Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner calls in question the legality of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2004 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No. 24 of 2003 by The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. 2. The crux of the prosecution case can be stated like thus: P.W.1 Murugaiyan is working in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. He know the accused. On 3.8.2003, a watchman by name Govindaraj and a Priest by name Malesivam had reported that the bow attached to Singaravelar Stature was missing. P.W.1 had immediately gone to the place of occurrence and he conducted enquiry. On 4.8.2003, he lodged a Police complaint and the same had been marked as Ex.P.1. On 6.8.2003, P.W.1 had received an information from the Police Station that the said how had been recovered and the same had been marked as Ex.P.1. 3. P.W. 10 the Sub-Inspector of Police PoraiyurPolice Station had received the complaint from P.W.1 on 4.8.2003 and registered the same in Crime No. 471 of 2003 under Section 380 of The Indian Penal Code. P.W. 8 the Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation and the First Information Report had been marked as Ex.P.7. He had gone to the place of occurrence and drawn a rough sketch and also prepared an observation Mahazar and the same had been marked as Exs.P.8 and P.9 respectively. On 5.8.2003, he arrested the accused and he had given a voluntary confessional statement and the admitted portion of the same had been marked as Ex.P.10 and in pursuance of the same, the accused had taken and produced the bow from his house and the same had been recovered under a cover of mahazar marked as Ex.P.13. After completing investigation, on 10.10.2003, he laid a final report against the accused on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam. 4. On the basis of the accusation made against the accused, the trial Court had framed necessary charge under Section 380(2) of the Indian Penal Code and the same had been read over and explained to him. The accused had denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 had been examined. Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1 had been marked. 5. The accused had denied the charge and claimed to be tried. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 had been examined. Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1 had been marked. 5. When the accused had been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence had been adduced on the side of the accused. 6. The Trial Court after assessing both the oral and documentary evidence had found the accused guilty under Section 380(2) of The Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-with default clause. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused as appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. The First Appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence available on record had come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence found in the charge and ultimately dismissed the appeal whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the accused had been confirmed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had made various feckless attempts so as to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused. 8. The first and foremost limb of his argument was that the occurrence had taken place on 3.8.2003. But the complaint Ex.P.1 had been given on 4.8.2003 and no satisfactory explanation had been given by the prosecution for such delay and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner, P.W.1 the complainant had clearly stated in his evidence that he had been informed about the missing of bow on 3.8.2003 and he had come to the place of occurrence and conducted enquiry and after that, on 4.8.2003, he laid the complaint in question in Poraiyur Police Station. The Investigating Officer viz., P.W.8 had also stated in his evidence that only after conducting enquiry by P.W.1, he filed the complaint viz. Ex.P.1 in the Police Station. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination one cannot say that the delay occurred in giving Ex.P.1 had not been explained by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer viz., P.W.8 had also stated in his evidence that only after conducting enquiry by P.W.1, he filed the complaint viz. Ex.P.1 in the Police Station. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination one cannot say that the delay occurred in giving Ex.P.1 had not been explained by the prosecution. Under the said circumstances, the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is of no use. 10. The learned counsel had advanced his second limb of argument stating that in the confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused, P.W.8 had obtained his signature and due to that the entire confessional statement had become invalid in law and under the said circumstances also, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are liable to be set aside. 11. In support of his contention, he had drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in Supreme CourtMahabir Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 1331 : (1972) 1 SCC 748 : (1973) MLJ (Crl) SC 291, wherein at para 39, the Honourable Apex Court had held that: “According to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no statement made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation shall be signed by the person making it or used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made”. 12. Further, it had been held that “The above Rule is however not applicable to statements falling within the provisions of clause 1 of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act or to affect the provisions of Section 27 of the said Act”. 13. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. K. Antony AIR 1985 SC 48 : (1985) 1 SCC 505 wherein, the Honourable Apex Court had held that: “The Investigating Officer obtained the signature of witnesses on his recorded statement under Section 162 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, his evidence not rendered inadmissible”. 14. Therefore, it is very clear that the mere signature found in a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or confessional statement would not militate (against) the case of the prosecution. 14. Therefore, it is very clear that the mere signature found in a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or confessional statement would not militate (against) the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused, his signature has been obtained by the Investigating Officer. 15. In pursuance of his confession statement, the bow in question had been recovered from his house in the presence of witnesses. Even in the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, it had been clearly stated that, the above Rule is not applicable to Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act and also to Section 32 Clause(1) of the same. Therefore, it is quite clear that the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is not suited to the facts or the present case. 16. The case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the admitted portion of the confessional statement given by the accused, the accused had taken the Investigating Officer as well as the witnesses namely P.Ws. 6 and 7 to his house and subsequently, taken and produced M.O.1, the bow in question. Therefore, the admitted portion of the confessional statement given by the accused was used only to make recovery under Section 27 of The Evidence Act. In the instant case, P.Ws. 6 and 7 had given clear evidence to the effect that in pursuance of the admitted portion of the confession a statement given by the accused, he had taken the Investigating Officer as well as P.Ws. 6 and 7 to his house and subsequently, produced the bow in question and the Investigating Officer had recovered the same under a cover of mahazar. 17. From the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7, it is very clear that the prosecution had established recovery of the bow in question which had been marked as M.O.1. Therefore, the second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner is sans merit. 18. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused had stolen M.O.1 from the statue of Singaravelar. As per the evidence of P.Ws. Therefore, the second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the criminal revision petitioner is sans merit. 18. The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused had stolen M.O.1 from the statue of Singaravelar. As per the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7, the prosecution had established the due recovery of M.O.1 from the accused. At this juncture, it would be more useful to looking to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads like thus :- “The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume - ( a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he accounts for his possession.” 19. In the instant case the alleged theft had been noted on 3.8.2003 and Ex.P.1 had been given on 4.8.2003. M.O.1 had been recovered from the house of the accused on 5.8.2003. Therefore, as per the provision of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that it was the accused who had stolen M.O.1 from the place of occurrence. 20. The Court can also take note of the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is stated like thus :- “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. ILLUSTRATION 1. ‘A‘ is accused of a crime. The facts that after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.” 21. In the instant case, even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that M.O.1 had been recovered only from the house of the accused and that too in pursuance of his confessional statement given by him. In the instant case, even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to point out that M.O.1 had been recovered only from the house of the accused and that too in pursuance of his confessional statement given by him. In the confessional statement given by the accused, it had been clearly stated that if he would be taken to his house he would take and produce the bow, in question and after recording the same, the accused had brought the investigating Officer and the witnesses namely P.Ws. 5 and 6 to his house and subsequently, taken and produced M.O.1. Therefore, as per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused had also become a relevant fact in the instant case. 22. As adverted to earlier, the prosecution had clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 380(2) of the Indian Penal Code. Viewing form any angle, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner are not liable to be interfered with. In fact, the Courts below after evaluating the evidence available on record had rightly found the accused guilty as per the charge. Therefore, the present Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 23. In fine, this Criminal Revision Case deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No. 24 of 2003 upheld in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2004 are confirmed. 24. The trial Court is directed to take suitable steps to incarcerate the accused so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence.