JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellants are the accused in S.C. No. 137 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. They stood charged for offences under Sections 449 , 302 , 392 , read with 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 28.9.2012, the Trial Court convicted them under all the charges. For the offence under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 28 months; for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four years each; for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 28 months each and for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with these Criminal Appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The deceased, in this case, was one Sulochana @ Raja Sulochana. P.W.1 is the sister’s daughter of the deceased. P.W.1 was the then employed as a Nurse in Primary Health Centre at Moonchirai Village in Kanyakumari District. In the said village, P.W.1 was residing in a rented house belonging to P.W.4, P. Thankaiyan. Along with her, yet another Nurse, by name, Ramalakshmi was also staying. On 12.3.2009, the said Ramalakshmi had gone to Tirunelveli for training. Since P.W.1 was alone at home, on a request made by the mother of P.W.1, the deceased had gone to the house of P.W.1 to be a company to her. 2.1. The deceased was a permanent resident of Vaiyakundampatti Village in Tirunelveli District. Her husband was away in Singapore on account of his job. She had a child. Since P.W.1 was alone at home, on a request made by the mother of P.W.1, the deceased had gone to the house of P.W.1 to be a company to her. 2.1. The deceased was a permanent resident of Vaiyakundampatti Village in Tirunelveli District. Her husband was away in Singapore on account of his job. She had a child. As she was requested by the mother of P.W.1 to go over to the house of P.W.1 to ensure her safety, since P.W.1 is an young girl, the deceased, leaving her child in the custody of her mother-in-law, came to Moonchirai and stayed with P.W.1. On 15.3.2009, P.W.1 left the house by around 6.30 PM for duty at the hospital. The deceased alone was at home. P.W.1’s night duty was over early in the morning on 16.3.2009. When she returned to the house, the same was found locked from outside. She knocked at the door. But, there was no response from inside. She went to the house of P.W.3, a neighbour, and enquired about the deceased. She disowned any knowledge about the deceased. 2.2. P.W.1, therefore, again returned to her house and she incidentally found that the key was above the door frame. With the help of the said key, she opened the main door and entered into the house. She called the deceased. But, there was no response. She continued to search for the deceased. When she went to the bathroom, she was shocked to see that the deceased was hanging from roof in a Nylon Rope. She was wearing nighty. Her hands were tied together tightly with a towel. Her legs were slightly touching the floor. The tongue was protruded out. On seeing the same, she cried. P.W.3 rushed to the spot. P.W.1 noticed that a Big Gold Chain, a Small Gold Chain, two Ear Rings, Ear Mattel, a pair of Silver Anklets, the Cellphone used by the deceased and a Handbag belonging to the deceased were missing. 2.3. She informed her father, P.W.2, about the occurrence over phone. P.W.2 is a resident of Kuruvikulam Village in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. On the said information about the death of the deceased, P.W.2 and his wife immediately rushed to Moonchirai Village. By that time, the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence. 2.4. 2.3. She informed her father, P.W.2, about the occurrence over phone. P.W.2 is a resident of Kuruvikulam Village in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. On the said information about the death of the deceased, P.W.2 and his wife immediately rushed to Moonchirai Village. By that time, the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence. 2.4. On the very same day, at 1.00 p.m., P.W.1 proceeded to Pudhukadai Police Station and preferred a complaint under Exhibit P-1. In the complaint, she could not name the assailants, as the assailants were not known. Based on the said complaint, P.W.23 registered a case in Crime No. 94 of 2009, under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Exhibit P-27 is the First Information Report. P.W.23 forwarded Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-27 to the Court, and then, handed over the case diary to P.W.24 for investigation. 2.5. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.24 proceeded to the spot at 2.00 p.m. and prepared an Observation Mahazer [Exhibit P-3] and Rough Sketch (Exhibit P-28) in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. Then, he removed the body from the rope and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Exhibit P-29 is the Inquest Report. Before the dead body was removed from the rope, on the request of P.W.24, P.W.15 took photographs from various angles and after removal also, he took photographs. M.O.19 and M.O.20 are the said photographs with negatives. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.6. P.W.24 had requested the Finger Print Expert to visit the place of occurrence to find out as to whether any chance finger print was found at the place of occurrence. On 16.3.2009, P.W.13, accordingly examined. In the Kitchen, he found an Ever-silver Tumbler, on which two chance finger prints were found. He marked the same as R-1 and R-2. He took photographs of the same. These two finger prints did not tally with either the deceased or the other inmates. Therefore, he preserved the said photographs. P.W.24 had requested P.W.14, Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science, to visit the spot to help the investigation. Accordingly, he visited the spot and removed the bloodstained earth found on the floor of the house, where the dead body was hanging and by using cotton, the same was seized. M.O.18 is the bloodstained cotton and M.O.2 is the mahazer for the recovery of the same, dated 16.3.2009. 2.7. Accordingly, he visited the spot and removed the bloodstained earth found on the floor of the house, where the dead body was hanging and by using cotton, the same was seized. M.O.18 is the bloodstained cotton and M.O.2 is the mahazer for the recovery of the same, dated 16.3.2009. 2.7. P.W.9, Dr. N. Rajasekar, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, at 11.00 a.m., on 17.3.2009. He found the following injuries: “On removal of the ligature material: The following ante-mortem injuries noted: 1. Incomplete horizontal ligature mark seen around the neck with the gap of 4.5 cm over the right side of the neck measuring 28 x 1 cm. It is 8 CM below the symphysis menti and 8 CM below the lower end of right ear and 6.5 CM below the lower end of left ear. 2. 1 X 1 CM abrasion seen in front of right tip. The following perimortem injury noted: Oblique complete ligature mark seen around the neck measuring 30 X 1 CM. It is 5 CM below the sysmphysis menti, 3 CM below the lower end of left ear and 6 CM below the lower end of right ear. This ligature mark is found overlaping the previous ligature mark at certain places. On opening the chest and abdomen: Loops of small intestine found bruised in the lower abdomen. Soft tissue seen in front of the sacrum found bruised. On bloodless disSection of the neck: Brusing and extravasation of blood noted over the underlying area of the above mentioned horizontal ligature mark, minimal vital reaction noted over the underlying area of the above said oblique ligature mark.” He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of ligature strangulation about 24 to 42 hours prior to the autopsy. Exhibit P-6 is the Postmortem Certificate. Exhibit P-7 is the final opinion. During postmortem, P.W.9 had preserved viscera for chemical examination. The Chemical Analyst opinion revealed that there was no poison. 2.8. At the time of investigation, P.W.24 recovered the dress materials found on the body of the deceased. He forwarded the said dress materials of the deceased as well as the Nylon Rope seized from the place of occurrence. He made a request to the Court to forward the said Material Objects for chemical examination. P.W.12, the then Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, forwarded the same on the orders of the Magistrate. He forwarded the said dress materials of the deceased as well as the Nylon Rope seized from the place of occurrence. He made a request to the Court to forward the said Material Objects for chemical examination. P.W.12, the then Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, forwarded the same on the orders of the Magistrate. P.W.11, the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science Lab, Tirunelveli, examined the Nighty (M.O.15), Petticoat (M.O.16), Inner Garments and found bloodstains on the skirt and seminal-stains on the Petticoat. Exhibit P-14 and Exhibit P-15 are the reports. In order to find out the group of the bloodstains and the semen, he further examined the same. But, the result remained inconclusive, as they had disintegrated. But, the semen found on the Petticoat was of the human origin. Exhibit P-16 is the report. Similarly, he examined the cotton with blood wiped from the place of occurrence and found that it was of human origin. But, the grouping test remained inconclusive. Exhibit P-17 is the report. 2.9. During the investigation, P.W.24 altered the case into one under Sections 449 , 392 , read with 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted a report dated 17.3.2009. Again, he altered the case into one under Sections 449 , 302 , 392 read with 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted a report dated 9.7.2009. During the course of investigation, he collected the statement of incoming and outgoing calls from the Cellphone used by the deceased. P.W.19 is the Cellphone Service Provider. He gave a report under Exhibit P-26. From the above, it came to light that there were calls made to another Cellphone Number. During further investigation, P.W.24 came to know that the said Cellphone was in the name of P.W.16. P.W.16 disclosed that though the cellphone was in his name, it was used only by the deceased. From this opinion, P.W.24 suspected the involvement of the first accused. 2.10. While so, on 22.3.2009, at about 5.00 a.m., near Pillaiyar Temple, at Ettaiyapuram, the first accused was arrested in the presence of P.W.17 and another witness. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the identity of the second accused. He further disclosed the place, where he had hidden the stolen articles and the handbag. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the identity of the second accused. He further disclosed the place, where he had hidden the stolen articles and the handbag. He also disclosed the shop, from where he had purchased the Nylon Rope. He was having a receipt, showing the pledging of the jewel with a local pawn broker, (P.W.20). P.W.24 reduced the same into writing. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.24 and the witnesses to his house and produced two Ear Rings, (M.O.9). Then, he produced a pair of Silver Anklets M.O.10 and Handbag M.O.12. He produced a Cellphone (M.O.21) and the receipt showing the pledging of jewel (Exhibit P-20). P.W.24 recovered the above materials under Exhibit P-21, Mahazer. Exhibit P-22 is the disclosure statement. Then, he took P.W.24 and the witnesses to the shop of P.W.20 and identified him. On seeing Exhibit P-20, receipt, P.W.20 admitted that M.O.1 Gold Chain was pledged by the first accused at his shop. It was pledged in the name of the first accused on 17.3.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. According to P.W.20, the first accused was already known to him through his father. On 17.3.2009, he pledged M.O.1. P.W.20 handed over the same to P.W.24 in the presence of the witnesses. He recovered the same under Exhibit P-23, mahazer. Then, the first accused identified the shop of P.W.21, who would say that on 15.3.2009, at about 3.00 p.m., the accused 1 and 2 came to his shop and purchased M.O.17, Nylon Rope. P.W.28, then, returned to the Police Station with the first accused and the recovered Material Objects. 2.11. While in the Police Station, he obtained the finger print of the first accused and forwarded the same for comparison. P.W.13 compared the finger print of the first accused with that of the chance finger print lifted from the place of occurrence. He opined that one of the chance finger prints could not be examined, as the same was blurred. (see R-2). However, the other finger print lifted from the Ever-silver Tumbler found in the Kitchen tallied with the admitted finger print of the first accused. In this regard, he gave a report. 2.12. The second accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. P.W.24 made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, seeking police custody of the second accused. However, the other finger print lifted from the Ever-silver Tumbler found in the Kitchen tallied with the admitted finger print of the first accused. In this regard, he gave a report. 2.12. The second accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. P.W.24 made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, seeking police custody of the second accused. Accordingly, he secured the custody of the second accused for three days, i.e., from 25.3.2009 to 27.3.2009. On 25.3.2009, at 5.00 p.m., in the Police Station, in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness, the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a Gold Chain and the Cellphone. Accordingly, he took P.W.24 and P.W.18 to the backyard at his house and took out M.O.2 Gold Chain and the Nokia Cellphone, (M.O.11), which was used by the deceased. Then, he returned to the Police Station along with the second accused and then, he forwarded the second accused to the Court for judicial remand. He handed over the Material Objects to the Court. Then, he examined the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and collected the medical records. 2.13. During the investigation, he collected Exhibit P-34 a report of the Scientific Assistant Grade I, addressed to the Professor of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, wherein it is stated that the grouping of the seminal stains found on the Petticoat of the deceased could not be ascertained. Thus, he could not ascertain as to whether the seminal stains found on the dress materials of the deceased belonged to these accused. Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet on 9.7.2009. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed as many as four charges, as detailed in the First Paragraph of this judgment. Since the accused pleaded innocence, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses and exhibited thirty eight documents, besides, twenty two Material Objects. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminating evidences available against the accused, they denied the same as false. On their side, they did not choose to examine any witness. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminating evidences available against the accused, they denied the same as false. On their side, they did not choose to examine any witness. But, they marked Exhibit D-1, a certified copy of the judgment made in C.C. No. 89 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, No. II, Kuzhithurai. Both the accused denied complicity and pleaded innocence. 4. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court found them guilty under all the charges, and accordingly, punished them. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused in Crl. A. (MD). No. 217 of 2012, learned senior counsel for the appellant/second accused in Crl. A. (MD). No. 228 of 2012, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records carefully. 6. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The followings are the circumstances projected by the prosecution. (i) The deceased was lastly seen alive by P.W.1, on 15.3.2009, at 6.30 p.m., and thereafter, the deceased alone was at the house of P.W.1. (ii). On the early morning of 16.3.2009, the deceased was found dead hanging in the rope. Thus, according to the prosecution, the death would have occurred somewhere between 6.30 p.m. on 15.3.2009 and early morning of 16.3.2009. (iii) According to P.W.9, Dr. N. Rajasekar, the death was due to ligature strangulation, and thus, it is a homicide and not a suicide. (iv) The chance finger print found on the Ever-silver Tumbler (M.O.14), found at the place of the occurrence tallied with the finger print of the first accused. (v) The Jewels, Handbag and the Cellphone belonging to the deceased were found missing. Thus, the murder and robbery had taken place in the same occurrence. (vi) On 22.3.2009, the first accused was arrested, from whose possession, Exhibit P-20, a receipt was recovered and based on the same, M.O.1, Gold Chain was recovered. (vii) M.O.1 belonging to the deceased was found in the possession of the first accused, who in turn pledged the same to P.W.20, on 17.3.2009. The Handbag and few more jewels were recovered from the possession of the first accused. (vii) M.O.1 belonging to the deceased was found in the possession of the first accused, who in turn pledged the same to P.W.20, on 17.3.2009. The Handbag and few more jewels were recovered from the possession of the first accused. (viii) On the disclosure statement made by the second accused, Gold Chain, M.O.2 and Nokia Cellphone, M.O.11 were recovered. (ix) The Nylon Rope, M.O.17, in which the dead body was hanging, was earlier purchased by these accused from P.W.21, on 15.3.2009. 7. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, these circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the said proved circumstances have formed a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Thus, according to him, the Lower Court was right in convicting both the accused. 8. But, the learned counsel for the appellant/first accused in Crl. A. (MD). No. 217 of 2012 would submit that many of the circumstances have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. He would further submit that even the so-called proved circumstances do not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. He would also add that there lot of contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 9. The learned senior counsel for the appellant/second accused in Crl. A. (MD). No. 228 of 2012 would submit that assuming that the recovery of M.O.2 and M.O.21 from the possession of the second accused is believed, even then, the offence said to have been committed by the second accused would fall only under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. We have considered the above rival submissions. Admittedly, the deceased was not a native of Moonchirai Village. She was a resident of Vaiyakundampatti Village in Tirunelveli District. She had come to the house of P.W.1 only to help P.W.1, as she was alone in the rented house. On 15.3.2009, at 6.30 p.m., P.W.1 had lastly seen alive the accused at her house and she was alone. This part of the evidence of P.W.1 has not been assailed by the defence in any way. Thereafter, on 16.3.2009, early morning, when P.W.1 returned after her duty time was over, she found the house locked from outside. She knocked at the door, which evoked no response from inside. This part of the evidence of P.W.1 has not been assailed by the defence in any way. Thereafter, on 16.3.2009, early morning, when P.W.1 returned after her duty time was over, she found the house locked from outside. She knocked at the door, which evoked no response from inside. She enquired P.W.3 and she disowned any knowledge about the deceased. 11. As we have already narrated, again she returned to her house and she incidentally found that the key was above the door frame. With the help of the said key, she opened the main door and entered into the house. From the evidence of P.W.1, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution that the assailants of the deceased had locked the house from outside and kept the key on the door frame. From the evidence of P.W.9, Dr. N. Rajasekar, the cause of death of the deceased had been proved to be due to ligature strangulation. He has ruled out the possibility of death due to hanging. In the Postmortem Certificate, he has clearly mentioned that there was an ante-mortem ligature mark on the neck at the bottom and the said ligature mark indicates the ligature strangulation. The doctor has further stated that the death was due to the said injury. There was yet another ligature mark found just before the jaw. This ligature mark was caused by hanging and the same was postmortem. Thus, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the death was not due to hanging. Apart from the above, both the hands were tied with a towel (M.O.13), (see M.O.19 photographs). It has been suggested to P.W.1 that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. It is a common knowledge that it is humanly impossible for a woman to tie both her hands to herself and after tying both the hands at the level of wrists, certainly, it would not have been possible thereafter to hang. 12. The very fact that even while hanging, the hands were found tied with a towel would go to show that the deceased would not have hanged, and thus, there can be no difficulty in accepting the medical opinion that the death was not due to hanging. The doctor has further opined that the ligature mark caused by hanging was post-mortem. The very fact that even while hanging, the hands were found tied with a towel would go to show that the deceased would not have hanged, and thus, there can be no difficulty in accepting the medical opinion that the death was not due to hanging. The doctor has further opined that the ligature mark caused by hanging was post-mortem. The other ligature injury found on the neck was ante-mortem, which indicates the manual ligature strangulation. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased was done to death by manual ligature strangulation. Thus, the death of the deceased had been proved to be a homicide and it is not a suicide, as it is suggested by the defence. 13. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the jewels worn by the deceased, Handbag and the Cellphone were found missing. It cannot be said that this allegation is an afterthought, because, due mention has been made in Exhibit P-1 about the missing of these articles. Therefore, it is crystal clear that these jewels were stolen away by the assailants in the very same occurrence. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the person, who committed the murder, has committed robbery also. 14. Now, the question is who are the persons, who committed the murder of the deceased and robbery. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution relies on more than one circumstance. The first and foremost circumstance is the presence of the finger print of the first accused on the Ever-silver Tumbler found in the Kitchen of the deceased. On the day of occurrence, P.W.13 made a thorough search for chance finger print and finally located two chance finger prints on the Tumbler. One was blurred, and therefore, the same could not be identified. The other finger print tallied with the admitted finger print of the first accused. The first accused has got no explanation at all as to how his finger print could be available on the Tumbler in the house of the deceased. This would clearly go to prove that the first accused had visited the house of the deceased. 15. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would submit that the procedure contemplated in the Identification of Prisoners Act , 1920, (for short, “the Act”), for lifting the finger print from the accused has not been followed. This would clearly go to prove that the first accused had visited the house of the deceased. 15. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would submit that the procedure contemplated in the Identification of Prisoners Act , 1920, (for short, “the Act”), for lifting the finger print from the accused has not been followed. In this regard, we may say that following the procedure contemplated under the Act is purely a procedural aspect and it is a safeguard against any tampering or meddling or creation of false finger print as though it was taken from the accused. If the finger print used as the admitted finger print for the purpose of comparison is denied by the accused, then, one may examine the question as to whether the procedure contemplated in the Act had been followed or not. It may even be said that in such an event, non – following of the said procedure has caused prejudice to the accused, and therefore, no reliance could be had on the finger print evidence. But, in this case, P.W.24 has spoken to the fact that it was he, who took the admitted finger print of the accused for the purpose of comparison. There is no denial of this fact. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Thulasingam, 1995 CLR.L.J.2080, wherein in Paragraph Nos. 66 and 67, while dealing with an identical situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “66. ..........The finding of the High Court that the bogus nature of the muster-rolls has not been established since the police officers who took fingerprints were not covered by Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 is erroneous. Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act defines “police officer” as “ ‘Police officer’ means an officer in charge of a police station, a police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or any other police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector”. Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act defines “police officer” as “ ‘Police officer’ means an officer in charge of a police station, a police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or any other police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector”. “Officer in charge of a police station” under Section 2(o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is defined as under— “‘officer in charge of a police station’ includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;” 69. The two police officers who took the fingerprints were Head Constables, P.Ws.351 and 352. These witnesses were never cross-examined. The taking of fingerprints is an act which is ministerial in nature. The question is of identity of the accused persons. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that the accused persons admitted their fingerprints. Had there been any cross-examination, it would have come out as to how they were authorised to take the fingerprints. Since the taking of fingerprints by the two PWs was never questioned before the trial Court, the reliance by the High Court on Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 is erroneous.” 16. In the case on hand, when there is no such denial, in our considered view, the failure of P.W.24 to follow the procedure contemplated under the Act has not caused any prejudice to the accused at all. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 17. The next circumstances as against the first accused is the arrest on 22.3.2009 and the consequential recovery of the Material Objects at his instance. P.W.17 and P.W.24 have spoken to the fact that the first accused was arrested on 22.3.2009 and on such arrest, he made a voluntary confession. At that time, he was found in possession of Exhibit P-20, Pawn Receipt. Then, he took P.W.24 and the witnesses to the shop of P.W.20 and identified the shop. P.W.20, in his evidence, has categorically stated that on 17.3.2009, the first accused pledged M.O.1 at his shop under Exhibit P-20. At that time, he was found in possession of Exhibit P-20, Pawn Receipt. Then, he took P.W.24 and the witnesses to the shop of P.W.20 and identified the shop. P.W.20, in his evidence, has categorically stated that on 17.3.2009, the first accused pledged M.O.1 at his shop under Exhibit P-20. Though P.W.20 has been cross-examined at length by the defence, there is no denial about the genuineness of Exhibit P-20, Pawn Receipt. 18. It is not at all the case of the accused that Exhibit P-20 had been created for the purpose of this case. In our considered view, Exhibit P-20 is a vital document, coupled with the evidence of P.W.20. From the evidence of P.W.20, it has been clearly proved that M.O.1 was found in the possession of the accused on 17.3.2009 itself. P.W.1 has identified M.O.1 as the one, which was worn by the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved that the stolen property (M.O.1) was found in the possession of the first accused soon after the commission of the murder, namely, on 17.3.2009. This gives rise to an adverse presumption against the first accused under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 19. Next comes the recovery of the other jewels from the first accused on the disclosure statement made by him in the presence of P.W.17. The learned counsel would submit that the so-called arrest of the first accused on 22.3.2009 and the consequential recovery of the Material Objects cannot be believed. But, the learned counsel is not in a position to point out any infirmity in the evidences of P.W.17 and P.W.24, upon which it could be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of arrest and the consequential recovery of the Material Objects. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the other Material Objects, including Handbag recovered from the first accused on the disclosure statement made by him are also stolen properties. The said disclosure statement made by the first accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and his conduct in identifying P.W.20, the second accused, as well as the discovery of the Material Objects are all circumstances falling under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well. The said disclosure statement made by the first accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and his conduct in identifying P.W.20, the second accused, as well as the discovery of the Material Objects are all circumstances falling under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the first accused was found in possession of the stolen articles, for which the first accused has got no explanation at all. Thus, the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 remains unrebutted. 20. The first accused has further identified P.W.21. P.W.21 has deposed that on 15.3.2009, both the accused came to his shop and purchased (M.O.17) Nylon Rope. This is yet another circumstance, which is adverse to both the accused. 21. Now, turning to the case against the second accused, the involvement of the second accused in the crime came to the knowledge of P.W.24 on the disclosure statement made by the first accused. The second accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. He has not explained to the Court as to what was the apprehension in his mind and what was the occasion, which compelled him to surrender before the Court. In our considered opinion, this conduct of the second accused in surrendering before the Court falls under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is adverse to the second accused. Further, when he was taken into the police custody, he made a confession in the presence of P.W.18 and P.W.24. On his disclosure statement, M.O.2 – Gold Chain and Nokia Cellphone M.O.11 were found in his possession. 22. The learned senior counsel for the second accused would contend that it is highly unbelievable that the second accused would not to have made such a disclosure statement, having surrendered before the Court earlier, claiming that he had no involvement in the crime. Though attractive, the said argument, in our considered opinion, is based on mere surmise. What made the second accused to surrender before the Court and to make a confession is within his exclusive knowledge. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel that the second accused would not to have made voluntary confession cannot be accepted. 23. Though attractive, the said argument, in our considered opinion, is based on mere surmise. What made the second accused to surrender before the Court and to make a confession is within his exclusive knowledge. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel that the second accused would not to have made voluntary confession cannot be accepted. 23. The learned senior counsel would, nextly, contend that P.W.18 is not a resident of anywhere near the Police Station, where the second accused was detained. The learned senior counsel would submit that there is no explanation as to why no independent witness from the said locality was summoned by P.W.24. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the presence of P.W.18 at the Police Station is doubtful and the consequential recovery of the Material Objects at the instance of the second accused cannot be believed. 24. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.18 would go to show that he has duly explained away the occasion for his presence at the crucial time in the Police Station. Though P.W.18 has been cross-examined, nothing has been elicited so as to discredit his evidence. As a matter of fact, the cross-examination is in few lines, which contains only a suggestion that he made the signature in the mahazer, as requested by the police. Except making such a bare denial, there was no further cross-examination to create any doubt in respect of the evidence of P.W.18. To put it otherwise, the evidence of P.W.18 remains unrebutted. Thus, from the evidences of P.W.18 and P.W.24, the prosecution has proved that the second accused was found in possession of M.O.2, Gold Chain and Nokia Cellphone M.O.11. P.W.2 has identified M.O.11 as the one, which was used by the deceased. M.O.11 stands in the name of P.W.2. He has stated that he had given his Cellphone to the deceased for her use, because the deceased was his sister-in-law and that she was in need of the Cellphone to speak to her husband, who was in abroad. The evidence regarding the Cellphone cannot be stated to be an afterthought. Even in Exhibit P-1, P.W.1 has mentioned about the missing of the Cellphone and the Cellphone Number itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the missing of the Cellphone is a theory introduced subsequently to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The evidence regarding the Cellphone cannot be stated to be an afterthought. Even in Exhibit P-1, P.W.1 has mentioned about the missing of the Cellphone and the Cellphone Number itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that the missing of the Cellphone is a theory introduced subsequently to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The second accused has not at all explained to the Court as to how he had come to possess M.O.11, Nokia Cellphone, which was lastly in the possession of the deceased. This is a very strong piece of evidence against the second accused. Apart from the above, M.O.2 was found in his possession. This has been identified by P.W.1 as a stolen property. In respect of the possession of these two properties, the second accused has not offered any explanation. Thus, the prosecution has proved that soon after the commission of the murder, the second accused was found in the possession of the stolen properties. Therefore, we are inclined to invoke Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The second accused has not offered any explanation for his possession of the Material Objects, and thus, the said presumption remains unrebutted. 25. The next contention of the learned senior counsel is that assuming that the recovery of the stolen properties were found in the possession of the accused, even then, at the most, it can be held that the second accused is only a receiver of the stolen properties. For this proposition, the learned senior counsel has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu v. State of Kerala, (2012) 1 SCC (Crl) 892 : (2012) 2 SCC 399 . 26. We have carefully gone through the said judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel. That was a case, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court doubted that the hold ornaments produced before the Court were really worn by the deceased. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court doubted the very theft of the jewels. But, in our case, there can be no such doubt at all. Therefore, we have no doubt to come to the conclusion that the second accused also joined hands with the first accused to commit the murder of the deceased and he was a party to the robbery also. 27. But, in our case, there can be no such doubt at all. Therefore, we have no doubt to come to the conclusion that the second accused also joined hands with the first accused to commit the murder of the deceased and he was a party to the robbery also. 27. From the photographs, (M.O.19), it can be seen that after the commission of the murder, the dead body would not have been hanged by a single person. It would have needed at least two persons. This circumstance, coupled with the other circumstances against the second accused, namely, the second accused was identified by the first accused, he surrendered before the Court, for which he has got no explanation, the discovery of the stolen properties found in his possession, for which there is no explanation would all clinchingly go to prove that the second accused also joined hands of the first accused in the commission of the murder as well as robbery. 28. The learned counsel relied on Exhibit-D1 in order to substantiate his contention that the first accused would not have been arrested on 22.3.2009. Exhibit D-1 is a certified copy of the judgment made in C.C. No. 89 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Kuzhithurai. 29. A perusal of the said judgment would go to show that the accused in the said case is none other than the first accused. This fact is admitted. It was a case registered against the first accused under Sections 341 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an occurrence, which had taken place on 21.3.2009. But, the said case ended in acquittal, as the complainant herself had turned hostile. But, in the list of the prosecution exhibits, in the said judgment itself, it is mentioned that the confession of the accused is dated 21.3.2009. 30. Relying on the above, the learned counsel would submit that in the said case, the first accused had been arrested on 21.3.2009 itself, and therefore, on 22.3.2009, he would not have been available elsewhere for being arrested in the instant case by P.W.24. The learned counsel would submit that after the arrest on 21.3.2009, since it was a case of robbery, the accused would have been only in judicial custody on 22.3.2009. 31. The learned counsel would submit that after the arrest on 21.3.2009, since it was a case of robbery, the accused would have been only in judicial custody on 22.3.2009. 31. In order to verify the correctness of the above statement, we called for the original case diaries in both the cases. From the same, we have come to notice that the first accused was arrested only on 22.3.2009, at 5.00 a.m. in connection with both the cases. The case in Crime No. 99 of 2009 (C.C. No. 99 of 2009) was also investigated by P.W.24. Thus, the doubt raised by the learned counsel about the time of the arrest has been cleared by the perusal of the original case diaries. 32. From the foregoing discussions, we hold that these two accused alone had committed the murder of the deceased and robbed the belongings of the deceased. For the said purpose, they had trespassed into the house of P.W.1. Therefore, the conviction under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be confirmed. So far as the conviction under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we find disagreement with the Lower Court. The Lower Court ought to have convicted both the accused under Section 392 simplicitor, as Section 397 is not a rider to 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused are liable to be punished under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same needs to be confirmed, since in order to screen the murder of the deceased as though it was a case of suicide, the accused had hanged the dead body in the Nylon Rope. 33. Now, coming to the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellants, the respective learned counsel have not advanced any argument regarding its proportionality. In our considered view, the sentence imposed under each charge is fair, just and reasonable, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 34. 33. Now, coming to the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellants, the respective learned counsel have not advanced any argument regarding its proportionality. In our considered view, the sentence imposed under each charge is fair, just and reasonable, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed in part in the following terms: the conviction of the appellants/accused and the substantive sentence imposed for the offences under Sections 449 , 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the fine amount imposed for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. But, the default sentence, i.e., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 28 months, imposed on them is reduced to one month Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence. The conviction of the appellants/accused under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and instead, the appellants/accused are convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Appeals allowed.