JudgmentJudgment K. S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Appellants before us are Kulwant Singh, balbir Singh and Baljinder Singh of Jalandhar. They were tried for the murder of Ravinder kumar @ Ravi and for robbing him of Rs.2.50 lacs. Ravi Kumar belonged to district hamirpur in Himachal Pradesh but had been living in Jalandhar for many years. He was a salesman with Sarabjit Singh, owner of a petrol filling station known as Petro Mart Petrol pump on Nakodar road. On the morning of march 2,1998, Ravinder Kumar left the petrol pump with Rs.2.50 lacs in cash to be deposited with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lambra but he did not return. This aroused suspicion with his employer Sarabjit Singh who lodged FIR 35 at Police Station, Division 6,jalandhar at 9.55 p. m. stating that his employee Ravinder kumar was missing with the money. Case was registered under Sec.381/406 IPC. Sarabjit singh also informed Ravinder Kumars relations on telephone on the same day. Ravinder kumars brother Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) and brother-in-law Ashok Kumar told Sarabjit Singh that Ravinder had not reached home. They too started searching for him. 2. On March 13,1998rajesh Kumar and Ashok kumar informed Sarabjit Singh that the unknown dead body recovered in P. S. Sadar was of Ravinder Kumar deceased. They had identified the body on the basis of the photograph and clothes. This is how the murder came to light after 10 days. The murder had been discovered on March 3, 1998 by Dev Raj (PW-5) who was on his way towards Panj Peer Colony via the Seepage drain passage. At about 11. a. m. when he was short of Panj Peer, he saw an unidentified dead body. Some persons had collected there. Dev Raj reported the matter to the police on the basis of which report was registered and the body was taken out. After inquest, postmortem examination was conducted by dr. Ashwani Gupta (PW-1) on March 4, 1998 at about 11.20 a. m. The Medical Officer found that there was a bruise just below the left knee joint and ahaematoma measuring 5 x 3 cm over the right parietal bone. 3. On exploration of the skull, blood was found over the right parietal area between the skull layer and skull bone. Blood was also coming from nostrils. Even the face, lips and nail fingers were cyanosed. Viscera was sent for chemical examination. 3. On exploration of the skull, blood was found over the right parietal area between the skull layer and skull bone. Blood was also coming from nostrils. Even the face, lips and nail fingers were cyanosed. Viscera was sent for chemical examination. The liver was found to be congested but rest of the organs were healthy. Probable duration between injuries and death was three hours and between death and postmortem about 24 hours. After the report of the Chemical Examiner, the cause of death was given as head injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Chemical Examiners report also revealed that the deceased had been under the influence of alcohol. During the investigation, it transpired that Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) and Ashok Kumar were actually in Jalandhar on March 1,1998 and had stayed the night with the deceased in Avatar Nagar. The next morning all three went to the petrol pump and after collecting the cash set out for Nakodar chowk. Before they could reach the chowk a Maruti car ddq-8174 being driven by Kulwant Singh and carrying Baljinder Singh and Balbir Singh drove up to them. 4. Kulwant Singh had earlier been working at the petrol pump and was known to Rajesh kumar. Balbir Singh and Baljinder Singh being friends of Kulwant Singh were also known to ravinder Kumars brother Rajesh Kumar. Kulwant Singh asked Ravinder Kumar as to where he was going. Ravinder Kumar replied that he was on his way to Oriental Bank of commerce to deposit cash. Kulwant Singh countered by saying that he was also going in that direction and offered a lift. The deceased accepted the offer and went along with kulwant Singh and others in the car. Rajesh kumar and Ashok Kumar returned to their village in Himachal Pradesh. Rajesh Kumar received a telephone call from Sarabjit Singh on March 12,1998 that Ravinder Kumar was missing with the cash and that incase he had reached home, he should be brought back to Jalandhar. Accordingly, the two arrived at sarabjit Singhs petrol pump and started searching for the deceased. It was on March 13, 1998 that the police of Police Station division 6 (which was investigating the disappearance of Ravinder Kumar on the basis of FIR 35) came to know that an unknown dead body had been recovered by the Police Station of Sadar. Accordingly, the two arrived at sarabjit Singhs petrol pump and started searching for the deceased. It was on March 13, 1998 that the police of Police Station division 6 (which was investigating the disappearance of Ravinder Kumar on the basis of FIR 35) came to know that an unknown dead body had been recovered by the Police Station of Sadar. On the basis of a photograph, the dead man was identified to be Ravinder Kumar. During investigation, it was discovered that Maruti DDQ 8174was owned by Sohan Singh (PW-6) of Nakodar who had sold it to Tarsem Kumar of Jalandhar in March 1997. 5. The original owner was S. K. Taneja of delhi. SI Angrej Singh (PW-11) of P. S. Sadar swung into action after recording Rajesh kumars statement and registering FIR exhibit pg under Sec.302/382/201/34 IPC. In fir the informant had reported that his deceased brother had taken a lift with Kulwant singh in Maruti DDQ 8174. Kulwant Singh was accompanying by Baljinder Singh and balbir Singh. The Investigator raided the homes of the accused but did not find them. On March 15, 1998 car DDQ 8174 was intercepted coming form the side of kapurthala. The car was stopped, its driver identified himself as Kulwant Singh and the other two occupants identified themselves as Balbir Singh and Baljinder Singh. The car was taken into possession and the three accused were arrested. On the following day si Jasbir Singh (PW-12) interrogated the accused in the presence of PW Piare Lal. Rs.68,000/-were recovered from a glazed envelope along with a wheel spanner (pana)from Kulwant Singh. Balbir Singhs interrogation led to the recovery of rs.72,000/- and a filled up bank voucher and a bag while Baljinder Singhs interrogation led to the recovery of Rs.69,000/-. In all Rs.2.09 lacs were recovered from the three accused. Cash was in different denominations of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. After investigation all the accused were sent up for trial and they were charged under Section 302 read with 34,201 read with 34,392read with 397 IPC. 6. The prosecution examined Dr. Ashwani gupta (PW-1),sarabjit Singh (PW-2), Rajesh kumar (PW-3), Draftsman Dalip Singh (PW-4), Dev Raj (PW-5), Transporter Sohan Singh (PW-6), C. Vipin Kumar (PW-7), C. Gurdip singh (PW-8), MHC Harjinder Pal Singh (PW-9), Head Clerk T. K. Sharma (PW-10), SI Angrej singh (PW-11), SI Jasbir Singh (PW-12), ravinder Kaushal (PW-13) and ASI Amarjit singh (PW-14 ). 6. The prosecution examined Dr. Ashwani gupta (PW-1),sarabjit Singh (PW-2), Rajesh kumar (PW-3), Draftsman Dalip Singh (PW-4), Dev Raj (PW-5), Transporter Sohan Singh (PW-6), C. Vipin Kumar (PW-7), C. Gurdip singh (PW-8), MHC Harjinder Pal Singh (PW-9), Head Clerk T. K. Sharma (PW-10), SI Angrej singh (PW-11), SI Jasbir Singh (PW-12), ravinder Kaushal (PW-13) and ASI Amarjit singh (PW-14 ). In the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused pleaded innocence and false implication by Sarabjit singh. According to them, Sarabjit Singh was let off by the police and the case was foisted on them to save Sarabjit Singh. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Ahlmad Gurinder Singh (DW-1), who produced the record of FIR35 and the order of discharge in that case, The conviction of the three accused under Sec.302 read with 34, 201 read with 34 and 397 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, has been challenged on various grounds. According to the appellants when Sarabjit singh knew the local address and telephone number of the deceased and also knew his address in district Hamirpur, he would have naturally contacted the family of the deceased to find out whereabouts after his disappearance with money. The deceased disappeared on March 2, 1998 but no one contacted his family till March 13,1998. This showed that Sarabjit Singh had withheld information from the family. 7. This was very unnatural conduct on his part. Secondly, it was argued that the Ravinder kumars dead body was recovered on March 3, 1998 in the jurisdiction of a neighboring police Station but this was not communicated to the police which was investigating his disappearance. It was natural for an investigator, working on a case of amissing person who disappeared with Rs.2.50 lacs, to flash wireless messages to all police stations. A prudent investigator should have alerted other police stations because the missing person had a huge amount and could have become a victim of robbers. For almost ten days, the police did not know that Ravinder Kumar had been robbed and killed on March 2,1998. All this made the prosecution version regarding rajesh Kumar witnessing the three accused taking the deceased with them some what unbelievable. 8. If Rajesh Kumar had known the identity of the abductors and the murder of the deceased, he would not have withheld this information for ten days. All this made the prosecution version regarding rajesh Kumar witnessing the three accused taking the deceased with them some what unbelievable. 8. If Rajesh Kumar had known the identity of the abductors and the murder of the deceased, he would not have withheld this information for ten days. Reference was also made to failure of the police to examine the two important witnesses, Ramesh Uppal before whom the accused had allegedly confessed their crime, and Piare Lal, before whom the accused had disclosed where the money was hidden. Every criminal case has its own peculiar features. No two cases are alike, in some there are eye witnesses who testify regarding the actual murder, some cases depend on circumstantial evidence. In cases of blind murder the police often collect evidence, some of which is of dubious quality to stitch together a plausible case. In the present case, if the police had recovered an empty wallet or a wrist watch or some personal belonging of the deceased from the possession of the accused, it may have been successfully argued that it was unsafe to rely on such recoveries to prove the charge of murder. We feel that the most clinching evidence in this case is the recovery of cash from the accused. The deceased was carrying about Rs.2.50 lacs. Out of this the robbers spent Rs.41,000/-and divided the rest almost equally between themselves. To say that this money was not which the deceased had taken from the petrol pump for depositing in the bank but had been planted on the accused would be really far-fetched. 9. In the present case, we have a businessman who had lost Rs.2.50 lacs. The police remained oblivious of the whereabouts of ravinder Kumar for 10 full days. . The bank did not receive the money. The police of Division 6 did not suspect or investigate the murder angle. On the other hand, the Sadar police did not flash photographs of the deceased to other police stations to inquire if they had any information regarding the dead man. A complete disconnect between the two police stations is what stares in the face. The question to be considered is can such failure lead to a finding that the accused had been framed and Rs.2.09 lacs had been planted on them. A complete disconnect between the two police stations is what stares in the face. The question to be considered is can such failure lead to a finding that the accused had been framed and Rs.2.09 lacs had been planted on them. The recovery memo (exhibit PZ/2) of the cash recovered from Kulwant Singh shows that the sum of Rs.68,000/- was made up of 20 notes of Rs.500/-; 400 notes of Rs.100/-and 360 notes of Rs.50/-. The recovery memo (exhibit PAA/1) of the cash recovered from balbir Singh shows that the sum of Rs.72,000/- was made up of 30notes of Rs.500/-; 70 notes of Rs.100/- and 1000 notes of Rs.50/-. Furthermore, cash recovered from Balbir Singh was found in a bag bearing words "petro Mart Petrol Pump Nakodar road" (in English ). A voucher of Oriental bank of Commerce was also found in the bag with Rs, 2.50 lac sentered in Punjabi, containing the details of the money. This shows that the entire sum was carried by the deceased in the bag and the total amount was Rs.2.50 lacs. 10. The bag was of the petrol pump and contained a voucher regarding the deposit to be made in the bank. Similarly, the recovery memo (exhibit PBB/1) of the cash recovered from Baljinder Singh shows that the sum of rs.69,000/- was made up of 10 notes of Rs.500/-; 340 notes of Rs.100/- and 600 notes of Rs.50/-. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Sarabjit Singhs original statement in FIR 35 had omitted to mention many important features of the cash being taken to the bank by the deceased. He had also omitted to mention the height, complexion and physical appearance of the deceased. Sarabjit Singh should have known that the deceased was carrying the cash in different denominations, although he may not have known the exact break up. But he could have mentioned this fact. Even the chits on the bundles and the voucher were not mentioned in the FIR. Can it still be said that recovered cash was the same which the deceased had in his possession for deposit in the bank, We are fully convinced that the recovered amount was not planted by the police to strengthen the case against the accused. The amount is huge and no businessman can spare such a huge amount to nail three individual with whom he had no enmity. The amount is huge and no businessman can spare such a huge amount to nail three individual with whom he had no enmity. If at all the accused would be the object of hatred of family of the deceased. Sarabjit Singh was a businessman who was only interested in getting his money back. He would not spare another sum of Rs.2.09 lacs to plant on the accused, after having lost Rs.2.50 lacs. 11. Therefore, we find that the cash recovered from the accused did not belong to the petrol pump owner and had been in the possession of the deceased when he was murdered. The omission to mention the physical appearance or give the description of the cash in the original FIR could be on account of the failure of the Investigator to ask these details from the informant. The investigators who conducted the investigations in the two FIRs were not exactly ideal Investigators who possessed the required skill, integrity and common sense required of good police men. For ten days they failed to connect the two cases. But the failure of the informant to describe the features of the deceased or the details of the cash in FIR would not reduce the evidentiary value of the recovery of the cash from the possession of theaccused. The learned counsel for the appellants has very seriously canvassed before us the argument that the recovery of money could be proof that the accused had stolen the money (unless they account for its possession) but the recovery was not enough to hold that they had murdered Ravinder Kumar. Reliance was placed on Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence act and particularly illustration (a) which was to the effect that aman who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Under this provision, the court may presume the existence of a fact which the court thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business. 12. If the court presumes a fact it means that it may regard the fact to be proved unless and until it is disputed or it may call for proof of the fact. 12. If the court presumes a fact it means that it may regard the fact to be proved unless and until it is disputed or it may call for proof of the fact. There are judgments which in similar circumstances, considering murder and robbery, had found that the recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the possession of the accused was proof of robbery but not proof of murder. Limbaji Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 266 is one such case which relied heavily on Sanwath Khan Vs. State of rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54 and other cases. The Supreme Court discussed the law in detail while acquitting the accused of murder but found him guilty of robbery. In Lumbagos case (supra), the deceased was wearing gold earring and silver ornament on his person. He had gone to sleep in his field at night and on the following morning he was found lying dead. There were injuries on his ear and chest. The gold ear ring and silver ornaments were missing from his person. A day later Limbaji pointed out the shop where he had sold the gold ring. It was recovered from the owner of the shop. Some days later Limbaji also informed where he had hidden the silver ornament. This too was recovered. Likewise Babu accused had also got two ear rings recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement. The above evidence was felt to be insufficient to presume that the accused were guilty of murder. In george Vs. State of Kerala 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 538, the deceased had left for work in the morning after putting on two gold earrings and a wrist watch. 13. He returned home at night when the witnesses heard him saying "take whatever you want". The next morning the deceased did not turn up to work and when his employer sent someone to look for him; they found him missing from the house. A day later his body was found floating. The deceased died of drowning and there was no injury c the body. The appellant was arrested after it was discovered that he had pledged a gold ring with a witness. After arrest he also produced a document in token of the pledge and later a second gold ring was recovered from his possession. The deceased died of drowning and there was no injury c the body. The appellant was arrested after it was discovered that he had pledged a gold ring with a witness. After arrest he also produced a document in token of the pledge and later a second gold ring was recovered from his possession. The accused was held guilty of murder but the Supreme Court acquitted him of murder, but upheld conviction under section 392 IPC. It was held that the possession of the robbed property is not a circumstance which may lead to an irresistible inference that the accused and not anyone else was responsible for. drowning the deceased. The drowning did not appear to be a direct or indirect result of the robbery. In kuldip Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2004 (1)RCR (Criminal)292, the deceased was a business woman who returned home in the evening after work, where lived alone. The next morning she was found lying murdered in the house. 14. During investigation, former servant of hers was arrested, whose interrogation led to the recovery of jewellery owned by the deceased and other valuable articles like gold bangles, kara, rings etc. were recovered from his possession. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that recovery of property of the deceased was not sufficient for conviction under Sec.302 IPC. Similarly in Subhash vs. State of Haryana 2007 (f)RCR (Criminal) 80, the accused had met the deceased, taken drinks together, hada fight in which he was also injured. After getting the wound dressed, the accused returned to the spot. The deceased was robbed of money from his pocket, and the accused then threw the deceased and the witness into acanal. The witness survived as he could swim but the deceased died. The Supreme Court held that the accused was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and robbery. After the accused had been arrested the tractor which they had robbed from the deceased was recovered from their possession. The accused were acquitted of murder but convicted of mans laughter. Our High Court in hardev Singh @ Dev and others Vs. The state of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.563 db of 1999, decided on August28, 2008 had faced a similar situation. A robbery at an electronic shop had taken place on August 15, 1996. The accused were acquitted of murder but convicted of mans laughter. Our High Court in hardev Singh @ Dev and others Vs. The state of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.563 db of 1999, decided on August28, 2008 had faced a similar situation. A robbery at an electronic shop had taken place on August 15, 1996. It was detected on the following morning when a person sleeping outside the shop was found strangled to death. 15. A case was registered and investigation was commenced but the accused was not arrested until September 17, 1996. There was a gap of nearly one month between the murder and the arrest of the accused from whose possession some of the robbed electronic goods were recovered. It was under these circumstances that this court held that if the ornaments of the deceased were found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months expired in the interval, the presumption may not be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. Time factor was an important consideration. In the present case recovery is not of a tractor or ornament or of some personal effects. The recovery which has been proved against the accused is of cash. The prosecution has established that the deceased was in possession of this cash. The cash is not something which can be planted asit is a huge amount of Rs.2.09 lacs. It is not a small amount of a few thousand rupees. It was part of the money which the deceased was carrying for being deposited in the bank. About Rs.41,000/- was not recovered. This must be the amount spent by the accused. The prosecution is not bound to explain what happened to the balance amount. Suffice to say the prosecution has proved that the deceased was carrying the money which the accused had in their possession. 16. In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased persons had been robbed of ornaments worn by them. But we find that in each of the cases there was no solid corroboration that the deceased had indeed these ornaments in their possession. Ornaments robbed of the deceased could have been acquired by the accused in some other manner. But we find that in each of the cases there was no solid corroboration that the deceased had indeed these ornaments in their possession. Ornaments robbed of the deceased could have been acquired by the accused in some other manner. The murder may have been committed by someone who robbed the deceased and then sold the ornaments to the accused. There is no certainty in such cases that the person who possessed the ornament had also robbed the deceased after committing his murder. In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence that the money recovered from the accused was the same which they had robbed from the deceased. The deceased had an injury on his head which was fatal. 17. The deceased had been drinking which is evidence of a social get together between him and the robbers. The deceased was probably made incapable of defending himself or his money when he was done to death and his body was thrown in the drain. We are not completely convinced regarding the two witnesses who say that they saw the deceased going away with the accused in their car. These witnesses gave their first statement to the police after nearly 10 days and that too after the body had been identified. 18. We are also not enamored by the investigation conducted by the two investigating Officers of the two police stations but the recovery of the cash is weighty enough evidence to overlook the above discrepancy. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The accused shall be taken into custody to undergo remaining sentence.