The presumption arising under illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be used to draw inferences of guilt based on the recovery of stolen items at the instance of the accused.

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. 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. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction of the appellant and