JUDGMENT : This Criminal Revision No. 977 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2015 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega has dismissed the Appeal and has affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 passed by Sri Satyapal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P. S. Case No. 163 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 552 of 2013 (T.R. No. 177 of 2015) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of three (3) years for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant, Manohar Prasad, lodged F.I.R. in Simdega Police station on 29.11.2013 alleging that his son Sandeep Prasad was running a shop of mobile shop in front of his house and on 28.11.2013 at about 07:00 o'clock at evening his son had closed the shop and came inside the house but in that course at about 07:30 o'clock three miscreants armed with Gun, rifle and Bhujali entered into the house after jumping over the boundary wall. It is further alleged by the informant that the accused persons had demanded the key of his shop and thereafter after breaking the lock, the miscreants had entered into his shop and took away 35 pieces of new Mobile Sets, one laptop of Dell company, one Nikon Camera and Rs. 3,500/- Cash kept in the shop. Thereafter miscreants fled away on the Motorcycle. The Informant has given description of mobile phone and the accused persons. 3. Heard Mr. Gaurav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the State. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on suspicion and the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of his confessional statement. It is submitted that no recovery has been made from the petitioner, rather recovery of Laptop has been made from the house of co-accused, Guddu Khan. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on suspicion and the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of his confessional statement. It is submitted that no recovery has been made from the petitioner, rather recovery of Laptop has been made from the house of co-accused, Guddu Khan. It is submitted that Guddu Khan has not identified the petitioner before the Court during trial. It is submitted that even the victim has not identified the petitioner in jail as well as in the Court below and as such, the petitioner may be acquitted and the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State that the judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has got three criminal antecedents and Laptop has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner and which was identified by the informant. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of PLFI and as such, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears that informant has lodged the F.I.R. on 29.11.2013 for the offences under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the robbery in his shop by taking a key of shop from his house and the miscreants are alleged to have committed robbery of 35 piece of Mobile Phones and One Dell Company Laptop and One Camera and Rs. 500/- against three unknown miscreants. The informant claimed to identify the miscreants. 8. The police, after making investigation, has submitted charge sheet on 30.04.2014 under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against Asit Nitin Tirkey i.e. this petitioner and investigation remained pending against other miscreants i.e. Sudhir Kumar Sah @ Bihari. It transpires that during investigation of this case, the police have recorded the statement of one Guddu Khan (a Carpenter) under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. on 22.03.2014. Thereafter, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega on 13.05.2014 had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 9. It transpires that during investigation of this case, the police have recorded the statement of one Guddu Khan (a Carpenter) under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. on 22.03.2014. Thereafter, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega on 13.05.2014 had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 9. It transpires that after supplying police paper to the petitioner, charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega and to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. The prosecution, in support of its case, got examined eight (8) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 is Sandeep Prasad, the son of the informant, (ii) P.W.-2 is Radha Paik, (iii) P.W.-3 is Anita Devi (wife of the informant), (iv) P.W.-4 is Manohar Prasad, the informant, (v) P.W.- 5 is Anil Kumar Sharma, i.e. 2nd I. O. of this case, (vi) P.W.- 6 is Arun Kumar Mahtha, i.e. Officer In-charge, (vii) P.W.-7 is Guddu Khan, businessman, and (viii) P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, i.e. 1st I. O. of this case 11. The prosecution in support of its case, has got proved following documents as the Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext-1 is T. I. P. Chart of Article, (ii) Ext.-2 is written application, (iii) Ext.-2/1 is the Registration of FIR, (iii) Ext.-3 is seizure list, (iv) Ext.-4 is confessional statement of the petitioner recorded on 20.03.2014, (v) Ext.-5 is Arrest Memo, (vi) Ext.-6 is affirmation of T. I. Parade, (vii) Ext.-7 is the statement of Guddu Khan recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. and (viii) Ext.-3/1 is the signature of Guddu Khan on the seizure list. 12. Apart from this prosecution has got proved the following articles as Material Exhibits :- Material Exhibit-I is Laptop. 13. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 10.07.2015 and to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. Neither any defence witness has been examined nor any document has been marked as Exhibits on behalf of the petitioner. 15. 13. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 10.07.2015 and to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. Neither any defence witness has been examined nor any document has been marked as Exhibits on behalf of the petitioner. 15. Thereafter, Sri Satyapal, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015, has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced him to undergo S. I. for a period of three(3) years for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Court below has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code as no T. I. P. for identification of the accused- petitioner was conducted on behalf of the prosecution and even witnesses had not been identified the petitioner. 16. It further transpires from the ordersheet dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned Court below that TIP Chart of the Articles has been marked as Ext.-6 on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 291(A) of the Cr. P. C. 17. Thereafter the learned Appellate Court below has simply dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2015 filed on behalf of the petitioner by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega and hence this Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 18. Therefore, the evidences of the prosecution witness has to be appreciated. 19. So far as the evidence of the prosecution witness is concerned, P.W.-1, Sandeep Prasad, who is the son of the informant and during his evidence, he has stated that on 28.11.2023, he had returned to his house after closing his shop, which is situated at a distance around half kilometer from his house. However, on the next morning when he went to his shop, he found the door of his shop was broken and has found that 25 mobile phone and one Laptop of Dell Company and Rs. 3,000/- had been stolen. Thereafter he enquired from nearby people, but he could not learn and hence his father has lodged the FIR in the police station. 3,000/- had been stolen. Thereafter he enquired from nearby people, but he could not learn and hence his father has lodged the FIR in the police station. He further stated that the police after 3-4 months had informed him that one Laptop has been recovered and he had identified his Laptop in T.I.Parade of articles and put his signature on the T.I.P. marked as Ext.-1 and Laptop has already been released in his favour and the police has recorded his statement. He has also stated that miscreant had come to his house and has taken the mobile of his sister Puja Kumari. During cross-examination, he has stated that his father used to sleep in the shop and he is living in his house at another place. He has also stated that his father has not identified any miscreant and has lodged a case against unknown persons and his sister has not claimed to identify any miscreant. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station at Simdega for identification of the Laptop and apart from his Laptop, three other Laptops were also kept there and I. O. was also present at the place of identification of the Laptop, but three other Laptops were not of Dell Company and only his Laptop was of Dell Company and there was one white sign of lamination on his Laptop. However, he has also stated during his evidence that on 21.08.2014, Laptop was not produced before him in the Court. 20. This witness was further examined on recall as it reveals from the order sheet, however, the learned P.O. has not mentioned the date of recall of examination of P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar for his further re-examination. Thereafter, P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar has identified his Laptop of Dell Company and which was released from the order of the learned Court below. The Laptop had been marked as Ext.-M-I by the learned Court below. During further cross-examination, he has stated that he had received no notice for bringing of Laptop. 21. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar, it is evident that he has not supported the allegation as made out in the FIR by his father and P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar has not identified the informant before the learned Court below. During further cross-examination, he has stated that he had received no notice for bringing of Laptop. 21. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar, it is evident that he has not supported the allegation as made out in the FIR by his father and P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar has not identified the informant before the learned Court below. However, P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar has merely proved the recovery of Laptop marked as M-I. It is evident that he has not identified the petitioner and he has not attributed any overt act against the petitioner. Hence, P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar has not supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. 22. P.W.-2 is Radha Paik and who has stated that theft was committed in the shop of Manohar Prasad during winter season and mobile phones were stolen from the shop and he learnt about the occurrence on the next morning. During cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember the name of the persons, who has disclosed before him regarding the theft committed in the shop of the informant. 23. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-2 is Radha Paik, it is evident that he has also not identified the petitioner and she has not attributed any overt act against the petitioner. Thus, P.W.-2, Radha Paik has not also supported the prosecution case against the petitioner during her evidence. 24. P.W.-3 is Anita Devi (wife of the informant) and she has stated during her evidence that on 28.12.2012 at around 7 P. M. in the evening while she was cooking food in her residence, then door of her house was broken and two persons on the point of gun, pushed her inside the house and they had taken away the Laptop, mobile and Camera and Rs. 3,500/- cash and Top-up of mobile. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence, her daughter came outside, then she was slapped by the one of the miscreants and due to which she fell down and the miscreants had snatched her mobile. However, she has not identified the petitioner before the learned Court below. During cross-examination, she has stated that the police has not recorded her statement and she is giving evidence for the first time in Court. 25. However, she has not identified the petitioner before the learned Court below. During cross-examination, she has stated that the police has not recorded her statement and she is giving evidence for the first time in Court. 25. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-3, Anita Devi, it is evident that she has not identified the petitioner during trial before the learned Court below and she has not attributed any specific overt act against the petitioner. Thus the evidence of P.W.-3 is Anita Devi is also not reliable. 26. P.W.-4 is Manohar Prasad, who is the informant of this case and he has stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place on 28.11.2012 between 7.30 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. in the evening and at that time, he was taking rest in the shop. Then suddenly the miscreants came having covered their face by cloth and one of them was having double barrel gun and one was also having Riffle and both started broking the door of his shop and thereafter, the miscreants had broken the lock and entered into inside the shop and committed robbery of 30 new Mobile Phones and 5 mobile phones kept for repairing and one Camera of ICON Company and one Laptop of Dell Company and Rs. 3500/- Cash and Top-up of mobile recharge of Rs. 2,000/- and also taken the charger after breaking the seal of the rack. He has also proved his signature on the written report marked as Ext.-2. He has also stated that the mobile was released from the Court. He has also stated that he had identified the Laptop during T. I. P. before the B.D.O. During cross-examination, he has stated that Laptop of the Dell Company, but the same has not been brought today before him before the Court. He further stated that at the time of enquiry, only his Laptop was kept. 27. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-4 Manohar Prasad, the informant of this case, it is evident that he has not identified the petitioner before the learned Court below and even neither the prosecutor or the Court had made any effort or had put any question for identification of the petitioner during trial before the learned Court below, who was in custody. Even P.W.-4 Manohar Prasad has not attributed any specific overt act against the petitioner before the learned Court below during his evidence. 28. Even P.W.-4 Manohar Prasad has not attributed any specific overt act against the petitioner before the learned Court below during his evidence. 28. Thus, P.W.-4, Manohar Prasad has surprisingly contradicted the statement of P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar that there was four laptop at the time of T. I.Parade of articles in the police station, but the P.W.-4, Manohar Prasad has stated that only his Laptop was kept for the purpose of enquiry (it should have been mentioned as identification by the learned Court below). Therefore, the evidence of P.W.-4 Manohar Prasad is also not reliable for the purpose of convicting the petitioner. Even neither P.W.-1, Sandeep Kumar nor P.W.-4 Manohar Prasad has stated that they were not aware from whom the Laptop was recovered and on whose instances. Thus, P.W.-4, Manohar Prasad has not supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. 29. P.W.-7 is Guddu Khan, who is a businessman and he has stated during his evidence that his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Court below and in which he has put his signature, marked as Ext.-7. He further stated that the police has recovered one Laptop of Dell Company on 21.03.2014 and his signature was taken on the seizure list, which he identified and marked as Ext.-3/1. He has further stated that the said Laptop was given to him by the petitioner –Asit Nitin Tirkey for selling the same. Although he has further stated that the said Laptop was given to him by Ashit Nitin Tirkey and he has identified the said Ashit Nitin Tirkey, but the person standing in the dock of the Court is not said Ashit Nitin Tirkey i.e. the petitioner. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he identified the person, who has handed over the articles (i.e. Laptop) and he further stated that he would have identified the said person, had he remained in the Court. 30. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-7, Guddu Khan, from whose possession the Laptop was recovered, it is evident that he has denied the identity of the petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey, who had given Laptop to him or sell in his shop before the Court. 31. 30. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-7, Guddu Khan, from whose possession the Laptop was recovered, it is evident that he has denied the identity of the petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey, who had given Laptop to him or sell in his shop before the Court. 31. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.-7, Guddu Khan, it is evident that he has not identified the petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey before the lerned Court below for handing him over the Laptop of the informant for sale, rather he has stated that the person Ashit Nitin Tirkey, who is facing trial in the Court, is not the same Asit Nitin Tirkey, who had handed over him the Laptop. Thus, it is evident that P.W.-7 has not identified the accused in Court below for handing over the articles and hence the evidence of P.W.-7 is not sufficient to convict the petitioner. 32. P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, who is the first I. O. of this Case and who has stated during his evidence that he had been handed over the investigation of this case on 29.11.2013 by the order of Sub-Inspector Parmeshwar Prasad and he has identified the writing and signature of the said Parmeshwar Prasad for instituting the FIR, which is marked as Ext.-2/1. Thereafter he had recorded the subsequent statement of the informant and has inspected the place of occurrence as per the information of the informant and has described the boundary of the P.O., which is situated in the house of the informant at Villager- Baccha Giri. He has also described the boundary. Thereafter, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses Anita Devi and Sandeep Prasad, who have supported the occurrence and had also recorded the independent witnesses Radha Paik, P.W.-2. He has further stated that he had sent the IMEI number of the looted mobile for investigation before the Technical Branch in the office of S. P. Simdega. Thereafter, he was transferred and he had handed over the investigation to Officer In-charge Shri Parmeshwar Prasad. During cross-examination, he has stated that the case was instituted against the unknown miscreants and the informant had claimed to have identified the miscreants. 33. Thereafter, he was transferred and he had handed over the investigation to Officer In-charge Shri Parmeshwar Prasad. During cross-examination, he has stated that the case was instituted against the unknown miscreants and the informant had claimed to have identified the miscreants. 33. Thus, from securitizing the evidence of P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, who is the first I. O. of this case, it is evident that during his investigation Laptop was not recovered from the possession of said Guddu Khan, P.W.-7 and during tenure of investigation, he was transferred. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh that he has not stated anything against this petitioner and no T.I.P was done in his presence and he has merely recorded the statement of the witnesses as mentioned above and investigated the case and as such, evidence of P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh is not relevant. 34. P.W.- 5 is Anil Kumar Sharma, who is the 2nd I. O. of this case. He has stated that after transfer of P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, he had been given investigation of this case on 23.02.2014. Thereafter, he had perused the case diary and on 20.03.2014, he alongwith Officer In-charge had proceeded for night patrolling and he had seen four boys on four motorcycle in suspicion condition, then they proceeded towards them, but three persons fled away by left their motorcycle, but one person was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Asit Nitin Tirkey i.e. the petitioner and has admitted his involvement in loot of Laptop and mobiles in connection with Case No. 163 of 2013 (i.e. the case lodged by the informant) and thereafter, he was arrested by preparing the arrest memo. Thereafter the petitioner-Asit Nitin Tirkey has confessed his guilt in his confessional statement and on his disclosure, one Laptop recovered from the house of Guddu Khan on 21.03.20004 at Haran Toli in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Azam Khan and Maksud Allam and during search of the house of Guddu Khan, looted laptop of Dell Company was recovered from his house, which was kept in the racksin cover and the signature of the said Guddu Khan was taken and the signature of the independent witnesses were also taken and seizure list was prepared accordingly and which is marked as Ext. -6, which bears the signature of independent witnesses and both the accused Guddu Khan and Asit Nitin Tirkey. -6, which bears the signature of independent witnesses and both the accused Guddu Khan and Asit Nitin Tirkey. He has further stated that thereafter Guddu Khan was sent for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. before the Court. Thereafter he has submitted charge sheet against the Asit Nitin Tirkey for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was kept pending against other accused namely Sudhir Kumar Sah @ Bihari. Thereafter, he filed an application for identification of Laptop in T.I.Parade and T.I. Parade of article was also conducted. He has identified the petitioner in Court. During cross-examination, P.W.-5 has stated that he has not recorded the statement of any witnesses, although, he had earlier stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses of seizure list of this case. He further stated that he arrested the petitioner-Asit Nitin Tirkey from Gandhi Maidan and three other persons, who were with him, had fled away. He further stated that he had not known the petitioner-Ashit Nitin Tirkey from earlier. He further stated that he has not recorded the confessional statement of the accused-Ashit Nitin Tirkey. However, the Officer In-charge has recorded his confessional statement. He further stated that he had not filed any forwarding application for recording the statement of the accused under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. and he was also a member of raiding party of the accused persons. However, he has admitted during his further cross-examination that he has not made Guddu Khan as an accused in this case from whose house looted articles were recovered. He has denied the suggestion for making the neighbours of Guddu Khan as witnesses to save the said Guddu Khan. 35. Thus, scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.- 5, Anil Kumar Sharma, it is evident that he is the main I.O. of this case and he has claimed to have arrested only Asit Nitin Tirkey, although he had seen that three other boys on two motorcycles, who are said to have fled away. 35. Thus, scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.- 5, Anil Kumar Sharma, it is evident that he is the main I.O. of this case and he has claimed to have arrested only Asit Nitin Tirkey, although he had seen that three other boys on two motorcycles, who are said to have fled away. It is further evident that P.W.-6 has also stated that looted laptop of the informant was recovered from the house of Guddu Khan and even the seizure list bears the signature of one Guddu Khan, but instead of making him an accused in this case, the said Guddu Khan has been made a prosecution witness without the permission of the Court and his statement was recorded even under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. 36. It further transpires that independent witnesses namely Azam Khan and Maksud Allam, who were witnesses on the point of recovery of the looted one Laptop from the house of Guddu Khan have not been examined by the prosecution before the learned Court below. It further transpires from the order sheet dated 21.03.2014 that an application was filed by the I.O. for adding Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code after recovery of Laptop from the possession of the accused Ashit Nitin Tirkey. He has also mentioned that confessional statement of the petitioner –Asit Nitin Tirkey has been recorded. 37. Thus, it is evident that I.O. has again mislead even the learned Court below by stating that looted Laptop was recovered from the possession of Ashit Nitin Tirkey instead of Guddu Khan, who was made as a witness. It further reveals from the order sheet dated 22.03.2014 that ASI, Simdega had filed a petition for deputation of a Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of witnesses Guddu Khan under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. and accordingly one B. Anand, J. M. 1st Class, Simdega had recorded the statement of the said Guddu Khan as a witness under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. after giving due warning and apprising him to the fact that statement will be used against him. Thereafter, statement of the said Guddu Khan was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 22.03.2014. However, the said Sri. V. Anand, J.M. 1st Class, Simdega has not been examined by the prosecution in this case and even the signature of Sri. Thereafter, statement of the said Guddu Khan was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 22.03.2014. However, the said Sri. V. Anand, J.M. 1st Class, Simdega has not been examined by the prosecution in this case and even the signature of Sri. V. Anand, J. M. 1st Class, Simdega has not properly found, which appears to be serious laches on the part of Sri V. Anand, J. M. 1st Class, Simdega has not recorded his full name. 38. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.-, 5, Anil Kumar Sharma it is evident that he has implicated the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 of the Cr. P.C. though nothing was recovered from his possession and only his confessional statement was recorded. 39. At this stage, it is relevant to quote Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- “Section -411 Dishonestly receiving stolen property.– Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 40. From plain reading of Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, it is evident that the person, who dishonestly receives any stolen property can be made an accused, if any stolen article is recovered from his possession. But in the present case, no recovery has been made from the possession of this petitioner, rather laptop has been recovered from the possession of the said Guddu Khan, who has made a witness on behalf of the prosecution. 41. P.W.- 6 is Arun Kumar Mahtha, who is Officer In charge and has stated during his evidence that in the night of 20/21.03.2014, the accused petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey was arrested from Gandhi Maidan, Simdega and during interrogation, he has accepted his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by him, which is in six pages, which bears the signature of the petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey, which has been marked as Ext.-4. He further stated that on the basis of his confessional statement, he has conducted raid in the house of Guddu Khan at 2. He further stated that on the basis of his confessional statement, he has conducted raid in the house of Guddu Khan at 2. 30 A.M. on 21.03.2014 and where he had recovered one Laptop of Dell Company with bag from the house of Guddu Khan, who had looted property and he had prepared the seizure list and bears the signature of Guddu Khan and Ashit Nitin Tirkey and which bears the signature of two independent witnesses namely Azam Khan and Maksud Allam and seizure list has been marked as Ext.-3. Thereafter, he had prepared the arrest memo, which was marked as Ext.-5. He has identified the petitioner Asit Nitin Tirkey. 42. During his cross-examination, he has stated that I.O. has not recorded his statement. He further stated that though the accused was arrested from Gandhi Maidan, Simdega, but at the time of arrest, nothing was seized from his possession. He has further stated that he does not remember the name of the persons, who were made as witnesses at the time of arrest of the petitioner. He has also stated that the accused has made disclosure before him as there was no witness at that time. He further admitted during his further cross-examination at para-8 and 9 that Laptop was recovered from the house of one Guddu Khan i.e. P.W.-7, which was sitting room of the accused Guddu Khan and at that time wife and the brother of Guddu Khan were present in the house. Though, he has denied the suggestion for implicating the accused falsely only in order to save Guddu Khan. However, evidence of P.W.- 6, Arun Kumar Mahtha is of case of not only a defective investigation, but also highhandedness on the part of the police. 43. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.- 6, Arun Kumar Mahtha, it is evident that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioner Ashit Nitin Tirkey. Although, P.W.-5, Anil Kumar Sharma (2nd I.O. of this case) and P.W.- 6, Arun Kumar Mahtha have stated that the signature of the petitioner-Ashit Nitin Tirkey and Guddu Khan were obtained at the time of preparing seizure list made as Ext.-3 at the time of recovery of looted laptop from the house of Guddu Khan. 44. Although, P.W.-5, Anil Kumar Sharma (2nd I.O. of this case) and P.W.- 6, Arun Kumar Mahtha have stated that the signature of the petitioner-Ashit Nitin Tirkey and Guddu Khan were obtained at the time of preparing seizure list made as Ext.-3 at the time of recovery of looted laptop from the house of Guddu Khan. 44. From perusal of the arrest Memo marked as Ext.-5, it transpires that the petitioner was said to be arrested on 20.03.2014 at 22 hours i.e. 10.00 P.M. in the night and Column-9 indicates that there is articles and against which, it has been mentioned that “as per seizure list” in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Ravinder Singh and Deepak Soren, but from perusal of the seizure list marked as Ext.-3, it transpires that it was prepared on 21.03.2014 at 2.30 A.M. and thus, there was no recovery of any article at the time arrest of the petitioner, but the I. O. has falsely stated that articles were recovered as per the seizure list. 45. Even the prosecution has not examined the said witnesses namely Ravinder Singh and Deepak Soren before the Trial Court below at the time of his arrest on 20.03.2014 at 10.00 P. M. in the night. Even in the first column, I. O. has not mentioned Simdega P. S. Case No. 163 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013 for the offences under Sections 392/411 of the Indian Penal code from Gandhi Maidan, Simdega. Thus, it is clearly evident that there was no recovery of Laptop at the time of preparing the arrest memo of the petitioner on 20.03.2014 at 10.00 P.M. in the night. Therefore, it is evident that arrest memo has been prepared later on only after the recovery of Dell Laptop from the house of Guddu Khan only to implicate the petitioner by the police in this case. 46. It further transpires from confessional statement of the petitioner marked as Ext.-4 recorded by the P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two other cases, but during trial, no such FIR or case were produced before the learned Court below to show the complicity of the petitioner in those two cases. 47. 46. It further transpires from confessional statement of the petitioner marked as Ext.-4 recorded by the P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two other cases, but during trial, no such FIR or case were produced before the learned Court below to show the complicity of the petitioner in those two cases. 47. It further appears from the confessional statement of the petitioner that one Guddu Khan, examined as P.W.-7 is his Bahnoi i.e. Brother In-law and he can get recover of the said looted Laptop from the house of the said Guddu Khan. However, from perusal of the statement of the said Guddu Khan recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., it would appear that Guddu Khan has not disclosed anything about his relationship with the petitioner on 22.03.2014 before the J. M. 1st Class, Simdega. Even the said Guddu Khan while examined as P.W.-7 before the learned Court below, it is evident that the said Guddu Khan has not disclosed about his relationship with the petitioner, rather, Guddu Khan has stated that the persons facing the trial before him is not the said Ashit Nitin Tirkey, who has handed over the looted Laptop before him two days ago earlier for sale. Thus the confessional statement of the petitioner is not reliable and the same has been prepared by P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha under coercion and is a bundle of lies. 48. It is well settled from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Jain Versus Makrand Singh and Others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 770 that confessional statement of the accused is not admissible in evidence as the same has been obtained in coercion. 49. It is also well settled that even in the case of recovery of articles at the instances of the accused, the said recovery is not admissible against him in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, rather the recovery will attribute to the implication of the person from whose possession looted articles have been recovered. 50. It is evident that prosecution has failed to point out during trial that the petitioner was the member of PLFI, though he has been arrayed as a member of PLFI while recording his confessional statement by the P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha, Officer In-charge. 50. It is evident that prosecution has failed to point out during trial that the petitioner was the member of PLFI, though he has been arrayed as a member of PLFI while recording his confessional statement by the P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha, Officer In-charge. However, during trial, no such evidence of the petitioner, having connection with the said extremist group PLFI has been brought to the notice before the learned Court below. 51. It is further evident that Shri. V. Anand, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Simdega, who had recorded the statement of Guddu Khan under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. on 22.03.2014, has not been examined during trial before the learned Court below. 52. It further transpires that prosecution has failed to prove that who was present at the time of T. I. Parade of looted Laptop in question and the said BDO has not been examined by the prosecution. It is further evident that the place of identification of T. I. Parade of articles has neither been disclosed by P.W.-5, Anil Kumar Sharma (2nd I.O. of this case) nor by the P.W.-6, Arun Kumar Mahtha, Officer In-charge nor by the P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, who is the first I. O. of this Case. 53. However, it would appear from the evidence of P.W.-8, Surendra Kumar Singh, who is the first I. O. of this Case that the looted Laptop was shown with three other Laptop to him in the Simdega Police Statin whereas P.W.-4, Manohar Prasad is the informant, had not disclosed that where the T.I. Parade of articles were conducted. 54. It further transpires that chart of T. I. Parade of articles was marked as Ext.-6 on filing of petition under Section 291 (A) of the Cr. P. C. on 18.03.2015 by the prosecution by the learned Court below merely filing of the application by the prosecution and without giving any opportunity to the defence side to rebut the same. 55. It further transpires that the evidence of P.W.-1, Sandeep Prasad was recalled on 11.03.2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega on the application filed by the prosecution as the Material Exhibit Laptop were not produced during his evidence before the learned Court below. 56. 55. It further transpires that the evidence of P.W.-1, Sandeep Prasad was recalled on 11.03.2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega on the application filed by the prosecution as the Material Exhibit Laptop were not produced during his evidence before the learned Court below. 56. It transpires from the Lower Court Records that the petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2014 at 10.00 P.M. in the night and he was remanded in this case on 21.03.2013 on the requisition by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega and though he was granted bail by the High Court on 17.11.2014 vide order dated 17.11.2014 passed in B. A. No. 4192 of 2014, but he could not furnish the bail bond till 07.05.2015 and he filed the bail bond on 07.05.2015 and thus, the petitioner has remained in custody to 21.03.2014 to 07.05.2015 i.e. around one (1) year and one (1) month and 15 days. 57. It further transpires that the learned Court has allowed the petition of the prosecution dated 17.06.2015 filed under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. for making Guddu Khan as an accused, which was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 23.06.2015 by issuing summon against him and a supplementary record was opened for his appearance. 58. It further transpires from the Lower Court Records and the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the police had not conducted T. I . Parade of the accused and the petitioner-Asit Nitin Tirkey was not put on T. I. Parade for his identification, although the informant has claimed in the FIR that he can identify three accused persons, who had committed robbery in his house. 59. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove that its case against the accused-petitioner-Ashit Nitin Tirkey beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 60. 59. In view of the discussion made above, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove that its case against the accused-petitioner-Ashit Nitin Tirkey beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. 60. Under the circumstances, the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega and the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 passed by Sri Satyapal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Simdega P. S. Case No. 163 of 2013 corresponding to G. R. No. 552 of 2013 (T.R. No. 177 of 2015) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of three (3) years for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, are set aside in the interest of justice and the petitioner-Asit Nitin Tirkey is acquitted from the charges for committing the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner-Asit Nitin Tirkey is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 61. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 977 of 2017 is allowed.