( 1 ) THE appellants, being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 30-6-90 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 195/87 convicting them under Section 412 of IPC with sentence to each of them for three years r. I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default for further four months R. I. , have preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) AS per case of the prosecution the appellants along with some other accused lashed with rifle, Katta (country made pistol)and other implements with an intention to commit dacoity came to the village Kurela, and took some villagers in their custody. One devideen, the husband of victim Jhhiggi Bai, was not present in the house. The appellant entered in her house where her daughter mahesh, Ramesh and daughter-in-law pushpa were also present. While her other son Ramesh was brought by appellants from his shop to get the doors opened conveniently. Soon after entering in the house, they started beating to said Jhhiggi Bai and other aforesaid members of her family, said ramesh was tied and ableged by them. Resultantly, he sustained burn injuries. Thereafter they took away the ornaments including the utensils from the house of said jhhiggi Bai and Devideen. ( 3 ) THE incident was reported to Police, rajnagar on which Police came into the village in the mid night of 25 and 26th of March 1987 while the offence under Sections 395, 397 IPC was registered at about 2. 30 in the afternoon on dated 26-8-1987. The complainant Jhiggi Bai has also handed over the list of articles looted by the appellants and other accused. The victims were taken to hospital for their medical examination and treatment. Their MLC reports were prepared. On arresting the appellants and other accused on their information the looted ornaments and articles were recovered and seized. After holding investigation the appellants and other accused were charge-sheeted under Section 395, 397 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. ( 4 ) THE case was committed to the Sessions, where charge under Section 395, 397, 323 and Section 450 of IPC were framed against the appellants and other accused. On denying the same, the trial was held. In order to prove the case prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, while one witness was examined on behalf of the appellants in their defence. On denying the same, the trial was held. In order to prove the case prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, while one witness was examined on behalf of the appellants in their defence. At the stage of appreciation of evidence except the appellants other accused were acquitted from the alleged charges while the appellants were held guilty under Section 412 instead Section 395, 397, 323 and 450 of IPC and sentenced as said above, hence the appellants have preferred this appeal against such conviction. ( 5 ) NO-ONE has appeared on behalf of the appellants to assist the Court for adjudication, although they have engaged the counsel for prosecuting this appeal. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State by reading out the impugned judgment and the evidence recorded by the trial Court, supported the same. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. It does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the counsel for the State and on perusing the record I proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits. ( 8 ) IT is a matter of record that the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 395, 397, 325, 450 of IPC for committing dacoity in the house of Jhhiggi bai (PW-6 ). But on appreciation of the evidence the appellants have been acquitted from the aforesaid charges but held guilty under Section 412 of IPC as they have been found in possession of alleged looted property. It is also a matter of record that State of M. P. has not filed any appeal against said acquittal of the appellants or for enhancing their sentence. Thus, the impugned judgment has become final against the respondent. ( 9 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances this Court has to examine whether looted articles and properties were seized at the instance of the appellants from their possession and the same was identified by the complainant and the concerning person in accordance with law. If the answer of this question is in affirmative and against the appellants then the impugned judgment is bound to be maintained and if answer conies in negative and in favour of the appellants then the impugned judgment will not remain sustainable. If the answer of this question is in affirmative and against the appellants then the impugned judgment is bound to be maintained and if answer conies in negative and in favour of the appellants then the impugned judgment will not remain sustainable. ( 10 ) TO examine the aforesaid questions, firstly I have gone through the memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, regarding Munnu alias Ganesh the appellant No. 1 Ex. P/5. The same was recorded by B. L. Shrivastava, (PW-19) the investigation Officer (for short the I. O. ). On giving information by the said appellant. In pursuance of it the alleged property was seized at his instance by Ex. P/13, the seizure memo. Such memorandum and seizure memo were prepared in presence of witnesses bharat (PW-2) and Dashrath (PW-10) but on their statements in Court they have not deposed the particulars mentioned in the aforesaid memos as such the same have not been proved by independent witnesses. Hence the seizure at the instance of this appellant could not be believed. ( 11 ) THE I. O. has also recorded the memorandum Ex. P/3 under Section 27 of the evidence Act. On giving information by rambhuwan the appellant No. 2. As alleged in pursuance of it the articles were seized by Ex. P/4 at the instance of the said appellant. Bharat and Dashrath were mentioned as Panch witnesses in both the memos while they have not supported these documents in their depositions like Ex. P/5 and P/13. So in the lack of independent evidence the same could not be relied on. ( 12 ) SO far the appellant No. 3 Ramsanehi is concerned, the I. O. has recorded his memorandum Ex. P/1 under Section 27 of evidence Act and in pursuance of it at the instance of this appellant, the articles were recovered by Ex. P/2, the seizure memo. On perusing the same memos I have found the names of said Bharat and Dashrath as panch witness while they have not supported the particulars of these memos in their depositions in the Court as Bharat PW-2 and Dashrath PW-10. ( 13 ) COMING to the memorandum of shayamlal, Ex. P/14 the appellant No. 4, the same was recorded on his information by the I. O. and as alleged in pursuance of it some articles were recovered at his instances by Ex. P/15, the seizure memo. ( 13 ) COMING to the memorandum of shayamlal, Ex. P/14 the appellant No. 4, the same was recorded on his information by the I. O. and as alleged in pursuance of it some articles were recovered at his instances by Ex. P/15, the seizure memo. In both the memos, said Bharat and Dashrath are mentioned as Panch witnesses while they have not supported the particulars of these memos on recording their statements in the court. So this can not be connected with the appellant. ( 14 ) THE appellant No. 5 Prabhat Singh had also given information to I. O. On which his memorandum under Section 27 of the evidence Act was recorded as Ex. P/26. In pursuance of it at his instance as alleged some articles have been seized by Ex. P/27, the seizure memo. These memos are signed by Sultan (PW-18) and Jahir (who was not examined by the prosecution) as Panch witnesses. Said Sultan (PW-18) has supported the aforesaid memorandum and the seizure memo, Ex. P/24 and P/25. The same was also supported by Investigating Officer (PW-19 ). ( 15 ) IT is settled position of law that in normal course in the absence of corroboration by independent source such memorandum or seizure memos could not be relied on. But on the other hand it is also settled that if the testimony of the Investigating officer is found reliable in surrounding circumstances of the case then mere on his testimony the aforesaid Memorandums and seizure memos could be relied. In the case at hand on perusing the testimony of the investigating Officer B. L. Shrivastava (PW-19)he has not stated specific averments as mentioned in the aforesaid memorandums and the seizure memos. Even he has not deposed the concerning specific place from where the property was taken out and recovered at the instance of concerned appellants. According to aforesaid all seizure memos the alleged articles were recovered from the houses of the concerning appellants but it has not been proved that the concerning houses were in exclusive possession of the concerning appellant at the time of the alleged seizure and no any other person was in occupation of such house. If such other persons were also in occupation of such houses then such seizure can not be connected with the concerning appellant. If such other persons were also in occupation of such houses then such seizure can not be connected with the concerning appellant. On account of this the testimony of Investigating officer can not be relied for holding the conviction against the appellants, unless the same is not corroborated with all particulars by the independent Panch witnesses. Hence, there is no option except to conclude that the alleged memorandum of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as seizure memos prepared in pursuance of the same have not been proved and the trial Court has committed error in relying the same against the appellants. ( 16 ) IF alleged recovery and the seizure from the possession of the appellants have not been proved by the prosecution then merely on account of the alleged articles or ornaments they could not be connected with the offence. ( 17 ) BESIDES the aforesaid circumstances i further proceed to examine the identification parade held by S. R. Mishra (PW-11), naib Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate regarding seized articles. According to his identification memo, Ex. P/12 the properties were identified by Devideen. Son of mathura (PW-9) and Smt. Jhuggi Bai wife of Devideen (PW6 ). As per said memo, Ex. P/12 said Devideen and Jhuggi Bai had identified their ornaments and articles in such parade but in view of the depositions of said identification officer S. R. Mishra (PW-11 ). The parade was itself polluted and cannot be held in accordance with law. The parade is always held by mixing some other identical articles with seized properties but without marking any specific mark on mixed articles, in such parade if property is rightly identified by the victim then the parade could be held in accordance with law. But where the alleged seized articles and ornaments were mixed with some other identical ornaments and articles on which some sign or mark of ink was placed by identification officer to identify differently then such parade could not be treated in accordance with law. In the deposition of said S. R. Mishra (PW-11), he categorically stated in 12th line of para 2 and onward that the articles which he mixed with the alleged seized articles he put his mark of ink on such articles. The same could be identified and sorted out from the articles on which the marks were not made. In the deposition of said S. R. Mishra (PW-11), he categorically stated in 12th line of para 2 and onward that the articles which he mixed with the alleged seized articles he put his mark of ink on such articles. The same could be identified and sorted out from the articles on which the marks were not made. This part of his deposition destroys the value of his identification parade. In such circumstances the identification parade does not remain reliable and it could not be a foundation to hold guilty to any of the appellant. ( 18 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion I have found apparent perversity and error in the impugned judgment as well as in conviction of the appellant. The same requires interference at this stage. In other words the judgments of the trial Court so far the appellants are concerned not sustainable under the existing law and liable to be set aside. With this findings the questions as proposed by me in aforesaid paras is answered in negative and also against the prosecution. ( 19 ) HENCE, by allowing this appeal the conviction and sentence of the appellants held by trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants arc acquitted from the charge of section 412 of IPC. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The amount of fine if deposited, the same be refunded to them. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed. .