JUDGMENT PERMOD KOHLI, C. J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-4-2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, East Sikkim at Gangtok convicting the appellant in Sessions Trial Case No.11 of 2010 for commission of offences under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D IPC read with Section 120B IPC along with one Jash Hang Subba and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 489A IPC, imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 489C IPC, imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 489D IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period 4 months each on each count. 2. The prosecution story is that as per source information received by the Officer-In-Charge of Singtam Police Station the Appellant Chuwan Singh Subba and others were in the process of making counterfeit currency notes in his house at Sawney Busty, Singtam. On receipt of this information a raid was conducted by the P. I. Solomon Rai along with his team in the house of Chuwan Singh Subba. During the raid, the following incriminating materials were recovered and seized : (i) Some brownish coloured liquid in a loose plastic bottle; (ii) Yellowish coloured cut paper pieces; (iii) Forged currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing Sl. No. 9ER 076569 of RBI; (iv) 3 Nos. of small bottles; (v) Blue coloured adhesive tape; and (vi) 12 Nos. of white coloured blank sheets of paper. 3. On the basis of the raid and recovery a case under Sections 489A, 489B, 489D, 489E and Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Singtam. During the investigation, the accused persons identified as (i) Chuwan Subba alias Chuwan Singh Subba and (ii) Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan were arrested. During the interrogation of these two accused persons, it was revealed that one Jash Hang Subba and one Bikram Rai had asked these accused persons to help them make fake currency notes which would benefit them by floating those in the market. Accused Bikram Rai and Jash Hang Subba had absconded. Disclosure statement of Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to the recovery of one copying machine (Xerox) packed in a carton from the shop belonging to Md. Accused Bikram Rai and Jash Hang Subba had absconded. Disclosure statement of Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to the recovery of one copying machine (Xerox) packed in a carton from the shop belonging to Md. Umesh of Singtam Bazar said to have been brought there by the Dip Bahadur Shrestha at the instance of Accused Jash Hang Subba from the house of accused Chuwan Singh Subba in the evening of 16-9-2006. 4. During the course of investigation the case was transferred to Crime Branch and further investigation was carried out by P. I. Palden Bhutia. A look-out notice was sent to all the Police Stations in Sikkim and West Bengal in respect of the absconding accused Jash Hang Subba and Bikram Rai. Seized articles, i.e., Exhibits A4, C8, C8/2 and C5 were sent to the GEQD, Kolkata for examination and opinion. One of the absconding accused Bikram Rai of Sawney Busty was arrested on 16-8-2007, who surrendered at CID, Police Station. The investigation revealed that all the four accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to fabricate fake Indian currency notes with the sole motive to release them into the market for their personal gain. It was also revealed that accused Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan was a Nepali citizen in possession of Nepali Passport, Identity Card and Election Identity Card issued by the Government of Nepal in the name of Dip Bahadur Shrestha, son of Ratna Bahadur Shrestha of Nepal. During the investigation further documents, i.e., Nepal Nagarika Praman Patra No. 57090225 and Election Identity Card No. 2054070 in respect of Mrs. Man Mati Shrestha, wife of accused Dip Bahadur Shreshtra alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan and Nepali Nagarika Praman Patra No. 57090225 in respect of his late father Ratna Bahadur Shrestha, were also seized from their possession. GEQD Report revealed that Exhibit A4 (Indian currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 9ER 076569) Exhibit C8 (Indian currency Note of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 7PA 229544) and Indian Currency note of Rs. 50/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 2NP 83J275 were not genuine notes but counterfeits with characters that were contrary to the security features of genuine Indian currency notes. 5. 100/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 9ER 076569) Exhibit C8 (Indian currency Note of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 7PA 229544) and Indian Currency note of Rs. 50/- denomination bearing series/serial No. 2NP 83J275 were not genuine notes but counterfeits with characters that were contrary to the security features of genuine Indian currency notes. 5. Charge-sheet against all the accused persons was filed in the Court under the Sections 489A, 489C, 489D, 489E IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Accused Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan was additionally charged with Section 419 IPC read with Section 14 of Foreigner’s Act, 1946, while accused Chuwan Singh Subba, Bikram Rai and Dip Bahadur Shrestha alias Krishna Prasad Pradhan referred to as A1, A2 and A3 in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment by the trial Court were on bail, the fourth accused Jash Hang Subba referred to as A4, was later arrested on 27-2-2009. All accused persons were committed to the Sessions Trial. Charge was framed against A1, A2 and A4 under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D, 489E IPC read with Section 120B, IPC and accused A3 under Sections 489A, 489C, 489D, 489E, 419 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution examined 15 witnesses including two Investigating Officers. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C., wherein they denied all the allegations brought against them in evidence. They, however, chose not to produce any evidence in defence. 6. In order to arrive at a finding as to whether the impugned judgment is sound in law or in facts, it is essential to analyse the evidence on the record and the reasons based upon which it was passed by the trial Court. 7. The trial Court has relied upon the disclosure statement Exhibit-2 of Krishna Prasad Pradhan, A3, the seizure memos Exhibit-7, Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-9 and the testimony of prosecution witnesses, PW-9, PW-10, PW-12, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. In Exhibit-2, the relevant admissible part of the disclosure statement reads as under : ..............That machine is white in colour, about 2 feet long and 1 foot in breadth. In Exhibit-2, the relevant admissible part of the disclosure statement reads as under : ..............That machine is white in colour, about 2 feet long and 1 foot in breadth. I have kept that machine in the kitchen, fish and meat shop of one Umesh Bhaya along the back street behind the bazaar and I can show the machine as well as the said shop. 8. In paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court referred to the disclosure statement, the relevant part of which reads as under : 26. After the raid, the I. O. arrested A1 and A3. During their interrogation, A3 disclosed that one copying laser printing machine packed inside a carton box was reportedly brought by him from the house of A1 in the evening of 16-9-2006 on being told by A4 which he kept inside a shop belonging to Md. Umesh. Ext. 2 is the disclosure statement of A3 recorded u/S. 27 of Evidence Act by the police on 21-9-2006 at around 11.30 a.m., at Singtam P. S. in presence of two independent witnesses namely Nakya Bhutia and Bhaichung Tamang. ........... However, while relying upon this disclosure statement and the penal liability of A3, the trial Court observed as under : 43. As far as A3 is concerned, I do agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel Shri S. P. Bhutia. The disclosure statement of A3 which has been exhibited and proved by the prosecution proved that he only agreed to carry the laser printing machine and other articles which was already packed inside the carton from the house of A1 to Singtam Bazar as A4 had promised to pay the loan of A3 in return. Bare perusal of Ext. 2, i.e. disclosure statement of A3 itself is sufficient to prove that he did not perform any part in the process of counterfeiting currency notes with A1 and A4. No any printed, forged or counterfeit currency notes nor any instrument or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes were seized from the possession of A3. In view of above and based on the evidence on record, I do not find A3 guilty u/S. 489A/489C/489D, I. P. C. read with Section 120B, IPC. 9. No any printed, forged or counterfeit currency notes nor any instrument or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency notes were seized from the possession of A3. In view of above and based on the evidence on record, I do not find A3 guilty u/S. 489A/489C/489D, I. P. C. read with Section 120B, IPC. 9. Exhibit 7 is a seizure memo in respect of following articles allegedly seized from the rented room of appellant, A1 Chuwan Singh Subba in the building of late Narayan Dhamala, lower Sawney, Singtam, East Sikkim :”- 1. Some brownish coloured liquid in a loose plastic bottle. 2. Yellowish coloured cut paper pieces 3. Three empty bottles (CC) 4. Forged Rs. 100/- denomination on a white blank paper having currency note No. 9 ER 076569 5. Twelve Nos. of white blank printing papers. 6. Blue coloured adhesive tape. This seizure memo was allegedly prepared in presence of two witnesses, namely, Pritam Dhamala, PW-9 and Prakash Sharma, PW-10. Exhibited-8 is a seizure memo in respect of the following :” 1. A bundle of cut white paper, binded by red rubber band (seventy Nos.) in the measurement/size of Rs. 100/- Currency note. This seizure memo was also prepared in presence of Pritam Dhamala, PW-9 and Lakpa Lama, PW-12. 10. PW-9 in his statement recorded by the trial Court identified the appellant Chuwan Singh Subba, A1, but did not identify accused Bikram Rai, A2. He stated that in the year 2006 the police seized some exhibits from the rented house of accused A1 Chuwan Singh Subba. He identified the exhibits, i.e, one plastic bottle containing brownish colour liquid, marked M. O. X, 3 empty bottles (CC), marked M. O. XI, forged Rs. 100/- denomination on a white blank paper having currency note No. 9ER 076569, marked M. O. XII, 12 Nos. of white blank printing papers, marked M. O. XIII and blue colour adhesive tape, marked M. O. XIV, seized by police vide Exhibit-7. He also identified his signature on Exhibit-7. He further stated that on the next day the police took him to another house at Sawaney and seized a bundle of cut white papers in his presence vide seizure memo Exhibit-8 and identified his signature. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. He also identified his signature on Exhibit-7. He further stated that on the next day the police took him to another house at Sawaney and seized a bundle of cut white papers in his presence vide seizure memo Exhibit-8 and identified his signature. During the cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, he stated that he had heard that the house from where M. O. X to IV were seized belonged to one Bijay Dhamala. He further stated that he came to know from police that the room from where M. O. X to XIV were seized was the rented room of accused A1 Chuwan Singh Subba. He further stated that during the seizure of M. O. X to XIV accused A1 Chuwan Singh Subba was not present in the room. He further denied a suggestion that M. O. X to XIV were not the M. O.s seized by the police in his presence. He also stated that he read some of the seizure memo though not all. His further statement is that when he entered into the room together with the police, the exhibits were lying on the bed. He denied the suggestion that exhibits were already kept by the police. Regarding seizure of M. O. XV, he stated that he did not know the owner of the house from where M. O. XV was seized and that the house is located at Upper Sawaney and some ladies were present in the house during seizure. 11. PW-10 stated that he did not remember the date and the month but it was in the year 2006 that the police seized some exhibits from the rented house of Chuwan Singh Subba at Sawaney. He identified the seized articles as detailed in Exhibit-7. His further statement was that Pritam Dhamala was present during the seizure of the materials. He also identified the seized articles and his signature on Exhibit-7. In cross examination he corroborated the evidence of PW-9 that the police had told him that the room from where M. O. X to XIV and XVI were seized is the rented room of Chuwan Singh Subba. He further stated that at the time of seizure, except the police, himself and Pritam Dhamala, no other persons were present. His further statement is that the police called him to the rented room to witness the seizure. He further stated that at the time of seizure, except the police, himself and Pritam Dhamala, no other persons were present. His further statement is that the police called him to the rented room to witness the seizure. He denied a suggestion that the seized articles were not the same as the ones seized by the police. He stated that he had studied only up to Class IV and could not read what has written in Exhibit-7. 12. PW-12, Lakpa Lama, another witness to seizure memo, Exhibit-8, identified the accused and deposed that the seizures were made in the night. He identified the seized articles M. O. XV, i.e., cut white papers and his signature on Exhibit-8. He stated that M. O. XV seized in their presence from one house at Sawaney during the night, were packed and sealed by the Police at the Singtam Thana in their presence. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused A4 Jash Hang Subba, he stated that the police had hired his vehicle from Singtam to go to Sawaney. That during the seizure there were only two police officials, one homeguard, Pritam Dhamala and himself. There were no Sub-Inspector or lady constables with them. He expressed his ignorance about the owner of the house. On further cross-examination on behalf of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, this witness stated that sometimes when he used to go to the police station with his personal works, he used to be made a witness and that he must have been made a witness in 2-3 cases. That he knew Pritam Dhamala, the other witness to seizure of M. O. XV. 13. PW-3, Baichung Tamang is a witness to Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. He stated that accused A3 Krishan Prasad Pradhan alias Dim Bahadur Sherestha standing in the dock was known to him but not the other accused persons. His further statement is that on 21-9-2006 he was called by the police of Police Station, Singtam and was asked by them to be a witness in the instant case and made him to sign Exhibit-2. He identified his signature as Exhibit 2(a). At the relevant time A3, the accused Krishna Prasad Pradhan, was in police custody having been arrested by the police. He further stated that the Police Inspector took him and the accused along with some other persons to the poultry shop of Md. He identified his signature as Exhibit 2(a). At the relevant time A3, the accused Krishna Prasad Pradhan, was in police custody having been arrested by the police. He further stated that the Police Inspector took him and the accused along with some other persons to the poultry shop of Md. Umesh at the back of Singtam Bazaar and vide seizure memo Exhibit 3 seized one grayish coloured HP Laser Printer inside a brownish carton, marked M. O. I; one brownish carton (Jakay) marked M. O. II; one polythene with orange border marked M. O. III; one green plastic tying string marked M. O. IV; one measuring feet ruler marked M. O. V; one 50 rupees currency note bearing No. 3VQ2326J8 marked M. O. VI; one black coloured HP changer machine with card marked M. O. VII; one black coloured cord with 3 pin plug marked M. O. VIII and one brown envelope containing suspected fake notes of rupees 100/- bearing number TPA229544 and rupees 50/- note bearing No. 2NP831275 marked M. O. IX. He identified his signatures Exhibit-3(a) on the seizure memo. 14. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the witness stated the Police Inspector Solomon Rai was his neighbour and that he had been a seizure witness in two other criminal cases at the request of the police of Police Station, Singtam. He denied a suggestion that accused A3 Krishna Prasad Pradhan alias Dip Bahadur Sherestha was not the same person who was in police custody on the day of the seizure but admitted that the accused was tied with a rope across his chest. He further stated that contents of Exhibit-2 were not read over to him by the police and was only asked to sign on it as a witness and further that there was one more witness in the Police Station, whose name he did not know. He also stated that he did not know for what purpose M. O. I is used. He admitted that there were other persons in the meat shop of Md. Umesh at the time of seizure but denied that M. O. I to M. O. IX were not the same material objects seized by the police and did not know whether the police had packed and sealed them or not. He admitted that there were other persons in the meat shop of Md. Umesh at the time of seizure but denied that M. O. I to M. O. IX were not the same material objects seized by the police and did not know whether the police had packed and sealed them or not. He admitted that the contents of Exhibit-III were not read over to him. That the police had seized only one 50 rupees currency note found in the machine marked M. O. I but had not noticed its number. He admitted having signed on an envelope mark Ext. C/5 Ext. 5 (a) as asked by the police to do so. 15. PW-4 Md. Umesh is another witness to the seizure memo. He deposed that accused A3 Krishan Prasad Pradhan alias Dip Bahadur Sherestha standing in the dock was known to him, but not the other three accused persons. He stated that he could not remember the date and the month but that it was in the year 2006 that the accused A3 Krishna Prasad Pradhan had brought one carton in his shop stating that it was a deck wanting it to be kept there till the next day when he would take it and that he had a meat shop in front of the Central Bank, Singtam. He further stated that after 2/3 days the Police Inspector who brought the accused A3 Krishna Prasad Pradhan to his shop opened and seized the carton vide seizure memo Exhibit 3 prepared in his shop on which put his thumb impression marked as 3(b). He identified M. O. I to M. O. IX as the same material objects seized by the police from his shop vide seizure memo Exhibit-3. 16. In cross examination by the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he admitted that he is an illiterate person and that the accused was known to him being his neighbour. He denied that the seizure did not take place in the year 2006. He admitted that customers sometimes kept their belongings in his shop and also admitted that he did not go to the police station nor did he give any statement to the police and that he could not say with certainty as to whether M. O. II is the same carton brought by accused A3 Krishna or not. He admitted that customers sometimes kept their belongings in his shop and also admitted that he did not go to the police station nor did he give any statement to the police and that he could not say with certainty as to whether M. O. II is the same carton brought by accused A3 Krishna or not. He denied that accused A3 Krishna did not bring a carton M. O. II in his shop requesting him to keep the same till next day. He also denied that M. O. I to M. O. IX were not the same exhibits seized by the police from his shop. He stated that police had also seized one 50 rupees currency note but he could not identify the same as all such notes looked similar. He admitted that besides one rupees currency note, police did not seize any other currency note. 17. PW-5, namely, Nakya Bhutia is another witness to seizure memo Exhibit-2. In his examination in chief he stated that he knew only one accused by pointing at accused A4 Jashi Hang Subba but did not know the others. He admitted his signature on Exhibit-2 and stated that the same was obtained at Singtam Thana. He also admitted that he signed Exhibit-2 in connection with false currency counterfeit case but he did not know what was written in Exhibit-2 as the same was not read over to him by the police. The witness was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and cross-examined. In the cross examination, while admitting the signature at Exhibit-2, he denied that Exhibit-2 was the statement given by accused A3 Krishna Prasad Pradhan in his presence. He also denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save the accused persons. He voluntarily stated that the police must have written the statement of A3 Krishna Prasad but the same was not read over to him. However, he admitted that the police had shown him the money printing machine in the fish shop at Singtam. He also admitted the preparation of Exhibit-3 in the fish meat shop of Md. He voluntarily stated that the police must have written the statement of A3 Krishna Prasad but the same was not read over to him. However, he admitted that the police had shown him the money printing machine in the fish shop at Singtam. He also admitted the preparation of Exhibit-3 in the fish meat shop of Md. Umesh at Singtam Bazaar, whereby one greyish coloured HP Laser Printer inside a brownish carton, one brownish carton (JAKAY), one polythene with orange border, one green plastic tying string, one measuring feet ruler, one 50 rupees currency note bearing No. 3VQ 2326J8 placed inside the Laser Printer, one black coloured HP changer machine with card and one black coloured cord with 3 pin plug, marked M. O. I to VIII and identified the same in the Court. He also identified the signature in Exhibit-3. On further cross-examining by learned counsel for accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he stated that he could not identify who amongst the four accused persons Krishna Prasad Pradhan was and that when he had gone to the shop to buy fish, the P. I. Sahab told him that he was going to seize a fake money printing machine. He also admitted that the police took out the fake money printing machine and further stating that he did not know who and from where the said machine was brought to the meat shop. He denied the contents of document marked X and Exhibit-2 till it was read over to him by learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the knowledge of another 100/- rupees and 50/- rupees note marked M. O. IX and further stated that besides 50/- rupees note, no other currency note was seized by the police in his presence. He voluntarily stated that the 50/- rupees note was inside the printing machine, marked M. O. I. He further stated that none of the accused persons gave any statement to the police in his presence and also denied the suggestion that the accused persons are his co-villagers. 18. The fake currency notes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. He voluntarily stated that the 50/- rupees note was inside the printing machine, marked M. O. I. He further stated that none of the accused persons gave any statement to the police in his presence and also denied the suggestion that the accused persons are his co-villagers. 18. The fake currency notes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. As per the report of the Expert dated 30-11-2007, Exhibit-9, it was found that on examination of Exhibit marked A4 (M.O.XII) under different scientific instruments there were discrepancies vis-a-vis the genuine currency notes of similar pattern and denomination leading him to opine that the said currency note was not genuine but a counterfeit. But the 50/- rupees denomination currency notes bearing No. 3VQ 232618 marked C5 and C5/1 were declared to be genuine while Exhibits marked C8 & C8/1, C8/2 & C8/3 i.e. 100/- rupees and 50 rupees denomination notes, were declared as counterfeit currency notes. The examiner, namely Vinod Kumar PW-13, stated that he was promoted to Government Examiner in April, 2009 and was trained in examining documents and comparison of handwriting and signatures in the laboratory of Government Examiner. He had examined large number of documents relating to various cases in career and had given independent opinions on them. As per his opinion, Exhibit 9, documents marked A4 (M.O. XII), C/8 and C8/1, C8/2, C8/3 collectively marked as M. O. IX were not genuine but counterfeit currency notes, whereas the document marked as C5 (M.O.VI), and C5/1 (reverse side of M. O. VI) which is a currency note of Rs. 50/- denomination bearing No. 3VQ 232618 was a genuine currency note. 19. Having discussed and analysed the evidence appearing in the records and the reasons contained in the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the reasons that shall follow hereafter. 20. From the analysis of the prosecution evidence we may accept that the seizure of all the incriminating articles have been proved but, the question which is most crucial is as to whether any nexus has been established between those seized articles, the printing of the fake currency notes and the accused persons. Having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution we are not convinced that this crucial aspect has been established by the prosecution. 21. Having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution we are not convinced that this crucial aspect has been established by the prosecution. 21. Relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses discussed above and the documents M. O. XII, M. O. IX, M. O. X, M. O. XI, M. O. XIII, M. O. XIV and M. O. XVI, the trial Court arrived at a finding that the prosecution had established a direct connection of the accused persons with the incriminating article M. O. I, i.e., HP Laser Printer, for printing of fake currency notes A4 (M.O.XII) and Exhibit M. O. IX (C/8, C8/1, C8/2, C8/3). The trial Court has also relied upon the statement of PW-5 whereby he is voluntarily said to have stated that the 50/- rupees note was found in the printing machine. This statement of PW-5 though declared as hostile has been accepted by the trial Court. It is relevant to note that it is not the prosecution case that any currency note was found in the machine when the machine was seized but that the machine was packed in a carton. The trial Court has also heavily relied upon the materials, namely, one plastic bottle containing brownish colour liquid (M.O. X), 3 empty bottles (CC) (M.O. XI), 12 Nos. of white blank printing papers (M.O. XII), blue colour adhesive tape (M.O. XIV) and yellowish cut pieces of paper (M. O. XVI) and held that those were used for printing the notes. These materials were never sent for examination by any expert examiner and we do not find any opinion that those could be used for printing currency notes. Mere recovery of these articles without support of an expert opinion would be rendered presumptuous, perverse and not based upon any evidence. There is also no finding at all in the report of the Expert, Exhibit 9, that the currency note possibly could have been printed on the laser printer with the colours that were seized. There is also no evidence that the two fake currency notes were found in the possession of A1 and A4 and, that they were printed from the laser printer recovered from the shop of Md. Umesh, PW-4 or that the accused persons had the knowledge of those currency notes of being fake or that they attempted to use or had used those anywhere. Umesh, PW-4 or that the accused persons had the knowledge of those currency notes of being fake or that they attempted to use or had used those anywhere. The link between the seized articles including laser printer and those being used for printing the fake currency notes is absent. The other aspect of the evidence, that is, worth-noting is that the recovery of the printer was made from the shop of Md. Umesh, PW-4 at Singtam Bazar which as per him was brought and seized from there on 21-9-2006, whereas the revovery of the other materials were made from the rented house of A1. Under such circumstances, there could have been no occasion for the accused to have used the printer to print the fake currency note. 22. There is another aspect of the evidence which in our opinion renders the impugned judgment quite unsustainable. The only evidence that could have established a nexus between the seized articles and the accused A1 (the Appellant) and A4, Jash Hang Subba, is the disclosure satement of accused A3 marked Exhibit-2 upon which trial Court has placed reliance. Upon consideration of this document and on its close examination, such nexus do not appear to have been established. Considering the principle underlying Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the only admissible part of the disclosure statement is I have kept the machine in the kitchen, fish and meat shop of one Umesh Bhaya along the back street behind the bazaar and I can show the machine as well as the said shop. However, we find that this evidence apart from corroborating the recovery and seizure of the machine, nothing further stands proved by it. Therefore, placing reliance upon the disclosure statement, Exhibit 2, by the trial Court appears to be completely mis-placed. In any case, the disclosure statement, Exhibit-2, does not inspire our confidence as being voluntary but rather appears to have been obtained under threat, duress and coercion as would be deducible from the uncontroverted evidence of PW-3, Baichung Tamang, that the above accused was tied with a rope across his chest. The threat, duress and coercion can be reasonably presumed from the fact that the accused A3 was in custody of the police with a rope tied across his chest in the Police Station, Singtam when he is alleged to have made the said disclosure statement, Exhibit-2. The threat, duress and coercion can be reasonably presumed from the fact that the accused A3 was in custody of the police with a rope tied across his chest in the Police Station, Singtam when he is alleged to have made the said disclosure statement, Exhibit-2. Under such circumstances, we find Exhibit-2 grossly wanting in reliability and, therefore, unacceptable as one falling under the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. We find support in this view of ours from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 3-9-2010 in Crl. A. No. 4 of 2010 in the matter of Kishore Thapa v. State of Sikkim (paragraph 14) relying upon ratio laid down by a 11 Judges Constitution Bench decision in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghat, AIR 1961 SC 1808 : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 856) (paragraph 13) and also in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 1999 Cri LJ 4561 SC (Paragraph 12). Speaking for the Bench one of us (Wangdi, J.) observed that the pre-condition for a statement to be admissible under Section 27 is that it should have made voluntarily bereft of threat or coercion. In Kathi Kalu Oghat (1961 (2) Cri LJ 856) (supra) it has been held that It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of S. 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the prohibition aforesaid, unless compulsion had been used in obtaining the information. Similarly, in Rammi (1999 Cri LJ 4561) (supra) it has been held that While testing the reliability of such evidence the Court has to see whether it was voluntarily stated by the accused. 23. The other feature further eroding the credibility of Exhibit-2 is the evidence of P.W.-3, Baichung Tamang, one of the two witnesses to the disclosure statement, in him not having stated anywhere that the accused A3 had rendered the disclosure statement in his presence. In fact it is his categorical statement in his examination-in-chief that on 21-9-2006 he was called by the police of Singtam Police Station requesting him to be a witness in a case and that at that time accused Krishna Prasad Pradhan alias Dip Bahadur Shrestha was in the office of the PI, Singtam Police Station and further that the police then made me sign in a document marked Ext. 2...... 2...... The statement that it is true I did not see accused Krishna Prasad Pradhan giving statement to the police appearing in his cross-examination completely decimates the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, Exhibit-2. PW-5, the other witness to the disclosure statement Nakya Bhutia also appears to have simply signed on the disclosure statement, Exhibit-2, which is borne out by his evidence the relevant portion of which reads as under : .........Ext. 2 bears my signature and my signature was obtained in Ext. 2 at Singtam Thana. I signed in Ext. 2 in connection with false currency counterfeit case but I do not know what is written in Ext. 2 as same was not read over to me by the police. xxx-by Ld. P. P. Shri N. T. Bhutia .............. It is not a fact that Ext. 2 is the statement given by accused Krishna Prasad Pradhan in my presence. It is true that Ext. 2(b) is my signature on the same. It is pertinent to note here that this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. We find consistency in both his examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Thus, we do not find any evidence that inspires us to convince ourselves that the Accused A3 had indeed rendered the disclosure statement, Exhibit-2. 24. It is no doubt true that Exhibit-2 has also been signed by the PI marked Exhibit-2D but that does not detract from the disclosure statement Exhibit-2 being totally unreliable. Apart from all these, placing reliance upon the disclosure statement of the Accused A3 by the trial Court also appears to be of little consequence to fix the criminality upon the accused A1 (the appellant) and A4, Jas Hang Subba in view of his being acquitted of the charges. Thus, the only possible link in the form of the disclosure statement, Exhibit-2, having found to be unconvincing and unreliable, evidence linking the Accused A1 and A4 to the seized articles, are rendered non existent. When such vital link in the chain of circumstances is lost, the advantage of this, as has been the settled position of law, will certainly go in favour of the accused persons. 25. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused A1, the appellant, and A4 Jas Hang Subba. 26. 25. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused A1, the appellant, and A4 Jas Hang Subba. 26. The decision relied upon by the prosecution in the case of K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 1 SCC 237 : (2005 Cri LJ 143) appears to be misplaced as it is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case the Honble Supreme Court was considering the evidentiary value of two approvers whose statements were found to be free of any infirmity and, therefore, reliable which is not the case at hand and, therefore, the judgment has no application. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Learned Trial Court is set aside. Resultantly, the Appellant stands acquitted of the charges. 28. No order as to costs. 29. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records of the case be transmitted to the Learned Trial Court forthwith for its due compliance. Appeal allowed.