JUDGMENT : A. HARIPRASAD, J. 1. This appeal is preferred from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram by the sole convict in Sessions Case No. 550 of 2009 before the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode against the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Sections 449, 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). Gist of the charge framed by the Sessions Judge reads thus: “Firstly That on 12.6.2008, at about 6.45 a.m. with the intention to murder Fathima W/o Saidalavi who was residing in house No. VIII/248 of Thiruvambadi Panchayath at the place Pulloorampara, you criminally trespassed into the aforesaid house and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court. Secondly That on 12.6.2008, at about 6.45 a.m. you criminally trespassed into house No. VIII/248 of Thiruvambadi Panchayath at the place Pulloorampara in which Fathima W/o Saidavlavi was residing and with the intention to cause the death of Fathima, you strangulated her and thereby caused her death and thus committed murder, an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court. Lastly That on 12.6.2008, at about 6.45 p.m. after trespassing into the house No. VIII/248 of Thiruvambadi Panchayath at the place Pulloorampara, you committed theft of about eight sovereigns of gold ornaments which were worn by the deceased Fathima and also gold ornaments weighing about two sovereigns and an amount of Rs. 1000/- which were kept in a purse in the almirah of the bedroom of the house and in order to committing theft/ in committing the theft, you voluntarily caused death of Fathima and thereby you have committed robbery, an offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.” 2. On receipt of the appeal, this Court numbered the case and engaged Sri. Manoj Kumar V. as the State Brief. The case was admitted to the file. Heard the State Brief and Sri. K.B. Udayakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State. 3. Prosecution case, stated shortly, is thus on 12.06.2008, at about 6.45 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of deceased Fathima, wife of PW-2, and murdered her by asphyxiating and thereafter committed robbery of her gold ornaments and a purse containing a bank passbook, cash and a gold bangle. 4. K.B. Udayakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State. 3. Prosecution case, stated shortly, is thus on 12.06.2008, at about 6.45 a.m. the accused trespassed into the house of deceased Fathima, wife of PW-2, and murdered her by asphyxiating and thereafter committed robbery of her gold ornaments and a purse containing a bank passbook, cash and a gold bangle. 4. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, 27 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were marked. DW-1 is the defence witness and Exts.D1 to D4 are documents marked on the defence side. MOs.1 to 17 series are the material objects. 5. Ext.P1 is the first information statement (FIS) recorded by Thiruvambadi Police on 12.06.2008 at about 23.30 hours. PW-1 is the informant. He is the brother of the deceased. He was an U.D. Clerk in the Department of Local Self Government. In Ext.P1 he has stated that PW-2, the husband of deceased, was working in a meat stall (chicken stall) owned by PW-3 Tomy. On 12.06.2008 at about 9.45 hours in the night, PW-1's younger brother Abdurahiman called him over phone and informed that there was something wrong with their sister Fathima (deceased).Immediately he along with other brothers reached at the house of the deceased at 10.15 hours in the night. He saw a lot of persons assembled in front of her house. He knew from PW-2 (brother-in-law) that he had gone for work as usual at about 6.00-6.15 a.m. on that day also. When he came back at about 9.00 hours in the night, he found darkness everywhere in his house. He searched for key to enter the house since he thought the deceased might have gone out for some purpose. Since the front door was closed, he went to the back door and found that it was ajar. He entered the kitchen and switched on the lights to find that the floor was wet. When he went to the bed room, he found his wife lying on bed leaning towards her right side. He called out the deceased, but she did not respond. When she was laid supine, he found her body cold and rigid. Immediately he called his neighbours and found that Fathima was dead. This is the gist of the recitals in Ext.P1. 6. PW-1 when examined clearly deposed in support of the recitals in Ext.P1. He called out the deceased, but she did not respond. When she was laid supine, he found her body cold and rigid. Immediately he called his neighbours and found that Fathima was dead. This is the gist of the recitals in Ext.P1. 6. PW-1 when examined clearly deposed in support of the recitals in Ext.P1. It has come out in evidence that the deceased and PW-2 had a son, who was working abroad at that time. Their daughter had eloped with someone and was not heard of for so many years as parents did not approve her marriage. PW-1 narrated the entire incidents and said that he understood the events transpired during the night as told by PW-2. It is true that PW-1 did not state anything against the accused because he came to the place of occurrence only on receiving the information. But he identified the accused in the dock as he was residing with Ali Akbar (PW-8) and his family. 7. Despite cross-examination, no incongruity could be brought out from PW-1 to find that he deviated from the statements in Ext.P1. PW-1 identified material objects 1 to 5 and said that those items belonged to his deceased sister. This aspect was challenged in cross-examination, but he emphatically deposed that the ornaments did belong to his sister. Defence case that the murder could have been committed by PW-2 (husband of the deceased) on account of some dispute pertaining to the missing daughter is stoutly denied by PW-1. According to him, PW-2 was emotionally broken down when he saw him at about 10.15 hours in the night on 12.06.2008. 8. PW-2 Saidalavi is the husband of the deceased. He deposed that he was working in a chicken stall owned by PW-3 Tomy John. It was his usual practice to go for work at 6.15- 6.30 a.m. Either PW-3 took him on a motor bike or in his goods autorickshaw. He deposed that on 12.06.2008 he left home at 6.30 hours and came back during night. Since he did not find any light switched on in the house and the front door locked, he went through the backside and found the kitchen door half closed. Floor inside the house was wet. When he went to the bed room and switched the lights on, he found his wife lying on bed leaning towards the side of wall. Since he did not find any light switched on in the house and the front door locked, he went through the backside and found the kitchen door half closed. Floor inside the house was wet. When he went to the bed room and switched the lights on, he found his wife lying on bed leaning towards the side of wall. He called her, but found that her body was cold and rigid. He called his neighbour PW-5 Shaji. When the deceased was laid supine, PW-2 found dried bloodstains on her face and mouth. At that time all the ornaments usually worn by her were found missing. PW-2 understood that somebody had killed his wife and robbed her ornaments. He was in a state of despondency. PW-5 Shaji informed the matter to the relatives and neighbourhood. Around 10.00 p.m. PW-2's brothers-in-law reached. PW-2 also deposed that from his house a purse containing a passbook issued by South Indian Bank Rs. 1,000/- and a gold bangle were also lost. The purse had an inscription “Alukkas Jewellery.” He identified MOs 1 to 4 as the ornaments worn by the deceased on the date of occurrence. MO5 is the bangle which she had kept in MO6 purse. Passbook issued in the name of deceased is MO7. PW-2 stated that his wife used to go to the house of PW-8 Ali Akbar for buying milk as the latter was rearing cows. On the date of occurrence she did not go. The dress materials worn by the deceased and a torn piece of lunki were also marked through this witness. He clearly deposed that their relationship was very cordial. According to his testimony, the appellant was residing in the house of PW-8 for a couple of months prior to the incident. From the date of occurrence, the appellant was found absconding. He was found on 16.06.2008 when police brought him after arrest. On 17.06.2008, the ornaments worn by his wife were identified by PW-2 from police station. This witness identified the appellant from dock. 9. During cross-examination, it is brought out from PW-2 that PW-8's residence is about 40 metres away from his house. In spite of strict cross-examination, he adhered to the facts spoken to in the chief examination. Suggestion in cross-examination that other houses closer than PW-5 Shaji's house are there is denied by him. This witness identified the appellant from dock. 9. During cross-examination, it is brought out from PW-2 that PW-8's residence is about 40 metres away from his house. In spite of strict cross-examination, he adhered to the facts spoken to in the chief examination. Suggestion in cross-examination that other houses closer than PW-5 Shaji's house are there is denied by him. When cross-examined, PW-2 deposed that when he touched body of the deceased, he understood that she was dead and immediately he lost his mental balance. According to him, PW-5 Shaji called his relatives and he was in a state of depression. Defence case that there were bitter fights between PW-2 and his wife on account of elopement of their daughter and that resulted in the murder is strongly denied by him. We find no material to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 which is in perfect agreement with that of PW-1. 10. PW-3 Tomy is the employer of PW-2. He also stated that PW-2 used to go with him for work usually at 6.15 - 6.30 a.m. and return after 9.00 p.m. on closing the shop. On the date of occurrence also PW-2 had left home at 6.15 a.m. and came back at 9.15 p.m. PW-3 identified the appellant in the dock as a person residing with PW-8 and his family. PW-3 further stated that on 12.06.2008 when he took PW-2 in the morning at 6.15 a.m. the appellant was standing in the verandha of PW-8 looking at them. PW-3 also stated that after the incident, the accused could not be seen and he was only seen on 16.06.2008 when police arrested him from Alappuzha and brought to the place of occurrence. Despite cross-examination, his evidence remains credible and supportive to that of the other prosecution witnesses. 11. PW-4 was a butcher. He used to work as autorickshaw driver also. He knew the factum of death of PW-2's wife at 11.00 p.m. on 12.06.2008. He testified that the appellant was residing with PW-8. It has come out in evidence that a rivulet is running through the backside of Ali Akbar's (PW-8) house. PW-4 is used to go to that rivulet for taking bath and at that time he used to talk to the appellant. Appellant is native of Alappuzha and he was working in a gulf country for some time. It has come out in evidence that a rivulet is running through the backside of Ali Akbar's (PW-8) house. PW-4 is used to go to that rivulet for taking bath and at that time he used to talk to the appellant. Appellant is native of Alappuzha and he was working in a gulf country for some time. The appellant was having some liability at his native place and therefore, he was staying away for some time. On 12.06.2008 at about 7.30 a.m. when PW-4 was driving an autorickshaw from Pullurampara to Mavinchuvadu, he found the appellant walking through the road towards Pullurampara direction. Appellant was in a state of panic and his dress was drenched with perspiration. After Fathima's death, the accused was found missing. This witness was also identified the appellant. 12. In cross-examination, this witness deposed that when he saw the appellant at about 7.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence, he was wearing a lunki and shirt. PW-4 denied the suggestion that there was suspicion against PW-2 in connection with this murder. His testimony remains credible in spite of cross-examination and it is in agreement with the evidence tendered by other witnesses. 13. PW-5 Shaji came to the scene of occurrence along with PW-2 when latter called him in distress on 12.06.2008 at 9.00-9.15 p.m. He also found the presence of water on the floor and Fathima lying on bed leaning towards right side and facing the wall. When PWs. 2 and 5 laid Fathima on her back, she was in a frozen state. Dried blood could be seen on her mouth and face. All the gold ornaments were missing from the body. Immediately he called PW-1 and others. All of them came and thereafter Ext.P1 FIS was lodged. PW-5 is a witness to Ext.P2 inquest report too. He also proved the recovery of material objects. This witness also identified the accused as he knew him prior to the incident because he was residing in the house of PW-8 at the material time. This witness also spoke about appellant's missing immediately after the incident. It is the testimony of this witness that on 12.06.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. he found the appellant at Pullurampara town with a plastic carry bag in his possession. At that time, he was wearing pants and shirt. This witness also spoke about appellant's missing immediately after the incident. It is the testimony of this witness that on 12.06.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. he found the appellant at Pullurampara town with a plastic carry bag in his possession. At that time, he was wearing pants and shirt. It was attempted to be brought out in cross-examination that his house was not very close to PW-2's house. But he denied the suggestion. He deposed that PW-8's house is also close to his house. Suggestion put to this witness that he did not do anything to take Fathima to a hospital is answered by him saying that he was sure that the lady was dead. We find no reason to disbelieve this witness in spite of tough cross-examination. His testimony is in perfect agreement with that of PW-2. 14. PW-6 is a child witness who deposed that on 12.06.2008 when she was returning home in the evening after school time, she found the appellant proceeding towards Pullurampara wearing pants and shirt and was carrying a plastic cover in his hand. Her testimony remains credible despite cross-examination and it is in agreement with the testimony of PW-5. 15. PW-7 is the secretary of the Pullurampara Milk Society. He deposed that PW-8 Ali Akbar is a member of the society and he used to supply milk in the society. He was running a small dairy farm. According to his testimony, almost two months prior to the incident a youngster used to bring milk and he identified the accused in the dock as the person who used to supply milk. On 12.06.2008 PW-9 (wife of PW-8) brought milk and the appellant did not come. His evidence also remains unchallenged despite cross-examination. 16. PW-8 Ali Akbar and PW-9 Beema are husband and wife. Both of them testified that the accused is a relative of them. Appellant is PW-9's brother's son and their son had married the appellant's sister. Both of them clearly identified the appellant from the dock. Both these witnesses deposed that they were rearing cows and used to sell milk. It is their case that the deceased used to come and purchase milk in the morning. According to their testimony, the appellant was staying away from his native place on account of financial liability which he had incurred. Both these witnesses deposed that they were rearing cows and used to sell milk. It is their case that the deceased used to come and purchase milk in the morning. According to their testimony, the appellant was staying away from his native place on account of financial liability which he had incurred. PW-8 testified that on 12.06.2008 he got up at 8.00 a.m. At that time he found the appellant proceeding towards the nearby rivulet for brushing. Normally, he never took bath at that time. Appellant did not carry milk from PW-8's house to the society on that day. PW-9 supplied milk to the society. Appellant reached at Pullurampara at 4.30 p.m. and met PW-8 at his fish vending shop and informed that he got an employment as security guard at Omassery. He also informed PW-8 that he is leaving the place. PW-8 after that day's work reached home at 9.30 p.m. Then he knew about death of Fathima. In spite of cross-examination we find no reason to disbelieve this witness. Suggestion that there were differences of opinion between PW-2 and the deceased on account of their daughter's conduct is denied by him. 17. PW-9 also deposed in tune with the testimony of PW-8. According to her testimony, on 12.06.2008 PW-9 got up at 6.00 a.m. and found the appellant standing in the verandha looking outside. She did not find the appellant at the usual time for carrying milk to the society and therefore she herself supplied it. After 8.00 a.m. the appellant came home. He was profusely sweating and went to take bath. Normally he never used to take bath at that time. Both of them went to see a doctor and at 3.30 p.m. PW-9 and appellant returned home. After taking food, appellant informed PW-9 that he secured a job as security guard at Omassery and therefore he wanted to go. At about 4.00 p.m. he carried all his dress materials in a cover and went away. Death of Fathima was known to them only at 9.30 p.m. on that day. Thereafter the appellant could not be found. Strict cross-examination on this witness did not yield any result. The versions spoken to by PWs. 8 and 9 clearly indicate the conduct and abscondence of the appellant immediately after the incident. 18. Aforementioned witnesses spoke about the incidents transpired at the crime scene and in the neighbourhood. Thereafter the appellant could not be found. Strict cross-examination on this witness did not yield any result. The versions spoken to by PWs. 8 and 9 clearly indicate the conduct and abscondence of the appellant immediately after the incident. 18. Aforementioned witnesses spoke about the incidents transpired at the crime scene and in the neighbourhood. They spoke about character and conduct of the appellant prior to and subsequent to the incident too. These are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’). 19. We shall deal with the next set of witnesses who spoke about apprehension of the accused at Alappuzha and recovery of gold ornaments said to have been worn by the deceased at the time of her death. PWs. 10 to 13, 15, 16 and 24 are the witnesses who deposed about arrest of the accused and recovery of material objects from his possession. Records would show that the accused was arrested on 15.06.2008, i.e. three days after the incident. 20. PW-10 testified that on 15.06.2008, he was working as Head Constable in Alappuzha South Police Station. A Sub-Inspector of Police from Kozhikode District along with party came to the Office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha (PW-24) on 14.06.2008 in search of a person from Vattayar in Alappuzha District. They showed a photograph of the suspect to PW-10 and the Circle Inspector of Police. Thereafter the photo was printed on paper and notices were circulated to all the jewelleries in Alappuzha showing the suspect. On 15.06.2008 at noon, the Circle Inspector of Police, Koduvalli and his party went to conduct a search in the house of the appellant. At 3.30 p.m. on that day PW-10 received an information that a person having similarity with the appellant was standing by the side of KSRTC bus stand, Alappuzha. Immediately PW-10 and the Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha (PW-24) went to the aid post near KSRTC bus stand and remained there keeping surveillance. At that time, they found the appellant near a coffee house and he was talking to two other persons. Immediately PW-10 and the Circle Inspector of Police approached him. On seeing the police party and people gathering there, the appellant became perplexed. PW-24 ascertained his name and address. He was convinced that the appellant was the person for whom the Circle Inspector of Police, Koduvalli was searching for. Immediately PW-10 and the Circle Inspector of Police approached him. On seeing the police party and people gathering there, the appellant became perplexed. PW-24 ascertained his name and address. He was convinced that the appellant was the person for whom the Circle Inspector of Police, Koduvalli was searching for. Immediately PW-24 contacted the Circle Inspector of Police, Koduvalli (PW-26) and he came to the place at about 4.00 p.m. and arrested the appellant in the presence of witnesses. Body search of the appellant was conducted. He had kept a brown paper cover in his underwear. It was tied with a rubber band. His passport was also recovered from his pocket. On opening the brown cover, certain gold ornaments were found out. PW-10 identified the gold ornaments recovered from the appellant as mentioned above. Brown paper cover is marked as MO15. Passport of the appellant is MO16. PW-10 identified MOs 1 to 5 as the ornaments recovered from possession of the appellant which he kept in the brown paper cover in his underwear. Despite cross-examination on this witness, no worthwhile material could be elicited that he was falsely implicating the appellant. 21. This witness derives support from PWs. 24 and 26. As mentioned above, PW-24 was the Inspector of Alappuzha South Police Station and he along with PW-10 went to a place near KSRTC bus stand, Alappuzha and found out the appellant talking to two other persons. After identifying him, PW-26 was informed and he came to the place and conducted body search of the appellant in the presence of independent witnesses. In the body search, MOs 1 to 5 were recovered. PW-24 also identified the material objects possessed by the appellant in a brown paper cover. His passport was also identified by this witness. Cross-examination on this witness did not yield any result to disbelieve the prosecution case. 22. PW-26 also testified in detail about the arrest of the accused and recovery of the gold ornaments from his possession immediately after arrest. His evidence is in perfect agreement with that of PWs. 10 and 24. 23. PW-11 was a Police Constable in Alappuzha South Police Station. He was put on duty in the police aid post near KSRTC bus stand, Alappuzha. He also deposed that the appellant was apprehended by PW-26 in the presence of PW-24. His evidence is in perfect agreement with that of PWs. 10 and 24. 23. PW-11 was a Police Constable in Alappuzha South Police Station. He was put on duty in the police aid post near KSRTC bus stand, Alappuzha. He also deposed that the appellant was apprehended by PW-26 in the presence of PW-24. This witness was clearly deposed about recovery of a brown cover from the underwear of the appellant wherein MOs 1 to 5 were kept. That cover is identified as MO15 and his passport as MO16. 24. Yet another witness in this regard is PW-16, who was owner of Parasakthi Gold and Silver Refinery, Alappuzha. He deposed that on 14.06.2008 police had shown a photograph of a person and told that if that person approached for selling gold ornaments, PW-16 should inform the police. On 15.06.2008 when PW-16 along with a staff was waiting for a bus in KSRTC bus stand, Alappuzha, he found the appellant by the side of a tea stall talking to two other persons. Then PW-16 recollected that the person in front of him was the same person whose photograph had been shown to him earlier by police. Immediately he contacted PW-24 and informed the appellant's presence. Thereafter PWs. 10, 24 and 26 came and arrested the appellant. From him MOs 1 to 5 were recovered, which were kept in a brown cover rapped with a rubber band in his underwear. This witness gave very good support to the prosecution case. Even though he was lengthily cross-examined, no material could be elicited to find that he was uttering any falsehood. 25. PW-15 is yet another witness who knew the appellant long before the incident as they are neighbours. But he denied the prosecution case that he along with the appellant had taken a room in Surya lodge, Kallupalam, Alappuzha. Testimony of this witness and PW-13 are not of much relevance since recovery of material objects from the appellant soon after the robbery has been revealed from very reliable evidence of PWs. 10, 11, 16, 24 and 26. We are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the gold ornaments identified by PW-2, the husband of the deceased, and persons in the neighbourhood were recovered from the accused on 15.06.2008 immediately on his arrest. 10, 11, 16, 24 and 26. We are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the gold ornaments identified by PW-2, the husband of the deceased, and persons in the neighbourhood were recovered from the accused on 15.06.2008 immediately on his arrest. It is the prosecution case that he along with two others were trying to dispose of the gold ornaments as the appellant had financial stringency at the material time. 26. PW-20 was the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode who recorded the statement of PW-16 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.). Since PW-16 had adhered to the prosecution case, we find that the prosecution is justified in using the statement for corroboration. No material contradiction could be brought out by the defence in PW-16's evidence. Likewise, there was no irregularity in recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Testimony of other witnesses are only formal in nature to show that the investigation was in proper lines. There is no challenge against those witnesses. 27. PW-26, the investigating officer, testified about the steps taken in investigation. He proved the inquest report, arrest of appellant and recovery of material objects. Not only that, he deposed about recovery of MO6 purse and MO7 bank passbook at the instance of the confession of the appellant while in custody which was proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. His deposition in this regard remains credible. Even though it was attempted to be shaken in cross-examination, recovery of purse, passbook, etc. belonging to the deceased could be believed. 28. All these aspects coupled with testimony of PW-25, the doctor who conducted postmortem examination would clearly show that the appellant was responsible for murder of Fathima. Antemortem injuries as per the postmortem certificate are as follows: “B. INJURIES (ANTEMORTEM): 1. Abrasion 1.1 x 0.8 cm left side of neck 4.2 cm outer to midline 1.5 cm below jaw border. 2. Linear abrasion 1.3 cm left side of neck 0.5 cm outer to midline 4 cm above sternal notch. 3. Linear abrasion 3 cm long right side of neck oblique lower inner end at midline 2.5 cm above sternal notch. 4. Linear abrasion 3 cm long right side of neck oblique lower inner 0.2 cm above the lower end of injury No. 3; upper outer end 1 cm above the upper end of injury no. 3. Linear abrasion 3 cm long right side of neck oblique lower inner end at midline 2.5 cm above sternal notch. 4. Linear abrasion 3 cm long right side of neck oblique lower inner 0.2 cm above the lower end of injury No. 3; upper outer end 1 cm above the upper end of injury no. 3. 5. Dissection of the neck in a bloodless field showed multiple areas of blood infiltration front (upto the sternocleidomastoid muscles at multiple area. Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage showed no fractures. 6. Contusion both lips in the inner aspect for a width of 1 (outer) to 2cm (midportion) with an abrasion 2 x 0.4 cm lower lip border 3 cm outer to midline. The contusion were thick towards lip border (0.3 cm), variable depth mostly superficial rest of the area.” PW-25 deposed that in his opinion the deceased died due to strangulation (compression force on the front of neck). Despite cross-examination, testimony of PW-25 is not at all affected adversely. 29. Even though learned counsel for the appellant tried to develop a case that the pillow, which could have been used for smothering, was not recovered, we find no significance to that aspect. This contention was developed on the finding in the postmortem report that hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage showed no fractures. PW-25 in cross-examination admitted that smothering could be caused in such cases only by local application of force by hand or use of pillow or other soft materials. The aspects shown in Ext.P16 postmortem report and the testimony of PW-25 would show that the death was caused by applying force on the neck by using hand. This aspect deposed to by PW-25 remains unshaken even after cross-examination. 30. PW-25 deposed that he could not say the exact time of death. According to him, the death must have occurred some where between 18 to 36 hours prior to the postmortem examination. He also stated that time of death could not be mentioned with precision. It varies according to temperature, humidity, etc. in the atmosphere. It is evident that the death must have occurred in the morning on 12.06.2008 coinciding with the deposition of material prosecution witnesses. 31. This is a case resting on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing each and every circumstance to form an unbroken chain. It varies according to temperature, humidity, etc. in the atmosphere. It is evident that the death must have occurred in the morning on 12.06.2008 coinciding with the deposition of material prosecution witnesses. 31. This is a case resting on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing each and every circumstance to form an unbroken chain. The entire aspects would lead to the guilt of the accused and no other view is possible in this case. 32. On evaluation of the entire evidence, we find that the trial court had considered all the material aspects correctly and entered a finding that the appellant was responsible for the murder of Fathima as alleged. It is also clear that the murder was for gain became gold ornaments worn by the deceased at the time of her death were recovered from the possession of appellant and he had no explanation as to how those articles came to his possession. Although a suggestion was put to the witnesses who proved recovery of gold ornaments from the appellant that the ornaments belonged to women folk in his family, there is no material produced to accept that contention. It is also clear that he committed murder of Fathima by criminally trespassing into the house with an intention to commit the heinous offence. Therefore, we find that the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 449, 392 and 302 IPC is legal and sustainable. 33. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.