B. C. VERMA J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1122 of 1981. (Kanchhedi v. State of M. P. ). ( 2 ) THE two appellants stand convicted for committing robbery at night in the house of Rajrani and for committing her murder in the night intervening 4th and 5th September, 1980. Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment and under section 394, they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. ( 3 ) IT is no more in dispute that Rajrani, an old widow, lived in a house by herself and that on the night between 4th and 5th September, 1980, she was murdered. A report of the incident was made by Nattu (PW. 1), Kotwar of the village, the next day at 2. 30 p. m. at the police station. It is Ex. P/1. Except one gold earring (bali) in one of the ears of the deceased. Her post mortem report shows that she has received several injuries. Dr. Argal (PW. 5) has proved these injuries on her person and opined her death as homicidal. This part of the prosecution case was not challenged before us. ( 4 ) THE incident was not seen by anyone. Sarju Bai (PW. 3), the daughter of the deceased reached her house the next day on hearing the murder of her mother. The appellants were not seen in the village. They were, however, arrested on 8. 9. 1980. Appellant Balkishans shirt (Art. H) was seized, vide seizure memo Ex. P/7 and on his memorandum recorded under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, were recorded ed khediya (Art. D), silver band (Art. F), silver churi (Art. G), chura (Art. C), gold bali (Art. E), gold pangoriya (Art. B) wrapped in a cloth (Art. A ). They were all seized vide Ex. P/9 by Peer Ali (PW. 12), the Circle Inspector. Recovery was made from the house of the appellant Balkishan in presence of Kishore Singh (PW. 7 ). Similarly, the other appellant Kanchhedi also gave information, vide Ex. P/10. Pursuant to this information, one paijeb (Art. A), katar (Art I), jhola (Art. L) were recovered and seized. His shirt (Art. J) was seized vide, Ex. P/12. In an identification parade conducted by Naib-Tahsildar, Shri R. N. Kushvaha (PW. 11) on 24. 9 1980, vide identification memo (Ex. Similarly, the other appellant Kanchhedi also gave information, vide Ex. P/10. Pursuant to this information, one paijeb (Art. A), katar (Art I), jhola (Art. L) were recovered and seized. His shirt (Art. J) was seized vide, Ex. P/12. In an identification parade conducted by Naib-Tahsildar, Shri R. N. Kushvaha (PW. 11) on 24. 9 1980, vide identification memo (Ex. P/5) all these articles, excluding the katar and jhola, were identified as belonging to the deceased. These articles were identified by Smt. Saroj Bai (PW. 3) and Mankuwar (PW. 4 ). Reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist were obtained in respect of marks on some of these articles- The silver churi (Art. G) and the jhola (Art. L) were found to be stained with human blood. At the trial, the memorandums recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizures were proved. The witnesses also proved that they identified the articles as belonging to the deceased. The witnesses also stated that the deceased usually wore those ornaments and Ramlal (PW. 6), the son-in-law of the deceased, stated that he had seen the deceased wearing those ornaments a fortnight prior to the incident. The trial Court accepted this evidence. It then resorted to the presumption available under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act and concluded that the appellants also were the authors of the crime and held them guilty both under Sections 394 and 302, Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the two appellants, did not make any sermon attempt to question the seizure and the identification of the articles as belonging to the deceased. The Investigating Officer, Peer Ali (PW. 12) has shown that the two appellants voluntarily made statements vide Exs. P/8, and P/b. These statements led to the discovery of the various ornaments from their houses. Kishore Singh (PW. 7) has proved the seizure of these articles. Suraj Bai (PW. 3), Mankuwar (PW. 4) and Ramlal (PW. 6) have duly identified these ornaments in the identification parade held by Shri Kusvaha (PW. 11 ). No defect could be pointed out in the identification parade so held by Shri Kusvaha (PW. 11 ). It also cannot be doubted that the two daughters and the son-in-law of the deceased had frequent opportunities to see the deceased wearing those ornaments and, therefore, it was quite easy for them to have identified those ornaments. 11 ). No defect could be pointed out in the identification parade so held by Shri Kusvaha (PW. 11 ). It also cannot be doubted that the two daughters and the son-in-law of the deceased had frequent opportunities to see the deceased wearing those ornaments and, therefore, it was quite easy for them to have identified those ornaments. We see no reason to discard their testimony. This apart, the appellants have also not claimed these articles as belonging to them nor had they offered any explanation for their possession. We, therefore, without hesitation, accept that at the instance of the two appellants, articles belonging to the deceased Rajrani were recovered from their houses on 8-9-1980, i. e. , soon after their arrest. ( 6 ) IT was vehemently argued that the aforesaid finding regarding possession of these articles by the appellant would only lead to the inference that they were receivers of stolen property and could only be convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. Reliance was strongly placed for this submission upon a decision of the Supreme Court, In Nagappa Dondhiba v. State of Karnataka State. Before, however, we deal with the submission, a few more [acts may be noted. The two appellants lived in the same village in which the deceased Rajrani was living. It was a small village. Immediately before tae occurrence, no one visited the village. No person except the two appellants had gone out of the village. The two appellants were not seen in the village immediately after the incident. They had left their house. They had to be searched out. They were found on hillocks during that search. This is what has been deposed to by Peer Ali (PW. 12), who investigated into the crime. All these facts have been brought in his cross-examination. It may also be noticed that a bali (ear-ring) was left in one of the ears of deceased and it resembled the one which was seized from appellant Balkishan. It is also worthy to note that for possession of these articles, none of the two appellants offered any explanation. Their case has been one of denial and they could not account for possession of those articles. It is also worthy to note that for possession of these articles, none of the two appellants offered any explanation. Their case has been one of denial and they could not account for possession of those articles. Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act permits a court to presume that a man who in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. In Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1952, (SC.), which has been referred to by approval in Ram Bharose v. State of U. P. the Supreme Court observed: In our judgment, no hard and fast rule can be Jaid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence, against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is now safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer. It was also held that the question whether unexplained possession of articles by the accused would be evidence of participation in murder was one of fact turning on all the circumstances of the case. This provision again fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Erabhadappa v. State of Karnataka. It was held that the nature of presumption under illustration (a) to section 114 of the Evidence Act must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No time limit can be fixed to determine if the possession is recent or otherwise. No hard and fast rule can be laid and each case will have to be determined on its own facts. In that case also, the accused was charged for murder and robbery. A period of one year had elapsed between the commission of the offence and discovery of stolen articles. The Court held that it was permissible to draw a presumption that the accused was not only receiver of the property but also had committed the murder. In that case also, the accused was charged for murder and robbery. A period of one year had elapsed between the commission of the offence and discovery of stolen articles. The Court held that it was permissible to draw a presumption that the accused was not only receiver of the property but also had committed the murder. The circumstances that we have found proved in the present case, in our opinion, do warrant a conclusion that the appellants are not only guilty of committing robbery but also of committing murder and that both the offences were committed at one and the same time. After the commission of the offence, the appellants were found absconding. No one else came in the village nor had anyone else gone out. They had concealed themselves in the hillocks and were found only on being raced out. Within three days, at their instance, the properties were discovered. The ornaments were usually worn by the deceased; she was seen wearing them even a fortnight prior to the date of incident. There is no evidence that anybody else was seen in or near the house of the deceased during that night. There does not seem to be any opportunity of somebody else transferring possession of these articles to the appellants. The appellants offered no explanation for the possession of those articles. Even blood was found on few of them. These circumstances, in our opinion, lead to an irresistable conclusion that the appellants. first committed the robbery and in so doing they could not remove one ring from the ear of the deceased. Later, they committed her murder. In Ram Bharoses case (Supra), a similar presumption was drawn and the facts of that case considerably resemble to the facts of the present case. In that case also, the accused had disappeared from the house after commission of the offence and was brought back under arrest. He produced the articles from the kothar where he was seen going. The articles were found stained with blood and the inquest started immediately as in the present case. Appyling this decision, in Ram Bharoses case (Supra), we hold both the appellants guilty not onlyof committing robbery but also committing murder of Rajrani. ( 7 ) THE decision in Nagappa Dondhibas esse (Supra) is not of much assistance in the present case. The articles were found stained with blood and the inquest started immediately as in the present case. Appyling this decision, in Ram Bharoses case (Supra), we hold both the appellants guilty not onlyof committing robbery but also committing murder of Rajrani. ( 7 ) THE decision in Nagappa Dondhibas esse (Supra) is not of much assistance in the present case. Paragraph 2 of the report shows the only circumstantial evidence in that case consisted of recovery of some gold ornaments at the instance of the appellants. It was, therefore, held that the inference may be that the ornaments were stolen property received by the accused knowing that they were stolen property. The conviction was, therefore, altered to section 411, Indian Penal Code. We have shown above that in the instant case, the prosecution has established many more circumstances besides unaccounted possession of property a few of which were found stained with human blood, permitting an inference of commission of murder and robbery by the appellant. Both the appeals therefore, must fail. ( 8 ) THE appeals fail and are dismissed. Appeal dismissed .