Mr. S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.84/2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvallur. He stood charged for offences under Sections 379 & 302 I.P.C. The trial Court by judgment dated 05.04.2016, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Murugammal. P.W.1 is her son. The deceased and P.W.1 were residing at Periyanatham Village in Tiruvallur District. The deceased used to go for grassing the cattle in a nearby field. Accordingly, on 04.12.2009, in the morning, she led the cattle to the nearby field at Thambureddypalayam Village. It was a mango grove. She was wearing gold nose stud with two koppus weighing about 11/2 sovereigns. Around 4.30 pm, when she was alone, it was alleged that the accused strangulated the deceased and killed her by using a rope as a ligature. Then he removed the above stated gold jewels and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not seen by anyone.

3. P.W.1, the son of the deceased was informed about the lying of the dead body at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Gumudipoondi Police Station on 04.12.2009 at 6.00 pm and made a complaint (Ex.P.1). Based on the same, a case in Crime No.795/2009 was registered for offences under Sections 302 & 379 I.P.C.

4. P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch and then forwarded the dead body for post mortem.

5. One Dr. Thilagavathy (who was examined as C.W.1 by this Court) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and she has opined that the death was due to ligature strangulation. P.W.17 during the course of investigation, made an arrangement for a Police sniffer dog. Accordingly, the sniffer dog has brought to the place of occurrence. But, it did not bring out any clue. P.W.17 however, could not get any breakthrough. The investigation was taken over by his successor (P.W.18) on 16.12.2009.

6. On 04.12.2009, P.W.18 arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses. While in custody, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had pledged the jewels of the deceased in the name of one Mr. Anandan. In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to the shop of P.Ws.13 & 14 from where, the stolen properties were recovered.

7. On returning to the Police Station, P.W.18 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to Court. On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

8. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as against the appellant as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. The appellant/accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects.

9. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the son of the deceased has stated that the deceased left for the mango grove taking the cattle for grassing on 04.12.2009, in the morning, but, she did not return. He has further stated about the missing of the gold jewels from the body of the deceased. He has stated about the complaint made by him to the Police. P.W.2 a Villager has also stated about the same facts as spoken by P.W.1. P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of observation