JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.:---Ten persons were charge-sheeted for various offences, out of whom original accused Nos. 1 to 7 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under sections 395, 398 I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 to 10 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under section 412, 414 and 109 I.P.C. Out of these accused persons, accused Nos. 1 to 7 have been found guilty of the offence under section 395 I.P.C. and each of them has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years. Accused Nos. 8 to 10 were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 411 I.P.C. and were convicted of the same and each one of them was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. 2. Original accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 filed this appeal against their convictions, but at the admissions stage appeal of the original accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7, i.e. appellants Nos. 1 to 4, was dismissed by order dated 17-9-1974. This appeal therefore is confined only to original accused Nos. 9 and 10, i.e., original appellants Nos. 5 and 6. 3. Original accused Nos. 9 and 10 were said to be in possession of certain articles said to have been stolen in the dacoity for which accused Nos. 1 to 7 have been convicted. Articles 18 and 19 before the Court were said to have been found in the possession of original accused No. 9, and Articles. 23, 24 and 25 were said to be found in possession of original accused No. 10. Original accused No. 9 in her statement in answer to question No. 24 has stated that these articles did into belong to her and they were not attached from her. Similar is the statement of original accused No. 10 in answer to question No. 26. The panchnama Ex. 49 shows that from the person of original accused No. 9 one while coloured Shelkat and one 9 yards sari were seized from her person. Similarly from the person of accused No. 10 Piranibai one Dhoti, one Kamarpatta or Gardi and one sari were seized. Witness to this panchanama Namdeo Dagadu, P.W. 20, stated in his examination-in-chief that one cotton stole (Shelkat) and a sari were attached from her person. With regard to accused No. 10 he stated that the articles attached from her were one Dhoti, one Girdee, one Sari and one pair of chappal. Witness to this panchanama Namdeo Dagadu, P.W. 20, stated in his examination-in-chief that one cotton stole (Shelkat) and a sari were attached from her person. With regard to accused No. 10 he stated that the articles attached from her were one Dhoti, one Girdee, one Sari and one pair of chappal. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he did not remember whether the police attached from the person of the accused their wearing apparels. So far as accused Nos. 9 and 10 are concerned, according to his recollection, their wearing apparels were attached but he changed again immediately and stated that the apparel of the women accused were left with those accused even after the panchanama and wearing apparel of some male accused were, however, removed from their persons and were attached. 4. This would show that the articles which were said to be on the person of accused Nos. 9 and 10 were not seized from accused Nos. 9 and 10 and the articles which have been produced in Court, viz. Articles 18 and 19, and 23 to 25, cannot be said to be the articles seized from the persons of the original accused Nos. 9 and 10. Accused Nos. 9 and 10 have denied that the articles before the Court belong to them or they were attached from them and their statement is supported by this panch witness Namdeo Dagdu. It has not therefore been established by the prosecution that the articles before the Court, viz. Articles. 18, 19, 23, 24 and 25 are said to be the articles attached from accused Nos. 9 and 10. 5. So far as article 26 chappal is concerned it was not attached from anybodys person but was perhaps lying there. It has also come on record that when accused Nos. 3 to 10 were apprehended by the police on 22nd September, 1973 early in the morning at about 4-30 a.m. all of them were asleep in a row side by side. Accused No. 5 is the husband of accused No. 9 and accused No. 9 was found sleeping by the side of accused No. 5. Accused No. 10 is the wife of accused No. 9 and she was found sleeping by the side of accused No. 7 who was her husband. Accused No. 5 is the husband of accused No. 9 and accused No. 9 was found sleeping by the side of accused No. 5. Accused No. 10 is the wife of accused No. 9 and she was found sleeping by the side of accused No. 7 who was her husband. In these circumstances it cannot be said that if any articles which were found under the bed were in the exclusive possession either of accused No. 9 or accused No. 10. It cannot therefore be said that accused Nos. 9 or 10 were found to be in possession of any of the articles lost in the dacoity. Hence it cannot be also held that they are receivers of stollen property, much less knowing them to be stolen. In either case they are not liable for the offence for which they have been charged. No case has been made out by the prosecution against accused Nos. 9 and 10. They are therefore entitled to acquittal. 6. Accordingly the appeal of original accused Nos. 9 and 10 is allowed. Their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. The aforesaid appellant-accused be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in connection with some other matter. ------