JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15/16-7-2011, passed by the Fast Track Court-XVII, Bangalore City, in SC No. 874 of 2008 is called in question in these appeals by the convicted accused. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Cri. A. No. 1148 of 2011 is filed by accused 2, whereas Cri. A. No. 192 of 2002 is filed by accused 1. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, between 10.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on 16-4-2008, accused 1 and 2 with an intention to rob the gold ornaments in the house of P.W. 1-Ramana Rao, situated within the limits of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, entered the house; after noticing that Smt. Gangamma (mother of P.W. 1), aged about 75 years (deceased) was alone in the house, squeezed her neck and pressed her face with pillow and kept rice bag on her chest; thereafter the accused robbed cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.5 Lakhs and disappeared from the scene. It is relevant to note that accused 1 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 (wife of accused 1 and the wife of P.W. 1 are genitive sisters). P.W. 4 also knew accused 1. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 14 witnesses and 19 Exhibits and 29 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined and no document is marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted both the accused for the aforementioned offences. 4. Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused 1 (appellant in Cri. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined and no document is marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted both the accused for the aforementioned offences. 4. Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused 1 (appellant in Cri. A. No. 198 of 2012) taking us through the entire material on record submits that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is proved by it beyond reasonable doubt; there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; the police had already arrived at the scene of offence prior to lodging of the complaint; the manner in which the complaint is lodged creates suspicion in the mind of the Court; though the police came to the spot even prior to lodging of the complaint, there was no reason as to why the complainant should go to Police Station and lodge the complaint as per Ex. P. 1. He further submits that the place of incident, i.e., house of P.W. 1 is surrounded by ten houses in the same building and none of the persons adjoining houses came to the scene of offence; the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as the statement of P.W. 4 who has deposed about the last seen theory is recorded only on 22-4-2008 though the incident has taken place on 16-4-2008; P.W. 4 is the owner of the house wherein P.W. 1 was living and he knew accused 1 also; P.W. 4 assisted P.W. 1 in lodging the complaint and he gave moral support to him immediately after the incident and therefore it is highly unnatural on the part of P.W. 4 in not disclosing last seen theory before anybody, including the police either at the time of lodging the complaint or at the time of drawing inquest panchanama at Ex. P. 7; absolutely no records are forthcoming as to who collected the finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison; in the absence of such vital material, the evidence of the finger prints' expert and his report at Ex. P. 4 cannot be relied upon. P. 7; absolutely no records are forthcoming as to who collected the finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison; in the absence of such vital material, the evidence of the finger prints' expert and his report at Ex. P. 4 cannot be relied upon. He also submits that since accused 1 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1, it was quite possible for him to visit the house of P.W. 1 frequently and therefore it is not unnatural that the finger prints were found on the almirah, fan, etc. in the house of P.W. 1. In respect of the circumstance relating to recovery concerned, Sri Jadhav submits that recoveries are made belatedly, i.e., after 3 to 4 days of the arrest of the accused; none of the panchas to recovery panchanama at Exs. P. 16 and P. 17 is examined before the Court; since P.Ws. 9 and 14 being the Inspectors of Police, their evidence needs to be disbelieved more particularly when they have taken active role to concoct the story in favour of the prosecution; no panchanama was drawn on the spot of arrest of accused 1 and 2 at Navunda Village, where both the accused were searched and certain gold ornaments were seized from them; looking to the mahazars at Exs. P. 16 and P. 17, it is clear that the joint recoveries were made by the Investigating Officer and hence such recoveries cannot be relied upon. He further submits that even the recovery of gold chain under Ex. P. 5 from the jewelry shop may not be believed in view of the fact that the receipt for having pledged the gold chain with the jewelry shop is not produced before the Court. He also submits that at the time of lodging the complaint by P.W. 1, he has not furnished the list of gold ornaments which were allegedly robbed and therefore the theory of robbery by the accused falls to the ground. It is further submitted by him that P.Ws. He also submits that at the time of lodging the complaint by P.W. 1, he has not furnished the list of gold ornaments which were allegedly robbed and therefore the theory of robbery by the accused falls to the ground. It is further submitted by him that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 admit that there was cordial relationship between accused 1 and P.W. 1 and his family members; the son of P.W. 1 (P.W. 3) used to sleep in the house of accused 1; in view of the same, it is highly unnatural on the part of the prosecution to allege that accused 1 has committed the murder of an old lady aged about 75 years, who is the mother of brother-in-law of accused 1, for gain. Lastly, he submits that the cut hairs which are allegedly seized were allegedly in the hands of the deceased while drawing the scene of panchanamna at Ex. P. 2, but nothing is mentioned in respect of hairs not while drawing inquest panchanama at Ex. P. 6. On these among other grounds, he prays for setting aside the judgment of the Court below. Sri Mohan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of accused 2 (appellant in Cri. A. No. 1148 of 2011) argued supporting the arguments of Sri C.H. Jadhav. 5. Sri Keshava Murthy, learned State Public Prosecutor-2 argues in support of the judgment of the Court below contending that there is no delay in lodging the complainant and registering the same; the admitted finger prints of accused 1 were already stored by the Department of Police since accused 1 was involved in criminal cases earlier; the admitted finger prints of accused 1 who was involved in criminal cases earlier stored by Modus Operandi Bureau (MOB) were compared with the lifted finger prints from the scene of offence by the finger prints' expert (P.W. 5) and he has given the report as per Ex. P. 4, which clearly reveals that the admitted finger prints and chance of finger prints of accused 1 tally with each other. According to him, there is no explanation by the accused either by way of suggestions to the witnesses or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with regard to the circumstances under which the finger prints of accused 1 were found on the almirah, fan, etc., in the house of P.W. 1. According to him, there is no explanation by the accused either by way of suggestions to the witnesses or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with regard to the circumstances under which the finger prints of accused 1 were found on the almirah, fan, etc., in the house of P.W. 1. According to him, the circumstance of recovery of gold ornaments at the behest of both the accused is proved by the prosecution, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer who participated in the process of recovering the gold ornaments has deposed before the Court supporting such recovery; since the Investigating Officer is a public servant, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that panchas to recovery mahazars are not examined. Lastly he submits that the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are just and proper and therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeals. 6. As aforementioned, the complaint is lodged by the son of the deceased (P.W. 1). Complaint at Ex. P. 1 came to be registered at about 4.30 p.m. in Rajagopalanagar Police Station in Crime No. 142 of 2008. P.W. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, i.e., wife of the P.W. 1. She has also deposed about the murder and regarding robbery. However, she is not the eye-witness to the incident in question. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have identified the gold ornaments as belonging to the deceased and her family. P.W. 3 is the son of P.W. 1. The motorcycle bearing Regn. No. KA 51 Q 5098 is owned by him. He has deposed that accused 1 had taken the motorcycle in the morning of the date of the incident and the said motorcycle was found in front of the house of P.W. 1 after the incident. P.W. 4 has deposed that he has seen both the accused coming to the house of the deceased together on motorcycle at 9.30 a.m. on 16-4-2008 and subsequently leaving at 10.30 a.m. on the very day. P.W. 1 called him over phone to the scene of offence at 1.30 p.m. Accordingly, P.W. 4 came to the spot and he was not present at the time of conducting the scene of offence mahazar. P.W. 5 is the finger prints' expert attached to Police Department. P.W. 1 called him over phone to the scene of offence at 1.30 p.m. Accordingly, P.W. 4 came to the spot and he was not present at the time of conducting the scene of offence mahazar. P.W. 5 is the finger prints' expert attached to Police Department. He has deposed about the identification of finger prints on the spot and comparison of the same with the admitted finger prints of the accused. Ex. P. 4 is his report. P.W. 6 is the pawnbroker. He has deposed about the recovery mahazar at Ex. P. 5 under which gold chain is recovered at the instance of accused 1. P.W. 7 is the witness for inquest panchanama at Ex. P. 6. P.W. 8 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body. His report is at Ex. P. 7. P.W. 9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He apprehended the accused in Navunda Village, Kundapura Taluk in Udupi District and seized the gold ornaments which were on the person of both the accused. P.W. 10 is another doctor who plucked the hairs from both the accused. His reports are at Exs. P. 10 and P. 11. P.W. 11 is the Inspector of Police who conducted part of investigation. P.W. 12 is the Head Constable who carried the first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 13 is the Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory. He is the Scientific Expert in comparison of hairs. His report is at Ex. P. 15. P.W. 14 is the Inspector of Police, City Criminal Branch, who completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. He has also deposed about the seizure of gold ornaments under mahazars at Exs. P. 16 and P. 17. 7. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under: (a) The motorcycle of P.W. 3 was taken by accused 1 in the morning of the date of the incident and the same was left by accused 1 in front of house of the deceased. (b) The last seen circumstance - both the accused were seen at 9.30 a.m. and also at 10.30 a.m. going to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident; the incident has taken place between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. (c) The opinion of the finger print expert. (b) The last seen circumstance - both the accused were seen at 9.30 a.m. and also at 10.30 a.m. going to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident; the incident has taken place between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. (c) The opinion of the finger print expert. (d) The opinion of the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding comparison of hairs of accused 1. (e) Recovery of gold ornaments robbed at the instance of the accused. 8. Before proceeding to discuss the aforementioned circumstances, it is relevant to note that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of chest and neck associated with signs of smothering. The post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor-P.W. 8 reveals that pressure abrasion present over front and sides of neck, horizontally placed over lower neck measuring 11 cms. x 2.5 cms.; the upper second right teeth was fractured and the socket was filled with blood; right side three ribs were fractured anteriorly; left side seven ribs were fractured anteriorly; surfaces of both lungs and heart show petechial hemorrhages. On dissection, the doctor has found that the fractured ends of bones show blood extravasation's and all injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Thus it is clear from the medical evidence that the death is due to asphyxia consequent upon compression of chest and neck associated with signs of smothering. (a) Regarding 1st circumstance: 9. P.W. 3 has deposed that he is the owner of the Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA 51 Q 5098; accused 1 is his uncle; accused 2 is working along with accused 1 and assisting him in painting work; in the morning of 16-4-2008 i.e., on the date of the incident, accused 1 requested him (P.W. 3) to give his motorcycle on the pretext that he wants to go elsewhere; he (P.W. 3) obliged accused 1 by handing over two wheeler and went to his shop; at 1.30 p.m. he (P.W. 3) received telephone call from his father (P.W. 1) and got the news of murder of his grandmother; immediately, he rushed to his house and then he saw his two wheeler, which was parked in front of his house. Though the suggestions are made by the defence that P.W. 3 was in very good terms with accused 1, same would not help the defence inasmuch as it is but natural that since the accused 1 is his uncle, P.W. 3 would have given his two wheeler to accused 1 at his request. Suggestions are made to P.W. 3 by the defence to show that P.W. 3 has got criminal antecedents inasmuch as he was supporting the family members of the deceased in the murder case of one Muniswamy. Such suggestions are denied by him. In the cross-examination, P.W. 3 has reiterated that when he visited his house after getting telephone call from his father, he saw the two wheeler which was parked outside the house. Nothing much elicited by the defence to discredit the evidence of P.W. 3. Undisputedly P.W. 1 is father of P.W. 3. All the family members of P.W. 1 including the deceased were living in the same house. Earlier, they were residing in a different house in a different area. Subsequently they have shifted the residence to Rajagopalanagar. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it is clear that he had given his motorcycle to accused 1 at his request and the said motorcycle was found in front of his house at about 1.30 p.m. on the date of the incident. This strengthens the case of the prosecution that accused 1 and 2 came on the said motorcycle to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident and had parked the motorcycle in front of the said house. The evidence of P.W. 3 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 4 who is the owner of the building wherein P.W. 1 had taken a house on rent. P.W. 4 has deposed that at about 9.30 a.m. on 16-4-2008 both the accused came on the black coloured pulsar motorcycle and after parking the same, they went to the 1st floor of the building; they came back after some time from the 1st floor and went away from the house; however once again they came to the house of the deceased at 10.30 a.m. on the very motorcycle and after parking the same in front of the house, the accused once again went to the first floor; subsequently he (P.W. 4) went to his work. P.W. 4 has also deposed that he knew accused 1 since a long time. This portion of the evidence of P.W. 4 has practically remained un-controverted. In the cross-examination, P.W. 4 has admitted that generally he leaves home between 9.30 and 10.00 a.m. to go to office; that there are about eight houses in the first floor of his building and in one of the houses, the deceased and her family members were residing. (b) Reg. the last seen circumstance: 10. In order to prove the last seen circumstance, the prosecution once again relies upon the evidence of P.W. 4. As aforementioned, P.W. 4 has deposed that he saw both the accused coming on the black coloured pulsar motor vehicle at 9.30 a.m. to his building and after parking the motorcycle, they went to the first floor of the building; they came back after some time from the 1st floor and went away from the house; again at about 10.30 a.m., both the accused came on the very motorcycle and parked the said motorcycle in front of the building and went to the first floor where the house of the deceased is situated; at about 1.30 p.m. on the very day, he (P.W. 4) received telephone call from P.W. 1, who intimated him (P.W. 4) about the murder of the deceased; immediately he rushed to the scene and saw the dead body. P.W. 4 has also deposed that one of the teeth of the deceased has fallen on the ground and blue coloured lungi was found tied to the fan and bloodstains were found on the pillow cover, bed-sheet and the bed; there was a bleeding from the lips of the deceased and two cupboards in the house of the deceased were opened; himself and P.W. 1 intimated the Police about the crime who came to the spot at 3 p.m. In the cross-examination, P.W. 4 has deposed that he went to the spot at 1.45 p.m. after receiving telephone call from P.W. 1 and that himself and P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint at about 2.00 to 2.15 p.m.; the Police came to the spot at about 2.45 p.m. P.W. 4 is a witness for the scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P. 2 also. Though he does not depose about the inquest panchanama-Ex. P. 2 also. Though he does not depose about the inquest panchanama-Ex. P. 6, the records reveal that his statement was recorded during the inquest panchanama also. However he has omitted to depose about the said aspect of the matter before the Court though he has deposed about he witnessing and endorsing his signature on the scene of offence mahazar (Ex. P. 2). The defence has contended that the inquest panchanama-Ex. P. 6 was drawn from 6.15 to 8.15 p.m. and scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P. 2 was drawn from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on the date of the incident, which means the inquest panchanama was conducted subsequent to the scene of offence panchanama. Though P.W. 4 came to the spot immediately after hearing the news from P.W. 1 and though he assisted P.W. 1 in lodging the complaint-Ex. P. 1, he did not whisper any word before P.W. 1 while lodging the complaint-Ex. P. 1 as also he has not stated anything when his statement was recorded during the course of inquest panchanama. The Police have recorded the statement of P.W. 4 under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code on 22-4-2008 i.e., about six days after the incident. Thus according to Mr. Jadhav, the last seen theory was created by the prosecution only after six days inasmuch P.W. 4 has not disclosed about the said circumstance anywhere and to anybody including the Police earlier. The argument of Sri Jadhav deserves to be accepted. If really P.W. 4 had seen both the accused coming to the scene of offence at 9.30 or 10.30 a.m. on the date of the incident, he would not have missed to say so at the time of lodging the complaint or at the time giving the statement during the course of inquest panchanama. P.W. 4 has opened up his mind to the last seen circumstance only on 22-4-2008. It is also curious to note that on 22-4-2008 further statement of P.W. 1 was recorded. Therefore in our considered opinion, the last seen theory as put forth by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Reg. the opinion of the finger print expert: 11. It is also curious to note that on 22-4-2008 further statement of P.W. 1 was recorded. Therefore in our considered opinion, the last seen theory as put forth by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Reg. the opinion of the finger print expert: 11. Case of the prosecution is that both the accused went to the house of the deceased for committing robbery and having seen the deceased aged about 75 years in the house all alone, they committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter robbed the gold ornaments found in the cupboard of the deceased. In this regard, the evidence of P.W. 5, the finger print expert is vital. The evidence of P.W. 5 discloses that he has been working in the said scientific field from nine years and after getting the wireless message from the control room, he went to Rajagopalanagar Police Station at 4.30 p.m. on 16-4-2008 and thereafter he along with other Police personnel went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body. By using scientific method and after sprinkling certain powder on the steel almirah, doors and fan of the house of the deceased, he lifted two chance finger prints found on the steel almirah which were marked as SI and S2. He compared both these chance finger prints with the admitted finger prints of accused 1 and found that both the chance finger prints tally with the admitted finger prints of left middle finger and left ring finger of accused 1. He has given the report as per Ex. P. 4. The said report also discloses that the chance finger prints lifted by P.W. 5 tally with the admitted finger prints of accused 1. In this regard, Mr. Jadhav submitted that there is no evidence to show that the admitted finger prints of accused 1 were taken. Such submission cannot be accepted. It is made clear in the evidence of P.W. 5 that the admitted finger prints of accused 1 were already found in data stored in the computer maintained by the Police Department. The evidence of P.W. 5 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 9, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police of CCB Police Station, Bengaluru. It is made clear in the evidence of P.W. 5 that the admitted finger prints of accused 1 were already found in data stored in the computer maintained by the Police Department. The evidence of P.W. 5 is supported by the evidence of P.W. 9, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police of CCB Police Station, Bengaluru. P.W. 9 has deposed that he was searching for the accused in this crime and ultimately, the accused were found in Navunda Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District; accused 1 is having criminal background inasmuch as he was involved in earlier crime registered in Rajagopalanagar Police Station; in the earlier criminal cases, the finger prints of accused 1 were taken. Thus it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 9 that the admitted finger prints of accused 1 were already fed to the data stored by the Police Department and such admitted finger prints of accused 1 were compared with the chance finger prints by P.W. 5. In the Karnataka State, Modus Operandi Bureau (MOB) is one of the Wings of the Police Department and the said Wing helps the Investigation Authorities for comparison of the finger prints. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned SPP-II that MOB is in existence from British time. Be that as it may, from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 9 it is amply clear that the chance finger prints were compared with the admitted finger prints of accused 1 stored in the computer data, by the expert in the field who has opined that the admitted finger prints tally with the chance finger prints of accused 1. The accused 1 has not explained as to how his finger prints were found on the cupboard situated in the house of the deceased. Though Question No. 11 was put by the Trial Court while examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in this regard, the accused has not tried to explain such glaring circumstance against him. He has merely said that false accusation is made against him. From the aforementioned material, we conclude that the finger prints of the accused were found on the doors of almirah of the deceased. (d) Reg. opinion of the Scientific Officer of the FSL: 12. He has merely said that false accusation is made against him. From the aforementioned material, we conclude that the finger prints of the accused were found on the doors of almirah of the deceased. (d) Reg. opinion of the Scientific Officer of the FSL: 12. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had held the hairs of accused 1 tightly at the time of her death and consequently some of the hairs of accused 1 were found in the hand of the deceased. In order to compare the hairs as found in the hands of the deceased, the hairs of accused 1 were taken during investigation by P.W. 10-the Assistant Professor of Forensic Sciences after following the due scientific procedure and thereafter they were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The Scientific Officer of the FSL (P.W. 13) compared the hairs and gave a report as per Ex. P. 15 to the effect that hairs found in the hand of the deceased tally with the hairs lifted from the head of accused 1. In order to prove the said aspect, the prosecution has examined both P.Ws. 10 and 13 apart from producing their reports as per Exs. P. 10, P. 11 and P. 15. P.W. 10 is an Assistant Professor of Forensic Science Department, Government Medical College, Bangalore. He is working as an Assistant Professor since ten years. On 25-4-2008 accused 1 and 2 were brought before him by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of taking out the hairs. P.W. 10 after following the due procedure, lifted the hairs of accused 1 and 2 in Victoria Hospital and they were sent to the Investigating Officer with his seal and signature. It is clearly deposed by P.W. 10 that accused 1 was aged about 47 years and accused 2 was aged about 25 years. He has given the report as per Exs. P. 10 and P. 11 with regard to lifting of hairs of accused 1 and 2 respectively. Virtually the defence has failed to cross-examine P.W. 10 on any of the material aspects. However P.W. 10 has admitted in the cross-examination that he cannot say as to how many hairs were lifted by him and from which part of the head of the accused. It is humanly impossible to remember such minute factors after the lapse of about 2 years. However P.W. 10 has admitted in the cross-examination that he cannot say as to how many hairs were lifted by him and from which part of the head of the accused. It is humanly impossible to remember such minute factors after the lapse of about 2 years. Be that as it may, looking to the entire evidence of P.W. 10, it is amply clear that the hairs of accused 1 and 2 were lifted from their head and they were sent to the Investigating Officer in a sealed cover. P.W. 13 is the Scientific Officer attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory who has compared the hairs so lifted as well as the hairs which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation from the hands of the deceased. P.W. 13 has testified that the hairs found in the hands of the dead body tally with the hairs of accused 1. He has made it clear in the cross-examination that he has noted in the observation slip maintained by his office as to the procedure adopted by him at the time of comparison of the hairs. The evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 13 is supported by the scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P. 2. As aforementioned, the scene of offence panchanama was drawn from 5 to 6 p.m. i.e., immediately after lodging the complaint on 16-4-2008. Thereafter the inquest panchanama was conducted. In the scene of offence panchanama which is first in point of time, it is clearly mentioned that certain hairs were found in the right fist of the deceased. The very hairs were seized and were sent for examination before P.W. 13. Thus from the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 13, it is amply clear that the hairs as found in the hands of the deceased tally with the hairs of accused 1. Thus the said circumstance is also proved against the accused. Reg. recovery of gold ornaments: 13. The last and one more important circumstance is recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were apprehended on 21-4-2008 in Navundu Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District and on the said spot itself, the gold ornaments were seized from accused 1 and 2 under panchanama-Ex. P. 16. On the very day, both the accused have made voluntary statements as per Exs. P. 18 and P. 19. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were apprehended on 21-4-2008 in Navundu Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District and on the said spot itself, the gold ornaments were seized from accused 1 and 2 under panchanama-Ex. P. 16. On the very day, both the accused have made voluntary statements as per Exs. P. 18 and P. 19. Based on the said voluntary statements, the recovery of gold ornaments was made. Ex. P. 5 is the mahazar relating to recovery of one gold ornament from the jewellery shop of P.W. 6 and such ornament was pledged by accused 1 in the said jewellery shop. Ex. P. 3 is the photograph of the gold chain. Subsequently on 24-4-2008, accused 1 lead the Police and the panchas to his house and certain gold ornaments were handed over to the Police which were seized by the Police under panchanama-Ex. P. 17. Thus the prosecution contends that gold ornaments were recovered at three places at the instance of the accused. Insofar as recovery of gold ornaments from the jewellery shop of P.W. 6 is concerned, the owner of the jewellery shop (P.W. 6) is examined to support the case of the prosecution. He has deposed that accused 1 along with another person had come to his shop and had pledged the gold chain worth Rs.30,000/- during the relevant point of time. The Police seized the said gold chain under the panchanama-Ex. P. 5. In the cross-examination, P.W. 6 has deposed that at the time of pledging the gold ornaments, he would issue a receipt and in such receipt, the details of the gold ornaments such as its weight, its price etc., would be mentioned and such receipt has to be returned to him to get back the gold ornaments. In the matter on hand, such receipt is not produced by the prosecution before the Court. However in the cross-examination of P.W. 6, the defence has elicited that accused 1 was also present along with the Police and he has come inside the shop at the time of recovery of gold chain. Except the fact that the Police did not produce the receipt to show that the said gold ornament was pledged ornament, no other material worth is brought on record by the defence in the cross-examination. Except the fact that the Police did not produce the receipt to show that the said gold ornament was pledged ornament, no other material worth is brought on record by the defence in the cross-examination. In our considered opinion, we find that the evidence of P.W. 6 is reliable inasmuch as there is no reason as to why he should depose falsely against accused 1 if he has not pledged the gold ornament. Not even a suggestion is made by the defence against P.W. 6 that he was ill-disposed against accused 1. In order to prove other recovery mahazars-Exs. P. 16 and P. 17, the prosecution has not adduced evidence of any of the panchas to the said mahazars. However the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) in order to prove such recovery. As is clear from Ex. P. 16, certain gold ornaments were seized from the person of accused 1 and 2 on the date of their arrest i.e., on 21-4-2008 at Navunda Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. The local mahazar witnesses have signed the mahazar-Ex. P. 16. So also certain gold ornaments were recovered from the house of accused 1 at his instance under Ex. P. 17 on 24-4-2008. It is no doubt true that none of the panchas were examined in support of Ex. P. 16 and Ex. P. 17. However we have got the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W. 14. It is also not in dispute that prior to recovery under Ex. P. 17-the voluntary statements of the accused as per Exs. P. 18 and P. 19 were recorded. Based on such voluntary statements, the recovery found in Ex. P. 17 was made. It is by now well-settled that if the evidence of Investigating Officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. In the matter on hand, though the panchas for recovery panchanama were not examined, since we find that the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is an independent and responsible officer of the State is reliable and convincing, We do not find any reason to disbelieve his version. In the matter on hand, though the panchas for recovery panchanama were not examined, since we find that the evidence of the Investigating Officer who is an independent and responsible officer of the State is reliable and convincing, We do not find any reason to disbelieve his version. Mere absence of the evidence of mahazar witness is not a ground to discard seizure evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 particularly when the recovery and seizure of articles was made in pursuant to the statement of the accused. In this context, it is relevant to note the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, 2001 Cri. L.J. 504 (SC): (2001)1 SCC 652 :2001 SCC (Cri.) 248, which reads as under: "20. Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the Police Officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth. 21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the Legislature. Hence when a Police Officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the Police Officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions." Therefore we are of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the aspect of recovery is also proved. 14. We are unable to agree with the submission made by Mr. Jadhav that the recoveries were made with the delay of 2 to 3 days after recording the voluntary statements of the accused. Where the accused are charged for murder and robbery, mere fact that certain period has elapsed between the commission of offence or recording of the voluntary statement of the accused and discovery of stolen articles, it would not lead to the presumption that the accused was only a receiver of stolen property and had not committed murder. In the case on hand, the accused were admittedly absconding from 164-2008 till their arrest i.e., on 21-4-2008. In the case on hand, the accused were admittedly absconding from 164-2008 till their arrest i.e., on 21-4-2008. The incident has taken place in Bangalore City, whereas accused were arrested in Kundapur Taluk of Udupi District, which is at a distance of about 250 kilometers from Bangalore. Immediately after their arrest, number of gold ornaments were seized from them under panchanama-Ex. P. 15. Thereafter the voluntary statements of the accused were recorded. Within 2 to 3 days of recording of statements, the recovery of other gold ornaments was made. Thus virtually there was no delay on the part of the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, as aforementioned, in a ghastly crime like the present one, mere small delay would not lead to the presumption that the accused was the only receiver of the stolen property and has not committed the murder. In the matter on hand, the accused have not explained as to how and from where they got gold ornaments. If really the gold ornaments were belonging to the accused, they would have stated so at least in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. In this view of the matter, the presumption can be raised under illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the accused has stolen the same. In such an event, it is permissible to presume that if a man is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft, he is the thief. In the absence of any explanation by the accused, we are constrained to presume against the accused that they are the robbers. Moreover the aspect of robbery is corroborated by all other aforementioned circumstances. We are also conscious of the fact that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforementioned offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. In the matter on hand, the accused were not affluent enough to possess the said gold ornaments. But culpability for the aforementioned offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. In the matter on hand, the accused were not affluent enough to possess the said gold ornaments. From the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles at the behest of the accused and from the act of the accused in dealing with the articles of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery, a conclusion of commission of the offence of murder and robbery can be drawn against the accused. As we have already mentioned supra, no explanation muchless plausible explanation for lawful possession of the gold ornaments has been given by the accused at least before the Court. In the facts of the case, it clearly appears that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral part of the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is that not only the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased but also committed the robbery of the ornaments of the deceased. In support of the aforementioned observations, we have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gulab Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1598 : (1995) 3 SCC 574 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 552. 15. We are conscious of the settled law that in cases where the evidence is purely of circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 16. Of the five circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution is able to prove four major circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. We have already mentioned supra that the last seen theory as put forth by the prosecution is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 16. Of the five circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution is able to prove four major circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. We have already mentioned supra that the last seen theory as put forth by the prosecution is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The four circumstances which are proved beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion form a chain of circumstances so as to conclude that the guilt against the accused is fully established beyond reasonable doubt in respect of murder and robbery. In view of the above, we conclude that the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are just and proper and no interference is called for. Appeals fail and the same stand dismissed.