C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED in S. C. No. 232 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Vil Additional Sessions judge, Kakinada, is the appellant. ( 2 ) THIS appeal was heard by a Division bench and because of the difference in the findings of the learned Judges, the case is posted before me as per the directions of My lord the Chief Justice. ( 3 ) APPELLANT took trial for charges under sections, 302, 457 and 380 IPC for his committing the murder of Thammidisetty laxmibai (the deceased) after trespassing into her house and for theft of gold, silver and house hold articles from her house. Appellant pleaded not guilty. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-40. After his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. appellant did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. ( 4 ) THE case, in brief, of the prosecution is that the deceased, a widow for 16 years, having four married daughters (including p. W. 2 who is a resident of Rajahmundry) and a son, was living alone in her house at kakinada, near the house of P. W. 4. P. W. 1, brother-in-law of the deceased, also is a resident of Kakinada. One morning when p. W. 3 went to the house of the deceased to supply milk, since the deceased did not respond to the call from the main door, he went to the backyard of the house of the deceased and having found the back door open, went inside and found the deceased dead and went to the house of P. W. 4 and informed her about the same, P. W. 4, telephonically informed P. W. 2 about the death of the deceased. When P. W. 2 telephonically requested P. W. 1 to go to the house of the deceased he (P. W. 1) went to the house of the deceased and having found her dead with injuries, gave Ex. P-1 report which was registered by P. W. 12 as Crime no. 2/2001 and Ex. P-29 is the FIR sent to court. On receipt of a copy of Ex. P-1 report which was registered by P. W. 12 as Crime no. 2/2001 and Ex. P-29 is the FIR sent to court. On receipt of a copy of Ex. P-29, p. W. 11 went to the house of the deceased after sending a requisition to the Dog Squad and Forensic Science Laboratory and got the scene of offence photographed by P. W. 5 and conducted a panchanama of the scene of offence under Exp-14 in the presence of p. W. 7 and another and collected blood stained and control earth (M. Os. 10 and 11) and prepared Ex. P-27 sketch of the scene of offence and held inquest under Ex. P-15 in the presence of P. W. 7 and others and having learnt from P. Ws. 1 to 4 that some gold, silver and other articles were missing from the body and house of the deceased, added sections 457 and 380 IPC also in the FIR and issued Ex. A-28and sent the dead body of the deceased to P. W. 9 for post mortem examination, who gave Ex. P-22 Postmortem examination Report. After Postmortem examination M. Os. 14 to 16 (clothes on the body of the deceased) were seized. Dog brought by P. W. 8 after moving in the house ,of the deceased in the room where she was found dead, went to the rickshaw stand in sanjayanagar Centre and stopped there. P. W. 13 (Finger Prints Expert) visited the scene of offence and found 13 chance finger prints and got them photographed and marked the photo prints as A to M and P, and found only two out of those finger prints fit for comparison. As per the instructions of Deputy superintendent of Police, P. W. 14 took up investigation. He, on reliable information, went to diary farm center, near water tank, with mediators, and found the appellant running away on seeing them and apprehended him and seized M. Os. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 12 from him in the presence of P. W. 7 and others and interrogated him. Appellant in pursuance of his confession under Ex. P-16, led P. Ws. 7,14 and others to the place where he concealed M. O. 13 knife used in the commission of offence, which was seized under Ex. P-17, and also took them to his house and produced M. Os. 7 to 9, which were seized under Ex. P-18. Appellant in pursuance of his confession under Ex. P-16, led P. Ws. 7,14 and others to the place where he concealed M. O. 13 knife used in the commission of offence, which was seized under Ex. P-17, and also took them to his house and produced M. Os. 7 to 9, which were seized under Ex. P-18. Later he took them to the shop of P. W. 6 where he sold m. Os. 2 and 4, which were seized under ex. P-19 from P. W. 6 in the presence ot p. W. 7 and got the gold articles weighed and prepared Ex. P-20 panchanama and took ex. P-36 finger prints and the signature of the appellant under Ex. P-36 and sentthe accused to judicial remand and sent Ex. P-36 finger prints to P. W. 13 for comparison and gave ex. P-24 and Ex. P-23, requisition and letter of advice, to the Magistrate to send the material objects for chemical analysis. P. W. 2 identified the M. Os. 1 to9as belonging to the deceased in the presence of P. W. 7. P. W. 13 compared the Ex. P-36 finger prints of the appellant with the chance finger prints lifted from the scene of offence and found the chance finger prints D and K tallying with finger prints of appellant in Ex. P-36. After completion of investigation, P. W. 14 laid the charge-sheet. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences alleged against him. ( 6 ) SINCE the main charge against the appellant is under Section 302 IPC, in order tc bring home the guilt of the appellant for the said offence, the prosecution should not only establish that ihe death of the deceased was homicidal in nature but it should also establish that it was due to the acts of the appellant. ( 7 ) THE evidence of P. W. 9, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, read with ex. P-22 post mortem examination report, clearly shows that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. So, the first ingredient that the death of thedeceased being homicidal in nature is established by the prosecution. P-22 post mortem examination report, clearly shows that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. So, the first ingredient that the death of thedeceased being homicidal in nature is established by the prosecution. ( 8 ) IN order to establish the second requirement that the appellant was responsibleforthe injuries found on the body of the deceased, as in Ex. P-22, since there are no eye witnesses, the prosecution is relating on circumstantial evidence of the finger prints of the appellant being found on the articles at the scene of offence and the confession of the appellant leading to recovery of M. O. 13 (knife) under Ex. P-17and recovery of M. Os. 2 and 4 from P. W. 6 at the instance of appellant under Ex. P-19 and recovery of m. Os. 1,3,5,6 and 12 from the person of the appellant and recovery of M. Os. 7 to 9 from the house of the appellant under Ex. P-18. The trial Court found that the above circumstantial evidence establish that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. The said finding of the trial court is assailed in this appeal. ( 9 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since lifting of finger prints on the articles at the scene of offence and recovery of M. Os. 1,3,5 to 9 and 12 allegedly stolen from the house of the deceased from the possession of the appellant, and the identification of those articles and recovery of M. O. 13 at the instance of the appellant are all doubtful and since the investigating officer did not obtain permission from the Magistrate to take the finger prints of the appellant, the trial court was in error in convicting the appellant. It is his contention that the evidence of P. W. 7 who figured as a mediator in all the panchanamas has to be viewed with suspicion and caution more so because there is no explanation from the prosecution as to why he alone was selected as a mediator for all the panchanamas. It is his contention that since M. O. 13 was allegedly recovered from an open place, which is accessible to all, and since P. W. 7 clearly admitted that M. O. 13 is not the knife recovered in his presence, recovery of M. O. 13 is of no consequence. It is his contention that since M. O. 13 was allegedly recovered from an open place, which is accessible to all, and since P. W. 7 clearly admitted that M. O. 13 is not the knife recovered in his presence, recovery of M. O. 13 is of no consequence. It is his contention that identification of M. Os. 1 to 9 by P. W. 2 cannot be true and so the same cannot be taken into consideration because of the discrepancies relating to the place of identification and so appellant is entitled at least to the benefit of doubt and it should be held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of the offences alleged against him. He placed strong reliance on mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan, State of haryana v. Jagbir Singh and another, Bojja krishna Reddy v. State of A P. 3, Bharat v. State of M. P. , Palanisamy v. State of T. N. , pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, State of m. P. v. Deoki Nandan, Subhan v. Rex, muthu v. State of Karnataka, Roop Chand v. State, State of A. P. v. R. Subbarao in support of his contentions. ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned additional Public Prosecutor is that since the mistake that crept in initially during the recording of the evidence of P. W. 7 relating to M. O. 13 was rectified subsequently and since M. O. 13 was recovered at the instance of the appellant from bushes, which are at a distance from a pathway, it cannot be said that the place from where M. O. 13 was concealed is a place accessible to public, and so recovery of the M. O. 13at the instance of the appellant cannot be ignored. It is his contention that since the investigating officer can take finger prints of suspects even without the permission of the Magistrate, lack of permission from the Magistrate for taking the finger prints of the appellant is not of any consequence. It is his contention that since p. W. 7 is the Village Administrative Officer, investigating officer choosing him as a mediator at the time of the panchanamas1. 1997 Crj. L. J. 3567. 2. 2003 (7) Supreme 117 . 3. 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 10 (A. P. ). 4. 2003 (2) Supreme 116 . 5. It is his contention that since p. W. 7 is the Village Administrative Officer, investigating officer choosing him as a mediator at the time of the panchanamas1. 1997 Crj. L. J. 3567. 2. 2003 (7) Supreme 117 . 3. 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 10 (A. P. ). 4. 2003 (2) Supreme 116 . 5. AIR 1986 SC 593 . 6. 2003 (5) Supreme 196 . 7. 1987 (2) Crimes 317 . 8. AIR (37)1950aii180. 9. AIR 2002 SC 2002. 10. 1996 Crl. L. J. 4284. 11. 1990 (1)APLJ (SN)13. cannot be viewed with suspicion and since the trial court gave cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of the charges framed against him, there are no grounds ta interfere with the conviction ordered by the learned Sessions judge. ( 11 ) P. W. 13, on whose evidence the prosecution case mainly hinges, stated that he is a qualified finger print expert and that on 05-01-2001, on the requisition of the Inspector of Police, Kakinada Town Circle, he visited the scene of offence in Crime No. 2 of 2001 i. e. , House No. 16-23-30/4, Sanjainagar, kakinada (i. e. house of the deceased), and found 13 chance finger prints on different articles and got them photographed and developed and marked those 13 prints as A to P (eliminating I and O) and found only two prints, marked as D and K, fit for comparison and sent Ex. P-33 and 34 reports to the sub-Inspector of Police, Kakinada Port police Station on 09-01-2001 and that on 12-01-2001 he received the finger prints of the appellant and others for comparison with the finger prints found by him at the scene of offence and found that the right thumb impression of the appellant tallied with the finger print marked K by him and the left ring finger print of appellant is identical with the finger print D marked by him and sent ex. P-35 report on 15-01-2001 and that in ex. P-39 and Ex. P-40 he stated the 10 points of identity found by him between the finger prints of the appellant and the finger prints D and K lifted by him at the scene of offence. P-35 report on 15-01-2001 and that in ex. P-39 and Ex. P-40 he stated the 10 points of identity found by him between the finger prints of the appellant and the finger prints D and K lifted by him at the scene of offence. Nothing useful was elicited during his cross examination except suggesting that he is giving false evidence because he is from the police department and that he did not find any chance finger prints (at the scene of offence ). Those suggestions were denied by him. It is well known that suggestions made during cross-examination, when denied, have no value. ( 12 ) THE incident in this case took place during the intervening night of 04/05-01-2001. The evidence of P. W. 13 shows that he went to the scene of offence on 05-01-2001 and got photographed the 13 chance finger prints, and sent Ex. P-33 and Ex. P-34 reports on 08-01-2001 and 09-01-2001 and received ex-36 finger prints of the appellant and others from the Inspector of Police on 12-01 -2001. From Ex. P-33 it is seen that the chance finger print marked d was found on a small ceramic try and the chance finger prints marked J, K, L, M and N were found on the steel almyrah Draw. Ex. P-34 shows that finger prints marked D and K only were fit for comparison. So, P. W. 13 finding the finger prints marked as D and K by him, at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. The evidence of P. W. 13 clearly shows that those finger prints D and K are identical to those of the finger prints of the appellant i. e. , K tallied with the right thumb impression of appellant D tallied with left thumb impression of the appellant. ( 13 ) THE sheet anchor of the defence of the appellant is that since his thumb impression was not taken in pursuance of the order of a Magistrate or before a Magistrate the investigation is vitiated and in support of the said contention strong reliance is placed on Mohd. Amancase (1 supra), Jagbir Singh case (2 supra) and Bojja Krishna Reddycase (3 supra) by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 14 ) IN Mohd. Amancase (1 supra), Jagbir Singh case (2 supra) and Bojja Krishna Reddycase (3 supra) by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 14 ) IN Mohd. Aman case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant the only incriminating circumstance against one of the accused in a case of murder for gain was the finding of his finger prints on a brass jug in the house of the victim which was seized along with other articles and forwarded to the finger prints bureau, five days after seizure. The apex Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that the brass jug and the other articles seized by the police were kept in the police station for five days without any justifiable reason, and also on the ground that the finger prints of the accused were not taken with the permission of the Magistrate in accordance with section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners act, The apex Court observed that under section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners act, police are competent to take fingerprints of the accused. ( 15 ) IN Jagbir Singh case (2 supra) and bojja Krishna Reddycase (3 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant it is held that the Magistrate does not have the power to give a direction to the accused to give his specimen writings for comparison, because pendency of proceedings before the court is the sine qua non for the Court to exercise its power under Section 73 of evidence Act. ( 16 ) THE evidence of P. W. 14 is that he arrested the appellant on 11-01-2001 and took Ex. P-36 finger prints of the appellant on that day and sent Ex,p-36 to P. W. 13 for comparison. Except suggesting that he (P. W. 14) did not followthe required procedure for taking the finger prints of the appellant it is not even suggested to P. W. 14 that he did not obtain the finger prints of the appellant from the appellant on 11-1-2001 i. e. ,abouta week from the date of offence by which time p. W. 13 already sent Ex. P-33 and Ex. P-34 communications informing that only two finger prints marked as D and K, from out of the finger prints lifted at the scene of offence, are fit for comparison. P-33 and Ex. P-34 communications informing that only two finger prints marked as D and K, from out of the finger prints lifted at the scene of offence, are fit for comparison. ( 17 ) IN view of the contention of the learned counsel for appellant, the important point for consideration is whether Ex. P-36 finger prints taken by P. W. 14 can be acted upon or not. ( 18 ) IN Bojj a Krishna Reddycase (3 supra) relied on by the learned counsel forappellant the learned Judge relied on State of Uttar pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra for holding that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct an 12. AIR 1980 SC 791 . accused to provide specimen signatures or handwriting for comparison. Neither Bojja krishna Reddy case (3 supra) nor Ram Babu misracase (12supra) nor Jagbir Singh case (2 supra) apply to the facts of this case because those cases do not relate to finger prints, but relate to obtaining of specimen signatures and/or handwriting of accused persons during the course of investigation. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in shankaria v. State of Rajasthan held that there is no need for the investigating officer to obtain permission of the Magistrate to obtain the finger prints of an accused during the course of investigation in view of Section 4 of identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (the Act), which reads,"any person who has been arrested in connection with any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken". measurements , as per Section 2 (a) of the act, include finger impressions and foot print impressions. prescribed , as per the Act, means prescribed by the rule made under the Act. By virtue of the power conferred on it by Section 8 of the Act, State Government made A. P. Identification of Prisoners rules, 1975 (the Rules ). As per Rule 3 of the rules, measurements and photographs can be taken only at (a) Jails, (b) Magistrate court, (c) Police Stations and Out-Posts and (d) Police Lock-ups. As per Rule 12 (xxiii) finger prints of all persons, who took part in violent crimes involving injury to body, life or property, can be taken by police. As per Rule 3 of the rules, measurements and photographs can be taken only at (a) Jails, (b) Magistrate court, (c) Police Stations and Out-Posts and (d) Police Lock-ups. As per Rule 12 (xxiii) finger prints of all persons, who took part in violent crimes involving injury to body, life or property, can be taken by police. Rule 2 (g) of the Rules defines finger Print Slip as the finger print slip of a suspect taken in Form II (Annexure I) by the Station House Officer and sent for search to the Bureau at hyderabad with Form III (Annexure III) in order to know his antecedents. From the above Rules framed under the Act read with section 4 of the Act and the ratio in Shankaria case (13 supra), it is clear that during the course of investigation police have the power and authority to take the finger prints of a suspect, even without the permission of the magistrate. Such taking of finger prints by police is as per the Act and Rules, but not under Section 73 of Evidence Act. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P. W. 14 has no power and authority to take the finger prints of the appellant without the permission of the magistrate cannot be accepted. ( 19 ) SINCE nothing useful was elicited during the cross-examination of P. W. 13 to show that he could not have lifted the finger prints marked as D and K in Ex. P-34 on 05-01-2001 from the scene of offence, and since the evidence of P. W. 13, read with ex. P-39, shows that there are 10 points of similarly between the finger print marked as d and specimen finger print s2 belonging to the appellant and since Ex. P-34 on 05-01-2001 from the scene of offence, and since the evidence of P. W. 13, read with ex. P-39, shows that there are 10 points of similarly between the finger print marked as d and specimen finger print s2 belonging to the appellant and since Ex. P-40 read the finger prints marked as k and the specimen finger print of appellant si shows that there are 10 points of similarity, and since it is well known that finger print science is an exact science and since the apex court in Mohan lal v.-Ajit Singh observed as follows in para 45 at page 1195"nothing substantial has been urged to challenge the opinion of the Director of the Finger Print Bureau, and all that has been argued is that as there were only 8 points of similarity, there was not enough basis for the expert s opinion about the identity of the fingerprints. Reference in this connection has been made to B. L. Saxena s "identification of handwriting, Disputed Documents, finger Prints, Foot Prints and Detection of Forgeries", 1968 Edition, page 247, walter R. Scott s "fingerprint mechanics" page 62, and M. K. Mehta s "the Identification of Thumb impressions and the Cross-Examination of Finger Print Experts" 2nd Edition, page 28. We have gone through these books but they do not really support the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent. While referring to the old practice of looking for a minimum of 12 identical characteristic details, Saxena has admitted that the modern view is that six points of similarity of pattern are sufficient to establish the identity of the fingerprints. Walter Scott has stated that "as a matter of practice, most experts who work with fingerprints constantly satisfy themselves as to identity with eight or even six points of identity". Mehta has also stated that in the case of blurred impressions the view of some of the Indian experts is that if there were three identical points, they would be sufficient to prove the identity". there can be no doubt that the finger prints found on the draw of the Steel Almyrah and the Ceramic Tray (small) in the house of the deceased are that of the appellant. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. there can be no doubt that the finger prints found on the draw of the Steel Almyrah and the Ceramic Tray (small) in the house of the deceased are that of the appellant. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. by the trial Court, appellant, except stating that the evidence of P. W. 13 is false, did not explain as to how his finger prints could be found on the draw of a Steel Almyrah and a small Ceramic tray in the house of the deceased. It is also not the case of the appellant that he had acquaintance with the deceased and used to visit her house. Even if the appellant had acquaintance with the deceased how his finger prints appeared on the draw of the steel aimyrah in the house of the deceased is not even tried to be explained by the appellant. ( 20 ) SINCE the facts in Mohd. Aman case (1 supra) are different from the facts of this case, the said decision is of no help for the appellant. ( 21 ) ). Since finger prints of the appellant were found in the house of the deceased on the drawer of the steel aimyrah and also on a small Ceramic Tray, and since the appellant did not explain as to how his finger prints are available in the house of the deceased, it is clear that appellant only was responsible for the injuries found on the deceased. ( 22 ) IN my considered opinion the fact that p. W. 7 figured as a mediator in all the panchanamas conducted by the police is not much of consequence, nor can it be a ground for disbelieving the panchanamas conducted by the police, because he (P. W. 7) happens to be the Village Administrative Officer. I find no reason for P. W. 7 giving false evidence against the appellant. ( 23 ) APART from the above circumstance of the finger prints of the appellant being found on the steel aimyrah and small ceramic tray in the house of the deceased, recovery of m. Os. 1 to 9 from and at the instance of the appellant also shows his involvement in the offence as alleged. ( 23 ) APART from the above circumstance of the finger prints of the appellant being found on the steel aimyrah and small ceramic tray in the house of the deceased, recovery of m. Os. 1 to 9 from and at the instance of the appellant also shows his involvement in the offence as alleged. The evidence of P. W. 8 shows that the dog brought by as per the requisition of P. W. 11 went to the rickshaw stand at Sanjayanagar centre from the house of the deceased and stopped there. Ex. P-23 shows that the appellant, a resident of sanjayanagar, was arrested near water tank. Since appellant did not dispute the fact that he is a resident of Sanjayanagar, it is clear that appellant is a resident of Sanjayanagar. The evidence of P. W. 7 read with the evidence of P. W. 14 shows that appellant on seeing the police tried to run away and was chased and was caught, and that M. Os. 1, 3, 5 to 9 and 12 were recovered from him and his house and that at his instance M. Os. 2 and 4 were seized from P. W. 6. The evidence of p. W. 6 shows that the appellant sold M. Os. 2 and 4 to him. The evidence of P. W. 2 that m. Os. 1 to 9 and 12 belong to the deceased cannot be doubted more so because it is not the case of the appellant that he is the owner of M. Os. 1 to 9 and 12. Since appellant failed to explain how he came into possession of m. Os. 1 to 9 and 12, the presumption is that he came into possession of those material objects by stealing them from the house of the deceased. The fact that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 2 and p. W. 14 is not much of consequence. ( 24 ) IT is no doubt true P. W. 7 in his cross- examination stated that M. 0. 13 knife shown to him does not have a tip and that it (M. 0. 13) is not the weapon seized by the police. But, during his re-examination in was clarified that a wrong knife was marked as M. O. 13 earlier. 13 knife shown to him does not have a tip and that it (M. 0. 13) is not the weapon seized by the police. But, during his re-examination in was clarified that a wrong knife was marked as M. O. 13 earlier. Re-examination of P. W. 7 reads ,"the knife seized on that day is now marked as M. O. 13 in place of M. O. 13 marked earlier". Therefore, the admission of P. W. 7 during cross-examination, on the basis of the mistaken knife shown to him during chief examination, is not of any consequence more so because P. W. 7 was not cross-examined with reference to M. O. 13 marked during re- examination in place of the earlier material object marked as M. O. 13. ( 25 ) IN view of the evidence of P. W. 7 and ex. P-17, it is clear that M. O. 13 knife was seized from the bushes, which cannot be said to be a place of access to all the public. So, Roop Chandcase (10 supra) in which the allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of the accused ordered by the trial court on the basis of recovery of the knife at his instance, from an open place accessible to all cannot be the basis for conviction, is of no help in deciding this case. ( 26 ) EX. P-26 report from the Forensic science Laboratories shows that the blood found on the clothes seized from the dead body of the deceased (M. Os. 14 to 16) and the knife (M. O. 13) contain blood of human origin and that the blood group of the stains detected and M. Os. 14 to 16 is of o group. Therefore, it is clear that the blood group of the human blood found on M. O. 13 is not known. Deokinandancase (7supra) is relied on by the learned counsel forthe appellant in support of his contention that mere presence of human blood on the knife recovered at the instance of an accused is of no use when the blood group found thereon is that of the victim would not be clinching. The said decision is of no help in deciding this case because the other evidence on record undoubtedly establishes that appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased. The said decision is of no help in deciding this case because the other evidence on record undoubtedly establishes that appellant is responsible for the death of the deceased. ( 27 ) NOW, I refer to the other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 28 ) IN Bharatcase (4 supra) the accused was convicted by the trial court and High court on the ground that he was last seen with the deceased and on the basis of recovery of the ornaments of the deceased at his instance. On the basis of the evidence on record the apex Court held that the deceased was not last seen with the deceased on the date of her death, and found that the extra judicial confession, leading to the recovery of articles said to be worn by the deceased, which are of common pattern, was unnatural, acquitted the accused. ( 29 ) IN Palanisamycase (5 supra) it is held that when the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not free from reasonable doubt and when the retracted confession by the accused is found to be tainted and is not corroborated by independent evidence, conviction of the accused is not proper. ( 30 ) IN Pawan Kumar case (6 supra) two persons, including the appellant before the apex Court, were accused of murder of the driver of the taxi hired by them, while staying in a hotel room. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court and high Court convicted both the accused. Only one accused preferred appeal to the apex court. On the ground that the waiter in the hotel who had seen both the accused leaving the hotel, telling him that the driver was in the room, was not examined and since the entry in the hotel register is not proved to be in the handwriting of the accused persons and since the gold chain and ring allegedly belonging to the deceased, recovered at the instance of the accused was not acceptable, as there was no cogent evidence to show that those articles actually belonged to the deceased, the apex Court allowed the appeal of one accused and set aside the conviction of both the accused though the second accused did not prefer an appeal. ( 31 ) IN Subhan s case (8 supra) seven persons took trial foran offence undersection 395 IPC. ( 31 ) IN Subhan s case (8 supra) seven persons took trial foran offence undersection 395 IPC. After trial the trial court convicted two of them under Section 412 IPC and two others under Section 395 IPC, disbelieving their contention that the property recovered from their houses belonged to them and their families. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the convicted accused on the ground that recovery of the articles was from a house in which the accused and his brothers were living jointly and so it cannot be said that the articles recovered were in the exclusive possession of the convicted accused. ( 32 ) IN Muthu case (9 supra) the FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased victim showed that the victim was stabbed by a knife and that the assailant threw away the knife at the scene of occurrence and ran away. The witnesses stated that they saw the accused running away with a knife. There was no evidence that the knife used in the commission of offence was seized by police at the scene of occurrence. For those reasons and for the reason the wife of the victim, who clearly stated in her evidence that she saw the accused for the first time on the date of offence, named him in the FIR and for the reason the witnesses did not mention the name of the accused in their statements recorded by police, the apex court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him by setting aside the conviction ordered by the trial court, confirmed by the High court. ( 33 ) IN R. Subbaraocase (11 supra) appeal by the State against the judgment of the acquittal of the accused in a murder case was dismissed on the ground of discrepancy as to the time and place of arrest of the accused leading to recovery, and since the place of recovery is accessible to public and since no blood stains were found on the seized knife. ( 34 ) THE above decisions are of no help to the appellant because the facts in those cases are different from the facts in this case. ( 35 ) -SINCE finger prints of the appellant were found on the draw of the steel almyrah and a ceramic tray in the house of the deceased and since articles i. e. , M. Os. ( 35 ) -SINCE finger prints of the appellant were found on the draw of the steel almyrah and a ceramic tray in the house of the deceased and since articles i. e. , M. Os. 1 to 9 and 12 stolen from the house and body of the deceased, were found with the appellant on his person and in his house and were recovered from P. W. 6 at his instance, it cannot but be held that the prosecution brought home the guilty of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly. ( 36 ) IN view of my finding on the point for consideration, I find no merits in this appeal and hence the appeal deserves to be and hence is dismissed.