JUDGMENT K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - Leave granted. The two appellants alongwith seven others were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 395 read with 397, I.P.C. The gravamen of the charge against them was that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th July, 1979, the nine accused persons armed with lethal weapons attacked the persons who were travelling in a truck and robbed them of ornaments, cash and wrist watches. A case was registered and the police searched the houses of the two appellants and two others and recovered the alleged stolen articles. The trial court, however, acquitted five of the accused of all the charges but convicted the two appellants and two others under Section 412, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for Seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo RI. for three months. The four convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court: The High Court acquitted the other two accused but confirmed the conviction of the two appellants and reduced the sentence to 11/2 years RI. and the sentence of fine was also reduced to Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to further under go R.I. for) 0 days. Hence the present appeal by the two convicted accused. 2. The only question that falls for consideration is whether an offence punishable under Section 412 is squarely made out? The dacoity which took place on the intervening night of 29th and 30th July, 1979 is not in doubt. The stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the appellants during the investigation. Besides the evidence of the official witnesses there is evidence of P.W. 8, who stated that he purchased these articlcs from the appellants. The appellants could not give any explanation as to how they came into possession of the stolen property. But the question is whether it can be said that the appellants knew that those articles were stolen in dacoity? The prosecution has to prove such knowledge since that is an essential ingredient of Section 412 as compared to the ingredient of Section 411. In the instant case there is no material to come to the conclusion that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the articles were stolen in the course of the dacoity. The prosecution has to prove such knowledge since that is an essential ingredient of Section 412 as compared to the ingredient of Section 411. In the instant case there is no material to come to the conclusion that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the articles were stolen in the course of the dacoity. Therefore the only presumption that can be drawn against them was that they knew that the articles were stolen in which case the offence made out would be one punishable under Section 411, I.P.C. Accordingly the conviction of the appellants under Section 412, I.P.C. and sentence of 11/2 years R.I. there under are set aside. Instead they are convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months RI. The sentence of fine with default clause, is however, confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal allowed partly. For Citation : 1994 Crl. L.J. 1119 = AIR 1994 SC 968 = (1994) 1 SCC 387 = 1994 SCC (Crl.) 526