Judgment :- S.Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. The accused 1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.580 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, are the appellants in Crl.A.No.395 of 2002. The appellants, besides A3, were tried by the trial Court in respect of the charges levelled against them. They were convicted and sentenced as follows:- (1) The first appellant/first accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 449 and 382 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and Section 382 I.P.C.; (2) The appellants 2 and 3/accused 2 and 4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 449 and 382 I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and Section 382 I.P.C. and (3) The 3rd accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 449 and 382 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offence under Section 449 I.P.C. and Section 382 I.P.C. and the third accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the same, Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2002 has been filed by the accused 1, 2 and 4. No appeal has been filed by the 3rd accused. 2. P.W.1, Suriyakumar, in S.C.No.580 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, is the appellant in Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002 praying to direct M.Os.1 to 894 to be returned to him. 3. Before the Sessions Court in order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P-1 to P-41 and produced M.Os.1 to 908. P.W.1, Suriyakumar, in S.C.No.580 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, is the appellant in Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002 praying to direct M.Os.1 to 894 to be returned to him. 3. Before the Sessions Court in order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P-1 to P-41 and produced M.Os.1 to 908. Among the witnesses examined on the prosecution side, P.W.2 Kuttan, P.W.5 R.Mohanlal, P.W.12 Hariharan, P.W.13 Ashok Kumar, P.W.14 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.15 Dharma alias Dharmi Chand have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. 4. The case of the prosecution as per the evidence let in on the prosecution side is as follows:- "(a) P.W.1 Suriyakumar and P.W.13 Ashok Kumar are the sons-in-law and P.W.14 is the sister's son of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal. The deceased Amaravathi Ammal was a widow and was residing at No.54, Balakrishnan Street, Viyasarpady with her grandson Kantilal, who was studying in a school. The deceased Amaravathi Ammal had four daughters. P.W.1 married the third daughter Hemalatha. The deceased was doing pawn business. (b) On 16.2.2000, P.W.1 received a phone message from his relative Krishnakumar that the mother-in-law of P.W.1 did not open the house though knocked. P.W.1 went to the house of his mother-in-law at 2.45 p.m. He knocked the door of the house for about half an hour, but it was not opened. He went to the school and brought his co-brother's son and grandson of Amaravathi Ammal, viz., Kantilal from the school. Both knocked the door of the house for 10 minutes forcibly, resulting opening of the door and then Kantilal went inside the house and came back with loud scream that there was blood in the hall. P.W.1 went inside the house and found the entire hall with bloodstains and found his mother-in-law dead in the pooja room. The bureaus were found opened and things were scattered. P.W.1 went Viyasarpadi Police Station and gave complaint Ex.P-1 to the Inspector of Police P.W.18, Vivekananthar. P.W.1 was enquired about the value of the stolen jewels and he informed that he does not know anything. (c) P.W.18 Inspector of Police on receiving the complaint Ex.P-1 at 6.30 p.m. on 16.2.2000, registered the case in Crime No.115 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P-28. He took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. (c) P.W.18 Inspector of Police on receiving the complaint Ex.P-1 at 6.30 p.m. on 16.2.2000, registered the case in Crime No.115 of 2000 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is Ex.P-28. He took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-3 and rough sketch Ex.P-29 in the presence of P.W.4 Vijayakumar and one Balaraman. He made arrangements for sniffer dog and finger print experts. (d) P.W.6, P.Suyambu, Head Constable was in-charge of the Sniffer Dog Section and on receiving information from Viyasarpadi police station on 16.2.2000 at 6.45 p.m. he went to the scene of occurrence with the sniffer dog Arjunan, which at the scene of occurrence went to the stair case and after barking came down and after making round about the body of the deceased went to the pooja room and on coming out went to No.64 bus stop and stopped there. (e) As per the request received from the Police Station, P.W.7, Umapathy, Finger Print Expert went to the scene of occurrence on 16.2.2000 at 7.30 p.m. and noted five finger prints (Exs.P-5 to P-9) in the steel almyrah and made the police photographer P.W.8 to take photos (attached with Ex.P-9). He compared the finger prints and sent the report on 21.2.2000. He received the finger prints of the accused on 28.2.2000 and on comparison found that the right hand thumb and middle finger of right hand of A2 Om Prakash tallies with the finger prints taken from the steel almyrah in the scene of occurrence and sent report Ex.P-8. The detailed report with photographs is Ex.P-9. (f) P.W.18 recovered bloodstained pillow cover, weighing machine with weighing stones(M.O.898) and a teeth set (M.O.899) from the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 under mahazar Ex.P-4. P.W.18 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars. The inquest report is Ex.P-30. He enquired P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.18 sent the body of the deceased to the Government Stanley Hospital through the Head Constable(P.W.9) with a requisition Ex.P-19 for post-mortem. P.W.18 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars. The inquest report is Ex.P-30. He enquired P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.18 sent the body of the deceased to the Government Stanley Hospital through the Head Constable(P.W.9) with a requisition Ex.P-19 for post-mortem. (g) P.W.16, Dr.Thahira Begam, attached to Stanley Medical College Hospital, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 17.2.2000 at 11.50 a.m., has found Serial Nos.1 to 11 abrasions, contusions, lacerations and incised wounds and injury Nos.12 to 15 and on dissection, Trachea is completely cut between the cricoid cartilage and 1 st tracheal ring. Blood clots present in the trachea with extravasation of blood in the tissues of the neck. The doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds. She issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P-21. (h) After completion of post-mortem, on 17.2.2000 P.W.18 recovered the clothes, viz., M.O.902 bloodstained polyester petticoat, M.O.903 bloodstained "dhavani" and M.O.904 blue colour jacket worn by the deceased in Form 95 under mahazar Ex.P-32 and sent the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate on 18.2.2000 with a requisition Ex.P-33 to send the same to the Forensic Science Department. (i) On 19.2.2000 P.W.1 has given further complaint Ex.P-2 with ledger book containing the details of stolen jewels to P.W.18. (j) P.W.3 Venkatesan is the auto driver and he has stated in his evidence that he was waiting on 16.2.2000 at 11.00 a.m. in his auto bearing No.TSJ 2950 in No.64 bus stop. A person came hurriedly and got in the auto stating that he had to go to Purasawalkam. He got down in front of the Raxi Theatre. For the auto fair of Rs.22/-, he gave hundred rupee note and asked P.W.3 to retain the change. P.W.3 had seen the person, who got into the auto wearing light yellow colour shirt with bloodstained on the right side. He was restless. P.W.3 returned back to the auto stand at 8.00 p.m. Persons were talking that after murdering, robbery was committed in the house nearby the street. Police dog came to auto stand and after making round sat there. P.W.3 went to the scene of occurrence and found the police. He was restless. P.W.3 returned back to the auto stand at 8.00 p.m. Persons were talking that after murdering, robbery was committed in the house nearby the street. Police dog came to auto stand and after making round sat there. P.W.3 went to the scene of occurrence and found the police. On suspicion P.W.3 went to Viyasarpadi Police Station and gave the particulars about the person, who travelled in his auto in the morning and also informed that he can identify that person if he was shown to him. (k) P.W.18 continuing the investigation arrested A3 Darmi Chand at 2.30 p.m. on 24.2.2000 at Kodungaiyur Solaivoyal junction and recorded confession statement (the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-34) in the presence of Rajendra Prasad (P.W.14) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.13). A3 took P.W.18 and mahazar witnesses to Kodungaiyur and produced 236 gold jewels and 29 silver jewels, which were recovered by P.W.18 under mahazar Ex.P-35 in the presence of witnesses P.Ws.13 and 14. (l) As per the information furnished by A3, P.W.18 arrested A4 Beekaram on 24.2.2000 at 4.00 p.m. at No.16, Thiruvalluvar Salai, Everedy Colony, Brindhavan Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Union Carpet Colony and in front of the factory and recorded confession statement (the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-36) in the presence of Rajendra Prasad (P.W.14) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.13). A4 produced 160 gold jewels, silver jewels, white full hand shirt, light yellow colour bloodstained full hand shirt (M.O.895) and knife M.O.908, which have been recovered under the mahazar Ex.P-37 in the presence of witnesses P.Ws.13 and 14. (m) As per the information furnished by A4, P.W.18 arrested A1 Kesaram and A2 Om Prakash in Esplanade Bus Stand, Madras, and recorded their confession statements (admissible portions of which are Exs.P-38 and 40). P.W.18 recovered 260 gold jewels and 5 silver jewels under mahazar Ex.P-39 from A1 Kesaram and P.W.18 recovered 198 gold jewels and 4 silver jewels under mahazar Ex.P-41 from A2 Om Prakash in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14. (n) On receiving information, P.W.3 went to the police station on 25.2.2000 and all the four accused were in the police station. P.W.3 identified A2 as the person travelled in his auto wearing light yellow colour shirt M.O.895 on 16.2.2000 at 11.00 a.m. (o) P.W.1 received information from police on 25.2.2000 that the jewels have been recovered and the accused have been caught. P.W.3 identified A2 as the person travelled in his auto wearing light yellow colour shirt M.O.895 on 16.2.2000 at 11.00 a.m. (o) P.W.1 received information from police on 25.2.2000 that the jewels have been recovered and the accused have been caught. P.W.1 went to the police station and identified the jewels with the slips attached to the jewels M.Os.1 to M.O.894. He had also seen the four accused. P.W.1 had already seen A3 Dharmi Chand in the house of the deceased talking with the deceased in her house. (p) P.W.18 sent all the four accused for judicial remand and sent the material objects to the Court. He examined Doctor, who conducted post-mortem. After completing investigation, P.W.18 filed the report on 19.5.2000." 5. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence let in against them by the prosecution and they denied the evidence let in against them as false and stated that a false case has been foisted against them. 6. On consideration of such evidence let in, the trial Court on finding the accused guilty convicted and sentenced as referred to above, which is under challenge in this appeal by the accused 1, 2 and 4. No appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of A3 in respect of the offences under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C. 7. P.W.1 Suriyakumar has filed appeal No.1085 of 2002 under Section 450 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Court with regard to the material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 894. The order passed by the Sessions Court is that M.Os.1 to 894 have to be returned after appeal time is over to the owner or to the representatives of the persons, who pledged the jewels with the deceased or to the deceased by filing sworn affidavit and by producing pawn tickets. 8. We have Heard Mr.Venkata Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.395 of 2002, Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002 and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in both the Criminal Appeals. 9. 8. We have Heard Mr.Venkata Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.395 of 2002, Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002 and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in both the Criminal Appeals. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.395 of 2002 vehemently argued that there is no evidence much less satisfactory evidence to link the accused 1, 2 and 4/ the appellants herein in respect of the offences alleged against them, viz., theft of M.Os.1 to 894 after committing murder of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal in her house. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the recovery of jewels as belonging to the deceased Amaravathi Ammal have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, inasmuch as P.W.1 has not identified 60 jewels correctly and the details of the jewels have not been furnished by P.W.1 with the complaint Ex.P-1 and only three days later in the further complaint Ex.P-2, the details of the jewels have been furnished. Inasmuch as the mahazar witnesses and witnesses in the presence of whom the confession statements (admissible portions of which are Exs.P-34, P-36, P-38 and P-40) of the accused have been recorded turned hostile and as such, no much credence can be attached with regard to the confession statements(admissible portions of which are Exs.P-34, P-36, P-38 and P-40) and the recovery of M.Os.1 to 894 under mahazars Exs.P-35, P-37, P-39 and P-41 said to have been recovered from the accused. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since it is admitted by P.W.7 Finger Print Expert that Section 5 of the Accused Identification Act was not followed for taking finger prints from the scene of occurrence, the evidence of P.W.7 that the finger prints of A2 tallied with the finger prints obtained from the scene of occurrence cannot be relied on to connect the second accused with the commission of the offences. 10. 10. As regards the 4th accused/3rd appellant, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that his confession statement(admissible portion of which is Ex.P-36) cannot be relied upon in which it is stated that A4 produced the shirts of A1 and A2 and bloodstained knife (M.O.908) used for murdering the deceased by A1 and his shares of jewels and so on the basis of the confession statement of A4, the co-accused cannot be implicated and convicted. The learned counsel also argued that the reasonings to acquit A3 applies to A4 also. In any event, the learned counsel finally submitted that as per the recovery of jewels from the accused even true, the offence under Section 382 I.P.C. for robbery alone will be attracted and there is no evidence for connecting the accused for the offence of the murder. 11. In support of the arguments advanced the learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the following decisions:- (1) Anjlus Dungdung – vs. - State of Jharkhand reported in 2004(4) Crimes 136 (SC) (2) Chandran alias Surandran and another – vs. - State of Kerala reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2148, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the statement leading to recovery is not made by the accused during first examination, but at the subsequent examination, the conviction and sentence on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable. (3) George – vs. - State of Kerala reported in 2002(2) Crimes 129(SC), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption of robbery can be drawn on the circumstantial evidence, but it is not possible to draw any inference that the murder was also committed. (4) Limbaji and others – vs. - State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1044, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Section 114 Illustration (a) of Evidence Act, presumption of commission of offence of robbery or murder or both can be extended under the main part of Section 114, if it is part of the same transaction. It would be safer to so extend the presumption if there are additional incriminating circumstances reinforcing the same. After incident, the accused divided the booty among themselves and the stolen articles were recovered by police within a reasonable time on the basis of the confession statement made by the accused and no credible explanation given by the accused. It would be safer to so extend the presumption if there are additional incriminating circumstances reinforcing the same. After incident, the accused divided the booty among themselves and the stolen articles were recovered by police within a reasonable time on the basis of the confession statement made by the accused and no credible explanation given by the accused. Presumption can be stretched to commission of offence of robbery by the accused, but the presumption cannot be further stretched to commission of murder also by them when there was reasonable scope for two possibilities and court is not in a position to know actual details of the occurrence. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.3 auto driver identified A2 in the police station as the person, who travelled in his auto at 11.00 a.m. from Viyasarpady to Purasawalkam Raxi Theatre, during which time P.W.3 found A2 was restless and A2 paid hundred rupee note for actual auto fair of Rs.22/- and asked to retain the balance. P.W.3 also noticed the bloodstained shirt of A2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously argued that on the basis of the confession statements (admissible portion of which is Exs.P-34, P-36, P-38 and P-40) given by the accused, at the time of their arrest on 24.2.2000 the material objects, viz. the gold jewels and the silver jewels produced by the accused 1 to 4 have been recovered. The jewels were identified by P.W.1 as the jewels which have been pledged with the deceased as per the ledger book produced along with the complaint Ex.P-2. P.W.1 also identified A3 as the person, who used to visit the pawn broker shop of the deceased and no reason was offered by the accused as to how they came into possession of the jewels M.O.1 to 894. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the knife M.O.908, which was used by A1 at the time of occurrence and the light yellow colour shirt of A1 which A2 was wearing at the time of occurrence and which have been handed over to A4 and recovered from A4 on the basis of confession statement(admissible portion of which is Ex.P-36) under mahazar Ex.P-37, were found to contain human blood group "A" tallying with the blood group of the deceased. Pillow cover and cloth bag (M.O.896) and also petty coat(M.O.902), jacket(M.O.904) and half sari (M.O.903) which were recovered from the body of the deceased were also found to contain the same blood group and therefore, the prosecution has clearly established that the appellants/accused 1, 2 and 4 after murdering the deceased Amaravathi Ammal stolen the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 and as such, they have to be convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied on the following decisions:- (1) Ramesh and others – vs. - State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2002) M.L.J. (Crl.)1027, in which a Division Bench of this Court held thus:- "The prosecution was able to prove the circumstances which taken together complete the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused and the huge recoveries made from them and at their instance is a sufficient circumstance to hold that they were not only guilty of robbery but also guilty of murder. The proximity of time between the death of the deceased and the recoveries of the jewels of the deceased at the instance of the accused enables the Court to draw an inference that the accused/appellants not only robbed the jewels of the deceased, but committed her murder also." (2) Thavaraj Pandian and others – vs. - State reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 2642, in which a Division Bench of this Court, (M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J. and P.THANGAVEL,J.) has held that presumption under Section 114(a) of Evidence Act can be drawn for offence of murder and robbery though no explanation was given by the accused for possession of stolen articles recovered from them. (3) Anil Sharma and others - vs. - State of Jharkhand reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1706, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as follows:- "In 1870, Section 34 was amended by the insertion of the words "in furtherance of the common intention of all" after the word "persons" and before the word "each", so as to make the object of Section 34 clear. The section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The section does not say "the common intention of all", nor does it say "and intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them." 14. According to the prosecution, this is the case of murder for gain and after committing murder of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal, gold jewels and silver jewels M.Os.1 to 894 were stolen. There is no direct evidence. 15. The deceased Amaravathi Ammal, after marriage of her four daughters, as a widow, had been residing at No.54, Balakrishnan Street, Viyasarpady with her grandson Kantilal. She was doing pawn business and was receiving gold and silver jewels pledged. 16. The occurrence took place on 16.2.2000. On receiving information from Viyasarpadi police station on 16.2.2000 at 6.45 p.m. P.W.6 went to the scene of occurrence with sniffer dog Arjunan, which at the scene of occurrence went to the stair case and after barking came down and after making round about the body of the deceased went to the pooja room and on coming out went to No.64 bus stop and stopped there. 17. P.W.3 Venkatesan, auto driver informed the police that on the occurrence day in the morning at 11.00 a.m. when he was waiting in his auto bearing No.TSJ 2950 at No.64 bus stop, Viyasarpadi, A2 Om Prakash came hurriedly and got into the auto stating that he had to go to Purasawalkam and he got down in front of the Raxi Theatre, Purasawalkam. For the auto fair of Rs.22/-, he gave hundred rupee note and asked P.W.3 to retain the change. For the auto fair of Rs.22/-, he gave hundred rupee note and asked P.W.3 to retain the change. P.W.3 noticed that A2 Om Prakash was restless and was wearing light yellow colour shirt with bloodstain on the right side. P.W.3 identified A2 as the person, who travelled in his auto wearing light yellow colour shirt (M.O.895). 18. P.W.18 arrested A3 Dharmi Chand at 2.30 p.m. on 24.2.2000 at Kodungaiyur Solaivoyal junction and he gave his confession statement (admissible portion of which is Ex.P-34). Then, A3 Dharmi Chand took P.W.18 Investigation Officer and Mahazar witnesses (P.Ws.13 and 14) to Kodungaiyur and produced 236 golden jewels and 29 silver jewels, which were recovered by P.W.18 under mahazar Ex.P-35. Then, P.W.18 arrested A4 Beekaram at 4.00 p.m. on the same day at No.16, Thiruvallur Salai, Everedy Colony, Brindhavan Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Union Carpet Colony and he gave his confession statement (admissible portion of which is Ex.P-36). Then, A4 Beekaram produced 160 gold and silver jewels, white full hand shirt, light yellow colour bloodstained full hand shirt (M.O.895) and knife M.O.908 and they were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-37. Thereafter, as per the information furnished by A4, P.W.18 arrested A1 Kesaram and A2 Om Prakash in Esplanade Bus Stand, Madras and they gave the confession statements (admissible portions of which are Exs.P-38 and P-40). P.W.18 recovered 260 gold jewels and 5 silver jewels from A1 Kesaram under mahazar Ex.P-39. P.W.18 also recovered 198 gold jewels and 4 silver jewels from A2 Om Prakash under mahazar Ex.P-41. Such jewels recovered from the accused 1 to 4 were identified by P.W.1, son-in-law of the deceased Amaravathy in the police station on 25.2.2000 with the slips attached to the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 and he had seen all the four accused and informed the police that he had seen A3 Dharmi Chand in the house of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal and talking with her. 19. 19. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Limbaji and others – vs. - State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1044(cited supra), one week after the occurrence, the accused 1 to 4 divided the booty, viz., the gold and silver jewels from the house of the deceased Amaravathy Ammal among themselves and when they were about to leave to different places, they were arrested on the basis of the confession statements made by them and on their producing, the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 were recovered by P.W.18. Such recovery of jewels were made from the accused at the time of their arrest and not at the later part of time and therefore, the facts in Chandran alias Surandran and another – vs. - State of Kerala reported in A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 2148 are different. 20. The accused were not affluent enough to possess the jewels M.Os.1 to 894. In the case Gulab Chand – vs. - State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 552, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 114 Illustration (a) and 106 – Presumption under, where murder and robbery forming integral parts of the same transaction. Recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the accused and his dealing with the ornaments immediately after the occurrence. Accused not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments. Absence of explanation of accused regarding lawful possession of the said ornaments. Held, in the circumstances, presumption can be raised that the accused committed both the murder and robbery. Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 394 & 397 and 411 – Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence. It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. In the present case it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the offence of murder and robbery can be drawn against the deceased. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused, which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of the case, it appears that murder and robbery have been given by the accused. In the facts of the case, it appears that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore, the presumption arising under Illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments." 21. The accused have not explained as to how they came into possession of the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 recovered from them when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating evidence let in against them. 22. In Mukund alias Kundu Mishtra and another – vs. - State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal 318, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "The prosecution can successfully prove that the offences of robbery and murder were committed in one and the same transaction and soon thereafter the stolen properties were recovered, a Court may legitimately draw a presumption not only of the fact that the person in whose possession the stolen articles were found committed the robbery but also that he committed the murder. In drawing the above conclusion we have drawn sustenance from the judgment of this Court in Gulab Chand – vs. - State of M.P. (1995)3 SCC 574 : (1995 AIR SCW 2504)." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of NCT of Delhi – vs. - Jaspal Singh reported in (2003)10 Supreme Court Cases 586 has held thus:- "Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act envisages that when more than one persons are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons is found to affect the maker and some other of such persons and stands sufficiently proved, the court can take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who made such confession." "No doubt, in law the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence to convict, other than the maker of it, on the evidentiary value of it alone. But it has often been reiterated that if on the basis of the consideration of other evidence on record the court is inclined to accept the other evidence, but not prepared to act on such evidence alone, the confession of a co-accused can be pressed into service to fortify its belief to act on it also." As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, P.W.3 auto driver has stated in his evidence that when he was waiting on 16.2.2000 at 11.00 a.m. in his auto at No.64 bus stand, Viyasarpadi, A2 Om Prakash came hurriedly and got into the auto stating that he had to go to Purasawalkam and got down at Raxi Theatre, Purasawalkam, during which time P.W.3 found A2 restless and he had also noticed light yellow colour shirt, which A2 was wearing with bloodstain on the right side of the shirt. P.W.3 also later identified A2 in the police station on 25.2.2000. The light yellow colour shirt which A2 was wearing as noticed by P.W.3 when he was getting down from the auto has been handed over to A4 by A2. The said shirt M.O.895 has been recovered from A4 by P.W.18 under mahazar Ex.P-37. In the knife M.O.908, which according to the prosecution, was used by A1 for murdering the deceased Amaravathi Ammal, on chemical examination, blood group 'A' was detected and also in light yellow colour shirt as that of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal. The said shirt M.O.895 has been recovered from A4 by P.W.18 under mahazar Ex.P-37. In the knife M.O.908, which according to the prosecution, was used by A1 for murdering the deceased Amaravathi Ammal, on chemical examination, blood group 'A' was detected and also in light yellow colour shirt as that of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal. Therefore, all these facts clinchingly prove that the accused after committing the murder of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal had stolen the gold and silver jewels M.Os.1 to 894. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants by the Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 302, 449 and 382 I.P.C. and we confirm the same. 23. In Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002, as per the appeal grounds, it is stated that it is not practicable to the pawners or the owners of the said jewels to file sworn affidavit and to produce pawn tickets for pledging the jewels in view of the time lapse and in the case of death of the pawners, it is not possible for legal heirs to redeem the jewels by producing pawn tickets which also results financial loss to the family of the deceased, who advanced the amount on the jewels. Some of the pawners, who are small pawn brokers and who repledged the articles pledged by their customers with the deceased Amaravathi Ammal also will be in difficult to redeem the articles. Some of the relatives also deposited their own ornaments and borrowed money for which no pawn tickets were issued and it will be difficult to file affidavit to get back the jewels so pledged. 24. The learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that the Sessions Court considering the facts that M.Os.1 to 894 are the gold and silver jewels which the accused stolen from the house of the deceased after committing murder and which jewels have been pledged to the deceased by several persons under pawn tickets, ordered as above for return of the same. 25. The case of the prosecution is that after committing murder of the deceased Amaravathy Ammal, the accused stolen the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 from the house of the deceased. After trial accused 1, 2 and 4, who are the appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2002 were convicted and sentenced for the offences as set out above, viz., for murder and robbery. After trial accused 1, 2 and 4, who are the appellants in the Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2002 were convicted and sentenced for the offences as set out above, viz., for murder and robbery. The Sessions Court ordered to return the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 after appeal time is over to the owner or to the representatives of the persons who pledged the jewels with the deceased or to the representatives of the deceased by filing sworn affidavits and by producing pawn tickets, which is challenged by P.W.1 who is the son-in-law of the deceased on the ground that some of the small pawn brokers, who on obtaining the jewels pledged to them have repledged with the deceased and in the case of death of the pawners it is difficult for the legal heirs to redeem the jewels by production of pawn tickets which would result financial loss to the family of the deceased who advanced the amount on jewels. There is some force in the argument advanced. 26. The jewels pledged by various persons to small pawn brokers as alleged by P.W.1 and repledged to the deceased Amaravathi Ammal have been recovered from the accused and as such, the jewels have to be returned to the legal representatives of the deceased from the house of whom the jewels have been stolen by committing her murder by the appellants along with A3. In that view, the order of the Sessions Court for return of property is to be modified ordering to return the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 to the legal representatives of the deceased, who in turn will return to the owners of the jewels or small pawn brokers as the case may be. 27. Crl.A.No.395 of 2002:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1, 2 and 4 in S.C.No.580 of 2000 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai are confirmed. 28. Crl.A.No.1085 of 2002:- In the result, the appeal is allowed in respect of the order with regard to the gold and silver jewels, viz., M.Os.1 to 894, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.580 of 2000 modifying the same and directing to return the jewels M.Os.1 to 894 to the legal representatives of the deceased, who in turn will return to the owners of the jewels or small pawn brokers as the case may be.