JUDGMENT Mohan Shantanagoudar , J.—The appellant herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of IPC by the Sessions Court, Davanagere, in S.C. No. 17/2007. This appeal is filed against the said judgment and order of conviction. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is the brother of the deceased Thimma Sheety (hereinafter called as 'deceased No. 1'). Another deceased viz., Smt. Indiramma (hereinafter called as 'deceased No. 2') is the wife of deceased No. 1, which means, deceased No. 2 is the sister-in-law of the accused. The accused was serving as a Police Constable in Karnataka Reserve Police Department at Manchenahalli, Shimoga District during the relevant period. It is alleged that, on 13.10.2006 with an intention to commit murder of Thimrna Shetty, accused entered the house of Thirnma Shetty and Indiramappa, situated at Nittuvalli Kottureshwara Extension, Davanagere, at 10.00 p.m. After talking to them to certain extent of time, he administered sleeping tablets by mixing them in cool drinks to both the deceased and after they slept, the accused assaulted the deceased No. 1 with chisel (an instrument used for cutting the wood) near the neck and caused his death. When deceased No. 2 woke up and came near, she was assaulted by the accused with the said chisel on her chest and suffered death. Further with a intention to screen the evidence, the accused allegedly Doured kerosene on the cot and set fire to the bed to make it appear as if the deceased have committed suicide. After committing murder, accused allegedly removed the gold mangalya chain weighting 41.30 grams worth Rs. 30,000/-and mini gold necklace weighing 12 grams worth Rs. 9,744/- which were worn by Indirarnma. The mangalya chain was pledged with PW-23 and whereas, the mini gold necklace was sold to PW-24 (both Pawn Brokers). PW-1 - the daughter of the deceased, lodged the complaint as per Ex. P-1 on 15th October 2006 and the same was registered by Central Police Station, Davanagere, in Crime No. 174/2006 for the offences under Sections 302, 210 of IPC. The police after investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 210 and 392 of IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 32 witnesses and got marked 65 exhibits and 18 material objects. The police after investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 210 and 392 of IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 32 witnesses and got marked 65 exhibits and 18 material objects. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and on hearing, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 392 of IPC. 4. Sri. Shiva Prasad, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder, inasmuch as, he is the brother of the deceased No. 1 and brother-in-law of deceased No. 2; since the case rests on circumstantial evidence and as the circumstances do not form chain of circumstances so as to believe the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has fallen in error in convicting the accused. He further submits that gold chain is different from Mangalya sara; that mangalya sara of deceased No. 2 was robbed and not the gold chain; but the document Ex-P36 does not reveal the word "Mangalya sara", but it reveals gold chain; the prosecution is not sure about its case, inasmuch as, the prosecution has confused itself as to which of the gold ornaments were robbed; no material is forthcoming to show that the accused was found near the place of the incident or in the City where the incident has taken place during the relevant point of time; the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below are not just and proper. He further submits that only on the ground of alleged recovery of gold ornaments and the items used for commission of murder, the accused cannot be said to be guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. He further submits that the daughter of the deceased herself has admitted that the deceased and the accused were living amicably and there was no ill-will as such between the parties; there is nothing on record to show that the accused was pressurising the deceased to give money etc., and refusal of payment by the deceased has lead the accused to commit murder of the deceased. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused. Per-contra, Sri. On these among other grounds, he prays for acquittal of the accused. Per-contra, Sri. Chandra Mouli, learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature; There are no reasons to falsely implicate the accused in the crime by the prosecution or by the relatives of the deceased/ more particularly, when the accused was brother of deceased No 1; the failure on the part of the accused to explain possession of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased supplies additional link to the chain of circumstances; since recovery of the gold ornaments which was pledged and sold by the accused was proved, the Trial Court is justified in holding that the accused has committed the offence of murder for gain. He further submits that since the door of the house was locked, there was no occasion for anybody to enter the house of the deceased during the night or on the next day of the incident. The door key was seized from the accused and such door key was used by the accused for locking the door after commission of the offence. 5. Both the learned Advocates have taken us through the materiel on record and the judgment of the Court below before concluding their respectful arguments. 6. It is by now well settled that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when ail the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. Circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. We have considered the material on record, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles. 7. PW-1 is the daughter of deceased Nos. 1 and 2, She has lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1. She has deposed before the Court in support of the averments made in the complaint. PW-2 is the sister of deceased No. 1 and the accused. She has deposed about the spendthrift attitude of the accused and about raising of loan by the accused. PW-3 is the son of the deceased who was staying away from the deceased. He was working at Hyderabad during the relevant point of time. His evidence may not be of much use to either of the parties. PW--4 is the elder sister of deceased No. 2 and was residing at Rannebenur. She came to the scene of offence after nearing news from PW-1. She has also deposed that deceased No. 2 used to tell before her that accused used to demand money from the deceased and that the accused was advised suitably by telling that money would be given to him at the time of marriage of his children. PW-5 is the relative of the deceased. He was a pancha for scene of offence panchanama Ex--P2. PW-6 is the carpenter who was performing certain carpentry work at the house of the deceased during the relevant point of time. He has deposed about the missing of iron chisel left by him in the house of the deceased. Since PW-6 did not complete the work of wooden showcase and as he needed two more days to complete the work, he had left certain articles including M.O. 10 in the house of the deceased for using them on the next day. He was also mahazar witness for seizure of M.O. 10 and key M.O. 6. PW-7 is the Advocate who had issued notice on behalf of deceased No. 1 to one Ghouse Peer of Chitradurga under Section 138 of N.I. Act. According to PW-7, deceased No. 1 had given loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Ghouse Peer and as the said amount was not paid by Ghouse Peer, Advocate-PW-7 has issued notice to said Ghouse Peer under Section 138 of N.I. Act. According to PW-7, deceased No. 1 had given loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Ghouse Peer and as the said amount was not paid by Ghouse Peer, Advocate-PW-7 has issued notice to said Ghouse Peer under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The evidence of PW-7 reveals that deceased No. 1 had got sufficient money alongwith him. PW-8 had purchased a land in auction alongwith the deceased and four others by making initial deposit of Rs. 1.00 lakh. The bid amount was Rs. 15.00 lakhs. However, since the five purchasers did not pay money of Rs. 15.00 lakhs, said auction sale could not be completed. As aforementioned, the evidence of PW-8 also reveals that deceased No. 1 got extra money for purchasing the property etc., PWs-9 and 12 are the owners of Medical stores in whose shop the accused allegedly purchased Diazepam tablets (sleeping pills) during the relevant point of time. However, PWs-9 and 12 have turned hostile to the case cf the prosecution. PW-10 is the neighbour of the accused. He was also a police constable and colleague working in the same department. According to PW-10, accused was on leave from 6.10.2006 till 27.10.2006 and on 28.10.2006, the accused met with an accident. PW-11 is another colleague of accused. He was also a police constable. He has deposed that there was money transaction between the accused and PW-11. According to PW-11, he did not see the accused from 6.10.2006 except on 10.10.2006 and on 31.10.2006 when the accused was admitted to hospital. PW-13 is the mahazar witness for recovery mahazar Ex-P6 under which maaza bottle, iron chisel and door lock-key were seized at the behest of the accused. PW-13 is the witness for inquest mahazar Ex-P7 and PW-15 is the witness for scene of offence panchanama Ex-P2. PW-16 speaks about the seizure of clothes of deceased No. 1 under Ex-P8, whereas PW17 speaks about the seizure of clothes of deceased No. 2 under Ex-P9. PW-18 is the person who drew the sketch of scene of offence-Ex-P10. PW-19 is the police constable who delivered certain articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory during the course of investigation. PW-20 is the witness for seizure mahazar Ex-P3, wherein M.Os,5 and 6 are recovered and seized. PW-21 is the photographer who took photographs Exs-P11 to Ex-P21. PW-22 is the mahazar witness for recovery of gold ornaments under Ex-P33. PW-19 is the police constable who delivered certain articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory during the course of investigation. PW-20 is the witness for seizure mahazar Ex-P3, wherein M.Os,5 and 6 are recovered and seized. PW-21 is the photographer who took photographs Exs-P11 to Ex-P21. PW-22 is the mahazar witness for recovery of gold ornaments under Ex-P33. PW-23 is the pawn broker and is also witness to recovery mahazar Ex-P33, wherein, gold ornaments were seized. Accused had pledged the gold ornaments with PW-23, which are evidenced by the documents at Exs-P35 and P36. Ex-P35 is the receipt given to accused and Ex-P36 is the xerox-copy of the book maintained by PWs-23 in the regular course of business, Exs-P35 and P36 reveal that gold ornaments (Mangalya chain) was pledged by accused with PW-23 on 14.10.2006 for Rs. 20,000/-. PW-24 is another pawn broker. Accused sold another gold article (gold chain) to PW-24 for consideration. PW-24 has also acted as mahazar witness for seizure mahazar Ex-P34. The receipt evidencing the sale of gold chain is produced at Ex-P37. The sale took place on 16.10.2006. On the very day, the accused paid advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to PW-24 and placed orders to prepare a different mangalya chain and other gold articles. PWs-25 and 28 are the Assistant Directors of Forensic Science Laboratory respectively. They have given reports as per Ex-P41 and 49 respectively. Ex-P41 reveals that certain of the items sent for FSL contain chemicals contained in sleeping piils (Benzodiazapham). PW-26 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of deceased No. 1. The post-mortem report is at Ex-P46. PW-29 is the Inspector who sent the First information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate after registering the crime. PW-30 is the Inspector of police who produced the leave particulars of the accused, loan documents pertaining to the accused and the marriage card of the daughter of the accused. The marriage of daughter of the accused was fixed on 26.12.2005. PW-31 is the Investigating Officer who participated in the investigation in part. PW-32 is another Inspector of police who laid the charge-sheet after completion of investigation. 8. The case of the prosecution is that since the accused was in dire need of money, he had asked Thimmashetty to part with the money. PW-31 is the Investigating Officer who participated in the investigation in part. PW-32 is another Inspector of police who laid the charge-sheet after completion of investigation. 8. The case of the prosecution is that since the accused was in dire need of money, he had asked Thimmashetty to part with the money. Since, he was not successful in getting money from Thimma shetty (dereased No. 1), he hatched a plan to take away the life of Thimmashetty. Since Indiramma (deceased No. 2) was also there and as she had seen the accused killing the deceased on that day, he did not take away only the life of deceased No. 1, but had taken away the life of deceased No. 2 also, inasmuch as, deceased No. 2 could have been witness against him. Accused had gone to the house of the deceased during the night of 13.10.2006. According to the case of the prosecution, accused had maaza bottle containing maaza (soft drink) and the deceased No. 1 was asked to drink the same by the accused. Accused had purchased Benzodiazapham tablets and mixed the same in maaza bottie before being consumed by deceased No. 1. After consuming, deceased No. 1 became unconscious for some time and with the help of chisel, accused cut the neck and cheek of deceased No. 1, consequent upon which, deceased No. 1 sustained severe injuries. When deceased No. 2 Indiramma tried to defend her husband, she was also brutally assaulted by the accused with the help of chisel. With an intention to hide the crime and with an intention to make it appear as if deceased had committed suicide, the gas tube had been tied to the neck of deceased No. 2 and to disappear the evidence, accused burnt the bed by pouring kerosene. After committing murder of the deceased, he robbed the Mangalya chain and necklace worn by Indiramma and were given to PWs-23 and P24 (Pawn brokers). Ultimately, the same was recovered at the instance of the accused under mahazar. During investigation, the police have collected the phone particulars, of the accused, which were made from the mobile phone of the accused. 9. The Trial Court has reiied upon the following circumstances to link the accused with the commission of offence, viz., 1. The accused was found in possession of M.Os. 1 & 2. 2. During investigation, the police have collected the phone particulars, of the accused, which were made from the mobile phone of the accused. 9. The Trial Court has reiied upon the following circumstances to link the accused with the commission of offence, viz., 1. The accused was found in possession of M.Os. 1 & 2. 2. P.W. 23 and 24 have identified the accused saying that it the accused who has given M.Os. 1 & 2 to them. 3. M.O. 1 & 2 were recovered at the instance of the accused. 4. Interlock key was recovered at the instance of the accused. 5 Interlock key was ascertained to be that of the house of the deceased. 6. Weapon chisel was kept in the house of the deceased as spoken to by P. W.6. 7. Chisel was recovered from the accused at his instance. 8. P.W. 26 & 27 confirms the injuries noted in the P.M. report to have been caused with chisel M.O. 10. 9. M.O. 10 was sent to P.W. 26 and opinion has been obtained. 10. Maja bottle was recovered at the instance of the accused. 11. Liquid contained in the maja bottle was confirmed to be mixed with benjodiazepam medicine. 12. Benjodiazepam tablet was purchased by the accused from the shop at Bhadravathi. 13. The conduct of the accused in misdirecting the police in the investigation. The presence of the accused having been found on 13th and 14th at Davanagere by virtue of the call particulars. 14. Financial condition of the accused. 15. Missing of the accused on the 11th day ceremony. We find that, in addition to the aforementioned circumstances, the following circumstances are also existing, viz., a. The accused was on leave from 6.10.2006 to 26.10.2006. The offence has taken place during the night intervening between 13.10.2006 & 14.10.2006. b. The accused was spendthrift and was having bad character. He was under loans. He used to ask for money from his brother and sister-in-law. However, deceased did not provide the accused with money. 10. The evidence of PW-1 fully supports the case of the prosecution as found in complaint Ex-P1. The complaint clearly reveals that both the deceased had suffered incised injuries over the neck and other parts of the body. He used to ask for money from his brother and sister-in-law. However, deceased did not provide the accused with money. 10. The evidence of PW-1 fully supports the case of the prosecution as found in complaint Ex-P1. The complaint clearly reveals that both the deceased had suffered incised injuries over the neck and other parts of the body. PW-1 came to the house of the deceased in the morning of 13.10.2006 and was with her parents till 3.00 p.m. She again came back at 9.00 p.m and told her parents that water is being supplied in tap by the Municipality and therefore they should secure the water PW-1 is the married daughter of the deceased and she was living in her matrimonial house, which is shout 300 ft from her parents' house. Next day i.e., on the morning on 14.10.2006 at about 10,00 a.m., PW-1 came to the house of her parents in usual manner However, she found that the door as well as compound gate was locked. Inspire of her best efforts to get in touch with her parents by calling over phone, she could not succeed. Thereafter, she made calls to her relatives to find out the whereabouts of her parents and none of the relatives of her parents could not provide any clue. On 15.10.2006, PW-4-sister of deceased No. 2 came to Davanagere from Ranebennur after getting repeated calls from PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-4 entered the compound and found some black smoke marks on the window grills and after taking the help of neighbours, the door was broke open by PW-1 and PW-4 and others and found that her parents were murdered. Though her evidence reveals that accused was good with the deceased, she has emphatically deposed that the accused used to come to the deceased frequently. She has also deposed that the Mangalya chain and mini necklace of her mother were missing. She has identified mangalya chain and gold chain during the course of evidence. She has deposed that the accused used to frequently ask for money from deceased No. l and she does not know as to whether the amount was provided by deceased No. 1 to the accused or not. She further admits that deceased No. 2 was wearing gold bangles and they were intact which were seized at the time of investigation. 11. The important witness is PW-2. She further admits that deceased No. 2 was wearing gold bangles and they were intact which were seized at the time of investigation. 11. The important witness is PW-2. She is sister of accused as well as deceased No.1. She has deposed about the spendthrift attitude of the accused and that accused had raised loans. According to her, two days prior to the incident in question, accused had come to her house alongwith maaza bottle and fruits. On being asked, accused told PW-2 that he had come to the house of deceased No. 1 and as deceased No. 1 was not present in the house, he has come to her house. He stayed in the house of PW-2 on that day and he went away in the morning on the next day, In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the accused had not raised loan and he was not under loans. On the other hand, he has emphatically deposed in the cross-examination also that the accused was under loans. She has further deposed that when she called the accused to know as to whether he had seen the deceased during the date of incident, the accused gave evasive reply. The ornaments were identified not only by PW-1 but also PW4, the elder sister of deceased No. 2, 12. PW-6 is another important witness. He is a Carpenter. On 11.10.2006 he had been to the house of deceased for preparing the show-case at their request. He had taken the articles including the MO-10 - iron chisel for executing the work. Since the work could not be completed on 11.10.2006 and as he wanted to go to Malebennur Village for about two days he left all his carpentary articles in the house of the deceased including the iron chisel. He has deposed that after the incident, he came to the house of the deceased on 15.10.2006. The Police took him to inside the house. At that point of time, he saw his all the other items intact except the iron chisel, so also the accused had taken the door lock. PW-6 has deposed about the recovery of iron chisel - MO-10 and door key - MO-6. In spite of searching cross-examination nothing is brought out so as to discard his evidence. 13. At that point of time, he saw his all the other items intact except the iron chisel, so also the accused had taken the door lock. PW-6 has deposed about the recovery of iron chisel - MO-10 and door key - MO-6. In spite of searching cross-examination nothing is brought out so as to discard his evidence. 13. The evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 clearly shows that the deceased has got extra money to lend to third parties and to purchase the site. 14. PW-10 and PW-11 are the Police Constables/Colleagues of the accused. Their deposition clearly establishes that the accused was on leave from 06.10.2006 till 27.10.2006. On 28.10.2006 the accused had met with an accident and was admitted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shimoga. PW-13 another witness who has spoken about the recovery of Maaza bottle, one chisel and one door iock key at. the behest of the accused. 15. Two more important witnesses are PWs 23 and 24 - Pawn Brokers. PW-23 has deposed that the accused pledged one of the gold ornaments (Mangalya Sutra) on 14.10.2006 with him. Though material reveals that gold chain is seized, it is actually Mangalasutra, made up of gold. Mangalya sara/Mangalasutra is also a chain. The same was taken by PW-23 by issuing receipt No. 8327 which is marked as Ex.P35. The gold ornament which was pledged was weighing 41.400 grams. PW-23 has provided Rs. 20,000/-to the accused after getting the gold ornaments pledged. The relevant copy of the page of the register maintained by PW-23 in regular course of his business was marked as Ex.P36. He has deposed that the accused voluntarily came to his shop and pledged the said golcen ornaments by receiving Rs. 20,000/-. Nothing is brought in the cross-examination to discard his evidence. In the receipt, the accused has given his address as Raju B. S/o Anjinappa, KSRP, 918, Military Camp, Bhadravathi. We find from Ex.P36 that the document is regularly maintained in the regular course of business and the said document discloses that the items were pledged with PW-23 by various other persons from 10.10.2006 till 14.10.2006. The entries made in Ex.P36 appear to have been made in regular course of his business. PW-23 has identified the accused as well as the gold Mangalya Chain pledged by the accused. 16. The entries made in Ex.P36 appear to have been made in regular course of his business. PW-23 has identified the accused as well as the gold Mangalya Chain pledged by the accused. 16. PW-24 is another Pawn Broker, He has purchased MO-2 - mini Gold Necklace from accused on 16.10.2006 for Rs. 9,744.00 inasmuch as the said gold chain was weighing 12.180 grams. The accused has given his address as Hanumanthappa S/o Anjinappa, KSRP, Machenahalli,, PC-241, Bhadravathi while selling the gold chain to PW-24. On the very day the accused placed orders for one chain and two Mangalya Chains and had paid Rs. 10,000/- towards advance. PW-24 has identified the accused as well as the gold chain sold to him. The mangalya chain was seized by the Police under the mahazar Ex.P34. 17. On the aforementioned, it is very much clear that the accused was in possession of gold mangalya sutra and Necklace - MOs 1 and 2 and the same were pledged with and sold to PWs. 23 and 24 respectively. The police have seized both the articles under panchanama. Both these PWs 23 and 24 have identified the accused as well as the items pledged/sold in their favour. In view of the same, the Trial Court rightly held that the recovery of the gcid ornaments were proved by the prosecution. 18. The above evidence on record conclusively goes to show that the house was locked from outside, even the compound gate was locked. The doors opened after breaking open the locks by the neighbours along with PWs. 1 & 4 and they entered into the house, which means that none of the persons has entered the house of the deceased after morning of 14.10.2006. The incident has occurred during the intervening night of 13th and 14th of October 2006. In this view of the matter, accused has to explain as to how he came in possession of the golden ornaments Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming by the accused either in the form of suggestions made in the cross-examination or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Non-explanation by the accused about the possession of the golden ornaments supplied is additional chain of circumstances. 19. During the course of evidence, PW-32 - the Investigating Officer has collected the list of phone calls made by the accused. The incident has occurred at Davanagere. 19. During the course of evidence, PW-32 - the Investigating Officer has collected the list of phone calls made by the accused. The incident has occurred at Davanagere. The accused was on leave during the relevant period. The accused had made various phone calls from the nearby places of Davanagere. Though there is no direct evidence on record to show that some body has seen the accused along with the deceased during the relevant point of time, the material collected by the Police such as phone calls, etc., clearly reveal that the accused was near the scene of offence in between 12th to 15th of October 2006. PW-32 -Inspector of Police had asked the accused to surrender his mobile for the purpose of investigation. At that point of time, the accused falsely told the Investigating Officer that he lost the mobile and he lodged the complaint in that regard. However, during the course of investigation, it was found by the Investigating Officer that number of calls were made to the so called missing mobile phone by the accused. The inspector - Investigating Officer has also recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. Based on which, the recovery of gold ornaments as well as iron chisel and other items used for commission of the offence of murder and robbery were made. 20. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the firm opinion that the Trial Court justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the murder for gain. The ornaments belonging to the deceased were found possession in the accused soon after the murder. Hence, the presumption of guilt is permitted to be raised under Section 114 of Evidence Act. The nature of presumption arid illustration (a) noted under Section 114 of Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. In the matter on hand, the incident has taken place during the intervening night of 13th and 14th of October 2006. On the very day i.e. on 14.10.2006 the gold mangala sutra weighing about 40 grams was pledged by the accused with PW-23 and another golden chain was sold in favour cf PW-24 on 16.10.2010. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to how he came in possession of the said ornaments. On the very day i.e. on 14.10.2006 the gold mangala sutra weighing about 40 grams was pledged by the accused with PW-23 and another golden chain was sold in favour cf PW-24 on 16.10.2010. No explanation is forthcoming from the accused as to how he came in possession of the said ornaments. From the nature of evidence led in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from the possession of the accused and his dealing with the articles of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery, inference of commission of offence can be drawn against the appellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused in the facts of this case. Thus, it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore, the presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of their ornaments. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the Trial Court. 21. We find that the trial Court has assigned valid reasons in coming to the conclusion. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are just and proper. Hence, no interference is called for. 22. Appeal fails and is dismissed.