( 1 ) THE appellant who is A-2 in Calendar case No. 17 of 2003 was convicted for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and was sentence to undergo Rigorous mprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 457 of IPC and he further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 380 of IPC. ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the said order of conviction, the appellant (A-2) preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case, is as follows: on the intervening night of 23-8-2001 some unknown culprits gained entry into the house of P. W. 1 by breaking open the locks of the door and ransacked the articles and committed theft of Panasonic tape recorder and silver leg chains. Thereafter, the assailants entered into the house of p. W. 2 by breaking open the lock and committed theft of Omex Wrist watch. They also entered into the house of P. W. 3 by breaking open the lock, but no valuable article was found therein and thus they left the said house. ( 4 ) ON 24-8-2001, basing on a report lodged by P. W. 1, a case in Cr. No. 109 of 2001 under sections 457 and 380 of IPC was registered by l. W. 8 (Mohinuddin Ali), A. S. I, of Mallial police station, Karimnagar District and was investigated into by P. W. 7 (T. Sudershan), the Inspector of Police, Jagitial Circle and a charge sheet was filed against seven accused. As per the version of P. W. 7, the Investigating officer, A-l and A-2 were apprehended and a-3 to A-7 were absconding. Trial was proceeded against A-l and A-2. ( 5 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined P. Ws. 1 to 7, marked Exs. P-l to P-5 and M. Os. 1 to 3. ( 6 ) SINCE there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the entire case of the prosecution rested on the evidence of recovery of M. O. I (wrist watch) from the possession of the appellant after he was arrested along with a-l in the presence of P. W. 5 and another mediator. 1 to 3. ( 6 ) SINCE there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the entire case of the prosecution rested on the evidence of recovery of M. O. I (wrist watch) from the possession of the appellant after he was arrested along with a-l in the presence of P. W. 5 and another mediator. ( 7 ) IN their evidence before the learned trial Court, P. W. 5 (Bonagiri Malla Reddy), the mediator and P. W. 7, the Inspector of police have stated about recovery of M. O. 1 (wrist watch) from the appellant under recovery panchanama admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P-4. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned above. ( 8 ) THE point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant can be sustained? ( 9 ) I have heard Sri Tenneti Lakshmi kantha Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/a-2, appointed as Legal Aid counsel to defend the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 10 ) THE incident took place on 23-8-2001 and the recovery of the wrist watch worth rs. 1,000/- was said to be made from the possession of the appellant on 10-10-2001 i. e. , about two months after the incident. In the first place, it is difficult to believe that the appellant kept the wrist watch with him for such a long time without disposing of the same. Further, absolutely there was no sufficient reason assigned by the investigating officer as to how the appellant was suspected for committing the alleged offence and was arrested. In the manner in which the appellant was arrested along with a-l and the alleged theory of recovery of wrist watch from him to my mind appears to be artificial. Another serious lapse in the prosecution case is that no identification proceedings were conducted by the investigating officer for the purpose of identifying M. 0. 1 (wrist watch) by P. W. 2. It is evidence of P. W. 5, the mediator, P. W. 7, the investigating officer that a Titan wrist watch was recovered from the appellant, whereas according to Ex. P-1 report, one Omex wrist watch worth Rs. 1 (wrist watch) by P. W. 2. It is evidence of P. W. 5, the mediator, P. W. 7, the investigating officer that a Titan wrist watch was recovered from the appellant, whereas according to Ex. P-1 report, one Omex wrist watch worth Rs. 1,000/- was stolen from the house of P. W. 2. P. W. 2 (Pallikonda rajanarsaiah) also states in his evidence before the Court that a Titan wrist watch was stolen. Therefore, the discrepancy relating to the stolen property raises any amount of suspicion regarding truthfulness in the prosecution story. ( 11 ) FOR the above mentioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the evidence of p. Ws. 5 and 7 in the matter of recovery of wrist watch from the possession of the appellant, after his arrest does not inspire any confidence and is totally undependable. The learned trial Court, according to me, ought not to have placed reliance on their evidence. Further, it is not understandable as to how the learned trial Court recorded a conviction -against the appellant for the offence under Section 457 of IPC without there being any evidence with regard to the said offence. The conviction recorded for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC is wholly misconceived on account of improper appreciation of evidence. ( 12 ) THE conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court being unsustainable are liable to be set aside in this appeal. Accordingly, they are set aside and the appeal is allowed. appeal is allowed