JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.187 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur. He stood charged for offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 392 I.P.C. By judgment dated 28.09.2012, the trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 449 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to under simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 392 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 Mrs. Annalakshmi. She was residing at No.46, Angalaparameswari Nagar, Kangayam Road at Periyar Colony. P.W.1 is her husband and he was also residing with the deceased. P.W.1 was doing business at a different place. Every day he used to leave the house between 08.00 a.m. to 08.15. a.m. and return home between 12.45 p.m. to 01.00 p.m. for lunch. Again he would go back to the company and return home in the night around 09.30 p.m. 2.2. In the usual course, on 24.11.2008, P.W.1 left the house for his company around 08.15 a.m. At that time, he had given a sum of Rs.1100/- to the deceased for her expenditure. The deceased, at that time was wearing a gold chain, a pair of gold ear studs, a pair of gold mattal and one gold ring (M.O.7-10) and a pair of silver anklets. Thus, the deceased alone was at the house. On the same day, around 09.15 p.m. to 09.30 p.m. he returned home. He found the house locked from outside. He had a spare key with which he opened the house. Inside the house, to his shock, he found the deceased lying dead on the bed. The jewels viz., M.Os.7 to 10 were found missing. He suspected that the deceased had been done to death by someone. He found the house locked from outside. He had a spare key with which he opened the house. Inside the house, to his shock, he found the deceased lying dead on the bed. The jewels viz., M.Os.7 to 10 were found missing. He suspected that the deceased had been done to death by someone. Therefore, he went to the police station and made a complaint. A case was registered on the same in Crime No.1142/2008 by P.W.15 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. 2.3. P.W.17 took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch on the same day in the presence of witnesses. On his request, fingerprint experts came to the scene of occurrence but no chance fingerprint could be lifted from the place of occurrence. P.W.17 examined many witnesses. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. 2.4. P.W.12 Dr. Muthuvel conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 12.05 p.m. on 25.11.2008. He found the following injuries: "Injuries: (1) Both ear lobe tourned and cut bleeding from ear lobe present (2) Abrassion over (4) (n.c.) 1x1 cm present (3) Abrassion 0.5x0.5 cm over left jaw(+)?. (4) Abrassion 0.5x0.5 cm 4 no. over right side of nose. Ligature mark: ligature marks 34 cm length, 1 cm with encircle to neck completely on back side 3 cm below hair line, on front 7 cm below chin and 6 cm below left ear 7 cm below right ear, 7 cm below right (n.c.). 6 cm below left (n.c) above to level of throid cartilah C/S. Pale area seen under ligature mark with few earlynothis. Abrasion (1) 1x0.5 cm (nail mark) with concavity towards upwards seen below ligature mark at left side-totaly 3 abrasion. (2) Four abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm (nail mark) with concavity towards upward seen below ligature mark at center of neck. (3) Abrasion (nail mark) 2x0.5 cm in concavity (n.c) seen above ligature mark at left side of neck. External (n.c): no injury no secretions seen. Internal features: Thorax rib cage intact. Heart 300 gms contains 20 ml of liquid blood, Lungs : Right-450, left 400 gms congested: Hyoid-intact, haematoma 2x1 cm seen around both (n.c) of hyoid bone. (3) Abrasion (nail mark) 2x0.5 cm in concavity (n.c) seen above ligature mark at left side of neck. External (n.c): no injury no secretions seen. Internal features: Thorax rib cage intact. Heart 300 gms contains 20 ml of liquid blood, Lungs : Right-450, left 400 gms congested: Hyoid-intact, haematoma 2x1 cm seen around both (n.c) of hyoid bone. Abdomen stomach contains 100 ml partially digested food particles (n.c) intestine disturbed (?) with gas, Liver 1200 gm congested, Spleen 100 gm congested, kidney congested each 150 gm, bladder empty. Uterus normal size, cavity empty ? Skull no fracture, membrine intact, brain congested 1300 gms." Ex.P8 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.P9 is his final opinion. He gave opinion that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. 2.5. P.W.17 was not able to get any clue from out of his investigation. He was transferred on 17.02.2009, until then, the assailants were not known. 2.6. The investigation was thereafter continued by P.W.16 his successor. He came to know that the accused/appellant herein had been arrested in connection with some other case and detained in prison. He was in fact arrested by the Inspector of Police, Udumalpet police station in connection with some other case. Since it came to light that the appellant had involved in causing the death of the deceased in the present case, P.W.16 took custody of the accused on 29.12.2010. While in custody, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had sold the gold jewels. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses and identified P.W.11. From P.W.11, M.Os.7 to 10 were recovered. The jewels were later on identified by P.W.1 as that of the deceased. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined, 22 documents and 11 material objects were marked. 2.8. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the husband of the deceased has stated that he left the house on the date of occurrence around 08.15 a.m. and when he returned home on the same day at 09.15 p.m. he found the deceased lying dead inside the house. 2.8. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the husband of the deceased has stated that he left the house on the date of occurrence around 08.15 a.m. and when he returned home on the same day at 09.15 p.m. he found the deceased lying dead inside the house. He has further stated that the jewels worn by the deceased were found missing. He has also spoken about the complaint made to the police. P.W.2 a neighbour has also stated that he found the dead body of the deceased. 2.9. P.W.3 is yet another neighbour, who has not stated anything incriminating. P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased. She has also stated about the fact that she found the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 is the husband of P.W.4 he has also spoken about the same fact. P.W.6 has spoken about the hearsay information. P.W.7 has also spoken about the fact that he found the dead body of the deceased. 2.10. P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence and recovery of the material object M.O.3 (nylon rope). P.W.9 has spoken about the disclosure statement given by accused and consequential recovery of the jewels. P.W.10 has also spoken about the same facts. P.W.11 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.12 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13 the Head Clerk of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate Court has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination and the report revealed that there were bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased. 2.11. P.W.14 the police Constable has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem. P.W.15 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.Ws.16 and 17 have spoken about the investigation done. P.W.18 the scientific expert has stated that he found bloodstains on the clothes of the deceased. P.W.19 the then Inspector of Police Udumalpet police station has spoken about the arrest of the accused in connection with Crime No.2678 of 2010 under Sections 379 I.P.C. on the file of the Udumalpet police station. P.W.20 has also spoken about the investigation done in the present case and the final report filed. 3. P.W.19 the then Inspector of Police Udumalpet police station has spoken about the arrest of the accused in connection with Crime No.2678 of 2010 under Sections 379 I.P.C. on the file of the Udumalpet police station. P.W.20 has also spoken about the investigation done in the present case and the final report filed. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to file any document nor examined any witness. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and that is how he is before this Court with this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records, carefully. 5. There is no denial of the fact that on the day of occurrence, the deceased alone was at her house. From the evidence of P.W.1, it has been clearly established that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 08.15 a.m. on 24.11.2008 and when he returned home on the same day at 09.15 p.m. he found the dead body of the deceased. According to the doctor who conducted autopsy, the deceased had died due to asphyxia due to strangulation. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of the doctor. From these evidences, it has been clearly established by the prosecution that the deceased was done to death some time between 08.15 a.m. and 09.15 p.m. on 24.11.2008 and it was a homicide. 6. From the evidence of P.W.1 also it has been established that lastly the deceased was wearing gold jewels namely M.Os.7 to 10 and the same were found missing on the body of the deceased. From these evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the jewels were taken away by someone in the same transaction in which the deceased was done to death. In other words, the prosecution has clearly established that the murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same transaction. 7. From these evidences, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the jewels were taken away by someone in the same transaction in which the deceased was done to death. In other words, the prosecution has clearly established that the murder and robbery had taken place in one and the same transaction. 7. Now the question is, "who are the perpetrators of the crime?" As we have seen from the evidences available, for two years, i.e. until the accused was arrested by P.W.19 on 19.11.2010, there was no clue available to the police in respect of the perpetrators of the crime. It is stated that after the accused/appellant was arrested in connection with a case in Crime No.2678 of 2010 on the file of the Udumalpet police station, it came to light that the accused had got something to do the present crime, in which the deceased was done to death. Thereafter, the accused was taken into police custody by P.W.16 on the orders of the learned Magistrate. 8. It is stated that on 30.12.2010, the accused made a disclosure statement and out of which M.Os.7 to 10 were recovered from P.W.11. But P.W.11 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Therefore, the assuming that these jewels were recovered from P.W.11, absolutely there is no evidence as to how P.W.11 came to the possess these jewels. There is also no evidence that the accused handed over these jewels (M.Os.7 to 10) to P.W.11. Curiously, no document such as receipt, loan ledger, pawn register maintained by P.W.11 were collected by the police from P.W.11. It is also difficult to believe that P.W.11 would have kept these jewels in tact for two years after having purchased the same. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the jewels were recovered from P.W.11 itself is unbelievable. Assuming that it is believable, in the absence of any evidence as to how P.W.11 came to posses these jewels or in the absence of any evidence that the accused only handed over the jewels to P.W.11, no presumption could be raised as provided in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. For raising such a presumption as against the accused, we find no other evidence against him. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 9. The Court cannot convict an accused on mere surmise or suspicion. For raising such a presumption as against the accused, we find no other evidence against him. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 9. The Court cannot convict an accused on mere surmise or suspicion. In this case, though the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a suspicion against the accused, such suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. This Court cannot convict an accused on mere suspicion or surmise. In such view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 10. In the result, (i) the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in S.C.No.187 of 2011 dated 28.09.2012 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. (ii) The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. (iii) Since the appellant/accused is in jail, he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.