ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. 1. This is revision by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution story in brief was that on 20-9-1982, at about 12.30 noon, when Smt. Shyamabai (P.W.6) was all alone in her house situated at Jhulkadam Sakti, applicant/accused Manoj Kumar, aged about 18 years, gained entry into the house under the pretext of reading a newspaper kept inside the house. It is said that the applicant then all of a sudden caught hold of Shyamabai, felled her and tried to gag her by pressing her neck. He forcibly removed gold chain from her neck, gold earing rings from her ear lobes and silver anklets from her feet. He decamped from the house after robbing Shyamabai of the ornaments. 3. The prosecution case was held to have been established by the trial Court, which convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 394, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to simple imprisonment for two months.. In appeal carried by the applicant, 4th A. S. J., Bilaspur affirmed the conviction and sentence. The applicant has now come in revision. 4. The prosecution case rested on the evidence of victim Shyamabai (PW-6), also on the evidence of Gomtibai (PW-1), Kamlabai (PW-2), Itwari Ram (PW-3) and Chandra Kumari Pandey (PW-4) said to have heard the outcries of Shyamabai and seen her lying in an injured condition in her house and on the evidence of Dr. D. D. Mishra (PW-7) who had found as many as 11 injuries on Shyamabai's body including her neck, forehead, elbow, nose, ear lobes etc. vide injury report, Ex.P-5. 5. Shyamabai (P.W.6) supported the prosecution story generally by stating that the accused opened the door of her house and after entering inside, suddenly tried to press her neck. She omitted to state that the accused gained entry into her house on any pretext. She further deposed that the accused removed gold chain from her neck, gold tops from her ears and silver anklets from her feet. She also stated that she fell unconscious when her neck was pressed. The accused according to her, left for his own house after taking away the ornaments. She further deposed that the accused removed gold chain from her neck, gold tops from her ears and silver anklets from her feet. She also stated that she fell unconscious when her neck was pressed. The accused according to her, left for his own house after taking away the ornaments. Strangely enough, Shyamabai was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined because she happened to say that report of the occurrence, Ex.P-3, was lodged by her husband instead of by herself. In her cross-examination by the prosecution, she admitted that report, Ex.P-3, bore her signature. The weakest part in her evidence was that she made an admission in her cross-examination by the defence that her articles were not stolen and that they were received by her. This admission makes it highly doubtful, if at all any robbery of the ornaments was committed because robbery implied theft of the ornaments. The prosecution case was that the ornaments taken away in robbery could not be recovered. Yet Shyamabai admitted that she had received those ornaments. 6. Another suspicious circumstance in the evidence of Shyamabai (PW-6) was that she admitted that the accused was none other than her nephew who lived in her neighbourhood. She further admitted that her husband and the accused's father were teachers in the same school. It is somewhat unusual that a nephew, said to be a lad of 18 years, should have robbed his own aunt in her forties in broad day light In this context, non-examination of Investigating Officer who had recorded the alleged F.I.R., Ex.P-3, also assumes significance. It is not improbable that although Shyamabai might have appended her signature to the report, Ex.P-3, the report might have been actually made by her husband. The husband of Shyamabai was also not examined. Shyamabai made the story further doubtful by stating that the alleged report, Ex.P-3, was recorded at her residence, which was against the prosecution version that the report was made at the police station. 7. The husband of Shyamabai was also not examined. Shyamabai made the story further doubtful by stating that the alleged report, Ex.P-3, was recorded at her residence, which was against the prosecution version that the report was made at the police station. 7. The appellate Court disbelieved the evidence of Itwari Ram (PW-3), said to be one of the witnesses who heard outcries of Shyamabai, on the ground that he bore grudge against the uncle of the accused and his presence at the spot was not mentioned by the other witnesses who had reached the spot nor mentioned in the F.I.R. This leaves for consideration the evidence of Gomtibai (PW-1), Kamlabai (PW-2) and Chandra Kumari Pandey (PW-4) who had reached Shyamabai's house. Their evidence, even if totally accepted, only established the fact that when on hearing the noise of the incident they reached the house of Shyamabai, they found that she was lying in an injured condition in her house. The evidence of Chandra Kumari Pandey was further to the effect that Shyamabai was speaking incoherently in an unconsicious condition at that time. In such circumstances, the evidence of Gomtibai (PW-1), Kamlabai (PW-2) and Chandra Kumari Pandey (PW-4), even if accepted did not lend corroboration to the fact that Shyamabai was robbed, much less that she was robbed by the accused. The evidence of Dr. D. D. Mishra (PW-7) only established that Shyamabai had sustained superficial injuries. 8. Summing up the entire prosecution evidence, it may be stated that it was doubtful on the evidence of Shyamabai if she was" really robbed inasmuch as she admitted that her articles had not been stolen and they were received by her. Nothing was admittedly recovered from the accused. The Investigating Officer was not examined coupled with admission of Shyamabai that report, Ex.P-3, although bearing her signature, was made by her husband and not by her and further the said report was written at her residence. The accused was the most unlikely person to have committed the alleged robbery-. The evidence of witnesses who had rushed to the house of Shyamabai soon after the incident only showed that Shyamabai was injured in her house in some kind of incident. The culprit responsible for the crime was not disclosed to them by Shyamabai. The accused was the most unlikely person to have committed the alleged robbery-. The evidence of witnesses who had rushed to the house of Shyamabai soon after the incident only showed that Shyamabai was injured in her house in some kind of incident. The culprit responsible for the crime was not disclosed to them by Shyamabai. The only conclusion that could reasonably follow from the entire evidence was that some kind of incident had taken place in which Shyamabai was injured. It was doubtful if any robbery of her ornaments was committed and it was much more doubtful if the same was committed by the accused. The two Courts below glossed over glaring infirmities in the prosecution evidence and persuaded themselves to either record or affirm conviction. The prosecution story was not at all satisfactorily established and the accused deserved to be given benefit of doubt. 9. It is true that the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction does not ordinarily take upon itself the task of weighing the evidence afresh. Findings of facts reached by the Courts below, particularly those based on appreciation of evidence and if concurrent, are generally accepted. But the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is at the same time very extensive. As has been aptly expressed in the dicta of some decisions, there is no form of justice which the revisional Court, if need be, cannot reach. This was a case where the courts below had overlooked serious infirmities appearing in the prosecution evidence and had chosen to act upon inadequate prosecution evidence. The story about robbery of ornaments and that too by the accused was not at all satisfactorily established. This was pre-eminently a case where the accused deserved to be given benefit of doubt. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is allowed The conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 394, Indian Penal Code. Fine if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.