JUDGMENT THOMAS, J. - The appellant was convicted of dacoity with murder and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Court. On appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life. He has filed this appeal by special leave. The question which has narrowed down in this appeal, in the light of concurrent findings on facts by the two courts, is whether a presumption could legally have been drawn against the appellant for dacoity and murder on the strength of his possessing one of the stolen articles two days after the occurrence. 2. For considering the aforesaid crucial point, we may set out, briefly, the facts : On 11-10-1988, one Sunder Lal (PW 8) was proceeding from his village (Nagan Deori) on horseback to Kerpani Village (Madhya Pradesh) with a herd of pigs. His twelve-year-old son Lakhi Ram (PW 10) and twenty-year-old daughter (Laxmi Bai) were also accompanying him on foot. As they reached the jungle area (Gadarvada Dehat) five persons emerged from the interior and stopped the passengers. One of the five, who was armed with a gun, pointed the weapon on the chest of Sunder Lal (PW 8) and demanded him to surrender all his money and jewellery. Sunder Lal dismounted from horseback, but suddenly the gunman fired a shot at him which struck him on his loins resulting in the pellets perforating into his penis and perineum region and then the assailants snatched a bag containing jewellery from the victim, besides grabbing his wrist-watch and the cash from him. Another person in the gang, who too had a gun, demanded Laxmi Bai to surrender her kardhona (an ornament). When she began to cry, the armed man shot her dead and grabbed her ornaments. Sunder Lal (PW 8) managed to stand up and genuflected before the marauders. One of them revealed their identity as disciples of Gobind Das - so saying he threatened him with the butt end of the gun on his chest. Sunder Lal (PW 8) slumped down again. In the meanwhile the little boy (Lakhi Ram) managed to escape from the ken of the dacoits. One of them revealed their identity as disciples of Gobind Das - so saying he threatened him with the butt end of the gun on his chest. Sunder Lal (PW 8) slumped down again. In the meanwhile the little boy (Lakhi Ram) managed to escape from the ken of the dacoits. After they left the scene with the booty Sunder Lal tottered up and with the help of his little son Lakhi Ram, mounted on his horse and returned to his village leaving the corpse of his daughter Laxmi Bai lying inside jungle. 3. Sunder Lal (PW 8) accompanied by some others went to Dhooma Police Station and lodged a first information statement on the same evening (5.25 p.m.). But the police, it appears, remained lethargic though they were kind enough to ambulance Sunder Lal to Jabalpur Medical College Hospital. 4. According to the police version they got some information on 13-10-1988 about the clandestine movements of a person with a country-gun hovering around Bhilai Market. PW 15 (Assistant Sub-Inspector of Dhangaur Police Station) rushed to the place with a posse of police and found the appellant (Net Raj) and one Ganpat being trussed up by the local people. Assistant Sub-Inspector made a search of the person of Ganpat first and recovered a country-gun, five cartridges and some other articles including ornaments. When the appellant was searched a silver total (an ornament) was recovered. Both of them were arrested at the spot. Later on, police could trace out four other persons and they too were nabbed. 5. After completion of investigation the police charge-sheeted six persons including the appellant and Ganpat for offences under Section 396 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. But one of the six accused remained absconding and hence the trial was held against the other five persons including the appellant. Sessions Court convicted Ganpat and this appellant under Section 396 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to death while the other three were acquitted. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the appellant of offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act confirmed the conviction under Section 396 IPC. The High Court, however, reduced the sentence to life imprisonment for both the convicted persons. 6. This appeal only by Net Raj and hence we need not refer to the evidence pertaining to Ganpat. 7. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitted the appellant of offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act confirmed the conviction under Section 396 IPC. The High Court, however, reduced the sentence to life imprisonment for both the convicted persons. 6. This appeal only by Net Raj and hence we need not refer to the evidence pertaining to Ganpat. 7. The only evidence against Net Raj is that the police recovered the silver todal from him on 13-10-1988. Both the courts found that the silver todal recovered from him belonged to Sunder Lal and was in his possession during the ill-fated journey to destination Kerpani Village. In this appeal, we would proceed on the basis of the fact concluded by both the courts that the silver todal was a stolen article and the same was found in the possession of the appellant Net Raj on 13-10-1988. 8. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri Bachawat, who argued for the State of Madhya Pradesh submitted that conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 396 IPC is liable to be confirmed on the aforesaid solitary incriminating circumstance against him. The learned Senior Counsel contended that Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act can well be pressed into service for drawing a presumption against the appellant. The said illustration reads thus : "The court may presume - (a) that a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the chief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;" 9. No doubt the illustration is only an example or at the utmost it is a guideline. Nonetheless the illustration has a logical basis. Section 114 of the Evidence Act helps the court in deciding on whom is the burden of proof in certain situations. A presumption on facts is to be raised to assist the court for determining as to the burden of proof in a set of circumstances. As the court can draw certain inferences either on the basis of cumulative conclusion of circumstances or on a single circumstance the court would be in a position to fix up the responsibility on one or the other party in the case with the burden to reverse such inferred presumptions. 10. Illustration (a) indicates two stages for a presumption. As the court can draw certain inferences either on the basis of cumulative conclusion of circumstances or on a single circumstance the court would be in a position to fix up the responsibility on one or the other party in the case with the burden to reverse such inferred presumptions. 10. Illustration (a) indicates two stages for a presumption. First is that the possessor could be the thief himself and the second is that the possessor could have been only a receiver of the stolen property with the requisite knowledge. Apparently, the former is of aggravated degree and the latter is of a lesser degree. If possession of the stolen article with the accused alone is established in evidence, it is a difficult task for the court to choose between the two stages of presumption envisaged in the illustration. The nature of possession of the articles, the place or mode of concealment, the intervening period, the number of stolen articles possessed by him are all factors which would assist the court in drawing a presumption that the possessor was the thief himself. Similarly, if the possession is associated with any other indication or incriminating circumstance there may be justification for drawing the more aggravated presumption. In a case where robbery (or dacoity) and murder are so interconnected with each other as to become integral parts of the same transaction, the court can go to the extent of drawing the presumption that the possessor was the murderer also. 11. In Ayodhya Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ (1972) 3 SCC 885 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 786 : AIR 1972 SC 2501 ] speaking for a Bench of three Judges, Khanna, J. pointed out that the extent of presumption, in a case where it is established that the accused was in possession of stolen goods, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case and no hard fast rule can be laid down in that regard. Their Lordships were dealing with a case in which a good number of stolen articles were recovered from the house of the prisoner as well as from his person and also from a graveyard a few days later pursuant to disclosure statements elicited from the prisoner. Their Lordships were dealing with a case in which a good number of stolen articles were recovered from the house of the prisoner as well as from his person and also from a graveyard a few days later pursuant to disclosure statements elicited from the prisoner. On the facts even an interval of 17 days between the theft and recovery of the articles was not considered sufficient to desist from concurring with the presumption drawn by the courts below that the prisoner was guilty of the offence of theft. Another Bench of three Judges considered this position in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. [ (1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 : AIR 1973 SC 2173] where two persons were murdered and their ornaments were pawned by the accused with a banker. It was observed that : (SCC PP. 819-20, para 24) "No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Human behaviour is so complex that room must be left for play in the joints. It is not possible to formulate a series of exact propositions and confine human behaviour within strait-jackets. The raw material here is far too complex to be susceptible of precise and exact propositions for exactness here is a fake." In Baiju v. State of M.P. [ (1978) 1 SCC 588 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 142 : AIR 1978 SC 522 ] this Court considered a case of murder of two inmates of a house coupled with burglary in which a transistor, a wrist-watch, two gold ornaments, a torhlight, several sarees and shirts were stolen - when accused was arrested, the police recovered those articles from his house on the strength of a statement made by him. This Court found certain other circumstances and concluded that the possession of all those articles with the accused when counted along with the other circumstances would justify the presumption that the accused is not only burglar but also the murderer of the inmates of the house. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (1983) 2 SCC 330 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 447 : AIR 1983 SC 446 ] this Court observed that "the question as to what amounts to 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." 12. Here the appellant Net Raj was found in possession of silver todal, not immediately after the murder, but within two days of the dacoity. He was found openly moving about with the ornament keeping it on his person. There is quite a variation in the evidence as to whether the silver todal was on the person of the deceased, as deposed to by her mother, when she left with her father or whether the father had the same throughout, as evidenced by the story put up by the prosecution. There is no evidence to show that he concealed it, nor was he in possession of any other stolen property involved in the dacoity. Could he have come into possession of it from one of the dacoits ? Is it not possible that he would have received it from someone else ? We are of the opinion that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be sound to draw a presumption beyond his being a receiver of the stolen property with the requisite knowledge. 13. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant Net Raj under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. We alter his conviction to Section 411 of the IPC and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Needless it is to say that it if he had already completed the aforesaid period of imprisonment he shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.