Judgment Satyeshwar Roy and R.N.Thakur JJ. 1. All the appellants were charged under various sections, including sec. 396 of Indian Penal Code and have been convicted under that count. All the appellants except appellant No. 1, 5 and 11 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Appellant No.1, 5 and 11 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The investigation of the case was taken up on the basis of the first information report lodged by Tula Nonia who was injured during the course of the dacoity and who succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 3. According to the prosecution, on the 17th August, 1977, at about 10 p.m., the appellants variously armed committed dacoity in the house of Tula Nonia. Tula Nonia and Brij Bihari Nonia (PW 1) were injured. Tula Nonia succumbed to the injuries. The dacoits forcibly took away she-buffaloes, bullocks, cow and calf. They also took away a box which contained various documents, clothes, etc. The cattle taken away by the dacoits were worth of Rs. 4000.00 . The trial court, on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 found these appellants guilty. 4. All the appellants came from the same family and the PWs on whom the trial court relied upon were also the family members of Tula Nonia. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution that the first information report was lodged by Tula Nonia when he was brought to the police station could not be believed on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case. In support of this submission, the learned counsel drew our attention to the evidence of PW 14, the doctor, who had attended first on Tula Nonia when he was taken to the hospital and the evidence of other witnesses named in the first information report itself. He submitted that Tula Nonia was unconscious when he was brought to the police station and, therefore, he was not in position to give any statement as alleged by PW 13, the Investigating officer. 6. He submitted that Tula Nonia was unconscious when he was brought to the police station and, therefore, he was not in position to give any statement as alleged by PW 13, the Investigating officer. 6. It appears from the record that the statement of Tula Nonia was recorded at the police station on the 18th August, 1977, at 2 a.m. and thereafter he was sent to the hospital. PW 14 who first attended on Tula Nonia at about 3.20 a.m. on the 18th June, 1977, stated in his evidence that so far he could recollect Tula Nonia was unconscious. We find no reason why the appellants can not take the advantage of this statement of PW 14. PW 1 also in bis evidence stated that, on the way to the police station, Nonia did not speak-The first information report was recorded by PW 13. At the end of the first information report, there is an L.T.I. of a person. There is no endorsement that the said L.T.I. was that of Tula Nonia. The evidence of PW 14, and PW 1 and the first information report itself creates a doubt as to whether Tula Nonia was in a position to make any statement when he was taken to the police station. That being the position, no reliance can be placed on the first information report which was alleged to have been drawn on the basis of the statement of Tula Nonia. 7. It has come in evidence that there" as enmity between Tula Nonia and the appellants with regard to some lands. The appellants were the next door -neighbours of Tula Nonia. As noticed above, all the appellants came from the same family. All the appellants, therefore, were known from before to Tula Nonia and his family members. It is not case of the prosecution that all the appellants or anyone of them tried to conceal their identity when they came to commit dacoity in the house of Tula Nonia. From the facts noticed above, it does not appear to be natural that the persons very much known from before will go to commit dacoity in the house of their neighbour without concealing their identity. According to the prosecution the appellants were identified by means of a lantern which was burning and flash of torch. From the facts noticed above, it does not appear to be natural that the persons very much known from before will go to commit dacoity in the house of their neighbour without concealing their identity. According to the prosecution the appellants were identified by means of a lantern which was burning and flash of torch. Neither the torch nor the lantern was seized by PW 13 According to PW 13, they were not produced before him. Consequently, at the trial neither the lantern nor the torch was produced. The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the means by which the witnesses identified the dacoits. 8. According to the prosecution, the dacoits took away four she-buffaloes, three bullocks, one cow and one calf besides a box containing some clothes documents etc. As we have already noticed, since the appellants were the next door neighbour, it was not natural of them to take away forcibly the cattle which could have been easily identified by the family members of Tula Nonia. According to the prosecution, on hearing hulla, Dukhi Ahir, Sheomuni Ahir. Chandrika Ahir and others came to the place of the occurrence and they also saw the occurrence. The aforesaid three persons are alleged to have accompanied Tula Nonia to the police station. PW 13 admitted in his evidence that he did not examine them. Their signatures or L.T.I. also do not appear in the first information report. We have already noticed that PWs said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence were the family members of Tula Nonia. When there were independent witnesses who had seen the occurrence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine them. The prosecution has given no explanation as to why they were not examined in support of its case. All these facts create doubt with regard to the case of the prosecution. 9. Out of the 11 appellants, appellant No. 5 and 8 were about 13 years and 16 years, respectively, at the time of the occurrence. From the judgment of the trial court, we find that both the hands of appellant No. 11 were deformed. It does not appear natural for at least these three persons to commit dacoity. The implication of these three persons in the dacoity alleged to have been taken place in the house of Tula Nonia also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 10. It does not appear natural for at least these three persons to commit dacoity. The implication of these three persons in the dacoity alleged to have been taken place in the house of Tula Nonia also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 10. For the reasons stated above, we are of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against all the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the court below are set aside. The appellants are discharged from their bail bond.