The recovery of stolen property alone is not sufficient to prove that the accused is guilty of receiving stolen property. The prosecution must also prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.

SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Dasu accused against his conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. He has been convicted under Section 411,. P. C. , and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that one Azmat, a Meo boy about 11 years old, had gone on the 17th November 1949 for grazing his buffaloes in the jungle of village Chaprara in Alwar District. He was wearing a gold ear-top in each of the ears and a pair of silver bangles on the wrists. In the evening the buffaloes came back alone for Azmat did not return. A search was made for Azmat, as a result of which his dead body was found inside a well, called Alamwala well. On the dead body, however, the ornaments, which Azmat was wearing when he started for grazing the buffaloes, were not found, A written report. Ex. P A under the signatures of Ummed and thumb impressions of a Lambardar and chhotalli Hissedar, was lodged at the Police Station, Sadar, Alwar, the same day. On the 21st November 1949, Dasu accused was arrested and at his instance the ornaments given above were found from a corner of thatched portion in his Nohara which was used for tethering the cattle of his family. These ornaments were dug out by the accused himself.

( 3 ) THE body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination, as a result of which it was found that his death was due to asphyxia.

( 4 ) THE ornaments alleged to have been recovered from the house of the accused at his instance were got identified before Mr. Ramanand, Magistrate III class, Alwar, on 5th December 1949.

( 5 ) THE accused was ultimately challaned under Sections 302 and 392 of the indian Penal Code in the Court of Mr. Prem Nath, Magistrate I Class, Alwar, who committed the accused to take his trial for offences under Sections 302 and 392,. P. C. , or in the alternative under Section 411,. P. C. , before the Court of session at Alwar.

( 6 ) THE accused denied the charge and pleaded that the witnesses, being Meos, had deposed falsely against him. The learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied that the charge of murder and robbery under Sections 302 and 392,. P. C. , respectively was brought home to the accused. He, however, found him guilty under Section 411,. P. C. , and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment, as noted above.

( 7 ) THE accused has come in appeal to this Court against his conviction and sentence.

( 8 ) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that the ornaments in question were the property of Amzat or were stolen away from him. It was argued that their weight or any particular description was not given in the F.. R. , nor was the weight or other description of the ornaments mixed up with the ornaments in question at the time of identification given. It was also argued that the articles were identified by four witnesses, Ummed, Chhuttan, Kallu and Sumer Singh. Of these Kallu was not produced for reasons best known to the prosecution. Ummed had seen the articles at the time of the recovery and so his identification was useless. Sumer Singh and Chhuttan had an opportunity of being told the description of the ornaments in question by Ummed and so their identification was also not of much use.

( 9 ) ON a careful consideration of the evidence on record we are satisfied that it is proved that the ornaments in question were the very ornaments which the deceased wore on his person on the day of his death. Ummeds evidence may be ignored as he had seen the ornaments at the time of the recovery, but there is nothing to doubt the evidence of Chhuttan and Sumer Singh. Sumer Singh is the own brother of Azmat deceased and was, therefore, perfectly familiar with them. He identified them before the identifying Magistrate and also deposed on oath before the Court that they were Azmats ornaments which he was wearing at the time of his disappearance on the 17th November 1949. The fact tha