JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.82 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. five hundred and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that Kana lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station, Raipur, on 23.10.1980 stating that he found his mother Mst. Hari dead in the house. He also stated that ornaments viz; silver `Nath' and `Hansali' were missing from the body. He suspected that somebody killed his mother by in strangulation. The police registered a case for the offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and his mother Mst. Eli for the aforesaid offences. The trial court acquitted the accused persons of the offences under Sections 302 and 380 IPC but convicted both of them for the offence under Section 411 IPC. Mst. Eji was given the benefit of probation. However, the appellant Deva has been sentenced to two years' rigorous Imprisonment. 3. It is contended by Mr. Sandeep Mehta learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 411 IPC is not sustainable as no reliance can be placed on the identification of the ornaments vide Ex.P 6 held before PW. 8 Kamruddin as it is admitted by the said witness that the identified articles were bearing a distinct mark of slip. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that Kana. P.W. 3, has stated that he went for identification but there was no such slip on the said ornaments. He identified the ornaments as he knew that they were used by his mother. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. The admitted facts are that the accused appellants was arrested on 26.12.80 and on the same day, he gave information vide Ex.P. 12 and in pursuance of that, a `Hansali' was recovered vide Ex.P 8. On the next day, identification of the ornaments was arranged before P.W. 8 Kamruddin. In the said identification, P.W. 3 Kana identified `Hansali'. I have read the statement of P.W. 8 Kamruddin. On the next day, identification of the ornaments was arranged before P.W. 8 Kamruddin. In the said identification, P.W. 3 Kana identified `Hansali'. I have read the statement of P.W. 8 Kamruddin. He has very categorically said that the `Hansali', which was to be identified, bore a distinct mark of slip. In my view, this fact alone is sufficient to vitiate the identification proceedings as the ornament, which was to be identified, was having a distinct mark. It is of course true that P.W. 3 Kana has stated that when he went for identification of the ornaments, there was no such mark but in view of the statement of P.W. 8 Kamruddin, the statement of P.W. 2 Kana cannot be relied upon in absence of evidence of identification of the ornaments, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the conviction recorded under Section 411 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara as against the appellant is quashed and set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 411 IPC.Appeal allowed. *******