JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota dated September 2, 1982, by which the appellant Mohan was convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly recalled, the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused are that at about 10.30 A. M. on June 16, 1981, PW 1 Bhanwar Singh appeared at Police Station, Ramganj Mandi and verbally lodged report EX. P 1. It was stated therein that he had seen a dead body of a male person under a tree near village Atraliya. The dead body had some wounds on it and appeared that his murder was committed. The police registered a case under section 302, I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer Vijay Singh (PW 15) went on the spot, inspected the site and prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body. At the time of the preparation of the inquest report, it could not be ascertained as to who was the dead person. Since the death was unnatural, the post-mortem examination of the deadbody was got conducted. Dr. Mathur (PW 13) conducted the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination prepared by him is EX P 10. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victim's dead body:- (I) Incised wound 3" X 3/4" X upto bone oblique on life parietal region. (2) Incised wound 3" x 1" upto bone voctiealy situated 1" behind right ear. (3) Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x upto bone deep transverse situated, occipital region. (4) Incised wound 21/2" x 3/4 x upto bone deep at labroid suture transverse. (5) Oval lacerated wound 2" x 1/2 upto bone deep right zyganatic region." 3. The cause of death was coma, caused by injury on vital organ i. e. brain, which was due to injuries on head. Suspicion was laid over the appellant. He was arrested on July 4, 1981. In consequence of the informations furnished by him on July 4, 1981 and July 7, 1981, two wrist watches and currency notes of Rs. 1200/ - were recovered from his possession. It revealed during the investigation that the wrist watches belonged to the deceased. Suspicion was laid over the appellant. He was arrested on July 4, 1981. In consequence of the informations furnished by him on July 4, 1981 and July 7, 1981, two wrist watches and currency notes of Rs. 1200/ - were recovered from his possession. It revealed during the investigation that the wrist watches belonged to the deceased. The identity of the deceased was also disclosed. It was Kalu brother of PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 12 Deo Karan. The investigation further showed that the accused was seen in the company of the accused before he was killed. Some other articles were recovered. They were sent to the Chemical Examiner. Blood-stains were found on them. On the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi, who. in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran framed a charge under section 302, I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to him, he was falsely implicated. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charge duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against his conviction, the accused has taken this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. M. A. Khan-learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Kamla Jain-the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. It may be mentioned at the very out-set that Mr. Khan did not challenge the opinion of Dr. Mathur relating to the cause of death of deceased-victim Kalu. We have also gone through the statement of Dr. Mathur and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Kalu was, thus, not natural but homicidal 6. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the prosecution camp. The case against the accused hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. Mathur relating to the cause of death of deceased-victim Kalu. We have also gone through the statement of Dr. Mathur and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Kalu was, thus, not natural but homicidal 6. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the prosecution camp. The case against the accused hinges entirely on circumstantial evidence. In order to establish the offence under section 302, I.P.C. against the accused, the prosecution has adduced two sets of circumstantial evidence viz., (1) the deceased was seen in the company of the accused before he was put to death and (2) the recoveries of the currency notes and the two wrist watches at the instance of the accused and in consequence of the information furnished by him. 7. Mr. Khan strenuously contended before us that the above two sets of evidence are not sufficient to connect the accused with the murder of Kalu. It was argued that the prosecution witnesses speaking about the deceased being seen in the company of the accused are not trustworthy. None of them stated as to when and on what date or day he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused. The evidence relating to the last seen is omnibus and vague. In this connection, he has relied upon Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan to which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. K. Sharma J) was a party. It was further argued that the recoveries of the currency notes and the two wrist watches are also not conclusive to establish the fact that Kalu was done to death by the accused. It was argued that the mere recovery of the articles, which were with the deceased, is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration but it itself it is not sufficient to seek the conviction. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Hukamsingh v. State of Rajasthan and Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan to which one of us (Byas, J.) was a party. It was argued that the conviction of the accused under section 332, I.P.C., in these circumstances, is bad. The accused can be convicted only under section 411, I.P.C. 8. Countering these contentions, it was argued by Mrs. It was argued that the conviction of the accused under section 332, I.P.C., in these circumstances, is bad. The accused can be convicted only under section 411, I.P.C. 8. Countering these contentions, it was argued by Mrs. Jain that since the recoveries of the various articles were made at the instance and in consequence of the information furnished by the accused, a presumption can be drawn under section 114 of the Evidence Act that the accused was the person who had killed the deceased. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Sunder Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. 9. We shall first take up the evidence relating to the last seen. The prosecution has examined four witnesses: PW 3 Kishan Lal PW 5 Chhotu Lal, PW 6 Tulsi Ram and PW 12 Deo Karan. Out of them, PW 3 Kishan Lal and PW 12 Deo Karan are the real brothers of the deceased-victim. We have carefully gone through their statements. What they stated is vague and omnibus. None of them stated that the deceased was seen in the company of the accused before his murder was committed or atleast on the day his death took place. If we carefully examine the statements of these witnesses, it also does not follow that they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused on the same day prior to his death. More over, simply because the deceased was seen in the company of the accused, it cannot be taken to be a conclusive evidence that it was the accused and the accused alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. In Rajarams case, it was held that the evidence of the last seen is not of the conclusive character to establish that the murder was committed by the accused and none else. Therefore, the circumstance that the deceased and the accused were seen together, even if taken as established, is not sufficient to seek the conviction of the accused. 10. Mr. Khan did not challenge the recoveries of the wrist watches and the currency notes in consequence of the information furnished by the accused. Therefore, the circumstance that the deceased and the accused were seen together, even if taken as established, is not sufficient to seek the conviction of the accused. 10. Mr. Khan did not challenge the recoveries of the wrist watches and the currency notes in consequence of the information furnished by the accused. We therefore, need not deal with this aspect at length The pertinent question which arises is that whether the recoveries of the two wrist watches and currency notes are sufficient to raise a presumption that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Kalu? The question of drawing the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act was dealt at length by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hukamsingh's case (supra). In that case four murders were committed and the accused was arrested two days after. The recovery of the proper ties at the instance of the accused and in consequence of the information furnished by him was made just after his arrest. It was argued that the recovery of the incriminating articles. which were with the deceased-victim was sufficient to raise a presumption of murder against them. The contention was negatived by their lordships. Huksm-singh's case was followed by this Court in Pratap Singh's case (supra). In view of the aforesaid authorities, a presumption under section 114, Evidence Act is not possible to be raised that Kalu was done to death by the appellant. In Hukumsingh case, the conviction under section 302, I.P.C. was set aside and the accused was convicted under section 380, I.P.C. The same was the fate of the case of Pratap Singh. We are therefore, unable to maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. Since the dead body of the victim was found in an open place, the presumption, which can be safely drawn is that the accused is the receiver of the properties of the deceased-victim and the offence made out against him is punishable under section 411, I.P.C. 11. We have carefully gone through Sunder Lal's case (supra). There, the accused was arrested on the same day when the murder was committed and the recovery of the incriminating articles was made on the same day. It was in those circumstances that their Lordships of the Supreme Court drew a presumption that an offence under section 302, I.P.C. was made out. There, the accused was arrested on the same day when the murder was committed and the recovery of the incriminating articles was made on the same day. It was in those circumstances that their Lordships of the Supreme Court drew a presumption that an offence under section 302, I.P.C. was made out. Here in the instant case, the situation is entirely different. Here in the instant case accused was arrested nearly after 20 days of the occurrence. As such, the observation made in Sunder Lal's case renders no help to the Public Prosecutor. 12. For the reasons discussed above, the conviction and sentence of accused under section 302, I.P.C. cannot be maintained. But he is to be convicted under section 411, I.P.C. 13. In the result, we partly allow the appeal accused Mohan. His conviction and sentence under section 302, I.P.C. are set aside and instead he is convicted under section 411, I.P.C. and is sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. As he is in custody since July 4, 1981 he has served out the full term of sentence. He shall be, therefore, set forth at liberty if not wanted in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******