VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) HAN - Shanker Prasad SI Baijnath Rio. Nath Bazar, P. S. Shalljanwalo District Gorakhpur has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 27/4/1984, passed by Sri Raghunath Prasad, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No. 315 of 1982, The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge by the said judgment and order has directed that material exhibits 1 to 27 (one golden Hasuli, a pair of Karnphool, one golden Tikuli, one pair of Silver Payal, three silver saucons three pairs of silver kade, three silver Hasulis and one silver Payal, One Tabka, two nose rings) shall escheat to the late and shall be destined and the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the Government Treasury after expiry of the period of appeal. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in the night intervening 18/19-1979 at about mid night nine or ten dacoits raided the house of appellant Han Shanker Prasad. The dacoits were variously armed. They committed dacoity in the house of the appellant and during the course of dacoity they also committed murder of Shambhu Prasad brother of the appellant. The dacoits were recognised in the light of torches and lantern. After looting the house of the appellant they also ransacked the house of Rira Lal and made good their escape. The appellant lodged First Information Report at P. S. Sahjanwa. The lists of the articles looted in the dacoity was also given to the police vide Exts. Ka-2 and Ka-3. On the loding of the First Information Report the case was investigated. During the course of infestation the Investigating officer arrested Anup Tiwari and recovered Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Investigating Officer also made recoveries of Exts. 5 to 27 from the shop of accused Jag Mohan. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Accused Anup Tiwari was charged for the offence U/s. 326 I. P. C. as well as U/s. 412 I. P. C. while accused Jag Mohan was charged u/s. 412 I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur acquitted both the accused and he has directed that material Exhibits, 1 to 27 shall escheat to the State. Accused Anup Tiwari was charged for the offence U/s. 326 I. P. C. as well as U/s. 412 I. P. C. while accused Jag Mohan was charged u/s. 412 I. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur acquitted both the accused and he has directed that material Exhibits, 1 to 27 shall escheat to the State. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the Order of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, the appellant has come up in appeal in this Court. ( 6 ) I have heared the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned State Counsel and gone through the record. It is not denied that an armed dacoity was committed at the house of appellant Han Shanker Prasad and in the course of dacoity large number of gold and silver ornaments were looted and Shambhu Prasad was murdered. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also accepted the factum of dacoity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not satisfied with the, evidence connecting Anup Tiwari for the offence u/s. 396 I. P. C. so far as Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are concerned the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that even though the accused had not claimed the articles belonging to them, the evidence regarding recovery from accused Anup Tiwari as well as Jag Mohan was doubtful. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration certain statements made by the witnesses in which they have not claimed the recovered articles as belonging to them. ( 7 ) A perusal of the record goes to show that in all probability as there was a compromise out court between the accused and the complainant and other witnesses of the case. Since the offence u/s. 306 as also the offence u/s. 412 I. P. C. were not compoundable. The witnesses preferred to resile from the prosecution case regarding the identity of the accused and the ownership of the property. P. W. 1 Ram Ji supported the prosecution case during the examination-in-chief but he turned round in cross-examination and stated that accused Anup Tiwari used to visit his village very often, thus he tendered the evidence of identification of the accused valueless, P. W. 2 Ban Shankar Prasad (appellant) and P. W, 5 Nazir turned hostile and did not support and the prosecution case. It appears that in their zeal to save the accused they did not claim the ownership of the property of the trial. However, the facts remains that the accused have also not claimed the ownership of the property and they have also not made any application or filed any appeal in this Court for the return, of the property. The only person claiming the property is Ram Shankar Prasad. As mentioned earlier a dacoity had in fact been committed at the house of the appellant and the property had bail looted. ( 8 ) IN the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Trial Court that Exts. 1 to 27 shall escheat to the State is set aside. It is directed that these material Exts. i. e. 1 to 27 be returned to the appellant. Appeal allowed. .