Short Note : 1. On 16-5-1972 in the evening 14 persons were proceeding in five bullock carts to their village Khadera after seiling their grains in the market of Gohad. On the way, at about 9 p.m., near Kalla-ki-kuia, where there is a culvert and village Khathwa nearby, miscreants including Jagdish, Rudsingh, Nathu and Bhota way-led them and looted their cash, gold and Sliver ornaments. wrist-watch, goggles, clothes, etc. In the incident, Kaptan (P.W. 2), Gyaso (P.W. 3) and Harbilas (P.W. 21) were injured by the miscreants. The appellants thereafter decamped with the booty. 2. All the accused were arrested within a short time by the police, looted articles were also recovered from the accused. Accused and articles were identified. 3. Accused Rupsingh was convicted under section 394/34 IPC read with section 27 Arms Act While accused Moham was convicted and sentenced under section 27 of the Arms Act alone. All other 3 persons were found guilty of offence under section 393/34 IPC and were accordingly convicted by the trial Court. Hence this appeal. 4. Held: So far as it being night time, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that it was moon-lit night. Merely because of clouds, scattered here and their-that itself would not come in the way much for identifying the accused. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that torch was used by the miscreants. It was being flashed and that aided them to see the appellants. It is further to be borne in mind that the robbery was committed from such close quarters where the witnesses could clearly see a particular robber. Besides the identification of the accused there is the recovery of articles. It may further be noted that it was no broad-day light or sun-shine so as to mark minure details like small-pox marks or mole or other marks on the face of the miscreants. They could be identified by general appearance. Apparently, there has not been inordinate delay in putting the appellants Nos. 1 to 4 to test identification. That was done within about 15 days. There is no satisfactory evidence to say that the appellants were shown to the witnesses or were kept be-parda. The evidence is otherwise. 5. In the memorandum Ex. P./29 It was specifically mentioned that the appellant had burried the gun. 1 to 4 to test identification. That was done within about 15 days. There is no satisfactory evidence to say that the appellants were shown to the witnesses or were kept be-parda. The evidence is otherwise. 5. In the memorandum Ex. P./29 It was specifically mentioned that the appellant had burried the gun. Thereafter, during recovery it was dug out, spot map was also drawn and the same is Ex. P/29. Therein also the fact of digging out of the gun is specifically mentioned. The evidence clearly discloses that the spot from where the gun was noticed is a 'Medh' of the field far away from the road. Thus. it cannot be said that this burried gun was at an open place, which was frequented by people or access able to all and sundry, It is a proved and admitted fact that the appellant Rupsingh did not hold any licence for the possession of the gun. He has not given a reasonable explanation regarding the alleged recovery, at his instance. It was obvious that the details of this gun could not be clearly marked by the witnesses and therefore, naturally They could not say that it is the same gun which was there with one of the miscreants at the time of the robbery. Thus, the offence under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, besides the offence of robbery under section 394/34 IPC is made out against the appellant. 6. In my view, there ought to have some further evidence to link this appellant Moharu with the appellant Rupsingh to hold conclusively that he had given this gun to Rupsingh for the commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the State argued that the appellant Moharu was supposed to keep the gun carefully and ought to have reported the theft of the gun to the police. In this nnection, the offence took place in the night on the very next day the gun was discovered. We cannot presume that appellant Moham was bound to detect the theft of his gun the same night or next day. The appellant Rupsingh belongs to village Samaliya while the appellant Moharu belongs to a different village called 'Gumanpura', We do not know that these villages are adjoining. So also, we do not know that the appellant Rupsingh and Moharu were friendly and there was any link between them. The appellant Rupsingh belongs to village Samaliya while the appellant Moharu belongs to a different village called 'Gumanpura', We do not know that these villages are adjoining. So also, we do not know that the appellant Rupsingh and Moharu were friendly and there was any link between them. Therefore, the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be said to have been establislied against the appellant Moharu beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, he is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. Appeal of Moharu allowed and of remaining dismissed.