JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of IPC. By judgment dated 30.04.2014, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 392 of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with his Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Shantha Mani. She was residing at Balaji Nagar, Gobichettiypalayam. The accused is the close relative of the deceased. P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. He was working in a Government Office. On 17.08.2012, P.W.2 had gone to Trichirappalli to attend a marriage of his relative. At his house, the deceased alone was there. The accused is none other than the brother of the son-in-law of the deceased. He had incurred huge loss in his business. He knew that the deceased was wearing gold jewels. Therefore, it is alleged that he planned to kill the deceased and commit robbery of the gold jewels. (b) It is alleged that on 17.08.2012 at 02.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased in his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 36 E 2505 and after entering into her house, with a view to rob her jewels, strangulated her and killed her. Then, he removed a Thali Chain weighing 4 sovereigns, a pair of gold ear studs and a gold nose screw from the body of the deceased and fled away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody. In the evening on 17.08.2012, P.W.1 received a phone call from his brother P.W.2 that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of the deceased. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody. In the evening on 17.08.2012, P.W.1 received a phone call from his brother P.W.2 that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the house of the deceased. When he enquired, he was informed that one Poongodi (P.W.5), who used to go along with the deceased to purchase milk in the evening, as usual, came to the house of the deceased and tapped on the door and since there was no response from inside, she went near the window and through the window, she found the deceased lying in the kitchen. Immediately, P.W.5 had informed the 108 Ambulance. The 108 Ambulance came with para medical staff, who after examining the deceased, declared her death. Then, P.W.1, went to the police station and made a complaint at 06.15 p.m. on 17.08.2012 under Ex.P.1. P.W.20, the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police of Gobichettipalayam Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.539 of 2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.15 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to court which were received by the learned Magistrate at 10.30 a.m. on 19.08.2012. (c) P.W.24 took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 07.00 p.m. and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.15 and another witness. He examined many more witnesses at the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. (d) P.W.23 Dr.Jayasingh conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 18.08.2012 at 11.15 a.m. He found the following injuries: ''Appearances found at postmortem : Moderately nourished body of a female aged about 53 years. Finger and toe nails were bluish in colour. Evidence of blood stains seen over angle of mouth. An bite mark noted over left side lower chest. Postmortem peeling of skin noted over back of left forearm. Nil external ante mortem injuries noted over the body. On examination of oral cavity : Ante mortem contusion 1 x 0.5 c.m. noted over inner aspect of lower lip at the level of right lower canine tooth. Tongue bite mark noted on lateral aspect of left side tongue. Postmortem peeling of skin noted over back of left forearm. Nil external ante mortem injuries noted over the body. On examination of oral cavity : Ante mortem contusion 1 x 0.5 c.m. noted over inner aspect of lower lip at the level of right lower canine tooth. Tongue bite mark noted on lateral aspect of left side tongue. On dissection of scalp: Skull and Dura : Anti mortem sub scalpel contusion reddish in colour 6 x 4 c.m. noted over right temporal region. Diffuse sub arachnoid hemorrhage noted over both cerebral hemisphere. On Bloodless dissection of neck : Anti mortem contusion reddish in colour 3 x 2 c.m. noted over middle of front of neck at the level of upper part of thyroid cartilage. Reddish contusion 3 x 1 c.m. noted over left side upper neck, 2 c.m. below to lower border of left side mandible and 5 c.m. left to mid line. Another reddish contusion 3 x 2 c.m. noted over right side neck, 2 c.m. below to lower border of right side mandible and 4 c.m. left to mid line. Right side sub mandibular node found contused. Reddish contusion 2 x 1 c.m. noted over posterior aspect of lower part of right side larynx. Fracture noted on right lateral aspect of cricoids cartilage with surrounding tissue contused. A vertical fracture noted on the midline of the thyroid cartilage with surrounding tissue found contused. Left side pyriform fossa found contused. Fracture noted over right side lower part of hyoid bone with surrounding tissue contusion. Other Findings: -Peritoneal and Plural cavities : Empty -Heart - right side chambers contain about few cc of fluid blood and left side chambers empty. -Stomach contains about 200 grams of partially digested cooked rice particles, no specific smell, mucosa congested. -Small intestine contains about 10 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. -Liver, Spleen, Kidneys, Lungs and Brain - cut section congested. -Urinary bladder empty. -Uterus: Normal in size, cut section empty.'' Ex.P.19 is the Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P.22 is the opinion of the Doctor P.W.23 regarding cause of death. He gave opinion that the deceased died due to manual strangulation. (e) P.W.24, after getting the opinion of the Doctor, altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. Ex.P.26 is the Alteration Report and he forwarded the same to the court. He gave opinion that the deceased died due to manual strangulation. (e) P.W.24, after getting the opinion of the Doctor, altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. Ex.P.26 is the Alteration Report and he forwarded the same to the court. (f) On 20.08.2012, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness. The accused was found moving in a Hero Honda motorcycle at 08.00 a.m. and on intercepting him, P.W.24 arrested him. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the jewels. P.W.24 recovered the Hero Honda Motor Cycle (M.O.5) from the accused under a Mahazar. The accused, thereafter, in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, took P.W.24 and the witness to Tirupur and identified one Bhaskaran P.W.9. Then, P.W.9 produced a receipt showing the pledging of M.Os.2 and 4 in Muthoot Finance Company. In pursuance of the same, the M.Os.2 and 4 were recovered from Muthoot Finance at Tirupur. Then, the accused took the police and the witness to his house and produced M.Os.1 and 3 from his house. P.W.24 recovered the same under a Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, the accused identified one Sathish Kumar P.W.13 from whom P.W.24 recovered a sum of Rs.5,500/- (M.O.6 Series). On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to court. (g) The accused had injuries on his face. Therefore, he was taken to Gobichettipalayam Government Hospital for treatment before he was taken to the court. On completing the investigation, P.W.24 laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses were examined and 32 documents and 10 material objects were also marked. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that on the day of occurrence, in the evening, he received a telephonic call from P.W.2 that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. When he went into the house of the deceased, he found that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that on the day of occurrence, in the evening, he received a telephonic call from P.W.2 that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. When he went into the house of the deceased, he found that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Thereafter, according to him, he went to Gobichettipalayam Police Station and made a complaint. P.W.2 the husband of the deceased has stated that on 17.08.2012, he had gone to Tiruchirappalli. When he was returning to Gobichettipalayam, he received a phone call from a neighbour of his house, namely, P.W.10 Raghunath Mohan that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Then, he phoned to P.W.1 and wanted him to take her to the hospital. On reaching Gobichettipalayam, P.W.2 rushed to the hospital and came to know that the deceased was dead. Thereafter, he verified the missing of M.Os.1 to 4 and then, he informed the same to police. P.W.3 is a resident of Balaji Nagar. He has stated that he knew both the deceased as well as the accused. He has stated that on 17.08.2012 at 02.15 p.m., when he came to his house for lunch, the accused was found coming out of the house of the deceased. Later, in the night, he came to know that the deceased had been killed by somebody. When police enquired, he informed the same to them. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. She has stated that when she tried to contact her mother over phone, there was no response. Then, she came to know that her mother was done to death by somebody. 5. P.W.5 is an important witness for the prosecution. She used to purchase milk from a Farm near the house of the deceased. The deceased used to accompany her to purchase milk. According to her, on 17.08.2012, in the evening, as usual, she went to the house of the deceased. Standing near the house, she called the deceased. But, there was no response. The television was then working from inside the house in loud noise. Through the window, she noticed that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Immediately, she informed the neighbours. All of them rushed into the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying in the kitchen. Believing that she was alive, they immediately informed the 108 Ambulance. The television was then working from inside the house in loud noise. Through the window, she noticed that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Immediately, she informed the neighbours. All of them rushed into the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying in the kitchen. Believing that she was alive, they immediately informed the 108 Ambulance. The para medical staff, who came in the 108 Ambulance, rushed to the place of occurrence and after examining the deceased, declared her dead. Thereafter, she informed P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 about the same. P.W.6 is also a resident of Balaji Nagar. He has stated that between 02.15 and 02.30 p.m. on 17.08.2012, when he was passing through Balaji Nagar from south towards north, the accused was seen proceeding towards south in his motorcycle. Later, in the evening, he came to know that the deceased was no more. 6. P.W.7 is also a resident of Balaji Nagar. According to him, on 17.08.2012 around 11.00 a.m., the accused parked his motorcycle near an Electricity Transformer, two houses away from the house of the deceased. Then, the accused entered into the house of the deceased. Later, in the evening, he came to know that the deceased was killed by somebody. P.W.8 is a resident of Kongarpalayam. He told that on 17.08.2012, when he was in Balaji Nagar, on account of his work, he found the accused proceeding in his Hero Honda Motor Cycle towards north from south. Later on, he came to know that the deceased was killed by somebody. P.W.9 is a resident of Chandrapuram at Tirupur. He has stated that on 17.08.2012 at 06.00 p.m., the accused spoke to him over phone and wanted him to help him to pledge certain jewels. Accordingly, the accused gave him a pair of ear studs (M.O.2) and a nose screw (M.O.4). He has further stated that he pledged the M.Os.2 and 4 as requested by the accused at Muthoot Finance on the same day under a receipt. He has also stated that on 20.08.2012, the accused came with the Inspector of Police and identified them. Thereafter, he produced the receipt (Ex.P.2) to the police and based on the same, M.Os.2 and 4 were recovered from Muthoot Finance in his presence. 7. P.W.10 is a neighbour of the deceased. He has also stated that on 20.08.2012, the accused came with the Inspector of Police and identified them. Thereafter, he produced the receipt (Ex.P.2) to the police and based on the same, M.Os.2 and 4 were recovered from Muthoot Finance in his presence. 7. P.W.10 is a neighbour of the deceased. He has stated that on 17.08.2012 around 04.10 p.m., P.W.5 informed him that the deceased was lying in the kitchen. Then, he went to the house and found the deceased lying. P.W.11 is a Doctor in a Private Hospital at Gobichettipalayam. According to him, on 18.08.2012, the accused came to him for treatment. He told the Doctor that he had fallen from Motorcycle and sustained injury. P.W11 treated him for the same. P.W.12 is the Branch Manager of Muthoot Finance at Gobichettipalayam. He has stated that the M.Os.2 and 4 were pledged by P.W.9 on 17.08.2012 at 06.45 p.m. He was accompanied by the accused. He gave Rs.11,000/- for the same. Ex.P.2 is the receipt for the said pledging. He has further stated that on 20.08.2012 at 12.30 p.m., the police came and recovered M.Os.2 and 4 from him. P.W.13 is a neighbour of the accused. He has stated that on 10.08.2012, the accused borrowed Rs.5,500/- from him and he returned the same on 17.08.2012. P.W.14 has spoken about the recoveries of M.Os.1 and 3 from the house of the accused on being produced by him in pursuance of his disclosure statement. P.W.15 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch by P.W.24. P.W.16 has stated that on 20.08.2012 at 05.00 p.m., the accused was brought by the police to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam for treatment. He found nail marks on the body of the accused. P.W.17 is the then Judicial Magistrate No.2, Gobichettipalayam. He has stated that when the accused was produced before him for judicial remand on 20.08.2012 at 07.30 p.m., he found that there were injuries on him. He forwarded him to the hospital for treatment. P.W.18 is the Village Administrative Officer. He has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the recoveries of M.Os.1 to 5 from him as detailed herein above. P.W.19 has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and handed over the same for postmortem. P.W.20 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. He has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the recoveries of M.Os.1 to 5 from him as detailed herein above. P.W.19 has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital and handed over the same for postmortem. P.W.20 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.21 has stated that after the case was altered into one under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC, he handed over the alteration report to the Magistrate Court. P.W.22 has stated that he examined the internal organs of the deceased which revealed that there was no poison found. P.W.23 has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding cause of death. P.W.24 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed by him. 8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. On his side, he examined one Banumathi as D.W.1. She is the sister of the accused. She has stated that there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. She has further stated that on 17.08.2012, she received an information that the deceased had died due to inhalation of bleaching powder. She has also stated that out of enmity, this case has been falsely foisted against the accused. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court. 9. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 10. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. At the outset, we should say that in a case of this nature, it is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances projected by it beyond all reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Keeping the above broad principle in mind, let us now go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution. 11. Keeping the above broad principle in mind, let us now go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution. 11. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was residing with her husband at her house at Balaji Nagar, Gobichettipalayam. P.W.2, who is the husband of the deceased, had stated that on 17.08.2012 in the morning, he went to Tiruchirappalli to attend a marriage, leaving behind the deceased alone at his house. Thus, the deceased was lastly seen alive only by P.W.2. P.W.5 Poongodi, a resident of Balaji Nagar, used to go to purchase milk in a nearby Farm. The deceased also used to go with her. In the usual course, P.W.5 around 04.00 p.m. on 17.08.2012, went to the house of the deceased and she found the deceased lying in the kitchen. She informed the same to the neighbours. All the neighbours went inside the house of the deceased and they found the deceased lying in the kitchen and informed the 108 Ambulance and the paramedical staff of the ambulance, after examining her, declared her dead. Thus, the death of the deceased was on 17.08.2012 before 04.00 p.m. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has opined that the death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation. There is no reason to reject this medical evidence. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the death of the deceased was a homicide which occurred before 04.00 p.m. on 17.08.2012. 12. P.W.1, the brother of P.W.2, on receiving the telephonic message from P.W.2, had rushed to the house of the deceased. He found the deceased lying dead. Then, he went to the police station and made the complaint at 06.15 p.m. on 17.08.2012. In the complaint, P.W.1 did not mention anything about the loss of jewelleries. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the absence to mention about the jewelleries in the complaint (Ex.P.1) would only go to prove that as a matter of fact, there was no theft and in order to strengthen the case, a story had been introduced as though M.Os.1 to 4 had been stolen away. We do not find any force at all in this argument. Admittedly, P.W.1 was not aware of the jewelleries worn by the deceased and also the missing of the same. We do not find any force at all in this argument. Admittedly, P.W.1 was not aware of the jewelleries worn by the deceased and also the missing of the same. After knowing that the deceased was no more, he immediately rushed to the police station and made the complaint. Therefore, it is quite natural for him not to have mentioned anything about the missing of the jewelleries. P.W.2, the husband of the deceased came thereafter. He only found that M.Os.1 to 4 were found missing. Immediately, he informed the police about the same in his statement. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that this statement made by P.W.2 to the police is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. Here, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to rely on the statement made by P.W.2 to the police which would quite naturally fall under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. We want to rely on the substantive evidence of P.W.2, who has deposed on oath, that M.Os.1 to 4 were found missing and then, he informed the same to police. The removal of the jewelleries (M.Os.1 to 4) and the homicide had taken place in one and the same occurrence. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the causing of the death of the deceased and the removal of gold jewelleries M.Os.1 to 4 had taken place in one and the same transaction and therefore, the person, who committed the theft of the jewels, had caused the death of the deceased also. 15. In order to prove that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased and removed the gold jewels M.Os.1 to 4 from her possession, the prosecution relies only on two circumstances. The first circumstance is that there is evidence that the accused was found moving in his motorcycle at or about the time of occurrence and near the place of occurrence. P.W.3 has stated that around 02.15 p.m., he found the accused coming out of the house of the deceased. P.W.4 has stated that between 02.15 and 02.30 p.m. on 17.08.2012 at Balaji Nagar, he found the accused moving in the motorcycle from north towards south. P.W.7 has stated that the accused parked his motorcycle near the Transformer and went into the house of the deceased. P.W.4 has stated that between 02.15 and 02.30 p.m. on 17.08.2012 at Balaji Nagar, he found the accused moving in the motorcycle from north towards south. P.W.7 has stated that the accused parked his motorcycle near the Transformer and went into the house of the deceased. P.W.8 has stated that on 17.08.2012, he saw the accused moving in his motorcycle in Balaji Nagar. From these evidences, the prosecution has proved that the accused was found moving near the house of the deceased and entering into the house of the deceased and also coming out of the house of the deceased. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that this evidence cannot be believed and assuming that they are believeable, even then, that would not go to prove the guilt of the accused. We do not find any reason to reject the said evidences. They have got no grudge against the accused. They have only stated that the accused was found moving near the house of the deceased and also entering into the house and coming out of the house at or about the time of occurrence. Therefore, we accept these evidences. It is not as though the prosecution tries to sustain the conviction wholly based on this circumstance. In our considered view, though this circumstance cannot be a sole foundation for conviction, it can be used to corroborate any other circumstance which is strong in nature. To that extent, we hold that this circumstance would help the prosecution. 17. The important circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the arrest of the accused on 20.08.2012 in the presence of P.W.18 and another witness. P.W.24 and P.W.18 have stated that on such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the material objects, namely, M.Os.1 to 4. He was found in possession of M.O.5. As a matter of fact, when he was proceeding in the Motorcycle (M.O.5), he was intercepted and arrested by P.W.24. The M.O.5 was immediately recovered from him. In pursuance of the Disclosure Statement, he identified P.W.9. Then P.W.9 produced Ex.P.2 receipt. According to P.W.9, the accused came to him on 17.08.2012 at 06.10 p.m. and requested for his help to pledge two gold jewels for paying the school fees for his son. The M.O.5 was immediately recovered from him. In pursuance of the Disclosure Statement, he identified P.W.9. Then P.W.9 produced Ex.P.2 receipt. According to P.W.9, the accused came to him on 17.08.2012 at 06.10 p.m. and requested for his help to pledge two gold jewels for paying the school fees for his son. With a view to help him, according to P.W.9, he pledged M.Os.2 to 4 given by the accused with Muthoot Finance for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. Ex.P.2 receipt is the Pawn Receipt. Thereafter, M.Os.2 and 4 were recovered from P.W.13 who is the Manager of Muthoot Finance Pincorp Branch. P.W.12 and P.W.13, who are the officials of Muthoot Finance, have stated about the same. 18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would vehementally dispute the evidence regarding the pledging of M.Os.2 and 4 by P.W.9 with P.W.12. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ex.P.2 receipt does not contain the signature of the Manager and it also does not contain the details of the jewels etc. Therefore, according to him, Ex.P.2 has been created for the purpose of this case. 19. We find it difficult to accept the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant because P.Ws.12 and 13 have explained during cross-examination that since Ex.P.2 was a Computer Print Out, it did not contain the signature of the Manager. In our considered view, the explanation is quite plausible and acceptable by this Court. Apart from this, during the trial of the case, there was no dispute raised regarding the genuineness of the receipt Ex.P.2. P.Ws.9, 12 and 13 are independent witnesses. They have got no grudge against the accused. Though, they have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit their evidence. Thus, from the evidences of these three witnesses, the prosecution has clearly established that on the day of occurrence, that was on 17.08.2012 at 06.45 p.m., the accused was found in possession of M.Os.2 and 4 which were pledged on the same day in the name of P.W.9. The accused has got no explanation for the possession of the M.Os.2 and 4, which were stolen away from the body of the deceased. 20. In pursuance of the same disclosure statement, thereafter, the accused took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced M.Os.1 and 3. They were recovered in the presence of the same witnesses. The accused has got no explanation for the possession of the M.Os.2 and 4, which were stolen away from the body of the deceased. 20. In pursuance of the same disclosure statement, thereafter, the accused took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced M.Os.1 and 3. They were recovered in the presence of the same witnesses. In an attempt to assail this part of the case of the prosecution, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would point out that in the charge framed against the accused, there were only 3 items of gold jewels mentioned as stolen properties whereas the material objects, namely, M.Os.1 to 4 have been marked as stolen properties. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, there is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution. But, we do not find any such inconsistency at all. M.O.1 is a broken Gold Thali Chain of the deceased. M.O.3 is another piece of the broken Thali Chain. Thus, M.Os.1 and 3 are the parts of one single chain. When the accused had removed the chain from the neck of the deceased, it had been broken into two pieces. Thus, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that there is inconsistency in the description of the material objects is only liable to be rejected. 21. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there was no Test Identification Parade held for these gold jewels and thus, the identification of these M.Os.1 to 4 made for the first time in court is of no use as the same cannot be given any weightage of. In this regard, we have to state that there are certain personal belongings of the individuals which can be identified by them at any time, if they have got sentimental attachment for the same. Here in this case, the Thali Chain and another connected jewels are sentimentally known to P.W.1 who is the husband of the deceased and he has identified the same in court. Therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt the identification made by him. 22. From the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the accused was found in possession of M.Os.1 and 3 which were recovered soon after the commission of the theft. The accused has got no explanation to offer. Therefore, we do not find any reason to doubt the identification made by him. 22. From the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the accused was found in possession of M.Os.1 and 3 which were recovered soon after the commission of the theft. The accused has got no explanation to offer. Therefore, we are inclined to raise the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that it was this accused who removed M.Os.1 to 4 from the body of the deceased. Since the removal of these gold ornaments from the body of the deceased and causing the death of the deceased had happened in one and the same occurrence, the presumption is that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased also. Undoubtedly, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused with an intention to kill her so as to remove the valuable ornaments. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased and had committed the theft of gold ornaments. The trial court has, thus, rightly convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 392 of IPC. 23. Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial court has imposed only a minimum punishment on the appellant which also does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this Criminal Appeal. 24. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentenced imposed on the appellant by the trial court are hereby confirmed.