Banerji, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted under Sec.395, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Four other persons were tried in this analogous trial but they were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

2. Shortly, the prosecution case was that a dacoity was committed in the house of one Meghlal Yadav on the night of 22 and 23-6-1952. In that dacoity, the prosecution witnesses claimed to have identified the appellant and also, others. The learned Sessions Judge discussed the evidence and found the same discrepant and on that finding he refused to act on it. He, however, was convinced that the appellant had taken part in the dacoity, because when he was examined under Sec.342, Criminal P. C, the committing Magistrate, he admitted his guilt and also named other persons who were concerned in that dacoity.

Along with this statement made under Sec.342, Criminal P. C., before the committing Magistrate, another fact was taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was that from the house of this appellant four rent receipts (Exts. 1/10 to 1/13) were recovered, by the Sub-Inspector of police (P. W. 14) who had v