Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. A-1 was convicted for the offences under Section 364, 404, 201 read with 302 and 302 read with 114 I.P.C. and A-2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 404 and 201 read with 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the above conviction, both the accused have preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: (a) A-1 Karuppiah and A-2 Malaikannan are the residents of Keela Puruvai village. A-2 is friend of A-1. In the same village P.W.1 Nalli Chettiar is residing along with his wife and daughters. Kamatchi, the deceased is the daughter of P.W.1 through his second wife. She was an unmarried girl. (b) In course of time, A-1 Karuppaih developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. For the last six months prior to the occurrence, deceased was insisting A-1 to marry her. A-1 was not inclined to marry her. So he consulted with A-2 to solve the problem created by the deceased. A-2 being a close associate of A1 told him that she could be enticed to some other place and there she could be done away with. (c) Accordingly, on 7-2-1995 night, the deceased was taken by the accused in the A.M.S.bus and they got down at Inam Kulathur village. From there, the deceased was taken to the river bund near Kilikkoodu village. Both the accused committed rape on her and murdered the deceased and they removed the jewels and fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1, the father of the deceased was searching for her from the date of her missing. But she was not traceable. (d) P.W.2, who was working as conductor in a bus, was residing in the house situated near the house of the deceased. When P.W.1 enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased on 10.02.1995, P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that A-1 and A-2 were travelling along with the deceased in A.M.S.Bus on 7.2.1995 and got down at Inam Kulathur village. (e) P.W.1 informed the same to the village elders, P.W.3 to P.W.6 who came to the village to attend a marriage, and requested them to set the deceased free from the hands of the accused. (e) P.W.1 informed the same to the village elders, P.W.3 to P.W.6 who came to the village to attend a marriage, and requested them to set the deceased free from the hands of the accused. When the accused were summoned by P.W.s 3 to 6 and enquired, both the accused confessed that they took the deceased to Kilikkoodu village, committed rape on her and murdered her near the river bund and took away her jewels. They also told them that they pledged the jewels and obtained Rs.3,000/- and shared the same between them. (f) Since the case involved rape and murder, the village elders advised P.W.1 to go to Police Station and to give a complaint. Accordingly on 11.2.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex.P1 is the complaint. (g) P.W.15 Inspector of Police registered a case for the offences under Sections 363,376,302, 379 and 201 I.P.C., against both the accused. Ex.P2 is the F.I.R. P.W.15 Inspector of Police on receipt of message proceeded to Poruvai village. From there, he along with P.W.1 and other villagers went to the scene of occurrence Kilikkoodu village in Trichy District. In the scene of occurrence, he found a body partially buried in the sand. The body was identified by P.W.1. Then, a requisition was sent by P.W.15 to conduct inquest on the body. (h) P.W.10 Tahsildar came to the scene of occurrence and at about 2.30pm he prepared Ex.P3 observation mahazar and Ex.P30 rough sketch. He exhumed the body, conducted inquest from 4.00pm to 5.30pm. Ex.P28 is the inquest report. Then he sent the body to the Government Hospital, Srirangam to conduct post-mortem with requisition Ex.P29. (i) On 12.2.1995 P.W.9 doctor conducted post-mortem and found eight injuries and found the body highly decomposed. Ex.P24 is the post-mortem certificate. P.W.9 opined that the deceased would have died due to the injuries inflicted on the body. (j) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police recovered M.O.1 yellow colour saree, M.O.2 yellow colour skirt, M.O.3 yellow colour, M.O.4 plastic slipper one pair, M.O.19 blood stained earth, and M.O.20 sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P4 in the presence of P.W.5. P.W.15 went to the hospital and recovered M.O.10 jacket bit from the body of the deceased under Ex.P5 after post mortem is over. P.W.15 went to the hospital and recovered M.O.10 jacket bit from the body of the deceased under Ex.P5 after post mortem is over. (k) On 16.2.1995, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested both the accused at about 8.30am. On the Confession Statement made by A-1, M.O.6 Silver Kolusu, M.O.5 Gold Chain and M.O.21 Currency notes were recovered under Ex.P6 and on the confession statement made by A-2, M.O.22 Currency notes, M.O.25 blue colour pant, M.O.24 Jatti, M.O.23 Lungi and M.O.26 shirt were recovered under Ex.P7. At about 9.30 am, he recovered M.O.27 rose colour shirt, M.O.28 brown colour jatti and M.O.29 lungi from A1 under Ex.P8. At about 10.30am, P.W.15 recovered M.O.7 Nose screw embedded with stones, from A-2 through Pawn Broker at Viralimalai M.O.8 gold ear stud one pair and M.O.9 gold ring under Ex.P9. At about 12.20 pm A-2 took the police party to the bush near the scene of occurrence and pointed out M.O.30 knife concealed there and P.W.15 recovered the same under Ex.P10. He also recovered M.O.11 to M.O.17 clothes of the deceased contained in M.O.18 white colour cloth bag under Ex.P11 from A-2 through one Ponnammal. Then, he arranged to test the potency of the accused and to ascertain the age of the accused. Thereafter, he arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination through court. (l) P.W.16 Shanmugam, Inspector of Police, who is the successor of P.W.15 took up further investigation. After observing all the formalities and completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.364, 376,404, 114 and 201 read with 302 I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, filed 40 exhibits and produced 32 Material Objects. 4. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C, their plea of defence is one of total denial. On the side of defence, D.W.1 Judicial Magistrate was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 5. The trial court on conclusion of the trial, on the basis of the materials available on record, though acquitted both the accused for the offence under 376 IPC., convicted them for the other offences including that of 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the above judgement, the present appeal has been filed by both the accused. 6. 5. The trial court on conclusion of the trial, on the basis of the materials available on record, though acquitted both the accused for the offence under 376 IPC., convicted them for the other offences including that of 302 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the above judgement, the present appeal has been filed by both the accused. 6. Mr.N.Doraisamy learned counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and would elaborately argue that the evidence placed before the trial court which is insufficient would not clinchingly prove that these accused alone had committed the offences referred to. He would further submit that the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused to P.Ws.3 to 6 cannot be said to be voluntary and as such, the evidence of those witnesses has to be discarded. He also argued that, at any rate, the age of the first accused was below 16 years on the date of offence and as such, the entire trial as against the first appellant/first accused is vitiated. 7. In reply to the above contentions, Mr.V.Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would contend that the materials available on record would clearly establish that these accused alone had committed the offence and the trial court already decided by conducting a proper enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and fixed the age of the first accused about 17 on the date of offence and in the absence of challenge against the said order, the question relating to the age of the first accused would not arise, at this stage. 8. We have considered the submissions and the entire records with care and caution. 9. This is a case where the entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye-witness. We have to see whether the circumstantial evidence placed by the prosecution before the court would be sufficient to hold that these circumstances would form a complete chain without any missing link to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused in this case. 10. There are three sets of evidence in this case: (i) Extra-Judicial confession made by both the accused before P.Ws.3 to 6. 10. There are three sets of evidence in this case: (i) Extra-Judicial confession made by both the accused before P.Ws.3 to 6. (ii) P.W.2 Conductor of the bus, who is the neighbour of P.W.1, speaks to the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused on 7.2.1995 travelling in the bus and all the three got down at Inam Kulathur bus stop. (iii) After the arrest of the accused, on their confession, the jewels of the deceased were recovered and the same were identified by P.W.1 , father of the deceased as the jewels of the deceased. Further, at the instance of A-2, M.O.30 knife used for the commission of offence was recovered from the bush situated very near to the place from where the body was exhumed. 11. With regard to the extra-judicial confession, it is vehemently contended that extra judicial confession is a week piece of evidence and as such, no importance could be given as there is no sufficient corroboration. But, this contention cannot be accepted in the present case, because the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 would clearly show that when the accused were enquired by these witnesses, who are elders of the village, confessed having enticed the deceased to Kilikkoodu village and after committing rape, murdered her. The evidence of P.W.1 would corroborate the fact of the accused having been summoned by these witnesses and to whom the accused confessed. As a matter of fact, though one of the village elders viz., P.W.4 Perumal turned hostile, all the others have narrated the incident in which the accused were summoned by them and on enquiry, the accused confessed everything to them in the presence of P.W.1. This fact is strengthened by the other material viz., the complaint which had been given by P.W.1. These witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 on coming to know that this is a case of rape and murder advised P.W.1 to go to Police Station and give a complaint and accordingly, P.W.1 on 11.02.1995, went to the Police Station and gave a complaint to the police. Only after registration of the complaint, P.W.15 took P.W.1 and other village elders to the place of occurrence where a portion of the body of the deceased was found buried. P.W.1 identified the body. Only after registration of the complaint, P.W.15 took P.W.1 and other village elders to the place of occurrence where a portion of the body of the deceased was found buried. P.W.1 identified the body. As a matter of fact, P.W.6 who is respectable elder of the village was a Panchayat President. He also stated that he was doing B.L., during the relevant time. In the cross examination, it was elicited from him that initially, he did not incline to inform to the police about the involvement of the accused as A-1 happened to his relative. The very fact that P.W.6 who is the close relative of A-1 and is the Panchayat President, came to the Court and gave evidence about the extra-Judicial confession made by the accused before them would reveal that the evidence of PW6 relating to the extra judicial confession as corroborated by P.W.3, and P.W.5 is reliable and trustworthy. 12. Secondly, we have got the evidence of P.W.2, a bus Conductor, who speaks about the last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused. Admittedly, P.W.2 is an independent witness. He is not related to P.W.1. He is residing in the same village and in fact he is a neighbour. There is no necessity for P.W.2 to speak against the accused falsely. It is the specific case of P.W.2 that when he was going to Trichy for joining his duty, he saw all the three travelling together in the bus. He further stated that he found that all the three together got down at Inam Kulathur Bus stop. That was on 7.2.1995 at about 8.30pm. According to Doctor P.W.9 who conducted post mortem the death would have taken place about 4 or 5 days earlier. The post mortem was conducted on 12.02.95. So this shows that P.W.2 was the person, who saw the deceased last in the company of the accused. Only on the information given by P.W.2, P.W.1 reported the matter to the village elders P.Ws.3 to 6. Only after that, the accused were summoned and enquired and these witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 in their evidence would state that P.W.1 gave oral complaint against the accused stating that such information was given by P.W.2 Conductor to him. Hence this circumstance also connect the accused with the crime. 13. Only after that, the accused were summoned and enquired and these witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 in their evidence would state that P.W.1 gave oral complaint against the accused stating that such information was given by P.W.2 Conductor to him. Hence this circumstance also connect the accused with the crime. 13. The third piece of circumstance is the recovery of weapon and the recovery of jewels of the deceased, on the confession of accused. The occurrence took place on 7.2.1995. On 10.2.1995 the accused came to the village elders and confessed to them. The case was registered on 11.2.1995. Then, both the accused were arrested by P.W.5 on 16.2.1995. On the confession of A-1 M.O.6 Silver Kolusu, M.O.5 gold chain and other materials were recovered under Ex.P6. On the confession of A-2, through P.W.13 Pawn Broker, M.O.7 nose screw and M.O.8 gold ear stud and M.O.9 gold ring were recovered under Ex.P9. Thereafter at about 12.20 noon, the accused took the police to the scene of occurrence and pointed out M.O.30 knife found in the bush and in pursuance of the same, P.W.15 recovered the same under Ex.P10. Besides that, as pointed out by A-2 , the other clothes of the deceased which were handed over by him to one Ponnammal were recovered as M.O.11 to M.O.18 under Ex.P11. The Doctor P.W.9 would state in his evidence that M.O.30 knife would have been used for causing the injuries found on the body of the deceased. The clothes of the deceased which were recovered from Ponnammal as pointed out by A-2 and the jewels recovered at the instance of both A-1 and A-2 were identified by P.W.1 father of the deceased. These things would clearly indicate that the accused only took the deceased to the scene of occurrence and after committing murder took away her jewels , buried the body in the sand and pledged the jewels with the Pawn Broker. 14. Though it is vehemently contended that on the date of the offence, A-1 was aged below 16 years, it is noticed that the very same question has been raised before the trial Court at the stage of questioning under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by filing a separate application in Crl.M.P.No.863/98 and in the said application separate enquiry was conducted. The witnesses concerned were examined and cross examined and several documents also were marked. The witnesses concerned were examined and cross examined and several documents also were marked. Even the Head Master of the school in which A-1 studied was examined . The trial Court on considering the materials placed by the parties before the court passed an elaborate order dated 25.5.1999 holding that the age of the first accused on the date of occurrence was above 16 and below 18. In such circumstances, it cannot be argued, at this stage, that at the time of offence, the first accused was below 16 years of age. Furthermore, even though the said order was passed after hearing both sides, the said order had not been challenged before the appropriate forum. It is noticed from the judgement in this case that though the judgement was rendered by the trial court on 16.8.1999, till then, no steps were taken by the accused to challenge the order of the trial Court regarding the age of the first accused before the appropriate forum. Therefore, this contention also would fail. 15. Resultantly, we have to conclude, that there is no merit in any one of the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants/Accused by the trial Court.