JUDGMENT : R. MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad on 22.11.1999 in G.R. Case No. 875 of 1996 convicting the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report is that when the informant was on duty on 24.03.1996 he noticed the pay loader workshop gate was closed from inside. He further noticed that one person along with the petitioner was throwing parts of the pay loader and Iron materials outside the wall. It is alleged that the informant returned to his camp and informed about the incident to his colleagues and when they once again came to the workshop they noticed Iron materials lying outside the workshop wall. It is further alleged that after the Police personnel entered inside the shop after climbing the wall they had caught the petitioner and another person who had disclosed his name as Nepal Saw and further disclosed that he was committing theft at the instance of the petitioner. This person had also disclosed that the petitioner used to supply Iron materials to him. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Jharia (Tisra) P.S. Case No. 82 of 1996 was instituted against the petitioner and Nepal Saw for the offence punishable u/s 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and after charge was framed the trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class, Dhanbad on 22.11.1999 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1999 which was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on 16.08.2002. 6. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1999 which was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad on 16.08.2002. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution had failed to establish its case that the petitioner was involved in the theft and the only incriminating circumstance which has surfaced in the present case is the confessional statement of co-accused Nepal Saw which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although it is alleged that parts of the pay loader were thrown outside the wall of the pay loader shop but the seizure list speaks otherwise. It has been submitted that the evidence of the informant (P.W.6) has been contradicted by the evidence of P.W.4 who had clearly stated that when he along with P.W.6 had entered into the pay loader workshop they had seen the petitioner having caught hold of Nepal Saw. It has thus been submitted that since no iota of evidence was collected by the Investigating Agency and that none of the witnesses had cast aspersions against the petitioner of being involved in committing theft of pay loader parts from the workshop the petitioner deserves acquittal from the criminal prosecution. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayed made by the petitioner. 8. In course of trial the prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Umakant Bhagat has stated that there was a theft in the pay loader workshop at Golakdih and he had subsequently come to know about the theft. P.W.2 Amar Nath Singh has stated that at the time of the incident he was posted at pay loader workshop at Golakdih. However this witness is not an eye witness. P.W.3 Ramesh Kumar Thapa had disclosed that on the date of the occurrence he was posted at Area Mines Golakdih and he was informed that a theft has been committed at the pay loader workshop at Golakdih in which the suspect Nepal Saw was apprehended. This witness is also a hearsay witness. P.W.4 Rajendra Singh is a member of CISF who on being informed had seen the petitioner catching hold of one person who had disclosed his name as Nepal Saw. This witness is also a hearsay witness. P.W.4 Rajendra Singh is a member of CISF who on being informed had seen the petitioner catching hold of one person who had disclosed his name as Nepal Saw. P.W.5 Sujit Kumar Rai has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence on receiving information from the informant he had seen the petitioner standing catching hold of Nepal Saw. P.W.6 B.D. Pathak is the informant who had stated that he had seen the materials being thrown outside the wall by the accused persons and thereafter this witness and P.W.4 along with others had gone inside the workshop where they had found the petitioner and one Nepal Saw present. P.W.7 Jay Krishna Yadav is a formal witness. P.W.8 Rajeshwar Sharma is the Investigating Officer who had submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. The main witness whose evidence have to be considered for coming to a conclusion about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence of theft or otherwise is P.W.4 and the informant P.W.6. P.W.6 had categorically stated in the First Information Report as well as in his evidence that the parts of the pay loader were being thrown outside the wall. This witness was accompanied by P.W.4 when he had gone inside the pay loader workshop. However P.W.4 has given a completely different version to that of P.W.6 in as much as P.W.4 had categorically stated that when he had gone inside the workshop he had found the petitioner having caught hold of Nepal Saw. The version of P.W.4 has been supported by the evidence of P.W.5 Sujit Kumar Rai who had also stated in similar terms as that of P.W.4. The evidence of the other witnesses suggest that they are hearsay witnesses and they had merely come to know about the incident. The version of P.W.6 has therefore been contradicted by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5. The other glaring aspect of the case which has not been properly appreciated by the learned courts below is the seizure list. It is an admitted fact as per the version of the informant that parts of the pay loader were thrown outside the pay loader workshop. The seizure list however depicts an altogether different picture in as much as the place from where the materials were seized has been shown to be the pay loader workshop. It is an admitted fact as per the version of the informant that parts of the pay loader were thrown outside the pay loader workshop. The seizure list however depicts an altogether different picture in as much as the place from where the materials were seized has been shown to be the pay loader workshop. This totally contradicts the version of the informant with respect to recovery of the articles. The prosecution it seems has overtly relied upon the confessional statement of co-accused Nepal Saw who had disclosed about the participation of the petitioner in the commission of theft. Such confessional statement in absence of any corroboration from any corner whatsoever does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. The contradiction which has been enumerated above do suggest that the petitioner has merely been made a scape goat on account of his presence in the workshop when he was found catching hold of the co-accused Nepal Saw as has been disclosed by P.W.4 and P.W.5. 9. Such circumstances, therefore, entitles the petitioner to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the judgment dated 16.08.2002 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1999 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad on 22.11.1999 in G.R. Case No. 875 of 1996, are hereby, set aside. 10. The petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 11. This application stands allowed.