JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31-10-74 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajamand, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges under sec. 380 and 457, I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are these. On the night intervening 11-7-71 and 12-7-71 several locks of the rooms of Dayal Shah Temple situated on hillock near Rajsamand were broken. From the said temple, 5 marbal idols, 4 all metals idols, 1 sidh chakra, 1 singhasan, 2 metal idols, two dhoties, ghes tin and Rs. 160/- were stolen. Chainram Pujari of the temple lodged the first information report o f the incident on 12-7-71. A case under sec. 457 and 380 IPC was registered, and the investigation was started. During the investigation, the respondents were arrested. On interrogation, while in police custody, Ambalal, Shyamsunder, and Kesa respondents gave information leading to the recovery of must of the stolen property. Some other circumstantial evidence was also collected against the respondents. The trial court disbelieved the case of the prosecution regarding the disclosure statements and consequential discovery of the stolen articles and acquitted them. The case against Bhojraj was different. The trial court did not believe the testimony of Narendra Saxena that Bhojraj went to Delhi with him for the purpose of selling those idols. 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. First, I will deal with the cases of three respondents against whom the case mainly hinges on their disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries. These respondents were arrested on 9-9-71 and on the some day they made disclosure statements and consequently the stolen image were recovered. Learned Magistrate, observed that it is strange how these respondents were suddenly arrested on 9-9-71. It further came to the conclusion that it is extremely unnatural that each of them made a voluntary disclosure statement soon after his arrest. Hence disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries were disbelieved. The learned Magistrate also adversely commented on the manner. in which the recoveries were made. 5. It is argued by learned P.P. that the trial court was in error in rejecting disclosure statements and the subsequent recoveries flimsy grounds. Hence disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries were disbelieved. The learned Magistrate also adversely commented on the manner. in which the recoveries were made. 5. It is argued by learned P.P. that the trial court was in error in rejecting disclosure statements and the subsequent recoveries flimsy grounds. The disclosure statement and consequential recovery of the stolen properties were proved by reliable and cogent evidence. I have considered the argument carefully. In my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to take different view about the credibility of the witnesses regarding the disclosure statements and consequent recoveries. However, I purpose to show that this evidence was not reliable for other reasons also. The prosecution has examined P.W. 14 Yogeshchandra. He stated that on 8.9.71 Bhojraj respondent not him and he had a conversation with him about selling of the idols. He expressed a desire to Bhoraj to inspect the idols. Bhojraj agreed on the same day, in the evening, it was decided to meet in village Kakroli. The witness further stated that he in the company of Jamnalal went to Kakroli. Bhojraj took him and Jamnalal to a field. Shyamsunder was also present there. They showed him 2 stolen idols. Jamnalal took its photographs. Thereafter, he with Jamnalal went to the Dy. S.P. and narrated him the entire incident. It may be stated that almost of all the recoveries were made from this field, which belonged to Ambalal and a few recoveries were made from the house of Ambalal. On these facts, P.W.16 Jamnalal has also given a similar statement. It is therefore, extremely doubtful whether the stolen articles was recovered in pursuance of any disclosure statements made by these respondents on 8-9-71. The police was already aware of the place where the idols have been hidden or kept. Both these witnesses had admitted that their statements were recorded by the Dy.S.P. on the night of 8-9-71. This fact, therefore, raises a strong suspicion that the police or the investigating agency was already aware as to the place where the most of the stolen property was concealed. The investigation was unfair in the sense that it tried to fabricate this discovery evidence. It can not be said that any fact or the stolen property was discovered in consequence of the information supplied by the respondents. The investigation was unfair in the sense that it tried to fabricate this discovery evidence. It can not be said that any fact or the stolen property was discovered in consequence of the information supplied by the respondents. When a fact, which is not known to the police is, discovered as a consequence the information, it lends assurance that the information given by an accused was trust, but if the fact is already known to the police, such a disclosure statement looses all its credibility and is inadmissible into evidence. It cannot be said that stolen articles were discovered in consequence of the information of the respondents given under sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the investigating agency already know an the evening of 8-9-71 that must of the stolen property had been concealed in the field of Ambalal. It, therefore, can not be said that any fact was discovered in consequence of the information received from the respondents. This raises a great doubt in the veracity of the prosecution evidence and the investigation was unfair. I am, therefore, of the view that the trial court rightly disbelieved the disclosure at statements given by the respondents and subsequent recoveries of the stolen property. In this view, no case is made out against respondents Kesa and Ambalal. There is no other worthwhile evidence against them and learned Public Prosecutor also could not lay his figurers on any other clinching evidence against them. As regards Bhojraj, the additional evidence is the statement of Narendra Kumar Saxena, who stated that along with Bhojraj, he went to Delhi. They met one man near Kutubminar, Bhojraj talked to that man about the sale of 4 idols. This statement by itself is not enough to fasten any liability on Bhojraj. It is not possible to infer from this statement that Bhojraj wanted to sell the stolen idols. This is at best, a suspicious circumstances against him. 6. The only other evidence, which remains to be considered against Shyamsunder and Bhojraj are the statements of P.W.14 Yogeshchandra and P.W.16 Jamnalal. Their statements are to the effect that on 8-9-71 Shyamsunder and Bhojraj showed them some stolen idols in a field. This means that somehow both Bhojraj and Shyamsunder had acquired information that those idols were lying concealed in the field. Their statements are to the effect that on 8-9-71 Shyamsunder and Bhojraj showed them some stolen idols in a field. This means that somehow both Bhojraj and Shyamsunder had acquired information that those idols were lying concealed in the field. It is not possible to infer froth this evidence that Bhojraj and Shyamsunder were in possession of these idols. 7. I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court and learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any compelling reasons or circumstances to take a different view about the veracity of the prosecution evidence. That apart, as I have already pointed out, the investigation was not fair. The clinching evidence against the respondent could be than disclosure statement and the consequential recoveries. The trial court for good reason disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses regarding the disclosure statements and consequential recoveries. I have further observed that these disclosure statements were not admissible into evidence, because no fact was discovered in consequence of the information received from any of the respondents as police was already aware of the fact as to the place where the stolen articles were lying concealed. The disclosure statements of the respondents, therefore do not come within the ambit of sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I, find no force in this appeal, filed by the State. The appeal is therefore dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******