A person who is found in possession of stolen property shortly after the theft is presumed to be the thief or receiver of the property unless he can provide a satisfactory explanation for his possession.

JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by accused 2 against his conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1956.

2. The facts are : One Ameen Ammal, an aged lady, was carrying on money-lending business at Batlagundu. With her P. W. 1, her grandson aged about 16, and an orphan was living. Her another son Muhammad Kasim was living in Tiruvedagam. Her daughter P. W. 10 was living with her husband in Chityayan-kottai.

3. On the night of 1-3-1956 this Ameen Ammal was alone in her house, her grandson P. W. 1 having gone to a cinema in Dindigul. He returned practically in the early morning of 2-3-1956. Therefore, fearing that his grandmother would take him to task for keeping such a late hour, he laid himself inside a cart standing in the lane north of their house and slept away.

4. On the morning of 2-3-1956 P. W. 1 woke up at 7-30 A.M. and went home. He found the main entrance partially closed. When he went in he found his grandmother lying dead on a cot. There was a pool of blood underneath the cot. Her throat had been cut and a cloth had been pressed on the wound. A pillow was placed over it, weighed with a stone mortar. There was a sheath M. O. 27 of a knife near the cot. The door of the inner room was open. The key of the door was found inserted into the key hole itself. The things inside the room were lying on the ground pell-mell.

5. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that this Ameena Ammal, who was carrying on money-lending business had taken a large number of pledges of jewels and was also in possession of cash of Rs. 4000 in one-hundred-rupee currency notes prior to her death. This is established not only by the evidence of P. W. 10, but also by the recoveries made in this case. M. O. 28 series promissory notes show that the deceased was in a position to lend more than Rs. 2000. The object of this murder was undoubtedly for gain in the shape of pledged jewels and currency notes which were missing.

6. P. W. 1 raised an alarm and his neighbour P. W. 2 came there and P. W. 1 showed her around. A big crowd gathered. P. W. 1 was advised to go to the Police. He went to the Police and gave the complaint Ex. P-1. The Police came and investigated.

6-a. Two persons were put up for the murder of this unfortunate money-lender, whose only crime seems to have been the hoard of jewellery and money she had. Out of the two, accused 1 was acquitted and we are not concerned here with the case against him. The second of them was acquitted of the charge of murder but was convicted of the offence under S. 411 I. P. C, and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years. Hence this appeal by the convicted accused 2.

7. The evidence against this accused 2 is as follows: Accused 2 was arrested by P. W. 41 on 10-3-1956 near his garden. P. W. 42 recorded the statement Ex. P-16 from accused 2. Accused 2 took P. W. 42, P. W. 1 and others to his hayrick. Accused 2 dug out the earth in front of the hayrick and picked out a cloth bag which contained M. Os. 1 to 5 and 15 to 18. It was then late in the night. There was another cloth bag which according to accused 2 had also been hidden there, and the location and recovery of which could not be completed that night.

Therefore, it was done early next morning. Then the other bag containing M. Os. 6 to 14 was recovered. These recoveries were made under proper Mahazars. These constitute one set of recoveries on the information given by accused 2 and pointing out and picking out. The next set of recovery was from Kattakaruppa Tevar of Keeripatti with whom a sum of Rs. 2000 is said to have been entrusted by this accused 2. Kattakaruppa Tevar was not examined by the prosecution as he had turned hostile. But this need not detain us because it was specifically asserted by accused 2 that the money was his own.

8. The third set of recovery was a sum of Rs. 900 from P. W. 13. P. W. 12 testifies that accused 2 pointed out the house of P. W. 13 to P. W. 42 and tha