Judgment :- Rengasamy, J: These appeals arise from the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, in S.C. No.164 of 1988 convicting the appellants for the offences under Secs.302 and 392 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 and also to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.100 each, in default to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment for the other offence. The occurrence had taken place on 210. 1987 in Ambur Valayalkaran Street within Ambur Police limits of North Arcot District (Ambedkar District). 2. The facts of the prosecution case can be stated as follows: P.W.1 is a native of Ambur living in Valayalkaran Street having the business of running a van for hire through a driver, P. W.4 and in addition to that he was also assisting the persons for obtaining the vehicle permits. As he was engaged in obtaining the vehicle permits, most of the days he was staying at Madras and once in a week he used to visit his house at Ambur. His wife, the deceased Saraswathiammal, was alone staying in his house as their son was living in another place, as he is an insane person. The driver (P. W.4) used to hand over the collection and the key of the vehicle to one Deva in the Bazaar as per the directions of P. W.1, but leave the vehicle in front of the house of P.W.1. The daughter of P.W.1, P.W.2 Vasantha was given in marriage in Jolarpet. In 1987, Deepavali fell on 210. 1987 and P.W.1 after celebrating Deepavali and also attending the next day nombu, left for Madras on 210. 1987. On 210. 1987 P.W.4 as usual came to the house of P.W.1 for taking the vehicle, and he also talked to the deceased Saraswathiammal, who was in the house at that time. In the evening, P.W.5 who is residing two houses away from the house of the deceased, came to the house of the deceased, had a chat with her by about 3 p.m. and left the house. 3. The appellants are masons by profession working under the absconding accused Jayakumar. Jayakumar being the head mason used to employ the appellants whenever any construction work was given to him. 3. The appellants are masons by profession working under the absconding accused Jayakumar. Jayakumar being the head mason used to employ the appellants whenever any construction work was given to him. Roughly about one week prior to Deepavali P.W.1 engaged the appellants and Jayakumar for the construction of a tub in his house. At that time he also told that their services were required for attending the repair relating to the leakage in the roof. On 210. 1987 the appellants, Jayakumar and P.W.6, who was also working in door No.8, the house of P.W.7, who is the immediate neighbour of P.W.1. The Appellants and Jayakumar were attending the work without a lunch break. They told P.W.6 and others that they should work at a stretch upto 4 p.m. and after completing the work they could leave for homes. At 4. p.m. they sent all workers to homes except P.W.6 and Shanthi who were retained for removing the debris from the terrace to the ground floor. P.W.6 was able to see these appellants and Jayakumar while crossing the house of P.W.1, entering into that house and sometime later coming out from the backyard scaling over the compound wall. Jayakumar had an yellow bag in his hand while he was coming to the house of P.W.7. They gave direction to P.W.6 and Shanthi to leave for their homes. Next day, the appellants did not come to attend to the work in the house of P.W.7. On 25 10.1987 evening, P.W.2 daughter of deceased, came along with her son with some eatables prepared for the occasion of Deepavali. When she was coming near the house of P.W.1, P.W.3 a person known to the family also joined her and all the three went to the house of P.W.1 and knocked at the door. But, the door was bolted inside and there was no response. Thinking that the deceased, mother of P.W.2, might have gone elsewhere, they went to the bazaar to purchase some fruits and after returning back also they knocked at the door. Even then there was no response. P.W.3 scaled over the compound wall on the back side to see whether anybody was available on the backyard. He found the light burning in the kitchen and the backyard door kept half open. As he was afraid to enter into the house, he told P.W.2 that no one was inside the house. Even then there was no response. P.W.3 scaled over the compound wall on the back side to see whether anybody was available on the backyard. He found the light burning in the kitchen and the backyard door kept half open. As he was afraid to enter into the house, he told P.W.2 that no one was inside the house. P.W.2 returned back to her house in Jolarpet. Immediately, P.W.3 left for Madras to convey to P.W.1 that this house was bolted inside and not opened in spite of repeated knocking. Hearing the message P.W.1 rushed to Ambur in a car and reached the Railway Station at about 7 O’clock in the morning. His driver, P.W.4 also joined him and all of them came to the house of P.W.1. As there was no response when knocked in the front side, P. W.4 went to the back side and sealing over the wall he entered through the backyard and opened the front door. When all of them entered into the house they saw deceased Saraswathiammal lying dead in the kitchen and the electric wire connected with the grinder encircling her neck. P.W.1 found that the bureau and the boxes were broken, the glass and other materials scattered inside the room. He found the jewels worn by his wife and the silk sarees missing. M.Os.2 to 9 are the jewels of the deceased. M.O.10 is the wristwatch belonging to P.W.1, M.O.12 series are the two pairs of silver metti used by the deceased. M.O.11 series are the glass bangles used by the deceased. M.O.15 saree and M.O.16 blouse were also that of the deceased. He went to the police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P-1 to P.W.22, the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the complaint in Crime No.704/87 under Sec.302 and 380, I.P.C. and prepared the express First Information Report, Ex.P-2. The same was forwarded to the court and the copies were sent to the Superior Police Officers. 4. P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, Ambur, after receiving the information, came to the scene of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. on 210. 1987 and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.7. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-19 and conducted the inquest between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. in the presence of panchayathars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-20. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 at that time. 1987 and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.7. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-19 and conducted the inquest between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. in the presence of panchayathars and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-20. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 at that time. From the scene of occurrence he recovered M.O.1, the grinder, M.O.14 broken lock and M.O.17 the crowbar in the presence of P.W.7 and another under a mahazar, Ex.P-4. The body of the deceased was handed over to P.W.10 for being taken to the hospital for post-mortem along with a requisition, Ex.P-5. P.W.9, the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Thiruppur, received the body of the deceased on 210. 1987 and at 4 p.m. she commenced the post-mortem. She found the body bloated, both upper limbs, face, chest and back were bluish in colour, blisters seen over the face, neck, over both arms and over breast, maggots were found crowing over the nostrils and mouth and bluish discolour was present on the back of both buttocks and back of both lower limbs. Foul smell was emanating. The skin around the neck was in a highly decomposed stage and she could not find any external injury on the body. On opening the body, foul smell gas emanated with loud sound. On dissecting the neck, the muscle, subcutaneous tissue and blood vessels were all in decomposed stage. Both cornea of hyoid bone were found fractured. The lungs had blisters. The stomach contained 4 ozs. of cooked rice. Nothing abnormal was found in the other internal parts of the body. The viscera report, Ex.P-6 was received by P.W.9 and P.W.9 was of the opinion that the death should have been due to asphyxia caused by strangulation 48 hours prior to the post-mortem. Ex.P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.9. 5. In the meanwhile, the first appellant on the evening of 210. 1987 itself at 7 p.m. approached P.W.13 and pledged M.O.4 series for a sum of Rs.500. P.W.13 prepared the pawn ticket, Ex.P-16 and obtained the signature of the first appellant in the same. On 210. 1987 the first appellant approached P.W.14 with a request to raise money by pledging M.O.10 wristwatch. P.W.14 pledged M.O.10 wristwatch for Rs.125 with P.W.15, the owner of Lakshmi and Co. and Ex.P-17 is the pawn ticket for the pledging of the writ watch. On 210. 1987 the first appellant approached P.W.14 with a request to raise money by pledging M.O.10 wristwatch. P.W.14 pledged M.O.10 wristwatch for Rs.125 with P.W.15, the owner of Lakshmi and Co. and Ex.P-17 is the pawn ticket for the pledging of the writ watch. P.W.20 was formerly residing in Chithoor and was known to the first appellant. In November, 1987 the first appellant and Jayakumar, the absconding accused, went to him with a request to sell certain jewels brought by them and handed over M.O.5 series, a period of gold bangles, M.O.9 series two gold coins each weighing quarter sovereign, M.O.8 gold ring, and M.O.7 gold thali. P.W.20 agreed to help them for the sale of the jewels and he handed over those jewels to P.W.16 for selling them through his source. P.W.16, a resident of Kothapalli in Guliyatham Taluk, handed over M.O.5 series to P.W.17, a gold smith, to arrange for sale. P.W. 17 sold M.O.5 series gold bangles to P.W.21 for a sum of Rs.4,200 and this cash was handed over to P.W.16 who was paid him the brokerage of Rs.50. P.W.16 in turn handed over the cash to the first appellant. On the next day, P.W.20 came with four gold coins and thali chain with a request to P.W.16 for melting them. P.W.16 requested P.W.17 to melt the above said jewels and he melted the same as M.O.13 in got and handed over the same to P.W.20. The other jewels left with P.W.16 and the gold in got handed over to P.W.20 were not received back by the first appellant or Jayakumar and they were in the custody of P.Ws.16 and 20 till they were recovered by the police. 6. The first appellant then approached P.W.18 for the sale of M.O.6 series two gold coins each weighing 1/4 sovereign in the month of November, 1987. P.W.18 informed to the first appellant that he could not sell the jewel, but raise money by pleading the same. As promised, he pledged M.O.6 series with P.W.19 for Rs.450 under the pawn ticket, Ex.P-18 on 111. 1987. The cash raised by him was handed over to the first appellant. 7. P.W.23, the Inspector of Police arrested the second appellant at4.30 p.m. on 1. 88 near Veerakoil in the presence of P.W.11 and another person. As promised, he pledged M.O.6 series with P.W.19 for Rs.450 under the pawn ticket, Ex.P-18 on 111. 1987. The cash raised by him was handed over to the first appellant. 7. P.W.23, the Inspector of Police arrested the second appellant at4.30 p.m. on 1. 88 near Veerakoil in the presence of P.W.11 and another person. On search of the second appellant, the Police Officer was able to find M.O.3 series in the pocket and he seized the same under Ex.P-8 mahazar. The second appellant was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.23 was continuing the investigation and was searching for the other participants. On 6. 1988 at 9.30 a.m. P.W.23 arrested the first appellant near Sannankuppam Colony and on interrogation, the first appellant made a confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-9. The first appellant requested the police to accompany him as he would be able to point out the places where the jewels were given. At 11.30 a.m. he took the Police Officer to P. W. 13 from whom M.O.4 series were seized under the mahazar Ex.P-10. P.W. 14 pointed out the shop of P.W.15 from where M.O.10 wristwatch was seized along with the receipt Ex.P-17 under the mahazar Ex.P-11. At 1.15 p.m. on that day the first appellant took the Police Officer to P.W.16 from whom M.Os.7 to 9 were seized under Ex.P-12 mahazar. P.W.17 was also pointed out by the first appellant and with the help of P.W.17 the Police Officer traced the shop of P. W.21 from whom M.0.5 series gold bangles were seized under Ex.P-13 mahazar. At 5 p.m. he was able to trace P.W.18, who took the police party to P.W.19 from whom M.O.6 series were seized under Ex.P-14 mahazar. The pawn ticket Ex.P-18 was also seized under the same mahazar. 8. At 5.45 p.m. on the same day P.W.20 was traced and M.O.13 gold ingot was seized from P.W.20 under the mahazar Ex.P-15. As P.W.23 wanted to examine the gold ingot, he cut it into two pieces. He returned by about 9.30 p.m. to Ambur Police station and on the next day he remanded the first appellant to judicial custody. P.W.1 was summoned to identify the articles seized and P.W.1 identified them as the articles belonging to him. On 6. 1988 the articles seized were sent to the court under Form 95. He returned by about 9.30 p.m. to Ambur Police station and on the next day he remanded the first appellant to judicial custody. P.W.1 was summoned to identify the articles seized and P.W.1 identified them as the articles belonging to him. On 6. 1988 the articles seized were sent to the court under Form 95. The other participant of the crime Jayakumar could not be traced. Therefore, after completing the investigation, P.W.23 filed the charge-sheet against these appellants on 27. 1988 under Secs.302 and 392, I.P.C. 9. After the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot, framed charges for the offences mentioned above and when questioned the appellants they pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge examined 23 witnesses in support of the prosecution case and after the evidence was over, the appellants were questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon to explain the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The appellants denied their complicity in the crime. No witness was examined on the side of the appellants/ accused. The learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration of the oral, documentary and the circumstantial evidence, has found that the charges against the appellants are proved and therefore he convicted them and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100, in default to suffer imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec.392, I.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. These appellants have filed the appeals separately against the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 10. The case purely rests on the circumstantial evidence and the main thrust of the argument by the learned counsel for the appellants is that it will be unsafe to convict the appellants on the circumstantial evidence coupled with the oral testimony of P.W.6 who is the star witness in this case and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is inadequate to show a complete link to connect the appellants with the crime and therefore the findings of the court below is erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellants attacked the evidence of P.W.6 who is said to be a mason and according to the learned counsel for the appellants he is a person in the police control and his testimony is not worthy of credence and the alleged recoveries also are suspicious and therefore the whole case smacks of suspicion and infirmities. 11. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses discloses that the deceased who was aged 65 years was staying alone in her house in Valayalkaran Street, as her husband P.W.1 was visiting her once in a week as he was engaged in the profession of securing the vehicle permits, at Madras. Therefore, taking advantage of her aloofness, the culprits had gained entry into the house and had murdered her. The medical evidence of P.W.9 proves that the death must have been by strangulation, as both cornua of hyoid bone were found fractured. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 would say that when they entered into the house, they were able to see the deceased lying in the kitchen with the electric wire meant for connecting the grinder put around her neck. P.W.9 would say in her evidence that the body was decomposed and the maggots were found crawling in the nostril area. Therefore, she was unable to give the definite opinion as to the manner in which the strangulation was done, i.e., either by throttling the neck with the electric wire or by using the hands. However, as both cornua of hyoid bone were fractured she was of the opinion that the death must have been only by strangulation. There was no cross-examination with regard to this aspect by the appellants/ accused and there was no sign of any damage to the internal organs and the viscera report Ex.P-6 also revealed no poison in the stomach. Therefore, it is very clear that she was put to death only by homicidal violence and as the internal organs were normal and both cornua of hyoid bone were found fractured, the medical officer is of the opinion that the death was only by stangulation. 12. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, has deposed that after Deepavali on 210. 1987, he left for Madras and his wife was alone in the house. P.Ws.4 and 5 have spoken about the day on which they found the deceased alive. 12. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, has deposed that after Deepavali on 210. 1987, he left for Madras and his wife was alone in the house. P.Ws.4 and 5 have spoken about the day on which they found the deceased alive. P.W.4 is the driver of the van owned by P. W. 1 and it appears from his evidence that he is owning a van used for hire and the key of the vehicle and the daily collection would be handed over by the driver to a person in the Bazaar by name Deva as per the direction of P.W.1 probably as he was often away from Ambur, but the vehicle would be parked in front of the house of P.W.1 and for this purpose the driver P.W.4 used to come to the house of P.W. 1 daily and if time permits he used to talk to the deceased, when necessary. According to P.W.4, on 210. 1987 morning by about 7’o Clock he came to the house of the deceased for taking the vehicle and. at that time he talked to the deceased. The next person, who had seen the deceased alive on that day is P.W.5, who is residing two houses away. According to P.W.5, she used to come and chat with the deceased and on 210. 1987 also she had been to the house of the deceased, where she was till 3 p.m. and thereafter she had left for her home. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 confirms that the deceased was alive by 3 p.m. on 210. 1987 and there is no evidence to show that thereafter she was seen alive by anybody. The evidence of P.W.4, the van driver, is that on the same evening at 7 or 7.30 p.m. when he came to the house to park the van he found the door bolted inside and he did not find the sign of any movement within the house and he went to Deva to hand over the key and the cash as usual. Next day P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, came with her son with some eatables prepared for the Deepavali occasion and when she came P.W.3, a family friend also accompanied and when they knocked the door of the house, there was no response and the evidence of P.W.3 is that he went to the backyard and after scaling over the compound wall, he entered in the rear portion and found the back door of the house kept half open. However, it appears that he did not want to go inside the house and when this was told to P.W.2 she requested P.W.3 to immediately convey this information to her father, P.W.1 who was at Madras as she returned back to her husband’s house. Only thereafter P.W.1 who received the message through P.W.3, came to Ambur and the front door of the house bolted inside was opened by entering through the back side door and at that time they were able to see that the deceased was put to death and the house was ransacked by the robberers. P.W. 1 lodged the complaint Ex.P-1 immediately on the same day at 10 a.m. and the Inspector of Police, P.W.23 who started investigation, had examined the neighbour, P.W.7 in whose presence, the observation mahazar Ex.P-3 was prepared and M.O.14, the lock that was broken and the crowbar M.O.17 that was used for breaking the lock and the bureau were also seized under Ex.P-4 mahazar. It appears that on that day they could not get any clue. 13. P. W.6, the star witness in this case claims to be a mason, and had worked along with these appellants and the absconding accused Jayakumar. He would say that on 210. 1987 he along with the appellants and Jayakumar were working in the house of P.W.7 for certain construction work and these appellants and Jayakumar by 4’o clock directed the other workers to go home and they entered into the house of the deceased through the front door and after some time came out through the back door and thereafter they insisted him to go home as he was attending to the shifting of the debris from the terrace portion to the ground floor as directed by them. He also in the evidence would say that the appellants brought a bag with them, though it was not with them at the time when they entered into the house. According to P.W.23, the Inspector of Police, this information was given to him by P.W.6 only on 111. 1987 and only thereafter he directed the investigation against these appellants and Jayakumar, but they were found absconding. 14. Before we proceed to consider the trustworthiness of the evidence of P.W.6 and other circumstances, it is worth to mention that all the items of jewellery said to have been stolen were recovered after the arrest of these appellants. The second appellant was arrested first on 1. 1988 in the presence of P.W.11 and the first appellant was arrested on 6. 1988 in the presence of P.W.12. Even on the date of arrest of the second appellant M.O.3, the two gold coins were recovered from his pocket under the mahazar Ex.P-8 and after the arrest of the first appellant, all the other items were recovered. M.0.4 series were seized from P.W.13 under receipt Ex.P-10 and M.O.5 series were seized from P.W.21 and M.O.6 series were seized from P.W.19. M.Os.7 to 9 were seized from P.W.16, M.O.10 was seized from P.W.15, M.O.13 gold ingot which is said to be the conversion of the four gold coins and the gold thali chain was seized from P.W.20. It is pertinent to mention that these appellants and Jayakumar were working together for doing the masonry works as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 7. P.W.6 had narrated that he was also working under the absconding accused Jayakumar. P.W.1 in his evidence would say that a week prior to Deepavali these appellants constructed a tab in his house and he had known them. P.W.7, the neighbour would say that on 210. 1987 these appellants, Jayakumar and P.W.6 were doing some construction work in his house. Nowhere it was suggested that these appellants were not doing the masonry work and they have got any other avocation for their livelihood. Therefore, it is very clear that on 210. 1987 these appellants were doing the masonry work along with P.W.6 in the house of P.W.7 and they should have had the occasion to know that the deceased was along in her house and there were no other male members in the house on that day. Therefore, it is very clear that on 210. 1987 these appellants were doing the masonry work along with P.W.6 in the house of P.W.7 and they should have had the occasion to know that the deceased was along in her house and there were no other male members in the house on that day. Further, as already they had constructed the tub in the house of the deceased as spoken to by P.W.1, they should have had the acquaintance with the deceased. This is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration along with the other available materials on record. 15. Now the evidence of P.W.6 can be referred to as he gives the account as to the suspicious conduct of these appellants by entering into the house of the deceased on 210. 1987 after 4 p.m. and it is also his evidence that they came out through the backyard after scaling over the compound wall in the rear side of the house. If this evidence of P.W.6 is accepted then the circumstance is so strong that these appellants alone should have committed the crime, as P.W.5 had seen the deceased alive by 3 p.m. and these appellants had entered into the house by 4 p.m. and there was no sign of the movement of the deceased thereafter As the deceased had died only by homicidal violence, it would be clear that the deceased should have met her death only in the hands of these appellants. But, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of P.W.6 is full of infirmities and suspicious and it cannot be relied upon for any purpose. It was contended by the learned counsel at if really P.W.6 had seen these persons entering into the house of the deceased on 210. 1987, on 210. 1987 when the police came to the house of P.W.1 and enquired the neighbours including P.W.7 in whose house P.W.6 was working on that day, he could have easily mentioned that these appellants and Jayakumar had entered the house, but he did not reveal this important matter to any one for two weeks and therefore what he would say now is highly artificial and unacceptable. They would further contend that on 210. They would further contend that on 210. 1987 though these appellants did not come to work, Jayakumar was working there along with him and he could have asked Jayakumar as to why they entered into the house of the deceased, when especially she was found dead or at least this could have been divulged to P.W.7 and therefore the testimony of P.W.6 is highly suspicious. They would contend further that P.W.6 would admit in his evidence that the front door of the house of the deceased cannot be seen from the house of P.W.7 and therefore there was no chance for P.W.6.to see these appellants and Jayakumar entering into the house of the deceased. 16. One another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the statement recorded under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from P.W.6 was received by the court only on 16. 1988, i.e., long after the arrest of these appellants and therefore his evidence and the 161, Crl.P.C. statement of P.W.6 are nothing but concoction to implicate these appellants. It is true that P.W.6 should have divulged either to P.W.23, the Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation in the scene of occurrence on 210. 1987 or at least to P.W.7 under whom P.W.6 was doing the masonry work. But, P.W.6 has given explanation that though he saw these appellants entering into the house, as it was doubtful for him whether they would have committed this crime, he hesitated to tell the police, but only two weeks later as he felt that this must be informed to the police, he told these facts to the Police Officer. It should be borne in mind that P.W.6 was working under Jayakumar, the head mason, and these appellants were co-workers. Further, even if P.W.6 had the occasion to see these appellants entering into the house at 4 p.m. on 210. 1987 it might not have struck P.W.6 on 210. 1987 that these appellants should have gone there to murder the deceased, because he would say that they told at the time of leaving that they had some work in the neighbour’s house. Therefore, P.W.6 might not have suspected that these persons should have committed the murder, but only later on as the matter became sensational probably the suspicion should have grown very seriously compelling P.W.6 to inform this aspect to the police. Therefore, P.W.6 might not have suspected that these persons should have committed the murder, but only later on as the matter became sensational probably the suspicion should have grown very seriously compelling P.W.6 to inform this aspect to the police. Further, as P.W.6 was closely associated with these appellants and Jayakumar as a mason working along with them, he would not have come forward to betray them to the police on 210. 1987 when the police came for investigation. Therefore, taking all these circumstances into consideration, we fell that P.W.6 might not have revealed this most vital information to the police or P.W.7 initially, but later on somehow his conscience should have persuaded him to reveal this conduct of the appellants to the police. Even though P.W.6 has admitted in his evidence that the front door of the house of the deceased could not be seen from the house of P.W.7 by remaining inside the house, as P.W.6 was attending the masonry work, naturally there was chance for him to be outside and further he would say that he was transporting the debris from the terrace to the ground floor. So at that time he might have come out of the house and had the chance of seeing these appellants entering into the house of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be stated that P.W.6 could not have seen these appellants entering through the front door of the house of the deceased. P.W.7 in his evidence would say that two weeks after the occurrence the Inspector of Police brought the photo to the mason, the absconding accused Jayakumar, and he identified him in the Photo. This would show that the Investigation Agency had suspected the masons who worked in the house of P.W.7 on that day and therefore P.W.7 was asked to identify the persons who were engaged to work on 210. 1987. Unless the information was furnished by P.W.6, the police would not have brought the photos of the masons for identification by P.W.7. Therefore, this shows the direction in which the investigation was proceeding within two weeks after the occurrence. As the appellants could not be traced, it appears that they could not be arrested immediately and second appellant was arrested only on 1. 1988. Therefore, this shows the direction in which the investigation was proceeding within two weeks after the occurrence. As the appellants could not be traced, it appears that they could not be arrested immediately and second appellant was arrested only on 1. 1988. It is also the evidence of P.W.6 that on the next day of the occurrence, these appellants did not turn up for work and Jayakumar who came to attend the work on 210. 1987, thereafter absconded. As a matter of fact, till now the whereabouts of Jayakumar is not known to the police. Therefore, the police could not arrest these appellants as they were absconding and somehow the police was able to trace the first appellant on 10. 1988 on which date he was arrested and M.O.3 series, the two gold coins, were recovered from him. 17. We are not solely relying upon the oral testimony of P.W.6 to arrive at a conclusion as to the culpability of these appellants. But the information giver by P.W.6, is one of the circumstances which we taken into consideration along with other circumstances, namely, the recovery of the stolen articles. The articles seized at the instance of the first appellant have been identified by P. W. 1 as that of the jewels of his wife. 18. The important item recovered after the arrest of the first appellant is M.O.4 series, one pair of gold ear rings pledged by the first appellant in the shop of P.W.13 on 210. 1987 at 7 p.m. Ex.P-16 is the relevant document, namely, the pawn ticket for pledging the same. P.W.13 has spoken in his evidence that the first appellant came to him on 210. 1987 evening by 7 o’clock demanding Rs.500 and the pledged M.O.4 series for which he prepared Ex.P-16 pawn ticket and subsequently when the police came on 6. 1988 along with the first appellant, he demanded the original of Ex.P-16, but as the first appellant told him that he had lost the pawn ticket, after obtaining the endorsement from the Inspector of Police in Ex.P-16, he handed over the Jewels to P.W.23, the Inspector of Police. The striking feature in Ex.P-16 is the availability of the signature of the first appellant. The receipt itself is prepared in the name of the first appellant and at the bottom the carbon signature of the first appellant is found. The striking feature in Ex.P-16 is the availability of the signature of the first appellant. The receipt itself is prepared in the name of the first appellant and at the bottom the carbon signature of the first appellant is found. We compared this signature with the signature of the first appellant found in the statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they are identifical in every aspect. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the first appellant had signed the pawn ticket, Ex.P-16 on 210. 1987 when he raised the loan from P.W. 13. M.O.4 series have been identified by P.W. 1 as the jewel of his wife and this circumstance is so clear that the first appellant soon after the murder had removed the jewels from the body of the deceased and had pledged M.O.4 series with P.W.13. 19. P.W.14 would say that the first appellant approached him with M.O.10 wristwatch with P.W.15 on 210. 1987 for a sum of Rs.l25, for which Ex.P-17 receipt was prepared in which he has subscribed his signature. It was argued for the first appellant that Ex.P-17 is not connected with the first appellant, but the pledgor is one Venkatesan, P.W.14 and therefore this document cannot be used against the first appellant. P.W.1 has identified M.O.10 wristwatch also and this has been seized from P.W.15 after the arrest of the first appellant. If the transaction was exclusively between P.W.14 and P.W.15, the wristwatch could not have been seized soon after the arrest of the first appellant. Therefore, this conduct shows that the first appellant is connected with this writ watch and therefore after he pointed out P.W.14 this wristwatch was seized from P.W.15. Therefore, we are satisfied that the pledge by P.W.14 must be only at the in stance of the first appellant. 20. The evidence of P.W.20 is very vital in this case, because he would say that the first appellant and one Jayakumar, the absconding accused, came to him to Chittoor with the jewels marked as M.Os.5 and 7 to 9 in November, 1987 for the same of those items and he in turn approached P.W.16, his close relative, and M.O.5 series, gold bangles, alone were sold for Rs. 4,200. P.Ws.16, 17 and 21 have spoken about the transaction relating to M.O.5 series. 4,200. P.Ws.16, 17 and 21 have spoken about the transaction relating to M.O.5 series. According to P.W.20 he took the assistance of his relative, P.W.16, who in turn requested P.W.17, the goldsmith, but P.W.17 was able to sell only M.O.5 series to P.W.21 and the cash was handed over to P.W.16, who in turn handed over the same to the first appellant. It is also the evidence of P.W.17 that he was given Rs.50 towards the brokerage. The evidence of P.W.20 is that on the next day after the entrustment of the above mentioned jewels, the first appellant and Jayakumar approached him with four gold coin and a gold thali chain for melting them and he sought the aid of P.W.16 for melting them and this work was done by P.W.17, the goldsmith. M.O.13 series were identified to be the melted gold and this was left with P.W.20 who was keeping these ingots with him till the same were recovered from him. P.W.16 also would say that M.Os.7, 8 and 9 which were handed over to him could not be sold and therefore he was keeping them with him till they were seized by the police. A question was raised as to why these articles which were handed over to these witnesses were kept by them for several months and if really M.Os.7 to 9 were handed over to P.W.16 for sale, P.W.16 should have either sold them or returned them, to the appellant but as P.W.16 would say that he was keeping them for more man eight months, these articles could not have been handed over by the first appellant. Same argument was raised for M.O.13 series ingots also as P.W.20 would say that he was keeping the ingots with him till the same were seized by the police. But, we are able to see that the first appellant had absconded himself and therefore he might have hesitated to approach those persons to get back the jewels from them. P.W.20 who was originally residing in Chittoor, had shifted his place to Bangalore and therefore the first appellant either for want of his correct address or thinking that he could collect the same after sometime as the police was searching for him, could have allowed these witnesses to keep these articles with them. P.W.20 who was originally residing in Chittoor, had shifted his place to Bangalore and therefore the first appellant either for want of his correct address or thinking that he could collect the same after sometime as the police was searching for him, could have allowed these witnesses to keep these articles with them. Therefore, this cannot be taken as a circumstance cutting the root of the prosecution case, and in favour of the appellants. 21. The other item seized after the arrest of the first appellant is M.0.6 series, two gold coins, from P.W.19. P.W.19 in his evidence would say that P.W.18 pledged these gold coins for Rs.450 on 111. 1987 and the Police Officer who came along with the first appellant and P.W.18 had recovered those gold coins. Ex.P-18 is the pawn ticket dated 111. 1987 prepared by P.W.19 for the pledge of M.0.6 series, gold coins. Even though this pledging was done by P.W.18, P.W.18 in his evidence would say that as the first appellant requested him to sell M.0.6 series and P.W.19 had offered to give a loan of Rs.450 on the security of M.0.6 series, he raised Rs.450 by the pledging M.0.6 series and this amount was handed over to the first appellant. M.0.6 series have also been identified by P.W.1. It must be remembered that most of these items have been mentioned in the complaint itself. Therefore, there cannot be any suspicion with regard to the ownership of P.W.1 to these items. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the arrest of the appellants in the presence of P.W.11 and P.W. 12 is artificial, especially P.W.11 being a native of Kannikapuram could not have been present for the arrest of the second appellant near Veerakoil Road and therefore the arrest of the second appellant as alleged by the prosecution cannot be true. But, the evidence of P.W.11 is very clear that though he is a native of Kannikapuram, he was working in Kommeswaram in the brickiln of one Muniratnam and on the date of arrest of the second appellant he had been to the tea shop situated near the road leading to Veerakoil and he happened to witness the arrest of the second appellant and the recovery of M.O.3 series, gold coins. There is nothing unnatural in the evidence of P.W.12 for the arrest of the first appellant when especially P.W.12 has attested the mahazars for the seizure of the gold jewels from the witnesses. The recovery portion of the evidence stands unshattered and therefore this important circumstance connecting the appellants with the stolen articles is another link with the crime. But, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Goa v. Boaventura D’ Sonza, A.I.R. 1993 S.C.1199, that the mere recovery alone is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and therefore the appellants/ accused cannot be found guilty for the recovery of these articles on the confession of the appellants. In the case cited, the second accused alone stayed in the house of the deceased. The second accused was related to the deceased. Murder and dacoity were committed on that night. The prosecution case was that the second accused facilitated for the entry of the first accused inside the house. P.W.24, a servant maid, also stayed in the house on that night of the occurrence and she had also sustained injuries at the hands of the culprits. But, she did not implicate any of the accused persons. The recovery of the stolen articles was effected one month after the occurrence. Taking into consideration of the circumstance, namely, the recovery of the articles one month after the occurrence and also for the failure of P.W.24 to identify the accused persons, the Supreme Court took the view that the accused cannot be found guilty of the crime of murder for the sole reason that the stolen articles were found in the possession of the accused one month after the occurrence. 23. The same view was adopted by the Apex Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 S.C.C. (Crl.) 59 which also was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions is that if the circumstantial evidence is accepted, it should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent to the innocence. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions is that if the circumstantial evidence is accepted, it should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent to the innocence. But the Apex Court in Gulab Chand v. State of M.P, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 552 has found that if the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. 24. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 Crl.L.J. 846, the Apex Court would observe that the nature of presumption under illustration (a) to Sec.114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced and no fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. It is also the view of the Apex Court that the question as to what amounts to recent possession of stolen property sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand and if the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. In the light of this view, it cannot be stated that the recovery of M.O.3 series from the second appellant three months after the occurrence will not lead to any inference against him, when especially the evidence of P.W.6 is that both the appellants had absconded after 210. 1987. 25. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as M.O.4 series, a pair of gold earnings were pledged by the first appellant even on the same day of the occurrence, i.e., on 210. 1987 at 7 p.m. with P.W.13 as confirmed by Ex.P-16 counterfoil of the pawn ticket, the observations of the Apex Court in Gulab Chand v. State of M.P, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 552, is quite fitting to this case and as the article of the deceased had been in the custody of the first appellant soon after the murderer, the presumption of guilt on the part of the first appellant can be easily presumed. 26. 26. Apart from the recovery of these items, the other circumstances also lend support to the prosecution case and they are, the appellants and the absconding accused, Jayakumar were found together working in the house of P.W.7 on 210. 1987 and all the three left the house together at 4 p.m. and as stated by P.W.6, on the next day these appellants did not come to attend to the work, though the absconding accused Jayakumar alone came to work upto 210. 1987 and thereafter he also absconded and still be could not be traced. Therefore, this circumstances of abscondence of the alleged culprits is another important circumstance to support the prosecution case against these appellants. 27. The learned Additional Public Prosecution refers to a decision of the Supreme court in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994)2 S.C.C. 220 , wherein the Apex Court has drawn adverse inference against the accused person for his abscondence soon after the occurrence. Therefore, from the evidence provided by P.W.6 the abscondence of the appellants/ accused has to be accepted and this is one of the important circumstances found against the appellant. In the above decision Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, the Apex Court would observe that, “In a case of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” The Apex Court would further add that, “These circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused, and the chair of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. Legally established circumstances and not mere indignation of court can form the basis of conviction and the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinise the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof.” In the light of these observations, now if we analyse the evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 3 makes it clear that on the same day of the occurrence the first appellant had pledged M.O.4 series with him for a sum of Rs.500, the first appellant’s signature is also found in the pawn ticket, Ex.P-16 to confirm that the first appellant alone had pledged the jewel M.O.4 belonging to the deceased. This jewel and other jewels referred to above have been seized at the instance of the appellants from several persons, of whom P.W. 16 and P.W.20 have identified the first appellant as the person who brought these jewels, and that the company of the appellants together on 29. 1987 next adjacent to the place of occurrence, i.e., in the house of P.W.7 and the abscondence of these appellants immediately after the occurrence are the circumstances to be borne in mind. Therefore, if all these circumstances are taken together, the hypothesis is consistent with the guilt of these appellants and these circumstances are not explained by any other manner to accept the innocence of the appellants. 28. It is true that M.O.3 series, two gold coins, alone have been recovered from the second appellant on the date of his arrest and there is a chance for the argument that he can be at the most found guilty under Sec.411,1.P.C. for having been in possession of the stolen article and as the stolen articles were seized from him nearly 2 1/2 months after the occurrence, he cannot be implicated in the crime of murder. But, when the above mentioned circumstances, namely, the second appellant was found along with the first appellant and the absconding accused Jayakumar going together at about 4 p.m. on 210. 1987 and his (second appellant’s) continuous absence thereafter till he was arrested on 1. 1988 are the important circumstances to connect him with the crime. Further, only after his arrest, from the information furnished by him, the first appellant was also arrested leading to the recovery of all the articles stolen from the house of P.W.1. 1987 and his (second appellant’s) continuous absence thereafter till he was arrested on 1. 1988 are the important circumstances to connect him with the crime. Further, only after his arrest, from the information furnished by him, the first appellant was also arrested leading to the recovery of all the articles stolen from the house of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.6 is that all the three entered into the house of the deceased and they came out through the backyard. For any reason even if we do not accept this piece of evidence of P.W.6, the other circumstances which I listed above rope the second appellant also to the crime alleged and therefore the second appellant cannot escape from the crime of murder. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances listed above, we are of the opinion that the offences alleged against these appellants have been proved and therefore the court below is right in finding them guilty of the offences for which they have been charged. 29. For the heinous crime of murder punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. the court below has awarded life sentence to these appellants and ten years rigorous imprisonment apart from the fine of Rs.100 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec.392 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. The sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Sec.392 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. cannot be said to be excessive, when especially the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Therefore, we find no materials to interfere with the findings of the court below and the result is that the appeals have to be dismissed. In the result, the appeals are dismissed confirming the convictions and sentence imposed by the court below.