Short Note : 1. In Sessions trial No. 22 of 1973 appellant. was charged for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC., while one Mst. Chandrakali was charged for an offence under section 411 of the IPC The Sessions Judge Sidhi by his judgment dated 8-7-1977 acquitted Mst. Chandrakali. However while acquitting appellant Ramlakban Das for an offence under section 302 IPC. be convicted him for an offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. This appeal by Ramlakhandas is against that conviction and sentence. 2. Learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence regarding the in-formations given by the appellant with regard to the properties ns also the evidence with regard to their seizure from the possession of the appellant. He rightly observed that no presumption under section 114 of the evidence Act can be drawn against the appellant about his being the murderer of Laxmibai as the possession of these articles with him cannot be termed as recent. He, however, further observed that:- "he has retained these articles knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. The stolen property has not only been recovered at his instance, but it is manifestly clear that the accused was fully aware of its presence there. Dishonest retaining of the property, knowing it to be stolen is apparent in the circumstances of the case. The place from where the accused Ramlakhandas took out the property and gave it to the police, further shows that be himself concealed the articles in the place where they were found." 3. Held: In my opinion the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in finding the appellant guilty for an offence under section 411 of the IPC is not correct. It was after about more than five years that he was found in possession of these properties. Excepting for a bare suspicion there is no conclusive evidence to show that the property was in fact stolen either from the house of Agranath or from the possession of deceased Laxmibai. Before convicting a person for an offence under section 411 of the IPC one of the things which requires to be proved is that property in question was the stolen property. (See state v. Shantabai and another 1960 JLJ 832 ). Before convicting a person for an offence under section 411 of the IPC one of the things which requires to be proved is that property in question was the stolen property. (See state v. Shantabai and another 1960 JLJ 832 ). As has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Trimbak v. The State of M. P. ( AIR 1954 SC 39 ), that it is the duty of the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 IPC to prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got the possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. 4. With that sort of evidence the conviction rests only on the inference that is permissible to be drawn under section 114 of the Evidence Act. A person who is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or bas received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for His possession. Before an inference of guilt is, drawn it is necessary that the possession of the culprit should be a recent one. No doubt what period would be termed as recent’ will be a matter which would always differ from case to case, partly depending even on the type of the property. In the case in hand the property bas been found after more than five years of the alleged incident. The property in the very nature is such which can change bands from time to time. The Sessions Judge has presumed that the appellant retained these articles knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. I do not find any such circumstance which can lead to this sort of an inference. In may opinion, therefore even accepting the evidence of the in-formations given by the appellant and the consequent discovery, no inference of his being guilty for an offence under section 411 of the IPC could have been legitimately drawn. The find of the property may at best raise a suspicion. The conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code cannot therefore, be upheld. The find of the property may at best raise a suspicion. The conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code cannot therefore, be upheld. 1960 JLJ 832 and AIR 1954 SC 39 relied OD. Appeal allowed.