JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner Madhu has been convicted of the offence Under section 411 Indian Penal Code by learned Judicial Magistrate, Relmagra vide Judgment dated 18.12.1985 and sentenced him to undergo one year S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to suffer 3 months S.I. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand and it was dismissed on 7.1.1987. Petitioner has now challenged his conviction and sentence through this revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the theft took place in the field of Kishanlal son of Pratap Kumawat resident of Madara during the night of 18.6.1981 and his electric motor 5 HP on the well was stolen away. The complainant Kishan Lal lodged a written report on 22.6.1981. The investigation was undertaken, the petitioner Madhu and Pannalal Jat were arrested on 23.6.1981. According to the prosecution the petitioner gave an information Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 24.6.1981 Ex. P/6 for the recovery of the starter from his field Ugriya and in consequence of this information the starter was recovered at the instance of the petitioner from his field on the same day at 6 p.m. in the presence of two motbirs Premsingh and Nanda. After completing investigation the challan was submitted against the petitioner and Pannalal. Pannalal was discharged on 17.1.1984 and the trial proceeded against the petitioner after framing the charges Under sections 457 & 380 Indian Penal Code. The motbirs witnesses did not support the prosecution. The petitioner was convicted on the basis of sole testimony of Dalchand ASI Investigating Officer PW 7 who deposed that the petitioner furnished an information for the recovery of starter Ex. P/6 and it was recovered from his field and in his possession, in pursuance of such information, at the instance of the petitioner through recovery memo Ex. P/4. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that independent motbirs' witnesses have not supported the prosecution and the sole testimony of Investigating Officer Dalchand ASI is not of sterling worth and therefore not reliable. It is not proved that the place of recovery, field belonged to and was in the possession of the petitioner. The recovery has been effected from open place which is accessible to all. It is not proved that the place of recovery, field belonged to and was in the possession of the petitioner. The recovery has been effected from open place which is accessible to all. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery out of exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner. The starter was not identified during the investigation by holding test identification parade and it is not established that the starter is the same which was alleged to have been stolen from the well of the complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments and concurrent findings of the courts below. It is contended that the field belonged to and was in the possession of the petitioner and the starter was recovered concealed in the field, the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner has been proved. 4. I have gone through the statement of Investigating Officer Dalchand PW 7. I have also gone through the judgment reported in Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 , wherein it has been held that to bring home the guilt Under section 411 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, some other person had possession of the property, the accused got possession and the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. In the above case, ornaments were recovered from the field which was open one and accessible to all and sundry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found not possible to hold that the accused was in possession of the articles. It was also probable and compatible circumstance that somebody else would have placed the articles there and the accused somehow acquiring knowledge about their whereabouts. The discovery cannot be considered as a conclusive proof that the accused was in the possession of the articles. The recovery from the open field, when there being no other circumstances to infer the possession of the accused does not establish the fact of exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. 5. In the case in hand also, recovery has been made from the open field and accessible to all the sundry. Dalchand PW 7 Investigating Officer has simply stated that the starter was recovered from the open field which belonged to the accused and in his possession. 5. In the case in hand also, recovery has been made from the open field and accessible to all the sundry. Dalchand PW 7 Investigating Officer has simply stated that the starter was recovered from the open field which belonged to the accused and in his possession. He has not stated that where the starter was kept and in what condition it was found in the open field. Therefore, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner is not proved from the statement of Dalchand Investigating Officer. The motbir witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The lone testimony of Dalchand Investigating Officer is not found truth worthy. The information memo is Ex. P/6. It is also very doubtful that it was prepared on the date shown on it i.e. 24.6.1981. There is definitely overwriting and earlier there was some other date written on it. During the cross-examination Shri Dalchand Investigating Officer has denied the suggestion that the date was earlier `25' and then it was changed by overwriting to `24'. But this denial is not acceptable because the bare perusal of the information memo Ex. P/6 shows that there is overwriting on the date. It is evident that instead of `24' it was earlier written `25' and by overwriting digit `5' has been changed to `4'. 6. In the above circumstances, the fact of furnishing the information and making of recovery as shown by the prosecution is highly doubtful. I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Courts below have not appreciated this material evidence against the petitioner in the above light and therefore even the concurrent findings of conviction cannot be maintained. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence Under section 411 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner Madhu under the impugned judgments is set aside, the petitioner - Madhu is hereby acquitted of the offence Under section 411 Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds are cancelled.Revision Allowed. *******