Judgment Santhosh, J.- The appellant before this Court was accused-3 in the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1968. He has been convicted of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted of an offence under section 392, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Along with the appellant, three other accused, A-1, A-2 and A-4 were tried in the same trial. A-1 and A-2 were charged with having committed an offence under section 414 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted them of this charge. A-4 was charged with having committed an offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code and the learned Sessions Judge has convicted him of the said charge and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. A-4 has not appealed against the said conviction and sentence passed on him. The charge against the appellant was that he along with the absconding accused Maruthi, on the night of 15th September, 1967, at Tilakwady, Belgaum, in the jewellary shop of P.W. 20 Raghupathy, committed the murder of the deceased Appayya, and also robbed jewellary and gold ornaments from the said shop and thereby committed offences under sections 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows: P.W. 20 Raghupathi was the owner of Sarafi shop on the Congress Road in Belgautn. He has been carrying on this business for the last 20 or 25 years. The deceased Appayya was the father-in-law of the absconding accused Maruthi. He was working under P.W. 20 as the night watchman. The deceased used to go every night at about 8 or 8-30 p.m. to the shop to perform the duties of the night watchman and return to his house the next morning at 7 or 7-30 a.m. On the night in question, i.e., 15th September, 1967, as usual the deceased had gone to the Sarafi shop for duty. As he did not return to the house next morning. P.W. 15 Lalitha his daughter sent her brother P.W. 19 Mahadev to find out why her father had not returned home. As he did not return to the house next morning. P.W. 15 Lalitha his daughter sent her brother P.W. 19 Mahadev to find out why her father had not returned home. P.W. 19 went to the shop and found that the door of the shop was slightly opened. He found his father lying there. When he called father there was no response and he got frightened. He went and reported the matter to P.W. 20 Raghupathi, the owner of the shop. P.W. 20 rushed to the shop and found that the deceased was lying dead in the shop. He thereafter got a phone message sent to the Belgaun Police Station. P.W. 21, Sub-Inspector of Police, Linganaiah, who got the phone message, made entries of the same in the Station Diary and after sending a message to his superior, Inspector [Shaikh, went to the scene of occurrence. When he reached the shop, P.W. 31, Inspector Shaikh, also came there. When the Police Officers went into the shop, they found M.O. 1, a pair of sandals and M.O. 2, an iron bar near the dead body. They also found that the locks of the show cases had been broken open and jewellery stolen from the shop. The Inspector of Police got a complaint from P.W. 20 and sent the same for registration. The complaint is marked as Exhibit P-25 in the case. Thereafter the Inspector held an inquest over the dead body of Appayya. He also prepared a panchanama of the scene of occurrence and seized the articles therein. The Inspector of Police noticed that there were some chance finger prints on the frames of the show cases and also on the plastic case, M.O. 3 found in the shop He got these finger prints developed by P.W. 28, Head Constable Mutalik, who had the necessary training in the matter. There after the Inspector got Exhibit P-26, a list of articles, stolen from his shops from P.W. 20. The Inspector also records the statements of P.Ws. 1, 15 and 20 and some others. For some time, in spite of best efforts of the Police, they were not able to get any clue with regard to the crime. The Inspector searched the houses of some of the suspected persons and nothing incriminating was found. The Inspector also records the statements of P.Ws. 1, 15 and 20 and some others. For some time, in spite of best efforts of the Police, they were not able to get any clue with regard to the crime. The Inspector searched the houses of some of the suspected persons and nothing incriminating was found. During the course of the investigation, the Inspector came to know from P.W. 13, Kusha Bai, that the absconding accused Maruthi and A-1 and A-2 tried to sell some jewels to her. Thereafter the accused 1 and 2 were traced and arrested by the police. After interrogation of these accused, A-1 and A-2, the Inspector tried to trace the appellant — accused-3. He deputed P.W. 29, Head Constable Narayan to trace him. P.W. 29 arrested the appellant and produced him before the Inspector on 7th October, 1967. The Inspector obtained the finger prints of the appellant as per Exhibit P-6-A and 6-B under Panchanama Exhibit P-6. The Inspector also made the appellant wear the pair of sandals, M.O. 1 found at the scene in the presence of panch witnesses under panchanama Exhibit P-4 and M.O. 1 fitted the appellant. After interrogation by the Inspector, the appellant took him and pointed out the shoe shop of P.W. 8 Rajanna. The appellant also took the police officer and pointed out the cobbler, P.W. 9. The Police Inspector recorded the statements of both these witnesses. The Inspector, thereafter questioned the accused and recorded the information given by him as per Exhibit P-7, in the presence of the panchayatdars, of whom P.W. 3 Kallayya was one. Thereafter the appellant took the Inspector and the panch witnesses to his house in the Karambal village and after taking then to the back yard of the compound, he dug up a place and produced a tin M.O. 14, Inside the tin, wrapped in cloth there were gold ornaments, M.O. 17 to M.O. 21. The Circle Inspector seized the same under Panchanama Exhibit P-8. The Inspector also sent the finger prints of the appellant to the Finger Print expert, Bangalore. Thereafter the accused-4 was traced and arrested. On searching A-4's house, certain jewellary, M.O. 22 to 33 were found concealed in a cushion below the fuel and the same was seized under Panchanama Exhibit P-9. The Inspector also sent the finger prints of the appellant to the Finger Print expert, Bangalore. Thereafter the accused-4 was traced and arrested. On searching A-4's house, certain jewellary, M.O. 22 to 33 were found concealed in a cushion below the fuel and the same was seized under Panchanama Exhibit P-9. All the jewels recovered were identified by P.W. 20 as jewels stolen from his shop on the night of 15th September, 1967. Inspite of the best efforts of the Police, Maruthi, the absconding accused was not traced. After completing the investigation, the Inspector filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and the other 3 accused, showing Maruthi as absconding accused, in the Court of the judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Cantonment. It has not been disputed before us that Appayya met with an unnatural death on the night of 15th September, 1967. P.W. 6, Dr. Veerabhadragouda conducted the post-mortem of the body of Appayya between 4-30 and 5-30 p.m. on 16th September, 1967. In Exhibit P-2I, post-mortem report, the Doctor has described the injuries found on the body as follows: (1) Multiple nail injuries on either side of upper part of neck mainly on the left side. (2) Two contusions on right side of neck upper part 1¼” X 1 “with bluish discolouration of skin. (3) An abrasion l” X ¼ “and bleeding from this wound all around and left side of mouth. (4) A swelling on the right eye-brow 1” X 1 “X ¼”. On dis section of the dead body, the Doctor noticed bleeding in the tissues; of the neck more on the left side up to muscular level. He found a fracture of 3rd, 4th, and 5th ribs of the right side. There was also a dislocation of the thyroid cartilage from hyoid bone and congestion of larynx and trachea with the dark froth inside. The right lung was bleeding on outer surface and was deeply congested excluding the dark blood on the section. The Doctor opined that the injuries might have been caused with the hand. The fracture of the ribs might have been caused due to pressure at the place of fracture. The cause of death, in the opinion of the Doctor, was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. The evidence given by the Doctor has not been challenged in the cross-examination. The Doctor opined that the injuries might have been caused with the hand. The fracture of the ribs might have been caused due to pressure at the place of fracture. The cause of death, in the opinion of the Doctor, was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. The evidence given by the Doctor has not been challenged in the cross-examination. Therefore, there can be no doubt that Appayya met with death due to asphyxia caused by the throttling. It has also not been disputed before us that robbery took place in the shop of P.W. 20 on the night of 15th September, 1967. P.W. 20, Raghupathi has stated that on 15th September, 1967 at about 8-30 P.M. he had locked all the show cases and the counter, treasury, etc., and thereafter closed the shop and locked it. On the morning of 16th September, 1967, when he came to the shop on the information given by P.W. 19, he found that the shutters of the shop were open and he found night watchman Appayya lying dead in the shop. He has also stated that he found in all 100 articles of 14 Ct. gold ornaments, consisting of 16 types of gold ornaments and one silver lapa necklace, were stolen from his shop. Exhibit P-26 is the list given by him of the articles stolen from his shop. The evidence given by him has not been challenged. There is no doubt that the prosecution has proved by satisfactory evidence of the theft of the various articles of jewellery from the shop of P.W. 20 on the right of 15th September, 1967. The prosecution has relied on the following items of circumstantial evidence to prove the charge against the appellant: “1. Finger prints of the appellants found on the show-cases of the shop. (2) Finding of chappals, M.O. 1 belonging to the appellant near the dead body of Appayya. (3) Recovery of stolen jewellery M.O. 17 to 21, on the information given by the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 3 Kalliah, panch witness, and of P.W. 31, Inspector of Police Shaik shows that when they went there on the morning of 16th September 1967, immediately after the robbery, they noticed that there were chance finger prints on the show-cases and the plastic cases, M.O. 5. The evidence of P.W. 3 Kalliah, panch witness, and of P.W. 31, Inspector of Police Shaik shows that when they went there on the morning of 16th September 1967, immediately after the robbery, they noticed that there were chance finger prints on the show-cases and the plastic cases, M.O. 5. P.W. 31, thereafter secured the presence of P.W. 28, Head Constable Mutalik and got the chance finger prints developed. The seven show case frames, and the plastic bags, M.O. 4, and M.O. 5 were seized under Mahazar, Exhibit P-3. P.W. 31 has also stated that after the arrest of A-3, in the presence of panch witnesses, he obtained the finger prints of A-3, Exhibit P-6-A and P-6-B as per panchanama Exhibit P-6. The appellant has admitted that his finger prints were taken by the Inspector of Police. These finger prints along with the finger prints developed from the show cases and the plastic bag, M.Os. 4 and 5 were sent by the Inspector to P.W. 5, Sadashivarao Finger Print Expert, for examination and report It may also be mentioned that the Inspector of Police had also sent the finger print impressions of the various other suspects and also of A-1 and A-2 for examination to P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has stated that he developed the three chance prints sent to him from M.O. 4 and marked them as 4-A and 4-B. He also got them photographed. He compared them with the finger prints of the various suspects sent to him and found that they did not tally. P.W. 5 has also stated that he also compared the finger prints of A-1 to A-3 with M.O. 4-A and 4-B. After a thorough examination and comparison of the finger prints of the 3 accused, he found that the chance finger print marked by him as ‘Q’ was identical with the right and middle impression of the appellant marked as “A” in Exhibit P-6-A. The opinion given by P.W. 5 has been marked as Exhibit P-14. P.W. 5 has stated that he found 14 points of similarity between the right hand middle finger impression of the appellant marked as A the chance print found on the show-case marked by him as ‘ Q’. P.W. 5 has stated that he found 14 points of similarity between the right hand middle finger impression of the appellant marked as A the chance print found on the show-case marked by him as ‘ Q’. In the course of his examination, P.W. 5 has stated as follows: — “ (a) The chance print marked Q and the specimen print marked A are loop type of patterns with the slope and exit of the ridges are from left to right. They have got the following fourteen homologus points of similarity in their identical sequence as shown and serially numbered in the enclosed photographic enlargements illustrating the points of identity, in the chance print marked as Q with the corresponding portion of the specimen right middle finger print on the Finger print slip of Vithal Omanna (A-3). They are No. 1: Delta, Nos. 2 and 3: Ridge endings, No. 4 is a bifurcation, No. 5: is a ridge end and No. 6: is a bifurcation No. 7 and 8 are ridge endings, No. 9 is a bifurcation, No. 10 to 14 are ridge endings. They are all in their identical ridges sequences.” P.W. 5 has also stated that finger prints are permanent immutable and suffer no change throughout the life and even after death until decomposition sets in. Further, he has stated that no two finger prints are identical unless they belong to the same finger of the same individual. He has also stated that if we git 12 homologus points of similarity in their identical sequences, it can be proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the prints are of the same finger of the same individual. He had no hesitation whatsoever that the chance print marked as “ Q” as identical with the right middle finger print of A-3 marked as A in Exhibit P-6-A. It has been pointed out by Srimathi Anasuya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that P.W. 5 has not given in Exhibit P-14 reasons how he came to the conclusion that the chance finger prints found on the show-case was that of the appellant. It has also been argued that the learned Sessions judge has merely accepted the evidence of the expert without applying his mind and coming to an independent conclusion. It has also been argued that the learned Sessions judge has merely accepted the evidence of the expert without applying his mind and coming to an independent conclusion. The learned Counsel has strongly relied on the decision In re G. Bhashyakara Charulu1, wherein it has been laid that it is the duty of the finger print expert to explain how he came to the conclusion and it is the duty of the Court to scrutinised the evidence or make comparison of the impressions personally. The ipse dixit of the expert should not be accepted and acted upon. It may be pointed out that in the instant case, though in the certificate Exhibit P-14, the expert has not given reasons for his opinion, when examined in Court, P.W. 5 has given detailed reasons as to how he arrived at the conclusions reached by him. In the enlarged photograph Exhibit P-17, he has marked more than 12 homologus points of identity in their relative sequences. The reasons given by him have not at all been challenged in the cross-examination. In re Bhashyakaracharlu's case,1 the expert had not given any reasons. He had only referred to 2 or 3 common characterstics. The trial Court had also not discussed the evidence of the expert and come to an independent conclusion. We are therefore of opinion that the decision referred to above has no application to the facts of the instance case. We have seen Exhibit P-17, and compared in Court the enlarged photographs of the chance prints found on the glass case marked as Q, in the case, with the enlarged photograph of the right middle finger print of the appellant marked A. We find that 14 homologus points of similarity marked in these enlarge photographs are identical. After carefully going through the evidence of the Finger Print Expert, P.W. 5 we are satisfied that the evidence given by him is acceptable. As stated already P.W. 5's evidence has not been challenged in cross-examination. The evidence given by him about the 14 homologus points of similarity has not been shaken. We may also point out that his evidence is impartial. The Inspector had earlier sent finger impressions of a number of suspects to P.W. 5 for examination and comparison. As stated already P.W. 5's evidence has not been challenged in cross-examination. The evidence given by him about the 14 homologus points of similarity has not been shaken. We may also point out that his evidence is impartial. The Inspector had earlier sent finger impressions of a number of suspects to P.W. 5 for examination and comparison. P.W. 5 has returned the same stating that the finger impressions of the suspects did not tally with the finger print impressions of M.O. 4 and M.O. 5. We may also mention that the finger impressions of A-1, A-2 were also sent to him. He has specifically stated that the finger impressions found on M.O. 4 marked as ‘ Q‘tallied only with that of the finger impression of the appellant marked as ‘ A’ in Exhibit P-6-A. It has been pointed out by this Court in In re Govinda Reddy and others1 that ‘the science of comparison of finger prints has developed to a stage of exactitude. It is quite possible to compare the impressions taken from finger prints of individuals with the disputed impressions, provided they are sufficiently clear and enlarged photographs are available. The identification of finger impressions with the aid of a good magnifying glass is not difficult particularly when the photographs of latent and patent impressions are pasted side by side.‘ After going through the evidence in this case, we are Satisfied that the finger print mark Q was identical with that of the right hand middle finger impression of the appellant marked as A in Exhibit P-6-A. From what has been stated above, it is clear that the appellant participated in the crime which took place in the shop of the complainant on the night of 15th September, 1967. It is also in evidence that M.O. 1 a pair of sandals were found near the dead body of the deceased on the morning when P.W. 20 and P.W. 31 went to the scene of occurrence. Exhibit P-2 is the panchanama of the scene of occurrence prepared on the morning and it clearly shows that M.O. 1, a pair of sandals was found near the dead body. The evidence of P.W. 1, Harischandra and P.W. 31, the Inspector of Police, shows that this pair of sandals, M.O. 1 exactly fitted the feet of the appellant. Exhibit P-4 is the panchanama prepared in connection with the same. The evidence of P.W. 1, Harischandra and P.W. 31, the Inspector of Police, shows that this pair of sandals, M.O. 1 exactly fitted the feet of the appellant. Exhibit P-4 is the panchanama prepared in connection with the same. P.W. 31 has also stated that the appellant took him and the panchas and pointed out P.W. 8 and P.W. 9. P.W. 8, Rajanna is having a boot and chappel shop at Khanapur for the last 20 years. He has stated that the appellant was a regular customer of his and had some months before the occurrence come and purchased sandals for Rs. 11. He has stated that he has personally manufactured M.O. 1. He has further stated that the Inspector of Police came to the shop accompanied with the appellant and showed him the sandal M.O. 1. He identified the pair of sandals as one manufactured and sold by him to the accused. P.W. 9, Mutappa is a cobbler. He has stated that a few days before the occurrence, the accused had brought the pair of sandals, M.O. 1 for purposes of repair. A few days thereafter the accused came with the police and showed the sandals M.O. 1 to him and he identified them as one repaired by him. He had stated that accused gave him 8 annas for repairing the sandals. It has been submitted by Smt. Anasuya that it would be impossible for P.W. 8 to identify the sandals. It is argued that P.W. 8 must have sold a number of such sandals to different customers at different times and it will not be possible for him to identify the same. It is also argued that equally it would not be possible for P.W. 9 the cobbler who repairs so many sandals to identify the particular sandals which he has repaired. It is to be remembered that it was the appellant himself who pointed out P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 to the Police Inspector. It is as a result of the point out by the appellant himself P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were traced and examined in the case. It is not impossible for persons who have manufactured the articles or repaired by them to identify the articles. It is as a result of the point out by the appellant himself P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were traced and examined in the case. It is not impossible for persons who have manufactured the articles or repaired by them to identify the articles. It has been pointed in In re Govinda Reddy1 already referred to above, that ‘small and even nice points of difference distinguishing one thing from others of the same kind may merely by a frequent sight of them, and without any special attention to them make an impression on the mind. They are component parts of the thing and go to make the whole of which the mind receives an impression. The impression about the general appearance of the thing is exceedingly common; a workman has it of his tools and most people have it of their dress, jewellery and other things they are frequently seeing, handling or using. Undoubtedly animals and things may be identified by those familiar with them. Observation teaches that such identification may be safely relied upon. But at the same time a witness would not be able to formulate his reasons for the identification since it is based upon general untranslatable impressions of the mind. It would be fatuous to discredit such identification on the ground that reasons are not being formulated for them.’ After going through the evidence, we are of opinion that the prosecution has proved by satisfactory evidence that M.O. 1 a pair of sandals found near the dead body of the deceased belongs to the appellant. The finding of the sandals of the appellant near the dead body of the deceased clearly indicate that the appellant had participated in the crime that took place in the shop of P.W. 20 on the night of 15th September, 1967. The prosecution has strongly relied on the recovery of jewels M.Os. 1 to 21 as per the information of the appellant. Immediately after the arrest of the appellant, when P.W. 31 questioned him, he gave certain information which was recorded by P.W. 31, Inspector of Police in the presence of panch witness P.W. 3 Kallaiah. Thereafter, the appellant took the Inspector of Police and the panch witness to his house in the village Karambale. Afterwards from the back portion of his compound the appellant dug up a place and took out M.O. 14. Thereafter, the appellant took the Inspector of Police and the panch witness to his house in the village Karambale. Afterwards from the back portion of his compound the appellant dug up a place and took out M.O. 14. Insite this tin the articles of jewellery M.Os. 17 to 21 were found. The Inspector seized the same under panchanama Exhibit P-8. They are: (1) M.O. 17. Three rings of green colour and two rings of small size of white colour. (2) M.O. 18. A pair of ear-rings with blue stones. (3) M.O. 19. One ear-ring in star size fixed with white stones. (4) M.O. 20. One ear Junki fixed with red stones and pearls. (5) M.O. 21. One pair of ear lavlak fixed with white stones and pearls. M.O. 17 to M.O. 21 have been identified by P.W. 20 as the jewels stolen from his shop on the night of 15th September, 1967. P.W. 10 Goldsmith Nagesh has identified M.O. 18 and M.O. 19 as the ear-rings prepared by him. Similarly another goldsmith P.W. 25 has identified M.O. 17. It may also be mentioned that the evidence discloses that M.O. 19 contained the price lable written in the handwriting of P.W. 20. From what has been stated above, there can be no doubt that M.Os. 17 to 21 belong to P.W. 20 and had been stolen from his shop on the night of 15th September, 1967. When the appellant was questioned under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the recovery of M.O. 17 to M.O. 21 on his information, the appellant has merely denied the same. He did not give any explanation as to how came to be in possession of there jewels which which had been stolen from the shop of P.W. 20. The appellant did not even claim these jewels as his own. The appellant did not also give any explanation as to why he had buried these jewels in a box in the back portion of his compound. It has been contended by Smt. Anausya learned Counsel for the appellant, that these jewels have been recovered from a ditch. It is also in evidence that every close to this place there is hedge. From this, it is argued that it was possible for others to plant the jewels. There is no force in the contention. It has been contended by Smt. Anausya learned Counsel for the appellant, that these jewels have been recovered from a ditch. It is also in evidence that every close to this place there is hedge. From this, it is argued that it was possible for others to plant the jewels. There is no force in the contention. The evidence clearly discloses that the ditch was inside the compound of the appellant and what is more important is those jewels were hidden in the earth and only after digging up the same the appellant was able to take them out. It was therefore not possible for any one to know where exactly the jewels were hidden or to plant those jewels in the compound of the appellant. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted, the appellant can only be convicted of an offence under section 392 Indian Penal Code and not under section 302 Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the recovery of the jewels was not immediately after the robbery. The recovery of the jewels took place after a lapse of 3 weeks and as such no inference could be drawn against the appellant. Smt Anasuya has relied on Tulsiram v.State1 and Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan2 in support of her said contentions. In Tulsiram's case1 their Lordships have pointed out that the presumption permitted to be drawn under section 114 , Illustration (a),Evidence Act has to be read along with the important time-factor. If ornaments or things of the deceased are found in the possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months expire in the interval the presumption may not be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case.‘It may be pointed out that in the Tulsi Ram's case1 the jewels were recovered 5 months after the occurrence and their Lordships in view of the long interval of the time did not rely on the presumption under section 114 , sub-clause (a) of the Evidence Act. In the instance case, the jewels were recovered about 3 weeks after the occurrence. In the instance case, the jewels were recovered about 3 weeks after the occurrence. The time factor as regards the recovery of the jewels is important because if there is undue delay, there is every possibility of the jewels being sold or passing from one person to another. In the instant case, the evidence clearly discloses that the jewels had been hidden by the appellant and this clearly shows his guilty mind. There is no possibility of the appellant coming by the jewels innocently. It may also be pointed out that it is not the appellant's case that these jewels belonged to him or that he had purchased them from any body else. Besides in this case there is evidence as already pointed out, that the appellant was present at the time of the crime and has participated in it. In Sanwant Khan's case2 their Lordships have pointed out that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from ? certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumst?.nces may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer……….‘In the instant case, we have already pointed out that the recovery of the stolen property is not the only evidence against the appellant; but there is evidence of the participation in the crime itself. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision referred to by Smt. Anasuya is not of any assistance to her. Mr. Dayanand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied on Wasim Whan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh3 and K.K. Jadav v.State of Gujarat4 in support of his arguments that from the recovery of M.Os. 17 to 21 on the information of the accused, an inference that the appellant is guilty not only of robbery but of murder can be drawn in the circumstances of the case. In Wasim Khan's case3 their Lordships have held that from the recent possession of stolen property belonging to murdered man, an inference can be drawn that the accused is not only guilty of an offence under section 392 , but also of an under section 302, Indian Penal Code. In Wasim Khan's case3 their Lordships have held that from the recent possession of stolen property belonging to murdered man, an inference can be drawn that the accused is not only guilty of an offence under section 392 , but also of an under section 302, Indian Penal Code. In Jadav v.State of Gujarat1 their Lordships have pointed out that the discovery of the silver buttons belonging to the deceased with human blood stains at the instance of the prisoner is a circumstance which may raise the presumption of the participation of the prisoner in the murder. Tufail Simmy v.State of Uttar Pradesh,5 their Lordships have stated that after the arrest of the appellant, the production of the ornaments worn by the deceased Kalavathi is a very clinching circumstance which taken along with the other circumstance proves the complicity of the appellant in the murder of Kalavathi. In that case their Lordships confirmed the conviction of the appellant for offence under sections 302, 201 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. In Laxmappa Adiviappa Budanur v.State6 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. justice Hegde and Mr. justice A.A. Khan, have confirmed the conviction of the appellants, for both of the offences under section 392, read with section 34 , Indian Penal Code and also under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the robbery took place on 15th December, 1958. On 3rd January, 1959, nearly 3 weeks after the said robbery, the appellants gave information which led to the recovery of some of the stolen articles. The only evidence against the appellants was the evidence of its recovery and the evidence that the deceased was seen last in the company of the appellants. From the evidence mentioned above, their Lordships held that the appellants were guilty not only of the offence under section 392 but also under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. We have already pointed out that though the recovery of jewels took place in this case about 3 weeks after the robbery, the fact that the jewels were hidden by the accused clearly shows his guilty mind. The accused has not given any explanation as to how he came by those jewels. He has not claimed the jewels as his own nor has he explained why he had hidden the jewels. The accused has not given any explanation as to how he came by those jewels. He has not claimed the jewels as his own nor has he explained why he had hidden the jewels. We may also point out that the murder of the deceased and the robbery form part of the same transaction. It is only after committing the murder of the deceased, who was the watchman of the jewellary shop, that the jewels could be robbed.. Apart from the recovery of the jewels from the possession of the appellant, we have already pointed out, that there is clear evidence to show that the appellant was himself present at the scene. The finger prints of the appellant on the show case clearly show that he had participated in the offence. Chappels, M.O. 1 found near the dead body of the deceased clearly indicate that the appellants had taken part in the crime. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the only irresistible inference that can be. drawn is that the appellant took part in the murder and robbery of the deceased Appayya. After re-assessing the entire evidence in the case we entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has established by satisfactory evidence the charges under section 302 and section 392, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the appeal. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.