JUDGMENT The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.107/2014 was arrayed as accused No.1, appellants in Criminal Appeal No.141/2014 were arrayed as accused 2 & 3 in S.C.No.123/2010. The final report was filed against accused 1 to 3 and also against accused 4 & 5. Accused 4 & 5 were absconding and they were shown as absconders in final report. Therefore, case against accused 4 & 5 was separated. Accused 1 to 3 were tried for an offence punishable under section 397 IPC on the allegations that on intervening night of 21.06.2010 at abut 1.30 a.m., (midnight) accused 1 to 3 along with absconding accused 4 & 5 committed dacoity of gold ornaments, silver articles, a mobile handset and a motorcycle from the house of PW6Siddaramappa, situate in the outskirts of Akalakatte Village, within the jurisdiction of Channagiri Police Station. It is alleged that accused 1 to 3 had caused grievous injuries to PW6Siddaramappa and PW7Sulochanamma. The first information of incident was lodged by PW2Chidananda, on the following day. The first information was lodged against unknown persons and crime was registered for an offence punishable under section 397 IPC. The injured person namely PW6 Siddaramappa was treated by PW11 Dr.G.M.Ashok in Government Hospital at Channagiri. In the first information, there is description of gold ornaments, silver articles, a mobile handset and a motorcycle which were stolen by the accused from the house of PW6. 2. During investigation, accused No.1 was arrested on 19.07.2010. PW18Manjunatha K.Gangal (Investigating Officer) recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.20. Pursuant to voluntary statement given by accused No.1 and at the instance of accused No.1, stolen articles viz four gold bangles (M.O.7), four pairs of fancy gold ear rings (M.O.8), a gold chain (M.O.9), four gold rings (M.O.10), two silver lamps (M.O.11) and a silver cup/bowl (M.O.12) were recovered from the house of accused No.1. Accused No.2 was arrested on 19.07.2010. PW18 (Investigating Officer) recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P.23. Pursuant to voluntary statement given by accused No.2 and at the instance of accused No.2, a gold bracelet (M.O.13) was recovered from the house of accused. Accused No.3 was arrested on 19.07.2010. PW18 (Investigating Officer) recorded voluntary statement of accused No.3 as per Ex.P.24. Pursuant to voluntary statement given by accused No.3 and at the instance of accused No.3, a gold chain (M.O.14) was recovered from the house of accused No.3. 3. Accused No.3 was arrested on 19.07.2010. PW18 (Investigating Officer) recorded voluntary statement of accused No.3 as per Ex.P.24. Pursuant to voluntary statement given by accused No.3 and at the instance of accused No.3, a gold chain (M.O.14) was recovered from the house of accused No.3. 3. On consideration of evidence adduced by prosecution, find that inmates of house including PW1 M.N.Basavarajappa, PW2 Chidananda, PW6 Siddaramappa, PW7 Sulochanamma and PW9 Girish were not able to identify culprits as culprits had covered their faces by wearing masks. The aforestated witnesses have not identified accused 1 to 3 before court. Therefore, proof of charge against accused entirely rests upon recovery of aforestated gold ornaments and silver articles on the information volunteered by accused 1 to 3 and at the instance of accused 1 to 3. 4. PW3 Govindaraju had accompanied PW18 (Investigating Officer) when accused No.1 led Investigating Officer to his house after giving voluntary statement as per Ex.P.20. PW3 Govindaraju has deposed; on 19.07.2010 PW18Manjunatha K.Gangal, CPI of Channagiri Police Station had secured PW3 and one Rangappa; on 19.07.2010 at about 7 a.m., accused No.1 was present in police station; in the presence of PW3 and another witness, Investigating Officer seized two screw drivers, a steel rod, two plastic hand gloves, a break wire and a mobile handset; Investigating Officer seized above incriminating articles under a mahazar (Ex.P.11); accused No.1 led the Investigating Officer, PW3 and other witnesses to his house, situate in Chikkabennur Village of Channagiri Taluk; police jeep was stopped near the house of accused No.1; wife and grand mother of accused No.1 were present in the house; accused No.1 entered the house and opened almirah and removed four pairs of gold ear rings, four gold bangles, four gold rings, a gold chain, two silver lamps, a silver cup/bowl and handed over the same to Investigating Officer (PW18); PW18 seized the same and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P.12. During cross-examination, PW3 has reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief. PW3 has deposed; he did not enquire about the ownership of house from which aforestated gold ornaments and silver articles were recovered from accused No.1, however PW3 learnt that accused No.1 was the owner of house. During cross-examination, PW3 has reiterated the version given in examination-in-chief. PW3 has deposed; he did not enquire about the ownership of house from which aforestated gold ornaments and silver articles were recovered from accused No.1, however PW3 learnt that accused No.1 was the owner of house. PW3 has deposed that he had not seen as to who had opened almirah, however, he had seen that almirah had been opened; he cannot give the weight of gold ornaments recovered at the instance of accused No.1. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit evidence of PW3. PW3 is a native of Honnabagi Village, he did not know accused 1 to 3. PW3 did not have grudge or grievance against accused No.1. The evidence of PW3 does not reveal that he was under the obligation of police or he was a stock witness for police. There are no reasons to discredit evidence of PW3. 5. The other witnesses for recovery namely PW4Krishnappa and PW5Hanumanthappa have not supported the case of prosecution. PW4 & PW5 were examined to prove recovery of stolen articles at the instance of accused 2 & 3. Therefore, prosecution has relied upon evidence of PW18 (Investigating Officer). 6. At the relevant time, PW18Manjunath K.Gangal was working as CPI of Channagiri Circle; PW18 has deposed; he had inspected the house of PW6 after registration of first information report and found that door of house of PW6 was broken; PW18 seized latches and two stones under a mahazar; PW18 deputed his staff to search culprits; on 19.07.2010, accused No.1 was arrested; PW18 learnt that accused No.1 was residing in his house at Hubli; PW18 proceeded to Hubli; PW18 learnt that accused No.1 was in Hubli Railway Station; PW18 arrested accused No.1 in Hubli Railway Station; PW18 brought him to Channagiri Police Station; accused No.1 volunteered information as per Ex.P.20; accused No.1 led PW18 and other witnesses to his house; police jeep was stopped near the house of accused No.1; accused No.1 opened almirah and took out four gold bangles, four pairs of gold ear rings, a gold chain, four gold rings, two silver lamps and a silver kumkum cup/bowl and produced the same before Investigating Officer, who seized the same under a mahazar as per Ex.P.12. 7. 7. PW18 has deposed; on 19.07.2010 at 5 p.m., accused No.2 was arrested and he was produced before PW18; PW18 recorded voluntary statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P.23; on the same day, accused No.3 was arrested and produced before PW18; PW18 recorded voluntary statement of accused No.3 as per Ex.P.24; accused 1 to 3 were produced before jurisdictional Magistrate and they were taken to police custody; accused No.2 led Investigating Officer and other witnesses to his house in Kumbara Oni at Hubli; accused No.2 entered the house and removed a suit case and took out a gold bracelet; PW18 seized the same under mahazar as per Ex.P.13; thereafter, accused No.3 led Investigating Officer and other witnesses to his house, situate in 4th cross, Anand Road, Heggeri Colony, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar; accused No.3 went inside kitchen of his house and brought a gold chain, which was seized under a mahazar as per Ex.P.14; Investigating Officer has taken photographs when aforestated properties were recovered at the instance of accused 1 to 3. During cross-examination, PW18 has reiterated the version given in examination in chief. There are no reasons to discredit the evidence of PW18. 8. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 would submit that accused 1 to 3 were arrested on suspicion and PW18 had falsely implicated accused 1 to 3 to solve the cases pending in Channagiri Police Station. 9. This submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. PW18 did not have grudge or grievance against accused 1 to 3. The voluntary statements stated to have been made by accused 1 to 3 have led to recovery of stolen properties. It is difficult to conceive that Investigating Officer had planted gold ornaments and other valuable properties to falsely implicate accused 1 to 3. 10. PW2 Chidananda was the first informant and an inmate of house. PW2 has identified gold ornaments and silver articles after they were recovered by the Investigating Officer, pursuant to voluntary information given by accused 1 to 3. From the description of articles, we find they bear distinctive features. 11. PW6Siddaramappa has also identified gold ornaments and silver articles and he had identified a mobile handset. 12. The evidence of PW2 & PW6 regarding identification of gold ornaments and silver articles and a mobile handset has not been controverted by accused 1 to 3. 13. From the description of articles, we find they bear distinctive features. 11. PW6Siddaramappa has also identified gold ornaments and silver articles and he had identified a mobile handset. 12. The evidence of PW2 & PW6 regarding identification of gold ornaments and silver articles and a mobile handset has not been controverted by accused 1 to 3. 13. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 would submit that accused 1 to 3 were not identified either at the time of incident of dacoity or before court. Therefore, accused 1 to 3 cannot be convicted entirely on the basis of voluntary statements stated to have been made by accused 1 to 3 and recovery of stolen properties. 14. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 would submit that PW3 is a friend of PW6. Therefore, evidence of PW3 cannot be accepted. 15. PW3 cannot be branded as a interested witness because he was a friend of PW6. Accused 1 to 3 were not known to PW3. PW3 did not have grudge or grievance against accused 1 to 3. Above all, evidence of PW3 is supported by recovery of stolen properties from possession of accused 1 to 3. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. 16. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3, have relied on the following decisions: I. AIR 1992 SC 2091 (in the case of Babuda Vs. State of Rajasthan) II. 2011 Crl.L.J. 3937 (in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar & Another) III. 1996 Crl.L.J. 257 (in the case of N.Rajendra Prasad Bhat Vs. The State of Karnataka) 17. In a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 2091 (in the case of Babuda Vs. State of Rajasthan) the Supreme Court has held that accused cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC, merely because he was in possession of stolen articles after a period 1 or 1½ months. 18. In a decision reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 3937 (in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Talevar & Another) the Supreme Court has held that presumption as to culpability of accused on mere possession of stolen articles under section 114A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised as such presumption depends upon nature of property. 19. In a decision reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 257 (in the case of N.Rajendra Prasad Bhat Vs. Talevar & Another) the Supreme Court has held that presumption as to culpability of accused on mere possession of stolen articles under section 114A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised as such presumption depends upon nature of property. 19. In a decision reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 257 (in the case of N.Rajendra Prasad Bhat Vs. The State of Karnataka), the Supreme Court has held in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstance alleged against accused must be conclusively established and chain of circumstances must be proved to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence of accused. In the case on hand, prosecution has relied on recovery of stolen properties on the information volunteered by accused 1 to 3 from possession of accused 1 to 3 within a period of one month from the date of offence. The stolen properties bear distinctive features and they have been identified by victims of dacoity. The medical evidence would establish that victim of dacoity (PW6) had been assaulted by accused 1 to 3 with dangerous weapons. PW6 had suffered hurt and the other inmates of house had been put to instant fear of death. 20. The evidence of Investigating Officer relating to arrest of accused 1 to 3, voluntary statements given by accused 1 to 3 and recovery of stolen properties on the information volunteered by accused 1 to 3, seizure of stolen properties from house of accused 1 to 3 does not suffer from any discrepancies. 21. The prosecution has relied on circumstance of recovery of stolen properties on the information volunteered by accused 1 to 3 at the instance of accused 1 to 3 and from possession of accused 1 to 3. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has proved this circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record does not give raise to hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of accused 1 to 3. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has convicted accused 1 to 3. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 22. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 would submit that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. It is established from evidence on record that accused 1 to 3 had committed dacoity in the house of PW6 during intervening night of 21.06.2010. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 22. The learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 would submit that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. It is established from evidence on record that accused 1 to 3 had committed dacoity in the house of PW6 during intervening night of 21.06.2010. When inmates of house offered resistance, accused 1 to 3 had caused hurt to PW6 with dangerous weapons. Accused 1 to 3 had committed dacoity of valuable gold ornaments, silver articles, a mobile handset and a motorcycle in the house of PW6. The accused have chosen the lone house of PW6, which is situate at a distance of one kilometre from Akalakatte Village. There are no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence. 23. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The appeals are dismissed. The benefit of set off given to accused 1 to 3 by trial court under section 428 Cr.P.C., and the order of trial court regarding disposal of properties are confirmed.