JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence dated 23-12-1982 passed by Sri S.C. Das, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T. No. 19/71 of 1982 convicting the Appellants u/s 395, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 10 years each. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 16/17-11-1980 there was a dacoity in the godown of Krushna Chandra Prusty (P.W. 4) at Dhanahara and Asbestos sheets numbering more than 100 pieces were stolen away. It is alleged that about 15 to 16 persons went in a truck and forcibly took away Asbestos sheets in the truck giving threats to the Chowkidar (P.W. 1). The police officers examined as P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 intercepted the truck bearing registration No. ORC 5616. The truck did not stop and fled away. However, the truck dashed against an Electric pole near B.J.B. College and it was capsized. The occupants of the truck jumped from the truck and escaped. However, police caught hold of 5 persons. After due investigation, charge sheet was submitted and ultimately 8 persons were put to trial. Out of those 8 persons, three persons were acquitted. Out of the 5 convicted persons, these 3 Appellants have filed the appeal. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 who are Investigating Officers, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge gave the finding that the 5 persons who were caught while running away must be deemed to be in possession of the Asbestos sheets in the truck and hence the Asbestos sheets in the truck are stolen properties being stolen from the god own of P.W. 4. The 5 persons convicted in the case are presumed u/s 114(a) of the Evidence Act to be thieves. 5. The learned ad vocate for the Appellants argued that the Addl. District and Sessions Judge has relied upon the testimony of the police officers only and there is no evidence that the Asbestos sheets in question are stolen properties, an P.W. 4 has not also claimed the ownership of the said Asbestos sheets and hence the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants are vitiated. 6. District and Sessions Judge has relied upon the testimony of the police officers only and there is no evidence that the Asbestos sheets in question are stolen properties, an P.W. 4 has not also claimed the ownership of the said Asbestos sheets and hence the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants are vitiated. 6. Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act runs as follows: 114 Court may presume existence of certain acts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume: (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. It is clear from the above illustration that the presumption u/s 114(a) of the Evidence Act may be available if the goods in question found in the possession of the persons in question soon after the theft, are proved to be stolen property. Unless the goods are proved to be stolen property, the presumption u/s 114(a) of the Act is not available. In order to prove that the goods in question are stolen property, it is necessary to prove that P.W. 4 is the owner of those goods, as it is alleged that more than 100 pieces of Asbestos sheets were stolen from his godown. P.W. 4 has not claimed that the Asbestos sheets seized in this case belong to him. He has also not identified the Asbestos sheets in question. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 are police officers and hence they are not in a position to say that the Asbestos sheets in question belong to P.W. 4. Hence, there is absolutely no evidence that the seized Asbestos sheets are stolen properties. In these circumstances the presumption u/s 114(a) of the Evidence Act cannot be available and hence, the conviction of the Appellants on the basis of that presumption is quite erroneous and illegal and so the conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants are to be set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by against the Appellants are set aside. Appeal allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by against the Appellants are set aside. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed