Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 15.5.1976 complainant Karan Singh was ploughing his field situated in village Khanota. The appellant had also his field near the field of Karan Singh. The appellant invited Karan Singh to come and sit under the "neem" tree. The appellant had an axe and sickle in his hand. When the complainant went near the accused appellant he dealt sickle-blow on the throat of the complainant. The complainant raised an alarm. The accused then dealt axe blow on the person of the complainant which hit him on his head. The complainant tried to catch hold of the axe in that attempt he received injury on his hand. The accused thereafter dragged Karan Singh to a nearby Nala and tried to take out the ornaments worn by the complainant from his ears. The appellant did not succeed in that attempt and therefore, he cut the left ear of the complainant and took out the ornaments from the ear. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant Dhapubai a resident of the same village came on the spot. The complainant told about the incident. Thereafter other villagers also came there. The complainant narrated the incident to them also. The complainant was taken to the Suthaliya hospital. The station-house-officer main police station was available and he recorded the first information report (Ex.P-4) at the hospital. The complainant was medically examined and treated by Dr. Singhai (PW-1). The accused was arrested on 18.5.1976. After investigation the appellant was prosecuted under sections 394/97 and 307 IPC. He denied his guilt. After trial be was acquitted of the charge under section 307, IPC and has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. From the statement of Karan Singh (PW-5) which is corroborated by the statement of Dhapubai (PW-12) and Guman (PW-14) as also from the first information report (Ex.P-4) and the statement of Dr. Singhal (PW-1) it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused injuries on the person of the complainant Karan Singh. Dr. Singhal (PW-1) also opined that the cut portions of the left ear Panna and Lobule amounted to permanent disfiguration. This injury was, therefore, grievous. The learned trial Judge also observed that he had seen that a part of the left ear of the, complainant was missing. Dr. Singhal (PW-1) also opined that the cut portions of the left ear Panna and Lobule amounted to permanent disfiguration. This injury was, therefore, grievous. The learned trial Judge also observed that he had seen that a part of the left ear of the, complainant was missing. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the complainant Karan Singh by a sharp edged weapon. 3. As regards the theft of ornaments, the ornaments were recovered from the pocket of the appellant when he was arrested on 18.5.78 by Sub-Inspector Rajput (PW-18) at his residence in the presence of Vijaysingh and Banshilal. Vijaysingh (PW-13) who is a resident of village Kachri deposed that the accused was arrested in his presence and that on his search the ornaments were recovered from his pocket and were seized by the Sub- Inspector. The accused, appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that the ornaments were kept in his pocket by the police Sub-Inspector Rajput (PW-18). The Sub-Inspector (PW-18) denied this allegation. It was argued that other witnesses in whose presence the accused was arrested and ornaments were seized were not examined and therefore an adverse inference against the prosecution ought to have been drawn. There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the appellant ornaments were planted by the Sub-Inspector first and thereafter the witnesses were sent for and he was arrested and ornaments were recovered. In the circumstances it was not necessary to examine any other witness because according to the appellant no one was present when the ornaments were planted by the Sub-Inspector in his pocket. The version of the appellant that the ornaments were planted by the Sub-Inspector has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Judge. 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that from the fact that the ornaments were recovered from the possession of the appellant no presumption of theft by the appellant should be drawn. According to him the ornaments were not recovered soon after they were alleged to have been stolen and that in any event it can only be presumed that the appellant was a receiver of stolen property and that his conviction under section 394/397, IPC was not justified. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The complainant Karan Singh was called by the appellant. He was beaten by the appellant. Soon after it was discovered that his ornaments were stolen and the ornaments were recovered from the possession of the appellant after two days. In the circumstances the learned judge was right in drawing a presumption that the appellant had stolen the ornaments in question. Appeal dismissed.