Judgment GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) STATE of Rajasthan has directed this appeal under Section 378, Cr. P. C. against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide judgement dated 25-10-1978. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the murder of Smt. Chokhi (50 years) which is said to have taken on 21-12-1977 in village Morila. Roda gave first information at the Police Station, Solumber that Smt. Chokhi wife of his brother Gota had gone to collect fodder from Jungle some two days back but she did not return and it is only on that day that he has come to know that the dead body of Smt. Chokhi was lying in Kabutar Khadi. On this report F. I. R. No. 14/77 was registered. During investigation, the police got the post-mortem examination of the body of Smt. Chokhi done by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, P. W. 1, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. On the alleged information of the accused ornaments belonging to Smt. Chokhi were recovered and Kulhari was recovered. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302, 201 and 379 and in the alternative under Section 404, I. P. C. against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, P. W. 2 Gautam alias Gota, P. W. 3 Smt. Keshi, P. W. 4 Nara, P. W. 5 Karma, P. W. 6 Shanker, P. W. 7 Bhana, P. W. 8 Dallu, P. W. 9 Shabir Mohd. The accused-respondent in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the correctness of the statement of the prosecution witnesses and he did not produce any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties held that the circumstantial evidence led against the accused was not sufficient to connect the accused with the murder of Smt. Chokhi, therefore, he was acquitted. ( 4 ) MR. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused when it was established on record that the articles recovered at the instance of the accused belonged to the deceased. ( 4 ) MR. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused when it was established on record that the articles recovered at the instance of the accused belonged to the deceased. He has taken us through the judgement in order to show that the trial Court has rejected the prosecution case on insignificant grounds. ( 5 ) ON the other hand Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the accused respondent has vehemently contended that keeping in view the conduct of the husband of the deceased and the doubtful recovery of the ornaments, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. ( 6 ) WE have carefully gone through the evidence produced in the case. The prosecution had relied on three circumstances viz. last seen, recovery of Kulhari and recovery of ornaments. ( 7 ) THE evidence of last seen was contained in statement of P. W. 6 Shanker who had deposed that he had seen the accused Dola having Kulhari at a distance of one mile from the Khadi. In this regard the statement of P. W. 8 Dallu was that he had seen the deceased going towards Jungle. The learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding that this type of evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. ( 8 ) LEARNED public Prosecutors main emphasis was on the recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the articles produced in the case belonged to Chokhi. P. W. 8 Shabir Mohd. has deposed that the accused had given him information Ex. P/17 on 23-12-1977 and thereafter he took the accused produced the silver articles before him and they were identified by Gautam who was also present at the time of recovery. The Motbirs of the recovery memo Ex. P/10 were Nara and Bhera. Nara has been examined as P. W. 4. A reading of the statement of P. W. 9 Shabir Mohd. and P. W. 4 Nara shows that two recoveries were made on the same day at the instance of the accused. One was that of the Kulhari and the other was that of the ornaments. According the P. W. 4 Nara both the recoveries were made at one and the same time whereas P. W. 9 Shabir Mohd. and P. W. 4 Nara shows that two recoveries were made on the same day at the instance of the accused. One was that of the Kulhari and the other was that of the ornaments. According the P. W. 4 Nara both the recoveries were made at one and the same time whereas P. W. 9 Shabir Mohd. has tried to show that two recoveries were made at different times. A reading of the information memos Ex. P/17 and P/15 shows that information regarding the ornaments was given at 5. 10 p. m. whereas the information regarding the Kulhari was given at 7 p. m. The ornaments were recovered at 6. 10 p. m. and the Kulhari was recovered at 7. 20 p. m. It is thus established that the Investigating Officer wants us to believe that after the ornaments were recovered, the accused gave information regarding Kulhari and thereafter again the police went to the house of the accused and recovered the ornaments. However, this version is not supported by independent witness Nara who has clearly deposed that Kulhari and ornaments were recovered at one and the same time. It is significant to point out that according to P. W. 4 Nara besides Dola his parents and wife of Dola were residing in that very house. When the timings of recovery do not tally and there is apparent contradiction in the versions given by the Investigating Officer and the Motbir it has to be found that the alleged recoveries of the ornaments at the instance of the accused or even that of the Kulhari are not established on record. ( 9 ) BESIDES that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the conduct of Gota husband of the deceased was most unnatural. He did not care to report the matter about the missing of the wife for three days. He even did not inform about her missing the his relations. Gautam had stated before the police that even the borla of his wife was taken away by the murderer whereas after three days Gautam himself produced the borla before the police. Obviously, this part of the prosecution version is incorrect that the Lachhas on which the Borla is tied were recovered at the place of occurrence. Gautam had stated before the police that even the borla of his wife was taken away by the murderer whereas after three days Gautam himself produced the borla before the police. Obviously, this part of the prosecution version is incorrect that the Lachhas on which the Borla is tied were recovered at the place of occurrence. In our considered opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not erred when he has held that the recovery of the ornaments of Chocki from the possession of the accused was not proved on record. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse. Even two views are not possible of the evidence produced in the case. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.