Judgment O.N.Asthana, J. 1. These accused-appellants, namely, Nunulal Singh, Jwala Singh, Devendra Singh @ Deonandan Singh, Tripurari Singh and Sheonandan Singh are held guilty by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions trial No. 324 of 1979 by the judgement and order dated 4th August, 1987 for the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. The trial Judge awarded the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 (Five hundred) to the accused-appellants 1 to 4 each, and passed the orders relating the appellant No. 5, Sheonandan Singh that the period in ustody be treated the punishment of sentence and further awarded the punishment to this appellant No. 5, Sheonandan Singh to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 (Two thousand). 2. Accused-Rabindra Singh was tried and acquitted by the trial Judge and other accused Jagdish Singh who was also charged for the dacoity died during the pendency of the trial. 3. Briefly the prosecution case is that the accused-appellant No. 1, Nunulal Singh along with 10-12 persons and they were armed, came to the jewellary shop of the informant, Sadanand Prasad-PW 6 and these culprits committed dacoity by breaking open the safe and looted the silver jewellary and valuable security documents. 4. A report was lodged relating to the dacoity. When the father of the informant came back from the District Courts, the details of the looted jewellary and the documents were supplied. The written report is Exhibit-2. 5. In this written report, Exhibit-2, names of Jwala Singh, Oeonandan Singh, Tripurari Singh and Sheonandan Singh and a son of appellant-Jwala Singh having beard on his face were also mentioned amongst the culprits. 6. After arrest, accused-appeallant, Sheonandan Singh was also put to test identification parade, in presence of Sri Shambhu Prasad Singh, Magistrate, PW 7. 7. The prosecution examined Paramanand Ram PW 1, Damodar Ram PW 2, Binda Ram PW 3, Fano Tamoli PW 4, Smt. Sudama Devi PW 5 and informant Sadanand PW 6. The Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution, 8. The trial Judge accepted the depositions of the witnesses of fact, PWs 1 to 6 and held the accused-appellants guilty for the commission of dacoity punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. 9. Paramanand Ram-PW 1 is the brother of the informant, Sadanand PW 6. Smt. Sudama Devi PW 5 is their mother. The trial Judge accepted the depositions of the witnesses of fact, PWs 1 to 6 and held the accused-appellants guilty for the commission of dacoity punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. 9. Paramanand Ram-PW 1 is the brother of the informant, Sadanand PW 6. Smt. Sudama Devi PW 5 is their mother. Binda Ram PW 3 is the cousin of the informant, PW 6. Damodar Ram, PW 2 is the son of Sadanand PW 6. Thus, these prosecution witnesses belong to one family. Fano Tamoli who runs his betel shop near the shop of the informant did not narrate this alleged occurrence of dacoity in his statement on oath. 10. The Advocate for the appellant raised the contentions that no independent witness has been examined in support of the alleged dacoity by the prosecution and the facts and circumstances go to show that no dacoity was committed ; that there was a civil dispute relating the shop between the parties and that the first information report of this case was hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus not a piece of corroboration. 11. The contents of the first information report and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses warrant that Gokul Mahto, Sahdeo Ram and Ganga Ram saw this occurrence. This jewellary shop of the informant and his parents is in the market and other shop-keepers were also present. As the independent witnesses were available and they have not been examined by the prosecution in support of the alleged case of dacoity, this creates suspicion in the prosecution case. 12. Fano Tamoli PW 4 who was sitting at his betel shop near this jewellary shop of the informant too had not disclosed in his statement on oath before the Court that any dacoity was committed by the accused-appellant at the shop. 13. The Police Station in nearby this market. The entries of the case diary Exhibits-D, D/1 and D/2 brought on record show that this informant rushed to the Police Station immediately and gave information that a dacoity was committed at his shop. The Police Officers came along with this informant and on the pointing of this informant, the Police Officer took into custody Nunulal Singh and Jwala Singh. The entries of the case diary Exhibits-D, D/1 and D/2 brought on record show that this informant rushed to the Police Station immediately and gave information that a dacoity was committed at his shop. The Police Officers came along with this informant and on the pointing of this informant, the Police Officer took into custody Nunulal Singh and Jwala Singh. The Police Officer arrived at the shop and asked the informant, his brother and his mother to give their statement who came at the shop and how they committed dacoity and what valuables those dacoits took away. All these persons refused to tell anything to the Police Officer of the Police Station. 14. One of the sons went to call his father and it appears that after consultation with the Advocate this first information report Exhibit-2 was lodged later on at the Police Station. As the information relating dacoity was given to the Police Station and the Police Officer arrived at the place of alleged occurrence ond started taking the statement, this first information report, Exhibit-2 is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 15. All these accused-appellant! though livo in different villages and towns, art related to each other. Devendra Singh is the son of Nunulal Singh. Jwala Singh it 6on of late Jagdeo Singh, who was also an accused in this case. This Jagdeo Singh was brother-in-law of Nunulal Singh. Tripurari Singh is the son of sister of Nunulal Singh. Sheonandan Singh is the attesting witness to the sale-deed, whereby this shop was purchased on 10th June, 1976 by Nunulal Singh in the name of his son. 16. Nunulal Singh is a big cultivator. He owns a building and shop in this locality as well and State Bank of India is the tenant in the building of Nunulal Singh. Nunulal Singh, his son and other relations have been coming to this market often. Sudama Devi PW 5 too has admitted that she had seen Nunulal Singh and his sons in social gathering as well. 17. Undisputedly Sadanand and his parents own and possess one shop since 1969. They purchased 15 inch wide land in 1973. This land could not be the shop. Sudama Devi PW 5 too has admitted that she had seen Nunulal Singh and his sons in social gathering as well. 17. Undisputedly Sadanand and his parents own and possess one shop since 1969. They purchased 15 inch wide land in 1973. This land could not be the shop. The compromise decree between the vendor and Sadanand and his family men (Exhibit-E) in Title suit No. 115 of 1975 shows that this 15 inch wide land was adjacent to the old shop of Sadanand and his parents and most probably it was taken to widen the old shop by the side adjacent to this 15" wide land the present shop (where the alleged dacoity was committed) exists. Admittedly, this shop has been purchased by Nunulal Singh through sale-deed dated 10th June, 1976 (Exhibit-A on record). According to the contents of the sale deed, Exhibit-A, it appears that Nunulal Singh got the possession over the shop when he purchased it in the name of his 6on. The prosecution witnesses have stated in Court that they were also anxious to purchase this particular shop (which has been purchased by Nunulal Singh). 18. The prosecution witnesses have admitted in their statement that this alleged jewellary shop of Sadanand and his parents had no name Board, and no Bahi Khata/register relating to the alleged sale of jewellary and no record of pledge was maintained at this shop. All this gives impression that no jewellary shop, was being run by Sadanand and his parents in this shop. As suggested by the accused-appellant, Nunulal Singh, Sadanand and his familymen tried to take wrongful possession over this shop, and the accused-appellant protested it and thus some violence was there. 19. Thus, it appears that charge of dacoity against the accused-appellants is false. 20. This appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the trial Judge stands set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds, stand discharged.