JUDGMENT Per J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR, J. The Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision were filed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No. 485 of 1999 dated 23.1.2002 in and by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/accused under Section 234(1) Cr. P.C. for the charges levelled against them. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: (1) P.W.1 Sengottaiyan is the husband of the deceased Annapoornam. P.W.2 Ramesh is the son of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.1 was working as Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B. and retired from service on 31.5.1997. His son P.W.2 is also working as Assistant Engineer in T.N.E.B. On 21.11. 1996 as usual P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the office. They were residing at No. E1 Power Apartment, 47, Periyar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. P.W.3 Tmt. Selvakumari is residing at D-5, Power Apartment. Her husband Veerapan was working in T.N.E.B. (2) On 21.1.1996 at noon 12.00 o’clock P.W.3 went to the house of P.W. 1. At 12.15 hrs. after finishing the work, servant maid Jaya returned to her house. The deceased Annapoornam asked P.W.3 to apply medicine for eye sour. At 12.30 Hrs. P.W. 3 went to her house after applying medicine. (3) At 3.45 p.m. when the servant maid Jaya came to the house of the deceased, the door was not opened. So Jaya called P.W.3 and both went to the house of the deceased. P.W.3 also knocked the door and pressed the calling bell. But the door was not opened. They took, one Masilamani, Carpenter who was working there, at the back side of the house and they found that the door was opened. They entered the house and saw the deceased lying unconscious on the floor in the bed room of P.W.2. Ear stud, Bangles and Thali were missing from the person of the deceased. One Vijayalakshmi who was residing at ‘D’ Block 1 informed her father Balakrishnan who was working with P.W.2 that the deceased Annapoornam was found unconscious. P.W.1 received a message from that Balakrishnan at 4.15 p.m. P.W. 1 contacted the Chief Medical Officer Dr. Basker and rushed to his residence with his son P.W.2. At that time P.W.1’s Wife Annapoornam was taken to the hospital in a maruti van. As per the advice of Dr. Baskar they took the deceased to the Appollo Hospital. P.W.1 received a message from that Balakrishnan at 4.15 p.m. P.W. 1 contacted the Chief Medical Officer Dr. Basker and rushed to his residence with his son P.W.2. At that time P.W.1’s Wife Annapoornam was taken to the hospital in a maruti van. As per the advice of Dr. Baskar they took the deceased to the Appollo Hospital. (4) P.W. 6 Dr.C. Paul Dhillipkumar, who was working as casualty Medial Officer, Appollo Hospital examined the deceased Annapoornam and declared that she was brought dead. P.W.6 issued accident register copy Ex.P.12. He also issued a memo of intimation Ex.P.13 to police for investigation. P.W.6 noted the injuries and found that left ear lobe cut transversely, scratch marks on left side of chest and right side of neck, bruise over left side of chest on upper one third of sternus and bog swelling over right malar-region. He saw linear bruise marks on left side of neck, ear lobe torn and the stud removed and the right side stud was also removed both weighing about ½ sovereigns made of American Diamonds, stolen. Further Thali with chain all made of gold weighing about 10 sovereigns and bangles weighing about 3 sovereigns (each 1½ sovereign) and one ring made of coral weighing ½ sovereign were found missing on 21.11.96. (5) P.W.11 Palanivelu was working as Inspector; law and Order, R-4 Police Station. He received a message from the control room that one Annapoornam was brought dead to the Apollo hospital. The P.W. 11 went to Apollo hospital at 17.30 p.m. on the same day. He enquired P.W.l. P.W.1 gave written complaint Ex.p-1 to P.W.11. P.W.11 came to the police station and registered a case in Cr.No.2465/96 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. about 18.00 hrs. Since the case was murder for gain, he handed over the investigation to the Inspector, Crime Branch, Murthy, P.W.12. Ex.P-24 is the printed F.I.R. (6) P.W.I. gave another complaint Ex.P2 mentioning the list of jewels which were found missing. On 5.12.1996 P.W.I. also gave another complaint mentioning the list of articles which were found missing. (7) P.W.12 took up the investigation at about 18.30 hrs. and sent a message to bring police dog as well finger print expert and scientific expert to the place of occurrence. (8) On 21.11.96 at 18.45 hrs. On 5.12.1996 P.W.I. also gave another complaint mentioning the list of articles which were found missing. (7) P.W.12 took up the investigation at about 18.30 hrs. and sent a message to bring police dog as well finger print expert and scientific expert to the place of occurrence. (8) On 21.11.96 at 18.45 hrs. P.W.12 went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P5 and prepared sketch Ex.25 in the presence of P.W.4 Kandaswamy and one Nalliappan. P.W.4 Kandaswamy put his signature in Ex.P.5. (9) At 19.00 hrs. police dog was brought to the place of occurrence and smelt. At 19.00 hrs. P.W.13 Gurunathan, Finger Print Expert visited the place of occurrence. (10). Thereafter, P.W.12 took P.W.14 Elumalai, Head Constable to Apollo Hospital at about 21.00 hrs. to see the dead body of Annapoornam. Then P.W.14 took the dead body of Annapoornam to Government Royapettah Hospital along with P.W.12. Then P.W.12 in the presence of Panchayatdars examined the witnesses P.W.l., Jaya, P.W.2, Masilamani, P.W.3 and Krishnan and prepared inquest report. Ex.P.26 is the inquest report. Then P.W.12 gave a requisition Ex.P20 for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased. (11). In the meantime, P.W.13 who was working as Inspector of Police (Finger Prints) Tamil Nadu Finger Print Bureau, Chennai-5 along with Assistant Director S.Boaz examined the articles suspected to have been handled by the culprits. Two chance prints were developed on the inside portion of the locker door, steal bureau and they were marked as G.1 and G.2. Two chance prints were developed on the front side of the wooden door of the backyard and they were marked as G.3 and G.4. G-1 to G-4 were photographed at the spot. On comparison, these chance prints marked as G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4 are not identical with any of the finger impressions of the inmates and suspects viz., Annapoornam deceased, K. Jaya, P.W.1, P.W.2, Sridhar, Vijayalakshmi, Selvakumari P.W.3 Lakshminarayani Santhanam, Govindaraj, Thiagarajan, Masilamani, Jeya, Kuppammal, Pachaiyappan Indhira and others. Ex.P.27 is the report of finger print expert. (12) In pursuance of the requisition of Ex.P20, P.W. 9 Dr.K. Ravindran, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, K.M.C. on 22.11.96 at 10.00 a.m. commenced post-mortem and found 14 injuries. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Ex.P.27 is the report of finger print expert. (12) In pursuance of the requisition of Ex.P20, P.W. 9 Dr.K. Ravindran, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, K.M.C. on 22.11.96 at 10.00 a.m. commenced post-mortem and found 14 injuries. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. He further opined that injury No.14 is possible if the ear lobe is cut with a sharp weapon to remove ear studs. If the ear studs are pulled by hands such injury is possible, if the ear lobe is thinned out and pulled with violent force. Ligature mark found on the neck is possible if M.O.23 is being used for strangulation. (13). After post-mortem P.W. 4 seized the blood stained cloth and other articles of the deceased and handed over the same to P.W.12 for investigation purpose. M.O.19 - Green red coloured Saree; M.O. 20 Petticoat purple colour; M.O.21 Jacket - light Rose colour; M.O.22 - Yellow colour rope (Thallikkayirru). Since police could not get any useful information regarding the culprits, the investigation was kept pending. (14). On 8.5.1997 some jewels and money were stolen from the house of P.W.3. But the locks were intact. So, P.W.3 had some suspicion against the A1 in whose house the duplicate keys of P.W.3 were usually handed over. When she complained to the father of A1 regarding the theft of articles and money from her house, he assured to return back the articles and money and also requested P.W.3 not to make any complaint to the police. On believing his words P.W.3 family did not prefer any complaint. But A1’s father failed to keep his word. So the husband of P.W.3 gave complaint to the police station regarding the theft in his house. On receipt of this information a case was registered in Crime No. 2712 of 1997 against A1. (15). P.W. 15, Udayakumar who was working as Inspector, Crime Branch, Virugam-bakkam Police Station, on 16.9.98, received the order from Assistant Commissioner, Guindy Range and took up this case for investigation. On 29.9.1998 at 14.45 hrs. before the house at No.22, Ist street, Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu P.W.15 Inspector arrested the first accused. The first accused gave a confession statement and the admissible portion is Ex.P.6. In fact first accused was arrested by P.W.15 Inspector in the presence of P.W.5 Anandan and one Santhanam. On 29.9.1998 at 14.45 hrs. before the house at No.22, Ist street, Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu P.W.15 Inspector arrested the first accused. The first accused gave a confession statement and the admissible portion is Ex.P.6. In fact first accused was arrested by P.W.15 Inspector in the presence of P.W.5 Anandan and one Santhanam. As per the confession statement, P.W.15 took the first accused along with P.W.5 Anandan and one Santhanam to the house of the first accused and seized M.O.16 Sony Walkman with ear phone under Mahazar Ex.P.7. One Santhanam and P.W.5, Anandan put their signature in Ex.P. 6 and Ex.P. 7. (16). In pursuance of the confession statement of the first accused, P.W.15, took, other witnesses along with the first accused to Grace stores at No.119, Ramanaicken Street, Nungambakkam and the first accused identified the second accused. Then P.W. 15 Inspector arrested the second accused at 17.30 hrs. on the same day and obtained confession statement and the admissible portion is Ex.P.8. P.W. 5 Anandan put his signature in Ex.P.8 also. (17). In pursuance of the confession statement, the second accused voluntarily produced M.O.17 Electric shaver, M.O.18 Aiwa Walkman, M.O.10 Gold chain Thali, M.O.23 Plastic rope with key which were kept in white bag M.O.25 and M.O.24 Kinetic Honda to P.W.15 Inspector and the same were recovered by him under seizure mahazar Ex.P.9 in the presence of P.W.5 Anandan and one Santhanam wherein, the witnesses were put their signatures. (18). Thereafter, P.W.15 Inspector arrested third accused and obtained confession statement in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P.10 is the admissible portion of confession statement of the third accused. In pursuance of the confession statement, third accused voluntarily handed over M.O.14 Camera, M.O. 15 Watch to P.W.15 in the presence of witnesses who in turn seized the same under mahazar Ex.P.11. (19). All the accused were brought to the police station and on the next day i.e. on 30.9.1998 finger prints of all the accused were taken. Further, all the accused were taken to the place of occurrence where they have demonstrated how the murder was committed by them. Subsequently, all the accused were remanded to judicial custody. P.W.15 sought for police custody and police custody was granted for 7 days. Further, all the accused were taken to the place of occurrence where they have demonstrated how the murder was committed by them. Subsequently, all the accused were remanded to judicial custody. P.W.15 sought for police custody and police custody was granted for 7 days. (20) On 3.10.1998 at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.15 went to the shop of P.W.8 Gowthanchand along with the accused and on their identification, he recovered M.O.4 Bangles, M.O.5 Gold American diamond kammal, M.O.6 Coral Ring, M.O.7 Lakshmi Ring, M.O.8 Ring, M.O.9 Gold necklace, M.O.11 Cannon Camera, M.O.12 Citizen ladies wrist watch, M.O.13 black dial citizen which were pledged under Exs. P. 15 to 18 and later sold under seizure mahazar Ex.P. 22 in the presence of P.W.10 and witness Babu. (21) Then P.W.15 went to the shop of P.W.7 Ashok kumar along with the accused and recovered M.O.1 Gold Bangles 6, M.O.2 necklace, M.O.3 Gold Ring which were under seizure mahazar Ex.P. 23. Ex.P4 is the warranty card of M.O.18. (22) Moreover, P.W.15 also recovered the jewels of P.W.3 concerned in Cr.No. 2712 of 1997 which were pledged by the first accused in the shop of P.W.7. After completing the investigation P.W.15 produced the accused before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate for judicial custody. (23) In the meantime, finger prints of the A1 to A3 were sent to P.W.13 for comparison. Two chance prints marked as G.1 and G.2 were compared with the finger prints of one Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar A.2. S/o. Selva Raj, No.5, 6th Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. The finger print slips were received from R4, Pondy Bazaar concerned in Crime No. 2465 of 1996 under Sections 302, 380 I.P.C. The chance prints, G.1, and G.2 referable to middle and left thumb finger impression, were identical with left middle and left thump finger impression, respectively of the second accused. Ex. P.28 is the report. The opinion of P.W. 13 is follows: A chance print marked as G.1. to G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impressions of R.Vinodh Kumar, S/o. Raju and S. Vinodh Kumar S/o.Selvaraj whose F.P. slips were received on 3.10.98 from R-4 Pondy Bazzar Police Station. The chance prints marked as G.1. and G.2 are identical with left middle and left thumb finger impressions of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Selvaraj marked as A.1 and A.2 respectively on his F.P. Slip dated 30.9.98. The chance prints marked as G.1. and G.2 are identical with left middle and left thumb finger impressions of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Selvaraj marked as A.1 and A.2 respectively on his F.P. Slip dated 30.9.98. The chance prints marked as G.3 and G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impressions of S. vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Selvaraj. Reasons: The ridge characteristics that are found in the impression marked as G.1 are also found in the same relative positions in the impression marked as A.1 and the ridge characteristics that are found in the impression marked as G.2. are also found in the same relative position in the impression marked as A.2. Hence, the impressions marked as G.1 and A.1 are identical with each other and relate to one and the same finger of the same person, i.e. the left middle finger impression of S.Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj and the impression marked as G.2 and A.2 are identical with each other and relate to one and the same finger of the same person i.e., the left thumb impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar, S/o. Selvaraj. Photo enlargements Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 for the impressions marked as G.2 and A.2 and marked 8 identical ridge characteristics, in red lines on the photo enlargement and enumerated below: 1) Points of identity between the impressions marked as G.2 and A.2. Point No. 1 is a ridge termination. Point No. 2 is ridge termination above and to the right of Point No. 1 with two ridges intervening. Point No. 3 is a bifurcation of a ridge above point No. 2 with no ridge intervening. Point No. 4 is a ridge termination above and to the left of Point No. 3 with 4 ridges intervening. Point No. 5 is a ridge termination to the right of point No. 4 with one ridge intervening. Point No. 6 is a ridge termination above and to the right of point No. 5 with 3 ridges intervening. Point No. 7 is the ridge termination to the right of point No. 6 with no ridge intervening. Point No. 8 is a ridge termination below and to the right of Point No. 7 with two ridges intervening. “All the above 8 ridge characteristics that are found in the same relative positions in the impressions marked as G.2 and A.2. Point No. 7 is the ridge termination to the right of point No. 6 with no ridge intervening. Point No. 8 is a ridge termination below and to the right of Point No. 7 with two ridges intervening. “All the above 8 ridge characteristics that are found in the same relative positions in the impressions marked as G.2 and A.2. Hence the impressions marked as G.2 and A.2 are identical with each other and relate to one and the same finger of the same person i.e. The left thumb finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2), S/o. Selvaraj, and the final opinion given by me is Ex.P. 31”. (24) P.W. 17 and P.W. 1 were examined to prove the quality of jewels seized and marked in this case. In the meantime P.W. 15 was transferred from the police station. P.W. 16 took up further investigation in this matter. He perused the case diary concerned in this case and found that the investigation has been completed. So, after satisfying himself about the investigation by P.W. 15 and after obtaining legal opinion, filed a final report against the accused on 14.1.1999 before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai under Section 302, 449 and 380 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 17, marked Exs.P.1 to P.43 and M.Os 1 to 25 to prove the guilty act of the accused. The accused examined D.W.1 to disprove the prosecution case. 4. The trial Court after analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the accused No. 1 to 3 under Sections A-1 - 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. A-2 - 449, 380 and 302 I.P.C. A-3 - 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and found them not guilty and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr. P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, prosecution filed Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2002 to set aside the order of the trial Court and convict the accused for the charges levelled against them. At the same time, P.W.1 husband of the deceased Annapoornam filed Criminal Revision Case No. 142 of 2002 against the order of the trial Court in and by which the accused were acquitted, to set aside the same, and convict them accordingly. 6. At the same time, P.W.1 husband of the deceased Annapoornam filed Criminal Revision Case No. 142 of 2002 against the order of the trial Court in and by which the accused were acquitted, to set aside the same, and convict them accordingly. 6. The following issues have to be answered to find out whether the prosecution proved the guilty act of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or other wise. 1. Whether corpus delicti of Annapoornam has been proved? 2. Whether death is due to homicide with the weapon like M.O. 23? 3. Whether missing of articles referred to in Ex.P1 to P3 are true? 4. Whether M.Os were marked in this case (except 19 to 25) are related to the missing articles referred to in Ex.P1 to P.3? 5. Whether the properties, namely, M.Os 1 to 25 marked in this case (except M.Os 19 to 25) were stolen after the murder or whether the murder took place while removing M.Os. from the scene of occurrence. 6. Whether A1 to A3 are responsible for the murder of Annapoornam, wife of P.W. 1. 7. Whether finding of the trial Court in acquitting A1 to A3 can sustain? Point No.:1 7. It is true that Annapoornam w/o. P.W. 1 Sengottaiyan, resident of E-1, Power Apartment, 47 Periyar Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 died with certain injuries on 21.11.1996 between 12.30 hrs. to 16.15 hrs. and the same was reported by P.W.1 Sengottaiyan to R-4 Pondibazar Police Station on the same day at about 18.00 hrs. and the same was registered in Cr. No. 2465 of 1996 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. P.W. 2 is the son of the deceased.P.W.3 is the neighbour of the deceased. It is proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the deceased Annapoornam died on the relevant point of time, date and place as alleged by the prosecution. So, we are of the view that the corpus delicti has been proved in this case. Point No.:2 8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased Annapoornam W/o. P.W. 1 was murdered by strangulation with the weapon of M.O.23 on 21.11.1996 between 12.45 hrs to 16.15 hrs. at E-1, Power Apartment, 47 Periyar Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 and the death of the decreased Annapoornam was reported by P.W.1 husband of the deceased Annapoornam on the same day at 18.00 hrs. at E-1, Power Apartment, 47 Periyar Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 and the death of the decreased Annapoornam was reported by P.W.1 husband of the deceased Annapoornam on the same day at 18.00 hrs. The body of the deceased Annapoornam was taken to Appollo Hospital for treatment, where she was declared dead. a) The body of the deceased Anna-poornam was examined by P.W.6 Dr. Paul Dilipkumar, Casualty Medical Officer, Appollo Hospital, Chennai and declared that the deceased was brought dead. Ex.P.12 is the report. b) In pursuance of the complaint Ex.P. 1 by P.W 1, P.W. 11 who was in charge as Sub-Inspector of Police, R.4 Pondybazaar police station registered the same in Crime No. 2465 of 1996 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and intimate the same to P.W. 12 who took up investigation thereafter. Ex.P. 24 is the F.I.R. In the meantime, P.W. 6, has also sent the intimation Ex.P. 13. to the police station regarding the occurrence. On receipt of the information about the occurrence P.W.12 Inspector of Police (Crime) proceeded to the scene of occurrence and he also sent for sniffer dog and finger print expert P.W.13 to the scene of occurrence. He prepared, the observation Mahazar and rough sketch. Ex.P.5 is the observation Mahazar. Ex.P.25 is the sketch. On the same day at about 21.00 hrs he deputed P.W. 14 to bring the dead body from the Appollo hospital to Government General Hospital and there he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 21.00 and 23.00 hrs. Ex.P.26 is the inquest report. c) Thereafter, he gave a requisition Ex.P.20 to P.W. 9 to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased Annapoornam. On receipt of Ex.P.20, P.W. 9, on 22.11.1996 at 10.00 a.m. conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Annapoornam and found the following injuries. 1. Multiple small abrasion 4 in numbers of varying dimensions 0.3-0-1 cm seen situated one below the other on the right side of front of neck and lower aspect of jaw. 2. Curved reddish abrasion on the middle of the lower aspect of left lower jaw 2x1 cm. On dissection bruising of the under lying tissues seen. 3. Small curved abrasion in front of the neck 0.3-0.1 cm situated below angle of the mandible. 4. A reddish abrasion in front of middle of neck on the left side 1.5 x 1 cm. 5. On dissection bruising of the under lying tissues seen. 3. Small curved abrasion in front of the neck 0.3-0.1 cm situated below angle of the mandible. 4. A reddish abrasion in front of middle of neck on the left side 1.5 x 1 cm. 5. A reddish abrasion in front of left chest over the 2nd rib close to sternum 2.5 x 1.5 cm. 6. A reddish abrasion with peeling of the skin seen over the inner aspect left breast 0.4 x 0.2 cm. 7. Abrasion on the right border of the sternum opposite to 5th rib 1 x 0.2 cms. 8. Abrasion on the right border of the sternum 2 x 0.2 cm over the 5th intercostal space. 9. 2 abrasion situated one below the other 1.5 x 0.3 cm and 1.3 x 0.4 cm seen over the left border of sternum opposite to 5th intercostal space. The distance between two abrasion is 1.5 cm. 10. A curved abrasion 1 x 0.2 cms on the right side of upper lip. 11. Abrasion over the right wrist. 12. Abrasion over the inner aspect of left toe. 13. A transverse brusing seen on the middle of front of left side of neck 6 x 1.5cm. 14. An oblique bleeding cut injury on the lobe of the left ear 1 cm long. On desissection bruising seen over the ends of both clavicles and the first intercostal muscle. Extensive bruising of the trachea and neck structure seen. Bruising of the ribbon muscles of the neck seen. Bruising of the pre-vertebral and paravertebral tissues of the neck are seen. Bruisings seen beneath the jaw in the submandibular salivary glands. Fracture of the left cornua of the hyoid bone seen with bruising of the surrounding tissues. Extensive bruising seen over the thyroid cartilage on both sides. Bruising of the scalp tissue 6 x 6 x 0.5cm over the left side of the temporo-parietal region, and also another bruising 8 x 4 x 0.5cm over the left occipital region. 30 x 0.5 cm x skin deep incomplete slightly oblique patterned encircling abrasion (ligature mark) seen in the front and sides of neck over the thyroid and situated 6 cm below the right mastoid, 6.5 cm below the left mastoid, 4 cm above the suprasternal notch. Thickness of the mark is 1 cm. Knot is absent on the back due to the intervening scalp hair. 15. Thickness of the mark is 1 cm. Knot is absent on the back due to the intervening scalp hair. 15. On internal examination, the Heart Chambers contained clotted blood. Lugs: Markedly oedematous emphyse-matous and cyanotic. Multiple petechiae seen over the pleural surfaces. Cut section intensely congested exudes copious blood stained frothy fluid. Trachea: Filled with blood stained froth. Stomach: Contained 300gms of recognisable cooked food particles seen. No specific smell perceived. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: cut section congested. Bladder & Uterus: Empty Brain: Hyperaemic, surface vessels full. Cut section intensely congested shows numerous petechiae. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Ex.P.21 is the post-mortem certificate. He has also opined that injury No.14 is possible if the ear lobe is cut with a sharp weapon to, remove ear studs. If the ear studs are pulled by hands such injury is possible, if the ear lobe is thinned out and pulled with violent force. Ligature mark found on the neck is possible if M.O.23 is being used for strangulation. d. So as per medical report coupled with M.O.23, and inquest report P.26, it is proved beyond doubt that the deceased Anna-porrnam w/o. P.W. 1 was murdered at relevant point of date, time and place by strangulation with the weapon of offence like M.O.23 as stated by the prosecution. Point Nos. 3 and 4: 9. P.W.1 reported the matter of missing of articles from his house to R4, Pondybazzar police station by listing out in Ex.P.1 to P.3. According to Exs. P.1 to P.3, following articles were found missing from the house after the murder of Annapoornam. 1. 10 Nos. Gold bangles at 1½ sovereign per bangle totalling 15 sovereigns. 2. Studs assorted 6 Nos. weighing about 3 sovereigns. 3. Rings assorted 7 Nos. weighing about 3½ sovereigns. 4. Cash Rs.37,000/- consisting of 3 bundles of Rs.100/- currencies, loose currencies of 100/- and Rs.10/- 5. Cannon make costly camera with used film of 28 exposures out of 36, worth Rs. 7500/-. 6. Bed sheets - 2 Nos. New 7. Shawls of 5 colours - 5 Nos. New 8. Bombay dyeing pillow cover printed - 5 Nos. 9. Bombay dyeing Pants & Shirts bits 2 Nos. each 10. Titan gold case watch - 1 No. 11. Gold necklaces 2 Nos. weighing 3 sovereigns each valued at Rs. 13,000/- each. 12. 7500/-. 6. Bed sheets - 2 Nos. New 7. Shawls of 5 colours - 5 Nos. New 8. Bombay dyeing pillow cover printed - 5 Nos. 9. Bombay dyeing Pants & Shirts bits 2 Nos. each 10. Titan gold case watch - 1 No. 11. Gold necklaces 2 Nos. weighing 3 sovereigns each valued at Rs. 13,000/- each. 12. Minolta - freedom - 90 Ex-200m with date stamp-valued at Rs.8,000/- with (sic) grams exposed out of 36 frames rolls. 13. Canon make automatic Camera valued at Rs.3,000/-. 14. Sony make walkman-with equaliser etc. valued at Rs.1,500/-. 15. AIWA make Walkman with a dislodged wheel inside valued at Rs.1,000/-. 16. CASIO make digital diary-model ISFS100- valued at Rs.3,000/-. 17. Citizen-Gold cases square-lady’s watch valued at Rs. 1,000/-. 18. Citizen-Gold case - round black dial lady’s watch - valued at Rs.1,000/-. 19. Titan make-Gold case round-gents watch valued at Rs.1,000/-. 20. 1No. SONY-Micro Cassette recorder - used for dicta phone, valued at Rs.1,000. 21. 2 Nos. Gold Bangles each weighing 2 sovereigns both valued at Rs.16,000/-. 22. NORELCO make electric shaver valued at Rs. 3,000/-. Out of which the articles, namely, two new bed sheets, 5 colour bed sheets, 5 Bombay dyeing new pillow cover, 5 Bombay dyeing pant bits, 2 shirt bits and micro cassette recorder were traced in the house after listing out the articles as per Ex.P.1 to P.3. Out of the said missing articles the articles, namely, M.Os.1 to 18 were recovered by P.W.15. The theft properties valued of Rs. 2,00,000/- lakhs including cash of Rs.50,000/-. a) The trial Court has also ordered the return of the M.Os. 1 to 18 to P.W. 1 while acquitting the accused under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. b) It is not the suggestive case of the accused that M.Os.1 to 18 do not belong to the deceased. The defence theory is that the prosecution fabricated the case against the accused for the act of theft committed by someone from the house of P.W.1. In a way, the accused conceded the case of the prosecution that there was a theft of M.Os. 1 to 18 from the house of P.W.1 on the fateful day. The evidence of P.W. 1 reads as follows: c) It is also not the suggestive case of the accused to P.W.1 that the Material Objects, namely, M.Os.1 to 18 were purchased, planted and fabricated the case against the accused. 1 to 18 from the house of P.W.1 on the fateful day. The evidence of P.W. 1 reads as follows: c) It is also not the suggestive case of the accused to P.W.1 that the Material Objects, namely, M.Os.1 to 18 were purchased, planted and fabricated the case against the accused. It is also not the suggestive case of the accused to P.W.1 that these M.Os. 1 to 18 were never possessed and used by the deceased at any point of time. d) From the narration of events, we have no hesitation to hold that M.Os. 1 to 8 seized, produced and marked in this case in the light of the finding, of the trial Court in ordering the return of these articles /properties referred to in Ex.P.1 to P.3, were stolen from the house of P.W.1 at the relevant point of time, date and place, as narrated by the prosecution. This is one way of approach in deciding these issues in favour of the prosecution. Point No.:5 &9;10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner while narrating the prosecution case contended that the materials available on record would attract punishment under Section 392 I.P.C., which is, more aggravated form than the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. and that the charge can be altered to Section 392 Cr. P.C. at any time in the light of the power vested under Section 221(2) Cr.P.C. and also in the light of the decision in Ramasamy Nadar v. State of Madras AIR 1958 SC 56 . a) We have gone through the entire evidence available on record to find out whether there is any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner. The material evidence available on record would show that the properties were stolen by the assailant only after the commission of murder. a) We have gone through the entire evidence available on record to find out whether there is any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner. The material evidence available on record would show that the properties were stolen by the assailant only after the commission of murder. The ingredients of Section 392(b) I.P.C. regarding this aspect reads as follows: b) Evidence: To establish the offence of robbery the prosecution is to prove (1) all the elements required to prove theft (vide “evidence” under Section 379); (2) the accused while committing the aforesaid theft or in order to commit aforesaid theft voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person either (a) death, or (b) hurt, or (c) wrongful restraint, or (d) fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint; or (3) to facilitate the carrying away of the booty or to facilitate the attempt to carry away the booty obtained by theft, for that end, voluntarily caused to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or caused fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. or 1. the accused committed the offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 I.P.C. 2. that the accused did commit the aforesaid extortion by putting the victim hurt or instant wrongful restraint; 3. that accused during the extortion being committed was in immediate presence of the person to whom he put in fear, aforesaid; 4. that the accused by so putting in fear induced the victim to deliver then and there the thing extorted. Section 390 reads as follows: Section 390. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion-. Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that and, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion, by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and thee to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation: The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The custodial statement of A1 to A3 reveals that the assailants have relieved the material objects concerned in this case only after the commission of murder. The prosecution has rightly lodged a case against the accused under Sections 302, 380 and also 449 I.P.C. as the offence took place in the house after trespass with the intention to commit criminal act. So we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot sustain. So much so, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts on hand. Point No.:6 Substantial Evidence - can sustain against A1 to A3 11. The prosecution not only relied on the properties seized in pursuance of the confession statement of the accused but also lifting of chance prints from the scene of occurrence to tag with the commission of offence to attract punishment for the offences levelled against them. So it is apparent that the prosecution has taken steps to prove the case against the accused through circumstantial evidence, namely, 1. recovery of stolen properties (2) Finger print of A2 said to have been tallied with the finger print lifted at the scene of occurrence on the inside portion of the locker door, Steel bureau. (3) Apprehension of A1 on suspicion on the basis of the clue given by P.W.3 (4) Tracing of A2 on the confession statement of A1 which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and (5) Tracing of A3 on the confession statement of A2 which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. To decide these points with clarity, the following points have to be answered by the prosecution without any ambiguity? 12. To decide these points with clarity, the following points have to be answered by the prosecution without any ambiguity? (1) Whether M.O.16 was recovered from A1 under Ex.P.7 in pursuance of the admissible portion of his confession statement Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.W.5 from his resident No.22, Gill Nagar first street, Choolaimedu, Chennai on 29.9.1998 at 14.50 hrs.? (2) Whether M.Os. 10, 17, 18, 23, 24 and 25 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P. 9 in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.8 from A2’s shop namely Grace Store, door No.119, Ramanayakan street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 on 29.9.1998 at 19.05 hrs.? (3) Whether M.Os.14 and 15 were recovered from A3 under mahazar P.11 in pursuance of the admissible portion of his confession statement Ex.P.10 in the presence of P.W.5 from his house at No.5, 6th street, Lake Area, Nungambakkan, Chennai-34 on 29.9.1998 at 19.50 hrs.? (4) Whether M.Os. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 were recovered from the shop of P.W. 8, namely, Gowthamchand Jain, pawn broker, No.111, Kodambakkam High Road, Chennai-34 under Ex.P.22, on identification by the accused in pursuance of their confession statement in presence of P.W.10 on 3.10.1998 at about 10.30 hrs.? (5) Whether M.Os.1, 2 and 3 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.23 from the shop of P.W.7 namely, Ashok Kumar, pawn broker, at Shop No. 56, Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 on the identification of the accused in pursuance of the admissible portion of their confession statements in presence of P.W.10 on 3.10.1998 at 11.30 hrs.? (6) Whether the genuineness of the pawn ticket, namely, Exs.P.14 to P.19 and P.32 to P.43 were proved? (7) Whether Chance prints, namely, G.1, G.2, G.3, and G.4 were lifted from the scene of occurrence on the fateful day by P.W.13 at the request of P.W.12? (8) Whether finger prints of A1 to A3 were taken by P.W.15 and sent the same to P.W.13 to find out the ridges and characteristics of the same for comparison? (9) Whether it is necessary to obtain the finger prints of the accused with the order of the Court to send the same to finger print experts P.W.13 for comparison? (10) Whether the negatives of the chance prints is necessary to prove the guilty act of the accused? (9) Whether it is necessary to obtain the finger prints of the accused with the order of the Court to send the same to finger print experts P.W.13 for comparison? (10) Whether the negatives of the chance prints is necessary to prove the guilty act of the accused? (11) What is the defence of the first accused and the third accused with reference to taking of their finger prints by P.W.15? 13. It is true that on 21.11.1996, in between 12.30 to 16.15 hrs. at E-1 Power Apartment, 47 Periyar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17, the deceased Annapoornam w/o. P.W. 1 was murdered by using plastic key chain (M.O.23) on her neck throttled and strangulated her till her death and later she succumbed to the injuries. Inquest report Ex.P.26 and post-mortem report Ex.P.21 would prove that the assailant not only trespassed into the house with an intention to murder but also committed theft of properties referred to Ex.P.1 to P.3. P.W.1 and P.W.2 spoke in detail about the theft of, properties from their house after the commission of murder as referred to in Ex.P.1 to P.3. There is no dispute regarding this aspect. Theft of properties referred to in Ex.P.1 to P.3 was not confronted by the accused. However, the defence theory is that after murder, since the doors were kept opened, someone entered and committed theft of properties for which A1 to A3 are not responsible for the same. The defence theory regarding this aspect has been referred to, in the earlier paragraphs. 14. The said defence theory is not sustainable in view of the assertive statement of P.W.1 to P.W. 3 that the properties referred to in Exs. P.1 to P.3 were stolen by the assailants after committing the murder of Annapoornam. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to our notice the principles laid down in the following rulings, in which certain procedures have been formulated before consideration of circumstantial evidence. (1) Rathinavel v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode 1996 MLJ (Crl.) 70; (2) State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi AIR 1985 SC: 1984; (3) SCC 698 (3) Hanumant v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cr. LJ 129; (4) K.M. Shelke v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2474 : 1973 (2) SCC 449 ; (5) Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79 : 1989 Supp. LJ 129; (4) K.M. Shelke v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2474 : 1973 (2) SCC 449 ; (5) Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79 : 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706; (6) Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors. 2005 (1) LW (Crl) 16; (7) T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. 2006 (1) SCC 401 ; (8) Paramasivam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (2) LW (Crl.) 836; (9) State of Kerala v. Ramachandran (2003) MLJ (Crl.) 19; (10) Vijay Kumar v. State of Kerala 2000 SCC (Crl) 291; (11) Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2002 SC 3206 ; (12) Babudas v. State of M.P. 2003 (9) SCC 86 ; (13) State of Kerala v. Ramachandraan 2003 MLJ (Crl) 19; and (14) Gilbert Pereira v. State of Karnataka 2004 SCC (Crl) Supp. 234. We have gone through the said ruling in detail. The cumulative effect of the principles laid down in the said ruling are: (1) An incriminating circumstance of fact, if proved, only provides an additional link in the chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused — Incriminating circumstances proved against the accused must form a complete chain of circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. (2) In a case based on circumstantial evidence one circumstance by itself may not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. It is the cumulative result of all circumstances, which could matter. Hence, it is not proper for the Court to cull out one circumstances from the rest for the purpose of giving a different meaning to it. (3) The factum of a cognisable crime having been committed is known but neither the identity of the accused is disclosed nor is their any indication available of the witnesses who would be able to furnish useful and relevant evidence. Such offences put to test the wits of an investigating officer. A vigilant investigating officer, well versed with the techniques of the job, is in a position to collect the threads of evidence finding out the path which leads to the culprit. The ends, which the administration of criminal justice serves, are not achieved merely by catching hold of the culprit. The accusation has to be proved to the hilt in a Court of law. The ends, which the administration of criminal justice serves, are not achieved merely by catching hold of the culprit. The accusation has to be proved to the hilt in a Court of law. The evidence of the investigating officer given in the Court should have evidence of the investigating officer given in the Court should have rhythm explaining step by step how the investigation proceeded leading to detection of the offender and collection of evidence against him. This is necessary to exclude the likelihood of any innocent having been picked up and branded as a culprit and then the gravity of the offence are using human sympathy persuading the mind to be carried away by doubtful or dubious circumstances treating them as or "beyond doubt’ evidentiary value. (4) Evidence — Appreciation — Circumstantial evidence - Circumstantial evidence must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than that of guilt of the accused. (5) It is well-settled that the prosecution has to establish each circumstance by independent evidence and the circumstances so established should form a complete chain without giving room to any other hypothesis and should be consistent with his quilt and inconsistent with his innocence. (6) Circumstantial evidence should be strong, convincing, unassailable, leading to the only inference and conclusion that the crime should have been committed only by the accused and not give any chance even to doubt about the hands of third parties. (7) If two views are possible, one supporting the acquittal should be preferred. (8) It is well settled that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, however strong it may be. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at, in its entirety. His suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof and that “fouler the crime higher the proofs”. It also cannot be disputed that when we take into account the conduct of an accused, his conduct must be looked at, in its entirety. His suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof and that “fouler the crime higher the proofs”. (9) Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between ‘congectures’ and ‘sure conclusions’ to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. We have to find out whether the circumstantial evidence placed before us by the prosecution for maintaining conviction of the accused for an offence entitling capital punishment, satisfied the requirements as narrated above, warrants an interference of the order of the acquittal by the trial Court. 16. The points to be in our mind about the credibility, certainty, creativity, clarity, conformity, closeness to proximity and conclusively, of the circumstantial evidence, really leads to the inference that the accused alone have committed the act of the murder excluding others beyond reasonable doubts. 17. The first circumstances about the possession of missing articles referred to under Ex.P.1 to P.3 by A1 to A3 leading to an inference that the accused alone have committed the act of murder and theft of properties as stated by the prosecution. The arrest of the accused and seizure of properties were spoke to in detail by P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10 pawn brokers and P.W. 15 investigating officer. 18. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that P.W.5 and P.W.10 are not independent witnesses but they are interested witnesses and as such, their evidence shall not be relied on. The trial Court, in fact, accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/respondents upheld their submission and ultimately, rejected the prosecution theory in entirety. 19. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that P.W.5 and P.W.10 are not independent witnesses but they are interested witnesses and as such, their evidence shall not be relied on. The trial Court, in fact, accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/respondents upheld their submission and ultimately, rejected the prosecution theory in entirety. 19. In this context, the leaned Public Prosecutor, while relying on the decisions reported in (1) M.S.T. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab 1977 SC 472, (2) Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. 1978 SCC (Crl.) 398 (3) Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh and (4) State of U.P. v. Paras Nath AIR 1973 SC1073 contended that it has been repeatedly held that the trial Court cannot reject the evidence of witnesses who are either relative or friend of the victim and as such the decisions relied on by the counsel for the accused/respondent has no relevancy to the facts on hand. 20. It is held in Bharinath Goswami v. Shivvkumar Singh and another 2005 (1) LW Crl. 16 that it is fairly well settled that merely because the witnesses were friendly with the deceased that would not be sufficient to term them as interested witnesses. Whenever any plea is taken by the accused persons about the interestedness of witnesses, materials have to be placed in that regard. 21. In the recent Supreme Court decision in State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa and ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 321 it is held that conviction in criminal cases can be based on the testimony of a close relative and trial Courts cannot discard such evidence on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an "interested witness’. Further it is held that a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witnesses. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. It is further held that it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years and the witnesses are harassed a lot. It is further held that it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the only natural witnesses available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. 22. In fact, in this case, P.W. 5 is not only a friend of P.W. 1 but also a close friend of the father of the first accused. Apart from that nothing worthy elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W. 5. In fact, he has spoken to, about the arrest of the A1 to A3 from their respective places and also spoken to, with regard to confession statement and recovery of property from the persons concerned. There is no specific motive attributed against him by A1 to A3. 23. The only suggestion put to this witness is that, at the instant of police he is deposing falsehood against A1 to A3 as he is very intimate to the family members of the deceased, which was denied by him in the cross examination. More, so it was elicited from him that the father of the first accused has been intimate to him. The narration of event solicited at the cross examination would in fact corroborate this evidence in the chief examination. Apart from that the evidence of P.W. 5 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.15 who is none other than the police officer in whose presence the said properties were recovered on the confession statement of A1 to A3. When the fact is like this, without following the settled law referred to in the earlier paragraphs, it is not proper on the part of the trial Court in rejecting the evidence of P.W.5 and finding that the prosecution failed to establish the arrest of the accused and seizure of properties from A1 to A3, as stated by P.W.5. 24. P.W. 10 spoke in detail about the seizure of M.Os’ from the shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8. After going through the evidence of P.W.10 in detail, we find that the evidence is cogent and in fact leaving no doubt against prosecution. 24. P.W. 10 spoke in detail about the seizure of M.Os’ from the shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8. After going through the evidence of P.W.10 in detail, we find that the evidence is cogent and in fact leaving no doubt against prosecution. No doubt, he has given evidence on behalf of the police in one case. That was the reason for the trial Court in rejecting the evidence of P.W.10 and holding that his evidence (P.W.10) with regard to the seizure of M.Os. from the shop of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 cannot sustain. Whereas the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.15 corroborates the testimony of P.W.10 with regard to the seizure of M.Os. from the pawn broker shops, which fact was not taken note of by the trial Court seriously. 25. Though P.W.8 turned hostile, his evidence cannot be totally brushed aside in view of the fact that most part of his evidence support the case of the prosecution except to the identity of the accused 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W.8 at the time of cross examination reads as follows: P.W.8 in fact admitted the genuineness of documents namely, Exs. P15 to P19. He also admitted his signature found in the receipts, He also asserts the name of Pawnee referred to in the said document. It is no doubt that Exs. P.15 to P.19 are carbon copies. Though original copies were not filed, it will not affect the prosecution case in anyway, as the carbon copy in nothing but a original copy only. More, so, author of the documents, namely, P.W.8 admitted the genuineness of these documents. He further admitted that the reference made in these documents were written by him only. Though P.W.8 not identified A1 to A3, it will not affect the case of the prosecution with regard to the seizure of M.Os. from the shop of P.W.8 on the identification of the accused coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 15. The recovery of properties from the shop of P.W.8 as referred to above, on the identification of the accused in pursuance of their confession statement, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26. So much so, P.W.7 has spoken to in detail about the pledging a of M.Os. The recovery of properties from the shop of P.W.8 as referred to above, on the identification of the accused in pursuance of their confession statement, is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 26. So much so, P.W.7 has spoken to in detail about the pledging a of M.Os. 1 to 3 in his shop by the third accused and later recovery of the same by P.W.15, on the identification of the accused 1 to 3. The said properties were recovered by P.W.15 in presence of P.W.10. Even at the time of cross examination, he retreated what he has stated in chief and supported the case of the prosecution totally regarding the seizure of property from his shop by P.W. 15. Nothing worthy elicited to reject this witness. Exs. P.32 to P.43 were marked by P.W.7, to show that the accused were regularly visiting his shop for one reason or other either to pledge or redeem or sale of jewels, even before this occurrence. This will also be a proof of proximity of A1 to A3 with P.W.7. It is only a supportive evidence for the prosecution case. In such circumstances, no motive can be attributed against the prosecution for making those documents for the clarity of circumstantial evidence. There are chronological events about the seizure M.Os. from the shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8, as referred to above on the identification of the accused A1 to A3 by P.W.15. The evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 10 and 15 supports this event. The rejection of evidence of P.W.10, by the trial Court, on the sole ground that he is a police witness as he has given evidence in one earlier case, is bereft of any merit. 27. We considered the evidence of independent witnesses, namely, P.W.5 and P.W.10 as worthy not only on the basis of cogent, trust worthy and unimpeachable evidence but also in the light of the principles laid down in the rulings referred to above. 28. In this case, admittedly there was a delay in apprehension of the accused 1 to 3. It is true that A1 was very close and intimate to the family of the deceased Annapoornam. In fact, P.W.1 addressed the accused as “Mapillai”. Whenever the family members of the deceased leave the house, they keep the door key with the family of the first accused. It is true that A1 was very close and intimate to the family of the deceased Annapoornam. In fact, P.W.1 addressed the accused as “Mapillai”. Whenever the family members of the deceased leave the house, they keep the door key with the family of the first accused. More so, P.W.3 has also, leave the key to the family of the first accused, whenever they leave the house. So, it is evident that the first accused was very close and intimate to the family of P.Ws.1 and 3. No suspicion arose against the first accused at any point of time. There was a theft occurred in the house of P.W.3. Initially, family members of P.W.3 have not suspected the complicity of the first accused regarding the theft from her house. Later, they grew suspicious against the first accused. The suspicious character of the first accused was brought to notice of the father of the first accused. He has also accepted the suspicious conduct of his son, namely, first accused and pacified P.W.3 not to give any complaint and promised to reimburse the loss. In spite of several requests, the father of the first accused did not keep up his promise. Thereafter, husband of P.W.3 lodged a complaint against the first accused and the same was registered in Crime No. 2712 of 1997 and is pending before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate. The relevant fact regarding this aspect reads as follows: Evidence of P.W.15 regarding this aspect reads as follows: 29. Since there was a delay in detecting the case of murder of the deceased Annapoornam, the Commissioner of Police, Madras directed P.W.15, to investigate the matter. P.W.15, a shrewd officer acted swiftly on the basis of suspicion expressed by P.W.3, apprehended the first accused which leads to his confession statement and seizure of property, namely, M.O.16. The confession statement of the first accused leads to the arrest of the second accused. The confession statement of the second accused leads to the arrest of the third accused. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers. The apprehension of the second accused on the basis of the confession of the first accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, the apprehension of the third accused in pursuance of the confession statement of the second accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2 and 3 are brothers. The apprehension of the second accused on the basis of the confession of the first accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly, the apprehension of the third accused in pursuance of the confession statement of the second accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, we are of the view that the delay in apprehension of the accused has not caused any aberration in the prosecution case. 30. The learned counsel for the accused/respondents then contended that since the Material Objects namely, M.O.s 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 were recovered from the respective shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8 on the joint identification of A1 to A3 that too after a long time from the date of occurrence, the recovery theory fails in the light of the principles laid down in the decisions in (1) Shabad Pulla Reddy v. State of A.P. 1997 Crl. LJ 3753; (2) Babuda v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1992 SC 2091 : 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 438; (3) State of H.P. v. Wazir Chand 1978 Crl. LJ 347; (4) C.P. Fernandes v. Union Territory, Goa AIR 1977 SC 135 : 1977 (1) SCC 707 ; (5) Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory, Chandigrah AIR 1986 SC1438; (6) Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. 1983 Crl. LJ 689; and (7) Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv kumar Singh and ors. 2005 (1) LW (Cr.) 16. 31. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor confronted the submission of the learned counsel for the accused in the light of the principles laid down in (1) Ismail v. Emperor AIR 33 1946 SIND 43; (2) Lachhman Sing and others v. The State 1952 Crl. LJ 863; (3) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715; (4) Jaffer Husain v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 1934 ; and (5) U.T. Traders v. B. Cotton Mills AIR 1970 SC 1940 . We scanned the principles laid down in the said rulings. 32. In Ismail v. Emperor AIR (33) 1946 Sind 43 it is held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused is found by the police, the statement by the accused to the police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused is admissible under Section 27 as evidence against the accused. 33. 32. In Ismail v. Emperor AIR (33) 1946 Sind 43 it is held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused is found by the police, the statement by the accused to the police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused is admissible under Section 27 as evidence against the accused. 33. The essence of the above decisions can be culled out from the decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715 which reads as follows: "Joint disclosures 145. Before parting with the discussion on the subject of confessions under Section 27, we may briefly refer to the legal position as regards joint disclosures. This point assumes relevance in the context of such disclosures made by the first two accused viz. Afzal and Shaukat. The admissibility of information said to have been furnished by both of them leading to the discovery of the hideouts of the deceased terrorists and the recovery of a laptop computer, a mobile phone and cash of Rs.10 lakhs from the truck in which they were found at Srinagar is in issue. Learned Senior Counsel Shanti Bhushan and Sushil Kumar appearing for the accused contend, as was contended before the High Court, that the disclosure and pointing out attributed to both cannot fall within the ken of Section 27, whereas it is the contention of Gopal Subramanium that there is no taboo against the admission of such information as incriminating evidence against the both the accused informants. Some of the High Courts have taken the view that the wording "a person" excludes the applicability of the section to more than one person. But, that is too narrow a view to be taken. Joint disclosures, to be more accurate, simultaneous disclosures, per so, are not inadmissible under Section 27. "A person accused" need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be plurality of the accused. It seems to us that the real reason for not acting upon the joint disclosures by taking resort to Section 27 is the inherent difficulty in placing reliance on such information supposed to have emerged from the mouths of two or more accused at a time. In fact, joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus. In fact, joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus. At best, one person would have made the statement orally and the other person would have stated so substantially in similar terms a few seconds or minutes later, or the second person would have given unequivocal not to what has been said by the first person. Or, two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similarly information leading to the discovery of fact. Or, in rare cases, both the accused may reduce the information into writing and hand over the written notes to the police officer at the same time. We do not think that such disclosures by two or more persons in police custody go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether. If information is given one after the other without any break, almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27. However, there may be practical difficulties in placing reliance on such evidence. It may be difficult for the witness (generally the police officer), to depose which accused spoke what words and in what sequence. In other words, the deposition in regard to the information given by the two accused may be exposed to criticism from the standpoint of credibility and its nexus with discovery. Admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects, as pointed out by Gopal Subramanium. Whether and to what extent such a simultaneous disclosure could be relied upon by the Court is really matter of evaluation of evidence. With these prefatory remarks, we have to refer to two decisions of this Court which are relied upon by the learned defence counsel. 146. In Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. the prosecution sought to rely on the evidence that the appellant along with the other two accused gave information to the I.O. that the ring (M.O.1) was sold to the jeweller, P.W.3 in whose possession the ring was. P.W.3 deposed that four accused persons whom he identified in Court came to his shop and they sold the ring for Rs. P.W.3 deposed that four accused persons whom he identified in Court came to his shop and they sold the ring for Rs. 325 and some days later, the police Inspector accompanied by Accused 1, 2, and 3 came to his shop and the said accused asked P.W.3 to produce therein which they had sold. Then, he took out the ring from the showcase and it was seized by the police Inspector. The difficulty in accepting such evidence was projected in the following words by D.A. DESAI, J. speaking for the Court: (SCC P. 146, para 5) "Does this evidence make any sense? He says that Accused 1 to 4 sold him the ring. He does not say who had the ring and to whom he paid the money. Similarly, he stated that Accused 1 to 3 asked him to produce the ring. It is impossible to believe that all spoke simultaneously. This way of recording evidence is most unsatisfactory and we record our disapproval of the same. If evidence otherwise confessional in character is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against that person. There is nothing in this judgment which suggests that simultaneous disclosures by more than one accused do not at all enter into the area of Section 27, as a proposition of law. 147. Another case which needs to be noticed is the case of Ramkrishnan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay. The admissibility or otherwise of joint disclosures did not directly come up for consideration in that case. However, while distinguishing the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas decided by the Bombay High Court, a passing observation was made that in the said case the High Court, had "rightly held that a joint statement by more than one accused was not completed by Section 27" (SCR P. 925). We cannot understand this observation as laying down the law that the information almost simultaneously furnished by the two accused in regard to a fact discovered cannot be received in evidence under Section 27. We cannot understand this observation as laying down the law that the information almost simultaneously furnished by the two accused in regard to a fact discovered cannot be received in evidence under Section 27. It may be relevant to mention that in the case of Lachman Singh v. State this Court expressed certain reservations on the correctness of the view taken by some of the High Courts discountenancing joint disclosures". 34. In the light of the principles laid down in the said rulings coupled with the cogent and corroborative evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.10 and P.W.15 along with pawn receipts, we are of the view that the objections of the defence counsel cannot sustain. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON FINGER PRINTS 35. The prosecution relied on the finger prints lifted from the scene of occurrence coupled with the evidence and report of Finger Print Expert which are circumstantial evidence to prove the guilty act of the accused with regard to the murder of the deceased Annapoornam for gain. Admittedly, finger prints taken from the accused were not obtained under the orders of the Court before sending the same for comparison by P.W.13 as contemplated under Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. 36. The learned counsel for the accused contended that since the finger prints of the accused were not obtained under the orders of the Court as contemplated under Section (5) of the Identification of Prisoners Act before comparison by P.W. 13 and any such report given by P.W.13 to the Court for reliance, cannot have any legal barring and as such, the evidence of P.W.13 along with his report has to be rejected. He has also relied on the following decisions and the principles laid down therein in support of this contention. 37.Mahmood v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1976 SC 69 : 1976 (1) SCC 542 ; (2) Rajendran v. State of Ramanayakenpalayam Police Station 1993 LW Crl. 502; (3) Ravanan v. State (Inspector Of Police), Kumbakonam and another; (4) Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 SCC (Cri) 837: 1995 Supp (3) SCC 289; (5) Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 2960 : 1997 (10) SCC 44 ; (6) Thavaraj Pandian and three Others v. State etc. 2003 (1) LW (Crl.) 413: 2003 Crl. LJ 2642; (7) Suresh and another v. State etc. 2004 (2) LW (Crl.) 814; and (8) K. Dhanasekaran. Aman v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 2960 : 1997 (10) SCC 44 ; (6) Thavaraj Pandian and three Others v. State etc. 2003 (1) LW (Crl.) 413: 2003 Crl. LJ 2642; (7) Suresh and another v. State etc. 2004 (2) LW (Crl.) 814; and (8) K. Dhanasekaran. v. State 2003 (1) CTC 223 . 38. In all the cases, on analysing the evidence of finger print expert along with the report, this Court found it suspicious for various reasons and accordingly, held that the evidence of the finger print expert along with the report cannot be accepted as the finger prints were not obtained following the procedure prescribed under Section (5) of the Identification of Prisoners Act. The decision referred to under items 2 to 8 have in fact followed the guidelines given under the decision referred to in Sl. No.1. 39. The learned Public Prosecutor while confronting the submission of the learned counsel for the accused would contend that the in vestigating officer has got power under Section (4) of the Identification of Prisoners Act to take finger prints of the accused suo motu and can forward the same to obtain opinion from the finger print expert without the aid of the Court. He has also relied on the following decisions in support of this contention. State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Thulasingan and others (1995 Crl. LJ 2080) and Natrajan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry (2003 Crl. LJ 2372) We have read over all the decisions referred to above and we express our opinion as follows: 40. The Division Bench of our High Court in Thavaraj Pandis and three others v. State, etc. 2003 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 413: 2003 Crl. LJ 2642 our brother Thiru. M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J while considering the merit and applicability of the evidence of finger print expert, along with his report found certain material discrepancy, relied on the decision referred to under Sl. No. 1, held that the report cannot be accepted as the investigating officer not followed the procedure prescribed under Section (5) of the Identification of Prisoners Act. 41. Similarly one of us while considering the case in Dhanasekaran, K. v. State 2003 (1) CTC 223 with regard to merit and applicability of the evidence of finger print expert along with this report found certain material discrepancy relied on the decision referred to under Sl. 41. Similarly one of us while considering the case in Dhanasekaran, K. v. State 2003 (1) CTC 223 with regard to merit and applicability of the evidence of finger print expert along with this report found certain material discrepancy relied on the decision referred to under Sl. No. 1, held that the report cannot be accepted as investigating officer not followed the procedure prescribed under Section (5) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, though the facts in that case, namely, examination of hand writings, not applicable to Section (5) of the Identification of Prisoners Act in the light of the decision in State of UP. v. Sri Ram Babu Misra 1979 All W.C. 561: 1979 All. Crl. C. 124: 1979 All Crl. R. 169. 42. Whereas the Division Bench of our High Court in NATARAJAN’s case (2003 Crl. L.J. 2372) while considering the merit and applicability of the evidence of the finger print expert along with his report found no suspicion, in the report of the finger print and also in the evidence of the investigating officer in taking finger prints directly from the accused without the aid of the Court and also after due consideration of the principles laid down in the ruling cited under Sl. No. 1 held that the evidence of the finger print expert along with his report coupled with the evidence of the investigating officer who followed the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders 801(2)(k) and 804 along with Section 4 of Identification of Prisoners Act, are valid. 43. Now let us find out whether the evidence of the finger print expert along with his report can be relied on in the light of the well settled position of law narrated in the earlier paragraphs. In this context, let us refer Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. a) Section 3 refers about the taking of prints in respect of the convicted persons. b) Section 4 deals with the taking of finger prints from the accused under custody of the Investigating officer. c) Section 5 deals with the taking of finger prints from the accused under custody of the Court. d) Section 8 deals with the power of the Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. c) Section 5 deals with the taking of finger prints from the accused under custody of the Court. d) Section 8 deals with the power of the Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. e) Admittedly, the State Government has not made any rules under Section 8 of the Act for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. f) In the absence of any such rules, investigating officer has to necessarily follow the guidelines of the Police Standing Order 801(2)(k) and 804 as the Statute empowering him to take finger prints of the accused while under his custody under Section 4 of the Indian Prisoners Act. 44. The case on hand is with reference to taking of finger prints of the accused, while they were under custody of the investigating officer, namely, P.W.15. So, Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 is applicable to facts on hand. 45. The case on hand is not with reference to taking of finger prints of the accused after remand while they were under judicial custody, attracting the procedure prescribed under section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. 46. In this case, P.W.15 did not obtain any permission from the Court for taking finger prints of the accused as the accused were not under custody of the Court. 47. Only in such circumstances, P.W.15, in accordance with the procedure under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 read with Order 801(2)(k) and 804 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order, obtained finger prints of the accused and forwarded the same to P.W.13 for comparison with the chance prints lifted from the scene of occurrence. 48. Now, let us took into the aspect of the method of comparing finger prints of the accused with the chance prints lifted form the scene of occurrence: Section 45 of the Evidence Act envisages the Court to form an opinion as to identity of a finger print impression and for that purpose the opinions upon that point, of persons specially skilled in questions as to identity of finger impressions are relevant. And, it goes without saying that no such conclusions are possible without the Expert indicating the reasons for his opinion. The core and delta are the important features in thumb impressions and the ridges in all the impressions form patterns. And, it goes without saying that no such conclusions are possible without the Expert indicating the reasons for his opinion. The core and delta are the important features in thumb impressions and the ridges in all the impressions form patterns. One has to examine first if the patterns are different, for, it is conclusive proof that the impressions are different. Then the court has to find out by comparison of the ridge, characteristics, core and delta whether the two impression are identical. “H.R. Hardless in his book on Handwriting and Thumb Print Identification and Forensic Science published in 1970 has observed that the core and delta are the important features in an impression and the ridges in all impressions form patterns.M.K. Mehta in his book on”The identification of Thumb Impression and the Cross Examination of Finger Prints Experts“, published in 1959, has definitely stated that to begin with, the patterns should be examined first, for, if the patterns are different it is conclusive proof that the impressions are different. The same author has also observed that it was not uncommon for Experts to manipulate the difference in such a manner, especially in blurred impressions, as to lead to the findings recorded by them. H.R. Hardless in his book (quoted above), on the aspect of points which prove non-identity of two impressions and about the difference in configuration of ridges within the pattern area, emphasises the need for both the impressions being clear and not blurred. As regards the non-identity, according to Hardless, even one major point of difference would be sufficient to exclude the identity and one of the major points of difference is the presence of a ridge characteristic in one print while in the other impression such characteristic is absent”. 49. In this context, it is to be noted that in all the above referred cases though admitting that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take finger-prints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was held to be desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. With the above backdrop, let us scan the evidence of the finger print expert along with his report on hand. With the above backdrop, let us scan the evidence of the finger print expert along with his report on hand. The procedure adopted by P.W.13 in comparison of the lifted chance prints from the scene of occurrence with that of the finger prints of the accused, has been spoken in detail not only at the time of chief but also at the time of cross examination. His evidence reads as follows: “... I developed the prints on the suspected article namely, wooden doors and steel bureaus and Almirahs..... I used grey powder on the suspected places to develop and trace the finger prints and I also used white powder......... I photographed the same..... There was a photographer also along with me.... I got the finger prints both on the front side of wooden door and the insider portion of the locker door of the steel bureau. The Bureau was kept in the room .............. I took the print from the front side of the wooden door of the backyard. The finger prints taken from the steel bureau and the finger prints taken from the front side of the backyard door are not intercede. We study the relative portion of the ridge characteristics in the sample prints and the chance prints by comparing them..... Two different fingers of the same person cannot have identical characteristics. I have developed chance prints for only 4 fingers. In the Almirah only 2 chance prints were available. After identifying the prints, I have mentioned in the opinion as”left middle and left thumb fingers“8 identical points should tally to come to the conclusion that a particular sample print is identical with the particular chance print. Those 8 points are ridge characterism, bifurcation position of the ridges, ridge ending, ridge enclosure, ridge dot and island.... In 1973 All India Forensic Science Conference was held in Srinager and it was given as a Rule there that the opinion of absolute identity should be given where there are 8 identical ridge characteristics in the same sequence without any discordance, and these characteristics such as bifurcation, ridge ending, enclosure, ridge dot, island etc., Finger prints cannot be compared by measurement method.....” 50. The genuineness of lifting chance prints and comparing the same with the finger prints sent by P.W.15 was not questioned by the accused. The genuineness of lifting chance prints and comparing the same with the finger prints sent by P.W.15 was not questioned by the accused. The only suggestion put to this witness is that the conclusion arrived by him is not based on the test prescribed by law, which was denied by him. 51. Moreover, the genuineness of lifting chance prints from the scene of occurrence by P.W.13, was not confronted at all by the accused with P.W.15. The evidence of P.W.15 to the suggestive case of the accused reads as follows: i.e. the accused suggested to P.W.15 that after consultation with P.W.13 and on his instruction P.W.13 prepared a report to suit the fabricated the case against the accused which was denied by him. 52. But the accused has not suggested to P.W.13 with regard to the defence theory put to P.W.15, that he prepared and filed a report only after consultation with P.W.15. So, the contention of the accused that P.W.13 prepared and submitted a report after consultation with P.W.15 to suit the fabricated case against the accused cannot sustain. 53. It is not the case of the accused at any point of time especially at the time of their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the finger prints were obtained from them by force in order to fabricate a case against them. 54. It is worthy to note, though the chance prints, namely, G1 and G2 alone tally with the finger prints of the second accused, if the intention of the prosecution is to fabricate a case against A1 and A3, they would have utilised the other two chance prints, namely, G3 and G4 and tagged the same with the finger prints of A1 and A3 respectively and submitted a report against A1 to A3 to prove that they are responsible for the murder of Annapoornam for gain. 55. In fact, the chance prints, namely, G3 and G4 were not utilised against A1 and A3 by the prosecution. In this context, we can safely accept the genuineness of the prosecution case lodged against the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence of lifting chance prints from the scene of occurrence. 56. It is also borne out by record that the assailants left out finger prints at the scene of occurrence. In this context, we can safely accept the genuineness of the prosecution case lodged against the accused on the basis of the circumstantial evidence of lifting chance prints from the scene of occurrence. 56. It is also borne out by record that the assailants left out finger prints at the scene of occurrence. P.W.13 Inspector of Police, Finger Prints Expert who has visited the scene of occurrence at request of P.W.12 lifted four chance prints, namely G.1 to G.4 i.e. G.1 and G.2 from the inside portion of the locker steel bureau and G.3 and G.4 were lifted from the front side of the wooden door of the backyard. 57. Lifting of chance prints from the scene of occurrence by P.W.13 was not disputed by the accused at any point of time. Lifting of chance prints referred to above was in fact admitted by the accused. 58. It is also not the case of the accused that P.W.13 is not a competent person to lift chance print and compare the same with suspect prints. 59. From the narration of events, we are of the view that lifting, of chance prints, namely, G.1 to G.4 by P.W.13 under instruction of P.W.12 from the scene on the date of occurrence is genuine and cannot be disputed by the accused subsequently. 60. The fact of taking of finger prints of A1 to A3 by P.W.15 was not questioned by the accused. The fact of the finger prints of A1 to A3 sent to P.W.13 for comparison with the chance prints was also not disputed by the accused. On comparison, chance prints marked as G.1 to G4 are not identical with any of the finger impressions of R.Vinod Kumar @ Vinod S/o Raji (A1) and S. Vinodh @ Vinod Kumar A Kutty S/o. Selvaraj (A3),whose finger prints were received by P.W.13 on 3.10.1998 from R4, Pondybazaar police station. Chance prints marked as G.1 and G.2 are identical with the left thumb finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A.2) S/o. Selvaraj. Chance prints marked as G.3 and G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj. Chance prints marked as G.3 and G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj. Chance prints marked as G.3 and G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj. Chance prints marked as G.3 and G.4 are not identical with any of the finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj. The finger print expert P.W.13 further stated that ridges and characteristics that are found in the impression marked as G.1 are also found in the same relevant position in the impression marked as A1 and the ridges and characteristics that are found in the impression marked as G.2 are also found in the same relevant position in the impression marked as A2. Hence he opined that the impression marked as G.1 and A1 are identical with each, other and relate to one and the same finger of the same person, i.e. the left thumb finger impression of S. Vasanth @ Vasantha Kumar (A2) S/o. Selvaraj.. Ex.P.29 and 30 are the photo enlargements of the impressions marked as G.2 and A2. In this context the marking of negative is redundant. So much so non marking of the same will not affect the prosecution case in any way. The evidence of P.W.13 coupled with his report proves that the second accused left his finger prints at the place of occurrence while committing the act of murder of Annapoornam for gain along with others. 61. The cumulative effect of the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.15 along with finger report and in the light of the principles laid down in the rulings referred to above, we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.15 along with his report are genuine and acceptable and the same can be relied on by the prosecution to bring home the guilty act of the accused. 62. The counsel for the accused/respondents then submitted that there was a delay in submitting the finger print report and as such it is fatal to the prosecution case. Their is nothing worthy elicited to show that the accused were prejudiced due to delay in submission of the finger print report to the Court. In fact, genuineness of chance prints and the finger prints of the accused were admitted by the accused. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot sustain. Non-examination of material witnesses - whether fatal 63. In fact, genuineness of chance prints and the finger prints of the accused were admitted by the accused. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot sustain. Non-examination of material witnesses - whether fatal 63. The learned counsel for the accused then submitted that the material witnesses, namely 1. House Servant 2. Carpenter, Masilamani, 3. Watchman 4. Krishnan and (5) Photographer who, took photos of the finger prints, were not examined and the same is fatal to the prosecution and as such, the case of the prosecution has to be rejected. In fact, these witnesses are not material witnesses to prove the guilty act of the accused. They may be a supportive witnesses for others who were examined already by the prosecution. Even if they are material, supporting the prosecution and not examined, it is not fatal to the prosecution case in the light of the decision in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 472 “Omission to examine material witness who were not deliberately withheld or unfairly kept back, in the circumstances, held not sufficient to throw doubt on the prosecution cases”. Efficiency of Investigating Officer - whether proved 64. It is worthy to note that though the real culprits wee not secured for about two years, once the case entrusted to P.W. 15, being the shrewd and efficient officer, he traced and apprehended the accused and seized the properties concerned in this case and completed the investigation in a record time i.e. within 13 days. In fact, the norms prescribed for an efficient investigating officer in the decision in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2002 SCC Crl. 256 has been fulfilled by P.W.15. Whether there is any delay in seizing of M.Os. 748: 65. Learned counsel for the accused then posed a question i.e. Why P.W.15 did not seize M.Os. from the shop of P.W. 7 and P.W.8 immediately after obtaining confession? and submitted that the delay was due to the time taken by him to procure M.Os. to fabricate a case against the accused. Whereas, the delay in seizing of M.Os. from the shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8 has been explained properly. In fact, P.W.15 produced the accused before Court and after obtaining police custody seized the properties. Adopting such procedure for seizing properties from the shop of P.Ws. to fabricate a case against the accused. Whereas, the delay in seizing of M.Os. from the shop of P.W.7 and P.W.8 has been explained properly. In fact, P.W.15 produced the accused before Court and after obtaining police custody seized the properties. Adopting such procedure for seizing properties from the shop of P.Ws. 7 and 8 in pursuance of the confession statement of A1 to A3, leads to an inference of genuineness of the prosecution case. The Court in fact considered the confession statement of A1 to A3 coupled with the statement of P.W.15 and granted police custody which leads to the recovery of M.Os. from the shop of P.Ws. 7 and 8, which cannot be questioned is any manner. Delay in sending of M.Os. to Court - whether fatal: 66. The learned counsel for the accused then contended that there was a delay in sending the seized properties to Court due to the fact that P.W.1 taken time to procure M.Os. and hand over the same to P.W.15 to fabricate a case against A1 to A3. Such an argument cannot sustain, in view of the fact that there was no question put to P.W.1 to the effect that, he had taken some time to procure and hand over M.Os. to P.W.15 to fabricate a case against A1 to A3. Non proof of ownership of M.O. 24 - fatal: 67. The learned counsel for the accused then submitted that ownership of the M.O.24 was not traced and proved and the same is fatal to the prosecution. It is evident on record that M.O.24 was seized from A2. P.W.1 did not claim ownership of M.O.24. Admittedly, ownership of M.O.24 not provided. A2 did not claim ownership of M.O.24. But the case ended in acquittal. In such circumstances, while acquitting the accused, the trial Court ought to have returned M.O.24 to A2 from whom it was seized as per prosecution case or ordered confiscation in absence of proof of ownership of M.O.24 by anyone beyond any reasonable doubt. Whereas, the trial Court ordered return of M.O.24 to P.W.1 exposing its non application of mind in disposal of property. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot sustain. Order of disposal of M.Os. in favour of P.W.1 amounts to rejection of defence theory: 68. Whereas, the trial Court ordered return of M.O.24 to P.W.1 exposing its non application of mind in disposal of property. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the accused cannot sustain. Order of disposal of M.Os. in favour of P.W.1 amounts to rejection of defence theory: 68. It is worthy to note that the chance prints lifted from the scene of occurrence, namely, G3 and G4 not tally with any of the finger prints of A1 and A3. This exposes the unpolluted, unimpeachable, trustworthy and honest of the prosecution case. Further it is to be noted that the said Suo motu order of the trial Court in disposal of M.O.1 to M.O.18 and M.O.23 to M.O.25 in favour of the P.W.1 would imply that the trial Court disbelieved the defence theory. More so, the said order is adverse to the interest of the accused. They have not confronted the same till now, by accepting the just and correct order of the trial Court. M.Os. relating to jewels - substandard or otherwise: 69. The learned counsel for the accused then submitted that the properties, namely, jewels marked in this case are of substandard quality and the same would not have been possessed and used by the person of status like P.W.1 family and the same cannot be equated to the properties stolen from the house of the deceased as per the list marked as Exs. P.1 to P.3 and as such, the prosecution theory has to be rejected. The trial Court has also accepted the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, rejected the prosecution theory and ultimately, acquitted the accused. 70. The trial Court in its judgment rendered findings as follows: “.. All the gold jewels M.Os. 1 to 10 are almost brand new and also are made up of sub standard gold and a person of status like P.W.1 would not have purchased the jewels with substandard gold for the use of his wife...” But the trial Court ordered return of the said jewels to P.W.1. All the gold jewels M.Os. 1 to 10 are almost brand new and also are made up of sub standard gold and a person of status like P.W.1 would not have purchased the jewels with substandard gold for the use of his wife...” But the trial Court ordered return of the said jewels to P.W.1. If the finding, of the trial Court with regard to the standard of jewels as narrated above, is worthy and acceptable the trial Court ought not to have returned the same to P.W.1 as they do not correlate with the missing articles mentioned in Ex.P.1 to P.3 and would have also initiated perjury proceedings against the concerned authorities including the person identified and claiming ownership of the same, as those articles were made out of the ingot obtained under compulsion by P.W.15 from P.W.7. In this context, the evidence of P.W.15 has to be read along with it: It is worthy to note that so such suggestive case was put to P.W.7 to corroborate the defence theory, as suggested to P.W.15 to the effect that jewels were made out of the ingot obtained from him under threat. 71. More so, there is no clear and acceptable finding of the lower Court to the effect that the new jewels marked in this case were made out of gold ingot obtained by threat by P.W.15 form P.W.7. 72. The statement of A1 to A3 at the time of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is relevant in this regard. The statement of first accused regarding this aspect reads as follows: The statement of A2 regarding this aspect reads as follows: The statement of A3 regarding this aspect reads as follows: 73. The statement of A1 to A3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is diagonally opposit to the defence theory suggested to P.W.15 regarding the genuineness of jewels marked in this case. 74. It is to be noted that the trial Court has also not rendered any specific finding whether the Material Objects marked in this case (Except M.Os. 19 to 25) were handed over by P.W.1 to P.W.15 as stated by A1 to A3 under Section 313. Cr.P.C. and falsely put up a case against A1 to A3 or otherwise. 75. 74. It is to be noted that the trial Court has also not rendered any specific finding whether the Material Objects marked in this case (Except M.Os. 19 to 25) were handed over by P.W.1 to P.W.15 as stated by A1 to A3 under Section 313. Cr.P.C. and falsely put up a case against A1 to A3 or otherwise. 75. One more aspect to be noted that it is not the case of the accused at the time of examination of P.W.1 that after the arrest of A1 to A3, at the instance of P.W.15, P.W.1 produced M.Os. 1 to 18 to P.W.15 who in turn planted and fabricated the case against A1 to A3. 76. It was also not suggested to P.W.1 that M.Os. 1 to 10 which are substandard jewels and the person of status like him would not have purchased the same for the use of his wife. That being so, the finding of the trial Court, as stated in the earlier paragraph, with regard to the quality of jewels, namely, M.Os. 1 to 10 is bereft of any merit. 77. It is the specific case of P.W.1 that 10 bangles were purchased by his wife one month prior to the occurrence. Such evidence was in fact elicited at the time of cross examination of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding this aspect reads as follows: 78. No doubt as per the evidence of P.W.17 and D.W.1, jewels are of 18 carat. It is to be noted that gold purity test may not be a scientific way of proving whether the ornaments are of substandard or otherwise, as per the principles laid down in the decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calicut v. V. P. Sayed Mohamed AIR 1983 SC 168 : 1983 Crl. L.J. 225. "It is well known that persons who are goldsmiths by profession are able to find out whether a piece of metal is gold or not by the colour of the streak produced by rubbing it on a touchstone used by them even though their assessment of its purity may not be exact. It may not be a scientific way of proving that the metallic bars were good bars". 79. It may not be a scientific way of proving that the metallic bars were good bars". 79. In view of the fact that there was no suggestion put to P.W.1 regarding the quality of jewels seized in the case, it is not open to the trial Court suo motu in the light of the evidence of P.W.17 that the gold jewels marked in this case would not have been possessed and used by the person of status like that of P.W.1. So, we are of the view that the finding of the trial Court regarding this aspect cannot sustain and the same is able to set aside. M.Os. seized from conspicuous place - whether to believe: 80. Learned counsel for the accused further submitted that gold jewels seized from the open place of the shop of the second accused is accessible to all and as such, the recovery aspect has to be disbelieved. The evidence on hand would show that the said properties were seized from the shop of the second accused not from the open place. Even if the said properties were seized from the open place it will not affect the case of the prosecution in the light of the principles laid down in the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh JT 1999(2) SC 99. "There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is "open or accessible to others". Delay in submission of records - fatal or otherwise: 81. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that there was an abnormal delay in sending the documents to the Court leading to an inference of fabricating documents against the accused which is fatal to the prosecution and as such the case of the prosecution has to be disbelieved. But there is nothing to suggest that the accused were prejudiced in sending those documents to the Court belatedly. In fact all the relevant documents, namely, Exs. P.1 to P.3, inquest report, post-mortem certificate etc., were sent to Court even before the arrest of the accused. No one would fabricate the documents in anticipation of the arrest of the A1 to A3. 82. Moreover, pawn tickets filed in this case whose identity was proved by the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8. P.1 to P.3, inquest report, post-mortem certificate etc., were sent to Court even before the arrest of the accused. No one would fabricate the documents in anticipation of the arrest of the A1 to A3. 82. Moreover, pawn tickets filed in this case whose identity was proved by the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8. They in fact admitted the genuineness of the pawn tickets marked in this case including their signatures found therein. In fact, pawn ticket filed through P.W.7 contained names of A1 to A3. similarly, the pawn ticket filed by P.W.8 contained names of the accused A1 to A3. Their address also referred to, in the pawn ticket. No explanation offered by A1 to A3 at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding this aspect. The trial Court, wrongly came to the conclusion that the delay in submission of the pawn ticket into Court is fatal to the prosecution case and ultimately acquitted the accused. 83. There is nothing to suggest that those documents, namely, pawn ticket marked through P.Ws. 7 and 8 were fabricated for the purpose of this case. The delay in sending the documents will not be fatal to the prosecution case. In the decision in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1938 it is held “Unless we find that the evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable, the delay in sending the first complaint would not lead to the inference that the complaint lodged of missing person contained some other facts that my have revealed some other story which is not consistent with the prosecution case”. In this case, the evidence let in by the prosecution and the material objects marked are cogent and trustworthy. P.W.5 and P.W.10 have spoken to in detail about the seizure of properties in pursuance of the confession statement of A1 to A3. Their evidence are cogent. There is nothing to suggest that the accused have been prejudiced due to delay in submission of the records marked in this case. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court, that the delay in submission of the material records is fatal to the prosecution case cannot sustain and the same is liable to set aside. Defence theory - whether to believe or otherwise: 84. Further the order of the trial Court in disposal of M.Os. 1 to 18 and M.Os. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court, that the delay in submission of the material records is fatal to the prosecution case cannot sustain and the same is liable to set aside. Defence theory - whether to believe or otherwise: 84. Further the order of the trial Court in disposal of M.Os. 1 to 18 and M.Os. 23 to 25 in favour of P.W.1 would imply that the trial Court has disbelieved the defence theory, i.e. the substandard jewels wouldn’t have been possessed and used by the person of status like the deceased at any point of time. Further such order of disposal of property would also imply that the trial Court has disbelieved the defence theory i.e, making of new jewels out of the ingot obtained form P.W.7 by P.W.15 to fabricate a case against A1 to A3. So much so, such an order would also imply that the property stolen on the fateful day and the property seized and marked in Court are one and the same, in addition to the fact of non suggestion to P.W.1 to the effect that M.Os. are not relating to the missing articles referred to in Exs. P.1 to P.3. It also would lead to an inference that the statement of A1 to A3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding procurement of M.Os. by P.W.1 at the instance of P.W.15 to strengthen to fabricate a case against A1 to A3 has been disbelieved. 85. It is to be noted that at the time of remand none of the accused have stated about their defence theory. They have stated that they have been detained illegally by the police for some time. The remand order dated 30.9.1998 reads as follows: “Three accused produced. No complaints, Remanded till 14.10.1998. The remand order dated reads as follows: ”Three accused produced. No complaints of ill-treatment by police. Three accused remanded till 14.10.1998. 86. In such circumstances, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were detained illegally by the police for above one week cannot sustain. 87. It is proved beyond doubt that the material objects marked in this case were seized only in pursuance of the confession statement of the accused. In such circumstances, it is for the accused to explain their possession through some lawful means for exoneration from the criminal liability. 87. It is proved beyond doubt that the material objects marked in this case were seized only in pursuance of the confession statement of the accused. In such circumstances, it is for the accused to explain their possession through some lawful means for exoneration from the criminal liability. Once the possession of the stolen property with the accused has been proved, non explanation for such possession would draw an adverse inference against the accused only, in the light of the decision in Shribhagwan v. State of Rajasthan 2001 SCC (Cri.) 1095. 88. More so, adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused while disbelieving the defence theory as a false one in the light of the principles laid down in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 Crl. LJ 846. 89. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the first accused along with A2 and A3 committed the act of murder for gain. Admittedly, A2 and A3 are brothers. First accused is a friend and inmate to family of the deceased Annapoornam. Only in pursuance of the confession statement of the first accused, second accused was arrested. Then on the basis of the confession statement of the second accused, third accused was apprehended. There is no confrontation with regard to this aspect. The relation ship between A1 on one side and A2 and A3 on the other side stated by the prosecution was not denied by the accused. A 1 has not stated at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that A2 and A3 are strangers and not known to them and vice versa. In this context also, we can easily come to the conclusion that A1 to A3 have colluded together and committed the act of murder for gain as stated by the prosecution. 91. In spite of admission of the quality of M.O.10 by P.W. 17, the trial Court has shown anxiety, suo motu questioning the witness and obtained answer with regard to the quality of the said M.Os. The question and answer of P.W.17 reads as follows: 92. The anxiety expressed by the trial Court, as narrated above shows that it had made up its mind at that time itself, to render a finding regarding the quality of the jewels against the prosecution and in favour of the accused for acquittal for obvious reasons. 93. The question and answer of P.W.17 reads as follows: 92. The anxiety expressed by the trial Court, as narrated above shows that it had made up its mind at that time itself, to render a finding regarding the quality of the jewels against the prosecution and in favour of the accused for acquittal for obvious reasons. 93. So much, so, there was no motive attributed against P.W.1 to P.W.3 to foist a case against A1 to A3 at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that A1’s father is a close friend of P.W.5. If that being so, no one can say that P.W.5 speaks falsehood in favour of the prosecution and against the interest of his friend, namely, father of A1. 94. More, so immediately after arrest of A1 to A3 they took P.W.15 to the place of occurrence and demonstrated in presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to how they committed the act of murder for gain. Prosecution evidence narrated this incident in detail. This fact was not specifically confronted by the accused either at the time of examination of prosecution witnesses or at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In this context also, we can easily come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 alone are responsible for the murder of Annapoornam for gain. 95. D.W.1 at the time of examination was about 39 years and he has stated that out of 30 years experience, he is giving his opining regarding the standard of jewels marked in this case, which cannot be believed. More so, he is not a licensed appraiser to render evidence regarding the purity of jewellery. So, we are of the view that the evidence of D.W.1 cannot be relied on. 96. Though P.W.8, turned hostile only in respect of the identity of the accused, his evidence is supportive to the prosecution case in other aspect lead to the closeness to proximity to circumstances against the accused for the murder of Annapoornam for gain. 97. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are credible and certain with regard to the circumstances leading to the proof of murder of Annapoornam for gain by the accused. 98. The clarity and the creativity of circumstances elicited to the evidence of P.Ws. 97. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are credible and certain with regard to the circumstances leading to the proof of murder of Annapoornam for gain by the accused. 98. The clarity and the creativity of circumstances elicited to the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 10 lead to only point that the accused alone, eschewing others, have committed the murder of Annapoornam for gain. 99. The confirmation and conclusion of the circumstances elicited through the evidence of P.Ws. 12, 13 and 15 connects the entire link of prosecution case, without leaving any chain, to bring home the guilty act of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. So, we are of the considered opinion that A1 to A3 are responsible for the murder of Annapoornam. Point No.7: The finding of the trial Court in acquitting A1 to A3 can sustain or not: 100. The essence of the prosecution witness are culled out and referred below would amply prove that the finding of the trial Court in acquitting A1 to A3 is not in conformity with the evidence on record and also in the light of the decisions referred to in the earlier paragraphs. 1. Rejection of evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.10 as interested witnesses is without proper appreciation both on law and fact. 2. Rejection of documentary evidence, due to delay in submission is not proper as the delay has not caused any prejudice to the accused and also in the light of the decision referred to in the earlier paragraphs. 3. The finding of the trial Court that the jewels are of substandard gold, which cannot be possessed and used by the person with a status of persons like P.W.1 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that no such case suggested to P.W.1. 4. There is no specific finding rendered by the trial Court whether the M.Os marked in this case except M.Os. 19 to 24 are related to the missing articles referred to under Exs. P.1 to P.3 or otherwise as suggested by the accused in two ways. 5. Order of disposal of properties referred to under point No. 4 in favour of P.W.1 would show that they are related to the missing properties referred to under Ex.P.1 to P.3. In such circumstances, the order of acquittal of A1 to A3 from the charges levelled against them is illegal. 5. Order of disposal of properties referred to under point No. 4 in favour of P.W.1 would show that they are related to the missing properties referred to under Ex.P.1 to P.3. In such circumstances, the order of acquittal of A1 to A3 from the charges levelled against them is illegal. So much so, they were seized only in pursuance of their confession statement which is admissible in law under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Though M.O.24 not claimed by P.W.1 and M.O.23 is the weapon of offence used for the commission of offence not owned by P.W.1, order of disposal of property, namely, M.O. 23 and M.O.24 in favour of P.W.1 by the trial Court is absurd and also due to non application of mind. 7. Evidence of P.W.13 coupled with his report is trustworthy and believable and the same is admissible. So much so, the accused admitted the genuineness of lifting of chance prints, namely, G.1 to G.4 by P.W.13 under instruction of P.W.12 and also taking of finger prints from them by P.W.15 without questioning their competency. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that P.W.13 and P.W.15 out of some motive fabricated the report with the chance print, namely, G.1 and G.2 against A2 only, without implicating A1 and A3 with the chance prints, namely G.3 and G.4. The above material points leads to the conclusion that A1 to A3 in collusion, committed the offence of murder for gain. Whereas, the trial Court, slept over these material points and acquitted the accused on some extraneous matter, require due consideration to set aside the finding of acquittal without any hesitation. 8. Soon after taking charge of the investigation of this case, P.W.15 acted swiftly apprehending the accused, seized the property concerned in this case in pursuance of their confession statement and produced the same into Court in a record time within two weeks is appreciable in the light of the rulings referred to in the earlier paragraphs, which fact was not taken note of by the trial Court in the right prospective for the obvious reason. 9. Though P.W.8 turned hostile except in respect of the identity of the accused, he has supported the case of the prosecution in other aspect, which fact was also not taken note of by the trial Court in the right prospective for some ulterior reasons. 10. 9. Though P.W.8 turned hostile except in respect of the identity of the accused, he has supported the case of the prosecution in other aspect, which fact was also not taken note of by the trial Court in the right prospective for some ulterior reasons. 10. More so, if really the case on hand ended in acquittal due to total failure of prosecution case, the trial Court should have ordered confiscation of M.Os to the Government after taking note of non proof of ownership of M.O. 24 as well as in the absence of claim by anyone. 11. The property worth Rs.1,50,000/- and cash of Rs.50,000/- have been stolen from the house of P.W.1. In this context, it is absurd to contend by the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the M.Os. marked in this case have been procured by P.W.1 and foisted a case against him, which is unbelievable. The trial Court ought to have taken cognisance of this fact and should have drawn adverse inference against them in the light of the ruling narrated in the earlier paragraphs and should have convicted the accused instead of acquitting them. But the trial Court failed to act on this line for obvious reasons. 12. Rejection of evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 is bereft of any merit. 101. Though the prosecution proved the chain of events by substantial evidence both oral and documentary evidence leading to only inference that A1 to A3 alone have committed the act of murder of Annapoornam for gain, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has miserably failed to take note of the same and acquitted A1 to A3 for the charges levelled against them under Sections. 1. 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. 449, 380 and 302 I.P.C. and 3. 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively is without adequate and proper reason. 102. In the result, the finding of the trial Court that the accused are not guilty for the offences 1. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 I.P.C. and 3. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively is not sustained and the same is set aside and the accused are convicted according for all the charges levelled against them. 104. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 I.P.C. and 3. under Sections 449, 380 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. respectively is not sustained and the same is set aside and the accused are convicted according for all the charges levelled against them. 104. Since we are convicting the accused Nos. 1 to 3 we would like to give them an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence as required by Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. The case will be put up before us on 5.4.2006 for hearing the accused on the question of sentence. ----- Appeal allowed.