SARJOO PROSAD, C.J.—This is an appeal against a judgment of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in a case of robbery. 2. The prosecution case is that in village Bhambhor, some 18 miles away from the City of Jodhpur, around mid-night intervening 27th and 28th September, 1956, 3 persons reached the premises of Seth. Jugraj. It appears that the residence and shop of Jugraj are in the same premises. One of these 3 persons made a gunfire apparently to intimidate Jugraj and on the threat of instant death or grievous hurt demanded from him his valuables. Two of them entered the residential part of the premises in the first instance where Bhanwarlal (Jugrajs son) and his wife were sleeping. Bhanwarlal awaked by gunfire endeavoured to come out of the residential part but two of the robbers caught hold of him. These robbers put instant fear of death or grievous hurt to Bhanwarlal if he did not produce cash and ornaments. Over-awed by this fear Bhanwarlals wife parted with the ornaments which she had on her person. This did not appear to satisfy the robbers expectations and they, therefore, brought Jugraj inside the house with his hands tied and resorted to physical violence to extort more valuables. Bhanwarlal was threatened to be burnt alive, he was throttled, his son was put in danger of death; injuries were inflicted on Jugraj who received as many as 9 injuries including the fracture of his 9th rib. Bhanwarlal was beaten by Dandas, kerosene oil was poured on his head and Jugraj was threatened that his nose would be cut. This worked terror. Jugraj and Bhanwarlal pointed out places where cash, ornaments and gold mohars were concealed. The robbers collected goods of the value of about Rs. 15,000/- and burnt the Bahis of Seth Jugraj and decamped. 3. Jugraj was terror-stricken and therefore, next morning he got a report written by one Jamnalal and sent it to the Police Station Dugar through Lunia Bhil. A case under secs, 394 and 307 IPC was registered. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to the house of Jugraj who produced a list of goods which were looted. 4. Police arrested Birdhichand at whose instance the aforesaid crime was alleged to have been committed by Amar Singh, Ramchandra and Narayandas. A case under secs, 394 and 307 IPC was registered. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to the house of Jugraj who produced a list of goods which were looted. 4. Police arrested Birdhichand at whose instance the aforesaid crime was alleged to have been committed by Amar Singh, Ramchandra and Narayandas. Out of the property alleged to have been robbed considerable part is said to have been recovered and a substantial portion thereof was identified by Jugraj and his son Bhanwarlal. All the four accused persons namely Bhirdhichand, Amar Singh, Ramchandra and Narayandas were committed to the court of Session for trial. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge on an application by Birdhichand made a reference to this Court recommending that his commitment be quashed. Accordingly Birdhichand was not tried jointly with the other three accused persons. 6. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial came to the conclusion that while the commission of the offence stood fully proved it was not proved that the three accused persons namely Amar Singh, Ram Chandra and Narayan Das committed the offence. He accordingly acquitted them. 7. The State has come up in appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Amar Singh is said to be absconding. He has not been served with notice of this appeal. Appeal against his acquittal, therefore, cannot be considered and disposed of. 9. We have heard Shri Kan Singh, Government Advocate on behalf of the State and Sarva Shri Than Chand Mehta and Bheem Raj learned counsel for respondents Ram Chandra and Narayan Das respectively. 10. The learned Government Advocates argument is that despite dependable oral and documentary evidence the court below has erred in holding that the case against the respondents was not proved. The respondents were identified. Property said to have been looted has been recovered at the instance of the accused persons and has been identified. The crime and the respondents have been inescapably linked and yet the court erroneously acquitted them altogether ignoring the significance of the recovery of the property at the instance of the respondents in accordance with the provisions of sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. In order to weigh the evidence led against each respondent and arguments advanced it is proper to consider the cases of the two respondents separately. 12. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. In order to weigh the evidence led against each respondent and arguments advanced it is proper to consider the cases of the two respondents separately. 12. Regarding Ram Chandra the prosecution evidence available on the record is, (a) his having been identified by Jugraj (P. W. 5) and Bhanwarlal (P.W. 4) and (b) recovery at his instance of one gold Kada bearing the name of Chanda Bhera, a gun and 5 mohars from a deserted and dilapidated house situated in Chopasni a few miles away from Jodhpur. 13. The trial court has refused to place reliance on the evidence of identification against Ram Chandra. His reasons for this rejection are (1) "Jugraj and Bhanwarlal are father and son and are persons whose property has been looted. They are therefore, very much interested in this case and cannot be said to be independent witnesses." (ii) Because Jugraj and Bhanwarlal failed to identify Narayan Das and both these witnesses identified a particular individual as Narayan Das. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge because both these witnesses pointed out an identically wrong person for Narayan Das it showed that these witnesses were given previous hints. (iii) Identification memo Ex. 33 is a simple document lacking in details and does not help in showing if persons as fair in complexion as Ram Chandra were mixed up in the parade or not. The Magistrate was unable to furnish details and therefore, the identification test proceeding failed to inspire confidence. 14. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for respondent Ram Chandra supplemented the aforesaid reasons by urging that Ram Chandra was wearing a white turban a mark of serious mourning, and it is not known whether persons with whom he was mixed up had or had not a head gear of that description. At any rate in view of the report Ex. P. 33, the learned counsel urged, people participating in the identification parade were not permitted to exchange their clothes. It was further submitted that this respondent had tatoo mark of Hanumanji on his hand and was, therefore distinguishable from others. At any rate there was nothing to indicate that Ram Chandra was kept "Ba Parda" when he was transferred from Sardarpura to Mahamandir police station a distance of two miles in the city of Jodhpur. It was further submitted that this respondent had tatoo mark of Hanumanji on his hand and was, therefore distinguishable from others. At any rate there was nothing to indicate that Ram Chandra was kept "Ba Parda" when he was transferred from Sardarpura to Mahamandir police station a distance of two miles in the city of Jodhpur. It was also pointed out that Jugraj on his own showing is an old man with failing eye-sight and his identification could not be depended upon. The learned counsel also suggested that story of "Bahi burning" was a mere fabrication to add to the available light at the time of commission of the crime and Jugraj or Bhanwarlal had actually no means to identify the respondent Ram Chandra for want of light. 15. The first question which should be considered as important in this connection is whether Jugraj and Bhanwarlal had opportunity to observe the robbers in the course of the commission of crime. We have it in the deposition of Bhanwarlal that this looting lasted for 2.2.1/2 hours. The robbers had flash lights with them. From time to time these robbers increased their threat or violence to squeeze more out of the victims. Terror notwithstanding the victims naturally got opportunity to observe more and more of the general outline of the robbers. The length of time improved opportunity for observation. Finally, when the Bahis came to be burnt in the light produced by the fire the faces of the robbers must have become clearly visible to Jugraj and his son Bhanwarlal. The suggestion of the learned counsel for Ram Chandra that this "Bahis-burning" is a mere fabrication does not appeal to our mind. In crimes of this kind it is not unusual that vandalism accompanies as a device for increased terror and consequent large booty. We have no reason to disbelieve this part of the story. It is obvious therefore, that Jugraj and Bhanwarlal had adequate opportunity to observe the preparation of the crime and the criminals. 16. The argument that Jugraj is an old man of failing eyesight is based on Jugrajs admitted inability to read the words "Chanda Bhera" on the inside of the gold kada recovered. Mere inability to read those small engraved words is no reason for holding that Jugraj was unable to observe the faces of the persons who committed the crime. 16. The argument that Jugraj is an old man of failing eyesight is based on Jugrajs admitted inability to read the words "Chanda Bhera" on the inside of the gold kada recovered. Mere inability to read those small engraved words is no reason for holding that Jugraj was unable to observe the faces of the persons who committed the crime. Jugraj has stated his age to be 53 in 1957 and he was, therefore, 52 years when this robbery took place. He, therefore, cannot be described as too old a person lacking capacity of recognising those faces which caused him immeasurable pain. No cross-examination has been directed to demonstrate that his vision was so weak as to render it improbable for him to identify human faces. We have, therefore, no reason to disbelieve Jugraj when he says that Ram Chandra was one of the persons who came to rob him. 17. It is true that Jugraj and Bhanwarlal are father and son and that they were the persons who suffered at the hands of the robbers. In a sense they are interested in bringing the criminal to book. But in cases of this kind who would expect unconnected persons to be present when a midnight robbery takes place in a residential house of a village. Inmates of the house alone would be normally competent to identify the intruders. The Additional Sessions Judge was therefore, in error in discarding their testimony merely on the ground that they are not unconnected persons. 18. During the course of the identification proceeding Jugraj and Bhanwarlal identified an identical person as Narayan Das who was not Narayan Das. This is an error capable of more than one explanation. It is equally possible that the person wrongly identified as Narayan Das bore so close an affinity to Narayan that both these witnesses committed the same error. Nothing on the record has been shown to us to warrant the suspicion that Bhanwarlal and Jugraj were given hints by some investigating agency. On the contrary we find it in Ex. B/33 that witnesses were called inside one after the other and the persons mixed had opportunity to change their places. Nothing on the record has been shown to us to warrant the suspicion that Bhanwarlal and Jugraj were given hints by some investigating agency. On the contrary we find it in Ex. B/33 that witnesses were called inside one after the other and the persons mixed had opportunity to change their places. While it is necessary and proper to closely examine the question of identification and the evidence relating to it with caution, it is incorrect to approach the question with a suspicion which the record of the case or cross-examination of the witnesses does not justify. 19. The argument of Mr. Than Chand Mehta is that because Jugraj and Bhanwarlal failed to identify one out of two persons in the identification proceedings that testimony of these witnesses is unreliable in the matter of identification.- Building up this argument the learned counsel relied upon Emperor Vs. Chhadammilal (1). In that case as well, the witnesses had made one correct identification against one mistake. The additional circumstances which weighed with the learned judge was that the accused were taken out of jail at 6 A.M. to the house of the Magistrate and re-admitted at 10-30 A.M. when the witnesses presumably had opportunity of observing the suspects. With great respect we do not think it is proper to lay down any mathematical standards for testing the trust-worthiness of witnesses who identify. Each case has to be determined in the light of its own circumstances. Failure of Jugraj and Bhanwarlal to identify Narayan Das by itself is no circumstance to reject their testimony regarding Ram Chandra. 20. The criticism against Ex. P/33 that it lacks the details and the inability of magistrate to recall the details has little or no value. It is idle to expect the magistrate to recall the details of an identification parade held by him about a year ago particularly details which are not mentioned in the report. Ex. P/33 could give some more details regarding the persons mixed and the clothes they wore but it is perhaps expecting too much to find the shades of pigmentation of various persons participating in the parade. Broadly speaking Ex. P/33 indicates the precautions taken and the results reached and to our mind is a dependable document. 21. Ex. P/33 could give some more details regarding the persons mixed and the clothes they wore but it is perhaps expecting too much to find the shades of pigmentation of various persons participating in the parade. Broadly speaking Ex. P/33 indicates the precautions taken and the results reached and to our mind is a dependable document. 21. Regarding the tatoo mark which is said to be on the hand of Ram Chandra there is nothing on the record to show that it was visible to the witnesses. No cross-examination has been directed on this point. Likewise, no complaint was made regarding the white turban being not worn by persons mixed up with the suspects. In the absence of material on these points we are not disposed to entertain these abstract arguments as tenable. 22. P.W. 31 Hari Ram has deposed that Ram Chandra was arrested on 21.11.56. His identification took place in Jail on 23.11.56. He was kept Ba-parda throughout and was also warned about it. Police records according to the witness, contain entries to this effect. In our opinion the argument that Ram Chandra was exposed to the danger of pre-parade identification has no substance. 23. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that Jugraj and Bhanwarlal had an opportunity of observing Ram Chandra and we have no reason to distrust the evidence of these two witnesses when they identified Ram Chandra in the identification test as well as in the court. 24. In regard to the evidence relating to the discovery in consequence of the information received from Ram Chandra the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discarded it on the ground that the deserted and open house in Chopasani cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of Ram Chandra. The learned Government Advocate in our opinion is right when he contends that the trial court fell in error in assessing the weight of it as piece of evidence. As a matter of fact possession of the premises from where the articles were recovered does not appear to be the true test of the matter. This is a discovery on account of the information given by the accused person. The discovery itself is a guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the accused person. In the ultimate analysis the principle behind the provisions of sec. This is a discovery on account of the information given by the accused person. The discovery itself is a guarantee of the truth of the statement made by the accused person. In the ultimate analysis the principle behind the provisions of sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is that whenever a thing is discovered as a result of information given by an accused person the danger of admitting confessions to the police officers disappears and the confession stands confirmed by facts. The discovery affords guarantee in regard to the truth of information itself. When the articles in question were concealed in a desert house their existence could be only directly known to the person who concealed them there. 25. Jugraj has deposed that one Chanda Bhera a Bhat had pawned a gold Kada Ex.M/3 with him. It was put in a Katordan along with a gold Janeoo and concealed inside a wall in his house at Bhambore. He was compelled to part with it when his son Bhanwarlals throat was strangulated. This article was recovered as a result of the information given by Ram Chandra. It was dug out from a forsaken house near Chopasni. We are of the opinion that this recovery must be relied upon notwithstanding the fact that the place from where it was recovered was not in exclusive possession of Ram Chandra. 26. Learned counsel for Ram Chandra has argued that no Ruqqa regarding pawn has been produced. He has further submitted that it is surprising, that Bhanwarlal as grown up son of Jugraj was ignorant of this transaction. These two circumstances according to the learned counsel cast a doubt on the veracity of this story. We have examined the statement of Jugraj. No question appears to have been directed on the point and we refuse to speculate about the nature of original transaction or documents, if any, which existed as evidence for the same. Bhanwarlals ignorance of the transaction also does not discredit the statement of Jugraj for similar reasons. 27. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that not only the gold Kada but a gun, some cartridges and gold mohars were recovered from the deserted house near Chopasni. Ram Chandra was never said to have been in possession of a gun at the time of the commission of the crime. 27. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that not only the gold Kada but a gun, some cartridges and gold mohars were recovered from the deserted house near Chopasni. Ram Chandra was never said to have been in possession of a gun at the time of the commission of the crime. Its recovery along with cartridges throws a doubt that Ram Chandra had nothing to do with it. It was also pointed out that failure of Jugraj to identify the gold mohars also weakens this link. We do not think it is correct to draw these inferences. Gold mohars of common make have no distinguishing marks. The recovery of a gun or cartridges need not necessarily relate to the gun used at Jugrajs house on the night of 27th and 28th September, 1956. In our opinion the learned trial court was, therefore, in error when it refused to rely on this important link of recovery on the basis of information furnished by Ram Chandra. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent cited Bansidhar Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa (2) and Rajakhima Vs. State of Saurashtra (3). The contention of the learned counsel is that unless there are substantial and compelling reasons a judgment of acquittal should not be set aside. We have been conscious of these principles in our entire approach to the case. All the same in our opinion the identification of Ram Chandra by Jugraj and Bhanwarlal coupled with the discovery of Ex. M/3 on the basis of the information given by Ram Chandra go to connect conclusively the respondent Ram Chandra with the crime which was committed between the night of 27th and 28th of September, 1956 at the house of Jugraj. 29. So far as the case of respondent Narayan Das is concerned we may repeat that he was not identified by either Jugraj or Bhanwarlal in the course of identification parade. He was identified by these witnesses in court. The identification by these witnesses of this respondent in court to our mind is not such evidence on which it would be safe to rely. In Bhangiri Vs. He was identified by these witnesses in court. The identification by these witnesses of this respondent in court to our mind is not such evidence on which it would be safe to rely. In Bhangiri Vs. the State (4) it was held— "But generally speaking, the evidence of a witness in court that he identifies one or more persons out of so many standing in the dock as present at the time of the crime is as next to no value without an earlier identification proceeding in case the persons identified are strangers to the witness." The only evidence against respondent Narayan Das consists of the discovery of ornaments in consequence of the information given by him. The prosecution case against this respondent is that he had a house on rent in the city of Jodhpur. This house the respondent had taken on rent and executed a rent-note Ex.P/28. At the instance of this respondent Ex. 4 to 12 silver ornaments were recovered after digging out a portion of the house on rent with the respondent Narayandas. The house was opened by means of a key which was apart of the property recovered from the respondent Narayandas and noted in the memo of his arrest, Ex. P. 44. This according to the prosecution is the key of the house by which the lock was opened. The bag in which these ornaments were found has on its face embroidered the name Jugraj. 30. The respondent Narayandas was arrested as per Ex. P. 44 on 20th Nov., 1956. Amongst the various things recovered from him there was an iron key of screw shape. On 4th Dec, 1956 in the presence of two respectable witnesses, Jai Shanker and Pyarelal, respondent Narayandas led them to a house situated in Brahampuri Matiya-ka-Bas and by use of the key which was recovered from him as per Ex. 44 opened the door of the house. The court-yard of the house was katcha. It was dug to the depth of 1-1/2 and from there an expensive rifle with its canvas cover was discovered. In the same court-yard on the right hand side, as one enters, on digging up to the depth of 2 feet a bag was discovered. This bag had on it the name of Jugraj embroidered on its face. This bag contained some cartridges and silver ornaments mentioned in Ex. P. 14. In the same court-yard on the right hand side, as one enters, on digging up to the depth of 2 feet a bag was discovered. This bag had on it the name of Jugraj embroidered on its face. This bag contained some cartridges and silver ornaments mentioned in Ex. P. 14. These silver ornaments were sealed by the police and later on identified by Jugraj and Bhanwarlal. The Prosecution examined Pyarelal P.W. 19 who is a resident of the same locality where the house of Narayandas is situated and in which house the aforesaid articles were discovered. He has proved the prosecution version that Narayandas led them to the house, opened the lock and dug out the articles as mentioned above; that the bag bore the name of Jugraj and the property so recovered was duly sealed. The prosecution has also examined Bhawani Shanker P. W. 10 who has deposed that on the 2nd Oct. 1956 Narayandas had rented this house situated in Brahampuri through this witness on rent of as -/8/- per month; and that Narayandas had executed Ex. P. 28, the rent-note. The learned trial court has refused to rely upon this discovery mainly on the grounds; (i) that the rent note is unreliable because it is not executed on a non-judicial stamp or revenue stamp and bears a service stamp; (ii) that Narayandas never lived in the house situated in Brahampuri (iii) because Narayandas was arrested on 20th Nov., 1956 sent to judicial lock-up on 22nd Nov., 1936 and despite his remaining with the police for two days he disclosed no information. On 23rd of Nov., 1956 he knew that he was not identified and, therefore, the information given by him to the police could not be voluntary, (iv) because of the long period between 20th Nov., and 4th Dec, 1956 the presumption of sec. 114 of the Evidence Act could not be drawn. 31. The learned counsel for Narayandas Mr. Bheemraj has advanced practically the same arguments on this aspect of the case. 32. If the suggestion is that Ex. 114 of the Evidence Act could not be drawn. 31. The learned counsel for Narayandas Mr. Bheemraj has advanced practically the same arguments on this aspect of the case. 32. If the suggestion is that Ex. P. 21 the rent note is the handiwork of the police, then it was equally possible for the police to have procured a revenue stamp for the purposes of creating this evidence, A revenue stamp, as we all know, is an easily procurable article, The police could have even gone without the ceremony of affixing any stamp. P.W. 10 .Bhawani Shankar has given up the explanation, which we have no reason to reject, that the stamp was brought by Narayandas and that he executed this rent-note and he (Bhawani Shanker) did not attach any significance to the service stamp at the time of the execut on of the rent-note. We see no reason to disbelieve the statement of P. W. 10 Bhawani Shankar and the argument built on the use of service stamp, to our mind has no substance. 33. It appears to be correct to hold that Narayandas did not regularly reside in this house to which Ex. P.28 is related. To our mind it makes no difference whether Narayandas took this house on rent for the purpose of his habitual residence or as a rendezvous in a convenient obscure corner of the city of Jodhpur for placing his things. The small rent of as, 7/8/7 per month lends support to the conclusion that no fortune was being wasted by keeping this house for occasional use. 34. Whether the statement which Narayandas made was voluntary or otherwise in our opinion is entirely an irrelevant consideration when aid of S. 27 is invoked by the prosecution. It will be useful to recall that sec. 27 is an exception to sec. 24 to 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1960, which appears to be so far unreported, Mr. Justice Hidayatullah while tracing out the historical background of sec. 27 has observed as follows :— "The English law then was taken as model for accused in custody. Sec. 27 which is framed as an exception has rightly been held as an exception to ss. 24-26 and not only to sec. 26. Justice Hidayatullah while tracing out the historical background of sec. 27 has observed as follows :— "The English law then was taken as model for accused in custody. Sec. 27 which is framed as an exception has rightly been held as an exception to ss. 24-26 and not only to sec. 26. The words of the section were taken bodily from Lockharts case where it was said: "But it should seem that so much of the confession as relates strictly to the fact discovered by it may be given in evidence, for reason of rejecting extorted confession is the apprehension that the prisoner may have been thereby induced to say what is false; but the fact discovered shows that so much of the confession as imme diately relates to it is true." As an exception to secs.24-26 the faith that one comes to fasten in the veracity of information under sec. 27 is born out by the discovery of facts in consequence thereof. The preceding mental state of the giver of this information has no relevance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, therefore, was in error when he examined this aspect of the case with reference to the voluntary nature of the information. We are convinced that it was in consequence of the information given by Narayandas that a bag with an embroidered name of the person robbed namely Jugraj containing silver ornaments which he identified to be his own and robbed on the night of crime was discovered. These articles could not be known to be lying 2 under the earth within a house in a small lane in the city of Jodhpur except to the person who placed them or caused them to be placed there. We have, therefore no reason to disbelieve this part of the story. 35. The presumption under sec. 114 illustration (a) which the learned Additional Sessions Judge had in his mind no doubt depends on the possession being recent. The prosecution however, does not rely on this presumption of fact but on the veracity derived from the recovery pursuant to the provisions of sec. 27. The trial court, therefore, misdirected itself by reference to sec. 114 of the Evidence Act which presumption had no application to the circumstances of discovery of articles under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. 36. 27. The trial court, therefore, misdirected itself by reference to sec. 114 of the Evidence Act which presumption had no application to the circumstances of discovery of articles under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. 36. In our opinion, therefore, the recovery of these articles and a bag bearing the name of Jugraj therein directly connect the accused Narayandas with the crime. 37. The next link against Narayandas is the recovery of a gold Janeoo Ex. M/2 from P.W. 18 Mst. Sugan Kunwar alias Mst. Bheri. The prosecution case is that Mst. Bheri who was on terms of intimacy with accused Narayandas had advanced certain loan to Narayandas. After the robbery of the house of Jugraj, Narayandas give Mst. Bheri 17 gold mohars, one gold Janeoo and some silver coins. 38. From the statement of P. W. 31 Hari Ram we gather that Narayandas had told him that he had given these articles to Mst. Bheri. Mst. Bheris statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 22nd Dec, 1959. She could not be examined earlier as she had gone away to Ahmedabad on account of her illness. Mst. Bheri however when she came to be examined in the court as P. W. 18 disowned her statement under sec. 164 and claimed these articles to be her own. 39. The learned trial judge found the story of Mst. Bheri unreasonable and un-natu-ral inter alia on the ground that this woman had gone to Ahmedabad for her treatment all alone and it was strange that she should have taken these valuable articles along with her as she would have found it difficult to convert them into ready money and further exposed these articles to theft and, therefore, these articles did not connect the accused Narayandas with the crime. 40. From the statement of P.W. 8 Ratanlal who is a Sarraf, carrying on business in the name of Mansa Ram Ratanlal it is clear that on Baisakh Sudi 9 Svt. 2007 he sold a gold Janeoo of Rs. 1136/-to Jugraj. Ex. P/2 is the cash memo with signature in token of this sale. There is a corresponding entry in the Kachi Rokad relating to this transaction. 41. Jugraj had requested the father of this witness to get his name engraved on the small tablet which was fastened to the joint of the Janeoo. 1136/-to Jugraj. Ex. P/2 is the cash memo with signature in token of this sale. There is a corresponding entry in the Kachi Rokad relating to this transaction. 41. Jugraj had requested the father of this witness to get his name engraved on the small tablet which was fastened to the joint of the Janeoo. He has also deposed that some gold mohars were also sold to Jugraj. Jugraj has identified this Janeoo to be his own. It was produced by Mst. Bheri in the presence of P. W. 6 Parasmal. A recovery list was also prepared which is Ex. P. 15 and from this evidence we have no hesitation in holding that this Janeoo was purchased by Jugraj from the firm of Mansaram Ratanlal as per Ex. P/2 and is the property of Jugraj; and that the investigating agency was able to recover it from the possession of Mst. Bheri is also beyond doubt. It will be pertinent to remember that sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act employes the word information as distinguished from the word "statement". In Karam Din Vs. Empror (5) Dalip Singh J. has observed: "The word information as distinct from the word statement connotes two things, namely a statement or other means employed for imparting knowledge possessed by one person to another, and the knowledge so derived by the other person......... To me, therefore, it seems clear that when a person deposes simply to the following effect, namely that from information received from the accused he proceeded to do certain things and discovered certain other things, this statement is by itself relevant and admissible in evidence against the accused." The information given by Narayan Das has led to the recovery of Janeoo and other articles from Mst. Bheri. She does not dispute the recovery of these articles from her. Police was able to recover them from Mst. Bheri because of the information given by respondent Narayan Das. In our opinion this recovery is also covered by the provisions of sec. 27 notwithstanding the fact that Mst. Bheri has resiled from the statement which she had given under sec. 164. 42. The reasons on the basis of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has regarded the story of Mst. Bheri as unreliable and un-natural are not in our opinion sound. An ailing woman was leaving Jodhpur for Ahemedabab for her treatment. 27 notwithstanding the fact that Mst. Bheri has resiled from the statement which she had given under sec. 164. 42. The reasons on the basis of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has regarded the story of Mst. Bheri as unreliable and un-natural are not in our opinion sound. An ailing woman was leaving Jodhpur for Ahemedabab for her treatment. It is quite natural in these circumstances for her to carry her valuables with her. Having regard to the human tendency amongst people of her station in life it is always preferred to keep ones valuables in immediate possession. The articles could be easily carried even on her person and it was evidently much safer to take these valuables with her than to leave them behind in that unoccupied house of hers in Jodhpur during her absence. Such people have not yet come to acquire the habit of hiring lockers in banks or dealing with cheques. Gold mohars could at any time be converted into ready cash and it is wrong to say that Mst. Bheri was not telling the truth when she is alleged to have taken away these valuables with her. She has in her own interest taken a somersault in her stand and in our opinion she is not telling the truth when she claims these things to be her own. The recovery of Janeoo from a source so intimate to Narayan Das again goes to link Narayan Das with the crime. 43. These two links against Narayan Das in our opinion irresistibly fasten Narayan Das with the crime committed at the house of Jugraj. 44. We accordingly hold that respondent Ram Chandra and Narayan Das are guilty of having committed robbery in the premises of Jugraj in the village Bhambhore on the night intervening 27th and 28th of September, 1956. In view of the fact that violence was used and hurt was caused which is evidenced by the testimony of Jugraj and Dr. Radha Mohan P.W. 26 both respondents are guilty of the offence under sec. 394 Indian Penal Code. It is established by the testimony of D. Radha Mohan P.W. 26 and Dr. B. S. Sharma P.W. 28 that Jugraj had a fracture on the 9th rib on the left side. It is also proved that a gun was used at the time of committing robbery. The provisions of sec. 397 I.P.C. are clearly attracted. 394 Indian Penal Code. It is established by the testimony of D. Radha Mohan P.W. 26 and Dr. B. S. Sharma P.W. 28 that Jugraj had a fracture on the 9th rib on the left side. It is also proved that a gun was used at the time of committing robbery. The provisions of sec. 397 I.P.C. are clearly attracted. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting Ram Chandra and Narayan Das and allow this appeal and sentence each of the respondents to seven years rigorous imprisonment. 45. In view of the conclusions reached by us we order the disposal of the property regarding which offence was committed as follows. The Janeoo Ex. M/2, 17 gold mohars and Rs. 8/- silver coins recovered at the instance of Narayan Das from Mst. Bheri shall be given to Jugraj. Articles M/4 to M/13, gold Kada Ex. M/3, 4 new gold mohars and 1 gold mohar as ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge be given to Jugraj if not already given to him. 46. We pass no orders regarding the property recovered from or at the instance of accused Birdhi Chand and Amar Singh. 47. The rest of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the disposal of the remaining property remains undisturbed.