1. The accused did not appeal against her conviction and at her trial she rather drew suspicion on herself by denying all knowledge of the jewel, whereas there was evidence that at an earlier period she had stated that she found it in her mother's house after her death. But there is no evidence to show whether her mother died before or after the theft, and, therefore, assuming the admissibility of the statements said to have been made to the Panchayatdars, those statements seem to furnish a prima facie reasonable explanation of the possession of the jewel. The Magistrate does not say that they do not do so but seems to consider the fact of possession and the fact that the jewel was unpolished, furnish sufficient evidence of dishonest retention. Considering, however, the length of time that elapsed between the theft and the discovery of the jewel in the possession of the Prosecution 2nd witness, it is difficult to say that possession itself required explanation, and though the fact that the jewel was unpolished, may lead to the inference that accused might have known that it was likely to have been part of a jeweller's stock, it is difficult to see how it throws discredit on her explanation that she found it in her mother's box.
2. If then the statements to the Panchayatdars are admissible, it would seem that the accused should not have been convicted on them as admissions of possession in the circumstances. But if they are not admissible, there was no evidence against the accused in the case. Prosecution witness No. 2 says he received possession from Prosecution witness No. 3, and Prosecution witness No. 3 says she knew nothing about it. The 2nd Prosecution witness's allegation of what Prosecution witness No. 3 said to him is not evidence against the accused, though it might be evidence against Prosecution witness No. 3. In these circumstances, the conviction must be set aside and the accused's bail bond discharged.