M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused, Mst. Muniya Bai who, on her conviction under section 302 I. P. C. , has been sentenced to life imprisonment and on further conviction, under section 404 I. P. C. , has been sentence a to one years RI, with the direction for the concurrent running of these sentences. ( 2 ) THE deceased in the case is one Gangabai, age 12 years, daughter of P. W. 4 Manfaran, resident of Barmamhagawan, married to P. W. 9 Simali's son. On 27. 10. 82 the deceaseds mother, at about 6 p. m. , had sent her daughter viz, Gangabai, for purchasing Bidis from a local shop in the village. At the relevant time, she was wearing a silver kardora (Article 1), which her father-in, law had given her in marriage; and also four silver Lacchas (Articles F-I to F. 4) given to her in marriage by her parents. She never returned thereafter. A written report was sent by the deceaseds father on the next day and the same was recorded in the Roznamcha sanha of P. S. Barhi on 29. 10,82 (Ex. PA and P. 18 ). On 3. 10. 82, P. W. 5 Girja Prasad, while grazing buffaloes, found Gangabais dead body lying in vijaybahadurs field. Police was duly informed and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The deceased was found to have fractures of temporal and frontal bones in the head region, apart from other injuries, which too showed fractures, During the course of investigation, the appellant-accused was apprehended by the police on suspicion on 7. 11. 82 and consequent to the information furnished by her during police custody, (Ex. P-7), the silver kardora and four lacchhas were recovered and seized from her, when she produced the same for the said purpose (Ex. P-8 ). During investigation, it was also learnt that P. W. 10 Bhagwanta and P. W. 11 Indrapal Gin had sighted the deceased as well as the appellant-accused going together in, the village. Accordingly, the appellant-accused was put up for trial. ( 3 ) THE appellant-accused abjured the guilt in the trial Court and claimed to be falsely implicated. However, no evidence was adduced in defence. Accordingly, the appellant-accused was put up for trial. ( 3 ) THE appellant-accused abjured the guilt in the trial Court and claimed to be falsely implicated. However, no evidence was adduced in defence. ( 4 ) IN the trial Court, the recovery and seizure of the silver kardora and Lachchhas from the appellant-accuseds possession at her instance, was duly proved. Likewise, it was also proved that toe deceased and the appellant-accused were last seen together on the same evening. The fact that the ornaments belonged to the deceased who was wearing them on the relevant evening, was also then proved in the light of the identification of these articles in the identification proceedings and also in the Court. Relying on these circumstances, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the evident as stated at the outset. Hence, now, her present appeal. ( 5 ) SHRI Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the appellant-accused, has urged, in the first place, that the circumstantial evidence regarding the appellant-accused having been last seen with the deceased, is just a concoction inasmuch as, the statements under section 161 Cr. P. C. of the material witnesses Bhagwanta and Indrapal Gin, has been recorded about 2 months after the incident, i. e. on 23. 12. 82. As regards the recovery and seizure of the incriminating ornaments, it has been vehemently argued that mere recovery and seizure of the deceased's ornaments from the appellant's Possession, were not sufficient to pin down the crime of murder on her, in the absence of other corroborating circumstances of cogent and reliable nature, to indubitably connect the appellant-accused with the crime of murder of the small girl. According to appellant's learned counsel, the offence against the appellant accused could be made out at worst, under sections 411 and 404 I. P. C. ( 6 ) WE have scrutinized the whole circumstantial evidence on record with due caution and care, It is established from the evidence of the police investigating officer P. W. 16 R. M. Tiwari that the statements of Bhagwanta and Indrapal Gin (P. Ws. . 10 and. 11) were recorded by him on 23. 12. 82. He has explained this delay on the premise that before this date, these witnesses were not available. P. W. 10 Bhagwanta does not say in the least that he was away from the village after the disappearance of Gangabai, now deceased. . 10 and. 11) were recorded by him on 23. 12. 82. He has explained this delay on the premise that before this date, these witnesses were not available. P. W. 10 Bhagwanta does not say in the least that he was away from the village after the disappearance of Gangabai, now deceased. P. W. 1 Indrapal Gin, no doubt, states that he had gone to the village of his in-laws just immediately after the disappearance of Gangabai, but there is nothing in his evidence to show that he had returned about two months after, i. e. in December, 1982. On the contrary, his cross examination reveals that he had returned from his in-laws village just after 5 or 7 days. His such statement belies the oral testimony of the police investigating officer that Indrapal Gin was not available in the village during November 1982. Then again, the evidence of both these witnesses Indrapal Gin and Bhagwanta that they had seen the deceased as well as the appellant-accused going side by side from the village side towards the deceaseds own house, does not carry much conviction because of their vague statements in this regard. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses regarding the appellant-accused as having been last seen with the deceased, is not found reliance and more so for the reason that the police statements were recorded about two months after, raising grave doubt regarding the genuineness of the police statements so recorded. ( 7 ) THUS, remains the solitary evidence regarding the recovery and seizure of the silver kardora and four larchhas from the appellant's possession, consequent to her memorandum of discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Considering the memorandum Ex. P-i and Seizure memo Ex. P-8, it is dear that this recovery and seizure had been made just within 9 days of Gangabais disappearance. The memorandum as well as the seizure memo are both found to be duly proved by the police investigating officer P. W. 16 Tiwari and the Panch witness P. W. 13 Vasudev Gin. It is established beyond any shadow of doubt that these ornaments had been seized from the appellants possession on being produced by her, consequent to her information furnished to the pci ice. It is established beyond any shadow of doubt that these ornaments had been seized from the appellants possession on being produced by her, consequent to her information furnished to the pci ice. ( 8 ) SO far as these ornaments are concerned, there is more than sufficient evidence on record as has already been discussed by the trial Court, that these ornaments had been got identified in the test-identification proceedings held by Naib Tehsildar P. W. 2 Tigga, by the silversmith P. W. 6 Lalji, deceaseds mother P. W. 8 Kapsibai and the deceaseds father-in-law P. W. 9 Simali. These relations have also proved the fact that on the relevant date of the deceaseds disappearance, she was wearing these ornaments. ( 9 ) NOW, it is to be seen as to what offence is made out on the strength of the recovery and seizure of the deceaseds ornaments from the appellant's possession. It has been held in Nagappa Dondiba Kalal v. State of Karnataka, that the mere circumstances that the deceased was last seen wearing the particular ornaments and that those ornaments of the deceased had been recovered at the instance of the accused, were not sufficient for the inference that the accused had murdered the deceased. For drawing such inference, it has been held, that there should he other corroborating evidence of satisfactory nature, to connect with the murder. Their Lordship, ill these circumstances, have further observed: At the utmost as the ornaments have been proved to be stolen property received by the appellant knowing that they were stolen property, the accused can thus be convicted on the basis of presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act and under section 411 of Indian Penal Code as a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen. In the light of this decision, since, there is the solitary circumstance of recovery of the deceased's ornaments from the possession of the appellant-accused, who well knew that the ornaments were not her own and were that of the deceased the appellant accused is liable to be convicted of the offence punishable under section 411 I. P. C. on the basis of the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act and in no case, under section 302 I. P. C. ( 10 ) LIKEWISE, the ingredients of the offence under section 404 I. P. C have already been duly fulfilled in the present case. The appellant accused is equally liable for conviction under section 404 I. P. C. ( 11 ) IN our view, sentence of three years R. I. under section 411 I. P. C. would be quite appropriate in the instant case. The sentence of one year's R. I. under section 404 I. P. C. being appropriate, does not call for any interference. ( 12 ) IN the result, thus, we allow the appeal partly. Setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused Mst. Muniya Bai, by the trial Court under section 302 I. P. C. , we acquit her of the said offence and instead, convict her only of the offence under section 411 I. P. C. and sentence her to three years R. I for the said offence. The order of conviction and sentence as passed by the that Court under section 404 I. P. C. , is, however maintained. Both these sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. Record of the trial Court and of this Court shows that the appellant-accused is continuously in jail for the last more than three years. Hence, it is directed that the appellant-accused, having already undergone the sentence at now awarded against her, be released from jail forthwith, if no longer required in any other case. Appeal partly allowed. .