Judgment 1. Committed dacoity in the house of the informant Haroon Sardar and also in the nearby houses of four other person in the village Bhoj Pandual Tola gazba P. S. Bisfi district Madhubani and in course of committing dacoity they also assaulted the informant and others. One accused Mukhteshwar Yadav alias Mukesh Yadav, had also been tried with the appellants, but was found not guilty and acquitted the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The informant Haroon Sardar went to Bisfi P. S. at about 8.15 a. m. on 1-6-1981 and lodged first information report (Ext.3 ). The case stated in the first information report is that at about 10-15 p. m. the informant had come out of his house for urination whereupon he was surrounded by 15 to 20 persons who were variously armed with Bhala, Farsa and Lathi and they were also Sashing torches and they dragged him into his house and looted the properties. In the light of the torches he could identify the accused persons including the appellants, and finding that most of them were of his village and some of adjoining village, he remarked as to why they, being neighbours, had come to commit dacoity in his house. He was threatend to be killed and one of the dacoits named Naga Yadav armed with a Farsa gave a Farsa blow on his neck but it could hit them on the head. He however, managed to run out of his house and raised hull a whereupon a large number of the villagers came and on seeing them the dacoits ran away alongwith the body. After the departure of the dacoits he found that several person had been injured and they too gave out that they had identified several accused which included the appellants. In the first information report, the informant also gave a list of the various article which are said to have been stolen by the dacoits from his own house well as from the other houses where also the dacoity had been committed. The police submitted charge-sheet in the case and in due course the appellants and Mukesh Yadav were put on trial resulting in conviction and sentence of the appellants as indicated above. 3. The police submitted charge-sheet in the case and in due course the appellants and Mukesh Yadav were put on trial resulting in conviction and sentence of the appellants as indicated above. 3. The defence of the accused person is that they are either co-villagers of the informant and other alleged victims of the dacoity, or residents of the neighbouring village and that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of their enimies. 4. The only point to determine in this appeal is whether the charge against the appellants has been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and sentences passed against them are sustainable. 5. It has been submitted that the first information report as well as the evidence of the witnesses show that all the accused persons including the appellants were known to the informant and most of the other witnesses from before and further that all the accused persons were either residents of the same village or of nearby village Salempur underline same P. S. and under-such circumstances it is extremly improbable that they would go to commit dacoity in the house of the informant and his neighbours and that too without taking necessary precautions for concealing their identity. The first informant report mentions that the informant on having seen and identified the appellants among the dacoits asked they as to why they being neighbours had come to commit dacoity in his house. The contention is that known persons do not go to commit dacoity in such a manner. It has further been submitted that since the informant himself by his own utterance indicated that he had identified the accused persons among the dacoits, the dacoits would not thereupon leave him and permit his escape so that he would go and call the villagers and under such circumstances it can be normally expected that the dacoit would severally assault him so as to kill him or permanently disable him. The informant, however, had received only a minor incised injury 1" X1/4" X1/8" on his forehead as was found on medical examination by the doctor P. W.12 on 1-6-1981 at Bisfi State Dispensary. This single minor injury does not fit in with the facts alleged by the informant. The informant, however, had received only a minor incised injury 1" X1/4" X1/8" on his forehead as was found on medical examination by the doctor P. W.12 on 1-6-1981 at Bisfi State Dispensary. This single minor injury does not fit in with the facts alleged by the informant. There is substance in the defence contention that when it became known that the dacoits had been identified by the informant, they were likely to commit severe and numerous assaults and would not have allowed him to escape. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that several of them including the mukesh who has been acquitted by the trial court belong to the same family it. is pointed out that appellants Naga Yadav, Parichan, Yadav, Ram Prasad yadav, Ram Khelawan Yadav, Kishun Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Bhola yadav are closely related to each other and it is difficult to believe that all members of a family and their near relations will go in a body to commit dacoity in the house of a known person. In this context it is pointed out that the appellant Bhola Yadav was aged about 70 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and it is difficult to believe that such an old person would go to commit dacoity. There can be no doubt that the above improbabilies and unnatural situations throwing doubt on the prosecution case. 6. As many as 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined but since the defence does not challenge the factum of dacoity there is no need to discuss the evidence of these witnesses individually or in detail. Most of these witnesses have also spoken about having seen and identified the accused in the dacoity, but as indicated above these witnesses knew accused persons from before and as such the improbabilities, as indicated above become relevant. From the evidence it appears that most of the witnesses claim to have identified the accused persons, or either related to each other or are close neighbours, and there is substance in the defence allegation that independent witnesses of the village have not come forward to support the claim of identification although according the informant himself a large number of villagers happened to reach the P. O. at the time of occurrence and some of them are even said to have chased the dacoits. 7. 7. According to the defence, there was disputes and enmity between the informant Hassan Sardar and the witnesses on one side and the accused persons on the other. The first ground of enmity, according to the defence is that the informant had taken loan of Rs.1500/- from Jamadar Yadav father of accused Kishun Yadav in April 1979 and that he has paid only a part of this loan money (i. e. only Rs.716/-) and Rs.1,000/- is still due and the informant has refused to pay the remaining dues. Hence the differences. In course of cross-examination, the informant PW 11 denied having taken any loan and having returned a part of it and having executed any document in this regard. The defence has examined several witnesses including the hand writing expert. Zamadar Yadav deposing as DW 9 speaks about having advanced loan to the informant Haroon Sardar and about return a part of the loan money by him from Calcutta. This has been supported by DW 4 who said that in his presence the informant had taken loan from Zamadar Yadav. But more important is the evidence of the handwriting expert DW 12 who after examination and corparison of the thumb impression of the informant on the loan document with an accepted thumb impression, has clearly stated that both the finger prints are of the same person. He was cross-examined at length but there is nothing to show that his opinion his wrong or unreliable. This evidence, therefore, clearly supports the defence plea that loan had been taken by the informant from zamadar Yadav and that loan later on the became dishonest and did not want to pay the same leading to dispute and differences between the parties The informant (PW 11) has denied taking of the loan and this indicates that he is not a truthful person. It may be significant to note that the case had been supervised by S P. and it appears that the S. P. in his supervision note had also considered this aspect of the matter and indicated that the case against the appellants appeared to be a false one. It may be significant to note that the case had been supervised by S P. and it appears that the S. P. in his supervision note had also considered this aspect of the matter and indicated that the case against the appellants appeared to be a false one. Some witnesses including the Mukhia DW 4 have spoken about a Panchayti which took place at his house on 31-5-1981 in which accused Malik Yadav and ram Prasad Bhagat are said to have been present and his Panchayati according to the DWs went on up to about 10 p. m. Thus the evidence of the mukhia and some of the other DWs proves the alibi of these two accused and there is no reason as to why their evidence should be brushed aside. In this context it is pertinent to note that the informant and the other witnesses had even implicated Mukteshwar Yadav alias Mukesh Yadav who is also related to several of the appellants and the trial court itself found that the evidence of the informant and others regarding participation of Mukesh in the dacoity should not be relied upon and as such the trial court acquitted Mukesh yadav although he was named in the first information report. This clearly indicated an attempt to falsely implicate the accused and when this is considered in the background of the differences arising between the parties on account of the loan, the possibility of false implication of accused persons cannot be ruled out. While the informant PW 11 was being cross-examined, he was asked about there being groupism in the village on account of panchayati election. He has of course tried to deny it but the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that there was rivalary on this account. PWs 11 evidence in paragraph 25 and 26 show that there were several cases between Mohammad Ishaque and Nathuni Yadav who was the uncle of accused Kishun Yadav. He has of course tried to deny it but the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that there was rivalary on this account. PWs 11 evidence in paragraph 25 and 26 show that there were several cases between Mohammad Ishaque and Nathuni Yadav who was the uncle of accused Kishun Yadav. PW 11 has admitted that Mohammad Ishaques son ashik Hussan has been doing pairvi for his case and often comes to court with him This is another indication of the informant and his associates being aeainst the accused and their associates In course of cross-examination in suggestion was also given to PW 11 that there is a dispute between him and other Muslims of the village on one side and appellant nathuni Yadav and his relations on the ether on question of the Kabrutan land as Naga Yadav and his relations claim possession over the said land since a long time. It will thus appear that there may have been number of causes for differences between the parties and in this background the defence plea of false implication cannot be ruled out. In this context it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of DW G Garbhu Mandal who is a Rikshaw puller. He fas said that in the morning the informant and his brother had gone on his rickshaw from the village to the P. S. and that while they spoke about the occurrence of dacoity, they did not mention about having identified any of the dacoits. There is nothing to show that this witness has any reason to give false evidence. 8. The informant and the witnesses claimed identification of the accused persons in torch light. According to them the torches were being flashed by the dacoils themselves. PW 11 claims that he also had a torch with him. It is difficult to believe that so many among the dacoits could be identified by intermittent flashing of torches by them because they would be flashing the torches either twowards the inmates of the house or the properties and not on the faces of each other. It is also difficult to believe that the dacoits would permit the informant to flash his own torch in such a manner so as to facilities identification. Under these circumstances, the identification of so many accused persons in the light of flashing of torches also appears somewhat improbable. 9. It is also difficult to believe that the dacoits would permit the informant to flash his own torch in such a manner so as to facilities identification. Under these circumstances, the identification of so many accused persons in the light of flashing of torches also appears somewhat improbable. 9. It has also been pointed out by the defence that some of the persons, in whose houses the dacoity had been committed, have not come forward to give evidence against the appellants and this is because they did not want to play the tune as desired by the informant. It has been pointed out that dacoity had been committed in the house of Jamila Khatoon P. W.9 but she is a tendered witness and has not come forward to say that she had identified any of the accused. Again, Mohammad Tahir in whose house dacoity had been committed has not been examined. The argument is that if these persons had in fact identified any of the appellants in course of the dacoity in their houses or the neighbouring houses, they were likely to come forward and speak about it. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant evidence on record, I find that the prosecution case suffer from improbabilities and the alleged participation of the appellants in the occurrence of dacoity has not been substituted beyond reasonable doubt by cogent and independant evidence. On the other hand, the materials on record show that there was ample scope for false implication. Even the trial court found it to be so in the case of accused Mukteshwar Yadav alias Mukesh Yadav who had been named in the first information report. Thus considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the charge of participation in the dacoity has not been proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, I find them not guilty of the charge under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside their convictions and sentences. Their appeal thus stands allowed. Appeal allowed