JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant, sole accused in S.C.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur has come up with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offences under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397 and 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 04.07.2013, the trial Court has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 I.P.C; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 394 r/w 397 I.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Susila. P.W.1 is her husband. They were residing at Thirukollikadu village in Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk in Thiruvarur District. P.W.1 was running a tea stall in the same village. They were also rearing goats. It was the practice of the deceased to take the goats everyday around 02.00 p.m. to a place near Kaduoorti channel for grazing. 2.2. On 17.02.2012, as usual, the deceased took the goats to Kaduoorti channel. During that time, she was wearing a gold thali chain weighing three sovereigns, a gold thali weighing 1/2 sovereign, four thali balls, two gold coins, a pair of gold studs with mattal weighing 1/2 sovereign, one gold ring weighing 1/2 sovereign and two gold nose screws. As usual, she also carried a wire handbag, water bottle and tiffin box carrying food. In normal course, she should have returned home around 06.00 p.m. But she did not return. Around 06.30 p.m. goats alone returned back home. Since the deceased was not seen, P.W.1 and other family members went in search for her to various places including Kaduoorti channel. But the deceased was not seen anywhere till 09.00 p.m. on that day. 2.3. On 18.02.2012, early in the morning, P.Ws.1 and 2 again went to Kaduoorti channel in search of the deceased. There is a shutter across the channel to store water. Since the shutter was closed, there was stagnation of water upto hip deep. But the deceased was not seen anywhere till 09.00 p.m. on that day. 2.3. On 18.02.2012, early in the morning, P.Ws.1 and 2 again went to Kaduoorti channel in search of the deceased. There is a shutter across the channel to store water. Since the shutter was closed, there was stagnation of water upto hip deep. But the deceased was not seen. When they raised the shutter, the water with great current passed through the culvert. In the water current, wire bag, tiffin box also came out of the culvert and they were washed off by water. P.W.1 and others collected the same. Since the wire bag and the tiffin box carried by the deceased were found there, they suspected some foul play. Therefore, they got into the water and searched for the deceased. At last, they found the dead body of the deceased wrapped in cloth and concealed in the debris inside the water. They lifted the body and brought it to the shore. They found that there were number of injuries on the dead body and the jewels worn by her as mentioned already were found missing. 2.4. P.W.1, thereafter, went to Alivalam police station and made a complaint at 09.00 a.m. on 18.02.2012. The Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.12) registered a case in Crime No.18/2012 under Sections 379 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P7 is the F.I.R. 2.5. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 11.00 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch. Then, he forwarded the body to the Government hospital at Tiruthuraipoondi for postmortem. 2.6. P.W.8 Dr. Sivagnanam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 18.02.2012 at 04.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: “External injuries: (1) 5x4xskin depth punched out ulcer seen on the right maxilla. (2) 1x1xskin depth punched out ulcer seen in front of right ear (3) 6x4xskin depth lacerated wound present on the right fronto temporal area of skull (4) 3x2xskin depth lacerated wound present on the left parieto occipital area of skull (5) Abrasion 3x2 cm present at the middle of right upper arm, Right cubical fossa, left upper arm, left loin, left side chest, left knee joint right popliteral fossa, right side umbilicus right loin. Skull: (1) Crack fracture of right frontal bone of skull through which blood oozes out. (2) Crack fracture of left frontal bone present through which blood oozes out. (3) 3x2 cm fracture of right temporal bone through which brain substances protruded out. (4) 3x3 cm congestion present in the right fronto temporal area of brain substances. Hyoid bone was intact, no fracture of neck bones. Mud and debris present in the larynx, trachea and bronchitis. No injury to lungs only congestion present. Heart: no injury, about 200 ml (n.c.) present. Stomach: about 100 ml viscera fluid present. Liver: No injury, only congestion present. Kidney: No injury, only congestion present faccal matter present in the small and large intestine. Uterus - empty.” Ex.P3 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries found on the body. The said injuries, according to him could have been caused by a weapon like wooden log. He has further opined that abrasions found on the body of the deceased could have been caused when her body was draged on the rough surface. 2.7. When the investigation was in progress, the accused, on his own, went to the office of P.W.10, the then Village Administrative Officer of Kiralathur village at 01.00 p.m. on 18.02.2012. The village assistant was also at that time present. The accused, informed P.W.10 that he was willing to give a confession about the death of the deceased in this case. P.W.10, having satisfied himself that he was in a voluntary mood to make confession, allowed him to confess and P.W.10 reduced the same into writing. Ex.P10 is the said extra judicial confession. In the said confession, he disclosed that he killed the deceased and has stolen away the jewels. Then, P.W.10 informed P.W.14 the inspector of police about the same at 03.00 p.m. 2.8. P.W.14 rushed to the office of P.W.10 and took the accused into his custody. P.W.10 produced the extra judicial confession to him. Then, while in custody, the accused made a voluntary confession to P.W.14, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the jewels. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.14 and P.W.10 and other witnesses to his house at Chinna Andarkarai village and produced the jewels (M.Os.1 to 6). Then, while in custody, the accused made a voluntary confession to P.W.14, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the jewels. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.14 and P.W.10 and other witnesses to his house at Chinna Andarkarai village and produced the jewels (M.Os.1 to 6). (M.Os.1 to 6 were later on identified by P.W.1 as the jewels worn by the deceased when she was last seen and the same were found missing from her body.) P.W.14 recovered the same under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Then, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. On completing the investigation, P.W.14 laid chargesheet against the accused. 2.9. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 394 r/w 397, 201 and 379 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined, 9 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 2.10. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 the husband of the deceased has stated that in usual course, the deceased went to Kaduoorti channel taking the goats for grazing and at that time she was wearing gold jewels (M.Os.1 to 6). He has further stated that she took a wire handbag, tiffin box and a water bottle with her. He has further stated about the search made by him and he has further stated that when the dead body was found, M.Os.1 to 6 were found missing. He has narrated all other related facts. P.W.2 is a neighbour of P.W.1. He has stated that he went along with P.Ws.1 and 3 in search of the deceased, found the dead body of the deceased and removed the dead body from the debris. P.W.3 has also spoken about the same facts as spoken by P.W.2 2.11. P.W.4 is the son of the deceased. He has stated that his mother last went for grazing goats at 02.00 p.m. on 17.02.2012. He has further stated that the dead body of the deceased was found the next day in the channel. P.W.5 is yet another villager, he has also stated that he used to go to the same area taking his cattle for grazing. He has stated that his mother last went for grazing goats at 02.00 p.m. on 17.02.2012. He has further stated that the dead body of the deceased was found the next day in the channel. P.W.5 is yet another villager, he has also stated that he used to go to the same area taking his cattle for grazing. According to him, on 17.02.2012, at 05.00 p.m. when he was taking his cattle, he found the accused near the channel cutting trees. He also found the deceased standing somewhere near the said place grazing the goats. He has further stated that he then returned back. Then, he joined P.W.1 in search of the deceased in the evening. 2.12. P.W.6 has stated that on 17.02.2012, between 05.00 and 05.30 p.m. he went to his land situated near Kaduoorti channel. He found the accused standing there cutting trees. He found the deceased at a distance of about 100 ft from there grazing her goats. He has further stated that he enquired the accused as to why he was standing even after sunset, the accused told him that he had to finish cutting of the wood. He has further stated that at that time, except the accused nobody else was found near the said place and then P.W.5 returned to his home. 2.13. P.W.7 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence. P.W.8 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.9 the Assistant Director in the Regional Forensic Lab has stated that he examined the internal organs of the deceased and found there was neither alcohol nor poison. P.W.10, V.A.O. has spoken about the extra judicial confession made by the accused. He has further stated that on his information, P.W.14 came to his office and arrested the accused and while in custody, the accused gave a voluntary statement from out of which, M.Os.1 to 6 were recovered. P.W.11 a police constable has stated that he handed over the F.I.R. to the Court at 01.00 p.m. on 18.02.2012. P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.13 a police constable has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem as directed by P.W.14 after the inquest was over. P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.13 a police constable has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to the doctor for postmortem as directed by P.W.14 after the inquest was over. P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. 3. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. However he did not choose to examine anyone nor mark any documents on his side. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above the trial Court convicted him as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that is how, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 5. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was last seen on 17.02.2012 around 02.00 p.m. taking her goats for grazing near the Kaduoorti channel. P.Ws.5 and 6 had seen her near the channel at around 05.00 to 05.30 p.m on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, she was not found alive. On 18.02.2012, early in the morning, the dead body of the deceased was retrieved from the water in the channel. The doctor who conducted autopsy has found number of injuries on the body of the deceased and he has opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries and he has ruled out the possibility of accidental fall and the death due to drowning. The very fact that the dead body was wrapped with clothes and inserted into the debris would go to show that it was not an accidental fall but a homicide. From these evidences, the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased died a homicidal death sometime between 05.30 p.m. on 17.02.2012 and early morning of 18.02.2012. 6. P.W.1 has stated that at the time when the deceased left for grazing the goats, she was wearing gold jewels namely M.Os.1 to 6 and when the body was retrieved, the said jewels were found missing. P.W.1 had mentioned about the missing of the jewels at the earliest point of time in Ex.P1, the complaint itself. 6. P.W.1 has stated that at the time when the deceased left for grazing the goats, she was wearing gold jewels namely M.Os.1 to 6 and when the body was retrieved, the said jewels were found missing. P.W.1 had mentioned about the missing of the jewels at the earliest point of time in Ex.P1, the complaint itself. Thus, the complaint corroborates his evidence that these jewels were found missing. From these evidences, it has been established by the prosecution that M.Os.1 to 6 were stolen away in the same transaction in which the deceased was done to death. 7. Now the question is who was the perpetrator of the crime. P.Ws.5 and 6 have stated that they found the deceased around 05.00 - 05.30 p.m. grazing her goats near the channel. At that time, the accused was also there near the shutters cutting the trees. From the evidences of these two witnesses, in our considered view, the prosecution has proved an important circumstance that soon before the occurrence, the accused was found near the place of occurrence. But the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.5 and 6 cannot be believed. He would further submit that P.W.6 had only informed about the occurrence on 19.02.2012. It is his contention that had it been true that he had seen the accused and the deceased on 17.02.2012 around 05.30 p.m. he would have disclosed the same to P.W.14 on 18.02.2012 itself. But he was examined only on 19.02.2012. Thus, according to the learned counsel this creates doubt in the veracity of P.W.6. 8. We find no force at all in this argument. P.W.14 has stated that P.W.6 was examined on 18.02.2012 itself but by mistake while signing the statement, he has mentioned the date of examination as 19.02.2012. But at the beginning of the statement it has been mentioned as 05.00 p.m. on 18.02.2012. From these evidences, it is crystal clear that P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined on 18.02.2012 itself. They have got no grudge against the accused and they are independent witnesses. Thus, we find no reason to reject the evidences of these two witnesses. From these evidences, the prosecution has clearly established that soon before the occurrence, the accused was found near the place of occurrence. 9. The next circumstance is the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.10. Thus, we find no reason to reject the evidences of these two witnesses. From these evidences, the prosecution has clearly established that soon before the occurrence, the accused was found near the place of occurrence. 9. The next circumstance is the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.10. P.W.10, was examined before the trial Court on 14.03.2013. In his evidence, he deposed that on 18.02.2012, at 01.00 p.m. the accused appeared before him and made a voluntary confession. He has further stated that he reduced the same into writing and that he handed over the said extra judicial confession to P.W.14, when P.W.14 came to his office around 03.00 p.m. But inadvertently, the said extra judicial confession was not marked in evidence before the trial Court. When this appeal came up before this Court, having noticed the same, the respondent filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.3304 of 2017 under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.10 and to mark the said extra judicial confession. After affording sufficient opportunity to the defence counsel and after having heard him, this Court by an order dated 03.03.2017 allowed the said petition and recalled P.W.10. P.W.10 was accordingly recalled on 03.03.2017 and was further examined on oath. During such examination, he has spoken about the extra judicial confession and through him the extra judicial confession was marked as Ex.P10. The accused was thereafter produced before this Court as directed and he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and accordingly he was examined and he denied having given any such extra judicial confession to P.W.10. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said extra judicial confession would not have been made by the accused at all. His contention is that the accused would not have chosen a total stranger for making such extra judicial confession. In this argument, going by the facts of the present case, we find no force, for in the extra judicial confession itself, the accused has given the reasons as to why he had chosen the VAO to make the said extra judicial confession. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 11. The learned counsel would next contend that P.W.10 has failed to follow the appropriate proceedings while recording the alleged extra judicial confession and he has also failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 11. The learned counsel would next contend that P.W.10 has failed to follow the appropriate proceedings while recording the alleged extra judicial confession and he has also failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 . It is the contention of the learned counsel that the VAO ought to have prepared an extra copy of the extra judicial confession and ought to have forwarded the same to his superiors. But, in this case, the same has not been done. This, according to the learned counsel, creates enormous doubt in the evidence of P.W.10. For this proposition, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Kotrappa Reddy Vs. Rayara Manjunatha Reddy @ N.R. Manjunatha reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6079. We have gone through the said judgment thoroughly. In that case, on facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the mandatory guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu case (cited supra) were not followed and there was not even panchanama drawn in respect of the arrest of the accused. It was in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disbelieved the confession. The said conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the said conclusion was based on the facts of the said case. But in the instant case, nothing has been elicited to even suggest that D.K. Basu case (cited supra) was not followed and that the VAO had failed to follow any other mandatory procedure. In such view of the matter, this argument is also rejected. 12. The learned counsel would next contend that according to P.W.10, the investigating officer (P.W.14), on information from him, came to his office and arrested the accused at 03.00 p.m. He has further stated during cross examination that between 09.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon, he was along with the inspector of police at the place of occurrence. When that be so, according to the learned counsel, it is difficult to believe that at 01.00 p.m. the accused came to him to his office and made a confession. This argument also does not persuade us. During cross examination, P.W.10 has stated that he was at the place of occurrence till 12.00 noon. When that be so, according to the learned counsel, it is difficult to believe that at 01.00 p.m. the accused came to him to his office and made a confession. This argument also does not persuade us. During cross examination, P.W.10 has stated that he was at the place of occurrence till 12.00 noon. This cannot be taken as a precise time. It is only an approximate time, which he has mentioned. He has stated that after he returned to his office, the accused came and made a confession. Therefore, there is nothing unbelievable in the said extra judicial confession. For these reasons, we find no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.10. We hold that the extra judicial confession (Ex.P10) was voluntarily made by the accused. 13. We are conscious of the legal position that if an extra judicial confession is shrouded with any doubt, as a rule of prudence, we should look for corroboration from independent sources on material particulars. It is also the law that if the extra judicial confession inspires the fullest confidence of the Court, even in the absence of any corroboration from any other source, the Court can act upon the said extra judicial confession. In the instant case, we find that the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.10 inspires the fullest confidence of this Court and it also draws corroboration from other sources. The first corroboration is from the evidences of P.Ws.5 and 6 who had seen the accused somewhere near the place of occurrence. The next corroboration is from the recovery of M.Os.1 to 6 from the possession of the accused. 14. P.W.14 arrested the accused at the office of P.W.10 at 03.00 p.m. in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. While in custody, he made a voluntary disclosure statement, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.1 to 6. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced M.Os.1 to 6. M.Os.1 to 6 have been identified as the stolen properties. The missing of these jewels from the dead body was mentioned at the earliest point of time by P.W.1 in Ex.P1 itself. We find no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 10 in this regard. M.Os.1 to 6 have been identified as the stolen properties. The missing of these jewels from the dead body was mentioned at the earliest point of time by P.W.1 in Ex.P1 itself. We find no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 10 in this regard. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused was found in possession of M.Os.1 to 6 namely the stolen properties soon after the commission of the theft. The accused has got no explanation to offer. Therefore, the presumption to be raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the accused is the one who committed theft of M.Os.1 to 6 from the body of the deceased. Since we have already held that the death of the deceased and theft of the jewels had occurred in one and the same transaction, it is presumable that the person who committed theft had caused the death of the deceased also. This presumption is of course, rebuttable. But, the accused has not brought on record any material either by way of direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to rebut the said presumption. This unrebuttable presumption is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. Thus, this substantive evidence also corroborates the extra judicial confession made to P.W.10 by the accused. 15. From the above proved circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it was this accused who committed murder of the deceased and also committed robbery of M.Os.1 to 6 in the same transaction. The prosecution has further proved that it was this accused who concealed the dead body in the water in an attempt to cause disappearance of evidence. 16. Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only the minimum punishment, which also does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 17. In the result, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.62 of 2012 dated 04.07.2013, is hereby confirmed.