JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. 1. RAM Din, resident of village Shivlapur, Babu, resident of Dayalpurwa, RAM Swarup, resident of Durjanapur and Babu Bhurji, resident of Maddupurwa have been convicted under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Shivlapur and Dayalpurwa are within Police Station Mallawa, district Hardoi. Durjanapur and Maddupurwa are within Police Station Kannauj, District Parrukhabad. 2. THERE is usual story against the appellants. An informer told Shiv Charan Singh (PW 2) Station Officer Kannauj on 29-1-1974 at about 11 P.M. that some bad characters would commit dacoity in the house of Akku Khan in Mohalla Bajaria, Kannauj and would assemble in the mango grove of Jahanuddin near the Abadi of Kannaujj for the said purpose. Shiv Charan Singh collected force from the Police Station. Then 6 persons of the public including Ram Prasad (PW 1) of Meera Tolai, Police Station Kannauj were taken. All the persons were divided in three parties. These parties took position to the north, east and west of the grove. The bad characters had already gathered in the middle of the grove under the mango trees. Talks of the bad characters were heard and when the bad characters were saying that they should proceed and commit dacoity, Shiv Charan Singh challenged them. Three shots of very light pistol were fired. The bad characters resorted to firing. The police also resorted to firing. Thereafter the four appellants ajnd one Bahadur were arrested and two bad characters escaped. From the possession of Bahadur ova single barrel gun, four cartridges, three silver ornaments weighing in all 1400 grams and one Mardani Dhoti were recovered. From the possession of Ram Din, one country made gun, six cartridges and silver ornaments weighing in all 850 grams were recovered. From the possession of Babu one country made pistol, three cartridges and two silver ornaments weighing in all 600 grams were recovered. From the possession of Ram Swarup one country made gun, five cartridges and six silver ornaments weighing in all 315 grams were recovered. From the possession of Babu Bhurji, one country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. The appellants did not have a licence to possess the firearms. The bad characters disclosed that the silver ornaments and Mardani Dhoti were of the dacoity committed on Sunday last in the house of Kanhe Kisan of village Lasmanpurwa, Police Station Fattepur, district Unnao. 3. The appellants did not have a licence to possess the firearms. The bad characters disclosed that the silver ornaments and Mardani Dhoti were of the dacoity committed on Sunday last in the house of Kanhe Kisan of village Lasmanpurwa, Police Station Fattepur, district Unnao. 3. THE appellants did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. Ram Din asserted that he had come to the market of Kannauj for making some purchases, that some constables met him there and wanted to take some money from him, that thereupon there took place quarrel and that, therefore, he was taken to the Police Station and then implicated in this case. Babu stated that he had brought Ghee to sell in Kannauj, that some constables wanted to have ghee at cheaper rates to which he did not agree, that his ghee was snatched and was taken to the Police Station and ultimately implicated in this case. Ram Swamp stated that he was arrested from his village because he had enmity with Phalla Dube of his village. Babu Bhurji stated that the people of his village were hostile to him because he was not doing their work as labourer and, therefore, he was falsely implicated in this case. 4. THE prosecution examined [Ram Prasad, Shiv Charan Singh, Station Officer and Prem Chand, Sub-Inspector (PWs 1, 2 and 3) to prove its case. On the other side Jagat Narain and Hori Lal (DWs 1 and 2) were examined. Jagat Narain is of the village of Babu Bhurji. He stated that two constables had taken away Babu Bhurji from his village and that thereafter he did not return. Three days later he learnt that Babu Bhurji was involved in a case like the present one. Hori Lal is of village Likhpuri. He stated that he had come to the market of Kannauj, that the police constables took away Babu along with the ghee from the market. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, did not believe the testimony of the defence witnesses and as such convicted the appellants. 5. LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been examined with their assistance. 6. THIS case presents a most unusual feature. It was Tuesday on 29-1-1974. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, did not believe the testimony of the defence witnesses and as such convicted the appellants. 5. LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been examined with their assistance. 6. THIS case presents a most unusual feature. It was Tuesday on 29-1-1974. At the time of arrest of the appellants and Bahadur, four of them had silver ornaments in all weighing 3, 165 grams (about 3-3/4 seers) and a Mardani Dhoti. These articles were looted from the district Unnao on the previous Sunday i.e. on 27-1-1974. After having committed dacoity in district Unnao the dacoits would keep the looted articles at some safe place. It is not understandable that they would carry the entire looted articles with them and assemble a couple of days later with a view to commit another dacoity. The dacoits cannot rule out the possibility of an encounter with the village people. They also cannot rule out the possibility of their arrest by the police. In these circumstances they would not carry such a big quantity of silver ornaments looted within couple of days. This fact shows that the police of Kannauj not only wanted to implicate Bahadur, Ram Din, Babu and Ram Swarup im the case of dacoity of district Unnao, but also it wanted to rope in these persons in the present case. At the time of arrest of the appellant Bahadur there were six members of the public. Out of them only one, namely, Ram Prasad has been produced. He is a labourer. He can easily be prevailed upon by the police to give evidence. 7. JAGAT Narain (DW 1) is not; related to Babu Bhurji. His statement does not show that he was interested in Babu Bhurji and out to tell a lie. His statement clearly shows that Babu Bhurji was taken away from his village. This fact goes to belie the prosecution case. 8. TAKING into consideration tine above broad features of the case, reliance cannot safely be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It appears that the police arrested the appellants from some other place and not from the grove of Jahanuddin as alleged. In view of this conclusion, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 8. TAKING into consideration tine above broad features of the case, reliance cannot safely be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It appears that the police arrested the appellants from some other place and not from the grove of Jahanuddin as alleged. In view of this conclusion, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of all the four appellants for the various offences recorded by I Additional Sessions Judge Farrukhabad on 31-3-1977 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted in the case. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.