GOPALASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is preferred by one Mahadeb Mahakur, son of late Sitaram Mahakur, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the learned, Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No 58 of 1981 directing that the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to III and the plastic box M. S. XIII should be returned to the accused who was acquitted in the case.

( 2 ) IN the said Sessions Case No 588 of 1981 the accused stood his trial under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that he robbed one Basanta Mahakur the sister of the present appellant Mahadeb Mahakur, of her gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to III and murdered her and caused disappearances of the evidence relating to the murder. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to prove satisfactorily any of the charges framed against the accused and therefore acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against him. While so acquitting the accused, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order directing that the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to II and the plastic Box M. O. XIII, seized from the accused should be returned to the accused, and being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the brother of deceased Basanta Mahakur.

( 3 ) SO the Scope of the present appeal is confined to a consideration of the evidence to find out if the learned Sessions Judge was justified in passing the impugned order directing the delivery of M. Os. 1 to XIII to the accused acquitted in the sessions case.

( 4 ) IN the sessions case, the story of the prosecution was that, at the instance of the accused, the appellant (P. W. 2) sent his sister Basanta Mahakur along with the gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII to Ranipeli, the village of the accused, along with his son and daughter and she was residing at Ranipali in the house of the accused. The accused stated that the said Basanta Mahakur was residing at Ranipali but she was not residing in his house. During the course of the trial, the accused claimed that M. Os. 1 to XII, the gold ornaments and the plastic box M. O XIII belonged to him. The prosecution bas examined in all 11 prosecution witnesses to prove its case. P. W. 1 is the sisters daughter of P. W. 2, Mahadeb Mahakur the present appellant. P. W. 5 is the wife of P. W. 2. P. W. 6 is the eldest sister of P. W. 2. For the present appeal P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 who are related to Basanta Mahakur and the independent witnesses P. Ws. 3, 7 and 9 are the material witnesses. According to the prosecution the accused had committed the murder of Basanta Mahakur and took away her gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII. But on a careful consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence to show that the accused (Respondent No2) had committed the murder of Basanta Mahakur or that he robbed her gold ornaments and so acquitted the accused of all the charges.

( 5 ) NO appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge further found that even the death of Basanta Mahakur was not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. In this background the question to be considered is whether M. Os. 1 to XIII belonged to Basanta Mahakur or to the accused.

( 6 ) BASANTA Mahakur is the daughter of Sitaram Mahakur. According to the prosecution, the said Sitaram Mahakur was having gold ornaments M. Os. 1 to XII and after the death of Sitaram Mahakur, it was Basanta Mahakur, who kept the gold ornaments in her custody and she took them with her to Ranipali. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are interested witnesses and they have stated that M. Os. 1 to XII belonged to Basanta Mahakur. The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 that M. Os. 1 to XII, gold ornaments belonged to Basanta Mahakur, did not receive any support from any of the independent and reliable witnesses. The evidence of P. W. 1, grand daughter of Sitaram Mahakur, shows that Sitaram Mahakur had no immovable property or a