JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Having heard Mr. K. Patnaik for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Nayak, the learned Additional Government Advocate, I am of the view that the findings against the Petitioner recorded by the trial court holding him guilty of the charge of robbery and convicting him u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months maintained by the appellate court have been recorded without proper application of minds and without making an attempt to get at the truth on the basis of the evidence on record and for the reasons to follow, I find that to maintain the findings recorded by the two courts, concurrent though the findings are, would mean travesty of justice. 2. The case against the Petitioner, deposed to by P.Ws. 1 to 5, was that on November 10, 1977, while four of them, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5, were selling chillis and P.W. 4 was selling Ladu in the Kukumulugumma weekly market, the Petitioner, the Sarpanch of the locality, bargained with the persons selling chillis to sell this article at a lower rate and when P.W. 3 did not agree to the rate proposed by the Petitioner, the latter, by show of force, removed her basket and gunny bag containing chill is. On the first information report (Ext. 1) lodged by P.W. 1, a case was registered and on the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. The Petitioner stood trial being charged of that offence with a plea of denial and false implication. Of the seven witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 5 were said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, P.W. 7 was a witness to the seizure of basket with chillis by the Investigating Officer and P.W. 6, the then officer-in-charge of the Orkel Police Station had investigated into the case. The Petitioner had not examined any witness in his defence. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and 80, too, the appellate court. 3. It is important to note that in the first information report lodged by no other person than P.W. 1, a witness to the occurrence, no allegation whatsoever had been made with regard to the offence of theft by the Petitioner, leaving alone the offence of robbery. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and 80, too, the appellate court. 3. It is important to note that in the first information report lodged by no other person than P.W. 1, a witness to the occurrence, no allegation whatsoever had been made with regard to the offence of theft by the Petitioner, leaving alone the offence of robbery. Allegations had been made therein that the Petitioner had outraged the modesty of P.W. 3 and had abused her in filthy language and for this, as would appear from Ext. 3, the formal first information report, a case had been registered under Sections 354 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. No explanation had been offered by P.W. 1 at the time of his evidence as to how he had come forward with a case of robbery at the stage of his evidence although no such allegation had been made by him in the first information report. True, a first information report is a previous statement, which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it, but omissions of important facts affecting the probabilities of the case are relevant u/s 11 of the Evidence Act in Judging the veracity of the prosecution case. See Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. I have indicated above and I repeat, the first information report in this case had been lodged by an eye-witness who, on his own showing, had claimed to have seen the entire occurrence. The non-mention regarding the commission of the offence with which the Petitioner stood charged and was convicted in such an important document would tell its own tale and would certainly affect the veracity of the prosecution case. 4. P.W. 2 had testified about offence of robbery against the Petitioner in the Court. He had, however, not made any such statement to the Investigating Officer and this omission had been brought to his notice and proved through the Investigating Officer. In a case of this nature, this could not be characterised as an inconsequential omission and must be taken as contradiction within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W. 3 was, undoubtedly, a highly interested witness as she was said to be the victim. In a case of this nature, this could not be characterised as an inconsequential omission and must be taken as contradiction within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W. 3 was, undoubtedly, a highly interested witness as she was said to be the victim. She had blurted out a statement in her evidence, manifestly false, to the effect that the stolen articles had been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and given in their custody. This was not in the evidence of the Investigating Officer himself. This would show that P.W. 3 had scant regard for truth and her evidence should not have Qeen accepted. P.Ws. 4 and 5 had stated about the removal of the articles by the Petitioner. On their own showing, P.Ws. 1 to 5 had been sel1ing articles in the weekly market and their allegation was that the Petitioner, by his highhanded acts, wanted to purchase chillis at a low cost. They could thus be said to be interested witnesses against the Petitioner. No allegation of theft had been made in the first information report and it would undoubtedly be clear from the materials on record that having reported about a case of outraging the modesty of P.W.3 and the use of abusive words, a case was later developed at the stage of investigation that the Petitioner had committed robbery. 5. It would be seen from the evidence that at the time of the commission of the alleged acts by the Petitioner, a Constable had immediately come to the scene of occurrence when a hull a was raised. The Constable would be material witness, but without any reason shown to the Court, his evidence was withheld. 6. It was not necessary for the defence to show as to how and why P.Ws. 1 to 5 would develop a story at the stage of investigation and depose falsehood against the Petitioner. Even if the defence has not been able to show as to why some witnesses have come forward to depose against an accused person, their evidence cannot be relied on if it is found to be untrue and unreliable. Disinteiestedness, by itself, does not stamp the evidence of a witness with truth. Mysterious is the working of the human mind. Even if the defence has not been able to show as to why some witnesses have come forward to depose against an accused person, their evidence cannot be relied on if it is found to be untrue and unreliable. Disinteiestedness, by itself, does not stamp the evidence of a witness with truth. Mysterious is the working of the human mind. It is not necessary for the defend to show as to why some witnesses have appeared and testified against an accused person. See Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra. 7. Unfortunate as it might seem, the aforesaid infirmities and improbabilities in the prosecution case and the deliberate subsequent development made at the stage of investigation to make out a case of robbery about which no report had been made at the police station were completely lost sight of by Courts below and as I notice from the judgments the variance between the first information report and the evidence at the trial had not even been referred to. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are unreasonable and unfounded and do call for interference by this Court in revision. 8. The charge had not been brought home to the Petitioner and he was entitled to an acquittal. 9. I would allow the revision and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed