Judgment O. P. BISHNOI, J. ( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by a judgment of the acquittal dated 12/11/1991 by the learned Special Judge, SC/st Court, Udaipur the State has come in appeal. The respondent Khuma Garasia was tried for the charger under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 and 394/397 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) AT 6. 00 p. m. on 26/4/1987 P. W. 5 Bheraram reached police station, Bakeria and reported that on that day some unknown person injured Smt. Mali and silver ornaments which she was wearing were looted. A case under Sections 324 and 394 of the I. P. C. was registered. The accused was arrested and allegedly the looted ornaments were recovered at his instance. Ultimately, a challan was filed and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the said trial court. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The learned court heard the arguments and delivered the impugned judgment on 12/11/1991 whereby the accusedrespondent was acquitted of all the charges. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned public prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the case. I find no merit in this appeal. ( 4 ) SO far as the question of direct evidence is concerned. P. W. 6 Smt. Mali is the most important witness. In her cross-examination she has admitted that the culprit was recognised her. It is not in dispute that the accused is a nephew of the husband of Smt. Mali. It is noteworthy that Smt. Mali neither disclosed the name of the accused to her husband nor to P. W. 5 Bhera Ram who lodged the FIR. Smt. Mali did not recognise the accused in the court on 30/5/1988 and needless to say that in view of this testimony no inference could be drawn against the respondent. When she says that culprit was recognised by her and still does not say that the accused, who was present in the court, was the culprit, a finding of guilt could not be arrived at P. W. 5 Bhera Rams testimony is to the effect that after conversation with Smt. Mali he proceeded to the police station and lodged the FIR Ex. P/5. P/5. He does not say that the accused was named by Smt. Mali. In her cross-examination Smt. Mali states that the face of the culprit was covered by a piece of cloth. She further stated that the culprit was wearing Chaddi and in the court identified Chaddi as well as the cloth which allegedly covered the face. According to the prosecution story, the Chaddi and the cloth were recovered by the police from the accused. They allegedly contained blood stains on them. However, the FSL report EX. P/19 gives a negative finding in this respect. Further it is contended that the Sword and Ghagrof Smt. Mali contained blood stains. Presence of blood stains on the Ghagra is normal and on the basis of the same the accused cannot be connected with the crime. The sword was recovered from an open place which was accessible to all and since the blood group of the blood could not be determined, no inference can be drawn against the accused. ( 5 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention towards the testimony of P. W. 1 Babulal. This witness has stated that the accused with two companions came to his shop and sold the ornaments which, subsequently, were recovered from him by the police at the instance of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P/2. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the material was sold by the accused to Babu Lal on 12/5/1987 and the writing Ex. P/1 was got executed and the same was signed by Khuma Ram. I find that the document Ex. P/1 is highly suspect and cannot be relied upon. P. W. 1 Babu Lal has stated that two persons, who were known to him accompanied the accused, who was stranger to him. He has stated on the basis of the assurance given by the said two persons, he accepted the ornaments from the unknown persons. However, he could not tell the names of two persons, who were allegedly known to him. As per his examination-in-chief the two persons, who accompanied the accused were both males. In cross-examination, he stated that both were females. Initially he stated that the deal was oral and no writing was executed. Subsequently, when the writin Ex. P/1 was shown to him, changed the version and came with an assertion that Ex. P/1 was scribed and executed by the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that both were females. Initially he stated that the deal was oral and no writing was executed. Subsequently, when the writin Ex. P/1 was shown to him, changed the version and came with an assertion that Ex. P/1 was scribed and executed by the accused. The Investigating Officer does not say that Ex. P/1 was recovered by him during investigation. No recovery memo of Ex. P/1 has been tendered in evidence. Nor the alleged signature on Ex. P/1 have been got examined from a handwriting expert. ( 6 ) IN view of the discussion made above I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.