GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is preferred by one Mahadeb Mahakur, son of late Sitaram Mahakur, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the learned, Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No 58 of 1981 directing that the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to III and the plastic box M. S. XIII should be returned to the accused who was acquitted in the case. ( 2 ) IN the said Sessions Case No 588 of 1981 the accused stood his trial under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he robbed one Basanta Mahakur the sister of the present appellant Mahadeb Mahakur, of her gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to III and murdered her and caused disappearances of the evidence relating to the murder. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove satisfactorily any of the charges framed against the accused and therefore acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against him. While so acquitting the accused, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order directing that the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to II and the plastic Box M. O. XIII, seized from the accused should be returned to the accused, and being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the brother of deceased Basanta Mahakur. ( 3 ) SO the Scope of the present appeal is confined to a consideration of the evidence to find out if the learned Sessions Judge was justified in passing the impugned order directing the delivery of M. Os. 1 to XIII to the accused acquitted in the sessions case. ( 4 ) IN the sessions case, the story of the prosecution was that, at the instance of the accused, the appellant (P. W. 2) sent his sister Basanta Mahakur along with the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII to Ranipeli, the village of the accused, along with his son and daughter and she was residing at Ranipali in the house of the accused. The accused stated that the said Basanta Mahakur was residing at Ranipali but she was not residing in his house. During the course of the trial, the accused claimed that M. Os. 1 to XII, the gold ornaments and the plastic box M. O XIII belonged to him. The accused stated that the said Basanta Mahakur was residing at Ranipali but she was not residing in his house. During the course of the trial, the accused claimed that M. Os. 1 to XII, the gold ornaments and the plastic box M. O XIII belonged to him. The prosecution bas examined in all 11 prosecution witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 1 is the sisters daughter of P. W. 2, Mahadeb Mahakur the present appellant. P. W. 5 is the wife of P. W. 2. P. W. 6 is the eldest sister of P. W. 2. For the present appeal P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 who are related to Basanta Mahakur and the independent witnesses P. Ws. 3, 7 and 9 are the material witnesses. According to the prosecution the accused had committed the murder of Basanta Mahakur and took away her gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII. But on a careful consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence to show that the accused (Respondent No2) had committed the murder of Basanta Mahakur or that he robbed her gold ornaments and so acquitted the accused of all the charges. ( 5 ) NO appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge further found that even the death of Basanta Mahakur was not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. In this background the question to be considered is whether M. Os. 1 to XIII belonged to Basanta Mahakur or to the accused. ( 6 ) BASANTA Mahakur is the daughter of Sitaram Mahakur. According to the prosecution, the said Sitaram Mahakur was having gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII and after the death of Sitaram Mahakur, it was Basanta Mahakur, who kept the gold ornaments in her custody and she took them with her to Ranipali. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are interested witnesses and they have stated that M. Os. 1 to XII belonged to Basanta Mahakur. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 that M. Os. 1 to XII, gold ornaments belonged to Basanta Mahakur, did not receive any support from any of the independent and reliable witnesses. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are interested witnesses and they have stated that M. Os. 1 to XII belonged to Basanta Mahakur. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 that M. Os. 1 to XII, gold ornaments belonged to Basanta Mahakur, did not receive any support from any of the independent and reliable witnesses. The evidence of P. W. 1, grand daughter of Sitaram Mahakur, shows that Sitaram Mahakur had no immovable property or a fixed abode and he was earning his livelihood by sale of such articles as luhe chatue and measures etc. as the probabilities are also against the appellants plea that Sitaram Mahakur owned and possessed M. Os. 1 to XII, the gold ornaments weighing about 17 tolas. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 is an independent and reliable witness and he has stated that he saw Basanta Mahakur for two months in his village and on no occasion she was seen wearing any ornaments during her stay. if really M. Os. 1 to XII were in the possession of Basanta, she would have definitely worn them at some time or other. So the evidence of P. W. 3, that he never saw Basanta Mahakur wearing any of the gold ornaments in a circumstance which very much goes against the appellants claim. On the other hand, the evidence of P. W. 3 that the wife of the accused used to dance on festive occasions and she used to wear ornaments, lends support to the plea of the accused that the ornaments belonged to him. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 3 goes in favour of the accused. P. W. 7 is another independent and reliable witness and he has clearly stated that the wife of the accused used to dance on festive occasions and on such occasions she used to wear gold ornaments like M. Os. l to XII. According to the prosecution, P. W. 9 weighed the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII and found that they weighed 17 tolas, 2 annas and 4 ratis. P. W. 9 admitted in cross-examination 5 to 7 years back the accused gave him some gold and asked him to prepare gold ornaments for his wife. P. W. 9 further admitted that the Jhalkas M. O. II belonged to the accused and it is he who prepared those Jhalkas for the accused. P. W. 9 admitted in cross-examination 5 to 7 years back the accused gave him some gold and asked him to prepare gold ornaments for his wife. P. W. 9 further admitted that the Jhalkas M. O. II belonged to the accused and it is he who prepared those Jhalkas for the accused. Hence, it is seen that the plea of the accused that M. Os. 1 to XII belonged to him, receives full support from the evidence of the reliable independent witnesses P. Ws. 3, 7 and 9. ( 8 ) THE prosecution has proved through the evidence of the independent witness P. W. 7 and the Investigating Officer, P. W. 10 that the gold ornaments M. Os. I to XII kept in the plastic box M. O XIII were seized from the house of the accused under the seizure list. Ext. 9. The accused stood his trial under Sections 302, 392 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of all the charges. Admittedly, the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII were seized from the custody of the accused In N. Madhuben v. State of Kerala the Supreme Court held that at the conclusion of the trial when the accused is acquitted the court should normally restore the property, which is produced before it or which is in its custody to the person from whose custody it was taken. The facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above do not disclose any such exceptional circumstances, which would justify the departure from the normal rule that an acquittal of the accused, the property should be returned to the person from whom it was seized It is only after due consideration of the evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order directing the delivery of the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII and the plastic box M. S. XIII to the accused (the present respondent No2 ). On a consideration of the materialsl on record, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in passing the impugned order directing the delivery of M. Os. 1 to XIII to the accused and I see no reason to interfere with the same. ( 9 ) IN the result, I find that there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed.