JUDGMENT 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction u/s 412 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each; and in default of payment to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment dated 28th August, 78 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Bharatpur. 2. The appellants along with other persons were tried for offences under section 395 & 397, IPC. The allegation against them was that on the intervening hight of 7th & 8th July, 75, in Village-Bandwas, a dacoity took place, and the dacoits took away ornaments from the houses of Roopram, Mangtu, Prabhati and Darola. It is alleged that 8-10 persons had come to the village and committed the dacoity. 3. On such report, the police investigated the matter and arrested 5 persons. It is alleged that during custody, the appellants accused gave information for recovery of certain ornaments, u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and on their information, ornaments were recovered. The police submitted a challan against 5 persons under sections 395 & 397, IPC. They were tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The learned trial Judge framed charges against all the accused persons under section 395 & 397. IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guitly and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case. One witness was examined by the accused persons in their defence. The learned trial Judge. after concluding the trial and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that no case was made out under sections 395 & 397, IPC against the accused person. He accordingly acquitted the accused persons of those offences. He however, found that some ornaments were recovered at the instance of Lakhasingh & Faujsingh (appellants herein), and hence, he found them guilty of offence under section 412, IPC, and sentenced each of them as mentioned above. 4. The learned counsel for the accused appellants argued that the learned trial court did not agree with the prosecution story that the accused appellants were amongst the members of the dacoits who committed dacoity, in the village. He as such acquitted both the appellants of offence of dacoity, but the basis of convicting the appellants under section 412 for offence of recovery is not satisfactory. He as such acquitted both the appellants of offence of dacoity, but the basis of convicting the appellants under section 412 for offence of recovery is not satisfactory. According to him, the recovery has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the learned trial court has committed error in believing the solitary statement of the investigating officer, PW 16 Harbansal. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel, and also perused the judgment of the lower court as well as the record of the case. 6. According to the prosecution, on the information of appellant Lakha Singh, some recovery was made vide memo Ex. P. 3; and on the information of Faujsingh appellant, some ornaments were recovered vide memo Ex. P. 4. Both these recovery-memo were prepared on the same date, i.e., 29th Aug., 75. T he recovery witnesses were Bagmal, Babulal and Nemichand. 7. Nemichand has been examined as PW 9. This witnesses Nemichand has proved that the documents Ex. P. 3. & Ex. P 4 bear his signatures, but he has not stated a single word that the ornaments mentioned in those memo were recovered in his presence from the houses of the accused-appellants. Nemichand is a goldsmith, and he was present when the memo Ex. P. 3 & Ex. P. 4 were prepared. He had also weighed the ornaments; and according to his statement, those ornaments were weighed at the spot. But, he has not stated that the recovery of those ornaments were made at his presence. So, Nemichand does not help the prosecution. 8. Another recovery-witness is Bagmal PW 14. I have read the entire statement of this witness. From his statement, it is clear that this witness was forced to sign on the recovery memo, Ex. P. 3 & Ex. P. 4. Those memo, according to this witness were prepared at the police station, and he was compelled to sign on those memo; and an account of fear of the police, he had signed on both those documents. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that some ornaments were recovered from the houses of Lakhasingh and Faujsing. but no memo was prepared at the spot, which were prepared at the police station. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that it is incorrect that the ornaments were recovered in his presence. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that some ornaments were recovered from the houses of Lakhasingh and Faujsing. but no memo was prepared at the spot, which were prepared at the police station. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that it is incorrect that the ornaments were recovered in his presence. He has stated that on account of fear of the police, he had signed those documents. In his cross-examination, he has said to this extent that he was taken by the police with them, from the police station. The articles which the police wanted to get recovered, were taken by the police with them from the police station, who gave the ornaments to the accused persons Lakha Singh and Faujsing and asked them to put them in the 'Kothi' of grain. This shows that the recovery was a planed one. The ornaments which are alleged to have been recovered from the houses of the accused appellants, were taken by the police with them from the police station, who planted them at the houses of the appellants, and later on got them recovered. So, this all was a planted recovery; and a farce. The recovery-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. So the entire recovery becomes doubtful. 9. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not been able to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and thereby, he has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the ornaments were recovered at the instance of the accused-appellants. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on the basis of the recovery is, therefore, erroneous and incorrect hence the conviction of the accused-appellants on the basis of the recovery evidence, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, of the appeal is accepted. The conviction and the sentence passed against the accused-appellants, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge under section 412, IPC, are set aside. Both the appellants are hereby acquitted of the offence as held by the learned trial court. They both are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail-bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal accepted. *******