VIRENDRA SARAN, J. ( 1 ) SHIV Ram. Ram Khelawan, Usman Khan and Shabbir Khan have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31-8-1984 of Sri R. N. Sharma. I Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur passed in Sessions Trial No. 271. The appellants have been convicted under section 395. IPC and sentenced to five years R. I. house of informant Munna Lal is situated towards south of the Abadi of Village Bhadevar and his house faces east. House of Pirthi is situated towards north-east of the house of Munna Lal. There are of her houses in the vicinity. It is alleged that on 28-5-1981 at about 8. 30 p. m. when Munna Lal was sitting outside the house and his wife was teathering the buffalo near the cattle troughs and Smt. Bindeshwari Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi were cooking food inside the house about 8 or 9 miscreants reached his house and inquired about Bachey Lal son of the informant impersonating as police party and said that the Subinspector had come to search for Bachey Lal in connection with a murder case. Bachey Lal was not at the house. Some of the miscreants entered the house while 3 or 4 remained outside and committed dacoity in the house. The dacoits were identified in the light of lantern and torch. After committing dacoity the miscreants left the scene. The F. I. R. was lodged on 29-5-1981 at P. S. Machhrehta naming Allan Khan. Shabbir. Usman Khan. Kishore. Ram Khilawan and Sheo Ram, who according to the informant were known to him from before the incident. Out of these named accused Allan Khan has died while Kishore has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned here that out of the appellants appellants Sheo Ram. Ram Khilawan belonged to informants Village Bhadevar while Usman and Shabbir Khan belonged to nearby Village Usmanpur. ( 2 ) AFTER usual investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. At the trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Munna Lal. P. W. 2 Ram Lal P. W. 3 Ram Lotan and P. W. 4 Saheb Dayal as eye witnesses of the incident. At the trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Munna Lal. P. W. 2 Ram Lal P. W. 3 Ram Lotan and P. W. 4 Saheb Dayal as eye witnesses of the incident. Of these, Ram Lotan (P. W. 3) and Saheb Dayal (P. W. 4) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P. W. 5 Ravindra Pratap Yadav had investigated the case and his evidence is more or less of formal nature. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. B. M. Sahay, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State at length and have also perused the evidence on record. ( 5 ) AT the very outset it may be mentioned here that the basic structure of the prosecution case is not free from doubt. A perusal of the F. I. R. goes to show that the miscreants who had committed dacoity had posed themselves as policemen and had said that the Sub-Inspector had come to inquire about Bachey Lal. All of the appellants were known to the prosecution witnesses from before the incident and in these circumstances it is incredible that known persons would have given out that they were members of police party. This goes to show that the miscreants who had committed the crime were unknown persons and they entered the house on the pretext of arresting Bachey Lal. The prosecution was faced with this difficulty and. therefore, at the trial P. W. 1 Munna Lal started saying that the dacoits had muffled their faces with Dhatas. If we go by the statement of P. W. 1 Munna Lal the very foundation of recognition is shaken. It is not possible to recognise persons who had taken care to conceal their faces by Dhatas. Moreover, it is highly unnatural that the miscreants who were covering their faces with Dhatas would give out that anyone of them was a Sub-Inspector. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 1 Munna Lal on this point is highly unnatural and unbelievable. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Ram Lal is the only other witness who has supported the prosecution case, but he has told lies on many IMPORTANT POINTs. This witness was inimical to appellants facing trial. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 1 Munna Lal on this point is highly unnatural and unbelievable. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Ram Lal is the only other witness who has supported the prosecution case, but he has told lies on many IMPORTANT POINTs. This witness was inimical to appellants facing trial. This witness and his son Basdeo were prosecuted under section 323/325, IPC and in that case appellant Ram Khilawan had given evidence against him and his son. When cross examined the witness feigned ignorance whether he was prosecuted in any such case, but as an after-thought he stated that there was such a case. The witness against feigned ignorance whether appellant Ram Khilawan had given evidence against him in the said case. His statement is belied by the documentary evidence on record and the defence has filed a certified copy of the deposition of Ram Khilawan in said case. The learned Sessions Judge also took note of this fact and observed accused Ram Khilawan had filed Ext. Kha-2, a copy of the statement of Ram Khilawan recorded in a case State v. Ram Lal and Others under section 323/325, IPC which shows that Ram Khilawan accused had appeared as a witness against Basdeo. Ram Lal further admitted that sometime prior to the incident of dacoity, one Surendra had been murdered in which his son Basdeo was accused, but again he gave an evasive reply and stated that he does not know whether appellant Ram Khilawan and Sheo Ram had given evidence against his son. He denied that he was also accused in said case. This witness has given lot of evasive replies which casts doubt on his verasity. The witness also admitted that about 5 or 6 years prior to the incident Ram Bilas was murdered and accused Allan Khan and others were prosecuted for the same. He further stated that he was a prosecution witness in said case against accused Allan Khan. That being so, the witness had an axe to grind against the accused in the present case. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that F. I. R. in the instant case was anti-timed and written with the help of the Investigating Officer. That being so, the witness had an axe to grind against the accused in the present case. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that F. I. R. in the instant case was anti-timed and written with the help of the Investigating Officer. He invited my attention to the fact that though the F. I. R. purports to have been written by Sri Budhi Sagar Dixit, but according to P. W. I Munna Lal, it was written by the Sub-Inspector on his dictation. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that since the chick F. I. R. has been written on the following day, the witness must have been confused and thought that the question pertained to chick F. LR. It is not so, the chick F. I. R. has been drawn up by the Head Constable and not the Sub-Inspector. That being so, the lodging of the F. I. R in the manner as suggested by the prosecution is also doubtful. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are set-aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. . .