Judgment The appeal and the revision are directed against the judgment of acquittal passed in SC No. 121/02 by the Additional District Sessions Judge (Past Track Court IV) Bhavani dated 11. 2003. 2. The appeal has b een preferred by the State. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by P.W.1, the de factor complainant against the said judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11. 2002 at about 11.00 a.m. the accused, who is a close relative of the deceased, had with intention to commit murder of Vasantha Kumari trespassed into the house in Door No.41, Royal Theatre Road, Bhavani with a knife in his hand, caused injuries on the neck, chest, throat and hands of the said Vasantha Kumari and the deceased had succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital and thereby committed murder and after causing injuries on the body of Vasantha Kumari the accused had searched in the almirah and took away a cash of Rs. 7,500/- and thereby committed offences under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC. 4. The facts culled out from the evidence of the prosecution are as follows 5. Deceased is the wife of P.W.1 Thirumalaisamy. They lived in the house situated at W.o.41, Royal Theatre road, Bhavani. They have a son and a daughter. Son is in foreign country whereas daughter Sudha namely P.W.5 is residing at Kumarepalayam in her matrimonial abode. P.W.1 is a businessman dealing in real estate. The accused is P.W.1 brothers son. P.W.1 and deceased used to go to the Murugan temple which is nearby every day. On 11. 2002, as usual deceased went to Murugan temple and came back along with the accused. P.W.1 and the deceased requested the accused to have breakfast with them. He refused saying that he had to carry tiffin to his father and that he will return after some time for having breakfast. 6. At about 8 a.m., P.W.3 came to their house in order to attend to household work. P.W.1 left the house at about 8.30 a.m. While he was going near Rajam theatre he remembered about his cell phone, rang up to the house and asked P.W.3 to bring his cell phone to the place where he was waiting which she did accordingly. On returning back home, P.W.3 noticed the accused at the house of deceased. P.W.1 left the house at about 8.30 a.m. While he was going near Rajam theatre he remembered about his cell phone, rang up to the house and asked P.W.3 to bring his cell phone to the place where he was waiting which she did accordingly. On returning back home, P.W.3 noticed the accused at the house of deceased. Before leaving the house, P.W.1 placed a cash of Rs.5,000/- towards chit amount and Rs.2,500/-towards expenses in M.O.1. 7. P.W.2 is a neighbour of P.W.1 as well as deceased. On the day of occurrence, P.W.2 was asked by deceased as to why she did not come to the house of deceased. P.W.2 answered that she was away and the she will come to the house of deceased later on. Accordingly, at about 10 a.m. P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased. 8. P.W.4 Malli Chettiar is known to the family of deceased. On the fateful day while he was crossing the house of deceased to go to his house for lunch, he noticed heavy crowd in front of the house of deceased. He also noticed that a lady was lying in a pool of blood near the gate and when he turned the lady, to her front side, it was P.W.1 wife, who were known to him immediately, P.W.4 asked deceased as to what it is and who did it. The deceased replied that it was her brother-in-laws son Shanmugam, who is the accused herein, did it. She was lifted into an auto along with P.W.7 Arulmani. The auto was driven by P.W.8 Gopal. 9. P.W.7 Arulmani asked the deceased as to who caused the injuries to her. She said that it was her brother-in-laws son Shanmugam the accused herein, who stabbed her. 10. At about 1.45 p.m., P.W.9 reached the house of deceased on hearing the information of stabbing of deceased. P.W.9 informed P.W.1 over cell phone that his wife had been stabbed and that she died on the way to hospital. P.W.1 inspected the whole house and found that there was profused bleeding throughout. 11. On 11. 2002 at about 4 p.m. while, P.W.20 Sub Inspector of Police Tr. T.R.Krishnan was on duty, he received the written complaint Exhibit P-1 given by P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.22 Thiru Sivasubramaniam. P.W.1 inspected the whole house and found that there was profused bleeding throughout. 11. On 11. 2002 at about 4 p.m. while, P.W.20 Sub Inspector of Police Tr. T.R.Krishnan was on duty, he received the written complaint Exhibit P-1 given by P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.22 Thiru Sivasubramaniam. Inspector of Police and registered the printed F.I.R. Exhibit P-25 on the basis of the written complaint of P.W.1 for an offence under Section 302 IPC in Cr. No.27 of 2002 and sent Exhibit P-25 and Exhibit P-1 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani through Head Constable 394 who is P.W.21 herein and further he sent information through VHF for dog squad as well as finger print experts. 12. In the meantime, on 11. 2002 at about 12 p.m. accused went to a Readymade Shop wherein, P.W.12, Abdullah was working as a salesman and purchased a Blue Colour T Shirt M.O.14 and a Grey colour pant M.O.15 and changed this new pant of M.Os.14 and 15 in lieu of M.Os.8 and 9 and carried M.Os.14 and 15. Around 12 to 12.45 p.m. accused went to the Medical Shop in which P.W.13 Ayyakannu was working and bought a bandaid. 13. At about 4.40 p.m., while P.W.22 Sivasubramaniam was on duty, he received the F.I.R. in Crime No.27 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and took up investigation. He rushed to the place of occurrence along with the finger print expert N.R.Rajan, P.W.16 who was present in his office on receipt of information through VHF, informed by P.W.20. P.W.22 reached the place of occurrence at about 4.45 p.m. 14. At about 6 p.m. P.W.22 collected blood stained mosaic pieces-M.O.10 and blood stained earth-M.O.12 along with sample mosaic pieces M.O.11 and M.O.13 and M.O.4 Rose coloured saree torned with the punctures of a knife, a broken ladys spectacles without the left side glass, M.O.2 broken piece of telephone instrument-M.O.3 and Blue coloured pillow-M.O.6 under cover of a mahazar Exhibit P-4 in the presence of P.W.9 and one saminathan. 15. On 11. 2002, P.W.22 enquired P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.15 and P.W.8-Sankar and recorded their statements. P.W.22 sent Exhibit P-28 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. P.W.22 continued with his investigation and enquired P.W.11 and recorded his statement. On 11. 2002, P.W.22 received information from the Sankari Sub Jail that the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankari on 11. 2002. 2002, P.W.22 enquired P.W.19, P.W.20, P.W.15 and P.W.8-Sankar and recorded their statements. P.W.22 sent Exhibit P-28 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. P.W.22 continued with his investigation and enquired P.W.11 and recorded his statement. On 11. 2002, P.W.22 received information from the Sankari Sub Jail that the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankari on 11. 2002. On the, request of the P.W.22, accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani, before whom he filed a remand report in Exhibit P-29 to remand the accused in this case. 16. At Government Hospital, Bhavani, P.W.14 examined accused on 11. 2002 at about 4.30 p.m. On 20.1.2002, since the accused was in a confused mood, he was given rest without being interrogated. On 30.1.2002, P.W.14 Doctor G. Chandrasekaren issued wound certificate for the accused. He was enquired on that day by P.W.22 who recorded his statement. On 2. 2002, one Palaisamy was interrogated by P.W.22. On 2. 2002, P.W.1 was recalled by P.W.22 and his further statement were recorded. On 2. 2002, P.W.16 M.R.Rajan and P.W.18 Jagadisan, were interrogated by P.W.22 and their statements recorded. On completion of investigation on 22. 2002, Additional Director of prosecution gave copy of charge sheet, which was approved by Public Prosecutor on 22. 2002. Based on this, before the Court P.W.22 filed charge sheet against accused on 3. 2002 for offences under Sections 449, 332 and 302 I.P.C. 17. Before the trial Court, prosecution has examined 22 witnesses, exhibit 29 documents and produced 26 material objects. The trial Court after a full fledged trial had acquitted the accused from the charge leveled against him as stated supra. 18. The learned additional public prosecutor Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian had appeared for the State, appellant herein. Mr. N. Duraisamy had been appointed as amicus curiae for the accused in the appeal who is also the first respondent in the Criminal Revision Petition. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel who represented the parties. 19. The learned additional public prosecutor Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian would submit in his arguments that the prosecution had produced all the circumstantial evidence before the trial Court, since there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. However, the trial Court had wrongly come to a conclusion that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 19. The learned additional public prosecutor Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian would submit in his arguments that the prosecution had produced all the circumstantial evidence before the trial Court, since there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. However, the trial Court had wrongly come to a conclusion that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. According to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has shown six circumstances which would amply prove the guilt of the accused. 20. Accordingly, P.Ws.2 and 3 would submit that the last seen theory was spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 and P.Ws.7 and 8 had spoken about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased and P.Ws.6 and 13 have categorically spoken about extra judicial confession given by the accused to them and the prosecution by examining the finger print expert P.W.16 had proved that the finger, print of the accused found in the bathroom would show his presence and the motive for commission of murder was spoken to P.Ws.5 and 11 and further the important aspect namely recovery of weapon shirts and money were spoken to by P.W.17 and all these circumstances were disbelieved by the trial Court which is ex-facie incorrect. He would also submit in his arguments that the money-purse belonging to the deceased and other dress materials bought by the accused out of the money taken away from the house of the deceased and recovery of the balance sum of Rs.2,500/-from the accused would clearly be an incriminating material against the accused and however the accused was found innocent by the trial Court. He would also submit in his arguments that the presence of the accused should have been inferred by the trial Court immediately before the occurrence as was spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3. He would further submit in his arguments that the motive for commission of murder was spoken to by P.W.5, the daughter of the deceased, that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/-from the deceased prior to the murder and this evidence must have been taken note of by the trial Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also drawn the attention of the Court that the recovery of M.O.5-knife, on the confession of the accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act would have clinchingly proved the nexus of the accused with the crime. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also drawn the attention of the Court that the recovery of M.O.5-knife, on the confession of the accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act would have clinchingly proved the nexus of the accused with the crime. 21. Further, he would submit in his argument that the inquest report pursuant to the inquest conducted by the investigating officer on the date of occurrence had reached the Court on the next day itself and the reasons stated in the inquest report Exhibit P-26 should have been taken for corroboration by the lower Court. He would further submit in his arguments that the complaint was given by P.W.1 after coming to know about the murder of deceased Vasantha Kumari on the same day itself by 4.00 p.m. As the said inquest was conducted on 11. 2002 itself from 6.45 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. it shows the genuineness of the complaint. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further insist in his arguments that the prosecution had produced all the possible evidence to prove the case of murder for gain and those evidence are purely circumstantial and reliable and therefore the acquittal of the accused by the lower Court from the charges under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC may be set aside and the accused be found guilty under those Sections and he may be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the Criminal Revision Petitioner Mr. T. Susseendiran would submit in his arguments that the prosecution had proved the guilt against accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the revision petitioner who is the de facto complainant was away from the town on the date of occurrence and he rushed to the native place on hearing the murder of his wife and had given the complaint immediately without any delay and the circumstances as proved by the prosecution through circumstantial witnesses are sufficient to hold the conviction against the accused and the acquittal ordered by the lower Court is against all norms of law and therefore, the said judgment may be set aside and accused by convicted and sentenced accordingly. He had also relived on the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in his support. 23. The learned counsel for the accused appointed Amicus Curiae, Mr. He had also relived on the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in his support. 23. The learned counsel for the accused appointed Amicus Curiae, Mr. N. Duraisamy would submit in his arguments that the prosecution case is highly suspicious and the accused being the son of the brother of P.W.1 had no grudge over his own aunt to commit murder against her and the police had wrongly chosen the accused to prosecute even though P.W.1 and the deceased had proved to have enemies to their credit owing to the real estate business. He would further submit in his argument that the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to P.W.6 and P.W.13 would not in any way clothe the accused with the admission of crime against the deceased Vasanthkumari. The Witnesses to whom the accused is alleged to have given extra judicial confession are not reliable witnesses. 24. Moreover, he would continue in his argument that P.W.13 who is a stranger and who was not known to the accused may not be a person to hear the extra judicial confession given by the accused. Therefore, he would submit that the lower Court had come to a correct conclusion that the witnesses of the circumstantial evidences have not completed the chain of circumstances and the acquittal ordered by the trial Court is perfectly justified and there is no necessity for revising the judgment of the trial Court. He would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment in 2007 (1) acquittal 151 of Gowhathi High Court to the effect that "the Courts must be very much cautious in accepting the dying declaration and while accepting the dying declaration, it must insist that there should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its truthfulness and correctness." He had also submitted in his arguments that the evidence of P.W.2 who is said to have lastly seen the accused at the place of occurrence had not mentioned about the presence of P.W.3 and therefore her evidence is highly doubtful and cannot be relied. 25. 25. Further, he would submit in his argument that the oral dying declaration said to have given to P.W.4 and P.W.7 were not also reliable as the said Vasantha Kumari was brought dead to the hospital and the alleged dying declaration was said to have been given by the deceased while they were on the way to hospital. Moreover, he would submit in his arguments that the recovery of M.O.15, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 and 23 said to have been done in pursuance of the confession leading to recovery given in the presence of P.W.1 is a routine, in which Village Administrative Officer, being a Government Official had supported the prosecution case and it was not recovered at the instance of the accused. 26. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted in his argument that the finger print said to have been taken at the bathroom would in no way connect the accused with the crime since the occurrence is said to have taken place in the bedroom. Therefore, he would submit in his arguments that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore, the lower Court has given the benefit of doubt. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that when there are two decisions in the mind of the Court either to convict or to acquit, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and the accused should be acquitted. He would also further submit, in his arguments that the prosecution had not shown the completion of the links of the chain of circumstantial evidence and therefore the judgment of the acquittal passed by the lower Court may not be interfered and the appeal and revision may be dismissed. 27. The have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the Amicus Curiae appointed for the accused. Both the appeal as well as revision petition are arising out of the judgment of the lower Court in acquitting the accused from the charges under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC. The accused is the brothers son of P.W.1. The deceased is the wife of P.W.1. The accused used to come to the house of his paternal uncle and spend time. Accordingly, on 11. The accused is the brothers son of P.W.1. The deceased is the wife of P.W.1. The accused used to come to the house of his paternal uncle and spend time. Accordingly, on 11. 2002, he is said to have come to the house of P.W.1 where deceased Vasantha Kumari was alone at 9.00 a.m. The said fact was spoken to by P.W.3, the servant girl who was present at that time. According to her evidence, the accused was present from 9.00 a.m. and the deceased Vasantha Kumari had asked him to be there and watch T.V. Programmes and after some time the accused had gone away and thereafter he had come again to the house of P.W.1 and was spending time there, P.W.3 was directed to go and handover the cell phone to P.W.1 who had forgotten to take it along with him and therefore she left the place and while leaving the place P.W.2 Margathammal had come to the house of P.W.1. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2 would also categorically show that she was present at the house of P.W.1 where the deceased was living with P.W.1 on the fateful day and the accused was present at that time and the accused was standing on the corner of the house and was suspiciously looking at others and the deceased Vasantha Kumari was asking the accused to sit and watch T.V. programme. After some time, P.W.2 had also left the house of P.W.1 leaving the deceased Vasantha Kumari with the accused. Subsequently, at 1.30 p.m. she heard that Vasantha Kumari was stabbed with knife and she was taken to the hospital. She had also identified the accused the shirt and pant worn by the accused as M.O.8 and M.O.9. She had also identified the accused in the Court. There is no evidence elicited in the cross examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 and therefore there is no impediment to accept the evidence of P.W.2 which was, supported and corroborated by P.W.3. Therefore, we could see that the accused was seen present immediately prior to the time of occurrence at the house of deceased. The facts as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 that they had seen the accused lastly at the house of the deceased Vasanthakumari could not be rejected. 28. Therefore, we could see that the accused was seen present immediately prior to the time of occurrence at the house of deceased. The facts as spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 that they had seen the accused lastly at the house of the deceased Vasanthakumari could not be rejected. 28. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he was away from the house on the fateful days and on hearing the murder, of his wife at about 2 p.m. when he was returning to Bhavani and he came to his house and found that the bedroom in his house was blood stained and the bathroom also contained blood stains and the telephone was broken and the spectacles of his wife was also broken and the saree of his wife was also found to be torn with blood stains and thereafter, he had proceeded to the hospital and found his wife dead in the hospital and immediately he had gone to the police station and gave a complaint. Thereafter, when he had come over to his house and searched for any loss of materials, he could find that everything was intact except his purse put in the almirah with Rs.7,500/-cash. The complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Exhibit P-1. The inquest report Exhibit P-26 would show that inquest was conducted in between 6.45 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. on the same day and the reasons for the death of the deceased was found to have been that the accused demanded money from the deceased Vasantha Kumari and when she refused to give the money with her in the almirah, he had stabbed her with the knife on the chest, shoulder and abdomen and took away the money Rs.7,500/-along with the purse belonging to P.W.1 and had left the place and thereafter it appears that the said Vasantha Kumari had changed the blood stained saree but however she could not tolerate the loss of blood and she had come to the entrance of the house and had fallen and the neighbours had taken Vasantha Kumari to the hospital and she died before reaching the hospital. The said inquest report was dispatched to the Court on the next day and was received by the Court on 11. 2002 itself. Therefore, the preparation of inquest report could not be doubted. 29. The said inquest report was dispatched to the Court on the next day and was received by the Court on 11. 2002 itself. Therefore, the preparation of inquest report could not be doubted. 29. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.3, the servant girl would show that the accused was demanding money from the deceased Vasantha Kumari when deceased had asked him to take tiffin at her house on the fateful day. The said evidence of P.W.3 had also proved the last seen theory as spoken to by P.W.2. Apart from the evidence of P.W.3, we could see that the evidence of P.W.3 the daughter of the deceased would go a long way to show that the accused was demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased Vasantha Kumari with a promise that he would repay the same at Rs.1,000/- per month and on hearing the same from her mother, she had also told her mother deceased Vasantha Kumari that he was not able to repay a sum of Rs.320/-borrowed by him from P.W.3 and therefore, she cautioned her mother not to lend money to the accused. The evidence of P.W.11, a lottery ticket seller would show that the accused is a regular customer of his shop in buying lottery tickets and he used to buy lottery tickets for Rs.600/- to Rs.700/- per day and on one occasion, he had got a price amount of Rs.40,000/- and they had paid the same after deducting the cost of the lottery ticket for Rs.2,000/- and thereafter, he had not turned up to the shop for some time. The evidence would go to show that the accused is a lottery ticket buyer and his addiction to the said lottery ticket also stands established. Both the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.11 would go long way to show the necessity of money for the accused on the fateful day for spending for his personal up. The evidence of P.W.3 the servant girl is to the effect that the accused was asking money instead of taking tiffin with the deceased Vasantha Kumari would also support the motive for the commission of offence by the accused against Vasantha Kumari. 30. Nextly, the theory of dying declaration as spoken to by P.Ws.4 & 7 should be scrutinised. P.W.4 is a neighbour and his evidence would show that on 11. 30. Nextly, the theory of dying declaration as spoken to by P.Ws.4 & 7 should be scrutinised. P.W.4 is a neighbour and his evidence would show that on 11. 2002 at about 2.30 p.m. when he had returned in his cycle he could see a crowd in P.W.1 house and when he entered into the house, he saw Vasantha Kumari was injured and was lying dorsally and immediately he had questioned her about the incident and she could tell him that it was done by Shanmugam, the son of her brother-in-law. Thereafter, she had asked for water and autorickshaw had come in the meantime and in the autorickshaw he had sent Vasantha Kumari to the hospital along with the four other persons. Similarly, P.W.7 one of the persons who had accompanied Vasantha Kumari to the hospital had spoken to the fact that the injured Vasantha Kumari was on the lap of P.W.4 and thereafter she was taken to hospital in the autorickshaw by P.W.7 and three others and on the way, when he questioned the injured Vasantha Kumari, she would answer that Shanmugam, the son of her brother-in-law, had stabbed her. P.W.7 would further state that when they had taken the injured Vasantha Kumari to the hospital, there the Doctor examined her and found her dead. These two witnesses have spoken about two dying declarations given by the injured Vasantha Kumari immediately before her death one at her house and another on the way to hospital whether the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7 could be relied upon have to be seen after seeing the other circumstances of the case. P.W.5 and P.W.1 were not shown to be untrust worthy witnesses in their cross examination. Moreover, no adverse point has been to unrely the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7. The presence of P.W.4 was spoken to by P.W.7 and the autorickshaw driver P.W.8. Therefore, nothing is shown to us to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7. 31. It is the submission of the learned additional public prosecutor that the accused was arrested in the presence of P.W.17, Village Administrative Officer on 21. 2002 and the accused had given confession statement in his presence. The admissible portion of confession was marked as Exhibit P-13. 31. It is the submission of the learned additional public prosecutor that the accused was arrested in the presence of P.W.17, Village Administrative Officer on 21. 2002 and the accused had given confession statement in his presence. The admissible portion of confession was marked as Exhibit P-13. In pursuance of the said confession, he had identified a plastic bag (M.O.16), and Blue Pant, Blue & White checked full hand shirt and a light meroon blue terri-cotton pant (M.O.9) with blood stain through the mahazar Exhibit P-15, a knife (M.O.5) end a money purse with blood stain (M.O.1). Further, it is seen from the evidence of the investigating officer that the accused was taken to his house and he identified a passbook (M.O.23) and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (M.O.7 series) were also recovered through a mahazar Exhibit P-16. The said purse M.O.1 was identified by P.W.1. Apart from that, the clothes worn by the accused were (sic) also seized in the presence of P.W.17 and are produced before Court by Form 95 Exhibit P14. The said shirt and pant were produced as M.O.14 and M.O.15. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.17 to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.17. Therefore, we could see that the recovery of M.O.5 knife. M.O.1 purse pursuant to the confession of the accused would go a long way to show the connection of the accused with the commission of murder of Vasantha Kumari. 32. Apart from that, the finger print expert who was examined as P.W.16 would speak to the effect that he had lifted two finger prints at the bathroom wall, among that was identified to be the left thumb finger print of the P.W.1 and yet another finger print found with blood stain, when compared with the finger print of the accused, suspected person, it was identified to be the left palm print of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of the finger print expert also ropes the accused that the blood stained finger print found in bathroom, a part of the scene of occurrence. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that accused had given extra judicial confession to P.W.6 and P.W.13. On a careful perusal of evidence P.W.5, we could see that on 11. Therefore, the evidence of the finger print expert also ropes the accused that the blood stained finger print found in bathroom, a part of the scene of occurrence. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that accused had given extra judicial confession to P.W.6 and P.W.13. On a careful perusal of evidence P.W.5, we could see that on 11. 2002 itself at 8 p.m. he saw the accused, who is none other than his brothers son, the accused was in a state of tension; he had disclosed to P.W.6 that he had stabbed the paternal aunt Vasantha Kumari as she had denied the money demanded by him; he had purchased clothes and disposed of the weapons and blood stained clothes and therefore, P.W.6 had advised to surrender himself to Police Station. 33. Similarly, P.W.13 the medical shop salesman would speak to the effect that the accused used to come to the lottery shop opposite to his medical shop and on 11. 2002 at about 145. p.m., he came to his shop and bought a bandaid for his injury in his right hand thumb and since the injury was deep and when it was questions, the accused would state that he had demanded money from his parental aunt and when she refused, he had stabbed her with knife and at that time she had bitten his right thumb finger. Therefore, P.W.13 advised to inject antiseptic otherwise it may lead to septic infection. Whether the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.13 are helpful to arrive to a conclusion independently to hold the accused to have committed the murder of Vasantha Kumari or not is a question to be considered. P.W.6 is a close relative of the accused and also the deceased woman. P.W.13 is a stranger to the accused. It is settled law that the extra judicial confession given to an unknown person cannot be a trust worthy evidence. So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned, immediately after the accused had given extra judicial confession, he did not approach the Police and inform the same. His evidence was that he had continued with his duty and he did not approach the police thereafter till the police had enquired him. So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned, immediately after the accused had given extra judicial confession, he did not approach the Police and inform the same. His evidence was that he had continued with his duty and he did not approach the police thereafter till the police had enquired him. She conduct of P.W.6 in not approaching the Police would create a doubt when he says that the accused had come to him voluntarily and gave an extra judicial confession to him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.13 may not be helpful to come to a conclusion independently that the accused had committed murder of the deceased Vasantha Kumari. 34. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through last seen theory and the dying declaration given by the deceased to P.W.4 and P.W.7 and the motive spoken to by P.W.5 and P.W.11 and the other circumstance leading to recovery of the material objects which connects the accused with the crime would all go a long way to show a complete chain of circumstantial evidence was already formed and there is no necessity of further link from the proof of extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to P.W.6 and P.W.13, to form a complete chain. Therefore, we can see that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused in committing the offences under Section 449,302 and 392 IPC by entering into the house of the deceased Vasantha Kumari, causing her death with intention to steal the money from her and had also stolen a sum of Rs. 7,500/- kept in the purse M.O.1. 35. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the trial Court is wrong in acquitting the accused from the charges under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC to which offences the prosecution had proved the guilt through the circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, we hereby convict the accused under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC and the judgement of the lower Court in acquitting the accused is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Since the appeal is allowed, no separate order is passed in the Criminal Revision Petition as the same becomes unnecessary. 36. In order to question the accused regarding the sentence to be passed against him under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC, post the case on 4. 2008. Since the appeal is allowed, no separate order is passed in the Criminal Revision Petition as the same becomes unnecessary. 36. In order to question the accused regarding the sentence to be passed against him under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC, post the case on 4. 2008. The prosecution is directed to produce the accused on that date for questioning as to the sentence. This case having been posted this day for the production of the accused for questioning as to the sentence, in the presence of Mr. M. Babu Muthumaaran, Additional PUblic Prosecutor on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N. Duraisamy (Amicus Curiae) Advocate on behalf of the respondent, the Court made the following order: 112. 2008 Order V. Periya Karuppiah, J. By judgment dated 23. 2008, this Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 392 IPC and directed the prosecution to produce the accused for the questioning him as to the imposition of sentence. After number of adjournment, today the accused is produced before the Court. We have heard the accused with respect to the sentence to be passed for the offences committed by him punishable under Section 449, 302 and 392 IPC. The accused pleaded that he had recently married and his wife has undergone two abortions and also he had to look after his family and prayed this Court that a lesser punishment may be given to him. Considering the submissions made by the accused and gravity of the offences committed by him, we are inclined to impose the following sentence. 2. Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years under Section 392 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment to undergo life imprisonment under Section 449 IPC, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment; and to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the substantive portion of the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment; and to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the substantive portion of the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. We place our appreciations for the assistance rendered by Mr.N.Duraisamy, the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court in the Criminal Appeal as well as in the Criminal Revision Case. Considering the number of hearings of the appeal and the revision, which is almost ten times, a consolidated fee of Rs. 10,000/-is fixed in both the matter. The said amount has to be paid by the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai, at the earliest to Mr. N. Duraisamy, Amicus Curiae. Order accordingly.