JASWANT SINGH, J. (1) THIS appeal under S. 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16/01/1975 of the High court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the judgment and order dated 27/06/1973 of the Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division at Rajah-mundry acquitting the appellant of the offences under S. 392 read with S. 34 and S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and he was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment on the frst count and life imprisonment on the second count. (2) THE case as put forth by the prosecution was : Akella Subbamma, a middle-aged childless widow of Akella Ramamurthy, was living all by herself in her house in village Valluru, five kilometres away from Police Station, Mandapeta, in East Godavari District. Twelve years before his death which occurred sometime in 1966-67, Akella Ramamurthy took the appellant, his brothers son, in adoption. Despite his adoption, the appellant continued living with his natural parents at Raj.ahmundry where he was studying but paid occasional visits to Valluru to see Akella Subbamma, his adoptive mother. Lured by his adoptive mothers material possessions which consisted of 20 acres of wet land worth about twenty-five thousand rupees, gold bangles and silverware and actuated by the base desire of hastening the process of devolution and enriching himself expeditiously, the appellant hatched an ignoble plan with Pakala Prasadarao alias Prasad his bosom friend and co-accused, for robbing the deceased of her valuables and doing away with her. In furtherance of their common intention, the appellant and Prasad left Rajahmundry by bus at 4.30 p.m. on 23/09/1972 for the house of Akella Subbamma in Valluru where they reached the same evening at about 6.30 p.m. With a view to prepare food for the appellaul and his friend, Prasad, Akella Subbamma went to the house of a neighbour named Chinthalapudi Subbamma (Public Witness 4) to fetch some burning charcoal. She also asked Public Witness 4 for curds. As Public Witness 4 did not have curds at her house, she went toJanakiratnam (Public Witness 5), purchased curds from her and delivered the sanic to Akella Subbamma at her house where she saw both the appellant and Prasad present. She also asked Public Witness 4 for curds. As Public Witness 4 did not have curds at her house, she went toJanakiratnam (Public Witness 5), purchased curds from her and delivered the sanic to Akella Subbamma at her house where she saw both the appellant and Prasad present. At the time of delivery of curds, she also saw Akella Subbamma wearing the gold bangles as usual. At about 7.30 p.m on the same evening when Matyala Ramarao (Public Witness 1) who lived opposite to the house of Akella Subbamma was sitting in his house talking to his farm servant, Chalumuri Bachibabu (Public Witness 2), he heard a groanina; sound emanating from the house of Akella Subbamma whereupon he asked Public Witness 2 to. go into the lane adjoining the east of Akella Subbammas house which led to her backyard and find out what the matter was. Public Witness 2 went to the lane as beckoned by Public Witness 1 and came back after a short while and reported to Public Witness 1 that the groaning sound was coming from the window of Akella Subbammas house opening into the eastern lane. Thereafter both Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 2 went into the lane and cried out enquiring as to who was in Akella Subbammas house. At this, the appellant came out of the house through tha door opening into the aforesaid lane. On seeing the appellant emerging out of his adoptive mothers house, PW I questioned him about the groaning sound whereupon the appellant replied that he and his friend were rollicking which produced the groaning sound. Public Witness 1 then asked the appellant to call his friend. Upon this, the appellant called out his friend addressing him as Prasad but the latter replied from inside that he was having his food. Upon Public Witness ls asking the appellant where Akella Subbamma was, the latter told him that she had gone to the lavatory. Thereafter the appellant went inside the house and closed the door. Public Witness 1 also returned to his house but as he had some sort of premonition, he instructed Public Witness 2 to remain in the lane till the return of Ak"lla Subbamma. Public Witness 2 waited in the latie for 10 or 15 minutes but seeing no sign of Akella Subbammas return, he came back and reported the matter to Public Witness 1. Public Witness 2 waited in the latie for 10 or 15 minutes but seeing no sign of Akella Subbammas return, he came back and reported the matter to Public Witness 1. As Public Witness Is suspicion deepened, he went along with Public Witness 2 to the house of Ghembrolu Parasurama Sastry (Public Witness 3), another neighbour, and all three of them proceeded to the main entrance of the house of Akella Sub- bamma but finding it bolted from inside and nobody responding to their tapping, they went to the backyard door which they found ajar. Going inside the house which was plunged in darkness, they made a search for Akella Subbamma in all the rooms of the house which were bolted from outside and ultimately found her with the help of torchlight lying dead on her back in the kitchen with some abrasions on her neck and a coir rope (MO 4) lying bv her side. By the side of the door opening into the backyard they found a screen handbag; (MO 1) containing a silver plate (M02) and silver vessel (MO 3). Public Witness 1 thereupon deputed Public Witness 2 to go and inform the village munsif named Rimmalapudi Suryanarayan Ramarao (Public Witness 9). After a short while, Public Witness 9 came to Akella Subbammas house and recorded the statement (Ex. P 1) Public Witness 1 and sent the same with his note (Ex. P 4) to the Police Station, Mandapeta. On receipt of Ex. P I, the Head Gonstab e of the police station named Syed Ahmed (Public Witness 16) forthwith registered the same as Crime No. 68 of 1972 under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded to Valluru. Next morning, P. Sriharirao, Circle Inspector (Public Witness 18) also reache-I the scene of the occurrence and held inquest over the dead body of Akella Subbamma, seized the green handbag (MO 1) containing the silver plate (MO 2) and the silver vessel (MO 3) and the coir rope as well as a pair of chappals which were found lying in the hall of the house. The blood found in the kitchen near the dead body was also seized by the Circle Inspector. After compleling these formalities, the Circle Inspector sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the government Hospital at Ramachandrapurani where Dr. The blood found in the kitchen near the dead body was also seized by the Circle Inspector. After compleling these formalities, the Circle Inspector sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the government Hospital at Ramachandrapurani where Dr. V. Syamala, Lady Assistant Surgeon (Public Witness 14) conducted the postmortem examination and opined thit Akella Subbamma appeared to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation about 20 hours prior to the postmortem examination. It was not before 4-30 p.m. on 25/09/1972 that the Circle Inspector succeeded in effecting the arrest of the appellant at Korukonda bus-stand. On being interrogated, the appellant led the police to the Fort Gate and showed his co-accused Prasad .who was preparing to leave for the railway station. The Circle Inspector arrested and interrogated Prasad who toJk him to Manda Nageswararao (Public Witness 7), a dealer in gold at Nalla ManduSandu staling that he had sold the two gold bangles to him i.e. to PW 7 on the previous day for Rs. 125.00. On being questioned by Public Witness 18, PW 7 produced gold bztngle (MO 6) and four pieces of another broken gold bangle (MO 7), which were seized by Public Witness 18 in the presence of Vinukonda Babji (Public Witness 10) and a teacher. During the course of further investigation, the gold bangles, the silver plate and the silver vessel were identified as belonging to Akella Subbamma and the pair of chappals and green bag as belonging to Prasad. On the evening of 26/09/1972, the Magistrate before whom the appellant and Prasad were produced for remand directed that they be kept in the judicial lock-up. On 27/09/1972, Public Witness 18 made an application before R. N. Patro, Principal Munsif Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, reque-ting him to record the statement of the appellant and his co-accused, Prasad, under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereupon Public Witness 15 sent a requisition to the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Ramachandrapuram, asking him to produce the accused before him at 1.00 p.m. on that day. Accordingly the Sub-Jail Superintendent caused the accused to be produced before Public Witness 15 who put them some preliminary questions warning them that they were not bound to make confessional statements and anything that they would state might be used against them, gave them two days time for reflection and sent them back to the Sub-Jail with the direction that they be produced again before him at 11.00 a.m. on 29/09/1972 and meanwhile measures be taken to prevent any prisoner or person belonging to the Police Department from having access to them. On the accused being produced before him in accordance with his directions on 29/09/1972, Public Witness 15 again administered the necessary warning to the appellant and his co-accused and after being satisfied that the accused were prepared to make voluntary statements recorded their confessional statements (Exs. P 23 and P 25). In the course of his confessional statement (Ex. P 23), the appellant besides admitting the material particulars of all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in depositions of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 made further disclosures to the effect that when his aunt (the deceased) was pouring oil in the pan and frying vadiyalu both he and Prasad went into the kitchen; that while proceeding to the kitchen Prasad took a coconut rope lying in the vasara; that on Prasads giving a signal to him, he caught hold of the hands of the deceased whereupon she cried aloud; that Prasad tried to tie the hands of the deceased but did not succeed in doing so as the latter struggled; that while he held the hands of the deceased firmly, Prasad removed her bangles and placed the silver plate and the vessel in a bag; that thereafter Prasad removed the electric .bulb of the kitchen and while Prasad was busy doing so, he left the deceased; that oa. hearing the cries raised by his aunt, somebody came calling "Subbamma Garu" "Sub- bamma Garu"; that Prasad thereupon bolted the door of the kitchen and asked him to go and answer the person; that accordingly he went into the lane and saw three persons including Matyala Ramarao and a farm servant; that on Matyala Ramaraos addressing him as "Daffudu Guru" and going near him as desired by Matyala Ramarao, he answered his query about the cries by telling him that he and his relatives son were cutting jokes with each other; that in answer to Matyala Ramaraos further query as to where his aunt was, he told him that she had gone to the latrine; that thereafter Matyala Ramarao and another person went away leaving the farm servant in the lane with instructions to remain there till Akella Subbammas arrival; that by the time he returned he saw Prasad running away; that putting off the bedroom bulb that was burning, he walked away to Dwarapudi Railway Station where he met Prasad and that while leaving, he left the backyard door of the deceaseds house ajar. After recording the aforesaid confessional. statements, Public Witness 15 remanded the accused back to the Sub-Jail. (3) ON completion of the investigation, the accused were proceeded against under S. 302 read with S. 34 and S. 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, who committed them to the Court of Session, East Godavari Division, Rajahmundry to stand their trial for the aforesaid offences. By his judgment and order dated 27/06/1973, the Sessions Judge found the appellant and his co-accused not guilty and acquitted them of the aforesaid charges. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, the State preferred an appeal under S. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before the High court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh which was allowed and both the appellant and his co-accused, Prasad, were convicted and sentenced alike as stated above. (4) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. A. Subba Rao, counsel for the appellant, has contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained as the confessional statement (Ex. (4) APPEARING in support of the appeal, Mr. A. Subba Rao, counsel for the appellant, has contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained as the confessional statement (Ex. P 23) was the result of the pressure that was brought to bear on the appellant during the prolonged police custody that preceded the making of the confession and the circumstantial evidence falls short of the requisite standard of proof. (5) MR. P. P. Rao has, on the other hand, urged that the evidence adduced by the prosecution unmistakably establishes the guilt of the appellant under both the aforesaid counts. (6) THE only question that therefore falls for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges of robbery and murder against the appellant. It is true that there is no direct evidence regarding the commission of robbery and murder by the appellant and the High court has held him guilty of both the charges on the basis of (1) his retracted confession (Ex. P 23) wherein he has admitted his participation in the commission of the offence of robbery and (2) the circumstantial evidence. It has to be seen whether the aforesaid confessional statement was voluntary or not and whether the chain of events furnished by the circumstantial evidence leads beyond reasonable doubt to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the aforesaid offences. Although the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to emphasize that the aforesaid confession being involuntary cannot be acted upon, we find it difficult to accede to his contention. There is nothing on the record to impel us to hold that it was made under the influence of the police or that the police kept the appellant in its custody after a substantial part of the investigation was over. According to Public Witness 18, it was on 25/09/1972 that he arrested the accused. Even assuming that the appellant was arrested not on 25/09/1972 as stated by Public Witness J 8 but was arrested on 24/09/1972 as alleged by him, the period during which he remained in the custody of the police cannot be said to be a prolonged one. In the preliminary statement (Ex. Even assuming that the appellant was arrested not on 25/09/1972 as stated by Public Witness J 8 but was arrested on 24/09/1972 as alleged by him, the period during which he remained in the custody of the police cannot be said to be a prolonged one. In the preliminary statement (Ex. P 22) recorded on 27/09/1972 by R. N. Patro, Principal Munsif Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram when in response to his requisition, the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Ramachandrapuram caused the production of the appellant before him, the appellant clearly admitted that he was remanded to the judicial lock-up on 26/09/1972. During the course of his preliminary examination on 27/09/1972, the appellant was duly warned that he was not bound to answer any question or to make a confessional statement and any such statement made by him might be used against him. In the said preliminary examination, the appellant also stated before the Principal Munsif Magistrate that he had not been compelled or advised to confess his guilt; that he bad not been subjected to any violence and that he was admitting bis guilt as he had committed the offence. It is also to be noted that after the preliminary questioning and warning, the appellant was again remanded to the Sub Jail and was given two days to reflect over the whole matter. Even on 29/09/1972 when the appellant was produced before the Principal Munsif Magistrate, he was again warned that he was not bound to make a confession and if he did so, it might be used ai evidence against him. The Magistrate also took care not to remand the appellant to police custody after recording his confessional statement (Ex. P 23) but to custody of the Superintendent of the Sub Jail, Ramachandrapuram. Thus the period for which the appellant remained in the custody of the police can by no means be said to be a prolonged one as sought to be made out on behalf of the appellant nor can the confessional statement (Ex. P 23) made by him be characterised as involuntary or made under the influence of the police. (7) THE circumstantial evidence adduced in the case by the prosecution also lends support to the truth of the confessional statement (Ex. P 23) and leads beyond reasonable doubt to the conclusion that in prosecution of the common intention, the appellant committed the offences of robbery and murder. (7) THE circumstantial evidence adduced in the case by the prosecution also lends support to the truth of the confessional statement (Ex. P 23) and leads beyond reasonable doubt to the conclusion that in prosecution of the common intention, the appellant committed the offences of robbery and murder. The statement of Chinthalapudi Subbamma (Public Witness 4) shows that the deceased came to her house on the evening of 23/09/1972 and asked her for some burning charcoal. After getting the burning charcoal from Chinthalapudi Subbamma, the deceased came back to her house and asked her to get some curds and that when she went to make over the curds to the deceased after purchasing the same from Janakiratnam (Public Witness 5) she saw the appellant and his co-accused present in the house of the deceased who as usual was wearing the gold bangles. The statements of Matyala Ramarao (PW 1) and Chalumuri Bachibabu (Public Witness 2) show that on the evening of 23/09/1972 when they were sitting in the house of the former talking to each other they heard a groaning sound" emanating from the house of the deceased whereupon Public Witness 1 deputed Public Witness / to go to the lane and find out what the matter was. It was on the Public Witness 2s reporting to Public Witness 1 that the groaning sound was from the house of the deceased, PWs 1, 2 and 3 went together and knocked at the entrance door of the house of the deceased whereupon the appellant came out of the house and on inquiry by Public Witness 1 as to what the groaning sound was about and where the deceased was, he tried to put the witness off the scent by falsely telling him that the groaning sound was the result of rollicking in which he and his friend were indulging. Shortly thereafter when PWs 1 and 3 went into the house of the deceased accompanied by Public Witness 2 on the latters reporting to them as desired by Public Witness 1 that there was no sign of the deceased coming back from the lavatory, they found the dead body of the deceased lying in the kitchen. -They also found the bangles which were usually worn by her missing and the accused not present there. -They also found the bangles which were usually worn by her missing and the accused not present there. It cannot also be overlooked that it was at the instance of the appellant that the police was able to arrest the other accused in pursuance of whose information the gold bangles belonging to the deceased were recovered. On a conspectus of the entire evidence, we are satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charges to the appellant. (8) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.