JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. The present case arises from a spine-chilling and gruesome incident that occurred in the quiet village of Puliyannur within the limits of Cheemeni. An elderly couple, Krishnan and Janaki – both retired school teachers – were residing in House No. VI/553, when three masked men forcibly entered their home after about 9 p.m. on 13.12.2017. The intruders assaulted the couple and robbed them of their money and gold ornaments. Janaki, who was in her seventies, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. Krishnan, aged 80 years as per records, was tied up and attacked, suffering serious injuries to his neck. Despite his condition, he managed to free himself and alert the police. 1.1. Based on the information provided by Krishnan, the police registered Crime No.403 of 2017 of the Cheemeni Police Station under Sections 449 , 394, 397 and 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , arraying three persons as the accused. Initially, the identity of the assailants was unknown. As the injured had suffered injuries to the neck, which were serious, he was not in a position to narrate various aspects of the incident that he had observed at the time of lodging the First Information Statement about 3 hours after the incident. PW1 was initially shifted to the Pariyaram Medical College and then to the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. On 16.12.2017, an additional statement was recorded, wherein PW1 furnished additional details that he remembered of the incident. On 15.12.2017, the statement of PW2, the son of the informant, was recorded, who provided information about the items, including gold and cash, that were found missing from the house. In the meantime, Ext.P62 scene mahazar was prepared by PW94, the Investigating Officer, wherein he noted the tell-tale signs of robbery and the presence of blood all over the house. He found strewn pillow covers and other clothes containing blood, open jewellery boxes and also found that some shelves and almirahs had been opened forcefully. Pieces of black cloth, which could have been used by the assailants to mask their identity, were also seized from the precincts of the house. 1.2. The police, however, was not able to obtain any indication of the identity of the assailants who had committed the gruesome act till the 21st of February, 2018. 1.3 On 21.02.2018, the police received information that one Vishak. 1.2. The police, however, was not able to obtain any indication of the identity of the assailants who had committed the gruesome act till the 21st of February, 2018. 1.3 On 21.02.2018, the police received information that one Vishak. V.V., a nearby resident, who was later arraigned as the 1st accused, had sold gold ornaments at a jewellery shop in Kannur. A search was conducted at his residence after complying with the formalities, and a receipt for the sale of old gold from a shop named “Krishna Jewels” was seized. The jewellery shop owner thought it proper to issue a cheque in Vishak’s name, which he duly deposited in his account and obtained a sum of Rs.1,29,970/- on 19.02.2018. This provided a strong lead to the police. 1.4. Vishak. V.V. was arrested, and during interrogation, he disclosed the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accused No. 2 was arrested on the same day. Accused No. 3 had fled the country and was in Bahrain. Upon learning that the police were trying to secure his presence, he returned to India and was arrested at Kozhikode Airport on 23.02.2018. A Samsung Mobile phone, which was being used by accused No.1 was seized by the police. They were able to obtain valuable digital information from the mobile phone (MO49). 1.5. The investigation revealed that the 1st accused had gone to a jewellery shop at Payyanur by name 'Puthiya Valappil Gold' and had made an attempt to sell Pavithra Mothiram (MO9), belonging to PW1 and Thali (MO10), which was allegedly worn by the deceased, claiming that he found it. The shop owner decided to intimate the police which prompted the 1st accused to flee. The ring and Thali were entrusted with the Payyanur Police, which were seized after making a prompt General Diary entry. Based on the disclosure made by the 1st accused pointing to 'Puthiya Valappil Gold', which later reached the Payyanur Police, they were able to seize the Pavithra Mothiram and Thali. 1.6. A Bombay model Necklace owned by the wife of PW2 was also found to have been robbed. The 1st accused is alleged to have disclosed that he made an attempt to sell the Gold at a jewellery store by name “Gold Point” at Taliparamba, but he was unsuccessful. The police found that he had managed to sell the necklace weighing 5½ sovereigns in Krishna Jewels at Kannur. The 1st accused is alleged to have disclosed that he made an attempt to sell the Gold at a jewellery store by name “Gold Point” at Taliparamba, but he was unsuccessful. The police found that he had managed to sell the necklace weighing 5½ sovereigns in Krishna Jewels at Kannur. Based on the disclosure made by the 1st accused, the gold ornament, which was melted into an ingot was recovered. 1.7. The investigating agency also came to the conclusion that the 1st accused sold the three bangles weighing approximately 2 sovereigns each belonging to the wife of PW2 in the Jewel House, Hampankatta, Mangalore based on the disclosure made by the accused. The gold in the form of ingot was recovered. 1.8. The 1st accused made a disclosure that he had sold the gold chain and bangle belonging to Janaki Teacher in the Arshith Jewellery at Kannur and received Rs. 66,000/- towards sale consideration. Based on the above disclosure, the entire cash kept in an envelope, was seized from house bearing No.VI/508 wherein his mother’s elder sister resided. 1.9. The police also seized knives, which were allegedly used by the accused for the commission of the offence and masks, which were allegedly worn by the accused for trespassing into the house and keeping their identity concealed. 1.10. The mobile phones of the accused were seized, and the same were subjected to analysis. The tower location details of the phones of the accused revealed that the 1st accused was seen in the locality of the places where he had sold the gold or had attempted to sell the same. The call records also revealed to the police that the accused were in constant touch with each other. 1.11. To connect the 2nd accused (Reneesh.T) with the Crime, the prosecution placed materials to substantiate that he had gone for a Driving Test with the 1st accused and after that they had gone together to purchase the masks. Evidence was also adduced to show that the 2nd accused had purchased a mobile phone with the assistance of his friends using the ill-gotten cash. 1.12. To link the 3rd accused with the crime, the prosecution placed materials to show that the mobile phone owned by the 1st accused was taken away by the 3rd accused and the same was thrown into a pond. 1.12. To link the 3rd accused with the crime, the prosecution placed materials to show that the mobile phone owned by the 1st accused was taken away by the 3rd accused and the same was thrown into a pond. Based on the disclosure statement of the 3rd accused, the mobile phone was seized from a brick pond. A “Cherakkathy” (MO15) alleged to have been used by the 3rd accused for opening the Almirah, is stated to have been recovered from the bushes near Puliyannoor River. Based on the disclosure statement given by the 3rd accused, the knife, which was allegedly used for inflicting fatal injuries on Janaki Teacher, was seized. At the time of preparation of the scene mahazar, a Tracksuit Pants (MO18), which was allegedly used for tying the hands of PW1, had been seized. The said tracksuit pants was sent for DNA analysis, and the report revealed that the sample contained an admixture of the blood of the 3rd accused and PW1. This was found to be another serious incriminating circumstance against the 3rd accused. Another circumstance linking the 3rd accused with the murder was the seizure of the ID card belonging to the mother of the 3rd accused entrusted with the Jewellery Shop at Hampankatta while selling the gold. PW34, a close friend and co-worker of the 3rd accused, came forward and stated to the police that the 3rd accused, while they were drinking together, disclosed the involvement of him and his two friends in the murder of Janaki Teacher. This extrajudicial confession was presented as an incriminating circumstance. 1.13. Evidence was also collected to prove that the accused had hatched a conspiracy at various places and times, and also had purchased masks and masking tapes from “Binale Fancy” and hid them underneath a culvert. 2. PW94, who conducted the investigation, completed the same and laid the final report before the Court. The Charge: 3. As per the charge laid before the Court of Sessions, the case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos. 2. PW94, who conducted the investigation, completed the same and laid the final report before the Court. The Charge: 3. As per the charge laid before the Court of Sessions, the case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos. 1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery in the house of PW1 bearing Door No.VI/553 of Kayyur - Cheemeni Grama Panchayat, criminally conspired and met at various places and thereafter purchased masking tapes from “Binale Fancy”, Neeleswar and on 13.12.2017 at 9.45 p.m. trespassed into the house of PW1 and stabbed him and his wife Janaki Teacher and robbed 17 sovereigns of gold and Rs.92,000/- and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B 302, 307, 392, 397 , 394 and 449 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . Committal proceedings: 4. The learned Sessions Judge, before whom the case was committed for trial, followed the procedure and framed the charge against the accused. They pleaded not guilty when the charge was read over and claimed that they be tried in accordance with law. 5. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW94 to prove its case. Exts. P1 to P212 were exhibited and marked. MO1 to MO55 series were produced and identified. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. They maintained their innocence. Separate statements were filed by the accused stating their version. As there was no scope for acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 232 of the Cr.PC, they were called upon to enter on their defence. Indira V.V., the mother’s elder sister of the 1st accused, was examined as DW1. Findings of the learned Sessions Judge: 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution relied on direct as well as circumstantial evidence to prove the offences allegedly committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3. The following conclusions were arrived at: a) The fact that PW1 sustained grievous injuries in an attempt on his life, and that his wife, Janaki Teacher, lost her life during a robbery committed at their residence on the night of 13.12.2017, by three masked assailants, has been established beyond doubt by the prosecution. 1 to 3. The following conclusions were arrived at: a) The fact that PW1 sustained grievous injuries in an attempt on his life, and that his wife, Janaki Teacher, lost her life during a robbery committed at their residence on the night of 13.12.2017, by three masked assailants, has been established beyond doubt by the prosecution. b) The evidence tendered by PW1 with respect to the incident and the specific overt acts committed by the assailants during the robbery was found to be credible. The robbery, the murder, and the attempted murder committed on the night of 13.12.2017 at the residence of PW1 were held to be part of the same transaction. c) The recovery of MO9 (Pavithra Mothiram) and MO10 (Thali) pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the 1st accused was held to be a strong circumstance pointing to the involvement of the 1st accused in the robbery. d) The evidence let in by the prosecution that the 1st accused had sold the chain and bangle of deceased Janaki Teacher in the Arshith Jewellery, Kannur and a Bombay model necklace chain was sold in Krishna Jewels, Kannur, was found to be clinching. The disclosure statement of the 1st accused leading to the recovery of the gold ingots was found to be eminently believable. e) The sale consideration for the gold sold from Krishna Jewels given to the 1st accused by way of Ext.P43 cheque which was later encashed to the account of the 1st accused maintained in SBI, Cheemeni Branch, was held to be a strong link to connect 1st accused. The defence evidence adduced by examining DW1 was found untrustworthy and an attempt to exculpate himself. f) The evidence that 1st accused sold ornaments stolen from the house of PW1 in various jewellery shops and the consequent recovery of the ingots establishes the involvement of the 1st accused in the offence of robbery, and the individuals to whom the ornaments were entrusted. It was held that the evidence tendered was admissible under Section 114 (a) and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872. g) Insofar as the 3rd accused (Arun Kumar. It was held that the evidence tendered was admissible under Section 114 (a) and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872. g) Insofar as the 3rd accused (Arun Kumar. K. @ Aruni) is concerned, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW87 (Assistant Director (DNA)) was held sufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the presence of 3rd accused in the house of PW1 on 13.12.2017 during the course of the robbery and assault. The recovery of MO11, a mobile phone belonging to PW1, based on the disclosure statement made by the 1st accused from a brick pond, was yet another strong circumstance supporting the involvement of the 3rd accused in the alleged robbery. The recovery of MO16, a knife allegedly used to inflict injuries on Janaki Teacher at the instance of the 3rd accused, was considered another strong circumstance establishing his presence and participation in the crime. MO15 Cherakathi (knife) recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the 3rd accused for breaking open the shelf was found to be a corroborative circumstance supporting the case of the prosecution. Finally, Ext.P12 copies of ID proof pertaining to the 1st accused and the mother of the 3rd accused entrusted with the Jewellery Shop at Hampankatta, Mangalore, were held to be conclusive enough in proving the nexus between the 1st accused and the 3rd accused in the commission of the offence of robbery. h) The evidence let in by the prosecution by examining PW34, a colleague and friend of the 3rdd accused regarding his involvement in the murder of Janaki Teacher and the robbery committed in the house of PW1 was held to be relevant as an extra-judicial confession. i) The Court, however, held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the 1st accused had purchased MO2 series masks on 05.12.2017 or that he had managed to conceal the masks in a “paramba”. The evidence tendered by the prosecution regarding the recovery of MO2 series masks pursuant to the confession statement of the 2nd accused was held to be doubtful. j) The evidence tendered by the prosecution through PW1 was held thoroughly insufficient to establish the identity of the 2nd accused. Though the prosecution has set up a case that the 2nd accused purchased a mobile phone through the online platform using the proceeds of the crime, the evidence adduced did not establish the said fact. j) The evidence tendered by the prosecution through PW1 was held thoroughly insufficient to establish the identity of the 2nd accused. Though the prosecution has set up a case that the 2nd accused purchased a mobile phone through the online platform using the proceeds of the crime, the evidence adduced did not establish the said fact. It was held that the evidence adduced was insufficient to link the 2nd accused with the crime. The offences found to have been committed and the sentence imposed: 7. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused Nos.1 and 3 guilty and proceeded to convict and sentence them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 452 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w. Section 34 IPC . 8. The 2nd accused was acquitted of all charges. 9. Crl. A No. 124 of 2023 is preferred by the 1st accused, Crl. A No. 1086 of 2022 is preferred by the 3rd accused, Crl. A No. 358 of 2023 is filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused and Crl. A (V) No. 29 of 2022 is filed by PW1, the victim, challenging the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused. 10. We have heard Sri. Vishnu Prasad Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused, Sri. A No. 358 of 2023 is filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused and Crl. A (V) No. 29 of 2022 is filed by PW1, the victim, challenging the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused. 10. We have heard Sri. Vishnu Prasad Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused, Sri. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused, Sri.Toufeeq, the learned counsel appearing for the victim, Sri. Siva Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the acquitted accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. Contentions raised by the appellants: 11. We shall consider the appeals filed by the convicted accused and then deal with the appeal filed by the victim. We shall deal with the evidence while considering the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. 12. Sri. Vishnuprasad, the learned counsel, submitted that the court erred in placing reliance on the evidence of PW1, the victim, to convict the 1st accused. Though in the FI Statement furnished within a few hours of the alleged occurrence, PW1 had no case that masked intruders had committed the offence of robbery and murder, later, such a case was introduced. The appellants are persons residing in the immediate locality and known to PW1, and, if that be the case, he would certainly have stated their names and details at the earliest opportunity. The court, after careful evaluation of the evidence, disbelieved PW1 with regard to the identification of the accused with reference to their physical features and the dresses worn by them. If that be the case, the version of PW1 ought to have been seen with suspicion. The failure of the investigating agency to conduct a test identification parade based on the dresses and physical features of the accused was argued as fatal. According to the learned counsel, though the very same evidence was let in to rope the 2nd accused, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the same and has acquitted the said accused. This, according to the learned counsel, is illegal. It was argued that mere recovery of currency from the house of a relative of the 1st accused ought not have been taken as a circumstance to link him with the crime, particularly in view of the absence of any concrete evidence that the cash recovered in fact belonged to the 1st accused. It was argued that mere recovery of currency from the house of a relative of the 1st accused ought not have been taken as a circumstance to link him with the crime, particularly in view of the absence of any concrete evidence that the cash recovered in fact belonged to the 1st accused. Even otherwise, while the case of the prosecution is that the robbery was committed on account of financial stringency, the alleged recovery of a sum of Rs.66,000/- more than two months after the incident throws serious doubts on the case of the prosecution. Recovery of ingots from various jewellery without proving that the gold that was melted belonged to certain specific individuals was argued as fatal. Non-examination of CW3 (Chandana), the wife of PW2, whose bangles were allegedly sold in a jewellery shop at Mangalore and CW32 (Habeeb), the owner of the Jewellery shop, would make the recovery doubtful, contends the learned counsel. It is urged that the recovery of MO9 (Pavithra Mothiram) and MO10 (Thali) from the Payyanur Police Station has been concocted to probablise the prosecution case and to link the 1st accused with the crime. The witnesses were tutored, and the bills and other documents were fabricated to rope in the accused. The discrepancy between the weights of the ornaments robbed and the ingots recovered was also highlighted by the learned counsel to bring home his point that a conscious attempt was made by the prosecution to create evidence. He would urge that the mere fact that the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in various parts of the Districts was seen in the tower dump details is no reason to conclude that they are the persons responsible for the robbery and murder. Admittedly, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are residing in the very same neighbourhood, and they are pursuing their respective avocations in life. It is urged that the recovery of the ornaments as well as the knives at the instance of the 1st accused has not been proved in accordance with law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance was placed on the observations in Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti Vs. It is urged that the recovery of the ornaments as well as the knives at the instance of the 1st accused has not been proved in accordance with law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance was placed on the observations in Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [ 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396] and in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400] After having conclusively held that the recovery of masks and its concealment have not been proved and after extending the benefit of the same to the 2nd accused, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in relying on other pieces of evidence to find the accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty of the offences. 13. Sri. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused, pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously found the said accused guilty of the offence. He would urge that the version of the prosecution regarding the sequence of events which resulted in the death of Janaki Teacher is diametrically opposite to the version of PW1 given in Ext.P1. It is urged that the prosecution claim that the 3rd accused stole the mobile phone of PW1, and the same was recovered, based on the disclosure statement of the 3rd accused cannot be believed. It is submitted that it was brought out while cross-examining PW15, the mahazar witness, that the police were present at the spot from the morning itself. In that view of the matter, the recovery of the phone based on the alleged disclosure statement given by the 3rd accused loses its authenticity . It is urged that the alleged confession statement was not proved in accordance with law, and furthermore, a perusal of the same would reveal that there is no authorship of concealment. Insofar as MO15 (Cherakathy), which was allegedly used by the 3rd accused for opening the almirah is concerned, it was argued by the learned counsel that the absence of paint or other remnants on it would falsify the recovery. It cannot be believed that MO15 was struck on a bush, and the same was recovered at the instance of the 3rd accused. He would also challenge the recovery of MO16 (knife) alleged to have been used by the 3rd accused for inflicting injuries on Janaki Teacher. It cannot be believed that MO15 was struck on a bush, and the same was recovered at the instance of the 3rd accused. He would also challenge the recovery of MO16 (knife) alleged to have been used by the 3rd accused for inflicting injuries on Janaki Teacher. It is urged by the learned counsel that the failure of the forensic expert to detect the presence of blood on the knife establishes in no uncertain terms that the recovery of the knife was stage-managed. The learned counsel would seriously object to the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the presence of DNA of the 3rd accused in MO18 tracksuit pants seized from the place of occurrence. The learned counsel pointed out that though in the seizure mahazar it is stated that the blood sample taken was sealed, when PW50, the staff nurse, who drew the sample, was examined, has no such case. It is urged that the blood sample was in the possession of the Investigating Officer for a few days, and, if that be the case, he could have easily manipulated the sample before forwarding the same to the lab for analysis. It is urged by the learned counsel that by insisting that the accused should furnish an explanation for the presence of manipulated DNA, serious injustice has been caused. 14. Sri. Toufeeq, the learned counsel appearing for the victim, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting the 2nd accused. It is submitted that the statement of PW1 furnished immediately after the incident disclosed the presence of three assailants. It is urged that the 2nd accused had conspired with the other accused to commit house trespass, robbery and murder, and his role was clearly revealed from his association with the 1st accused and his joining in purchasing the masks. He had concealed the masks, and the same was recovered based on his confession. He had purchased a mobile phone using the proceeds of the crime. He argued that the learned Sessions Judge ignored relevant pieces of evidence while ordering the acquittal of the 2nd accused. Though recovery could not be effected of the knife and torch based on the disclosure statement of the 2nd accused, in view of the overwhelming evidence linking him with the crime, such minor glitches in the evidence were to be ignored. 15. Though recovery could not be effected of the knife and torch based on the disclosure statement of the 2nd accused, in view of the overwhelming evidence linking him with the crime, such minor glitches in the evidence were to be ignored. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor also challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of the 2nd accused. It is submitted that while the learned Sessions Judge properly appreciated the evidence concerning accused Nos. 1 and 3, when it came to 2nd accused, very vital aspects were ignored. She would point out that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held as valid the recovery of the masks at the instance of the 2nd accused, and the purchase of phones using the ill-gotten cash had been proven in accordance with law. 16. Sri. C.R. Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd accused, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had meticulously considered the prosecution allegations against the 2nd accused and, after a detailed evaluation of the materials, had come to the conclusion that the evidence presented by the prosecution cannot be accepted. It is submitted that there were serious discrepancies with regard to the purported identification of the 2nd accused by PW1, and the recovery of MO2 mask and also the knife and headlight, alleged to have been thrown by the 2nd accused into the river. It is submitted that the appeals filed by the State and the victim are meritless. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 3, [ AIR 2003 SC 3601 ] and it was argued that though there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. Even if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire record. Evaluation of the evidence: 18. Whether the death of Janaki Teacher was Homicidal and whether PW1 suffered injuries as alleged by the prosecution? 17. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire record. Evaluation of the evidence: 18. Whether the death of Janaki Teacher was Homicidal and whether PW1 suffered injuries as alleged by the prosecution? 18.1 The first question that needs to be answered is whether the prosecution has established by way of reliable evidence that the death of Janaki Teacher was homicidal and whether PW1 suffered serious injuries in the course of an incident which took place after 9.45 p.m. on 13.12.2017. We may, at this stage, state that the defence is not seriously disputing the fact that Janaki had died a homicidal death or that PW1 had suffered serious injuries. On the other hand, the contention feebly advanced by them is that there were disputes between PW1 and Janaki Teacher, and there is a distinct possibility that the injuries were inflicted by PW1. Their explanation for the injuries found on the body of PW1 is that they are self-inflicted. To answer the above question, we shall deal with the evidence let in. PW52 (Jomi Joseph), the Senior Civil Police Officer, reached the house of PW1 immediately after the incident, and in his evidence, he stated that he saw a lady sitting on a sofa in a pool of blood. She was found bleeding from her neck, and her mouth was found taped with masking tape. He stated that PW1 was also present in the house, and he was sitting on a bed in the southwestern corner bedroom. He was found bleeding from his neck. On enquiry, PW1 told the officer that three persons had rushed into the house and committed robbery and attacked him and his wife. The evidence reveals that PW51 (Prajith P.V.) had also come to the house hearing the incident. 18.2. PW1, in his evidence, stated that three assailants had trespassed into his house late in the evening on 13.12.2017 and committed the murder of his wife and inflicted injuries on him. He stated that he managed to call the Police Station at Cheemeni and gave information. PW41 (Vinod K.V.), the Supervisor of the Company run by PW2 (Mahesh K.), son of the deceased, had also reached the spot on receiving information from PW2. PWs 41, 51 and 52 stated in graphic detail what they had seen after arriving at the house of PW1. PW41 (Vinod K.V.), the Supervisor of the Company run by PW2 (Mahesh K.), son of the deceased, had also reached the spot on receiving information from PW2. PWs 41, 51 and 52 stated in graphic detail what they had seen after arriving at the house of PW1. The evidence tendered by PW41 reveals that he was asked by the police personnel to shift the injured to the hospital. Both PW1 and his wife were initially taken to the Co-operative Hospital, Payyanur. The Doctor, after examining Janaki Teacher, pronounced her dead. The records, however, disclosed that PW1 and Janaki Teacher were then shifted to the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram, in an Ambulance. Treatment was provided to PW1 while the body of Janaki Teacher was shifted to the mortuary. 18.3. PW75, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, conducted the postmortem examination of Janaki. He noted two incised penetrating wounds; one on the front of the lower part of the neck just above the inner end of the right collarbone. The said injury had perforated the upper part of the upper lobe of the lung. The second injury was an incised penetrating wound which cut the carotid artery. The Doctor had opined that Janaki had died of stab injuries to the neck involving the right lung and a major artery of the neck. Ext.P101 is the postmortem report proved through PW75. The defence has not been able to challenge the evidence tendered by the Doctor. In view of the findings in Ext.P101 postmortem certificate and the evidence tendered by PW75, it can be held without any semblance of doubt that Janaki Teacher died due to the stab injuries inflicted on her neck in the late hours of 13.12.2017, and her death was homicidal. 18.4. With respect to the injuries sustained by PW1, he has categorically stated in his evidence that the said injuries were inflicted by the masked assailants during the course of the incident. It is relevant to note that PW1 was nearly 80 years old at the time of the occurrence. PW76, the Assistant Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Pariyaram Medical College, examined PW1 and issued the wound certificate marked as Ext.P104. The wound certificate, duly proved through the testimony of PW76, records three incised wounds on PW1. It is relevant to note that PW1 was nearly 80 years old at the time of the occurrence. PW76, the Assistant Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Pariyaram Medical College, examined PW1 and issued the wound certificate marked as Ext.P104. The wound certificate, duly proved through the testimony of PW76, records three incised wounds on PW1. PW76 deposed that the wounds were not surgically explored as he suspected the possibility of a major vessel injury in the neck region. He unequivocally stated that all the injuries observed were grievous in nature. During cross-examination, a specific suggestion was put forth by the learned defence counsel that the injuries sustained by PW1 were self-inflicted. The witness firmly denied the suggestion and explained that the injuries were long and deep, and in his medical opinion, such injuries could not have been self-inflicted. He further opined that the injuries could have been caused by any weapon similar to MO17(a). 18.5. Another witness examined by the prosecution to establish the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by PW1 is PW42, the Casualty Medical Officer at KMC Hospital, Mangalore. The Doctor deposed that he had examined PW1 at 5:20 a.m. on 14.12.2017 and had issued Ext.P33 Wound Certificate. He observed extensive lacerations on the neck, measuring approximately 25cm in length—deep on the left side and superficial on the right. He further noted that the thyroid cartilage was exposed, with the notch being visible and fractured. During cross-examination, when questioned as to whether the injuries were superficial in nature, the Doctor categorically denied the suggestion, stating that the wounds were not superficial, as they had penetrated deep enough to damage the muscle and vein on the left side of the neck. Although the defence has advanced a theory that the injuries were self-inflicted, it is pertinent to note that no such suggestion was put to the treating Doctor during his examination. In the absence of any such confrontation, the contention lacks evidentiary value. In light of the medical evidence and the unimpeached testimony of PW42, it can be safely concluded that PW1 had sustained grievous stab injuries to his neck. The uncharitable and implausible suggestion that an 80-year-old man murdered his wife and inflicted such serious injuries upon himself is devoid of merit and deserves to be outrightly rejected. 19. In light of the medical evidence and the unimpeached testimony of PW42, it can be safely concluded that PW1 had sustained grievous stab injuries to his neck. The uncharitable and implausible suggestion that an 80-year-old man murdered his wife and inflicted such serious injuries upon himself is devoid of merit and deserves to be outrightly rejected. 19. We shall now proceed to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution, beginning with the testimony of PW1, in relation to the incident that culminated in the robbery at the residential premises bearing No. VI/553 within the limits of Kayyur-Cheemeni Panchayat, which further resulted in the homicidal death of Janaki Teacher and grievous injuries upon PW1. The evidence tendered by PW1 is critical, as it forms the foundation of the prosecution’s narrative regarding the sequence of events and the identity of the assailants. 19.1. This is a case in which the prosecution primarily relies on direct evidence, namely the oral testimony of PW1, who is an injured eyewitness. At the time of the incident, PW1 was present in the house along with his wife, Janaki, when a robbery and brutal assault occurred at approximately 9:50 p.m. on 13.12.2017. In his deposition, PW1 stated that he was 82 years old at the time of tendering evidence in August 2019, implying that he was around 81 years of age on the date of the incident. 19.2 PW1 recounted that he and his wife had watched television until around 8 p.m., following which he went for a bath. They had dinner and retired to their respective bedrooms by about 9 p.m. Sometime thereafter, upon hearing the doorbell, both he and his wife came out into the central hall. Janaki switched on the light, and PW1 went to open the door. He found three masked men, armed with knives, who forcibly entered the house. One of the assailants, who was slightly taller than the others, pushed PW1 to the ground, held a knife to his neck, and threatened to kill him if he made any noise. The other two stood near Janaki, who cried and pleaded with them to leave her alone. When PW1 asked what they wanted, the taller assailant demanded money and asked him to reveal where it was kept. The other two uttered the words “Swarnam” (gold) and asked in Hindi about the location of the money. The other two stood near Janaki, who cried and pleaded with them to leave her alone. When PW1 asked what they wanted, the taller assailant demanded money and asked him to reveal where it was kept. The other two uttered the words “Swarnam” (gold) and asked in Hindi about the location of the money. 19.3 PW1 was then led to the bedroom. The assailant used the flashlight on his mobile phone to guide the way. PW1 took a key from a handbag hanging on the wall, switched on the light, opened a drawer, and handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash and a gold ring (Pavithra Mothiram) gifted to him upon his retirement. The assailant then opened an iron shelf and a wooden box but found nothing inside. Angered by this, he demanded more money and issued further threats. PW1 stated that the shortest of the three stood near the room where the refrigerator was located. The taller assailant asked whether anyone was present upstairs. When PW1 said no, he was asked for the locker key to the shelf on the top floor. PW1 replied that there was no locker, and the shorter man proceeded upstairs. 19.4 The tall assailant then ordered PW1 to lie on the bed, which he did. Another tall assailant entered the bedroom, took a pair of tracksuit pants hanging nearby, and tied PW1’s hands. The other man tied PW1’s legs with a ‘thorthu’ (towel). They both then left the room. At this point, the shorter man entered the bedroom and stood guard. 19.5 Soon after, the first assailant who had pushed PW1 returned to the room. The person who had tied his hands did not reappear. Suddenly, PW1 heard his wife scream, “Cheyyallappa!” He then realized that his wife had been attacked. According to PW1, the tall assailant inflicted injuries on his neck with a small knife—two cuts on the left side. When the assailant tried to stab him in the chest, PW1 cried out and begged for his life. The assailant relented and withdrew. 19.6 The intruders then took PW1’s mobile phone and a torch from the bedside. PW1 did not hear any further noises. Despite bleeding profusely from the neck, he managed to free himself. Finding his phone missing, he went to Janaki’s room and retrieved her phone. He then called the Cheemeni Police Station, informed them of the incident, and requested immediate assistance. PW1 did not hear any further noises. Despite bleeding profusely from the neck, he managed to free himself. Finding his phone missing, he went to Janaki’s room and retrieved her phone. He then called the Cheemeni Police Station, informed them of the incident, and requested immediate assistance. He made a second call to the police at 11 p.m. He also contacted PW2, his younger son, who informed him that he had alerted Vinod and Prajith and that they would be arriving shortly. 19.7 The police arrived soon thereafter. When PW1 stepped outside, he saw Janaki lying on the sofa with injuries to her neck. The bystanders rushed PW1 to the Co-operative Hospital, Payyanur. On the way, PW41 (Vinod) asked what had happened, and PW1 narrated that three masked men had entered the house, committed robbery, and inflicted injuries on both him and his wife. He was later transferred to the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram, where he was informed of Janaki’s demise. 19.8 PW1 stated that by then, he was extremely fatigued. When the police recorded his statement, he was unable to provide clear responses and mostly nodded in reply. He added that he could not recall whether he specifically mentioned that the assailants were masked, attributing this to his mental state, advanced age, and the trauma of witnessing his wife’s death. He believed at that point that he, too, would die. 19.9. Subsequently, he was taken to KMC Hospital, Mangalapuram, where he underwent surgery. His statement was recorded again later. He identified the masks shown to him by the police, as well as the Thali (Mangalsutra), which he recognised. He then identified the accused persons standing in the dock, along with the clothes they wore during the incident. He also identified various material objects recovered in the case, including: MO15 (cherakathi – sickle), MO9 (Pavithra Mothiram), MO10 (Thali), MO11 (Mobile Phone), MO12 (Blouse), MO13 (Saree), MO14 (Skirt), MO17 series (Knives), MO18 (Tracksuit Pants), and MO19 (Thorthu). 19.10. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate. He clarified that while Ext.P1 recorded that he had witnessed the assault on his wife, what he meant was that he heard her screams and was convinced she had been stabbed, though he had not actually witnessed the stabbing. 20. To corroborate the version of PW1, the prosecution examined several supporting witnesses. PW2, Mahesh, is the son of PW1. He clarified that while Ext.P1 recorded that he had witnessed the assault on his wife, what he meant was that he heard her screams and was convinced she had been stabbed, though he had not actually witnessed the stabbing. 20. To corroborate the version of PW1, the prosecution examined several supporting witnesses. PW2, Mahesh, is the son of PW1. He deposed that he received a telephone call from his father (PW1) on the night of 13.12.2017, made from his mother's mobile phone, informing him about the incident and requesting him to come home urgently. He confirmed PW1’s testimony regarding the said calls and stated that he immediately alerted PW41 (Vinod K.V.) and PW51 (Prajith P.V.), who are his friends and associates. PW2 further stated that on 15.12.2017, he returned to the family home and conducted an inspection. During the course of the inspection, he discovered that certain jewellery items, which he had previously placed on the shelf of the upstairs room, were missing. These included a Bombay model necklace weighing approximately 5¾ sovereigns and three bangles, each weighing about 2 sovereigns. Additionally, he noticed that his mother’s Thali chain, weighing around 2¾ sovereigns, and a bangle weighing 1½ sovereigns were also missing from the house. This was in addition to his father's Pavithra Mothiram and a cash amount totalling Rs.92,000/-. He clarified that his parents were unaware that he had kept his jewellery in the upstairs shelf. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 15.12.2017. 20.1. PW4 (Shabin Chand) is the grandson of PW1. He deposed that MO11 phone was given by him to his grandfather, and the same was stolen by the assailants. 20.2. PW41 (Vinod K.V.) is the company supervisor of PW2. He testified that he received a call from PW2 at about 11 p.m. on 13.12.2017 about a theft in the house of PW1. He immediately rushed to the house of PW1 in his car. When he reached there, PW51 (Prajith P.V.) and the Policemen were present there. He found Janaki Teacher with masking tape on her mouth and bleeding injuries on her neck, and PW1 with bleeding injuries on his neck, upon reaching the house. On the way to the hospital in the car driven by Rajan, PW1 told him that masked men entered the house with knives and committed robbery and assault. 20.3. He found Janaki Teacher with masking tape on her mouth and bleeding injuries on her neck, and PW1 with bleeding injuries on his neck, upon reaching the house. On the way to the hospital in the car driven by Rajan, PW1 told him that masked men entered the house with knives and committed robbery and assault. 20.3. PW51 (Prajith.P.V.) stated that he received information about the incident from Ramachandran, PW1's son-in-law. He reached PW1's house in his car with his friend Rajan and, as directed by the police, took PW1 and his wife to Co-operative Hospital, Payyanur, in his car. He corroborated the accounts of PW41 regarding finding the injured husband and wife and the subsequent journey to the hospital. He stated that he overheard PW1 telling PW41 about the trespass by the masked intruders and the robbery and assault committed by them. 20.4. PW52 (Jomi Joseph) is the Senior Civil Police Officer at the Cheemeni Police Station. He testified that he was on night duty on 13.12.2017. While he was about to commence his duty, he was informed by the duty policeman that one Krishnan Master had called and informed about the robbery. He, along with his party, reached PW1's house. On entering the house, he found that Janaki Teacher sitting in a pool of blood with her mouth taped shut by masking tape. PW1 was also found inside the house bleeding with injuries. He stated that bare minimum information was furnished by PW1 as he appeared to be very tired. He did not probe much. The injured was ordered to be shifted to the hospital, and he placed guards on duty. 20.5. PW90 (K.N. Ramanan) was the Sub Inspector of Police, Cheemeni, who recorded the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) of PW1 from the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram, and registered the First Information Report (Ext.P122). He stated that, as directed by a Superior Officer, he had inspected the scene on 14.12.2017. He was also present when the expert from the Forensic Science Lab and the Finger Print Bureau inspected the scene of crime. The nail clippings and nail blood collected by the Doctor were seized as per Ext.P34 mahazar. In cross-examination, it is brought out that in Ext.P1 FI Statement, PW1 did not mention that the assailants wore masks. Certain omissions in the statement of PW1 were marked through the said witness. 20.6. The nail clippings and nail blood collected by the Doctor were seized as per Ext.P34 mahazar. In cross-examination, it is brought out that in Ext.P1 FI Statement, PW1 did not mention that the assailants wore masks. Certain omissions in the statement of PW1 were marked through the said witness. 20.6. Serious contentions were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, challenging the veracity of the evidence tendered by PW1. One of the principal arguments advanced was that there existed material discrepancies and inconsistencies between the testimony of PW1 and the First Information Statement. It was contended that PW1 did not mention in the FI Statement that the intruders were wearing masks. Further, there was no reference in the said statement to the robbery of Rs.42,000/-, the theft of his mobile phone, or the torchlight. Although in his oral evidence, PW1 stated that the assailants snatched the gold chain worn by his wife, this fact was also omitted from the FI Statement. The FI Statement, recorded within hours of the incident, was admittedly brief and cryptic, whereas his deposition, recorded more than a year later, contained greater detail and elaboration. Additionally, while PW1 stated in the FI Statement that he saw the accused stabbing his wife, during his testimony, he clarified that he only heard her screams and inferred that she had been stabbed. 20.7. While assessing the significance of these omissions, it is crucial to consider the physical and mental condition of PW1 at the relevant time. PW1 was 81 years old on 13.12.2017. Though, as pointed out by Sri. Vishnu Prasad, the age of PW1 is noted as 70 years in Ext.P104—Accident Register cum Wound Certificate—PW1 himself clarified during his deposition that he was in his 80s, and this assertion was not challenged in cross-examination. PW1 explained that at the time of giving the FI Statement to PW90, within three hours of the incident, he was mentally traumatised and physically exhausted. He stated that he responded to most of the questions merely by nodding. This is consistent with the medical evidence: PW1 had suffered multiple neck injuries, including one deep laceration, and PW42, the Casualty Medical Officer at KMC Hospital, Mangalore, had testified that the Thyroid cartilage was exposed, with the notch visible and fractured. He stated that he responded to most of the questions merely by nodding. This is consistent with the medical evidence: PW1 had suffered multiple neck injuries, including one deep laceration, and PW42, the Casualty Medical Officer at KMC Hospital, Mangalore, had testified that the Thyroid cartilage was exposed, with the notch visible and fractured. The combined testimony of PW1 and PW90 reveals that the FI Statement was recorded while PW1 was in the Intensive Care Unit, shortly before he was shifted to Pariyaram Medical College and then to KMC Hospital, Mangalore. There is no reason to doubt the account given by this octogenarian that he was enduring intense pain and physical distress when the statement was recorded. It must also be remembered that his hands and legs had been tied by the assailants, and it was only after they had left that PW1 managed to free himself and contact the police using his wife’s mobile phone. Even a young and healthy individual would find it difficult to engage in a detailed conversation after sustaining such grievous injuries, as documented in the wound certificate. Furthermore, PW1 had by then received the devastating news of his wife’s death. Given the traumatic and horrific nature of the incident, which had taken place only hours earlier, it would be unrealistic to expect a detailed and coherent narration of every aspect. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1’s version that he responded by gestures and that PW90 recorded the same in his own words. On 16.12.2017, after PW1's medical condition had improved, he furnished a more comprehensive statement. We also find no reason to discredit the testimonies of PWs 41 and 51, who stated that PW1 had told them about the masked intruders while being taken to the hospital. The case records show that the statements of both PW41 and PW51 were recorded on 15.12.2017, and in their depositions before the court, they confirmed that PW1 had disclosed to PW41 en route to the hospital that the assailants were masked. The additional statement of PW1 was recorded on 16.12.2017 while he was undergoing treatment at KMC Hospital. 20.8. The case records show that the statements of both PW41 and PW51 were recorded on 15.12.2017, and in their depositions before the court, they confirmed that PW1 had disclosed to PW41 en route to the hospital that the assailants were masked. The additional statement of PW1 was recorded on 16.12.2017 while he was undergoing treatment at KMC Hospital. 20.8. In Rattan Singh v. State of HP , [ (1997) 4 SCC 161 ] the Apex Court had held that criminal courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the first information statement, since such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened, nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes first information to authorities might be fresh with the facts, but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. Quite often, the police officer, who takes down the first information, would record what the informant conveys to him without resorting to any elicitation exercise. It is the voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation, which usually goes into such a statement. So any omission therein has to be considered along with the other evidence to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all. 20.9. It would be wholly unreasonable to expect an octogenarian, who had just lost his wife and suffered grievous injuries to his neck, to furnish a detailed and all-encompassing account of an incident that had occurred merely three hours prior. Ext.P1 was recorded at a time when PW1 was experiencing profuse bleeding from a deep neck injury and was in no physical or mental condition to provide material particulars regarding the occurrence. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, [ (1981) 2 SCC 752 ] discrepancies may arise from normal errors of observation, lapses in memory owing to the passage of time, or the mental state of the witness—such as shock, trauma, or horror at the time of the event. Such inconsistencies are natural and to be expected in the testimony of all witnesses, however honest or truthful they may be. 20.10. Such inconsistencies are natural and to be expected in the testimony of all witnesses, however honest or truthful they may be. 20.10. We are also not inclined to accept the submission that the omission on the part of PW1 to mention specific details regarding the gold ornaments and cash at the earliest stage would render his testimony doubtful or untrustworthy. With respect to MO1 (Pavithra Mothiram), PW1, clearly stated in his evidence that it was gifted to him by his colleagues upon his retirement. This version stands corroborated by the testimony of PW45 (Balakrishnan Master), who confirmed the same. As for the sum of Rs.42,000/- allegedly robbed during the incident, the prosecution has adduced supporting evidence by producing Ext.P71—Janaki Teacher’s Treasury Savings Bank account details—and by examining PW62, the Sub Treasury Officer, who deposed that a sum of Rs.42,000 was withdrawn by cheque shortly before the occurrence. In relation to MO10 (Thali), it contained the inscription “OM” and was positively identified by both PW1 and PW2. Being the husband and son of the deceased Janaki, it is only natural that they would be familiar with the distinctive features of the Thali worn by her. As for the mobile phone and the headlight, PW1 mentioned these items in his subsequent statement, after he had regained some degree of composure. PW4 (Shabin Chand), the grandson of PW1, corroborated this version by stating in his evidence that he had given MO11 (mobile phone) to PW1. 20.11. Much argument was advanced by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge, having disbelieved the version of PW1 with regard to identification of the assailants by their physical features and by the dress worn by them, his entire evidence is to be eschewed. In essence, the submission was to apply the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” meaning false in one thing false in everything. As held by the Apex Court in Sayed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. , [ (2006) 10 SCC 601 ] it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence (See: Nisar Ali v. State Of Uttar Pradesh , [ AIR 1957 SC 366 ] ). Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. Only in cases where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely different from the context and the background against which they are made, can the evidence be discarded in toto. (See: Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P , [ AIR 1954 SC 15 ] Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, [ (1975) 4 SCC 511 ] ). 20.12. In light of the principles discussed above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the sequence of events that transpired after 9:00 p.m. on 13.12.2017, the overt acts committed by the masked assailants, and the assault that took place during the course of the robbery are wholly credible. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the defence, which seek to cast doubt on this version, can be accepted. Further, the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, and PW4, when read in conjunction with the testimony of the Treasury Officer (PW62), clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the assailants committed robbery involving Rs.92,000/- in cash, a gold ring (Pavithra Mothiram), a mobile phone, a headlight, and a Thali chain belonging to Janaki Teacher. Further, the evidence tendered by PW1, PW2, and PW4, when read in conjunction with the testimony of the Treasury Officer (PW62), clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the assailants committed robbery involving Rs.92,000/- in cash, a gold ring (Pavithra Mothiram), a mobile phone, a headlight, and a Thali chain belonging to Janaki Teacher. As for the veracity of PW1’s statement that all the assailants were armed with knives, it is pertinent to note that Ext.P1 explicitly mentions that the assailants used knives to assault both PW1 and his wife. This account is corroborated by PW41, who deposed that PW1 informed him during their journey to the hospital that the assailants were carrying knives and had stabbed them. The testimony of PW51, who overheard this conversation, further corroborates the same. Such contemporaneous utterances made by PW1 form part of the res gestae and are admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872. In our considered view, the prosecution has succeeded in adducing cogent and reliable evidence through the testimonies of PW1, PW41, and PW51, to establish that the three assailants were wearing masks and were armed with knives at the time of the incident. 20.13. It would be apposite to take note of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge declined to place reliance on the portion of PW1’s evidence wherein he purported to identify accused Nos. 1 to 3 based on their physical features and the clothes allegedly worn by them at the time of the incident. Upon a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we find no reason to interfere with this finding. 20.14. The primary reason for such a conclusion stems from PW1’s own consistent assertion that the assailants were wearing masks when they forcibly entered the house. While PW1 deposed that he could identify accused Nos. 1 to 3 by their physical features, it is evident from his earlier statements that the only distinguishing features he mentioned were that one of the assailants was taller and another was shorter than the rest. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that height alone cannot be considered a sufficient physical attribute for identification, particularly when PW1 himself admitted that all the assailants had their faces covered with masks during the incident. 20.15. The learned Sessions Judge rightly held that height alone cannot be considered a sufficient physical attribute for identification, particularly when PW1 himself admitted that all the assailants had their faces covered with masks during the incident. 20.15. The Sessions Court further noted that PW1 was not in a position to observe any other distinctive physical features that could enable a reliable identification. Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were apprehended nearly 70 days after the incident, and it is significant that prior to their arrest, PW1 did not harbour any suspicion regarding their involvement in the offence. 20.16. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the failure of the prosecution to conduct a proper Test Identification Parade was a serious lacuna in the investigation. Although the prosecution contends that PW1 identified the accused at the Police Station, such identification lacks evidentiary value in the absence of a duly conducted Test Identification Parade. A proper identification parade, wherein the suspects and non-suspects were directed to wear similar masks to neutralise suggestibility, was not conducted. This procedural lapse, as rightly noted by the Trial court, undermines the credibility of the purported identification. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on this count and hold that the failure to conduct a valid Test Identification Parade vitiates the evidentiary value of PW1’s identification of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in court. 20.17. The learned Sessions Judge declined to accept the identification of the accused based on the clothes allegedly worn by them at the time of the occurrence. We find no reason to differ from this conclusion. Following the arrest of the accused, the recovery of MOs 3 to 8 was effected pursuant to confessional statements made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . MO3 (kavi mundu) and MO4 (black shirt) allegedly worn by the 1st accused at the time of the incident, were recovered based on Ext.P165—the confessional statement given by the 1st accused—from an almirah in the bedroom of a building bearing Door No. VI/508. Similarly, MO5 and MO6, comprising a check shirt and a lungi purportedly worn by the 2nd accused, were recovered by PW94 based on Ext.P163, the confessional statement of the 2nd accused, from a clothes stand in the bedroom of a house bearing Door No. VI/527 at Cheerkkulam. Similarly, MO5 and MO6, comprising a check shirt and a lungi purportedly worn by the 2nd accused, were recovered by PW94 based on Ext.P163, the confessional statement of the 2nd accused, from a clothes stand in the bedroom of a house bearing Door No. VI/527 at Cheerkkulam. MOs 7 and 8, being a pair of black Puma brand tracksuit pants and a red Polo T-shirt, were recovered from the bedroom situated in the north-western corner of the house bearing Door No.VI/520 of Kayyur–Cheemeni Grama Panchayat, pursuant to Ext.P170, the confessional statement of the 3rd accused. To corroborate the recovery of MOs 3 to 8, the prosecution examined PW10 (Shyju P.V.), PW8 (Manoj K.A.), and PW14 (Rijin Krishna T.P.), who supported the testimony of PW94 regarding the recoveries. 20.18. When PW1 was examined, he stated that he had been summoned to the Police Station and was able to identify accused Nos. 1 to 3 based on their physical features. However, a close reading of the First Information Statement as well as his oral testimony reveals no indication that PW1 had observed any specific or peculiar physical features of the intruders that would have enabled him to identify them at a later point in time. Apart from his vague reference to one assailant being taller than the others and another being shorter, his statement lacks any meaningful descriptive detail. The fact that all three assailants were wearing masks during the incident significantly undermines the reliability of any subsequent identification. Furthermore, PW1 was a senior citizen at the time, and his advanced age and the trauma he had suffered may have affected his perceptive faculties, making accurate identification even less likely. 20.19. In Ramanathan v State of Tamil Nadu, [ (1978) 3 SCC 86 ] the Apex Court had occasion to lucidly observe the purpose for which Test Identification Parade is held. It was held that identification parades have been in common use for a very long time, for the object of placing a suspect in a line-up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. It was held that identification parades have been in common use for a very long time, for the object of placing a suspect in a line-up with other persons for identification is to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. This is all the more necessary where the name of the offender is not mentioned by those who claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident but they claim that although they did not know him earlier, they could recall his features in sufficient details and would be able to identify him if and when they happened to see him. The holding of a test identification in such cases is as much in the interest of the investigating agency or the prosecution as in the interest of the suspect or the accused. For while it enables the investigating officer to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claim to have seen the perpetrator of the crime and their capacity to identify him and thereby fill the gap in the investigation regarding the identity of the culprit, it saves the suspect or the accused from the sudden risk of being identified in the dock by the same witnesses during the course of the trial. The line-up of the suspect in a test identification parade is therefore a workable way of testing the memory and veracity of witnesses in such cases and has worked well in actual practice. 20.20. In Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State Of Maharashtra , [ 1974 AIR SC 791] it was held that the evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is, at best, supporting evidence. It can be used only to corroborate the substantive evidence given by the witnesses in Court regarding identification of the accused as the doer of the criminal act. The earlier identification made by the witnesses at the test identification parade, by itself, has no independent value. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the perpetrator of the crime. 20.21. It is by now settled that the purpose of a prior Test Identification Parade is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. Nor is test identification the only type of evidence that can be tendered to confirm the evidence of a witness regarding identification of the accused, in Court, as the perpetrator of the crime. 20.21. It is by now settled that the purpose of a prior Test Identification Parade is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. Courts generally look for corroboration of the sole testimony of the witnesses in court so as to fix the identity of the accused who are strangers to them in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. It has also to be borne in mind that the aspect of identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. Mere failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible evidence of identification in court. What weight is to be attached to such identification is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In appropriate cases, it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration (See: Malkhansingh v. State of M.P , [ (2003) 5 SCC 746 ]. ). 20.22. Applying the principles laid down above, we find it difficult to place reliance on the identification of the accused by PW1 at the Police Station, particularly in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer did not consider it necessary to conduct a Test Identification Parade to confirm the witness’s ability to identify the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. In such circumstances, the identification made by PW1 at the Police Station cannot be assigned significant evidentiary value. Furthermore, MOs 3 to 8 comprise ordinary clothing commonly worn by the general public, and there is nothing distinctive or peculiar about these garments that would enable PW1 to identify the accused after a lapse of one and a half years from the date of the incident. Furthermore, MOs 3 to 8 comprise ordinary clothing commonly worn by the general public, and there is nothing distinctive or peculiar about these garments that would enable PW1 to identify the accused after a lapse of one and a half years from the date of the incident. It is also relevant to note that the description of the clothing allegedly worn by the accused was furnished by PW1 only in his additional statement recorded on 16.12.2017, several days after the incident. Moreover, although the recovered clothes were sent for forensic analysis to detect the presence of blood, Ext.P116 report, proved through the testimony of PW87, confirms that no bloodstains were detected on the garments. In light of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that it would not be safe to accept the prosecution case regarding the identification of accused Nos. 1 to 3 based on MOs 3 to 8, being the clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence. Seizure of Stolen Property, proceeds and Weapons Based on the Confessional Statements of the 1st accused: 21. As already noted, the gruesome crime was committed on the night of 13.12.2017, and the identity of the perpetrators remained unknown in the immediate aftermath. However, given the substantial quantity of gold that had been stolen, the investigating team, as part of routine investigative measures, alerted jewellers within and outside the District to report any suspicious attempts to sell old gold. A breakthrough was secured when PW94, the Investigating Officer, received discreet information on 21.02.2018 indicating that one Vishak, a resident of Puliyannoor, had sold gold ornaments at a jewellery store in Kannur. Acting on this intelligence, and after preparing Ext.P154—Advance Search Memorandum—and forwarding the same to the Court, a search was conducted at House No. VI/509, Cheerkkulam, within Cheemeni Grama Panchayat. The search was conducted in the presence of Sathi V.V., wife of Ramachandran and mother of the 1st accused. During the search, a receipt was recovered from a steel almirah, which revealed that Vishak had sold 46.170 grams of gold to “Krishna Jewels” at Kannur on 15.02.2018. Ext.P3 is the search list, and Ext.P3(a) bears the signature of Sathi, acknowledging the same. During the search, a receipt was recovered from a steel almirah, which revealed that Vishak had sold 46.170 grams of gold to “Krishna Jewels” at Kannur on 15.02.2018. Ext.P3 is the search list, and Ext.P3(a) bears the signature of Sathi, acknowledging the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said invoice, and Ext.P155 (Form No.15 prepared under Rule 263 of the Criminal Rules of Practice) confirms that the invoice was produced before the jurisdictional court without delay. Following this, Vishak was taken into custody on 21.02.2018, as evidenced by Ext.P68 (Arrest Memo) and Ext.P156 (Inspection Memo). During the inspection, a Samsung mobile phone (MO49), which was being used by the 1st accused was seized and produced before the Court. This seizure is supported by Ext.P157. 21.1. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that upon the arrest and custodial interrogation of the 1st accused, he disclosed the involvement of accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the crime. Based on this disclosure, 2nd accused was arrested on 21.02.2018, as evidenced by Ext.P69 (Arrest Memo). At the time of his arrest, MO28—an Honor mobile phone—was found in his possession and was seized. The seizure was documented under Ext.P160 (Property List). In addition, a certain amount of cash was also recovered from the 2nd accused during the search. Further, Ext.P161 is the report submitted by PW94 to the jurisdictional court on 21.02.2018, furnishing the residential addresses of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The said report was duly received by the Court on 22.02.2018. 21.2. Now we shall consider the evidence relating to the seizure of gold, cash, and other stolen articles, and examine whether the prosecution has established the recoveries in accordance with law. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the case of the prosecution hinges on the recovery of these items based on disclosure statements made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . This case involves a coordinated act by a group of young men who trespassed into a residence occupied by senior citizens, committed robbery, and inflicted a brutal assault, resulting in the death of one occupant and grievous injuries to the other. This case involves a coordinated act by a group of young men who trespassed into a residence occupied by senior citizens, committed robbery, and inflicted a brutal assault, resulting in the death of one occupant and grievous injuries to the other. The prosecution has specifically pleaded that the acts of robbery and murder formed part of the same transaction, and that the material objects recovered, such as gold ornaments, cash, and other personal belongings, are closely and integrally connected to the said incident. 21.3. In Baiju Alias Bharosa v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, [ 1978 AIR SC 522] the Apex Court had occasion to observe that if the prosecution succeeds in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murders and the robbery formed part of one transaction, then the recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property by the accused will justify the presumption that it was he, and no one else, who had committed the murders and the robbery. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. Thus the nature of the stolen article, the manner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about its identification, the manner in which it was dealt with by the appellant, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening period, the ability or otherwise of the appellant to explain his possession, are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. The question that is to be considered is whether there is any justification for reaching the most important conclusion that it was the accused before the court and no one else who had committed the murder and the robbery. 21.4. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, [ (1983) 2 SCC 330 ] the question was whether in a case where murder and robbery had been proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction, whether the presumption arising under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be applied. 21.4. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, [ (1983) 2 SCC 330 ] the question was whether in a case where murder and robbery had been proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction, whether the presumption arising under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be applied. It was held that if the accused had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his possession of the stolen property, and if a false denial is made about the recoveries made at the instance of the accused, it by itself is an incriminating circumstance. The nature of presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 would 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 has to 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. 21.5. In Sanjay and Ors. vs. The State (NCC.T. of Delhi) , (2001) 3 SCC 190 it was held that besides Section 27, the courts can draw presumptions under Section 114, Illustration (a) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 21.6. In Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. , [1995] 3 SCR 27 the Apex Court held that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced. Referring to Sanwat Khan and Kaloo Khan v. State of Rajasthan, [ AIR 1956 SC 54 ] it was held that in a case of recovery of stolen articles in a case of robbery and murder, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from such circumstances. It was observed that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. It was observed that where only evidence against the accused is recovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen property had committed the murder. A note of caution was given by the Apex Court by indicating that suspicion should not take the place of proof. 21.7. In the light of the principles above, we shall deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused. Insofar as the 1st accused is concerned, these are the circumstances that are projected by the prosecution. We shall deal with the same one by one. Recovery of MO9 and MO10 at the instance of the 1st accused: 22. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 16.02.2018, the 1st accused attempted to sell MO9 (Pavithra Mothiram) and MO10 (Thali) at a jewellery shop in Payyanur named “Puthiya Valappil Gold.” To establish this fact, the prosecution examined PWs 11, 13, 56, 57, 69, and 94. PW11, the owner of the said jewellery shop, testified that the 1st accused came to his shop and, after handing over MOs 9 and 10, asked him whether the ornaments were made of gold. Upon verifying their purity, PW11 inquired about their source. The 1st accused vaguely stated that he had “found” the ornaments which apparently was an attempt to pass them off as abandoned property. Sensing something suspicious, PW11 advised the 1st accused to hand them over to the police and promptly informed PW13, the local Ward Councillor. PW13, in turn, alerted the police. PW11 stated that during the interregnum, the 1st accused stepped out of the shop on the pretext of drinking water and absconded. PW57, the Senior Civil Police Officer (SCPO) at Payyanur Police Station, collected the ornaments from PW11 and returned to the Station. He handed them over to the Station House Officer after making necessary entries in the Station General Diary (Ext.P60). The relevant entry at Serial No. 17 was marked separately as Ext.P60(a). PW57 further stated that he weighed the ornaments. MO9 was found to weigh 7.200 grams, and MO10, which bore the inscription “OM,” weighed 2.330 grams. 22.1. He handed them over to the Station House Officer after making necessary entries in the Station General Diary (Ext.P60). The relevant entry at Serial No. 17 was marked separately as Ext.P60(a). PW57 further stated that he weighed the ornaments. MO9 was found to weigh 7.200 grams, and MO10, which bore the inscription “OM,” weighed 2.330 grams. 22.1. PW94 further testified that, while in custody, the 1st accused made a disclosure statement which led the police to the jewellery shop “Puthiya Valappil Gold” and confirmed the failed attempt to sell the gold. A defence contention was raised that the disclosure made by the 1st accused was involuntary and that no recovery was effected based on the same. It was also argued that it was inconceivable that the Payyanur Police, despite receiving information of an attempted sale of gold under suspicious circumstances, did not register a separate crime. 22.2. We are not persuaded by this argument. PW11 clearly stated that the gold ornaments were brought in by a self-identified “finder,” and when advised to inform the police, the 1st accused did not object or demand the articles back. There is every likelihood that the 1st accused was taken aback when PW11 suggested that the gold be handed over to the police and informed the Councillor then and there. The finder had no other option but to flee as he risked being identified by the police and linked to the crime. The police, in turn, made an entry in the General Diary, possibly anticipating that the true owner might later come forward. We do not find that the failure to register a separate crime, in these circumstances, weakens the case of the prosecution. 22.3. In this context, it would be pertinent to note that the prosecution has examined PW69, the Nodal Officer, BSNL, to prove that the 1st accused was found in and around the Payyanur area on 16.02.2018, the day on which the attempt was made to sell the gold. Payyanur is a place about 20 km away from Cheemeni, the place where the 1st accused resides. PW69 gave evidence, and through him, Ext.P87 Customer Application Form and an ID proof of Mobile phone bearing Number “9447246141”, were marked as Ext.P87. He has also produced the Call Data Records and Tower Dump Details of the above mobile phone, and the same was marked as Ext.P86. PW69 gave evidence, and through him, Ext.P87 Customer Application Form and an ID proof of Mobile phone bearing Number “9447246141”, were marked as Ext.P87. He has also produced the Call Data Records and Tower Dump Details of the above mobile phone, and the same was marked as Ext.P86. Ext.P88 is the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act . PW94 gave evidence that the tower location of the above mobile phone used by the 1st accused was Payyanur New Bus Stand. 22.4. We are not persuaded by the defence submission that MOs 9 and 10 are ordinary ornaments with no distinguishing features and that they were fabricated by the police to falsely implicate the accused. The prosecution examined PW45 (E.V. Balakrishnan Master), who deposed that he was a colleague of PW1 and that MO9 (Pavithra Mothiram) was presented to PW1 upon his retirement in March 1993. Notably, the receptacle in which the Pavithra Mothiram was stored was seized and recorded in the Scene Mahazar prepared immediately after the incident. PW1 reaffirmed that MO9 belonged to him and that it was the same ring that ultimately came into the custody of the Payyanur Police. As for MO10 (Thali), PW1 identified it as the Thali worn by his late wife, Janaki Teacher. PW2, their son, also corroborated that MO10 belonged to his mother. Thus, the combined evidence of PWs 1, 2, 11, 13, 45, 56, 57, and 94 clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that MOs 9 and 10—ornaments belonging to PW1 and the deceased and robbed from their home—were attempted to be sold by the 1st accused on 16.02.2018 and, in the manner narrated by the prosecution, came into police custody. This version of events is further corroborated by the mobile tower location evidence tendered by PW69, which places the 1st accused in and around the scene. We hold that the recovery of MOs 9 and 10 based on the disclosure made by the 1st accused constitutes a strong and reliable link in the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the said accused to the offences of robbery and murder. Recovery of MO25 gold ingot at the instance of the 1st accused: 23. The next link is the recovery of a Bombay model gold chain weighing about 5½ sovereigns at the instance of the 1st accused. Recovery of MO25 gold ingot at the instance of the 1st accused: 23. The next link is the recovery of a Bombay model gold chain weighing about 5½ sovereigns at the instance of the 1st accused. PW2, in his evidence, stated that the gold ornaments belonging to his wife were robbed by the accused. In his evidence, he had stated that, on 15.12.2017, he went back to the house where the incident had happened and found that the ornaments belonged to his wife such as a Bombay model chain weighing 5¾ sovereigns and 3 bangles weighing 2 sovereigns each were found missing from the shelf in the upstair room, where the same was kept. The evidence tendered by PW49, the Secretary of Cheemeni Service Co-operative Bank, reveals that PW2 was maintaining a locker. Through him, Ext.P52 Ledger extract was marked, which revealed that the locker had been opened by PW2 on 18.11.2017. The extract reveals that the locker is maintained by PW2 and his wife, Chandhini. PW94, in his evidence, reveals that the 1st accused attempted to sell the Bombay model gold chain in a Jewellery Shop by the name “Gold Point” at Taliparamba. PW26 (Babu P.K.), the owner of Gold Point, stated in his evidence that the 1st accused had brought a Bombay model gold chain to sell the same. When he asked about his whereabouts, the 1st accused told him that he was from Cheemeni. He enquired as to why a person residing in a far-off place would want to sell the gold at Taliparamba. To the said query, the 1st accused responded by stating that he has a relative residing in the area, and stated that the chain belonged to his wife. PW26 then asked him to share his wife’s phone number. In response, the 1st accused stated that his wife was studying in a College and would not be available on the phone. Since the 1st accused was not a person from the area, and since the jewellery shop owner did not require cash to purchase the 5.5 sovereign gold chain, he suggested that the gold be sold at “Kunjikannan Jewellery” at Kannur, as the inscription in the gold chain revealed that the same was purchased from the said jewellery. Though the said witness was cross-examined, the defence was not able to shake his evidence. 23.1. Though the said witness was cross-examined, the defence was not able to shake his evidence. 23.1. PW94 also testified that the 1st accused, during interrogation, confessed to having sold the gold chain at "Krishna Jewels," Kannur (formerly Kunjikannan Jewellery). Acting on Ext.P191, the disclosure statement, the police accompanied the 1st accused to Krishna Jewels. PW27, the Manager of the shop, confirmed that the 1st accused visited on 15.02.2018 and sold a Bombay model gold chain weighing 46.170 grams. The ornament was valued at Rs.1,29,970/-, for which an account payee cheque was issued in the name of the 1st accused. PW27 testified that the cheque was later presented at the State Bank of Travancore (SBT), Cheemeni Branch. By then, the gold had already been melted into an ingot, which was marked as MO25. Through PW27, Ext.P2 (purchase invoice) and Ext.P21 (computer-generated copy) were produced. Ext.P2 listed the customer name as “Vishak V.V., Valiyaveedu House, Cheemeni,” with the amount as Rs.1,29,970/-. The property list was marked as Ext.P192. 23.2. To corroborate the presence of the 1st accused in Kannur on the date of the sale, the prosecution examined PW69, the Nodal Officer of BSNL. He confirmed that mobile number 9447246141 seized from the 1st accused at the time of his arrest was located under tower coverage at Kannur New Bus Stand, BPCL, and S.K. Complex on 15.02.2018. PW48, the Manager of SBT, Cheemeni Branch, further confirmed that the cheque (Ext.P43), dated 15.02.2018 and issued by Krishna Jewels, was presented by the 1st accused, and Rs.1,29,970/- was credited to his account on 19.02.2018. 23.4. The defence examined DW1 (Indira V.V.), the elder sister of the mother of the 1st accused, to suggest an alternative explanation. According to her, she had entrusted two gold chains to the 1st accused for sale, as she was in urgent need of funds to rebuild her dilapidated house. She claimed the cheque and invoice remained with her until they were allegedly taken away by the police after the arrest of the 1st accused. We are not inclined to accept the version put forth by DW1. Her testimony, recorded on 10.01.2020, suffers from inherent inconsistencies. While she claimed the police took away the documents a few days after the arrest of the 1st accused on 21.02.2018, the cheque had already been presented and encashed by the 1st accused on 19.02.2018. We are not inclined to accept the version put forth by DW1. Her testimony, recorded on 10.01.2020, suffers from inherent inconsistencies. While she claimed the police took away the documents a few days after the arrest of the 1st accused on 21.02.2018, the cheque had already been presented and encashed by the 1st accused on 19.02.2018. If the cheque indeed belonged to her and was obtained under such circumstances, it is implausible that she would not have lodged a complaint when the funds were withdrawn. Her silence and lack of action cast serious doubt on the credibility of her version. It appears that DW1’s testimony was designed to project an alternative narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence against the 1st accused. 23.5. A feeble argument was also advanced that the non-examination of PW2’s wife was fatal to the prosecution. It was contended that only she could identify her jewellery. We find no merit in this submission. PW2’s testimony regarding the jewellery is cogent, credible, and sufficiently detailed. There is no legal principle that bars a husband from testifying to the ownership of property jointly maintained in the household. 23.6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the evidence tendered by PWs 2, 26, 27, 48, and 69, taken together, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that a Bombay-model gold chain belonging to PW2’s wife was robbed from PW1’s house and subsequently sold by the 1st accused at Krishna Jewels, Kannur. The proceeds of the sale were credited to the account of the 1st accused, forming yet another strong link in the chain of circumstantial evidence that connects the 1st accused to the offences of robbery and murder. Recovery of gold ingot (MO22) at the instance of the 1st accused: 24. The next piece of evidence projected by the prosecution to demonstrate the strong involvement of the 1st accused is the recovery of a gold ingot (MO22), alleged to have been formed from three gold bangles sold at a jewellery shop in Hampankatta, Mangalore. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 1st accused made a disclosure regarding the sale of the bangles in Mangalore. The relevant portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ext.P183. Acting on this statement, the police, led by the 1st accused, proceeded to a jewellery shop named “Jewel House” in Hampankatta, Mangalore. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 1st accused made a disclosure regarding the sale of the bangles in Mangalore. The relevant portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ext.P183. Acting on this statement, the police, led by the 1st accused, proceeded to a jewellery shop named “Jewel House” in Hampankatta, Mangalore. The prosecution examined PW17, the Manager of the said jewellery shop. He testified that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had visited the shop on 04.01.2018 with three gold bangles and stated that they required money for the medical treatment of the mother of the 1st accused. The owner of the shop, Habeeb (CW32), was also present at the time. As the accused failed to produce identity proof during the initial visit, the gold was not purchased. However, about four days later, accused Nos. 1 and 2 returned to the shop and produced identity cards—one belonging to the 1st accused and the other to Devaki K. (the mother of the 3rd accused). Ext.P12 series are copies of these ID cards, which were retained by the shop after verifying with the originals. PW17 further stated that the bangles were then melted and converted into a single ingot (MO22). 24.1. To further corroborate the presence of the accused near the shop, the prosecution examined PW91, the Nodal Officer of Vodafone-Idea Ltd., Kerala Circle. He confirmed that mobile No. “8606156141” was registered in the name of Vishak V.V., S/o Ramachandran K.P., Valiyaveedu, Cheerkulam. He also testified that multiple calls had been exchanged with mobile Nos. “8304936733” and “8281578464”. The tower location data for the number “8606156141” placed the 1st accused in the Uppala region, adjacent to Hampankatta, Mangalore, on both 04.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, the dates corresponding to the visits to the jewellery shop. 24.2. The defence raised strong objections to the recovery of MO22 on multiple grounds. One of the principal contentions was the non-examination of Chandini (CW3), the wife of PW2, and Habeeb (CW32), the owner of the shop. It was also argued that since the gold bangles were melted into an ingot, it would be impossible to ascertain whether MO22 had any connection to the specific bangles allegedly robbed. These submissions, however, are devoid of merit. 24.3. Upon evaluating the evidence of PW94, we find no reason to disbelieve the circumstances surrounding the recovery. It was also argued that since the gold bangles were melted into an ingot, it would be impossible to ascertain whether MO22 had any connection to the specific bangles allegedly robbed. These submissions, however, are devoid of merit. 24.3. Upon evaluating the evidence of PW94, we find no reason to disbelieve the circumstances surrounding the recovery. Ext.P193, the confessional statement of the 1st accused, was duly proved, and the recovery was established through consistent and corroborated testimony. The absence of the shop owner as a witness does not render the testimony of PW17, the Manager and a competent witness to the transaction, unreliable. 24.4. We hold that the prosecution has successfully established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the 1st accused sold three gold bangles at Jewel House, Hampankatta, Mangalore, and received a sum of Rs.1,18,000 in return. The production of the ID cards of the 1st accused and Devaki K., the mother of the 3rd accused, is another incriminating link that connects the 1st accused to the sale and, by extension, to the offence. The question of the involvement of the 2nd accused in this transaction shall be considered separately at a later stage. Recovery of gold ingot (MO26) at the instance of the 1st accused: 25. The next incriminating circumstance projected by the prosecution relates to the sale of a gold chain and a bangle at Arshith Jewellery, Kannur. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 1st accused made a disclosure to the effect that he had sold a gold chain and a gold bangle at Arshith Jewellery. Acting on the disclosure statement (Ext.P164) and led by the 1st accused, the police party proceeded to the said jewellery shop. 25.1. PW28, the proprietor of Arshith Jewellery, testified that approximately two weeks prior to 01.03.2018, the 1st accused had come to his shop with a gold bangle and a chain weighing just under four sovereigns. He stated that the gold articles were valued at Rs.66,000/-, and the amount was handed over to the 1st accused in a wedding invitation cover. On 01.03.2018, the police team visited his shop along with the 1st accused. PW28 identified the 1st accused as the individual who had earlier come to the shop to sell the gold. He stated that the gold articles were valued at Rs.66,000/-, and the amount was handed over to the 1st accused in a wedding invitation cover. On 01.03.2018, the police team visited his shop along with the 1st accused. PW28 identified the 1st accused as the individual who had earlier come to the shop to sell the gold. He also identified the wedding cover used to hand over the cash, marked as MO21, and confirmed that the handwritten markings on the cover were made by him. PW28 further stated that the ornaments were melted and converted into an ingot, which was marked as MO26. 25.2. With respect to the cash received on the sale of Gold ornaments, PW94 deposed that pursuant to the confessional statement made by the 1st accused, the police proceeded to House No.VI/508, situated in Kayyur, Cheemeni Grama Panchayat, and recovered Rs.66,000/- in cash, marked as MO20 series. The amount was seized from the residence of DW1 (Indira), the elder sister of the mother of the 1st accused. 25.3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2, who clearly identified the gold chain and bangle as belonging to Janaki Teacher and stated that the same had been robbed on 13.12.2017. Notably, DW1 admitted during cross-examination that the 1st accused used to reside in her house, which is the same premises from which Ext.P2 (invoice) was earlier seized. This sequence of evidence unambiguously establishes that the 1st accused sold the gold chain and bangle at Arshith Jewellery, Kannur, and received Rs.66,000/- as proceeds, which were later recovered from a location linked to him. 25.4. A contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the defence that the weight of the ingot (MO26) did not exactly correspond to the description of the gold ornaments alleged to have been stolen. We are not persuaded by this argument. 25.5. It is a matter of common metallurgical experience that when gold ornaments are subjected to melting and transformed into ingots, there is often a marginal loss in weight. This slight reduction is attributable to factors such as the quality and composition of the gold, evaporation or burning off of soldering material or non-metallic inclusions, and incidental loss during melting, handling, and solidification processes. Such diminution is inherent and inevitable in the transformation of gold ornaments into bars or ingots. This slight reduction is attributable to factors such as the quality and composition of the gold, evaporation or burning off of soldering material or non-metallic inclusions, and incidental loss during melting, handling, and solidification processes. Such diminution is inherent and inevitable in the transformation of gold ornaments into bars or ingots. Moreover, the individual from whom the gold was stolen cannot reasonably be expected to recall with absolute precision the exact weight or purity of the ornament, particularly when such items may have been acquired several years, if not decades, prior to the incident. In the present case, except for minor and scientifically explainable discrepancies, the weight of the recovered ingot substantially tallies with the description of the stolen articles. We are therefore satisfied that the argument raised by the defence lacks merit. Seizure of MO17 knives: 26. The next major circumstance relates to the seizure of the MO17 series of knives. To establish the origin and procurement of these weapons, the prosecution examined PW39, an ex-serviceman and immediate neighbour of the 3rd accused. PW39 stated that the 3rd accused had returned to India from abroad in or around November 2017. According to him, the 3rd accused had gifted him a knife, claiming it was purchased from the Gulf. He also stated that the 3rd accused had distributed similar knives to other neighbours. PW39 further deposed that PW94, the Investigating Officer, had visited his house along with the 1st accused and had seized a knife, which was later marked as part of the MO17 series. PW40, another neighbour, corroborated PW39's version and stated that he too had received a knife from the 3rd accused. He testified that the knife gifted to him resembled MO17 series knives. 26.1. However, PW37, the mother of the 3rd accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. Although she was confronted with her prior statement during cross-examination, she denied having made any such statement. PW38 was examined to prove the actual production of knives MO17(a) and MO17(b) by PW37. Ext.P31 is the seizure mahazar prepared at the time of the recovery. 26.2. The learned Sessions Judge, after a thorough evaluation of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the 3rd accused had procured a dozen knives from abroad and that these were the same weapons that were used during the commission of the offence. Ext.P31 is the seizure mahazar prepared at the time of the recovery. 26.2. The learned Sessions Judge, after a thorough evaluation of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish that the 3rd accused had procured a dozen knives from abroad and that these were the same weapons that were used during the commission of the offence. Upon a re-appreciation of the materials on record, we find no reason to take a different view. 26.3. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the prosecution primarily relies on the direct testimony of PW1 to establish the overt acts committed by the accused. As already discussed, PW1, being an elderly person who had sustained grievous injuries and witnessed a horrific crime, could not have been expected to observe and recall intricate details such as the exact nature, design, or make of the weapons used. All that PW1 stated was that one of the assailants, a taller individual, used a smaller knife, and the person who inflicted injuries on his wife used a longer one. 26.4. In view of these limitations, we concur with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the 3rd accused procured a dozen knives from abroad and that some of those knives were used in the commission of the crime. The evidence on record is insufficient to establish this link with the degree of certainty required in a criminal trial. Amount deposited in the bank account of the 1st accused: 27. The next incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the 1st accused to the crime is the deposit of Rs.40,000/- into his bank account on 07.02.2018. To establish this, the prosecution examined PW48, the Manager of the State Bank of Travancore, Cheemeni Branch. PW48 deposed that a substantial sum of cash had been deposited into the account of the 1st accused shortly before he encashed the cheque issued by the jeweller for the sale of stolen gold. Ext.P42, the statement of account, confirms that the 1st accused deposited Rs.40,000/- in cash on 07.02.2018. Further, Ext.P42(a) reveals that an account payee cheque issued by Krishna Jewels, Kannur—corresponding to the sale of the Bombay-model gold chain—was encashed by the 1st accused on 19.02.2018. Ext.P42, the statement of account, confirms that the 1st accused deposited Rs.40,000/- in cash on 07.02.2018. Further, Ext.P42(a) reveals that an account payee cheque issued by Krishna Jewels, Kannur—corresponding to the sale of the Bombay-model gold chain—was encashed by the 1st accused on 19.02.2018. This financial transaction, occurring in close proximity to the attempted and actual sales of stolen gold ornaments, forms yet another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence pointing toward the involvement of the 1st accused in the robbery and disposal of stolen property. Recovery and seizure of Masks: 28. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the 1st accused with the crime is the recovery of the MO2 series (masks), allegedly purchased and used by the accused during the commission of the offence. According to the prosecution, the 1st accused had purchased the masks, with the 2nd accused, who was 18 years old at the time, playing a supporting role. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution examined PW35, who deposed that on 05.12.2017, he, along with accused Nos. 1 and 2, had participated in a driving test. After the test concluded, the driving instructor dropped them at the Neeleswaram bus stand. While they were waiting, PW35 overheard the 1st accused telling the 2nd accused that he intended to buy masks for use during Christmas for holding carols. The 1st accused later returned carrying masks, and according to PW35, had also purchased cello tapes. PW63, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, corroborated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken part in a driving test on the said date. This was further supported through Ext.P72, the official report of the driving test. PW29, a salesman at "Binale Fancy," a fancy goods shop located at the Neeleswaram Bus Stand, testified that the 1st accused purchased the MO2 series (masks) and MO27 (cello tape) from the shop. He identified the 1st accused as the purchaser. To establish the existence and licensing of the shop, the prosecution examined PW81, Secretary of the Neeleswaram Municipality, who confirmed that Ext.P108 was the shop license issued in the name of Chandrasekaran K., the father-in-law of PW29. 28.1. The case of the prosecution further suggests that after purchasing the masks, the 1st accused initially concealed them in a property adjacent to the residence of PW1. 28.1. The case of the prosecution further suggests that after purchasing the masks, the 1st accused initially concealed them in a property adjacent to the residence of PW1. PW30 (T.P. Bharathan) testified that he had gone with one Ragavan to pluck coconuts in the property belonging to one Gopi, where Raghavan discovered a bag containing three masks. Believing it to be discarded by children, they left it there. PW30 identified the MO2 series as the same masks he had seen at the location. 28.2. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the 2nd accused, during custodial interrogation, disclosed that the masks worn by the accused had been concealed in the "Kottaram Building." Acting on this disclosure, the police were led by the 2nd accused to the location, where he allegedly retrieved the masks from the top of a wall at the rear of the building. Ext.P162 is the disclosure statement made by the 2nd accused, and the seizure was recorded in Ext.P4, the seizure mahazar. Curiously, PW30 also claimed to have been present at the time when the 2nd accused retrieved the masks on 20.02.2018, raising questions about the independence and reliability of his earlier testimony. The prosecution thus attempted to establish (i) that the 1st accused purchased the masks and tape from “Binale Fancy” with the 2nd accused present, (ii) that the 1st accused concealed them prior to the offence, and (iii) that the 2nd accused re-concealed them post-incident in the “Kottaram Building.” However, the learned Sessions Judge, after a careful evaluation of the evidence, declined to accept this sequence of events. Upon re-appreciation, we find no reason to take a different view. 28.3. The testimony of PW35, that the masks were taken out and shown to him on 05.12.2017 so he could identify them, later appears inherently artificial. Moreover, Raghavan, who allegedly first saw the masks in the property, was not examined. The credibility of PW29’s identification of the 1st accused as the purchaser of the masks is also doubtful, particularly as he had no prior acquaintance with the 1st accused. The prosecution claims that the identification was based on a confessional statement by the 1st accused, who allegedly led PW94 to the shop. However, this was not proved in accordance with law, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade renders PW29’s in-court identification unsafe to rely upon. 28.4. The prosecution claims that the identification was based on a confessional statement by the 1st accused, who allegedly led PW94 to the shop. However, this was not proved in accordance with law, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade renders PW29’s in-court identification unsafe to rely upon. 28.4. In view of these inconsistencies and procedural lapses, we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove the purchase and use of the MO2 series masks and tapes by the accused. Presence of DNA of the 3rd accused on MO18: 29. We now turn to the evidence that seeks to establish the involvement of the 3rd accused in the commission of the crime. As already discussed in the context of PW1’s testimony, while his evidence may not be sufficient to identify the individual assailants based on their physical features or clothing, since all three were masked, it does unequivocally establish that three assailants forcibly entered the house, committed robbery, and inflicted fatal injuries, resulting in the death of Janaki and grievous injuries to PW1. 29.1. To connect the 3rd accused with the incident, the prosecution primarily relies on forensic evidence in the form of DNA analysis. PW1 had deposed that during the attack, one of the assailants forced him to lie on the bed, tied his legs with a bath towel, and tied his hands with a tracksuit pants taken from the cloth stand. He further stated that he eventually managed to free himself by untying the knot. 29.2. PW94, the Investigating Officer, stated that MO18 (a pair of tracksuit pants) was recovered from the scene of the crime. Blood samples of all the accused, including the 3rd accused, were collected shortly after their arrest and sent for comparison. 29.3. PW87, Smt. Sreevidya, Assistant Director of the Biology and DNA Division, deposed that three sets of packets pertaining to Crime No. 403/2017 of Cheemeni Police Station were received at the laboratory on 19.12.2017, 30.01.2018, and 01.03.2018. The forwarding note for the various samples collected from the scene was marked as Ext.P141.The DNA analysis report dated 20.03.2018 was marked as Ext.P118. 29.4. Item No. 8, as referred to in the report, is a cow dung green-coloured tracksuit pants with a white cord and knot, which had visible dark brown stains. This item was identified as the one used to tie PW1’s hands. 29.4. Item No. 8, as referred to in the report, is a cow dung green-coloured tracksuit pants with a white cord and knot, which had visible dark brown stains. This item was identified as the one used to tie PW1’s hands. Item No. 16 of Ext.P115 contained the blood sample of PW1 (Krishnan), while Item No. 20 contained hair and blood samples of the 3rd accused (Anil Kumar). According to the analysis, the DNA profile obtained from the knot in Item No. 8 (specifically 8b) was found to be a mixture of the DNA profiles corresponding to Item Nos. 16 and 20(a). The Analyst concluded that the DNA recovered from the knot included the profiles of both Krishnan and Anil Kumar. Despite extensive cross-examination of PW87, the defence could not impeach the credibility or scientific accuracy of her testimony. 29.5. The learned counsel for the 3rd accused raised an objection based on the chain of custody of the sample. It was argued that PW50, the Nurse who drew the blood sample, did not explicitly mention in his deposition that the sample was stored in a sealed container. It was further contended that the sample reached the Magistrate Court only on 28.02.2018, two days after it was drawn, during which time it remained in the custody of the Investigating Officer and could have been tampered with. 29.6. We are not persuaded by this submission. Ext.P54 is the seizure mahazar prepared contemporaneously at the time of sample collection. It clearly records that the sample was drawn, packed, and sealed. Moreover, Ext.P115, the forensic report, notes unequivocally that the samples were received in sealed condition. The Assistant Director, who received the sample, has certified that the seals were intact. 29.7. In light of these facts, we are satisfied that the chain of custody has been properly maintained, and the possibility of manipulation or tampering is ruled out. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused is liable to be rejected. 29.8 DNA profile is generated from the body fluids, stains, and other biological specimens recovered from evidence, and the results are compared with the results obtained from reference samples. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with the crime scene can be established. DNA profiling is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with the crime scene can be established. DNA profiling is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. The variable areas of DNA are termed genetic markers. The current genetic markers of choice for forensic purposes are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). Analysis of a set of 15 STRs employing Automated DNA Sequencer gives a DNA profile unique to an individual (except monozygotic twin). It is beyond any matter of doubt that if DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law. In the case on hand, Ext. P115, a copy of which has been supplied to the defence, contains details of the values and the manner and the methodology by which the calculations have been carried out. The expert entered the box and adduced evidence of the DNA comparisons together with his calculations of the random occurrence ratio. The DNA evidence, when viewed cumulatively with the surrounding circumstances, provides a compelling link connecting the 3rd accused to the scene of occurrence and supports the case of the prosecution that he participated in the robbery and assault on the night of 13.12.2017. Recovery of the Mobile Phone of PW1: 30. The next incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to link the 3rd accused with the crime pertains to the recovery of MO11, the Mobile phone belonging to PW1, which was allegedly robbed during the course of the incident and later recovered based on a disclosure statement made by the 3rd accused. PW1, in his deposition, stated that his mobile phone was taken away by the assailants on the night of the occurrence and that he had used his wife’s mobile phone to contact the police. PW4, the grandson of PW1, corroborated this version by testifying that he had gifted a mobile phone to his grandfather. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 3rd accused confessed to having thrown the stolen mobile phone into a brick pond. Acting on this disclosure, and as led by the 3rd accused, the police proceeded to the location, and the mobile phone was retrieved from the pond by PW30 on 23.02.2018. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 3rd accused confessed to having thrown the stolen mobile phone into a brick pond. Acting on this disclosure, and as led by the 3rd accused, the police proceeded to the location, and the mobile phone was retrieved from the pond by PW30 on 23.02.2018. PW30 confirmed that he was present when the police party arrived at the brick pond along with the 3rd accused and that it was he who entered the pond and recovered the mobile phone after considerable effort. The recovery was documented under Ext.P10, the seizure mahazar. The prosecution also examined PW13 and PW15 to corroborate the recovery. While the learned counsel for the 3rd accused argued that the recovery was staged and highlighted that the police were seen at the location earlier in the day, suggesting the possibility of fabrication, we find no merit in this contention. It is relevant to note that the accused were arrested on 21.02.2018, more than two months after the incident, and the disclosure regarding the disposal of the mobile phone emerged only during interrogation. The delay in recovery is thus naturally accounted for and cannot, by itself, suggest manipulation. Having carefully evaluated the testimonies of PWs 1, 4, 15, 30, and 94, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the 3rd accused took away PW1’s mobile phone on the night of 13.12.2017 and subsequently disposed of it by throwing it into the brick pond. The recovery of MO11 pursuant to the disclosure made by the 3rd accused forms a strong and cogent link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, conclusively connecting the third accused to the commission of the offence. Recovery of MO15 Knife at the instance of the 3rd accused: 31. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to link the 3rd accused with the offence is the recovery of MO15, a knife allegedly used by the 3rd accused to open the wooden shelf located in the upstairs room of PW1’s house. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that following the arrest of the 3rd accused, a confessional statement was made by him during custodial interrogation, pursuant to which MO15 was recovered. According to PW94, the knife was located dangling in the bushes situated on the banks of a river and was seized under Ext.P11, the seizure mahazar. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that following the arrest of the 3rd accused, a confessional statement was made by him during custodial interrogation, pursuant to which MO15 was recovered. According to PW94, the knife was located dangling in the bushes situated on the banks of a river and was seized under Ext.P11, the seizure mahazar. The knife was subsequently produced before the Court as per the property list marked as Ext.P181. PW16, who was present at the time of recovery, corroborates the testimony of PW94 regarding the seizure of MO15. 31.1. Both PW1 and PW4 identified MO15 as the knife regularly used for cutting grass in their household. Furthermore, Ext.P62, the scene mahazar, records the damage caused to the wooden shelf, thereby corroborating the case of the prosecution that a tool was forcibly used to gain access to the storage compartment. 31.2. The learned counsel for the defence argued that the recovery of the knife should not be given evidentiary weight due to the absence of paint residue or other forensic traces linking it to the damaged shelf. However, in light of the consistent and corroborated testimonies of PWs 1, 4, 16, and 94, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the 3rd accused had specific knowledge of the location where the knife was discarded. 31.3. The recovery of MO15 pursuant to the disclosure made by the 3rd accused is, in our view, yet another strong and credible link in the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the 3rd accused to the robbery and the murder that occurred on 13.12.2017. Recovery of MO16 knife at the instance of the 3rd accused: 32. The next incriminating circumstance pertains to the recovery of MO16, the knife allegedly used by the 3rd accused to inflict fatal injuries on Janaki Teacher. PW1, in his evidence, stated that he had heard his wife’s scream and immediately realised that she had been stabbed. While he did not directly witness the assault, the case of the prosecution is that it was the 3rd accused who inflicted the fatal injuries. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 3rd accused confessed that he had thrown the weapon used to stab Janaki into the Tejaswini River, which flows on the northern side of the property. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 3rd accused confessed that he had thrown the weapon used to stab Janaki into the Tejaswini River, which flows on the northern side of the property. Pursuant to this disclosure, the prosecution examined PW18, a Civil Police Officer attached to the Coastal Police Station, who had received formal training in diving. PW18 testified that he was summoned by the Inspector of Police to assist in the recovery of the weapon. He reached the site at around 10:43 a.m., where the police party and the 3rd accused were already present. The 3rd accused, whom PW18 identified in court, pointed out the approximate location in the river where he had thrown the knife. PW18, along with one Chandran Master, dived into the river and successfully recovered MO16, which was seized in the presence of witnesses. PW94 proved Ext.P14, the seizure mahazar, and Ext.P187, the property list documenting the recovery of MO16. The prosecution also examined PW19 (Surendran K.), who attested Ext.P14 and corroborated the events surrounding the recovery. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused contended that the absence of bloodstains on the recovered knife renders the prosecution’s case suspect. We find no merit in this argument. The recovery was effected on 27.02.2018, more than two months after the incident of 13.12.2017, and it is plausible that any biological traces would have been washed away, considering that the knife had remained submerged in the river for a considerable period. Furthermore, PW75, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, categorically opined that the injuries sustained by Janaki Teacher could have been caused by a weapon such as MO16. The crucial aspect remains that the 3rd accused possessed specific knowledge regarding the location where the weapon was discarded, and he led the police to its recovery. Such knowledge, not accessible to a third party, is relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . 32.1. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the recovery of MO16 at the instance of the 3rd accused forms a strong, significant and reliable link in the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting him with the commission of the crime. Extra Judicial Confession of the 3rd accused: 33. 32.1. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the recovery of MO16 at the instance of the 3rd accused forms a strong, significant and reliable link in the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting him with the commission of the crime. Extra Judicial Confession of the 3rd accused: 33. The next circumstance projected by the prosecution to implicate the 3rd accused is the alleged extra-judicial confession made by him to PW34, a co-worker, admitting his involvement in the robbery and murder. 33.1. PW34 deposed that he was originally a resident of Madikkal Panchayat and was employed as a Salesman in Bahrain. The 3rd accused had also worked in the same company as a storekeeper and resided in the accommodation provided by the Company. According to PW34, the Company faced financial difficulties, and the workers were not being paid regularly. The 3rd accused returned to India in November 2017 and subsequently went back to Bahrain in February 2018. PW34 stated that while they were conversing in Bahrain about a robbery and murder that had taken place in his native place, the 3rd accused confided in him that he and two of his friends had committed the said crime. The 3rd accused allegedly stated that they went to the house of Janaki Teacher with the intention of committing theft, and when the deceased identified him, he was compelled to eliminate her. The confession, according to PW34, was made in the presence of their mutual friend, Faris. PW34 further testified that he returned to India on 12.02.2018, and upon arrival, he was summoned by the Circle Inspector, Neeleswaram, who asked him to meet in person and bring his passport. During cross-examination, PW34 admitted that he and the 3rd accused shared personal information and were close. When asked why he had not informed the police earlier, he explained that the 3rd accused had asked him to keep the matter confidential and that he feared potential repercussions given the seriousness of the crime. He denied the suggestion that he had been pressured by the police into making a false statement. 33.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether any reliance can be placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession and whether the testimony of PW34 is credible and trustworthy. 33.3. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. 33.2. The question that arises for consideration is whether any reliance can be placed on the alleged extra-judicial confession and whether the testimony of PW34 is credible and trustworthy. 33.3. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. ( Sahadevan And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu, [(2012) SCC OnLine SC 422] ) 33.4. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N, [ (1997) 8 SCC 158 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. 33.5. In Kavita v. State of T.N, [ (1998) 6 SCC 108 ] it was held that though there is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession, it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact, and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. 33.6. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram , [ (2003) 8 SCC 180 ] observed that an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. 33.7. In Aloke Nath Dutta and Others v. State of W.B, [ (2007) 12 SCC 230 ] the Apex Court observed as under: “87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration. 89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof.” 33.8. In Sahadevan (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the broad principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of the conviction of an accused. It was held that the precepts laid down are to guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The principles laid down can be culled down as under: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. The principles laid down can be culled down as under: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 33.9. Having understood the principles that are to be kept in mind by the court while examining the acceptability and evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession, we shall now consider the contentions advanced by the learned counsel. 33.10. PW34 is admittedly a co-worker of the 3rd accused. There is nothing on record to suggest that he bore any animosity or ill will towards the 3rd accused. No such suggestion was even put to him during cross-examination. Both individuals were working abroad in the same Company and, as is evident from the testimony, shared a close personal rapport. Being from the same locality and working in proximity, it is entirely plausible that the 3rd accused, burdened by guilt or emotional turmoil following the commission of the offence, confided in PW34, a trusted friend. PW34 clearly stated in his deposition that the 3rd accused was lucid and voluntarily disclosed his involvement in the crime while they were having a conversation. Importantly, the statement of PW34 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate, lending further credibility to his version. Despite extensive cross-examination, no material contradiction or inconsistency could be elicited by the defence. Upon an overall assessment of evidence of PW34 in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, we find his testimony to be cogent, consistent, and worthy of credence. There appears to be no reason or motive for PW34 to fabricate a false narrative to implicate the 3rd accused. 33.11. Moreover, this is not a case where the prosecution's case rests solely on the extra-judicial confession. There appears to be no reason or motive for PW34 to fabricate a false narrative to implicate the 3rd accused. 33.11. Moreover, this is not a case where the prosecution's case rests solely on the extra-judicial confession. The said confession is buttressed by a chain of independent and corroborative circumstances established through reliable prosecution evidence. In our considered view, the extra-judicial confession made by the 3rd accused to PW34, read in conjunction with the other incriminating material on record, forms a strong and compelling link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the 3rd accused. Recovery of ID card of PW37, the mother of the 3rd accused, from Jewel House : 34. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the Electoral ID card of PW37, Devaki, the mother of accused No.3, from Jewel House, Hampankatta, Mangalore. PW17, Ibrahim Shameem, a salesman at the said jewellery shop, deposed that on 08.01.2018, the 1st accused visited the shop and handed over two Electoral ID cards, one belonging to himself and the other to PW37, Devaki. PW17 stated that during an earlier visit on 04.01.2018, the 1st accused had attempted to sell gold, but the shop refused to proceed with the transaction in the absence of proper identification. It was only upon returning on 08.01.2018 with the original ID cards that the transaction was completed. Copies of the IDs were taken, and the originals were returned. It is not disputed that PW37 is the mother of the 3rd accused. The prosecution contends that the use of her ID card in connection with the transaction involving the sale of stolen gold is yet another incriminating circumstance that points toward the complicity of the 3rd accused in the incident that occurred on 13.12.2017. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused submitted that the mere production of a photocopy of the ID card of the mother of the 3rd accused by the 1st accused does not constitute a reliable or cogent link implicating the 3rd accused in the offence and, standing alone, cannot be treated as a circumstance of probative value. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused submitted that the mere production of a photocopy of the ID card of the mother of the 3rd accused by the 1st accused does not constitute a reliable or cogent link implicating the 3rd accused in the offence and, standing alone, cannot be treated as a circumstance of probative value. While we are mindful that the recovery of an ID card per se may not conclusively establish the involvement of the 3rd accused, we are equally of the view that such a circumstance cannot be dismissed as trivial, particularly when it forms part of a larger chain of incriminating facts. The fact that the ID card of the mother of the 3rd accused was used by the 1st accused to facilitate a transaction involving the sale of gold ornaments, which the prosecution alleges were robbed during the incident, assumes significance in light of other material evidence linking the 3rd accused to the crime. Circumstantial evidence- guiding principles: 35. Having considered the entire evidence insofar as it concerns accused Nos. 1 and 2, we find that the case rests on the direct evidence let in by PW1 and the various links of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. It is settled that the court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. It would be apposite to have a brief look at the precedents wherein the guiding principles have been reiterated. 35.1. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P , AIR 1952 SC 343 which is one of the earliest decisions on the subject, the Apex Court observed as under: “10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. … It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 35.2. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P , [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706] the Apex Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied: “(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 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 innoce nce.” 35.3. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established; (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. 35.4. In State of U.P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava , (1992) 2 SCC 86 it was pointed out by the Apex Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence, and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established, and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 35.5. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Another v. State of A.P , (2006) 10 SCC 172 the Apex Court, while reiterating the settled legal position, observed: “26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.” 35.6. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.” 35.6. Viewed cumulatively with the recoveries, forensic evidence, and extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the ID and other links discussed in detail above, we hold that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn have been fully established and the same is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. The chain of circumstances in this case is complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellants/ accused Nos. 1 and 3. The finding of guilt arrived by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 452, 392, 394, 302, 307, and 397 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC does not warrant any interference. Crl. A No. 358 of 2023 and Crl. A (V) No. 29 of 2022: 36. We shall now deal with the appeals filed by the State and the victim against the acquittal of the 2nd accused. Having evaluated the entire evidence, we find that there are a few circumstances projected by the prosecution linking the 2nd accused with the robbery and murder. 36.1. We have already concurred with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the oral evidence let in by PW1 cannot be relied upon to fix the identification of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in court based on their physical features or the clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence. 37. We shall now deal with the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to connect the 2nd accused. The purchase, concealment and recovery of MO2 series masks: 38. The prosecution asserts that on 05.02.2017, accused Nos. 1 and 2 attended a driving test and thereafter, they, along with PW35, travelled to Neeleswaram Junction in the car driven by the driving instructor. While they were waiting for the bus, the 1st accused went to “Binale Fancy” and purchased MO2 series masks and a roll of tape. We have already discussed the evidence of PW35 and have concluded that no reliance can be placed on the same. 38.1. While they were waiting for the bus, the 1st accused went to “Binale Fancy” and purchased MO2 series masks and a roll of tape. We have already discussed the evidence of PW35 and have concluded that no reliance can be placed on the same. 38.1. The next piece of evidence projected by the prosecution to link the 2nd accused with the crime is the recovery of the MO2 series masks, allegedly worn by the accused during the commission of the robbery and murder. PW94, the Investigating Officer, deposed that during custodial interrogation, the 2nd accused made a disclosure that the masks had been concealed in the Kottaram building, and he offered to point out the place of concealment. Acting on this information, the police party, led by the 2nd accused, proceeded to the said building. The 2nd accused is stated to have climbed the wall on the rear side of the structure and retrieved three masks that were concealed above the ceiling, and handed them over to PW94. The disclosure statement was marked as Ext.P162, and the recovery was recorded under Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. PW30, who was present at the time of recovery, corroborated this version, and PW7 was examined to lend further credence to the events narrated by PW30. Both PW7 and PW30 identified the 2nd accused in court as the individual who retrieved the masks from the ceiling of the Kottaram building and produced them before the police. While the recovery of the MO2 series masks at the instance of the 2nd accused stands proven beyond doubt, the evidentiary value of this recovery must be viewed in light of the other evidence with regard to MO2 series masks. We have already found that the prosecution has failed to establish, with reliable evidence, that the 1st accused had purchased these specific masks from "Binale Fancy" on 05.12.2017, or that the 2nd accused had accompanied him at the time. Likewise, the alleged concealment of the masks prior to the incident in the paramba adjacent to the property of Gopi has also not been proved. In view of the fact that the prosecution has not been able to credibly establish the chain of custody of the MO2 series masks, specifically their origin, purchase, and initial concealment, the recovery of the masks alone, without these foundational facts being established, creates some doubt regarding their recovery at the instance of the 2nd accused. In view of the fact that the prosecution has not been able to credibly establish the chain of custody of the MO2 series masks, specifically their origin, purchase, and initial concealment, the recovery of the masks alone, without these foundational facts being established, creates some doubt regarding their recovery at the instance of the 2nd accused. The failure of the prosecution to prove the purchase and prior concealment of the masks by the 1st accused casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the recovery and its relevance to the crime. Accordingly, we are of the view that while the recovery of the MO2 series masks at the instance of the 2nd accused is factually established, it is, in isolation, insufficient to conclusively prove that the said masks were the ones purchased prior to the crime and actually used during its commission. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in Vinobhai v State of Kerala, [(2025 SCC OnLine SC 178)] has held that the disclosure statements and the recovery effected on its basis are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, has failed to prove this circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. 38.2. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution to link the 2nd accused with the offence is that, using the share of the proceeds, he purchased a mobile phone (MO28). According to the prosecution, the 2nd accused purchased an 'Honor' brand mobile phone online, and PW31 had taken the 2nd accused on his motorcycle to collect the phone from the Blue Dart courier office located at Perumba, Payyanur. PW31 deposed that the 2nd accused informed him in January 2018 that the mobile phone had arrived at the said courier office. PW31 further identified the mobile phone by its brand as MO28. To substantiate this allegation, the prosecution set up a chain of events involving PWs 68 and 65. It was alleged that the 2nd accused had approached PW68 in January 2018 and requested assistance in placing an online order for the phone. PW68, in turn, contacted PW65 to complete the purchase. PW68 transferred Rs. 7,000/- to PW65’s account, and subsequently, another Rs.1,000/- was also transferred at PW65’s request. PW65 then allegedly placed the order, and once the phone arrived at Blue Dart, the 2nd accused and PW31 went to collect it. PW68, in turn, contacted PW65 to complete the purchase. PW68 transferred Rs. 7,000/- to PW65’s account, and subsequently, another Rs.1,000/- was also transferred at PW65’s request. PW65 then allegedly placed the order, and once the phone arrived at Blue Dart, the 2nd accused and PW31 went to collect it. We find that both PW68 and PW65 testified in support of this version. However, during cross-examination, they admitted that the mobile phone had been ordered in the name and address of PW65. Crucially, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence explaining how a mobile phone booked under PW65’s name and address was received by the 2nd accused at the courier office. There is no documentation or independent witness to establish the delivery to the 2nd accused. Moreover, there is a complete absence of credible evidence to establish that the 2nd accused had, in fact, requested PW68 to arrange the purchase of the mobile phone on his behalf. No direct proof was adduced to show that the funds used for the purchase were derived from the proceeds of the robbery. In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish, through reliable evidence, that accused No.2 ordered the MO28 mobile phone after the incident using his alleged share of the loot. The prosecution has also failed to explain how the mobile phone, purchased under the name and address of PW65, came into the possession of the accused No.2. As such, this circumstance does not advance the case of the prosecution and is insufficient to link the 2nd accused to the crime. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence about the purchase of the mobile phone cannot be used to link the 2nd accused with the crime. 38.3. Though the prosecution attempted to bring in evidence that the weapon used for commission of the offence by the 2nd accused was thrown into the Tejaswini River and though an attempt was made to recover the same based on the disclosure statement given by the 2nd accused, no recovery could be effected. The same is the case with the torchlight allegedly robbed by the 2nd accused from the house of PW1. 38.4. The same is the case with the torchlight allegedly robbed by the 2nd accused from the house of PW1. 38.4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence and had come to the finding that there is no credible evidence to connect the 2nd accused with the case of robbery and murder committed in the house of PW1 on 13.12.2017. Furthermore, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the Appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. 38.5. In Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 it was held by the Apex Court as under: “The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal.” 38.6. Having considered the findings of the Trial Court insofar as it concerns the 2nd accused, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge had properly evaluated the evidence and ordered an acquittal. The findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be held to be perverse. 39. In view of the discussion above, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of guilt passed by the learned Sessions Judge as against accused Nos. 1 and 3. We find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the 2nd accused. Crl. A No. 124 of 2023 and Crl. A No. 1086 of 2022 are dismissed confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence against the 1st and 3rd accused. 1 and 3. We find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the 2nd accused. Crl. A No. 124 of 2023 and Crl. A No. 1086 of 2022 are dismissed confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence against the 1st and 3rd accused. Crl.A.No. 358 of 2023 and Crl. A.(V) No. 29 of 2022 are dismissed upholding the order of acquittal of the 2nd accused.