JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision filed u/s.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 08.09.2017 made in C.A.No.170 of 2017 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, confirming the judgment dated 21.03.2017 made in C.C.No.41 of 2014 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.) This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, in C.A.No.170 of 2017, dated 08.09.2017, confirming the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in C.C.No.41 of 2014, dated 21.03.2017, convicting the petitioner [A2] for offence u/s.392 IPC and sentencing him to ten months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that 2.1. On 01.12.2013 between 10.30 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., PW-1 was going in a two-wheeler along with her daughter and the daughter of PW-1 was driving the two-wheeler. PW-1 was the pillion rider. At that point of time, two persons, who were coming from behind in a two-wheeler, pulled the chain that was worn by PW-1 and they fled the place. According to PW-1, it was a five pound gold chain. PW-1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Erode, on 01.12.2013 at about 01.15 p.m. 2.2. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were arrested in a case in Crime No.189 of 2013 and after they were taken into custody, they gave a confession and based on the confession, certain articles were recovered and one such article was the gold jewels that were in possession of the accused persons. This recovery happened on 18.12.2013. 2.3. PW-1 was called to the police station and she identified the gold chain belonging to her and it was handed over to her [this gold chain was marked as MO-1]. 2.4. Based on the complaint given by PW-1, a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.830 of 2013. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P7. The investigation was taken up by PW-6 and he came to the scene of crime and prepared an observation mahazar marked as Ex.P2 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P8. 2.4. Based on the complaint given by PW-1, a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.830 of 2013. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P7. The investigation was taken up by PW-6 and he came to the scene of crime and prepared an observation mahazar marked as Ex.P2 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P8. The Investigation Officer also recorded the statement of witnesses u/s.161(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW-6 was informed that the accused persons were arrested in a different case and based on their confession, various articles were recovered and one such article was a gold chain. PW-6 immediately contacted the Modakurichi Police Station where Crime No.189 of 2013 was investigated. He also took steps to arrest the accused persons under PT warrant. 2.5. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW-7. On completion of all formalities, ultimately, the final report came to be filed before the trial Court. 2.6. Copies were served on the accused persons u/s.207 Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons. As against A1, the charge u/s.392 r/w 109 IPC was framed. Insofar as A2 is concerned, charge u/s.392 IPC was framed. The accused persons were questioned on the charge and they denied the same as false. 2.7. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and identified and marked MO-1 and MO-2. The incriminating evidence that was gathered during the course of trial was put to the accused persons when they were questioned u/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false. 2.8. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced. 2.9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was heard by the II Additional Sessions Court, Erode, in C.A.No.170 of 2017 and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner [A2] has filed this criminal revision case. 3. Heard Ms.P.Abinaya, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side], appearing for respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that both the Courts below went wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner merely based on recovery. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner [A2] has filed this criminal revision case. 3. Heard Ms.P.Abinaya, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side], appearing for respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that both the Courts below went wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner merely based on recovery. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not even identified before the Court and without the identity of the accused persons, both the Courts below went wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. It was further contended that PW-1 did not establish as to how the gold chain marked as MO-1 belongs to her and to substantiate the same, learned counsel read the deposition of PW-1. Learned counsel concluded her arguments by bringing to the notice of this Court Exs.P5 and P6, which are the admissible portions of the confession marked by the Court below and contended that the same does not satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there are two accused persons in this case and they are habitual criminals. Learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] submitted that A1 had already served sentence and it is only A2, who filed the appeal and has, thereafter, filed this criminal revision case before this Court. It was submitted that the gold chain was recovered from the accused persons and there was absolutely no explanation on the part of the accused persons as to how they came in possession of the gold chain. Hence, learned Government Advocate submitted that this fact by itself is enough to convict and sentence the accused persons for offence u/s.392 IPC. Learned Government Advocate concluded his submissions by contending that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence and rendered the findings and there is absolutely no perversity in the findings of the Courts below and the same does not warrant interference of this Court and consequently, sought for dismissal of this criminal revision. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 7. PW-1 had given a complaint to the effect that she was going along with her daughter in a two-wheeler and two persons, who were coming from behind in a two-wheeler, pulled her chain and fled from the scene of crime. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 7. PW-1 had given a complaint to the effect that she was going along with her daughter in a two-wheeler and two persons, who were coming from behind in a two-wheeler, pulled her chain and fled from the scene of crime. Based on the complaint, a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.830 of 2013. 8. According to the evidence of PW-6, who is the investigation officer, he got an information from Modakurichi Police Station to the effect that two persons were arrested in Crime No.189 of 2013 and based on their confession, certain articles were recovered and out of those articles, there was also a gold chain, which was recovered. Based on this information, PW-6 took steps to arrest the accused persons through PT warrant. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by PW-7. Insofar as gold chain [MO-1] is concerned, the seizure mahazar prepared by the Modakurichi police in Crime No.189 of 2013, was marked before the Court as Ex.P12. Insofar as two-wheeler [MO-2] is concerned, the seizure mahazar prepared by Modakurichi Police in Crime No.189 of 2013 was marked as Ex.P13. 9. PW-1 was asked to come to the police station and was shown the gold chain [MO-1] and she identified the same as her chain. Thereafter, she filed an application before the Court for return of property and the gold chain was handed over to her. During trial, PW-1 produced this gold chain and the same was marked as MO-1. 10. The investigation officer did not take any steps to conduct Test Identification Parade and therefore, till the completion of the investigation, the accused persons were not identified. The present case proceeded purely based on recovery in Crime No.189 of 2013. Even before the Court, the accused persons were not identified by any witness. Even without the identity of the accused persons, the prosecution went ahead with the case and sought to prove the case only based on the recovery. Both the Courts below, after finding that no Test Identification Parade was called for by the investigation officer and that the accused persons were not even identified in the Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons purely based on recovery. 11. The prosecution has attempted to prove this case through circumstantial evidence. Both the Courts below, after finding that no Test Identification Parade was called for by the investigation officer and that the accused persons were not even identified in the Court, proceeded to convict and sentence the accused persons purely based on recovery. 11. The prosecution has attempted to prove this case through circumstantial evidence. No witness has spoken about seeing and identifying the accused persons while the offence was committed. In a case revolving around circumstantial evidence, recovery, at the best, can only be one link in the chain of circumstances. Merely by proving recovery, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved unless the other links in the chain are also proved. It is too well settled that recovery by itself is not a ground to convict the accused person in a case sought to be proved by the prosecution through circumstantial evidence. 12. Even insofar as the gold chain [MO-1] is concerned, PW-1 was not able to establish that the said gold chain belongs to her. She merely states that the chain that was shown to her belongs to her. According to PW-1, it is a five pound gold chain. The prosecution must have at least taken steps to get a certificate from an assessor to establish that the gold chain that was marked before the Court as MO-1 is five pounds. Even this was not done in the present case and everybody went by the ipse dixit of PW-1. In the considered view of this Court, there is absolutely no material to show that MO-1 actually belongs to PW-1. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even the recovery is questionable and is not in line with Section 27 of the Evidence Act. To substantiate the same, learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya & others v. Emperor [ AIR 1947 (PC) 67 ]. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of fact, the confession may be presumed to be true and it is a relevant fact. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of fact, the confession may be presumed to be true and it is a relevant fact. To bring the case u/s.27 of the Evidence Act, the following ingredients must be satisfied: (a) there must be an information; (b) it does not matter whether the information amounts to a confession or not; (c) the person must be in the custody of the police officer; (d) in consequence of the information, a fact must be deposed to as discovered and (e) in such a case, so much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. 15. In the judgment that was cited by learned counsel for petitioner, Justice Sir John Beaumont held that the fact discovered will take within its fold the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. Anything that does not fulfill these requirements cannot be brought within Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 16. The confession of the accused persons was made when they were taken into custody in Crime No.189 of 2013 by the Modakurichi police. The admissible portion of the confession which was marked as Ex.P5 is extracted hereunder: 17. For the sake of the present case, this Court must see the relevant portion within the portion that has been marked as Ex.P5. For proper appreciation, that portion alone is extracted hereunder: 18. The above confession pertaining to the present case, does not come within the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the Pulukuri Kottaya''s judgment, in no uncertain terms, it was held that the fact discovered can only relate to the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. 19. In the present case, the entire confession that has been extracted supra inculpates the accused persons and it is inadmissible u/s.26 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the so called recovery that is sought to be proved through Ex.P5, is unsustainable. If the recovery itself is held to be bad, there is absolutely no ground at all to convict and sentence the petitioner. 20. Hence, the so called recovery that is sought to be proved through Ex.P5, is unsustainable. If the recovery itself is held to be bad, there is absolutely no ground at all to convict and sentence the petitioner. 20. Both the Courts below were overwhelmed by the mere recovery of the gold chain and the Courts below upheld the case of the prosecution, which did not prove any other fact in this case. Even the identity of the accused persons was not proved. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts below suffers from perversity and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court viz., Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, in C.C.No.41 of 2014, dated 21.03.2017 and confirmed by the appellate Court viz., II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, in C.A.No.170 of 2017, dated 08.09.2017, are hereby set aside. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order dated 19.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.14740 of 2017. Since the petitioner is acquitted from the charge, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.