ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner No. XIV, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2004 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2004 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Case No. C-7=3/2004, corresponding to R.P.F. (Muri) Case No. 1 of 2004 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(a) of R.P.U.P. Act and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for one year has been affirmed. 3. Allegations have been levelled that the informant along with some staff members of the post noticed some persons taking out something heavy from a bush and on seeing the R.P.F. personnel they tried to flee, but one person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Bigan Karmali. The apprehended accused had disclosed the name of the petitioner and thereafter confessed that both of them had stolen some railway iron materials from Harubera Railway Station and got it concealed in 6 old plastic bags near the alleged place of occurrence. 4. The prosecution in support of it case had examined 5 witnesses. P.W. 1 - R.K. Singh is the informant who has stated that on source information he had conducted a raid at Rambheru Harubera Station and had apprehended one Bigan Karmali. This witness has stated that he has seized the railway materials which was marked as Exhibit 1 (seizure list). P.W.2 - S.N. Das was a constable at R.P.F. Post Muri. This witness did not turn up for cross-examination and therefore his evidence is not to be considered. P.W. 3 - Bir Balak Prasad had stated that he runs a Pan Gumti in Rambheru Section of the railway. The railway materials were seized in his presence and he signed on a seizure list which was marked as Exhibit 1/2. This witness claimed to have identified the accused persons. P.W.4 - A. N. Rao is the Senior Sectional Engineer, Muri who had examined the seized railway material and had given his expert opinion which has been marked as Exhibit 4. P.W. 5 - Umakant Singh is the head constable at R.P.F. Post, Muri who was also a member of the raiding party. P.W.4 - A. N. Rao is the Senior Sectional Engineer, Muri who had examined the seized railway material and had given his expert opinion which has been marked as Exhibit 4. P.W. 5 - Umakant Singh is the head constable at R.P.F. Post, Muri who was also a member of the raiding party. This witness along with other members of raiding party seized 6 plastic bags which contained railway materials. He is also a witness to the seizure list. 5. The defence had examined one witness namely, D.W. 1 - Shahjahan Ansari who is the petitioner who had proved the documents - Exhibit A and Exhibit B. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner for being convicted for the offence under Section 3 of R.P.U.P. Act. Learned counsel submits that only the confessional statement of the petitioner has led to his conviction which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. 7. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that the members of the raiding party had stated about apprehending Bigan Karmali, who had disclosed about the involvement of the petitioner in stealing railway materials and keeping it concealed inside the bush. The seized railway materials were recovered at the instance of Bigan Karmali and a seizure list was also duly prepared. So far as the petitioner is concerned, neither he has been apprehended at the spot nor any incriminating materials had been recovered from his possession. The only evidence which has been considered by the learned trial court as also by the learned appellate court to nail the petitioner is the existence of Exhibit 2/1 which is the confessional statement of the petitioner. The said confessional statement in absence of any surrounding circumstances or any supporting evidence cannot lead to conviction of the petitioner. The learned courts below had fully placed reliance upon the confessional statement of the petitioner while convicting him. 9. In absence of any cogent and incriminating substance which could have led the prosecution to prove the guilt against the petitioner, this application deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned judgments dated 22.09.2005 and 30.06.2004 are hereby set aside. 9. In absence of any cogent and incriminating substance which could have led the prosecution to prove the guilt against the petitioner, this application deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned judgments dated 22.09.2005 and 30.06.2004 are hereby set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. Application allowed.