Walsh, J.

1. In this case the accused have been convicted of house-breaking and theft, offences under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. There is no direct evidence that any of them were seen at the place of house-breaking and the conviction rests on the subsequent recovery of certain of the stolen articles. The learned Sessions Judge says in his charge to the jury there Is hardly little or no evidence on record that these accused were arrested with these articles in their possession.

2. So the evidence against them is that of third persons to whom they handed over the property. One of these is P.W. 6 to whom 6 brass vessels, M.O.S. 2 to 7 and a silk saree, M.O. 10 were sold. As regards this witness the learned Judge instructed the jury as follows:

What P.W. 6, Abdul Rahim Sahib, says is that accused 1, 2 and 4 who are all brothers brought to him these brass vessels and one silk saree, M.O.S. 2 to 7 and 10, and wanted him to give them Rs. 2. As he had no money then he gave them six annas. You have seen this witness in the box. These three accused were living in his land. He knew them very well. He was compelled to say that these brass articles could not have been owned by these accu