S. R. BANNURMATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise from the judgment dated 22/23-1-1996 passed by the d additional sessions judge, Bangalore city, in S. C. No. 353 of 1992. Criminal appeal No. 151 of 1996 is filed by accused 1 challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas criminal appeal No. 748 of 1996 is filed by the state challenging the inadequacy of sentence against accused 1 by praying for enhancement of the sentence from imprisonment for life to death punishment and criminal appeal No. 749 of 1996 is also filed by the state challenging the acquittal of accused 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE few facts necessary for consideration of the appeals are as follows: the deceased sunanda varadhan, aged 73 years and her mother rukamma, aged 90 years, who come from well to do family and having their children settled outside Bangalore, were staying at flat No. 201, first floor, richmond place, convent road, Bangalore. They were often engaging the services of accused 1 as part-time driver to take them in and around Bangalore. They had also engaged P. W. 3 (selvi) as maid servant. They were often calling personally or on phone their relatives including P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad, daughter of deceased sunanda), P. W. 8 [lakshmi, deceased rukamma's (cousin) sister], P. W. 19 (nagamani, niece of deceased rukamma) and P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier, a retired medical practitioner, who was staying in the same apartments and was said to be looking after the health of both deceased ). Similarly, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar, whose daughter was married to the son of deceased sunanda) used to visit both sunanda and rukamma at their apartment and look after their well-being. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that in the morning of 9-8-1992 (sunday), as P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) did not get regular phone call from sunanda and in spite of repeated attempts made by her from Madras wherein she was staying, she contacted P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) and asked him to make enquiries about the well-being of sunanda and rukamma and to intimate her. Xavier) and asked him to make enquiries about the well-being of sunanda and rukamma and to intimate her. Accordingly, P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) at about 10. 00 a. m. tried to call both deceased sunanda and rukamma over phone and, when he could not get any reply, he thought that they might have gone out to meet their relatives and having waited some time and even then when no reply being received from them, he contacted P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar), who, as stated earlier, is another relative of deceased sunanda and rukamma, at about 6. 00 p. m. again P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) thinking that both sunanda and rukamma might have gone out and having waited some time, came to the apartment and along with P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) went to flat No. 201 occupied by both the deceased. When both of them (p. w. 1 and P. W. 22) went there, they found the door was locked from inside and as it was a latch-door and in spite of repeated pressing of the bell as there was no response, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) with the help of a duplicate key which was with him (said to have been given him by sunanda) opened the door and entered the house. There was darkness in the house and on switching the lights, in the bedroom they noticed on separate cots two bodies covered with rugs and on verification they were found to be the dead bodies of sunanda and rukamma. Immediately, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) contacted his relatives at Bangalore as well as P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) at Madras. It is stated that P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) informed P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) that she would come to Bangalore immediately by the next available flight and not to do anything till then. P. w. 1 (keshava lyengar) thereafter locked the door of the flat and came back to his house. Next day, i. e. , on 10-8-1992 in the morning at about 7'o clock, after the arrival of P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) and her husband, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) accompanied them and observed the conditions inside the house. P. w. 1 (keshava lyengar) thereafter locked the door of the flat and came back to his house. Next day, i. e. , on 10-8-1992 in the morning at about 7'o clock, after the arrival of P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) and her husband, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) accompanied them and observed the conditions inside the house. As P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) suspected that some of the articles including some jewelleries on the persons of deceased missing, suspecting foul play, requested P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) contacted the d. i. g. of police, who, in turn, instructed P. W. 29 (narayan), the police inspector and station house officer of ashokana- gar police station, to look into the same. P. w. 29 (narayan) proceeded to the spot wherein P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) gave him the written complaint as per exhibit p-l which was sent to the police station for registration of the case and investigation. P. w. 26 (srinivas) who was the police sub inspector on receipt of the complaint registered a case in cr. No. 594 of 1992 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons and thus investigation was set in motion. Dog squad and fingerprint experts were called for. The police dogs could not lead police to any suspicious place or person and as such it was given up. However, P. W. 28 (narayanappa fingerprint expert) found three chance fingerprints on the t. v. stand and two chance fingerprints on the stainless steel cup kept near the dead bodies and took photograph of the same as well as the fingerprints of the deceased and the nearby occupants, viz. , P. W. 2 (thavamani - a watchman) and P. W. 3 (selvi - maid servant, who had immediately come there ). P. w. 10 (ameer - the police photographer) took photos of the dead bodies and, after holding inquest mahazar as per exhibits p-26 and p-27 the bodies were sent for autopsy. As it disclosed during the inquest and subsequent recording of statements of witnesses especially from the statement of P. W. 2 (thavamani) that the accused 1 along with another person had visited previous night and went to the flat of the deceased, search for accused 1 was set in. As it disclosed during the inquest and subsequent recording of statements of witnesses especially from the statement of P. W. 2 (thavamani) that the accused 1 along with another person had visited previous night and went to the flat of the deceased, search for accused 1 was set in. P. w. 7 (chandrashekar nair - inspector, cod), who was entrusted with search/apprehending the accused, found accused 1 moving in his ambassador car near the manipal hospital and he was apprehended and brought to the police station along with car and formally arrested by P. W. 29 (narayan) at about 5. 00 p. m. after the arrest, accused 1 was interrogated and, as per his voluntary statement (exhibit p-39), certain ornaments said to be belonging to both the deceased were recovered from the dicky of the ambassador car bearing registration No. Kld 6288 admittedly belonging to accused 1. As during the interrogation' accused 1 pointed out involvement of accused 2 in the crime. So furnished, accused 2 was also arrested and interrogated. As per his voluntary statement, the pillow and pillow cover (m. os. 7 and 7a) said to have been used for smothering the deceased were also recovered from the apartment itself. ( 4 ) ON 11-8-1992, P. W. 12 (dr. Thirunavukkarasu) and P. W. 13 (dr. Manjunath), the doctors, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies, gave their p. m. reports as per exhibits p-15 and p-19. Since both the doctors did not find any physical external injuries, possibly due to decomposition and swelling of the bodies, they reserved their opinion subject to the reports sought from the chemical analysts and forensic science laboratory to which certain articles including viscera of both the deceased were sent. Meanwhile, the investigating officer, P. W. 29 (narayan) recorded statements of many witnesses, obtained fingerprints of the accused and sent the same along with the fingerprints of the deceased obtained earlier to the fingerprint experts. It is to be mentioned here itself that, after the recovery of the pillow and pillow cover on the information given by accused 2, the police suspected that the death was due to smothering. The investigating officer asked for clarifi- cation from the medical officers who conducted post-mortem as to the possibility of the cause of death by smothering. Both p. ws. 12 and 13 (dr. Thirunavukkarasu and Dr. The investigating officer asked for clarifi- cation from the medical officers who conducted post-mortem as to the possibility of the cause of death by smothering. Both p. ws. 12 and 13 (dr. Thirunavukkarasu and Dr. Manjunath), as per exhibits p-15 and p-19, gave positive opinion regarding the possibility of cause of death of both sunanda and rukamma as smothering by smooth object like pillow. The chemical examination and forensic science laboratory report dated 19-10-1992 indicated no presence of any poison. After completing the investigation and receiving all the necessary documentary material, on 2-11-1992 charge-sheet was filed against both the accused for the offences under sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) AS the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, they were tried in S. C. No. 353 of 1992. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses, got marked exhibits p-1 to p-42 as well as m. os. 1 to 17. The accused denied the prosecution case in toto and after marking certain statements from the evidence of p. ws. 2 and 4 as exhibits d-1 to d-5, the accused closed their case without any further evidence. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the material placed before the trial court in the form of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held accused 1 alone guilty of the offences under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. However, finding certain discrepancies and lacunae insofar as the evidence against accused 2 is concerned, giving benefit of doubt, acquitted him of all the charges. Hence, the present appeals as mentioned earlier. ( 7 ) SMT. Anasuya, learned counsel appearing for accused 1, challenging the findings of conviction, inter alia, contended that appreciation of evidence by the trial court is contrary to law and well-settled principles. That when the case is based only on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish all links so as to connect accused with the crime. At the outset, she contended that, as there is no positive and definite evidence to establish as to whether both sunanda and rukamma met with homicidal death, the conviction of accused 1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal. Drawing our attention to the evidence of p. ws. 12 and 13 (dr. Thirunavukkarasu and Dr. Drawing our attention to the evidence of p. ws. 12 and 13 (dr. Thirunavukkarasu and Dr. Manjunath), who conducted autopsy as well as to the p. m. reports wherein no cause of death is mentioned, it is contended that basically the prosecution has failed to establish the death of both the deceased as homicidal death and as such no conviction could have been awarded against accused 1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Nextly, it is contended that there is abnormal delay in lodging the first information to the police inasmuch as P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) being an Advocate went to the spot and noticed the dead bodies on 9-8-1992 itself, but for the reasons best known to him, the first information to the police was lodged only on 10-8-1992 and thus there is a delay of almost 24 hours in lodging the complaint. Apart from commenting on the non-explanation of the delay, it was specifically argued that P. W. 1 being an Advocate and former Advocate general was re- quired to know the importance of lodging the first information at the earliest. Having failed to do so, the court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the prosecution and considered in favour of the accused as a deliberate attempt to involve them falsely. It is nextly contended that even accepting the prosecution case, the entire evidence of the prosecution revolves around the time of 7. 30 or 8. 00 in the night of 8-8-1992 when both the accused are seen near the scene and the dead bodies are discovered was on 9-8-1992 in the morning. It is contended that in the absence of any positive material as to what happened between the night of 8-8-1992 from 8. 30 p. m. onwards till the morning of 9-8-1992, i. e. , till the discovery of the dead bodies by P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) and others, the possibility of somebody else committing the crime cannot be ruled out and as such mere finding of accused 1 near the scene would not make him guilty of the offence as claimed and charged by the prosecution. The learned counsel attacked the next circumstance regarding the recovery of ornaments at the instance and on the information furnished by accused 1. Drawing our attention to the evidence of the panch witnesses, viz. The learned counsel attacked the next circumstance regarding the recovery of ornaments at the instance and on the information furnished by accused 1. Drawing our attention to the evidence of the panch witnesses, viz. , P. W. 16 (jayaraj) and P. W. 23 (ramesh chopra), she contended that there are lot of discrepancies in their evidence as to who exactly made the recovery of the ornaments m. os. 1 to 4. It is contended that, as there is total disregard to the procedure while making seizure, as elicited from the evidence of P. W. 16 (jayaraj) and P. W. 23 (ramesh chopra), no value could have been attached to the alleged recovery of the ornaments said to have been belonging to the deceased. It is commented that even otherwise mere recovery of certain ornaments belonging to the deceased at a later point of time from,accused 1 would not make him ipso facto murderer also. As the projtecution has not placed any sufficient material to show the direct nexus between the accused and the crime of murder of both the deceased, at any rate, it is contended that the conviction of accused 1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is totally uncalled for and as such the same is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned state public prosecutor appearing for the state vehemently argued against accused 1 for enhancement of sentence of accused 1 from life imprisonment to death punishment on the ground that taking advantage of the old age and helpless condition of the two women being aged 73 years and 90 years and having gained their confidence accused 1 has taken disadvantage and has brutally murdered them. The motive being for gain, the learned state public prosecutor contended that this is a heinous crime committed by the accused and therefore he (accused 1) deserves the highest punishment, viz. , death penalty. Insofar as the judgment of acquittal of accused 2 is concerned, the learned state public prosecutor contended that the reasoning of the trial court for giving benefit of doubt is not proper. It is contended that apart from the presence of accused 2 established by the prosecution along with accused 1 as the last seen persons with the deceased when alive, the prosecution was also able to recover the murder -weapon, viz. It is contended that apart from the presence of accused 2 established by the prosecution along with accused 1 as the last seen persons with the deceased when alive, the prosecution was also able to recover the murder -weapon, viz. , pillow and pillow cover used for smothering as per the voluntary information furnished by the accused. It is also pointed out that the fingerprint expert who lifted one of the chance prints from the scene of offences and when it was compared with the fingerprints of accused 2, they tallied with each other. As such, it is contended that the presence of accused 2 and his role was established by the prosecution beyond doubt and, therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to accused 2 on minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence was not just and proper. As such, the learned state public prosecutor prayed that accused 2 should also be punished along with accused 1. ( 9 ) SRI Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for accused 2, arguing in support of the finding of the trial court, inter alia, contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the identity of accused 2 as being person present along with accused 1 at any point of time either at the scene or near the scene on 8-8-1992 and thereafter. It is contended that accused 2 being a total stranger to all the prosecution witnesses could not have been straightaway identified in the court after a long lapse of time, unless there was supporting corroborative material of test identification parade. It is contended that the investigating officer ought to have been held identification parade and in the absence of holding test identification parade no value could have been attached to the prosecution witnesses for identifying accused 2 as a person present along with accused 1 on the date of the incident. Similarly, commenting regarding the finding on the chance fingerprint it is contended that, as the prosecution has neither seized nor produced the steel cup from which the chance print said to be of accused 2 has been lifted, mere comparison of the fingerprint with some fingerprint photographs would not establish the presence of accused 2 at the scene of the crime. It is further contended that in the absence of any further corroborative material like the motive, recovery of any ornaments from accused 2 the trial court was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to him. Further, it is contended that admittedly fingerprint of accused 2 for having been taken by any of the police authority has not been established by the prosecution during the trial. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for accused 2 prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the state against accused 2. ( 10 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the accused and the learned state public prosecutor for the state and perused the records. ( 11 ) AT the outset, it is to be noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding appreciation of evidence especially when the case of the prosecution revolves around circumstantial evidence is Well-Settled. In the case Chandmal and another v State of Rajasthan, three tests for establishing circumstantial evidence have been laid down. The first is that the inference from the circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused must be cogently and firmly established. The second is that the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The third is that the circumstances must be incapable of explana- tion save that of the guilt of the accused. It is also laid down by the apex court in the case Udaipal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh that if the circumstantial evidence shows strong motive to commit the crime as well as opportunity to commit the crime and if the same is considered along with any explanation offered by the accused and if the evidence shows that the accused had strong motive and opportunity to commit the crime and the circumstances are established in this regard and if any reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit can be excluded, it can be held that the chain of circumstance is complete and the accused can be held to be guilty of the offence. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the circumstances against the accused put forth by the prosecution through the witnesses and the documentary evidence are as follows:1. Both the deceased were residing at flat No. 201, richmond place apartments, convent road, Bangalore;2. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the circumstances against the accused put forth by the prosecution through the witnesses and the documentary evidence are as follows:1. Both the deceased were residing at flat No. 201, richmond place apartments, convent road, Bangalore;2. Accused 1 was often engaged by the deceased as part-time driver and as such knew them very well;3. Both the deceased were alive till 8. 00 or 8. 30 p. m. on 8-8-1992;4. At about the same time both the accused were seen going towards the apartment;5. After the night of 8-8-1992 both sunanda and rukamma were not seen alive;6. Accused 1 was in need of money for having purchased a car by taking loan;7. Recovery of m. os. 1 to 4 (gold ornaments) belonging to both the deceased on the information furnished by accused 1 during interrogation and recovery of the same from his car as pointed out by accused 1. similarly, insofar as accused 2 is concerned. 1. Accused 2 was acquainted with accused 1; 2. He was found near the place of incident along with accused 1 going to the flat of the deceased on 8-8-1992 at about 8. 30 p. m. ; 3. Accused 1 pointed out accused 2 as bis accomplice and after apprehension as per the voluntary statement made by accused 2 m. os. 7 and 7a (pillow and pillow cover alleged to have been used for smothering both the deceased) were recovered; 4. Finding of the chance fingerprint of accused 2 from the scene of offence. ( 13 ) THERE is no dispute as to the first circumstance, viz. , both the deceased were residing at the flat wherein they were found dead. This has been established by the prosecution through the cogent and consistent evidence of p. ws. 1 to 4, 6, 19, 22 and 24. So also, the deceased engaging the services of accused 1 is established through the evidence of p. ws. 1 to 4, 6, 17, 19 and 24. Even on reconsidering the entire evidence of these witnesses, there is no doubt that accused 1 was often engaged as part-time driver by the deceased to take them in and around Bangalore and sometimes to go outside Bangalore also. 1 to 4, 6, 17, 19 and 24. Even on reconsidering the entire evidence of these witnesses, there is no doubt that accused 1 was often engaged as part-time driver by the deceased to take them in and around Bangalore and sometimes to go outside Bangalore also. It is also established by the prosecution that accused 1 was a well-known person not only to the deceased but also to their relatives as well as the persons near the apartment especially P. W. 2 (thavamani - a watchman), P. W. 3 (selvi-maid servant), P. W. 4 (ganapathy - driver of another flat owner), P. W. 17 (yesudas - another watchman of the apartments) and P. W. 24 (sriram - driver of one other flat owner in the apartments ). Even on reappreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, we do not find any material to discard their cogent and consistent evidence, so far as accused 1 being known to the deceased is concerned, and he was often engaged as part-time driver. ( 14 ) THE next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is as to both the deceased were seen alive till 8. 00 or 8. 30 in the night of 8-8-1992. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of three witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 (thavamani), P. W. 3 (selvi) and P. W. 8 (lakshmi ). As stated earlier, P. W. 2 (thavamani) was the watchman of the apartment along with P. W. 17 (yesudas ). He has stated that from 2. 00 p. m. on 6-8-1992 he was the watchman till 7. 30 a. m. on 8-8-1992. He has specifically stated in the evidence that in the borning of 8-8-1992 sunanda went out in the car driven by accused 1 and came back around 2. 00 p. m. P. W. 8 (lakshmi - cousin of deceased rukamma) has stated that in the night of saturday (8-8-1992) at about 8. 00 or 8. 30 p. m. she had a talk with sunanda on the previous evening day over phone. In her cross-examination this has been further got clarified and the witness has stated that on saturday deceased sunanda talked with her on phone thrice, i. e. , on the first occasion at about 2. 30 p. m. , on the second occasion at about 5. 00 p. m. and on the third occasion at about 8. In her cross-examination this has been further got clarified and the witness has stated that on saturday deceased sunanda talked with her on phone thrice, i. e. , on the first occasion at about 2. 30 p. m. , on the second occasion at about 5. 00 p. m. and on the third occasion at about 8. 00 p. m. nothing contra-indicative has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to disprove the fact, viz. , the deceased were alive till 8. 00 or 8. 30 in the night of 8-8-1992. So far as not seeing the deceased alive thereafter, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 (keshava iyengar) and P. W. 3 (selvi ). P. w. 3 has stated that she came to the apartment and flat of the deceased in the morning of 9-8-1992 to do her duty as maid servant. When she went to the flat, she found the door locked and as she could not get any response, she is said to have made enquiries with P. W. 2 (thavamani) also. She has stated that having waited some time, as neither the deceased responded to her calling nor of ringing the door bell, she went back to her house and on the next day, when she came there, the dead bodies had already been discovered. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length, no damaging material to disprove her evidence is forthcoming. Thus, from the evi- dence of these witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 (thavamani), P. W. 3 (selvi) and P. W. 8 (lakshmi) it is established by the prosecution that both the deceased were seen alive till 8. 00 or 8. 30 p. m. on 8-8-1992 and in the next day morning, when P. W. 3 visited the house for attending household work, there was no response from both the deceased. At this stage, if one looks into the evidence of the doctor (p. w. 12-dr. Thirunavuk- karasu), who conducted autopsy, he has opined that the probable time of death was 2 to 3 days prior to the conducting autopsy which was admittedly on 11-8-1992. So far as not getting any response from the deceased in the morning of 9-8-1992 is concerned, we have some more evidence in the form of P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad), P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) and P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar ). So far as not getting any response from the deceased in the morning of 9-8-1992 is concerned, we have some more evidence in the form of P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad), P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) and P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar ). P. w. 6 (suvarna prasad) is the granddaughter of deceased rukamma and daughter of deceased sunanda. She was staying at the relevant time at Madras. According to her, her mother and grandmother used to phone her up and she is used to get information about their well-being. According to her, on 9-8-1992 (sunday), as she did not get the regular phone call from her mother in the morning, she tried to contact them (her mother and grandmother) on phone. But, she could not get any response. Having attempted so and being worried about her aged mother and grandmother, P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) had contacted P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) staying in the same apartment over phone and requested him to find out why there was no response from her mother or grandmother. It is in the evidence of P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) that on receipt of such phone call from P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad) he, in turn, first tried to contact the deceased by phone and, as the phone kept on ringing and there was no response from the deceased, he personally went to the flat and found the door locked. It is in the evidence of this witness that he having waited some more time more returned to his flat thinking that the deceased might have gone out and, as he too could not find out the whereabouts of the deceased he contacted P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar - an Advocate in Bangalore itself ). It is to be mentioned that the daughter of P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) was married to the soil of deceased sunanda. It is not in dispute that P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) being relative was often visiting the deceased to make enquiries about their well-being, as per the request of his son-in-law and his daughter who were staying at Bombay and being an Advocate was also looking after the affairs of the deceased. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 that, when he received the phone call from P. W. 22 (dr. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 that, when he received the phone call from P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) he too advised him to wait some time more and they (p. w. 1-keshava lyengar and P. W. 22-dr. Xavier) having waited sufficiently came over personally to the flat, as they could not get any response from the deceased. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) that at about 7. 30 a. m. he went to the flat of the deceased along with P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) and rang the door bell of the flat. As they could not get any response again, according to P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar), he opened the door with the help of a duplicate key given to him by deceased sunanda. On entering he found that rooms were in darkness and silent. When both P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) and P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) entered the bedroom, they saw two bodies covered with rugs, lying on separate cots. It is stated that on uncovering the rugs P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) and P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier) found that the bodies are of sunanda and rukamma. P. w. 22 being a medical practitioner found both of them dead. So far as this aspect is concerned, again absolutely there is no cross-examination to doubt the veracity and thus the trial court has rightly held that both the deceased were seen alive on 8-8-1992 upto or about 8. 30 p. m. and on the next day morning their dead bodies were found by P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar) and P. W. 22 (dr. Xavier ). Even on reappreciation of the evidence, in our view, the finding of the trial court on this circumstance is just and proper. ( 15 ) SO far as the accused are concerned are the next following circumstances are concerned. The first is the motive aspect. According to the prosecution, these murders were committed for gain, as accused 1 was in need of heavy amount. In this regard, the prosecution has led evidence of P. W. 14 (goutham chand surana) who has stated that about three months prior to the incident accused 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 13,000/- from him for the purpose of purchasing an ambassador car bearing registration No. Kld 6288 which is in this case m. o. 17. In this regard, the prosecution has led evidence of P. W. 14 (goutham chand surana) who has stated that about three months prior to the incident accused 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 13,000/- from him for the purpose of purchasing an ambassador car bearing registration No. Kld 6288 which is in this case m. o. 17. Taking of this loan is evidenced by the entries in the r. c. book seized during the investigation, as per exhibit p. 23 which is the extract of 'r' register. According to P. W. 14, accused 1 had paid only one instalment and had not paid any instalment thereafter. It is to be noticed that there is absolutely no cross-examination of this witness on any of these aspects. No doubt, the evidence of P. W. 14 (goutham chand surana) by itself would not be conclusive to hold that there was a need of money for accused 1 so as to kill deceased sunanda and rukammfi. But, if this circumstance of taking loan of a heavy amount of Rs. 13,000/- a few months prior to the incident and the inability to pay the instalments, except the first is considered it would prima facie establish that there was certain money requirement to the accused and possibly making quick money when chance was available by robbing the deceased cannot be overruled. As it is often said, motive is always locked up in the mind of the culprit. It is only he who knows the motive behind commission of any crime. Courts are required only to find out whether there was such possibility or not of the alleged motive. As stated, in the absence of any cross-examination at all of P. W. 14 (goutham chand surana), the circumstance that accused 1 was in need of money, in our view, has been established by the prosecution. Added to this, if other evidence, viz. , recovery of m. os. 1 to 4 (gold ornaments on the body of the deceased) on the information furnished by accused 1 from his car itself is considered, we find that the prosecution has sufficiently established the motive aspect. Nextly, the prosecution relies upon the circumstance of finding the accused near the scene of offence or what is generally called the last seen together aspect. Nextly, the prosecution relies upon the circumstance of finding the accused near the scene of offence or what is generally called the last seen together aspect. According to the prosecution, both the accused were seen at the apartment and especially going towards the flat of the deceased where the crime was committed at about 8-00 p. m. on 8-8-1992. In this regard, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 (thavamani), P. W. 4 (ganapathy) and P. W. 24 (sriram) are relevant. According to P. W. 2 (thavamani), who was the watchman of the apartment on 8-8-1992, at about 7. 30 p. m. both the accused came to the apartment and after some time accused 1 enquired with him as to whether the old ladies were present in their flat and on answering the same assertively and stating that he has to collect some amount from sunanda, it is stated, both the accused went towards the flat which is situate in the first floor of the apartments. After the accused went to the flat, within a few minutes P. W. 24 (sriram), who was working as a driver of one a. k. battacharya who is also staying in the same apartments, enquired with P. W. 2 (thavamani) about the presence of accused 1 as his car is found outside the compound and on saying of P. W. 2 (thavamani) that accused 1 with another person went to the flat of the deceased, he too went to the first floor, as, according to this witness, he wanted to talk with accused 1. But, on going there, he found that the door of flat No. 201 is locked and in spite of pressing the bell, there was no response from inside. After waiting some time, he went back. Similarly, in the evidence of P. W. 4 (ganapathy), who is another driver of one arya, resident of a flat in the same apartment, he too enquired with P. W. 2 (thavamani) about the presence of accused 1 on seeing his car parked outside, as this witness wanted a car drop to go to his house. Similarly, in the evidence of P. W. 4 (ganapathy), who is another driver of one arya, resident of a flat in the same apartment, he too enquired with P. W. 2 (thavamani) about the presence of accused 1 on seeing his car parked outside, as this witness wanted a car drop to go to his house. He too went to the flat and did not get any response and, while he was coming back and informing P. W. 2 (thavamani) that there is no response from flat No. 201, he was called by the accused as ayya ayya (sir, sir) and on enquiry it is stated that the accused told this witness that he was in the flat enjoying a hindi movie on the television and on a specific enquiry as to why there was no response even after pressing the bell, accused 1 is stated to have said that they were enjoying the movie and they did not want to be disturbed. After this talk c P. W. 4 (ganapathy) asked accused 1 to give him drop. It is significant at this stage itself to note that P. W. 4 (ganapathy) saw accused 2 along with accused 1 at that time. Thereafter, accused 1 along with accused 2 took this witness in his car and gave him drop near richmond circle. There is no worthwhile cross-examination on this aspect of any of these witnesses, viz. , P. W. 2 (thavamani), P. W. 4 (ganapathy) and P. W. 24 (sriram) as to why they are deposing falsehood about the presence of these accused. Undisputedly, all these three witnesses knew accused 1, as he was often coming to the apartment being part-time driver to the deceased. The only objection from the accused especially that of accused 2 is establishing the identity of this accused (accused 2 ). It is contended that accused 2 was a total stranger to these witnesses and these witnesses were probably for the first time seeing this accused (accused 2) and as such it is commented that he is seen only once. At the spot and thereafter in the police station and as such the identification of this accused in the court would not establish the fact of identifying this accused by these witnesses in the absence of holding of test identification parade. At the spot and thereafter in the police station and as such the identification of this accused in the court would not establish the fact of identifying this accused by these witnesses in the absence of holding of test identification parade. It is to be noted that test identification parade and report thereon is only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive one. This is only to see whether an unknown person could be remembered and identified by the witness who has seen him only once just prior to or at the time of the commission of offence. In the present case, it is to be noted that, though accused 2 who was a total stranger especially to P. W. 4 (ganapathy), he has seen him for some time. Added to this, travelling in the car of accused 1 along with accused 2 would give him (p. w. 4) sufficient opportunity to see accused 2. It is to be noted that within less than 48 hours of the commission of the crime accused 2 has been apprehended. The fact that a heinous crime of murdering two old ladies would be a shocking incident and as such there is every possibility of remembering the incident on 8-8-1992 and seeing the accused and thus being able to identify the accused of a ghastly incident cannot be overruled. It is said that brain and mind of human being is much superior to the best computers available and why and how some insignificant things are even remembered after some time is yet to be discovered. Because of the ghastly nature of the incident, the possibility of P. W. 4 (ganapathy) remembering seeing the accused especially accused 2 in the company of accused 1 around or just at the time of the incident cannot be overruled. The identification of accused 2 either in the police station or in the court, in our view, cannot be said to be farfetched or falsified. Added to this, the witnesses are total strangers to this accused (accused 2) and no motive or ill-will against him is even suggested so as to falsely implicate him in a crime and as such we attach no importance for non-holding of test identification parade so as to discard the entire identification of accused 2 by these witnesses, P. W. 2 (thavamani), P. W. 4 (ganapathy) and P. W. 24 (sriram ). It is also to be noted that involvement of accused 2 has come out during the interrogation of accused 1. It was accused 1 who has voluntarily stated the role of accused 2 in the commission of the crime along with him. That itself would not be a sufficient material. But, added to these circumstances the interrogation of this accused himself has led to the discovery of the pillow and the pillow cover (m. os. 7 and 7a) which are said to be the weapons used for murdering sunanda and rukamma would establish the presence and role of this accused. At this stage itself we would like to deal with the nature of the deaths of the deceased, as it is heavily contested by both the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the homicidal deaths of the deceased. No doubt, as per the evidence of P. W. 12 (dr. Thirunavuk- karasu) and P. W. 13 (dr. Mahjunath), who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies, they could not give immediately the cause of death, as the bodies were swollen and decomposed and there were no external injuries visible on the bodies. To overrule poisoning, the investigating officer has taken care to send viscera for chemical examination and it was found that there was no poison in the viscera. The cause of death can be of four kinds, viz. , natural, suicidal and homicidal or accidental. It is nobody's case much less unbelievable that the two ladies died simultaneously and naturally without any ailment. Witness after witness have spoken that the ladies were hale and healthy and seen moving about till about 2. 00 p. m. on 8-8-1992. P. w. 8 (lakshmi, cousin of rukamma) has, in fact, stated that at about 8. 00 or 8. 30 in the night of 8-8-1992 he had talked on telephone with sunanda. The suicidal death of both the deceased simultaneously is also ruled out by the report of the chemical analysis. It is nobody's case that both the deceased died accidentally. If all these possibilities are overruled, the only irresistable conclusion, considering the evidence as well as the medical report, in our view, is that both sunanda and rukamma met with homicidal death. It is nobody's case that both the deceased died accidentally. If all these possibilities are overruled, the only irresistable conclusion, considering the evidence as well as the medical report, in our view, is that both sunanda and rukamma met with homicidal death. According to the prosecution, the possibility of death by smothering the deceased was as disclosed by accused leading to discovery of pillow used for smothering confirmed by the doctors. From the condition of the bodies it was noticed by the doctors that the tongue was protruded, bitten and dark discoloured. Bloodstained fluid present over nostrils, around the oral cavity and dried bloodstains present over front and sides of face, neck and front of chest. Face was discoloured, conjunctivae congested. Considering these symptoms on enquiry by the investigating officer the doctors, overruling any other possibility, have held unanimously that the possible cause of death would be asphyxia due to smothering. In this regard, we may refer to well-known treatise of Sri Modi on medical jurisprudence and toxicology (22nd edition ). According to the learned author, the causes of suffocation are: (1) smothering or closure of the mouth and the nostrils; (2) choking or obstruction of the air-passages from within; (3) pressure on the chest (traumatic or crush asphyxia); and (4) inhalation of irrespirable gases. So far as smothering or closure of the mouth and nostrils are concerned, the learned author has stated as to the appearance of the body especially face as follows:" (A) in homicidal smothering effected by the forcible application of the hand over the mouth and the nostrils, bruises and abrasions are often found on the lips and on the angles of the mouth, and alongside the nostrils. The inner mucosal surface of the lips may be found lacerated from pressure on the teeth. The nose may be flattened, and its septum may be fractured from pressure of the hand, but these signs are, in modi's experience, very rare. There may be bruises and abrasions on the cheeks and the molar regions, or on the lower jaw, if there has been a struggle. Rarely, fracture or dislocation of the cervical vertebrae may occur if the neck has been forcibly wrenched in an attempt at smothering with the hand. No local signs of violence will be found, if a soft cloth or pillow has been used to block the mouth and nostrils". Rarely, fracture or dislocation of the cervical vertebrae may occur if the neck has been forcibly wrenched in an attempt at smothering with the hand. No local signs of violence will be found, if a soft cloth or pillow has been used to block the mouth and nostrils". the learned author has further observed:"sometimes it is not easy to state whether death is due to suffocation, inasmuch as the signs of asphyxia may be altogether absent, or these signs may be present in death from epilepsy, tetanus, or strychnine poisoning. To come to a definite conclusion it is, therefore, very essential to look for evidences of violence in the shape of external marks surrounding the mouth and nostrils or on inside the mucosal surface, or on the chest, or the presence of foreign bodies. . . . . ". these symptoms appear if a living person is subjected to smothering and that is what practically the doctors who conducted autopsy over bodies of sunanda and rukamma found. These appearances noted in the postmortem report can be taken as symptoms pointing out smothering or homicidal death of both the deceased in the absence of any contra-nega- tive material and such possibility has not even been suggested by the accused to these witnesses in the cross-examination. Thus, we have no doubt that both sunanda and rukamma met with homicidal death in and around the evening or early night of 8-8-1992. ( 16 ) THE next important circumstance against the accused is the recovery of the ornaments (m. os. 1 to 4) so far as accused 1 is concerned and the pillow and the pillow cover so far as accused 2 is concerned along with the finding his chance fingerprints on one of the objects in the place of the offence. So far as the recovery of m. os. 1 to 4 (ornaments) is concerned, the learned counsel for accused 1 tried to argue on the non-establishment of the fact that the ornaments belonged to the deceased. Considering the entire evidence especially the evidence of the close relatives of the deceased, viz. , P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad), P. W. 8 (lakshmi) and P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar), who cogently and consistently have stated in their evidence that they had often seen the deceased wearing these ornaments. Considering the entire evidence especially the evidence of the close relatives of the deceased, viz. , P. W. 6 (suvarna prasad), P. W. 8 (lakshmi) and P. W. 1 (keshava lyengar), who cogently and consistently have stated in their evidence that they had often seen the deceased wearing these ornaments. P. w. 6 (suvarna prasad) has even stated in her evidence the specific identifiable marks on these ornaments, which have been established to be present on the recovered ornaments (m. os. 1 to 4 ). According to the prosecution, after interrogation of accused 1 he revealed that he kept all these ornaments in his car and in the presence of the panch witnesses the same were recovered by the investigating officer from the dicky of the car belonging to accused 1 immediately after his arrest and interrogation on the same day. No doubt, there are minor variances and discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 16 (jayaraj) and P. W. 23 (ramesh chopra), the panch witnesses, regarding recovery of these ornaments. But, on reconsideration of the entire material evidence, in our view, the trial court was justified in declining to attach much importance to these minor discrepancies and in holding that they were, in fact recovered, on the information furnished by accused 1 which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, for the purpose of recovery, the evidence of the investigating officer is, in fact, sufficient, as it is truthful and believable. Added to this, the evidence of independent mahazar witnesses, P. W. 16 (jayaraj) and P. W. 23 (ramesh chopra) indicate the fact that these ornaments were in fact recovered from the dicky of the car belonging to accused 1 on his furnishing information in this regard. ( 17 ) THUS on reappreciation of the entire evidence and considering the material, we are of the view that the prosecution has established the presence of both the accused on 8-8-1992 around 8. 30 p. m. and the fact that both the deceased, sunanda and rukamma, were not found alive and, thereafter, accused 1 had the possible motive. As such, apart from the justifiable conviction of accused 1 for the offences under sections 302 and 394 of the IPC, we find that accused 2 is also guilty of the same offences with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. As such, apart from the justifiable conviction of accused 1 for the offences under sections 302 and 394 of the IPC, we find that accused 2 is also guilty of the same offences with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. As such the appeal filed by accused 1 is liable to be rejected and at the same time the appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of accused 2 deserves to be allowed and accused 2 is also liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC. ( 18 ) IN the appeal filed by the state for enhancement of the sentence in respect of accused 1. Learned state public prosecutor vehemently contended that this is a heinous crime in which two old ladies were done to death by both the accused for gain and as such this is a fit case to award the sentence of death to these accused. ( 19 ) CONSIDERING the entire evidence, though we find that the murders are ghastly in nature, it appears to us that at the spur of moment for the reasons that accused 1 needed certain money for discharging his loan, there was no pre-plan for the same and seeing an opportunity to rob the old ladies and thinking of possibility of identifying them later, the accused have done the deceased to death. In our view, this does not come under the category of 'the rarest of rare case' and giving considerable thought over this aspect, we do not think the accused are to be awarded with the extreme penalty of death. Therefore, the appeal filed by the. State for enhancement of sentence is liable to be rejected. ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, cri. A. No. 151 of 1996 filed by accused 1 for setting aside his conviction and sentence is dismissed. Cri. A. No. 748 of 1996 filed by the state to enhance the sentence against accused 1 is also dismissed. Cri. A. No. 749 of 1996 filed by the state for setting aside the acquittal of accused 2 is allowed. A. No. 151 of 1996 filed by accused 1 for setting aside his conviction and sentence is dismissed. Cri. A. No. 748 of 1996 filed by the state to enhance the sentence against accused 1 is also dismissed. Cri. A. No. 749 of 1996 filed by the state for setting aside the acquittal of accused 2 is allowed. Accused 2 is convicted for the offences of sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment shall run concurrently along with the sentence of imprisonment for life. As accused 2 was acquitted by the trial court, the trial court is directed to secure the presence of accused 2 immediately to undergo the sentence imposed on him in cri. A. No. 749 of 1996 by this court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .