Judgment : THANGAMANI, J.: 1. The Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions, Erode in S.C.No.75 of 1986 on its file. The respondent -Palanisamy was charged under Sec.302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of one Unnammal, at her Farm House in Surukkandu Hamlet of Kulavilakku village, by cutting her with aruval indiscriminately between 9.00 P.M. and 6.00 A.M. on 9/10.5.1986. He was also charged under Sec.392 of I.P.C. on the allegation that at the same time and place and in the course of same transaction he had committed robbery of M.O.1 gold chain weighing about four sovereigns worn by deceased Unnammal. 2. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, filed 18 exhibits and marked 9 material objects to substantiate the charges. The evidence on record discloses these facts: Deceased Unnammal is the mother of P.W.4 Ganesan who is employed in Madras. Unnammal was put up in her garden shed in Surukkandu and was cultivating her ten acre farm. The respondent Palanisami was working as a farm servant under Unnammal. He was taking food in her house and staying in the same garden for about two or three years prior to the incident. Unnammal had lost her husband about 10 years ago. P.W.1 Ponnusami is the first cousin of P.W.4 Ganesan. He is residing in his garden shed, west of Kovilpalayam village. P.W.2 Kanniayan is the sisters son of Unnammal. On 6.5.1986, P.W.4 Ganesan wrote Ex.P-2 letter to Balasubramaniam, who is the brother of P.W.2 Kanniayan. In this he had stated that he was going over to the village after the commencement of vacation on 15.5.1986. He had asked his cousin Balasubramaniam to show Ex.P-2 letter to his mother Unnammal and inform her in detail about his visit. This letter was received by Balasubramaniam on 9.5.1986. As per the direction of Balasubramaniam, P.W.2 Kannaiyan went to the garden shed of Unnammal at about 9.00 P.M. on 9.5.1986 and informed her about the proposed visit of P.W.4 Ganesan to the village. P.W.1 Ponnusami also accompanied P.W.2 Kannaiyan to the garden shed of Unnammal. P.W.1 Ponnusami wanted Ponnammal to lend her Oil Engine to him. Ponnammal told him to come next morning, since the Oil Engine was inside the well. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were talking with Ponnammal till 9.30 P.M. in her garden shed and then came back. P.W.1 Ponnusami also accompanied P.W.2 Kannaiyan to the garden shed of Unnammal. P.W.1 Ponnusami wanted Ponnammal to lend her Oil Engine to him. Ponnammal told him to come next morning, since the Oil Engine was inside the well. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were talking with Ponnammal till 9.30 P.M. in her garden shed and then came back. They saw that respondent Palanisami sleeping near the shed when they left. 3. P.W.3 Deivasigamani is also a resident of Koilpalayam. His house is 1 1/2 furlong north of Unnammals garden shed. On the early morning of 10.5.1986 at about 5.00 O’Clock he went to the bank of Lower Bhavani canal to attend calls of nature. He saw respondent-Palanisami coming from south to north along the canal bank. With the aid of torch light in his hand, P.W.3 Deivasigamani saw that there were blood stains in the Polyester shirt and the white Dhothi worn by the respondent at that time. There were also blood stains in the aruval, which the respondent was having in his hands. When P.W.3 Deivasigamani questioned the respondent about the blood stains, the latter replied that he had cut a rabbit and given it in his house. 4. On the morning of 10.5.1986. P.W.1 Ponnusami went to the garden shed of Unnammal at 6.00 O’ clock. He found Unnammal dead with cut injuries on her neck. The gold chain of Unnammal was also missing. So this witness searched for the respondent till 8.30 A.M. But he was not there. At 10.00 A.M. this witness went to Malayampalayam Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector received the complaint and registered it as Crime No.94 of 1986 of his station under Sec.302 and 392 of I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-16 First Information Report in Printed Form and sent Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-16 to Court and the copies to the concerned authorities. He gave information to P.W.10. Inspector about the incident through V.H.F. 5. P.W.10 Inspector took up investigation of the case and visited the scene village at 11.00 A.M. on 10.5.1986. He prepared Ex.P-3 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-17 rough sketch of the place. He also recovered M.O.2 cot, M.O.3 bloodstained earth, M.O.4 sample earth and M.O.5 wooden piece from there under Ex.P-4 Mahazar. He recovered a lock with keys and a hurricane light under Ex.P-5 mahazar. P.W.5 Sivaraj, who was present at that time of recovery had attested Exs.P-4 and P-5 mahazars. He also recovered M.O.2 cot, M.O.3 bloodstained earth, M.O.4 sample earth and M.O.5 wooden piece from there under Ex.P-4 Mahazar. He recovered a lock with keys and a hurricane light under Ex.P-5 mahazar. P.W.5 Sivaraj, who was present at that time of recovery had attested Exs.P-4 and P-5 mahazars. P.W.10 Inspector then held inquest over the dead body of Unnammal from 1.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. in the presence of Panchayatars. Ex.P-18 is the inquest report prepared by him. He has examined P.W.1 Ponnusami, P.W.2 Kanniayan and P.W.3 Deivasigamani, at the time of inquest. Then he handed over the body to P.W.6 Police Constable with Ex.P-10 requisition for post-mortem. 6. On 10.5.1986 at 4.40 P.M. P.W.7 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Kodumudi conducted the autopsy over the body of Unnammal. At that time rigor mortis passed off in upper limbs and present in lower limbs. He found the following injuries: External Injuries: 1. Agaping lacerated injury 35cm. × 15cm. × 12cm. from the medial border of left scapula extending to the lateral end of left clavicle through which dislocated portion of head of humores lateral end of left clavicle and acromen process of left scapula are seen. The left scapula is loosely attached at its medial border cutting the muscles and supra scapular blood vessels. 2. A lacerated gaping injury 16 cm. × 8 cm. bone deep, just below external injury No.1 over the left scapular area exposing the scapula cutting the muscles and the skin is loosely hanging over the scapula. 3. A lacerated gapping injury 18 cm. × 10 cm. muscle deep over the lateral aspect of left side of back of neck, extending to the midline. On deep dissection third and fourth cervical vertebrate had fractured and the cut end of the vertebral artery is seen. 4. A lacerated injury 3 cm. in length over the lower end of pinna of left ear and it is hanging loosely at the bottom of left ear. 5. A lacerated injury 5 cm. × 2 cm. × 3 cm. behind the left ear, two cm. away from the left ear. 6. A lacerated injury 3 cm. × 2 cm. × 3 cm. over the left side of face, two cms. below the left ear. Internal Examination: Heart: Empty 190 gms. Lungs: Pale Right 47 gms. Left 450 gms. Hyoid Bone: In tact. × 2 cm. × 3 cm. behind the left ear, two cm. away from the left ear. 6. A lacerated injury 3 cm. × 2 cm. × 3 cm. over the left side of face, two cms. below the left ear. Internal Examination: Heart: Empty 190 gms. Lungs: Pale Right 47 gms. Left 450 gms. Hyoid Bone: In tact. Stomach contains semi digested food materials weight 450 gms. Liver: Pale 950 gms. Spleen 60 gms. Kidneys: Both 130 gms. Bladder and Uterus: Normal. Scalp: No fracture. Meninges: Intact. Brain: 1100 gms. Spinal column: Cervical vertenrar C.3 and C.4 are fractured. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained by her about 18 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem examination. Ex.P-11 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. The external injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like aruval. External injuries 1 to 3 are necessarily fatal. 7. On 10.5.1986 at 4.30 P.M. P.W.10 Inspector recovered one empty tin and tumblers under Ex.P-6 mahazar from the terraced structure in the place of occurrence. He also examined the parents of the respondent-Palanisami. During his search for the accused at 9.00 P.M. he saw the respondent standing in the bus stop at Parapalayam. He arrested him and recovered M.O.1 gold chain from him under Ex.P-9 mahazar. The respondent give a statement mentioning that if he is taken, he would produce the aruval and clothes. Ex.P-7 is the admissible portion of the statement given by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent took the police party to a field known as Pippin Kadu which is three Kilometres east of his place of arrest. There he took and handed over M.O.6 Aruval, M.O.7 Dhothi and M.O.8 Shirt from beneath the cart parked there and the roof of the shed to the Inspector. P.W.10 seized them under Ex.P-8 mahazar. P.W. 5 Sivaraj who was present through our attested Ex.P-8 and P-9 mahazars. On the same day P.W.10 examined P.W.4 Ganesan and P.W.5 Sivaraj. 8. On 11.5.1986 P.W.10 Inspector examined P.W.6 Police Constable. On 12.5.1986 he sent requisition to Judicial First Class Magistrate to send the seized article for chemical examination. P.W.10 seized them under Ex.P-8 mahazar. P.W. 5 Sivaraj who was present through our attested Ex.P-8 and P-9 mahazars. On the same day P.W.10 examined P.W.4 Ganesan and P.W.5 Sivaraj. 8. On 11.5.1986 P.W.10 Inspector examined P.W.6 Police Constable. On 12.5.1986 he sent requisition to Judicial First Class Magistrate to send the seized article for chemical examination. On receipt of requisition P. W.8 Court Clerk arranged to send M.O.2 Cot, MO.3 blood stained, earth, M.O.4 sample earth, M.O.5 Wooden piece, M.O.6 Aruval, M.O.7 Dhothi, M.O.8 Shirt and M.O.9 Sari for chemical examination under the original of Ex.P-13 letter. Ex.P-14 and P-15 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. The Serologist report discloses that there wee human blood in all these items except M.O.4 and the blood stains in M.O.2 Cot, M.O.7 Dhothi, M.O.8 Shirt and M.C.9 Sari belonged to ‘O’ Group. 9. On 17.5.1986 P.W.10 Inspector examined P.W.7 Doctor. After completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the respondent on 30.5.1986 under Sec.302 and 392 of I.P.C. 10. The respondent-Palanisami when examined under Sec.312 of Crl.P.C. admitted that he was working as farm servant under the deceased for about 5 years prior to the incident. He would further state that Unnammal was wearing only long chain; and she was not wearing any inner neck chain. It is also his version that he was available on that morning in the garden shed. 11. The learned Sessions Judge, found that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of these materials and acquitted the respondent-Palanisami of the charges framed against him. He also ordered that M.O.1 inner-chain be returned to P.W.4 Ganesan and other material objects be destroyed after the appeal time is over. 12. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the State represented by the Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal and P.W.4 Ganesan, has preferred the Criminal Revision Case No.326 of 1987. 13. The point for determination is - Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for interference. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor assailed the judgment of the Sessions Court on the ground that it had failed to appreciate the prosecution case in its proper perspective and minor discrepancies had been magnified. 14. The learned Public Prosecutor assailed the judgment of the Sessions Court on the ground that it had failed to appreciate the prosecution case in its proper perspective and minor discrepancies had been magnified. Let us now examine in what manner the trial Court had gone wrong. 15. The Sessions Court took the view that no motive has been established against the respondent Palanisami for committing the murder of Unnammal. There is no evidence on the side of the prosecution as to why respondent-Palanisami attacked Unnammal with an Aruval. P.W.I Ponnusami admits in his cross-examination that Unnammal never complained about her farm servant Palanisami and his father Nachi. In the opinion of the lower Court this is a circumstance which improbablises the prosecution theory. Besides it observes that had respondent - Palanisami done this murder for gain, he would have removed the other belongings of Unnammal also. Since there is no theft of other articles from the house, this is not a murder for gain. It is true that M.O.1 gold chain alone was found missing immediately after the occurrence. However, we find from Ex.P-3 observation mahazar and Ex.P-17 rough sketch that Unnammal was residing in a thatched garden shed. There is a new terraced structure belonging to Unnammal near this shed. There are blood stains in two of the halls in the new building. There are also indications that the culprit had searched the tins kept in the kitchen. It does not appear from Ex.P-3 Observation Mahazar and from other evidence on record that Unnammal possessed any other valuable belongings. It may also be borne in mind that since only jewels are easily disposables the culprit might have thought it fit to take away that neck chain alone. In any event that M.O.1 gold chain had been removed from the neck of deceased Unnammal itself is an indication that this is a murder for gain. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that there is no motive for the crime does not appear to be sound. 16. No doubt in this case there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1 Ponnusami and P.W.2 Kanniayan had last seen Unnammal alive in the company of the respondent-Palanisami when they left the garden shed at about 9.00 P.M. on 9.5.1986. The respondent-Palanisami alone was there, when Unnammal went to bed. 16. No doubt in this case there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. P.W.1 Ponnusami and P.W.2 Kanniayan had last seen Unnammal alive in the company of the respondent-Palanisami when they left the garden shed at about 9.00 P.M. on 9.5.1986. The respondent-Palanisami alone was there, when Unnammal went to bed. P.W.3 Deivasigamani had seen the respondent -Palanisami walking along the canal bank early next morning with an Aruval. There were blood stains in the aruval and the clothes he was wearing. P.W.1 Ponnusami on coming to know of the death of Unnammal had searched for the respondent from 6.00 A.M. to 8.30 AM. The respondent was not available there. Immediately, P.W.1 had left for the Police Station and laid Ex.P-1 complaint narrating the incident. In this he had mentioned about the receipt of Ex.P-2 letter from P.W.4 Ganesan their apprisal of Unnammal about the proposed visit of P.W.4 Ganesan and their seeing the respondent -Palanisami taking his bed near the shed at the time of their departure. Subsequently on 10.5.1986 itself at 9.00 P.M. P.W.10 Inspector had arrested the respondent and recovered M.O.1 gold chain from his person. Besides, Exs.P-14 and P-15 the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist disclose that M.O.7 Dhothi, M.O.8 shirt worn by the respondent- Palanisami as well as M.O.9 sari piece of the deceased and M.O.2 cot where Unnammal was lying contain the same ‘O’ Group of blood. these circumstances inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the respondent. There is no circumstance in this case which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the respondent. The cumulative effect of the above said circumstances taken as an integrated whole weigh heavily in favour of the prosecution. There is no missing link which is fatal to the prosecution case. The circumstances form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent alone would have committed the crime. 17. Even the trial Court has found that P.W.1 Palanisami had gone to Malayampalayam Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint without any delay. The Police Station is 15 Kilometres from the scene village, and Exs.P-1 and P-16First Information Report in printed form have reached the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate at 12.15 P.M. on 10.5.1986. 17. Even the trial Court has found that P.W.1 Palanisami had gone to Malayampalayam Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint without any delay. The Police Station is 15 Kilometres from the scene village, and Exs.P-1 and P-16First Information Report in printed form have reached the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate at 12.15 P.M. on 10.5.1986. Similarly on the basis, of medical evidence he concludes that Unnammal might have met with death within about two hours after taking her dinner on 9.5.1986. And the same person might have cut her neck thrice. In the opinion of the trial Court the medical evidence is only in consonance with the other prosecution theory. 18. However, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they had been to the garden shed of Unnammal on the night of 9.5.1986. He has found fault with P.W.2 Kannaian for not taking Ex.P-2 with him when he is alleged to have gone to meet Unnammal. But on this ground we cannot disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 Kanniayan. Be it noted that P.W.2 is a close relation of the deceased. Unnammal as an illiterate lady and no purpose would be served by showing the letter to her. It is enough if she is informed about the tour programme of her son. The fact that Ex.P-2 letter had been received by P.W.2s brother on 9.5.1986 and that Ex.P-1 complaint makes mention of it give ample credence to the testimony of P.W.2 Kanniayan. So the reasoning of the trial Court that P.W.2s evidence cannot be believed because of his omission to take Ex.P-2 with him does not appear to be sound. 19. P.W.1 Ponnusami had gone to the garden shed of Unnammal with a request to lend her oil engine to him. The trial Court has taken the view that since P.W.1 Ponnusami did not take any cart to lift the oil engine and any Oil Engine Mechanic with him and since there is nothing in the Observation Mahazar Ex.P-3 to indicate that there is a well in the garden shed his evidence that he had been to the residence of Unnammal on the night of 9.5.1986 could not be believed. Needless to say that this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is erroneous. There is no dispute that Unnammal is residing in a garden shed. Needless to say that this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is erroneous. There is no dispute that Unnammal is residing in a garden shed. There cannot be any garden without a well and from the mere fact that Ex.P-3. Observation Mahazar failed to mention about the existence of a well, we cannot conclude that there is no well in that place. Simply because he has not taken any Mechanic and cart with him, we cannot hold that P.W.1 Ponnusami had not gone there the previous night. 20. P.W.1 states in his evidence that Unnammal is having her cattle pen in her other field, called Pippan Kadu, which is two furlongs west of her garden shed. Generally the farm servants would take their beds in the cattle pen, since cattle are tethered there. On the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge observes that the evidence of P.W.1 that deceased was taking his bed in the garden shed of Unnammal could not be believed. Needless to say that this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is also untenable. P.W.1 only says that generally farm servants take their bed where cattle are tethered. But considering the fact that respondent Palanisami is the only farm servant of Unnammal and she is living alone in her garden shed, it is quite likely that respondent Palanisami used to sleep only in the garden shed where Unnammal was residing. 21. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 Deivasigamani also on the ground that as admittedly there was no water in L.B.J. canal he could not have gone there in the early morning to attend call of nature. Evidently the trial judge has no idea about the toilet habits of the villagers. By and large there are no toilets in the houses in the villages. It is common knowledge that people would go to canal bank or some common place before sunrise for toilet purposes. So there is nothing unnatural for P.W.3 Deivasigamani meeting the respondent Palanisami in the Canal Bank at about 5.00 a.m. on 10.5.1986. 22. P.W.3 admits in his cross-examination that he had not informed anybody about his meeting the respondent. He had been to the place of occurrence on the morning of 10.5.1986 and was waiting there for about four hours for the police to arrive. 22. P.W.3 admits in his cross-examination that he had not informed anybody about his meeting the respondent. He had been to the place of occurrence on the morning of 10.5.1986 and was waiting there for about four hours for the police to arrive. During that interval he did not mention to anybody about his seeing the respondent in the morning. No doubt, this conduct on the part of P.W.3 is somewhat strange. However, even if we eschew the testimony of P.W.3 the other materials herein are sufficient to prove the complicity of respondent-Palanisami in the crime. 23. P.W.1 Ponnusami states in his evidence that on 10.5.1986 when he went to Surukkandu at 6.00 A.M. he did not find the respondent there and he searched for him till 8.30 A.M. and could not trace him. The trial Court does not take this conduct as an incriminating circumstances against the respondent by holding that the respondent might have left for work as usual and so he was not available there. It goes without saying that this reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is also unsustainable. That respondent-Palanisami happens to be the only farm-servant of deceased Unnammalai, and he was last seen in the company of the deceased on the previous night, and he was not available in the place of occurrence, but was absconding from the next morning goes only in support of the prosecution case. 24. Immediately after his arrest the respondent Palanisami has given a confession statement before P.W.10 Inspector the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-7. He states that if he is taken he would produce Aruval and his Dhothi and Shirt. Pursuant to the same he has taken them to one Pappankadu. There he had produced M.O.6 Aruval from the roof and M.O.7 and M.O.8 clothes from beneath the double bullock cart parked there. They were recovered under Ex.P-8 mahazar. And the Serologist report Ex.P-15 discloses that M.O.6 Aruval. M.O.7 and M.O.8 clothes as well as M.O.9 cloth recovered from the body of the deceased contained human blood of ‘O’ Group. This is a gravely incriminating circumstance against the accused. In view of the confession given by the accused followed by the recovery of M.O.7 and M.O.8 clothes the finding of the trial Court that there is no proof that these clothes belong to the accused is unsustainable. This is a gravely incriminating circumstance against the accused. In view of the confession given by the accused followed by the recovery of M.O.7 and M.O.8 clothes the finding of the trial Court that there is no proof that these clothes belong to the accused is unsustainable. Besides there is no discussion followed by inference regarding the presence of human blood belonging to the same group in the clothes of the accused and the clothes recovered from the dead body. 25. We also find from the evidence of P.W.10 Inspector and P.W.5 Sivaraj that the accused was arrested at 9 p.m. on 10.5.1986 in the bus-stand at Parapalayam and at that time M.O.1 gold chain was recovered from the person of the respondent. The learned trial Judge has held that because Ex.P-1 does not mention about any identification mark for the chain, the recovery of M.O.1 from the respondent is not proved. However P.W.4 Ganesan identifies M.O.1 as the neck chain which his mother was habitually wearing. The Tamil letter “TAMIL” is engraved in this chain. He made this chain in the jewellery shop of one Somasundaram in the Jewellery Shop Road, Erode at the time of his marriage for his mother. Ex.P-9 the relevant mahazar also reads that the chain recovered from the appellant weighed 4 sovereigns and the Tamil Letter “TAMIL” is engraved in it So there could be no doubt that M.O.1 chain was recovered from the person of the appellant at 9 p.m. on 10.5.1986. That soon after the occurrence the Gold chain belonging to the deceased was seized from the appellant is a positive indication of his complicity in the crime in the absence of any explanation as to how he came into possession of the same. In Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1978 MLJ. (Crl) 300; where murder and robbery formed part of the same transaction held that recent and unexplained possession of stolen articles can well be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under illustration (a) to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. The question whether a presumption should be drawn under illustration (a) to Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter which depends on the evidence and the circumstances of each case. Thus, the nature of the stolen article, the manner of its acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about its identification, the manner in which it was dealt with by the accused, the place and the circumstances of its recovery, the length of the intervening period, the ability or otherwise of the accused to explain his possession are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 446; 1983 Crl.L.J. 846; [1983] 1 S.C.C. 330; 1983 S.C.C. (Crl) 337 it has been laid down that the nature of presumption under illustration (a) to Sec. 114 must depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amountsto recent possession of stolen property sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand. In the present case also the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond any doubt that the commission of the murder and robbery of gold chain formed part of one transaction and the recent and unexplained possession of this chain by the appellant justified the presumption that it was he and no one else had committed the murder of Unnammal and the theft of the chain. 26. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that nothing adverse could be inferred against the respondent Palanisamy from the recovery of the gold chain is evidently perverse. In Sundarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Sundarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 55 Crl.L.J. 257 A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 28immediately after the alleged murder the accused went to one Bishandas Tularam with the gold half mohur and the silver churas and offered to sell them. In Sundarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Sundarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 55 Crl.L.J. 257 A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 28immediately after the alleged murder the accused went to one Bishandas Tularam with the gold half mohur and the silver churas and offered to sell them. These silver churas were identified by the prosecution witnesses as those which were habitually worn by the deceased: Held that as the ornaments were established to be the ornaments worn by the deceased and the accused was not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation as to how he came to be in possession of the same on the very same day on which the alleged murder was committed the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold the accused responsible for the murder of the deceased. As it has been laid down in Umadbhai v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 424 “In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the trial Courts conclusion unless there are compelling reasons to do so, inter alia, on account of manifest errors of law or of fact resulting in miscarriage of justice. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the circumstance of the case. Where the Sessions Judge committed a manifest error in coming to a certain conclusion on an important aspect of the case unsupported by the evidence on record and such erroneous conclusion had led to a failure of justice, the High Court would be justified in entertaining the appeal against acquittal and in reappreciating the entire evidence independently and to come to its own conclusion.” It is worthwhile to quote the decision of the Apex Court in K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 MLJ. (Crl) 259 where it is held “where the trial Court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a lenient view of the evidence which is barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule.” The ratio laid down in the above decision is in all fours applicable to the facts of the instant case. Further in the circumstance of the case it is not at all possible to support the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge in any view of the matter. It is not a case in which it could be said that two views may be reasonably taken of the true tell-tale of the circumstances revealed in the evidence against the accused. The entire circumstance of the case unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and they form a complete chain indicating that the accused alone and noneelse could have committed the murder of Unnammal and theft of her chain. The trial Court rejects credit worthy evidence for slender reasons and mere doubts which are not reasonable. The conclusions reached by the trial Court are palpably wrong and manifestly erroneous shocking ones sense of justice. 27. While so it is evidence that the finding of the trial Court is clearly unsustainable. The reasonings of the lower Court for arriving at its conclusion are perverse and unreasonable. After careful and anxious consideration of the entire materials, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the Court should interfere with the order of acquittal lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule as laid down in the Gopal Reddys case by the Apex Court cited above. 28. In the result, the criminal appeal and the criminal revision petition are allowed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him is set aside and the accused is found guilty under both the charges and convicted under Sec.302, I.P.C. and 392, I.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.302 I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years under Sec.392, I.P.C. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith.