JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The appellant has been convicted under Sections 395 and 397. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7? years on each count. He is also convicted under Sections 332 and 225, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years on each count. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.1 who was the Officer-in-charge at Raighar Police Station at the relevant time. The informant was investigating into Raighar P.S. Case No.8 dated 1.3.1993 which was registered under Sections 457 and 380, Indian penal Code. He had found materials against Parsu Lohora and Tia Lohora of Kenduguda. On 3.3.1993, he along with some police officials had gone to Dabugam Police Station for the purpose of investigation. On the written requisition of the informant, P.W.6. the then officer-in-Charge of Dabugam Police Station, along with some other police officials had accompanied the informant for further investigation into Raighar Police Station Case No.8 dated 1.3.1993 and with the help of two local persons all of them had raided the house of Parsu Lohora and certain stolen articles, such as, gold necklace, silver ring, sarees and cash, were recovered and a seizure-list was prepared. Thereafter while the informant was bringing the said Parsu Lohora along with the recovered properties, several persons including Rabisingh Lohora, father of Parsu Lohora, came there armed with lathis and tangias and started assaulting the police party. Many of the police personnel were injured and the culprits snatched away the seized articles, the search and seizure-lists and forcibly rescued accused Parsu Lohora from the custody of the police officials. 3. It appears that after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against seven accused persons including the present appellant who was shown to be an absconder. The trial against six other accused persons numbered as Sessions Case No. 34/93 ended an order of conviction by the trial Court in January, 1994. A separate trial numbered as Sessions Case No. 9/95 was held against the present appellant. 4. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 5. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 as corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 convicted the present appellant. 6. P.Ws.1 and 6 are the two police officials who had conducted the raid on the house of Parsu Lohora. 4. The plea of the appellant was one of denial. 5. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 as corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 convicted the present appellant. 6. P.Ws.1 and 6 are the two police officials who had conducted the raid on the house of Parsu Lohora. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the co-villagers of Parsu Lohora who had gone with the police party. P.Ws.1 and 6 have sustained one injury each as evident from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 5). Some other police personnel who had sustained injuries have not been examined. P.W.1 in his evidence had implicated all the seven accused persons in a general manner. As already indicated, six other accused persons had been separately tried whereas the present appellant alone was facing the subsequent trial. Apart from implicating all the seven accused persons in general manner, P.W.1 has not ascribed any specific overt act to the present appellant. Though P.W.1 claims that he knew the accused person present in the dock, the basis of such claim appears to be unfounded. Even otherwise, his evidence being of general nature implicating all the seven accused persons, while deposing in a case where a single accused person was facing trial, does not have the effect of clearly implicating the present appellant. P.Ws.3 and 4, of course, are the co-villagers of the present appellant. P.W.3, however, has deposed in a general manner implicating the seven accused parsons as had been done by P.W.1. He has not specifically ascribed any overt act to the present appellant who was facing the trial alone. As such it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion regarding the culpability of the present appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW.3. P.W.4 had stated that the present appellant assaulted on the head of P.W.1 by means of lathi. As already indicated, P.W.1 himself had not implicated the present appellant to be his assailant. On the other hand, he had stated that he had been assaulted by accused Rabisingh and accused Tia. P.W.4 has also stated in cross-examination:- "...I identified to the police officer the house of accused Parsu Lohora and thereafter I left on my own work " In view of such statement of P.W.4, it is doubtful, if, in fact, he was present at the time of the actual occurrence. P.W.4 has also stated in cross-examination:- "...I identified to the police officer the house of accused Parsu Lohora and thereafter I left on my own work " In view of such statement of P.W.4, it is doubtful, if, in fact, he was present at the time of the actual occurrence. In aforesaid view of the matter, though P.W.4 is a co-villager, it is not safe to rely upon his evidence to come to a definite conclusion regarding the culpability of the present appellant. P.W.6, the Officer-in charge of Dabugam Police Station, claims that he was assaulted by the accused standing in the dock by means of a lathi. However, in his examination-in-chief, he has not claimed that he knew the present appellant. When a single person was being tried, in the absence of any specific and pointed evidence of the witness to the effect that he knew the accused, his evidence that he had been assaulted by the accused-appellant does not inspire confidence specially when the present appellant was not specifically named in the F.I.R. and was not implicated by other eye witnesses to be the assailant of P.W.6. In the absence of any previous T.I. parade, it is difficult to accept the bald statement of P.W. 6 that he was assaulted by the accused standing on the dock, which is not corroborated by any other witness. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence so far as the present appellant is concerned, it is difficult to sustain the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted. 8. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to point out a defect in the judgment of the trial Court so far as the sentence is concerned. The trial Court had convicted the appellant, inter alia, under Sections 395. Indian penal Code, and yet imposed only substantive sentence of imprisonment without imposing any fine. A convict under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, is also liable to pay fine. The trial Court observed that as the convict was under-trial prisoner, it did not like to impose any pecuniary punishment. When the provision itself lays dow that a person is also liable to pay fine apart from substantive sentence of imprisonment, the Court has no discretion in the matter and substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine, however less it may be, must be imposed. When the provision itself lays dow that a person is also liable to pay fine apart from substantive sentence of imprisonment, the Court has no discretion in the matter and substantive sentence of imprisonment and sentence of fine, however less it may be, must be imposed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order o conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant be release forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Final Result : Allowed