706 Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal [2007] 1 MLRA (later CJ) when delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court said: Recovery of stolen property from the possession of an accused enables a presumption as to commission of offence other than theft or dacoity [that is to say, robbery under the Malaysian Penal Code] being drawn against the accused so as to hold him a perpetrator of such other offences on the following tests being satisfied: (i) The offence of criminal misappropriation, theft or dacoity relating to the articles recovered from the possession of the accused and such other offences can reasonably be held to have been committed as an integral part of the same transaction; (ii) the time-lag between the date of commission of the offence and the date of recovery of articles from the accused is not so wide as to snap the link between recovery and commission of the offence; (iii) availability of some piece of incriminating evidence or circumstance, other than mere recovery of the articles, connecting the accused with such other offence; (iv) caution on the part of the Court to see that suspicion, howsoever strong, does not take the place of proof. In such cases the explanation offered by the accused for his possession of the stolen property assumes significance. ... [W]hen the case rests on circumstantial evidence the failure of the accused to offer any satisfactory explanation for his possession of the stolen property though not an incriminating circumstance by itself would yet enable an inference being raised against him because the fact being in the exclusive knowledge of the accused it was for him to have offered an explanation. (See Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983446; Gulab Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 19951598). [39] Having considered the material in the record provided to us, we are satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the theft or burglary or robbery - call it what you will - and the murders were an integral part of one and the same transaction. Put differently, this is not a case of a mere recovery of recently stolen property from an accused person. There are several other cogent pieces of circumstantial evidence which go to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the first and second accused participated in the commission of the murders in the context of s. 302 being read with s. 34 of the Penal Code . They were all considered by the learned judge. Here are some of them. First, the nature of the injuries suffered by all four victims points to an intention on the part of the assailants to kill them. Of that there can be no doubt. Second, Balakrishnan's body though found a considerable distance away from the place where the bodies of Sathian and Juriah were found was bound by a similar rope as the latter. This fact points to a similarity in the modus operandi in the commission of the crimes. Whoever tied up Sathian and Juriah must have also tied up Balakrishnan. Third, the fact that Balakrishnan who ought to have been at the shop was found dead at a