Judgment :- A.C. Arumuga Perumal Adityan, J. The accused in S.C. No. 65/2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputtur is the appellant herein. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 302, 393 r/w 397 and 380 IPC. 2. Theshort facts of the prosecution case required for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 10.12.1999/11.12.1999 at about 1.30 a.m. the accused had trespassed into the house of the deceased Vazhavandammal by removing the tiles in the kitchen and strangulated her and also caused suffocation by pressing with a pillow on her nose and mouth causing asphyxia resulting instantaneous death and in the course of the said act he had also pressed her right chest with his knee, which resulted in the fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the right side after causing the death of the said Vazhavandammal. According to the prosecution the accused had robbed M.Os.1 to 3 gold ornaments and also committed theft of MO.4 silver anklets from her bureau. The complaint was preferred by PW1 the son of the deceased. The complaint was taken on file by PW13 who had registered the case under Aruppukottai Town Police Station in Crime No.765/1999 under Section 457, 302 and 379 IPC. On the basis of the FIR, PW13 the Inspector of Police, had investigated the case and filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppu-kottai, who had taken the charge sheet on file as PRC No.10/2000. Since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate had committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions. Before the trial Court, PWs-1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 19 were marked. 3. There was no occurrence witness in this case and the entire case of the prosecution is raised on the circumstantial evidence. After going through the evidence both the oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur has come to a conclusion that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 393 r/w 397 IPC and 380 I.P.C. and convicted the accused on the above Sections of law and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 449 IPC, life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 393 r/w 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, the accused has preferred this criminal appeal. 4. PW1 and the accused were friends. The deceased was the mother of PW1. According to PW1, he used to stay during night hours in his petty shop at Tiruchuzhi Road, Aruppukottai and his mother used to sleep alone in the house situated at II Street, Kuzhathaivelpuram, Arruppukottai and that his mother used to bring meals in the morning. But on 11.12.1999 she did not bring the meals even at 11.00 a.m. and that he asked his daughter to go to the house to see why food was not brought by his mother and that his daughter PW-2 went to the house and informed him that his mother was lying in pool of blood and her ornaments were found missing. After hearing the news, PW1 had immediately rushed to his house and found his mother murdered and her gold ornaments were found missing. He went to the Aruppukottai Town Police Station and preferred Ex.P1 complaint. The motive for the occurrence was also spoken to by PW1 to the effect that the accused two days before the occurrence came and asked for money to meet the family expenses. But P.W.1 informed the accused that he has no money, but gave money to meet the to and fro expenses. PW1 has also identified the accused and also identified MOs. 1 to 4, gold and silver ornaments belonging to his mother, deceased Vazhavandammal. 5. PW2 is the daughter of PW1 and she has also corroborated the evidence of PW1 to the effect that on 11.12.1999, her grand mother failed to bring meals for her father till 11.00 a.m. and as per the instructions of PW1, she went to the house wherein her grand mother was found dead. She entered into the house, saw her grand mother lying in a pool of blood and that the golden jewels worn by her grand mother were found missing and that she immediately rushed to her father PW1 and informed him about the occurrence. PW3 is the son of PW1. He has also corroborated the evidence of PWs1 and 2. She entered into the house, saw her grand mother lying in a pool of blood and that the golden jewels worn by her grand mother were found missing and that she immediately rushed to her father PW1 and informed him about the occurrence. PW3 is the son of PW1. He has also corroborated the evidence of PWs1 and 2. On 11.12.1999 at about 12.00 noon after hearing the news of murder of his grand mother, he went to the house and saw the dead body of his grand mother in a pool of blood and golden ornaments of his grand mother were found missing. PW4 and 5 are the independent witnesses in this case who have deposed that on 10.12.1999 at about 11.45 p.m. they saw the accused on the pial of Vazhavandammals house. PW4 has also stated that the accused very often used to come to the house of PW1. PW5 has also deposed to the effect that on 10.12.1999 / 11.12.1999 at about 1.30 a.m. he saw the accused coming alone in the II street of Kulanthaivelpuram and when he enquired the accused, he informed PW5 that he was returning from the house of Vazhavandammal. PW6 is the Village Administrative Officer who would depose that on 14.12.1999 at about 12.00 noon the accused appeared before him and gave a confession statement Ex-P2, which was recorded by him (PW6) as narrated by the accused and that he handed over the accused along with Ex.P2 statement of the accused along with Ex.P3 report. PW6 has also deposed that the accused gave a confession statement before the police and the admissible portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.P4 and on the basis of the confession statement, he lead the Inspector of Police, and other witnesses to Manooth village and took out M.Os. 1 to 5 from the hidden place, which were seized by the police under Ex.P-5 Mahazar. 6. PW7 is the President of Saliar Dharma Paribalana Sabai, Vellikottai. He has stated that on 14.12.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. he went to Aruppukottai Police Station. 1 to 5 from the hidden place, which were seized by the police under Ex.P-5 Mahazar. 6. PW7 is the President of Saliar Dharma Paribalana Sabai, Vellikottai. He has stated that on 14.12.1999 at about 2.00 p.m. he went to Aruppukottai Police Station. At that time, Village Administrative Officer, Kanchana-yakkan Patti has produced the accused along with the statement and after the registration of the case by the Inspector of Police, the accused voluntarily gave the confession statement, in which he and the Village Administrative Officer Ramasamy have signed as witnesses and Ex.P4 is the admissible portion of the confession statement and on the basis of the confession statement, the accused took the Inspector of Police and other witnesses to his house in Manooth Village and took out M.Os. 1 to 5 from the hidden place, which was recovered by the Inspector of Police, in which he and the Village Administrative Officer have signed as witnesses. He has also deposed that the accused had produced blood stained lungi M.O.6 which was also seized by the Inspector of Police under Ex. P7 Mahazar in his presence. PW8 is the Doctor, who had conducted Post-mortem of the deceased Vazhavan-dammal and issued Ex.P9 Post-mortem report and he has given final opinion under Ex.P11 stating that due to Asphyxia she would have died. PW9 is the then head clerk of Judicial Magistrate-I, Sattur who would depose that as per Ex.P-13 letter the material objects connected with this case were sent to forensic laboratory for chemical analysis and Ex.P14 is the Chemical Analysts Report and Ex.P15 is the Serologists Report. PW10 is the then Village Administrative Officer of Aruppukottai Town. He has deposed that on 11.12.1999 at about 2.30 p.m. the Inspector of Police had visited the place of occurrence and prepared the observations Mahazar Ex.P-16 and also recovered blood stained cement flooring which was marked as M.O.7 and that M.O.8 is sample cement flooring and also MO9 Pillow and M.O.10 Pillow cover under Ex.P17 Mahazar. He has also deposed that M.O.12 tiles were recovered by the Inspector of Police. Ex.P18 is the seizure Mahazar in which he and witness Paramasivam have signed. PW11 is the photographer who has taken M.O.13 series photos and PW.12 is the Head Constable who had handed over the corpse of Vazhavan-dammal to the Aruppukottai Government Hospital on 12.12.1999 for autopsy. He had recovered M.Os. Ex.P18 is the seizure Mahazar in which he and witness Paramasivam have signed. PW11 is the photographer who has taken M.O.13 series photos and PW.12 is the Head Constable who had handed over the corpse of Vazhavan-dammal to the Aruppukottai Government Hospital on 12.12.1999 for autopsy. He had recovered M.Os. 14 to 19 from the corpse and handed them over to the Inspector of Police, who had conducted investigation, visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P16 observation Mahazar and Ex.P20 rough sketch and recorded the statement of the witnesses on 14.12.1999 at about 2.30 p.m. The accused was produced by the Village Administrative Officer along with Exs.P2 and P3 and that the accused had given a voluntary confession statement Ex.P-4 on the basis of it accused had taken him along with the witnesses to his house at Manooth Village and produced M.Os. 1 to 5 golden ornaments, anklets from the hidden place, which were seized by him under Ex.P5 Mahazar and had also recovered under Ex.P7, M.O.6, blood stained lungi produced by the accused and after completing the investigation, he has filed a charge-sheet. 7. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur, after going through the evidence, has convicted the accused under Sections 449, 302, 393 r/w 397 IPC and slapped with three months Rigorous Imprisonment, Life Imprisonment and 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively under the above Sections of law. 8. Aggrieved by the sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur in SC.No.65/2001 against the accused is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the grounds of appeal. 9. Thefirst point urged before us was that there was no ocular evidence in this case and the circumstantial evidence of PW4, PW5 coupled with the evidence of PW10 and PW13 the accused was found guilty for the above said offences. But PW4 and PW5 are the witnesses who have seen the accused on the pial of the house of the deceased and near the house of the deceased respectively in the mid-night on 10.12.1999 / 11.12.1999 at about 1.30 a.m. There was no motive attributed against PW4 and PW5 to depose falsely against the accused. But PW4 and PW5 are the witnesses who have seen the accused on the pial of the house of the deceased and near the house of the deceased respectively in the mid-night on 10.12.1999 / 11.12.1999 at about 1.30 a.m. There was no motive attributed against PW4 and PW5 to depose falsely against the accused. There was no explanation forthcoming from the accused even during 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, the purpose of his visit at the midnight on 10.12.1999 / 11.12.1999 to the deceaseds house. 10. Yet another point to be noted in this case is that after the occurrence, the ornaments M.Os. 1 to 4 belonging to the deceased were recovered from the accused from his house on the basis of his confession statement Ex.P4. PW6 is the witness in Ex.P5 Mahazar for recovery of MOs.1 to 4 ornaments from the possession of the accused after the occurrence, this evidence was corroborated by PW7 and PW13. The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as correctly held by the learned Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur. The learned Sessions Judge relying on a decision reported in Virumal Mulchand v. State AIR 1974 SC 334 : 1974 (3) SCC 565 : 1974 SCC (Cr.) 43 has held that the possession of the stolen ornaments belonging to the murdered soon after the murder is material evidence against the accused not only on the charge of robbery but also on the charge of murder. It has been held in ( Karnal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1099 ) by the Apex Court as follows: “The presumption from recent possession of stolen property is an optional presumption of fact under Sec.114, Indian Evidence act. It is open to the court to convict an appellant by using the presumption where the circumstances indicate that no other reasonable hypothesis except the guilty knowledge of the appellant is open to the prosecution.” 11. In the case on hand, there is no explanation given by the accused even at the time of answering for questions regarding the incriminating circumstances against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how he came into possession of the gold ornaments of the deceased after the occurrence. 12. In the case on hand, there is no explanation given by the accused even at the time of answering for questions regarding the incriminating circumstances against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to how he came into possession of the gold ornaments of the deceased after the occurrence. 12. It has been held in ( Baiju v. State of M.P. AIR 1970 SC 525 ) as follows: “As has been held by this Court in Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1956 SC 400 ), recent and unexplained possession of stolen articles can well be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. A similar view has been taken in Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1974 (4) SCC 254 : AIR 1974 SC 1830 : 1974 SCC (Cr.) 416. 13. So in this case the accused was lastly seen in the deceaseds home by PW4 and PW5 and the stolen ornaments of the deceased were recovered from the accused in the presence of PW6 and PW7 by PW13, Inspector of Police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 14. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur in coming to the conclusion that the guilt under Sections 449, 302, 393 r/w 397 and 380 IPC against the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence we held on the point that the Judgement in S.C.No.65/2001 on the file on Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur need not be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal. 15. In the result the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence in SC.No.65 or 2001 dated 29.4.2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputtur.