ORDER :

Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand.

3. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment of confirmation dated 15.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 118/2012. The trial court’s judgment is dated 29.02.2012 passed in R.P. Case No. 157/1993, T.R. No. 14 of 2012 by the learned Additional Railway Magistrate, Dhanbad.

4. The learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.02.2012 for Imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for another six months for offence under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act of 1966).

Submissions of learned amicus

5. The learned amicus appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments suffer from perversity, inasmuch as, neither the complainant has been examined, nor the complaint petition has been proved and the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner and that of co-accused. He further submitted that apart from the confessional statements, there is no other material whatsoever to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

6. The learned amicus also submitted that so far as the confessional statement of the present petitioner is concerned, the same was marked as Exhibit- 2/8 and is dated 26.11.1993 and the seizure is on 16.11.1993 (Exhibit-1/1). The other seizure is dated 12.11.1993 (Exhibit-1) at Godown-cum-residence of coaccused Babulal Gupta and at that time also, the petitioner was nowhere in picture. He submitted that considering the dates of seizure, it cannot be said that the confession was leading to recovery, rather the confession of the petitioner was recorded after the seizure.

7. The learned amicus further submitted that on one hand, there is no recovery pursuant to confession and on the other hand, the confession by itself cannot be the sole basis of conviction of the petitioner as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The learned amicus submitted that the officers of Railway Protection Force are also police officials as per Section 8 of the aforesaid Act and accordingly, the confession made before police official is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is accordingly not admissible in evidence. The learned amicus relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of State versus Radhakrishnan and others, reported in (1993) Cr.L.J. 1457 and also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of State versus Prahallad Rath and others, reported in (2007) Cr.L.J. 1189 to submit that the petitioner cannot be convicted on the basis of the confessional statements. Lastly, the learned amicus also submitted that specific question with regard to the confessional statements was not put to the petitioner under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, his conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. The learned amicus submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the crime and accordingly, the petitioner has been wrongly convicted by the learned courts below.

Arguments of the State

9. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below after scrutinizing the evidences on record and accordingly, there is no scope for reappreciation of evidences and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction. However, the learned A.P.P. does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was made accused on the basis of confessional statement of