Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C. No. 126 of 2006 convicting accused No. 1 and 2 under Section 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC respectively and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment for the proved Charge of murder and imposing fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of offence and sentencing each of them to undergo 3 years RI and imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and also convicting the appellants under Section 392 IPC for the commission of robbery and sentencing each of them to undergo 7 years RI and imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/-on each of them. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused No. 1 and of the Charge under Section 120(B) IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in nutshell are as follows: P.W.3-Kalesha is the brother of the deceased-Ansari. Deceased was employed as driver of taxi Tata Indica bearing registration No. TN-27 V 2104 belonging to P.W.6-Ashraf Hussain. On 10. 2005 at about 6.00 p.m., accused No. 1 and 2 approached P.W.5-Raja for engaging taxi. P.W.5 engaged taxi bearing registration No. TN-07 V 2104 (M.O.1) to the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2. On 10. 2005 at about 7.15 p.m., while proceeding in his cycle to Irumbedu near Vengedu, P.W.8-Thameem Ansari saw Tata Indica car bearing registration No. TN-07 V 2104 and three persons found urinating near the car. P.W.8 saw accused No. 1 and 2 there. P.W.8 saw accused No. 1 (Senthilkumar) taking a cloth and covering head of the deceased and beating him with Jally stones. He also saw, accused No. 2 (Venkataramani @ Ramani) beating the deceased Ansari on the head with stone and deceased became unconscious. He was taken in the car (M.O.1) by the accused No. 1 and 2 and P.W.8-Thameem Ansari returned to his house. 3. On 10. 2005, P.W.3-brother of the deceased learnt that deceased has not returned. P.W.3 enquired P.W.5 who had informed him that deceased drove the taxi for accused No. 2. Thereafter, P.W.3 went to Vandavasi Police Station and gave report about missing of his brother. At that time P.W.3 was told that an unidentified body was lying in a Well in Sathanur village. 4. P.W.3 enquired P.W.5 who had informed him that deceased drove the taxi for accused No. 2. Thereafter, P.W.3 went to Vandavasi Police Station and gave report about missing of his brother. At that time P.W.3 was told that an unidentified body was lying in a Well in Sathanur village. 4. P.W.3 proceeded to Sathanur village and went to the land of P.W.4-Dakshinamoorthy and found dead body of the deceased Ansari with his hands and legs tied. He identified the body as that of his brother. M.O.5-Shirt and M.O.6-Pant worn by the deceased. 5. P.W.1-Arumugam (VAO) attached to Sathanur was informed that a body was lying in the Well of P.W.4. P.W.1-VAO went to P.W.4’s land and after ascertaining the same, P.W.1 went to Kilkodungalur Police Station and gave report (Exhibit P-1). On the basis of Exhibit P-1, case was registered in Cr. No. 273 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC (Exhibit P-9). 6. P.W.11-Pon. Jayaraman (Inspector of Police) had taken up investigation and he inspected P.W.4’s land and saw the body and P.W.11 prepared Exhibit P-7-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-10-Rough Plan. P.W.3 and others identified the dead body. Witnesses were examined in the presence of panchayatars and Inquest was held on the body of the deceased and Exhibit P-11 is the Inquest Report. After Inquest, body was sent for autopsy. 7. P.W.2-Dr. Ravishankar (Medical Officer) attached to Vandavasi Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He noticed the following injuries: Abrasion 2 x 1 cm near left elbow. Abrasion 2 x 2 cm in right foot. Broad impression of 5 cm size in anterior aspect of neck. P.W.2 opined that the death was due to ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’ and issued Exhibit P-6 is the post-mortem certificate. After post-mortem M.O.9-Towel was seized from the dead body. 8. On 10. 2005, when P.W.11 was checking the vehicles at Mangala Medu junction, P.W.11 saw accused No. 1 and 2 coming in a motor bike and they were stopped. On being interrogated, both of them gave confession statement. On the basis of confession statement, P.W.11 seized M.O.7-motor bike under Exhibit P-8. Their confession statement also led to recovery of M.O.1-car under Exhibit P-2-Mahazar. From inside the car M.O.2-Zip bag. M.O.3 (series)-bloodstained metal stones and M.O.4 (series)-Foot wear were recovered. Thereafter, appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 were remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of confession statement, P.W.11 seized M.O.7-motor bike under Exhibit P-8. Their confession statement also led to recovery of M.O.1-car under Exhibit P-2-Mahazar. From inside the car M.O.2-Zip bag. M.O.3 (series)-bloodstained metal stones and M.O.4 (series)-Foot wear were recovered. Thereafter, appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 were remanded to judicial custody. Finger Print of the accused No.1 and 2 and finger prints taken from the car (M.O.1) were sent for comparison. P.W.12-Gnanam (Finger Print Expert) compared the finger prints of the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 and the finger print lifted from the car (M.O.1). P.W.12 opined that one of the finger print was identical to that of accused No. 1 and another finger print was identical as that of accused No.2. Witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. After completion of due investigation, P.W.11 filed final report against the accused under Section 302, 201 and 392 IPC. 9. To substantiate the charges against the accused No. 1 and 2, in the trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12. Exhibits P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. Accused were questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused No. 1 and 2 denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case is foisted against them. 10. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution has adduced cogent and convincing evidence proving that accused No. 1 and 2 took the deceased Ansari in M.O.1-Car and thereafter committed murder of the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge has also held that after committing murder of the deceased, accused No. 1 and 2 took away the Car and thereby screened the offence by throwing the body into the Well. Holding that prosecution has established the guilt of the accused No. 1 and 2, learned Sessions Judge convicted them as stated in Para (1). 11. Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that evidence adduced by the prosecution is beset with contradictions on material particulars. Assailing evidence of P.W.8-Thameem Ansari, it was submitted that P.W.8 was introduced as an eye-witness and conduct of P.W.8 is very unusual and while so, trial Court erred in basing the conviction upon the evidence of P.W.8. 12. Laying emphasis upon the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, Mr. Assailing evidence of P.W.8-Thameem Ansari, it was submitted that P.W.8 was introduced as an eye-witness and conduct of P.W.8 is very unusual and while so, trial Court erred in basing the conviction upon the evidence of P.W.8. 12. Laying emphasis upon the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor (i/c) submitted that evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 would amply prove that deceased was taken by the accused No. 1 and 2 followed by unnatural death of the deceased-Ansari. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is for the accused to explain the homicidal death of the deceased and in the absence of any explanation, trial Court rightly found appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 guilty and the conviction warrants no interference. 13. Case of prosecution mainly hinges upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relies upon the following circumstances: P.W.5-Raja engaged taxi for appellants and deceased Ansari went with the accused No.1 and 2. Evidence of P.W.8-Thameem Ansari that he saw accused No. 1 and 2 deceased-Ansari together at Vengadu and saw accused No. 1 and 2 beating deceased and thereafter carrying the deceased in the car (M.O.1). Homicidal death of deceased-Ansari. Recovery of vehicles at the instance of appellants/accused No. 1 and 2. Finger prints of appellants identical with the finger prints lifted from M.O.1-Car. The point falling for consideration is whether each of the circumstances are fully established and conclusive nature pointing to the guilt of the accused No. 1 and 2. 14. It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. 15. 15. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Others AIR 1990 SC 79 : (1991) SCC (Cr) 407, Supreme Court laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 16. In every case based upon circumstantial evidence and in this case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether prosecution has established the circumstances and whether all the links in the chain of circumstances is so complete pointing to guilt of the accused to rule out possibility of innocence of the accused. 17. P.W.8-Thameem Ansari is the resident of Vandavasi. In his evidence, P.W.8 has stated that on 10. 2005 at 7.15 p.m. while proceeding to Irumbedu, he saw the occurrence from 25 feet. P.W.8 has stated that he saw three persons urinating near the car and saw accused No. 1 covering the head of Ansari and hitting him with stone and accused No. 2 also beat him with stone and that deceased had fallen down. P.W.8 further stated that when deceased had got up, accused No. 1 and 2 had again beaten him and deceased Ansari again fainted and thereafter, accused No. 1 and 2 took him in the car (M.O.1) and the car went away. 18. Evidence of P.W.8 was strongly assailed contending that P.W.8 had not disclosed to others about the occurrence till 10. 2005. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that if really, P.W.8 had witnessed the occurrence, it is quite unbelievable that he would have remained quite (sic). P.W.8 was examined and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 10. 2005. 2005. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that if really, P.W.8 had witnessed the occurrence, it is quite unbelievable that he would have remained quite (sic). P.W.8 was examined and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 10. 2005. It was therefore, contended that after witnessing the occurrence, P.W.8 did not come forward to disclose about the occurrence either to P.W.3 or to the Police and therefore, P.W.8 is not a trust-worthy witness. Evidence of P.W.8 was also attacked on the ground that to strengthen his evidence no Test Identification Parade was conducted. 19. Accused No. 1 and 2 were not earlier known to P.W.8. P.W.8 saw accused No. 1 and 2 during night time at 7.15 p.m. No Test Identification Parade was held to identify the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 by P.W.8. When accused No. 1 and 2 were not earlier known to P.W.8, there is no reason for not holding Test Identification Parade to identify the accused No. 1 and 2. 20. Identification of the accused by the witness soon after the arrest of the accused is of vital importance because it furnishes to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on the correct lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness in court at the trial. Evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in Court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity. 21. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.8, learned Prl. Sessions Judge took the view that P.W.8 witnessed the occurrence for quite some time and it would have left indelible impression of the accused in the mind of P.W.8 and therefore took the view that accused No. 1 and 2 were the assailants. 22. Of course, at times image of a person can leave indelible impression in the mind of viewer and may be able to remember another’s face. At times, the viewer may have enduring impression of identity of the persons. But in the instant case, P.W.8 witnessed the occurrence at about 7.15 p.m. on 10. 2005. Accused No. 1 and 2 were strangers. In our opinion, to strengthen his oral testimony, Test Identification Parade should have been held. At times, the viewer may have enduring impression of identity of the persons. But in the instant case, P.W.8 witnessed the occurrence at about 7.15 p.m. on 10. 2005. Accused No. 1 and 2 were strangers. In our opinion, to strengthen his oral testimony, Test Identification Parade should have been held. Though, we may not rely upon the evidence of P.W.8 as to identity of accused No. 1 and 2, we are of the view that evidence of P.W.8 can be relied upon for the purpose that deceased Ansari was attacked by two persons. 23. P.W.5-Raja is the auto driver in Vandavasi. In his evidence, P.W.5 has stated that on 10. 2005 – 6 p.m., first accused Senthil Kumar approached him and asked him to engage a taxi. For the first accused, P.W.5 engaged Tata Indica car bearing registration No. TN-07 V 2104 for hire of which deceased Ansari was the taxi driver. In his evidence, P.W.5 has stated that he saw deceased Ansari driving the car for the second accused. 24. On 10. 2005, P.W.3-brother of the deceased asked about the deceased Ansari saying that Ansari did not return. P.W.5 informed P.W.3 that he has engaged taxi for the accused No. 1 and that Ansari drove the car for accused No. 2. P.W.5 learnt that body of Ansari was tied and thrown in a Well. Later, P.W.5 identified the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 in the Police Station as is seen from his evidence which reads as under: TAMIL 25. In Column 4 of Inquest Report, it is clearly stated that deceased was last seen alive company of A1 as is seen from the following: *** TAMIL 26. Evidence of P.W.5 that he saw the deceased Ansari driving the car for the accused No. 2. Evidence of P.W.5 that on request of 1st accused, he engaged the taxi of deceased is a strong circumstance militating against the 1st accused. P.W.5 being the auto driver in Vandavasi, he is a natural and probable witness to speak about the occurrence. By the evidence of P.W.5, prosecution has convincingly established that appellants have taken M.O.1-Taxi for hire and that deceased Ansari had gone with the accused No. 1 and 2 and shortly thereafter, deceased died on unnatural death. By process of reasoning, Court could draw presumption that appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 have committed the murder. 27. By the evidence of P.W.5, prosecution has convincingly established that appellants have taken M.O.1-Taxi for hire and that deceased Ansari had gone with the accused No. 1 and 2 and shortly thereafter, deceased died on unnatural death. By process of reasoning, Court could draw presumption that appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 have committed the murder. 27. Thought, we are not inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.8 as to identity of assailants as accused No. 1 and 2, evidence of P.W.5 is a formidable one. Evidence of P.W.5 bringing home the circumstance that deceased had gone away with the accused No. 1 and 2 and deceased Ansari drove the car (M.O.1) for them followed by his unnatural death, in our opinion constitute a strong and unsnappable chain of evidence unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused No. 1 and 2. 28. Homicidal Death and Identity of the Body. By the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Ravishankar, death is proved to be homicidal. Deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation. Fact that the hands and legs were tied and body was thrown into the Well would convincingly establish homicidal death of Ansari. 29. Regarding body tied with jute rope (TAMIL) and body thrown into the Well, P.W.1-VAO has lodged the complaint (Exhibit P-1) to Kilkodungalur Police Station. When P.W.3 went to Vandavasi Police Station, he has learnt about the unidentified body thrown into the Well in Sathanur village. P.W.3-brother of the deceased went to Sathanur village and identified the body as his brother Ansari. P.W.3 has deposed that normally deceased Ansari would be wearing his (P.W.3’s) Shirt and Pant and identified M.O.5-Shirt and M.O.6-Pant. P.W.3 also stated that there has been difference between two toes of Ansari and therefore, he was able to identify Ansari. In his evidence, P.W.3 has stated as follows: TAMIL 30. In number of decisions, Supreme Court had taken the view that when the deceased is shown to have gone with the accused followed by homicidal death of deceased, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased. In the absence of any explanation, Court is to drawn an inference that the accused are the murderers. In the absence of any explanation, Court is to drawn an inference that the accused are the murderers. During questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 did not even attempt to explain as to what happened to the deceased. They have only totally denied the evidence and incriminating circumstances. 31. In Joseph v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 1608 : (2000) 5 SCC 197 : (2000) SCC (Cr) 926; the facts were that the deceased was an employee of a school. The appellant representing himself to be the husband of one of the sisters of Gracy, the deceased, went to St. Mary’s Convent where she was employed and on a false pretext that her mother was ill and had been admitted to a hospital took her away with the permission of the sister in charge of the Convent, P.W.5. The case of the prosecution was that later the appellant not only raped her and robbed her of her ornaments, but also laid her on the rail tract to be run over by a passing train. It was also found as a fact that the deceased was last seen alive only in his company, and that on information furnished by the appellant in the course of investigation, the jewels of the deceased, which were sold to P.W.11 by the appellant, were seized. There was clear evidence to prove that those jewels were worn by the deceased at the time when she left the Convent with the appellant. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant did not even attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating circumstances inculpating and connecting him with the crime by his adamant attitude of total denial of everything. In the background of such facts, the Supreme Court held: “Such incriminating links of facts could, if at all, have been only explained by the appellant, and by nobody else, they being personally and exclusively within his knowledge. Of late, Courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed (see State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCCS 471). Of late, Courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed (see State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCCS 471). That missing link to connect the accused-appellant, we find in this case provided by the blunt and outright denial of every one and all the incriminating circumstances pointed out which, in our view, with sufficient and reasonable certainty on the facts proved, connect the accused with the death and the cause for the death of Gracy.” 32. Observing that if a person is ‘last seen’ with the deceased, he must (sic) offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 861 (SC), Supreme Court has held as follows at p.p. 869 & 870. “22. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. It he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd. AIR 1960 Madras 218.” 33. Yet another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the arrest, recovery of M.O.1-Car as contemplated under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 10. 2005 while they were proceeded in a motor bike without number plate (M.O.7). Motor bike (M.O.7) was also seized. On being interrogated, accused No. 1 and 2 had voluntarily given confession statement and their joint statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer which led to the recovery of car bearing registration No. TN-07 V 2104 (M.O.1). 34. Confession and recovery is assailed contending that the exact word used by each of the accused were not recorded and the Investigation Officer has recorded joint statement of the accused No.1 and 2 which led to the recovery of M.O.1-Car and recovery based on that joint statement of both the accused cannot be relied upon. No doubt, when the Investigation Officer dealing with more than one accused, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to record the exact words used by each of the accused so that recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving information. When both of the accused gave the same information, recording of joint statement which led to recovery of M.O.1-Car cannot said to have caused prejudice to the accused. 35. Observing that joint disclosures/simultaneous disclosures per se are not inadmissible under Section 27 of Indian evidence Act in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005) SCC (Cri) 1715 Supreme Court held as under: “145. 35. Observing that joint disclosures/simultaneous disclosures per se are not inadmissible under Section 27 of Indian evidence Act in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005) SCC (Cri) 1715 Supreme Court held as under: “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. The 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 Rs. 10 lakhs from the truck in which they were found at Srinagar is in issue. Learned senior counsel Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. 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 Mr. Gopal Subramanium that there is no taboo against the admission of such information as incriminating evidence against 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 se, 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 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 nod 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 information leading to the discovery of fact. Or, two persons in custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish 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 Mr. Gopal Subramanium. Whether and to what extent such a simultaneous disclosure could be relied upon by the Court is really a 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.” 36. Distinguishing Ramakrishnan Mithanlal Sharma’s case AIR 1955 SC 104 : (1955) Cri LJ 196 : (1955) 1 MLJ 66 and judgment of Bombay High Court Gokulchand Dwarkadas case AIR 1948 PC 82 : 49 Cri LJ 216, in Para 47, Supreme Court held as under: “147. …..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 AIR 1945 PC 82 : 49 Cri LJ 216 decided by the Bombay High Court, a passing observation was made that in the said case of High Court had “rightly held that a joint statement by more than one accused was not contemplated by Section 27” (SCR p. 925). We cannot understand this observation as laying down the law that the information almost simultaneous 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 simultaneous 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 case of Lachman Singh v. State ( 1952 SCR 839 : (1952) Cri LJ 863 this Court expressed certain reservations on the correctness of the view taken by some of the High Courts discountenancing joint disclosures.” 37. Applying the radio of the above decision, there is no difficulty in placing reliance upon joint confessional statement of the accused No. 1 and 2 which led to recovery of M.O.1-Car. Pursuant to the confession statement of the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2, recovery of M.O.1-Car is a strong circumstance connecting the accused with the offence. 38. Chance prints on right side glass of the car was lifted and marked as ‘K1’ and ‘K2’. Thus chance prints were compared with that of the accused by P.W.12-Finger Print Expert. In his evidence and in his report (Exhibit P-13), P.W.12 opined that ‘K1’ was identical with right thumb finger impression of second accused (Venkataramani) and ‘K2’ was identical with left middle finger print of first accused (Senthil Kumar). 39. Placing reliance upon Rajendran v. State by Ramanayakenpalayam Police Station 1993 LW (Cri) 502, evidence of P.W.12 was sought to be assailed that Exhibit P-13 does not indicate the reasonings for his opinion. It was contended that in the absence of important features on the basis of P.W.12 arrived at the conclusion, Court would not be in a position to examine the correctness of the opinion. 40. In Rajendran v. State by Ramanayakenpalayam Police Station (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case, Division Bench felt that Courts duty to find out comparison of the ridge, characteristics etc. 41. Expert opinion on finger prints has the same value as the opinion of any other expert, eg-Medical opinion and others. In each case, expert opinion/evidence is only guide to the Judge of its value. Of course, it is the duty of the expert to give reasonings for his conclusion. Though, reasoning sheet was not attached to Exhibit P-13, during cross examination of P.W.12, he was not questioned that he has not conducted any test at all nor was he asked as to how he arrived at the conclusion. Of course, it is the duty of the expert to give reasonings for his conclusion. Though, reasoning sheet was not attached to Exhibit P-13, during cross examination of P.W.12, he was not questioned that he has not conducted any test at all nor was he asked as to how he arrived at the conclusion. Had he been confronted as to the reasonings, P.W.12 might have produced the reasoning sheet. Without being confronted as to the reasonings for conclusion, it would be unfair and unreasonable to discard the evidence of P.W.12. 42. Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts that deceased Ansari had driven the car (M.O.1) for the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2. What happened to Ansari thereafter is especially within the knowledge of the appellants. It was for the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 to explain as to what happened to Ansari after they took him away. When the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 withheld that information from the Court, there is every jurisdiction for drawing inference that appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 have murdered the deceased Ansari. In the absence of any explanation, the inevitable inference that appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 are responsible for the death of Ansari. 43. Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the considered view that proved circumstances cumulatively form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellants/accused No. 1 and 2. Upon evaluation of evidence, learned Prl. Sessions Judge rightly convicted appellants/accused No. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 302, 302 read with 34, 201 and 392 IPC respectively. 44. In the result, conviction of the appellant/accused No. 1 and 2 under Section 302 read with 34, 302, 201 and 392 IPC respectively and the sentence of imprisonment and fine amount imposed upon them are confirmed and these appeals are dismissed. Learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused 1 and 2 and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail bond executed by the appellants/accused 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. Appeals dismissed.