Short Note : 1. The prosecution story was as follows:- (i) At Madhoganj Vidisha. there is a 'New Punjab Hotel' belonging to one Triloksingh (PW 9). The accused Ajaykumar, Brijlal (PW 2) and the deceased Munna were servants in the said hot, 1. Munna, the deceased, and the accused Ajaykumar used to sleep during night in a room, which is on the front side of the said hotel. It is said that the accused used to steal dry-fruits from the said Hotel and the deceased Munna made complaint thereof to the owner of the Hotel Triloksingh. This led the accused to harbour ill-will against the deceased. (ii) On the intervening night between 20th and 21st November, 1973, at about 11. 00 P. M., the deceased Munna left Hotel for his room since he was feeling feverish and went to sleep. Thereafter, at about 1.00 a. m. on the same night the accused consumed some liquor and left for the said room. He picked up a brick from beneath water barrel kept in the hotel. This was marked by Brijlal (PW 2). A suspicion cropped up in the mind of Brijlal (PW 2) at this. Accordingly, be went to the room where the deceased and the accused used to sleep. He peeped into the room from the eaves of the door and saw that the accused was beating Munna with a brick. A candle was lit at that time in the room. Brijlal (PW 2) thereupon went to call some persons from the nearby shop and hotel. Mohanlal (PW 3) Kanhaiyalai (PW 4), Suma! Kumar (PW 5), Ishwardas (PW 6), Champalal (PW 7) and Kailashchand (PW 20) assembled near the scene of occurrence, i. e. the aforesaid room. Mohanlal (P W 3) knocked at the doors of the room and caned the inmates of the room to open it. After about 10 minutes repeated knocking, the accused opened the door of the room and tried to run, but he was caught and detained by some persons who were standing there. 2. Held: That apart, the wrist-watch (Art -1) was also recovered at 2.40 a. m. in the night soon after the occurrence, vide Ex. P/l2 from the wrist of the accused, at the time of his arrest. This fact is proved by Id Mobammad (PW-10) and Motikhan (PW 11). 2. Held: That apart, the wrist-watch (Art -1) was also recovered at 2.40 a. m. in the night soon after the occurrence, vide Ex. P/l2 from the wrist of the accused, at the time of his arrest. This fact is proved by Id Mobammad (PW-10) and Motikhan (PW 11). Recent possession of writ-watch (Art.-I), which belonged to the deceased at the relevant time has got volumes to speak because recent possession of the wrist-watch, which belonged to the deceased is indicative of his complicity with the crime. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have in Tulsiram Kanu v. The State ( AIR 1954 SC 1 ) held that if ornaments or other things of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months expire in the interval, the presumption may not be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the present case, the recovery of the wrist watch (Art.-1) was found in possession of the accused soon after the murder. 3. The last incriminating circumstance is recovery of two pieces of bricks (arts. 3 and 6). which were blood stained and were recovered in consequence of information given by the accused vide (Ex. P-16) portion marked 'A' to 'A'. at 12.00 hours in the night of occurrence. The factum of recovery being in consequence of information given by the accused has been duly proved by Lalbahadursingh (PW 15). Assistant Sub-Inspector. As a matter of law evidence afforded by Assistant Sub-Inspector, a witness belonging to the investigating Agency cannot be said to be unreliable and no reason has been pointed out why to disbelieve his testimony. The report of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologists (Ex. P-22 and P-23 respectively) prove that the pieces of bricks were stained with human blood. The fact that blood group could not be found by the serologist on account of the blood on the brick pieces being insufficient for test, cannot detract from the evidenciary value of the report. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be unassailable. It has been proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who is the perpetrator of the crime. 5. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be unassailable. It has been proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who is the perpetrator of the crime. 5. This brings us to the last contention, viz, the accused can be punished only under Part II of section 304 IPC and not under section 302 IPC In order to attract applicability of Part II of section 304 IPC it has to be shown that the act imputed to the accused was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In view of the facts proved by the prosecution in this case, especially in view of the fact that the accused persisted in brutally inflecting injuries by bricks and in view of the nature of the injuries found by Dr. S.G.S. Khare (PW 19) to which the deceased succumbed, it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to cause death and that the act imputed to the accused was done without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In this view of the matter the conviction of the accused under section 302 of the IPC is justified and the sentence for life imprisonment does not appear to be ID excess of the requirement. AIR 1954 SC 1 relied on. Appeal dismissed.