JUDGMENT The proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1995, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. This appeal was filed by respondent No. 2 to challenge the judgment and order of R.C.C. No. 334 of 1993, which was pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Shrirampur for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2 was convicted and sentenced by J.M.F.C. for this offence. Both the sides are heard. 2. The mother of first informant Gokul was admitted in Pravara Hospital and she was kept in a special ward on 30.6.1993. She was not fully conscious. On 1.7.1993 Gokul learnt that gold and others Mangalsutra of his mother which was on her person on 30.6.1993 was missing. Friends of Gokul like Shripad Maid, Shekhar Dube had seen the accused near special ward of mother of Gokul on 30.6.1993. They knew the accused as accused hails from their village Loni. In the past also, there was suspicion against the accused that he has committed thefts. 3. The aforesaid persons kept watch on shops of goldsmith as they thought that accused would come there to sell the gold ornament. On 1.7.1993 at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. the accused came to the shop of Sopan Maid with gold Mangalsutra and he handed over gold Mangalsutra for weighing purpose. When the accused saw the aforesaid persons near the shop, he ran away from the shop of goldsmith with Mangalsutra. These persons then went to police station and gave information against the accused. Police gave chase to the accused and they recovered gold Mangalsutra from him. The F.I.R. was given on 1.7.1993, but in the F.I.R., Gokul had not expressed suspicion against the accused. Before J.M.F.C., brother of Gokul and some witnesses, who had seen the accused near special ward on 30.6.1993 were examined. The Police Head Constable, who made investigation of the case and who made recovery of ornament, is also examined. These witnesses are believed by J.M.F.C. The Appellate Court has observed that these witnesses cannot be believed and the Appellate Court has acquitted the accused. 4. The Police Head Constable, who made investigation of the case and who made recovery of ornament, is also examined. These witnesses are believed by J.M.F.C. The Appellate Court has observed that these witnesses cannot be believed and the Appellate Court has acquitted the accused. 4. Gokul (PW 4) has given evidence that his grandmother was present near his mother in the special ward on 30.6.1993, but she could not see the accused, when he was snatching the ornament, as her eye sight is weak. He has deposed that as gold ornament was snatched, the ornament was broken and some gold beads were found near the bed in the ward. The report, Exh. 18, given by him is proved in his evidence. He has given evidence that after 3-4 days of incident, he was called to police station and then he identified Mangalsutra. The gold Mangalsutra was not produced in the Court during trial and no evidence on identification, either done in police station or in the Court, is there. No particular mark is described by the witnesses due to which they could say that they had identified the ornament. 5. Kishor (PW 5) is younger brother of Gokul and he has deposed that he had seen the accused wandering near the special ward on 30.6.1993. He has deposed that on 1.7.1993 he and his friends Nanasaheb and Shankar stood near the shop of goldsmith at 4.00 p.m. as they thought that the accused would come there with gold ornament for selling it to goldsmith. He has deposed that accused did come there, but he ran away after seeing them. He has given evidence that they went to police station and then police caught hold of accused after 30 to 40 minutes and recovered gold Mangsutra from him. Similar evidence is given by Nanasaheb (PW 6). Their evidence does not give explanation as to why they had not given the name of accused to Gokul and there is no explanation as to why the name of accused is not mentioned in F.I.R. 6. Vandana (PW 1) was working as a Nurse in the aforesaid hospital. She was expected to give evidence that she has also seen the accused in the hospital, but she has turned hostile. Both the recovery panch witnesses have turned hostile. Vandana (PW 1) was working as a Nurse in the aforesaid hospital. She was expected to give evidence that she has also seen the accused in the hospital, but she has turned hostile. Both the recovery panch witnesses have turned hostile. Keshav (PW 8), Police Head Constable, who made investigation of the case, has given evidence on recovery of gold Mangalsutra and recovery panchanama which is at Exh. 12. Exh. 12 shows that it cannot be used as recovery panchanama and it can be used only as seizure panchanama. No separate record of alleged statement given by the accused which could have been used under section 27 of the Evidence Act was created. The document does not bear the signature of accused. There is no independent corroboration to the evidence of Head Constable. In view of these circumstances and also the aforesaid circumstances, it is difficult to rely on the evidence of the seizure panchanama and the evidence of Head Constable Keshav to base the conviction. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/accused, placed reliance on the case reported as 1982 Cri.L.J. 2189 BOMBAY HIGH COURT [Devidas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra]. In this case, this Court held that unless discovery is preceded by information given by the accused, the discovery cannot be said to be legal consequence. It is observed that it is the information statement which is evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act. As in the present case also, there is no record of statement given by the accused, which may be used under section 27 of the Evidence Act, this Court holus that the observations made in the case cited supra can be used in favour of the accused. 8. The evidence of other witnesses, who had tried to say that they had seen the accused wandering near special ward is not consistent with the F.I.R. and is also not consistent with the evidence of Police Head Constable. If they had really seen the accused and they had suspicion against the accused, then they would have informed the name of accused to police. Their evidence shows that police had given chase to the accused and recovery of ornament was made. If they had really seen the accused and they had suspicion against the accused, then they would have informed the name of accused to police. Their evidence shows that police had given chase to the accused and recovery of ornament was made. But, Head Constable has given different evidence and he has stated that accused gave statement, he took police to one field and there, the accused produced ornament and the ornament was in concealed condition. Thus, there is possibility of concoction. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that Sessions Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. As the view taken by the Sessions Court is a possible view and as it is revision against acquittal, this Court holds that interference is not possible in the decision given by the Sessions Court. 9. In the result, the revision stands dismissed. Application dismissed.