(70) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) helped accused No.1 Jawed and they concealed him in the hotel “Pancham” though they were knowing about the act of accused Jawed. Hence I am of the opinion that prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos.2 & 3. 114/­ Same is the case of Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused Nos.2 & 3 had abetted the commission of said crime by accused No.1. But again on this point also there is no cogent and reliable evidence so as to come to the conclusion that the accused Nos.2 & 3 had abetted accused No.1 to commit said crime. Hence the offence under Section 109 of IPC is also not proved by prosecution against accused Nos.2 & 3. 115/­ So far as the offence under Section 412 of IPC is concerned, it speaks about the possession and receiving of the property by committing of dacoity. Here it is not the case of dacoity since it appears that accused No.1 alone had entered in the house of victim. Hence I am of the opinion that Section 412 of IPC is not applicable to the facts of this case. 116/­ So far as an offence under Section 411 of IPC against accused No.2