Short Note : 1. Regarding the recovery, the learned Sessions Judge in Para 9 of his Judgment, has observed that the recovery of the said ornaments was on the information furnished by the appellant. Obviously, the appellant was not in custody at that time and, therefore, it cannot be said to be recovery made under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty on the basis of the said recovery, is obviously on wrong premises and cannot be accepted. 2. Further, as the evidence is, the witness seized the ornaments from the house of Mewaram and gave the same in the custody of the Head Constable Shamsher Khan (PW-6). Ex.P-4 is said to be the list of property which was given by Ketki, Moharman, Bhudevi, Bitto, Bitoli to Shriniwas Sharma (PW-7), much after the recording of the first information report. In other words, this list was prepared during the course of investigation and therefore, it is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.