Nesargi, J.-In this appeal, the State has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No. 19 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 sections 302, Indian Penal Code and 392, Indian Penal Code. 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 24th June, 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 M.Os.11 to 14, cut her with a chopper M.O.1 and killed her and robbed her of the said ornaments. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Gangamma is the sister of Siddappa P.W.7. P.W.8 Thimmakka is the wife of P.W.7. P.W.10 Lakshmamma and P.W.11 Gangamma (a child witness) are the daughters of P. Ws.7 and 8. Gangamma’s husband had died long back. She was residing in a separate house and not with P.Ws.7 and 8 and their family members, but her residence was nearby the residence of P.Ws.7 and 8, Gangamma the deceased was always wearing ornaments M.Os. 5, 6 and 11 to 14. She was maintaining herself by doing cooly work. P.W. 10 Lakshmamma had about one month prior to 24th June, 1971, given birth to a baby and she was in the house of P.Ws.7 and 8. On 24th June, 1971, P.W.7 Siddappa had gone to Madhugiri for some work. In the morning at about 8 a.m. or so on 24th June, 1971, Gangamma proceeded to the said land and while she was going so, she talked with P.W. 10, who was standing at the door having her baby with her. P.W.8 Thimmakka who was in the kitchen saw them talking. P.W.11 Gangamma took her 10 sheep for grazing near about the said land. P.Ws. 8 and 10 observed that Gangamma the deceased was, as usual, wearing the above mentioned ornaments. At about noon meal time P.W. 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. P.Ws. 8 and 10 observed that Gangamma the deceased was, as usual, wearing the above mentioned ornaments. At about noon meal time P.W. 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. P.W.11 raised cries and came to the village bawling out that Gangamma had been murdered. P.W.5 A.R. Narasimha Reddy, the Patel of Annenahalli heard this information from P.W.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 M.Os.11 to 14 were not on the body of Gangamma. They were missing. He came home and wrote his report Exhibit P-5 mentioning about the incident and also describing the articles M.Os.11 to 14 which he observed and missing from the body of Gangamma the deceased. His talwar Rangappa P.W.4 was residing in Teriyur village which is about one mile away from Annenahalli village. P.W.5 went on foot to Teriyur village and gave Exhibit P-5 to P.W.4 and directed P.W.4 to produce it in Kodigenahalli police station. P.W. 4 took Exhibit P-5 and produced it before the Station House Officer, Kodigenahalli police station P.W.20 who registererd a case and issued First Information Report and sent express reports. The police took up investigation. P.W.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 28th June, 1971 when P.W.21, was making enquiries in Vangadammanahalli village P.W.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 aroused suspicions of P.W.21 against the accused. P.W.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. 20 to Rs. 30 to him and that as he had no money, he did not accept that offer. This information aroused suspicions of P.W.21 against the accused. P.W.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 29th June, 1971, P.W.21 proceeded in a police jeep in search of the accused. He had secured a general description of the accused from P.W.17. In the very same morning P.W. 18 Kondegowda, the patel of Vengadammanahalli, P.W.19 Ramaiah of Muddenahalli were proceeding together to Kadagattu village in order to purchase a pair of bullocks for P.W.19. While they were so proceeding and were passing near the temple of Subramanya which is near about Parthihalli village, they saw the accused on that road. The jeep in which P.W. 21 was proceeding also appeared there. The jeep was stopped on the accused being sighted. Being curious as to what was happening, P.Ws. 18 and 19 went up to that place and then P.W.21 requested P.W.19 to take search of his pockets which P.W.19 did. Thereafter P.W.21 searched the person of the accused and found, in the left hand side pocket of the shirt that was on the person of the accused, a pair of silver anklets (M.O. 14) and in the left side pocket of his knicker a pair of earrings (M.O.12). They were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-11 to which P.Ws. 18 and 19 attested as witnesses. Then the accused was asked to get into the jeep by P.W.21 and at that point of time, the accused voluntarily stated to all these persons as per Exhibit P-11 (A) that he had given his clothes to Venkatappa P.W. 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 P.W.21 knew and P.W. 21 recorded his statement. He gave this statement in Telugu which language P.W.21 knew and P.W. 21 recorded his statement. Then the accused took them to a land and from a haystack that was there took out a chopper (Kudugolu) M.O. 1. No blood-stains appeared to be on M.O. 1. That was seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-12. Thereafter, the accused took all these persons to the house of P.W.15 Venkatappa in Annenahalli village. He (accused) asked Venkatappa to produce the clothes that he had given to him. P.W. 15 produced a shirt (M.O. 15), a knicker (M.O.16) and a banian (M.O.17) and a towel (M.O. 18) which were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-13. Then P.Ws. 21, 18, 19 and 15 and the accused proceeded in the jeep of P.W.21 to Hindupur where the accused took them to the shop of Prabhakar P.W.12 who is a jeweller. The accused asked P.W.12 to hand over the articles that he had sold him and P.W.12 produced a gold teeki (Chintaku) M.O. 11, and a silver waist belt M.O.13. The gold teeki M.O. 11 was not in single piece but had been cut into three pieces. These articles were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-9. P.W.14 Balasubramanyam an employee in the local post office was secured and examined by P.W.21. P.W.21 continued the investigation and after completing the same, placed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. 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. 5. 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 24th June, 1971, this accused cut her on the neck and killed her and took away all the easily removable ornaments viz., M.Os. 11 to 14 leaving the kadagas M.Os. 5 and 7 on the body itself. He then proceeded to the house of P.W. 15 Venkatappa a dhobi by profession and gave him his clothes M.Os. 15 to 18 for washing presumably because they were stained with blood. He then enlisted the assistance of P.W. 15 in order to dispose of M.Os.11 and 13 and accordingly the accused and P.W.15 Venkatappa proceeded to Hindupur. He then proceeded to the house of P.W. 15 Venkatappa a dhobi by profession and gave him his clothes M.Os. 15 to 18 for washing presumably because they were stained with blood. He then enlisted the assistance of P.W. 15 in order to dispose of M.Os.11 and 13 and accordingly the accused and P.W.15 Venkatappa proceeded to Hindupur. They reached Hindupur by about 4 p.m. The accused disposed of M.Os.11 and 13 to P.W.12 with the assistance of P.W.13 and P.W.14 Balasubramanyam, an employee in the local post office at Hindupur. The accused received a sum of Rs. 130 from P.W. 12 and both the accused and Venkatappa P.W. 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 P.W.17 Narasimhappa and offered to pledge M.Os. 12 and 14 for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30. He did not accept that offer. It was only on 28th June, 1971 when P.W.21 contacted P.W.17 in the course of his investigation that P.W.17 gave this information to P.W.21 and P.W.21 secured a tangible clue useful for unravelling the mystery of the murder of Gangamma the deceased. It is already narrated that thereafter P.W.21 searched for the accused and arrested him on 29th June, 1971 and after completing the investigation placed the charge sheet against him. 6. The case of the prosecution hinges entirely on the circumstantial evidence only. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as follows: 1. P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 saw Gangamma the deceased arrived at 8 a.m. on 24th June, 1971 and at that time Gangamna was wearing M.Os.5, 6 and 11 to 14 as usual. P.W.8 saw Gangamma carrying a basket M.O.8 at that time. P.W.11 saw that Gangamma was picking neem seeds in the land S. No. 44 of Annenahalli and further at about noon time P.W.11 Gangamma saw the deceased lying dead having sustained bleeding injuries on her neck; 2. P.W.5 the patel of Annenahalli visited the spot and immediately noticed that M.Os.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 P.W.15 Venkatappa in the afternoon of 24th June, 1971 and gave M.Os. P.W.5 the patel of Annenahalli visited the spot and immediately noticed that M.Os.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 P.W.15 Venkatappa in the afternoon of 24th June, 1971 and gave M.Os. 15 to 18 for washing and then both of them went to Hindupur. P.W.15 secured the assistance of P.W.14 Balasubramanyam for purposes of identification before P.W.12. The accused sold M.Os. 11 and 13 for Rs. 130 at about 4 p.m. on that day to P.W.12; 4.One day at about 11 a.m. the accused offered to pledge M.Os.12 and 14 for a sum of Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 to P.W.17; 5. On the accused being arrested and searched on 29th June, 1971 in the presence of P.Ws. 18 and 19, M.Os. 12 and 14 were found with him. The accused voluntarily gave information as per Exhibit P-11 (A) and took these persons and produced the chopper M.O. 1 from a haystack and then took them to P.W.15 and got produced M.Os. 15 to 18; and thereafter took them to P.W.12 who is at Hindupur and got produced M.Os. 11 and 13 which were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-9; 6. M.O. 15 the shirt was found stained with mammalian blood as per the Chemical Examiner’s report Exhibit P-21. 7. 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 P.Ws. 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. 8. The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in his approach to the evidence provided by P.Ws.14, 15, 17 to 19 and 21 and that the conclusions arrived at by him are unwarranted. He also urged that while analysing and appreciating the evidence of P.W.21 and consequently the evidence of P.Ws. 18 and 19, the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence of P.W.21 especially in regard to what P.W.21 did on 28th June, 1971 after contacting P.W.17 Narasimhappa. 9. He also urged that while analysing and appreciating the evidence of P.W.21 and consequently the evidence of P.Ws. 18 and 19, the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence of P.W.21 especially in regard to what P.W.21 did on 28th June, 1971 after contacting P.W.17 Narasimhappa. 9. Smt. G.S. Anusuya, learned Counsel 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 P.Ws. 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 M.Os. 11 and 13 said to have been made by the accused to P.W.12 and that such a solitary circumstance viz., the recovery of M.Os. 11 and 13 ought not be held sufficient to base a conviction. 10. 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 section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian 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. 11. In regard to the availability of presumption under section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian 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. The State1. Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh2. Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh2. In Shivappa and others v. The State of Mysore3, such a presumption under section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act in regard 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 Rajasthan4, 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. 12. In Tulsiram Kanu v. The State,1 it was held that the presumption permitted to be drawn under section 114, Illustration (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. 13. The judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sunderlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh2was rendered by Mahajan and Bhagwati, JJ. on 13th November, 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. 14. In Sanwat Khan and another v. State of Rajastkan5 , the facts relevant on the point were as follows: 15. The murder was discovered on 1st January, 1948. On 13th January, 1948 and 19th January, 1948, the two appellants therein were found to be in possession of the ornaments of the deceased. No other evidence either direct or circumstantial connecting the appellants with the murder of the deceased was available. Mahajan, S.R. Das and Bhagwati, JJ. The murder was discovered on 1st January, 1948. On 13th January, 1948 and 19th January, 1948, the two appellants therein were found to be in possession of the ornaments of the deceased. No other evidence either 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 9th December, 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 Illustration (a) to section 114, is that they are either receivers of stolen 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”. 16. In Shivappa and others v. State, of Mysore6, the relevant facts were as follows: 17. At about 11-30 p.m. on 28th July, 1962 theft of a certain cotton pieces from two carts took place. 20 persons were arrested and searches look place between 30th July, 1962 and 17th August, 1962. In those searches, the cloth which was undoubtedly stolen on 28th July, 1962 was found in the houses of the said arrested accused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while upholding the conviction under section 395, Indian Penal Code 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 evidence 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 the other may be drawn, it is not necessary to state categorically in this case. It all depend 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. It all depend 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 decoit. 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 decoity itself. It may be noticed that from each person a large number of goods of the same type such as 20 choli pieces or ten 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. 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 not 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 decoits. 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". 18. In Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan1 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. Their Lordships held that the case was not one wherein one or two or a few of stolen articles 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 sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. 19. In Manjegowda v. The State of Mysore1 disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 26th July, 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. 19. In Manjegowda v. The State of Mysore1 disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 26th July, 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 and another v. State of Rajasthan2, and the decision In re Thangaswami3, held that it was not safe to base a conviction for the offence of murder on the basis of the abovementioned solitary circumstance only. 20. It is therefore, clear from the above that in what circumstances the presumption under section 114, Illustration (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 there 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. 21. 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 aforementioned considerations are satisfactorily established by the prosecution, the presumption under section Crl.A.No. 186 of 1972. 2. A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 54. 3. A.I.R. 1963 Mad. 476. 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian 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. 22. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 10 in proof of the first two circumstances. As already narrated, P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 are persons closely related to the deceased. P.W.5 is the patel of Annenahalli. All these witnesses have sworn that the deceased Gangamma used to wear M.Os. 5, 6 and 11 to 14 on her person regularly. P.Ws. 5, 7, 8 and 10 in proof of the first two circumstances. As already narrated, P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 are persons closely related to the deceased. P.W.5 is the patel of Annenahalli. All these witnesses have sworn that the deceased Gangamma used to wear M.Os. 5, 6 and 11 to 14 on her person regularly. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 10 being closely related to the deceased will have to be regarded as persons competent to speak to these facts. A reading of Exhibit P-5 shows that the missing of M.Os. 11 to 14 from the body of Gangamma struck P.W.6 the patel conspicuously and therefore, he mentioned that fact in it within no time after coming to know of the murder. He has described the missing articles though to a certain extent only, in Exhibit P-5. This material is more than abundant to hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily established that Gangamma used to wear M.Os. 5, 6 and 11 to 14 almost constantly on her person. It was contended by Smt. Anusuya, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused that the evidence of P.Ws.7, 81 and 10 in regard to the identity of M.Os.11 to 14 is not satisfactory. It is undisputed that M.Os.11 to 14 which are goldteeki (Chintaku), a pair of gold earrings studded with white stones, a silver waist belt, and a silver like anklet respectively are common place: ornaments. It is by now well established that persons constantly associated with such common place articles would be competent to identify them in spite of the absence of any specific mark or marks on them. It cannot at all be disputed that P.Ws.7, 8 and 10 being closely related to the deceased and residing just near the house of the deceased must be regarded as persons closely associated with the deceased and therefore in a position to have constant opportunities to observe these articles on the person of the deceased. They have identified that M.Os.11 to 14 as the ornaments belonging to the deceased and stated that the deceased had worn these articles in the morning of 24th June, 1971 also. They have identified that M.Os.11 to 14 as the ornaments belonging to the deceased and stated that the deceased had worn these articles in the morning of 24th June, 1971 also. This evidence read with the evidence of P.W.5 and Exhibit P-5 in regard to the missing of these articles leaves no doubt in our mind to hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated this evidence and come to a proper conclusion that the prosecution has established circumstances 1 and 2 narrated above. 23. The learned Sessions Judge has discarded the evidence of P.W.15 on the ground that he is an unreliable witness. One of the main grounds which persuaded the learned Sessions Judge to discard the evidence of P.W.15 is that M.Os. 15 to 18 could not have been given by the accused to P.W.15 because P.W.15 has admitted that he had not put any dhobi mark on those clothes even by 29th June, 1971. Another ground for rejecting his evidence is that it is in the nature of an accomplice. Smt. Anusuya, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, while supporting this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge stated that the receipt Exhibit P-7 said to have been issued by P.W.12 is a carbon copy and it appeared to be spurious one as only the L.T.M. of P.W.15 had been got affixed on it though according to the prosecution case. P.W.15 and the accused has in fact sold M.Os. 11 and 13 to P.W.12 and that would go to show that not only P.W.15 but also P.Ws. 12 and 14 are unreliable witnesses. 24. P.W.15 Venkatappa has sworn that he knew the accused since many years. He was bringing clothes from customers in Hindupur and used to wash them. As to why he did not put any dhobi mark on M.Os. 15 to 18, given by the accused to him, he has explained that even till 29th June, 1971, he had not taken up those clothes for washing and it was only at the time of taking the clothes for washing, he affixes dhobi marks on the clothes. It is well-known that dhobies give certain marks to the clothes of their customers in order to enable them to identify the clothes as belonging to particular customers. P.W.15 is a resident of the village Annenahalli. The accused was a person very well known to him. He had kept M.Os. It is well-known that dhobies give certain marks to the clothes of their customers in order to enable them to identify the clothes as belonging to particular customers. P.W.15 is a resident of the village Annenahalli. The accused was a person very well known to him. He had kept M.Os. 15 to 18 in a bundle quite separately. When P.W.15 did not find it necessary to give any dhobi marks to those clothes since he knew the clothes and the accused quite well, the approach made by the learned Sessions Judge to the evidence of P.W.15 cannot be considered as a proper one. There is no material on record even to suspect that the accused might have taken P.W.15 into confidence and disclosed to P.W.15 that he was involved in the murder of Gangamma the deceased. We are unable to understand how the learned Sessions Judge felt any doubt in regard to the character of the evidence of P.W.15 as that of an accomplice. Merely because P.W.15 had accompanied the accused to Hindupur and took active part in getting M.Os.11 and 13 sold by the accused to P.W.12, the evidence of P.W.15 cannot, in law, be characterised as in the nature of an accomplice. The proper approach to the evidence of P.W.15 would, in our opinion, be by way of scrutiny, analysis and appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 12 also. The testimony of P.Ws. 12, 14 and 15 should have to be taken up for consideration as one unit. P.W. 14 Balasubramanyam is an independent witness. He is a responsible employee of the local post office at Hindupur. He has sworn that he knew Venkatappa P.W.15 since about 18 years prior to 24th June, 1971 and at about 4 p.m. or so on that day, Venkatappa and the accused went to him in the post office. Venkatappa told him that the accused wanted to sell two articles to P.W.12 and P.W.12 was insisting on some person known to him identifying them and requested him to accompany them to the jewellery shop of P.W. 12 and identify them. He was shown M.Os. 11 and 13 and he accompanied them to the shop of P.W. 12 and told him that he knew Venkatappa since about 18 years and Venkatappa was stating that the accused wanted to sell M.Os. 11 and 13 and therefore, P.W.12 may purchase them. He was shown M.Os. 11 and 13 and he accompanied them to the shop of P.W. 12 and told him that he knew Venkatappa since about 18 years and Venkatappa was stating that the accused wanted to sell M.Os. 11 and 13 and therefore, P.W.12 may purchase them. No material is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to show that his evidence is doubtful in character. The only slight discrepancy seen in his evidence is that he once said that M.Os.11 and 13 were shown to him in the post office itself but again he stated that he saw them only in the jewellery shop of P.W.12. P.W.14 has given evidence about seven months after the incident. This minor discrepancy cannot be made much of to discard his testimony when it is clear that his evidence is cogent and consistent and he is an independent responsible witness occupying an official position in the local post office. His evidence satisfactorily establishes that P.W. 15 and the accused had been to Hindupur at about 4 p.m. on 24th June, 1971 and M.Os. 11 and 13 were sold to P.W.12. The learned Sessions Judge, has in this context adverted to Exhibit P-7 and the unsatisfactory way in which the account had been maintained by P.W. 12 and the absence of the L.T.M. of the accused below Exhibit P-7. Smt. Anusuya urged that there is lot of force in this reasoning put-forward by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the L.T.M. of the accused is not found below Exhibit P-7 the carbon copy of the receipt given by P.W. 12. It is also true that the purchase of both these articles M.Os. 11 and 13 is not mentioned in Exhibit P-7 and only the silver waist belt M.O. 13 is mentioned in Exhibit P-7. P.W.12 has in this connection admitted that even his books of account did not show that he had purchased M.O. 11 also either from Venkatappa or from the accused at that point of time. He has explained that the amount paid for the purchase of M.O. 11 was his own and was not out of the funds of the shop and therefore, he did not describe that article either in Exhibit P-7 or in the books of account of his shop. He has explained that the amount paid for the purchase of M.O. 11 was his own and was not out of the funds of the shop and therefore, he did not describe that article either in Exhibit P-7 or in the books of account of his shop. Even if the worst is attributed to this circumstance, all that can be said is that P.W.12 does not appear to have maintained the accounts of his shop in the manner required to be done. But it cannot have any bearing on his evidence pertaining to his actual transaction entered into by him with the accused. The evidence of P.W.14 Balasubramanyam can be confidently relied upon to hold that M.Os.11 and 13 were sold to P.W.12 for a sum of Rs. 130. The doubt expressed by the learned Sessions Judge that P.W.15 himself might have sold these articles to P.W.12 and not the accused cannot held water because the reasoning on which this doubt is based is unwarranted The learned Sessions Judge has observed that according to the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.15 the accused gave M.Os.11 and 13 in the hands of P.W.15 and P.W.15 in turn gave them to P.W.12 and thereafter P.W.12 paid a sum of Rs. 130 in the hands of P.W.15 who in turn gave the same to the accused, while according to P.W. 14 the accused gave the ornaments to P.W.12 who paid the sum in the hands of the accused and therefore, the evidence in regard to this transaction is not satisfactory. We do not see any force in this reasoning because, we are unable to understand what difference it can make if the articles and the amount passed through the hands of P.W.15. All the witnesses are one in stating that M.Os. 11 and 13 were with the accused and P.W. 12 purchased them for a sum of Rs. 130 and the accused received that amount from P.W.12. In the result we hold that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in rejecting the testimony of P.Ws.12 and 14 and also that of P.W.15. 25. It would be in this context necessary to advert to the evidence of P.Ws. 18, 19 and 21 because it was in their presence that the accused appears to have stated as per Exhibit P-n (A) that he would get the clothes produced from P.W. 15. 25. It would be in this context necessary to advert to the evidence of P.Ws. 18, 19 and 21 because it was in their presence that the accused appears to have stated as per Exhibit P-n (A) that he would get the clothes produced from P.W. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 18 and 19 after holding that P.W.21 is not a reliable witness on the point of going in search of the accused after suspecting his complicity in the crime on 28th June, 1971. The only reason on which the learned Sessions Judge has based this conclusion is that even after contacting P.W.17 on 28th June, 1971 P.W.21 to the C. P. I. did not go Parthihalli in order to trace the accused and did not even depute his subordinate officers or officials to trace the accused till 29th June, 1971 and this conduct on the part of P.W. 21 was sufficient to raise a genuine suspicion against the testimony of P.W.21. We are afraid that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence of P.W. 21 in this connection. P.W.21 has in paragraph 28 of this statement, unequivocally stated that on 28th June, 1971 he tried to apprehend the accused and in that regard, had gone to Parthihalli on the evening of 28th June, 1971 at 3-30 p.m. or 4 p.m. but he could not find him in that village. The learned Sessions Judge has quite wrongly observed in paragraph 44 of his judgment that P.W.21 the G.P.I. had deposed that on 28th June, 1971 he did not go to Parthihalli and did not at all depute any officers or officials to trace the accused in Parthihalli. It is hence manifest that the reasoning is based on material which is not on record and appears to have been imagined by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence of P.W.17 to the effect that when P.W.21 went to him, he told him about the offer to pledge M.Os. 12 and 14 by the accused and provided P.W.21 with the general description of the accused, goes a long way to corroborate the evidence of P.W.21. No material worthwhile is elicited in his cross-examination to show that P.W.21 did not try to trace the accused on 28th June, 1971. 26. 12 and 14 by the accused and provided P.W.21 with the general description of the accused, goes a long way to corroborate the evidence of P.W.21. No material worthwhile is elicited in his cross-examination to show that P.W.21 did not try to trace the accused on 28th June, 1971. 26. 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 P.W.s 18 and 19. The learned Sessions Judge has thought that presence of P.Ws. 18 and 19 near Subramanya temple at that time in the morning on 29th June, 1971 is not reliable because it was too much to think that their presence at that place was only a coincidence. It is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the most important fact that P.Ws. 18 and 19 are two independent persons who had nothing to do either with the accused or the deceased. The lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses has not produced even an iota of material to throw doubt on their veracity. P.W.19 has sworn that he went to the house of P.W.18 and requested him to accompany him for purchasing a pair of bullocks and therefore they were proceeding towards Kadagathur near the Subramanya temple when they happened to observe the accused coming from the opposite direction and a police jeep coming from behind and stopping near the accused. P.W.21 and these witnesses have corroborated each other in all material particulars. We see no reason to reject the testimony of P.Ws. 18 and 19. The reason put forward by the learned Sessions Judge as discussed above is too very flimsy. The evidence of P.Ws. 18, 19 and 21 satisfactorily establishes that the accused was arrested on 29th June, 1971 and he was found in possession of M.Os. 12 and 14 which have been identified as belonging to the deceased Gangamma and had been worn by her in the morning of 24th June, 1971. They were seized under the panchanama, Exhibit P-11 which has been attested by P.Ws. 18 and 19. We hold that this circumstance also has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. This would be part of circumstance No. 5 narrated above. 27. P.Ws. They were seized under the panchanama, Exhibit P-11 which has been attested by P.Ws. 18 and 19. We hold that this circumstance also has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. This would be part of circumstance No. 5 narrated above. 27. P.Ws. 18, 19 and 21 have sworn that the accused narrated as per Exhibit P-11 (A) that he had hidden the chopper M.O. 1 in a haystack in a land and would produce the same; that he would take them to the house of P.W.15 and produce his clothes M.Os. 15 to 18 and would take them to Hindupur and produce M.Os. 11 and 13 from the shop of P.W.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 M.O.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 M.O.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 M.O.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 Exhibit P-11(A) stated that he had hidden the chopper in that haystack. The incriminating part in this circumstance is the fact of hiding the chopper by the accused. It is not established that the chopper M.O. 1 was stained with blood. That by itself does not take away the in criminating character of the circumstance as has been held by the Supreme Court in Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh1. 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 blood-stains on it. 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 blood-stains 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 P.Ws. 18, 19 and 21 shows that the accused led them to the house of P.W.15 and asked him to produce the clothes M.Os. 15 to 18 and P.W. 15 produced the same. It further shows that the shirt M.O. 15 was stained with blood. This part of the testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the Chemical Examiner’s report Exhibit P-21 which shows that M.O. 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 P.W. 15 on the reasoning that at the time of handing over these clothes to P.W.15, he would have noticed the blood-stains on M.O. 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 P.W.15, he examined those clothes carefully to find out whether the clothes bore any blood-stains on them. The evidence of P.W.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 P.W.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 P.W.15, there is no evidence to show that these clothes (M.Os.15 to 18) did belong to the accused. 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 P.W.15, there is no evidence to show that these clothes (M.Os.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 P.W.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. 28. The information in Exhibit P-11(A) given by the accused that he had given these clothes to P.W.15 also goes in support of the prosecution and makes the evidence of P.W.15 acceptable. In view of the foregoing reasons it is seen that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been satisfactorily established. 29. 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 11th February, 1972 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur, in S.C. No. 19 of 1971. We convict the accused for the offence under section 302, and 392, Indian Penal Code. We sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under section 392, Indian Penal Code. We direct the sentence to run concurrently. S.V.S. ------ Appeal allowed; aquittal set aside; accused convicted of the offences charged.