Judgment :- Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 350 of 1988. He was tried along with another accused for offences punishable under Ss. 457 and 379 read with S. 34, I.P.C. on an allegation that he along with another broke open the door of a kitchen in the house belonging to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 28 gms. by snatching away the same from the neck of P.W. 2 at about 1.15 a.m. on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988. 2. On the above allegations the trial Court while acquitting the other accused convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each for the offences under Ss. 457 and 379, IPC with a direction that the sentences will run concurrently. On appeal the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner and hence this revision. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988 the petitioner along with the other acquitted accused broke open the door of a kitchen in the house belonging to P.Ws. 1 and 2 and snatched away a gold chain weighing 28 gms. from the neck of P.W. 2, the wife of P.W. 1. On 1-9-1988 P.W. 1 went to the Palai Police Station and laid a complaint Ext. P1 and the same was registered by P.W. 5, the Head Constable as Crime No. 342/1988 under Ss. 457 and 379 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Investigation was taken up by P.Ws. 9 and 10 and during the course of investigation the petitioner along with the other acquitted accused was arrested on 11-10-1988. When questioned the petitioner gave a statement under Ext. P4(a) and took the police party to the shop of P.W. 4 who produced M.O. 1 the gold ingot which was recovered under Ext. P4 attested by P.W. 4. According to the prosecution P.Ws. 1 and 2 identified the petitioner as well as the other accused in the police station on 12-10-1988. 4. When questioned with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him the petitioner denied his complicity and stated that on the date of occurrence he was working as a porter in a bus bearing No. KLO 7401 at Kondothy. 1 and 2 identified the petitioner as well as the other accused in the police station on 12-10-1988. 4. When questioned with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him the petitioner denied his complicity and stated that on the date of occurrence he was working as a porter in a bus bearing No. KLO 7401 at Kondothy. The learned Magistrate on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the petitioner which on appeal was confirmed as stated earlier. 5. Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the conviction imposed upon the petitioner has to be set aside as there is no conclusive material to establish his guilt. The occurrence, according to the prosecution took place on the night of 31-8/1-9-1988. It is the case of the prosecution that after the chain was snatched P.Ws. 1 and 2 got up, switched on the light and saw the accused running away from the scene which only means that they could have seen the intruder only from behind. The name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the first information report and the petitioner was identified at the police station only on 12-10-1988. No test identification parade was conducted and there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to why no identification parade was conducted in respect of the petitioner. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they informed the police at the police station and identified the petitioner as the accused who snatched the gold chain and ran away from the scene is distinctly hit by S. 162, Crl.P.C. and no weight can be attached to the identification alleged to have been made by the witnesses at the police station. It is to be noted at this stage that the other accused in the case was acquitted by the trial Court on the same evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. The other piece of evidence which the prosecution relies to prove its case against the petitioner is the alleged recovery. According to the prosecution the petitioner was arrested on 11-10-1988 and he came out with the statement Ext. P4(a) as per which he has stated that if he is taken to the place he will show the man to whom he had given the necklace. According to the prosecution the petitioner was arrested on 11-10-1988 and he came out with the statement Ext. P4(a) as per which he has stated that if he is taken to the place he will show the man to whom he had given the necklace. This statement in my view will not be admissible under S. 27 of the Evidence Act as any statement to be admissible under S. 27 of the Evidence Act must lead to the discovery of a fact which is found wanting in Ext. P4(a). 7. As observed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Imayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483 : (1976 Cri LJ 481) that "fact discovered" means not only the physical object produced but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. The above statement in my view will not come within the purview of S. 27 of the Evidence Act. 8. Similarly in Jaffar Husain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 Mad LJ (Crl) 212 : (1970 Cri LJ 1659) it was held by the Supreme Court that only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused and that the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence, and the essential ingredient of the section, according to the Supreme Court, is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. 9. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 : (1972 Cri LJ 606) the Supreme Court took the view that what should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the cause and effect. That information which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under S. 27 of the Evidence Act and cannot be proved. A witness cannot be said to be discovered under S. 27 of the Evidence Act though the statement of the accused may be taken into consideration as conduct relevant under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. A witness cannot be said to be discovered under S. 27 of the Evidence Act though the statement of the accused may be taken into consideration as conduct relevant under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. Hence it cannot be said that M.O. 1 was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. There is no material in the case to suggest that M.O. 1, the gold ingot was actually the ingot obtained by melting the chain that was snatched away from the neck of P.W. 2, as P.W. 4 from whom the ingot was said to have been recovered under Ext. P4 has turned hostile. 10. The above discussion clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the crime. As there is no conclusive material to connect the petitioner with the crime, I feel, the petitioner is entitled for an acquittal and the same is given to him. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of all the charges. 12. I place on record my appreciation of the services rendered by Shri Anil Thomas, who assisted this Court as amicus curiae in the case as the advocate who initially filed the revision reported no instructions. Revision petition allowed.