JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 36 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 & 380 I.P.C. By judgment dated 05.07.2013, the learned Principal Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased, in this case, was one Mrs. Sarojini. P.W.s 1 and 2 are respectively, the husband and son of the deceased. They were residing at No.7/31, Sivananda Nagar, First Street, Ambattur, Chennai. On 13.03.2010, at 6 a.m., P.W.s 1 and 2 had gone for work. Thus, the deceased alone was there in the house. At 6.45 p.m., P.W.1 returned to his house. When he knocked the front door of his house and called out his wife by name, there was no response. Then, he went to the rear side of the house, where the kitchen was located and called out his wife. Even then, there was no response. But, the rear side door was found open. When he went inside the house, he found his wife lying in the kitchen with injuries. She was dead. When he went to the bedroom, he found that the bureau was broke open and sum of Rs.3000/- and a gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns were found missing. He informed the neighbours and also informed his son, P.W.2., over phone. After P.W.2 returned home at 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 went to Ambattur Police Station at 8 p.m. and gave an oral complaint, which was reduced into writing, read over and thereafter, his signature was obtained. Since the assailant was not known, the name of the assailant was mentioned as “unknown” in the complaint. Ex-P1 is the complaint. After P.W.2 returned home at 7.30 p.m., P.W.1 went to Ambattur Police Station at 8 p.m. and gave an oral complaint, which was reduced into writing, read over and thereafter, his signature was obtained. Since the assailant was not known, the name of the assailant was mentioned as “unknown” in the complaint. Ex-P1 is the complaint. (ii) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Ambattur Police Station, on receipt of the complaint, Ex-P1, registered a case in Crime No. 234/2010 for offences under Sections 380 and 302 I.P.C. Ex-P10 is the First Information Report. P.W.11 forwarded Exs-P1 and P11 to Court, which was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, at 8.20 a.m. on 14.03.2010. Thereafter, P.W.11 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex-P2) and a rough sketch (Ex-P12), in the presence of P.W.4 and another. In the presence of Panchayatdhars and witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Ex-P11 is the inquest report. Then, he sent dead body to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. (iii) P.W.7, Dr. K.S.T. Latha, who was in the Emergency Ward in Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, examined the deceased at 11.55 p.m. on 13.03.2010, when P.W.9, Head Constable, Ambattur Police Station, brought her. P.W.7 found her dead. Then, she sent the dead body to the mortuary. Ex-P7 is the Accident Register issued by her. (iv) P.W.8, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body at 11.40 a.m. on 14.03.2010. He noticed the following injuries: Injuries: 1. An incomplete, horizontally oblique, poorly defined, brownish pressure abrasion 21 x 5 - 2.5 cm, on the front and right & left side front of upper two third of the neck; On the front of the neck, the abrasion was at the level of the thyroid cartilage and was 5 cm below the chin and 4 cam above the supra sternal notch; on the sides of the neck, the abrasion was 7 cm and 3 cm below the right and left mastoid processes respectively; On dissection: Dark red, diffuse bruising of the subcutaneous soft tissues and muscles of right & left side front of the neck, underneath the pressure abrasion. The hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages were intact. 2. The hyoid bone and other laryngeal cartilages were intact. 2. Brown irregular abrasions: i) 2 x 1 cm, on the back of right elbow; ii) 1 x 1-0.5 cm, on the back of upper third of right forearm; iii) 0.5 x 0.3 cm on back of lower third of right forearm; iv) 0.3 x 0.2 cm on the back of base of left ring finger; v) 1.5 x 0.5-0.3 cm, horizontally oblique, on upper part of left cheek, 1 cm below the left lower eyelid; vi) 1.8 x 1-0.5 cm on the middle part of left cheek; vii) 1.5 x 0.4-0.2 cm, vertically oblique, on left earlobe. 3. Brown linear abrasions: i) two vertically oblique linear abrasions 1 x 0.2-0.1 cm & 1 x 0.2-0.1 cm on inner aspect of upper part of left knee; ii) 0.5 x 0.1 cm, horizontally oblique, on back of middle part of left hand; iii) 1 x 0.2-0.1 cm vertically oblique, on upper part of left side of the nose; iv) 1.8 x 0.1 cm, vertically oblique, on middle of upper lip, below the nose; v) Seven cresentric abrasions of size 0.3 x 0.1 to 0.5 x 0.2 cm on left side of the neck; vi) three horizontally oblique linear abrasions 2 x 0.3-0.1 cm, 1.8 x 0.2-0.1 cm & 1.3 x 0.2-0.1 cm, and 1 x 0.1 cm vertically oblique linear abrasion on middle part of left side of the neck. 4. Horizontally oblique lacerated wound 1 x 0.5-0.2 x 0.3 cm, on base of back of left little finger. 5. On reflection of the scalp: Dark red, scalp deep, diffuse bruising on right fronto, temporo-parietal region of the scalp; left temporalis muscle bruised. 6. On opening thoraco-abdominal cavity: Complete irregular fracture of 5th & 6th ribs on left side along the anterior axillary line, with surrounding soft tissue bruising & extravasation of blood. Heart: Normal in size; C/S: Empty; Valves: Normal; Coronaries: Patent; Great Vessels: Normal. Lungs: Normal in size; C/S: Congested. Larynx & Trachea: Empty. Hyoid Bone: Intact. Stomach: Contained 480ml of yellowish brown thick semi-solids of partially digested rice particles; no definite smell; Mucosa: Pal. Intestines: Contained brown chyme. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S: Congested. Bladder: Empty. Pelvis & Spinal Column: Intact. Uterus: Normal in size; C/S – empty. Skull: Intact. Brain: Normal in size; surface vessels congested.” Ex-P8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Intestines: Contained brown chyme. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S: Congested. Bladder: Empty. Pelvis & Spinal Column: Intact. Uterus: Normal in size; C/S – empty. Skull: Intact. Brain: Normal in size; surface vessels congested.” Ex-P8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Ex-P9 is his final opinion regarding the cause of death. According to him, the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to compression of neck. (v) During the course of investigation, on 15.03.2010, at about 5.30a.m., P.W.11 arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.4 & 6. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the iron rod and a bloodstained shirt In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the iron rod (M.O.6) and bloodstained half-sleeve shirt (M.O.5), which were recovered under Ex-P6 in the presence of the same witnesses. The accused also produced the gold chain (M.O.1) from his pocket, which came to be recovered under Ex-P5 in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand and the case properties were sent to the Court. At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. (vi) P.W.5 is the Forensic Expert, who conducted chemical examination. She found that there were human bloodstains on all the dress materials of the deceased and also on the shirt recovered from the accused. Ex.P3 is the Serology Report, Ex-P13 is the Biology Report and Ex-P14 is the Toxology Report. On completing the investigation, P.W.11 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 & 380 I.P.C. on 26.07.2011. (vii) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same as false. (viii) In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 14 documents and 6 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the husband of the deceased has stated that at 6 a.m., when he left for job, his wife, namely, the deceased was alone in the house. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the husband of the deceased has stated that at 6 a.m., when he left for job, his wife, namely, the deceased was alone in the house. He would further state that at 6.45 p.m., when he returned, he found that the rear side door of the house was open and his wife was lying dead in the kitchen. He has further stated that when he went to the bedroom, he found that the bureau was broke open and a sum of Rs.3000/- and a gold chain was missing. P.W.2, the son of the deceased, has stated that he left for work from his house at 6a.m. in the morning itself and around 6.45p.m., his father called him over phone and informed him about the occurrence. P.W.3, a neighbour, has spoken only about the information, she had about the occurrence. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar. P.W.5 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects. P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement given by him and the recovery of M.Os. 1, 5 and 6, at the instance of the accused. P.W.7 has stated that at 11.55 p.m., on the date of occurrence, the deceased was brought to the hospital and on examining her, she found her dead. P.W.8 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and P.W.9 is the Police Constable, who took the dead body to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and P.W.10 is the Police Constable, who, on instructions from the Inspector of Police, sent the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case, the investigation done and the final report filed. (ix) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as stated in the first paragraph of the judgment. That is how, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the arrest of the accused on 15.03.2010 at 5.30 a.m. and the consequential recovery of M.O.s 1, 5 and 6 cannot be believed. That is how, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the arrest of the accused on 15.03.2010 at 5.30 a.m. and the consequential recovery of M.O.s 1, 5 and 6 cannot be believed. He would further submit that no efforts were taken to lift the chance fingerprints from the bureau in the place of occurrence. He would further submit that according to the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation, whereas M.O.6, iron rod had been recovered by the Police, as though it was used in the commission of offence. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the ornaments, which were found missing, as per the complaint, includes the “thali” of the deceased and a gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns, apart from cash of Rs.3000/- whereas M.O.1 recovered was a gold chain weighing 1½ sovereigns. 4. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are very minor in nature and they would not, in any manner, go to the root of the prosecution case. He would further submit that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.s. 6 and 11, in the teeth of arrest of the accused on 15.03.2010 and the consequential recovery of M.O.s 1, 5 and 6, at his instance. He would further submit it is immaterial as to whether rod was used to cause injuries on the deceased or not. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court should be confirmed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records very carefully. 6. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The foremost circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the deceased was lastly seen at 6a.m. in the house on 13.03.2010. This has been spoken to by P.W.s 1 and 2 and we do not find any ground to reject their evidence. Therefore, we hold that this circumstance has been established by the prosecution. 7. P.W.1 returned to his house in the evening at 6.45 p.m. At that time, according to him, he found the deceased lying in the kitchen with injuries. Therefore, we hold that this circumstance has been established by the prosecution. 7. P.W.1 returned to his house in the evening at 6.45 p.m. At that time, according to him, he found the deceased lying in the kitchen with injuries. She was dead. After the Police arrived at the scene, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where P.W.7, on examination, found that she had already died. From this circumstance, the prosecution has proved that the deceased had been done to death sometime between 6 a.m. and 6.45 p.m. on 13.03.2010. P.W.2 has also spoken about the said fact. 8. The next circumstance is the missing of cash of Rs.3000/- and gold chain weighing 2 sovereigns. P.W.1 has stated even in the complaint, Ex-P1, about the missing of these two items. P.W.2 has also stated about the same. P.W.s 1 and 2 have identified M.O.1 as the stolen property. Thus, it has been clearly established that both murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same occurrence, between 6 a.m. and 6.45 p.m. 9. Now, the question is who was the culprit, who perpetrated the crime. In order to prove this, the prosecution relies only on the evidence of P.Ws 6 and 11, who have stated that on 15.03.2010, at 5.30 a.m., the accused was arrested and he made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which, M.O.s 1 and 5 were recovered. They have also stated that the accused produced a gold chain, which was in his possession. We do not find any reason to reject either the evidence of P.W.6 or the evidence of P.W.11 as they do not have any axe to grind against the accused. Therefore, we are inclined to go by the evidence of P.W.s 6 and 11 to hold that the accused was arrested at 5.30 a.m. on 15.03.2010 and on his disclosure statement, M.O.s 1, 5 and 6 were recovered. 10. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the gold chain (M.O.1) recovered weighs 1½ sovereigns whereas what was lost, according to the complaint, was 2 sovereigns of gold chain. In our considered view, it does not make much difference. For a villager like P.W.1, it is too difficult to precisely note the weight of the jewel, which was in his house for a long time. In our considered view, it does not make much difference. For a villager like P.W.1, it is too difficult to precisely note the weight of the jewel, which was in his house for a long time. Therefore, this, in our considered view, is not a major discrepancy, which would go to the root of the case. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that fingerprint expert had not been summoned to the place of occurrence and no steps were taken to lift chance fingerprints from the bureau in the place of occurrence. Of course, it is true that such steps should have been taken by the Police. But, on that score alone, we cannot reject the case of the prosecution. As already mentioned, we have concluded that M.O.1 is the stolen property, which was in the possession of the accused, soon after the commission of theft. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would next submit that, according to medical opinion, death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation whereas M.O.6 iron rod is said to have been recovered from the accused, as if it was used in the commission of offence. We have to go only by the medical evidence that death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. Recovery of M.O.6 may be irrelevant, but that would not falsify the medical opinion. 13. As we have already concluded, the accused was found in possession of the stolen property, namely, M.O.1, soon after the commission of theft. We have also concluded that both murder and robbery have been committed in one and the same occurrence. Therefore, as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, we are inclined to presume that it was this accused, who committed murder as well as robbery. The accused has offered no explanation for possession of M.O.1. Thus, the said presumption has not been rebutted by him. 14. Though the accused had committed murder as well as robbery, the Trial Court did not frame a charge for robbery and instead, the Trial Court had framed a charge only for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. Therefore, we are unable to convict the accused for robbery and for murder and instead, we are inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for murder and for theft. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, we do not find anything irrational in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. In our considered view, the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant is just and reasonable, warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court stands confirmed.