Judgment :- N.Dhinakar, J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1707 of 2002 is the first accused in Sessions Case No.198 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2003 are accused 2 to 4 in the same Sessions Case. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of one sessions case. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1707 of 2002 will, hereinafter, be referred to as the first appellant and the appellants 1 to 3 in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2003 will, hereinafter, be referred to as appellants 2 to 4 in this judgment. 2. The appellants were tried before the trial Court on six charges. The first charge is against all the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code under Charge No.2. The third charge is against the second appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal code under charge No.4. Under charge No.5, appellants 3 and 4 were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were charged under charge No.6 for an offence punishable under Section 396 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, found all the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them with rigorous imprisonment for two years and five years respectively. The second appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The first appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and were similarly sentenced to life imprisonment. The first appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and were similarly sentenced to life imprisonment. The learned trial Judge, under charge No.6, convicted all the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the said offence and imposed rigorous imprisonment for five years. 4. The allegation against the appellants in the above charges is that they conspired at about 06.00 pm on 04.02.2002 to commit the murder of one Ananthalakshmi, the grandmother of the first appellant and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, they trespassed into the house of the deceased at 10.30 pm on the same day and that the second appellant strangled the deceased Ananthalakshmi with a nylon rope and the first appellant shared the common intention of the second appellant by holding her legs, and that appellants 3 and 4 stood outside the house to watch as to whether any one is coming and thereby abetted the offence of murder and during the course of same transaction, all the appellants robbed the jewels belonging to the deceased. 5. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, can be briefly summarized as follows: The first appellant is the grandson of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the daughters of the deceased and the mother of the first appellant is the sister of P.Ws.1 to 3. the deceased was living alone in her house at door No.43, Bungalow Street, Shevapet, Salem District. The daughters of the deceased and the first appellant were residing separately. At about 08.30 am on 05.02.2002, P.W.4, the servant-maid who was working in the house of the deceased, went to the house of the deceased and pressed the calling bell. As there was no response, P.W.4 pushed the door from outside and opened the door. She entered the house and found the deceased lying dead. She came out of the house and raised an alarm. She sent messages to P.Ws.1 to 3 as well to the first appellant, the grandson of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 who were residing nearby, rushed to her house. She entered the house and found the deceased lying dead. She came out of the house and raised an alarm. She sent messages to P.Ws.1 to 3 as well to the first appellant, the grandson of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 3 who were residing nearby, rushed to her house. Thereafter, the first appellant proceeded to Shevapet police station and gave a complaint to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police at 10.30 am on 05.02.2002. The same was registered as a crime in crime No.85 of 2002. The said complaint of the first appellant is Ex.P.18. The printed first information report is Ex.P.19. P.W.13 sent express reports to the Court as well as to the authorities. He informed the Inspector of Police, P.W.14. 6. P.W.14, on receipt of the information about the registration of the said crime, took up investigation at 11.30 am on 05.02.2002. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence after requisitioning the services of finger print expert and the sniffer dogs. An observation mahazar, Ex.P.1 and a rough sketch, Ex.P.21 were prepared. Photographs of the scene were taken at 12.15 pm. The observation mahazar was attested by P.W.5 Sundaram. P.W.14 also seized blood stained rope and a portion of a gold chain which was found broken and lying at the scene of occurrence under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P.2. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ananthalakshmi was conducted between 1.30 pm and 3.30 pm. During the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and three others. Ex.P.23 is the inquest report. P.W.14, after inquest, issued a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy and handed over the body to the Head Constable for being taken to the Government Hospital. 7. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.9, Professor of Forensic Medicine, GNR Medical College Hospital, Salem conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Ananthalakshmi and found the following ante mortem injuries: 1.A complete transverse ligature mark 34 cm x 0.5 cm in three times over the entire neck, present. Base of ligature marks is contused and haemorrhagic. Fracture of thryroid cartilage present underlying muscles are found lacerated below the ligature mark. Hyoid bone is intact. Forthy Fluid present in trachea. 2.A contusion present over mid-parietal regional of scalp 6 cm x 4 cm x 0.5 cm dried. Base of ligature marks is contused and haemorrhagic. Fracture of thryroid cartilage present underlying muscles are found lacerated below the ligature mark. Hyoid bone is intact. Forthy Fluid present in trachea. 2.A contusion present over mid-parietal regional of scalp 6 cm x 4 cm x 0.5 cm dried. 3.A contusion over thoracic region of back on right side 8 cm x 5 cm x 0.5 cm dried. Fracture of Ribs 9 x 10 present. The above injuries are ante mortem in nature. The doctor issued Ex.P.12, the post mortem certificate with his opinion that the deceased died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. 8. In the meantime, P.W.14 continued with the investigation and arrested the first appellant at 04.00 am on 06.02.2002. On being questioned, the first appellant gave a statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.3. The first appellant also produced gold chain,M.O.6, gold ring,M.O.7, a sum of Rs.17,500/-,M.O.8 series. They were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P.4. Thereafter, the third appellant was arrested at 05.30 am and eight gold bangles,M.O.9 series were recovered from his possession. The fourth appellant was also arrested at 05.30 am and from him, the officer seized four gold bangles,M.O.10, a red stoned gold necklace,M.O.11, bajaj scooter,M.O.12 belonging to the first appellant. They were all seized under a mahazar, Ex.P.7. Thereafter, the second appellant was arrested at 10.00 am and from his possession a white stoned gold chain,M.O.13, red stoned gold necklace, M.O.14, long gold chain, M.O.15, double roll pearl chain, M.O.16, gold vangi, M.O.17, a white stoned gold necklace with pendent, M.O.18, three roll gold stoned chain, M.O.19, a pair of white stoned ear stead and drops, M.O.20, a white stoned diamond ring, M.O.21, a gold ring having topaz, M.O.22, a gold ring having onyx, M.O.23, a gold white stoned necklace, M.O.24, a knife, M.O.25, blood stained kerchief, M.O.26 were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P.10. 9. The Investigating Officer, after examining the other witnesses, including the postmortem doctor, who conducted autopsy completed his investigation and filed the final report against the appellants on 08.02.2002. The appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances were put to them. The first appellant has filed a written statement stating that no jewels were recovered from him and that M.O.12 scooter was used by his father. The appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the incriminating circumstances were put to them. The first appellant has filed a written statement stating that no jewels were recovered from him and that M.O.12 scooter was used by his father. The other appellants also filed written statements denying their complicity. The second appellant has stated in his statement that on 06.02.2002 he was taken to the police station along with other accused wherein he was detained and a false case was foisted against him. Appellants 3 and 4 also took the same stand. But they did not examine any witness on their side. 10. Learned senior counsel Mr.Ashok Kumar, leading the arguments on behalf of all the appellants, submits that since P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated in their evidence that they saw the two pieces of the gold chain near the dead body of the deceased, when they visited the scene of occurrence, the case of the prosecution that one portion of the chain was found near the dead body and the other portion was recovered from the first appellant, cannot be true. He further submits that one Balasubramani, to whom the second appellant is alleged to have attempted to sell the gold jewels, had given a complaint on the same day, which was registered as a crime in Cr.No.86/2002 against the second appellant and that the second appellant was arrested, when the Investigating Officer went to the shop of the said Balasubramani, as could be seen from Ex.D.1 Remand report and therefore, the present version that after the arrest of the first appellant, the Investigating Agency came to know about the complicity of the other three appellants cannot be accepted, and hence, the present case of the prosecution that after the arrest of the first appellant, appellants 3 and 4 and 2 were arrested in that order and jewels were recovered from them, cannot be true. 11. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and perused the entire materials including the recorded evidence and exhibits. 12. The cause of the death of the deceased is not disputed. 11. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and perused the entire materials including the recorded evidence and exhibits. 12. The cause of the death of the deceased is not disputed. The doctor, P.W.9 who was examined by the prosecution before the trial court has, in his evidence, mentioned the injuries which he found on the dead body of the deceased and has stated that the deceased would have died of asphyxia due to strangulation and she appears to have died 24 hours prior to the postmortem. On the medical evidence, we hold that Ananthalakshmi died on account of homicidal violence. 13. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Ananthalakshmi was murdered by the appellants 1 to 4 with a view to commit theft of jewels which were in her possession. The prosecution, to establish the above said allegation, relied upon the circumstantial evidence as the occurrence had taken place during the night inside the house of the deceased, where she lived alone and as it was not witnessed by anyone. 14. In Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1955 SC 801 ) the Supreme Court has held that, 'in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain.' The view of the Supreme Court in the said case was quoted with approval in several judgments of the Supreme Court. 15. Keeping the above principles in mind, we now analyse the evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances. 16. 15. Keeping the above principles in mind, we now analyse the evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances. 16. It is not in dispute that the deceased was living alone in her house and P.Ws.1 to 3, the daughters of the deceased was living separately. According to P.W.4, who was working as a servant-maid for almost seven years in the house of the deceased, she went to the house of the deceased at about 08.30 am on 05.02.2002 and as there was no response for her pressing the calling bell, she went inside the house and found the deceased lying on the floor in her bed room. She also found the broken chain lying nearby. According to her, she came out and raised an alarm. She had also sent messages to P.Ws.1 to 3, the daughters of the deceased as well as to the first appellant, who is the grandson of the deceased and also to his mother, who is also the daughter of the deceased. All of them reached the scene of occurrence and the first appellant gave a complaint. It shows that the deceased who was alive on 04.02.2002 was found dead by P.W.4 at 08.30 am on 05.02.2002 and after the registration of the crime, P.W.14 reached the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.1. Thereafter, he conducted inquest, examined witnesses and arrested the first appellant at 04.00 am on 06.02.2002. The first appellant produced a portion of the chain,M.O.6, a gold ring,M.O.7, Rs.17,500/- cash,M.O.8 series which were seized under a cover of mahazar, Ex.P.4. According to the Investigating Officer, the third appellant was arrested at 05.30 am and from his possession eight gold bangles, M.O.9 series were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.6 and the fourth appellant was arrested at 05.30 am and M.Os.10 to 12 – four gold bangles, gold chain and a scooter were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.8 and finally, the second appellant was arrested at 10.00 am and from him M.Os.13 to 24 gold ornaments were recovered along with knife,M.O.25 and blood stained hand kerchief,M.O.26 under a mahazar Ex.P.10. These mahazars were attested by P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer. 17. These mahazars were attested by P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer. 17. It was not in dispute before the trial Court and also before this Court that the jewels which were recovered from the appellants were in possession of the deceased before her death. P.W.8, in her evidence, has stated that she pledged M.Os.7 and 11 with the deceased and that were in the possession of the deceased. Therefore, it is clear that the jewels which were in the custody of the deceased were later recovered from appellants 1 to 4 after their arrest on the next day of the incident. At this stage, we have to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. This being an appeal, this Court has jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and, accordingly, we have looked at the evidence with a view to find out whether their evidence could be accepted and for the reasons, which we propose to mention in the following paragraphs, we may say even at this stage that their evidence cannot be accepted. 18. An argument was advanced by the senior counsel that P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated in their evidence that when they reached the scene of occurrence, they saw the two portions of the broken chain at the scene of occurrence and therefore the evidence of P.W.6, the mahazar witness and P.W.14, the Investigating Officer that one portion of the gold chain was recovered from the first appellant, cannot be true. P.Ws.1 to 3 have, in their cross examination, stated that they found two pieces of broken chain at the scene of occurrence, but stated that the other jewels were found missing. It is to be remembered that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the daughters of the deceased and sisters of the first appellant's mother. The answers given by P.Ws.1 to 3 could therefore to be treated as only as answers given by them to save the first appellant. In any event, since they have given such answers in the cross examination, the prosecution ought to have treated them hostile, but the prosecution has failed to do so. The answers given by P.Ws.1 to 3 could therefore to be treated as only as answers given by them to save the first appellant. In any event, since they have given such answers in the cross examination, the prosecution ought to have treated them hostile, but the prosecution has failed to do so. Taking into consideration the fact that they are closely related to the first appellant, we are of the view that such answers were given deliberately in favour of the first appellant so as to save him from the penal consequences of the act with which he was charged. We will, therefore, brush aside the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and find out whether there is any evidence to hold as to whether a portion of the gold chain was seized from the first appellant. 19. At this juncture we have to refer to the evidence of P.W.14 and also the observation mahazar, Ex.P.1, which was prepared by P.W.14 immediately on reaching the house of the deceased. In Ex.P.1 it is found noted that a piece of broken gold chain was found on the matress of a cot. This is a contemporaneous record prepared by the officer as soon as he reached the scene of occurrence and at that point of time, the officer could not have expected that the other portion of the chain would be recovered from the first appellant who is none other than the grandson of the deceased for him to make such an averment in the observation mahazar. It is also worthwhile to remember that the defence did not come out with any material to show that the concerned Investigating Officer, P.W.14 had a motive to foist a false case against the first appellant. In the absence of any motive for P.W.14 to foist a false case against the first appellant, and in view of the averment made in the contemporaneous record, Ex.P.1 observation mahazar, prepared by the said officer, we are fully satisfied that P.Ws.1 to 3 had come out with the present version that they saw both the pieces of the gold chain at the scene of occurrence, only with a view to save the first appellant, as he happens to be their sister's son. We, therefore, reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and accept the evidence of P.W.14 since we have stated earlier that no motive was suggested to him for foisting a false case against the first appellant. 20. Once we accept the evidence of P.W.14, then it becomes clear that a portion of the gold chain, M.O.6, which matched with the portion of the chain, M.O.31, which was recovered from the scene of occurrence, along with a gold ring, M.O.7, as well as Rs.17500 cash, M.O.8 series were recovered from the first appellant under Ex.P.4, mahazar. The said mahazar was attested by P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer. When P.W.6 gave evidence in Court, nothing was elicited in favour of the appellants. On the contrary, during the cross examination, it was elicited that he had seen the first appellant for the first time on the date when the recoveries were made and if that be the case, P.W.6 had no reason to give false evidence against the first appellant as he was a total stranger to him. It is also not brought out by any material that P.W.6 was obliged to P.W.14 to give such false evidence and merely because he happens to be the Village Administrative Officer, we cannot reject his evidence, which is fully supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.14. It is no doubt true that P.W.14 is a Police Officer and the settled principle of law is that the evidence of the Police Officer is to be considered in the same way as the Court considers any other evidence and the evidence of the police officer cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he wears the uniform of a police officer. We have already given a finding that P.W.14 had no reason to give false evidence and his evidence is also corroborated by P.W.6 and Ex.P.1 observation mahazar prepared by him. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 14 has to be accepted and we accept the same. 21. We had already stated that M.Os.6 to 8 were recovered from the first appellant under Ex.P.4. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 14 has to be accepted and we accept the same. 21. We had already stated that M.Os.6 to 8 were recovered from the first appellant under Ex.P.4. The third appellant was arrested at 05.30 am on the same day from whom 8 gold bangles, M.O.9 series were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.6 and similarly from the fourth appellant who was also arrested at 5.30 am, 4 bangles M.O.10 series, red stoned gold necklace, M.O.11 as well as a bajaj scooter, M.O.12 belonging to the first appellant were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P.8 and finally the second appellant was arrested at 10.00 am from whom M.Os.13 to 24 gold ornaments as well as knife, M.O.25 and blood stained hand-kerchief, M.O.26 were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.10. 22. At this stage, we have to consider the arguments of the learned senior counsel that in Ex.D.1, the remand report of appellants, it is found mentioned that the second appellant was arrested in connection with crime No.86 of 2002 and hence, the prosecution case that he was arrested after the arrest of appellants 1, 3 and 4 cannot be true and therefore, the recoveries including those which were recovered from the second appellant have to be rejected. 23. We have perused Ex.D.1. In the said Ex.D.1 remand report the officer has extracted the averments made in the complaint given by the first appellant and thereafter in paragraph 2 has stated that at 11.00 am a crime was registered in crime No.86/02 on the basis of the complaint of one Balasubramani, who in his complaint, has stated that the second appellant attempted to sell certain jewels to the said Balasubramani and when the said Balasubramani quoted lower rate, the second appellant picked up a quarrel with him and also attempted to cause injuries to the said Balasubramani, and that he was arrested by the Inspector. We are unable to understand as to how the said statement found in Ex.D.1 will accrue to the benefit of the defence. In fact, Ex.D.1 will only indicate that a complaint at the instance of Balasubramani was registered as a crime in crime No.86/2002 and the second appellant was arrested when he was in possession of the jewels by the officer concerned, which is in consonance with the present prosecution version that the second appellant was arrested and the jewels were recovered from him. It is also to be remembered that the complaint in the present case in crime No.85/2002 was registered first and subsequently, the complaint in crime No.86/2002 was registered and therefore, the officer arrested the second appellant in connection with both the crimes, but the jewels were recovered for the purpose of the case in crime No.85/2002 as they were the subject matter of the crime relating to this appeal. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants which we have extracted above, though looks attractive, on the face of it, has no legs to stand, and it is accordingly rejected. On the contrary, the blood stained hand-kerchief, M.O.26, which was recovered from the second appellant and sent for analysis and after analysis, the analyst gave his report Ex.P.16. The serologist report is Ex.P.17, and a perusal of the two documents shows that the hand-kerchief contained human blood of 'O' group tallying with the blood group of the deceased, for which the second appellant had no explanation to offer. 24. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants have committed the murder of Ananthalakshmi and during the course of the same transaction removed the jewels from her. 25. In the case of Baiju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1978 SC 522 ), the Supreme Court has held that the unexplained possession of the stolen property can be taken as the presumptive evidence that the person who committed robbery also committed the murder and the said presumption under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can be raised if the circumstances in a case allows the Court to raise such presumption. The Supreme Court narrated some of the factors which are only illustrative, but are not exhaustive and those factors as illustrated in the above judgment are fully found in this case. The circumstances pointed out by the the Supreme Court are -- (i) the nature of stolen article, (ii) manner of its acquisition by the owner, (iii) the nature of the evidence about its identity, (iv) the manner in which it was dealt with by the appellant, (v) the place and the circumstances of its recovery, (vi) the length of the intervening period, (vii) the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his possession. 26. 26. When we apply the above principles to the case on hand, we could see that the gold ornaments were in the possession of the deceased before her death, and, in fact, M.Os.7 and 11 were pledged by P.W.8 with the deceased, which fact is not disputed by the defence. They were also identified by P.W.8 which were recovered within 24 hours of the occurrence. On the contrary, Ex.D.1 relied on by the defence itself shows that the second appellant attempted to dispose of the stolen articles to one Balasubramani, who is the de facto complainant in crime No.86/2002 on the next day of the occurrence. So the intervening period between the date of occurrence and the recovery of the articles from the appellant is just a day. The appellants also did not offer any explanation as to how they came into possession of the articles belonging to the deceased. Therefore, a presumption can be raised under illustration (a) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in this case that the appellants not only committed robbery, but also committed the murder of the deceased during the course of same transaction, and we accordingly hold that the appellants have committed the murder of Ananthalakshmi with a view to remove her jewels, which were in her possession. 27. In view of our above discussion that the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased with an intention to rob her jewels, we hold that the conviction and the life sentence imposed on the second appellant under charge No.3 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. The first appellant was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for sharing the common intention of the second appellant in committing the murder of the deceased and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellants 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code by the lower Court. Appellants 3 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code by the lower Court. But, we, on the materials, are of the view that though the conviction of the first appellant has to be maintained under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction of appellants 3 and 4 have to be modified from one under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as they all have shared the common intention of the second appellant --- the first appellant by holding the legs of the deceased and appellants 3 and 4 by standing outside the house of the deceased watching as to whether anyone is coming that side, while the second appellant was committing the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, we convict appellants 1, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed on these appellants 1, 3 and 4 by the trial Court is confirmed. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on all the appellants under charge No.6 for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. 28. As regards charge No.1 by which the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, we find that there is absolutely no material to show that there was conspiracy between the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased, and therefore, we acquit all the appellants setting aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial Court under the said charge. Under charge No.2, for which all the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no evidence to show that appellants 3 and 4 trespassed into the house of the deceased, as even according to prosecution, appellants 3 and 4 stood outside standing as guards, when appellants 1 and 2 were inside the house of the deceased committing the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we acquit appellants 3 and 4 of the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them under the said charge, but the conviction and sentence imposed on appellants 1 and 2 under the said charge are confirmed. 29. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on all the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction and sentence imposed on appellants 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the said charges. The conviction and sentence imposed on appellants 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the second appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the first appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. The conviction of appellants 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 is modified into one under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them is confirmed. The conviction and sentence imposed on all the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. 30. With the above modification, the criminal appeals are disposed of. 31. Before parting with the case, it is refreshing to note that but for the efficiency and honesty of the Investigating Officer Mr.M.Mohan, P.W.14 in this case, the appellants would not have been brought to justice. Though the complaint, Ex.P.1 was given by the first appellant, when the officer collected materials and when the materials showed the complicity of the first appellant in the crime, he did not hesitate to arrest him, even though he happens to be the grandson of the deceased and, immediately thereafter arrested the other appellants and recovered all the jewels in tact. We place on record our great appreciation of the investigation conducted by the investigating officer Mr.M.Mohan, who was then the Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem District as he was vigilant and he carried on the investigation with utmost consciousness and due diligence.