JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Raju appellant alongwith Khampu Ram (since acquitted) were tried, convicted and sentenced as under:— Sr. No. Offence Substantive sentence 1. Under-section 436, I. P. C. Rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine taken together, convict Raju was directed to undergo further R. L for a period of four months. 2. Under section 380, I. P. C. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs 500. 3. Under section 457, I. P. C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100. 2. The substantive sentence referred to above, with respect to all the offences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Raju appellant assailed the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, passed on 30th December, 1988, in Sessions Trial No. ll-S/7 of 1988 through the instant appeal. 4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that appellant were earlier employed as domestic servant with Sh. Anil Sikand (PW 4) who was a resident of Cozihom (U. S. Club) Shimla, as a tenant. He had left for Delhi in the month of January 1987 after locking his residential premises. In his absence, his premises were found on fire on January 24, 1987 by Salig Ram (PW 2) who was working as chowkidar in I F C. 1 at the material time However, he was residing in the ground floor of the above said building known as Cozihom. Sh. Anil Sikand (PW 4) was residing at the top floor whereas owner of the said building was putting up in the first floor of the same building. Sh. Raman Khanna (PW 1) was a fast friend of Anil Sikand (PW 4). He on being apprised of the fire on the upper storey of Cozihom, visited the spot and found Fire Brigade people as also police officials busy in extinguishing the same. 5. An F. I. R. was lodged by Shri Raman Khanna on 24th January, 1987 which resulted in the registration of a criminal case and initiation of investigation by the police consequent thereto, Jagdish Chand (PW 16) of Police Station, Sadar Shimla, headed the investigation, he went on the spot, carried on visual inspection thereof, got the same photographed through PW Vipan Vaid by taking snaps Exs. P-9 to P-28 (positives) and recorded the statement of PW 1 (Ex. P-9 to P-28 (positives) and recorded the statement of PW 1 (Ex. PA) which resulted in the registration of formal F. I. R. (Ex. PK) referred to above. During the investigation, he took into possession six keys bearing different numbers, besides, burnt wood Ex. P-l, ash and other things in the presence of PWs 1 and 3 vide recovery memo Ex. PB and Ex PC respectively. He also prepared the site-plan Ex. PN. Later, he recorded the statements of various witnesses. The appellant, namely, Raju was arrested on 1-2-1987 and during investigation, his disclosure statement Ex, PG was recorded by the Investigating Officer which resulted in the discovery of various incriminating articles referred to in recovery Memo. Ex PJ Disclosure statement was recorded in the presence of S/Shri Om Parkash (PW 6) and Baij Nath (not produced). Later, after observing the codal formalities with respect to taking into possession of various above said incriminating articles and also preparation of the site-plan of the place of their recovery, he recorded the statements of other witnesses. Opinion of Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, (Ex PQ) with respect to the material used in fire, was also sought for and ultimately on completion of investigation, the appellant Raju as also Khampu Ram were prosecuted for the commission of the offences under sections 380, 457 and 436, I.P.C. and section 411, I.P.C-respectively. 6. To the charge so framed both the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under section 313, Cr P C, the appellant raised a defence of denial simplicitor. However, he pleaded that his signatures on blank papers were obtained by the Investigating Officer in advance which appeared to have been turned into disclosures statement under section 27,1. P. C His co-accused Khampu Ram in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. G. stated that he did not know accused Raju and also pleaded a defence of denial simpliciter by stating that a false case has been foisted against him. 7. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted Khampu Ram under section 411, I. P. C. but convicted and sentenced the appellant for the commission of the offence and in the manner referred to above which have been assailed by him in the instant appeal. 8. 7. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted Khampu Ram under section 411, I. P. C. but convicted and sentenced the appellant for the commission of the offence and in the manner referred to above which have been assailed by him in the instant appeal. 8. I have heard Shri D, D, Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant and also Sh. M.S. Chandel, learned Asstt. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State at length. I have also been taken through the entire evidence which impelled me to go through it thoroughly, Accordingly to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence on record establishing a link in between the accused and the commission of the offences referred to above. Rather, it is pointed out that the disclosure statement Ex. PG has not legally been proved nor the incriminating articles can be said to have been discovered consequent thereto. At the most, it can be considered as recovery at the behest of the appellant in view of the statement of Sh. Om Parkash (PW 6) a marginal witness to disclosure statement Ex PG. Further, it is pointed out that there is no iota of evidence on record except the one referred to above which could be made the basis for the conviction of the appellant. Rather, the disclosure statement and alleged consequent discovery at the most to corroborative evidence, but in the absence of any other direct or substantial evidence, it could not be made the basis for conviction of the appellant The learned Asstt, Advocate General on the contrary has adopted the reasoning of the trial Court and particularly pointed out that recovery of the incriminating articles at the behest of appellant from a place exclusively known to him links him with the commission of the offence. 9. There is no dispute regarding the time, date and place of occurrence. Admittedly, PW 4 Anil Sikand is a tenant in the top-floor of the building known as Cozihom. The occurrence is alleged to have occurred in the broad-day light at noon time, i. e , at about 12 noon. 9. There is no dispute regarding the time, date and place of occurrence. Admittedly, PW 4 Anil Sikand is a tenant in the top-floor of the building known as Cozihom. The occurrence is alleged to have occurred in the broad-day light at noon time, i. e , at about 12 noon. The said tenanted premises of PW 4 is located in a thickly populated area Not only that, even PW 2 chowkidar in I F. C. I. resides in the ground floor and the owner of the building resides in the first floor of the said building. Further, there is no controversy that at the material time the entrance door of the tenanted premises was found locked. It is not the case of the prosecution that any of the windows of the tenanted premises of Anil Sikand (PW 4) were found to be unbolted from inside. Rather, the prosecution case is that out of the two sets of keys, one set was with PW 4 and the other had been kept on the dressing table of the bed room as shown in site plan Ex P. N. Further, there is no dispute to the factual situation found on the spot at the material time by PW I or PW 16 that officials of Fire Brigade and that of the police bad been busy in extinguishing the fire of the top-floor which was under occupation of PW 4. Also, no person of that area had seen the appellant either having ingress or egress in the tenanted premises either prior to or sub-consequent, or even at the time when the fire was noticed inside the tenanted premises of PW 4 by PW 2 Salig Ram, at about 12 noon in the broad-day light. It is also apparent from the record that appellant was arrested for the first time on 1-2-1987 though police record shows that he had been suspected by Anil Sikand PW 4 to be the perpetrator of the crime in question It is in the light of the above said facts that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are to be appreciated. 10. At the very outset, it may be observed that the prosecution has not produced nor proved the incriminating articles before the trial Court after having returned them on sapurdari on 27-2-1987 to its owner Anil Sikand. 10. At the very outset, it may be observed that the prosecution has not produced nor proved the incriminating articles before the trial Court after having returned them on sapurdari on 27-2-1987 to its owner Anil Sikand. During the trial even the above said incriminating articles were not directed to be produced by the Court nor prosecution after having taken into possession chadded in which television was stated to be wrapped as per disclosure statement Ex. PG and the gunny bags with which the aforesaid alleged stolen articles were stated to have been concealed under the bushes at a place near the bowli9 in village Panda-Thana were produced or proved or shown to the prosecution witnesses who could not identify whether the incriminating articles alleged to have been recovered at the behest of the accused were or were not the same. Even otherwise the disclosure statement of the appellant has not legally been proved inasmuch as PW 6 Om Prakash has given a different statement than what has been recorded in document Ex. PG. The said statement of PW 6 in verbatim is as under :— "........ke usne ake two-in-one, tape-recorder, television, V. C. R. aur ake pistol gharianaur ek aadmi ke paas jo clarks hotel me kam karta ke paas rakhi hein aur usne police ko bataya tha ke vastuan jo usne chori kee hain ko usne ake attachee case me jhario me apne ghar ke baher chupa rakhi he. Usne police ko batai ke wah sab chijen mil jaigi, police mere sath chalen ....." 11. According to this witness, the above incriminating articles had been kept by the appellant with one boy working in Clarks hotel, namely, Kanthu Ram. No doubt, PW 16 Jagdish Ram, the Investigating Officer, states on oath the words spoken to by the appellant on interrogation while in police custody and consequently recorded in his disclosure statement Ex. PG. However, PW 6 is an independent witness produced by the prosecution itself. Obviously, he has not supported the prosecution as to what the accused had spoken on interrogation as recorded in Ex. PG referred to above. He has not been declared to be hostile. PG. However, PW 6 is an independent witness produced by the prosecution itself. Obviously, he has not supported the prosecution as to what the accused had spoken on interrogation as recorded in Ex. PG referred to above. He has not been declared to be hostile. It is true that Investigating Officer is also equally responsible officer but comparing the statements of two witnesses which gave indication as to the exact wording spoken to by the appellant on interrogation while in police custody, are contradictory on material particulars. Thus it raises grave suspicion regarding the authenticity of the prosecution version. 12. It is well established that the fact deposed to must have been discovered in consequence of information given by the accused If the accused himself produced an articles, or leads the police to the place where it is lying, the act of production or of leading the police to, and pointing out, the place where the article is lying is by itself relevant under section 8 but it cannot be deemed to be a discovery consequence to the disclosure statement of an accused recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, It is the statement leading to the recovery of incriminating article or thing which is made admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act and not the fact of discovery. In this view of the matter, the production of the incriminating articles at the behest of the appellant in the instant case cannot tantamount to discovery consequent to his disclosure statement allegedly recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. As per the deposition of PW 6 Om Prakash incriminating articles have been kept with one Kanthu Ram and it cannot be ruled out that the said articles had been kept at the place of recovery by the said person, and it may be merely in the knowledge of the appellant. Apart from the above said recovery, there is no other evidence on record to link the appellant with the commission of the crime in question None has seen him entering into the house nor coming out therefrom with the aforesaid incriminating articles. The above said facts taken together and coupled with the admitted facts referred to above, raise a grave doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version of which benefit the appellant is entitled to. 13. The above said facts taken together and coupled with the admitted facts referred to above, raise a grave doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version of which benefit the appellant is entitled to. 13. I need not to discuss the other aspect of the case considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in basing the conviction of the appellant As such, to my mind, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by recording the acquittal of the appellant. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant are discharged. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. Appeal allowed