JUDGMENT : G. BASAVARAJA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in S.C. No.40/2013 dated 01.03.2014. 2. Parties herein are referred to as per with their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, accused No.1 has been charge-sheeted along with accused Nos.2 to 4 by the CPI, Honnali Police Station for the offence under Section 394 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.06.2001 in the midnight at about 12.10 a.m., accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 have stealthily gained entry into the house of CW1- Chandrappa situate at Sy.No.46 of Honnali and assaulted Chandrappa and his wife with clubs and caused grievous injuries to them and robbed away 3 sarees, 2 silk dhotis, 3 pairs of earrings, 3 pairs of mati, 2 pairs of gold jumkies, 30 gram gold chain, 1 mangalya chain with gold beads and 3 pairs of silver anklets totally worth of Rs.25,00,000/-. Thereby accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC. 4. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in C.C.No.103/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Honnali. Thereafter, case against the present accused No.1 was separated and registered in C.C.No.1125/2001. Thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in S.C.No.40/2013. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.14, 13 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused has totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, he has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial Court has convicted the accused No.1-appellant for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and passed the sentence. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence the appellant-accused No.1 has preferred this appeal. 8. Sri. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 would submit that the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged against him, he is innocent and he has been framed in the offence for no fault of him. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence the appellant-accused No.1 has preferred this appeal. 8. Sri. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 would submit that the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged against him, he is innocent and he has been framed in the offence for no fault of him. Without assessing the material on record, the trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the ground that the other three namely accused Nos.2 to 4 have rendered voluntary statement before the Police as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 which is completely against law. The trial Court erred in coming into the conclusion that on the basis of voluntary statement of the other accused, the appellant has been convicted. The trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant as there is no evidentiary value for the voluntary statement given by the other accused. The voluntary statement of the other accused persons has been obtained under coercion. In the absence of direct evidence against the appellant, the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of the said voluntary statement. The prosecution has failed to establish the culpability of the appellant in the alleged crime. It has not conducted identification parade to establish the identity of the accused persons involved in the alleged crime. The voluntary statement obtained under coercion is only ground for convicting the appellant, there is no circumstantial evidence to corroborate the voluntary statement of the other accused persons. It is further submitted that the recovery of the sarees by the police is completely perverse in nature. Only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and also on the previous conviction of the other accused persons, the appellant has been convicted. Further it is submitted that the present appellant has already served the sentence, though, he has not committed the alleged commission of offence. Hence, sought for allowing of this appeal. 9. As against this, Sri. B. Lakshman, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and sought for dismissal of this appeal. 10. Hence, sought for allowing of this appeal. 9. As against this, Sri. B. Lakshman, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence and sought for dismissal of this appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments on both sides and perusal of materials placed before this Court, the following points would arise for my consideration: ''(i) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused No.1/appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 397 of IPC? (ii) What order?'' Regarding Point No.1: 11. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. 12. The genesis of the case arise out of Ex.P1-complaint filed by Chandrappa, who is examined as PW1. The complaint reads as under: 13. On the basis of this complaint, on 23.06.2001, the Police Inspector, Honnali Police Station has registered the case in Crime No.115/2001 against unknown accused for the offence under Section 394 IPC. Thereafter, Police have visited the spot and conducted spot panchanama. During the course of investigation the present appellant was arrested. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 394 of IPC. 14. PW1-Chandrappa has not whispered anything against the appellant/accused No.1 and even has not identified this present appellant. PW2-Rayamma, PW.3-Nagarathna, PW4-Bharamappa, PW5-Ratnamma, PW6-Manjappa, PW7-Puttakenchappa and PW8-Narasimhappa have not whispered anything against the present accused No.1/appellant. 15. PW9-Manjunatha Kapali, Junior Engineer has deposed as to the rough sketch prepared by him at the instance of the police as per Ex.P4. 16. PW10-K.G. Rajashekarappa, Tahsildar has deposed in his evidence as to conducting identification parade as per Ex.P5 only in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4 and has not whispered anything as to the identification parade in respect of this present accused No.1. 17. PW.11-Maliyappa is the mahazar witness has partly turned hostile. 18. PW.12-G.B.Patil, Doctor, has deposed as to the examination of the injured and issuance of wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. 19. PW13-M. Nagireddy, PSI and PW14-M. Udayanayak, ACP have deposed as to their respective investigation. 20. 17. PW.11-Maliyappa is the mahazar witness has partly turned hostile. 18. PW.12-G.B.Patil, Doctor, has deposed as to the examination of the injured and issuance of wound certificate as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. 19. PW13-M. Nagireddy, PSI and PW14-M. Udayanayak, ACP have deposed as to their respective investigation. 20. On careful examination of the entire evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that only three accused persons have committed this offence as per the case of the prosecution. However, even after arrest of the accused No.1, the IO has not conducted identification parade of the appellant-accused No.1. Though in the complaint there is mention about three accused, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against four accused. The Investigating Officer has not properly explained as to how he has implicated this accused No.1 in this case. Absolutely, that there is no evidence against this accused No.1. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused No.1, only on the ground of voluntary statement given by the accused Nos.2 to 4 and that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused No.2 to 4 has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The trial Court has failed to consider the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 21. The reasons assigned by the trial Court is not correct and proper and opposed to law and against the principle of criminal jurisprudence. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any cogent, corroborative convincing and clinching legal evidence against this accused No.1 to convict him for the alleged commission of offence. Accordingly, I hold that the trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused No.1 for the alleged commission of offences. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative. Regarding Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against the accused No.1 dated 01.03.2014 is set-aside. (iii) The accused No.1/appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant/accused No.1, shall be returned to him in accordance with law. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with TCR to the trial Court. (iii) The accused No.1/appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. (iv) Fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant/accused No.1, shall be returned to him in accordance with law. Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment along with TCR to the trial Court. All pending if any, IAs stand disposed of.