JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 15th April, 1976. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 28th March, 1972, Arjun Lal gave a written report that on 27th March, 1972, in village Todi 14 sheep-heads were found missing from the Kheda where they were grazing. Gyarsi Lal and Arjun made search of the lost cattle and they found the same on the following day in the Jhumpa of Bhima Ram Jat. They also found accused Dhanna sitting by the side of the Jhumpa. The police registered a case against the accused under Section 379. IPC and arrested him. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced 8 documents. 3. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. 1898. The accused stated that he was caught by the people at a distance of half a mile from the village of Bhima Ram and also contended that he was beaten by the village people. He also denied to have confined the sheep in the jhumpa. According to Parsa and Surja the sheep were locked in the jhumpa which was there on the field of Bhima Ram. It was also contended that they went to jungle Shyampura after tracking the steps of the alleged thief. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused on 29th December, 1975 under Section 379, IPC, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment only. 4. On behalf of the accused-petitioner, it has been contended that when the village people are stated to have tracked the foot-prints of the accused-petitioner no evidence has been led to establish that the foot-prints which they saw on the ground were of the accused-petitioner. No foot moulds have been taken and no expert has been examined. It was also contended that there is no evidence on record as to who had locked the cattle in the jhumpa on the fields of Bhima Rara. The investigating agency did not take pains to recover the broken lock and the key, and also did not take steps to find out as to who had locked the jhumpa and who was in possession of the key. Th learned Magistrate has observed that "On a cursory look of the prosecution evidence" he found the accused guilty of the offence of theft. Th learned Magistrate has observed that "On a cursory look of the prosecution evidence" he found the accused guilty of the offence of theft. The prosecution witness PW/4 Magna had claimed the cattle-heads to be his, while according to the prosecution story the sheep belonged to Khusla. The learned Magistrate on this point has made the following observations:- "In my opinion this was under some misconception as the village folk consider theft on any one's house as theft in his own house and it is probable that Magna belongs to the family of Kushla Ram and it was in these circumstances that he said that his sheep were recovered from the Jhumpa". 5. The learned Magistrate while taking recourse to the provisions of section 114-A of the Evidence Act has drawn a presumption as the accused was found sitting close to the jhumpa, a presumption shall arise that he had committed the theft of the sheep and that he was found in possession thereof. 6. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained the conviction, though the sentence was reduced. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has written a very sketchy order. I am constrained to observe that such a sketchy judgments, where the prosecution evidence is not marshelled or analysed, only leads to the irresistible conclusion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind to the facts on record. 7. The prosecution case seriously suffers from the lacuna as to who was in the actual possession of the sheep which were standing in the field of Bhima Ram. It has not been brought out by the prosecution as to with whom the key of the Jhumpa was. 8. It is also not understandable as to how the presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act could be drawn only on the fact that the accused petitioner was found sitting near the jhumpa. The sheep were found locked in the jhumpa. The key of the jhumpa is not stated to be with the accused petitioner. If certain articles are locked how does a presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act could arise. The learned Magistrate has taken a curious view in holding that the theft in the village in any ones property could be termed as theft in any individuals house. 9. If certain articles are locked how does a presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act could arise. The learned Magistrate has taken a curious view in holding that the theft in the village in any ones property could be termed as theft in any individuals house. 9. Having given my most anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused-petitioner. The judgments of the learned Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge have not dealt with the points involved in the case at all. In these circumstances, it is exceedingly difficult to hold that the accused-petitioner could be convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner are hereby quashed and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 379, IPC. His bail bonds are here by cancelled. *******