goldsmith who weighed it at the instance of the accused says its weight is only a little above 13/4 sovereigns. Pw. 42 who made the chain swears that though he was entrusted with 13/4 sovereigns the chain when completed weighed 11/2 'panavidas' less. Any further reduction in weight may be the result of long use. Apart from the identification in court there was an "identification parade" conducted by the Sub-Magistrate, Thiruvella, Pw. 40 during which three witnesses, Pws.1, 7 and 42 correctly identified M.O.1 chain from a similar chain which was also handed over to them. As for Sarada's ear-studs the evidence of her aunt, her class-mate and the goldsmith who made them is that they were of the 'mango pattern' each studded with nine white stones and one blue. The studs are described in identical terms by Pw. 11, the goldsmith who at the instance of the accused removed the stones and melted down the gold portion. Both the goldsmiths identified M.O.5 as the twenty atones (eighteen white and two blue) that were embedded in the studs. Pw. 11 identifies M.O.4 as the ingot into which he converted the studs and Pws.12, 12,3 and 4 speak of having seen it in the possession of the accused. Both the goldsmiths identified M.O.5 as the twenty atones (eighteen white and two blue) that were embedded in the studs. Pw. 11 identifies M.O.4 as the ingot into which he converted the studs and Pws.12, 12,3 and 4 speak of having seen it in the possession of the accused. As in the case of the gold chain here also the defence has pitched upon a slight discrepancy in weight to attack the identification of the ear-studs. It is in evidence that M.O.4 gold piece together with M.O.5 stones weigh slightly less than seven 'panavidas' which according to Pw. 42 was the original weight of the ear-studs. Here again we think the slight difference in weight can be explained as the result of long use and the process of prising off the stones and melting the studs into another shape. 15. According to the accused all these witnesses are perjuring against him. However the defence has been totally unsuccessful in bringing out circumstances to support such a contention. Some of these are the accused's relations and the others are independent witnesses with no interest in the prosecution and no animus against the accused. It is idle to contend that these witnesses belonging to different communities living in different localities and following different professions would join hands to foist a case on the accused. It is equally improbable that the police could have prevailed upon all these persons to perjure against an innocent man and against their own interests. We agree with the learned Sessions judge that the evidence of these witnesses can safely be accepted. 16. In this connection the admissions made by the accused in the committal court may also be considered. When questioned about the prosecution evidence regarding the ornaments he admitted his possession of the chain and also the sale of the gold ingot to Pw. 4 the jeweller at Pulinkunnu. The statement of an accused person before the committing Magistrate is given the status of evidence by S.287, Criminal Procedure Code and it can be used at his trial though no doubt it will be of little value if proved to be the product of police pressure on the accused. As already noted the accused has gone back on his statement alleging that he made the admissions at the instance of the police. However the mere allegation of such compulsion will not help the accused. As already noted the accused has gone back on his statement alleging that he made the admissions at the instance of the police. However the mere allegation of such compulsion will not help the accused. He must either show by evidence that he made the statement under police pressure or there must be intrinsic evidence in the statement to indicate that his words were not his own. In the present case there is no evidence at all that the police had imposed their will on the accused. On the other hand a reading of the statement will show that he was giving considered replies to the questions put to him. Some of these questions and answers are reproduced below: Question:- Pw. 7 Gouri Amma says that the deceased Sarada on the date of the incident was wearing a pair of ear-rings studded with nine white and one blue stone each and a gold-bead chain weighing more than one and a half sovereigns and belonging to her (Pw. 7). What have you to say about it 1 Answer :- I know absolutely nothing about the ear-rings. Question:- Witnesses Sreedharan Asari and Thomas (Pws.11 and 12) say that they saw you wearing the above-mentioned gold chain on your neck at about noon on Friday, 4th September 1959. Answer :- I did wear the chain on my neck, but I never went to Karukachal. Question:- Pw.1 the Manager of the toddy shop at Kidangara says you went to his shop on 4th September 1959 and took toddy for Rs. 1-2-0 and obtained four annas and pledged the gold chain with him. Have you anything to say about that incident ? Answer :- It was given by me. Question:- Pws.1 and 3 say that the next day you redeemed the pledged gold chain by paying Rs. 1-6-0 to Pw. 1. Answer :- I have done so. Question:- It is seen from the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 that you went to Pulinkunnu and tried to pledge the gold chain with Pw. 4 with the help of Pw. 5. Answer :- I have sent the chain through Vasoo (Pw. 5). I have not gone there. Vasoo went with the chain to the shop asking me to keep back. Question:- Pws. 5 and 6 say that this gold chain was pledged through Pw. 5 Vasoo with Pw. 6 for Rs. 60. Answer :- Only Rs. 5. Answer :- I have sent the chain through Vasoo (Pw. 5). I have not gone there. Vasoo went with the chain to the shop asking me to keep back. Question:- Pws. 5 and 6 say that this gold chain was pledged through Pw. 5 Vasoo with Pw. 6 for Rs. 60. Answer :- Only Rs. 40 was given to me. Vasoo told me that he was paid only that much. Question:- Pw. 11 says that you gave the stone-studded ear-rings worn by the deceased to him on the 4th of September and got the gold melted into a block after removing the stones and got it weighed and found it to be five 'panavidas.' Answer :- I never got those ear-rings nor did I take them. I know nothing about it. Question:- Pw. 12 says that you took the gold to his shop and you wanted a ring weighing half a sovereign. Answer :- I have not even gone to his shop. Question:- It is seen from the evidence of Pws. 3 and 4 that on the next day (Saturday) you went along with Pw. 3 and got the gold piece sold to Pw. 4 for Rs. 14-12-0. Have you anything to say about this ? Answer:- The gold piece was sold. 17. In our opinion the distinction the accused has sought to make between the possession of the chain and that of the ear-studs is highly significant for it must have been apparent to the police that their evidence about the identity of the gold chain was unassailable and if at all they wanted any admission from the accused it would have been in the case of the ear-studs which had been melted out of shape and rendered difficult to be identified We therefore agree with the learned Sessions Judge that there is nothing to substantiate the accused's allegation that he made Ext. P-39 statement at the instance of the police. 18. The prosecution has thus succeeded in proving beyond all doubt that soon after the death of Sarada, the accused was seen in possession of the ornaments Sarada was wearing at the time of her death. The accused has no explanation whatever as to how he came by these ornaments. P-39 statement at the instance of the police. 18. The prosecution has thus succeeded in proving beyond all doubt that soon after the death of Sarada, the accused was seen in possession of the ornaments Sarada was wearing at the time of her death. The accused has no explanation whatever as to how he came by these ornaments. It is well-settled that in cases where robbery and murder are so connected as to form parts of the same transaction the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property will not only be presumptive evidence against the accused on the charge of robbery but also on the charge of murder. The same principle was laid down by this court in Vijayan v. State 1953 K.L.T. 403 - and has now been well established by the Supreme Court decisions reported in Sunderlal v. State of M.P. - AIR. 1954 Supreme Court 28 and Wassim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh -1956 Supreme Court Reports 191. In the former case, of the two items of jewellery which were identified by the prosecution witnesses as those which were habitually worn by the accused one was pledged by the accused on the same day as the murder, while the other was sold by him to a gold-smith the next morning. The accused himself took the police to these two persons from whom the items were recovered along with the documents regarding their pledge and sale by the accused. It was held that: "as the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by the deceased and the accused was not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the same on the very same day on which the alleged murder was committed the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold the accused responsible for the murder of the deceased." In Wassim Khan's case, the deceased, a shop-keeper who was returning to his village with the merchandise he had purchased for his shop, engaged the accused's cart to take him and his goods from the railway station to his village. Neither the deceased nor his goods arrived at the destination. Neither the deceased nor his goods arrived at the destination. Three days after the body of the deceased was discovered, the police opened the accused's "Khothri" with the key given by him and recovered from there the goods which were identified as those belonging to the deceased. It was held that: "recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence against a person on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge of murder. All the facts which tell against the appellant, especially his conduct indicating consciousness of guilt point equally to the conclusion that he was guilty, as well of murder as of robbery." In the present case murder and robbery form parts of the same transaction. The jewels that Sarada was wearing at the time of her death are conclusively proved to have been in the accused's possession the day after the occurrence. He has no explanation as to how they came to be in his possession. There is also nothing in the evidence to indicate that the accused could have come by these ornaments in some manner different from the one alleged by the prosecution. We have therefore no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge that the accused's unexplained possession of Sarada's ornaments soon after her death leads unerringly to the conclusion that he was responsible for the murder of Sarada. 19. Another strong circumstance against the accused is the recovery of incriminating materials on information given by him. A few hours after the accused's arrest on the morning of 10th September 1959 and acting on the information supplied by him Pw. 45, the Circle Inspector of Police & Pw. 44 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvella accompanied by the accused went over to the jewellery shop of Pw. 4 at Pulinkunnu and recovered M.O.4 gold ingot and Ext. P. 2 bill evidencing the sale of gold from there. They then proceeded to the house of Pw. 5 at Kavalam and recovered from there M.O.5 gold chain, Ext. P. 5 pledge-note and Ext. P. 6 account book. The next morning Pw. 44 accompanied by the accused went to the scene of occurrence (the sugar-cane plantation) and recovered M.0s.13 to 18 which include the tapping knife and its case. These recoveries are proved by their respective mahazars and the evidence of the attestors. P. 5 pledge-note and Ext. P. 6 account book. The next morning Pw. 44 accompanied by the accused went to the scene of occurrence (the sugar-cane plantation) and recovered M.0s.13 to 18 which include the tapping knife and its case. These recoveries are proved by their respective mahazars and the evidence of the attestors. It was pointed out that Pw. 36 Sankaran Nair who has attested Exts. P. 3 and P. 8, mahazars regarding the recovery of M.0s.1 and 4 respectively was an acquaintance of the police officers and the college-mate of Pw. 44 the Sub-Inspector of Police. However this circumstance by itself cannot be considered reason enough to discard his evidence. He is a respectable man and it is unlikely that his acquaintance with the police officers would have made him to come forward to perjure against a total stranger. Another contention of the learned defence counsel is that the recoveries were only the result of police investigation and not due to any information supplied by the accused. We do not think that this argument can be accepted, as the evidence shows that though the police officers Were investigating the case for over a week, the recoveries, made in quick succession, came only after the arrest of the accused. The place from where the tapping knife and other implements were recovered indicates that only the accused who knew where he had hidden them could have located them. Ext. P. 32 is the mahazar regarding the recovery of the knife and Pw. 43 is the attestor to it. He swears that he saw the accused taking and handing over M.O.13 chopper, its cover and the other items to the police. They were taken by the accused from the water at a spot near the north-eastern side of the sugar-cane plantation about 100 feet away from the place where the dead body was discovered. He further swears that bits of hair (which later chemical examination revealed to be of human origin) were sticking to the knife. Pw. 43 is a member of the local Panchayat and a disinterested witness with no reason at all to perjure against the accused. The above evidence conclusively proves the recovery of incriminating materials on information supplied by the accused. 20. Pw. 43 is a member of the local Panchayat and a disinterested witness with no reason at all to perjure against the accused. The above evidence conclusively proves the recovery of incriminating materials on information supplied by the accused. 20. Yet another circumstance which goes against the accused is that he had to borrow a knife to do his work of toddy-tapping the day after the incident. Pw. 27 Sreedharan swears that early in the morning of 4th September 1959 the accused came to his house and borrowed the tapping knife belonging to his brother Pw. 26. The accused told the witness that he wanted it because his own knife had become blunt. Pw. 26 speaks in corroboration. Pw. 26 is the person who taught the accused the work of toddy-tapping and it seems unlikely that he will give false evidence against his one-time pupil. This incident gives considerable support to the prosecution case that the accused after using his own knife to sever Sarada's ear-lobes hid it in the sugar-cane plantation from where it was later recovered. 21. According to the prosecution it was the accused's dire need for money that motivated him to kill Sarada and rob her jewels. The accused was a young man of 19 years with no income except what he could make from his profession of toddy-tapping. Even this source of income would not have yielded much for it is in evidence that he had only just begun to engage himself in the work. His only property was 81/2 cents of land (it was later sold for Rs. 300) which he owned in common with sixteen other members of his family. It is also in evidence that for some time before the occurrence two of his creditors Pws. 21 and 22 were pressing the accused to return their money. Pw. 25 Rajappan the boatman who ferried the accused across the lake to the house of his sister on 4th September 1959 gave evidence that the accused did not pay the ferry charge (a matter of an anna or so) but promised to give it on his return from his sister's house. This and the incident at the toddy shop where the accused had to borrow annas four from Pw. 1, indicate that he was actually penniless at that time. This and the incident at the toddy shop where the accused had to borrow annas four from Pw. 1, indicate that he was actually penniless at that time. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the lavish way in which the accused is alleged to have spent the money, in visiting taverns and buying presents for his sister, indicates that he was not a man hard-pressed for money. But in our opinion this spend-thrift nature in a man of modest means itself provides reason for the accused's financial difficulties. His taste for toddy must have made his lack of money even harder to bear. Placed in such a situation it is but natural that Sarada's ornaments whetted his cupidity. 22. The accused's conduct after the incident is also significant. For no apparent reason he left his village on the morning after the incident and was wandering about in distant places till his arrest on 10th September 1959. The defence has no satisfactory explanation as to why the accused should have so suddenly left his home and work to go away for an indeterminate period. It is in evidence that instead of returning the cycle himself to Pw. 26 from whom it was borrowed the accused asked his brother-in-law to do it for him. It is also seen that the accused wanted to get a job somewhere else. There are indications that the accused was not contemplating an early return to his own village. Again as regards the ornaments the first thing he did was to get the more easily identifiable ear-studs melted out of shape. The accused also managed to get two of his relations (Pws. 3 and 6) to sell and pledge the ornaments so that his name did not appear in the relevant records. He was thus showing an anxiety to ensure that the ornaments were not traced to him. This conduct on the part of the accused seems to indicate a guilty conscience and is not quite consistent with his innocence. 23. There is also the accused's confession (Ext. P. 24) recorded by Pw. 40, the Sub-Magistrate, Thiruvella. We do not propose to deal with it in detail for in our opinion even apart from the confession there is abundant proof of the accused's guilt. The confession Ext. 23. There is also the accused's confession (Ext. P. 24) recorded by Pw. 40, the Sub-Magistrate, Thiruvella. We do not propose to deal with it in detail for in our opinion even apart from the confession there is abundant proof of the accused's guilt. The confession Ext. P. 24 contains a long and detailed narration of the incident beginning with the motive for the crime and going right up to the accused's arrest by the police and was recorded by the Magistrate in strict conformity with the requirements of law. The accused however retracted it in the Sessions Court, alleging that the police forced the confession out of him by inhuman torture. The learned Sessions Judge after an elaborate discussion of the evidence on the point has come to the conclusion, and rightly so, that there is nothing to substantiate the alleged torture by the police. The defence counsel contended that the wealth of details contained in the confession is a sure indication of it being a police-inspired statement. We do not think such an inference need necessarily be correct for it seems unlikely that the police would have been successful in making the accused memorise such a long and elaborately detailed statement, so well that he could repeat it without mistake, to the Magistrate some 27 hours after his release from police custody. The confession contains many minor details which could have been of no interest to the police and which they have not sought to prove in this case. These details seem to lend a realistic touch to the narrative. Moreover the confession is also corroborated in many material particulars by circumstantial evidence. In short we do not find any reason to disagree with the learned Sessions Judge when he finds that Ext. P. 24 is a true and voluntary confession. 24. It was strenuously argued before us by the learned defence counsel that the murder did not take place in the sugar-cane plantation as alleged by the prosecution. The main circumstance relied upon in support of the theory that Sarada met with her death elsewhere and her body was later thrown into the channel is that the dead body was not seen by any of those who searched for her in the sugar-cane garden soon after her disappearance. The main circumstance relied upon in support of the theory that Sarada met with her death elsewhere and her body was later thrown into the channel is that the dead body was not seen by any of those who searched for her in the sugar-cane garden soon after her disappearance. It seems quite unlikely that the search in the night was a very thorough one for the simple reason that Sarada's people would not have, so soon after the disappearance, jumped to the conclusion that she had met with foul play or that they should look for her dead body in the channel of the sugar-cane garden. When their enquiries revealed that she was last seen walking homewards along the pathway in the plantation they would naturally have looked along that path, but the necessity of combing the entire plantation and the channel would not have occurred to them so early in the day. The realisation that Sarada was dead would have come to them only after numerous other explanations for her disappearance were explored and found false. Another argument of the learned defence counsel is that if Sarada was killed at or near the spot from where her dead body was later recovered, her books which presumably slipped into the water from her hands would have been so soaked by the morning that Pw. 20 would not have found them floating on the water. A reading of the evidence of Pw. 20 shows that the witness has not described accurately the condition of the books when he first saw them. His evidence does not make it clear whether the books were floating free or whether they were caught up on some obstruction like submerged roots or stumps which must have been abundant in a sugar-cane plantation. It is also pointed out that Ext. P.11 letter recovered from inside Sarada's bodice was not thoroughly sodden. However an examination of the letter will show that the writing on the major portion of it has been rendered illegible by the action of water especially around the lines along which the paper was folded. Yet another argument of the learned defence counsel is that if Sarada's body was in water overnight there would have been signs of 'cutis anserina' or 'goose skin'. Yet another argument of the learned defence counsel is that if Sarada's body was in water overnight there would have been signs of 'cutis anserina' or 'goose skin'. No doubt such a condition has not been noted in the post-mortem certificate, but that by itself will not justify the conclusion that such a condition did not exist. The doctor may have omitted any mention of it since this was not a case of drowning. It must also be pointed out that not a single question about it was put to the medical officer when he was in the box. Before leaving the point we may also refer to a circumstance which helps us to fix the scene of incident. As already noted Pw. 18 and his friends were engaged in a game of cards near the sugar-cane garden when Sarada passed that way. Pw. 18 swears that a short time after they saw Sarada walk past they heard a sound from the plantation like some one shouting'Eh'. They asked Pw. 16 who was standing nearby watching the game to go and see what the matter was. Pw. 16 looked around and reported that he could see some sugar-cane plants swaying and also some ripples on the water. Engrossed in their game they did not spare much thought over the incident and after a short time they left the place when it began to rain. This incident proves the correctness of the prosecution story that Sarada met with her end in the plantation itself. Besides, even if it is granted for argument's sake that Sarada was not killed at the place where her body lay, it is not clear how this would explain away or alter the significance of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused. 25. Another point strongly urged by the learned counsel is that a person of the age and build of the accused could not have strangled a young and healthy girl like Sarada or dragged her for some forty feet in the water in spite of her struggles. However Pw. 37, the medical officer who conducted the autopsy and who also examined the accused after his arrest gave his considered opinion that the crime was well within the physical capabilities of the accused. However Pw. 37, the medical officer who conducted the autopsy and who also examined the accused after his arrest gave his considered opinion that the crime was well within the physical capabilities of the accused. The doctor pays that if, an is proved by the location of the injuries, the assailant had a strangled hold on Sarada's neck with one hand while covering her mouth and nose with the other, death would have resulted in just three minutes. It must also be borne in mind that the shock of the sudden and unexpected attack might itself have been sufficient to render Sarada unconscious or at least incapable of putting up any effective resistance. 26. It was suggested by the defence that Sarada's death might have been the result of a sexual assault on her. The suggestion seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that a 'love-letter' was found tucked inside Sarada's bodice, when her body was recovered. The letter is one from Pw. 14, Koshy, the driver of the bus by which Sarada used to travel to the College and back. It is in evidence that the bus driver and the College girl had a romantic interest in each other and had exchanged a number of letters. However it is nobody's case that the driver Was in any way responsible for Sarada's death. Moreover it is clear from the medical evidence that Sarada was not the victim of attempted rape. The doctor who conducted the autopsy was positive that his examination of the genital region and other portions of Sarada's body revealed no signs whatsoever of a sexual assault. The condition of her dress when her body was recovered also leads to the same conclusion. It is in evidence that every item of her dress including her underwear was in place showing no sign of having been meddled with. 27. It must also be mentioned here that the main attack on the prosecution case, both before us and in the trial court, was that the entire evidence against the accused had been cooked up by the police in their attempt to shield the real culprit, anonymous but presumably a man of influence. 27. It must also be mentioned here that the main attack on the prosecution case, both before us and in the trial court, was that the entire evidence against the accused had been cooked up by the police in their attempt to shield the real culprit, anonymous but presumably a man of influence. Though fanciful even on the face of it, the charge was pressed with such vehemence that we took particular care to scan each item of evidence for indications, which we must own we did not find, of some evil genius lurking behind the scene. The defence suggestion was that one police constable Konar, though probably he is not "the man of influence" referred to, was somehow responsible for Sarada's death. This constable's wife's house is in Sarada's neighbourhood and he is stated to have visited the place on 2nd September 1959, i. e., the day before the incident. However Pw. 44 the Sub-Inspector of police gives evidence that on the day of the occurrence constable Konar was engaged in official duties at a place some forty miles from Nedumpuram under the jurisdiction of the Ranni Police Station and that he continued to be on duty till 8 or 8-30 in the night. This seems to preclude the possibility of Konar being involved in Sarada's murder. Besides it is extremely improbable, to say the least, that the investigating officers including a Sub-Inspector, a Circle Inspector and the District Superintendent of Police would join hands to inculpate an innocent man just to save one of their own subordinates. This case is distinguished by the large number of witnesses who speak to the prosecution case and to hold that all of them are perjuring is to say that the entire villagers were somehow inimical to the accused and scores of people including his own relations were ready at the bidding of the police, to give false evidence against an innocent man. 28. To sum up, the accused's unexplained possession of the jewels of Sarada soon after her death and the recovery of incriminating materials including the jewels and the knife on the information given by him are circumstances which lead to the inescapable conclusion that it was the accused who murdered Sarada and robbed her of her jewels. 28. To sum up, the accused's unexplained possession of the jewels of Sarada soon after her death and the recovery of incriminating materials including the jewels and the knife on the information given by him are circumstances which lead to the inescapable conclusion that it was the accused who murdered Sarada and robbed her of her jewels. His urgent need to find money, which provided the background for this murder for gain and his conduct subsequent to the event are also circumstances which go against him. The facts and circumstances proved in the case form a complete chain of evidence against the accused and are in our opinion incompatible with his innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The conviction of the accused under S.302 and 392, I. P. C. has therefore only to be upheld. It is a case of brutal murder for gain and we can find no extenuating circumstance that will justify the imposition of the lesser penalty. 29. We confirm the sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The reference is answered accordingly and the accused's appeal is dismissed. In view of the sentence of death the sentence of imprisonment will not take effect. Appeal Dismissed.