JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.271 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.02.2015, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 404 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: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Ammu @ Venkateswari aged about 25 years. P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was residing with her mother at Kanniyur Village near Udumalpet in Coimbatore district. The accused is a relative of the deceased. The deceased was doing B.Ed. Degree course in J.S.R. College in Coimbatore. On account of the close relationship, P.W.4 and her family members used to visit the house of the accused. After the demise of her husband in the year 2008, the father of the accused informed P.W.4 and her daughter to come and reside at Chamundipuram village in Tiruppur district. P.W.4 and the deceased during the month of May, 2009 visited Chamundipuram and stayed for about ten days. Then, they returned to their native place. Three months after the same, when they visited the house of the accused, P.W.4, accidentally came to read the diary of the accused. In that diary, the accused had written that he had fallen in love for the deceased. This was not to the liking of P.W.4. She warned the accused not to have such an impression. 2.2. During the month of December 2009, the accused eloped with the deceased. P.W.4, made a complaint to the police. After three months, the police rescued the deceased and the accused. That time, the accused was hardly 17 years old, whereas, the deceased was 21 years old. They were also in sapinda relationship. Even after the said incident, P.W.4 allowed the deceased to continue her studies in the college. P.W.4, made a complaint to the police. After three months, the police rescued the deceased and the accused. That time, the accused was hardly 17 years old, whereas, the deceased was 21 years old. They were also in sapinda relationship. Even after the said incident, P.W.4 allowed the deceased to continue her studies in the college. But the accused continued his relationship with the deceased secretly. It is also stated that on one occasion, the accused had tied thali to the deceased thereby performing marriage. After coming to know about the said fact, P.W.4 convened a panchayat. In that panchayat, the deceased and the accused were persuaded to give up the said relationship. Thereafter, the accused went to his house and the deceased was brought back to the house of P.W.4. 2.3. On 21.06.2012, the deceased had gone to the college to participate in the annual college day function. P.W.4 also attended the said function. But suddenly, on the same day, the deceased disappeared from the college. Her handbag and other belongings were in the college. P.W.4 went in search of her. She could not find her anywhere. She believed that the accused would have taken her. Therefore, she did not make any complaint to the police. 2.4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21.06.2012, the accused took the deceased from the college. Both of them went to Mettupalayam and stayed in Saravana Bhavan Lodge at Room No.106. The accused gave his address as Santhosh. Under the said name, he stayed along with the deceased in Room No.106. In the room, they had sexual intercourse. They stayed together in the same room between 21.06.2012 to 26.06.2012. One Mr. Saravanan was the manager of the lodge and P.W.2 Mr. Palanisamy was the watchman in the lodge. P.W.1 Mr. Krishnamoorthy was yet another Manager. 2.5. On 26.06.2012 at 03.00 a.m. P.W.1 came to the lodge for duty. At that time, P.W.1 called P.W.2 and told him that the guest staying in Room No.106 had not vacated the room and they had also not paid the room rent. P.W.1 wanted P.W.2 to go and inform the guest to vacate the room. 2.6. P.W.2 went to Room No.106 between 05.00 a.m. to 05.30 a.m. on 26.06.2012 and knocked the door. The accused opened the door. P.W.2 found the deceased sitting on the cot. P.W.2 told the accused to vacate the room. P.W.1 wanted P.W.2 to go and inform the guest to vacate the room. 2.6. P.W.2 went to Room No.106 between 05.00 a.m. to 05.30 a.m. on 26.06.2012 and knocked the door. The accused opened the door. P.W.2 found the deceased sitting on the cot. P.W.2 told the accused to vacate the room. The accused told him that he would vacate the room by 09.00 a.m. P.W.2 left for his home after his duty time was over at 08.00 a.m. At 04.00 p.m. P.W.1 again called P.W.2 to return to the lodge. P.W.2 reached the lodge at about 05.30 p.m. In the meanwhile, at 08.00 a.m. the accused alone left the lodge without carrying any baggage. The girl who was staying with him also did not accompany him. P.W.1 was under the impression that he was just going out of the lodge and then return. But till 03.00 p.m., the accused did not return. Therefore, around 03.00 p.m, P.W.1 and one Saroja, a cleaner in the lodge, went to Room No.106 and knocked at the doors. But there was no response from inside. Then P.W.1 peeped through the keyhole on the door. To his shock, he found the deceased lying on the cot and her legs were hanging. Pillow was on her face and a teapoy drawer was kept on the pillow. 2.7. P.W.1 with the help of the other employees, broke open the lock of the door. When they entered into the room, they found the deceased lying dead. There were plastic water bottles and other things in the room. Immediately P.W.1 went to the police station at 06.30 p.m. on 26.06.2012 and made a complaint. 2.8. P.W.11 the then Sub Inspector of Police of Mettupalayam Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint of P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.464 of 2012 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P10 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to the Court, which was received by the learned Magistrate at 08.00 p.m. on 26.06.2012. 2.9. P.W.15 took up the case for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence at 07.45 p.m. on 26.06.2012 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. He recovered material objects numbering 10 from the room vide M.Os.1 to 8 and 10 & 11 in the presence of the same witnesses. 2.9. P.W.15 took up the case for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence at 07.45 p.m. on 26.06.2012 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness. He recovered material objects numbering 10 from the room vide M.Os.1 to 8 and 10 & 11 in the presence of the same witnesses. Identity of the dead body was not still known. He held inquest on the body of the deceased between 09.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. on the same day and forwarded the body to the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. On the same day, he recovered the lodge register for the period from 19.05.2012 to 26.06.2012. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few more persons in the lodge. 2.10. On the dead body a pair of gold ear studs and clothe were found. The Constable who took the body for postmortem after the postmortem was over, collected the same and produced the same to P.W.15. 2.11. In the lodge register, as we have already mentioned, the name of the guest who stayed along with the deceased was mentioned as Santhosh and his cellphone number was given as 9677662318. From the cellphone service provider, it was found out by P.W.15 that there were frequent incoming and outgoing calls between the said cellphone number and the cell phone No.7502921058. During investigation, it came to light that the said cellphone number 7502921058 was used by one Sundhi (not examined). P.W.15 contacted her and showed the photograph of the dead body of the deceased. From her, it came to light that the dead body was that of Ammu @ Venkateswari, the deceased in this case. 2.12. On 28.06.2012, the P.W.15 therefore examined the mother of the deceased (P.W.4) and other family members of the deceased. They identified the dead body at the Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, where the dead body was kept in the mortuary. Then, P.W.15 forward the body for postmortem. 2.13. P.W.12 Dr. Jayasingh conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 28.06.2012. He found the following injuries: "Injuries: Reddish contusion 5x2x1 cm with incisor teeth impression noted over the inner aspect of upper lip and 4x1.5x1 cm with incisor teeth impression noted on inner aspect of lower lip. Reddish contusion noted on inner aspect of both nostrils, on examination septal cartilage found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion. He found the following injuries: "Injuries: Reddish contusion 5x2x1 cm with incisor teeth impression noted over the inner aspect of upper lip and 4x1.5x1 cm with incisor teeth impression noted on inner aspect of lower lip. Reddish contusion noted on inner aspect of both nostrils, on examination septal cartilage found fractured with surrounding tissue contusion. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5x0.2 cm noted over left cheek, 6 cm lateral to left angle of mouth. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5x0.25 cm noted over right cheek, 4 cm lateral to left ankle of mouth. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm noted over right cheek, 4 cm lateral to left ankle of mouth. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm noted over right upper cheek, 2 cm below to right inferior orbital margin. Old hymen tear noted over 3'6 and 11"O" clock position. On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Sub scalpal contusion 15x10 cm noted over both occipital region. Diffused sub arachnoid hemorrhage noted on both cerebral hemisphere. Other findings: Peritoneal and pleural cavities – empty. Hyodi bone – intact. Heart – all chambers contains about few cc of fluid blood. Coronaries patent. Stomach contains about 50 ms of dull while colour fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. Small intestine contains about 10 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. Liver, spleen, kidneys, brain and lungs – cut section congested. Urinary bladder - empty." Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.P12 is his final opinion. According to him, the deceased would have died due to axphyxia due to smothering. 2.14. P.W.15 arrested the accused on 30.06.2012 at 09.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses. He made a disclosure statement. Out of the said disclosure statement, he produced the key of Room No.106 of Hotel Saravana Bhavan (M.O.16). A photograph of the deceased and another photograph of the deceased in marital attire (M.O.12), a black colour LG cellphone (M.O.17), a gold loan receipt dated 26.06.2012 issued by Muthoot Finance, Kinathukadavu (M.O.15), a Nokia black colour touch cellphone (M.O.18), cash of Rs.500 (M.O.22 series) and a Tollgate receipt for vehicle bearing registration No.TN 66 D 9974 (M.O.14 series) dated 29.06.2012. He recovered all these material objects under a mahazar. 2.15. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.15 and witnesses to the Muthoot Finance at Kinathukadavu. He recovered all these material objects under a mahazar. 2.15. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.15 and witnesses to the Muthoot Finance at Kinathukadavu. Based on the receipt seized from the accused, the manager of the bank has returned a gold chain (M.O.19), a gold ring (M.O.20) and a bracelet (M.O.21). P.W.15 recovered the same under a mahazar. P.W.15, during the course of investigation, examination many more witnesses, he collected postmortem certificate and examined the doctor. He forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and also all the material objects to the Court. At his request, test identification parade was held by the learned Magistrate to enable P.Ws.1, 2 and others to identify the accused. At his request, the fingerprints taken from the bottles found in the room were compared with fingerprint of the accused. They tallied with the fingerprint of the accused. Similarly the handwriting in the lodge register also tallied with the handwriting of the accused. On completing the investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the accused. 2.16. According to the final report, when the accused and the deceased were staying in Room No.106, since the deceased told the accused that she was going to marry one Mr. Venkatachalam, the accused got wild and killed her. After removing the jewels of the deceased, the accused locked the room and fled away from the scene of occurrence. 2.17. Based on the these materials and the allegations, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment, which the accused denied. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 16 documents and 30 material objects were marked. 2.18. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the manager of the lodge, he has stated that the accused came with the deceased to the lodge and stayed at the lodge from 11.00 p.m. on 21.06.2012 onwards in Room No.106. He has further stated that the accused himself wrote his address in the register as Santhosh of Kodaikannal village. He gave his cellphone number as 9677662318. He has further stated that the accused did not vacate till 26.06.2012. He called P.W.2 a watchman in the lodge to go and inform the guest to vacate. He has further stated that the accused himself wrote his address in the register as Santhosh of Kodaikannal village. He gave his cellphone number as 9677662318. He has further stated that the accused did not vacate till 26.06.2012. He called P.W.2 a watchman in the lodge to go and inform the guest to vacate. When P.W.2 told him, the accused replied that he would vacate the room at 09.00 a.m. But at 08.00 a.m., the accused left the room. In the evening the deceased was found dead in the room and the room was found locked. Thereafter, he made the complaint. 2.19. P.W.2 has also spoken about the same facts as spoken by P.W.1. P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, the rough sketch and the recovery of material objects from the lodge. P.W.4, the mother of the deceased has spoken about the relationship between the accused and the deceased and the fact that the deceased was found missing from the college on 21.06.2012 onwards. P.W.5 the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the confession made by him and the consequential recoveries of M.Os.12 to 18. 2.20. P.W.6 was a call taxi owner. He has stated that on 26.06.2012, the accused came to him at Gandhipuram at Coimbatore and wanted to go to Tiruppur. Accordingly, he went to Tiruppur and at Tiruppur, the accused went to few jewelry shops including Muthoot Finance. In the Muthoot Finance, three jewels were pledged by the accused in the name of P.W.6 under M.O.15 receipt. He has further stated that the accused thereafter went to purchase a cellphone. The accused gave Rs.3,000/- to him. He has further stated that on 28.06.2012, the accused went to Kanyakumari along with him and stayed in a lodge. From there, the accused went to Cutrallam and from Cutrallam they came down to Tiruppur. When they were returning in the car towards Ooty, the car was intercepted and the accused was arrested by the police. 2.21. P.W.7, the Manager of Muthoot Finance has stated that M.Os.19 to 21 were pledged by the accused in the name of P.W.6. P.W.8 is also an employee of Muthoot Finance, he has stated about the recoveries of the above jewels from Muthoot Finance. 2.22. 2.21. P.W.7, the Manager of Muthoot Finance has stated that M.Os.19 to 21 were pledged by the accused in the name of P.W.6. P.W.8 is also an employee of Muthoot Finance, he has stated about the recoveries of the above jewels from Muthoot Finance. 2.22. P.W.9, the fingerprint expert has stated that at the request made by the Investigating Officer on 26.06.2012 at 08.00 p.m. he went to Room No.106 of the Lodge and thoroughly examined for chance fingerprint. At that time, he found four chance fingerprints in the water bottle. He also recorded the fingerprints of the deceased from the dead body. But they did not tally with the chance fingerprint lifted from the bottle. Subsequently, the admitted fingerprints of the accused were compared with the chance fingerprints and on such examination, he found that three chance fingerprints lifted tallied with the fingerprints of the accused. 2.23. P.W.10 has spoken about the photographs taken at Room No.106 of the lodge as requested by the investigating officer. P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13, the handwriting expert has stated that she examined the handwriting in the lodge register and the admitted hand-writings of the accused. According to her, the entries in the lodge register were made only by the accused. P.W.14 has spoken about the test identification parade held. P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing on 13.07.2016, the learned counsel on either side made their submissions. During the course of argument, it was pointed out that M.Os.19 to 21 which were the properties belonging to the deceased were not identified by P.W.4 the mother of the deceased. In other words, P.W.4 had not been invited to identify the personal belongings of the deceased. Thus, it was argued that there is no proof that the material objects 19 to 21 gold jewels belonged to the deceased. It was also pointed out that the sample fingerprints taken from the accused for the purpose of comparing the same with the chance fingerprints lifted from the water bottle in the room were also not marked. Thus, it was argued that there is no proof that the material objects 19 to 21 gold jewels belonged to the deceased. It was also pointed out that the sample fingerprints taken from the accused for the purpose of comparing the same with the chance fingerprints lifted from the water bottle in the room were also not marked. It was pointed out that the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the case had failed to bring on record the said admitted fingerprints of the accused. Similarly, the admitted hand-writings of the accused which were used to compare the handwriting in the lodge register were also not marked. This was also an omission made by the learned public prosecutor who conducted the case. 4. Since these evidences are very vital to come to a just conclusion in the case, this Court, after affording sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant, passed an order in exercise of its power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive additional evidence. Accordingly, this Court directed the appearance of P.W.4 and P.W.15 before this Court. The accused was also ordered to be produced before this Court on 20.07.2016. 5. On 20.07.2016, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, the accused was produced and in his presence, P.W.4 was recalled and further examined. This Court questioned the said witness as provided in Section 165 of the Evidence Act. M.Os.17, 19 and 20 were shown to her. With tears, she identified the same as that of the deceased. Since some original documents were not readily available, the case was further adjourned to 26.07.2016. On that day, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took adjournment and the matter was adjourned. 6. On 03.08.2016, when the case was taken up, the accused was again produced and P.W.15 was recalled. P.W.15 during further examination before this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, told that on 30.10.2012, he made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate to obtain the sample hand-writings and the signatures of the accused for the purpose of comparison. The said letter is Ex.P17. The learned Magistrate, in pursuance of the same, on 09.11.2012, made sample hand-writings both in English as well as in Tamil for 50 times. Ex.P20 is the said Tamil sample hand-writings of the accused. That was the one which was sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the lodge register (M.O.9). The said letter is Ex.P17. The learned Magistrate, in pursuance of the same, on 09.11.2012, made sample hand-writings both in English as well as in Tamil for 50 times. Ex.P20 is the said Tamil sample hand-writings of the accused. That was the one which was sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the lodge register (M.O.9). Similarly, in the presence of the learned Magistrate, the sample fingerprints of the accused were taken in a white sheet (vide Ex.P21). They were sent for comparison with the chance fingerprints taken from the place of occurrence. The report of the handwriting expert is Ex.P.13. 7. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the above additional evidence recorded by this Court. He disowned knowledge of any fact stated therein. Then the case was adjourned for arguments. 8. This Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor today (11.08.2016). We also perused the records carefully. 9. This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. The first and foremost circumstance is the relationship between the accused and the deceased. This has been extensively spoken by P.W.4. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.4 in this regard. There is no denial of the fact that the deceased was studying in J.S.R. College in Coimbatore in B.Ed., degree course. On 21.06.2012, she went to the college but in the evening, she was found missing from the college. This has been spoken by P.W.4. She went in search of the deceased to various places, but she could not found her anywhere. Believing that the accused would have taken her, she did not go to the police with any complaint. 10. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the accused and the deceased came to the lodge on 21.06.2012 at 11.00 p.m. and stayed at Room No.106. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 in this regard cannot be believed. We find it difficult to accept the said contention for there are overwhelming evidences available to prove that it was this accused who was staying with the deceased in Room No.106. P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified the accused during trial as well as during test identification parade as the one who was staying in the lodge. We find it difficult to accept the said contention for there are overwhelming evidences available to prove that it was this accused who was staying with the deceased in Room No.106. P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified the accused during trial as well as during test identification parade as the one who was staying in the lodge. P.Ws.1 and 2 have got no axe to grind against the accused. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, wherein, they have stated that it was this accused who was staying with the deceased in Room No.106 from 21.06.2012 onwards till 26.06.2012. 11. At the time when they booked the room in the lodge, the accused had written his address as Santhosh, 56/99, Second Jeeva Street, Kodaikannal. He has also given his cellphone number as 9677662318. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said entry in the ledge register was not made by the accused. During further examination before this Court, the sample hand-writings of the accused taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate have been proved. According to the handwriting expert, the hand-writings in the lodge register tallied with the sample handwriting of the accused. Though, the handwriting expert has been examined and cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to doubt her credibility. From the evidence of PW-1 and the handwriting expert, it has been clearly established that it was this accused who made the entries in the lodge register at the time when he booked the room along with the deceased. 12. P.W.2 has stated that on 26.06.2012, in the morning, around 07.30 a.m. P.W.1 wanted him to go and inform the guest at Room No.106 to vacate the room. Accordingly, P.W.2 went to the room and knocked at the door. The door was opened from inside by the accused, at that time, he found the deceased sitting on the cot. The accused told him that he would vacate by 09.00 a.m. But by 08.00 a.m. the accused alone left the lodge by locking room No.106. He was seen by P.W.1 leaving the lodge. P.W.1 was under the impression that the accused would come back after a short while, but till 03.00 p.m. he did not return. The accused told him that he would vacate by 09.00 a.m. But by 08.00 a.m. the accused alone left the lodge by locking room No.106. He was seen by P.W.1 leaving the lodge. P.W.1 was under the impression that the accused would come back after a short while, but till 03.00 p.m. he did not return. This conduct of the accused in leaving the lodge by locking Room No.106 without vacating the room and without taking his luggage and the deceased is consistent only with his guilt. In this regard also, there is no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. 13. Around 03.00 p.m. P.W.1 went to the room and found the same locked. He knocked at the door but there was no response from inside. Therefore, along with the sweeper by name Saroja, he peeped through the keyhole of the lock and he found the deceased lying dead on the cot. A pillow was on her face and the drawer of the teapoy was on the pillow. Thus, the deceased was found dead around 03.00 p.m. on 26.06.2012. 14. The doctor who conducted autopsy has opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to smothering. The fact that a pillow and a teapoy drawer were kept on the face of the deceased would support the medical evidence. From the medical evidence, the prosecution has clearly established that the death of the deceased was a homicide. The death had occurred sometime between 07.30 a.m. on 26.06.2012 and 03.00 p.m. on 26.06.2012. 15. After registration of the case, on the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.15 visited Room No.106. The fingerprint expert also visited and on through examination he lifted chance fingerprints from the plastic water bottle kept in the room. The fingerprints taken from the dead body of the deceased did not tally with the same. Later on, after the arrest of the accused, the admitted fingerprints of the accused were taken in the immediate presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate and they were sent for comparison and they tallied with the chance fingerprints. Thus, it has been further established that the accused stayed in the room with the deceased. 16. After the registration of the case, the identity of the dead body was not known to the police or to P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, it has been further established that the accused stayed in the room with the deceased. 16. After the registration of the case, the identity of the dead body was not known to the police or to P.Ws.1 and 2. From the cellphone number given in the lodge register, P.W.15 verified with the cellphone service provider and came to know that there were frequent outgoing and incoming calls between the said cellphone number and another cellphone no viz., 7502921058. On ascertaining who the user of the said cellphone number was, P.W.15 examined one Sundhi, from whose information, he came to know that the dead body was that of the deceased. Then, he informed P.W.4 and others and they identified the dead body in the hospital. Until then, the properties stolen away from the dead body were not known. The properties kept in the room alone were recovered. After the arrival of P.W.4, it came to light that M.Os.19 to 21, a gold chain with dollar, a gold ring and a gold bracelet respectively were found missing from the body of the deceased. Thus, it is crystal clear that the person who committed the murder of the deceased had removed these three gold items from the body of the deceased. 17. The accused was arrested when he was in the company of P.W.6, a friend of the accused. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he had pledged M.Os.19 to 21 in Muthoot Finance in the name of P.W.6. The receipt M.O.15 was in the possession of the accused. Based on the same, P.W.15 took the accused and P.W.6 to Muthoot Finance from where M.Os.19 to 21 were recovered and M.Os.19 to 21 have been identified by P.W.4 as that of the deceased. The officials of the Muthoot Finance have also stated that these jewels were pledged by the accused in the name of P.W.6 Mr. Ravikumar. Thus, it has been established that these stolen properties removed from the body of the deceased were in the possession of the accused soon after the commission of the theft. The accused has got no explanation to offer in respect of the possession. Ravikumar. Thus, it has been established that these stolen properties removed from the body of the deceased were in the possession of the accused soon after the commission of the theft. The accused has got no explanation to offer in respect of the possession. Therefore, we have to raise a presumption as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that it was the accused who committed murder of the deceased and removed these jewels from the body of the deceased. 18. From these proved circumstances, in our considered view, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who committed murder of the deceased in Room No.106 of the lodge on 26.06.2012 and removed M.Os.19 to 21. The trial Court was thus right in convicting the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. 19. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the punishment imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court has imposed only a proportionate punishment. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore in S.C. No.271 of 2013 dated 27.02.2015, is hereby confirmed.