M.Karpagavinayagam, J: Vanamamalai and Sudalai Muthu - the appellants herein were convicted for the offences under Sec.302 read with Secs.34, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Though they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, there was no separate sentence imposed upon them for the offences under Secs.394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The factual matrix leading to the conviction could be briefly stated as follows: "(a) The deceased Balasundari, aged about 23 years is the daughter of P.W.1 Anandha KaniAmmal. The husband of P.W.1 died 20 years back. Balakrishnan, the son of P.W.1 left their village Sithan Kudiyiruppu and settled at Trichy. He was working in a grocery shop at Trichy. P.W.1 along with her daughter Balasundari, the deceased was residing in the house at Sithan Kudiyiruppu. P.W.1 engaged in the business of selling milk. The deceased Balasundari invariably used leave the house. Normally, after finishing the household work, for cutting grass to feed the cows, the deceased would leave the house at about 4.30 P.M. and come back at 7 P.M. (b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 21.9.1986, the deceased, after taking her food, left the house and went to the field carrying with her M.O.1 Aruwal; M.O.2 Palmyra Fibre Basket; and M.O.3 catapult. P.W.1 returned home at about 7 P.M. and her house was found locked. When she noticed that her daughter did not come back, she enquired her neighbours. They also told her that they could not find the daughter of P.W.1. Therefore, along with the neighbours, including P.W.3 Rama Nadar, P.W.1 went around the village in search of the deceased Balasundari. At about 10 P.M., they found the dead body of the deceased at the end of the village. They also found that her jewels were missing and both the earlobes and nose were cut. (c) On the instructions of P.W.3 Rama Nadar, P.W.5 Paramasivam went to inform the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.6, who, in turn, came to the scene and saw the dead body. He obtained the statement, Ex.P-1 from P.W.1. He also prepared a report, Ex.P-4. They also found that her jewels were missing and both the earlobes and nose were cut. (c) On the instructions of P.W.3 Rama Nadar, P.W.5 Paramasivam went to inform the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.6, who, in turn, came to the scene and saw the dead body. He obtained the statement, Ex.P-1 from P.W.1. He also prepared a report, Ex.P-4. He sent the Thalayari with Ex.P-1, the statement and Ex.P-4, the report prepared by P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer for handing over the said documents to the police station. P.W.13 is the Head Constable attached to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station. At about 3.30 A.M., Thalayari Pechimuthu came and handed over Ex.P-1, the statement of P.W.1 and Ex.P-4, the report prepared by the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.6 to the Head Constable attached to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station P.W.13, who, in turn, registered a case in Crime No.288 of 1986 for the offences under Secs.302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared the printed first information report, Ex.P-16 and sent these documents to the Court as well as to the higher officials. (d) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police attached to Tiruchendur Police Station received the message at 3.45 A.M. on 22.9.1986. He came to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and received the copy of the printed first information report. Thereafter, he went to the scene at about 6.30 A.M., and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-14 and the rough sketch Ex.P-21. He also held inquest between 8.45 A.M. and 10.45 A.M.. He examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others during the course of inquest. Ex.P-22 is the inquest report. At about 10.45 A.M., he sent the dead body along with the requisition, Ex.P-2 through P.W.14, the Constable to the doctor for conducting post mortem. At about 11 A.M., he recovered blood stained earth M.O.16; sample earth M.O.16 and Palmyra wooden basket M.O.2; M.O.1 Aruval; M.O.3 catapult under mahazar Ex.P-15. (e) P.W.4-the doctor attached to Kulasekarapattinam Government Hospital received the requisition, Ex.P-2 from P.W.17, the Inspector of Police for post mortem and commenced post mortem at about 12.45 P.M. She found the following injuries on the deceased: “(i) An incised wound 1 cm x 3 mm x 3 mm present over the palmar aspect of left index finger obliquely placed covered with dried blood clots. (ii) A linear superficial incised wound 1 cm x 1 mm x facia deep present over the anterior aspect of right shoulder joint obliquely placed. (iii) The lobule of the left ear is missing. The rest of the ear is seen with horizontal cut wound at the lower part covered with dried blood clots. (iv) The lobule of the right ear is missing. The rest of the ear is seen with horizontal cut wound at the lower part covered with dried blood clots. (v) The part of the nose below the root is missing. Triangular shaped clear cut wound is seen in the place of nose, covered with dried blood clots. (vi) The middle 1/3rd of the upper lip 2 mm depth is missing. The cut would in the lip is covered with dried blood clots. (vii) A gapping incised would 18 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm present over the front of neck on the right middle and left side of neck. 12 cm on the right side and 6 cm on the left side. Horizontally placed 1/2 cm below the thyroid catilege. The Trachea, Oesophagus, nerves, vessels and muscles and the anterior part of vertebral column are cut at site covered with dried blood clots”. She issued the post mortem certificate Ex.P-3. She has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the injury on the neck sustained by her. (f) After post mortem was over, P.W.14-the Constable recovered M.O.8 -half saree; M.O.9 Skirt; M.O.10 Jumper; Cheppal series M.O.11; and broken bangle series M.O.12 from the dead body and handed over the same in the police station. On 25.9.1986, P.W.7, the Head Clerk of the Magistrate’s Court sent the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.17, the Inspector of Police took steps for arrest of the accused. But, however, he was not able to effect arrest. Subsequently, he came to know that both the appellants/accused surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. Therefore, he filed a petition before the said Court on 29.9.1986 for granting police custody. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 6.10.1986, granted police custody and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, in pursuance of the said order, took both the appellants under his custody and brought them to the police station at Kulasekarapattinam. Therefore, he filed a petition before the said Court on 29.9.1986 for granting police custody. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 6.10.1986, granted police custody and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, in pursuance of the said order, took both the appellants under his custody and brought them to the police station at Kulasekarapattinam. When they were interrogated, the first appellant gave a confession stating that the minor chain worn by the deceased was sold to a person, who he could identify, if he is taken to the place. He would also state that he could point out the place in which the Aruval M.O.1 was hidden. Ex.P-5 is the admissible portion of the confession given by the first appellant. The second appellant also gave a confession stating that he could point out the place where the other jewels were hidden by him. The admissible portion of his statement is Ex.P-6. (g) On 7.10.1986, at about 11 A.M., the first appellant took P.W.17-the Inspector of Police and other witnesses to Kuzhaikadai Bazaar, Tirunelveli town and identified P.W.9 Mani Achari, to whom he had earlier sold the gold chain M.O.7. On examining P.W.9 Mani, he admitted that the said chain was sold to him. Therefore, the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-7. Thereafter, the second appellant took the witnesses to his house at Sirugandhur and pointed out the place near the well where the jewels were buried. On being pointed out, M.Os.4, 5 - nose screws, and M.O.6 stud series, which were concealed under the earth, were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-8. Thereafter, both the accused took P.W.17, the Inspector of Police and other witnesses to the place, which is situated 2 KM away from the scene of occurrence near the sea shore and pointed out the fence where the two Aruvals, namely M.O.13 and M.O.14 were hidden and the same were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-9. (h) on 8.10.1986, the material objects recovered from the accused were sent to the Court. Since one Sivaraj saw both the accused near the scene at or about the time of occurrence, the Inspector of Police P.W.17 requested the Court to arrange for identification parade through the requisition Ex.P-17. Accordingly, P.W.15, the then learned Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tuticorin conducted the identification parade on 13.10.1986. In the said parade, the said Sivaraj identified both the appellants and the notes regarding the same is marked as Ex.P-20. Accordingly, P.W.15, the then learned Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tuticorin conducted the identification parade on 13.10.1986. In the said parade, the said Sivaraj identified both the appellants and the notes regarding the same is marked as Ex.P-20. In the meantime, all the material objects were sent for chemical examination. P.W.7 received the chemical examiner’s report, Ex.P-12 and the serologist’s report. Ex.P-13. After investigation was over, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against both the accused for the offences under Secs.302 read with Secs.34, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code". 3. On the case being committed, the trial Court, after framing charges, questioned the accused, who pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17; marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-22 and also marked M.Os.1 to 16. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 were marked just to point out that there were some corrections in Form 95 sent by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police to the Court. On consideration of the materials placed before the Court, the learned Sessions Judge, found both the accused guilty of the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 4. Mr.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for both the appellants, while attaching the findings and judgment of the trial Court, pointed out various infirmities in the case of the prosecution and submitted that the materials, which are available on record, are not sufficient to hold that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime, especially when various links in the chain of circumstances are missing. He would also contend that one Ganapathi, who is stated to have arranged for sale of M.O.8 gold chain on behalf of the first appellant with P.W.9 Mani, turned hostile and P.W.9 Mani also did not identify the first accused as the person, who accompanied the said Ganapathi, and therefore, there is no evidence to show that the first accused alone sold the gold chain M.O.7 to P.W.9 Mani. The recovery of M.O.9 gold chain from P.W.9 Mani is also doubtful, since the evidence of P.W.9 would show that he sold the same to someone, got back from him and handed it over to the police whereas P.W.17, the Inspector of Police and P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer would say that the said jewel M.O.7 was recovered from the drawer of the table found in the shop of P.W.9 Mani. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there are various corrections in Form 95, which was sent along with the jewel belatedly on 10.10.1986, though the alleged recovery was on 7.10.1986. Though the occurrence had taken place on 21.9.1986, the recovery of the jewels and Aruval was made only on 7.10.1986. Therefore, the belated recovery would not be sufficient to fasten the liability on both the accused with reference to the charge of murder. Moreover, one Sivaraj, who identified the accused in the identification parade, had not been examined, as he was no more and therefore, the important link of identification of the accused is missing. Furthermore, P.W.11, Muthiah Thevar, who had stated that he saw the accused with Aruval, did not identify A2. At any rate, as far as A2 is concerned, the only circumstantial evidence available against him is the recovery of M.O.4 to M.O.6 the nose screws and stud series respectively. Therefore, this piece of evidence would not be sufficient to hold that both of them had joined together and committed the offence of robbery and murder. Since there is a long gap between the offence and the recovery, at the most, they could be convicted only for the offence of having been found in possession of the stolen property, but there cannot be conviction in respect of the murder and robbery. 6. On the other hand, Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Government Advocate, would emphatically contend that the evidence of P.W.11 Muthiah Thevar would clearly show that the first accused along with another were found near the scene at or about the time of occurrence with Aruval, that subsequent to their arrest, jewels worn by the deceased and Aruval were recovered from them, that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8, who are the mother of the deceased and goldsmith respectively identified the jewels of the deceased and that it clearly reveals that the accused alone had committed the offence of robbery and murder. In short, his submission is that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused are to be confirmed. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly, in this case, there is no eyewitness. The entire case hinges upon various pieces of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove various pieces of circumstantial evidence that the accused alone had committed the crime in question and while the same is to be established, the prosecution should show that the chain of circumstances is complete without any missing link. Even if one link is missing, then the accused would be entitled for the benefit of doubt. 8. In the light of the legal situation, let us now discuss about various circumstances available on record. The following are the pieces of circumstantial evidence: “(i) P.W.11 Muthiah Thevar saw A1 along with another with Aruval at about 5.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence near the scene. (ii) Five days later, both the appellants surrendered before the Court. On obtaining the police custody, P.W.17 the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.7 gold chain worn by the deceased on the basis of the confession of A1 from P.W.9 and recovered the Aruvals M.O.13 and M.O.14, which were used for the commission of the offence. M.O.13 and M.O.14 recovered on the confession of A2 would contain human blood and in M.O.14, the group of human blood is “O”, which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. (iii) On the confession of A2, M.Os.4 to 6 the jewels worn by the deceased were recovered on 7.10.1986”. 9. The question that is posed before this Court is as to whether these pieces of evidence are reliable and even if they are reliable, whether this would be sufficient to establish the culpability of the appellants in the commission of the offence. 10. It is true that P.W.9 Mani, from whom M.O.7 gold chain was recovered, did not identify the first accused as the person, who accompanied Ganapathi. It is equally true that the said Ganapathi turned hostile and consequently, the evidence of Ganapathi is not helpful to the prosecution. 10. It is true that P.W.9 Mani, from whom M.O.7 gold chain was recovered, did not identify the first accused as the person, who accompanied Ganapathi. It is equally true that the said Ganapathi turned hostile and consequently, the evidence of Ganapathi is not helpful to the prosecution. It is also a fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, that there is variation with reference to the aspect of recovery of the jewel M.O.7 from the drawer of the table in the shop of P.W.9 Mani. But, it shall be noticed that the police custody of A1 was obtained on 6.10.1986 and only at the instance of the confession of A1, the said Ganapathi was traced and at his instance, P.W.9 Mani was traced. It is the specific statement of P.W.9 Mani that Ganapathi P.W.10 came along with another and sold M.O.7 gold chain to him. In the cross examination, he stated that he had sold it to a third person and then, he got back from him and handed over the same to P.W.17 the Inspector of Police, when the Police Officer informed about the confession statement of the accused. Though it is stated by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police that the jewel was recovered from the drawer of the table in the shop of P.W.9, Mani, the materials available from the evidence of P.W.9 Mani, P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police would show that the gold chain M.O.7 was handed over by P.W.9 Mani to P.W.17, the Inspector of Police and consequently, there was a seizure. 11. The two important aspects to be noticed in this context are as follows: “(i) P.W.9-Mani was traced only the instance of A1; and (ii) M.O.7 the gold chain, which was worn by the deceased, was identified by P.W.1 -the mother of the deceased and P.W.8 - the goldsmith, who made those jewels, and was recovered from P.W.9 Mani”. 12. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.7, the gold chain at the instance of A1, cannot be said to be unreliable, especially when there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 8 and 17. Furthermore, this is supported by the evidence of P.W.9 Mani also. 12. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.7, the gold chain at the instance of A1, cannot be said to be unreliable, especially when there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 8 and 17. Furthermore, this is supported by the evidence of P.W.9 Mani also. So, there is no difficulty in holding that M.O.7, the gold chain was worn by the deceased and the same was robbed by the accused persons, who, in turn, sold the same to P.W.9 Mani. Therefore, it shall be held that the recovery of M.O.7 the gold chain, which was worn by the deceased, had been clearly established by the prosecution. That apart, M.Os.13 and 14 were recovered at the instance of A1 on the same day under mahazar Ex.P-9. This is spoken to by both P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police. Both the Aruvals M.Os. 13 and 14, as mentioned in the serologist’s report Ex.P-13, contained human blood and particularly, one Aruval contained the human blood group “O”, which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. 13. Similarly, on the confession of A2, the jewels M.O.4 and M.O.6 were recovered near his house. As a matter of fact, both P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, and P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer with their party were taken to the pumpset situated near his house, where a cloth bag was unearthed, which contained M.Os. 4 to 6. On the next day itself, these jewels were sent to the Court. However, the same were returned, since the Magistrate was on leave. Ultimately, it was deposited in Court on 10.10.1986. Even during the course of investigation, the witnesses, namely, P.W.1 the mother of the deceased and P.W.8, the goldsmith identified the jewels as that of the jewels of the deceased. They had also supported the said statement, while they deposed before the Court. 14. A reading of deposition of P.W.8-the goldsmith would go to show that these jewels were made by him at the request of P.W.1 and in the cross examination, he would also state that he was a licensed goldsmith and his licence number is 7/73. Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination of either P.W. 1 the mother of the deceased or P.W.8, the goldsmith to show that these jewels, namely, M.O.4 to M.O.7 were not made by P.W.8 the goldsmith. Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination of either P.W. 1 the mother of the deceased or P.W.8, the goldsmith to show that these jewels, namely, M.O.4 to M.O.7 were not made by P.W.8 the goldsmith. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased and P.W.8, the goldsmith with reference to the identity of the jewels worn by the deceased, which were recovered from the accused. Furthermore, in this respect, the evidence of P.W.4-the doctor assumes importance. 15. According to P.W.1, the jewels worn by the deceased were found missing from the body of the deceased. In addition to her evidence, the evidence of P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police would show that the injuries were found on the nose and ear by cutting ear lobes and the tip of the nose. This is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor-P.W.4. P.W.4, the doctor would state in the post mortem certificate Ex.P-3 that the lobes of right and left ear are missing and the part of the nose below the root is also missing. 16. P.W.11, Muthiah Thevar would state that he saw the first appellant along with another with Aruval at about 5.30 P.M. near the scene on the date of occurrence. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased would state the deceased left the house, after taking her food for cutting the grass in the field at about 4.30 P.M. on the date of occurrence. P.W.4-the doctor, both in the deposition and in the post mortem certificate, Ex.P-3, would state that the stomach of the deceased contains 8 ounces of undigested rice. She would further state that the deceased might have died one hour subsequent to her taking the food. This is also one of the important connecting link to hold that the accused had committed the murder and robbery at the place of occurrence at about 5.30 P.M. It is true that P.W.11, Muthiah Thevar, though in his statement before the Police Officer, stated that he saw both the accused in the Court, he identified only A1. But, as discussed above, the other evidence coupled with the statement of P.W.11, Muthiah Thevar, would indicate that both of them committed this crime, especially when the Police Officer obtained statement from Sivaraj to identify the accused on the statement of P.W.11. But, as discussed above, the other evidence coupled with the statement of P.W.11, Muthiah Thevar, would indicate that both of them committed this crime, especially when the Police Officer obtained statement from Sivaraj to identify the accused on the statement of P.W.11. Both the accused surrendered before the Court on 26.9.1986. 17. It is very emphatically contended that since recovery had been made belatedly, it would not give rise to the presumption against the accused for the offence of murder and robbery. 18. This submission, in our view, does not merit acceptance. In the case of Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., (1995) S.C.C. 552, the Apex Court made an observation, which would give answer for the above submission. The relevant observation is as follows: "It may be indicated here that in a later decision of this Court in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983)2 S.C.C. 330 : 1983 S.C.C. (Crl.) 447, this Court has held that the nature of the presumption and illustration (a) under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. 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. In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the appellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused, which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused". 19. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused, which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused". 19. This observation, in our view, would squarely apply to the present case. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, there cannot by any time limit for the recovery. In this case, the facts would not indicate that there is a considerable delay caused in the recovery. The occurrence took place on 21.9.1986. The involvement of the accused came to light on 23.9.1986. Both the accused surrendered before the Court on 26.9.1986. After coming to know this, P.W.17 the Inspector of Police filed a requisition for the police custody on 29.9.1986. After considering the said application, the Court granted police custody on 6.10.1986. Immediately on the next day, the properties were recovered, viz., both the jewels as well as the aruvals. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no time proximity. Moreover, in a case of this nature, especially when the recovery of the jewels as well as the aruvals has been established, it is for the accused to give plausible explanation for the possession of the jewels immediately after the murder. In this case, the plea of the defence is a mere denial. Even in the statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they did not give any explanation. The failure to offer any explanation would also lead to the conclusion that the appellants alone had committed the robbery and murder. This view of ours is also supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) Crl. L.J. 1638. 20. Therefore, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the trial Court in imposing the conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. Since the appellants are on bail, the bail bonds executed by them are directed to be cancelled and the trial Court is directed to secure their presence to serve the remaining period of sentence.