JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - The 12 Appellants have been convicted of offences under Sections 395 and 895/109 of the Indian Penal Code (Tantia) and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and they have appealed from jail. The dacoity took place in July, 1932, in the village of Sonjna, and it was not until about a year later that any one was arrested. The arrest of Kunji however led to the further arrest of Narainju, who made a confession about the Sonjna dacoity and several others, and the station officer got into touch with the Batia and Seonra Police with the result that further arrests were made by the State Police and stolen property was recovered from some of the Appellants. The dacoity in fact appears to have been the work of a gang, most of whom lived outside British India, and the dacoits took the precaution before they actually perpetrated the dacoity of seizing and binding the only man of the village who had a licence for a gun. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence relating to each of the Appellants in great detail and with great care. In some cases, the evidence is overwhelming, and as three of the dacoits made confessions and there were a number of identifying witnesses and a quantity of property recovered from the possession of different Appellants, it is not surprising that all the assessors have found all the Appellants to be guilty. The present appeals are merely based on the suggestion that they are innocent and do not raise any special question. 2. An exception however must be made in the case of Tantia, who has been convicted u/s 395/109. He was named by two of the dacoits who confessed; but their statements are the statements of accomplices, and there is no corroborative evidence. It cannot be said therefore that the case against him has been proved by legal evidence, and he is entitled to an acquittal. The learned Judge has remarked that the case against him depends on the statement of a co-accused, but that as it had not been proved that the co-accused even knew Tantia by name and identified him from among a number of persons, there were grounds for holding that this evidence was sufficient. The learned Judge has remarked that the case against him depends on the statement of a co-accused, but that as it had not been proved that the co-accused even knew Tantia by name and identified him from among a number of persons, there were grounds for holding that this evidence was sufficient. It may be that the statement of Narainju is perfectly true, but it is the invariable practice of the Courts not to convict on the uncorroborated statement of an accomplice. It should be added that Narainju was not even an approver, but was a co-accused. 3. In the case of all the other Appellants the evidence is ample and it is not necessary to discuss it in detail. I therefore allow the appeal of Tantia for the reasons given, set aside the conviction and sentence in his case, and direct that he be acquitted and released. The appeals of the other Appellants are dismissed.