ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant – State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Even though service of notice is complete on all the four respondents and they are represented by Mr. Debasis Misra, learned counsel, but he has not appeared in the matter. Yesterday also, when the matter was taken up, no one was present on behalf of the respondents. 3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2273 of 1999, whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Special Judge, convicting and sentencing the respondents herein. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material placed before us, including the judgment of the High Court. 6. At the outset it has to be noted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that it has disbelieved the prosecution story on the ground that P.W.-7 Kishore Kumar who is an important witness has not clearly supported the case of the prosecution and established that he was the last person who had seen the accused persons. 7. P.W.-15 Anil Kumar, another witness, is also not very clear in his evidence that he could not identify the accused persons as they are new to him, except Vijay, who is the resident of his own village. 8. P.W.-23 Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, who is the panch witness, has turned hostile, after recovery of the stolen articles. 9. The High Court has, thus, rightly come to the conclusion and disbelieved the manner in which the articles were seized by the Investigating Officer. Apart from that, stolen articles, which were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were put for test identification after so many days and there is no explanation as to why the test identification was arranged after a considerable long time. Thus, there is serious doubt in regard to seizure of the stolen articles. 10. 1 to 3 were put for test identification after so many days and there is no explanation as to why the test identification was arranged after a considerable long time. Thus, there is serious doubt in regard to seizure of the stolen articles. 10. Taking into consideration the lacunae in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court has rightly acquitted the respondents and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 11. It has also been brought to our notice that the accused persons have suffered 20 years of incarceration. 12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.