JUDGMENT A.Kulasekaran, J. The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.315 of 2000 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, they were convicted under Section302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on each count and also convicted under Section380 read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, however, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, which is challenged in this appeal. 2. It is necessary to mention here that one Kathiravan also allegedly joined the appellants herein in committing the said offences, since he was absconding, the case against him was split-up and the trial Court proceeded against the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall hereafter be referred to as A1, A2 and A3 respectively as arrayed by the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: PW1 is the sister of the first deceased Inbajothi Kalamani. The second deceased Evergreen Felicity is the daughter of first deceased. PWs3 and 4 are related to the first deceased. The husband of the first deceased and father of the second deceased is Mr.Ibrahim, who was employed in Dubai during the relevant period. Both the deceased were permanently residing at K.Padur, S.Koddikulam, Madurai District. A1 is an auto driver, whose auto was engaged by the first deceased to go to ESI office daily, where she was employed as well as to send her daughter, the second deceased to school. 4. This is a case on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, on 7.10.1998, PW1 attempted to contact the first deceased in respect of a function relating to attainment of puberty of Ibrahim’s sister’s daughter over telephone to her house, but there was no response. On 10.10.1998, at about 8.30 p.m., PW1 went to the house of the first deceased and found that the house was locked and a bad smell emanated from the said house. Hence, with the help of the residents, she broke open the lock of the gate, went inside the house of deceased and saw both the deceased were found murdered and the body of the first deceased was lying on the floor and the body of the second deceased was on the cot. Hence, with the help of the residents, she broke open the lock of the gate, went inside the house of deceased and saw both the deceased were found murdered and the body of the first deceased was lying on the floor and the body of the second deceased was on the cot. The jewelleries worn by them were missing, the bureau in the next room was found open and ransacked and the clothes were seen scattered. On seeing that, she immediately contacted her father, who rushed up to the scene of occurrence, thereafter, they went of the Police Station and gave a written complaint, Ex.P1 to PW19, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station at about 10.30 p.m. On receipt of the same, PW19 registered a case in Crime No 404 of 1998 under Sections 302 and 380, IPC He prepared Express Report and forwarded the same to Court as well as higher officials. The copy of the printed F.I.R. is Ex.P25. On receipt of Ex.P25. PW20, the Inspector of Police took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 1 a.m. on 11.10.1998. He prepared Ex.P2, observation mahazar, attested by PW9 and another witness. He also drew rough sketch, Ex.P26 series. Between 3.15a.m. and 5.45a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body of the first deceased in the presence of PW1, PW2 and other witnesses. Ex.P27 is the inquest report of the first deceased. Thereafter, between 6 a.m. and 8.30 a.m., in the presence of the very same witnesses, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the second deceased. He has also sent intimation to finger print experts and also to police personnels having the custody of sniffer dogs and he sent requisition to the Doctor-cum-Professor of Forensic Science attached with Madurai Medical College, Madurai, PW18 requesting to conduct post mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased. 5. On receipt of the requisition, PW18, the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of the first deceased has issued Ex.P23 and the details of the same is mentioned below: “1. Vertically oblique stab injury right side of neck 6 cms x 0.5 cm passing obliquely, downwards and towards left. On dissection wound passes cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and passes as exit wound on the right side of the neck 4.5 cms x 0.5 cm. Vertically oblique stab injury right side of neck 6 cms x 0.5 cm passing obliquely, downwards and towards left. On dissection wound passes cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and passes as exit wound on the right side of the neck 4.5 cms x 0.5 cm. Margin in areas clean ends decomposed with destruction by maggots. 2. Oblique stab wound lower portion of left side neck 5.5 cms x 1 cm x 3.5 cms passing obliquely into the left thoracic cage piercing the lung 3.5 cms x linear x 3 cms. Lung collapsed with changes of decomposition. 3. Oblique stab injury right side upper neck 5.5 cms x 1.5 cms x 4.5 cms x linear and through and through even in the midst of decomposition, extravogated blood clots seen. Note: Edge of the wounds not clearly made out even using magnifying lens with light. But margine in areas clear cut noted.” 6. PW18, the Doctor who issued Ex.P23, Postmortem Certificate relating to the first deceased opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death due to advanced purification, however, post mortem findings are consistent with death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injury to the neck sustained by her 3 to 4 days (72 to 96 hours) prior to post-mortem. 7. PW18, the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the second deceased has issued Ex.P24, post-mortem certificate and the details of the same is mentioned below: “Decomposed body of a female aged 12 years: body full of crawling maggots. Tongue, eye balls protruding out. Decomposed foul smelling - Discharge in vaginal area. Body in decomposed bloating and semi - flexun of limbs. Abdomen bloated and blackened. Nails bluish black. On examination: Flattening of nose seen. On dissection - nasal bone deviated to left with blood clots and appreciable bruising in the attachment at base with blood well seen in the midst of decomposition. Innerside of both lips 4 cresenticlacerated wounds - upper lip - 2 convexity upwards, lower lip 2 convexity downwards - 1 cm to 1.5 cms length x linear and muscle deep 7 teeth mark of incisors. Bloodless dissection of neck reveals contusion front and sides of neck 10 x 8 cms - antemortem clots. Innerside of both lips 4 cresenticlacerated wounds - upper lip - 2 convexity upwards, lower lip 2 convexity downwards - 1 cm to 1.5 cms length x linear and muscle deep 7 teeth mark of incisors. Bloodless dissection of neck reveals contusion front and sides of neck 10 x 8 cms - antemortem clots. Contusion front chest 18 x 10 cms with fracture of costo chondral junction 2 to 6 ribs - both sides antemortem (fracture ends blood stains presented). Fracture portions piercing the lungs - lungs collapsed and decomposed. Other findings: Pleaural cavity - 300 ml blood with clots each side. Peritoneal cavity - 100 ml decomposed fluid. Paricardium -15 ml straw colour fluid. Heart - Muscles flabby; Right blood clot. Left empty. Coronary vessels - Normal. Lungs other than injured area - early changes of decomposition. Hyoid bone - intact. Stomach - Few cc mucosal fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa - decomposed. Liver and spleen - Early changes of decomposition. Kidneys - congested. Smell intestine - 15 ml decomposed turbid fluid. Nil specific smell. Mucosa -Decomposed. Uterus - empty normal brain - liquified.” 8. The Doctor PW18 who issued Ex.P24, post mortem certificate relating to the second deceased opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death due to advanced purification, however, post-mortem findings are consistent with death due to closure of the mouth and nostrils with evidence of compression of neck and chest sustained by her and death would have happened 3 to 4 days prior to post-mortem (72 to 84 hours). 9. In the meantime, PW20 continued with his investigation and seized broken godrej lock, MO11 in the presence of PW9 and another witnesses. He also recovered blood-stained blankets, MO12, Bed spread - MO13, blood stained mosaic floor, MO19 and sample mosaic floor, MO20 under mahazar attested by witnesses. He also questioned and recorded the statement of witnesses PW4 and PW3 on 12.10.1998 and both of them informed him that they saw the accused 1 and 2 entering the house of the deceased and two others were sitting in an autorickshaw parked in the rear side of the house. On the same day at about 2 p.m. he arrested the accused 1 and 2 and Kathiravan, when they were travelling in an auto. A1 gave a voluntary statement, admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P3 attested by PW6 and another. On the same day at about 2 p.m. he arrested the accused 1 and 2 and Kathiravan, when they were travelling in an auto. A1 gave a voluntary statement, admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P3 attested by PW6 and another. A2 also gave a statement voluntarily, admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P4, attested by the same witnesses. Pursuant to the said statement, Ex.P3, A1 took the police party to his house and took out bill hook, gold chain with cross, two ear rings, green studded ear screw one pair, hundred rupee notes 8 Nos., which were rolled in a blood stained terricotton full sleeve shirt and hidden. The said items were seized under mahazar, Ex.P5, attested by PW6. Similarly, A2 also took PW20 and his team to his house, where he took out Konica Camera, receipts issued by pawn brokers, one pair of gold bangles, blood stained rose colour full sleeve terricotton shirt hidden there, which were recovered under mahazar Ex.P6 attested by PW6 and another. On 14.10.1998, PW20 arrested A-3 at about 13.00 p.m. near K.Pudur bus stand in the presence of witnesses. A3 has also given his statement voluntarily, admissible portion of which is marked as P13, attested by PW9 and another. Pursuant to the said statement, A3 took PW20 and others to his house located in 5th Street, Ramavarma Nagar, K.Pudur and produced Mangalsutra with a cross, both made out of gold, which were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P10 attested by PW9 and others. PW20 sent A1 and A2 to Court on 13.9.1998 and A3 on 15.10.1998 for remand. PW20 also examined the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased and recorded his statement. On 29.10.1998, he sent all the material objects to Court with a request to send them for analysis. He also recovered two bangles, MO21, one silver anklet, MO23, two nighties, MOs24 and 25, which were worn by the deceased, handed over by the Constables 1289 and 862 under Exs.P.23, 24 and 25. After completion of the investigation, PW20 filed final report on 19.12.1998 against the accused and the said Kathiravan. 10. The accused were questioned under Section 313, CrlPC on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied the same. After completion of the investigation, PW20 filed final report on 19.12.1998 against the accused and the said Kathiravan. 10. The accused were questioned under Section 313, CrlPC on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied the same. The accused have not examined any witnesses on their side, but marked Ex.D1, a Certificate issued by the Appraiser, to say that Mangalsutra with a cross, MO1 is made out of brass and not out of gold, hence, the case of the prosecution is vitiated. It is pointed out by the trial Court that as per Ex.D 1, the said Mangalsutra with cross are not made out of brass but by sub-standard quality of gold. 11. It is pointed out by the trial Court that as per Ex.D 1, the said Mangalsutra with cross are not made out of brass but by sub-standard quality of gold. 11. Mr.Balaguru, learned counsel appearing for the first accused submits that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, but they failed to prove all the links of the chain, which was not properly considered by the trial Court; until the inference of guilt to be drawn has been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt, there cannot be any valid conviction, but in this case, the prosecution failed miserably; that the prosecution has chosen to examine only the close relatives of the deceased, despite the fact that the occurence took place in the house of the deceased surrounded by number of houses, no neighbour was examined; that PWs3 and 4 are not residents of the area where the occurence took place and no personal acquaintance with the accused, particularly the first accused; that in the absence of test identification parade, the conviction by the trial Court is unsustainable; that even after the arrest of the first accused, no efforts were made to hold identification parade to enable PWs3 and 4 to identify him; that for the first time, the accused were identified in the Court by PWs3 and 4, hence, placing reliance on such weak evidence is unsafe; that the alleged recoveries from the first accused were not made in the presence of independent witness, hence, the conviction based on the recovery is also not tenable; that the delay in preferring the first information is not explained by the prosecution properly; that the trial Court failed to note that the finger print of the first accused is not found anywhere in the scene of occurence, which is evident from Ex.P22, though MO9, bill hook; MO8, Terricotton shirt, MO6, Chain with cross; MO7, earrings; MO3, green stone studded ear screw; and 100 rupees note 6 Nos., MO6 were allegedly seized from the first accused, admittedly, no blood stain found in the above said material objects, which is evident from Ex.P-16 and prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence by allowing the appeal. 12. 12. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court for the third accused and Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the second accused have reiterated the arguments of the learned counsel for the first accused and further pointed out the contradictory evidence of PWs1 and 2 relating to apparels worn by the deceased; that PW1 stated that both the deceased were in nighty, whereas PW2 stated as saree; that the recovery of Terricotton shirt, MO8, Receipt No.3460 issued by SPS Pawn broker shop, Ex.P19 and receipt No.5986 issued by Sundaram Finance, Ex.P20, gold bangles one set; MO2, Black colour Konica Camera, MO5 were stated to have been recovered from the second accused, but no blood stains were detected therein, which is evident from Ex.P16. It is further stated by the said counsel that Mangalsutra, MO1 made out of gold with cross, gold ring, MO4 and gold ear screw, MO were seized from third accused, but except MO1 no blood stain was detected in the other material objects and prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence. 13. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the first and second accused were seen by PWs3 and 4 on 7.10.1998 at about 8 p.m. when they were leaving the house of the deceased after discussion with the first deceased and at that time the accused 1 and 2 came there. PWs3 and 4 have also spoken to the first and second accused as to why they came to the house of the deceased, for which they replied that they came to attend a phone call from overseas. PWs3 and 4 have also saw two persons sitting in an autorickshaw parked in the rear side of the house of the deceased; that the accused, with common intention murdered the deceased for gain; that the recoveries were made from the first accused on 12.10.1998, which further support the case of the prosecution against the first accused; that the finger prints found in the almirah and Exs. P19 and 20 viz., pawn broker receipts dated 8.10.1998 and 10.10.1998 respectively prove the guilt of the second accused; that the seizure of Mangalsutra, MO1 from the third accused also establish the case against him. P19 and 20 viz., pawn broker receipts dated 8.10.1998 and 10.10.1998 respectively prove the guilt of the second accused; that the seizure of Mangalsutra, MO1 from the third accused also establish the case against him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. The cause of death of both the deceased stands established by the prosecution by examining the Doctor, PW18, who conducted post-mortem over the bodies of the deceased and issued Exs.P23 and P24, post mortem certificates respectively has deposed that the first deceased died 3 to 4 days prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injury on her neck, which was caused by homicidal violence. PW18 also deposed that the second deceased died due to closure of mouth and nostrills with evidence of compression of neck and chest sustained by her and the death would have occurred 3 to 4 days prior to post mortem, which was caused by homicidal violence. The accused have not chosen to dispute the evidence of PW18 either before the trial Court or before this Court, hence, we hold that both the deceased died due to homicidal violence. 15. This is a case on circumstantial evidence and this Court keep in mind that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests viz., (i) must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else and circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused. 16. PW1 deposed in her evidence that Ibrahim, who is the husband of the first deceased and father of the second deceased is employed in Dubai and both the deceased were residing in Kodingulam Shanmuga Nagar; that the first deceased is employed as Office Assistant in Employees State Insurance and the second deceased was studying in seventh standard. 16. PW1 deposed in her evidence that Ibrahim, who is the husband of the first deceased and father of the second deceased is employed in Dubai and both the deceased were residing in Kodingulam Shanmuga Nagar; that the first deceased is employed as Office Assistant in Employees State Insurance and the second deceased was studying in seventh standard. It is further deposed by PW1 that Ibrahim’s sister’s daughter attained puberty and to discuss about the function relating to the same, she tried to contact the first dec eased over telephone put the telephone was not attended by anyone. She tried to contact the first deceased at her office, where she was informed that the first deceased was absent for a couple of days, with the result, she went to the house of the deceased on 10.10.1998 and found that the house was locked and a bad smell emanated from the said house, hence, with the help of the residents, she broke open the lock of the gate, went inside the house of deceased and saw that the. deceased were found murdered and the body of the first deceased was lying on the floor and the body of the second deceased on the cot. The jewelleries worn by them were missing, the bureau in the next room was found open and ransacked and the clothes were seen scattered. On seeing that, she immediately informed her father and he came to the scene of occurence. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station and gave a written complaint, Ex.P1 to PW19, the Sub-inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station at about 10.30 p.m. 17. PW3, who was residing at Kalkoil, near Government Hospital, Madurai has stated in his evidence that in respect of the arrangements of puberty function of niece of Ibrahim, he along with PW4 came to the house of the deceased on 7.10.1998 at about 8 p.m., at the time it was drizzling. After discussion with the first deceased pertaining to the said function, he and PW4 were coming out of the house of the deceased and at that time, the first and the second accused, auto drivers, whose auto was engaged by the first and second deceased for going to office and school respectively, came there. After discussion with the first deceased pertaining to the said function, he and PW4 were coming out of the house of the deceased and at that time, the first and the second accused, auto drivers, whose auto was engaged by the first and second deceased for going to office and school respectively, came there. PWs3 and 4 questioned them as to why they came there at the odd hour for which they replied that they came to the house of the deceased to attend an incoming telephone call from a foreign country. After interaction with A1 and A2, PWs3 and 4 left the house of the deceased. PWs3 and 4 also noticed an autorickshaw parked on the rear side of the house of the deceased in which two persons were sitting. PWs3 and 4 were of the impression that since the roads were slushy due to drizzling, the autorickshaw was parked there. Later, PW3 came to the house of the deceased on 12.10.1998 after hearing the news of murder of both the deceased where he was examined by the police and narrated the incidents dated 7.10.1998 to PW20. 18. PW4 in his evidence has stated that on 7.10.1998, he came to Thallakulam to see one Murugathai and thereafter, he accompanied PW3 to the house of the deceased for discussion relating to the puberty function of his sister’s daughter. After discussion, he left along with PW3 where the first and second accused came. PW3 questioned them as to why they were coming at the odd hour, for which, they replied that they came there to attend a call from a foreign country. He also deposed that he noticed that two persons were found in an autorickshaw parked in the rear side of the house of the deceased, subsequently, he came to the house of the deceased on 12.10.1998 after hearing the news of murder of the deceased persons where he was examined by the police and he informed the incidents dated 7.10.1998 to PW20. 19. PW2 deposed the incidents that took place on 10.10.1998 break opening viz., the lock; that he saw the dead bodies along with PW1 and others and also the missing of jewelleries of the first deceased and spoken about A1, auto-driver, whose auto was engaged by the deceased, but his name was not known to him. 20. 19. PW2 deposed the incidents that took place on 10.10.1998 break opening viz., the lock; that he saw the dead bodies along with PW1 and others and also the missing of jewelleries of the first deceased and spoken about A1, auto-driver, whose auto was engaged by the deceased, but his name was not known to him. 20. The evidence of PWs3 and 4 are cogent, corroborative, natural, without any exaggeration to embellishment and their evidence also or supported by PW2. The evidence of PWs3 and 4 and 1 established the case of the prosecution that the murder took place on 7.10.1998, on that day the accused were seen in the house of the deceased. 21. It is argued on the side of the accused that PWs1, 3 and 4 are interested witnesses and their evidence need not be relied upon. All that is necessary is that their evidence should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny their testimony:s found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probably, it may, by itself, be sufficient. Followed Hari Obula Reddi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 82 , wherein in para-12 it was held thus: "12....But it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting the sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule mat interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstance of the particular case to base a conviction thereon...." 22. PW20, on information proceeded to Alagar Koil Road near Kodakaruvar Aiyanar Koil and arrested the first accused on 12.10.1998 at 2 p.m. in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, PW6. The first accused voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P3. PW20, on information proceeded to Alagar Koil Road near Kodakaruvar Aiyanar Koil and arrested the first accused on 12.10.1998 at 2 p.m. in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, PW6. The first accused voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P3. Pursuant to the said statement, the first accused took the police party to his house where he took out a bill hook, MO9; blood stained shirt, MO8; gold chain with cross, MO6; two pairs of gold ear rings, MO7; green stone studded ear screw one pair, MO3 and 100 rupees notes 8 Nos, MO26, all belonged to the deceased, under a mahazar, Ex.P5 attested by PW6 and another. Exs.P3, P5 and the said material objects reached the Court on 13.10.1998. PW20 also examined PW10, the owner of the auto, who confirmed that the autorickshaw bearing registration No.TN-59-C-0503 was entrusted to the first accused during the relevant period and the driving licence of the first accused, MO16 was marked through him as evidence to prove the said transaction between them. 23. Similarly, the second accused was arrested on 12.10.1998 at about 17.45 hours at Alagar Koil Road, near Kodakaruvar Aiyanar Koil, who voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P4, which was attested by PW6 and another witness. Pursuant to the said statement, A2 took the police team to his house, where he produced rose colour terricotton shirt, MO10; Receipt No. 3460 issued by SPS Pawn broker shop, Othakadai i.e., Ex.P19; receipt No.5986 issued by Sundaram Finance, Ex.P20: one pair of bangles, MO2 and black colour Konica Camera, MO5 and the same were recovered under a Mahazar, ExP6 attested by the same witnesses. Exs.P4, P6 and the material objects belonged to the deceased also reached the Court on 13.10.1998. The second accused also took the police party to PW11, who is the owner of SPS Sundaram Finance where he produced gold ring, MO4; and gold earning, MO3, both belonged to the deceased, which were seized under a Mahazar Ex.P13 attested by witnesses, which also reached the Court on 13.10.1998. 24. The second accused also took the police party to PW11, who is the owner of SPS Sundaram Finance where he produced gold ring, MO4; and gold earning, MO3, both belonged to the deceased, which were seized under a Mahazar Ex.P13 attested by witnesses, which also reached the Court on 13.10.1998. 24. The Sub-inspector of Police, Finger Print Section, District Police Office PW17, on receipt of requisition came to the Oomachikulam Police Station on 11.10.1998 at about 5.30 a.m. and from there he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and conducted finger print test and found a finger print on the lock of a suit case, which was photographed with the help of a photographer and he compared the same with the finger print of the second accused as requested by PW20. PW17 deposed that the index finger print of the second accused tallied with the finger print found in the scene of occurence and to that effect marked his report Ex.P21 along with the photographs, ExP22. 25. On 14.10.1998, PW20 arrested the third accused at about 13.00 hours near Madurai Kosakulam Pudur Bus Stop in the presence of PW9 and another witness. The third accused voluntarily gave a statement, the admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P30 attested by witnesses. Pursuant to the said statement, he took the police team to his residence where he took out Mangalsutra made out of gold with cross, belonged to the first deceased i.e., MO1 and the same was recovered under a seizure Mahazar Ex.P10 attested by witnesses. The Exs.P30, P10 and MO1 and the same was recovered under a seizure Mahazar Ex.P10 attested by witnesses. The Exs.P30, P10 and MO1 reached the Court on 15.10.1998. All the material objects were identified by PW1 and Ibrahim. 26. Mr.Balaguru, learned counsel appearing for the first accused advanced arguments that no identification parade was conducted by the prosecution; that the accused were identified by PWs3 and 4 for the first time in the Court, so no reliance can be placed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Thankayyan v. State of Kerala, 1994 SCC(Crl) 1751. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Thankayyan v. State of Kerala, 1994 SCC(Crl) 1751. It is further argued that PWs6 and 9, who are not the residents of the locality where the arrest and recoveries were made, hence, the evidence of PWs6 and 9 are liable to be excluded and after such exclusion, no material to prove the guilt of the accused. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Bharat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 SCC 738. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in Thankayyan v. State of Kerala, 1994 SCC(Crl) 1751 held in a case where the deceased was seen alive by PW1 on 29.5.1987 and on the next day i.e., 30.5.1987, she was found dead; that the accused were arrested on 25.6.1987 and a gold ring was recovered, which was later sold by him and the purchaser has converted the ornaments into ingot, MO3, held that identification of the accused Was made for the first time in the Court by the witnesses who belonged to a different area, the ear rings, MO4 recovered from the accused, attested by the head constable and considering all those things acquitted the accused by setting aside the order of conviction. 28. In the decision reported in Bharat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 SCC 738 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held in a case where the deceased was wearing silver ornaments toda; that she was found in the company of the accused on 8.1.1981 but did not return back; that the accused gave a confession that he killed her and had thrown the body in a river and the recovery of the ornament toda is not of any peculiar design and it is available with every family in the village and also market; that the witnesses signed in the seizure Mahazar at the instance of the police officer on the dotted lines and found that the identification of the accused and recovery are not proper. 29. Whereas, in the case on hand, the accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 12.10.1998 within two days from the date of Ex.P1 and P25 and also within five days from the date of occurence. Similarly, the third accused was arrested on 14.12.1998. 29. Whereas, in the case on hand, the accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 12.10.1998 within two days from the date of Ex.P1 and P25 and also within five days from the date of occurence. Similarly, the third accused was arrested on 14.12.1998. Soon after their arrest, the valuable ornaments worn and kept by the deceased were recovered from the respective houses of the accused under a Mahazar attested by PW6, PW9 and others, hence, the judgment relied on by the counsel for first accused are not applicable to this case. 30. The possession of material objects with the accused remained unexplained by them and the material objects admittedly reached the Court on the next day. It is to be remembered that on the day of occurrence, PWs3 and 4 met and interacted with the first and second accused while they entered the house of the deceased and also seen two others in the autorickshaw parked in the rear side of the house. We have carefully considered the evidence of PWs3 and 4 and we find that there is no material in the cross-examination to discredit their testimony. 31. In identical circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 998 SC 1251 wherein in para Nos.24, 29 and 31, it was held thus: "24. The identification of the appellants by PW29, PW34 and PW45 in Court for the first time without prior identification by them in the test identification parade has been the subject-matter of comment. Insofar as the identification of appellants by PW42 and PW45 are concerned, the trial Court as well as the High Court had not accepted the same but the identification of appellants by PW29 and PW34 had been accepted by both the trial Court as well as by the High Court and in our view rightly. We have already laid down above that the identification of the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity to interact with him or to notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in Court and that the absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade would not be material. We have already laid down above that the identification of the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity to interact with him or to notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in Court and that the absence of corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade would not be material. From the above mentioned aspect, the evidence of PW42 and PW45 has been rightly rejected by the trial Court and the High Court as PW42 is a rickshaw driver who had no opportunity to see closely the appellants whom he took to Rooman Bungalow in the night. So also PW45’s identification of A1 in Court without his participation in the TIP has also no probative value inasmuch as he went to the shop of the witness as one of the customers and there was no specific reason why he should watch A1 closely. But the same is not the position with PW29 and PW34. They were talking to the deceased Rohan Ohol at the time when the appellants came to Rooman bungalow. Indeed A1 wished the deceased Rohan who introduced A1 as Nitin Anil Swargey. Thereafter, A1 introduced A2 and A3 to Rohan Ohol and PW29 and PW34. They talked together for about 7-8 minutes and on Rohan Ohols saying them to sit inside the house, they left their soiled shoes in the verandah and entered the house. It can safely be presumed that had they not given the name and description of the appellants at the earliest when their statement was recorded by the police on 24th July 1992, the defence in their searching and lengthy cross-examination would have brought on record omissions and contradictions with reference to their earlier statement given to the police. As such evidence of identification of the appellants at their trial by the said witnesses even without the corroboration of the identification parade, had been rightly relied upon by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the Courts below in accepting their evidence of identification. 29. In State of Maharashtra v. P.K.Pathak, AIR 1980 SC 1224 : (1980)2 SCC 259 the witnesses of the search were the custom officials themselves. We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the Courts below in accepting their evidence of identification. 29. In State of Maharashtra v. P.K.Pathak, AIR 1980 SC 1224 : (1980)2 SCC 259 the witnesses of the search were the custom officials themselves. The High Court held that as no independent witness of the locality was taken by the customs authorities to witness the search, no reliance could be placed on the searches or the recovery of the smuggled articles. The High Court also rejected the evidence of lone non-official witness on the ground that he was not a witness of the locality and on the ground that he had assented to accompany the police and customs officials to witness the various recoveries wherever he was taken by the police. Disapproving the view of the High Court of Bombay, this Court held that the fact that they were customs officials would be no ground to distrust their evidence; so also the fact that the non-official witness was approached by the police and the customs authorities to accompany them to witness the search would not by itself show that he was an unreliable or interested witness. Observing that his evidence was corroborated by the police officer of the rank of Sub-inspector, this Court held that his evidence ought to be believed. It may be noted that the evidence of the witness of search was accepted notwithstanding the fact that he was brought by the police along with them for the purposes of search. The evidence, however, can be rejected if it suffers from any serious infirmities or if there is any inherent inconsistency in the testimony. If there is intrinsic merit in the evidence of the witness of search the same cannot be rejected solely on the ground that witness is not from the locality of search or that he was brought by the police with it. We are not persuaded to accept the contention that the evidence of Nandu Ambadas Jadhav (PW6) cannot be accepted for the reason that he was not a witness of the locality and that he was brought from Pune by the investigating officer to witness the search. He was one of the drivers of the cars in which the investigating team came to Bombay from Pune. For the sake of convenience, he was taken as a witness for search. He was one of the drivers of the cars in which the investigating team came to Bombay from Pune. For the sake of convenience, he was taken as a witness for search. We do not find any material in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony. The only ground of attack on the evidence of PW6 that he was not from the locality as contemplated under Sub-sec.(4) of Section 100 CrlPC fails because in our view a witness of search other than the one from the locality even if he has been brought by the investigating agencies along with them cannot be disbelieved only on that ground and we do not find anything in his evidence to discredit his testimony. 31. Apropos the recovery of articles belonging to the Ohols family from the possession of the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of the deceased (Mr.Mohan Ohol, Mrs.Ruhi Ohol and Mr. Rohan Ohol) which possession has remained unexplained by the appellants, so the presumption under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act will be attracted. It needs no discussion to conclude that the murder and the robbery of the articles were found to be part of the same transaction. The irresistible conclusion would, therefore, be that the appellants and no one else had committed these murders and the robbery." 32. It is evident from the abovesaid judgment that identification of the accused by a witness, if he had an opportunity to interact with him or to notice his distinctive features lends assurance to his testimony in Court and that can be relied on even without corroboration of identification parade. 33. So far as the arguments that the evidence of PWs.6 and 9, who do not belong to the area where the arrest and recoveries were made and their evidence ought not to have been relied on by the trial Court, though appears to be attractive, it is not valid. We do not also find any material in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of PWs6 and 9, hence, their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not residents of the locality. We do not also find any material in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of PWs6 and 9, hence, their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they were not residents of the locality. Certain discrepancies were pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused in the evidence of PWs1 and 2 viz., the dress found on the body of the deceased and in some material objects no blood stain is detected, such discrepancies do not vitiate the case of the prosecution. 34. So far as the averment relating to delay in filing FIR is concerned, PW1, a village woman, went to see her younger sister on 10.10.1998 at about 8.30 p.m., found sister and her daughter murdered and in that mental condition, she could not be expected to give a complaint immediately to the police, she chose to inform it to her father and on his arrival, they went to the police station and gave the complaint, Ex.P1 at 10.30 p.m. The said fact itself explain the delay, in any event, the said delay cannot vitiate the case of the prosecution. 35. On the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the circumstances culled out by the prosecution from the evidence on record formed a complete chain to bring home the guilt of all the accused without giving room to any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused and there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 36. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against all the accused are confirmed. The criminal appeal is dismissed.