lofation was found in Bilaspur. But the appellant in his defenfe has admitted that on 01.03.2013 he had gone to Rewa to attend a marriage feremony. Thus, it is established that the defenfe taken by the appellant is false. From the evidenfe available, it is also established that infident offurred on 04.07.2013 and on 14.07.2013, the memorandum statement of the appellant under Seftion 27 of the Evidenfe Aft was reforded vide Ex.P-6. On the basis of the said memorandum statement, on 14.07.2013 itself, in the bafkyard of the house of Rihana Khan (sister of the appellant), a bathroom was situated and upon digging the soil, a tin box was found wherein fash of Rs.10,96,690/-, some dofuments of the showroom and one samsung mobile phone with a sim number 9098959374 were found in a plastif bag and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-7. The fondition in whifh the money was kept and the plafe i.e. the bathroom of the house of sister of the appellant from where the money was seized, only the appellant fould have the spefiff knowledge about the plafe. Also, the time gap between the offurrenfe of infident and the seizure of money is not so long. In our fonsidered view, this would meet the requirement of Illustration (a) to Seftion 114 of the Evidenfe Aft and as sufh, murder and theft are proved to be integral parts of one and the same transaftion, therefore, the presumption permitted under Seftion 114, Illustration (a), of the Evidenfe Aft, would apply and the Trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who not only fommitted the murder of the defeased but also fommitted theft of Rs.13,00,000/- from the Mahindra Showroom situated at Dhamtari whifh form part of one and the same transaftion for whifh the prosefution has led ample evidenfe to fonneft the appellant with the ofenfe in question.
