FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused/respondents 1 to 5 under Sections 395, 396 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE incident is said to have taken place in Village Chhanavani, P. S. Bhonti, Tehsil Pichhore, Districr Shivpuri in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd of January, 1975. It is alleged that the accused persons duly armed with deadly weapons came and committed dacoity in the houses of Vishvanath and Ratanlal and in that process caused injuries to Kailash Narayan. Mahila Kasturi, Ramkishan. Vishvanath, Sarupibai and Ratanlal. Ratanlal was said to have been inflicted fatal injury as a result of which he succumbed to death. The report of the incident was lodged by Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW 15) on 22-1-1975 at 12. 30p. m. at P. S Bhonti, Tehsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri, which is Ex. P/34 on record. It show the distance about 22 km. from the place of occurrence. From the FIR it also appears that Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW 15) had accompanied Babukhan sb Kotwar Fateh Mohammad. It is also mentioned that the lodger of the FIR was not in a position to give any particulars/details or the identification mark, which could only be given by the inhabitants of the houses. The SHO registered the offence at Crime No. 9/75 and proceeded for investigation. Ex. P /1 is the list of looted articles, which was supplied by Kishorilal s/c Omkarlal Vaishya. Kishorilal was examined by the prosecution as PW 1. ( 3 ) FROM the record, it also appears that the matter could not be solved by the police. In other words, the police could not get any clue. It was only on 9-11-1976 that Inspector Karera arrested the accused persons and then they were brought to the Police Station, Bhopti. PW 18 Lakhansingh Sharma is the SHO, who prepared the arrest-memo (Ex. P136) on 13-11-1976. It is alleged that accused persons gave an information, which is recorded and on that basis the articles were seized as per Exs. P/8 to P/11. The accused persons thereafter were put for identification as per Exs. P/2 and P/4. As per Ex. P/2, Vishvanath identified Kiratsingh and Sitaram and Badriprasad identified Gumersingh. Jasrat and Kiratsingh. As per Ex. P/4. Kailash s/o Omkarlal identified Kiratsingh. Sitaram and Gumersingh. P/8 to P/11. The accused persons thereafter were put for identification as per Exs. P/2 and P/4. As per Ex. P/2, Vishvanath identified Kiratsingh and Sitaram and Badriprasad identified Gumersingh. Jasrat and Kiratsingh. As per Ex. P/4. Kailash s/o Omkarlal identified Kiratsingh. Sitaram and Gumersingh. Ramkishan identified accused Kanchansingh and Jasratsingh, Mulia identified accused Kiratsingh and Gumersingh and Jagna identified accused Sitaram and Gumersingh. The articles were seized as per Ex. P/3 and they were also put for identification and the memo (Ex. P/5) was prepared on 17-12-1976. Ex. P /6 is another memo for identification in which none of the accused persons could have been identified. Identification of the Coat was got conducted as per Ex. P/7. ( 4 ) DURING trial the accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded not guilty. ( 5 ) THE learned Trial Court having considered the entire material on record found that there is no legal and reliable evidence on record to sustain the conviction as the evidence of identification was not found reliable. The learned trial Judge also found that the articles which have been recovered from accused/respondents 2 to 4 i. e. Sitaram. Kanchan Singh and Gumersingh have not been duly proved looted property by the legal and reliable evidence. The learned trial Judge however, convicted Kiratsingh accused/respondent No. 1, for the offence under Section 412. I. P. C. and sentenced to three years S. I. with a fine of Rs. 100/ -. In default of payment of fine, undergo for six months. Besides this all the accused persons have been acquitted of the offences under Sections. 365, 395, 396 read with Section 397 of I. P. C. ( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal accused-respondent No. 1 Kiratsingh died. The appeal therefore, against him stands abated. Now, the appeal is only against respondents/accused Nos. 2 to 5. ( 7 ) AFTER perusal of the order-sheets of this appeal. it appears that this Court issued repeatedly warrants of arrest against the accused-respondents but they were not served. Even several opportunities were granted to the State/appellant to take appropriate steps to get the accused persons arrested but the State/appellant failed to do so. On 11th December, 1995, Mr. N. P. Dwivedi. it appears that this Court issued repeatedly warrants of arrest against the accused-respondents but they were not served. Even several opportunities were granted to the State/appellant to take appropriate steps to get the accused persons arrested but the State/appellant failed to do so. On 11th December, 1995, Mr. N. P. Dwivedi. Advocate for the respondents/accused appeared and he was handed over on that date itself a copy of the paper-book and the Court directed to list this case for final hearing looking to the circumstances. The matter is therefore being heard finally. As Mr. N. P. Dwivedi. Advocate did not appear. Mr. S. K. Tiwari brief holder for Mr. N. P. Dwivedi appeared and ably argued the matter. ( 8 ) MR. M. M. Qureshi learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State contended that the Trial Court committed an illegality in not relying upon the witnesses who have identified the accused persons in Court. He referred to Ex. P/34. which is the F. I. R. lodged by Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW 15 ). In the F. I. R. itself it is mentioned that the person lodging the report was not in a position to give any details about the incident. Even the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined including the injured witnesses, have not been able to give any details or identification marks. The Investigating Officer made no attempts to get the identification marks or the details. It is only Circle Inspector Karera, who arrested the accused persons and brought them to Police Station on 9-11-1976. But he has not been examined by the prosecution. In this case, therefore, it has not been proved that the accused persons are connected with the offence. Under which circumstances, the accused persons were arrested and how the Circle Inspector made their arrest is not there. The evidence of Ramkishan (PW 17) and the other witnesses was read. They all have not been able to give any details or the identification marks. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/state then placed reliance on Chandar Singh v. State of U. P. This case is not applicable to the present case. The facts are different. ( 10 ) THE learned trial. They all have not been able to give any details or the identification marks. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/state then placed reliance on Chandar Singh v. State of U. P. This case is not applicable to the present case. The facts are different. ( 10 ) THE learned trial. Judge has given cogent reasons and has discussed the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and has rightly arrived at a finding that there is no reliable and legal evidence on record to sustain the conviction. We have also gone through the evidence and the material on record. We do not find it a fit case that interference can be made. The acquittal is well merited. ( 11 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Respondents/accused Nos. (2) Sitaram and (5) Jasratsingh are absconding. Their bail bond and surety bond have already been cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to register a separate Criminal Misc. Case against respondent No. 2 Sitaram and respondent No. 5 Jasratsingh and against their sureties to recover the bail amount and surety amount, under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as accused/ respondents Nos. (3) Kanchansingh and (4) Gumersingh are concerned, they are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bond and surety bond are discharged. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance. Appeal dismissed. .