Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) REFERRED Trial No. 2 of 1993 is a reference made by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore for confirmation of death sentence, imposed under two counts on appellant Mohan alias Mohandoss, for abetment of murders of Gomathi, hereinafter referred to as D. 1, and Mahalakshmi, hereinafter referred to as D-2. The appellant was also convicted under Section 392 read with Sections 397 and 109, I. P. C. for having abetted commission of robbery of certain pieces of jewellery worn by both the deceased. Appellant though found guilty, of this charge (two counts), no separate sentence was imposed in view of extreme penalty of law having been awarded for abetment of murder. Main offender Sivan could not be put up for trial, since it is stated, that he himself was the victim of murder sometime in March, 1992. Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1993 is the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the sustainability of his convictions and consequent awarding of extreme penalty. ( 2 ) THIS prosecution relates, to gruesome murder of two ladies, aged about 35 years and 39 years, who were working as Junior Assistants in Huzur Treasury, Coimbatore. All the more intriguing are these murders since it is alleged, that they were committed between 1. 30 p. m. and 2. 30 p. m. on a working day in the verandah adjacent to the ladies toilet, situated in the same building, where the two ladies were employed. ( 3 ) IT is the definite prosecution case, that these murders for gain, had been committed during lunch on interval on 23. 9. 1991, for D-2 was available till about 1. 00 p. m. in her section, of which P. W. 5, Ananthakrishnan, happened to be the Superintendent. D-1, Gomathi, did not attend office in the forenoon session, but reported for work at 1. 30 p. m. on the occurrence day, to her Superintendent Doraivel, P. W. 7 left for lunch only after Gomathi (D-1) arrived for her work. On his return after lunch, P. W. 7 found D-1 missing from her seat and the neighbour of Gomathi (D-1) was unable to inform P. W. 7, as to the whereabouts of D-1. The hand-bag of Gomathi (D-1) was found in her seat. D-1 did not return to her seat till 6. On his return after lunch, P. W. 7 found D-1 missing from her seat and the neighbour of Gomathi (D-1) was unable to inform P. W. 7, as to the whereabouts of D-1. The hand-bag of Gomathi (D-1) was found in her seat. D-1 did not return to her seat till 6. 00 P. M. ( 4 ) P. W. 6, Rajagopal, an Assistant in the Cotton Corporation of India, Coimbatore, is the husband of D-1. It was on 16. 8. 1990 that Gomathi (D-1) reported for duty at Coimbatore Huzur Treasury, on transfer. On the occurrence morning, a relation of Gomathi (D-1) had arrived. His wife told him, that she would be attending her office only in the afternoon, since it was her desire, to see her kin off. P. W. 6, as usual, went away to his office in the morning and returned home at 6. 30 p. m. His wife had not returned home till then. He enquired his children, about their mother. But, they replied, that she had not yet returned, from her office. P. W. 6 presumed, that she might have proceeded either to a temple or not engaged in purchase of vegetables, on her way back home. P. W. 6 was surprised, that his wife did not return home, even till 8. 00 p. m. Anxiously he proceeded to Huzur Treasury and enquired the security staff, if any lady employee was still working. He received a negative reply. He returned home and waited for his wife, who did not come back, even till 10. 00 p. m. ( 5 ) P. W. 4, Soundararajan, a Fitter in Eltex Super Casting Company, Perianaickenpalayam, is the husband of D-2. On 23. 9. 199 1, P. W. 3 left for his factory at 5. 00 a. m. as usual. When he returned home at 8. 00 p. m. he found his wife missing. He enquired his son only to get a reply that D-2 had not yet returned from her office. P. W. 3 proceeded to the house of Seetha, elder sister of D-2 to find out if she was there by any chance. He was informed that D-2 did not arrive there. P. W. 3 informed his desire to proceed to Huzur Treasury in search of his wife. P. W. 3 proceeded to the house of Seetha, elder sister of D-2 to find out if she was there by any chance. He was informed that D-2 did not arrive there. P. W. 3 informed his desire to proceed to Huzur Treasury in search of his wife. Seetha told P. W. 3 to wait for her son, since it was nighttime, so that in his company, he could make further enquiries. Raja, son of Seetha, met P. W. 3 at 1. 30 a. m. and offered his opinion, that it would be better to make enquiries on the next morning since no information would be available then from Huzur Treasury, which was bound to be closed. P. W. 6 went in search of Krishnamurthi, a resident of Ram Nagar, who occupies the seat next to his wife, in the Huzur Treasury. Krishnamurthi, accompanied P. W. 6 to Huzur Treasury, this being the second visit of P. W. 6, on the very same night to the office of his wife. With the help of Krishnamurthi (not examined), he found, that Dl had affixed her signature in the attendance register on the occurrence afternoon. Her handbag and lunch box were available in her seat. D-1 had not taken her afternoon food. Suspecting that D-1 might have met with an accident, P. W. 6 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where no useful information, was available. P. W. 6 also found the hand-bag of D. 2 Mahalakshmi, in her seat. Soon thereafter, P. W. 6 proceeded to the house of D-2 at Goundampalayam. P. W. 3 husband Of D-2, infirmed him this wife had also not returned home. Both P. W. 3 and P. W. 6, decided to proceed to Huzur Treasury on the next morning. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 has spoken about his wife having worn M. O. 9 gold chain M. O. 10 series a pair of golde ear studs with jimmiki M. O 11 series a pair of gold bangals M. O 12 gold nousescrew M. O. 13, silver minjies and M. O. 14 HMT watch before her death. Similarly P. W. 3 had deposed about his wife (D-2) having decked herself with M. O. 1 series gold ear studs, M. O. 2, gold chain M. Os. Similarly P. W. 3 had deposed about his wife (D-2) having decked herself with M. O. 1 series gold ear studs, M. O. 2, gold chain M. Os. 3 and 4 rings M. O 5 series two ottu thalies M. O. 6, wrist watch, M. O. 7, gold nosescrew, and M. O. 8 series, silver minjies, prior to her death. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 Shanmugham, Sweeper in Huzur Tresury, proceeded to clean the ladies toilet at 9. 00 a. m. on 24. 9. 1991. As soon as he opened the third room in the series of toilets, he found the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 happened haphazardly without proper clothing and with bleeding injuries. He also noticed that expect the nosecrews silver minjies and wrist watches other gold jewelry were missing. Shocked P. W. 1 informed P. W. 2 Prakash a Record Clerk in the sane office before proceeding to B-4 Police Station to prefer a complaint. P. W. 22, Prabhakaran sub-inspector of Police on receipt of Ex, P1, complaint preferred by P. W. 1 registered crime No. 108 of 1991 under Section 302 and 379 , I. P. C and prepared the printed First Information Report Ex, P-31. He dispatched Exs, P-1 and P-31 to his superior officers. Since Selladurai Inspector of Police , B-4 Police Station was on medical leave P. W. 22 informed P. W. 21 took up investigation. ( 8 ) P. W. 21 reached the venue of crime soon thereafter and in the presence of P. W. 8 Ramachadran prepared observation mahazar (Ex. P. 2) and scene Skectch (Ex. P29 ). Men while P. Ws 3 and 6 arrived at the Huzur Treasury and identified their wives, D-2 and D-1 respectively. ( 9 ) BETWEEN 11. 00 a. m. and 2. 00 a. m. P. W. 21 conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 during the course of which he examined P. Ws 1 Ex P-30 is the inquest report. After inquest he dispatched the dead body D-2 through P. W. 14 Deepalakshmi woman constable with a requisition Ex, P-12 to the Government Hospital , Combator for the conduct of postmortem Meanwhile on the direction of the Superintendent of Police Coimbatore P. W. 20 Balakrishnan held inquest over the dead body of D-1 Gomathi between 11. 00 a. m. and 1. 00 a. m. and 1. 30 P. M. During inquest he examined P. W. 1,6and 7 Ex, P-28 is the inquest report. After inquest P. W. 20 forwarded the dead body through P. W. 15, Suleha woman constable with requisition Ex, P-14 to the Government Hospital Coimbatore fro conduct of autopsy. ( 10 ) AT 2. 15 p. m. P. W. 21 Sezied M. O. 15, a gear shaft of Ambassdor car with a sharp end from the venue of crime in the presence of P. W. 9 Natarajan along with M. O 16 a newspaper dt. 23. 9. 199 1, under mazhar Ex. P-3, At 2. 45 p. m. P. W. 21 recovered from the pathway to ladies toilet M. O. 17 bloodstained cement floor pieces and M. O. 18 sample cement flooring under mazhar Ex, P-4 attested by P. W. 9. At 3. 15 p. m. from the third room in the ladied toilet , P. W. 21 recovered M. O. 22 bloodstained cement flooring under M. O. 19 bloodstained green bordered towel, M. O. 20 series bloodstained pair of chaps and M. O. 21 another pair of blood stained chapples under mazhar Ex, P 5. ( 11 ) P. W. Dr. Natarajan commenced autopsy on the corpse of D-1 at 2. 15 p. m, on 24. 9. 1991. He found on the dead body the following external injuries:1. Oblique lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm bone deep on the right frontal region close to the hair line. 2. Irregular lacerated injury 8 x 4 cm. cranial cavity deep with brain, brain protruding through the wound, seen on the middle of the frontal region right side. 3. Lacerated wound oblique 3 x 1/2 cm. x bone deep in the middle of right frontal region close to the mid line of skull. 2. Irregular lacerated injury 3 x 1/2 cm. bone deep in the right parietal region 8 cm. above the ear. 3. Irregular lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm. bone deep in posterior surface of the right parietal region 5 cm. above and behind the right ear. 4. Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm muscle deep in the right sub-occipital region. 5. Irregular lacerated wound 4 x 1/2 cm. bone deep in the left frontal region 8 cm. above the left ear. 6. Both ear lobules lacerated from the ear bones downwards. 7. above and behind the right ear. 4. Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm muscle deep in the right sub-occipital region. 5. Irregular lacerated wound 4 x 1/2 cm. bone deep in the left frontal region 8 cm. above the left ear. 6. Both ear lobules lacerated from the ear bones downwards. 7. Lacerated wound 1 x 1/2 cm. skin depend oblique on the top of the right shoulder. 1. Nail marks with convexity upwards seen along the upper border of the right ear lobules-2. cm. long. 2. Two linear abrasions each 2 cm. long seen in the lower part of the right lateral surface of the neck. 3. Abrasion 3 x 1 cm back of right elbow. 13. Circular contusion 2 cm. diameter on the inner aspect of upper third of left leg. 4. Patterned hurshing with ups and downs (grooved) on the back of the right shoulder 2 cm x 0. 75 cm. 5. Head appears compressed and deformed. He also noticed the following postmortem injuries:) 18 x 8 cm over the middle of the back of the trunk on its midline.) two small injuries 1 x 1 cm each and adjacent to each other seen on the front of left knee. Internally, the injuries below described were found: (a) scalpal bruising in the parietal and frontal regions of the head. (b) Multiple comminuted fracture of the vault and base of the skull. (c) Both hemispheres of the brain lacerated over the superior surface. (d) Infra cerebral haemorrhage in both parietal and frontal lobes of the brain. Hyoid bone was intact. Stomach contained undigested cooked rice and vegetable particles. Pubic hair was sparse, but not matted. No evidence of any stains or injuries on the genitals. Veginal canal was found dry. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries on the head which were necessarily fatal. Death would have been instantaneous. Death could have occurred 24 hours prior to conduct of postmortem. External injuries 1 to 6 and the corresponding internal injuries on the skull, could be the result of an attack with a weapon like M. O. 15. If the ear studs had been snatched forcibly, injury No. 8 could have resulted. Abrasions and contusions found on the dead body, were possible due to the body having come into contact with hard and rough surface. If the ear studs had been snatched forcibly, injury No. 8 could have resulted. Abrasions and contusions found on the dead body, were possible due to the body having come into contact with hard and rough surface. Postmortem injuries must have been caused, when the body was being dragged, on a rough surface. Ex. P-23 is the postmortem certificate. ( 12 ) THE same doctor commenced autopsy on the dead body of D-2 at 3. 45 p. m. on 24. 9. 1991. The following external injuries were noted:1. Left ear lobule lacerated from the ear bone. 2. Oblique lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm. bone deep, 6 cm. above the right ear. 3. Oblique lacerated wound 6 x 1/2 cm bone deep in the left parietal region close to the mid of the head 11 cm away from left ear. 4. Oblique lacerated wound 2 cm below injury No. 3, 15 x 1/2 cm bone deep. 5. Linear vertical lacerated injury 2 x 1/2 cm bone deep in the inter parietal region on the middle line of the head, close to the vertex. 6. Oblique lacerated injury slightly curved 5 x 1/2 cm bone deep over the vertex extending down to the left occipital region. 7. Inner surface of the whole of the lower lip contused. 8. Abrasion 1/2 cm on the outer surface of upper lip-right half. 9. Inner surface of the upper lip right half contused. 10. Three nail scratch marks 1-1/2 cm long seen on the middle of the chin below the lower lip. 11. Vertical abrasion 2 x 1/2 cm in the left side of middle of the neck. 12. Abrasion 2 x 1/2 cm middle of right side neck. 13. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm adjacent to injury No. 12. 14. Three scratch marks vertical seen on the right lateral surface of the neck (nail marks ). 15. Vertical linear abrasion 7 cm. long along the outer surface the right arms and is surrounded by contusion. 16. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm back of right elbow. 17. Circular contusion I cm diameter on the dorsum of right hand at the 1st inter digital space. 18. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm front of right knee. 19. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm lateral surface of left ankle. 20. Diffused contusion dorsum of left hand (4 x 2 cm) cut section shown subcutaneous haematoma. 21. 17. Circular contusion I cm diameter on the dorsum of right hand at the 1st inter digital space. 18. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm front of right knee. 19. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm lateral surface of left ankle. 20. Diffused contusion dorsum of left hand (4 x 2 cm) cut section shown subcutaneous haematoma. 21. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm dorsum of left hand. 22. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm back of left elbow. 23. Two linear scratch marks I cm long each front of left shoulder. A postmortem injury 10 cm x 8 cm on the lateral surface of the left thigh was also noticed. Internally, the following injuries were found: (a) Scalpal haematoma seen in both parietal regions and frontal region. (b) Fracture skull extending from base of middle of frontal bone up to the left parietal bone. (c) Depressed fracture 6 x 4 cm on the lateral surface of left parietal bone and left of frontal bone and temporal bone. (d) Depressed and communited fracture in the mid line of the middle of the vault of skull with down extension for 10 cm in the right parietal bone. (e) Diffuse subrachnoid haemorrhage both hemispheres of the brain. (f) Intra cerebral haemorrhage in both parictal lobes. (g) Fracture base of skull both anterior cranial fossa and middle cranial fossa left. Hyoid bone was found intect. Stomach contained about 100 ml. of bloodstained fluid, though otherwise it was empty. In the opinion of the doctor, deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries found on the head region which were essentially fatal. Death could have occurred 24 hours prior to conduct of postmortem. External injuries 2 to 6 and corresponding internal injuries noticed on the skull region were possible due to an attack with a weapon like M. O. 15. If theneckchain had been forcibly snatched, injuries Nos. 11 and 12 could have been the result. Injury No. 1 must have been sustained when the ear studs were snatched forcibly. Contusions and abrasions found on the victim could have been sustained while coming into contact with hard or rough surface during struggle. Ex. P-24 is the postmortem certificate. .( 13 ) AFTER postmortem, from the dead body of D-2, her bloodstained clothes, M. Os. Injury No. 1 must have been sustained when the ear studs were snatched forcibly. Contusions and abrasions found on the victim could have been sustained while coming into contact with hard or rough surface during struggle. Ex. P-24 is the postmortem certificate. .( 13 ) AFTER postmortem, from the dead body of D-2, her bloodstained clothes, M. Os. 23 to 26, her watch, M. O. 6, her nosescrew, M. O. 7, and silver injuries, M. O. 8 series, were recovered under Form No. 95, marked as Ex. P-13. Similarly, after autopsy, from the dead body of D-1, her bloodstained clothes, M. Os. 27 to 30, and M. O. 12, her gold nosescrew, M. O. 13, silver injuries and M. O. 14, HMT wrist watch, were recovered under Form No. 95, marked as Ex. P-15. .( 14 ) P. W. 21 forwarded M. Os. 15, 17, 18 and M. Os. 19 to 30 for chemical analysis, through Court, P. W. 21 also arranged for photographs being taken of the venue of crime and the corpses, through P. W. 17, Pangajakumar Ex. P-25, report of the Serologist, indicated that the blood group of D-1 was AT While that of D-2 was HQTI Exs. P-18 and 20 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst. Ex. P-19 is the report of the Serologist in respect of M. Os. 17 and 19 to 30. Ex. P -27 is yet another report of the Forensic Expert of the nail clippings, of both the deceased. .( 15 ) TILL about April, 1992 there was no clue, whatever, concerning the offenders involved in this crime. .( 16 ) P. W. 18, Benedict, Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam Circle, Trichur, Kerala State, took up investigation on 25. 3. 1992 in Crime No. 89 of 1992 registered at Kunnamkulam police station, under Section 302, IPC. On the date of registration of the said crime, the dead body was not identified. On 28. 3. 1992, the cropse was identified to be that of Sivan, son of Bhaskaran Nair, Arakkatial House, Trichur District. This Sivan is stated to be the main accused in the instant case. On the date of registration of the said crime, the dead body was not identified. On 28. 3. 1992, the cropse was identified to be that of Sivan, son of Bhaskaran Nair, Arakkatial House, Trichur District. This Sivan is stated to be the main accused in the instant case. Appellant herein, along with Asokan, has been arrayed as accused in Crime No. 89 of 1992, Investigation conducted in Crime No. 89 of 1992, by P. W. 18 revealed that the appellant and Sivan (since deceased) were neighbours in Mukkat-tukara village, Trichur District and that they were friends and associates for about three years prior to the death of the latter. P. W. 18 arrested the appellant herein in Crime No. 89 of 1992 (Kunnamkulam Police Station) at 11. 30 a. m. on 2. 4. 1992. When examined appellant volunteered a statement, Ex. P21, recorded in Malayalam Appellant had stated there in, that he had sold M. O. 2, weighing four sovereigns, M. O. 9, weighing three sovereigns, and M. O. 11 series, at a shop in Trichur Town for Rs. 20,000/-Appellant also stated that if he was taken to the place where he sold the jewellery, he would not only identify the said shop, but also the person to whom the jewels were sold, However, no further action was taken by P. W. 18, to seize those pieces of jewellery, on the information allegedly furnished by the appellant. Kerala Police informed Tamil Nadu Police regarding apprehension of the appellant in Crime No. 89 of 1992, aforestated, on 3. 4. 1992 police officers from Coimbatore reached kunnamkulam and contacted P. W. 18. However, on 3. 4. 1992 appellant was remanded to judicial custody. P. W. 18 has deposed about his unawareness, if the policemen from Coimbatore had met the appellant or not. ( 17 ) ON 26. 6. 1992, Selladurai, Inspector of Police, B-4 Police Station, who was on medical leave earlier, resumed duty and continued investigation in the instant crime. Selladurai is now dead and P. W. 22, prabhakaran, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was assisting deceased Selladurai has spoken about further details, subsequent to the arrest of the appellant early in April, 1992 in Kerala State. On 16. 4. 1992, Selladurai recorded statement of P. W. 18. Selladurai is now dead and P. W. 22, prabhakaran, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was assisting deceased Selladurai has spoken about further details, subsequent to the arrest of the appellant early in April, 1992 in Kerala State. On 16. 4. 1992, Selladurai recorded statement of P. W. 18. On a requisition made to Judicial magistrate No. 3, Coimbatore, by Selladurai for production of the appellant on a P. T. Warrant, it was so ordered. On 21. 4. 1992 appellant was produced before the said Magistrate and on a request made by Selladurai, police custody was also ordered, on the same day. At 8. 00 p. m. on 21. 4. 1992 at B-7 police station in the presence of P. W. 10 and another, appellant volunteered a confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P6. He expressed his willingness to point out the place, where he had sold gold jewellery, obtained by him from Sivan. On 22. 4. 1992 appellant was taken to Trichur by Selladurai along with P. W. 22 and P. W. 10. , They reached Trichur at 1. 00 p. m. at 4. 30 appellant pointed out Electro Photostat Jewellery situated at Municipal Office Road, Trichur. Appellant also pointed out P. W. 11, Bikshu, as the person to whom he had sold the jewellery. On production by P. W. 10. At 6. 15 p. m. appellant pointed out James (not examined) at Puthampalli Road, Trichur, opposite to Kochappan building, from Whom M. O. 2, gold chain, was recovered under mahazar, Ex. P8, attested by P. W. 10 and P. W. 22. on 24. 4. 1992 , appellant was returned to judicial custody, Jewellery seized at the instance of the appellant were identified by P. Ws. 3 and 6 on 26. 4. 1992. .( 18 ) ON 5. 5. 1992 Selladurai examined P. W. 12, Jayalakshmi, and on being pointed out P. W. 12, Selladurai, seized .( 19 ) EVIDENCE of P. W. 12 discloses, that Sivan (Since deceased) was the husband of Chandra Jothi (not examined), a relation of hers. On 30. 9. 1991 Sivan handed over M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9 to her requesting her to pledge them and obtain money for his business. On 25. 11. 1991, she pledged M. O. 1 series for Rs. 2,000/-in the pawnshop opposite to her house. Ex. P9 is the concerned pawn ticket. On 22. 1. On 30. 9. 1991 Sivan handed over M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9 to her requesting her to pledge them and obtain money for his business. On 25. 11. 1991, she pledged M. O. 1 series for Rs. 2,000/-in the pawnshop opposite to her house. Ex. P9 is the concerned pawn ticket. On 22. 1. 1992 she pledged M. O. 9 for Rs. 3,600/-in the same pawnshop. Ex. Plo is the relevant pawn ticket. She handed over the moneys obtained by pledge, to Sivan. When she was examined on 5. 5. 1992 by policemen. She pointed out the pawn shop from which policemen effected seizures of M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9. After completion of investigation, final report was laid on 11. 6. 1992. .( 20 ) WHEN the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime. He went on to add, that he had no connection what ever with this crime. He was arrested in Kerala on 28. 3. 1992 and later this false prosecution was manipulated. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. .( 21 ) LEARNED trial Judge, on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the murders were gruesome and sensational and that the circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution was sufficient and clinching to connect the appellant as the offender, beyond and pale of doubt and in that view, after some strenuous process of reasoning, held that this was one of those rarest of rare cases, where imposition of extreme penalty of law was needed. .( 22 ) MR. N. Natarajan learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that except recovery of some pieces of jewellery at the instance of the appellant, several months after the alleged commission of crime, no Other material has been placed by the prosecution to connect the appellant either with Sivan, or with the murder proper, at Coimbatore. He strenuously argued, the evidence of P. W. 18 that Sivan and the appellant were neighbours in a particular village and were associates, was also not based upon any evidence, which could be tested. He submitted that on 2. 4. He strenuously argued, the evidence of P. W. 18 that Sivan and the appellant were neighbours in a particular village and were associates, was also not based upon any evidence, which could be tested. He submitted that on 2. 4. 1992 when the appellant was arrested in Kerala State by P. W. 18, he had made a statement about his having sold M. Os. 2, 9 and 11, to a jeweler at Trichur and if that be so, those material objects had already been discovered even on 2. 4. 1992 and hence the claimed recovery of the very same material objects on 22. 4. 1992 in pursuance of a confession made by the appellant on 21. 4. 1992, cannot help the prosecution at least in so far as those three pieces of jewellery were concerned. He submitted, that P. W. 11, from whom M. Os. 3 to5, 10 and 11 have been seized, has been treated hostile and hence his evidence must be treated as honest. He contended, that without laying a foundation concerning the main accused Sivan, the charges of abetment framed either for murder or robbery against the appellant, would have to necessarily fail. ( 23 ) MR. S. Shanmughavelayutham learned Additional Public Prosecutor, was fair enough to state, that except recovery of certain pieces of jewellery, rather belatedly at the instance of the appellant, there are no other circumstances, either regarding movements of the appellant and the deceased, or even movements of the appellant and Sivan, either before or after the commission of these two murders. He also conceded, that the time gap between the recovery and the commission of murder, is so huge, that it will not be possible, to connect the appellant either with murder or robbery and if at all due to unexplained possession of some of these material objects, he will be liable for an offence punishable under Section 411, I. P. C. He pointed out, that if the evidence of P. W. 11 had been fullyavailable to the prosecution, there will be no difficulty in finding the appellant guilty of murders, for then the possession of some pieces of jewellery belonging to the deceased, with the appellant two days after the crime, would have stood established. .( 24 ) WE have scrutinized the entire evidence with care and concern and there is no escape from the conclusion, that the deaths of both the deceased were due to homicide. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, sex was not the cause for this crime, but gain was the motive. Though the learned Sessions Judge did not attach very serious importance, to the contention advanced, that if murders had been committed between 1. 30 p. m. and 2. 30 p. m. on a working day, it could not have escaped the attention of the coworkers, we are unable to brush it aside so lightly, as one without significance. It is quite possible that the murders had been committed much later, probably after office hours. It will be very difficult to hold that the toilets were not frequented, for, in that event, P. W. 1 could not have gone to clean those toilets, as soon as he had reached his work-spot on the next morning. However, the fact remains, that two murders had been committed in a meet gruesome pattern, inside the office premises, whomsoever may be the offender or offenders, their sale object being gain. That these murders must have been for gain is apparent from the medical evidence, since ear lobules were found torn and neck injuries, according to the doctor, portray snatching of chains, with force. ( 25 ) IT may even be difficult, to fix the number of offenders, who had participated in this grave crime. It may be one or more. It cannot be stated with certainty, that more than one, were required to commit these murders, or more than two had not participated in this nefarious activity. Courts cannot surmise, that, only two must have been involved in the crime without any legal basis. Placing reliance upon, portions of the statement made by the appellant, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, to say the least, cannot be countenanced, for bar under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into operation. A court cannot allow itself to be swayed by inadmissible evidence and its duty would be to weight legal evidence evenly, with meticulous care, before arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the appellant. Human mind is bound to be prejudiced, when certain implantable and shocking facts are placed before it. A court cannot allow itself to be swayed by inadmissible evidence and its duty would be to weight legal evidence evenly, with meticulous care, before arriving at the guilt or otherwise of the appellant. Human mind is bound to be prejudiced, when certain implantable and shocking facts are placed before it. But a discerning Court is bound to sort out, as the traditional Tamil ANNA PARAVAI, which could separate milk from water, to eschew inadmissible evidence and scrutinise only such admissible evidence, while analysing the connection between the crime and the appellant. .( 26 ) EVERY murder can send shock waves and some of them may even create a local sensation. But, shocks and sensations will have to be relegated to the background while assessing evidence placed, seeking to connect the accused arrayed, with the offence alleged. A judicial mind shall not allow itself, either to be shocked or sensationalised, when such shock or sensation, obviously is extraneous, to the evidence available. May be, it is a difficult exercise, but that is justice delivery system, for, unless clinching proof is available, on presumptions and easily templed wanderings of mind, on imaginary probabilities, convictions cannot be recorded. .( 27 ) AS rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Time and again, Courts have said, that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances placed for scrutiny must form a complete chain without any missing link, those circumstances, must point to the guilt and guilt alone of the appellant, and should not be capable of being explained away, on any other reasonable hypothesis. Though it is possible to presume, on the basis of recent possession of jewellery belonging to the deceased, soon after the commission of crime, such inference must also be based on impeccable material not capable of an otherwise explainable outlet. .( 28 ) BEFORE we detail the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, seeking conviction of the appellant, it will be better to have a quick look as to what exactly all the 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed to. P. W s. I and 2 are the Sweeper and Record Clerk of the Huzur Treasury, who became aware of the existence of dead bodies of two lady employees of their office, in the ladies toilet 011 the morning next to alleged commission of crimes, for gain. P. Ws. P. W s. I and 2 are the Sweeper and Record Clerk of the Huzur Treasury, who became aware of the existence of dead bodies of two lady employees of their office, in the ladies toilet 011 the morning next to alleged commission of crimes, for gain. P. Ws. 3 and 6 arc the husbands of D-2 and D-1 respectively and they have spoken about the non-return of their wives after office work. They have identified the corpses and the jewellery worn by their wives, prior to their deaths. P. W. 4, Srinivasan, is relation of D2 in that he is the husband of D-2s younger sister. He has only spoken about information conveyed to him by P. W. 3 about non-return of his wife after office hours, and his promise to send his son Raju, to decide about further steps to be taken. P. Ws. 5 and 7 are the Superintendents in Huzur Treasury under whom D-2 and D-1 were working. P. Ws. 8 and 9 have been examined as punch witnesses for observation mahazar and recoveries made at the scene. P. Ws. 10 to 13 have been examined to speak about recovery of certain pieces of jewellery belonging to either of the deceased, claimed to have been traced on the information furnished by the appellant. P. Ws. 14 and 15 are women constables who were in charge of the corpses of D-1 and D-2 during conduct of postmortem. P. W. 16 is the Court Clerk, while P. W. 17 happens to be the photographer. P. W. 18 is the Inspector of Police who arrested the appellant in Kerala State on 2. 4. 1992 in connection with Crime No. 89 of 1992 registered under Section 302, I. P. C. by Kunnamkulam Police Station. P. W. 19 is the Medical Officer, who conducted both postmortems. P. W. 20 conducted inquest over the corpse of D-1 while P. W. 21 held inquest over the dead body of D-2, apart from conducting a part of the investigation, till it was taken over by Selladurai (since deceased) on 26. 9. 1991. P. W. 22 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the First Information Report in this crime and had assisted Selladurai (since deceased) in the conduct of investigation. .( 29 ) RESUME of facts vis-a-vis witnesses is sufficient to indicate, that there is no evidence of last seen alive. 9. 1991. P. W. 22 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the First Information Report in this crime and had assisted Selladurai (since deceased) in the conduct of investigation. .( 29 ) RESUME of facts vis-a-vis witnesses is sufficient to indicate, that there is no evidence of last seen alive. Further, there is no evidence, that the appellant and Sivan were seen together at any point of time, either prior to commission of crime or even later. All that the prosecution seeks to rely upon is recovery of certain pieces of gold jewellery, at the instance of the appellant, nearly seven months after the alleged murders, when he was arrested in yet another State. .( 30 ) THE following circumstances alone need our scrutiny;1) Arrest of the appellant by P. W. 18, in Kerala State on 2. 4. 1992 in connection with Crime NO. 89 of 1992 on the file of Kunnamkulam Police Station, and his oral evidence that his investigation revealed that Sivan, the main accused in this crime, and the appellant were neighbours, friends and associates. 2) Information forwarded by Kerala Police to Tamil Nadu Police about arrest of appellant and steps taken later to have the appellant produced before the Magistrate at Coimbatore leading to obtaining of police custody. 3) Admissible portion of statement of the appellant leading to recovery of M. Os. 2 to 5,10 and 11 from P. W. 11, to whom the appellant claimed to have sold them. 4) Evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13 about seizure of M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9 pledged with a pawnbroker, not examined, by P. W. 12 at the instance of Sivan (since deceased ). 5) Identity of the seized jewellery by P. Ws. 3 and 6, as well the corpus delicti. 6) Missing of both the deceased on the night of 23. 9. 1991 and the tracing of the dead bodies on the next morning by P. W. 1. ( 31 ) WE will now analyse each one of the aforestated circumstances, to find out, as to how far, they can be held to be incriminating. The evidence of P. W. 18, Inspector Benedict of Kerala State appears to be the foundation for this prosecution. ( 31 ) WE will now analyse each one of the aforestated circumstances, to find out, as to how far, they can be held to be incriminating. The evidence of P. W. 18, Inspector Benedict of Kerala State appears to be the foundation for this prosecution. It is no doubt true that the evidence of P. W. 18 discloses that the appellant was concerned with another Asokan in Crime No. 89 of 1992 on the file of Kunnamkulam Police Station registered under Section 302, I. P. C. relatable to murder of one Sivan, son of Bhaskaran Nair of Trichur. We are not concerned with the involvement of the appellant in Crime No. 89 of 1992 which is stated to be the subject matter of-title Pending trial before the Court of Session, Trichur in Sessions Case No, 91 of 1993. P. W. 18 has deposed that his investigation revealed that the appellants and Sivan (since deceased) were neighbours in Mukkattukara Village, Trichur district and that they were friends and associates for three years, prior to the death of Sivan. All that P. W. 18 has spoken is about the statement made by the appellant to him, marked as Ex. P 21, which can only be relied upon to the extent of the said statement, having led to discoveries. His evidence further affirms that though he became aware from the statement of the appellant (Ex. P21) recorded on 2. 4. 1992 that he had sold a Gop Chain, Karugamanimalai and a pair of bangles in a shop at Trichur for Rs. 20,000/-, he had not pursued any further in tracing those pieces of jewellery based on the information furnished. He is certain that he did not make any efforts to recover those pieces of jewellery allegedly involved in the instant crime. Though he claims to have stated during investigation to the Coimbatore Police, that the appellant and deceased Sivan were neighbours, friends and associates, the evidence of P. W. 22 contradicts it, since such facts are conspicuously absent in the statement recorded by Selladurai. Therefore, the connection sought to be established between Sivan and the appellant does not appear to have a safe foundation. If there was any other material evidence, on which P. W. 18 had arrived at his conclusion, he ought to have deposed about the same and allowed himself to be cross-examined, on such pieces of evidence. Therefore, the connection sought to be established between Sivan and the appellant does not appear to have a safe foundation. If there was any other material evidence, on which P. W. 18 had arrived at his conclusion, he ought to have deposed about the same and allowed himself to be cross-examined, on such pieces of evidence. Therefore, the link between Sivan and the appellant appears to have been not established at all. In that context, when the prosecution has chosen to any Sivan as the main accused who was the murderer and robber as well in the absence of any link having been established between the appellant and the said Sivan, it does not stand to reason practically on no evidence, to hold that the appellant had abetted the said Sivan to commit murders and robbery. Evidence of P. W. 18, if at all will help the prosecution to the limited extent of information having been forwarded by the Kerala Police to Tamil Nadu Police resulting in the appellant arriving on a P. T. Warrant before Judicial magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, to facilitate police custody being taken, leading to recovery of jewelry belonging to one or other of the deceased from P. W. 11 on his information. The evidence of P. W. 18 can hardly connect the appellant either with murder or with robbery. .( 32 ) THE second circumstance, is so interconnected with the first circumstance in that it relates to the appellant having been brought to Tamilnadu, before Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore on 21. 4. 1992 on Which date, on a plea being made by Selladurai (since deceased), police custody was ordered. This circumstance also must take note of the evidence of P. W. 18 that Officers of Coimbatore Police arrived at kunnamkulam on 3. 4. 1992, a day after arrest of the appellant, which naturally pre-supposes the Tamil Nadu Police, having become aware about involvement of the appellant in the instant crime, on the basis of Ex. , P21 recorded in Malayalam by P. W. 18. No further steps were taken by Tamilnadu Police on 3. 4. 1992 to trace the jeweler to whom the appellant had sold M. Os. 29 and 11 series -may be because he was remanded to judicial custody. , P21 recorded in Malayalam by P. W. 18. No further steps were taken by Tamilnadu Police on 3. 4. 1992 to trace the jeweler to whom the appellant had sold M. Os. 29 and 11 series -may be because he was remanded to judicial custody. There could not have been any impediment to proceed with the investigation in the instant crime, soon after the appellant was arrested in Kerala. Be it as it may. This circumstance again does not connect the appellant with either of the crimes, for which he has been charged as an abettor. .( 33 ) THE third circumstance is of utmost importance. We have the evidence of P. Ws. 10,11 and 22 on this aspect P. W. 11 has been treated hostile, while P. Ws. 22 had to be examined since Selladurai, the investigating officer, died before he could enter into the witness -box. Since P. W. 22 was assisting deceased Selladurai, his evidence is not only relevant but also admissible. P. W. 10 is a mahazar witness who was present not only when the appellant confessed at Coimbatore, but also when seizures, were effected at Trichur. .( 34 ) P. WS. 10 and 22 have deposed about the appellant having been examined at 8. 00 p. m. at B7 police station by Inspector Selladurai, after police custody was obtained. Both of them have spoken about the confession made by appellant and have also correlated Ex. P6, the admissible portion of his confession. It was in pursuance of Ex. P6, that the appellant was escorted to Trichur by Selladurai in the company of P. Ws. 10 and 22. On arrival at Trichur, appellant pointed out the ship of P. W. 11, Bikshu, a jeweler. P. W. 11 produced M. Os. 3 to 5,10 and 11, which were seized under mahazar, Ex. P7. We have to recapitulate that M. Os. 3 to 5 have been identified by P. W. 3 as the jewellery belonging to his wife (D-2) while P. W. 6 had identified M. Os. 10 and 11, as the jewellery belonging to his wife (D-1 ). Again, P. N. 377 On the same evening at 6. 30 p. m. appellant pointed out at Trichur games (not examined) from whom M. O. 2 , a gold chain, was seized under mahazar (Ex. p8) in the presence of P. W. 10. 10 and 11, as the jewellery belonging to his wife (D-1 ). Again, P. N. 377 On the same evening at 6. 30 p. m. appellant pointed out at Trichur games (not examined) from whom M. O. 2 , a gold chain, was seized under mahazar (Ex. p8) in the presence of P. W. 10. M. O. 2 has been identified as the gold chain belonging to D-2 by P. W. 3. As far as the seizures of these material objects are concerned, we have the positive evidence of P. W. 10 and P. W. 22. Cross examination of P. W. 10 has proceeded on the basis, that the witness belonging to Coimbatore, need not have been taken to Trichur for recovery and that local witnesses could have very well served the purpose. No doubt, a local witness at Trichur could have been summoned. But, such non -summoning, cannot lead to erasure of evidence of P. W. 10, if it is otherwise acceptable and impresses the Court as a truthful version. It is not surprising that Selladurai decided to take P. W. 10 from Coimbatore to Trichur, sine he had been present on the earlier night, when the appellant had offered his confessional statement. His cross examination reveals, that he had affixed his signature in the confessional statement at Coimbatore, while in two seizure mahazars he had signed at Trichur. He is further certain, that Bikshu did not accompany them to B - 7 Police Station After meticulous perusal of the evidence of P. W. 10, we do not find any worth while dent, which would affect his credibility about the confession statement made by the appellant leading to recovery of M. Os. 2 to 5, 10 and 11. The evidence of P. W. 22 fully synchronizes with the version of P. W,. 10 in relation to recoveries effected, on the confession of the appellant from P. W. 11 and James. Non - examination of James can be of no consequence for, in spite of diligent efforts by the prosecuting agency, he could not be traced. We find no impediment in accepting the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 22 regarding seizure of M. O. 2 from James on the basis of the appellant pointing him out, in pursuance of his confession. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, did submit that even on 2. 4. We find no impediment in accepting the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 22 regarding seizure of M. O. 2 from James on the basis of the appellant pointing him out, in pursuance of his confession. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, did submit that even on 2. 4. 1992 when the appellant we arrested by PW. 18, he had mentioned about a Gopi chain corresponding to M. O. 2 and two plain bangles corresponding to M. O. 11 series which he had sold to a jeweler in Trichur town and who could be pointed out. His submission was that P. W, 18 and through him policemen of Coimbatore, became aware of M. O. 2 and M. O. 11 series (apart from M. O. 9) even on 3. 4. 1992 and if that be so, these pieces of jewellery could not be claimed to have been discovered on the basis of Ex. P6 recorded on 21. 4. 1992. This argument, of course, is very attractive. But, in this prosecution, it does not deserve very serious scrutiny, for even sans M. O. 2 and M. O. 11. the other pieces of jewellery recovered at the instance of the appellant have been identified, as the jewellery belonging to one or other of the deceased,. Identification of these pieces of jewellery by the husbands of both the deceased has not been seriously challenged, except a suggestion that these pieces of jewellery looked new and therefore, could not have been used for several years by the deceased, who were admittedly married for about 9 or 10 years. Identification of jewellery constantly worn by the deceased, by their respective husbands, cannot be doubted, for constant looking at those pieces of jewellery would have left lasting impressions, in their minds. No special identification marks are necessary to identify jewellery in constant use, and Courts have accepted this principle, consistently. P. W. 3 has denied the suggestion that the jewellery looked new and not as those constantly used. The appearance of jewellery will depend upon the nature of use made and the protection offered to them, by the women folk adorning them. We are not prepared to entertain a doubt even remotely, that these pieces of jewellery had not been connected, as those belonging to either one of the deceased. P. W. 11 was treated hostile. The fact remains that he has produced M. Os. We are not prepared to entertain a doubt even remotely, that these pieces of jewellery had not been connected, as those belonging to either one of the deceased. P. W. 11 was treated hostile. The fact remains that he has produced M. Os. 3 to 5, 10, and 11 on being pointed out by the appellant. However, in the witness - box, he claims that the appellant had entrusted the jewellery to him three years prior to seizure in forming him that those pieces of jewellery belonged to his sisters and he required funds to carry out repairs to his shop. He has further deposed, that at that point of time, appellant had sold away these pieces of jewellery and taken away funds from him. He would further choose to depose, that he made these pieces of jewellery afresh, on the compulsion of the Inspector of Police, since he had melted and sold away the jewellery which came into his possession, through the appellant. He has again contradicted himself by deposing, that he did not know the appellant at all and for the first time he came into contact with him when the police brought the appellant to his shop. The law is clear that the evidence of a hostile witness need not have to be rejected in its totality, and that any part of his evidence which will derive support from other evidence, can be acted upon. Once we are satisfied, even on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 11 that on pointing out by the appellant M. Os. 3 to 5, 10 and 11, were recovered from him, and that portion of the evidence stands corroborated by the versions of P. W. 10 and 22, nothing. further would be required, to connect the appellant with possession of these pieces of jewellery which were adorning both the deceased, prior to their unfortunate end. .( 35 ) THE next circumstances is the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13. Though the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13 has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, on the, basis, that it pervaded a connecting link between the appellant and the crime, we are unable to subscribe to the said view. It is not as though the appellant had pointed out P. W. 12 for seizure of M. Os. Though the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13 has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, on the, basis, that it pervaded a connecting link between the appellant and the crime, we are unable to subscribe to the said view. It is not as though the appellant had pointed out P. W. 12 for seizure of M. Os. 1 and 9 from the Pawnbroker, on her pointing out, in the presence of P. W. 13, a mahazar witness. P. W. 22 has stated, that the appellant was surrendered before the concerned Magistrate on 24. 4. 1992 leading to his remand to judicial custody. Thereafter, appellant was not brought out for pointing out P. W. 12. Selladurai (since deceased) appears to have examined P. W. 12 during the course of investigation on 5. 5. 1992. The basis on which P. W. 12 was traced is not very clear. Whatever it be, once it has not been established, that P. W. 12 was traced through the appellant and further P. W. 12 herself does not speak, connecting the appellant, her version will be of no use, whatever, to connect the appellant with the crime, through M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9 belonged one each to either of the deceased. P. W. 13, after all has only spoken about recovery of those pieces of jewellery and he cannot advance any further the evidence on P. W. 12. .( 36 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 12, Sivan (since deceased) had married Chandra jothi her relation. Sivan was a resident of Triehur, where he was living with his parents. On 30. 9. 199 1 Sivan handed over M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9 requesting her to pledge them, since he was in need of money. If on 30. 9. 199 1 Sivan was in possession of M. O. 1 series and M. O. 9, such possession was recent and would probably suffice, to connect him with the murder of the deceased and theft/robbery of those jewels, in the course of the; same transaction. But, in this prosecution, we are not now concerned with Sivan, who is dead and gone. If Sivan was in dire need of money on 30. 9. 1991, it is not known as to why pledge of M. O. 1 series was made only on 25. 11. But, in this prosecution, we are not now concerned with Sivan, who is dead and gone. If Sivan was in dire need of money on 30. 9. 1991, it is not known as to why pledge of M. O. 1 series was made only on 25. 11. 199 1, approximately two months there after and pledge of M. O. 9 was again postponed to further two months. May be that Sivan had handed over custody of these pieces of jewellery to P. W. 12 and she had utilised them. But that can hardly connect the appellant with those pieces of jewellery. As a matter of fact, we cannot overlook the statement of the appellant, to P. W. 18, that he had sold a KARUGAMANI MALAI at Trichur which may correspond to M. O. 9. If M. O. 9 was already sold at Trichur, it is not known how P. W. 12 could have had possession of the same piece of jewellery at Madras, to be pledged to a pawnbroker (not examined) in January, 1992. The evidence of P. W. 12 does not inspire confidence. However, even if the evidence of P. W. 12 stands accepted, it does not connect the appellant with the crime, for admittedly she had not spoken about the appellant, and further the pledge money was handed over by her, to Sivan. The evidence of P. W s. 12 and 13 has no probative value since they do not connect the appellant with the crime. .( 37 ) AS far as circumstances 5 and 6 are concerned, we can deal with them together. Circumstance 5 is identification of jewellery worn by the deceased, by their husbands, which we are prepared to accept. They have also identified the corpses of their wives, and that has not been seriously challenged. Not only identification of corpus delicti, but also the jewellery worn by both the deceased stand established. That both the deceased were missing from their residences on the fateful night, in that they did not return after office work, is supported by overwhelming evidence and to the dismay of the husbands, they found the dead bodies of their wives, inside the toilet, in Huzur Treasury, on the next morning. That both the deceased were missing from their residences on the fateful night, in that they did not return after office work, is supported by overwhelming evidence and to the dismay of the husbands, they found the dead bodies of their wives, inside the toilet, in Huzur Treasury, on the next morning. Though the prosecution has established, that murders had been committed for gain, it had not proved, that the appellant had any role in commission of murders or robbery, as an a better. As we have already observed, even connecting link between Sivan and the appellant, is not based on clear and acceptable evidence. Since the appellant has not chosen to explain as to how he came to possess M. Os. 2 to 5, 10 and 11, which were seized from P. W. 11 and James on being pointed out by him, it is clear that he was in possession of jewellery belonging to both the deceased at least in April, 1992, for which he does not have any legitimate claim or reasonable explanation to offer. If the evidence of P. W. 11 had been fully available to the prosecution, it would have indicated that even on 25. 9. 1991 appellant was in possession of jewellery belonging to either of the deceased, and that would have been sufficient, to presume that he was not a mere receiver of stolen property, but the murderer and robber as well, be it as the principal offencer or the abettor. Unfortunately, for the prosecution, the hostility of P. W. 11, who has different stories to offer, erases, that piece of valuable evidence. .( 38 ) NO other conclusion is possible of being arrived at, except holding, that the appellant could be found guilty, only for an offence punishable under Section 411, I. P. C. In almost similar circumstances, Supreme Court in Union Territory of Goa v. Boaventura DSouza, found the accused therein guilty under Section 411, I. P. C. That was a case of murder and robbery. Proof offered was based on circumstantial evidence. Accused was alleged to have stayed in the house of the deceased and committed murder, object being gain. Injured eye-witness did not implicate the accused. Supreme Court also doubled the stay of the accused in the house of his relation. Proof offered was based on circumstantial evidence. Accused was alleged to have stayed in the house of the deceased and committed murder, object being gain. Injured eye-witness did not implicate the accused. Supreme Court also doubled the stay of the accused in the house of his relation. In that background, it was observed that an inference cannot be safely drawn that the accused therein had committed murder based on recovery of stolen articles one month after the incident. However, conviction was recovered under Section 411, I. P. C. Similarly in Babuda v. State of Rajasthan, Supreme Court found that it was hazardous to convict the accused therein, for murder on the basis of recovery of stolen articles 1-12 months after the commission of crime, from a person to who, the accused, had allegedly sold those articles. Even in that case, there was no clinching evidence about the presence of the accused in the house of the deceased when the occurrence had taken place. .( 39 ) WE set aside the convictions and the sentences imposed on the appellant for abetment of murder and robbery arid acquit him of both the charges. However, we find the appellant guilty under Section 411, I. P. C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years which is the maximum prescribed sentence. R. T. No. 2 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1993 are disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed accordingly.