JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The accused Respondents Dinabandhu domb and Kruso Domb and five others were charged under Sections 395 and 412 Indian Penal Code for alleged commission of dacoity and dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of the dacoity in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The accused Respondents along with others were all acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore. 2. On July 22, 1961 at about 8 p.m. in the night an unmarried village girl Lakshmi Domen and her companions were returning home after seeing Ratha Jatra at Nowrangapur, and on way reached place called Amala Bhata on Nowrangapur Pappadahandy main road when they are alleged to have been suddenly surrounded by eight persons armed with axes and lathis. The prosecution case is that the dacoits surrounded two out of the said party returning after seeing the Ratha Jatra, namely, the said girl Lakshmi Domen P.W. 11 and one man Kamal Lochan Domb P.W. 10 and snatched away from their person gold ornaments which they both wearing. One of the dacoits is said to have flashed torch light on the said two victims. At this time the other companions of P.Ws. 10 and 11 ran away towards an adjacent village Taragaon and waited there. After they had been robbed of their ornaments as aforesaid the two victims (P.W. 10 and 11) ran and met their companions who were waiting and narrated the incident to them. Next morning P.Ws. 10 and 11 informed the villagers about the incident and the matter was reported to the police. It is said that on July 23, 1962 P.W. 7 father of the girl victim Lakshman Domen came to the Sarpanch of Taragaon Grama Panchayat (P.W. 6) and complain that his daughter P.W.11 and Kamal Lochan (P.W. 10) were robbed on the previous night while returning after seeing Ratha Jatra at Nowrangapur. P.W. 6 asked P.W. 7 to give his report in writing. It was not however until July 27, 1961 that the formal F.I.R. came to be lodged at the local Police Station. The Police then took up the investigation. One gold ornament is said to have been recovered from the wife of one accused Bhagaban Domb on a statement made by the accused Respondent Dinabandhu. There was no other recovery. 3. It was not however until July 27, 1961 that the formal F.I.R. came to be lodged at the local Police Station. The Police then took up the investigation. One gold ornament is said to have been recovered from the wife of one accused Bhagaban Domb on a statement made by the accused Respondent Dinabandhu. There was no other recovery. 3. The prosecution case is mainly based on identification of the accused Respondents by several witnesses, recovery of the gold ornament said to have been discovered in consequence conformation received from the accused Respondent Dinabandhu and judicial confession by Dinabandhu before magistrate. 4. There are certain suspicious features in the prosecution case. The delay in filing the First Information Report is lot explained. The Sarpanch of the village P.W. 6 to whom P.W. 7 complained on July 23, 1961 asked for a report in writing which was presented to the Sarpanch. The explanation which the Sarpanch gave as to why the formal F.I.R. was not lodged until July 27, 1961 is not satisfactory. The Sarpanch?s evidence is that he endorsed the complainant?s application for enquiry by Nowrangapur police. The witness then said that the Secretary told him that he could not see the Sub-Inspector at Nowrangapur and he (Secretary) did not deliver it in person. The Sarpanch further said that he came to Nowrangapur on July 26, 161 and made enquiry about this application by the complainant; as the police had not received the application he went to Taragaon and brought it and presented it to the Sub Inspector in person. The Secretary was not examined. Therefore the alleged explanation that the Sarpanch sought to give for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be accepted. 5. That apart, there is no mention of the accused persons in the First Information Report nor of the names of their villages. It is a bald F.I.R. without the material particulars. The evidence of P.W. 10 is that P.W. 11 had told him on the way after the dacoity that two of the dacoits had met her (P.W.11) at the Jatra, and questioned her if she had married. Before the committing Magistrate, P.W. 10 had also said that he was present when the F.I.R. was being scribed. He also said that there was a congregation of two hundred people along with two accused Bhagirathi and Ghasi on the verandah. Before the committing Magistrate, P.W. 10 had also said that he was present when the F.I.R. was being scribed. He also said that there was a congregation of two hundred people along with two accused Bhagirathi and Ghasi on the verandah. The witness further said that he had seen Kruso eight days prior to the incident at Taragaon. If, in fact, some of the accused persons were known, it is unintelligible why they were not mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also significant that P.W. 10 who himself is one of the victims of the dacoity did not lodge the First Information Report. In fact he is said to have lost his gold chain. 6. Another suspicious circumstance Ratha Jatra returning party included two is this: The said females, namely, Lakshmi Domen (P.W. 11) who was unmarried and Jema who was married. The evidence of P.W. 10 is the Jema was wearing a gold Chip a Mali, a pair of Khanja Nolies on two lobes of her ears and a pair of Labangadhi on her nostrils. Thus there were several ornaments on the person of Jema. It is also not intelligible as to how Jema, with all those ornaments on her person, could escape the dacoits. 7. Moreover, there is one further striking circumstance. It appears that no injury was found on Lakshmi Domen P.W.11 though her nose ornaments are said to have been removed by the dacoits. Indeed her evidence is that she sustained some bleeding when her nose-ornaments were removed by the accused persons. The doctor P.W. 3 however could not detect any mark of injury on the nostrils of P.W. 11. 8. As regards the confession made by the accused Respondent Dinabandhu it does not appear to be true. The striking discrepancies between his statement in the confession the accused Dinabandhu refers to Taragaon as the place of incident. The prosecution case is that the place of occurrence is Amala Bhata which is at a distance of one mile from Taragaon. As regards the time of dacoity Dinabandhu states in the confession that it was 6 p.m. whereas the evidence is that it was after 8 p.m. before midnight. Then in the confession Dinabandhu refers to only females (Domins) in the Ratha Jatra returning party and not to any male (Dombs); whereas the prosecution evidence is that there were two Domins (females) and five Dombs (males). Then in the confession Dinabandhu refers to only females (Domins) in the Ratha Jatra returning party and not to any male (Dombs); whereas the prosecution evidence is that there were two Domins (females) and five Dombs (males). In the confession it is said that two Domins (two females) were victims. In evidence it is stated that the victims are one Domin (female) and one Domb (male). Further more, in the confession the accused Kruso is not mentioned whereas in evidence almost all the witnesses refer to Kruso among the dacoits. As regards weapon used in the dacoity, in the confession there is no mention of any axe, whereas in evidence the prosecution witnesses mention that one of the accused person had an axe. That apart there are other material discrepancies which make the confession not true. It is also to be noticed that accused Dinabandhu was arrested on August 3, 1961 and it was not until August 7, 1961 that he made the confession. No reliance can be placed on such confession as it is not true. 9. Then with regard to the recovery of the gold ornament, the prosecution relies on the fact that the gold ornament M.O. I was recovered on information given by the accused Dinabandhu. The seizure list ext. 10 shows that the gold ornament was seized by the police being led by the accused Dinabandhu while in custody and that he pointed out the ornament which then was worn by the wife of one accused Bhagaban who was present there. P.W. 8 is the seizure witness who as so said that accused Dinabandhu led the police to the house of accused Bhagaban that wife of Bhagaban was found wearing the gold ornament M.O.I; that Dinabandhu pointed out the same necklace to the Sub Inspector who then seized it as per seizure list ext. 10 which was attested by the witness P.W. 8. Accused Bhagaban in his statement u/s 342 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, however, stated that it is false that the gold ornament seized belongs to P.W. 10 Kamal Lochan. Accused Bhagaban said that the ornament was given to his wife by her father. In view of this claim made by accused Bhagaban, the recovery does not help the prosecution case. 10. Accused Bhagaban said that the ornament was given to his wife by her father. In view of this claim made by accused Bhagaban, the recovery does not help the prosecution case. 10. In view of the above suspicious circumstances, the alleged identification by the prosecution witnesses of the accused persons including the two accused Respondents herein appears to be doubtful. The night in which the dacoity is said to have taken place was cloudy. The prosecution witnesses on identification are P.Ws. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The accused persons including the accused Respondents are also said to have been identified at T. 1. Parade. The identification was one month after the occurrence. That apart, it is also in evidence that the accused persons were known to some of the prosecution witnesses from before. It is not permissible to treat the T. 1. Parade identification as direct evidence against the accused without anything to link it up with the evidence giver in court. In the present case there is no satisfactory evidence to connect the accused persons with the dacoity. In my opinion, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly gave the accused persons the benefit of doubt. The order of acquittal of the two accused Respondents herein is accordingly upheld, This Government Das, J 11. I agree.