Short Note : 1. The appellant, who was convicted under section 394 IPC, Was heard in person and the record of the case perused. PW. 1 complainant Onkar did not identify the appellant as one of the culprits who committed the dacoity at his house. The only evidence against the appellant adduced by the prosecution was that in pursuance of the information given by the appellant a pot (Art. A) on which the name of the complainant was engraved, was recovered on 9th August 1975. P.W. 1 Onkar and P.W. 3 Birajbai have identified the pot (Art. A) was the one belonging to the complainant whose name was engraved on the pot as is clear from the seizure memo Ex. P/5. That pot was recovered in pursuance of the information given by tile appellant as stated by P.W. 4 Nathuprasad. The appellant has failed to give any account for the possession of the Tapela (Art. A). In the circumstances of the case, however, no presumption can be drawn that the appellant had committed robbery in the' course of which hurt was caused to P.W.1 Onkar. The conviction of the appellant under section 394 IPC cannot be sustained in law. The appellant can only be convicted of an offence punishable under section 411 IPC. Appeal partly allowed.