Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, J. 1. All these three appellants have been convicted under Sec.396 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In the night of 20th May, 1979 at about 9 p. m. Ram Saroj Sharma (P. W. 5) was sitting at his darwaja situated in village Chhotaki Kako, P. P. Jehanabad within the District of Jehanabad. At that very time about 20 to 25 dacoits variously armed came to his Darwaja and asked the informant Ram Saroj Sharma to let them know as to where the valuables were kept. Thereafter some of the dacoits entered into his house and some of them started beating him. Other members of his family were also assaulted and properties were looted away Dacoits also fired gun. On hearing hulla Ram Nandan Singh co-villager of the informant came and resisted with the dacoits from taking away the articles. It is said that appellant Raj Kumar Singh then fired his gun due to which Ramnandan Singh received injuries and died then and there. Thereafter dacoits with looted properties went away. Amongst the dacoits these three appellants alongwith others were identified. In that very night Sub-Inspector of Police Kako Police Station came to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardoeyan Ext. 1 of P. W. 5 on the basis of which a formal case was registered and the investigation was started. In course of investigation number of persons were arrested and at the first instance charge-sheet was submitted against 12 accused persons including these appellants and 12 persons were not charge-sheeted. Subsequently Kamaldeo Yadav was also charge-sheeted One Girish Sharma (already acquitted) was later also put on trial. 2. Ultimately 16 accused persons including these appellants were committed to the court of session for trial. One of the accused died during the trial. It also appears that during the trial soma of the accused persons jumped away the bail and absconded and that they are still absconding, ultimately these appellants alongwith 4 other accused persons faced the trial. In the trying Court as many as 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants denied the allegation and pleaded their innocence and their further case appears to be that they were implicated due to enmity. 3. In the trying Court as many as 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants denied the allegation and pleaded their innocence and their further case appears to be that they were implicated due to enmity. 3. On behalf of the defence 5 witnesses were examined P. W. 4 has come to say that Kapil Dio Sengh is sale of appellant-Raj Kumar Singh and P. W. 5 has proved Ext. 3. 4. After considering the entire evidence the learned trying court convicted these appellants and other accused persons, namely, Mahendra Yadav, Nabab Manjhi, Rama Kant Sharma and Ginsh Sharma were acquitted. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the evidence against these appellants is not such which warrant any conviction against these appellants. It has also been argued that the evidence in respect of these appellants is not at (sic) all. 6. The factum of dacoity has not been challenged in this Court as well. There is sufficient evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that there was a serious dacoity in the house of the Informant. In that dacoity one Ram Nandan Singh was killed by the dacoits and some other inmates of the house were also assaulted by the dacoits. Of course the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination and examined the injured persons have not been examined but nonetheless there is oral evidence of the witnesses on this point which is quite consistent and reliable. As stated above, even the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has not questioned these facts. Therefore we find and hold that there was a dacoity in the house of the Informant in the night of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution in which Ram Nandan Singh was shot dead and inmates of the house were seriously assaulted. 7. Now question remains to be considered is whether these appellants participated in that dacoity ? Out of 10 witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are eye-witnesses of the occurrence out of them P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are identifying witnesses Appellant-Raj Kumar Singh has been identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and appellant-Kapil Deo Singh has been identified by P. Ws. 4 and 5. These three appellants are also named in the fardbeyan. P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are identifying witnesses Appellant-Raj Kumar Singh has been identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and appellant-Kapil Deo Singh has been identified by P. Ws. 4 and 5. These three appellants are also named in the fardbeyan. P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are full brothers and P. W. 6 is the mother of the Informant. P. W. 7 is the sister of P. W. 5 and P. W. 8 is the wife of P. W. 5. 8. Appellant-Raj Kumar Singh is a co-villager of the Informant. Appellant-Ram Eqbal Singh is a resident of village-Chhotka Kaka and appellant Kapil Deo Singh is a resident of village Govindpur. P. W. 1 has stated in his evidence in paragraph 22 that Ram Eqbal is a resident of village Chhotki Murari which is at a distance of 3/4 miles from his village. He also says that Kapildeo Singh is a resident of village-Govindpur, which is at a distance of 6 miles from his village. This witness has also admitted that he has no concern with either of the two villages. P. W. 2 has named Ram Eqbal Singh to have identified him in the dacoity but in paragraph 21 he says that it does not know to which village Ram Eqbal Singh belongs and who are his other family members. P. W. 3 says in paragraph 12 that he does not know village-Govindpur. In further cross-examination this witness says that he knows only one man of Chhotaki Murari but he does not know his fathers name. He also cannot says the reasons as to why he was knowing one man of Chhotaki Murari. As staled above appellant Ram Eqbal Singh belongs to village Chhotaki Murari. P. W. 8 has admitted in paragraph 28 that "Mudalaya Raja Singh Ke Pariwar (sic) se aur hamare pariwar se khana pina aana jana nahi tha". Even P. W. 1 has stated in paragraph 26 that Raja Singh ke yahan se khana pani bamare pariwar ka 5-6 sal se nahi hai hala ki we hamare beradari ke hain". P. W. 3 says that they had good relation with Raja Singh. It has also come in evidence of P. W. 1 in paragraph 30 that hamne jin jin logon ko pahchana we sabhi sukhi sampan adami hai. 9. P. W. 3 says that they had good relation with Raja Singh. It has also come in evidence of P. W. 1 in paragraph 30 that hamne jin jin logon ko pahchana we sabhi sukhi sampan adami hai. 9. From the facts appearing in the case, it is quite clear and well-established that the dacoits had come and entered into the house of the informant and in committing dacoity they also used force. Ram Nandan Singh came to protest, he was shot dead. Ho inmates of the Informant were shot dead. Therefore, it is quite clear that the dacoits had gone there with a view to commit dacoity and while committing dacoity they also used force to facilitate the commission of dacoity. 10. In the view of the matter it does not look probable that appellant Raj Kumar Singh, who is the co-villager would go to commit dacoity in the house of the Informant without any previous enmity, It is admitted by P. W. 1 himself that the appellants are also substantial persons. It has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that there is no party feeling in the village. In this back ground it has to be seen as to why no other villager has come to give evidence except own family members. No doubt only on the ground that all the witnesses are inmates of the Informant, their evidence cannot be thrown out ; but in the present case when the village is not divided in party faction the evidence of the inmates have to be judged with great caution. In the present case appellant Kapildeo belongs to village Govindpur, which is at a distance of 6 miles from the place of occurrence. No reason has been mentioned as to why he was known to all the family members of the informant rather the identifying witnesses have stated that they are not concerned with village Govindpur to which this appellant belongs Similarly these witnesses have also admitted that they have no concerned with village Chhotaki Murari to which appellant-Ram Eqbal Singh belongs. P. W. 2 has said that he does not know to which village Ram Eqbal belongs. P. W. 8 does not know village Govindpur to which Kapildeo Singh belongs. In that view of the matter the evidence of these witnesses in respect of appellant-Ram Eqbal Singh and Kapildeo Singh cannot be said to be above board. P. W. 2 has said that he does not know to which village Ram Eqbal belongs. P. W. 8 does not know village Govindpur to which Kapildeo Singh belongs. In that view of the matter the evidence of these witnesses in respect of appellant-Ram Eqbal Singh and Kapildeo Singh cannot be said to be above board. 11. Apart from this from the judgment of the trying court it will appear that accused Nawab Mushar, who was identified in Test Identification Parade by P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5 was acquitted on the ground that P. Ws. 1 and 4 had admitted that Nawab Mushar is working at their place as labourer and had left working before the day of occurrence but still he was not named in the First Information Report and was identified in the Test Identification Parade by P. Ws. 1. 4 and 5 as stated above. Similarly one Ramakant Sharma was also not named in the First Information Report, but he was identified by P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 in the Test Identification Parade, on the basis of which he was also put on trial and the evidence of these P. Ws. 1 , 2 and 4 was not accepted by the trying Court in respect of Raroakant Sharma for the reasons mentioned in the judgment itself. Similarly one Girish Sharma has also been acquitted and there is no appeal against their acquittal. Acquittal of some of the accused persons by the trial Court will not automatically be ground for the acquittal of all accused. The case of each and every individual depends on his own merit but in the present case as stated above the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 does not appear to be above board in respect of these appellants of the persons stated above. From the judgment of the trial Court it will appear that one of the accused was put on trial and was identified in the Test Identification Parade, was working as a labourer at the house of these witnesses and had left working some days before the occurrence but still he was not named in the fardbeyan and subsequently he was put on trial and was identified in the Test Identification Parade. This shows the character of the witness. This shows the character of the witness. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the witnesses in respect of these appellants as well. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against these appellants is set aside and they are acquitted. Let the appellants be released from the jail custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case.