B. C. VERMA J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Santosh Kumar appeals against his conviction under sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) MANGIYABAI (P. W. 1) an old -lady with rather a weak eye-sight with some ornaments on her person was intervened at about 8. 30 a. m. on 16. 7. 1982 when she was proceeding on the main road near Barela in Jabalpur district. She was assaulted and her ornaments were taken away. The appellant, a shepherd-boy was chased, caught and brought back to Mungiyabai. Meanwhile, on receiving intimation police reached on the spot and arrested the appellant. Mungiyabai is said to have lodged the first information report which is Ex. P- I and was recorded by Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8) Dr. Tejkishan Mota (P. W. 3) examined Mungiyabai. The injury reports are Ex; s P/5 and P/6. From the appellant Balua is seized vide Ex, P/7. He is also said to have discovered certain ornaments which were seized vide Ex. P 19. These ornaments, belong to Mungiyabai (P. W. 1 ). Besides Mungiyabai, Purshottam (P. W. 4) and Jagrupram (P. W. 5) have been examined as eyewitnesses. ( 3 ) THE prosecution attributed the robbery to the appellant. It is he who is alleged to have first talked to Mungiyabai and later when she went a little further on the road, the appellant is said to have assaulted her with Bollia and snatched ornaments from body. She cried at which Purshottam reached the spot. Appellant is said to have run away, was chased and caught. He was brought to injured Mungiyabai who identified him as the person who beat her and robbed her of her ornaments. The police then proceeded to formal investigation and first information report (Ex. P/i) was recorded by Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8 ). Appellant is then alleged to have made discoveries of the ornaments. All these accusations have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who after trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt amply proved that someone assaulted Mungiyabai on the way and robbed her of her ornaments which were later seized and identified by her. This part of the story was not even questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt amply proved that someone assaulted Mungiyabai on the way and robbed her of her ornaments which were later seized and identified by her. This part of the story was not even questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. Mungiyabai (P. W. 1) is duly corroborated in this behalf by Purshottam (P. W. 4 ). That she received injuries is also proved by Dr. Tejkishan Mota. (P. W. 3 ). The identity of the person so snatching and looting Mungiyabai was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant who was also very critical about the conduct of the Investigating officer Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8 ). In my opinion the submissions so made have substance. ( 5 ) MUNGIYABAI (P. W. 1) deposed that while she was walking along the road, the appellant wanted to know where she was going. He then is said to have assaulted from behind. Two blows were struck on the head and she fell down unconseious. The appellant then took out ornaments from her person. The appellant had to make effort in taking Todal from her feet and she received injury in her leg during that process. She raised cries and uttered. People gathered and chased the appellant, who was caught at some distance. The appellant was brought back to her. The ornaments were with the appellant. Police arrived in the village and she narrated the incident. Ex P-l report was lodged by her In cross-examination she stated that her son-in-law and one Jagrupram Choubey (P. W. 5) had gone to the police station. The ornaments reached her back before the arrival of the police. In the next breath she said that the ornaments remained with the persons who captured the appellant. She deposes that she went to the police station from the spot of incident only. She admitted that when she saw the appellant for the first time, he was sitting at a place watching his goat and sheep which were grazing there. She also admitted that her eye-sight had gone weak. She also admitted that she and the appellant never came face to face. She further deposed that she could not clearly see beyond eight or ten paces and she could not recognise a person beyond ten paces. She also admitted that her eye-sight had gone weak. She also admitted that she and the appellant never came face to face. She further deposed that she could not clearly see beyond eight or ten paces and she could not recognise a person beyond ten paces. Further she deposed that hearing her cries, the school boys reached there first and then they called all the persons. To them also she told that Bhadhan beat her and snatched her ornaments. She could not deny the presence of other persons although she was definite about the appellant being one among them. Purshottam (P. W. 1) through whom the prosecution sought to corroborate the version of (P. W. 1 ). also is not very helpful to the prosecution. He has first deposed that the appellant had Farsa in his hand. According to him, not only he but others ran after the appellant and could catch him after chasing him for a mile and a half. According to him, the appellant ran through the fields and even crossed the hillock before he could be caught. The other had known the appellant. He has stated that when the appellant was caught he denied to have robbed Mungiyabai and slated that he was only grazing goats in paragraph 6 of his deposition, he has stated that when appellant was caught he did not hand over the ornaments to him. According to this witness, ornaments were not in possession of the accused then. Jagrupram (P. W. 5) is no better. According to him also when the appellant was caught he denied to have beat Mungiyabai or to have robbed her of her ornaments. . He denied his case diary statements on many material particulars. ( 6 ) WHAT makes the prosecution story very doubtful is the conduct of the Investigating Officer Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8 ). According to him, on being interrogated the appellant told that he had hidden the ornaments and the Farsa in Malguzars field. A memorandum (Ex. P-8) was then prepared and according to him, at the instance of the appellant, the were discovered from the field and were seized vide Ex. p 9. Ex. P/i was the report which he says he recorded at the instance of Mungiyabai. A memorandum (Ex. P-8) was then prepared and according to him, at the instance of the appellant, the were discovered from the field and were seized vide Ex. p 9. Ex. P/i was the report which he says he recorded at the instance of Mungiyabai. Now all this is falsified by the statement of Mungiyabai (P. W. 1) herself who in quite unequivocal terms stated that the police report was lodged on the spot only. She never told anything to the police but put her thumb impression was affirmed on a document. According to her, she lay in a truck. No information was solicited from her. She even went to state that she was told to state in the Court that she made the report. Regarding ornaments, she stated that the ornaments were seen by her on the spot but she was unable to state if she saw them at the police station also. Her statement only shows that the investigating Officer Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8) has tried to concoct the case. No proper first information report was recorded and no proper discoveries of ornaments were made. On the other hand, Investigating Officer Bakhat Singh (P. W. 8), probably in a zeal to make out a ease, made a show of discoveries of the ornaments and the weapon at the instance of the appellant which part of the story appears to be totally false because even according to the prosecution witnesses and particularly complainant Mungiyabai, the ornaments were given back to her by the appellant himself. ( 7 ) THE above circumstances clearly bring out that the recovery of ornaments and the alleged weapon of offence has to be completely discarded. As the persecution ease on this vital part cannot be accepted, the other part of story must only be received with great caution. I have earlier shown that it will not be possible to believe Mungiyabai to say that it was the appellant who belt her and robbed her. ihe other evidence only consists. of the chase to catch the appellant and his being brought to Mungiyabai. The appellant had then only denied the incident. As the discovery of ornaments from him is completely unreliable, there is nothing left to connect him with the incident. ihe other evidence only consists. of the chase to catch the appellant and his being brought to Mungiyabai. The appellant had then only denied the incident. As the discovery of ornaments from him is completely unreliable, there is nothing left to connect him with the incident. From the mere fact that the appellant was seen running, was chased and caught, it will not be possible to hold that he was the person who assaulted Mungiyabai and snatched away ornaments from her person. In my opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that is as the appellant who beat Mungiyabai and took away her ornaments. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given due weight to the circumstances under which the recovery of ornaments and the weapon of offence was made and the conduct of the Investigating Officer as I have shown above. He has also not scrutinized the statement of Mungiyabai where she says that she would not be able to recognise a person even at a distance of 10 or 12 feet. That being good is agreeing with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I hold the appellant not guilty of the offence charged. In my opinion, he is entitled to be acquitted. ( 8 ) THE appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed. .