JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence under section 411 passed by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No. 6/83. 2. With the assistance of the learned PP, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence thereon. 3. Even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, conviction under section 411 IPC, in the circumstances proved, is not possible. It is proved by the prosecution that during the course of investigation, a wrist watch was recovered from the possession of the accused and he was charged for having robbed it from the person of the complainant. There is, however, no evidence to the fact that the watch recovered from the accused belongs to the complainant nor was the accused charged with the offence of S. 411 IPC. Offence under section 411 IPC is an independent offence and cannot be termed as a lesser offence to S. 392 IPC. 4. Section 392 IPC reads as under : "392. Punishment for robbery. -Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years." It has, therefore, provided punishment for robbery. Section 390 defines what is robbery. According to which, robbery is either theft or extortion and theft is robbery where hurt is caused voluntarily during the commission of theft. The entire evidence of the prosecution fails to prove the aspect of voluntarily causing hurt. The witness has observed as under : " gkFk ?kM+h [kksy dj rkth;k dks ns nhA " 5. Section 411 IPC reads as under : "411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." It provides punishment for receiving stolen property or receiving stolen property having knowledge or reason to believe that it is so. It is an independent offence by itself. It is an independent offence by itself. It is not lesser offence to robbery or dacoity because in a case where the person is charged of having committed theft and for having caused voluntary hurt during the commission of the theft and is, therefore, charged with what is called robbery, then he cannot be recourse to S. 411 IPC be punished under that section for receiving stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. When there is no evidence of theft, merely because the watch belonged to someone, automatic conviction under section 311 (sic. 411) IPC is not permissible. In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be accepted. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, accepted. The judgment of conviction is set aside. The bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******