Judgment : A. Selvam, J. 1. The convictions and sentences dated 25.02.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 by the District and Sessions Court, Karur are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Pandiyammal is the wife of one Subramanian. The accused with the intention to rob her jewels has contacted her over cellphone and accordingly the deceased has followed the accused and near Thelungappatti graveyard in a land bearing Survey No.45/1A, the accused has had coition with the deceased and jugulated her by using her saree and due to his overtacts she has passed away and thereafter robbed her jewels worth of Rs.10,000/-. After occurrence, the concerned Village Administrative Officer viz., P.W.1 has given a complaint to P.W.15, Special Sub Inspector of Police and the same has been registered in Crime No.300 of 2011. The complaint given by P.W.1 has been marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the Investigating Officers viz., P.Ws.21 and 22 have conducted investigation and after completing the same laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Kulithalai and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2012. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai after perusing the relevant records has come to a conclusion that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karur Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013. 4. The trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed first charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and second charge against him under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.s.1 to 22 have been examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 9 have been marked. 6. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 7. 6. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. However no oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused. 7. The trial Court after considering the available evidence on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-with usual default clause. The accused has also been found guilty under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-with usual default clause. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant. 8. The sum and substance of the case putforth on the side of the prosecution is that the deceased Pandiyammal is the wife of one Subramanian, who has been examined as P.W.4. The accused with intention to rob her gold jewels has contacted her over cellphone and directed her to come to a particular place and accordingly she has come and met the accused and subsequently both of them have gone to the place of occurrence, wherein the accused has had sexual intercourse with the deceased and thereafter by using her saree the accused has jugulated her and subsequently he robbed all the jewels of the deceased. Under the said circumstances the accused is said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has contended that in the instant case no eye witness is available to the effect that both the accused and deceased are seen together prior to occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged recovery of some material objects and that itself would not be sufficient for inviting convictions and sentences against the accused and the trial Court without considering lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution has erroneously found the accused guilty under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused are liable to be set aside. 10. 10. In order to remonstrate the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also equally contended that in the instant case voluminous evidence is available with regard to confession and recovery of certain material objects and on the basis of recovery, the trial Court has rightly invited and convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused and therefore the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court do not require any interference. 11. The author of Ex.P.1, the Village Administrative Officer has been examined as P.W.1. The recovery witness by name Subramani has been examined as P.W.2. The daughter and husband of the deceased have been examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. The witness by name Vetrivel, who is said to have seen the deceased alone has been examined as P.W.5 and son of the deceased by name Muthukannu has been examined as P.W.8. The mother-in-law of the accused by name Kanniyammal has been examined as P.W.10 and other connected witnesses have become hostile. In fact this Court has closely perused the evidence given by the witnesses mentioned supra and nobody has stated that prior to occurrence they have seen both the accused and deceased together. 12. It is true that the trial Court has invited convictions and sentences against the appellant/accused only on the basis of alleged recovery of some material objects on the basis of confession alleged to have been given by the accused. 13. At this juncture a nice legal question arises as to whether the alleged recovery of some material objects would be sufficient to invite convictions and sentences against the appellant/ accused punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code? 14. In Wakkar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 306, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a case like this, mere recovery of material objects made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be sufficient to invite conviction and sentence against particular accused. The prosecution is expected to adduce some evidence apart from alleged recovery made under the said Section. 15. In the instant case, no witness has spoken about the fact that he or she has seen both the accused and deceased prior to occurrence. 16. The prosecution is expected to adduce some evidence apart from alleged recovery made under the said Section. 15. In the instant case, no witness has spoken about the fact that he or she has seen both the accused and deceased prior to occurrence. 16. As pointed out earlier, except alleged recovery of some material objects, the prosecution has not adduced any piece of evidence so as to prove that prior to occurrence both the accused and deceased are seen together. Since the said aspect is totally lacking on the part of the prosecution, mere recovery of some material objects would not be sufficient for inviting convictions and sentences against the appellant/ accused on the basis of the dictum given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore viewing from any angle the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused are not factually and legally sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. 17. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed in Sessions Case No.2 of 2013 by the District and Sessions Court, Karur are set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant/accused is ordered to be refunded forthwith.