SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) - This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 13. 4. 1988 passed by the then special Judge (Anti Dacoity), Budaun in Special session Trial No. 56 of 1986 State v. Rajvir and another convicting the accused-appellant under sections 342 and 392 I. P. C. and sentencing him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment respectively thereunder. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that Fateh Chandra P. W. 1 son of Mohan Lal is a resident of village Behari Ki Gauntia, P. S. Kunwargaon, District Budaun, Dhan Singh P. W. 2 is his uncle. A partition suit was going on between Dhan Singh and Fateh Chandra in respect of their residential house in the civil court Budaun. On 12. 2. 1985 they came to the Budaun Railway station by a train. At about 10. 00 A. M. they got down at the said Railway Station. When they were going from the Railway Station, the accused-appellant intercepted them. He took them to his quarter saying that he had some work with them. In his quarter both Fateh Chandra and Dhan Singh were confined and the Kundi of the room was put on the door of the quarter from inside. Fateh Chandra was beaten and a sum of Rs. 250/- was also snatched from the pocket of his shirt. Fateh Chandra subsequently went to Bareilly to his uncle Budhsen, who was working as a store clerk in the North Eastern Railway workshop, Izatnagar. He narrated all about what had happened. Badhsen sent applications to the different authorities including the director general of Police Lucknow. The application EX. Ka-3 was received at the police station Civil Lines, Budaun. On that basis a chick report Ex. Ka. I was prepared and a case was registered in the General Diary. The investigation into the case was entrusted to the then S. 1. Balbir Singh P. W. 4, who after completion of the investigation into the case, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant Rajvir. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined Fateh Chandra P. W. 1, Dhan Singh P. W. 2, Head Constable Ompal Singh P. W. 3 and S. I. Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined Fateh Chandra P. W. 1, Dhan Singh P. W. 2, Head Constable Ompal Singh P. W. 3 and S. I. Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. He has stated that all the allegations levelled against him are wholly wrong and incorrect. He pleaded ignorance regarding material facts. He has asserted that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge acquitted Ram Ratan and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Rajvir through his impugned judgment and order as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved, he preferred this appeal against the same. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE incident is said to have taken place on 12. 2. 1985 at 11. 10. A. M. in one of the Railway quarters situates in the Civil Lines, P. S. Civil Lines, District Budaun. The First Information Report purports to have been lodged on 2. 9. 1985 at 11. 10. A. M. The Complaint was made by one Budhsen, store clerk in the North Eastern Rail way Workshop Izatnagar. Budhson was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. There is no explanation worth the name for the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. ( 7 ) HANSA son of Dulli resident of village Paliya P. S. Minaway, Rajivir Bhaiyan a constable G. R. P. Budaun, Kallu son of Dhola resident of village Paliya P. s. Minawar and Iqwala Railway employee are named as accused in the First Information Report Ex. Ka. 1. But after the completion of the investigation into the case, the charge sheet was submitted against Rajvir and Ram Ratan only. There is no evidence on record to show why other above named accused were not chargesheeted. ( 8 ) FATEH Chandra P. W. 1 and Dhan Singh P. W. 2 have categorically stated that they did not know the accused from before the incident. Not only this but Fateh Chandra P. W. 1 has also stated that Bhaiyan and Rajvir had beaten him with kicks, fists and Chappals. ( 8 ) FATEH Chandra P. W. 1 and Dhan Singh P. W. 2 have categorically stated that they did not know the accused from before the incident. Not only this but Fateh Chandra P. W. 1 has also stated that Bhaiyan and Rajvir had beaten him with kicks, fists and Chappals. He has further stated that the accused had been beating him and both of them had snatched away the said sum of Rs. 250/ - from him. This is completely contradictory to what has been mentioned in the First Information Report. In this very connection the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the prosecution has not proved the identity of the accused. His contention appears to have substance. ( 9 ) FATEH Chandra P. W. 1 has stated that Rajvir had beaten him after closing the door of the room. He had not accompanied the Daroga Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 to the place of occurrence. Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 has, on the other hand, stated that he had prepared the site-plan at the instance of Fateh Chandra. He has shown the place of occurrence by letter at indicating that the incident took place in the Angan and not in the closed room. In view of all this the learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence beyond doubt. His contention appears to be correct. ( 10 ) FATEH Chandra P. W. 1 has further stated that his bhanja Jagdish was posted at the police Lines. Budaun from before the incident. He along with Dhan Singh had gone to him after attending the civil court in connection with their aforesaid civil suit and had told him all about what had happened; But Dhan Singh P. W. 2 has stated that they came back to their house straight away from the civil Court. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that there are inconsistencies and contradictions between the statements of Fateh Chandra and Dhan Singh on material points and therefore their statements cannot be implicity relied upon. His contention is not devoid of force. The investigation was entrusted to S. 1. Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 on 2. 9. 1965. He took down the statement of the complainant Budhsen on 3. 9. 1985 on 8. 2. His contention is not devoid of force. The investigation was entrusted to S. 1. Dalbir Singh P. W. 4 on 2. 9. 1965. He took down the statement of the complainant Budhsen on 3. 9. 1985 on 8. 2. 1986 he took the statements of Fateh Chandra and Dhan Singh. On 16. 4. 1986 he interrogated the accused Rajvir and Ratan Singh and on 3. 5. 1986 he submitted the charge sheet against them. He appears to have investigated into the case in the most leisurely manner and prepared the site-plan probably without inspecting the place of occurrences. His act and conduct appears to be suspicious. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant to this effect does not appear to be without substance. ( 12 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13. 4. 1988 are set aside. The appellant-accused Rajvir is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 342 and 395 I. P. C. The accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender. Appeal allowed. .