Short Note : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd September, 1975, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, in Sessions Trial No.150 of 1974. The appellant has been convicted under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100 or in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Held: The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of eye-witnesses Mayaram (PW.1), Mangilal (PW.2), Rekha (PW.4) and Shivshanker (PW.5) who claimed to have identified the appellant as one of those who committed robbery. Asharam (PW.9) deposed that the identification parade was conducted by the Tahsildar Burve vide Ex. P. 2 ; but that Tahsildar could not be examined as he had retired and that his address was not available. It is difficult to appreciate that the address of a retired Government servant was not traceable. There is no material on record to show what efforts were made to trace Shri Burve. The prosecution thus failed to examine the person who conducted the identification parade or any of the Panch witnesses before whom the identification proceedings were conducted. Shivshanker (PW.5) had also deposed that at the time of the commission of robbery, the accused were amask. No doubt that this witness stated that while committing robbery the face of the appellant was uncovered but in the absence of any evidence regarding identification parade and in view of the fact that the eye-witnesses could not have had sufficient opportunity to identify the accused, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses alone for holding that the appellant was one of those who had committed robbery. The other incriminating evidence against the accused was that when he was apprehended, he was found to be wearing a Manila shirt (Art. A) which was alleged to be the property of the complainant Mayaram. I have gone through the testimony of Mayaram (PW.1). No doubt he has stated that the Manila shirt (Art. A) belonged to him; but the witness did not assign any reason or give out any mark by virtue of which be could identify the shirt. I have gone through the testimony of Mayaram (PW.1). No doubt he has stated that the Manila shirt (Art. A) belonged to him; but the witness did not assign any reason or give out any mark by virtue of which be could identify the shirt. It is regretted that in a case of highway robbery, the prosecution did not choose to place such material on record all would establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State conceded that the evidence on record was insufficient for holding the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. In there circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in law. Appeal allowed.