Judgment :- Karpagavinayagam, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No.310 of 1985 on the file of the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, convicting the appellant Thankaraj alias Muniasamy for offences under Secs.302, and 397 read with 392, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and 7 years respectively. 2. The indictment against the appellant is that on 30.1.1983 at about 11.00 a.m. the appellant stabbed on the neck of the deceased Muniammal and caused her death and removed M.Os.7 and 8, the ear-jewels Pampadam from her ear-lobes, after cutting the same and thereby he committed murder and robbery. 3. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P-1 to P-19 and marked M.Os.1 to 10. 4. The brief facts are: .(a) The unfortunate victim in this case, the deceased, one Muniammal, wife of Ponniah alias Vellaiah Nadar, aged about 85 years, was staying alone in the house of her eldest son at Vedapatty village. She has got three Son’s and three daughters. The eldest son is settled at Tuticorin. The second son Kasi Nadar has got a business at Madras. The third son Ramasamy was residing in the same village. Out of the three daughters, one daughter, P.W.6, Thangathai was residing in the same village in some other house. Kasi Nadar, the second son, though got a business at Ma-dras, used to come often to the village for supervising his lands situate at the village. .(b) P.W.1 Marappa Nadar, P.W.11, veluchamy and also the other local residents have their houses at different places in the said village P.W.7 Chellammal is the wife of one Ramasamy, the last son of the deceased, whose house is situate just behind the house of the deceased, who was: staying alone. The said house belongs to her first son. Since the first son is settled at Tuticorin, the deceased alone was staying there, without the help of any men folk. However, her son Ramasamy used to come to the house of the deceased and give morning breakfast. Lunch and dinner would be provided by P.W.6, Thangathai, one of the daughters of the deceased. .(c) The appellant Thankaraj alias Munisarny hails from the village by name Sayalkudi situate 30 miles away from the place of occurrence, Vedapatty, just 4 or 5 days prior) the occurrence, the appellant came to the village Vedapatty in search of a job. Lunch and dinner would be provided by P.W.6, Thangathai, one of the daughters of the deceased. .(c) The appellant Thankaraj alias Munisarny hails from the village by name Sayalkudi situate 30 miles away from the place of occurrence, Vedapatty, just 4 or 5 days prior) the occurrence, the appellant came to the village Vedapatty in search of a job. He approached P.W.1 and requested him to give him job. He told him that he would climb palmyra tree for the purpose of tapping. Of course, P.W.1 has got lands and Palmyra trees. But P.W.1 told him that he would not give any job. The evidence of the other witnesses would show that there were lot of persons in the village who knew tapping works.. However, the appellant requested and insisted P.W.1 to give him job since he was in need of money, He also asked him to give an advance of Rs.500 for which P.W.1 refused. However P.W.1 allowed the appellant to keep his suit case in his house. The appellant was staying there for about four days; He used to sleep in the night in the choultry situate in the village. During the said period, he used to go to the tea shop of P.W.2 and take tiffin. Then he used;to play cards in the choultry along with P.W.11 Veluchamy. Since he was in need of money, he pledged his wrist watch M.O.10 with P.W.11 and Borrowed Rs.100. (d) The fateful day fell on 30.1.1983. As usual, Ramasamy, the husband of P.W.7, whet to the house of the deceased and provided her the morning breakfast. Then at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.6, Thangathai, went with the lunch and put the same in the place M.O.9. She placed the plate on the bench in the verandah and then she went back. At that time, she saw the appellant sitting on the pial of the house of P.W.8, Devapushpam. Then at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.6 went to the house of the deceased to see whether her mother took food. At that time, she saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased along with the suit case and going towards the west. She also found that the doors were open. She went inside and saw the deceased with the injury on the neck, in a pool of blood, lying in the cot, M.O.1. At that time, she saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased along with the suit case and going towards the west. She also found that the doors were open. She went inside and saw the deceased with the injury on the neck, in a pool of blood, lying in the cot, M.O.1. Then she came out of the house, crying and told the persons, who were standing there about the plight of her mother. At that time, Kasi Nadar, the second son, was talking along with one Duraipandy. P.W.8, Devapushpam, at the pial of whose house, the appellant was sitting for some time, also saw the appellant coming out of the house and going towards the western side. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.6, Kasi Nadar, Duraipandy and P.W.8, Devapushpam, went inside the house and saw the deceased lying dead with bleeding injury on her neck. Both her ear-lobes were found cut and M.Os.7 and 8 pampadams were found missing. At about the same time, P.W.7 the wife of Ramasamy, the third son of the deceased, was coming back to her house after finishing her bath. At that time she saw the accused going towards the northern side in the Achangulam road carrying with him a suit-case. P.W.7 also, on hearing the cry of P.W.6, came to the house of the deceased and informed about the accused going towards the northern direction. Then P.W.1 also came there and he alongwith Kasi Nadar, Duraipandy, and other persons went out of the village and tried their best to catch the appellant. But he was not available. So, they came back at 3.00 p.m. (e) On receipt of the information, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam, went to Vedapatty and enquired P.W.6. He obtained the statement Ex.P-10 from P.W.6, which was attested by Kasi Nadar, P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudur, which station is situate 5 miles away from the place of occurrence also received information and came to the place of occurrence and saw P.W.15 recording the statement of P.W.6, attested by Kasi Nadar. The, P.W.15 handed oyer Ex.P-10 P.W.13 and asked him to register the case. Then P.W.13, went to the Pudur Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.23 of 1983 for offences under Secs.392 and 302, I.P.C Ex.P-15 is the printed first information report. The, P.W.15 handed oyer Ex.P-10 P.W.13 and asked him to register the case. Then P.W.13, went to the Pudur Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.23 of 1983 for offences under Secs.392 and 302, I.P.C Ex.P-15 is the printed first information report. Then, P.W.13 handed over Exs.P-10 and P-15 to the constable, P.W.14 at 6.30 p.m. for being taken to Vilathikulam Magistrate’s Court and Superior Officers. P.W.14 caught bus at Pudur at 7.30 p.m. and reached Vilathikulam at 8.45 p.m. and handed over Exs.P-10 and P-15 to the Headclerk of the Vilathikulam Magistrate’s Court. .(f) In the meantime, P.W.15 went to several villages in search of the appellant, but he was not available. So, P.W.15 came back to Vedapatty village at 8.15 p.m. and received the copy of Ex.P-15 at 8.30 p.m. from Head Constable No.1178 and took up investigation. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-16 and rough sketch Ex. P-17, Between 10.00 p.m. and 2.00 a.m., on 30/31. 1983 he conducted inquest and examined P.W.6, Thangathai, P.W.7 Chellammal and P.W.8 Devapushpam. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report, Then, he handed over the dead body to Police Constable No.2291 for being sent for post mortem. At 2.30 a.m., P.W.15, the Inspector of Police,, recovered M.O.1, Coir Cot, M.O.2, bedsheet, M.O.3, Pillow, M.O.4 Pillow cover, M.O.5 cement slabs and M.O.9 plate under Ex.P-19 Mahazar, attested by witnesses. .(g) At 4.30 a.m., on 31. 1983, P.W.3 the doctor received the requisition Ex.P-1 sent by P.W.15 for post-mortem, along with the dead body. On 31. 1983 at 8.30 a.m., he conducted Post mortem and found the following injuries: 1. A stab wound on the left side of the neck near the Thyroid region 8 x 5 x 16 cm. size. On Dissection: Trachea is cut completely and transversely just below the Thyroid cartilage. Left carotid artery out completely and tranversely. The wound sloping left side below downwards and reaches upto the supra clavicular region. Blood clot one ounce underneath the wound. Left sternomastoid muscle cut in the middle completely and transversely. Oesophagus intact. Thyroid cartilage and Hyoid bone intact with the head side of wound. Vertebral bone normal. 2. Right ear lobe cut completely and leaving 1/2 c.m. diameter round wound on both cut ends. 3. Left ear lobe cut completely and leaving 1/2 c.m. diameter round. Wound on both cut ends. Stomach: Distended with gas. Partially digested rice particulars 8 ozs. Thyroid cartilage and Hyoid bone intact with the head side of wound. Vertebral bone normal. 2. Right ear lobe cut completely and leaving 1/2 c.m. diameter round wound on both cut ends. 3. Left ear lobe cut completely and leaving 1/2 c.m. diameter round. Wound on both cut ends. Stomach: Distended with gas. Partially digested rice particulars 8 ozs. Present brown Colour, Carrot curry and Green Chilly, Trachea: Cut completely and transversely below the Thyroid cartilage. P.W.3, the doctor gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained and that, the death would have occurred between 18 and 24 hours prior to the commencement of the post mortem. He issued the Post mortem certificate Ex.P-2. .(h) On 12. 1983.P.W.15 interrogated P.W.11 and recovered M.O.10 wrist, watch, pledged to him by the appellant under mahazar Ex.P-13, The, he sent the requisition Ex.P-6 on 12. 1983 along with the blood stained material objects to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vilathikulam, requesting to send the material objects for chemical analysis. P.W.5, the Head Clerk on receipt of Ex.P-6, sent M.Os.1 to 6 for chemical analysis with the covering letter Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 is the Chemical analyst’s report and Ex.P-9 is the Serologist’s report, .(i) Since P.W.15 was transferred from that station, P.W.16, another Inspector of Police took up further investigation. On 14. 1985 at about 11.00 a.m., on receipt of information he went to Suragudi road in Vilathikulam, near Wellington Rice Mill and arrested the appellant. He recorded the confession of the appellant, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-14. It was attested by P.W.12 and another witness, the appellant admitted that he had pledged the Pampadams to P.Ws.9 and 10. On the basis of the said confession, the appellant was taken to the house of P.W.9 at about 2.45 p.m. P.W.9 admitted that she received the Pampadam. M.O.8 from the appellant by way of pledge and handed over the same to P.W.16, which he recovered under Ex.P-14 mahazar, attested by P.W.12 and another, P.W.9 has also affixed her left thumb impression in Ex.P-15. Thereafter, the appellant took P.W.16 and the constables, to the house of P.W.10, Jayabarthi Rajan, to whom he pledged M.O.7, P.W.10 also handed over M.O.7 to P.W.16, which he recovered under Ex.P-12 mahazar, attested by P.W.12 and another. Then, on 14. 1985, the appellant was brought to Pudur Police Station. Thereafter, the appellant took P.W.16 and the constables, to the house of P.W.10, Jayabarthi Rajan, to whom he pledged M.O.7, P.W.10 also handed over M.O.7 to P.W.16, which he recovered under Ex.P-12 mahazar, attested by P.W.12 and another. Then, on 14. 1985, the appellant was brought to Pudur Police Station. On 14. 1985, P.W.6 was brought to the Police Station, M.Os.7 and 8 were shown to her and she identified them as the jewels owned by the deceased On 20.4.1985, P.W.16 sent Ex.P-3 requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli to hold identification parade. As per the requisition, identification parade was conducted by P.W.4, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovilpattti on 15.11985, in which P.W.6, Thangathai and P.W.7 Chellammal identified the appellant. Ex.P-5 is the identification report. 5. After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet on 8. 1985 against the appellant under Secs.302 and 397 read with 392, I.P.C. 6. On committal, the Sessions Court framed charges against the appellant for the said offences and questioned him. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court examined all the witnesses as referred to above. After the evidence was over, the appellant was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence brought on the record. The appellant chose to deny his complicity. He further said that when he was in his village Sayalkudi, he was arrested by the Inspector of Police illegally arid was detained for about 21. days and during that period the witnesses were brought to the police station and he was identified to them. He also further said that he did not know P.Ws.9 and 10 previously. 7. On consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, the trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the appellant for the offences referred to above and dealt with. Being aggrieved over the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 8. Ms.J. Sundarakanchanai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and strenuously pointed out the various infirmities found in the case of the prosecution and effectively contended that the prosecution case bristles with various loopholes, for which the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court would become illegal. 9. 8. Ms.J. Sundarakanchanai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, took us through the entire evidence and strenuously pointed out the various infirmities found in the case of the prosecution and effectively contended that the prosecution case bristles with various loopholes, for which the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial court would become illegal. 9. At this stage, Mr.Anbalagan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice that the appellant was released by the Jail Authorities as per G.O.Ms. No.1341, Home (Prison. 4) Department, dated 19. 1996 in commemoration of 88th Birthday of Peraignar Anna, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. But, when the learned counsel for the appellant was asked about this, she represented that she being a Legal Aid Counsel, she could not say anything about the same and requested this Court to give a finding on the basis of her submissions. 10. In view of the abovesaid submission, this Court asked the Additional Public Prosecutor to make his submissions in reply to the various points raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by pointing out various circumstances while replying to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. In short, his submissions would be that the verdict given by the trial Court was quite correct and unassailable and that so, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant have to be confirmed. 11. We have carefully considered the divergent contentions urged by the respective counsel. In this case, there is no eye witness. Though there is no direct evidence, there are several pieces of circumstantial evidence available to correct the appellant with the crime. It is settled law that even an eyewitness may lie, but not the circumstantial evidence. But the Apex Court, held time and again that in the process of appraising circumstantial evidence, it should be seen whether a complete chain is found without any missing link to come to the conclusion that the appellant and the appellant alone committed the crime. 12. The various circumstances, as brought out by the prosecution can be classified into the following groups: (i) The appellant admittedly belongs to Sayalkudi. Sayalkudi is" situated at 30 miles away from Vedapatty village, the place of occurrence. Admittedly, he was not known to the witnesses in the village previously. 12. The various circumstances, as brought out by the prosecution can be classified into the following groups: (i) The appellant admittedly belongs to Sayalkudi. Sayalkudi is" situated at 30 miles away from Vedapatty village, the place of occurrence. Admittedly, he was not known to the witnesses in the village previously. Only 4 or 5 days prior to the occurrence, the appellant came to that village in search of a job. He approached P.W.1 did not give the job. However, he allowed him to keep his suit case in his house. He used to got to tea shop and used to play cards along with P. W. 11. This is spoken to by P.W.1, P.W.2, the tea shop owner and P.W.11, the villager. P.W.11 would say that the appellant was in need of money and hence he pledged his watch M.O. 11 with him and received Rs. 100. P.W.1 also would say that he kept his suit case in his house during these four days, though he took bed in the choultry. P. W. 1 though admits that the appellant would make payments immediately after taking tiffin and there were no arrears, stated that the appellant who hailed from Sayalkudi, was there for about four days and his suit case was kept in the house of P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 11 would make it clear that till the time of occurrence, the appellant was very much available in the village, seeking for a job. The evidence of P.W.11 also would make it clear that since the appellant had no money, he had to pledge M.O. 10 wrist watch with P.W.11 and get Rs. 100 The recovery of M.O.10 from P.W.11 on 12. 1985 also would vouch safe the fact that the appellant was staying there for about four days, and was playing cards along with P.W.11. Not only P.W.6 Thangathai, but also P.W.7 Chellammal and. P.W.8 Devapushpam would say that the appellant came to the village 4 to 5 days prior to the date of occurrence, and he was searching for a job in the village and he was roaming about in the village and also he used to sit in the pails of various houses. So, under these circumstances, nobody suspected that this person had come to the village only to commit same offence. So, under these circumstances, nobody suspected that this person had come to the village only to commit same offence. .(ii) Relating to the main occurrence, We have got the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that she used to got to the house of the deceased for providing lunch. Morning food was being provided by Ramasamy, the youngest son of the deceased, whose house is situate behind the house of the deceased. At about 10.30 a.m., according to P.W.6, she went to the house of the deceased and kept M.O.9 plate with food and came away. At that time, she saw the accused sitting on the pail of the house of P.W.8, Devapushpam, which is situate at 50 feet away from the house of the deceased, on the northern direction. Then, she went back to the house of the deceased, in order to see whether the deceased had finished her food and at that time she saw the accused, coming out of the house of the deceased with suit-case. P.W.8 also saw the accused going towards the northern direction with the suit case. On seeing the doors open, P.W.6, Thangathai entertained suspicion and hurriedly entered into the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead in the cot M.O. 1 with bleeding injuries on her neck and both the ear-lobes were found cut and two pampadams, M.Os. 7 and 8 were found missing. P.W.3, the doctor would confirm this evidence in his deposition before the court, stating that he found a stab wound on the left side of the neck near Thyroid and found the left and right ear-lobes cut completely with wounds on both the cut ends. He also would state that he found partially digested rice particles of 8 ounces present-brown colour, carrot curtly and green chilly in the stomach of the deceased during post mortem. Even in the observation mahazar, prepared by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, it is stated as follows: As per the evidence of P.W.15, M.O.9 plate was also recovered from the place of occurrence on the very same day under mahazar Ex.P-19. Even in the observation mahazar, prepared by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, it is stated as follows: As per the evidence of P.W.15, M.O.9 plate was also recovered from the place of occurrence on the very same day under mahazar Ex.P-19. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 would show that prior to the occurrence, the appellant was found sitting in the pail and then, subsequent to the occurrence, the appellant came out of the house with suitcase in his hand and was proceeding towards the western side. Apart from this evidence of P.Ws.6 and 5, P.W.7, the daughter in law of the deceased would also state that when she came back to her house after finishing her bath, she saw the appellant going in the western direction and turning to the northern direction in the road, which goes to Achangulam village. (iii) The evidence of P.W. 15 would show that on coming to know that the appellant was the culprit, he went to the Sayalkudi village and enquired about the whereabouts of the appellant, by the was not available then. He was absconding from 30.1.1983 up to 14. 1985, on which date, he was arrested by P.W. 16, the successor of P.W. 15, On his arrest, he gave a confession stating that the earjewels snatched away from the body of the deceased were pledged with P.Ws.9 and 10. P.W.9, Ariammal is a resident of Karisalkulam near Kamuthi. She is an arrack seller. On her being pointed out by the appellant, P.W. 16, the Inspector of Police, recovered M.O.8 under Ex.P-11, attested by P.W. 12 and another. As referred to earlier, P.W.9 also affixed her left thumb impression in the mahazar. Then the appellant took the police to Pannaikadu near Kodaikanal and pointed out Jayabarthi Rajan, to whom he pledged M.O.7, another Pampadam for Rs.800 M.O.7 was recovered from him under mahazar Ex.P-12. 13. So, the evidence relating to the abscondence of the accused from the date of occurrence till the recovery in pursuance of his confession, would also strengthen the case of the prosecution as projected by P.Ws.6 to 8. Moreover, P.W. 16 would admit that P.W.6 came to the police station and identified M.Os.7 and 8 as the jewels belonging to the deceased. Moreover, as per the requisition of P.W. 16, P.W.4 conducted identification parade, on which the accused was produced and identified by P.Ws.6 and 7. Moreover, P.W. 16 would admit that P.W.6 came to the police station and identified M.Os.7 and 8 as the jewels belonging to the deceased. Moreover, as per the requisition of P.W. 16, P.W.4 conducted identification parade, on which the accused was produced and identified by P.Ws.6 and 7. These materials would show that there is a continuous link to establish the charges framed against the appellant for offences under Secs.302 and 397 read with 392, I.P.C. 14. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 admits that the the appellant was brought to his shop in the village after his arrest, where he identified him. From this learned counsel for the appellant wants this Court to infer that even before the identification parade, the appellant must have been shown to the witnesses and that only helped, P.Ws.6 and 7 to identify, the appellant in the parade and as such according to learned counsel for the appellant, the parade was not validly conducted. Of course, P.W.2 admits the fact that the appellant was brought to the village. It is the case of the prosecution through P.W. 16 that the appellant was arrested and taken to Pannaikadu and recovery of jewels M.Os. 7 and 8 were made from P.Ws. 9 and 10, P.W. 16 did not say that the appellant was brought to the village. But it is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 also participated in the identification parade and then identified the appellant, P.Ws.6 and 7 alone identified the appellant in the parade. Nothing has been elicited from P.Ws.6 and 7 in the course of cross-examination that they saw the appellant prior to the date of trial. Such being the case, the admission of P.W.2 that he saw the appellant in the village after arrest, would not affect the case of the prosecution as projected through the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8. 15. One another argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that P.Ws.6 and 7 are the close relatives of the deceased and as such, they are interested witnesses and so, their evidence cannot be acted upon. But, this may not be correct because the relative witnesses alone would give the real account in order to see that the culprit does not escape. They may not have any interest in the innocent being punished in the murder case. 16. But, this may not be correct because the relative witnesses alone would give the real account in order to see that the culprit does not escape. They may not have any interest in the innocent being punished in the murder case. 16. It is also pointed out that P.W. 6 did not shout when the accused went out from the house of the deceased. It must be noted that when the accused went out of the house of the deceased, carrying the suit case and proceeded towards west, she only entertained suspicion. At that time she did not know that her mother was murdered and that the accused was responsible for the same. But P.W. 6, when went inside the house and saw the horrible sight, she immediately came out crying and informed her brother Kasi Nadar, who was standing nearby. Then, P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 and other villagers went inside the house and saw the deceased laying dead with bleeding injuries and found her ear-lobes cut and pampadams, M.Os.7 and 8 were missing. Then they immediately rushed to the place where the accused was proceeding. However they failed to catch him. 17. One another argument that was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that though the tea shop of P.W.2 is situated only 50 feet away from the house of the deceased, P.W.2 admits that he did not hear any sound. The case of the prosecution is that the accused gave a forcible stab on the neck of the deceased, which resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased. So, one cannot expect that the deceased would have cried subsequent to the receipt of the stab on her neck. 18. Of course, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that though the first information report was received in the court at 9.00 p.m. on 30.1.1983, the Magistrate put his initial only on the next day. Of course it is a mistake. 18. Of course, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that though the first information report was received in the court at 9.00 p.m. on 30.1.1983, the Magistrate put his initial only on the next day. Of course it is a mistake. But the Constable P.W.14, and the Head Clerk P.W.5 would say that the first information report, which was handed over to P. W.4 at 6.30 p.m. has taken in a bus and on reaching Vilathikulam at 8.45 p.m., Exs.P-10 and P-15 were handed over by the Constable to the Head Clerk at 9.00 p.m. It is not the case of the prosecution through P.Ws.5 and 14 that they were handed over to the Magistrate. So, merely because the Magistrate put his initial on 31. 1983, it cannot be contended that the first information report was received only on 31. 1983. However we must point out that whenever the first information report reaches the Court, the Magistrate alone should put initial by putting the date and time, to show the receipt of the same, which has not been done in this case. However, this irregularity cannot in any way affect the prosecution case. In the first information report clear details of the peculiar features and the identity of the accused were given. The accused was arrested only after two years. So, the delay on the part of the Magistrate in putting the initial only on 31. 1983 even though the document was received at 9.00 p.m. on 30.1.1983, would not make any dent in the prosecution case. 19. Another infirmity pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the identification parade, the accused complained to the Magistrate P.W.4, that he was shown by the police to the witnesses even prior to the parade. Of course, as referred to earlier, during the course of the cross-examination, P.Ws.6 and 7 Would deny that the accused was shown to them prior to the parade. However, in the light of the above facts of the case, we feel that even identification parade is not at all necessary, since according the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 7, 8 and 11, the accused was staying there for about four days, As pointed out by Mr. However, in the light of the above facts of the case, we feel that even identification parade is not at all necessary, since according the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 7, 8 and 11, the accused was staying there for about four days, As pointed out by Mr. Anbalagan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1993 Crl.L.J. 1800, the Supreme Court pointed out that when the accused was in the company of the witnesses for about three hours, there would be no question of holding any identification parade. In this case, the witnesses had seen the accused, who was staying in the village for about 4 or 5 days. In Rameshwar Singh v. State of J. & K., 1972 Crl.L.J. 15, it was held that the evidence relating to identification parade is not a substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting the evidence of the witnesses concerned, Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that even on the date of the identification parade, the accused complained, to the Magistrate that he was illegally detained for about 21 days. It is also in the statement under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. that after the accused was arrested at Sayalkudi, he was illegally detained for about 21 days and only then he was produced before Court. This argument cannot hold good because on the date on which the accused was produced for remand on 14. 1985, the accused did not complain to the Magistrate that he was illegally detained and ill-treated. In fact, as pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, a perusal of the remand report shows that the accused reported to the Court that there was no ill-treatment. 20. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 Crl.L.J. 846: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 446, the Supreme Court held as follows: "This is a case where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under Illustration (a) to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form part of the same transaction. The sudden disappearance of the appellant from the house of P.W.3 on the morning of March, 22, 1979 when it was discovered that the deceased had been strangulated to death and relieved of her gold ornaments, coupled with the circumstances that he was absconding for a period of over one year till, he was apprehended by P.W.26 at village Hosahally on March 29, 1980, taken with the circumstances that he made the statement Ex.P-35 immediately upon his arrest leading to the discovery of the stolen articles, must necessarily raise the inference that the appellant alone and no one else was guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased and robbery of her gold ornaments. The appellant had not satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession of the stolen property. On the contrary, he denied that the stolen property was recovered from him. The false denial by itself is an incriminating circumstance. The nature of presumption under Illustration (a) to Sec. 144, must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged units own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession 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. 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. There was no lapse of the time between that date of his arrest and the recovery of the stolen property." The facts of the above case would be squarely applicable to the present case. The accused in this case was absconding from 30.1.1983 and was arrested only on 14. 1985. On the same date, there was recovery of M.Os.7 and 8. According to P.W. 15, immediately after the occurrence and after the receipt of the first information report he went to Sayalkudi village and enquired about the where abouts of the accused and the accused was not available. Further, there is no explanation for the abscondence of the accused for a period of two years and there is also no account for the possession of the stolen properties M.Os. Further, there is no explanation for the abscondence of the accused for a period of two years and there is also no account for the possession of the stolen properties M.Os. 7 and 8. So, these things, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8, would go to show that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime. 21. So, in the light of the above discussion and the abundant materials produced by the witnesses above referred to, this Court does not find any reason to take a different view from that of the trial court, which came to the correct conclusion after elaborate consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, that the appellant alone committed the murder and robbery. So, the conviction and sentence are confirmed. 22. In the result, the appeal, which has not merit, is dismissed.