Judgment K.N. Basha, J. The two accused, viz., Jaganathan @ Jagadeesh [A-1] and Siva @ Sivalingam [A-2] have been tried, convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 302 and 379 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo three years simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC and also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 379 IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, in SC.No.146/2006 dated 15.05.2007. 2. The present appeal is preferred only by the first accused, viz., Jaganathan @ Jagadeesh challenging the above said Judgment of the learned Trial Judge dated 15.05.2007. The second accused has not preferred any appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as stated above. 3. The occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 17.06.2005 at 12.30 p.m. at Periya Thottam, Madhanur village as both A-1 and A-2 pressed and smothered the mouth and nose of the deceased Eswariammal and thereafter, committed theft of 5 sovereigns gold chain and 1/2 sovereign gold ear stud and thereby, they are liable to be punished for the offence under sections 302 and 379 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 12, filed Exs.P.1 to 23 and marked M.Os.1 to 5. 5. The brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows:- [a] P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. The deceased is the aunt of P.W.2. They were residing at Madhanur village and they are the agriculturists. The deceased was residing along with her son, P.W.1 and his wife Mageswari and two sons of P.W.1. The husband of the deceased is no more. On 17.06.2005, P.W.1 left along with his wife for his father-in-laws village for a temple Kumbabishekam. The deceased left to the garden for grazing cattle. At that time, she was wearing 5 sovereigns of gold chain and 1/2 sovereign gold ear stud. When P.W.1 returned to his house after Kumbabishekam at 6.00 p.m., the deceased was not found in the house and therefore, he went in search of the deceased. The deceased used to graze the cattle along with one Mathaiyan and one Rangammal. At that time, she was wearing 5 sovereigns of gold chain and 1/2 sovereign gold ear stud. When P.W.1 returned to his house after Kumbabishekam at 6.00 p.m., the deceased was not found in the house and therefore, he went in search of the deceased. The deceased used to graze the cattle along with one Mathaiyan and one Rangammal. Therefore, P.W.1 went and enquired them. P.W.2 the adjacent garden owner, informed P.W.1 that the deceased already left at 12.00 noon after tying the three cattle in the garden. Inspite of the search of the deceased at the garden, house and other places including relatives house, the deceased was not able to be traced. [b] P.W.2 stated that on 17.06.2005 he left for his onion garden at 6.00 a.m. for irrigation. At that time, his mother took the cattle for grazing to a nearby place called Gold Storage. The deceased was also grazing cattle at that place. P.W.2 went to see his mother at 12.00 noon. At that time, he found the deceased tying the cattle in the garden. Therefore, P.W.1 came and enquired P.W.2 about the whereabouts of his mother, viz., the deceased and P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that the deceased left the place at 12.00 noon. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Sirumugai Police Station and gave a written report Ex.P.1 to P.W.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered a case in Crime No.211/2005 for "Woman Missing". Ex.P.15 is the Express First Information Report {FIR]. [c] P.W.4 was doing agriculture at Madhanur village. He was also the President of the Co-operative Society. He knows the accused 1 and 2. It is stated by P.W.4 that on 19.06.2005 at 7.00 a.m. A-1 and A-2 came to his house while he was chatting with one Devarajan. Both A-1 and A-2 stated to P.W.4 that they murdered the deceased for jewelleries and the police is searching for them and requested P.W.4 to save them. At that time P.W.2 and one Marannan were also present in the house of P.W.4 and all of them decided to produced the accused 1 and 2 before the respondent police. P.W.4 recorded the statement of A-1 and A-2 under Ex.P.8 and thereafter, took both the accused and produced before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam, who was in-charge of the Police Station during the relevant time. P.W.4 recorded the statement of A-1 and A-2 under Ex.P.8 and thereafter, took both the accused and produced before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, Mettupalayam, who was in-charge of the Police Station during the relevant time. [d] P.W.12 received Ex.P.8 on 19.06.2005 at 8.30 a.m. The statements were recorded from A-1 and A-2 stating that they have killed the deceased for the sake of jewellery. P.W.12 arrested both the accused. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confessions of A-1 and A-2 under Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 respectively, the place of occurrence, viz., the well, was identified by the accused to P.W.12. At the scene of occurrence P.W.12 prepared Ex.P.9-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.20-rough sketch in the presence of P.W.5-the Village Administrative Officer and another. He made arrangements to take photographs and the photographs were marked as M.O.5 series with negatives. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on the same day between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m. Ex.P.21 is the Inquest Report. The Investigating Officer sent the body for postmortem. [e] The doctor, P.W.6, attached to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 19.06.2005 at 3.50 p.m. He found the following injuries:- "ANTEMORTEM INJURIES:- 1] Abrasion with surrounding contusion 4x3cm over left cheek and angle of mouth. 2] Contusion 2x2cm over chin, 2x1cm over the right angle of mouth. 3] Teeth mark seen in the tip of tongue 1x3.5x3.25cms. 4] Contusion seen in the inner aspect of right side upper lip 2x1cm and both side lower lip found contused 4x1 cm. 5] Abrasion 4x3cm just below left knee. 6] Contusion 8x5cm back of left side lower chest. 7] Contusion 12x8cm seen over the occipital region of scalp. POSTMORTEM INJURIES:- 1] Deformity of right upper arm, on dissection fracture right humerus on its middle. 2] Deformity of left thigh, on dissection fracture femur on its lower end. 3] Lacerated injury 5x3cmxmuscle deep seen over later and posterior aspect right elbow. 4] Lacerated injury 4x3cmxmuscle deep over dorsum of left hand. 5] Lacerate injury 4x2cmxmuscle deep seen just above left wrist. 6] Fracture of sternum in middle. 2] Deformity of left thigh, on dissection fracture femur on its lower end. 3] Lacerated injury 5x3cmxmuscle deep seen over later and posterior aspect right elbow. 4] Lacerated injury 4x3cmxmuscle deep over dorsum of left hand. 5] Lacerate injury 4x2cmxmuscle deep seen just above left wrist. 6] Fracture of sternum in middle. 7] Fracture of ribs 2nd to 8th on the left side and 2nd to 6th on the right side anterior aspect." Ex.P.11 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P.12 is the final opinion of the doctor wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to compression over mouth and nose [smothering]. He also opined that the Viscera does not contain any poison. [f] In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of A-2, P.W.12 recovered M.O.1-5 sovereigns of gold chain under Ex.P.6 on 16. 2005 at 6.30 p.m. A-1 produced a Pawn Broker receipt, Ex.P.13. At the instance of A-1, P.W.12 recovered M.O.2-1/2 sovereign gold ear stud under Ex.P.5. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He altered the offence from "Woman Missing" to one under sections 302 and 379 IPC. Ex.P.22 is the altered FIR. He has sent the material objects for Chemical Examination through the Court. He examined the doctor P.W.6 and received Ex.P.11, the Postmortem Certificate. He also requested the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinasi, to record the statements of the witnesses under section 164 Cr.P.C. After examining the other witnesses and after receiving the final opinion of the doctor under Ex.P.12, the Serologist report under Ex.P.23 and after completing the investigation, P.W.12 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 15.07.2005 for the offence as stated supra. 6. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against each of them, they have denied their complicity and they have come forward with the version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witnesses on their side. .7. Mr. E.J. Ayyappan, learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to produce clear and consistent circumstances leading to the only inference of the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the prosecution placed reliance on the two circumstances, viz., the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession. E.J. Ayyappan, learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to produce clear and consistent circumstances leading to the only inference of the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the prosecution placed reliance on the two circumstances, viz., the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession. It is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 in respect of the last seen theory and extra-judicial confession is contrary to each other and it is not safe to place reliance on their evidence. It is submitted that the said extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused only two days after the occurrence and as such, recording the extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.8 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that there is no evidence available on record to show that both the accused and the deceased were seen together. It is contended that there are several missing links in the circumstances put forward by the prosecution and as such, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused. 8. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has produced clear, cogent and consistent circumstances unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 are quite clear and natural. It is submitted that the last seen theory spoken by P.W.2 is not at all shattered by the defence during the course of cross-examination. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend that the evidence of P.W.4 who has spoken about the appearance of A-1 and A-2 before him and the extra-judicial confession given by them to him is quite clear and clinching circumstance against the accused. It is also contended that the evidence of P.W.4 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 produced both the accused before P.W.12, the Investigating Officer and thereafter, both the accused were arrested. It is submitted that the place of occurrence is also identified only at the instance of the accused 1 and 2 and thereafter, the gold jewelleries, vi., M.O.1- 5 sovereign gold chain and M.O.2-1/2 sovereign gold ear stud worn by the deceased were also recovered only at the instance of A-1 and A-2. It is submitted that the place of occurrence is also identified only at the instance of the accused 1 and 2 and thereafter, the gold jewelleries, vi., M.O.1- 5 sovereign gold chain and M.O.2-1/2 sovereign gold ear stud worn by the deceased were also recovered only at the instance of A-1 and A-2. The said jewelleries are also identified by P.W.1 as that of the deceased. It is contended that the extra-judicial confession recorded under Ex.P.8 by petitioner 4 is also corroborated by the medical evidence as the doctor P.W.6 gave the opinion that the deceased died due to Asphyxia due to compression over mouth and nose [smothering]. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case in all aspects beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. .9. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also scanned through the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned Judgment of conviction. 10. This is a case of murder for gain and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. 11. In the light of the above said principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in respect of the circumstantial evidence, let us now scrutinise and analyse the circumstances put forward by the prosecution against the accused. 12. The prosecution has placed reliance on the following circumstances:- [a] The last seen theory spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2; [b] The extra-judicial confession said to have been given by A-1 and A-2 before P.W.4 and recorded by P.W.4 under Ex.P.8; [c] The production of the accused before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police by P.W.4 and the arrest and recovery of the gold jewelleries, viz., M.O.1-5 sovereign gold chain and M.O.2-1/2 sovereign gold ear stud worn by the deceased as identified by P.W.1, the son of the deceased; and [d] The medical evidence corroborating the version of A-1 and A-2 under Ex.P.8. 13. As far as the last seen theory is concerned, we are having the evidence of P.W.1 the son of the deceased and P.W.2, the neighbouring garden owner of P.W.1. 13. As far as the last seen theory is concerned, we are having the evidence of P.W.1 the son of the deceased and P.W.2, the neighbouring garden owner of P.W.1. It is the version of P.W.1 that on the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., 17.06.2005, he left for his father-in-laws village for a temple Kumbabishekam and the deceased, his mother, left for grazing the cattle. On his return at 6.00 p.m. to his house, P.W.1 found that the deceased was not there and thereafter, went in search of her and he was informed by P.W.2 that the deceased had already left after grazing the cattle at 12.00 noon. It is to be seen that the occurrence took place as per the prosecution at 12.30 p.m. on 17.06.2005. The fact remains that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the last seen theory is not at all shattered by the defence during the course of cross-examination. It is pertinent to be noted that A-1 and A-2 were allowed to stay in the garden of P.W.1 and as such, A-1 and A-2 is known to P.W.1 as well to P.W.2, the adjacent garden owner. It is also not disputed by the defence that A-1 and A-2 were unknown to P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is clear and cogent and their evidence inspires our confidence. 14. The next important, clinching and incriminating circumstance put forward by the prosecution against the accused is the appearance of A-1 and A-2 before P.W.4 and making extra-judicial confession which was recorded by P.W.4 under Ex.P.8. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.4 is a responsible person of the village and he is the President of the Co-operative Society of the village. Both the accused and the deceased family were known to P.W.4 and that fact was not disputed by the defence during the course of cross-examination. Therefore, it is possible for A-1 and A-2 to repose confidence on P.W.4 to give such an extra-judicial confession. It is seen that A-1 and A2 after making such extra-judicial confession requested P.W.4 to save them from the police. P.W.4 being a responsible person of the locality, thought it fit to record the extrajudicial confession of the accused under Ex.P.8 and thereafter, produced both the accused before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police. It is seen that A-1 and A2 after making such extra-judicial confession requested P.W.4 to save them from the police. P.W.4 being a responsible person of the locality, thought it fit to record the extrajudicial confession of the accused under Ex.P.8 and thereafter, produced both the accused before P.W.12, the Inspector of Police. The evidence of P.W.4 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. 15. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the arrest and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2-gold chain and gold ear stud respectively worn by the deceased at the instance of the accused 1 and 2. P.W.12 arrested A-1 and A-2 as both of them were produced by P.W.4 before him at the Police Station. It is pertinent to be noted that only at the instance of the accused, the place of occurrence was found by P.W.12 and P.W.12 only thereafter, visited the scene and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.9 in the presence of P.W.5-the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.7 had spoken about the recoveries of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused 1 and 2 by P.W.12. The prosecution version regarding the arrest, identification of the place of occurrence, body of the deceased and the recovery of the gold jewelleries is quite clear and consistent and the evidence of P.W.12 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 and their evidence is not shattered by the defence during the course of cross-examination. 16. The last but not the least circumstance put forward by the prosecution is the medical evidence through the doctor P.W.6 who has conducted the postmortem and the final opinion Ex.P.12 discloses that the deceased died due to Asphyxia due to compression over mouth and nose [smothering] and abrasions. The opinion of the doctor is in conformity with the version of the accused as per their extra-judicial confession under Ex.P.8 as it is stated that both the accused pressed and smothered the mouth and nose of the deceased. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession is corroborated by the medical evidence and as already pointed out, we are of the considered view that the accused reposed confidence on P.W.4 and their extra-judicial confession is a voluntary one and the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 17. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession is corroborated by the medical evidence and as already pointed out, we are of the considered view that the accused reposed confidence on P.W.4 and their extra-judicial confession is a voluntary one and the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 17. We are constrained to state that the prosecution, by producing the above said clinching and incriminating circumstances, has succeeded in completing the chain without leaving any missing links unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The second accused, viz., Siva @ Sivalingam has also not challenged his conviction and sentence and as such, his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge has already reached finality. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is sustainable in law. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 15.05.2007 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.146/2006 is confirmed and the criminal appeal is dismissed.