B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Ratikanta Paramanik having been convicted u/s. 397, I. P. C. by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Balasora and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years thereunder has preferred this appeal from jail. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case is that in the night of 31. 12. 1987/1. 1. 1988 between 2. 00 and 4. 00 A. M. while the Puri-Howrah Express train was moving between Balasore and Jaleswar, the appellant along with seven others being armed with deadly weapons like Bhujalis and knives entered inside a particular bogie and looted away valuables from the passengers. One of the R. P. F. staff moving in that bogie having got up hearing the alarm of the passengers showed his revolver at the appellant and his companions. At this, the culprits pulled the chain and while the train was still moving four of them escaped, but the appellant along with three others were caught being over powered by the passengers. When the train reached Railway Station the appellant as well as his three associates were made over to. the O. I. C. of Kharagpur C. R. P. S. along with same weapons of offence and cash recovered from them. One of the passengers, namely, Khoken Dasak (not examined) submitted the First Information Report, Ext. 1. On the point of jurisdiction, the O. I. C. of Kharagpur G. RP. S. sent the F. I. R. as well as the culprits including the appellant and the seized articles to the O. I. C. of Eslasors G. RP. S. for investigation. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the case having been committed is the Court of Session the appellant faced trial for the offence indicated above. ( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial. No witness was, however, examined in support of the defence. ( 4 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many at five witnesses of whom P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 were the victim passengers and P. Ws. 2 and 5 are respectively the O. I. C. of Kharagpur G. RP. S. and D. I. C. of Balasore G. R. P. S. On a consideration of their evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated earlier. ( 5 ) MR. 2 and 5 are respectively the O. I. C. of Kharagpur G. RP. S. and D. I. C. of Balasore G. R. P. S. On a consideration of their evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated earlier. ( 5 ) MR. S. Mohanty, the learned State Defence Counsel has contended that there is absolutely no material on record to connect the appellant in the commission of the crime and as such, the finding of the learned Addi. Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant cannot be sustained. The learned Standing Counsel; on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment. ( 6 ) ON an analysis of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 5 the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that four culprits including the appellant had been made over to the D. I. C. of Kharagpur G. R. P. S. by the passengers after the train reached that railway station and subsequently three of those culprits including the appellant were produced before the O. I. C. of Balasore G. R. P. S. along with some seized articles, being forwarded by the O. I. C. of Kharagpur G. R. P. S. It is further found by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge that the appellant after being received at Balasore had been sent for medical examination by the O. I. C. of Balasore G. R. P. S. and that the record of the commitment proceeding shows that the appellant had been produced before the committing Magistrate. With these materials alone, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant was one of the eight culprits who took part in the commission of the dacoity in the running train. ( 7 ) AS regards complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, it is seen that P. Ws 2 and 5 being not passengers in the train at the relevant point of time they have rightly not implicated him. The only passengers examined are P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Their evidence has been examined by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge in the following manner: P. W. 1 is the S. 1. of R. P. F. of Khurda Road who was fortunately moving in the said bogie in the might of occurrence. The only passengers examined are P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4. Their evidence has been examined by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge in the following manner: P. W. 1 is the S. 1. of R. P. F. of Khurda Road who was fortunately moving in the said bogie in the might of occurrence. He has clearly said that soon after the train left Balasore there was a chain-pulling as a result of which the train stopped and hearing hullah he got up. He has further said that he saw the accused as well as his companions collecting money from the passengers by showing them bhujalis and knives. It is further said by him that as he was holding a revolver, he shows it and despite obstruction of the accused persons he caught hold of one of them. Soon thereafter the passengers also caught hold of others and they collected three bhujalis and one knife from them. He has, however, said in paragraph I of his statement that the accused could not be caught and escaped. Almost to the same effect is the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 who also were moving in that train in that night. According to P. W. 3, he had Rs. 4000/- with his and the entire amount was looted from him. He, however, has said that the accused escaped and went away along with his companions. P. W. 4 also has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 3 and has added that he has not seen the accused with the dacoits who were looting cash from them according to him, cash of Rs. 2900/- also was looted from him in the train. T ( 8 ) THE circumstances relied upon by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Balacore while convicting the appellant do not implicate him in the commission of the crime. All that they point put is that the appellant had been produced by the passengers before the O. I. C. of Kharagpur G. R. P. S. and thereafter he was ultimately produced in court to face trial. For the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, reliance was placed on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4, but it appears from the aforesaid analysis made by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge that of them P. Ws. 3 and 4 did not at all implicate the appellant. For the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, reliance was placed on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4, but it appears from the aforesaid analysis made by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge that of them P. Ws. 3 and 4 did not at all implicate the appellant. P. W. 1 of course deposed that the appellant along with others collected money from the passengers by showing them bhujalis and knives, but his evidence has not been corroborated by P. W. 4 who had hot seen the appellant along with the dacoits. In view of such inconsistency, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 implicatingg the appellant in the commission of the crime particularly when contrary to the prosecution case he deposed that the appellant escaped from the train with some of the dacoits. It is thus seen that there is hardly any dependable evidence to connect the appellant in the commission of the crime. That being so, the impugned order of conviction cannot be sustained in law. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and it is directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed. .