A. N. DIKSHITA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, Munni Lal son of Ram Nihor Kewat has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31. 3. 1979 passed by Sri M. M. H. Siddiqui, Addi. Sessions Judge, Gyanpur-Varanasi in Session Trial No. 109 of 1977 convicting him under Section 395 read with 397 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant in the company of about 10 or 12 persons committed a dacoity in the night between 13/14th September, 1974 at about 12 in the night at the house of Ram Lakhan Yadav in village Manga Patti-Sughne. It is also alleged that they started assaulting Raj Karan, his brother with lathi and ballam, Ram Lakhan was sleeping on the northern door of the house. He immediately got up from his sleep and went towards the western side lighting his torch, when suddenly one of the dacoits fired a shot and one pellet hit his fore-head. Raising an alarm, he ran towards the village. One of the dacoits managed to enter into the house through the roof and after reaching inside the house opened the northern door. Thereafter the dacoits entered and looted the house. The informant then put the fire into the heap of Sanai lying on the north-western side of the house. On the raising of the alarm, Ram Sumer Yadava, Ram Kishore Gaderia. Ram- Autar Yadava raising alarm and lighting torches reached the spot. After looting the house of Ram Lakhan Yadava, the dacoits looted the house of one Punwasi Gaderi!i. All the villagers who had assembled reached there. One of the dacoits exhorted to extinguish the light and ran away. A chase was given. Dacoit, Munni Lal son of Ram Nihor Kewat was surrounded, beater and caught, while the other dacoits fled away. The dacoits were recognized in the light of lantern and with the burning of the Sanai. Munni Lal was detained at the spot as two constables on night patrol duty had reached there. Injuries were received by Ram Lakhan Yadav, Raj Karan and brothers daughter Meeta. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Ram Lakhan at 5. 30 A. M. at the Police Station, Gopiganj, the distance being 6 miles. The report also discloses the articles which were looted during the commission of the dacoity. Injuries were received by Ram Lakhan Yadav, Raj Karan and brothers daughter Meeta. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Ram Lakhan at 5. 30 A. M. at the Police Station, Gopiganj, the distance being 6 miles. The report also discloses the articles which were looted during the commission of the dacoity. lv2duqqy lksus dk xksy otu djhc 10 vkuk Hkj ,d tksm+k 2v2 Bqed lksus dh otu djhc 2 vkuk Hkj 3v2 dhy lksus dh djhc 1 vkuk Hkj 4v2 xys dh ldjh pkanh dh 5 yj dh otu ikao Hkj 5v2 ypns pkanh ds 17 vnn 6v2 glqyh pkwanha dh ekvj otu djhc 40 Hkj 7v2 xys dh ldjh 4 yj dh pkanh 8v2 dj/ku pkanh dh 1@2 lsj 8 yj dh 9v2 ypnh pkanh dh 19 vnn 10v2 Vhdk lksus dh otu djhc 5 vkuk Hkj 11v2 NUuha pkanh 12v2 dm+k pkanh dk Hkjrw xksyk otu djhc 1 lsj 13v2 dj/ku pkanh 9 yi dh 1@2 lsj dh 14v2 ik;y pkanh otu 3 NVkad 15v2 dj/ku pkanh dh [ksvhuqek 16v2 Nkxy /kq?kjnkj 1 iko 17v2 ukd dh dhy ,d vkuk Hkj 18/2 Bqwedh lksus dh nks vkuk Hkj 19v2 ldjh pkanh dh 8 yj dh otu 1 iko Hkj 20v2 lksus dh vaxwbh ux yky iax N% vkuk Hki21v2 ukd dh dhy lksus dh 7 Hkj 22v2 ukd dh Bwedh ,d vkuk Hkj 23v2 ypnk pkanh 17 vnn 1@2 lsj vksj iqukzoklh xmsfj;k dk ikeku 1/2 giqyha pkanh dh 2v2 nks tksm+h nj dksok 3v2 cvqvk dkudv nks vnn 4v2 dvksjk Qy dk 1@2 lsj dk] ywv ys x, gs A 3. The investigation started. Injured were sent for medical examination. Ram Lakhan was examined on 14. 9. 1974 at 9. 45 A. M. by Dr. A. N. Singh (P. W. 1) at the Primary Health Centre Gopiganj, the Doctor found the following injuries on his person: Injury No. 1: Lacenated wound 1/4 Cm x 1/4 Cm x skin deep on the left side of forhnead 41/2 cm above the left eye brow. Clotted and dried blood present on the wound circular in shape. There is swelling of 4 cm x 3 cm around the wound. There is no mark of blackening and charring or tattooing around the wound. Injury is under observation and to be confirmed after X-ray for the presence of shot and for the confirmation of injury. Clotted and dried blood present on the wound circular in shape. There is swelling of 4 cm x 3 cm around the wound. There is no mark of blackening and charring or tattooing around the wound. Injury is under observation and to be confirmed after X-ray for the presence of shot and for the confirmation of injury. Duration about 1/2 day old. Raj Karan was also examined by the same doctor at 10 A. M. on 14. 9,74 and the following injuries were found on the person. 1. Contusion wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm bone deep on toe hack of bead. 41/2 cm. above the right the fresh clotted, dal blood present. Punctured wound 21/2 cm x 1/4 cm. x thickness of the each on the front of right ear middle passing through and through margins are clear cut. Contusion wound 3/4 cm x skin deep on the left side of upper lip. Contusion wound 10 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep on the left side of upper lit 1/2 cm away from injury no 3. Contusion 10 cm. x 2 cm on the back of the right shoulder. Contusion wound 33 cm. x 2 cm on the back running transfersely on both side of mid-line 4 cm. below injury no. 5. Contusion wound 10 cm x 2 cm on the left side back 10 cm. below injury no. 6 Contusion wound 121/2 cm x 2 cm on the left side back extending beyond midd-line 13 cm. below injury, no. 3. Contusion wound 9 cm. x 2 cm on the back of the right arm 12 cm. below the left shoulder. Contusion wound 10 cm. x 2 cm on the back of the right arm 4 cm. below injury no. 9. Contusion wound 81/2 cm x 2 cm. on the back of the right arm 3 cm. below injury no. 10. Contusion 9 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of the right forearm 6 cm; below right elbow. Contusion swelling 5 cm. x 2 cm. on the dorsum of the right band. Just below the wrist. Contusion swelling 6 cm. x 21/2 cm on the part of the right leg 11 cm. below the knee. Contusion 6 cm, x 2 cm. on the part of left let 12 cm. above the ankle. Abrasion 11/2 cm x 1 cm on the middle side of left unkle. Injury no. Just below the wrist. Contusion swelling 6 cm. x 21/2 cm on the part of the right leg 11 cm. below the knee. Contusion 6 cm, x 2 cm. on the part of left let 12 cm. above the ankle. Abrasion 11/2 cm x 1 cm on the middle side of left unkle. Injury no. 1 is under observation. All the injuries are simple in nature. Injury no. 2 is caused by sharp edged and permitted weapon. All the injuries are caused by blunt weapon Duration about 1/2 day old. Meeta Devi, wife of Ram Nath was examined on 14. 9. 1974 at 10. 30 A. M. and the following injuries were found on her body. Injuries (1) Contusion. 5 cm. x 21/2 cm. on the part of left shoulder. (2) Contusion 1/2 cm. x 21/2 cm. on the of left leg 2 cm. below the knee. (3) Contusion 10 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of left shoulder. ( 2 ) ALL injuries are simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Duration about 1/2 day old. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in support of his case examined. Dr. A. N. Singh P. W. 1, who has proved the medical report. It has been stated by P. W. 1 that the injuries were received by blunt weapon and by fire-arm. It is thus clear that injuries were found on the person of Ram Lakhan, Raj Karan and Meeta Devi as there is no dispute about it. P. W. 2 Ram Lakhan has corroborated the allegations in the F. I. R. He has received the Fire Arm injuries. It is thus clear that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan, where he sustained injuries. P. W. 3, Raj Karan has similarly corroborated the statement of P. W. 2 Ram Lakhan. He has also stated that the injuries were received at the time of the commission of dacoity. P. W. 4 Ram Sumre while supporting the version that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan was not present there. He was present only at the time when the dacoits were fleeing. From the above it is clear that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan and that 3 persons mentioned above sustained injuries. He was present only at the time when the dacoits were fleeing. From the above it is clear that a dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Lakhan and that 3 persons mentioned above sustained injuries. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sri Shasank Shekhar has strenuously submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of appellant Munni Lal in the commission of dacoity. It is true that no witness has stated that they had seen Munni Lal at the time of the commission of dacoity. The only evidence against Munni Lal is that he was caught while fleeing. Another intriguing fact which has not been explained by the prosecution is about the other person, who he was also arrested at the spot and tied with rope. The appellant is admittedly a resident of the same village and his house is situated at a distance of furlong from the house of Ram Lakhan. It is incomprehensible that appellant Munni Lal would participate in the commission of dacoity without hiding his identity. No witness of the prosecution has stated even a word that Munni Uti had been hiding his identity or had admitted even to hide. Another starting fact which mitigates the truthfulness of the prosecution version is that Munni Lal had received injuries while being caught as is evident from the First Information Report. The appellant Munni Lal was not examined by P. W. 1. Dr. A. N. Singh. Ram Lakhan (P. W. 2), Raj Karan P. W. 3 and Ram Sumer (P. W. 4) all have testified to the fact that appellant Munni Lal had received injuries and from his knee the plood was oozing. Such injury has not been examined as well as explained by the prosecution. Another peculiar fact which belies common sense that all dacoits ran towards the west. It was only appellant Munni Lal who was running towards south. If this version of the prosecution is believed, then the another dacoit was also nabbed. Such injury has not been examined as well as explained by the prosecution. Another peculiar fact which belies common sense that all dacoits ran towards the west. It was only appellant Munni Lal who was running towards south. If this version of the prosecution is believed, then the another dacoit was also nabbed. ( 5 ) THE appellant has tried to put forward a version that he has been implicated falsely on account of the construction of a house, which was resisted by Ram Lakhan, However plausible the defence version may be, it is incumbent upon the prosecmion to bring home the guilt of the appellant to the hilt even if the truthfulness of the defence version is discarded, but that by itself alone, would not establish the prosecution story as narrated above. Further it has been stated by Ram Lakhan, Raj Karan, and Ram Summer that they had gone to the place from his house to the Police Station on a taxi. The distance as stated above is only 6 miles. They have left after the commission of the dacoity for about an hour. Neither P,w. 2 Ram Lakhan, nor P. W. Raj Karan has stated that before going for lodging the first information report, they had searched their house as to what jewellary and other of belongings have been taken away by the dacoits. No doubt, the F. I. R. be jewelled in itself the articles which were lotted. This F. I. R. was not a written one and had been dictated by Ram Lakhan. True a person may remember the weight of the jewellary that has been taken away by committing dacoity, but such detail as has been shown in the FIR about the jewellary and the other articles without any search having been made inside the house mitigates the property of the prosecution version. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this case, it has to be mentioned that there appears to be no serious effort on the part of the Investigating Officer to nab the other dacoits merely stating that the search was made and they could not find out. One of the alleged dacoits, the appellant Munni Lal, was caught on the spot, but no details seem to have been furnished by him as regards the other dacoits, which clearly show that appellant Munni Lal was not aware about the identity of other dacoits. One of the alleged dacoits, the appellant Munni Lal, was caught on the spot, but no details seem to have been furnished by him as regards the other dacoits, which clearly show that appellant Munni Lal was not aware about the identity of other dacoits. Implicit reliance thus can not be placed on the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Rather their testimoney has no-where besieged Munni Lal with his presence at the time of the commission of the dacoity. The appeal thus deserves to be allowed, as the prosecution has failed to established beyond doubt the guilt of the appellant. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant (Munni Lal) is hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .