(1) THIS appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the High court of Allahabad on 2/08/1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 1978 affirming the conviction and sentence made under Section 395 Indian Penal Code by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. (2) THE prosecution case was that on the alleged night of occurrence i.e. 7/12/1977 at about 10-11 p.m. dacoits numbering about 8 or 10 entered into the house of Bhikharj by breaking open the doors of his kotha. Two of the dacoits were armed with country-made pistols, one was armed with a gun and the others were armed with lathis. The dacoits belaboured the inmates of the house and looted the property after caus- ing injury to them. The dacoits also looted the property from the other three neighbouring houses. Public Witness 2 Bikhari gave the information to the police station about the dacoity stating therein that he would furnish later the list of articles looted by the dacoits. The list of articles however, has not been brought on record by the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case. (3) THE defence of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. He also stated that there had been a quarrel between him and Bikhari. (4) THE courts below did not consider at all the omission of the evidence as to the articles alleged to have been looted by the dacoits. The courts however, convicted the accused under S. 395 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. (5) WE have gone through the case records. We are unable to find any mention of the list of articles alleged to have been looted and taken away from the houses concerned in order to bring home the charge of dacoity under S. 395 IPC. Nor anything was recovered from the appellant. Even the complainant has not stated the nature of articles in . respect of which the dacoity was committed. This essential ingredient of the offence of dacoity being not proved the charge under S. 395 IPC cannot be sustained. (6) WE therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. We direct the respondent-State to release the accused from jail and set him free forthwith.