Judgment :- Rengasami, J. These appellants who were the accused 1, 4 to 8 in S.C. No.211 of 1988, stand convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Arcot District at Vellore, to undergo life imprisonment apart from the other sentences for the offences under Secs.l20-B, 395 read with 109, 302 and 396. This is a case of triple murder for gain, in a village known as Agraharam within Natrampalli Police limits. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The first deceased (D-1) Ramalingam had married the daughter of the first accused (A-l)/first appellant in C.A.No. 474 of 1989, by name Ramani who was also the 3rd accused before the trial court. But there was incompatibility in their matrimonial life, on account of which the A-1, had grievance against his son-in-law-D-1 Ramalingam. D-1 Ramalingam was living with his mother, the second deceased (D-2) Thanjammal, and the 3rd deceased (D-3) Radha alias Radhakrishnan, the sister’s son of D-1 Ramalingam also was living with them. RW.3, the approver in this case was originally engaged in the sale of the agricultural consumer goods. Thereafter, he was engaged in smuggling the Sandalwood pellets, and once when he along with one Raja was transporting the sandalwood pellets in a car at Bangalore, they were intercepted and arrested by the police. The driver of the car, who escaped lodged a complaint that his car was stolen by somebody. So, for the transportation of the sandalwood pellets illegally and also for the theft of the car, they were remand prisoners in Harur sub jail. At that time, one Thangaveli a nexalite leader who is an absconding accused in this case, was also a remand prisoner. RW.3 developed acquaintance with him, in Jail and the said Thangavel helped RW.3 to come out on bail by furnishing security through his father, and uncle. P.W.3 after coming out on bail, arranged funds for taking out Thangavel also on bail. Thangavel was released on bail. They conspired to commit robberies, whenever they required money. P.W.3 used to meet one Majeeth of Krishnagiri, and the A-1 also used to visit the house of the said Majeeth. Therefore, P.W.3 had developed acquaintance with the A-1 also. P.W.3 after coming out on bail, arranged funds for taking out Thangavel also on bail. Thangavel was released on bail. They conspired to commit robberies, whenever they required money. P.W.3 used to meet one Majeeth of Krishnagiri, and the A-1 also used to visit the house of the said Majeeth. Therefore, P.W.3 had developed acquaintance with the A-1 also. (b) When P.W.3 once had been to the house of A-1, he complained that his son-in-law, viz., the D-1 did not treat his wife properly, as he is a well to do man, and he should be taught a proper lesson. P.W.3, with the assistance of the A-1, once visited the house of the D-1, Under the guise of selling the nursery plants, that he also took with him, some fruit mixture added with certain tranquilizer. On that night when he stayed in the house of D-1, he distributed the fruit mixture, as though, it was a wholly fruit mixture (panjaamirthum) got from a temple. The persons who consumed the fruits mixture, including D-1 Ramalingam, his wife and mother fell in deep slumber. At that time, P.W.3 tried to commit robbery, but as he could not get the key of the bureaus, he removed the ear-rings from the mother of D-1 Ramalingam and also A-3. Thereafter, P.W.3 wanted to meet the A-1, as he was complaining about his son-in-law, and one day, P.W.3 along with Thangavel met A-4/the 2nd appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989, in connection with grievances, of A-1 about his son-in-law. Then, they came to the house of A-1, who was with his wife and daughter. A-1 told P.W.3 and Thangavel, that his son-in-law was having 80 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.20,000 and if they loot his house, they could take these jewels and cash, and also do away with the persons residing in that house. A-4 gave Rs.500 for the expenses. (c) P.W.3 and Thangavel went to Adiamaankottai, where they conspired with the other accused viz., A-5 to A-8 (appellants in C.A. Nos.477 and 510 of 1989), for committing dacoity in the house of the said Ramalingam D-1. (d) One week later, they all came to Krishnagiri, and P.W.3 and Thangavel went to a platform, where they bought M.Os.11 to 13, knives and after joining the other accused viz., A-5 to A-8, they all proceeded to Natrampalli. (d) One week later, they all came to Krishnagiri, and P.W.3 and Thangavel went to a platform, where they bought M.Os.11 to 13, knives and after joining the other accused viz., A-5 to A-8, they all proceeded to Natrampalli. They informed to the A-4/2nd appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989, that they were going to commit dacoity in the house of his brother-in-law, the D-1 Ramalingam and would escape from there and that he had to convey the same to his father, the A-1. By 10 o’ clock on that night, P.W.3 and A-5 to A8 went to Agraharam by walk and by about 11.30 p.m., they noted the house of the D-1. (e) In the midnight on 17. 1987, when they came to the house of the D-1, they saw three persons sleeping in the varandh’a of the house. They put out the lamp burning in the pumpset, and made A-8/2nd appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989, to stand outside the house in the road itself, to watch for any movements. A-5, A-7 (appellants in C.A. No.510 of 1989) and Thangavel took each one knife from P.W.3. The absconding accused Thangavel, stabbed D-1 Ramalingam and A-7 (2nd appellant in C.A. No.510 of 1989) stabbed Radha alias Radhakrishnan - D-3, who was sleeping down below. A-5 (1st appellant in C.A. No.510 of 1989) stabbed the D-2, the mother of D-1 Ramalingam. At that time, M.O.1 hammer also was lying nearby and the A-6 (1st appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989) used that hammer to beat the D-2 Thanjammal, the mother of D-1 Ramalingam. All the three deceased immediately died on the spot. (f) The appellants in C.A. No.510 of 1989, viz., A-5 and A-7 entered into the house and they brought a hand bag containing certain articles. All of them immediately came out and A-5 (1st appellant in C.A. No.510 of 1989) buried the knife in his hands behind the house of the D-1 Ramalingam. All of them went to the palmyrah thope, opposite to the house of the deceased and P.W.3 buried the other two knives in the thope itself. They opened the bag brought by A-7 from within the house of the deceased, and found a small bag therein containing silver anklets. All of them went to the palmyrah thope, opposite to the house of the deceased and P.W.3 buried the other two knives in the thope itself. They opened the bag brought by A-7 from within the house of the deceased, and found a small bag therein containing silver anklets. (g) On 20.7.1987, P.W.2, the Village Menial heard that the inmates of the house of Ramalingam were found murdered, and he rushed to the house of D-1 Ramalingam and saw D-1 Ramalingam, his mother D-2 Thanjammal and D-3 Radha alias Radhakrishnan, all found murdered. Immediately, he informed this to P.W.1 , the Village Administrative Officer, at 7.00 a.m., and he also came to the house of the D-1 Ramalingam and saw the three bodies of the inmates of the house lying in the pool of blood, and all the four doors of the house kept open. The bureaus also were found open and the vessels strewn within the house. Therefore, he prepared a statement - Ex.P-1 and presented the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police. (h) P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P-1, at 10.00 a.m., on 20.7.1987, registered the same in Cr.No.240 of 1987, under Secs.302 and 380, I.P.C, and prepared the Express F.I.R. - Ex.P-54 which was despatched to the court, and the copies to the superior police officers, (i) P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, received the copy of F.I.R., at 11.00 a.m., and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 11.30 a.m., on the same day. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W. 1 and another, and also drew a rough sketch -Ex.P-71 for the scene place. He conducted inquest on the body of D-2 Thanjammal between 12.00 noon and 1.30 p.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report - Ex.P-72. From 1.30 p.m., to 3.00 p.m., he conducted the inquest on the body of D-1 Ramalingam and prepared the inquest report -Ex.P-73. Between 3.00 p.m., and 4.00 p.m., he conducted the inquest on the body of D-3 Radhakrishnan, in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report-Ex.P-74. With the help of photographer - P.W. 15, photographs of the scene place were taken. Exs.P-38 to P-45 are the negatives and Exs.P-46 to 53 are the photo prints. (j) P.W.18, the Finger Print Expert also was summoned to search for the finger prints. With the help of photographer - P.W. 15, photographs of the scene place were taken. Exs.P-38 to P-45 are the negatives and Exs.P-46 to 53 are the photo prints. (j) P.W.18, the Finger Print Expert also was summoned to search for the finger prints. P.W.18, found three chance prints, one in the almirah in the room on the left handside, another on the door of the pooja room, and the third one in the almirah in the room on the right handside. With the help of P.W.15, photographs were taken for those three chance prints, after excluding the other finger prints of the deceased persons. Those three chance prints were marked as ‘VI, V2 and V3’. The chance print marked as ‘V3’ was not clear for comparison, and therefore, he prepared a report-Ex.P-67, with regard to the chance prints he detected, and the report was sent to the Superintendent. The negatives for those prints are Exs.P-55 and P-56, and the photo prints are Exs.P-57 and P-58. (k) The dead bodies of the deceased were handed over to P.W.13, Head Constable, for being taken to the Hospital for post-mortem. P.W.9, the Medical Officer, attached to Government Hospital, Thirupathur, on receipt of Ex.P-18 requisition for conducting the post-mortem, commenced the autopsy on the body of D-2 Thanjammal, at 4.30 p.m., on 20.7.1987, and found on her two incised wounds, viz., (1) a cut injury rights side 7" x 2" cranial cavity deep - extending from front of right ear, extending upwards on the right parietal region to the summit of head, cutting the temporal at the parietal bone with edge of the wound fresh. (2) Another cut injury on left side of head 6" x 2" cranial cavity deep - extending above the left ear, on the left temporal and left parietal bone, cutting the same, through which the cut - Dura was visible. The injury was fresh. The internal organs were pale. P.W.9 was of the opinion, that the deceased (D-2) would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to the head injuries, 12 to 14 hours prior to the post-mortem. Ex.P-19 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. (1) P.W.10, another Medical Officer, attached to the same Hospital commenced the post-mortem on the body of D-1 Ramalingam at 5.00 p.m., on the same day, and he found on him, the following injuries: "1. Ex.P-19 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. (1) P.W.10, another Medical Officer, attached to the same Hospital commenced the post-mortem on the body of D-1 Ramalingam at 5.00 p.m., on the same day, and he found on him, the following injuries: "1. An incised wound over the right forehead 3" x 2" bone depth. 2. A lacerated injury near left eye 2" x 2" x bone depth 3. An incised wound left neck just below 2cm. to mandible 3" x 2" bone depth 4. An incised wound just below to the wound No.3, 3" x 3" bone depth. 5. An incised wound just 1 cm./near to the wound No.4, 3" x 2" x bone depth, and 6. Another incised wound just lateral to the wound No. 5, 3"x 1" bone depth" The Doctor was of the opinion, that death was due to shock and haemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by the deceased (D-1), between 16 and 20 hours prior to the postmortem. Ex.P-20 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. (m) P.W.11, another Doctor, attached to Government Hospital, Thirupathur, commenced the post-mortem on the body of D-3 Radhakrishnan, at 5.45 p.m., and he found the following injuries: " 1. A ‘V’ shaped out injury over the right parietooccipital region, the limbs being beginning at occipital region are united at right perieto-occipital region. The limbs measure about 15 cm x 1/2 x 1-1/2 cm. depth. The edges of two limbs clean cut with sharpened edges and everted. The fractured pieces of parietal and occuipital bones are exposed through the wounds. 2. A deep cut injury over the left side of neck 5 cm below the left ear lobe measuring about 8 cm x 4 cm x 6 cm deep to the vessels. Margins are clear cut with sharp edges and everted. 3. Another cut injury oyer the chin 10 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm. Transverse flap of the skin over the neck is hanging upto the level of tracheal rights expos-ing trachea. 4. Another deep cut injury over the right side of the neck measuring about 10 x 5 x 4 cm. deep extending from the angle of mandible directing upwards and backwards upto the level of mastoid process. Neck vessels are damaged. 5. Transverse flap of the skin over the neck is hanging upto the level of tracheal rights expos-ing trachea. 4. Another deep cut injury over the right side of the neck measuring about 10 x 5 x 4 cm. deep extending from the angle of mandible directing upwards and backwards upto the level of mastoid process. Neck vessels are damaged. 5. Another cut injury measuring about 6 x 4 x 4 cm just parallel to No.4 injury over the middle of neck on the right side at the interval of 3 cm. Vessels and muscles are exposed. On dissection, brain matter exposed through injury No.1. Skull: The transverse fracture extended from the point i.e., 5 cm above the right ear upto the point 10 cm above the left ear. Fractured pieces of parietal and occipital bones are removed. Brain substance and blood extravasation seen. No fracture of base of skull. Clots seen over the base of skull." P.W.11 was of the opinion, that the death was due to shock haemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained between 18 and 20 hours prior to the autopsy. Ex.P-21 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. (n) The inspector of Police-P.W.19, who was in the scene of occurrence, seizure M.Os.2 to 4, viz., a koraimat, pillow and bloodstained earth in the presence of P.W. 1 and another, at about 4.15 p.m., on that day under the mahazar Ex.P-3. By 4.30 p.m., he seized the blood-clots under Ex.P-4 mahazar, in the presence of the witnesses. M.O-1 hammer was lying near the body of D-2 Thanjammal and P.W.19 seized this M.O-1 hammer also under Ex.P-5 mahazar. At 5.00 p.m.,he recovered the blood-clots in the place where the body of D-3 was lying and M.O-5 another mat and M.O.6 pillow under Ex.P-6 mahazar. At 5.30 p.m. he recovered the keys -M.Os.7 to 9, in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P-7 Mahazar and M.O-10 - lock under Ex.P-8 mahazar. .(o) P.W.13, after post-mortem recovered the clothes worn by the deceased, the bangles, nosescrews, bed-sheet, M.Os.16 to 26, from the body of the deceased, and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police, who received them under a special report-Ex.P-27. The Inspector of Police, sent a requisition-Ex.P-28 to the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, for causing the blood-stained articles M.Os.l to 6, M.Os.16, 17, 20 to 26, to be sent to the forensic laboratory for chemical examination. The Inspector of Police, sent a requisition-Ex.P-28 to the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, for causing the blood-stained articles M.Os.l to 6, M.Os.16, 17, 20 to 26, to be sent to the forensic laboratory for chemical examination. The Judicial Magistrate, sent the above M.Os. with his covering letter Ex.P-29. The forensic laboratory sent the report Ex.P-30 and the seriologist’s report Ex.P-31. .(p) In the meanwhile, the accused and P.W.3 after committing the offences, came to Jolarpet, and from there, they reached Harur via. Thirupathur. They stayed in the room of P.W.3. When they opened the box brought from the house of the deceased, they found four pairs of silver anklets-M.O-14 series and 5 nose-screws-M.O.15 series. P.W.3 and Thangavelu want to Dharmapuri and sold the jewels to P.W.7, who is having a jewellery shop, for Rs.2,300. P.W.3 gave Rs.500 to Thangavelu, and Rs.20 each to A5 to A-8. Thangavelu complained that the A-1 had deceived them by giving false information as though there was huge sum and jewels in the house of D-1 Ramalingam, and that they should ask the A-1 about that. A-5 to A-8 left for their places and one month later, Thangavel and P.W.3 came to the A-1 and asked him, as to how he gave wrong information, with regard to the cash and jewels in the house of the D-1. A-1 replied them that he informed them only from the information he gathered. Thangavel demanded Rs.10,000 as remuneration for the murder committed by him. But the A-1 promised to give Rs.2,000 in one week. P.W.3 and Thangavel returned to Adiyamankottai and some time later, P.W.3 was deputed by Thangavel for collecting the money from A-1. Though P.W.3 repeatedly met the A-1 for money, he could not get anything from him. On one occasion he left a letter-Ex.P-9 with A-2, the wife of A-1, with a request to hand over the same to the A-1. As. there was no response from A-1, P.W.3 sent another letter by post-Ex.P-10, requesting A-1 to pay the amount due to them. (q) P.W.19 continued the investigation. On 29. 1987 at 10.30 A.M. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, Adiyamankottai, arrested A-8 (the 2nd appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989), in connection with the case in Crl.No.186 of 1987 of his police station. Next day, i.e. on 29. (q) P.W.19 continued the investigation. On 29. 1987 at 10.30 A.M. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, Adiyamankottai, arrested A-8 (the 2nd appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989), in connection with the case in Crl.No.186 of 1987 of his police station. Next day, i.e. on 29. 1987 at about 7.30 a.m., he arrested Thangavel also in the same crime number, At 12.00 midnight, he arrested A-7 also. On interrogation, he came to know that these accused persons were connected with Cr.No.240 of 1987 of Nattraampalli Police Station, and therefore, he gave wire-less message to P.W.19, about the involvement of these persons in the above said crime Number, (r) P.W.19, received this message at 2.00 p.m., on 29. 1987, and proceeded to the house of the A-l. He saw the A-1 reading Ex.P.9 letter and attempted to cancel the same, on seeing him. Therefore, he seized that letter -Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.4 and another under - Ex.P1 2 mahazar. He came to know from that letter, that his wife and daughter also were involved in the crime, and therefore, he arrested them also at 6.00 p.m., on the same day, he arrested the A-4 also. He proceeded to Adiyamankottai,. to examine P.W.17 and after examining him he obtained the finger prints of A-7 through the Head Constable 260, who obtained the finger prints-Ex.P-60 in his presence. As A-8 was already sent for remand, he could not obtain his finger prints. On 30.9.1987, he went to Jeeva Nagar, Eachattyhalli the place of residence of A-5, and in the early hours at 1.00 a.m., on 10. 1987, he arrested A-5 (1st appellant in C.A. No.510 of 1989). He was brought to the police station and A-5, on interrogation gave a statement voluntarily in the presence of P.W.5 and another, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-13. He took the police officer and the witnesses to a place, north of the house of D-1 Ramalingam, and took out one of the knives of M.Os.11 to 13, which was kept buried near a mango tree. P.W.19 seized this knife under the mahazar-Ex.P-14. The Head Constable 673, obtained the finger prints of A-5 in his presence. Ex.P59 is the finger print of A-5. (s) The Inspector of Police went to the house of A-1 and saw P.W.3 talking to Shanmugham, son of A-1. P.W.19 seized this knife under the mahazar-Ex.P-14. The Head Constable 673, obtained the finger prints of A-5 in his presence. Ex.P59 is the finger print of A-5. (s) The Inspector of Police went to the house of A-1 and saw P.W.3 talking to Shanmugham, son of A-1. P.W.3 was arrested in the presence of P.W.6 and his statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-11, also was recorded. Shanmugham, the son of A-l, was keeping a latter - Ex.P-10 with him, land P.W. 19 on seeing this letter having incriminating evidence, seized the same under Ex.P.16, in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.3 took the police officers and the witnesses by 1.30 p.m., to the palmyrah tree, where he took out two knives, which were kept buried in the earth. P.W. 19 seized the knives under Ex.P-15 mahazar. .(t) At 5.30 p.m., on that day, he took the police party took the shop of P.W.7, in Dharmapuri, where M.Os. 14 and 15 jewels were sold. P.W.7 produced the jewels before the police and the Inspector of Police seized the same under the mahazar. Ex.P-17, attested by P.W.8 and another. The Inspector of Police, obtained the specimen signature - Ex.P-76 of P.W.3. .(u) As-P.W.3 offered to confess, P.W.19 sent a requisition-Ex.P-75 to the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, for recording the statement of P.W.3. He sent the specimen finger prints Exs.P-59 and P-60 to the finger print expert P.W.18 for comparison. The seized knives were sent to the court along with Ex.-10 Inland letter, and the Inspector of Police, sent a requisition Ex.P-32 to send the Specimen signature -Ex.P-76 and the knives for forensic examination, .(v) As P.W.3 confessed his guilt before the Magistrate, the requisition Ex.P-22 was sent to P.W.12 to tender pardon to P.W.3, P.W.12, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, directed P.W.3 to produce before him, and he was produced on 11. 1987. After following the necessary formalities he ordered tendering pardon to P.W.3. Exs.P-23 to P-25 are the proceedings relating to the tendering of pardon to P.W.3 and Ex.P-26 is the order dated 11. 1987, tendering pardon. .(w) The Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, forwarded the knives M.Os.11 to 13 to the forensic laboratory along with his covering letter - Ex.P.33 for chemical examination and the forensic laboratory sent the report Ex.P.34 along with serologist’s report Ex.P.35. 1987, tendering pardon. .(w) The Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, forwarded the knives M.Os.11 to 13 to the forensic laboratory along with his covering letter - Ex.P.33 for chemical examination and the forensic laboratory sent the report Ex.P.34 along with serologist’s report Ex.P.35. The Judicial Magistrate, caused to send the letters Exs.P-9 and P-10 to the forensic laboratory with his covering letter Ex.P-37. .(x) P.W.15, after receiving the specimen finger prints of A-5 and A-7 viz., Exs.P-59 and P-60, took the photographs of these finger prints. Exs.P-63 and P-64 are the photographed, for which the negatives are Exs.P.61 and 62. He enlarged the photos which are Ex.P-65 and P-66, for the purpose of comparison, (y) P.W. 18, compared the chance prints Exs.P-57 and P-58 with the enlarged specimen prints of A-5 and A-7 marked as Exs.P-65 and Ex.P-66 and he found the specimen print Ex.P-60 of A-7’taIlying with Ex.P-65 and the specimen print Ex.P-59 of A-5 tallying with Ex.P-66. Exs.P-68 and P-69 are the reports prepared by P.W.18. He also prepared a report Exs.P-70, giving the details as to the points of identity on his comparison of the finger prints, .(z) The Inspector of Police continued the investigation and he came to know that A-6 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, on 111. 1987. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet on 111. 1987. 3. After the committal of this case, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, framed charges against these appellants for the offences under Sec.l20-B, I.P.C., against all the accused, under Sec.302 read with Sec.396, I.P.C., against A-5 to A-7, under Sec.302, I.P.C., read with Sec.109, read with Sec.395, I.P.C., against A-1, A-4 and A-8 and under Sec.395, I.P.C, against A-5 to A-7 and under Sec.395 read with Sec. 109, I.P.C. against A-1, A-4 and A-8. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty of the offences. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, examined 19 witnesses and after considering the oral and documentary evidence has concluded that A-2 and A-3 were not guilty of the charges and acquitted them. A-1 and A-4 who are the appellants in C.A. No.474 of 1989 were found guilty of the offences under Secs.120-B, 395 read with 109, for which they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years, for each of the offences. A-1 and A-4 who are the appellants in C.A. No.474 of 1989 were found guilty of the offences under Secs.120-B, 395 read with 109, for which they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years, for each of the offences. A-5 to A-7 who are the appellants in C.A. No.510 of 1989 and 1st appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989, were found guilty under Secs.396, 120-B and 395, I.P.C, For these offences, learned Sessions Judge, imposed the life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.396, I.P.C., R.I. for five years for the offences under Secs.120-B and 395, I.P.C., each and has not imposed any separate punishment for the offences under Secs.302, I.P.C. A-8, the 2nd appellant in C.A. No.477 of 1989, was found guilty for the offences under Secs.396 read with 109, I.P.C., Sec.302 read with 109 and 120-B, I.P.C. for which he was directed to undergo life imprisonment for the first offence, viz., under Sec.396 read with Sec. 109, I.P.C. and R.I. for five years for offence under Sec.120-B, I.P.C. In respect of the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec. 109, I.P.C, no separate punishment was imposed. In respect of the other charges against the appellants in C.A. No.477 of 1989, they were not found guilty and acquitted of those charges. It is against those convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants have come forward with these appeals separately. 5. As all these three appeals arise from the common judgment they were heard together, and common judgment is passed in these appeals. 6. The D-1 Ramalingam is none-else than the son-in-law of A-1 and brother-in-law of A4 (the appellants 1 and 2 in C.A. No.474 of 1989). From the evidence it appears that the distance between their villages is only about 12 Kms., and P.W.3 the approver has mentioned about the complaint made by A-1 to him about his son-in-law, as there was incompatibility between D-1 and his daughter. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that only at the instigation of A-1 (the first appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989) and to the knowledge of A-4 (2nd appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989), he took the assistance of the absconding accused Thangavelu, who is a naxalite, and the other accused for attacking the deceased persons. 7. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that only at the instigation of A-1 (the first appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989) and to the knowledge of A-4 (2nd appellant in C.A. No.474 of 1989), he took the assistance of the absconding accused Thangavelu, who is a naxalite, and the other accused for attacking the deceased persons. 7. It was argued by learned counsel Mr.D. Krishnan, appearing for the appellants in C.A. No.474 of 1989, that even if A-1 was not happy about his son-in-law, it is too much to say that he instigated P.W.3 to commit dacoity in the house of his own son-in-law, and also commit murders of all the inmates in the house, and no father will aspire for his daughter becoming a widow, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that he along with others committed the dacoity, and murders on the direction of the appellants in C.A. No/474 of 1989 cannot be true, He further aruged that P.W.4 in his evidence has admitted that A-1 with his family attended the funeral of the D-1 Ramalingam, on the next day of the occurrence, and if the occurrence itself had taken place at his direction, he would not have participated in the funeral event, and therefore, the entire evidence of P.W.3 is quite artificial. He further argued that when his daughter is entitled to the properties owned by D-1 Ramalingam, as wife of D-1, A-1 would not have directed P.W.3 to take away the entire 80 sovereigns of jewels and cash of Rs.20,000 available in the house of D-1, depriving the valuable movables in the house, and no father-in-law, would do such which would bomerang only on his own daughter, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is nothing by tutored for the purpose of this case. .8. No doubt normally a father-in-law may not be willing to take the life of his son-in-law, for the reason that his daughter was not able to live amicably with her husband, unless there was deep seated enmity between them, and it was made impossible for the daughter to join her husband. .8. No doubt normally a father-in-law may not be willing to take the life of his son-in-law, for the reason that his daughter was not able to live amicably with her husband, unless there was deep seated enmity between them, and it was made impossible for the daughter to join her husband. But, in this case, from the evidence of P.W.3, what it appears is, as the D-1 Ramalingam was a man of means, he was behaving arrogantly, without giving proper respect to his father-in-law, apart from incompatibility with his wife, and therefore the father-in-law seems to have complained to P.W.3, that the arrogance of his son-in-law, on account of his wealth should be plateaued. As P.W.3 was already having contact with the naxalite group with whom he was in prison, and they also had the plan to jointly commit robbery, probably P.W.3 taking advantage of this complaint made by the 1st appellant in C.A.No.474 of 1989, wanted to achieve his object of plundering the house of D-1 Ramalingam for their own gain. 9. As three persons viz., D-1 Ramalingam, his mother (D-2) and his sister’s son (D-3) were sleeping outside the house, this group had to encounter those persons before they made entry in to the house, and during that encounter, they seems to have murdered all these three persons. The sketch prepared by P.W.19 shows, that the house of the D-1 is a lonely house, far away from other houses in the village, and therefore, the culprits who were in large numbers, found it easy to overcome the inmates of the house, when especially, there were only two male members and murdered them with the weapons in their hands. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3, that A-1 had given direction to him, to deal with the D-1, could not have been for murdering him and the inmates of the house, but only to teach him a lesson by exercising some violence on them, which seems to have been taken advantage of by the culprits, for taking out their lives. 10. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3, that A-1 had given direction to him, to deal with the D-1, could not have been for murdering him and the inmates of the house, but only to teach him a lesson by exercising some violence on them, which seems to have been taken advantage of by the culprits, for taking out their lives. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989, submitted his argument, that P.W.3 is a man of bad character, admittedly as he had previously engaged in smuggling the sandalwood pellets and also had participated in this occurrence, his evidence, even if accepted that alone is not sufficient, to convict the appellants and in this case, absolutely there is no independent evidence against the appellants in these two appeals, in any form, either direct or circumstantial, and therefore, these appellants cannot be convicted and the findings of the court below in so far as these appellants are concerned, has to be set aside. .11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Anbazhagan, referred to Exs.P-9 and P-10, the two letters said to have been recovered from the premises of the appellants in C.A.No.474 of 1989 have a connecting link with P.W.3 and barring these two letters, there is no other evidence against these appellants. The learned trial Judge, has considered these two documents, and has found that they have been created for the purpose of this case, probably after the arrest of P.W.3, on a cursory look at the contents of Ex.P-9, it is patent that this document would not have been written in normal course, even by a hard-core criminal, who was accustomed to commit murders. In Ex.P-9 it is mentioned that for committing the murder, the amount due to P.W.3, and the absconding accused Thangavelu, has not been paid by A-1, inspite of the repeated demands, by them in person and also through letters, and the amount promised viz., Rs.2,000 payable soon after the murders also has not been paid, and therefore, the amount should be paid within two days, otherwise, A-1 had to face the problem. As mentioned above, even for argument’s sake, if it is accepted, that P.W.3, and others were engaged by the A-1, the first appellant in C.A.No.474 of 1989, to commit the murder of D-1 Ramalingam, we feel that P.W.3 would not so openly admit that he along with Thangavelu had committed the murders as per the direction, and therefore, the wages for the commission of murder should be paid to them within two days. Having committed such a crime, P.W.3 would not commit himself in writing that he along with another person, committed the murders, when especially, the first appellant in C.A.No.474 of 1989, was dodging to pay the wages for the execution of murders. When Ex.P-9 was written on 29. 1987, and two days’ time was given in the fetter itself, there was no hurry for P.W.3 to send Ex.P-10 inland letter on the very next day itself, to the 1st appellant in C.A.No.474 of 1989. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, was justified in drawing the inference that these two letters are concoctions of the prosecution, only to use these letters as connecting links with the first appellant in C.A.No.474 of 1989, and his family members. We find, no reasons to differ from this view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, and we concur that, Exs.P-9 and P-10 letters would not have been in existence, as’ mentioned by the prosecution, and they are creations with ulterior object. .12. Once Exs.P-9 and P-10 are eschewed, as fairly conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no other independent evidence against the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.No.477 of 1989, would point out that even the medical testimony is not supporting the evidence of P.W.3, because, P.W.3, in his evidence would say that M.O-1, hammer was used by A-6 to beat the D-2 Thanjammal on her head, whereas the Doctor P.W.9 says that all the injuries found on the head of D-2 were incised wounds, and he has not stated in his evidence, that a weapon like a hammer, could have been used to back the head of the deceased. But, P.W.3 has spoken in his evidence, that he switched off the lights, when A-6 took the hammer in his hand. But, P.W.3 has spoken in his evidence, that he switched off the lights, when A-6 took the hammer in his hand. He also would say that he did not know at which part of D-2, A-6 gave the blow with M.O. 1, Hammer. It is also possible, that as A-5 had dealt with D-2 Thanjammal, by inflicting fatal injuries. A-6 might not have used M.O-1 hammer on the head of D-2 Thanjammal. Probably, for the reason that A-6 took M.O-1 hammer in his hand, P.W.3 might have had the impression that A-6 also should have joined with A-5 in attacking the D-2 Thanjammal. As the occurrence had taken place in the utter darkness, the evidence of P.W.3 that A-6 used M.O-1 hammer on D-2 Thanjammal is only a surmise, as he concedes that he did not know at which part the hammer was used. The forensic test has revealed that M.O-1 hammer contained the human blood. As it has been stated that this hammer was lying near the persons who were murdered, the blood, that had spilled over might have falen on this hammer, and this might, have been detected in the forensic examination, and therefore, there is no evidence to hold that M.O-1 hammer was used against the D-2 Thanjammal. 13. As against A-8 (2nd appellant in C.A.No.477 of 1989), the only piece of evidence available is that he was asked to stand at some distance in the road by the other accused, for the purpose of watching the movements of anybody nearing the house: Except, that there is no other evidence against him, and even for this aspect, there is no corroboration in any manner. 14. As conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, except the sole testimony of P.W.3, connecting the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989, there is no other evidence on record, worthy to consider as a corroborative piece of evidence. .15. Courts have repeatedly held that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, when admittedly, he is a man of bad character, and there should be corroboration in material particulars. .15. Courts have repeatedly held that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, when admittedly, he is a man of bad character, and there should be corroboration in material particulars. In volume 86 (1917) King’s Bench Division P-28, in the case of Rex v. Baskerville, the court of Criminal Appeal, England, has held that in the case of the approvers, the evidence in corroboration must be form independent testimony which affects the accused, by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime, and it must be the evidence which implicates the accused - that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but also that the prisoner committed it. The Court of Appeal observes that "it would be in a high degree dangerous to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as corroboration except to say that corroborative evidence which shews or tends to shew that the story of the accomplice that the accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it was committed by the accused." 16. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1957) M.W.N. (Crl.) S.C. 40, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is that appreciation of an approver’s evidence has to satisfy a double test, that his evidence must show that he is a reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all witnesses and if this test is satisfied the second test which still remains to be applied is that the approver’s evidence must receive sufficient corroboration. The Privy Council also in Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, 1949 M.W.N. (Crl.) 116 would observe that "the danger of acting upon accomplice evidence is not merely that the accomplice is on his own admission a man of had character; the real danger is that he is telling a story which in its general outline is true, and it is easy for him to work in to the story matter which is untrue, and therefore, the only real safeguard against the risk of condemning the innocent with the guilty lies in insisting upon independent evidence which in some measure implicates each accused. .17. .17. From the above view, it is needless to say that corroboration, is a must, at least in the material particulars to act upon the evidence of an accomplice. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, referring to the decision in Dagdu and others etc. v. State of Maharastra, 1977 Crl.L.J. 1206: A.I.R. 1977 S.C.1579 would argue that under Sec.133 of the Evidence Act, an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person and the conviction is not illegal, merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Even in the decision cited by him, though the principle under Sec.133 of the Evidence Act, is referred to, the Supreme Court would emphasis that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice unless the evidence is corroborated in material particulars, which is meant that, there has to be some independent evidence tending to incriminate the particular accused in the commission of the crime. The Apex Court would observe that reading Sec.133 of the Evidence Act and also Sec.114 of the Evidence Act, the position which emerges is that though an accomplice is a competent witness and though a conviction may lawfully rest upon his uncorroborated testimony, yet the Court is entitled to presume and may indeed be justified in presuming in the generality of cases that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an accomplice, and it is hazardous, as a matter of prudence, to proceed upon the evidence of a self-confessed criminal, who, in so far as an approver is concerned, has to testify in terms of the pardon tendered to him, and therefore, the risk involved in convicting the accused on the testimony of an accomplice, unless it is corroborated in material particulars, is so real and potent. Therefore, this decision helps only the appellants rather than the prosecution. 18. Another decision of the Apex Court, cited by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in Shankar alias Gauri Shankar and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 478 , also is supporting the contention of the appellants, that the corroboration is a must at least in material particulars, though not for each and every aspect of the case. 18. Another decision of the Apex Court, cited by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in Shankar alias Gauri Shankar and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 4 S.C.C. 478 , also is supporting the contention of the appellants, that the corroboration is a must at least in material particulars, though not for each and every aspect of the case. The Apex Court here also referred to Secs.133 and 114 of the Evidence Act and would state that Sec.133 of the Evidence Act lays down that the conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal, but the rule of guidance indicated in Illustration (b) to Sec.114 of the Act, has resulted in the settled practice to require corroboration of evidence of an accomplice and which has now virtually assumed the force of a rule of law. It observes that “coming to the extent and nature of corroboration, the Courts have held that ordinarily the approver’s statement has to be corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the criminal and furnishing the need and assurance for acceptance of his testimony. The corroboration need not be a kind which proves the offence against an accused and it would be sufficient if it connects the accused with the crime. What is required is that there should be sufficient corroborative evidence to show that the approver is speaking the truth with regard to the accused whom he seeks to implicate. Such corroboration should be on material particulars and was each accused. But it is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance and it need not consist of evidence which standing alone would be sufficient to justify the conviction.” .19. The principles laid down in the above cases make it compulsory on the part of the Courts to search for independent evidence, at least in material particulars to corroborate the evidence of the approver. In this case, as mentioned above, either for the participation of the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 of 477 of 1989, in the conspiracy or in the actual commission, there is an iota of independent evidence, to hold that these appellants also were parties to the occurrence. Without any corroborative piece of evidence, the approver’s evidence alone is not sufficient to record the conviction against the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989. Without any corroborative piece of evidence, the approver’s evidence alone is not sufficient to record the conviction against the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found these appellants also are guilty of the offences, as the findings do not satisfy the requirements of law, to record the conviction against these appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989, we are constrained to hold that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, convicting the appellants in C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989 is erroneous. Therefore, in so far as those appellants are concerned, the appeals have to be allowed and they are to be set at liberty. .20. The appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989 were the accused Nos.5 and 7 before the trial court, P.W.3 has stated that on the date of occurrence, they also accompanied him upto Naiyakaneri from where they went to the house of the deceased persons and A-5 stabbed D-2 Thanjammal with a knife provided by him, while A-7 stabbed D-3 Radhakrishnan. It was also stated by him that these two persons entered in the house and brought the jewels M.Os.14 & 15, and A-5 buried one of the knives used by him for stabbing D-2 Thanjammal. It was argued for these appellants by learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu, that M.Os.14 and 15 though recovered from P.W.7 they have not been identified by anyone, claiming ownership or saying that they are stolen articles and therefore, it cannot be accepted that these appellants handed over these stolen goods to P.W.3. It is true that no-one has identified and claimed these items, stating that they were stolen from the house of D-1. But, it should be borne in mind that the D-1 Ramalingam was living with his mother D-2 and the close relation D-3 Radhakrishnan. All the inmates of the house of D-1, were murdered. No-doubt, A-3, the wife of D-1 Ramalingam, as stated by P.W.3 was living in her father’s house, at the time of occurrence, on account of the incompatibility. Further she was also arrested and prosecuted on allegation of conspiracy. As none in the family is left alive, and A-3 also was prosecuted, there was no one to come and identify these items as the jewels of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of anyone to identify these items as stolen goods may not affect the prosecution case. Further she was also arrested and prosecuted on allegation of conspiracy. As none in the family is left alive, and A-3 also was prosecuted, there was no one to come and identify these items as the jewels of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of anyone to identify these items as stolen goods may not affect the prosecution case. But P.W.3 has sold these items to P.W.7, and if these items belong to P.W.3 himself, he would not have stated to the police that they were stolen goods. Therefore, it has to be taken from the evidence of P.W.-3 that M.Os.14 and 15 are the stolen goods, taken from the house of the deceased. 21. One another contention raised by the learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu, to falsify the evidence of P.W.3 is that he did not identify the knife buried by A-5, behind the house of D-1 Ramalingam. According to learned counsel, when all of them had jointly committed the theft, P.W.3 should have known the burial of the knife by A-5, and he could have pointed out this knife, even at that time, when he was arrested on 10. 1987, but he pointed out only the other two knives buried in the palmyrah thope, omitting to point out this knife, and therefore, P.W.3’s evidence cannot be believed. But on a perusal of evidence of P.W.3, we find, that A-5, after the commission of the offence, he himself had buried the knife, which was in his hands, behind the house of the D-1 Ramalingam, and later he informed P.W.3 that he had buried that knife. As it was night time, there was no chance for P.W.3 to see A-5, When he was burying the knife. Therefore, he was not in a position to point out the knife, buried by A-5, after his arrest on 10. 1987. 22. One another point raised against the evidence of P.W.3 is that he was not examined in the committal court. It is true that his evidence is not marked as exhibit. But, in the committal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in paragraphs 5 and 6, he has mentioned that the approver was examined and his evidence was recorded under Sec.306(4), Cr.P.C, and his evidence, in no way contradicts his statement under Sec.164, Cr.P.C, given before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur. But, in the committal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in paragraphs 5 and 6, he has mentioned that the approver was examined and his evidence was recorded under Sec.306(4), Cr.P.C, and his evidence, in no way contradicts his statement under Sec.164, Cr.P.C, given before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur. Therefore, it is clear from the committal order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, that P.W.3 has been examined in the committal Court. Hence this alleged infirmity also is not true. 23. One another point raised is that in the sketch Ex.P-71, it is shown that D-2 Thanjammal, was murdered on the southern side of the house, near the kitchen, and dragged to the northern side where the other bodies were lying, and in the observation mahazar-Ex.P-2 also, the presence of blood clots from Kitchen upto the residential portion of the house, on the northern side is mentioned, but in the evidence, P.W.3 would say that Thangavel, A-5 and A-7 stabbed the three deceased, as though they were sleeping close to each other, and on account of this inconsistency, the evidence of .P.W.3 is untrustworthy. The kitchen is part of the house situated on the southern side. P.W.3 in his evidence has not specifically mentioned that all the three deceased persons were sleeping together in one place. He would simply say that Thangavel, A-5 and A-7 took each one knife and they stabbed all the three persons, who were sleeping there. Therefore, it cannot be taken that D-2 Thanjammal was sleeping in the place, where her body was lying. Probably, after the murder, one of them could have dragged her body to the northern side and this might not have been noted by P.W.3 in the darkness. Anyhow, the sketch itself shows that all these three persons were murdered in the open varandha, inside the house. The evidence of P.W.3 does not show any inconsistency with reference to Ex.P-71 rough sketch, and therefore, it cannot be argued, that the evidence of P.W.3 is unreliable. 24. As discussed about the evidence of P.W.3, we find no reasons to reject the testimony of P.W.3 as he has narrated the circumstances, under which he came into contact with the absconding accused Thangavel, while he was a prisoner in Harur Sub-Jail, and the conspiracy hatched out to commit robbery whenever money was required for them. 24. As discussed about the evidence of P.W.3, we find no reasons to reject the testimony of P.W.3 as he has narrated the circumstances, under which he came into contact with the absconding accused Thangavel, while he was a prisoner in Harur Sub-Jail, and the conspiracy hatched out to commit robbery whenever money was required for them. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that the absconding accused-Thangavel is a notorious naxalite, involved in other cases. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.3, it is made clear that he hatched out a plot with Thangavel, to commit dacoity in the house of D-1 Ramalingam, as he came to know from A-1, that he was a well to do man, owning properties. Richness of D-1 Ramalingam appears to have tempted P.W.3 and Thangavel to take the aid of the others, for committing dacoity, in which course, they had killed three persons in the house. The evidence of P.W.3 also finds corroboration from the other circumstances, which we dealt with above. Therefore, P.W.3 has satisfied the test that he is a reliable witness in respect of the participation of these appellants, in the crime. 25. No doubt as found above, the evidence of P.W.3 alone is not sufficient to uphold the conviction and there must be corroboration by independent evidence in material particulars. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Anbazahan, submitted that in so far as these appellants are concerned, there are materials available for corroboration. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the recovery of the weapon on the confession of the A-5, the presence of the finger prints of the A-5 in the place of occurrence, are sufficient materials to satisfy the requirement of law for corroboration. He also would argue, the finger print of A-7 also was found inside the room, in the almirah, that the medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of P.W.3, that the deceased persons were stabbed by knife, namely, M.Os.11 to 13, as the injuries found on the bodies of the deceased were incised wounds, and these pieces of evidence would corroborate the testimony of P.W.3, in material particulars, and therefore, there is sufficient evidence against these appellants in this case. 26. P.W.5 has spoken about the confession of A-5 viz., the first appellant in C.A.No.510 of 1989 and his arrest and the recovery of one of the knives among M.Os.11 to 13, under the mahazarEx.P-14. 26. P.W.5 has spoken about the confession of A-5 viz., the first appellant in C.A.No.510 of 1989 and his arrest and the recovery of one of the knives among M.Os.11 to 13, under the mahazarEx.P-14. The forensic report-Ex.P-35 shows that all the three bill books including that of the bill book seized on the confession of A-5, contained the human blood. The Medical Officer-P.W.9, in his evidence would say that the injuries sustained by the D-2 Thanjammal, were all incised wounds, likely to have been caused by the weapons shown to him before Court, viz., M.Os.11 to 13. Therefore, the recovery of the weapons at the instance of A-5 is an important material, corroborating the testimony of P.W.3. 27. In addition to these facts, the most important piece of evidence is the presence of the finger prints of the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989, in the house of the deceased. P.W.15 and P.W.18 have spoken about this. P.W.18 is the finger print expert, and he said that after eliminating some finger prints found in the house of the deceased, he found three chance prints, photographed by P.W.15 and marked as Exs.P-57 and P-58, as another print was not so clear for comparison, on account of which it was omitted to be compared. They were enlarged by P.W.15 for comparison and these enlargements are Exs.P-65 and P-66. P.W.15, in his evidence would say that one of the prints was found in the door of the almirah and the other print was found in the door of the poojaa room and the third one in the almirah of another room. After the arrest of these appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989, the specimen finger prints were taken from these appellants by the Inspector of Police P.W.19, through the police Constable and Head Constable. According to P.W.19, Ex.P-59 is the specimen finger print of A-5, the first appellant in C.A.No.510 of 1989, and Ex.P-60is the specimen finger print of A-7, the 2nd appellant in C.A.No.510 of 1989. They were also enlarged by P.W.15 and Exs.P-63 and P-64 are the enlarged photo copies of the specimen prints. P.W.18 would say that on comparison, he found eight identical characters with their relative position in these prints, and therefore, he was of the opinion that those prints ‘VI and V2’ are the finger prints of A-5 and A-7 i.e., the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989. 28. P.W.18 would say that on comparison, he found eight identical characters with their relative position in these prints, and therefore, he was of the opinion that those prints ‘VI and V2’ are the finger prints of A-5 and A-7 i.e., the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989. 28. Soon after observing the chance prints in the scene of occurrence, P.W.18, after taking the photographs of these prints through P.W.15, prepared a report Ex.P-67 and sent the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 27. 1987, and the same was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Ambur on 8. 1987. P.W.18 found ‘V1 &V2’ on 20.7.1987. These appellants (A-5 and A-7) were arrested only on 10. 1987 and 27. 1987 respectively. As the availability of those prints shown as V1, V2 and V3 were reported to the superior police officer on 27. 1987 itself and the report also reached the Court on 8. 1987, much earlier to the arrest of the appellants (A-5 and A-7), nothing can be said against the evidence of P.W.18. Though a report alone has been forwarded to the superior officer, without the copies of photographs of the chance prints, we feel, that it is always desirable for the police to send the report along with the photo copies of the chance prints, to avoid unnecessary criticism, in such matters of lifting the finger prints. It is often contended that the specimen prints taken later, were utilised as chance prints by the police by some means. To avoid such criticism, it is always better for the police, to forward the photo copies of the chance prints also along with the report prepared by the expert. 29. After comparison, of the chance prints and specimen prints, P.W.18 sent the comparison reports Exs.P-68 and P-69, and a detained report with regard to the identical character under Ex.P-70. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Anbazahan, relying upon a decision of the Apex Court, In Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1183 would argue that the competent technician, after examining the finger prints can give his opinion, with regard to the identify of the persons, and if it is accepted eight or even less identical characteristics in an appropriate case can be accepted for the identity of the person. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 Crl.L.J. 1386: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1708 also, the Apex Court took the view that the science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt. Therefore, the finger print is a developed, science, which can be safely relied upon to identify the person. .30. If is the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that as the finger prints of these two appellants were found within the house of the deceased, especially, in the almirah and poojaa room, and it shows that they opened the door of the almirah in search of the valuables and in view of the decisions of the Apex Court, that these finger prints can be relied upon to identify the person, the entry of these appellants into the house of the deceased, on the date of occurrence is well established, and therefore, they are participants of the occurrence. But the learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu raised series of arguments in connection with the presence of the finger prints. 31. According to learned counsel for the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989, the persons who took the finger prints from these appellants have not been examined, and therefore, there is no proof to accept that these finger prints are that of the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989. He would further argue that Ex.P-59 is attested by one P.C.318, on 10. 1987, whereas Ex.P-60 specimen finger print is attested by one H.C. 260 on 29. 1987, that the Inspector of Police P. W. 19 has not attested at the time of taking the finger prints, and therefore, it cannot be accepted that these prints are that of the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989. He also would argue that though P.W.19, in his evidence would say that one H.C.673 had obtained the finger prints from A-5 in Ex.P-59, actually one.P.C-318 has attested the same, and therefore, the evidence of P.W.19 for taking the finger prints in his presence cannot be true. 32. P.W.19 would stay that soon after the message, which is received from Adiyamankottai Police Station, he proceeded to Adiyamankottai along with H.C.260 on 29. 1987 and in the police Station of Adiyamankottai, he directed the Head Constable 260, to take the finger prints of A-7 and the same was taken in his presence as Ex.P-60. 32. P.W.19 would stay that soon after the message, which is received from Adiyamankottai Police Station, he proceeded to Adiyamankottai along with H.C.260 on 29. 1987 and in the police Station of Adiyamankottai, he directed the Head Constable 260, to take the finger prints of A-7 and the same was taken in his presence as Ex.P-60. He also would say that A-5 was arrested in his, village, and brought to police station on 10. 1987, and he directed the H.C.673 to obtain the finger prints of A-5 and the same was taken in his presence, which is Ex.P-59. No doubt, Ex.P-59 is not attested by H.C. 673, but only P.C-318. Anyhow, the evidence of P.W.19 is that these finger prints were taken on his direction. As finger prints of A-5 was taken in the police station at Natrampalli naturally P.W.19, being the Inspector of Police of the concerned police station should have been present, as mentioned by him. P.W.19 would say that for proceeding to Adiyamankottai, he had made entries in the station general diary. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his presence in Adiyamankottai on 29. 1987 and for his presence in Natrampalli police Station on 10. 1987. 33. For the reason that he has not attested Ex.P-59 and P-60, it cannot be straight away held that he should not have been present, when especially, P.W.19 says that at his direction, these finger prints were taken by his subordinates. Even though, actually P.C-318 had taken the finger prints from A-5 as P.W.19 gave his evidence, nearly two years after the occurrence, he might have forgotten the person who took the finger prints from A-5. Therefore, it may not make any-dent in the prosecution case to disbelieve the taking of finger prints from these appellants. No doubt, it was suggested, at the time of cross examination to P.W.19, that Exs.P-59 and P-60 are not that of these appellants. The copies of the reports. Exs.P-68 to P-70 were already furnished to the accused/ appellants, even at the time of the committal proceedings. Therefore, naturally, the response of these appellants would be to inform the Sessions Court, when they faced the trial, that their finger prints were not taken by the police, and they were prepared to give their finger prints in the Court to falsify the specimen prints, said to have been taken from them. Therefore, naturally, the response of these appellants would be to inform the Sessions Court, when they faced the trial, that their finger prints were not taken by the police, and they were prepared to give their finger prints in the Court to falsify the specimen prints, said to have been taken from them. But the appellants kept quite till, P.W. 19, the last witness was examined, and in the cross examination, it was suggested to P.W.19, disowning the, specimen prints. 34. No doubt it is not for the accused persons to disprove the prosecution case. But this is a peculiar circumstance, in which the prosecution says that the specimen finger prints were taken for comparison. If really, it was not so, it would not be very easy for the accused persons to offer their finger prints in the court so that, if what they said is true, the whole case would have been bombarded and falsified in a moment. Therefore, from this conduct of the appellant, we feel, that the contention taken in the last moment, disowning the specimen prints is only a tactics of defence, which we cannot give weight. .35. Learned counsel, Mr.Sankarasubbu, would raise another contention that as P.W.18 was summoned by the police department, to search for the chance prints, and every search in a scene of occurrence should be only in accordance with Sec.100, Cr.P.C., which should be done in the presence of two independent witnesses and as this was not followed by P.W.18, the chance prints cannot be believed. He referred to the decision in P.N. Madgaonkar etc., v. State of Maharashtra, J.T. (1995)7 S.C. 350 which is not a decision on that point. It relates to the search of premises carried out under the Terrorists and Disruptives Activities (Prevention) Act. Even under sub Sec.(4) to Sec.100, Cr.P.C. the search should be conducted in the presence of two or more independent and respective inhabitants of the locality. Sec.100, Cr.P.C, is intended for the search and seizure of the things which are incriminating. As a matter of fact, the Chapter VII of Cr.P.C, itself proceeds with the caption “Processes to compel the production of things”, making it clear that the search was for the purpose of production of things or seizure of things. Sec.100, Cr.P.C, is intended for the search and seizure of the things which are incriminating. As a matter of fact, the Chapter VII of Cr.P.C, itself proceeds with the caption “Processes to compel the production of things”, making it clear that the search was for the purpose of production of things or seizure of things. Sub Sec.(3) of Sec.100, Cr.P.C, also reads that where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched. In such circumstances, sub-Sec.(4) of Sec. 100, Cr.P.C. is to be followed, for preparing the mahazar attested by two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. Sub-Secs.(5) and (7) of Sec.100, Cr.P.C, also deal with the seizure of things, for which list should be furnished. Therefore, the very purpose for the search must be for seizure of things and searching for the finger prints will not amount to the search of things or articles. 36. The finger prints, which may be visible only to the expert cannot be seized, and only the photographs can be taken for the purpose of comparison. Further, at the time of searching and also identifying the chance prints, nobody could fore see that those prints would be tallying with the finger prints of the suspected persons. Hence, at that time, such importance could not have been given, while taking photographs, though the chance prints were taken for the purpose of comparing with the finger prints of the criminals or suspected persons. The Expert also simply observes the presence of the finger prints and at the most, it can be stated that the Expert has done observation of the occurrence place. We feel, that there is no necessity for preparing a mahazar attested by two independent witnesses, for observing the chance prints, when especially the finger prints could not be lifted from that place, though it would be photographed by camera for study. Therefore, there is no question of preparation of mahazar under Sec.100, Cr.P.C, in the presence of the independent witnesses of the locality. .37. Another contention raised by learned counsel Mr. Therefore, there is no question of preparation of mahazar under Sec.100, Cr.P.C, in the presence of the independent witnesses of the locality. .37. Another contention raised by learned counsel Mr. Sankarasubbu is that the specimen finger prints of the accused, should have been taken only in the presence of Judicial Magistrate, under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, and in this case, as P.W.19, the Inspector of Police himself had taken the specimen finger prints, it will amount to testimonial compulsion of the accused person and the materials gathered unlawfully against the wishes of the accused per-sons cannot be made use of against them, and therefore, the specimen prints Exs.P-59 and P-60 cannot be looked into for the purpose of comparison. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel, on the decision of the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab, (1994)2 Crimes 904. But on a careful reading of this decision, we find that this has no application for this case. In that case, the police wanted to obtain the thumb impression of the accused person, and he was produced before the Executive Magistrate, before whom, no case was pending and he ordered for taking specimen thumb impression of the accused. Under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the signature, writing, or seal, the person present in the Court can be directed by the Court, to write any words, for the purpose of comparison by the Court. This provision can be invoked only when the case is pending before a particular court, which can direct the parties before it to writ or affix the thumb impression to enable the Court to compare the disputed document. Therefore, that case, the Supreme Court would observe, on the conduct of the Executive Magistrate, before whom the case was not pending, that without applying his mind he simply obliged the police, by giving direction to the accused person to give his specimen writing. The Supreme Court also held that the Executive Magistrate, had no jurisdiction to order for taking his specimen handwriting could not be used in trial, as the Court which held enquiry did not give direction for taking the specimen handwriting. 38. It appears from the judgment, of that case that the case was pending before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court also held that the Executive Magistrate, had no jurisdiction to order for taking his specimen handwriting could not be used in trial, as the Court which held enquiry did not give direction for taking the specimen handwriting. 38. It appears from the judgment, of that case that the case was pending before a Magistrate. Therefore, naturally when the accused was in the Judicial custody, the police could seek the aid of the Court under Sec.73 of the Evidence Act, for obtaining the finger prints, or handwriting, for the purpose of investigation. The Apex Court in that case, has not ruled that the thumb impression of handwriting should not be obtained from the accused person while he was in the custody of the police. Therefore, this decision has no relevancy to this case. .39. Another decision in Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1976 Crl.L.J. 10: A.I.R. 1976 S.C 69 has been cited by learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu. In that case, the specimen finger prints were not taken under the orders of the Magistrate, in accordance with Sec.5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, when the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The accused in that case was arrested on 23. 1967; and after remand, test identification parade was conducted on 4. 1967 before the Magistrate, and on 14. 1967, at the request of the investigating officer, specimen figner prints were taken by a person for comparison. The Supreme Court has observed that when the case was pending before the Magistrate, in whose custody the accused was placed, taking finger prints even without his permission and keeping the Magistrate out of picture was quite illegal. This case, therefore, falls within the category of taking the finger prints of the accused person, when/he was in the judicial custody. The facts therefore, are quite different from this case, as P.W. 19 would say that he obtained the finger prints of these appellants, when they were in police custody and before they were remanded to judicial custody. .40. This case, therefore, falls within the category of taking the finger prints of the accused person, when/he was in the judicial custody. The facts therefore, are quite different from this case, as P.W. 19 would say that he obtained the finger prints of these appellants, when they were in police custody and before they were remanded to judicial custody. .40. Sec.4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, reads thus: ."Any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police-officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner." According to Sec.2 (a) of the said Act, "measurements" include finger impressions and foot-print impressions. Sec.4 of the Act, empowers the police officer to take measurements including the finger prints of an accused person, if he is involved in an offence punishable with R.I. for a term of one year or upwards. But the learned counsel Mr. Sankarasubbu, pointing out Sec.5 of the same Act, would read that the measurement would be taken only in the presence of the Magistrate, after his order. .41. Sec.5 of the Act reads, that "if a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates, shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer." As Sec.4 of the Act, makes it very clear that the person arrested can be subjected for measurements, it transpires that Sec.5 is applicable, only after the remand of the person by the Judicial Magistrate. Further, it is not a mandatory provision, and it expresses that it is expedient to direct any person by the Magistrate, for taking his measurements or photograph, if required by a police officer. Secs.4 and 5 of the Act, can be distinguished only in this manner, as there are series of decisions approving the act of the police officers in taking the specimen handwritting or thumb impression, in the custody of the police officer. 42. Secs.4 and 5 of the Act, can be distinguished only in this manner, as there are series of decisions approving the act of the police officers in taking the specimen handwritting or thumb impression, in the custody of the police officer. 42. It may be argued that in Sec.4 of the Act, the concluding sentence reading that "allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner." indicates the manner referred to in Sec.5 of the Act. It cannot be, read so, because the mode can be prescribed only by the rules to be framed under the Act, as Sec.8 of the Act, empowers the State Government to frame rules, and therefore, Sec.4 of the Act is subject to the rules to be framed by the State Government. But it is brought to our notice now, that the Government of Tamil Nadu, has not framed any rules under this Act. Therefore, Sec.4 of the Act is not subservient to Sec.5 of the Act, to enforce the scheme. 43. This is made clear from the decision in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1248 Crl.Appeal No.561 of 1976, decided on 24. 1978. In that case, when the accused was in the police custody, the specimen finger prints were taken in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, as contemplated under the Rules of the Rajasthan State. The Apex Court, at paragraph 80, would observe that "the contention appears to be misconceived because in the State of Rajasthan, the police were competent under Sec. 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, to take the specimen finger prints of the accused, and this they did, in the instant case, before the Superintendent of Police, Shri K.P. Srivastava. It was not necessary for them to obtain an order from the Magistrate for obtaining such specimen finger prints." This view of the Apex Court is the ratio laid, on this controversy, making it clear that the police officer is empowered to take the finger prints of the accused in custody, under Sec.4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. 44. In Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1978 S.C.1399 -Crl. Appeal No. 562 of 1976, decided on 24. 1978, the Supreme Court has approved the powers of the police to obtain the finger prints from the accused person, while he was in the police custody. 44. In Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1978 S.C.1399 -Crl. Appeal No. 562 of 1976, decided on 24. 1978, the Supreme Court has approved the powers of the police to obtain the finger prints from the accused person, while he was in the police custody. In that case, the prosecution had failed to prove the specimen prints of the accused person, because the person who obtained the specimen prints was note examined as a witness. Though, it was argued for the accused, for the non-examination of the person, who obtained the specimen prints, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court have rejected that argument, because an affidavit of one Bhanwar Singh, who obtained the finger prints was filed into Court. The High Court has found that the evidence of that person rendered on affidavit was formal in character, and it was admissible under Sec.296, Cr.P.C. The accused person also during the examination of trial, had admitted that his finger prints were obtained by the police. So, in that case, it was proved that the finger prints of the accused were taken, while he was in the police custody. The Apex Court, concurred with the findings of the High Court, holding that the finger prints were that of the accused person and the conviction also was based on the finger prints. 45. From the view expressed by the Apex Court, it may be safely accepted that the police officer has powers to take the finger prints or signatures or handwriting of an accused person, while he was under police custody, under Sec.4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, and Sec.73 of the Evidence Act would come into operation, only when the accused was produced before the Court, When the statute itself permits the Police Officer for exercising that power against the accused person, it cannot be stated that it will amount to testimonial compulsion against the accused person. Art.20 (3) of the Constitution of India, reads "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 46. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the word "Witness" in a case in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1808. Art.20 (3) of the Constitution of India, reads "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 46. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the word "Witness" in a case in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1808. In that case, common question arose in three appeals, in which the singnature of accused in one case was obtained, while he was in police custody, and the signatures of accused in other two cases were obtained before the Magistrate. The common question in these appeals was whether taking the thumb impression or handwriting of accused will offend Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as though it will amount to testimonial compulsion. The Apex Court would observe, in paragraph 16(4) of its Judgment, that "giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showings parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression to be a witness’. The Supreme Court further adds "(5) " To be a witness’ means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a statement in writing, made or given in Court or otherwise. (6) To be a witness’ in its ordinary grammatical sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression which my now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or out of Court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing." In paragraph 33, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, observes thus: "But the evidence of specimen handwriting or the impressions of the accused person’s fingers, palm or foot, will incriminate him, only if on comparison of those with certain other handwritings or certain other impressions, identity between the two sets is established. By themselves, these impressions or the handwritings do not incriminate the accused person, or even tend to do so. That is why it must be held that by giving these impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused person does not furnish evidence against himself. By themselves, these impressions or the handwritings do not incriminate the accused person, or even tend to do so. That is why it must be held that by giving these impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused person does not furnish evidence against himself. So, when an accused person is compelled to give a specimen handwriting or impressions of his finger, palm or foot, it may be said that he has been compelled to be a witness; it cannot however be said that he has been compelled to be a witness against himself." Adding further, in paragraph 35, it is observed as follows: "We agree therefore with the conclusion reached by the majority of the Bench, that there is no infringement of Art.20 (3) of the Constitution by compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature; or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a Court for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act, though we have not been able to agree with the view of our learned brethren that "to be a witness" in Art.20(3) should be equated with the imparting of personal knowledge or that an accused does not become a witness when he produces some document not in his own handwriting even though it may tend to prove facts in issue or relevant facts against him." So, ultimately the Apex Court has ruled that the taking of Specimen handwriting by the police officer will not amount to infringement of Art.20(3) of the Constitution. 47. In view of the ratio laid by the Apex Court, it has to be concluded that there is no infringement of the fundamental right of the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989, for the reason that P.W.19 obtained the specimen finger prints of these appellants, when they were in police custody. 48. Another contention raised by the learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu, is that the finger prints of the accused other than these appellants were not taken for comparison, and had the finger prints of those accused were also taken, there is also possibility of tallying with the finger prints of those persons, and therefore, the conduct of the police in not taking the finger prints of the other accused persons, gives room for suspicion in this case. P.W.19 has deposed that the other accused persons, were remanded to judicial custody, and therefore, he could not obtain the finger prints of those persons. The evidence of P.W.3 is that these two appellants viz., A-5 and A-7 entered into the house of D-1, and brought the box containing the jewels. When the evidence is to that effect, that these appellants alone entered into the house of D-1 and brought the jewels, it is needless to compare the finger prints of others. Therefore, this argument holds no water. 49. Yet another argument raised by the learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu is that the finger prints alone cannot be solely relied upon for recording a conviction, without any further corroboration, and in this case, as the evidence of P.W.3 is not upto the satisfaction, there cannot be conviction on the basis of the finger prints found in the house of the deceased persons. 50. He relied upon the decision in Razari Hajam and another v. The King Emperor, A.I.R. 1922 Pat. 73 and Chandran alias Surendran and another v. State of Kerala, 1991 S.C.C. (Crl.) 245. In the former case, the facts are that a document was registered ami executed in the name of one Ram Prasad Pande, though actually he did not execute the said document before the registering authority, and the thumb impression discloses that the A-1 had represented before the registration authorities, that he was Ram Prasad Pande. The Bench observed that though the thumb impression of the A-l was found in the document, that itself cannot be the basis for conviction, solely relying upon the similarity of the thumb impression. In the latter case, the accused person took the contention that their finger prints were taken by the police in two broken glass pieces, which were used for comparison, of their specimen finger prints. Therefore, in that case, the plea taken by the accused was that both the chance prints and the specimen prints were obtained by the police from the accused. The Supreme Court on account of this plea taken by the accused person, felt that without any other corroboration, as there was lurking suspicion about the manner in which the evidence was obtained, it was not safe to rely upon the opinion of the expert for conviction. 51. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Anbazahan, refers to a decision of this Court in Chenniappan In re. 51. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Anbazahan, refers to a decision of this Court in Chenniappan In re. 1969 L.W. (Crl.) 178, in which it is held that "the science of comparison of fingerprints has developed to a stage of exactitude and precision, conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the finger-print expert". As we have referred to above, the Apex Court also has observed in Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1708, that the exact science of thumb impression does not admit of any mistaken or doubt. 52. We fell, the reliability of the finger prints depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suppose a person who is acquainted with a family had occasions to visit the house of the family and his or her finger prints were found in the scene of crime within the house, certainly the presence of the finger prints alone, cannot be solely relied upon, to fix the owner of the impression, to be guilty of the offence. On the other hand, if finger print of a total stranger is found, within the house, especially in theft cases, in almirah, we feel, that this place of evidence, cannot be lightly ignored, holding that corroboration is necessary to hold that person guilty of the offence. But, in this case, apart from the finger prints found in the scene crime, there are other materials which we have referred to above. 53. One more argument raised by the learned counsel Mr.Sankarasubbu, is that for the reason that the fingerprints of the appellants in C.A.No.510of 1989 were present in the occurrence place, it cannot be taken that they were also parties to the crime of murder, and they cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., We have already referred to the evidence of P.W.3, who has spoken about the overt acts about these appellants. These appellants are strangers to the family of the deceased and there was no necessity for these appellants to enter into the house of the deceased and open the poojaa room or almirah of the room, except for the purpose of committing robbery. Only for the purpose of committing robbery, the inamtes of the house had been murdered by the culprits. 54. Only for the purpose of committing robbery, the inamtes of the house had been murdered by the culprits. 54. Even if it is taken that these appellants did not use any weapon against the deceased for murdering them, as the object of the culprits was to commit dacoity, after murdering the persons who were sleeping outside the house, every person who participated in the robbery will be certainly liable under Sec.149, I.P.C. for the constructive liability. As mentioned above, there is no need for inference in this case, when there is specific evidence for the overt act against these appellants, in murdering the D-2 and D-2. For this reason, this argument also has to be rejected. 55. The over-all consideration of the entire facts, viz., the approver’s evidence recovery of the blood stained knives, the presence of the finger prints, and the medical evidence corroborating the testimony of P.W.3 would go a long way to establish the prosecution case, that these appellants had their hands in the crime of murder, dacoity and conspiracy. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly convicted these appellants for the offences under Secs.396,302,102-B and 395, I.P.C. We find no reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the finding, therefore, is to be confirmed. In view of the maginitude of the crime in this case, viz., dacoity and murder committed by these appellants, the sentence also has been awarded in proportion to the crime. Therefore, this Criminal Appeal No.510 of 1989, deserves to be dismissed. 56. In the result, C.A.Nos.474 and 477 of 1989 are allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed upon these appellants (A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-8 before the trial court) and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants in C.A.No.477 of 1989, are set at liberty forthwith, since they are in jail unless they are detained in any other case. The bail bonds executed by the appellants in C.A.No.474 of 1989 are cancelled. The appeal is C. A.No.510 of 1989 is dismissed, confirming the convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants (A-5 and A-7 by the trial court). It is represented that the appellants in this appeal in C.A.No.510 of 1989, are absconding, after their release on parole. The Sessions Judge will issue warrant for the arrest of the appellants in C.A.No.510 of 1989.