JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Session Case No. 180 of 2021 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month (both sentences are directed to run concurrently). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.06.2021 at about 8.30 p.m. in the night, after having a food deceased, namely, Harishankar Verma went his duty of watchman to Seva Sahakari Samiti Bhawan, Nandauri. On 17.06.2021, Harishankar Verma did not return to his home, then Smt. Tarini Verma (PW-8) daughter-in-law of Harishankar called mobile of Harishankar Verma, but phone was switched off. Then Smt. Tarini Verma (PW-8) came to the gate of Seva Sahakari Samiti Bhawan and Om Prakash Banjare (PW-12), Ravi Shankar Banjare and computer operator Dharmendra Kumar (PW-11) of the Society, the gate was closed, Smt. Tarini Verma removed the wire cordon and entered inside the building premises, as the first gate of the building was closed from inside and went near the channel gate and saw that the channel gate was opened about 1½ ft. After entering through the said channel gate, Smt. Tarini Verma called out to her father-in-law, but finding no voice, she entered the room and saw that the almirah was broken. On moving forward, she saw that deceased-Harishankar Verma was lying unconscious on the iron bed. Both his legs were dangling below the bed, there was a mark of injury on his head. Smt. Tarini Verma came back and called out Om Prakash Banjare, Ravi Shankar Banjare and Dharmendra standing outside the gate. On moving forward, she saw that deceased-Harishankar Verma was lying unconscious on the iron bed. Both his legs were dangling below the bed, there was a mark of injury on his head. Smt. Tarini Verma came back and called out Om Prakash Banjare, Ravi Shankar Banjare and Dharmendra standing outside the gate. The said three persons came inside and saw that the door of the almirah of the room was open and broken and Harishankar Verma was lying dead on the bed. The said persons had informed Shashikant Verma (PW-2) by phone. Shashikant Verma (PW-2) informed the police in this regard. According to Inspector Vinay Singh Baghel (PW-13), he had registered the Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/4) on the basis of Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/3). As per the instructions of Shashikant Verma (PW-2), a Spot Panchnama (Ex.P/6) was prepared. Notice was given to the witnesses under Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/8) for panchnama proceedings of the dead body, in the presence of the witnesses, the Inquest Report (Ex.P/9) of the dead body of deceased-Harishankar was done. In Police Station Purani Bhilai First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P/33) was registered on the basis of Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/3). During the investigation, Inspector Vinay Singh Baghel (PW-13) on 18.06.2021, after taking the accused in custody and interrogating him, memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) of the appellant was registered. When the accused produced it, the key of the Scooty was seized as per Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/14). When the accused produced it from the trunk of the Scooty, Rs. 8,00,510/- and the Scooty No. CG 07/AS – 7034 were seized as per Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/15). The accused took out and presented the broken iron lock was seized as per Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/16). The accused also produced a black colored full pant, which had stains and spots like blood and an unnumbered H.F. Deluxe motor cycle were seized as per Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/17). Thereafter, the accused took out and presented a crowbar which had blood stains on the front and the remains of burnt clothes, which were seized asd per Property Seizure Memo (Ex.P/18). In relation to the recovery of Scooty key, broken iron lock and remains of burnt shirt, Recovery Panchnama (Exs.P/19 to P/21) were prepared. In relation to the recovery of notes, the Panchnama Seizure (Ex.P/22) was prepared. In relation to the recovery of Scooty key, broken iron lock and remains of burnt shirt, Recovery Panchnama (Exs.P/19 to P/21) were prepared. In relation to the recovery of notes, the Panchnama Seizure (Ex.P/22) was prepared. Thereafter, on 18.06.2021, the accused was arrested as per Arrest/Court Surrender Memo (Ex.P/23) and the family members were informed as per Information of Arrest (Ex.P/31). 4. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Supela. Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (PW-6) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/24 and found following injuries :- (i) There was a cut mark on the brain (skull) whose length was 3.25 cm, width 0.50 cm and depth 0.50 cm. (ii) There was a mark of swelling and rupture on the temporo-parietal part of the head, whose size and length was 4 cm and width 3 cm. (iii) Both shoulders were broken. All the above injuries appeared to be pre-mortem. He opined that cause of death was due to shock due to head injury and rupture of vital organs and death was homicidal in nature. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After due investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for trial. 6. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 7. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-37. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in his support. However, exhibited document Ex.D-1 in his defence. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 8. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and memorandum & seizure witnesses namely, Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) are unreliable. He further submits that according to Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (PW-6), the injuries caused to the deceased could have been sustained only if more than one person attacked him, hence it cannot be said that the accused had murdered deceased-Harishankar Verma. Alternatively, he would further submit that even if the recovery pursuant to the memorandum statement is proved against the appellant, at the most, he can be convicted for the offence of theft under Section 379 of the IPC, but cannot be convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed partly. 10. On the other hand, Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and would submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. He further submits that Chowkidar Harishankar Verma was murdered in the Co-operative Service Society building, village Nandauri, at or around midnight, hence there is nothing unusual in the non-availability of evidence regarding the deceased and the accused being seen together just before or at the time of the incident in question. Since the accused father Om Prakash Banjare (PW-12) was working as a clerk in the said society and the accused brother Ravi Shankar Banjare was working in the said society, the accused was aware that the money for recovery of farmers' loans and money for transactions were kept in the almirah of the said building and the key of the said almirah was remained with the father of the accused. Therefore, the accused was well aware of the above facts and on the date of the incident, it was he who broke the lock on the gate of the said building and entered the building to steal Rs. 8,00,510/- kept in the almirah and when watchman Harishankar Verma woke up, he intentionally murdered Harishankar Verma by hitting him with a crowbar and stole the said amount. On the basis of the above circumstantial evidence chain, the accused himself has committed the crime in question. 8,00,510/- kept in the almirah and when watchman Harishankar Verma woke up, he intentionally murdered Harishankar Verma by hitting him with a crowbar and stole the said amount. On the basis of the above circumstantial evidence chain, the accused himself has committed the crime in question. He further contended that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 460 of the IPC, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 13. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased-Harishankar Verma was homicidal in nature ? 14. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (PW-6), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased-Harishankar Verma, vide Ex.P/24, has clearly come to the conclusion that the death of deceased-Harishankar Verma was homicidal in nature due to shock due to head injury and rupture of vital organs. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 15. In the present case, the appellant was taken into custody on 18.06.2021 and his memorandum was recorded vide Ex.P/13 in presence of two witnesses Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) and on the basis of his memorandum statement, Rs. 8,00,510/- which has been hidden in the trunk of Scooty No. CG 07/AS – 7034 and crowbar, broken lock, accused full pant and burnt t-shirt were recovered, vide Exs.P/ 14 to P/18. The said recovery pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant has been made in presence of Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) which has duly been proved. The said recovery pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant has been made in presence of Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) which has duly been proved. The incident is of the intervening night of 16th & 17th June, 2021 and memorandum statement was made on 18.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m. 16. It is well settled law that under Section 27 of Evidence Act only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the facts really thereby discovered is admissible. The word ‘fact’ means some concrete or material fact to which the information directly relates. As held by Sir John Beaumont in the matter of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 : “… it is fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.” 17. Following the principle of law laid down in Pulukuri Kotayya (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 5264 , with reference to the word “fact” employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, have held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. It has been further held that the discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. 18. In order to make Section 27 of the Evidence Act applicable, two conditions are prerequisite, namely (1) the information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) the information must ‘relate distinctly’ to the fact discovered. In the present case, the incident occurred in the intervening night of 16th & 17th June, 2021 and on 18.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m, as pointed out by the appellant, pursuant to his memorandum statement, incriminating articles i.e. Rs. In the present case, the incident occurred in the intervening night of 16th & 17th June, 2021 and on 18.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m, as pointed out by the appellant, pursuant to his memorandum statement, incriminating articles i.e. Rs. 8,00,510/- which has been hidden in the trunk of Scooty No. CG 07/AS – 7034 and crowbar, broken lock, accused full pant and burnt t-shirt were recovered from the ruined house of village Panchdevri, vide Exs.P/14 to P/18. As such, recovery made from the appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement satisfies the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that being so, the statement made by the appellant under Section 27 is clearly admissible in evidence. 19. Now, the next submission on behalf of the appellant is that even if the seized article was guarded by the deceased which was kept in almirah of the Society in question and was found in possession of the appellant, he can only be convicted for offence under Section 379 of the IPC, but cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, whereas it is the case of the State/respondent that where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction and consequently, the presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be drawn that it is only the appellant who not only committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery which form part of the same transaction, as the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence in question. 20. In order to consider the submission, it would be appropriate to notice Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: - “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.— The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume— (a) That a man 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;” 21. Illustrations The Court may presume— (a) That a man 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;” 21. In order to draw an inference that fact in dispute has been established, there must exist, on record, some direct material facts or circumstances from which such inference could be drawn. Inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from given objective facts, direct or circumstantial (see R. Puthunainar Alhithan, etc. v. P.H. Pandian and others, AIR 1996 SC 1599 ). 22. Furthermore, the illustrations appended to the aforesaid section are not exhaustive, but merely illustrate the principle underlying the main provision. The presumption to be drawn under that provision is one of fact and whether it should be drawn or not in a particular case must depend upon the facts of that case. 23. In the matter of Tulsiram Kanu v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , while considering Illustration (a) appended to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the presumption permitted to be drawn under Section 114, illustration (a), Evidence Act, has to be read along with the important time-factor. If ornaments or things of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months expire in the interval, the presumption may not be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. Their Lordships observed in paragraph 7 as under: - “7. Apart from this confession, the judgment of the High Court is based on the identification of the gold ornaments. The Sessions Judge recognised that if the ornaments had been proved to have been the property of the deceased it would have been possible to infer that the accused was the person who committed the murder and robbed the murdered man. In our opinion, this reasoning, under the circumstances of the case, is unsound. The alleged murder took place on 28-5-1949 and assuming that the ornaments were traced to the accused at the end of October 1949, no legitimate inference could be drawn about the appellant being the murderer of the deceased. In our opinion, this reasoning, under the circumstances of the case, is unsound. The alleged murder took place on 28-5-1949 and assuming that the ornaments were traced to the accused at the end of October 1949, no legitimate inference could be drawn about the appellant being the murderer of the deceased. The important factor which appear to have been overlooked is that five months had elapsed between the date of the alleged murder and the tracing of the ornaments. The presumption permitted to be drawn under S. 114, illu. (a), Evidence Act, has to be read along with the important time factor. If ornaments or things of the deceased are found in the possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if several months expire in the interval, the presumption may not be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. The criticism applied equally to the reasoning of the High Court for its conclusion.” 24. Thereafter, in the matter of Wasim Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400 , the Supreme Court posed a question for consideration, whether the evidence in the case establishes that the appellant murdered and robbed Ram Dularey and their Lordships answered the question that recent and unexplained possession of stolen articles can well be taken to be presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well as robbery. 25. Thereafter, in the matter of Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 254 , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act makes it plain that the time factor has a material bearing and the Court must keep it in view before it can draw the presumption in accordance with the illustration. It was further held that the presumption can be raised if a person is found to be in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft. If, however, a long period elapses between the date of the theft and the date on which a person is found to be in possession of the stolen articles, the Court would not be justified in drawing the presumption in accordance with illustration (a) to Section 114. If, however, a long period elapses between the date of the theft and the date on which a person is found to be in possession of the stolen articles, the Court would not be justified in drawing the presumption in accordance with illustration (a) to Section 114. It was also held that the question as to how much period should elapse after the theft in order to rule out the presumption under illustration (a) would depend on the nature of the stolen article and the facts of each case. 26. In the matter of Baiju alias Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 588 , the Supreme Court following the decisions in Wasim Khan (supra) and Alisher (supra) and while dealing with the presumption to be drawn under illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act has held that it is a matter which depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case. Further, their Lordships pointed out the following factors in order to attract illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act: - 1. The nature of the stolen article, 2. the manner of its acquisition by the accused, 3. the nature of the evidence about its identification, 4. the manner in which it was dealt with by the accused, 5. the place and circumstances of its recovery, 6. the length of the intervening period, and 7. the ability or otherwise of the accused to explain his possession, are factors which have to be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision. 27. Thereafter, in the matter of Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., (1995) 3 SCC 574 , following the decision of the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Kanu (supra), their Lordships have held that the presumption permitted to be drawn under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act has to be read along with the “important time factor” and if the ornaments in possession of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted, but if several months had expired in the interval, the presumption cannot be permitted to be drawn having regard to the circumstances of the case. 28. 28. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court to invoke Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is quite vivid that the appellant very well know that in one of the rooms of the building of Cooperative Society Nandauri/ Dhan Mandi Nandauri, Rs.8,00,510/- was kept in the almirah, Omprakash Banjare (PW-12), who is the father of the accused/ appellant having the key of the said almirah and the accused/ appellant had easy and natural access to the key of the almirah and the deceased-Harishankar Verma kept watch in the said room at night, all these specific facts being within the knowledge of the accused/appellant, it is clear that the accused/appellant had taken the money i.e. Rs. 8,00,510/-kept in the almirah. The accused/appellant entered inside by breaking the lock of the channel gate of the said building and when the watchman Harishankar create an obstruction, the accused/appellant had caused Harishankar's death by giving more than one fatal blow on the sensitive organs like brain, ribs etc. with a crowbar, due to which It is clear that the motive of the accused/appellant was to take the said amount. When at the spot of incident, the deceased-Harishankar Verma created a hindrance in taking the said amount, then the motive of the accused/appellant was to cause harm to the deceased. Immediately after the incident happened in the intervening night of 16th & 17th June, 2021, it was reported by Shashikant Verma (PW-2) pursuant to which Dehati Nalisi was registered vide Ex.P/4, on the basis of Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/3), and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/9 and thereafter, postmortem was conducted and Doctor opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to shock due to head injury and rupture of vital organs and death was homicidal in nature. Immediately thereafter, the accused/appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded on 18.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m. vide Ex.P/13 in presence of two independent witnesses Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) and on the basis of his memorandum statement, Rs. Immediately thereafter, the accused/appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded on 18.06.2021 at 3.00 p.m. vide Ex.P/13 in presence of two independent witnesses Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) and on the basis of his memorandum statement, Rs. 8,00,510/- which has hidden in the trunk of Scooty No. CG 07/AS – 7034 and crowbar, broken lock, accused full pant and burnt t-shirt were recovered vide Ex.P/14 to Ex.P/18 and as such, it was recovered within 36 hours of the incident. Thus, the Rs. 8,00,510/- which was kept in the almirah of Cooperative Society Nandauri/ Dhan Mandi Nandauri were found in possession of the accused/appellant soon after the murder of the deceased-Harishankar Verma, who is the watchman of Cooperative Society Nandauri / Dhan Mandi Nandauri, and therefore, it satisfies the requirement of important time factor envisaged by the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Kanu (supra) to invoke Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, as the ornaments were duly identified. This would meet the requirement of Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act and as such, murder and robbery are proved to be integral parts of one and the same transaction, and therefore, the presumption permitted under Section 114, Illustration (a), of the Evidence Act, would apply and it is held that the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who not only committed the murder of the deceased, but also robbed the Cooperative Society Nandauri/ Dhan Mandi Nandauri where Rs.8,00,510/- was kept in the almirah which form part of one and the same transaction for which the prosecution has led ample evidence to connect the appellant with the offence in question. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the motive of the appellant to commit the offence on account of having an evil eye on the money i.e. Rs.8,00,510/-, which was kept in the almriah of Cooperative Society Nandauri/Dhan Mandi Nandauri and the accused/appellant very well know about the said fact, as his father Omprakash Banjare (PW-12) working as a Clerk in the Cooperative Society Nandauri/ Dhan Mandi Nandauri and Omprakash Banjare (PW-12) having the key of the said almriah where the money was kept and the accused/appellant had easy and natural access to the key. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused/appellant vide Ex.P/13, Rs.8,00,510/-, hidden in the trunk of Scooty No. CG 07/AS – 7034, which is belong to accused/appellant, crowbar, broken lock, accused full pant and burnt t-shirt have been seized vide Exs.P/14 to P/18 which has been proved by the independent witnesses Ramkumar Dhankar (PW-4) and Khinni Lal Verma (PW-5) to seizure and memorandum. The accused/ appellant has failed to give any plausible explanation about the money and other articles which were recovered within 36 hours from the date and time of incident and has given false explanation which itself is an incriminating circumstance. 30. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that it is the accused/appellant who is the author of the crime and as such, the learned trial Court is justified in convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 & 460 of the IPC. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 32. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 33. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.