JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Bahadur Singh along with six other persons were accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand bearing sessions case No. 92/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated December 5, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 395 I.PC. to suffer Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 341 IPC to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2002 submitted by co-accused appellant Gopal Singh was allowed by this Court on March 19, 2002. Gopal Singh was also convicted and sentenced under Section 395 and 341 I.P.C. along with the appellant. 3. It is the prosecution case that informant Om Prakash (PW13) instituted FIR, Ex.13/24 on April 3, 2001 with the Police Station Deogarh is stating therein that while the informant and his family were travelling in the night in a Maruti Esteem car bearing No. GJ-1-HH-6834 to Ahemdabad, one jeep overtook their car and the car got stopped. Thereafter, 10-12 persons dropped down from the jeep and dragged the informant out of the car. The other miscreants dragged Jagat Prakash, brother of the informant and snatched cash, driving licence and telephone diary. Police Station Deogarh registered a case under Section 395 IPC and investigation commenced. The appellant and six other miscreants were arrested and recovery of articles got effected. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in due course, the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. Charges under Sections 395 and 341 IPC were framed against the appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 34 documents. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced before me and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. This court while allowing the appeal of co-accused Gopal Singh to observed in the judgment dated March 19, 2092 that from the testimony of Grn Prakash (PM 3) and Jagat Prakash (PW14) case under Sections 395 and 341 IPC. could not be established. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced before me and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. This court while allowing the appeal of co-accused Gopal Singh to observed in the judgment dated March 19, 2092 that from the testimony of Grn Prakash (PM 3) and Jagat Prakash (PW14) case under Sections 395 and 341 IPC. could not be established. Om Prakash (PW13) could identify single accused Balu Singh in the trial court whereas Jagat Prakash (PW-14) in his deposition stated that it was a dark night and consequently, he was not in is a position to recognise any person. 6. The allegation against the appellant is that sum of Rs. 300/-, spectacles and lathi got recovered at his instance. Learned trial court in the judgment observed that neither the cash nor the Lathis could be connected with the crime as they were not identifiable. The recovery of knife effected at the instance of co-accused Gopal Singh was not believed by this Court and consequently. conviction and sentence of Gopal Singh was set aside. 7. The accused were not known to the informant Om Prakash and witness Jagat Prakash and since identification parade was riot held and the witness had not identified the appellant before the trial court, it is difficult to connect the appellant with the crime. The case of co-appellant Gopal Singh is not distinguishable with that of the case of the appellant. Spectacles allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant was also not identified during investigation. It was for the first time that Om Prakash (PW13) identified the spectacles Article-1, which does not bear any specific mark in the Court. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution, in my considered opinion has failed to establish the charge under Sections 395 and 341 of IPC against the appellant. 8. For these reasons, I allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 395 and 341 IPC of the appellant rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Rajsamand in the judgment dated December 5, 2001. I acquit the appellant of the charge under Sections 395 and 341 IPC. The appellant, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.Jail Appeal Allowed. *******