Short Note : 1. In this appeal from Jail, the appellant Sibul Raw had challenged his conviction under sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Putribai and sentences of imprisonment for life and one year's rigorous imprisonment respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. Held : This Court agrees with the conclusion of the trial Court that the prosecution has successfully established that the articles belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant. The articles were recovered from underneath the pit covered with water and thus the appellant had concealed them. His statement would thus be covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is overwhelming evidence that these articles belonged to the deceased. Thus from the facts, it is permissible for the Court to draw a presumption under section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act that the appellant was either a thief or a receiver of stolen goods. This Court is inclined to draw the presumption that the appellant was a receiver of stolen goods. The incident took place between the intervening night of 25-2-1971 and 26-2-1971. None of these articles was stained with blood. The discovery was made on 2-3-1971 that is after a lapse of about 4 or 5 days. There was thus a time lag between the commission of the offence and the discovery of the property. There is no evidence that the appellant was seen with the deceased. The circumstance that he lived near the house of the deceased is not incriminating because he has been living there even prior to the incident. There is also no evidence that the appellant was seen either with the deceased in her house or was seen emerging out from that house. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the presumption about the appellant having committed robbery or murder could not be safely drawn. In fact, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 392 of the Penal Code and convicted him under section 404. For this section, there is no proof that the ornaments were removed after the death of Putribai. It is possible that the appellant may have received the stolen goods from different persons. In fact, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 392 of the Penal Code and convicted him under section 404. For this section, there is no proof that the ornaments were removed after the death of Putribai. It is possible that the appellant may have received the stolen goods from different persons. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the appellant could not be convicted either under section 302 or section 404 of the Penal Code and the proper section to convict him would be section 411 of the Penal Code. Appeal partly allowed.