ORDER : 1. First Information Report No. 62/2009 dated 29.03.2009 registered with Police Station – Bhaurasa, District – Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 [“IPC”, for short], did not name the accused, as unknown persons had stolen the motor cycle on the night of 29.03.2009. 2. As per the prosecution’s version, Lakhan, the co-accused, who was acquitted by the High Court, was arrested on 19.11.2009. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him as well as the appellant, Sanju, the motorcycle in question was recovered from the appellant, Sanju. 3. Yashwant Namdev (PW-2) and Abhay Namdev (PW-3), the driver and the pillion rider respectively, in their Court depositions, accepted that they could not identify the co-accused, Lakhan, and the appellant, Sanju. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we do not think that the High Court was justified and correct in affirming the conviction of the appellant, Sanju. The conviction of the appellant, Sanju, under Section 394 of the IPC is solely based upon recovery of the motorcycle on the two/joint disclosure statements. 5. In the absence of any other collaborative evidence in the given facts mere recovery of the motorcycle is not sufficient to convict the appellant, Sanju, under Section 394 of the IPC; though perhaps he could have been charged and convicted for having possession of stolen or looted property. 6. The appellant, Sanju, had already suffered incarceration for nearly five years before he was released on suspension of sentence by this Court. 7. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and the conviction of the appellant, Sanju, under Section 394 of the IPC. The bail bonds of the appellant will be treated as cancelled/discharged. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.