Judgment M. P. Varma, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of the one and the same judgment of the trial court dated 31st May, 1979, by which the aforesaid three appellants have been convicted of the offence under Sec.395 of the Indian penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. One of the appellants Bhunda Chamar in Criminal appeal No.193/79 has been further found guilty of the offence under Sec.27 of the arms act and has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years on this count. Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment they have been heard together and this judgment will cover all the three appeals. 2. According to the prosecution a dacoity was committed in between the night of 10th and 11th May, 1970 in the house of one Chhangur Sao (P. W.1 ). His wife Sadami (P. W.2) was sleeping with him in a room when the dacoits, about 8 to 10 in number entered inside the room by pushing open the door. This witness P. W.2 has said that one of the accused, named Ram Prasad chamar entered the house of Chhanguri Chamar, snatched her hansuli and nathuni (nose-ring) and she also identified the appellant Bhunda Chamar, who according to her was carrying a pistol. It is further said that the dacoits removed some boxes containing ornaments, cloths and utensil. There was a cry which attracted the attention of the neighbors, who came running to the place of occurrence. It is further said that P. W.7 Daroga Choubey, while running to the scene of occurrence carrying a bhala hit one of the accused, who later on has been pointed as accused Ram Prasad. P. W.4, who is also one of the villagers has said that one of the dacoits opened fire causing gun shot injury to his hand. P. W.1 Chchangur chamar was also assaulted by the docoits and his statement is the on receiving injuries, he became unconscious. He was removed to. Kochas hospital for medical aid and treatment. P. W.4, who is also one of the villagers has said that one of the dacoits opened fire causing gun shot injury to his hand. P. W.1 Chchangur chamar was also assaulted by the docoits and his statement is the on receiving injuries, he became unconscious. He was removed to. Kochas hospital for medical aid and treatment. The Chaukidar of the village had also arrived on hula and after collecting information from the inmates of the house and all others, who were present at the scene, left for the police station Ramgarh, where he lodged his farebeat on the basis of which the first information report marked exhibit i was drawn. Police instituted a case proceeded with the investigation and finally submitted charge-sheet against the aforesaid three appellants, who were thus, put on trial. 3. At the trial stage the prosecution examined seven witnesses to substantiate the allegation brought against these appellants. A doctor was examined before the committing Magistrate, who had examined the injuries of the accused appellant Ram Prasad Chamar. He has found injuries on accused Ram Prasad , chamar on 17th September, 1970. The doctor found one scar 2" x 1/8" in the middle at the periphari on the left side of the middle of the back of "chest 1" with straight margin and another faint linear scar mark 2" x 1/10" straight and almost of the same scar mark No.1, The doctor has described these injuries as incised wounds and according to him it was caused within a span of three months from the date of examination. 4. Counsel for the appellants while attacking the correctness of the finding of the court below, has referred to the first information report (Ext.1 ). It has been vehemently argued that the Chaukidar of the village came to the scene of occurrence and had a talk with the witnesses, but in spite of it, the names of the appellants do not find mention in the first information report. In this context the learned Advocate for the appellants have argued that the entire case has been concocted at the instance of a Purohit of village Ramadhin Choubey, who was inimical to these appellants. The Chaukidar, who lodged the information has not been examined. Even the Investigating Officer of the case has not been produced in Court. In this context the learned Advocate for the appellants have argued that the entire case has been concocted at the instance of a Purohit of village Ramadhin Choubey, who was inimical to these appellants. The Chaukidar, who lodged the information has not been examined. Even the Investigating Officer of the case has not been produced in Court. It is not clear from the impugned judgment how this F. I. R. has been put in evidence and marked as Ext.1. However, counsel for the State has submitted that the first information report is an inadmissible document and the appellants cannot take advantage of such a document. In other words, it has been submitted that it is not open at this stage for the appellant to argue that the names of the accused were not disclosed at the earlier stage in view of the fact that this court cannot look into the document. Thus, assuming that the first information report is inadmissible, question arises whether the names of these appellants v ere disclosed at the earlier stage. The dacoity had been committed in the house of P. W.1 chhangur Sah. He has not is identified anyone of the accused. He has said that he get unconscious and therefore he could not see anyone so much so that he could not say how many dacoits were there and he admitted that even in the statement before the police he did not give the name of anyone of the accused for want of identification. P. W.2 Sudami Devi is the wife. It is she who claims to have identified all the three appellants including Bhunda Chamar, who was carrying a pistol. Her statement has been attacked, as stated above, on the ground that had she given out the names to the Chaukidar, those names must have found mentioned in the first information report. Counsel for the state, as pointed out above, has seriously challenged the admissibility of the document. A plain reading of her evidence in court will show that she did not name any one of the accused before the Chaukidar. Her statement is that she did not give out the name and that she was examined by the police three days after the occurrence. Non-disclosure of the names at the earlier stage makes her entire evidence shaky. It has further to be noted that Dina Sah (P. W.6)is her own son. Her statement is that she did not give out the name and that she was examined by the police three days after the occurrence. Non-disclosure of the names at the earlier stage makes her entire evidence shaky. It has further to be noted that Dina Sah (P. W.6)is her own son. He too has said that his mother did not give out the name of any of the accused. 5. Counsel for the State has of course submitted that one cf the accused rani Prasad Chamar was hit by a Bhala by P. W.7 Daroga Choubey and the doctor found a Bhala injury on his body which leads to the presumption of his involvement in the commission of the dacoity. The argument is very laudable, but I am not inclined to accept the contention raised at the Bar in view of the fact that according to the doctor a slight scar mark was found on the body of the accused. The accused belongs to the same village to which the witness belongs and the possibility of knowing such marks on the body by the accused cannot be ruled out inasmuch as mark of a healed scar also is no proof that he was hit by the witness as alleged. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has next drawn my attention to the evidence of P. W.4 and has submitted that his evidence atleast is fit to be accepted in view of the fact he is one of the witnesses who got injury in course of the incident. Unfortunately for the prosecution no doctor was examined to prove the injury. He has spoken about identification of only Bbunda Chamar. The case is that Bhunda Chamar entered the house carrying a pis o1, but this witness did not say that Bhunda Chamar was carrying any pistol and hed fired. I therefore, do not feel to accept the testimony of this witness as well. 7. Witness No.3 of course, has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Be that as it may this witness too met P. W.4 Jaumejay Choubey on way while coming to house of P. W.1 Chhangur Sah. He did not say that he heard any firing or causing injury to P. W.4 Jaumajay Choubey, 8. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution story it would be quite unsafe to convict the appellants on the charges aforesaid. 9. He did not say that he heard any firing or causing injury to P. W.4 Jaumajay Choubey, 8. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution story it would be quite unsafe to convict the appellants on the charges aforesaid. 9. In the result the appeal succeeds and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Sri Kamendra Kumar Counsel for the appellant Bhunda Chamar has pointed out that this appellant is in jail since be could not get bail. Let him be released from the jail custody forthwith and the other appellants be discharged from their bail bond, appeal allowed.