ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant Babbu was convicted by a Magistrate First class, Rampur, of an offence u/s 392 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Rampur. Hence this revision. 2. The facts of the case in short are as follows: One Sri Sheo Dutt Dwivedi (PW 1) was going to the railway station Rampur on 24-12-1964 at about 9.30 p.m. when four unknown persons surrounded him on the public road and robbed him of his belongings by show of force and decamped with the booty. Sri Dwivedi lodged a report at police station, Civil Lines, Rampur, immediately thereafter in which he gave a list of his stolen property. The Applicant was arrested by some villagers and brought to the police station on 30-12-1964. On interrogation he offered to point out the spot and hand over the property stolen from Sri Dwivedi. Accordingly he took the police party along with Mawasi and Shyam. Lal (PWs 2 and 3) to a place near Gandhi Samadhi which was covered by bushes and took out certain items of property which were duly sealed at the spot. Later on they were put for identification and were identified by Sri Dwivedi as belonging to him. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that as the stolen property was recovered within six days of the commission of the robbery at the instance of the Applicant he must be held to be one of the robbers responsible for depriving Sri Dwivedi of his belongings. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that on the facts found established by the courts below the Applicant cannot be convicted for an offence u/s 392 IPC as there is no evidence to show that he was one of the four persons who are alleged to have robbed the victim. It is urged that Sri Dwivedi had nowhere stated to have identified the Applicant at the time of the occurrence as one of those four robbers. It is urged further that as the stolen property was recovered from an open place the Applicant cannot be held to be in possession of the same and therefore, no presumption could be drawn against him u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. It is urged further that as the stolen property was recovered from an open place the Applicant cannot be held to be in possession of the same and therefore, no presumption could be drawn against him u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trimbak Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 . 4. Trimbak's case (supra) is, however, distinguishable on facts. There the property was recovered from an open field belonging to another person which was accessible to all and sundry and therefore, it was held that the fact of recovery by the accused was compatible with the circumstance of somebody else having placed the articles there and of the accused somehow acquiring knowledge about it. From the report of the case it is not clear as to how many days after the commission of the dacoity the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused. In the instant case the property was recovered at the instance of the Applicant only six days after the commission of the robbery from an uninhabited place near Gandhi Samadhi which was covered with shrubs and bushes. I am, therefore, of opinion that provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act are attracted to the facts of the case and one of the two inferences deducible under the aforesaid section which is less onerous to the Applicant namely that he has received the stolen goods knowing them to be stolen can be reasonably drawn against him. 5. It is true that there being no direct evidence connecting the Applicant with the robbery his conviction u/s 392 IPC on the sole basis of recovery of stolen property at his instance cannot be sustained because, as I have stated above, it is well settled that where two presumptions are deducible against an accused under the law one which is less onerous is to be drawn against him. 6. Accordingly this revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the Applicant u/s 392 IPC and the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him thereunder by the trial court are set aside. Instead he is convicted for an offence u/s 411 IPC for having dishonestly received or retained the stolen property and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly this revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the Applicant u/s 392 IPC and the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him thereunder by the trial court are set aside. Instead he is convicted for an offence u/s 411 IPC for having dishonestly received or retained the stolen property and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The Applicant who is on bail should surrender to his bail bonds which stand cancelled.