Judgment Om Prakash, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against judgment dated 6th August, 1984 in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 1982 (14 of 1984) of the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, District West champaran, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the Second assistant Sessions Judge, Bettiah, dated 14th June, 1982, passed in Sessions trial No.126 af 1976 convicting petitioner Chinay Yadav (and another) for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on each count. 2. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on the night in between 19th and 20th April, 1975, a police party headed by informant N. Mishra. the then officer-in-charge of Valmikinagar Police Station in the district of West champaran, was on night round At about 2.30 A. M. the informant and his parly saw 7-8 persons sitting in Jagdhawa forest. Having a look at the police party, they started running. But on chase petitioner Chinak Yadav and another Gopi Yadav were arrested while their associates managed to escape. The chasing police party was fired upon. Police Party, too, opened fire but without success. In due course petitioner Chinak Yadav and Gopi yadav were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sec.399 and 402 I. P. C and were convicted, as above. They preferred an appeal which was dismissed. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that the very fact that the appellants i. e. petitioner Chinak Yadav and Gopi Yadav, who belonged to U. P. were found in Jagdahwa Jungle situated in West Champaran at very odd hour clearly indicates that they along with others who succeeded in flying away had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity and they had made preparation for the same as some of them were armed with fire arms which they used against the police party for escaping by jumping in Gandak river. 4. In my view no such inference on such material can legally be drawn. 4. In my view no such inference on such material can legally be drawn. It is quite possible that the petitioner and his associates who were armed with fire arms, might have assembled in the said forest or might be making preparation there to arrange or manage for or to Insure illegal falling of trees even at the point of fire arms or even to murder official of forest department putting obstracles in their way or even any body else. Persons armed with fire arms sitting with such intention or aim and object too, would like to escape having a glance at a police party. Persons can not legally be convicted tor the offences under Sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that they were making preparation for committing dacoity and they were persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. But in the instant case there appear nothing on the record to show that petitioner Chinak Yadav and his associates were making preparation for committing dacoity or they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. 5. In the case of Chaturji Yadav V/s. The State of Bihar, as reported in air 1979 SC 1412 , eight persons including the appellant were found in the school premises which was quite close to the market at 1 a. m. and some of them were armed with guns, some had cartridges and others ran away. Then it was held that the mere fact that these persons were found at I a. m. did not by itself prove that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparation to accomplish that object. The possibility that the appellants might have collected for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing some other offence could not be safely eliminated. Conviction under Sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. was held to be unsustainable. 6. From the above, it is clear that there is uo legal evidence to prove the charges under Sections 399 and 402 1. P. C. against the petitioner.1 am, therefore, of the opinion that his conviction is illegal and improper and it cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, I set aside the order of his conviction and sentence passed against him He is acquitted of the charges framed against him and is discharged from the bail bonds. Revision allowed.