Judgment :- MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN, J. The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.50/94 on the file of Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. He was convicted along with the other accused for the offences punishable under Secs.457(2), 398, 302 read with 34 and was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I, 7 years R.I and imprisonment for life respectively. The co-accused was absconding. Therefore, the trial Judge split up the case as against this accused alone. This accused earlier filed an appeal in C.A.No.142/96 through the Legal Services Authority. Subsequently, on his request, another appeal in C.A.No.350/2001 has also been filed through the very same Legal Services Authority, probably due to inadvertency . Since C.A.No.350/2001 over-laps C.A.No.142/96, the same is dismissed and the following Judgment is pronounced in C.A.No.142/96. The short facts required to dispose of the appeal are as follows; 2. The deceased Radhakrishnan was running a petrol bunk at Kizhpennathur. His house was nearby the petrol bunk. Since there were no neighbouring houses, the petrol bunk is used to be closed at 8.00 clock in the night every day. On 26.1.90, after closing the petrol bunk, the deceased, his wife-P.W.2 and their daughter P.W.1 were sleeping in their house. At about 1.00 a.m, the deceased heard some sound and doubted that somebody was roaming about outside. He immediately informed P.W.1 to ring up to the police, but the telephone was not in order. The deceased then went outside to bring the watchman of the shed, which was nearby, but came back alone and said that the watchman was not there and his family have gone for some festival. Then they doubted that some thieves would have come there. The deceased then safely kept the collections. They prepared to encounter the thieves by P.W.2 having chilly power in her hand, P.W.1 having a petrol in a vessel with a match stick and the deceased having an iron rod. Since till 2.00 a.m, no body entered the house, they went to sleep, but they noticed two persons coming near by petrol bunk through the glass. Immediately the deceased shut the door, while both the persons pushed the door and gained entry. Though P.W.2 sprinkled chilly powder, since those two persons coming themselves covering their face with bed sheets, chilly power did not fall on their eyes. P.W.1 attempted to pour petrol on them, but she could not light a match stick. Immediately the deceased shut the door, while both the persons pushed the door and gained entry. Though P.W.2 sprinkled chilly powder, since those two persons coming themselves covering their face with bed sheets, chilly power did not fall on their eyes. P.W.1 attempted to pour petrol on them, but she could not light a match stick. The persons, who gained entry were armed, one with knife and another with pen knife. The deceased gave a blow on one of them but immediately, the person who was having the knife cut the deceased. The other person who was armed with pen knife put P.Ws.1 and 2 inside the room and locked. The ear studs were also removed from P.W.2 and P.W.4. They also searched the suit case and other places and could get only Rs.1,000/-. Then they picked up the kerosene available there, went outside the room, poured the kerosene on the deceased and set him to fire. P.Ws.1 and 2 shouted. On hearing their noise, P.W.3 and some others rushed to the scene of crime, by the time, those two persons left. P.W.3 and others opened the door and released P.Ws.1 and 2. They all came and saw the deceased burning and they tried to put down the fire by putting gunny bag on him by that time he died. After putting down fire, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the police station by P.W.3. 3. P.W.1 gave a statement Ex.P.1 to P.W.7 – Sub Inspector of Police Kizhpennathur at about 6.00 a.m on 27.1.90 and a case was registered in Cr.No.31/90 for offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P.8. P.W.12 – Inspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the scene of crime at about 7.00 a.m, observed the same and prepared Ex.P.2 – observation mahazar, drew a rough sketch Ex.P.16 and also seized M.O.3 – blood stained earth; M.O.4 – sample earth and M.O.5 – cloth; M.O.6 – burnt clothes; M.O.7 – kerosene tin and M.O.8 – blood stained earth seized from the entrance of the house and M.O.9 – sample earth under Ex.P.3 – mahazar. He then held inquest on the body of Radhakrishnan between 8.00 a.m and 1.00 p.m. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others. Ex.P.17 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, he forwarded the body for autopsy. 4. He then held inquest on the body of Radhakrishnan between 8.00 a.m and 1.00 p.m. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others. Ex.P.17 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, he forwarded the body for autopsy. 4. P.W.6 – Dr.S. Paneer Selvam, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai commenced post mortem on receipt of Ex.P.6 – requisition at 2.00 p.m on 27.1.90 and found the following injuries: "PM commenced at 2 PM on 27.1.90. Rigor mortis present in all 4 limbs. Blisters seen over left side of body extends from axilla to inguinal region containing fluid. Charring of skin over face. Anterior wall of abdomen, anterior surface of right and left leg. Fingers of upper limbs (both) looked like claws. Anterior group of muscles over both thighs are charred. INJURIES: 1) Incised wound elliptical shape 8 cm horizontally 6 cm vertically and 3 cm depth (8 x 6 x 3) seen in the middle of anterior surface of neck. Blood clot seen and reddish brown to dark black clots seen over the edges of the wound, not washable or removable. Vessels and muscles exposed. Trachea is cut up to anterior 2/3 leaving posterior wall intact. 2) Elliptical, incised wound over left shoulder area 8 cm vertically 5 cm horizontally and 3 cm depth seen extending from lateral end of left clavicle, vertically downwards. Reddish brown to dark black blood clots seen over the edges, not washable or removable easily. 3) Elliptical incised wound over medial side of left forearm exposing muscles and tendons 4 cm length 2 cm width 10 cm above wrist joint reddish brown to dark black blood clots seen over edges of wound. ON DISSECTION: SKULL: Bones intact. Membranes and brain congested. Brain weighs 1000g, neck : muscles exposed and partly cut. Branches of Carotid artery cut on right side. Trachea rings out anteriorly to 2/3. Hyoid bone intact. THORAX Ribs normal, lungs congested, shrunken showing dark black pigmented areas over entire surface of lungs. Right lung 450 gms. Heart: Chambers empty. ABDOMEN: Peritoneal cavity intact. Stomach contained partly digested rice particles. Small intestine normal. Spleen congested 125 gms kidneys congested. 125G each. Liver pale. 150G bladder empty. Pelvic bones intact. Genitalia – charred. Post mortem ended at 4 P.M". Right lung 450 gms. Heart: Chambers empty. ABDOMEN: Peritoneal cavity intact. Stomach contained partly digested rice particles. Small intestine normal. Spleen congested 125 gms kidneys congested. 125G each. Liver pale. 150G bladder empty. Pelvic bones intact. Genitalia – charred. Post mortem ended at 4 P.M". He issued Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Certificate with an opinion that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage and also asphyxia because of injuries and burns sustained by him. 5. P.W.12, continuing his investigation, seized M.O.11 – saree produced by P.W.2. On 28.1.90, he examined one Sampathkumar. On 31.1.90 he sent all the material objects seized during investigation to Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. On 3.2.90, he examined P.W.6-the Doctor, who did autopsy and recorded his statement. 6. In the meantime, P.W.13 – Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station who was investigating into a crime registered in Cr.No.159/90 of his police station came across the appellant, arrested him at about 9.00 a.m on 31.3.90 and questioned him. During the course of his investigation, he recorded a statement from the appellant, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.9. As per Ex.P.9, the appellant and the co-accused took P.W.13 and the witnesses to the house of P.W.9 at Elampillai Village, Salem District and on the information furnished by the accused, P.W.9 was questioned and M.Os.1 and 2 jewels were recovered from P.W.9 under Ex.P.10 mahazar. Since P.W.13 came to know that this incident took place within the limits of Tiruvannamalai Police Station, he informed the Inspector of Police, viz., P.W.12, who on receiving this information went to Omalur, arrested the appellant in this case also along with the co-accused and took custody of the jewels M.Os.1 and 2. Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and M.Os.1 and 2 were also sent to the Court. 7. On 10.5.90 he took steps to arrange for test identification parade by lodging an application with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. That application is Ex.P.4. On the strength of Ex.P.4, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed P.W.5 – the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai to hold test identification parade and accordingly, P.W.5 held the identification parade and P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the appellant. 8. P.W.14, who took up further investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by P.W.12 and after completing the investigation he filed a final report against the accused on 31.7.90. 8. P.W.14, who took up further investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by P.W.12 and after completing the investigation he filed a final report against the accused on 31.7.90. Since the other accused was not available for trial, the case was split up against this appellant and the evidence was recorded by the trial Judge. 9. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the trial Judge questioned the appellant under Sec.313 Cr.P.C to enable the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, but he denied all the circumstances including the recovery of jewels and did not offer any explanation nor did he examine any witness. He only pleaded that he is innocent and a case was foisted against him. 10. The prosecution examined P.W.6 – Dr. Paneer Selvan, Civil Assistant Surgeon attahced to Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, who held post mortem on the body of the deceased to prove that the deceased died on account of burn injuries as well as cut injuries. P.W.6 found an incised wound on the middle of anterior surface of neck; vessels and muscles were exposed. He also found another incised wound on the left shoulder and another incised wound over medial side of left forearm. The thigh muscles were charred and carotid artery was cut on the left side of the neck. He also gave an opinion that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage and also asphyxia because of injuries and burns. On the medical evidence, we hold that Radhakrishnan died on account of homicidal violence and this fact has not been disputed by the appellant. 11. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the daughter and wife of the deceased are the two eye witnesses to the occurrence. According to them, on 26.1.90 at about 8.00 p.m, they went to bed and they suspected some movement of strangers at about 1.00 a.m and since they suspected that they may be thieves, they got prepared to encounter the thieves, but according to P.Ws.1 and 2 the accused gained entry and though P.W.2 was able to throw chilly powder on them, since they were having bed sheets on their head, they could not immobilise them by pouring chilly powder on their eyes. Further it is the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased gave a blow with iron rod on the head of one of the accused, but the accused, who was having a knife cut the deceased. It is their further case that P.Ws.1 and 2 were kept locked in a room and the deceased was alone taken out and later he was also burnt by pouring kerosene on him. When P.Ws.1 and 2 shouted, P.W.3 and others came there and saw the deceased burning and though they put down the fire, they could not save the deceased. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged. 12. Since the appellant was earlier not known either to P.W.1 or P.W.2, who are said to have seen the assailants, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the test identification parade conducted on 2.7.90 i.e., some 95 days after the occurrence cannot be given any weight to. It is to be remembered that P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified the appellant as the assailant of the deceased in Public Court. They also would say that a month or a month and half after the occurrence, the accused was seen in the police station and the jewels M.Os.1 and 2 were also identified at the police station by them. In view of the fact that they had a chance to look at the accused for some time since one of the accused took them into the room and locked them up and they have also seen the other accused attacking the deceased in the light available inside the house, there is nothing strange in themselves identifying the appellant in Court. 13. The learned counsel submits that since there was a delay of 95 days in holding the test identification parade, it cannot be given much weight especially in the context of admission of P.Ws.1 and 2 having seen the accused at the police Station, the accused being strangers. In support of his contention, he drew our attention to the ruling of the Apex Court reported in (1982) 3 SCC 368 (I) in the case of Soni vs State of Uttar Pradesh . In support of his contention, he drew our attention to the ruling of the Apex Court reported in (1982) 3 SCC 368 (I) in the case of Soni vs State of Uttar Pradesh . The Apex Court has been held as follows: "The conviction rests purely upon his identification by five witnesses, Smt. Koori, Pritam Singh, Kewal, Chaitoo and Sinru, but it cannot be forgotten that the identification parade itself was held after a lapse of 42 days from the date of the arrest of the appellant. This delay in holding the identification parade throws a doubt on the genuiness thereof apart from the fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time the witnesses would be remembering the facial expr3essions of the appellant. If this evidence cannot be relied upon there is no other evidence which can sustain the conviction of the appellant". 14. As against this ruling, the learned Additional public Prosecutor relied on the latest ruling reported in 2001 SCC (Crl) 553 in the case of Daya Singh vs State of Haryana. There, the identification parade was conducted 7 or 8 years after the occurrence. Their Lordships have observed thus: "We remind ourselves that identification parades are not primarily meant for the Court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is two fold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence". 15. Further it also has been held as follows: " where the evidence is cogent and without any motive, it is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibilities with regard to the state of mind of the witnesses and with regard to their power of memorising the identity of the assailants. Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But what would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court earlier". 16. Power of perception and memorising differs from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon the capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But what would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court earlier". 16. Taking into consideration the above rulings, we are of the view that P.Ws.1 and 2 had a lot of time to observe the accused. There is every possibility for them to imprint in their memory the facial features of the assailants. Moreover, the delay of 95 days in this case cannot be considered to be fatal in holding the test identification parade in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and we have no doubt in the claim of P.Ws 1 and 2 identifying the appellant as one of the assailants of the deceased. Moreover, there is absolutely no motive either to P.W.1 or to P.W.2 to falsely implicate the appellant in such a heinous crime. If really the assailant is a different man, the daughter and the wife of the deceased will never implicate a third person as assailant of the deceased. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and convincing, we are unable to hold that mere delay in the test identification parade had weakened the case of the prosecution. 17. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is accepted with regard to the identity of the appellant, their evidence alone is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. It is to be remembered that though while gaining entry they covered their faces with bed sheets, subsequently when they started their operations, P.Ws.1 and 2 could see their faces. 18. The further piece of evidence against the appellant is recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 at his instance. According to P.W.13 – Inspector of Police, Omalur Police station, who was investigating into an altogether different crime, the appellant gave a statement which revealed his involvement in the commission of this offence. Therefore, P.W.13 took the witness and on the information furnished by the appellant, they went to P.W.9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from P.W.9. Though P.W.9 has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, still the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 13 would unclinchingly prove that M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from P.W.9. Therefore, P.W.13 took the witness and on the information furnished by the appellant, they went to P.W.9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from P.W.9. Though P.W.9 has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, still the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 13 would unclinchingly prove that M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from P.W.9. There is no explanation coming forward from the appellant for his possession of M.Os.1 and 2 prior to his sale of those jewels to P.W.9. In the absence of any such explanation, it proves an additional link in the chain of circumstances to hold that it was the accused who alone was responsible for the commission of the theft of the jewels. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant at this stage contends that P.w.1 would say that one month after the occurrence, she saw the jewels and P.W.2 would say that after one and half a month, she saw the jewels and also the accused in the police station and therefore, the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 31.3.90 should have been false. After all, we are now analysing and appreciating the evidence of village witnesses that too women folk. Moreover, they had been examined in Court in the month of November 1995, whereas the occurrence took place in January 1990. Taking into consideration the long lapse of time between their examination in Court and the occurrence, it cannot be said that they should vividly remember the exact time gap between the occurrence and their seeing the accused in the police station. Whether it is one month or two months, it is immaterial and therefore, merely because both the witnesses would say that they have seen the accused at the police station either one month or one and half a month after the incident, it does not take away the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested only on 31.3.90. On that score, subsequent recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 cannot be doubted. Therefore, the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused is the next important piece of evidence that connects the accused with the crime. P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified M.Os.1 and 2. As we all know ladies will have a strict sense of identifying their jewels, since jewels were being personally used by them. Therefore, the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused is the next important piece of evidence that connects the accused with the crime. P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified M.Os.1 and 2. As we all know ladies will have a strict sense of identifying their jewels, since jewels were being personally used by them. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence and the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 only go to show that it was the appellant who had committed the offences of murder and robbery by committing house breaking by night along with another person. The cogent evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 only shows that it was the appellant and his companion who had only committed murder of Radhakrishnan by committing lurking house trespass, but it were they who had committed robbery also. 20. It is relevant to note at this juncture the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2001 SCC (crl.) 449 (Sanjay vs State (NCT of Delhi), wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to hold as follows: "Besides Sec.27, the courts can draw presumptions under Section 114, Illustration (a) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The presumption permitted to be drawn under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act has to be read along with the "important time factor". If the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. In the instant case also, the disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the property of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. The murder and robbery in the instant case were part of the same transaction and the accused from whom the recoveries were made, consequent upon their disclosure statements, did not offer any explanation regarding their possession of the stolen properties". 21. In view of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold the appellant guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. 22. 21. In view of the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold the appellant guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted and we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Judge. 22. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court stands confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of this appeal in C.A.No.142/96, another appeal in C.A.No.350/2001 which is superfluous also stands dismissed.