JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015 is filed by Accused Nos. 3 and 4; Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2015 is filed by Accused No. 2, while Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2022 is filed by Accused No. 1. As these appeals are arising out of Judgment, dated 23.03.2015, in Sessions Case No. 297 of 2012, the same are disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. Originally, Accused No. 1 to 4 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302, 379, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’]. By its Judgment, dated 23.03.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants herein for the offence punishable under Sections 302 Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C’] and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. They were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. All the accused were further convicted under Section 379 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: (i) PW-3 is the brother and PW-4 is the wife of the deceased-Prasanna Kumar. The prosecution case is that, on 05.02.2011, the deceased boarded a Qualis vehicle bearing No. AP-31-X-1790 from Hyderabad to Kakinada and informed the same to PW-4. The deceased informed over phone to PW-4 that he along with five other persons, including the driver is travelling in the said vehicle. Thereafter, as PW-4 did not receive any phone call from the deceased, she telephoned to PW-3 and asked him to go over to Hyderabad and find out the whereabouts of the deceased and also informed to PW-3 that she received a phone call from the deceased stating that he was travelling in a Qualis vehicle along with five other persons. (ii) On 07.02.2011, PW-3 went to the Police Station and lodged a report about the missing of deceased. (ii) On 07.02.2011, PW-3 went to the Police Station and lodged a report about the missing of deceased. (iii) On 12.02.2011 at about 5.30 P.M. PW-2, the Village Servant of Sirivel Mandal, Allagdda Taluq, went to a Tea shop to have a tea. There, he heard people talking about foul smell emanating from a decomposed body near Sarva Narasimha Swamy Devalayam, Darga culvert. Immediately, he informed PW-1 [Village Revenue Officer] about the same. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-2 went to the said place and saw the dead body under a culvert. Immediately, they proceeded to the Sirvel Police Station and lodged a report before PW-12 [Sub-Inspector of Police]. Ex.P1 is the report. (iv) Basing on the Ex.P1 - report, PW-12 Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 16 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P8 is the F.I.R. Immediately, he visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch, under Ex.P9. He then conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P4 is the inquest. Since, the dead body could not be shifted from the scene of offence, PW-12 sent a requisition to Government Doctor for conducting Postmortem at the scene. (v) PW-10, who was working as Assistant Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Kurnool Medical College, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P5 post-mortem report. According to him, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from head injury and the approximate time of death was about 3 to 6 days prior to postmortem examination. (vi) Since, the dead body remained unidentified, PW-12 [Sub-Inspector of Police] sent wire message to all the Police Stations apart from publishing a pamphlet and getting pasting it on the R.T.C. buses. He also seized clothes and shoes from the dead body of the deceased and also preserved femur bone of the deceased for DNA test. (vii) Meanwhile, PW-4 along with PW-3 were informed about the missing of the deceased to the Atlas Company, where the deceased was working and enquired with them about the deceased being sent to any official work. The Manager informed them that the deceased left the place informing about he going to Kakinada to see his wife and that he does not know the whereabouts of the deceased. The Manager informed them that the deceased left the place informing about he going to Kakinada to see his wife and that he does not know the whereabouts of the deceased. Then, PW-3, his father and the Manager of the Atlas company went to the Panjagutta Police Station where the Manager lodged a report. (viii) On one day, as PW-3 went to Hyderabad bus stand, he noticed a pamphlet on the bus plying in the route of Aallagadda to Hyderabad, showing a male dead body, aged about 28 years, wearing blue colour shirt, black colour pant, was found near Aallagadda. He also noticed that the said pamphlet was published by Sirivel Police Station. Immediately, on 18.02.2011, PW-3 along with his father, PW-4 and his junior paternal uncle, rushed to the Sirivel Police Station, where the police shown them the photograph of the deceased. They identified the dead body as that of the deceased. Ex.P2 is the photographs, which were shown to them. (ix) On 05.04.2011, while PW-14 Inspector of Police, was in the police station, he received information about the movement of the accused in Crime No. 99 of 2011 of Kothapet Police Station between Vijayawada and Guntur. Immediately, he secured the presence of PW-15 and PW-16, proceeded to Nandini Lodge located at old Club Road, Guntur in a jeep. The informant [in Crime No. 99 of 2011] identified the Tavera vehicle bearing No. AP-07-R-6999 and stopped the vehicle, in which nine persons were present carrying 09 bags in the vehicle. Out of the said 09 persons, 04 persons were identified as accused in the case. Since, 09 ganja packets were found in the vehicle, a requisition was sent to Tahsildar, Guntur, as required under N.D.P.S. Act. The Tahsildar, in the presence of V.R.O. examined the accused, recorded their confession, and reduced the same into writing. Ex.P3 is the confessional statement. Pursuant to the said confession, gold chains belonging to the deceased in this case was recovered from the possession of Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4, which were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. He also got seized ganja packets after collecting samples from each of them by affixing labels, after obtaining signatures of mediators. Thereafter, all the five accused, in Crime No. 99 of 2011, were arrested. (x) PW-18 [Inspector of Police] continued with his investigation and got examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. He also got seized ganja packets after collecting samples from each of them by affixing labels, after obtaining signatures of mediators. Thereafter, all the five accused, in Crime No. 99 of 2011, were arrested. (x) PW-18 [Inspector of Police] continued with his investigation and got examined PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. Upon a memo filed before the J.F.C.M. Allagadda, seeking police custody of accused, orders came to be passed on 27.04.2011 giving police custody. In the examination, Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 confessed about the commission of offence and took them to the outskirts of Mahadevapuram village, near Sarva Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, near Darga culvert, from where PW-18 recovered a red coloured towel. M.O.5 is the towel. After obtaining an order of police custody of Accused No. 3, PW-18 recorded the statement of Accused No. 3 who also confessed both the crimes. (xi) On 26.02.2011, PW-18 proceeded to State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda Branch, and enquired the Manager, who stated that an amount of Rs. 1,300/- was withdrawn from the account of the deceased by somebody on the intervening night of 5/6.02.2011 in between 11.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. PW-18 also obtained a C.D. containing visuals of ATM of State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda Branch, under Ex.P19. On 23.04.2011 PW-18 conducted Test Identification Parade of the seized property through Sirvel V.R.O. in Sirvel Panchayat Office and that PW-3 and PW-4 identified them as belonging to the deceased. (xii) After obtaining final report from R.F.S.L. and collecting all the material available on record, a charge-sheet came to be filed. Thereafter, on the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms. No. 138 (LA&J-Home-Court C) Department, dated 02.12.2011 and letter, dated 19.1.2011, issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the case was committed to VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Guntur, who in-turn committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was renumbered as Sessions Case No. 297 of 2012. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-19 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20, besides marking M.Os.1 to M.O.6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, however, did not adduce any defence evidence in support of their plea. 6. Believing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeals came to be filed. 7. Smt. D.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would submit that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. She would submit that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, even if proved, do not form a chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused. She further submits that there is any amount of doubt with regard to identifying the body as that of the deceased and in the absence of any material showing involvement of the accused, the entire case of the prosecution has to be thrown out. Even the recovery made cannot be made the basis to convict the accused. 8. Ms. Naseeb Afshan, learned Counsel appearing for Accused No. 1, adopts the submission made by Smt. D.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 9. On the other hand, Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, would submit that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused. He would submit that though a confession made under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, is not admissible in evidence, but, the discovery of material connect the accused with the crime. He would submit that though a confession made under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, is not admissible in evidence, but, the discovery of material connect the accused with the crime. Since, the recovery of gold ornaments from the possession of the accused, for which there was no explanation, is itself sufficient to convict the accused. He would contend that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court requires no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved, if so proved, whether the conviction recorded is proper? 11. As seen from the record, there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events, which should lead to an irresistible conclusion establishing the guilt of the accused. 12. In R. Damodaran vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, AIR 2021 SC 1173 the Apex Court after referring to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706 held that, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 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. 4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis 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. [See: Gambhir vs. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ] 13. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis 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. [See: Gambhir vs. State of Maharastra, (1982) 2 SCC 351 ] 13. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, it is now to be seen whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved and if proved, whether they form a chain of events connecting the accused with the crime, leading to an inescapable conclusion, the guilt of the accused. 14. The fact that it was a case of homicidal death is not in dispute. It is also the fact that the deceased was travelling from Hyderabad to Kakinada to see his wife, who was pregnant. 15. PW-3, who is the brother of the deceased, in his evidence, deposed about they visiting Atlas company, where the deceased was working as Mechanical Engineer, wherein the Manager informed them that the deceased left the place informing, of going home to see his wife. 16. The question that arises for consideration is whether there any evidence to prove that the deceased travelled from Hyderabad to Kakinada on the date of incident, and if so, with whom and in which vehicle? 17. At this point, it would be relevant to refer to the evidence of PW-3 [brother] and PW-4 [wife]. PW-4, who is the wife of the deceased, in her evidence categorically, deposed that on 05.02.2011 the deceased started from Hyderabad to Kakinada to see her. She further deposed that the deceased telephoned to her at about 10.00 to 10.15 P.M. informing that he missed the train and as such boarded a Qualis vehicle bearing No. AP-31-X-1790, along with five others. She also deposed that her husband was talking with her in a low voice and when she asked the reason for it, he did not state anything to her. As there was no phone call from the deceased, thereafter she telephoned to PW-3 and in-laws and enquired about the presence of the deceased with them. She also deposed that her husband was talking with her in a low voice and when she asked the reason for it, he did not state anything to her. As there was no phone call from the deceased, thereafter she telephoned to PW-3 and in-laws and enquired about the presence of the deceased with them. PW-4 informed to PW-3 that the mobile phone of the deceased is switched off from 10.15 P.M. PW-4 also deposed that she along with PW-3 met the Manager of the Atlas company, where the deceased was working, and lodging of a report in Panjagutta Police Station and identifying the gold ornaments, clothes and laptop of the deceased. Though, PW-4 was cross-examined at length by all the counsel, nothing incriminating came to be elicited to discard the testimony. To a suggestion that she was speaking falsehood at the instance of police was denied by her. It was also elicited that, at the time of incident, as she was pregnant, she could not lodge a complaint about missing of her husband personally, and that she requested PW-3 to pursue the matter. The only omission, which was elicited in the evidence of PW-4, was that she failed to disclose the police the manner in which the deceased talked with her when he called her at 10.00 to 10.15 P.M. It was also elicited that as she was upset with the death of her husband, she could not state the said facts to the police. She further admits that she did not give any descriptive particulars of the gold ornaments of her husband to the police, but, however, denied a suggestion that M.Os.1 to 3 are planted by the police purposefully. To a suggestion that those ornaments did not belong to her husband was denied. It was categorically elicited from PW-4 that M.O.1 was given by her father to her husband, as such, she was well aware of the gold chain. She further admits that the laptop which was seized belongs to her husband and it was opened with the password known to her. This evidence of PW-4, in our view, cannot be ignored as interested witness. In fact, she has no reason to speak falsehood against any of them. 18. She further admits that the laptop which was seized belongs to her husband and it was opened with the password known to her. This evidence of PW-4, in our view, cannot be ignored as interested witness. In fact, she has no reason to speak falsehood against any of them. 18. PW-3 [brother] in his evidence deposed that, on receiving information about missing of the deceased from PW-4, he along with his father, junior paternal went to Atlas Company and informed the Manager of Atlas Company about missing of the deceased. Then, all of them went to Punjagutta Police Station, wherein, the Manager had lodged report with the Police. 19. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it stands established beyond reasonable doubt that, on the fateful day, the deceased boarded Qualis vehicle bearing No. AP-31-X-1790 at Hyderabad to go to Kakinada on 05.02.2011 at about 10.00 to 10.15 P.M. and telephoned his wife informing the vehicle number and also the number of persons in the vehicle. 20. This vehicle, which was used in the commission of offence, was recovered at the instance of the accused. Before dealing with the same, PW-19, who is owner of the vehicle, in his evidence deposed that, in the month of February 2011, Accused No. 4 took the Qualis vehicle AP-31-X-1790 on hire basis. He identifies the vehicle, which we will discuss little later. 21. The evidence of PW-14 Inspector of Police would show that, on 05.04.2011, he received information about the movement of the accused in Crime No. 99 of 2011 of Kothapet Police Station from Vijayawada to Guntur. Immediately, he secured the presence of PW-15 and PW-16 and proceeded to Nandini Lodge located at old Club Road, Guntur in a jeep. The informant [in Crime No. 99 of 2011] identified a Tavera vehicle bearing No. AP-07-R-6999 and stopped the vehicle, in which 09 persons were present, carrying 09 carry bags. Out of 09 persons, 04 persons were identified as accused in the case. All the accused were examined and during the course of examination four out of them confessed about commission of the crime. Pursuant to confession a gold chain came to be recovered from the possession of A.2, gold ring from the possession of A.3 and another ring from the possession of A.4, which were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. All the accused were examined and during the course of examination four out of them confessed about commission of the crime. Pursuant to confession a gold chain came to be recovered from the possession of A.2, gold ring from the possession of A.3 and another ring from the possession of A.4, which were marked as M.Os.1 to 3. The accused also confessed about usage of Qualis vehicle in the commission of offence and as such, the accused took them to the place where the Qualis was parked. Further, A.1 is said to have stated that laptop of the deceased was placed in his house and accordingly, A.1 lead them to his house where the laptop under I.D. No. 6475179 of Lenova company along with charger was seized under Ex.P.18-Mahazarnama. The mediators [PW-15 and PW-16], were examined for the said search and seizure, supported the case of the prosecution, in all material aspects. Ex.P3 is the confessional statement of the accused, basing on which M.O.s 1 to 3 were recovered. 22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW-15, who was the mediator to the seizure panchanama of ganja, from the possession of the accused. His evidence supports the version of prosecution, in all material aspects, with regard to the seizure of gold ornaments and Qualis vehicle. Though, PW-15 was cross-examined at length, but the learned counsel for the appellants, could not point out any irregularity or impropriety in the procedure adopted for search and seizure, so as to create a doubt in the evidence in-chief of this witness. 23. From the above evidence, it stands established that the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of the accused and the same were identified by PW-4, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. 24. 23. From the above evidence, it stands established that the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of the accused and the same were identified by PW-4, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. 24. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellants tried to contend that, the recovery being done nearly two months after the incident, no credence can be given to this and even if the recovery is made from the possession of the accused, they can only be convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. In normal circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants would have been given much weight, but here is a case where PW-4, who has no grudge against the accused, categorically speaks about the deceased telephoning her on 05.02.2011 at about 10.00 to 10.15 P.M. informed the vehicle number in which he was travelling along with five others. 25. The said vehicle belongs to PW-19, who gave it on hire to Accused No. 4 for one month. The evidence of PW-19 would disclose that Accused No. 4 who was working under him, took the vehicle on hire, from him, in the month of February, 2011. This incident took place during the month of February, 2011 and the evidence of PW-4 would show that the deceased travelled in the vehicle on the fateful day along with five other persons including himself and the driver. Two months later, all the accused along with 5 others were arrested in Nandini Lodge and a Tavera vehicle was seized. During interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of offence and gold ornaments were found in their possession. These gold ornaments were identified to be that of the deceased. Apart from that, pursuant to a confession made by Accused No. 1, a laptop [M.O.4] along with charger was recovered from the accused. PW-4 was able to open the laptop, as she was aware of the password. This circumstance, in our view, established the recovery made from the accused pursuant to a confession made by them under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Though a confession made under Section 24 of the Evidence Act is not admissible in evidence; but, the discovery of material, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, can be looked into to establish the guilt of the accused. 26. Though a confession made under Section 24 of the Evidence Act is not admissible in evidence; but, the discovery of material, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, can be looked into to establish the guilt of the accused. 26. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330 . In the said case, the recovery of missing screw of gold nose, silk saree, gold rope-chain and a pair of gold bangles etc. was made nearly a year after the incident. Having regard to the facts of the case and considering the sudden disappearance of the appellant from the house of PW-3, coupled with recovery of gold ornaments belonging to the deceased wife made a year later, the Honourable Supreme Court convicted the accused. It would be appropriate to refer the relevant portion which reads as under: “......Our attention was drawn to the testimony of PW-13 Narayanareddy who, during his cross-examination, stated that ornaments similar to the gold rope chain and the pair of gold bangles were available everywhere and that other ornaments were also in his house. From this it is sought to be argued that the seized ornaments cannot be treated to be stolen property as they are ordinary ornaments in common use. Nothing really turns on this because PW-2 Smt. Bayamma, mother-in-law of the deceased, her husband PW-13 Makarappa and son PW-4 G.M. Prakash have categorically stated that the seized rnaments belonged to the deceased Smt. Bachamma. There is no reason why the testimony of these witnesses should not be relied upon particularly when PW-2 Smt. Baymma was not cross-examined at all as regards her identification of the seized ornaments and clothes as belonging to the deceased. Even if the seized ornaments could be treated to be ornaments in common use, this witness could never make a mistake in identifying the seized six silk sarees (M.Os. 10 to 15). It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings, particularly articles of personal use in the family. That apart, the description of the silk sarees in question shows that they were expensive sarees with distinctive designs. 10 to 15). It is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings, particularly articles of personal use in the family. That apart, the description of the silk sarees in question shows that they were expensive sarees with distinctive designs. There is no merit in the contention that the testimony of these witnesses as regards the identity of the seized articles to be stolen property cannot be relied upon for want of prior test identification. There is no such legal requirement. This is a case where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration (a) to s. 114 of the Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form part of the same transaction. The prosecution has led sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The sudden disappearance of the appellant from the house of PW-3 on the morning of March 22, 1979 when it was discovered that the deceased had been strangulated to death and relieved of her gold ornaments, coupled with the circumstance that he was absconding for a period of over one year till he was apprehended by P.W. 26 at village Hosahally on March 29, 1980, taken with the circumstance that he made the statement Ex.P-35 immediately upon his arrest leading to the discovery of the stolen articles, must necessarily raise the inference that the appellant alone and no one else was guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased and robbery of her gold ornaments. The appellant had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession of the stolen property. On the contrary, he denied that the stolen property was recovered from him. The false denial by itself is an incriminating circumstance. The nature of presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. If the stolen articles were such as were not likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding during that period. There was no lapse of time between the date of his arrest and the recovery of the stolen property........” 27. At this stage, one another objection raised by the learned counsel for the Appellants is that, there is no evidence on record to show that the dead body is that of the deceased. We are not in agreement with the same. It may be true that post-mortem was conducted at the scene of offence, as it was difficult for the police to shift the dead body to the hospital. Though the dead body was in a decomposed state, at the time of autopsy, but the articles found on the body of the deceased, which is spoken to and identified by PW-3 and PW-4, and having regard to the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6, who not only identified the photographs shown to them by the Police i.e. Ex.P2 and Ex.P6, there cannot be any dispute with regard to identity of the body. In-fact, PW-4, the wife of the deceased, identified the holy thread recovered from the body of the deceased stating that she tied the holy thread on the right hand of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation for us to accept that the dead body is that of the deceased [Prasanna Kumar]. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti cannot be accepted. 28. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed on record a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim, (2002) 7 SCC 157 wherein the court held that, in a trial of murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. 28. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed on record a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim, (2002) 7 SCC 157 wherein the court held that, in a trial of murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. What is required is, there should be a reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, albeit the dead body may not be traced. It would be appropriate to extract relevant portion which reads as under: “.......It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. [See: Sevaka Perumal and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 (3) SCC 471 ]. Therefore, the argument that in the absence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be rejected, cannot be accepted. Similar fate will follow the argument that in the absence of any specific motive there can be no conviction.......” 29. At this stage, it is also to be noted herein that, even in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused, the accused have not explained as to how they came into possession of not only the gold ornaments but also laptop, except a bare denial. 30. At this stage, it is also to be noted herein that, even in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination of the accused, the accused have not explained as to how they came into possession of not only the gold ornaments but also laptop, except a bare denial. 30. Though the learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, which are only two in number, are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, but, we are of the view that it is not the number of circumstances that matter to connect the accused, but the nature of circumstances, are important to link the accused with the crime. 31. In the instant case, as stated above, the fact that the deceased travelled in a vehicle bearing No. AP-31-X-1790 stands established through the evidence of PW-3. His last telephone call to PW-4 was made between 10.00 to 10.15 P.M. informing about his travel in the said vehicle with five more persons. Things would have been different had the said vehicle was not seized at the instance of the accused. But, the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of PW-14, PW-15 and PW-19 would show that Accused No. 4 took the vehicle on hire and, thereafter, the said vehicle was recovered from the possession of the accused pursuant to the confession made by Accused No. 4. The said circumstance, in our view, coupled with the recovery of gold ornaments [M.O.1 to M.O.3] of the deceased along with laptop [M.O4] and charger, which were identified by his wife [PW4] and the same was opened with a password known to her, are sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted the appellants. 33. In the result the appeals fail and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellants/Accused in the judgment, dated 23.03.2015 in Sessions Case No. 297 of 2012 on the file of Special Sessions Judge-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 34. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.