Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur dated 211.1993 affirming the conviction of the petitioners under Section 394, IPC and sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The conviction was made by the learned Addl. Munsiff-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.2. Bharatpur vide his order dated 012.1991. 3. The genesis of the trial against the petitioner started with lodging first information report by Faudi that on 04.06.1984 at 3.30 A.M. when he and his son Om Prakash and one Govinda had gone to fare for purchasing cow and camel. He purchased a cow for Rs. 9,00/-and Govinda purchased a camel of black colour aged about 3 and half years for Rs. 3,500/-. 4. On 03.06.1984 he along with his son Om Prakash and said Govinda were returning alongwith the cattle, Govinda on the way parted company and went ahead of Faudi Ram and Om Prakash in a bus, Faudi Ram and his son were going by the side of road at about 9:10 PM 3-4 persons came and took away their cattle from them. Faudi Ram also stated in his written complaint that while taking away the cattle the assailants also assaulted his son by lathi. On raising hue and cry many people of villages Veri and Adora came. 5. After investigation, the trial was conducted. I.O. did not appear in the witness box to prove the alleged recoveries. However, relying on the statement of PW 1, Faudi Ram, his son Om Prakash (PW. 3) and the statement of attesting witness PW 8, Bhagwan Sahai convicted the accused persons and sentenced as aforesaid by the learned trial Judge and affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor and perused the record. I am of the opinion that it is a case of no evidence on the basis of which the petitioners could have been convicted. So far as the recovery is concerned, the I.O. has not appeared in witness box and only the attesting witness has been produced as PW 8 Bhagwan Sahai, who does not support the recovery of either cow or camel from the accused persons. So far as the recovery is concerned, the I.O. has not appeared in witness box and only the attesting witness has been produced as PW 8 Bhagwan Sahai, who does not support the recovery of either cow or camel from the accused persons. Faudi Ram in his examination in chief clearly states that he did not notice that cattle have been taken away from his son. If he had not noticed at all that cattle have been taken from his son, he could not have seen at all who had taken the cow and camel. In the face of such categorical statement that he did not come to know about taking away of the cattle in darkness from his son, every part of the statement particularly identifying the accused persons at the time of occurrence cannot be accepted on any principle of appreciation of evidence. 7. Similarly, Om Prakash does not support the case of the prosecution about the recognition of the accused. No other witness supports the case of the prosecution. 8. In these circumstances, it being a case of no evidence, the Judgment under appeal suffers from apparent illegality and cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant is set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioners may be discharged.