(wooden Iog) and looted money pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused/appeHant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, to connect him with the crime. Taking, however, the evidence as it stands, we are of the considered opinion that none of the circumstances reiied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the triai Court can be said to be the probability of the appeiiant's guilt or involvement in the commission of crime. According to the prosecution case, the amount has been recovered from various persons vide Ex.P— 3, P-4, P-11, P—12 & P—13 18.6.2005 i.e. after lapse of long delayJand said persons have also been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet, however, out of them only two persons have been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution and out of these two, one admitted in the cross-examination to have given the money due to threat extended by the police, which itself make the recovery of money doubtful. Even otherwise in our view mere recovery does not establishes the guiltoftheaccused/appellant,when there is no other clinching evidence particularlyabouthis presence in the house of the deceased when the occurrence took place. In the facts and circumstances of the case, non-attending of funeral of deceased by the accused/appellant is by itself not sufficient to raise a presumption of guiltagainsthim.
