NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal, the State has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed in S. C. . No. l9 of 1971 by the Sessions judge, Tumkur. ( 2 ) THE respondent in this appeal was the accused in the sessions case. He was charged with having committed offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 392 1pc. The allegation against the respondent, who will be referred to as the accused in the course of this judgment, was that in the forenoon of 24-6-1971 a Thursday when Gangamma the deceased was picking neem seeds in land bearing S. No. 44 of Annenahalli in Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur district, he, in order to rob her of ornaments MOs. 11 to 14, cut her with a chopper MO. 1 and killed her and robbed her of the said ornaments. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Gangamma is the sister of Siddappa PW. 7. PW. 8 Thimmakka is the wife of PW 7. PW. 10 lakshmama and PW 11 Gangamma (a child witness) are the daughers of PWs. 7 and 8. Gangamma's husband had died long back. She was residing in a separate house and not with PWs. 7 and 8 and their family members, but her residence was nearby the residence of PWs. 7 and 8. Gangamma the deceased was always wearing ornaments MOs. 5, 6 and 11 to 14. She was maintaining herself by doing cooly work. PW. 10 Lakshmarnma had about one month prior to 24-6-1971, given birth to a baby and she was in the house of PWs. 7 and 8. On 24-6-1971, PW. 7 sidappa had gone to Madhugiri for some work. In the morning at about 8 A. M. or so on 24-6-1971, Gangamma proceeded to the said land and while she was going so, she talked with PW. 10 who was standing at the door having her baby with her. PW. 8 Thimmakka who was in the kitchen saw them talking. PW. 11 Gangamma took her 10 sheep for grazing near about the said land. PWs. 8 and 10 observed that gangamma, the deceased was, as usual, wearing the above mentioned ornaments. At about noon meal time PW. 11 Gangamma proceeded to return to her house in order to take meals. While so proceeding, she saw gangamma the deceased lying dead in the said land. PWs. 8 and 10 observed that gangamma, the deceased was, as usual, wearing the above mentioned ornaments. At about noon meal time PW. 11 Gangamma proceeded to return to her house in order to take meals. While so proceeding, she saw gangamma the deceased lying dead in the said land. There was bleeding injury on her neck. PW. 11 raised cries and camle to the village bawling out that Gangamma had been murdered. PW. 5 A. R. Narasimha reddy, the patel of Annenahalli heard this information from. PW. 11 and also from others. He along with others proceeded to the said land and saw the dead body. He, also was aware of the fact that Gangamma the deceased always used to wear the above mentioned ornaments. At that point of time itself, he found MOs. 11 to 14 were not on the body of Gangamma. They were missing. He came home and wrote his report Exhibit P5 mentioning about the incident and also describing the articles MOs. 11 to 14 which he observed and missing from the body of Gangamma the deceased. His talwar rangappa PW. 4 was residing in Teriyur village which is about one mile away from Annenahalli village. PW. 5 went on foot to Teriyur village and gave ex. P5 to PW. 4 and directed PW. 4 to produce it in Kodigenahalli Police station. PW. 4 took Ex. P5 and produced it before the Station House Officer, kodigenahalli Police Station PW. 20 who registered a case, and issued fir and sent express reports. The police took up investigation. PW. 21 k. Srinivasa Rao the Circle Inspector of Police reached the spot and took up further investigation. He commenced making enquiries in the surrounding villages as to whether any person had made any attempts to dispose of the missing ornaments. In the morning of 28-6-1971 when PW. 21 was making enquiries in Vengadammanahalli village, PW. 17 Narasimhappa informed him that the accused had offered to pledge a pair of silver kadagas and a pair of silver anklets for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 to him and that as he had no money, he did not accept that offer. This information, arcused suspicions of PW. 21 against the accused. PW. 17 Narasimhappa informed him that the accused had offered to pledge a pair of silver kadagas and a pair of silver anklets for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 to him and that as he had no money, he did not accept that offer. This information, arcused suspicions of PW. 21 against the accused. PW. 21 therefore, proceeded to Parthihalli, the village of the accused and reached there by about 3-30 P. M. or so but he could not find the accused in the village. It may be mentioned here that Parthihalli is said to be a mile away from vengadammanahalli. Then on 29-6-1971 PW. 21 proceeded in a police jeep in search of the accused. He had secured a general description of the accused from PW. 17. In the very same morning PW. 18 Kondegowda the patel of Vengadammanahalli, PW. 19 Ramaiah of Muddenahalli were proceeding together to Kadagattur village in order to purchase a pair of bulocks for PW. 19. While they were so proceeding and were passing near the temple of Subramanya which is near about Parthrhalli village, they saw the accused on that road. The jeep in which PW. 21 was proceeding also appeared there. The jeep was stopped on the accused being sighted. Being curious as to what was happening, PWs. 18 and 19 went up to that place and then PW. 21 requested PW. 19 to make search of his pockets which pw. 19 did. Thereafter PW. 21 searched the person of the accused and found, in the left hand side pocket of the shirt that was on th,e person of the accused, a pair of silver anklets (MO. 14) and in the left side pocket of his knicker a pair of earrings (MO. 12 ). They were seized under the panchanama Ex. P11 to which PWs. 18 and 19 attested as witnesses. Then the accused was asked to get into the jeep by PW. 21 and at that point of time, the accused voluntarily stated to all these persons as per Ex. P11 a that he had given his clothes to Venkatappa PW. 12 ). They were seized under the panchanama Ex. P11 to which PWs. 18 and 19 attested as witnesses. Then the accused was asked to get into the jeep by PW. 21 and at that point of time, the accused voluntarily stated to all these persons as per Ex. P11 a that he had given his clothes to Venkatappa PW. 15 who is a resident of annenahalli and had kept a chopper in a haystack to which place he would take these persons and produce the chopper and further that he had disposed of the gold chintaku and a silver waist belt to a person in Hindupur and would take them to that place and get those articles produced. He gave this statement in Telugu which language PW. 21 knew and PW. 21 recorded his statement. Then the accused took them to a land and from a haystack that was there took out a chopper (Kudugolu) MO. 1. No blood stains appeared to be on MO. 1 That was seized und/ar the panchanama ex. P12. Thereafter, the accused took all these persons to the house of pw. 15 Venkatappa in Annenahalli village. He (accused) asked venkatappa to produce the clothes that he had given to him. PW. 15 produced a shirt (MO. 15), a knicker (MO. 16) and a banian (MO. 17) and a towel (MO. 18) which were seized under the panchanama Ex. Pls. Then PWs. 21, 18, 19 and 15 and the accused proceeded in the jeep of PW. 21 to Hindupur where the accused took them to the shop of Prabhakar PW. 12 who is a jeweller, The accused asked PW. 12 to hand over the articles that he had sold him and PW. 12 produced a gold toeki (Chintaku) MO. 11, and a silver waist belt MO. 13. The gold teeki MO. 11 was not in single piece but had been cut into three pieces. These articles were seized under the panchanama Ex. P9. PW. 14 Balasubramanyam an employee in the local post Office was secured and examined by PW. 21. PW. 21 continued the investigation and after completing the same, placed the charge sheet against the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and put-forward a total denial in regard to each and every piece of evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in proof of the charges against him. 21. PW. 21 continued the investigation and after completing the same, placed the charge sheet against the accused. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and put-forward a total denial in regard to each and every piece of evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution in proof of the charges against him. It is the contention of the prosecution that while Gangamma was picking neem seeds in S. No. 44 of Annenahalli village, in the forenoon of 24-6-1971, this accused cut her on the neck and killed her and took away all the easily removable ornaments viz. , MOs. 11 to 14 leaving the kadagas mos. 5 and 6 on the body itself. He then proceeded to the house of PW. 15 venkatappa a dhobi by profession and gave him his clothes MOs. 15 to 18 for washing presumably because they were stained with blood. He then enlisted the assistance of PW. 15 in order to dispose of MOs. 11 and 13 and accordingly the accused and PW. 15 Venkatappa proceeded to Hindupur. They reached Hindupur by about 4 P. M. The accused disposed of MOs. 11 and 13 to PW. 12 with the assistance of PW. 15 and PW. 14 Balasubramanyam, an employee in the local Post Office at Hindupur. The accused received a sum of Rs. 130 from PW. 12 and both the accused and Venkatappa PW. 15 attended a circus show and then a second show in a local cinema theatre and thereafter proceeded on their different ways. After a few days, the accused went to PW. 17 Narasimhappa and offered to pledge mos. 12 and 14 for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30. He did not accept that offer. It was only on 28-6-1971 when PW. 21 contacted PW. 17 in the course of his investigation that PW. 17 gave this information to PW. 21 and PW. 21 secured a tangible clue useful for unravelling the mystery of the murder of Gangamma the deceased. It is already narrated that thereafter PW21 searched for the accused and arrested him on 29-6-1971 and after completing the investigation placed the the charge sheet against him. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution hinges entirely on the circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as follows : (1) PWs. It is already narrated that thereafter PW21 searched for the accused and arrested him on 29-6-1971 and after completing the investigation placed the the charge sheet against him. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution hinges entirely on the circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as follows : (1) PWs. 7, 8 and 10 saw Gangamma the deceased alive at 8 A. M. on 24-6-1971 and at that time Gangamma was wearing MOs. 5, 6 and 11 to 14 as usual; PW. 8 saw Gangamma carrying a basket MO. 8 at that time. PW. 11 saw that Gangamma was picking neem seeds in the land S. No. 44 of Annenahalli and further at about noon time PW. 11 Gangamma saw the deceased lying dead having sustained bleeding injuries on her neck; (2) PW. 5 the patel of Annenahalli visited the spot and immediately noticed that MOs. 11 to 14 were missing from the body of Gangamma. He. in his report, mentioned this fact and provided the description of the missing articles; (3) Accused went to PW. 15 Venkatappa in the afternoon of 24-6-71 and gave MOs. 15 to 18 for washing and then both of them went to Hindupur. PW. 15 secured the assistance of PW. 14 Balasubramanyam for purposes of identification before PW. 12; The accused sold MOs 11 and 13 for Rs. 130 at about 4 P. M. on that day to PW. 12; (4) One day at about 11 A. M. the accused offered to pledge MOs. 12 and 14 for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 to PW. 17; (5) On the accused being arrested and searched on 29-6-1971 in the presence of PWs. 18 and 19, MOs. 12 and 14 were found with him. The accused voluntarily gave information as per Ex. P11 A and took these persons and produced the chopper MO. 1 from a haystack and then took them to PW. 15 and got produced MOs. 15 to 18; and thereafter took them to pw. 12 who is at Hindupur and got produced MOs. 11 and 13 which were seized under the panchanama Ex. P9; and (6) MO. 15 the shirt was found stained v/ith mammalian blood as per the chemical Examiner's report Ex. P 21. 15 and got produced MOs. 15 to 18; and thereafter took them to pw. 12 who is at Hindupur and got produced MOs. 11 and 13 which were seized under the panchanama Ex. P9; and (6) MO. 15 the shirt was found stained v/ith mammalian blood as per the chemical Examiner's report Ex. P 21. ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has held that the circumstances at serial numbers 1 and 2 had been satisfactorily established by the prosecution but not the remaining circumstances as, according to him, the witnesses pws. 15, 12, 14, 17 to 19 and 21 were not reliable witnesses. It is on this basis he acquitted the accused of all the charges. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Sessions judge was wrong in his approach to the evidence provided by PWs. 15, 14, 17 to 19 and 21 and that the conclusions arrived at by him are un-warranted. He also urged that while analysing and appreciating the evidence of PW. 21 and consequently the evidence of PWs. 18 and 19, the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence of PW. 21 especially in regard to what PW. 21 did on 28-6-1971 after contacting PW. 17 narasimhappa. ( 6 ) SMT. G. S. Anusaya, learned Cousel appearing for the respondent-accused contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in holding in favour of the prosecution even on circumstances 1 and 2 because, according to her, the evidence adduced in proof of those circumstances was not satisfactory. She further contended that the learned Sessions judge has properly scrutinised and appreciated the evidence of PWs. 15, 12. 14, 17 to 19 and 21 and rightly rejected their evidence. She lastly contended that if at all there can be said to be any circumstance worthwhile being considered in proof of these charges in this case, that circumstance is the disposal of MOs. 11 and 13 said to have been made by the accused to PW. 12 and that such a solitary circumstance viz. , the recovery of mos. 11 and 13 ought not be held sufficient to base a conviction. 11 and 13 said to have been made by the accused to PW. 12 and that such a solitary circumstance viz. , the recovery of mos. 11 and 13 ought not be held sufficient to base a conviction. As against this contention, the State Public Prosecutor argued that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been satisfactorily established and that the prosecution is entitled to a presumption under S. 114 Illn (a) of the Evidence Act and as against that no material by way of rebuttal has been put forward by the accused while on the other hand the accused has put forward a total denial as his defence and therefore, it must be held that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charges against the accused. ( 7 ) IN regard to the availability of presumption under S. 114, Illn. (a), evidence Act, the law is by now well settled that if ornaments or things of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt is permitted in law, vide Tulsiram Kanu v. State ,air. 1954 SC. 1 sunderlal v. State of M. P. , AIR, 1954 SC. 28. In Shivappa v. State of Mysore , AIR. 1971 SC. 196. such a presumption under S. 114 Illn. (a) of the Evidence Act in regad to an offence of decoity was raised on the basis of the concerned accused being found in possession of the articles concerned in the decoity within a reasonable period after the commission of the offence. In Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR. 1972 SC. 2501 such a presumption in regard to an offence of theft was raised where bulk of the stolen articles were recovered soon after the theft from the concerned accused. ( 8 ) IN Tulsiram Kanu v. State (1), it was held that the presumption, permitted to be drawn under S. 114, Illn. (a) of the Evidence Act has to be read along with the important time factor and when several months had expired in the interval, it was not permissible to draw the presumption, having regard to the circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunderlal v. Slate of M. P. (2) was rendered by Mahajan and Bhagwati, JJ. on 13-11-1952. ( 9 ) THE judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunderlal v. Slate of M. P. (2) was rendered by Mahajan and Bhagwati, JJ. on 13-11-1952. It was held that as the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by the deceased and the accused was not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the same on the very same day on which the alleged murder was committed, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold the accused responsible for the murder of the deceased. In Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan , AIR. 1956 SC. the facts relevant on the point were as follows : the murder was discovered on 1-1-1948. On 13-1-1948 and 19-1-1948, the two appellants therein were found to be in possession of the ornaments of the deceased. No other evidence cither direct or circumstantial connecting the appellants with the murder of the deceased was available. Mahajan, S. R. Das and Bhagwati, JJ. who rendered the judgment on 9-12-1952 held as follows :" From the solitary circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the accused, the only inference that can be raised in view of Illn. (a) to S. 114 is that they are either receivers of stoken property or were the persons who committed the theft but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time. " ( 10 ) IN Shivappa v. State of Mysore (3), the relevant facts were as follows : at about 11-30 P. M. on 28-7-1962 theft of certain cotton pieces from two carts took place. 20 persons were arrested and searches took place between 30-7-1962 and 17-8-1962. In those searches, the cloth which was undoubtedly stolen on 28-7-1962 was found in the houses of the said arrested accused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while upholding the conviction under S. 395 IPC held as follows :" In our opinion, the law advocated by Mr. Chari is not correct. If there is other evidence to connect an accused with the crime 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 evi- dence, already against him. Chari is not correct. If there is other evidence to connect an accused with the crime 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 evi- dence, already against him. It is only when the Accused"cannot be connected with the crime except by reason, of possession of the fruits of crime that the presumption may be drawn. In what circumstances the one presumption or tne other may be drawn, it is not necessary to state categorically in this case. It all depends upon the circumstances under which the discovery of the fruits of crime are made with a particular accused. It has been stated on, more than one occasion that if the gap of time is too large, the presumption that the accused was concerned with the, crime itself gets weakened. The presumption is stronger when the discovery of the fruits of crime is made immediately after the crime is committed. The reason is obvious. Disposal of the fruits of crime requires the finding of a person ready to receive them and the shortness of time, the nature of the property which is disposed of, that is to say, its quantity and its character determine whether the person who had the goods in his possession received them from another or was himself the thief or the dacoit. In some cases there may be other elements which may point to the way as to how the presumption may be drawn. They need not be stated here for they differ from case to case. In the present case the goods stolen were a large quantity of cloth taken for sale to the market. These goods were not sold and were being taken back to the dealers by the cartmen. A large number of persons said to be 20 in number pelted stones at the cartmen and looted the property. Immediately afterwards a number of searches were made and the goods were found with various persons who were prosecuted as offenders and they have been presumed to be involved in the dacoity itself. It may be noticed that from each person a large number of goods of the same type such as 20 choli pieces or 10 pieces of cloth were found. It may be noticed that from each person a large number of goods of the same type such as 20 choli pieces or 10 pieces of cloth were found. It is impossible to think that within the short time available, these goods could have been easily disposed of to receivers of stolen property or could be, placed in the custody of friends till such time as the original offenders could take them away. The time gap in some cases is as short as two days and in some others it is not more than five days. In two cases only the time gap is about 19 days. Even then we think that the time gap is too short for original offenders to have disposed of the property to these appellants or to have left the goods in their custody till such time as the original offenders could have taken them away. We are, therefore, satisfied that the proper inference was drawn in this case. It must nor be forgotten that the offence was committed at night by as many as 20 persons or more. The houses of 20 persons were searched and large quantities of the stolen goods were found in their houses. It is impossible to think that these 20 persons were merely receivers of stolen property from some other 20 persons who were the dacoits. It is legitimate therefore, to raise the presumption in this case that the persons with whom the goods were found were the decoits themselves. This presumption has been drawn and in our opinion rightly in this case. The conviction was therefore, correct in all the circumstances of the case. " ( 11 ) IN Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan (4:), the facts relevant on the point were as follows : an offence of house breaking had occurred in the house of one Kistoor chand on a certain date and within 17 days thereafter a large number of stolen articles were recovered from the house of the appellant concerned in that case, from a lonely spot in a graveyard in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the appellant. The appellant gave some explanation but that explanation was found to be unworthy of credence. The appellant gave some explanation but that explanation was found to be unworthy of credence. Their Lordships held that the case was not one wherein one or two or a few of stolen artilcles were found but the bulk of stolen articles were recovered from him soon after theft and the Courts below were justified in drawing presumption that the appellant was guilty of offence under Ss. 457 and 380 IPC. ( 12 ) IN Manjegowda v. State of Mysore ,crl. App. 186/72. disposed of by a Bench of this court on 26-7-1973, the only circumstance against the respondent-accused in that appeal was finding of the ornaments in possession of the respondent-accused and that too six days after the incident. No other evidence connecting the accused with the crime in question was made available. This Court, following the decision in Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan (5) and the decision in Re. Thangaswami, AIR. 1963 Mad. 476. held that it was not safe to base a conviction for the offence of murder on the basis of the abovementioned solitary circumstance only. ( 13 ) IT is therefore, clear from the above that in what circumstances the presumption under S. 114 Illn (a) may be drawn depends upon the circumstances under which the discovery of the fruits of the crime are made with a particular accused, the time gap or the interval and the nature of property involved especially its quantity and character in the context of early or delayed disposability. In some cases thene may, however, be other elements which "may also point to the above presumption to be drawn and such elements necessarily differ from case to case. The question of raising such a presumption arises only when the concerned accused cannot be connected with the crime in question-because of non-availability of other evidence either direct or circumstantial-except by reason of possession of the, goods concerned in the crime. Hence if, in a given case, the afore-mentioned considerations are satisfactorily established by the prosecution, the presumption under S. 14 Illn. (a) of the Evidence Act that by reason of recent possession of the articles or things of the deceased, the concerned accused is guilty of murder of the deceased has to be raised irrespective of the absence of other incriminating circumstances. The prosecution has examined PWs. 5, 7, 8 and 10 in proof of the first two circumstances. (a) of the Evidence Act that by reason of recent possession of the articles or things of the deceased, the concerned accused is guilty of murder of the deceased has to be raised irrespective of the absence of other incriminating circumstances. The prosecution has examined PWs. 5, 7, 8 and 10 in proof of the first two circumstances. ( 14 ) IN the result we hold that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in rejecting the testimony of PWs. 12 and 14 and also that of PW. 15. No material worthwhile is elicited in his cross-examination to show that pw. 21 did not try to trace the accused on 28-6-1971. When it is seen that the evidence of P. W. 21 ought to have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, it is quite appropriate to make use of the same while appreciating the evidence of PWs. 18 and 19. ( 15 ) THE evidence of PWs. 18, 19 and 21 satisfactorily establishes that the accuse was arrested on 29-6-1971 and he was found in possession of MOs. 12 and 14 which have been identified as belonging to the deceased Gangamma and had been worn by her in the morning of 24-6-1971. They were seized under the panchanama Ex. P11 which has been attested by PWs. 18 and ( 16 ) WE hold that this circumstance also has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. This would be part of circumstance No. 5 narrated above. PWs. 18, 19 and 21 have sworn that the accused narrated as per Ex. P11 (A) that; he had hidden the chopper MO. 1 in a haystack in a land and would produce the same; that he would take them to the house of pw. 15 and produce his clothes MOs. 15 to 18 and would take them to hindupur and produce MOs. 11 and 13 from the shop of PW. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses on this point also. Smt. Anusuya contended that the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the land where the chopper MO. 1 was hidden belonged to the accused. Whether the land belonged to the accused or not is in our opinion, not a material factor. Even if the land had belonged to some one else, that fact would not take away the evidentiary value of the recovery of MO. 1 was hidden belonged to the accused. Whether the land belonged to the accused or not is in our opinion, not a material factor. Even if the land had belonged to some one else, that fact would not take away the evidentiary value of the recovery of MO. 1 Smt. Anusuya next contended that the haystack was in an open field and was accessible to others and therefore, it could not be held that the accused was in exclusive possession of the chopper mo. 1 It is to be remembered that 'the chopper was not openly lying in a place accessible to one and all. It was produced by the accused from the haystack from a hidden condition. That goes to show that only the accused knew that this chopper had been hidden there. In fact he has in Ex. Pll, (A) stated that he had hidden the chopper in that haystack. The incriminating part in this circumtance is the fact of hiding the chopper by the accused. It is not established that the chopper MO. 1 was, stained with blood. That by itself does not take away the incriminating character of the circumstance as has been held by the Supreme Court in Wasim Khan v. State of U. P. ,air. 1956 SC. 400. In that case, the appellant was found to be in possession of a knife which could have caused the injuries found on the deceased. It was not established that the knife had any bloodstains on it. The appellant had denied that the knife belonged to him but had not explained as to how he came to be in possession of it. The circumstance that the appellant was in possession of such a knife and the further circumstance that he had not explained as to how he had come to be in' possession of the same were held to be incriminating circumstances against the accused. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs. 18, 19 and 21 shows that the accused led them to the house of PW. 15 and asked him to produce the clothes MOs. 15 to 18 and PW. 15 produced the same. It further shows that the shirt MO. 15 was stained with blood. This part of the testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the chemical examiner's report ex. P21 which shows that MO. 15 and asked him to produce the clothes MOs. 15 to 18 and PW. 15 produced the same. It further shows that the shirt MO. 15 was stained with blood. This part of the testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the chemical examiner's report ex. P21 which shows that MO. 15 was stained with mammalian blood but as the stains are disintegrated, the same was not sent to the Serologist for further examination. The learned Sessions Judge has made use of this fact as one of the reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW. 15 on the reasoning that at the time of handing over these clothes to PW. 15, he would have noticed the blood-stains on MO. 15 and would have asked the accused about that but in fact had not done so. This reasoning is based on the assumption that when the accused handed over the clothes to PW. 15, he examined those clothes carefully to find out whether the clothes bore any blood-stains on them. The evidence of PW. 15 is to the effect that the accused gave these articles and he bundled them and kept them separately. There is no material to assume that PW. 15 must have examined these clothes when the accused handed over the same to him. Hence it is seen that the foundation of the reasoning put forward by the learned Sessions judge is struck away. The reasoning is, on the face of it, fallacious. Apart from the, evidence of PW. 15. there is no evidence to show that these clothes (MOs. 15 to 18) did belong to the accused. The accused has, of course, denied the clothes as belonging to him. But we are unable to see why the evidence of PW. 15 cannot be regarded as sufficient to hold that this fact also has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. We hold it to be so. ( 17 ) THE information in Ex. P11 (A) given by the accused that he had given these clothes to PW. 15 also goes in support of the prosecution and makes the evidence of PW. 15 acceptable. In view of the foregoing reasons it is seen that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been satisfactorily established. ( 17 ) THE information in Ex. P11 (A) given by the accused that he had given these clothes to PW. 15 also goes in support of the prosecution and makes the evidence of PW. 15 acceptable. In view of the foregoing reasons it is seen that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been satisfactorily established. After re-assessing the entire evidence and carefully going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, we have no hesitation in observing that the conclusions. of the learned Sessions Judge in regard to circumstances 3 to 6 are not warranted as his approach to the evidence-for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraphs-is erroneous. We hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily established all the six circumstances relied upon by them. We, therefore, conclude that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the charges against the accused-respondent. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 11-2-1972 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S. C. No. 19 of 1971. We convict the accused for the offence under Ss. 302 and 392 IPC. We sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under s. 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under S. 392 IPC. We direct the sentences to run concurrently. --- *** --- .