JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.380 of 2011, on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, who stands convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C., has come up with this criminal appeal. By judgment dated 06.02.2013, the trial Court has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life (no fine was imposed) for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Nachaal a young woman aged 28 years. She was married to P.W.2 and she had a female child by name "Madhura Valliammai". She was living at 11/7, Vedachalam Garden Street, I Floor, Mandaiveli, Chennai, with her husband and her child. She was an employee of Bank of America. P.W.2, her husband was working as a Manager in "Shell India Limited" in Chennai. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased who was residing in Kilpauk, Chennai. P.Ws.3 and 4, her mother and father respectively were residing in Mandaveli. P.W.8 Mr. Pugazhendhi was constructing a house by the side of the house of the deceased. P.W.9 was the contractor who was constructing the said building on behalf of P.W.8. P.W.5 was a cook at the house of the deceased and P.W.6 was a maid servant. 2.2. P.W.2 and the deceased used go for work in the morning to their respective offices. On 15.07.2011, at about 09.00 a.m. P.W.2 left for his office as usual. It was the usual practise of the deceased to leave the child in the play school situated somewhere near the house of the deceased and then to go to her office for work. On 15.07.2011, at 09.00 a.m. when P.W.2 left for his office, the deceased was in the house with the child. After he had left, the child was left in the school. Thus, in the house, the deceased alone was there. P.W.5 the cook finished her work at about 10.15 a.m. and left the house of the deceased. P.W.6 the maid servant at the house of the deceased also finished her work and left the house of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. Thus, after 10.30 a.m. the deceased alone remained in her house. 2.3. P.W.5 the cook finished her work at about 10.15 a.m. and left the house of the deceased. P.W.6 the maid servant at the house of the deceased also finished her work and left the house of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. Thus, after 10.30 a.m. the deceased alone remained in her house. 2.3. Around 3.30 p.m. on the same day, P.W.1, the sister of the deceased, received a phone call from the office of the deceased that the deceased had not turned up for work and her cell phone was in the switch off mode. P.W.1 immediately went to the house of the deceased. By the time, the mother of the deceased (P.W.3) had gone to the school and fetching the child of the deceased she returned to her home. They found the grill gate of the house kept open. The main door of the house was bolted from outside. P.W.1 felt that the deceased would have gone to the open terrace to dry the clothes after bolting the main door of the house from outside. P.W.1 went up to the open terrace of the house through the stairs situated by the side of the house but the deceased was not there. Therefore, she got down and opened the main door, entered into the house and when she went into the bedroom of the house, she found the deceased lying by the side of the cot. Her face was closed with a plastic cover (Plastic bag). There was a towel tightly around the neck of the deceased indicating constriction. Both her hands were tied together. With anxiety P.W.1 removed the plastic packet and sprinkled water on the face of the deceased. But there was no positive response from her. She bite the cheek of the deceased with a view to stimulate her. But, there was no response. She rushed out of the house and cried for help. 2.4. P.W.1 spoke to P.W.3 over phone. She also rushed to the house of the deceased. P.W.1 also noticed that the jewels which the deceased wore usually were found missing. P.W.1, with the help of others, immediately took the deceased in an auto and rushed her to Isabel Hospital. P.W.12, Dr. David Chellaraj, examined the deceased at 04.00 p.m. and declared her already dead. She also rushed to the house of the deceased. P.W.1 also noticed that the jewels which the deceased wore usually were found missing. P.W.1, with the help of others, immediately took the deceased in an auto and rushed her to Isabel Hospital. P.W.12, Dr. David Chellaraj, examined the deceased at 04.00 p.m. and declared her already dead. On receiving intimation from the hospital, P.W.22, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Pattinapakkam Police Station, rushed to Isabel hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. On returning to the police station at 06.30 p.m. on 15.07.2011 he registered a case in Crime No.1312 of 2011 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.19 is the F.I.R. He forwarded the complaint (Ex.P1) and F.I.R. (Ex.P19) to the Court, which was received by the learned jurisdictional magistrate at 10.30 p.m. on 15.07.2011. 2.5. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.23. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and at 07.45 p.m., he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. He recovered bloodstained material objects found at the place of occurrence. On his request, P.W.21, the photographer, came to the place of occurrence and took photographs of the dead body and the surroundings (vide photographs M.O.Nos.16 to 18 and Compact Disk M.O.19). 2.6. On the request of the investigating officer, P.W.17 visited the place of occurrence at 07.40 p.m. on 15.07.2011 for exploring chance fingerprints. On such through examination of the entire house, he found one chance fingerprint on the door in the kitchen, another chance fingerprint on the door of the bedroom, five chance fingerprints on the Steel bureau in the bedroom. He took photographs of all these chance fingerprints and lifted the same. On examination, he found that the two fingerprints tallied with that of the inmates. But the chance fingerprints marked as K1 to K5 lifted from the place of occurrence did not tally with the fingerprints of any of the inmates, including that of the deceased. 2.7. P.W.23 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. P.W.13, the police constable handed over the dead body to P.W.15, Dr. Elango, to keep the body in the mortuary and P.W.16 Dr. Santha Kumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.07.2011 at 01.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: "Injuries: 1. P.W.23 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. P.W.13, the police constable handed over the dead body to P.W.15, Dr. Elango, to keep the body in the mortuary and P.W.16 Dr. Santha Kumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.07.2011 at 01.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: "Injuries: 1. An oblique, brown, linear abrasion 2.7/0.4-0.1 cm on the middle part of left side of the front of the neck; the inner end off the abrasion was 3.5 cm left lateral to the midline of the neck. 2. An oblique linear brown abrasion 1.1x0.2-0.1 cm on the middle part of the left side of the front of the neck, 0.2 cm below the middle third of the abrasion mentioned as injury No.1 3. Tow punctuate brown abrasion 0.2x0.1 cm on the lower part of left side off the front of the neck, placed side by side in the horizontal plane; the inner one was 2.3 cm left lateral to the midline; these two petechial abrasions were at the level of 3.2 cm below the level of injury No.1 4. An oblique brown abrasion 0.6x0.2 cm on the lower part of right check at the level of 1 cm below the right angle of the mouth. 5. An oblique, brown, linear abrasion 2.6x0.7-0.1 cm on the upper part of left side of the neck, 5.3 cm below the left mastoid process and was along the plane of the left mastoid process. 6. An irregular brown abrasion 0.7 x 0.3-0.1 cm on the upper part of left side of the neck, 0.3 cm below the injury No.5. 7. A vertically oblique, linear brown abrasion 4x0.2-0.1 cm on the upper part of left side of the back of the neck; the lower end off the abrasion was at the level of the upper part of left side of the neck, i.e. injury No.5. 8. An oblique, linear brown abrasion 3.7x0.2-0.1 cm on the upper part of left side of the back of the neck, the lower end of the abrasion was abutting the upper part of left side of the back of the neck, the lower end of the abrasion was 2 cm below the lower end off the injury No.7; the upper end off the oblique abrasion was abutting the upper third off the injury No.7. 9. 9. A vertically oblique, linear brown abrasion 1.2x0.1 cm on the middle part of the left side of the back, 1 cm left lateral to the injury No.8. 10. An oblique, linear brown abrasion 0.5x0.1 cm on the upper part of right side of the back, 2.3 cm right lateral to the midline of the back. 11. An oblique, brown, linear abrasion 0.6x0.1 cm on the upper part of right side of the back of the neck, 3.7 cm right lateral to the midline of the back of the neck and was 1.8 cm outer to the injury No.10. 12. Dark red bruise with diffuse margins, 2x1.5x0.1 cm on the mucosal aspect of left side of the lower lip, adjacent to the left mandibular lateral incisor and the canine teeth. 13. Dark red contusion with diffuse margins, 1.4x1x0.5-0.2 cm on the outer border of lower third of right forearm with 0.3x0.2 cm dark brown abrasion on the middle part of the contused area. 14. Dark red contusion with diffuse margins 1x0.5x0.2-0.1 cm on the outer border of lower third of right forearm. 15. An oblique, brown grazed abrasion over an area of 10.x5.5 cm on the middle part of left side of the back, 6 cm left lateral to the midline of the back; on dissection: dark red diffuse bruising over an area of 12x6.5x1.5-0.5 cm on the underlying subcutaneous soft tissues and the muscles. 16. Dark red contusion 2x1x0.5-0.2 cm on the outer part of left upper scapular region of the back. 17. On refection of the scalp: dark red, scalp deep diffuse bruising on the frontal region of the scalp and over an area of 9x3 cm, scalp deep, on the vertex region of the scalp; underlying bones were intact. 18. 16. Dark red contusion 2x1x0.5-0.2 cm on the outer part of left upper scapular region of the back. 17. On refection of the scalp: dark red, scalp deep diffuse bruising on the frontal region of the scalp and over an area of 9x3 cm, scalp deep, on the vertex region of the scalp; underlying bones were intact. 18. On dissection of the neck: 3x2x1.5-0.2 cm dark red bruising on the subcutaneous soft tissues and the muscles on the lower part of the right side of the neck, at the level of lower part of the thyroid cartilage; on dissection: dark red diffuse bruising of the lower part of sterno hyoid and sterno thyroid muscles of the right side; 6x3x2-0.5 cm dark red bruising on the subcutaneous soft tissues and the muscles on the middle and lower part of left side of the neck from the level of thyroid cartilage up to the level of the inner end of the left clavicle; On dissection; dark red diffuse bruising of the lower third of left sternocleido mastoid muscle, the lower half of left sterno thyroid and the left sterno hyoid muscles and the surrounding soft tissues; vertically oblique complete fracture of the thyroid cartilage along the midline with extravasation of blood on to the surrounding soft tissues." Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to manual strangulation by neck. The vaginal smear and the public hair taken from the deceased were sent for chemical examination to find out whether any semen was found but they proved negative. 2.8. P.W.23 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence as well as from the body of the deceased to the Court. 2.9. The accused, was working as a daily wager under P.W.9, the contractor, who was constructing the house by the side of the house of the deceased for P.W.8-Mr. Pugazhendhi. Thus, the accused was previously known to the deceased as well as P.Ws.5 to 7 and others in that locality. During the course of investigation, P.W.23 located the accused on 18.07.2011 at 04.00 p.m. at Besant Nagar beach out of suspicion. Pugazhendhi. Thus, the accused was previously known to the deceased as well as P.Ws.5 to 7 and others in that locality. During the course of investigation, P.W.23 located the accused on 18.07.2011 at 04.00 p.m. at Besant Nagar beach out of suspicion. Since there was a huge crowd in the beach, he immediately brought the accused to Pattinapakkam police station at 04.30 p.m. and he arrested him at 05.00 p.m. On his request, P.W.11, the Tahsildar of that area and yet another Deputy Tahsildar reached the police station at around 05.50 p.m. In their presence, at 06.00 p.m. the accused gave a voluntary confession, which was reduced to writing by P.W.23. In the said confession, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the thali chain, bangles, a gold chain and Rs.5,000/- and a cellphone. He also disclosed the place where he had concealed the TVS XL Super motorcycle. He further disclosed the place where he had thrown the sim card after removing the same from the cellphone instrument. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.11 and the another witness to his house at No.122 C, Ranganathapuram, Channel Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 41 and from his bureau, he produced M.O.4 gold jewels (viz., 2 bangles and gold chain with thali weighing four sovereigns). He further produced M.O.5 Nokia cell phone. Then he produced M.O.12 (cash of Rs.3,100/-), M.O.13 (Banian and Trouser) and M.O.14 (TVS XL Super Motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-07-AP-2009). He recovered the same under Ex.P5 mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then at 10.50 p.m. he took P.W.23, P.W.11 and another witness to Adyar Thiru.Vi.Ka. Bridige and identified the place where he had thrown the cell phone sim card. P.W.23 searched for the same between 11.10 p.m. to 11.50 p.m. but the sim card could not be traced. Then, he brought the accused to the police station at 12.05 a.m. on 19.07.2011. The jewels recovered from the accused were all identified by P.W.1 and the other family members of the deceased. Then P.W.23 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. 2.10. On his request, the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai passed an order permitting P.W.14 the then Sub Inspector of Police, to take the specimen fingerprints of the accused for the purpose of comparison. Then P.W.23 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. 2.10. On his request, the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai passed an order permitting P.W.14 the then Sub Inspector of Police, to take the specimen fingerprints of the accused for the purpose of comparison. Accordingly in the presence of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he took the specimen fingerprints of the accused in the prescribed sheet and handed over the same to the fingerprint section of the police department-vide Ex.P9. 2.11. P.W.17 the fingerprint expert, compared the specimen fingerprint taken from the accused with the five chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence. He found that they tallied with the fingerprints of the accused. He gave opinion accordingly. 2.12. On the request made by P.W.23, the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the body of the deceased were sent for chemical examination. On completing the investigation, P.W.23 laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.13. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Section 302 and 380 I.P.C. (The trial Court had not framed charge for robbery). The accused denied the charges as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 23 witnesses were examined as detailed herein above, 21 documents and 19 material objects were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials, he denied the same as false. On his side, he marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. Exs.D1 to D4 are the photographs taken at the place of occurrence and Ex.D5 is the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail before the High Court. The defence of the accused was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The first and foremost circumstance is that on 15.07.2011, at 10.30 a.m., at the house of the deceased, she was alone left. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The first and foremost circumstance is that on 15.07.2011, at 10.30 a.m., at the house of the deceased, she was alone left. P.W.2 the husband of the deceased has stated that at 09.00 a.m. he left for his office and at that time, the deceased was at her house. The child of the deceased had been left in the local play school. P.W.5 the cook and P.W.6 maid servant at the house of the deceased have categorically stated that around 10.15 to 10.30 a.m., they left the house after finishing their respective work and at that time, the deceased alone was in the house. P.W.9 is a contractor by profession undertaking building contracts. According to him, at 10.30 a.m. the deceased call him over phone and requested him to send a mechanic to repair the water tap at her house. When she was so talking, the cell phone connection went off. He tried to contact the deceased immediately but the cell phone slipped into switch off mode and therefore, he could not speak to her. From these evidences, the prosecution has established beyond doubt that the deceased was found alive till 10.30 a.m. on 15.07.2011 and she was alone at her house. 5. The next circumstance is that she did not go to her bank for duty as in the usual course. P.W.1 received a phone call from the office of the deceased that the deceased had not turned up for work. On receiving the phone call, she rushed to the house of the deceased. According to her, the outer grill gate of the house was kept open, but the main door was bolted from outside. She went up to the terrace believing that the deceased would have gone there to dry the clothes. Since she was not found there, she returned to the ground floor, opened the main door entered into the house and found the deceased lying by the side of the cot in the bedroom. She found the face of the deceased covered by a plastic packet. There was also a towel tightly around the neck indicating constriction. The deceased was senseless. She found the face of the deceased covered by a plastic packet. There was also a towel tightly around the neck indicating constriction. The deceased was senseless. She immediately took her in an auto to the Isabel Hospital and at 04.00 p.m. the doctor declared her dead already. Thus, the prosecution has established that the deceased would have died sometime between 10.30 a.m. and 04.00 p.m. on 15.07.2011. We do not find any ground to disbelieve this part of the case of the prosecution. 6. P.W.16-Dr. Santha Kumar who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to manual ligature strangulation. The presence of the towel around the neck of the deceased and closure of the face with the plastic bag as found by P.W.1 would stand corroborated by the evidence of P.W.16 that the deceased died due to asphyxia. Thus, it has been proved beyond any doubt that the death of the deceased was on account of homicidal violence. 7. P.Ws.1 to 4, the family members of the deceased, have stated that the deceased was wearing gold jewels viz., M.O.4 series. P.W.3 has stated that on receiving message from P.W.1 she also rushed to the place of occurrence. They have stated that the M.O.4 series and Nokia cellphone (M.O.5) of the deceased were found missing. From the bureau, a sum of Rs.5,000/- cash was also found missing. These jewels were worn by the deceased lastly and the cash was kept in the bureau to the knowledge of P.W.2. Thus the prosecution has proved that M.O.4 (series gold jewels) and M.O.5 (Nokia Cellphone) belonging to the deceased had been stolen away from the deceased and from the house of the deceased in the same transaction in which she was killed. 8. Now the next question is as to who was the perpetrator of the crime? P.W.8 was constructing a house by the side of the house of the deceased. P.W.9 was the contractor who was actually executing the construction work. According to these witnesses, the accused was engaged as a labourer to do the said construction work. Since the construction was going on for quite sometime, the accused was known to the people living in that locality more particularly to P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.9 was the contractor who was actually executing the construction work. According to these witnesses, the accused was engaged as a labourer to do the said construction work. Since the construction was going on for quite sometime, the accused was known to the people living in that locality more particularly to P.Ws.5 and 6. They have stated that the accused was seen working in the house under construction belonging to P.W.8. But after the occurrence, the accused was not seen anywhere near the place of occurrence more particularly in the building under construction. This conduct of the accused in absconding from the scene of occurrence from his usual place of work near the scene of occurrence is a very strong circumstance against the accused. Probably, this has given a clue to P.W.23 to search for the accused. 9. The accused was found in the Besant Nagar beach on 18.07.2011, from where P.W.23 took him into custody out of suspicion. He brought him to the police station and arrested him at 05.00 p.m. at the police station and then at 06.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness, the accused gave a voluntary confession disclosing the place where he had hidden M.O.4 series gold jewels, M.O.5 Nokia cell phone. P.W.11 is a responsible Tahsildar of that area and he is an independent witness. We do not find any reason to disbelieve his evidence and that of P.W.23. A close reading of the evidence of P.W.23 would go to show that there is nothing on record to even slightly doubt his veracity. In the said disclosure statement, the accused disclosed that he had hidden M.O.4 series and M.O.5 at his house and in pursuance of the said disclosure statement M.Os.4 series and 5 were seized from his house on being produced by the accused. In the same disclosure statement the accused had stated that the sim card removed from M.O.5 was thrown near Thiru.Vi.Ka bridge at Adyar. According to P.Ws.3 and 11, both searched for the sim card in the said place as identified by the accused, but the same could not be recovered. Therefore, this part of the statement of the accused is irrelevant. Similarly, on the disclosure statement M.O.14 the TVS XL Super motorcycle was recovered. The prosecution has not established any connection between the said motorcycle and the crime. Therefore, this part of the statement of the accused is irrelevant. Similarly, on the disclosure statement M.O.14 the TVS XL Super motorcycle was recovered. The prosecution has not established any connection between the said motorcycle and the crime. Therefore, the disclosure statement pertaining to the concealment of M.O.14 and the consequential recovery of M.O.14 are irrelevant and therefore they are eschewed from consideration. However, the prosecution has thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that M.O.4 series (gold jewels) and M.O.5 (the Nokia cell phone) belonging to the deceased were found in the possession of the accused on 18.07.2011. P.W.1 and other family members have identified these material objects as that of the deceased. Out of the disclosure statement, a sum of Rs.3,100/- was seized from his house but there is no proof that the said cash was the stolen property. So far as M.Os.4 and 5 are concerned, the accused had no explanation to offer. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is slight variation in respect of the weight of the jewels recovered from the accused and the jewels mentioned in Ex.P1. In this regard, we may state that one cannot be meticulous in knowing the exact weight of the gold jewels that he or someone is wearing. It is the common practise to say about the approximate weight of the gold jewels. Therefore, the slight variation in the weight of the gold jewels recovered from the accused cannot be a matter at all to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. As the prosecution has established that the accused is found in possession of M.Os.4 and 5 soon after the commission of the theft and since the accused has got no explanation for the same, it gives raise to the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that it was this accused who had caused the death of the deceased and had stolen away M.Os.4 and 5. Of course, this presumption is rebuttable and such rebuttal can be had either from the facts elicited from the prosecution witnesses or by letting in any evidence by the accused or from any other materials available on record. But in this case, the accused has not rebutted the said presumption at all in the manner known to law. Of course, this presumption is rebuttable and such rebuttal can be had either from the facts elicited from the prosecution witnesses or by letting in any evidence by the accused or from any other materials available on record. But in this case, the accused has not rebutted the said presumption at all in the manner known to law. Thus, from out of the said strong unrebutted presumption, by itself, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was this accused who committed murder of the deceased and had committed theft of M.Os.4 and 5. 11. The prosecution relies on yet another very strong circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. On the request made by P.W.23, P.W.17 the fingerprint expert had gone to the place of occurrence. On thoroughly examining the house of the deceased, he lifted seven chance fingerprints from the house, out of which, two tallied with the fingerprints of the inmates and five did not tally. The photographs taken out of the chance fingerprints were kept safely. After the arrest of the accused on 19.07.2011, on the orders of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai as per the provisions of the Identification of the Prisoners Act, the specimen fingerprints of the accused were taken by P.W.14 in the prescribed fingerprint sheet and the same was forwarded to P.W.17. P.W.17 compared the same and found that the admitted fingerprints of the accused tallied with the chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence. To be precise, five chance fingerprints lifted from the place of occurrence tallied with the specimen fingerprints of the accused. To assail this evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the fingerprints of the deceased were not taken for the purpose of comparison. In our considered view, this is no valid argument at all to be considered because the five chance fingerprints tallied with the fingerprints of the accused. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that according to P.W.17, he made markings around the chance fingerprints lifted at the place of occurrence, whereas, according to the police photographer no such marking was not found. This, in our considered view is only a minor discrepancy which would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. 13. This, in our considered view is only a minor discrepancy which would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the house from where M.Os.4 series and 5 were recovered was occupied by the accused. This also, in our considered view is immaterial when the fact remains that the recovery of M.Os.4 series and 5 were made out of the disclosure statement made by the accused and on being taken out from the place where he had hidden the same. 14. The learned counsel would further submit that in Exs.D1 to D4 photographs taken at the place of occurrence, there were other electronic goods found including a cellphone. The argument of the learned counsel is that, had it been the intention of the accused to commit robbery, he would not have spared these valuable things. Since they were not stolen, according to him, there can be no truth that the material objects 4 and 5 had been stolen away. This argument, in our considered view, is so strange, which deserves only summary rejection. The missing of M.Os.4 and 5 have been mentioned at the earliest point of time even in Ex.P1 itself. So far as the cellphone found at the place of occurrence is concerned, P.W.1 has stated that she left her cellphone at the place of occurrence when she took the deceased to the hospital and it was that cell phone which was found at the place of occurrence. Further, for his own reasons, the accused would not have thought of taking all the valuable properties from the house. Thus, in the absence of any explanation from the accused as to how his fingerprints had gone to the bedroom of the house of the deceased, the presumption is that he had visited the place of occurrence inside the bedroom of the house of the deceased and coupled with other evidences, it is presumable that the accused had committed murder of the deceased and had stolen away M.O.4 series and M.O.5. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though it is stated that the deceased spoke to P.W.9 at 10.30 a.m., the call details of the cell phone of the deceased and P.W.9 have not been recovered. It is true. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though it is stated that the deceased spoke to P.W.9 at 10.30 a.m., the call details of the cell phone of the deceased and P.W.9 have not been recovered. It is true. Had this been done, there would have been more scientific proof of the crime. But, the failure on the part of the investigating officer to collect these details would not in any manner weaken the other clinching evidences available to establish the guilt of the accused. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and thus the trial Court was right in convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. As a matter of fact, the accused should have been convicted for robbery, since there was no charge framed for robbery, we are not able to convert the conviction from theft to robbery. 17. Turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only a minimum punishment which does not require any interference. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal warranting any interference. 18. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.380 of 2011 dated 06.02.2013, is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the Crl. R.C. No.1034 of 2013 is also dismissed. 19. Before parting with this case, we would like to place on record our appreciation for P.W.23, Mr. P. Stephen, the Inspector of Police, who has deducted the crime in a war footing, in arresting the accused, collecting the evidences and proved the same before the Court of Law by means of legally acceptable evidence.