JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal directed against the conviction of the accused-appellant for offences punishable under Section 451 and 397 of IPC and sentence for each of the said offence to R.I. for 7 years, imposed by judgment dt. 15.11.95 in Sessions Trial No. 399/94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahendragarh District Sarguja. 2. The prosecution case stated in brief is that complainant Meera Bai (PW-1) and her husband Kariman (PW-2) reside at Amadafai Koriya Kalri. Kariman (PW-2) works in the mines as Mechanic. On the date of incident, i.e. 3.6.94, Kariman (PW-2) had come early from duty at 3.00 a.m. in the night and had gone to fetch water. While, complainant Meera Bai (PW-1) was at home and was sleeping with her children, the accused-appellant came inside the house and caught hold of the neck of Meera Bai (PW-1) and asked her, as to whether she had identified him. Upon this Meera Bai (PW-1) though had identified the accused-appellant deliberately due to fear stated otherwise and told accused-appellant that she has not identified him. The accused-appellant who had a knife in his hand asked Meera Bai (PW-1) to hand over the 'Gold Mohar' worn by her in her neck. Thereafter, the accused-appellant cut the cord of the Mohar and took the 'Mohar' and went away with it. Meena Bai (PW-1) while saving herself received injury on her finger. After the accused-appellant ran away, her husband Kariman (PW-2) came back. Meera Bai (PW-1) narrated the incident to him. Kariman (PW-2) in turn narrated the incident to one Lalit (not examined) and Girija Shankar (PW-4). Meera Bai (PW-1) lodged the report (Ex.P/2) of the incident at Police Chowki Koriya, upon which the offence was registered. Complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) was sent for medical examination by requisition (Ex.P/3). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Section 451 and 397 of IPC against the accused-appellant for having committed lurking house trespass in the night in order to commit loot and for having committed loot of Gold Mohar, after putting Meera Bai (PW -1) under fear and while committing the offence, accused-appellant was armed with knife. The accused abjured guilt and had pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. The accused abjured guilt and had pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. Learned trial Court found that the accused-appellant had committed offence punishable under Section 451 and 397 of IPC and has accordingly sentenced him as has been mentioned earlier. 4. Learned counsel for accused-appellant has mainly submitted that, the prosecution evidence is totally unreliable and the statement of Meera Bai (PW -1) that she identified the accused-appellant by his voice does not inspire confidence. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent-State has supported the judgment and finding of the trial Court. 5. Narrating the incident, Meera Bai (PW-1) states that, on the date of incident at about 4.00 a.m. her husband had come home early from duty and had gone for fetching water. Meera Bai (PW -1) was sleeping inside the house along with her children. She has stated that, the accused-appellant entered her house and caught hold of her neck and asked her as to whether she had identified him, upon which she said that she had not recognised him. She has, however, stated that though she had infact identified the accused-appellant, but on account of fear she had told the accused that she had not recognised him. The accused-appellant thereafter, asked her to hand over the 'Gold Mohar'. The accused-appellant thereafter, cut the cord of the 'Mohar' and ran away with it. Meera Bai (PW -1) has further stated that, after the accused-appellant had run away, she shouted and her husband came there. She also stated that, her neighbours Girija Shankar (PW -4) and Lalit also reached the spot alongwith her husband. 6. Kariman (PW-2), who is the husband of complainant Meera Bai (PW-l) states that, when he cflme back home, after fetching water, his wife Meera Bai (PW -1) told him that Ajij had taken away her gold 'Mohar' and had caused hurt on her hand. Thereafter, he called the neighbours Lalit and Girija Shankar (PW-4) and narrated the incident to them. Kariman (PW-2) does not support the statement of complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) that she shouted after the accused-appellant had run away. Girija Shankar (PW-4) has given a different version and has first stated that he alongwith Lalit reached the spot on hearing the shout of Meera Bai (PW-1), who told them that somebody had looted the gold Mohar from her. Girija Shankar (PW-4) has given a different version and has first stated that he alongwith Lalit reached the spot on hearing the shout of Meera Bai (PW-1), who told them that somebody had looted the gold Mohar from her. Girija Shankar (PW -4) thereafter changed his version and has stated that, on hearing the shouts of Kariman (PW-2) he reached the spot. It may be noticed that Kariman (PW-2) himself does not say that he shouted for help, but has infact stated that he had called Girija Shankar (PW -4) and Lalit and narrated them the incident. 7. It is further pertinent to notice that, Girija Shankar (PW -4) said that Meera Bai (PW-1) had informed them that somebody had taken away her gold Mohar. In para 7, on being further questioned he has very categorically stated that the name of accused-appellant was not disclosed to him by Kariman (PW-2). 8. It would therefore, appear from the statements of Girija Shankar (PW-4) that neither Meera Bai (PW -I) nor Kariman (PW -2) had disclosed the name of accused-appellant, as the person having committed the offence of loot of gold Mohar of complainant Meera Bai (PW -1). 9. In this connection it may also be noticed that Meera Bai (PW -1) claims to have identified the accused-appellant by his voice. Meera Bai (PW -1) had admitted that at the time of the incident there was no light, as would be clear from para 1 of her statement. She states that immediately after entering her house the accused-appellant caught hold of her neck and asked her as to whether she has identified the accused-appellant. The above statement clearly is most unnatural and it is unlikely that, without any reason the accused-appellant immediately after entering her house would ask Meera Bai (PW -1) as to whether she had identified him. Moreover, it would be clear from the statement of Meera Bai (PW -1) herself that, there was no intimacy between the accused-appellant and herself and she has also admitted that there was no occasion for her to talk with the accused. The only reason due to which she knew the accused-appellant was because, she used to reside in the neighbourhood of accused-appellant and she had seen him coming and going from the market. The only reason due to which she knew the accused-appellant was because, she used to reside in the neighbourhood of accused-appellant and she had seen him coming and going from the market. The above statement of Meera Bai (PW-1) would clearly indicate that she had no occasion to talk with the accused-appellant hence had no occasion to hear his voice. In the circumstances, in the darkness of night, she could identify him by his voice alone, without having any occasion to hear his voice from before is a highly doubtful proposition to be believed. As would be clear from the statement of Meera Bai (PW -1) that she could identify the accused-appellant only by hearing his voice, does not appear to be believable in the circumstances of the case. 10. Discussing the matter of identification of the accused-appellant on the basis of voice, in the case reported in 1978(1) MPWN 191 Jalamsingh v. State of M.P., the Division Bench of this Courts has observed that, the identification from voice is a weak type of evidence. In the case reported in [AIR 1928 Lahore 925] Bhagtu v. Emperor, it has been observed: "It is very difficult to identify a person in a pitch dark night merely by the modulations of his voice and it is risky to convict a person merely on such identification". Referring to Bhagtu's case (supra), Orissa High Court in the case reported in 1981 CrLJ 1060 State of Orissa v. Chandra Pantia has observed that it is not safe to convict the accused-appellant merely from the identification of his voice. Reference be also made in this connection, to the case reported in 1983 CLL.J. NOC 122 Abdul Haqua AU and another v. State of M.P. 11. Clearly, therefore, in the instant case, the statement of complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) that she identified the accused-appellant from his voice, as he had asked her as to whether she has identified him is not only unnatural, but a grave doubt arises as to whether the complainant was conversant with the voice of accused-appellant from before the incident. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on her statement that she identified the accused-appellant from his voice. Moreover, it would appear from the statement of Girija Shankar (PW -4) that the name of the accused-appellant was not disclosed immediately after the incident. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on her statement that she identified the accused-appellant from his voice. Moreover, it would appear from the statement of Girija Shankar (PW -4) that the name of the accused-appellant was not disclosed immediately after the incident. This also raises grave suspicion about the truthfullness of the statement of complainant Meera Bai (PW -1), that she had identified the accused-appellant on the spot. 12. Besides, there are other material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, which make it unreliable. It appears that the learned trial Court was impressed by the fact that the accused-appellant had absconded immediately after the incident, but there does not appear to be reliable evidence on record to disclose that the accused-appellant had absconded after the incident. Infact, it would appear from the statement of accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that, he being ill had gone to his father-in-law's place for treatment. His father-in-law Mohammad Hanif (DW -1) has also given statement to the same effect. In the circumstances, the fact that the accused-appellant was not available in the house after the incident, as has been deposed by A.S.I. H.N. Singh (PW-3) by itself, does not give rise to any presumption against the accused-appellant. It may also be pointed out that no recovery of the looted article has been made in the case. 13. In view of above, it is clear that no offence against the accused-appellant is made out from the prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court has clearly erred in placing reliance upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, especially on the statement of Meera Bai and holding the accused-appellant guilty, on the basis thereof. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused-appellant is set-aside. He is acquitted of all the charges and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail authorities for information and necessary action.