JUDGMENT : R.N. Manjula, J. (Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 13.04.2016 in S.C.No.118 of 2012 on the file of the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.) (Heard through Video Conferencing) 1. There are totally 4 accused in this case. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted A.1 and A.4 and convicted A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/A.2 to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No. 118/2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, dated 13.04.2016, as tabulated hereunder: Rank of the accused Provision under which convicted Sentence A2 Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 28.01.212 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy between themselves at the place of occurrence itself to murder the victim woman Anjalam and rob the jewels worn by her. And they were waiting at the place of occurrence in order to execute the conspiracy hatched between them. Shortly thereafter when Anjalam crossed there, at the instigation of A.1, A.4 covered the face of Anjalam with a dhoti. A.3 caught hold of both her legs and A.2 attacked her with a bamboo stick on her left ear and then lifted her to the banks of a nearby stream. After reaching there, A.2 compressed her neck with a nylon rope and killed her. After she died A.2 and A.3 robbed the jewels from the body of the deceased. 3. On receiving a complaint (Ex.P1) given by P.W.1 (the son of the deceased), a case was registered in Cr.No.23/2012 by the Thittagudi police station for the offence under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 120 B and 302 r/w 392 IPC. The committal Court took cognizance of the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.4/2012 and after observing the legal formalities charges have been framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120 B, 302 r/w 392 IPC and completed the committal proceedings. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, it was taken on file. After complying the legal mandates the trial was conducted. 4. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, it was taken on file. After complying the legal mandates the trial was conducted. 4. On the side of the prosecution, 20 witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 to 20 and Exs.P-1 to P-24 and M.Os. 1 to 24 have been marked. On the side of the defence/accused, no witness was examined and Ex.D1 to D4 were marked. 5. After concluding the trial and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court passed a judgment by acquitting A.1 and A.4 and convicting A.2 and A.3 as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appellant/ A.2 has preferred this Appeal. 6. P.W.1 is the complainant and the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. The deceased has got another son P.W.4- Varadharajan. P.W.3-Illavarasi is the wife of P.W.1. The deceased and her husband P.W.2 were living along with her sons as a joint family. P.W.6- Kamalanathan, is working as an electrician in the same village. According to the testimony of P.W.6, one month before the date of occurrence one day at about 10.00 a.m. when he was sitting at Karrupayya Koil along with one Ramachandiran, A.1 and A.2 came there and conversed that the wife of dharmakartha would come that way and if they finished her off, they could rob her jewels. When P.W.6 and Ramachandran questioned A.1 & A.2 about this, they told that they had just spoken so for fun. 7. When P.W.6 and Ramachandran questioned A.1 & A.2 about this, they told that they had just spoken so for fun. 7. P.W.1-Dhanarasu, who is the complainant has stated that on 28.01.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased sent off his son to school through bus and thereafter she went to her lands by taking a lunch bag containing a lunch box and plastic water bottle; she also took a bamboo stick with her; In the same day morning P.W.1 also took some agricultural labourers and went to the lands for weeding out the weeds; after lunch, some of the agricultural labourers went away; P.W.1 was working along with P.W.7 alone; At that time they heard the voice of the deceased Anjalam from the next field; In the evening they came back home, settled the cooli accounts and then went to Thittakudi ; P.W.1’s wife (P.W.3) called him over phone at about 6.40 pm and told that Anjalam had not yet returned home; P.W.2, the husband of Anjalam also returned home at about 7.10 p.m., and came to know that Anjalam had not returned; P.W.2 went in search of Anjalam along with his friend P.W.7 Velmurugan; while they were walking towards the stream, they saw the water bottle, lunch bag and bamboo stick took by Anjalam. Immediately On seeing them, P.W.1 felt dizzy. After a few minutes they saw the body of Anjalam nearby. 8. On seeing the body of Anjalam P.W.1 shouted and with the help of the villagers they lifted the body to his house. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that the jewels wore by Anjalam were found missing from her body. P.W.1 gave the complaint. PW1 and P.W.3 also told about the details of jewels. P.W.1 identified the water bottle (M.O.17) and lunch box (M.O.18) Bamboo stick (M.O.15), cotton (M.O.5) lunch bag (M.O.19) and shawl (M.O.16). P.W.7 Velmurugan has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. 9. PW4, another son of the deceased Anjalam namely Varadharajan was at Dubai at the time of the occurrence. On getting the information, he flew to his native place and attended the funerals. P.W.5-Murugavel stood as witness when the police visited the house of P.W.1 and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.3). 10. P.W.9-Vasambal has stated that she had seen the 3rd accused at about 5.30 p.m., on the day of occurrence and he was bathing in the stream. On getting the information, he flew to his native place and attended the funerals. P.W.5-Murugavel stood as witness when the police visited the house of P.W.1 and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.3). 10. P.W.9-Vasambal has stated that she had seen the 3rd accused at about 5.30 p.m., on the day of occurrence and he was bathing in the stream. She also noticed cotton, wire bag, lunch bag, water can and shawl lying on the banks of the stream. P.W.10 Pannerselvam was the employer of A.3, under whom A3 worked as parotta master on a daily wage of Rs.300/-. On 28.01.2012, at about 6.30 p.m. PW10 met A-3 and asked him to repay the loan he got from him. For which A-3 told that he would pledge the jewels of his mother and give back the money, but later gave the jewels to him. Later, when the police brought A.3 along with V.A.O and village assistant, he handed over the jewels to the Investigating Officer. P.W.11 stated that A-3, came to his shop to pledge some jewels. P.W.11 V.A.O who stood as the witness for the confession statement given by A.2 and A.3 and also while recovering the material objects from P10 and 11. 11. The confession of A.3 was recorded in the presence of P.W.13 Ramasamy, which led to the recovery of the material objects M.O.10 to M.O.12 (jewels) from P.W.10 Pannerselvam, (covered under Ex.P.10 mahazar). After A.3 identified one Manickam (P.W.11), the jewels (M.O.13 and M.O.14) were recovered from him under mahazar Ex.P.11. A.4 Mathiazhagan has given an extra judicial confession (Ex.P.12) to P.W.14 Pasupathi, the V.A.O of Perumoolai village. P.W.15 saw A.2 Karrupan bathing in the odai (stream) and told P.W.15 that he just came from his work. He also noticed A.2 at about 6 p.m on 28.01.2012; and he also saw A.4 in the vicinity. At about 6.30 pm, he was taking tea at tea shop. He heard that the son of the deceased was searching the deceased and subsequently he saw P.W.7 Velmurugan, the friend of P.W.1, lifting the body of the deceased. 12. The scientific expert P.W.16 has done the chemical examination on the viscera of the deceased and sent Ex.P.13 report by stating that no poisonous substance was found. He heard that the son of the deceased was searching the deceased and subsequently he saw P.W.7 Velmurugan, the friend of P.W.1, lifting the body of the deceased. 12. The scientific expert P.W.16 has done the chemical examination on the viscera of the deceased and sent Ex.P.13 report by stating that no poisonous substance was found. P.W.17 doctor, who conducted the post-mortem has given the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to smothering and compression over the neck and the post mortem report has been marked as Ex.P.16. 13. P.W.19 Ravichandiran, Sub Inspector of Police who received a complaint at about 10.30 p.m on 28.01.2012 and registered the First Information Report (Ex.P.18) in Crime No.23/2012 for the offence under sections 120- B, 302 r/w 392 IPC. The Investigating Officer P.W.19, after taking the case for investigation went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.19) in the presence of the witnesses. He also recovered some of the material objects (M.Os.22 to 24) under Ex.P.3 mahazar. After conducting the inquest on 29.01.2012, he prepared his Inquest Report Ex.P.20 and sent the body of the deceased for post mortem. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared another observation mahazar (Ex.P.4) and two more rough sketches (Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22). He also recovered Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.5 in the presence the witnesses. On the way to the fields, he also recovered the cotton stuffed bag (M.O.15), a shawl, (M.O.16) Tiffin box (M.O.17) and water can (M.O.18) under Mahazar (Ex.P.6). Thereafter he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. 14. On 04.02.2012 at about 6.00 am., he arrested A.2 and A.3 near Thittakudi Dhrowpathi Amman Kovil and recorded their confessions in the presence of the witnesses. Based on the confession of A.2, the material objects M.O.1 to M.O.9 have been recovered under mahazar Ex.P.8 from the pig shelter in the presence of PW12. On the confession given by A.3 M.O.s 10 to 14 were recovered under Ex.P.10 and Ex.P11 from PW10 in the presence of PW13. A.4 was produced by V.A.O (P.W.14) along with extra judicial confession recorded by him and subsequently the charges were altered from 302 r/w 392 IPC to 120 B, 302 r/w392 IPC and the alteration report Ex.P.24 was sent to the court. A.4 was produced by V.A.O (P.W.14) along with extra judicial confession recorded by him and subsequently the charges were altered from 302 r/w 392 IPC to 120 B, 302 r/w392 IPC and the alteration report Ex.P.24 was sent to the court. After examining the rest of the witnesses and after completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 120 B, 302 r/w 392 IPC. After the case was committed and the trial was completed, the learned Trial Judge found the accused A-2 and A-3 alone guilty and convicted and sentenced them as supra. Aggrieved over the same, A.2 has filed this appeal. 15. Heard the submissions of Mr. R.Sankara Subbu, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent State. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned sessions Judge has convicted the appellant basing on some weak piece of evidence like the extra- judicial confession alleged to have given by one of the co-accused -A4, though A4 himself has been acquitted; the accused has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence available in this case; but they do not form a complete chain of circumstances which would connect the accused. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses are cogent, clear and trustworthy and the report of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and other materials objects seized from the accused would connect the accused to the occurrence. 18. The point for consideration is “Whether the conviction and sentencing of the accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge basing on the materials available on record is fair and proper?” 19. Point:- The charges against the accused have been framed under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 392 IPC. At the conclusion of the trial A-1and A-4 were acquitted. The conviction against A.2& A.3, was mainly based on the recovery of the jewels worn by the deceased on the confession given by A.2 & A.3. Admittedly this appeal has been filed only by the 2nd accused namely Karuppan. Despite the conviction is based on recovery of jewels based on the confession of the appellant/A.2, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Admittedly this appeal has been filed only by the 2nd accused namely Karuppan. Despite the conviction is based on recovery of jewels based on the confession of the appellant/A.2, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant has been acquitted under Section 120 B. And the judgment of the Sessions Judge is silent as to the findings with regard to the charge against the appellant under Section 392 IPC. 20. The learned Session Judge justified the framing of charges under Section 302 r/w 392 IPC, by stating that though Sec.396 IPC is available for charging the accused for the offence of committing the murder during the course of robbery, there is no specific provision available in the Penal Code if the victim is murdered and then robbed. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Sessions Court is extracted below: “TAMIL” 21. One of the essential requirement under Section 396 IPC for charging the accused is that there should be 5 or more persons to commit the offence. But in this case there are only 4 persons. Though the learned Sessions Judge had thought it fit that a specific charge has to be framed for the act of robbery, that could have been framed either under Section 392 IPC or under Section 394 IPC depending on the overtact of the accused while committing the robbery. 22. Secs. 392 and 394 IPC are themselves substantive provisions and they contemplate specific punishment for the said offences. However the learned Sessions Judge has chosen to frame the charges under Section 302 r/w 392 IPC. It has been already pointed out that the result of the judgment is silent as to the charge under Section 392 IPC, despite there is a discussion in the line of fixing the guilt for the offence u/s. 392 I.P.C. Instead of typing the result by including Sec.392, the Court has simply convicted the appellant for sec.302 I.P.C alone. This appears to be a typographical error. 23. In fact, the learned Session Judge has rendered a finding as to the offence of robbery in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment as under: “TAMIL” 24. As there is no eyewitness, the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence. This appears to be a typographical error. 23. In fact, the learned Session Judge has rendered a finding as to the offence of robbery in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment as under: “TAMIL” 24. As there is no eyewitness, the prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence. In the cases based on circumstantial evidence, it has to be established that the circumstances form a complete chain and from which the guilt of the accused can be inferred. The facts established should connect with each other and it should lead to the one and only conclusion that the accused is guilty and it should exclude any other possibility. 25. In Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following five golden principles on circumstantial evidence: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: 1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by Apex Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807:SCC (Cri) p.1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. 2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 26. 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 26. The above principles have been reiterated in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1989) Supp (2) SCC 706] as under: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hy-pothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 27. In the light of the above principles, it has to be tested in this case whether the circumstances available in this case connect to the guilt of the appellant. Some of the circumstances established from the evidence is listed as follows: * The deceased Anjalam was seen to have worn her jewels by P.W.3 (daughter in law of Anjalam) before she left to her lands. * At about 3.45 pm on the day of occurrence, P.W.1, the son of the deceased was working in the nearby field with his friend P.W.7 and he heard the voice of the deceased. * After he reached home and went out, he got alerted by P.W.3 that the deceased not yet returned home. Then P.W.1 and P.W.7 went in search and found the lunch bag, lunch box, water bottle, cotton, shawl and a stick near the stream. * The body of the deceased Anjalam was found in the bush near the stream and the jewels worn by Anjalam found to be missing on her body. * On the day of occurrence at about 5.30 pm., P.W.9 Vassambal had seen A.3 bathing in the stream. * The body of the deceased Anjalam was found in the bush near the stream and the jewels worn by Anjalam found to be missing on her body. * On the day of occurrence at about 5.30 pm., P.W.9 Vassambal had seen A.3 bathing in the stream. * On the day of occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. P.W.15 Sekar had seen A.2 bathing in the odai. * At about 5 p.m., P.W.8 noticed A.3 and A.4 walking near the old colony. * On the confession given by A.2 on 04.02.2012, a portion of the jewels marked as M.O.1 to M.O.9 were recovered from the roof of the fig shelter at old colony. * On the confession given by A-3, M.O.10 to M.O.14 were recovered from P.W.10-Pannerselvam and P.W.11 Manickam. * The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to smothering and compression over the neck. * P.W.12-Perumal who stood as the witness for recovery of jewels (M.O.1 to M.O.9) from the roof of the pig Shelter at old colony had identified the material objects during his evidence before the Court. * In the extra judicial confession given by A4, he has stated about the involvement of all the accused and their specific overtact in the occurrence. 28. P.W.10, P.W.11, PW12 & P.W.13 have spoken about the recovery of jewels M.O.1 to M.O.14, basing on the confession given by A.2 and A 3. So far as the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to the arrest and recovery of the jewels on the basis of the confession given by A.2, we find no reason to disbelieve the same. Because even during the cross examination he has given a clear account of the physical features of the pig Shelter at old colony from where the jewels were recovered. Though P.W.12 was grilled with a lengthy cross examination, nothing could be elicited to shake the creditability of his evidence though there were some typographical errors. The context of the matter testified by PW.12 was easily understandable when his evidence is read as a whole. Further, the evidence of P.W.11 tallies with the evidence of Investigating Officer also. Though P.W.12 was grilled with a lengthy cross examination, nothing could be elicited to shake the creditability of his evidence though there were some typographical errors. The context of the matter testified by PW.12 was easily understandable when his evidence is read as a whole. Further, the evidence of P.W.11 tallies with the evidence of Investigating Officer also. So the combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would fortify the facts that the material objects M.O.1 to M.O.9 which have been recovered from the appellant/A.2 based on his confession and those were the jewels were worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence. 29. So far as the offence of robbery as against the appellant/A.2 is concerned the above facts proved through substantive and documentary evidence along with material objects, connect him to the offence of robbery without any snag. 30. But the learned sessions Judge had found the appellant/A.2 guilty for the charge of murder also. This is primarily on the basis of the extra judicial confession given by A-4. Curiously A-4 himself has been acquitted on the ground that his presence in the scene of occurrence is not established. It appears from Ex.P12- extra judicial confession of A-4 that during the course of occurrence the 4th accused covered the face of the deceased with dhothi and thereafter the 2nd accused attacked her and then they lifted her to the other side of the bank of the stream and there A.2 murdered her by compressing her neck. 31. The above said dhothi which was used for the crime was neither found in the place of occurrence nor recovered during the course of investigation. The body of the deceased was removed from the place of occurrence by the villagers who were searching the deceased along with P.W.1 and P.W.7 and they took it to her home, even before the police arrived and visited the place of occurrence. So the features of the scene of occurrence like where exactly the body of the deceased was found and presence of any other materials of scientific relevance could not be known or collected. 32. So the features of the scene of occurrence like where exactly the body of the deceased was found and presence of any other materials of scientific relevance could not be known or collected. 32. Despite A.4 is said to have given an extra judicial confession by stating that A.1 to A.4 had involved in the occurrence, it is to be noted from the evidence of P.W.15- Sekar that A-1- Muthazhagan had also accompanied the villagers while they were searching the deceased. The overtact alleged against the first accused is that he covered the face of the deceased. Since the presence of the first accused and his alleged overtact is not proved, he has been acquitted. 33. In fact, the alleged overtact against the appellant is that he compressed the neck of the deceased after the first accused covered her face. So his act could be consequential to the alleged overtact of the first accused. The learned sessions Judge has chosen to take the consequential overtact proved when the first overtact itself is not proved. It is presumably because of the recovery of jewels made on the confession of the Appellant/second accused. 34. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision reported in 1992 STC (Cri) 588 in the case of Limbaji and others Vs. State of Maharashtra] by extracting the following:- “VI.(c) Whether the presumption could be further stretched to find the appellants guilty of gravest offence of murder is what remains to be considered. It is in this arena, we find divergent views of this Court, as already noticed. In Sanwath Khan’s case, the three-Judge Bench of this Court did not consider it proper to extend the presumption beyond theft (of which the accused were charged) in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances excepting possession of the articles belonging to the deceased soon after the crime. However, we need not dilate further on this aspect as we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of murder, assuming that murder and robbery had taken place as a part of the same transaction. The reason is this. Going by the prosecution case, the deceased Baburao was hit by a heavy stone lying on the spot. The reason is this. Going by the prosecution case, the deceased Baburao was hit by a heavy stone lying on the spot. The medical evidence also confirmed that the fatal injuries would have been inflicted by a heavy stone like article No.1. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants carried any weapon with them or that the injuries were inflicted with that weapon. There is every possibility that one of the accused picked up the stone at that moment and decided to hit the deceased in order to silence or immobilise the victim. If the idea was to murder him and take away the ornaments from his person, there was really no need to forcibly snatching the ear-rings before putting an end to the victim. It seems to us that there was no pre-mediated plan to kill the deceased. True, common intention could spring up any moment and all the three accused might have decided to kill him instantaneously, for whatever reason it be. While that possibility cannot be ruled out, the possibility of one of the accused suddenly getting the idea of killing the deceased and in furtherance thereof picking up the stone lying at the spot and hitting the deceased cannot also be ruled out. Thus two possibilities confront us. When there is reasonable scope for two possibilities and the Court is not in a position to know the actual details of the occurrence it is not safe to extend the presumption under Section 114 so as to find the appellants guilty of the offence of murder with the aid of S.34 IPC. While drawing the presumption under Section 114 on the basis of recent possession of belongings of the victim with the accused, the Court must adopt a cautious approach and have an assurance from all angles that the accused not merely committed theft or robbery but also killed the victim.” 35. The above narrated risk of extending the presumption based on recovery from the commission of the offence of theft to murder is applicable to the facts of this case also. Because in this case also as against the appellant/A-2, the presumption of commission of murder has been made by the learned sessions judge, based on his confession led to the recovery of the robbed articles. 36. Because in this case also as against the appellant/A-2, the presumption of commission of murder has been made by the learned sessions judge, based on his confession led to the recovery of the robbed articles. 36. From the evidence of P,W.1 , it is seen that his father P.W.2 had some unpleasant equations with the Panchayat President for having removed him from Temple Dharmakartha. The said fact was admitted by P.W.2 himself and he has further stated that during the election for Panchayat President, his group worked in favour of the candidate who stood opposite to the present Panchayat President Ramasamy. So the circumstantial evidence available in this case coupled with his previous enmity would weaken the theory of one and only probability against the Appellant and it would propose some other probabilities and possibilities. 37. P.W.2 has stated that the material objects like lunch bag, lunch box, shawl, cotton were brought by the villagers to home while they took the body of the deceased to his home. So it falsifies the submission of the prosecution that those articles were recovered from the place of occurrence. No scientific evidence like blood stain, finger prints, etc., from the place of occurrence have been collected and sent for chemical examination in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution. 38. It is seen in the Ex.P.12 - extra judicial confession that A.4 got frightened because the other accused have been arrested by the police and if he was arrested he would be beaten up by Police. As per the evidence of P.W.14 the said confession was given by the A-4 at about 2.30 p.m on 04-02.2012. But as per the evidence of P.W.20 –Investigating Officer, A.2 and A.3 were arrested only at 6.00 p.m on 04.02.2012. So the credibility of the confession is also shaken. 39. It is further seen from the evidence of P.W.20- Investigating Officer that he arrested the 1st accused at about 11.15 am on the same day and at about 4.00 pm the 4th accused surrendered before him. The time of arrest as it appears from the Ex.P.12 and the evidence of Investigating officer are also contrary to each other. 40. It is not out of place to mention that the alleged conspiracy between the accused is also not proved. The time of arrest as it appears from the Ex.P.12 and the evidence of Investigating officer are also contrary to each other. 40. It is not out of place to mention that the alleged conspiracy between the accused is also not proved. Despite some of the witnesses had spoken about seeing the 2nd accused bathing in the odai near the place of occurrence he was not seen along with the deceased. The above discussion would show the lack of connections in the circumstantial links and it causes clouds of doubt. 41. In the case in hand, apart from the weak link between the circumstances listed above, there are also factors like soured relationship between the husband of the deceased with the Panchayat President and that would further weaken the presumption of the guilt of murder against the Appellant/A.2. Though the chain of circumstantial evidence delinks the appellant/A.2 from the offence of murder, it connects him well to the offence of robbery. 42. So we hold that the appellant/A.2 is guilty only for the offence of robbery and he is punishable under Section 392 IPC. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC is liable to be reversed and the appellant has to be acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Thus the point is answered. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the judgment is modified to the extent that the appellant/A.2 is found guilty for the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo eight years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. If the fine amount has already been paid pursuant to the Judgment and order of the trial Court, it is not necessary for the appellant to pay once again. Period of incarceration so far undergone by the appellant shall be set off as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. The connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.17478 of 2019 is closed.