JUDGMENT Jack, J. - In this case there are six Appellants. Six persons were charged with dacoity, under sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code and three others with dishonest receipt of property stolen in the commission of the dacoity, under sec. 412. Of these, five persons were convicted of dacoity and one Charu Bala Dasi was convicted of an offence under sec. 412. The five convicted of dacoity were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and Charu Bala Dasi, under sec. 412, to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The case for the prosecution is that a dacoity took place in the house of one Subodh Kumar Dey, on the 21st January at about 2 a.m. In the house were Subodh Kumar Dey, his mother Sushilabala, his aunt Draupadibala, Subodh's paternal aunt, Pankajinj Dasi and sou Probodh, and also a sister of Subodh, Indubala. The prosecution case is that the dacoits broke open the door in the verandah and entered the room with burning torches and armed with lathis. They' broke open boxes and trunks in the room of Subodh and in the varandah and took away cash, notes, and gold and silver ornaments. 2. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Several ornaments were recovered from some of them and they claimed that these ornaments were theirs and were not the things stolen in the dacoity. Besides the finding of the ornaments, the only other evidence is that a group of people, including three of the accused, were seen dividing up ornaments at a place about a mile distant during the latter part of the night, about two hours after the dacoity, i.e., Thandoo Shaikh, Bhadoo Shaikh, and Baidya Nath were noticed with others by the side of a beel called Veker Doba, dividing gold and silver ornaments. Also on the morning of the dacoity, several of the accused were seen gathered together at the house of Bhadu Shaikh. 3. [His Lordship proceeded to deal with the cases of the individual accused and after dealing with the cases of Surendra and Nur Mahommad whom he gave the benefit of the doubt and Thandoo Shaikh and Bhadoo Shaikh whom he acquitted in view of the absence of any proper evidence against them, continued as follows:] 4. As regards Baidya Nath Ghose, we find that he was identified by Pankajini. As regards Baidya Nath Ghose, we find that he was identified by Pankajini. Although she says that he was masked at the time, she identified him at the test identification on the 17th February, but at the same time she identified two other persons who were not suspected. The other evidence against him is the fact that he was found wearing a gold finger-ring (Ex. 12) which was identified by Pankajini as belonging to her. 5. This gold ring was not mentioned, as having been stolen, in the long list of items which was supplied at the time the first information was given, nor was it mentioned in the subsequent list, which was furnished on the 24th January or the 10th February, and it was not until a list was filed on the 24th March that this gold ring was mentioned. He was arrested on the 7th February wearing this ring after his house had already been searched. The learned Judge told the jury that Baidyanath in his statement did not account for his possession of the ring. But on reference to his statement we find that he was merely asked, Was this gold ring, Bk. 12, on your finger? to which he replied, Yes, it was. later on, he was asked whether he would say anything else and he then mentioned that he was down with fever about three weeks before the dacoity and after recovering from the fever. he was ailing with a pain on his head. But he made no further remarks about the ring, so that no presumption can be raised against him on the ground that he failed to account for the possession of the ring, because it is not necessarily correct to say that he could not account for its possession. He was not asked to account for his possession of this ring, and to enable the prosecution to draw the presumption under sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, he ought to have been asked to account for his possession. There was no identifying mark on the ring and Pankajini says that it was one of those pledged to her husband. She says that it was not pledged in her presence and that the ornaments which were pledged never used, so that it is not clear how she was able to identify the ring. There was no identifying mark on the ring and Pankajini says that it was one of those pledged to her husband. She says that it was not pledged in her presence and that the ornaments which were pledged never used, so that it is not clear how she was able to identify the ring. The only other evidence against this accused is that he was one of those who was seen dividing the gold and silver ornaments. The evidence shows that he is a substantial cultivator and. in view of this misdirection and of the nature of the evidence against him, we think that this conviction also cannot stand. 6. Finally, we come to the case of Charubala Dasi. In her case certain articles were found in her house, namely, a gold ring (Ex. III), a silver komorpaia (Ex. V), 4 silver churis, (Ex. VI), and one gold-mounted sankha (Ex. VIII). She claims the gold ring as belonging to her son and the other ornaments as having been pawned by a person of Kantaleponta, whose name she could not give to her husband who died 12 years ago. The gold ring was identified by Pankajini as belonging to her husband and she was corroborated by Sushilabala. The silver komorpata was identified by Pankajini as belonging to her as having been pawned with her husband, the gold-mounted copper sankha was also identified as having been pawned with her husband by Patal Mukherjee and Patal Mukherjee, who has given evidence, supported this. In dealing with the case of Charubala, the learned Judge said:-- lf you believe that those ornaments were really lost during this dacoity and were found in the possession of Charubala as alleged at the time, then you can presume, if you do not believe the statement of Charubala, that Charubala is either a dacoit herself or that she received and retained possession of those ornaments with guilty knowledge that those properties were stolen during the commission of a dacoity. 7. Now, this is a misdirection. The proper direction would have been that if they did not think that the account given by Charubala of her possession of these things might reasonably be true, in that case only were they entitled to make the presumption under sec. 7. Now, this is a misdirection. The proper direction would have been that if they did not think that the account given by Charubala of her possession of these things might reasonably be true, in that case only were they entitled to make the presumption under sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, because even if they were not inclined to believe the statement of Charu, but still thought that that statement might reasonably be true, they were not entitled to make the presumption against her. In view of the unreliability of the identification of Pankajini, the fact of this misdirection and the fact that the books in which the pledged ornaments were noted have not been produced, we think in her case also it is not necessary to send back the case for retrial. In her case also, the conviction cannot stand. The result is that the conviction and sentences of all these Appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. Charubala Dasi who is on bail will be discharged from her bail bond. Lort-Williams, J. I agree.