JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Appellant/accused Raghunath is convicted and sentenced under section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by his judgment and order, dated 14-7-1995 for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default he is ordered to undergo R.I. for one year. He is also further convicted under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The period of his detention undergone is directed to be set off under section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge has further directed that out of the total amount of fine that would be recovered from the accused the same be given to the original complainant towards the loss and damages caused. 2.The facts in nut shell of the case are that the original complainant Narayan Dnyanoba Giri, who is examined as P.W. 2 at Exh. 7 along with his wife, mother and other relatives and friends had gone to Pune on 17th November, 1994 in a jeep trax, bearing No. MH-23/B/366. According to the complainant, the complainant had gone to Pune to reach his son Digambar, who was taking education in M.I.T., Pune. Along with the complainant, in the jeep, there were, the mother- Bhagirathibai of the complainant, wife -Laxmibai, cousin- Atmaram Giri, Sugreev Anawne and Rajabhau Shirsale. These people left Pune for Chousala Tahsil Beed on 18th November, 1994 at about 4.00 p.m. i.e. they were on their return journey. 3.The complainant alleges that on 18th November, 1994, at about 10.00 to 11.00 in the night, they were en route Chousala via Manjarsumba at that time, about 2 Kms. These people left Pune for Chousala Tahsil Beed on 18th November, 1994 at about 4.00 p.m. i.e. they were on their return journey. 3.The complainant alleges that on 18th November, 1994, at about 10.00 to 11.00 in the night, they were en route Chousala via Manjarsumba at that time, about 2 Kms. from Raulasgaon, they did not see that an iron rope i.e. iron wire was tied to two trees on the two sides of the road and, therefore, their vehicle dashed against the said wire, because of which a tree to which a wire was tied on the left hand side of the road was uprooted and it was pulled on the road because of the wire because of which the vehicle stopped. Moment the vehicle stopped, there was a sudden stone pelting on the vehicle and two unknown thieves pulled out Narayan from the vehicle and gave him beating on his back as also on the right hand by sticks. According to the complainant, there were about 10 to 12 thieves, who were saying in Marathi, "Take out the money" i.e. iSls dk<k. The thieves, according to the complainant, also abused him in Hindi in most filthy language on his mother. The complainant states that the said thieves started beating to him as also to the other occupants in the vehicle. According to the complainant, the said thieves took away the golden and silver ornaments as also cash amount, watches, clothes from all the occupants in the vehicle and the total amount of the same approximately, as is given in the complaint, Exh. 8, is shown to be Rs. 35,935.00. In the complaint, he has given the break up of this amount qua each article stolen by the alleged thieves. The complainant further stated in his complaint that the said unknown persons had committed the theft of the said articles. He further stated that Lala Dashrath Anware was the driver of the vehicle and Sugreev Anawne was another occupant in the vehicle. However, as to what goods or articles were stolen from them was not known to the complainant. The complainant says that Sugreev and Lala had said that out of the persons i.e. 10 to 12 i.e. the thieves they identified some of them. However, as to what goods or articles were stolen from them was not known to the complainant. The complainant says that Sugreev and Lala had said that out of the persons i.e. 10 to 12 i.e. the thieves they identified some of them. 4.The complainant further states that immediately after the occurrence, the complainant started running towards village Chousala and on way he saw a jeep of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he requested to stop the jeep. Narayan the complainant informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the incident and according to him, he again came back along with Deputy Superintendent of Police on the spot of occurrence. According to him, in the meantime, the said assailants/alleged thieves had ran away. Deputy Superintendent of Police, immediately is said to have taken the complainant and the witnesses to hospital and from there they were carried to the police station, Neknoor where the complainant lodged his complaint Exh. 8, to which a reference is already made above i.e. on 19th November, 1994 at about 12.30 i.e. midnight of 18th and 19th November, 1994. 5.On the basis of the above said report, Crime No. 251/95 was registered and investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer Ramdas Vithoba Ingole P.W. 9 arrested many people on suspicion. Accused was arrested on 24th February, 1995 i.e. after about 3 and quarter months from the date of incident. It is the prosecution case that during the investigation accused made a statement Exh. 23 which was reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer to the effect that the accused along with Mandu Ujanya Chavan, Sada Ujanya Chavan, Appa Ujanya Chavan, Kalyan Ujanya Chavan all resident of Junnar Shiwar and Lala Bisarya Pawar and Saheba Bisarya Pawar both resident of Bawi Shiwar had tied a wire across the road to two trees, stopped the jeep and committed robbery by beating the passengers therein. In the booty taken away by them the articles which had gone to his share i.e. golden mani mangalsutra, he had kept it concealed underground in a tin box behind his residential hut. He expressed through his statement that he would take it out and hand it over to the police. According to the prosecution, on the basis of this statement seizure memo Exh. He expressed through his statement that he would take it out and hand it over to the police. According to the prosecution, on the basis of this statement seizure memo Exh. 24 was made in presence of two panch witnesses i.e. Shrikrishna Sitaram Salunke and Bajirao Khandu Karande, P.W. 7 and P.W. 6 respectively. In this seizure, according to the prosecution, the accused took out two mangalsutra with design thereon, old one, as also four gajare mani old and used and also 33 other beads old and used of gold. The weight of which was said to be 5 grams worth Rs. 2,350/-. The said articles were seized along with a small tin box which was rusted. 6.From the record, it is clear that during the course of investigation, some other persons were also arrested in this connection. However, they were released having found no material against them about their involvement. Thus, out of the alleged 10 to 12 people, it is only the accused who was apprehended and arrested and against whom the present prosecution was initiated. 7.The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of necessary concerned persons filed charge sheet against the present accused in the Court of IInd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. Since the offence alleged is under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and it being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, which is registered as Sessions Case No. 76/95. The learned Sessions Judge vide Exh. 2 framed two charges against the accused on 19th June, 1995. The first under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and second under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence he was tried for the said offences. 8.The prosecution, in its support, in all examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Machindra Shrihari Jogdand is examined on the point of panchanama at Ex. 5. Spot panchanama is Ex. 6. This Machindra, a panch witness, has stated that about eight months back he was called near village Raulasgaon Shiwar, a spot about 2 Kms. from village Raulasgaon. He says that when he had gone to the spot, one Narayan Giri the complainant, was present there. Second panch Subhash Janardhan Lahane was also present. According to this witness, it was Narayan Giri who told this witness that his trax jeep was caught by the thieves. from village Raulasgaon. He says that when he had gone to the spot, one Narayan Giri the complainant, was present there. Second panch Subhash Janardhan Lahane was also present. According to this witness, it was Narayan Giri who told this witness that his trax jeep was caught by the thieves. This witness says that they saw a tree uprooted and also a wire rope was tied to the tree. He says that a jeep was standing there with its glass broken. He has further stated that he saw, on some distance, suit cases were lying, also glass pieces, bags, clothes were lying on the ground, which according to this witness, were attached under panchanama Exh. 6, which according to him, was signed by him. He says to have identified the articles seized from the spot. It would be necessary to make a passing reference at this stage itself to one important aspect that this witness does not say that the said iron wire was attached by the police. As also this witness does not say as to of what side of the jeep the glass was broken. He does not say that there was only wind screen to the jeep or that there were other windows with glass to the doors of the jeep, since it is said that it was a trax vehicle. This witness admits the panchanama, which bears his signature. 9.P.W. 2 Narayan Giri is the original complainant, who had given the complaint Exh. 8. Narayan Giri narrated the whole story in his examination-in-chief consistent with the complaint he lodged. He stated that after the jeep was stopped because of the wire on Raulasgaon road immediately there was sudden stone pelting on the jeep and in the mean time some people came near the jeep and they pulled them out and assaulted with sticks. P.W. 2 complainant had sustained certain injuries on his back. The complainant further stated that he removed his finger ring, silver chain, citizen watch and cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-, so also his wife's mangalsutra and disco chain was also removed. He also stated that his mother's mangalsutra was also removed, and, according to this witness, those people i.e. the thieves removed cash from the pocket of Rajabhau Sirsath and also removed the wrist watch from Rajabhau's possession. According to this witness, property worth Rs. 35,000/- was taken away by the thieves. He also stated that his mother's mangalsutra was also removed, and, according to this witness, those people i.e. the thieves removed cash from the pocket of Rajabhau Sirsath and also removed the wrist watch from Rajabhau's possession. According to this witness, property worth Rs. 35,000/- was taken away by the thieves. This incident, according to him, occurred in the night some time between 10.30 to 11.00 p.m. This witness stated that he went towards Chousala side and tried to stop some vehicles, but none did stop the vehicle. The third vehicle which came was of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was coming from Chousala road. Deputy Superintendent of Police brought him on the spot of offence, by that time, the thieves had already taken to their heels, but only family members were there. This witness says that thereafter these people i.e. the victims were taken to the hospital at Chousala. From there, they went to the police station, Neknoor and lodged the complaint Exh. 8. This witness alleges to have identified the mani mangalsutra which was shown to him in the Court, which is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused. This witness says that the said mangalsutra belonged to his wife. This witness in the same breath in his cross-examination has admitted that the articles which were shown to him also could be available and could be purchased anywhere. He says that the said mani mangalsutra and the beads were purchased about a year ago. Exh. 13 is the medico legal certificate issued in the case of P.W. 2 Narayan by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chousala, indicating the two abrasions on his person. The certificate is dated 18th November, 1994 issued at about 12.00 mid night. 10.The next witness examined is Rajabhau Sirsath P.W. 3, who also happened to be a passenger in the said jeep trax. This witness says that after the jeep was stopped, there was sudden stone pelting on the jeep. The said people, according to this witness started assaulting with sticks. He says that Rs. 35/- and a wrist watch was removed by the thieves from his possession. He further says that the accused in the Court was one of those people. This witness, in his cross-examination stated that he was sitting on the front seat of the jeep by the side of the driver. He says that Rs. 35/- and a wrist watch was removed by the thieves from his possession. He further says that the accused in the Court was one of those people. This witness, in his cross-examination stated that he was sitting on the front seat of the jeep by the side of the driver. He stated that he had stated before the police that he was in a position to identify the persons if they would have been shown to him. However, according to him, the police did not show him any other person for the purposes of identification. This particular portion is underlined by us as it has some relevance in the subsequent part of this judgment. This witness says that accused was one of the persons who had attacked the passengers in the jeep. He says that he had never seen the accused any time earlier, and even after the incident he was seeing the accused for the first time in the Court itself. This witness says that it was not dark at the time of the alleged incident on the scene of offence. His statement was recorded on the second day of the incident. 11.The next witness examined is P.W. 5 Balu Biru. This Balu Biru is a driver of the jeep, who has reached, according to the prosecution, alleged thieves on the spot in his jeep. He stated that at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening one driver Nilu came to him where vehicle of this Balu Biru was standing for hire. According to him, the said Nilu asked Balu Biru P.W. 5 whether he would give on hire his jeep to one Pardhi, whereon P.W. 5 expressed that if there was no problem or any illegal activity, then he would hire the vehicle. P.W. 5 stated that he had hired his vehicle to those passengers for Rs. 400/-. According to this witness, P.W. 5, one Balu and one another Pardhi had taken sticks and also fire wood in the jeep. According to him, first they went to village Goswada, then from there they went towards Junnar Road, then to village Junnar and from there to village Goswada again. According to him, the fire wood was unloaded there at Goswada. He says that there were seven Pardhis sitting in his jeep. According to him, first they went to village Goswada, then from there they went towards Junnar Road, then to village Junnar and from there to village Goswada again. According to him, the fire wood was unloaded there at Goswada. He says that there were seven Pardhis sitting in his jeep. These Pardhis told P.W. 5, according to P.W. 5, that they had their hamlets 2 Kms. ahead of village Chousala where they wanted to get down. This witness says that these people got down 2 Kms. ahead of village Chousala. Thereafter, this P.W. 5 and another Balu, to whom a reference is made above, went to small village, which is 2 Kms. away from the spot where Pardhis had got down. According to this witness, after half an hour, he returned back to village Kallam. On way, while passing through the spot of occurrence, he saw that one vehicle i.e. jeep was standing with its glass broken. According to this witness, thereafter he went to village Kallam. This witness looking at the accused in the Court room stated that accused was one amongst those persons, who had got down from his jeep on that spot. This witness further stated that police recorded his statement, as also his statement was also recorded by the Magistrate. This witness, in his cross-examination stated that he knew Nilu Gaikwad since last four months. This witness had given on hire his jeep for going from Kallam to the spot of occurrence i.e. 2 Kms. ahead of Chousala. According to this witness, Nilu had told this P.W. 5, that if the accused persons would not pay this P.W. 5, then Nilu would pay the amount of fare fixed. This sentence is again being underlined by the Court itself as again it has some material importance to which we will be referring to in the subsequent paragraphs in this judgment. This witness says that all the seven Pardhis had boarded the jeep in between village Goswada and Jintoor. He says that he did not know any of the Pardhis. This witness further specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the accused after that date (must be after the date of incident) again in the police station and thereafter he was seeing the said accused in the Court on the day of his deposition. He says that he did not know any of the Pardhis. This witness further specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the accused after that date (must be after the date of incident) again in the police station and thereafter he was seeing the said accused in the Court on the day of his deposition. 12.It would be necessary to note that the person Nilu who has been referred to by this witness; is not examined as a prosecution witness. Taking into consideration the conversation which Nilu had with this P.W. 5 Balu clearly indicates that Nilu knew all those persons who were carried in the jeep of Balu on the spot of occurrence, else in ordinary course Nilu would not have taken the responsibility of making the payment of the amount of hire charges to Balu on behalf of those persons, if they would have failed to pay Balu. Another aspect, which can be noted from the deposition of this witness P.W. 5, is that, according to him, there were only seven Pardhis who were sitting in his jeep; whereas the complainant Narayan P.W. 2, tried to suggest that there were about 10 to 12 persons who had attacked them. The same is deposed even by P.W. 3 Rajabhau and it is, therefore not difficult to observe that both Narayan and Rajabhau tried to exaggerate the story thereby getting shaked the reliability of their deposition. 13.It is also abundantly clear from the deposition of P.W. 5 Balu that after dropping the alleged culprits on the spot of occurrence, Balu says that he along with another Balu went to a small village and from where he returned within half an hour. If we go through his deposition minutely, it is clear that he does not refer to the timing as to when he dropped those persons two Kms. ahead of Chousala. According to him, he had started at 7.30 p.m. itself. He does not say as to how-much time he had taken to reach those people to the spot of occurrence. He also does not say as to at what time he returned when he saw the damaged trax and the scattered articles. It is, therefore, necessary for us to weigh the evidence of this witness also with great caution without attaching any undue importance to the same. He also does not say as to at what time he returned when he saw the damaged trax and the scattered articles. It is, therefore, necessary for us to weigh the evidence of this witness also with great caution without attaching any undue importance to the same. We, therefore, find that the evidence of this P.W. 5 Balu is not worth credance. 14.P.W. 6 Bajirao Karande is the next witness, who has been examined, in the chain of witnesses, as a panch witness to the statement of the accused recorded by the police as regards discovery of the articles i.e. the golden articles, which, according to the witness were told to have gone to the share of the accused. This witness is a signatory to the memorandum Exh. 23 and Exh. 24, i.e. the seizure memo. This man, however, in his examination-in-chief itself appeared to have been exposed, when he says that he even did not remember the name of the village where he had gone. He has further stated that the said memorandum does not bear his signature. This witness further in his cross-examination states that, "the house of the accused was made of tin sheets. The accused has removed the articles from the ground." However, this witness nowhere states whether the said articles were recovered from the house of the accused or his Court yard. He further surprisingly changes the story and says, "it is not true to say that accused did not produce muddemal articles from his house". This clearly means that this witness now wants to suggest that the articles were taken out from the house of the accused. At the same time this witness has to suggest that he has acted as a panch witness on behalf of the police in other matters for about four times. If this is the state of affair in the case of this witness, it would not be incorrect if we observe that he happened to be a partison witness interested in the success of the prosecution case. We, therefore, do not find that this witness is of any help to find out the truth. 15.Another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of Exhs. 23 and 24 is P.W. 7 Shrikrishna Salunke, who says to have signed Exh. 23. We, therefore, do not find that this witness is of any help to find out the truth. 15.Another witness examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of Exhs. 23 and 24 is P.W. 7 Shrikrishna Salunke, who says to have signed Exh. 23. We feel that this witness was required to be examined by the prosecution having taken into consideration that the earlier witness P.W. 6 did not support the prosecution story in toto. To fill in the lacunae in the deposition of the earlier witness Shrikrishna appear to have been examined, who has tried to give the details by saying that accused removed the mud from behind his house and removed the box and in the box there were the articles referred to in his deposition. This witness admits to have signed Exh. 24. Needless to mention that this witness is a Police Patil of village Udandwadgaon. Naturally an inference can be drawn that he is interested in the success of the prosecution. He further states that he had gone to the police station on that day, to collect his honararium. Thereafter he tried to narrate the story of having gone to the house of accused for the recovery of the articles as per the say of the accused. However, he had stated that he being a Police Patil he had relations with the police as he has to aid the police. He has further stated that he was not in a position to state as to whether the articles recovered and which were before the Court were of gold or not. Though he has denied the suggestion as regards his deposition as per the say of the police or the suggestion as regards preparation of Exh. 23 and 24 in the police station itself, that does not in any manner improve the credibility of the deposition of this particular witness, particularly when he nowhere states that the other witness had also signed Exh. 23 and 24 in his presence. 16.Shri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State brought to our notice the original document Exh. 24 to point out that in fact P.W. 6 had signed the said document. We have curiously seen the said document and the signature which is said to have been made by P.W. 6. 16.Shri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State brought to our notice the original document Exh. 24 to point out that in fact P.W. 6 had signed the said document. We have curiously seen the said document and the signature which is said to have been made by P.W. 6. The said document shows that it is only written 'Karande' and that too in English without any name or initials of P.W. 6. That also does not per se appear to be a signature, but simply a name and that too in bold letters, which appears as 'KARANDE'. Taking into consideration the positive statement made by P.W. 6 as regards his not signing the said Exh. 24, it was for the prosecution to get the said signature proved through proper procedure. However, the prosecution has totally failed to adopt the same. 17.P.W. 8 Gopalrao Thorar, a police head constable has recorded the complaint and registered the Crime No. 251/94 then he handed over the investigation to P.S.I. Ingole. This witness P.W. 8 states that absolutely no details were given as regards the articles in the complaint. He says that in the complaint, there is no mention that there were 33 beads and 4 gajare beads of gold and 2 ashtapailu beads. 18.P.W. 9 Ramdas Ingole, P.S.I., Neknoor Police Station, is examined, who has conducted the investigation in the matter. He recorded the statements of the injured, as also spot panchnama. This witness says that on 20th November, 1994, he arrested one person on suspicion and on 19th January, 1995, one more person was arrested by him on suspicion and thereafter on 24th February, 1995 he arrested the present accused. This witness says that on 5th March, 1995, accused admitted his guilt while in police custody and he, therefore, called panchas, recorded Exh. 23 and on discovery of the articles at the instance of the accused, prepared panchanama Exh. 24. This witness says that then he searched for other accused, but could not find anyone. Thereafter he filled the chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. This witness in his cross-examination also appear to have been totally exposed when he says that in the statement of Lala Anwate i.e. P.W. 4 driver had made a statement that Lala knew Phulya Pardhi. Thereafter he filled the chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. This witness in his cross-examination also appear to have been totally exposed when he says that in the statement of Lala Anwate i.e. P.W. 4 driver had made a statement that Lala knew Phulya Pardhi. However, this witness says that Phulya Pardhi was released on the report under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This witness says that he arrested accused at the S.T. stand at Chousala. However, surprisingly he did not draw any arrest panchanama, and produced the accused on 25th January, 1995 before the Court. This witness P.W. 9 has stated that the accused was arrested only at the instance of one Rustum Pawar, who is not examined in this matter. An attempt was made in the cross-examination of this witness to point out the antecedents of this Rustum Pawar by showing that Rustum Pawar was arrested in some matter earlier. He further stated that one Saheba and one Manik also were arrested in this case, who are the brothers of Rustum Pawar. However, after the arrest of the present accused, both those persons were discharged by the police. This witness says that he had no occasion to know the present accused and he was for the first time identified by Rustum Pawar. This witness tried to impress by saying that accused was arrested on suspicion, whereas in earlier portion of his deposition he stated that accused was arrested at the instance of Rustum Pawar. A suggestion was given to this witness that it was with an understanding to release the brothers of Rustum Pawar the accused was arrested at the instance of Rustum Pawar. This witness has in so many words stated that the recovery which was made under Exh. 24 was from the open place, which clearly means the possibility of access to other people to that place could not be totally overruled. Such a recovery, in our opinion, is always to be looked with suspicion and all reasonable doubts. We feel that the recovery made cannot be trusted for sustaining the conviction of the accused on that basis. 19.We have dealt with the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, which fall too short to create confidence in the same. Mrs. We feel that the recovery made cannot be trusted for sustaining the conviction of the accused on that basis. 19.We have dealt with the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, which fall too short to create confidence in the same. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused urged that there are very many discrepancies in the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution. According to Mrs. Kulkarni, there is a difference in the total number of beads, which are alleged to have been recovered vide Exh. 24 and the actual number given by the complainant Narayan. As regards the identity of the recovered articles also there is a doubt because the persons, actually who were using those ornaments and those who were the passengers in the jeep namely Laxmibai and Bhagirathibai, none of them are examined to identify the articles. Panch witness P.W. 7 Salunke has stated that he did not know whether the articles are of gold or not. Mrs. Kulkarni, therefore, argued, and according to us, rightly that the recovery itself was doubtful. Mrs. Kulkarni also tried to hammer the very Exh. 23 saying that the same was not reliable one and naturally the subsequent Exh. 24 in pursuance thereof. After having noted the date, it is clear that the incident had occurred on 18th November, 1994. However, the accused was arrested on 24th February, 1995 i.e. virtually after three months, and the recovery of the articles is made on 5th March, 1995. We have no hesitation in observing that it is a very stale recovery and not inspiring confidence about the genuineness of the documents. The recovery, if would have been immediately after the arrest, then the matter could have been looked with different angle. However, all this episode appears to be suspicious and not trustworthy. 20.When we look into the recovery, we find that surprisingly the Investigating Officer did not attach or seize the alleged iron rope, which, according to the witnesses was till then on the spot when the spot panchanama was prepared. No reason is assigned by the prosecution as to why the said rope was not attached. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has not given any justifiable reason as to why the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was first to reach on the spot is not examined. No reason is assigned by the prosecution as to why the said rope was not attached. It is also pertinent to note that the prosecution has not given any justifiable reason as to why the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was first to reach on the spot is not examined. Generally in a case of dacoity though not as a rule, but as a practice for achieving the ultimate aim of justice, to hold an identification parade is necessary. In the present case, we find that the Investigating Officer had arrested Phulya Pardhi, Saheba Pawar, Manik Pawar and some other persons. However, the Investigating Officer did not feel it necessary to hold the identification parade enabling the inmates of the trax to find out whether any one of the persons named above did form a part of the group of persons who were alleged to have been engaged in the said dacoity. This definitely shows a very causal way adopted in the investigation, which could be said to have caused substantial prejudice to the accused. We feel that whatsoever evidence of the identification of the accused, as one of the culprits, which has come on the record, definitely lack the requisite elements of reassurance to support the conviction and in such circumstances, a reasonable doubt about the same, if arises, could be said to be a natural conclusion and such evidence, in our opinion, can be labelled as insufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. According to us, the material on the record is very scanty in nature to bring home the guilt to the accused as regards the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. We also find that there is absolutely no evidence even in slightest manner to involve the accused for the alleged act of an offence punishable under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no even slightest iota of evidence in respect of the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the fatal defects in the prosecution story and the evidence brought on the record in support of it's say. There is no even slightest iota of evidence in respect of the charge under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the fatal defects in the prosecution story and the evidence brought on the record in support of it's say. 21.Another important fact in the matter, which has a great bearing, is that when the person is found guilty and punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the basic ingrediants of the definition of dacoity requires minimum five persons and above. In the instant matter, the number varies from 7 to 8 or 10 to 12. However, surprisingly the investigating machinery totally failed to search out except one and that too only on the basis of suggestion of one Rustum Pawar. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were many more persons than five as is deposed to by the witnesses, however, if that was the matter, then the learned Sessions Judge before proceeding should have passed on order of splitting up of the trial as he did not want to wait for the arrest of other accused persons and their prosecution. With the help of the learned Counsel for both the sides, we searched through the record,. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement that there was no such order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In our opinion though this is a procedural defect, however, there should not be any occasion even for such a defect in the trials which may in a given case prove to be fatal to the prosecution and prejudicial to the accused. 22.Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, relying on the decision reported in 1983 Cr.L.J. 689, in the case of (Mohd. Hafiz v. State of Andhra Pradesh)1, tried to suggest that it was very much necessary in every case of dacoity to hold the identification parade. In that case, no identification parade was held. Mrs. Kulkarni pointed out that the victim in that case had given the description of the accused in the First Information Report, and the accused in that case was convicted simply on the basis of his identification in the Court by victim and that too four months after the alleged offence. In that case, no identification parade was held. Mrs. Kulkarni pointed out that the victim in that case had given the description of the accused in the First Information Report, and the accused in that case was convicted simply on the basis of his identification in the Court by victim and that too four months after the alleged offence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the conviction on such an evidence could not be sustained in law. We are in full agreement with Mrs. Kulkarni on this point and particularly when in the instant matter also there was no identification parade. Accused is said to have been identified in the Court room and that too after about 8 to 9 months. It is also pertinent to note that while giving the First information Report in the present case, no description or identification marks of any of the alleged involved persons was given by the complainant. Mrs. Kulkarni while challenging the recovery under Exh. 24 also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 3669, in the case of (Mansing v. Narayan)2. In this case, cited supra, the charge was under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. Their Lordships while dealing with the matter observed that merely because certain stolen articles were recovered from the accused persons, they could not be said to be dacoits by invoking the presumption unless there was a recent possession. In that case, admittedly there was lapse of nearly three or four months time in the recovery. Their Lordship, therefore, in those circumstances, thought it unsafe to rely on such recovery. In the instant case also, as pointed out earlier, it is a stale recovery and we feel it unsafe to rely solely on the same for convicting the accused for the offences charged with. 23.Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 486, in the case of (Lacchaman Ram v. State of Orissa)3. 23.Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 486, in the case of (Lacchaman Ram v. State of Orissa)3. Shri Deshmukh wanted to suggest that the factum of recovery of articles made soon after the dacoity at the instance of the accused persons in the presence of police officers and panch witnesses deposing to the same could be held to be sufficient for conviction under section 412 as well as section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of section 114 of the Evidence Act. We have gone through the said judgment. We find that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the decision arrived at by their Lordships of the Apex Court was on the basis that the recovery of the articles was made immediately after the arrest and there was not a lengthened gap as in the present case. The time gap between the arrest and the recovery or between the actual occurrence of the incident of theft and dacoity and the recovery if is inordinately long then at very next moment the recovery could be looked at with suspicion requiring a strong evidence in support thereof if to be believed. In the present case, no such impeachable evidence is on the record, nor are any clinching facts brought on the record to enrope the accused so as to pull him in the ring of section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for punishment. 24.We also feel the recovery as doubtful which is made under Exh. 24, because while dealing with memorandum Exh. 23, in fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have tried to split up the said statement into the components and to seperate the admissible from inadmissible portion or portions. According to us, the portion of the said statement which could be said to be the immediate cause of the discovery would be acceptable as legal evidence, but the rest could not be taken to be acceptable and was liable to be rejected. In thethe present statement of the accused, if at all he had made that statement, that portion of his statement, as it happened to be the immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered, could only be said to be admissible statement. In thethe present statement of the accused, if at all he had made that statement, that portion of his statement, as it happened to be the immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered, could only be said to be admissible statement. It is, therefore, that but for this statement, the rest of the portion could not be said to be admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The rest of the portion of said Exh. 23, which is said to have been uttered by the accused through this statement Exh. 23, cannot be said to be a distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and the same deserves to be ruled out as the evidence acceptable. It would not be inappropriate to observe at this stage that the place from where alleged articles are said to have been recovered could be said to be a place accessible to all and sundry and, therefore, to sustain the conviction on such recovery would not only be a dangerous one but impossible and unwarranted. We, therefore, find that in the circumstances the accused deserves to be entitled to benefit of doubt as presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act could not be said to be available to the prosecution. For the above observations, we rely on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 483, in the case of (Mahammed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra)4. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that the Sessions Judge erred in relying on such a doubtful recovery. 25.In the view of the very many infirmities as pointed out above, in the prosecution evidence, we feel it unsafe to confirm the conviction and to maintain the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused by the Trial Court. The evidence on the record cannot be said to be free from doubt as regards the participation, on the part of the accused in the alleged crime, and the infirmities in the evidence are so fatal to the prosecution that we reach to an irresistable conclusion of acquitting the accused of the offences charged with. Even the alleged recovery of the articles fall too short to clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge appear to have not looked at the evidence from all angles and with its minutest possible species. Even the alleged recovery of the articles fall too short to clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge appear to have not looked at the evidence from all angles and with its minutest possible species. The learned Sessions Judge, according to us, thus, erred in convicting the accused in just a perfunctory, superficial and casual manner and therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the accused, in our opinion, needs to be quashed and set aside. 26.Before concluding, we may observe that even the investigation in the matter does not appear to have been conducted diligently, but the same appears to be a roving investigation and enquiry absolutely superficial and causal in nature, the benefit of which would naturally go to the accused. 27.This brings us to one another aspect in the matter i.e. as regards disposal of the property which is alleged to have been recovered from the accused. The accused has not in any way claimed the articles which are alleged to have been recovered at his instance. However, the articles are claimed by the complainant and not by other persons who were the passengers in the vehicle trax. We, therefore, order that the articles alleged to have been recovered from the accused may be handed over to the complainant on his furnishing security therefor and with an undertaking to produce the same before the Court if the other alleged accused are traced, arrested and are prosecuted. The amount of fine, if is paid by the accused/appellant, the same be refunded to him immediately. 28.In the result, appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, against the accused for offences under section 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine imposed on the accused under both the heads, if is paid by him, shall be refunded to him immediately. The accused is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine imposed on the accused under both the heads, if is paid by him, shall be refunded to him immediately. The articles which are alleged to have been recovered from the accused, since are not claimed by the accused, but are claimed by the complainant, the same be given to the complainant on his furnishing security and executing a bond to the effect that if required the complainant shall produce the same before the Court as and when the Court may order for the same and in the contingency if rest of the alleged offenders are nabbed and prosecuted. Appeal allowed. *****