S. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and finding dated 5-8-1987, recorded by the Fourth. Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1987, convicting the appellants under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to R. I. for five years and fine of Rs. 3,000 each, in default, R. I. for one year. ( 2 ) IT was the case of the prosecution that in the night of 28-12-1986, five persons, at about 9. 30 p. m. , threw chillies into the eyes of Lakhanlal and looted Rs. 16,500 on the high way near Arjundajhinka Marg. The appellants Ii 2 and 4 are real brothers and residents of village Kodeva. Lakhanlal (P. W. 1) is the resident of village Khotehi. Lakhanlal was on visiting terms with the aforesaid appellants. Appellant No. 3 Jethuram, son of Dauwaram, is resident of village Arjunda. Dauwaram was also an accused, but he was acquitted. On 26-12-1986, a truck bearing No. M. P. J. 8395, belonging to Shriram (P. W. 8), had been loaded with 80 bags of paddy by Sitaram (P. W. 4) from village Kodeva, while 46 bags of paddy by Lakhanlal (P. W. 1) from village Khotehi. They reached Krishi Upaj Mandi, Rajnanrlgoan in the mid-night. Lakhanlal's paddy was sold for Rs. 10,519. 82 paise and the paddy of Sitaram was sold for Rs 6,500. 00. Both of them reached village Arjunda by a bus and started on a bicycle for their home. Sitaram (appellant No. 4) was driving the bicycle, while Lakhanlal (P. W. 1) was sitting at the back of the carrier. Two persons near the place of incident, met Lakhanlal and they got him down from his bicycle, threw chilly powder into his-eyes and snatched Rs. 10,000 from him. Lakhanlal then went to the house of the Kotwar Babulal (P. W. 4 ). Sitaram (appellant No. 4) also reached there. Both of them went separately and informed the said Kotwar that they have been looted on the way, on 28-12-1986 at 1. 00 a. m. Lakhanlal (P. W. 1) lodged his report in police station house at Arjunda. The polite reached on the spot and found the bicycle of accused Sitaram lying on the spot. On 30-12-1986, an amount of Rs. 16,150 was seized from the possession of the appellant No. 1 Mohtarooram. 00 a. m. Lakhanlal (P. W. 1) lodged his report in police station house at Arjunda. The polite reached on the spot and found the bicycle of accused Sitaram lying on the spot. On 30-12-1986, an amount of Rs. 16,150 was seized from the possession of the appellant No. 1 Mohtarooram. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Lakhan Lal has admitted in his statement that he could not identify anyone of the culprits at the time of the incident. He knows the appellants, but, in his report (Ex-P 1), he did not name them. The learned Lower Court has relied on the circumstances only to convict the appellants. The bush shirt of Jethuram, which was seized from his possession, had four buttons, instead of five. Over those buttons, You-Like-Shiva was written. A similar button, over which also, You-Likeshiva was written, had been recovered from the spot of the incident and was seized by Ramesh Kumar Pandey (P. W. 12 ). On the sis of this recovery, the Trial Court held that the appellant No. 3 Jethuram was present on the spot at the time of the incident. ( 4 ) ANOTHER circumstances, taken into consideration by the Lower Court, is that the appellants Mehtaroo, Arjunram and Jethuram went out of the village at about 5. 00 in the evening and did not come back till 7. 00 p. m. They had not taken their dinner as they were absent from the house in the night of the incident. Jethuram is the cousin of appellant No. 4 Sitaram. Jethuram had purchased ground not worth Rs. 2/- and kept them in a piece of newspaper Amrit Sandesh in the evening of 27-12-1986. The said piece of newspaper Amrit Sandesh was found near the place where the appellants are alleged to be in hiding. ( 5 ) THE argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that the circumstances, enumerated by the Trial Court, for basing the appellants conviction under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, are not such as to complete the chain of circumstances. The evidence discussed above, may lead to a suspicion, but the said suspicion does not prove the case of the prosecution. The evidence discussed above, may lead to a suspicion, but the said suspicion does not prove the case of the prosecution. It has been held in para 22 of the judgment that the notices seized from the appellant No. l's possession, are not proved to be the same which were in possession of P. W. 1 Lakhanlal. ( 6 ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, it is clear that the accused persons were known to P. W. 1 Lakhanlal. They were not identified by him at the time of incident. There is no evidence that the appellants were in hiding near the place of incident, or were seen by some one near-about the time of incident near the spot. There had been no identification parade. The notes, recovered from the possession of the appellant Jethuram, had not been proved to be those which were in possession of either P. W. 1 Lakhanlal or accused No. 4 Sitaram. The suspicious circumstances, pointed out by the Trial Court, do not conclusively prove that the appellants were the culprits who committed the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that the prosecution has not proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed. Appellants conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The appellant No. 1 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if no longer required in any other case. The appellants Nos. 2 to 4 on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. .