Short Note : 1. Appellants Samodhan and Bhunsi alias Bhuwan Singh had been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They had also been convicted under section 392 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 3 Smt. Champa, who was mother-in-law of appellant No. 1, had been convicted under section 411 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The evidence against the appellants consists of recoveries of certain articles. On the information given by the appellant Samodhan, a number of articles, some of which are ornaments, belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of appellant No. 3 Champa. Similarly, some ornaments were also recovered on the information given by appellant No. 2 Bhunsi. Appellant Champa also got recovered one ornament. The articles and ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellants have been found to belong to the deceased. There is a gap of about six days between the date of murder of the deceased and the recovery of ornaments from the possession of the appellants. The ornaments have not been recovered from the possession of only one person but they have been recovered from the possession of three persons. It would be difficult to infer that all the three from whose possession the ornaments were recovered combined together for murdering the deceased. There is no other evidence against the appellants except the recovery. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view, that it would not be safe to draw the inference that all or any of them were guilty of murder. The only inference that is possible is that the appellant nos. 1 and 2 namely, Samodhan and Bhunsi were guilty of the offence under section 379 of the Penal Code. Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.