Madhavan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/849055
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnNov-09-2009
Case NumberCrl. A. No. 2055 of 2005
Judge Balakrishnan Nair and; P. Bhavadasan, JJ.
ActsEvidence Act - Sections 27 and 114; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302, 397, 411 and 449; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 232 and 313
AppellantMadhavan @ Rajan
RespondentState of Kerala
Appellant Advocate Sangeetha Lakshmana, Adv.
Respondent AdvocatePublic Prosecutor
Cases ReferredBaiju v. State of M.P.. It
Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]p. bhavadasan, j.1. five persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 449, 302, 397 and 411 read with section 34 indian penal code. among them, accused nos. 1 to 4 were found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 449, 397 and 302 read with section 34 ipc and they were convicted for the said offences. accused no. 5 was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 411 ipc and he was convicted for the same. accused nos. 1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. they were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under section 397 ipc. they were again sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under section 449 ipc. fifth accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 411 ipc. the sentences awarded to accused nos. 1 to 4 were directed to run concurrently. set off as per law was allowed.2. the prosecution unfolds the story thus:rafeeka umma, aged 70 years, the grand mother of p.w.1 was staying alone in a house situated in mayyanadu panchayat. p.w.1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. on 19.7.2002, as usual he left his house with the autorickshaw. he returned by 10 p.m. after supper, he went to sleep. in the early morning of 20.7.2002, by about 8 a.m., his mother went to the house of rafeeka umma and returned soon. she woke him up. p.w.1 was informed that rafeeka umma was lying dead in her house. when p.w.1 went to the house, he found the rear door of the house broken open and the lady was lying on her bed with clothes thrown on her body. he found that the ornaments which were usually worn by the deceased were missing. he found that the articles in the house were thrown around. he found the doors of the almirah broken. rafeeka umma had six children, five male and one female. her sons are employed abroad and daughter is already married off. soon the news spread in the locality and people gathered at the place. p.w.1 went to kottiyam police station and furnished ext.p1 first information statement. c.w.21 recorded ext.p1 first information statement given by p.w.1 and registered ext.p1(a) first information report. p.w.13 took over investigation. he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared ext.p9 report. he prepared ext.p10 scene mahazar and recorded the statements of witnesses. he apprehended the first accused during investigation in another crime, namely crime no. 503 of 2002 of kottiym police station. it was then revealed that he along with accused nos. 2 to 4 had committed the offences involved in the present case. after obtaining the necessary orders from court, his arrest was recorded and his custody was obtained. based on the confession statement, namely, ext.p11(a), as per ext.p11 mahazar m.os. 3 and 4 were recovered from accused no. 5. on 12.9.2002 at about 6.10 p.m. accused nos. 2 to 4 were arrested. on the basis of ext.p12(a) confession statement said to have been made by accused no. 3, m.os. 1 and 2 were recovered from the possession of accused no. 5 as per ext.p12 mahazar. the ornaments were got weighed by p.w.9. he got the recovered ornaments identified by the witness. he recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the investigation and laid charge before court.3. jfcm-ii, kollam, before whom final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences. on summons issued to the accused, they entered appearance before the said court. the learned magistrate found that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of sessions. after completing the necessary formalities, he therefore committed the case to sessions court, kollam. the said court made over the case to ist additional sessions court, kollam for trial and disposal.4. the latter court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused and they entered appearance. after hearing both sides, charges were framed for the offences punishable under sections 449, 397, 302, and 411 read with section 34 ipc. to the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. prosecution therefore had p.ws. 1 to 13 examined exts.p1 to p13 marked. m.os. 1 to 4 were got identified and marked. after the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under section 313 of the criminal procedure code. they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them and maintained that they were innocent. presumably finding that the accused could not be acquitted under section 232 cr.p.c., they were asked to enter on their defence. they chose to adduce no evidence. after hearing both sides, the court below found that the case against accused nos. 1 to 4 of having committed offences punishable under sections 449, 302 and 397 read with section 34 ipc were established. as far as accused no. 5, offence punishable under section 411 was made out. accordingly, conviction and sentences as already stated followed.5. crl. appeal no. 1673 of 2005 is filed by the fifth accused. crl. appeal no. 118 of 2007 is filed by accused nos. 2 and 4. crl. appeal no. 2055 of 2005 is filed by the first accused and crl. appeal no. 1131 of 2006 is fled by the third accused. the respective conviction and sentences are assailed in these appeals.6. the question that arises for consideration is whether the court below has erred in law or on facts in coming to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the respective offences alleged against them.7. the evidence clearly shows that refeeka umma was residing all alone in the house. the fact that rafeeka umma is no more is not in dispute. ext.p2 is the postmortem certificate prepared by p.w.4, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. the said document shows that there were injuries on the body of the deceased showing that ornaments had been forcibly removed from her body. the cause of death was throttling. the inquest report ext.p9 also shows the injuries found on the body of the deceased. a perusal of these documents and the evidence of p.ws. 4 and 13 clearly show that the death of rafeeka umma was homicidal.8. the question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was accused nos. 1 to 4, who had committed robbery after causing the death of rafeeka umma.9. the main items of evidence are furnished by p.ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7. p.w.1 says about what he had seen when he went to the house of rafeeka umma on coming to know about her death. p.w.2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. p.w.3 is a neighbour, who is an advocate by profession. p.w.6 is the maid servant of p.w.3. the evidence of p.w.7 does not fully support the prosecution case. p.w.17 is the investigating officer, who gave the details of the investigation conducted by him and the manner in which he detected the accused.10. learned counsel appearing for the appellants in crl. appeal nos. 2055 of 2005, 118 of 2007 and 1131 of 2006, namely, accused nos. 1 to 4, contended that there are absolutely no evidence against these accused persons to hold them guilty. attention of this court was drawn to the fact that the court below had relied on the recovery alleged to have been made by the investigating officer based on the confession statements said to have been given by accused nos. 1 and 3. so also the court below placed considerable reliance on the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 6 to come to the conclusion that it was accused nos. 1 to 4, who had committed the offences. learned counsel pointed out that the independent witnesses, who were examined to prove the recovery have turned hostile to the prosecution, and therefore there was no acceptable evidence for the recovery, except that of the investigating officer. that, according to learned counsel, is insufficient. they also denied the identification of the accused made by p.ws. 3 and 6 and pointed out that it is highly improbable that they could have noticed the accused persons as claimed by them. emphasize was laid on the fact that no identification parade had been conducted and that should prove fatal to the prosecution case.11. learned public prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the court below has considered the evidence in detail and had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused persons. according to learned public prosecutor, merely because the independent witnesses turned hostile, that by itself is not a ground to reject the evidence regarding recovery of gold ornaments based on the confession statement said to have been given by accused nos. 1 and 3. there is nothing to show that p.ws. 3 and 6 were speaking falsehood and there is no reason to reject their evidence at all. they had no ill-motive or oblique intention to falsely implicate the accused. their evidence is convincing enough to show that it was the accused who had committed the gruesome act. it was also pointed out that accused no. 5 is a habitual recipient of of stolen goods and he deserves no sympathy at all. according to learned public prosecutor there is no merit in any of the appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.12. p.w.1, who is an autorickshaw driver by profession is none other than the grandson of the deceased. he resides nearby. he leaves early morning and come late in the night. he would state that the deceased was staying alone in the tarawad house and some of her close relatives are residing nearby. the youngest son of rafeeka umma was at the relevant time employed in middle east. according to him, on 20.7.2002 he was woken up by his mother and informed that rafeeka umma was found lying dead in her house. he went to the place and found that rafeeka umma lying on the cot dead. he also found that her ornaments were missing and all the articles in the house were thrown around. he then realised that the motive of the act was robbery. he had laid ext.p1 first information statement. he was able to identify the gold ornaments namely m.os. 1 to 4 seized by p.w.13.13. p.w.2, the daughter in law of the deceased identified m.os. 1 to 4 as the ornaments worn by the deceased. she came to know on 20.7.2002 morning that her mother-in-law was found lying dead in the house. she also came to know that the ornaments worn by rafeeka umma was found missing. she went to the house and found that the almirah had been broke open and things were thrown around. she also identified m.os. 1 to 4 as the gold ornaments belonged to rafeeka umma.14. p.w.3 is the witness, on whose evidence considerable reliance has been placed by the court below. he is an advocate by profession and he is the neighbour of the deceased lady. this witness would depose that kallada irrigation project canal passes along his property and rafeeka umma. the plots lie contiguously without any separating boundaries. he says that on 19.7.2002 unusually he was late to go to court due to some unavoidable circumstances. usually he leaves his house by about 9 - 9.30 a.m.. on 19.7.2002 he left by 10.30 - 11 a.m.. he claims that on that day he had seen four persons moving around the area under suspicious circumstances. one of them was carrying an equipment for sharpening the knife. they talked in tamil. they were found near the house of rafeeka umma. he also gave description of the physical features of some of the persons to the police. he deposed before court that accused were shown to him by the investigating officer and he had identified them. in court also he was able to identify them, though he was unable to mention their names.15. p.w.6 is the maid servant of p.w.3. she was looking after the infant child of p.w.3. she deposed that rafeeka umma was in the habit of wearing gold ornaments daily. she too would depose that her daughter-in-law and others were living nearby. she deposed that she came to know of the incident on 20.7.2002 and had gone to the house of the deceased. she says that she found that the gold usually worn by the deceased were missing. she deposed before court that on the previous day of the incident, she had seen three persons wearing lunki and shirt in the courtyard of the house of the deceased. she saw them while she was standing outside the house of p.w.3 and trying to pluck jack fruit from the jack fruit tree. she described the features of one of the accused. she was also successful in identifying the accused before court.16. p.w.7 is another neighbour of the deceased. he would depose that he came to know of the death of rafeeka umma on 20.7.2002 morning and he went to the house to see the body of rafeeka umma. he found that clothes were thrown on her body and her ornaments were found missing. he too deposed that on the previous day he had occasion to see four persons wandering about talking in tamil near the house of rafeeka umma. in fact according to his evidence, one of the accused persons was sitting in the compound of rafeeka umma. he however was unable to identify the accused before court. therefore it could be seen that his evidence is not entirely in favour of the prosecution. however, his evidence can be accepted to the extent that four persons were seen there on the previous day of the incident and also that p.w.7 noticed that rafeeka uumma had lost her gold ornaments.17. the criticism levelled against the identification made by p.ws. 3 and 6 is without justification. both of them have stated that their attention was attracted by the presence of strangers near the compound of rafeeka umma. one must remember that being a village area, such things are easily noticed. in fact p.w. 3 would go to say that one of them had infact entered the compound of rafeeka umma. though p.w.7 betrayed the prosecution to certain extent, his evidence would show that the accused persons had visited the place on the previous day, that is on 19.7.2002 and were moving in suspicious circumstances.18. true, it would have been ideal if the investigating officer had conducted identification parade. but absence of the same is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. it is also true that the accused were total strangers to p.ws.3, 6 and also p.w.7. usually their identification in court is viewed with suspicion. however, the evidence clearly show that these accused persons were in and around the house of rafeeka umma for quite sometime and that shows that p.ws.3, 6 and 7 had sufficient time to note their features. it is significant to notice that p.w.3 had not identified the accused persons in court by their names.19. it is well settled that it is the identification in court which constitute substantive evidence. the identification parade that is usually insisted during investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction. may be that it provides some corroboration to the identification in court. but when the witnesses have had the opportunity to note the features of the persons concerned, it is irrelevant whether an identification parade was conducted. therefore the plea based on identification parade has no justification.20. it was contended with much vehemence that the recovery of m.os. 1 to 4 have not been established. it is pointed out that the court below had placed considerable reliance on the recovery of the gold ornaments said to have been effected on the basis of the confession statement said to have been made by accused nos. 1 and 4. the reliance placed by the court below on the evidence of the investigating officer alone to justify the recovery is not sustainable in law.21. we are afraid that the above contention cannot be accepted. it cannot be in dispute that rafeeka umma, the deceased had been wearing gold ornaments and they were found missing soon after her death. according to the prosecution, based on ext.p11(a) confession statement said to have been given by the first accused, m.os. 3 and 4 were recovered from the possession of accused no. 5 as per ext.p11 mahazar. it is true that the independent witnesses examined to prove the case turned hostile to the prosecution. likewise, m.os. 1 and 2 are said to have been recovered as per ext.p12 mahazar based on ext.p12(a) confession statement said to have been given by the third accused. in this case also the independent witnesses examined to prove the recovery turned hostile. but when we refer to the evidence of p.w.13, who is the investigating officer, it can be seen that he had spoken in detail regarding the recoveries effected by him.22. a perusal of exts. p11(a) and p12(a) would show that they contained authorship of concealment. the evidence of p.w.13, the investigating officer, as already mentioned, says that it was the respective accused, who led them to the shop of accused no. 5, to whom the ornaments were said to be sold. it is interesting to note that accused no. 5 did not have a case that he did not receive the gold ornaments from accused nos. 1 and 3. he in fact admitted that he had purchased gold ornaments from the accused persons and stated that he had kept those ornaments in his house. the investigating officer along with the accused and accused no. 5 went to the house of accused no. 5 and recovered m.os. 1 to 4.23. if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that unless there is independent evidence regarding the recovery, recoveries made has no legal value is to be accepted, then certainly in all cases the prosecution would be in peril. obviously the evidence regarding recovery cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the independent witnesses. it is not unusual in almost all cases the socalled independent witnesses to the recovery betray the prosecution. in all such cases the evidence is to be rejected, it will result in disastrous consequences.24. there is no justification for the contention that the recovery cannot be proved solely based on the evidence of the investigating officer. there is no rule of law that the evidence of the investigating officer cannot be accepted. it is also not the law that one begins by looking at the evidence of the investigating officer with suspicion. he is as good as any other witness, though it may be said that he may be interested in the prosecution. but that by itself is not a ground to discard his evidence. in fact this aspect had come up for consideration in a number of cases.25. in the decision reported in nathusingh v. state of m.p. : air 1973 sc 2783, it was held as follows:the mere fact that they are police officers was not enough to discard their evidence. no reason was shown for their hostility to the appellant.26. in the decision reported in ignatious @ jolly v. state 1992 (2) klj 952 it was held as follows:that evidence of the investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence, as has been held by the supreme court in state of kerala v. m.m. mathew : air 1978 sc 1571. a division bench of this court in kadavanathil baby v. state : 1983 cri.l.j. 1186 also took the view that the evidence of investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence. in the instant case, recovery of the weapons are spoken to by the independent witnesses as well. therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the recovery of m.o. 1 and m.o. 4 on the basis of the information given by accused 2 and 3 respectively. we further hold that second accused used m.o.1 and third accused m.o. 4 for attacking the victim. the weapon used by the first accused is m.o. 2.27. in the decision reported in sathi v. state of kerala 2007 (1) k.l.t. sn 57 it was held as follows:if the testimony of the detecting officer is credible and free from blemishes, the same can be accepted in proof of the arrest, search and seizure notwithstanding the unfriendly attitude shown by the independent witnesses to the mahazar.28. it has already been stated that the statement, based on which recoveries have been made by the investigating officer do reveal authorship of concealment. the respective accused persons, namely accused nos. 1 and 3 had led the police officers to accused no. 5, to whom they had sold the gold ornaments. accused no. 5 accepted that he had bought the gold ornaments and handed over the gold ornaments to the police officer. therefore, (i) authorship of concealment, (ii) factum of concealment and (iii) place of concealment are established. if that be so, the respective statements given by accused nos. 1 and 3 squarely fall within the ambit of section 27 of the indian evidence act and that forms an important item of evidence. in the decision reported in s.c. bahari v. state of bihar : air 1994 sc 2420 it was held as follows:the two essential requirements for the application of section 27 of the evidence act are that (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence, and (2) he must also be in police custody. in the present case it cannot be disputed that although the essential requirements existed on the day when gurbanchan singh led p.w. 59 and others to the hillock where according to him he had thrown the dead body of urshia but instead of the dead body the articles by which her body was wrapped were found. the provisions of section 27 of the evidence act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. in the present case as discussed above the confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant gurbachan singh is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles as said above and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence.in the light of the facts stated above, we are afraid that two decisions mentioned above and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of the present case and do not advance the case of the appellants challenging the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles discussed above. in nari santa (air 1945 patna 161) the accused of that case was charged for the theft and it is said that in the course of investigating the accused produced certain articles and thereafter made a confessional statement and it was in these facts and circumstances it was held that there was no disclosure statement within the meaning of section 27 as the confessional statement was made only when the articles were already discovered having been produced by the accused. similarly the decision rendered in abdul sattar (air 1986 sc 1438) also does not help the appellants in the present case. in the case of abdul sattar recovery of wearing apparels of the deceased is said to have been made at the instance of the accused of that case more than three weeks after the occurrence from a public place accessible to the people of the locality and therefore, no reliance was placed on the disclosure statement and recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased. but in the present case it was soon after the arrest of appellant girbachan singh that he took the police officer while in custody to the place where according to him he had thrown the dead body of urshia wrapped by the incriminating articles. those articles were not found lying on the surface of the ground but they were found after unearthing khudgraha dumping ground under the hillock. those articles were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground. they were discovered only after the place was pointed out and it was unearthed by the labourers. no default therefore could be found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles.29. at the risk of repetition, one may say that the evidence of the investigating officer regarding the recovery is a substantive piece of evidence and there is no rule that his evidence needs to be corroborated before it can be accepted. it is well settled that corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. the court below was therefore fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the recoveries made on the basis of the confessional statements by accused nos. 1 and 3 have been properly effected. no interference is called for with the said finding.30. p.ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have identified the gold ornaments recovered by p.w.13 as those which belonged to rafeeka umma. there is no reason to disbelieve them. the next question that arises for consideration is whether the accused can be held liable for the murder of rafeeka umma.31. the evidence discloses that the recoveries were made within two months of the incident. the evidence would also show that accused nos. 1 and 3 had sold the gold ornaments to accused no. 5 almost soon after the incident. that means that accused nos. 1 and 3 were in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to rafeeka umma almost soon after the death of rafeeka umma. going by section 114 of the indian evidence act the court may presume that since accused nos. 1 and 3 were found to be in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to rafeeka umma, they were responsible for causing the death of refeeka umma. it is for them to prove as to how they came into possession of those gold ornaments. going by illustration (a) to section 114 of the indian evidence act, the presumption is limited to the extent of finding that the persons concerned had committed the theft or received the articles knowing them to be stolen properties. strictly speaking, in the case on hand the question is whether a presumption can be drawn that the persons concerned have caused the death of the victim. this aspect is taken in by the main portion of the provision of section 114 of the act, and it is possible for the court to draw the presumption that if the accused are in possession of m.os. 1 to 4 soon after the incident, presumption can be drawn that they may be responsible for causing the death of that person.32. one may remember that the delay in locating the accused persons will have to be taken into consideration while considering the above aspects. the issue as to whether they were found to be in possession of the stolen articles soon after the death as contemplated under section 114 of the act will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. there is no fixed formula to ascertain as to what one means by 'soon after'.33. in limbaji v. state of maharashtra 2001(8) supreme 722, it was held as follows:in the light of the above discussion, in the instant case, the presumption under section 114 illustration (a) could be safely drawn and the circumstance of recovery of the incriminating articles within a reasonable time after the incident at the places shown by the accused unerringly points to the involvement of the accused. be it noted that the appellants who were in a position to explain as to how they could lay their hands on the stolen articles or how they had the knowledge of concealment of the stolen property, did nothing to explain: on the other hand, they denied knowledge of recoveries which in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution must be considered to be false. by omitting to explain, it must be inferred that either they intended to suppress the truth or invited the risk of presumption being drawn. thus, the presumption as to the commission of offence envisaged by illustration (a) of section 114 is the minimum that could be drawn and that is what the trial court did.34. in the decision reported in sanjay v. state (nct of delhi) : (2001) 3 scc 190 it was held as follows:in the instant case also, the disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the properly of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. to the same effect are the judgments in mukund v. state of m.p. and ronny v. state of maharashtra. in the latter case the court held: apropos the recovery of articles belonging to the ohol family from the possession of the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of the deceased (mr. mohan ohol, mrs. ruhi ohol and mr. rohan ohol) which possession has remained unexplained by the appellants, the presumption under illustration (a) of section 114 of the evidence act will be attracted. it needs no discussion to conclude that the murder and the robbery of the articles were found to be part of the same transaction. the irresistible conclusion would, therefore, be that the appellants and no one else had committed the three murders and the robbery. 35. in the decision reported in george v. state of kerala : (2002) 4 scc 475, it was held as follows:so far as the conviction of the appellant under section 302 ipc is concerned, the high court has placed reliance upon a decision reported in baiju v. state of m.p.. it has been held in this case that where the prosecution succeeds in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murder and the robbery form part of one transaction and recent and unexplained possession of stolen property by the accused-appellant, it could also be presumed that the appellant and none else would be liable for committing the murder also.36. as could be seen from the evidence, which has already been discussed, that accused nos. 1 and 3 were in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to rafeeka umma soon after her death and if that be so, it is for them to explain as to how they came into possession of the gold ornaments. we may here recall that there are injuries on the body of rafeeka umma, which show that the ornaments were taken forcibly from her. it is therefore clear that presumption under section 114 can be drawn against accused nos. 1 and 3.37. as far as accused nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, the case stand on a different footing. they have been found liable on the basis of the identification made by p.ws.3 and 6. one may recall that the evidence of p.ws.3 and 6 are to the effect that they had seen four persons on the previous day near the house of rafeeka umma. there is absolutely no evidence to show that they were in possession of any of the ornaments of rafeeka umma or that they received a share of the sale proceeds of the gold ornaments sold by accused nos. 1 and 3 to accused no. 5. we feel that the evidence available is insufficient to fasten the liability on these accused persons. except for the fact that they were seen near the house of rafeeka umma on the previous day, there is absolutely no evidence to show that they had any role to play either in the robbery or in the murder of rafeeka umma. it will be improper to fasten liability on them merely on the basis that they were seen in the company of accused nos. 1 and 3 on the previous date. we are unable to accept the finding of the court below in this regard.38. as far as accused no. 5 is concerned, the evidence clearly show that he is a habitual recipient of stolen gold ornaments. the charge against him is one under section 411 ipc. the evidence of p.w.13 along with recovery evidence, exts. p11 and p12, that is m.os. 1 to 4, clearly show that he had purchased the gold ornaments from accused nos. 1 and 3. in fact p.w. 9, the person who is said to have weighed the gold ornaments has stated in court that accused no. 5 is involved in several cases falling within the ambit of section 411 ipc. it is clear from the evidence that he is the person, who is a habitual recipient of stolen gold ornaments. his claim that he did not know that m.os. 1 to 4 were stolen articles cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence available in the case. there is nothing to show that the implication of accused no. 5 for the offence punishable under section 411 ipc was ill-motivated or misconceived. the evidence justifies the act of p.w.13 in doing so. the court below was therefore justified in coming to the conclusion that the offence punishable under section 411 ipc has been made against him.the result is that the finding of the court below as regards accused nos. 1 and 3 and the finding of the court below that they have committed the offences punishable under sections 449, 397 and 302 read with section 34 ipc stands confirmed. but we are unable to sustain the finding of the court below that accused nos. 2 and 4 are involved in the transaction. the finding of the court below that accused no. 5 is liable for the offence punishable under section 411 ipc is fully justified.in the result, the appeals are disposed of a follows:i. crl. appeal no. 1131 of 2006 filed by the third accused, crl. appeal no. 2055 of 2005 filed by the first accused and crl. appeal no. 1673 of 2005 filed by the fifth accused stand dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below.ii. crl. appeal no. 118 of 2007 filed by accused nos. 2 and 4 stands allowed. it is held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that these accused persons are guilty of the offences alleged against them. if that be so, they were entitled to be acquitted. accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them and it is directed that they shall be immediately set at liberty from detention made based on the judgement in sessions case no. 592 of 2004 before the sessions court, kollam (crime no. 446 of 2002 of kottiyam police station) unless wanted in any other case.
Judgment:

P. Bhavadasan, J.

1. Five persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 397 and 411 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Among them, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 397 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. Accused No. 5 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and he was convicted for the same. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of which, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. They were again sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of which, they have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC. Fifth accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The sentences awarded to Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to run concurrently. Set off as per law was allowed.

2. The prosecution unfolds the story thus:

Rafeeka Umma, aged 70 years, the grand mother of P.W.1 was staying alone in a house situated in Mayyanadu Panchayat. P.W.1 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. On 19.7.2002, as usual he left his house with the autorickshaw. He returned by 10 p.m. After supper, he went to sleep. In the early morning of 20.7.2002, by about 8 a.m., his mother went to the house of Rafeeka Umma and returned soon. She woke him up. P.W.1 was informed that Rafeeka Umma was lying dead in her house. When P.W.1 went to the house, he found the rear door of the house broken open and the lady was lying on her bed with clothes thrown on her body. He found that the ornaments which were usually worn by the deceased were missing. He found that the articles in the house were thrown around. He found the doors of the almirah broken. Rafeeka Umma had six children, five male and one female. Her sons are employed abroad and daughter is already married off. Soon the news spread in the locality and people gathered at the place. P.W.1 went to Kottiyam Police Station and furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement. C.W.21 recorded Ext.P1 first information statement given by P.W.1 and registered Ext.P1(a) First Information Report. P.W.13 took over investigation. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P9 report. He prepared Ext.P10 scene mahazar and recorded the statements of witnesses. He apprehended the first accused during investigation in another crime, namely Crime No. 503 of 2002 of Kottiym Police Station. It was then revealed that he along with accused Nos. 2 to 4 had committed the offences involved in the present case. After obtaining the necessary orders from court, his arrest was recorded and his custody was obtained. Based on the confession statement, namely, Ext.P11(a), as per Ext.P11 mahazar M.Os. 3 and 4 were recovered from accused No. 5. On 12.9.2002 at about 6.10 p.m. accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested. On the basis of Ext.P12(a) confession statement said to have been made by accused No. 3, M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered from the possession of accused No. 5 as per Ext.P12 mahazar. The ornaments were got weighed by P.W.9. He got the recovered ornaments identified by the witness. He recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the investigation and laid charge before court.

3. JFCM-II, Kollam, before whom final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences. On summons issued to the accused, they entered appearance before the said court. The learned Magistrate found that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. After completing the necessary formalities, he therefore committed the case to Sessions Court, Kollam. The said court made over the case to Ist Additional Sessions Court, Kollam for trial and disposal.

4. The latter court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused and they entered appearance. After hearing both sides, charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 397, 302, and 411 read with Section 34 IPC. To the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 13 examined Exts.P1 to P13 marked. M.Os. 1 to 4 were got identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them and maintained that they were innocent. Presumably finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence. They chose to adduce no evidence. After hearing both sides, the court below found that the case against accused Nos. 1 to 4 of having committed offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC were established. As far as accused No. 5, offence punishable under Section 411 was made out. Accordingly, conviction and sentences as already stated followed.

5. Crl. Appeal No. 1673 of 2005 is filed by the fifth accused. Crl. Appeal No. 118 of 2007 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4. Crl. Appeal No. 2055 of 2005 is filed by the first accused and Crl. Appeal No. 1131 of 2006 is fled by the third accused. The respective conviction and sentences are assailed in these appeals.

6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below has erred in law or on facts in coming to the conclusion that the accused were guilty of the respective offences alleged against them.

7. The evidence clearly shows that Refeeka Umma was residing all alone in the house. The fact that Rafeeka Umma is no more is not in dispute. Ext.P2 is the postmortem certificate prepared by P.W.4, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. The said document shows that there were injuries on the body of the deceased showing that ornaments had been forcibly removed from her body. The cause of death was throttling. The inquest report Ext.P9 also shows the injuries found on the body of the deceased. A perusal of these documents and the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 13 clearly show that the death of Rafeeka Umma was homicidal.

8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was accused Nos. 1 to 4, who had committed robbery after causing the death of Rafeeka Umma.

9. The main items of evidence are furnished by P.Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7. P.W.1 says about what he had seen when he went to the house of Rafeeka Umma on coming to know about her death. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 is a neighbour, who is an Advocate by profession. P.W.6 is the maid servant of P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.7 does not fully support the prosecution case. P.W.17 is the investigating officer, who gave the details of the investigation conducted by him and the manner in which he detected the accused.

10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. Appeal Nos. 2055 of 2005, 118 of 2007 and 1131 of 2006, namely, accused Nos. 1 to 4, contended that there are absolutely no evidence against these accused persons to hold them guilty. Attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the court below had relied on the recovery alleged to have been made by the investigating officer based on the confession statements said to have been given by accused Nos. 1 and 3. So also the court below placed considerable reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 to come to the conclusion that it was accused Nos. 1 to 4, who had committed the offences. Learned Counsel pointed out that the independent witnesses, who were examined to prove the recovery have turned hostile to the prosecution, and therefore there was no acceptable evidence for the recovery, except that of the investigating officer. That, according to learned Counsel, is insufficient. They also denied the identification of the accused made by P.Ws. 3 and 6 and pointed out that it is highly improbable that they could have noticed the accused persons as claimed by them. Emphasize was laid on the fact that no identification parade had been conducted and that should prove fatal to the prosecution case.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the court below has considered the evidence in detail and had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused persons. According to learned Public Prosecutor, merely because the independent witnesses turned hostile, that by itself is not a ground to reject the evidence regarding recovery of gold ornaments based on the confession statement said to have been given by accused Nos. 1 and 3. There is nothing to show that P.Ws. 3 and 6 were speaking falsehood and there is no reason to reject their evidence at all. They had no ill-motive or oblique intention to falsely implicate the accused. Their evidence is convincing enough to show that it was the accused who had committed the gruesome act. It was also pointed out that accused No. 5 is a habitual recipient of of stolen goods and he deserves no sympathy at all. According to learned Public Prosecutor there is no merit in any of the appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.

12. P.W.1, who is an autorickshaw driver by profession is none other than the grandson of the deceased. He resides nearby. He leaves early morning and come late in the night. He would state that the deceased was staying alone in the tarawad house and some of her close relatives are residing nearby. The youngest son of Rafeeka Umma was at the relevant time employed in Middle East. According to him, on 20.7.2002 he was woken up by his mother and informed that Rafeeka Umma was found lying dead in her house. He went to the place and found that Rafeeka Umma lying on the cot dead. He also found that her ornaments were missing and all the articles in the house were thrown around. He then realised that the motive of the act was robbery. He had laid Ext.P1 first information statement. He was able to identify the gold ornaments namely M.Os. 1 to 4 seized by P.W.13.

13. P.W.2, the daughter in law of the deceased identified M.Os. 1 to 4 as the ornaments worn by the deceased. She came to know on 20.7.2002 morning that her mother-in-law was found lying dead in the house. She also came to know that the ornaments worn by Rafeeka Umma was found missing. She went to the house and found that the almirah had been broke open and things were thrown around. She also identified M.Os. 1 to 4 as the gold ornaments belonged to Rafeeka Umma.

14. P.W.3 is the witness, on whose evidence considerable reliance has been placed by the court below. He is an Advocate by profession and he is the neighbour of the deceased lady. This witness would depose that Kallada Irrigation Project canal passes along his property and Rafeeka Umma. The plots lie contiguously without any separating boundaries. He says that on 19.7.2002 unusually he was late to go to court due to some unavoidable circumstances. Usually he leaves his house by about 9 - 9.30 a.m.. On 19.7.2002 he left by 10.30 - 11 a.m.. He claims that on that day he had seen four persons moving around the area under suspicious circumstances. One of them was carrying an equipment for sharpening the knife. They talked in Tamil. They were found near the house of Rafeeka Umma. He also gave description of the physical features of some of the persons to the police. He deposed before court that accused were shown to him by the investigating officer and he had identified them. In court also he was able to identify them, though he was unable to mention their names.

15. P.W.6 is the maid servant of P.W.3. She was looking after the infant child of P.W.3. She deposed that Rafeeka Umma was in the habit of wearing gold ornaments daily. She too would depose that her daughter-in-law and others were living nearby. She deposed that she came to know of the incident on 20.7.2002 and had gone to the house of the deceased. She says that she found that the gold usually worn by the deceased were missing. She deposed before court that on the previous day of the incident, she had seen three persons wearing Lunki and shirt in the courtyard of the house of the deceased. She saw them while she was standing outside the house of P.W.3 and trying to pluck jack fruit from the jack fruit tree. She described the features of one of the accused. She was also successful in identifying the accused before court.

16. P.W.7 is another neighbour of the deceased. He would depose that he came to know of the death of Rafeeka Umma on 20.7.2002 morning and he went to the house to see the body of Rafeeka Umma. He found that clothes were thrown on her body and her ornaments were found missing. He too deposed that on the previous day he had occasion to see four persons wandering about talking in Tamil near the house of Rafeeka Umma. In fact according to his evidence, one of the accused persons was sitting in the compound of Rafeeka Umma. He however was unable to identify the accused before court. Therefore it could be seen that his evidence is not entirely in favour of the prosecution. However, his evidence can be accepted to the extent that four persons were seen there on the previous day of the incident and also that P.W.7 noticed that Rafeeka Uumma had lost her gold ornaments.

17. The criticism levelled against the identification made by P.Ws. 3 and 6 is without justification. Both of them have stated that their attention was attracted by the presence of strangers near the compound of Rafeeka Umma. One must remember that being a village area, such things are easily noticed. In fact P.W. 3 would go to say that one of them had infact entered the compound of Rafeeka Umma. Though P.W.7 betrayed the prosecution to certain extent, his evidence would show that the accused persons had visited the place on the previous day, that is on 19.7.2002 and were moving in suspicious circumstances.

18. True, it would have been ideal if the investigating officer had conducted identification parade. But absence of the same is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. It is also true that the accused were total strangers to P.Ws.3, 6 and also P.W.7. Usually their identification in court is viewed with suspicion. However, the evidence clearly show that these accused persons were in and around the house of Rafeeka Umma for quite sometime and that shows that P.Ws.3, 6 and 7 had sufficient time to note their features. It is significant to notice that P.W.3 had not identified the accused persons in court by their names.

19. It is well settled that it is the identification in court which constitute substantive evidence. The identification parade that is usually insisted during investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction. May be that it provides some corroboration to the identification in court. But when the witnesses have had the opportunity to note the features of the persons concerned, it is irrelevant whether an identification parade was conducted. Therefore the plea based on identification parade has no justification.

20. It was contended with much vehemence that the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 4 have not been established. It is pointed out that the court below had placed considerable reliance on the recovery of the gold ornaments said to have been effected on the basis of the confession statement said to have been made by accused Nos. 1 and 4. The reliance placed by the court below on the evidence of the investigating officer alone to justify the recovery is not sustainable in law.

21. We are afraid that the above contention cannot be accepted. It cannot be in dispute that Rafeeka Umma, the deceased had been wearing gold ornaments and they were found missing soon after her death. According to the prosecution, based on Ext.P11(a) confession statement said to have been given by the first accused, M.Os. 3 and 4 were recovered from the possession of accused No. 5 as per Ext.P11 mahazar. It is true that the independent witnesses examined to prove the case turned hostile to the prosecution. Likewise, M.Os. 1 and 2 are said to have been recovered as per Ext.P12 mahazar based on Ext.P12(a) confession statement said to have been given by the third accused. In this case also the independent witnesses examined to prove the recovery turned hostile. But when we refer to the evidence of P.W.13, who is the investigating officer, it can be seen that he had spoken in detail regarding the recoveries effected by him.

22. A perusal of Exts. P11(a) and P12(a) would show that they contained authorship of concealment. The evidence of P.W.13, the investigating officer, as already mentioned, says that it was the respective accused, who led them to the shop of accused No. 5, to whom the ornaments were said to be sold. It is interesting to note that accused No. 5 did not have a case that he did not receive the gold ornaments from Accused Nos. 1 and 3. He in fact admitted that he had purchased gold ornaments from the accused persons and stated that he had kept those ornaments in his house. The investigating officer along with the accused and accused No. 5 went to the house of accused No. 5 and recovered M.Os. 1 to 4.

23. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that unless there is independent evidence regarding the recovery, recoveries made has no legal value is to be accepted, then certainly in all cases the prosecution would be in peril. Obviously the evidence regarding recovery cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the independent witnesses. It is not unusual in almost all cases the socalled independent witnesses to the recovery betray the prosecution. In all such cases the evidence is to be rejected, it will result in disastrous consequences.

24. There is no justification for the contention that the recovery cannot be proved solely based on the evidence of the investigating officer. There is no rule of law that the evidence of the investigating officer cannot be accepted. It is also not the law that one begins by looking at the evidence of the investigating officer with suspicion. He is as good as any other witness, though it may be said that he may be interested in the prosecution. But that by itself is not a ground to discard his evidence. In fact this aspect had come up for consideration in a number of cases.

25. In the decision reported in Nathusingh v. State of M.P. : AIR 1973 SC 2783, it was held as follows:

The mere fact that they are police officers was not enough to discard their evidence. No reason was shown for their hostility to the appellant.

26. In the decision reported in Ignatious @ Jolly v. State 1992 (2) KLJ 952 it was held as follows:

That evidence of the investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence, as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew : AIR 1978 SC 1571. A Division Bench of this Court in Kadavanathil Baby v. State : 1983 Cri.L.J. 1186 also took the view that the evidence of investigating officer can be acted upon even if not corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case, recovery of the weapons are spoken to by the independent witnesses as well. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the recovery of M.O. 1 and M.O. 4 on the basis of the information given by accused 2 and 3 respectively. We further hold that second accused used M.O.1 and third accused M.O. 4 for attacking the victim. The weapon used by the first accused is M.O. 2.

27. In the decision reported in Sathi v. State of Kerala 2007 (1) K.L.T. SN 57 it was held as follows:

If the testimony of the detecting officer is credible and free from blemishes, the same can be accepted in proof of the arrest, search and seizure notwithstanding the unfriendly attitude shown by the independent witnesses to the mahazar.

28. It has already been stated that the statement, based on which recoveries have been made by the investigating officer do reveal authorship of concealment. The respective accused persons, namely accused Nos. 1 and 3 had led the police officers to accused No. 5, to whom they had sold the gold ornaments. Accused No. 5 accepted that he had bought the gold ornaments and handed over the gold ornaments to the police officer. Therefore, (i) authorship of concealment, (ii) factum of concealment and (iii) place of concealment are established. If that be so, the respective statements given by accused Nos. 1 and 3 squarely fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and that forms an important item of evidence. In the decision reported in S.C. Bahari v. State of Bihar : AIR 1994 SC 2420 it was held as follows:

The two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence, and (2) he must also be in police custody. In the present case it cannot be disputed that although the essential requirements existed on the day when Gurbanchan Singh led P.W. 59 and others to the hillock where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia but instead of the dead body the articles by which her body was wrapped were found. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. In the present case as discussed above the confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant Gurbachan Singh is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles as said above and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence.

In the light of the facts stated above, we are afraid that two decisions mentioned above and relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of the present case and do not advance the case of the appellants challenging the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles discussed above. In Nari Santa (AIR 1945 Patna 161) the accused of that case was charged for the theft and it is said that in the course of investigating the accused produced certain articles and thereafter made a confessional statement and it was in these facts and circumstances it was held that there was no disclosure statement within the meaning of Section 27 as the confessional statement was made only when the articles were already discovered having been produced by the accused. Similarly the decision rendered in Abdul Sattar (AIR 1986 SC 1438) also does not help the appellants in the present case. In the case of Abdul Sattar recovery of wearing apparels of the deceased is said to have been made at the instance of the accused of that case more than three weeks after the occurrence from a public place accessible to the people of the locality and therefore, no reliance was placed on the disclosure statement and recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased. But in the present case it was soon after the arrest of appellant Girbachan Singh that he took the Police Officer while in custody to the place where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia wrapped by the incriminating articles. Those articles were not found lying on the surface of the ground but they were found after unearthing Khudgraha dumping ground under the hillock. Those articles were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground. They were discovered only after the place was pointed out and it was unearthed by the labourers. No default therefore could be found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles.

29. At the risk of repetition, one may say that the evidence of the investigating officer regarding the recovery is a substantive piece of evidence and there is no rule that his evidence needs to be corroborated before it can be accepted. It is well settled that corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. The court below was therefore fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the recoveries made on the basis of the confessional statements by accused Nos. 1 and 3 have been properly effected. No interference is called for with the said finding.

30. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 have identified the gold ornaments recovered by P.W.13 as those which belonged to Rafeeka Umma. There is no reason to disbelieve them. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the accused can be held liable for the murder of Rafeeka Umma.

31. The evidence discloses that the recoveries were made within two months of the incident. The evidence would also show that accused Nos. 1 and 3 had sold the gold ornaments to accused No. 5 almost soon after the incident. That means that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to Rafeeka Umma almost soon after the death of Rafeeka Umma. Going by Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the court may presume that since accused Nos. 1 and 3 were found to be in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to Rafeeka Umma, they were responsible for causing the death of Refeeka Umma. It is for them to prove as to how they came into possession of those gold ornaments. Going by Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the presumption is limited to the extent of finding that the persons concerned had committed the theft or received the articles knowing them to be stolen properties. Strictly speaking, in the case on hand the question is whether a presumption can be drawn that the persons concerned have caused the death of the victim. This aspect is taken in by the main portion of the provision of Section 114 of the Act, and it is possible for the court to draw the presumption that if the accused are in possession of M.Os. 1 to 4 soon after the incident, presumption can be drawn that they may be responsible for causing the death of that person.

32. One may remember that the delay in locating the accused persons will have to be taken into consideration while considering the above aspects. The issue as to whether they were found to be in possession of the stolen articles soon after the death as contemplated under Section 114 of the Act will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no fixed formula to ascertain as to what one means by 'soon after'.

33. In Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra 2001(8) Supreme 722, it was held as follows:

In the light of the above discussion, in the instant case, the presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) could be safely drawn and the circumstance of recovery of the incriminating articles within a reasonable time after the incident at the places shown by the accused unerringly points to the involvement of the accused. Be it noted that the appellants who were in a position to explain as to how they could lay their hands on the stolen articles or how they had the knowledge of concealment of the stolen property, did nothing to explain: on the other hand, they denied knowledge of recoveries which in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution must be considered to be false. By omitting to explain, it must be inferred that either they intended to suppress the truth or invited the risk of presumption being drawn. Thus, the presumption as to the commission of offence envisaged by illustration (a) of Section 114 is the minimum that could be drawn and that is what the trial court did.

34. In the decision reported in Sanjay v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2001) 3 SCC 190 it was held as follows:

In the instant case also, the disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of the commission of the offence and the properly of the deceased was recovered at their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the same day. To the same effect are the judgments in Mukund v. State of M.P. And Ronny v. State of Maharashtra. In the latter case the court held:

Apropos the recovery of articles belonging to the Ohol family from the possession of the appellants soon after the robbery and the murder of the deceased (Mr. Mohan Ohol, Mrs. Ruhi Ohol and Mr. Rohan Ohol) which possession has remained unexplained by the appellants, the presumption under Illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act will be attracted. It needs no discussion to conclude that the murder and the robbery of the articles were found to be part of the same transaction. The irresistible conclusion would, therefore, be that the appellants and no one else had committed the three murders and the robbery.

35. In the decision reported in George v. State of Kerala : (2002) 4 SCC 475, it was held as follows:

So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the High Court has placed reliance upon a decision reported in Baiju v. State of M.P.. It has been held in this case that where the prosecution succeeds in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murder and the robbery form part of one transaction and recent and unexplained possession of stolen property by the accused-appellant, it could also be presumed that the appellant and none else would be liable for committing the murder also.

36. As could be seen from the evidence, which has already been discussed, that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were in possession of the gold ornaments belonging to Rafeeka Umma soon after her death and if that be so, it is for them to explain as to how they came into possession of the gold ornaments. We may here recall that there are injuries on the body of Rafeeka Umma, which show that the ornaments were taken forcibly from her. It is therefore clear that presumption under Section 114 can be drawn against accused Nos. 1 and 3.

37. As far as accused Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, the case stand on a different footing. They have been found liable on the basis of the identification made by P.Ws.3 and 6. One may recall that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 are to the effect that they had seen four persons on the previous day near the house of Rafeeka Umma. There is absolutely no evidence to show that they were in possession of any of the ornaments of Rafeeka Umma or that they received a share of the sale proceeds of the gold ornaments sold by accused Nos. 1 and 3 to accused No. 5. We feel that the evidence available is insufficient to fasten the liability on these accused persons. Except for the fact that they were seen near the house of Rafeeka Umma on the previous day, there is absolutely no evidence to show that they had any role to play either in the robbery or in the murder of Rafeeka Umma. It will be improper to fasten liability on them merely on the basis that they were seen in the company of accused Nos. 1 and 3 on the previous date. We are unable to accept the finding of the court below in this regard.

38. As far as accused No. 5 is concerned, the evidence clearly show that he is a habitual recipient of stolen gold ornaments. The charge against him is one under Section 411 IPC. The evidence of P.W.13 along with recovery evidence, Exts. P11 and P12, that is M.Os. 1 to 4, clearly show that he had purchased the gold ornaments from accused Nos. 1 and 3. In fact P.W. 9, the person who is said to have weighed the gold ornaments has stated in court that accused No. 5 is involved in several cases falling within the ambit of Section 411 IPC. It is clear from the evidence that he is the person, who is a habitual recipient of stolen gold ornaments. His claim that he did not know that M.Os. 1 to 4 were stolen articles cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence available in the case. There is nothing to show that the implication of accused No. 5 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was ill-motivated or misconceived. The evidence justifies the act of P.W.13 in doing so. The court below was therefore justified in coming to the conclusion that the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC has been made against him.

The result is that the finding of the court below as regards accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the finding of the court below that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 449, 397 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC stands confirmed. But we are unable to sustain the finding of the court below that accused Nos. 2 and 4 are involved in the transaction. The finding of the court below that accused No. 5 is liable for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC is fully justified.

In the result, the appeals are disposed of a follows:

i. Crl. Appeal No. 1131 of 2006 filed by the third accused, Crl. Appeal No. 2055 of 2005 filed by the first accused and Crl. Appeal No. 1673 of 2005 filed by the fifth accused stand dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below.

ii. Crl. Appeal No. 118 of 2007 filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4 stands allowed. It is held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that these accused persons are guilty of the offences alleged against them. If that be so, they were entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them and it is directed that they shall be immediately set at liberty from detention made based on the judgement in Sessions Case No. 592 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Kollam (Crime No. 446 of 2002 of Kottiyam Police Station) unless wanted in any other case.