M. D. BHATT, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Laxman who, on his conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and further on his conviction under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to seven years R. I. with the direction for the concurrent running of These sentences. ( 2 ) ON or about 20. 12. 1979, Kalicharan of village Kedarpur Khurd, now deceased, who had his sweet-meat shop, had gone to Ramgarh market with his mobile shop. After the market, he started for his home on a horse. He, however, never reached home. His wife, on getting worried, asked her relation P. W. 1 Sillu to look for his husband. In between the villages Amavoh and Kedarpur, Kalicharans dead body was seen in a field near Narayan Pur a few yards away from the village track. Earlier, his horse had been seen grazing all alone in some other field. The police was accordingly apprised. FIR was got recorded. The appellant - accused was apprehended by the police on suspicion on 17. 1. 1980. Consequent to the information furnished by him, the deceased's coat (Art. H) was recovered and seized from a pit close to palash trees and a little away from a triangle of village track. Equally on the information furnished by him, one brass copar (Art G) was recovered and seized at Jabalpur from the utensil-shop of P. W. 2 Anil kumar to whom the said copar had been sold on 22. 12. 1979. The name of the deceased was found engraved over the copor. The copar was identified by the deceaseds. daughter-in-law P. W. 16 Kamlabai. The deceaseds coat was equally got identified by her and some others. On the post-mortem of the dead body, death of Kalicharan was found to be caused by strangulation. The appellant accused was, hence, put up for trial. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be falsely implicated. No evidence was adduced in defence. The trial Court, solely relying on the deceaseds articles recovered and seized at the appellant accuseds instance, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, his present appeal. The appellant accused was, hence, put up for trial. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be falsely implicated. No evidence was adduced in defence. The trial Court, solely relying on the deceaseds articles recovered and seized at the appellant accuseds instance, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, his present appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI Datt, learned counsel for the appellant-accused, bas urged that there is no material to indicate as to on what basis the police investigating, officer P. W. 17 Ishdutt had apprehended the appellant-accused. It is also urged that in the memorandum of discovery and the two seizure memos pertaining to the coat and copar are not duly proved and are not free from suspicion. III this connection, it is further argued that even recovery of these articles at the appellant-accused's instance was not sufficient enough to pin down the crime of robbery and murder on him and, at worst, he could be presumed to be a receiver of stolen articles and nothing beyond. ( 4 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced, in the light of the evidence on record. The fact of Kalicharan's death caused by Asphyxia as a result of strangulation of neck, as opined by P. W. 14 Dr. Kamla Salam, is not disputed. Even otherwise also, autopsy surgeons evidence leaves no room for doubt that Kalicharan was murdered by strangulation. The only question to be considered is whether it was the appellant-accused who had committed the robbery and had murdered Kalicharan. ( 5 ) THE only incriminating circumstance on the strength of which the appellant-accused has been convicted, is the recovery and the seizure of the deceaseds certain articles at the instance of the appellant-accused. The evidence regarding memorandam Ex. P-12 and the two seizure memos viz. Ex. P-13 pertaining to the woollen coat (Art. H) and Ex. P-I pertaining to the copar, hence, deserves close scrutiny. P. W. 17 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ishdutt and P. W. 7 Jalil Khan, the attesting witness of the memorandum Ex. P-12, have consistently and corroboratively proved that at mid noon on 17. 1. 1980, the appellant-accused, during his police custody, had furnished information regarding the coat and so also the copar. P-I pertaining to the copar, hence, deserves close scrutiny. P. W. 17 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ishdutt and P. W. 7 Jalil Khan, the attesting witness of the memorandum Ex. P-12, have consistently and corroboratively proved that at mid noon on 17. 1. 1980, the appellant-accused, during his police custody, had furnished information regarding the coat and so also the copar. These witnesses have equally proved that the appellant-accused had taken the Panch witnesses and so also the police Sub-Inspector near the triangle of kapurda, 4 or 5 furlongs away from the village Khairi, and that, from under the palash trees, the woollen coat (Art H) was produced by the appellant-accused, and the same was accordingly seized. There is no material to doubt either the memorandum or the seizure memo pertaining to the coat. As regards the other seizure memo Ex. P-l also, the evidence of the police Sub-Inspector P. W. 17 Ishdutt and P. W. 2 Anilkumar clearly shows that the particular brass copar (Art. G) whereon the name of the deceased was found inscribed, was recovered and seized. The Sub-Inspector Ishdutt has deposed that it was this appellant accused who had got seized this copar from Anilkumars shop at Jabalpur. Anilkumar had deposed that this copar was sold at his shop by the very person who had got it seized later from his shop. Now, the, seizure memo shows that it was the appellant-accused who had got seized the copar. Therefore, there is no scope for doubt that this copar bad been recovered and seized from Anilkumar's utensil-shop at the instance of the appellant-accused. The factum of sale incidently is also found to have been mentioned in Anilkumars accounts-books (copy of the entry Ex. P-2 ). Thus, both these seizures stand duly proved and there is no scope for doubting the same. ( 6 ) THIS copar is found to be fully identified by the deceaseds daughter-in-law PW 16 Kamlabai. Then furthermore. the woollen coat also is found to have been identified in Court and also in the test identification proceedings held by PW 15 Tahsildar Bhagat Singh by the particular witnesses viz. P. W. 16 Kamlabai, P. W. 3 Birbal and P. W. . 6 Madan. P. W. 3 Birbal is the neighbour who had seen the deceased going to Ramgarh market wearing this particular coat. P. W. 16 Kamlabai, P. W. 3 Birbal and P. W. . 6 Madan. P. W. 3 Birbal is the neighbour who had seen the deceased going to Ramgarh market wearing this particular coat. Kamlabai has also deposed so; P. W. 6 Madan is and tailor who had stitched this coat of the deceased. Thus, there is also no scope for doubting the identification of the woollen coat (Art. H ). It may incidentally be stated that it was Immediately after file apprehension of the appellant-accused on 17. 1. 80 that these two particular articles viz. copar and coat had been recovered and seized at the appellant- accuseds instance and also these recoveries were about a month after the all aged murder. However, it is further noticed that the murder having been committed on or about 20 1279, the copar of the deceased had been sold hardly two dlys after, at P. W. 2 Anilkumars shop at Ja ba I pu r. ( 7 ) THE paramount question now is whether in view of the solitary circumstance regarding the recovery of the incriminating articles about a month after the incident of murder, could lead to the irresistible inference that the appellant-accused was guilty of murder and robbery. Articles recovered, are only two, and those too, petty ones. They are found to be recovered at the instance of the appellant accused about a month after the incident. The appellant-accused, as stated by the police investigating officer P. W. 17 Ishdutt, was apprehended just on suspicion on 17. 1. 80. It is not necessary for the investigating officer to disclose, as to, what facts and circumstances had led him to entertain the suspicion against the appellant-accused. It is enough for him to say that he had entertained suspicion, and hence he had apprehended the appellant-accused, although had the police investigating officer thrown some light regarding the nature of his suspicion, that would have been much better and would have actually advanced the cause of justice and fair play. It is enough for him to say that he had entertained suspicion, and hence he had apprehended the appellant-accused, although had the police investigating officer thrown some light regarding the nature of his suspicion, that would have been much better and would have actually advanced the cause of justice and fair play. There is plethora of case-law for the proposition that, where an accused is found in possession of stolen property after several days of murder and where, there is no other incriminating and corroborative evidence to connect such accused with the offence of murder, he cannot be convicted for murder, and that, he can, only be convicted of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code on the strength of presumption raised under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. Sanwant Khan and another v. State of Rajasthan, Virumal Mulchand and another v. State of Gujarat and Alisher v. State of Uttar Praiesh ate some of the prime Judgments which can well be adverted to in this regard. ( 8 ) RECOVERY of the stolen articles in the instant, case, at the instance of the appellant accused and that too within a reasonable period of one month, the appellant-accuseds sale of particular brass copar to P. W. 2 Anil Kumar just two days after the incident of murder and failure of the appellant-accused to offer any explanation for possession of this copar and cost are the material circumstances which give rise to the presumption that he had, received these articles knowing them to be stolen ones. But, this presumption cannot be further extended for inference, that theft and murder had taken place at one and the same time. Considering the views as expressed by their lordships Of the Supreme Court in the decisions alluded to above, the appellant accused obviously deserves to be convicted, only of the offence punishable under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and in no case, of the particular offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal of the accused Laxman is partly allowed. Setting aside the order of convictions and sentences as passed against him under Sections 302 and 394/397 Indian Penal Code, he is now, instead, convicted only of the offence punishable under section 411 Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal of the accused Laxman is partly allowed. Setting aside the order of convictions and sentences as passed against him under Sections 302 and 394/397 Indian Penal Code, he is now, instead, convicted only of the offence punishable under section 411 Indian Penal Code. Considering the circumstances of the incident, he is sentenced to three years R. I. and to pay the fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rs. two thousands) and in default of fine, to further undergo nine months R. I. for this offence. The appellant accused, who is on bail, do immediately surrender to his bail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as now awarded. Appeal partly allowed .