( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent of the charges under Ss. 447, 302 and 392 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, hassan, in S. C. No. 2 of 1971. ( 2 ) ALTER the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent (who will be hereinafter referred to as the accused) of the above mentioned charges, but convicted him of the offence under S. 379 IPC and sentenced to suffer 18 months rigorous imprisonment. In this appeal the state has challenged the acquittal of the accused for the above mentioned charges. It may be mentioned that the accused has not filed any appeal against his conviction under S. 379 IPC. ( 3 ) DECEASED Garudamma and PW. 19 Janakamma were sisters. Garudamma though married was not living with her husband but had been living with PW. 19 Janakamma for the last 10 or 12 years. PW. 19 janakamma was a widow and she owned some lands. The deceased was helping PW. 19 Janakamma in the management of the above said lands. The prosecution case is that on the evening of 19:11-1070 the deceased left the house of PW. 19 Janakamma, stating that she would go to PW. 19's land and bring the cattle. PW. 8 Veeramma. on the evening in question, saw the accused who was a resident of the same village going towards the garden lands of Janakamma,. Shortly theieafter she also noticed Garudamma proceeding to her garden. PW-9 Rama stated that at about 4 P. M. he saw the accused going in the dirction of the land of Janakamma with a sickle in his hand and when questioned he told him that he was going to janakamma's land to bring fuel. PW. 7 Ranga, lyengar anotheir witness examined by the prosecution staged that on the evening in question at about 5 p. m. he saw the accused coming from the direction of the garden land of Janakamma and his face was pale. As Garudamma did not return home that evening, PW. 19 Janakamma asked PW. 23 Janardhana lyengar to go to the garden and find out why Garudamma had not returned. PW. 23 janardhana lyengar accompanied by some others, took a, petromax light and went to the land of Pw. 19 Janakamma and found Garudamma lying dead in the said land. As Garudamma did not return home that evening, PW. 19 Janakamma asked PW. 23 Janardhana lyengar to go to the garden and find out why Garudamma had not returned. PW. 23 janardhana lyengar accompanied by some others, took a, petromax light and went to the land of Pw. 19 Janakamma and found Garudamma lying dead in the said land. She had an injury on the right eye lid and bleeding from the nose. He immediately returned to the village, went and reported the matter to PW. 2 Patel Nanjegowda at about 8 or 8-30 p. m. PW. 2 then, collected Kulavadies and proceeded to the land of Janakamma and found the dead body of Garudamma lying in the said land. He kept Kulavadies to watch the dead body, returned to the village and sent his report Ext. P2 through a Kulavadi to the Hassan Rural Police Station. The same was received by PW 24 SI. of Police Hassan at about 10 a. m. on 20-11-1970. He registered the case under S. 302 IPC and after submitting FIR to the court and his Superiors went to the scene of occurrence which is about 10 to 12 miles away. He held inquest over the dead body and found that there was only one gold ear ring of seven white stones on the left ear and the other ear ring was missing; there were two gold bangles on the two hands and one nose ring on the left nostril. The other jewels which were on the person of Garudamma were missing. Thereafter PW. 25 CI of Police karyappa came to the scene of occurrence and took over further investigation. He recorded the statement of PWs. 2, 3, 4, 14 and 23. On 24-11-70 the Inspector examined PWs. 7, 8 and 16 On 25-11-1970 the Inspector secured the accused and arrested him When he questioned the accused the accused volunteiered information as per Exts. P15 (a) and P15 (b) that he had kept the jewels in his house and he will produce the same. The accused took the Inspector and the panch witnesses to his house and produced a cloth bundle from the thatched roof on the eastern side of the hut. The bundle contained two Mangalyas, 1 ear ring, sixteen gold beeds and one Lakshmi Casu roped in a thread which was cut, which have been marked as MOs. 4 to 8 respectively. The accused took the Inspector and the panch witnesses to his house and produced a cloth bundle from the thatched roof on the eastern side of the hut. The bundle contained two Mangalyas, 1 ear ring, sixteen gold beeds and one Lakshmi Casu roped in a thread which was cut, which have been marked as MOs. 4 to 8 respectively. These articles were all tied in the cloth MO9. The accused also produced MO. 10 lungi cloth, from which this cloth plece MO. 9 has been torn. All these were seized by the Inspector as per the mahazar Ext. P6. MOs. 4 to 8 have been identified by PW. 19 janakamma and PW. 11 Srinanga Naik. After completing the investigation the Inspector filed a charge sheet against the accused in the Court of the first Class Magistrate, Hassan. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has not relied on the evidence of pws. 7, 8, 9 and 18 the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution who speak to the movement of the accused and the deceased on the evening in question. He has held that the evidence of these witnesses is highly artificial and it is not safe to rely on their evidence. The learned Secsions judge has adopted the evidence regarding the information given by the accused and the recovery of the jewels (MOs. 4 to 8) from the house of the accused. He has also held that MOs. 4 to 8 belonged to the deceased. After discussing the; various decisions cited before him, both on behalf ol the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that as the only evidence against the accused was that he was found in possession of the jewels belonging to the deceased six days after the, occurrence and as there was no other evidence to connect him with the crime, it is unsafe to convict him for the offence of murder and robbery. The learned Sessions Judge in the circumstances mentioned above, thought it safe to convict the accused of the offence under S. 379 1pc and acquutcd him of the charges under S. 447, 302 and 392 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge in the circumstances mentioned above, thought it safe to convict the accused of the offence under S. 379 1pc and acquutcd him of the charges under S. 447, 302 and 392 IPC. ( 5 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has argued that the order passed by the learned Sessions judge acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him is erroneous and deserves to be Sec aside. It is urged that the learned Sessions judge erred in rejecting the evidence of PWs. 7, 8, 9 and 18 who speak to the movements of the accused and the ceasons given by the learntd Sessions judge for disbelieving their evidence is not sound and cogent. It is argued that the learned Sessions Judge should have accepted the evidence of these witnesses as the evidence of these witnesses would connect the accused directly with the crime. Since the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence with regard to the recovery of the jewels (MOs. 4 to 8) from tne possession of tha accused, it is argued that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused had committed robbery of the jewels after murdering the deceased. The accused has not given any explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the jewels belonging to the deceased person. In the absence of any explanation from the accused, the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the accused murdered the deceased and robbed the jewels. The learned Goveinment Pleader has relied on Shivappa v. State of mysore AIR. 1971 SC. 196. and Kanbi Karsan Jadav v. State of Gujarat AIR. 1966 SC. 821. in support of his contentions. ( 6 ) PW. 15 Dr. Srinivasa Murthy conducted the post moriem examination on the boay of the deceased Garudamma, in the village in between 4 and 6 p. m. on 20-11-1970. In Ext. P8 the doctor has described the injuries found on the dead body. The doctor has stated that on examination he found that there were blood-sains through both the nostrils and there was eccymosis of the right eye. There were multiple abrasions all round the neck. In Ext. P8 the doctor has described the injuries found on the dead body. The doctor has stated that on examination he found that there were blood-sains through both the nostrils and there was eccymosis of the right eye. There were multiple abrasions all round the neck. It is not necessary to refer to the multiple abrasions found around the neck and the right thigh, as the doctor has opined that these abrasions are of post mortem nature and due to insect bites. On dissection, the doctor found a fracture of the second rib that there was corresponding injury to the plurae and left lung and the injury on the lung measured 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/2". There was haematoma in the, left plural cavity. This injury and injury on the right eye, according to the Doctor, are antemortem injuries. The doctor has also opined that this fracture of the second rib mentioned above could be caused by a strong fist blow. The doctor stated that the death was due to syncope as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organ left lung. In Cross -examination the doctor stated that there was a contusion on the left side of the chest, corresponding to the, internal injury and he had not noted this contusion as an external injury. The doctor further stated that this contusion could have been caused by a kick of the hind leg of a buffalow, or a cow or even a calf, or that injury might have been also caused by a fall on that particular portion of the body coming in close contract with rough surface. The doctor has also stated that theze was no evidence of any intercourse between that lady and a man just prior to the death. It may be pointed out that it has not been elicited from the doctor that any of the injuries found on the deceased were sufficient to cause dearth in the ordinary course of nature. From what has been stated above, there is force in, the contention urged on behalf of the defence that the prosecution has not established by satisfactory evidence that the offence made out in the instant case is one of murder. All that can be said is that the deceased garudamma met with her death as a result of the injuries sustained by her. All that can be said is that the deceased garudamma met with her death as a result of the injuries sustained by her. ( 7 ) COMING next to the evidence of the recovery of the jewels (MOs. 4 to 8) on the information furnished by the accused, we agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has established by satisfactory evidence that on the information of the accused these jewels were traced, which were in possession of the Accused. PW. 25 Inspector kariappa has deposed that after arresting the accused at 3 p. m. , he questioned him and the accused volunteered the information that he had kept the concerned jewels in his house and that he would produce the same. He reduced this information given by the accused in his case diary as per. Ext. P 15 (a) and Ext. P15 (b ). Thereafter the accused took the Inspector and the panch witnesses, PW. 12 Chandrashekara and PW. 23 Janardhana lyengar, to his hut and produced a cloth bundle from the areca thatched roof and the bundle contained MOs. 4 to 8. These jewels were sezied under mahazar Ext. P6. PWs. 12 and 23 have corroborated the evidence of the inspector with regard to the production of the jewels by the accused. PW. 11 Sriranga Naik and PW. 19 Janakamma have identified the jewels as belonging to the deceased Garudamma which she was in the habit of wearing every day. That the jewels have been recovered from the possession of the accused on his own information has not been challenged. before us by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. ( 8 ) THE important question for consideration is, what inference is to be drawn from the fact that the accused was found in possession of the jewels belonging to the deceased. The contention of the learned Government pleader is that as the accused has been found in possession of the jewels belonging to the deceased within 6 days, the necessary inference to be drawn is that the accused came into possession of these jewels by committing the murder of the deceased and robbing her. It is stressed by the learned Government Pleader that in the instant case the accused has not given any explanation how he came into possession of the jewels belonging to the murdered person. It is stressed by the learned Government Pleader that in the instant case the accused has not given any explanation how he came into possession of the jewels belonging to the murdered person. In the absence of any explanation given by the accused, it is argued that the only reasonable conclusion is that the accused must have robbed "the jewels after committing the murder of the deceased. ( 9 ) IN Shivappa v. Sate of Mysore (1) their Lordships have pointed out that:"there is other evidence to connect an accused with the crime of dacoity itself, however small, the finding of the stolen property with him is a piece of evidence which connects him further with the crime. There is then no question of presumption. The evidence strengthens the other evidence already against him. "their Lordships have stated that the presumption under S. 114 is stronger when the discovery of the fruits of crime is made immediately after the crime is committed as there would be no sufficient time to dispose of the property. Their Lordships have also pointed out that the inference to be drawn depends upon the facts of each case and it depends upon the nature of the property and whether it could be disposed of quickly. ( 10 ) IN Kambi Karsan Jadav v. State of Gujarat (2) there was the evidence of the approver which the Court had accepted. Apart from the evidence of the approver there were other circumstances which connected the accused with the commission of the off ence. The accused in that case pointed out the dead body, and the silver buttons of the deceased which were stained with human blood, and further the hairs of the deceased were found on a pania (scarf) of the accused. Accepting all these evidence referred to above their Lordships came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence. The facts of that case are totally different from the facts in the instant case, where the only accepted evidence is that of the recovery of the deceased's jewels. Accepting all these evidence referred to above their Lordships came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offence. The facts of that case are totally different from the facts in the instant case, where the only accepted evidence is that of the recovery of the deceased's jewels. ( 11 ) SRI P. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused, has argued that there is no evidence except recovery of the jewels to connect the accused with the crime, it is not safe in the circumstances of the case, to convict the accused of the offences under Ss. 302 and 392 IPC. He has pointed out that the Courts have convicted the accused, if, along with the recovery of the deceased's jewels, there was some other reliable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanwant khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR. 1956 SC. 54. . The learned Counsel has also relied on re. Thangaswami AIR. 1963 Mad 476. where the Madras High Court has elaborately discussed the various decisions on the point whether an inference of murder and robbery can be drawn by the mere fact that the accused was in possession of jewels or articles of the victim after the crime. It is urged that this is an appeal against the acquittal and unless the High Court finds that the judgment of the lower Court is unreasonable or manifestly erroneous, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. ( 12 ) IN Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan (3) their Lordships have held :" No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference, should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence, against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and 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. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. " ( 13 ) AFTER reviewing the various authorities on this point, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Bhikka Gobar v. Emperorair. 1943 Bom. 458. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. " ( 13 ) AFTER reviewing the various authorities on this point, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Bhikka Gobar v. Emperorair. 1943 Bom. 458. and stated that it was rightly held in that decision that the mere fact that an accused produced, shortly after the murder, ornaments which were on the murdered person is riot enough to justify the inference that the accused must have committed the murder. It was further pointed out that there must be some other material to connect the accused with the murder in order to hold him guilty of that offence. In that case the accused was found guilty only of the offence under S. 380 IPC. and their Lordships set aside the conviction of the accused of the offence of murder. 17. In Re. Thangaswami (4) the Division Bench of the Madras High Court after reviewing the various decisions on this point held that :" The inference or presumption of guilt, upon the charge of murder can be safely drawn, where the accused is in unexplained possession of the jewels or articles of the victim after the crime, and where in addition, there is some evidence atleast connecting the movements of the accused with those of the victim, either before or after the crime, and in some manner or another establishing a nexus between the accused and the offence. The mere unexplained possession or production of the jewels of the victim by the accused may not constitute a safe basis for a conviction upon a charge of murder, when that is the only bare circumstance proved in evidence. The reason for that is fairly obvious. The test of circumstantial evidence must be satisfied; the chain of links in that evidence must lead to only one reasonable inference, namely that the accused was the murderer and all other probable hypothesis must be excluded. Something might depend upon the time interval between the crime, and the recovery of the jewels from the accused But it is quite probable that, even during the lapse of a few hours, the jewels might have changed hands. Something might depend upon the time interval between the crime, and the recovery of the jewels from the accused But it is quite probable that, even during the lapse of a few hours, the jewels might have changed hands. Before it could be held that the circumstantial evidence establishes the guilt of the accused upon the charge of murder, some further evidence is necessary, establishing some connection between the accused and the victim, in relation to the time and locality of offence. or to the crime itself. " ( 14 ) WE are in respectful agreement with what has been stated in the above said decision. As, in the instant case, the only evidence against the accused is the recovery of the deceased's jewels from his possession, and there is ho other evidence connecting the accused with the crime, we consider it not safe to convict the accused for both murder and robbery, as has been laid down in Sanwat Kuan's case (3) cited above. It may be also be pointed out that we are dealing with the appeal against acquittal. Unless we come to the conclusion that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unreasonable or manifestly erroneous, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal passed by him. ( 15 ) AFTER carefully re-assessing the evidence in the case, it is not possible for us to say that the view taken by the learned Judge is unreasonable or manifestly erroneous. There are no good grounds to set aside the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .