JUDGMENT U.K. Varma, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Shri Sushi] Kumar, [Ind Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dated 18.4.1979, in S.T. No. 112 of 1975. Convicting the appellants, Nasimuddin and Ismail, under Sections 379/511, I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 months. He further had held Nasimuddin guilty under Section 307, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arm3 Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, and 9 months respectively on these two additional counts. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Ismail with a view to steal the transformer of Jaipal Singh had been opening its nuts and bolts whereas Nasimuddin had been keeping a watch so that the theft could be accomplished. There was another associate of theirs, named Ashghar, who was also involved in the conspiracy. The Sub-Inspectors, Satyavir Singh, Gajendra Singh and Anand Singh, who were accompanied with Rajendra Nath and Karan Singh Constables were informed about 1.30 a.m. in the night between October 10 and 11, 1974 regarding the theft going on. They sent for the witnesses. Of them, Sukhram Singh, Jaipal Singh and Lallu Singh arrived. On reaching the field of Jaipal Singh at 1.40 a.m. in village Shahpur they saw the appellants engaged in the theft. When they proceeded to apprehend the above thieves, Nasimuddin fired at them. L '-.ily, no one was hurt. On being arrested Nasimuddin was searched and from his possession unlicensed fire-arms were recovered. Ismail, too, was taken into custody when he climbed down but Ashgar managed to make good his escape. 3. The report of the incident was lodged on 11.10.74. It, however, is not clear as to what was the time when it was taken down in the police station Najibabad. 4. The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspectors. Gajendra Singh (P.W.1). Satyavir Singh (P.W. 2) and Anand Singh (P.W. 4) and the public witness. Lallu Singh (P.W. 3) to substatiate the allegations about the attempted theft and the firing by Nasimuddin. The prosecution witness Kunwar Singh Rana (P.W. 5) narrated as to how he investigated the case. 5. The appellants had pleaded not guilty and took the defence that they had been falsely roped in the case after having been called from their houses. 6. The counsel for the appellants argued that the entire prosecution story was nothing but a fabric of lies. 5. The appellants had pleaded not guilty and took the defence that they had been falsely roped in the case after having been called from their houses. 6. The counsel for the appellants argued that the entire prosecution story was nothing but a fabric of lies. He wanted me to appreciate that it was highly improbable that; an informer would have gone to intimate about the the going on regarding the transformer of Jaipal. A-17 Singh and nothing would have been done by Jaipal Singh to nab the thieves. Jaipal Singh had not been examined by the prosecution. The only public witness Lallu Singh who was produced, wrongly stated that Nisamuddin had jumped from above although the prosecution case is that it was Ismail who was trying to loosen the nuts and bolts of the transformer and had got down. After Nizamuddin described as Nizamuddin by Lallu Singh. had been taken into custody with firearms. Lallu Singh had not identified Ismail appellant as one who had been arrested at the spot. He wrongly pointed Ashghar to have been apprehended whereas the prosecution case is that he was successful in running away. The statement of Lallu Singh, it was justifiable argued. clearly shows that he was a got no witness and he could not be held to have seen the incident at all. The fact, that in the check report the time of the lodging of the first information report is not mentioned, casts a doubt about its authenticity. In the circumstances of this case it was also not unreasonably argued that if Jaipal Singh and Sukhram Singh had been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution story. This part of the prosecution case further is not free from suspicion that although Nazimuddin fired at the police and the witnesses, none of them had been injured. The IInd Addl. Sessions Judge does not appear to have given careful consideration to the infirmities of the prosecution evidence dealt with above. I am of the view that the conviction of the appellants could not safely be sustained on such a shaky and inconsistent evidence as has been led in this case. 7. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them, mentioned above, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. 7. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them, mentioned above, are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which are discharged.