JUDGMENT Mr. Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Uma Kant against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1984 passed by Sri S. Lal, Special Judge, Anti-Dacoity Area, Banda in S.T. No. 492 of 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 398 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo three years' R.I. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Jagdish Singh Gangwar was working as a Consolidation Officer at Atarra, Distt. Banda. On the day of incident on 25.3.82 at about 5.00 p.m. he was going to his house along with Ram Asre Tracer. As soon as he reached near the betal shop of Mukand Lal, he found 5 or 7 students standing at that shop. They made an attack on the informant Jagdish Singh Gangwar. They assaulted him and snatched away his wrist watch Seiko automatic. On the intervention by Ram Asre Tracer and Chandrika Prasad, the assailants fled away. It was alleged that the appellant Uma Kant Tiwari was previously known to complainant and he was recognised by him amongst the assailants, who assaulted and looted his wrist watch. An F.I.R. regarding this incident was lodged by Jagdish Singh Gangwar at police station Atarra, Distt. Banda on 25.3.82 at 5.45 p.m. 3. The injuries of Jagdish Singh Gangwar were examined at 6.30 p.m. on 25.3.82 by Dr. K.G. Vaish. He found one contused swelling wound 4 cm. X 1.5cm. on middle of upper in reddish, and one abraded contusion with swelling, 6.5cm X 3cm. just below Rt. lower eye-lid, sub-conguetrial haemorrhage Rt, eye present colour of injury reddish. Both injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. 4. Sub-Inspector, Sri B.D. Sharma investigated the case but later on the investigation was completed by Sri Suresh Kumar Malik P.W.3, who after completing the investigation submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution examined ocular witnesses. Jagdish Singh Gangwar, Consolidation Officer, as P.W. 1, and Ram Asre Tracer as P.W. 2. The prosecution also examined Sri Suresh Kumar Malik who completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant in Court. P.W. Jagdish Singh Gangwar Consolidation Officer stated that on the day and at the time of occurrence, he was returning with Ram Asre Tracer from the office to his house. The prosecution also examined Sri Suresh Kumar Malik who completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant in Court. P.W. Jagdish Singh Gangwar Consolidation Officer stated that on the day and at the time of occurrence, he was returning with Ram Asre Tracer from the office to his house. When he reached near the betel shop of Mukand Lal on Bisanda Road, he found 5, 7 or 7 students standing in front of that shop. They suddenly made an attack on him and snatched his automatic wrist watch. Ram Asre Tracer, who was present at the scene of occurrence, intervened and saved him. The appellant being previously known to the witness Jagdish Singh Gangwar was recognised him amongst the students, who assaulted and robbed his wrist watch. He lodged the report and got himself medically examined. On cross-examination, he admitted that he knew the appellant as his house was near the house of the appellant. P.W.2 Ram Asre Tracer stated about the incident but showed his ignorance about the persons of the appellant amongst the robbers, who assaulted the informant and snatched his wrist watch. The accused appellant stated before the Court that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence on record found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not alleged any motives for the commission of the offence and it appears that the appellant might be present at the betel shop of Mukund Lal and he might not have intervened in the incident in which the informant was assaulted by some of the students and the complainant Jagdish Singh Gangwar might have thought that he must have been the companion of the robbers and due to this reason, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution has not assigned any specific role to him either of snatching the wrist watch or of assaulting the informant Jagdish Singh Gangwar. Had he participated in the incident, the complainant Jagdish Singh Gangwar must have assigned him a specific role either of snatching the wrist watch or assaulting him. 8. I carefully examined the evidence on record. The prosecution has not assigned any specific role to him either of snatching the wrist watch or of assaulting the informant Jagdish Singh Gangwar. Had he participated in the incident, the complainant Jagdish Singh Gangwar must have assigned him a specific role either of snatching the wrist watch or assaulting him. 8. I carefully examined the evidence on record. The evidence of the witness Jagdish Singh Gangwar P.W.1 complainant even does not find corroboration from the evidence of Ram Asre Tracer regarding the participation of the appellant in the incident as he stated before the Court that he could not say that the appellant was one of the persons who assaulted, Jagdish Singh Gangwar and robbed his wrist watch. The prosecution has not examined another independent witness Chandrika Prasad, who is stated to have arrived at the spot. The P.W. 2 Ram Asre Tracer who was also an employee of the same department where P.W.1 Jagdish Singh Gangwar was working as Consolidation Officer. However, this Ram Asre Tracer has not supported the prosecution version regarding participation of the appellant in the incident. How whole presecution case rests on the evidence of Jagdish Singh Gangwar (P.W.1) alone. His statement has not been corroborated by any evidence regarding the participation of the appellant in the incident. Had the appellant been amongst the assailants or robbers, he must have taken some part in the incident and would have been assigned a specific role in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the complainant, but no specific role has been assigned to him either of snatching the wrist watch or assaulting the complainant. The complainant Jagdish Singh Gangwar received two injuries. The appellant is not said to have inflicted any of those injuries nor is said to have snatched the wrist watch. Suggestion of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant might have been present at the betel shop of Mukund Lal and he being known to the complainant, might not have intervened and that might have given an impression to the complainant Jagd ish Singh Gangwar that the appellant was also one of the assailants or robbers, appears to be plausible. P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh Gangwar stated that he was assaulted by all the assailants who are said to be in number 5, 6 or 7, but only two injuries-(1) contused swelling and (2) abraded contusion were found on his person. P.W. 1 Jagdish Singh Gangwar stated that he was assaulted by all the assailants who are said to be in number 5, 6 or 7, but only two injuries-(1) contused swelling and (2) abraded contusion were found on his person. Had he been assaulted by all the assailants, he must have received much more injuries. Admittedly, he fell down from his cycle at the time of incident. Probability that he sustained injuries as a result of fall on the ground from his cycle cannot be excluded. The appellant has not been assigned with the specific role of snatching the wrist watch. Learned Counsel for the appellant also referred to a Supreme Court decision reported in 1981 A.C.C. (Summary Cases page -9) wherein it has been held that the accused cannot give answer as to why he has been implicated in the offence as nobody knows the imagination of the witness at the time of incident. 9. In the present case, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of single witness Jagdish Singh Gangwar being interested, which too has not assigned any specific role to the appellant, is not sufficient to sustain his conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged.