Recent possession and disclosure recoveries alone cannot disturb an acquittal without identification evidence or a safe presumption.

Recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, without test identification parade, in-court identification, or recent possession, were held insufficient to sustain adverse inference against the accused. The presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act depends on the facts, the time gap, and the nature of the recovered property; where the items are readily transferable and the recovery is remote from the offence, no safe presumption of participation in dacoity or murder arises. Interference with an acquittal remains limited and is justified only when the judgment is perverse or exceptional circumstances exist. On these principles, the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether adverse inference could be drawn against the accused and their acquittal disturbed merely on the basis of recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, in the absence of identification evidence and recent possession.

Analysis: The accused were neither subjected to a test identification parade nor identified in court by any eyewitness. The only incriminating circumstance was recovery of certain articles on disclosure statements made after a considerable lapse of time from the incident. The rule under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act permits a presumption from recent and unexplained possession, but the presumption depends on the facts, the time gap, and the nature of the property recovered. Where the articles are cash, small items, or other property capable of passing readily from hand to hand, and the recovery is not in close proximity to the offence, no safe presumption of participation in dacoity or murder can be drawn. The appellate court's power to interfere with an acquittal is also limited and interference is warranted only when the judgment under appeal is perverse or exceptional circumstances exist.

Conclusion: The recoveries were insufficient to connect the accused with the crime, and the acquittal was not liable to be interfered with. The appeal failed.

---