Judgement GUMAN SINGH, J. :- In this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated May 23, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 302, I. P. C. To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 380, I. P. C. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 404, I. P. C. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that a wireless information (Ex. P. 20) was received at 12.45 p.m. on 11-6-2000 at the Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, from Police out post, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer, requesting to reach at the spot and look into the clothes scattered outside the forest outpost Shastri Nagar. Consequently, a Police Party headed by Gopal Singh, ASI was dispatched to the spot. The jeep driver Veer Singh (P. W. 13) returned to the Police Station from the spot and informed that a woman was found lying dead and silver anklets (Kadi) from her feet were said to be missing. This information was also recorded in daily diary (Ex. P. 21) and the S. H. O. Keshar Singh C. I. along with the Police Party departed for the place of occurrence. There, the complainant Chhotu, husband of the deceased Jamuna Devi, aged 60 years handed over a written report (Ex. P. 15), wherein it was reported that he resided at the forest out post Shastri Nagar, along with his wife Jamuna Devi and son Pappu. He had gone to his duty at Somalpur Nursery last evening and his son had also gone on tractor and on return on 11-6-2000 at 12 noon, he found his wife dead and her silver anklets weighing about 250 grams were missing from her feet. The aforesaid report was sent to the Police Station for registering a case. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P. 15), F. I. R. No. 131/2000 (Ex. The aforesaid report was sent to the Police Station for registering a case. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P. 15), F. I. R. No. 131/2000 (Ex. P. 16) was registered at the Police Station Civil Lines, and after usual investigation the accused was arrested and on his information silver anklets and other recoveries were made and on completion of investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 380, 404 and 439, I. P. C. In due course, the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302, 380 and 404, I. P. C. were framed against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. Learned trial Judge, on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. 4. We have heard the submissions and weighed the material on record. Death of Jamuna Devi was indisputedly homicidal in nature. Vide Post Mortem Report (Ex. P. 17) following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased :- (1) There are five abrasions with contusion on the left side of neck separated from each other measuring 2 x 1, 1 x 1, 2 x 2, 1 x 1 c.m. and 0.5 x 0.5 cm. (2) 4 abrasion right side of neck, separated from each side measuring 1 x 1 cm., 1.5 x 1 cm., 0.5 x 0.5, 1 x 0.5 c.m. In the opinion of Dr. R. K. Mathur (PW 21), the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae has mainly assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the recovery of the silver anklets removed from the feet of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt and as such no presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn to prove the guilt. 6. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction of the appellant and has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in Gulab Chand v. State of M. P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 , on the point of drawing presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act in the facts and circumstances of the case where silver anklets were recovered at the instance of the accused soon after the crime. 7. On reappraisal of the prosecution evidence, it is revealed that the accused has been connected with the crime on the basis of recovery of Silver anklets of the deceased Jamuna Devi at the information and instances of the accused. The investigation of the case was conducted by Keshar Singh (PW 27) S. H. O. of the Police Station, who rushed to the spot on receipt of information (Ex. P. 21) that a dead body of the lady is lying in a small room (Kothari) and her silver anklets were missing from her feet. On reaching to the spot, the written report (Ex. P. 15) was handed over to him by the husband of the deceased and the same was sent to the Police Station for registering a case. This witness prepared the site map (Ex. P. 10) and Panchnama of dead body (Ex. P. 8). The Chance Prints found on a glass were lifted through Memo (Ex. P. 11) with the help of M. O. B. employee Soloman David, S. I. and Bhanwar Singh. Some pearls were found scattered on the ground, broken from the necklace of the deceased on resistance. The box found unlocked was also recovered on suspicion of theft. The accused Sukhdeo was arrested on 12-6-2000. On his information (sic), he was taken to 'Naya Bazar' on 13-6-2000. There he pointed out to the shopkeeper, Dinesh Garg (P. W. 3) to whom he had sold silver anklets which were recovered vide Ex. P. 5 recovery memo. The shopkeeper Dinesh Garg (P. W. 3) also produced the bill (Ex. P. 2A) issued in the name of the accused showing purchase of silver anklets. Then, on the information (Ex. P. 24) of the accused on 14-6-2000, the police party was led to 'Nallah' behind the Forest Out Post where he led the recovery (Ex. P. 6) of one axe with small handle and two keys buried under the soil. P. 2A) issued in the name of the accused showing purchase of silver anklets. Then, on the information (Ex. P. 24) of the accused on 14-6-2000, the police party was led to 'Nallah' behind the Forest Out Post where he led the recovery (Ex. P. 6) of one axe with small handle and two keys buried under the soil. Then again on 15-6-2000, the accused gave an information (Ex. P. 25) and he led to the recovery of two silver bangles which he had purchased from the shop keeper to whom he had sold the silver anklets and the same were recovered at his instance from the field of Sardar Bablu buried under the soil and recovery memo Ex. P. 10 to that effect was prepared. During the investigation, the shop keeper Dinesh Garg (P. W. 3) was asked to hand over the bill of silver bangles purchased by the accused, who produced copy of the Bahikhatas Ex. P. 3A and copy of the diary Ex. P. 4-A, pertaining to this transaction. 8. The manner in which the recovery of silver anklets was effected at the instance of the accused, has been corroborated by P. W. 3 Dinesh Garg, who has deposed that the accused Sukhdeo Singh had come along with his customer Idu Khan and the Bill Ex. P. 2-A, was issued by him. He has further deposed that the silver anklets sold weighed 317 grams and its costs was Rs. 1900/- as per market rate and he purchased two silver bangles weighing 231 grams costing Rs. 1875/- and he was paid Rs. 25/- balance in cash. He has also proved the signature of the accused on the Bill. He has also deposed that he had made entry of the transaction in Rokar Bahi (Ex. P. 3A) and 'Khata Bahi Ex. P. 4-A. The silver anklets of the deceased were put to identification and the same were correctly identified by the husband of the deceased Chhotu (P. W. 28) and son of the deceased Pappu (P. W. 11) in the test identification conducted by Shailendra Vyas (P. W. 25), Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, who also identified the silver anklets in the Court to be the same which were put to identification. P. W. 28 Chhotu has been declared hostile by the prosecution but he has admitted in the cross-examination that he had identified the silver anklets in the Court but has added that he could not properly make it out but has admitted his signatures on the memo. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C., has not offered any explanation in regard to the silver anklets, which were removed from the person of the deceased after murder on intervening night of 10th and 11th of June, 2000 and the same were sold by him to P.W. 3 Dinesh Garg, the shop keeper and the same were recovered on 13-6-2000 at his information and instance from P. W. 3 Dinesh Garg. Thus, the recovery of the silver anklets at the instance of the accused immediately after the commission of murder forms part of the same transaction and the presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is attracted not only for the commission of offence of theft but also commission of offence of murder as observed by the Apex Court in Gulab Chand's case ( AIR 1995 SC 1598 ) (c) Copyright with All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur (supra) as under (Para 4) :- "In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court that the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and from the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery of the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments of the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable inference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the appellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family of the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible explanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after the murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of this case, it appears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been integral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114, Evidence Act is that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments." 9. We thus see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge. We thus see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge. In our opinion the guilt under Sections 302, 380 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10. For these reasons we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 302, 380 and 404, I. P. C. are maintained. Appeal dismissed.