R P. NIGAM, J, J. This criminal ap peal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order, dated 11-11- 1983 passed in ST. No. 29 of 1982 by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 426 and 147, IPC and each appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 126, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in defualt of pay ment of fine to undergo rigorous impris onment for two months under Section 147 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as dis closed in the written report Ex. Ka-1 lodged by Savitri Devi PW-1 in police station Raunahi, district Faizabad on 27-7-1980 at 7. 00 A. M. is as follows: "savitri Devi, wife of Sri Ram Naresh, is the resident of village Devra Kot police station Raunahi district Faizabad. On 27-7-1980 in the night at about 3. 00 a. m. Ram Chander Verma, son of Chhedi Verma resident of Wali-ka-Purva, Gajraj resident of Walli-ka-Purva, Nar endra Bahadur resident of Ali Ganj, Harish Chandra son of Tulsi Ram resident of Chiraidhpur Kheri, Tulsi Ram resident of Chirninhpur Kheri, Vaishram and Juggi Lal and other persons came with gun, pistol, lathi, danda and phawara and Ballam and demol ished the wall which was of bricks and which was towards north-east and came at the roof and had snatched watch which had a golden chain from the hand of Savitri Devi and had taken the chain of gold whose weight was three tolas and had also taken a ring of gold and clothes and had taken cash amounting to Rs. 500/- from Savitri Devi and the said persons had assaulted Savitri Devi by kicks and fists and when the said persons were coming then Ram Chander had fired two shots by his gun and when the said persons were going then Ram Chander, Gajraj and Narender each fired one shot". 3. On the basis of the written report Ex. Ka-I Chick FIR Ex. Ka-2 was pre pared and the case against the appellants and other accused persons was registered at report No. 9 of the G. D. on 27-7-1980 at 7. 00 a. m. under Sections 395 and 397, IPC and a copy of report No. 9 is Ex. Ka-3. 4. On the basis of the written report Ex. Ka-I Chick FIR Ex. Ka-2 was pre pared and the case against the appellants and other accused persons was registered at report No. 9 of the G. D. on 27-7-1980 at 7. 00 a. m. under Sections 395 and 397, IPC and a copy of report No. 9 is Ex. Ka-3. 4. Ram Suphal Sharma PW-3 was posted as Station Officer in police station Raunahi on 27-7-1980 and the FIR of this case was registered in his presence and he took up the investigation of the case. He recorded the statement of Savitri Devi complainant and had sent her for medical examination before going to the spot. He recorded the statements of Ram Naresh husband of the complainant and Somraj in the police station who were under arrest. He recorded the statements of Vidhaya Dhar and other witnesses on the spot and he inspected the spot and prepared site-plan Ex. Ka-4. During investigation he found that a case under Sections 147, 148, 427, 323 and 307, IPC was made out and therefore, he amended the case under the said sections in the G. D. He inspected the gas which is said to have been burning at the time of incident and prepared a memo in respect of that which is Ex. Ka-6. He could not complete the investigation as he was transferred. The S. O. Sadanand had filed chargesheet Ex. Ka-7 after complet ing the investgation under Sections 147, 148, 427, 323 and 307, IPC on 23-12-1980 against the appellants and Ram Chander and Tulsi. 5. The accused Harish Chandra, Vishram, Juggi Lal and Tulsi were charged under Section 395, IPC and the accused Ram Chander and Narender Bahadur were charged under Section 395 read with Sec tion 397, IPC and in the alternative all the accused were charged under Sections 147 and 426, IPC read with Sectoin 149, IPC by the learned Court below. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants and Ram Chander had examined Savitri Devi as PW-1, Satjit Prakash Tewari PW-2 and Ram Suphal Sharma as PW-3. The prosecution had relied upon eight papers which are from Ex. Ka-1 to Ex. Ka-8. 7. The appellants denied the prosecu tion case and pleaded not guilty. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants and Ram Chander had examined Savitri Devi as PW-1, Satjit Prakash Tewari PW-2 and Ram Suphal Sharma as PW-3. The prosecution had relied upon eight papers which are from Ex. Ka-1 to Ex. Ka-8. 7. The appellants denied the prosecu tion case and pleaded not guilty. Appellant Narender Bahadur has stated that case had been filed against him on account of en mity and he is relative of Juggi Lal. Appellant Vishram has stated that the case had been Filed against him on account of en mity and he was the owner of the land. The appellant Juggi Lal has stated that the case had been filed against him on account of enmity and the land belonged to him and Vishram and they won it from the Civil Court. The appellant, Harish Chander has stated that land belonged to Juggi Lal and the case had been filed against him on account of enmity and he is the relative of Juggi Lal. The appellants did not lead any oral evidence in their de fence. Accused had filed two papers in their defence which are Ex. Ka-1 and Ex. Ka- 2. 8. The accused Tulsi Ram died during the pendency of the sessions trial and therefore, the sessions trial was abated against him on 21-6-1983. 9. The learned Court below after con sidering the evidence adduced in the case had held that the appellant Harish Chandra, Vishram, Juggi Lal and Naren der Bahadur committed offences punish able under Sections 426 and 147, IPC and therefore, they were convicted under Sec tions 426 and 147, IPC and each appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in defualt of payment of fine to un dergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 126, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in defualt of pay ment of fine to undergo rigorous impris onment for two months under Section 147, IPC and the accused Ram Chander was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The learned Court below disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution regarding commission of the dacoity, but in the operative order of the judgment it had not been written by the learned Court below that the accused. The learned Court below disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution regarding commission of the dacoity, but in the operative order of the judgment it had not been written by the learned Court below that the accused. Harish Chandra, Juggi Lal and Vishram were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395, IPC and the accused Narender Bahadur was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397, IPC but as the case of the prosecution re garding the commission of the dacoity was disbelieved by the learned Court below and therefore, it would be deemed that the ac cused Harish Chandra, Juggi Lal and Vishram were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and the accused Narendra Bahadur was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC, The learned Court below was negligent in the matter and the learned Court below should have recorded the correct order. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants who has assailed the judgment given by the learned Court be low. I have also heard the learned A. G. A. and he has supported the judgment passed by the learned Court below. 11. According to the prosecution the incident happened on the night of 26/27-7-1980 at 3. 00 a. m. and the"flr was lodged on 27-7-1980 at 7. 00 a. m. and thus it can not be said that the FIR was lodged in the police station late. The learned Counsel for appellants has also not contended that the FIR in the police station was lodged late. 12. The learned Counsel for appel lants has, contended before me that the witnesses of the prosecution namely, Savitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash"pw-2 were not truthful witnesses and therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in placing reliance on their statements and was not justified in convicting and sen tencing the appellants and therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the correctness of sentence recorded against the appellants should be referred and the appellants should be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 426 and 147, IPC as these appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 426, IPC by the learned Court below. The learned AGA on the other hand has contended that from the prose cution evidence it is established that the accused appellants committed offences punishable under Sections 147 and 426, IPC and therefore, the learned Court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants under the said sections. 13. Savitri Devi PW-1 is the com plainant of this case. She has stated that her Maika is in village Devra Kot police station Raunabi and before the incident she had taken a sale-deed of the land which was near Munbarakganj Chauraha and on some portion of this land she constructed a house and some land out of the said land remained vacant towards back and north and on the day of the incident she was getting the house constructed on the said land and the walls had been con structed and lintel was being placed in the light of lantern of gas work was being done and about three years ago in the month of July a roof was being placed on the walls and she was present there and her brother Satya Prakash was also present there. She has further stated that Somraj is the son of the cousin of Tulsi Ram and he had taken the sale-deed from Tulsi Ram and Somraj and the accused had prohib ited her from constructing the house on the land of the sale-deed and had said that they would demolish and she had said that she would construct the house on the land which was written in her paper and the said persons had demolished the house and Ram Chancier, Harish Chander, Juggi Lal, Vishram, Narender Bahadur and Tulsi had demolished the house and Tulsi had died and these persons had gun and country-made pistol and apart from the said per sons some of the persons were there and she cannot remember the names of those persons and the accused fired shot in the air vhen they were prohibited by her and the said persons had snatched a watch which she was wearing at the wrist of her hand and this watch had a chain of gold and the accused Harish Chandra had snatched a ring which she was wearing and she was assaulted by kicks and fists and the said persons had taken out a box from inside the house and had taken out cash amounting to Rs. 500/- and some clothes from the said box and on her alarm no person had arrived and the accused stayed there upto 2-3 hours and after that she has further stated that she got the re port Ext. Ka-1 written by her brother Ram Narain and had filed this report at the po lice station Raunabi at 6. 00 a. m. and her examination had taken place in Sadar Hospital Faizabad and she became (sic) after the incident of this case. 14. Satya Prakash PW-2 has stated that Savitri Devi is his elder sister and she was married with Doctor Ram Naresh and at the time of incident he used to live with his sister at Mubarakganj Cnauraha and was reading in class VIII and his brother-in-law (gainer) Ram Naresh also used to live in the house with them and some por tion of the house was constructed and his sister was constructing some portion. He has further stated that he knows accused Harish Chander, Ram Chander, Vi shram, Juggi Lal and Narender Bahadur from before and accused Harish Chander, Vish-ram and Juggi Lal are cousins and the accused Ram Chandra is the son of Phoo-pha of accused Harish Chandra and Harish Chandra and Narender Bahadur are rela tives and the land was purchased from Harish Chandra who is brother of Tulsi Ram. He has further stated that incident happened about 3 years ago at 3. 00 a. m. and his sister was getting a lintel placed towards north of the house and Mangal Mistri was doing the work in the light of gas and at the said time his sister and he was at the house and his brother-in-law (gainer) was arrested by Daroga on the same day in the evening and Daroga had taken him. Daroga was unlce of Harish Chandra accused and accused Harish Chandra, Vishram, Juggi, Tulsi Ram, Narender Bahadur and others had lathi, danda and they started demolishing the wall and these persons had entered inside the house and had said to loofeandrhis sis ter prohibited them from getting the wall demolished but they did not pay any heed and had abused her and started assaulting her by fists and had snatched watch, ring chain of his sister and a chain and ring were of gold and watch had also a chain of gold and Harish Chandra had taken out clothes and cash amounting to Rs. 500/-which were kept in a box which was inside a room and watch chain and ring were snatched by Juggi Lal. He has further stated that an alarm was raised but no one had come and the said persons committed dacoity upto 1-1/2 hours and demolished the wall and after that they had gone to their house and his sister received injury. 15. The evidence of the prosecution regarding commission of dacoity by the appellants and other accused was disbelieved by learned Court below and I find that the Court below has rightly disbe lieved the evidence adduced by the prose cution regarding commission of dacoity. The statements of Savitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash PW-2 regarding commis sion of dacoity are contradictory. The evi dence of prosecution regarding assualt of Savitri Devi PW-1 by the appellants and other accused was not believed by the learned Court below and I find that the learned Court below was justified in not believing the said evidence. The statement of Savitri Devi PW-1 regarding commis sion of dacoity by the appellants and other accused and her sister by the appellants and other accused is nor (sic) and this proves that she is not a truthfill witness and it was not proper for the learned Court below to believe her statement partly and to hold that the appellants committed of fences punishable under Sections 147 and 426 IPC. 16. 16. Savitri Devi PW-1 has stated in her cross-examination that a case was un der proceeding in respect of the land which was dug between her and Tulsi Ram, Juggi Lal and other accused and after the incident, the Court had passed order for not constructing the Chouse and after two days of the incident proclamation of temporary injunction at the spot was made and at the time of proclamation, wall was 7- 8 feet in height and lintel was placed on it before 2-3 days of the said proclamation and the accused got the said lintel demolished after two months of the proclamation, A perusal of Ex. Kha-1 and Ex. Kha-2 show that Juggi Lal and Vish ram and other persons instituted suit No. 187 of 1980, Somraj and others v. Ram Naresh and others, in the Court of Munsif Faizabad and the said suit was for manda tory injunction in respect of this suit, Sa vitri Devi PW-1 had staled that the suit was pending and this suit was in respect of the land which was dug and it means that the said suit was in respect of the disputed land. The suit was decreed on 21-12-1982 and the defendants were directed to re move the constructions which stood on the disputed land within 30 days. The defen dants in the said suit were Ram Naresh, husband of Savitri Devi, Smt. Savitri Devi and Tulsi Ram. The said papers and the statement of Smt. Savitri Devi PW-1 show that at the time of the incident the said suit which was in respect of the disputed land on which constructions were raised was pending. If the said suit was pending in respect of the disputed land at the time of the incident then there was no need for the appellants and other accused to go and demolish the walls and this circusmtance make Savitri Devi PW-1 unreliable wit ness. The statement of Savitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash PW-2 and contradictory and this shows that Savitri Devi PW-1 is not a truthful witness and no reliance can be placed upon her statement. I therefore, place no reliance upon her statement. 17. The statement of Savitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash PW-2 and contradictory and this shows that Savitri Devi PW-1 is not a truthful witness and no reliance can be placed upon her statement. I therefore, place no reliance upon her statement. 17. Savitri Devi PW-1 did not get this fact mentioned in the report that Salya Prakash PW-2 was present at the spot at the time of the incident and the name of Salya Prakash PW-2 does not find place in the FIR as a witness. 18. The statement of Satya Prakash PW-2 who is brother of Savitri Devi PW-1 regarding commission of dacoity by the appellants and other accused was not be lieved by the learned Court below rightly and his statement regarding assault of Savitri Devi PW-1 by the appellants and other accused was disbelieved by the learned Court below rightly and therefore, the learned Court below should have been disbelieved his entire statement and the learned Court below was not justified in placing reliance upon the statement of Satya Prakash PW-2 regarding commis sion of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 426, IPC. The statements of Sa vitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash PW-2 are contradictory and this shows that Satya Prakash PW-2 are not truthful witnesses and, therefore, place no reliance on their statements. 19. Savitri Devi PW-1 and Satya Prakash PW-2 are not truthful witnesses and therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in placing reliance upon their statements and was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 147 and 426, IPC and therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants by the learned Court below should be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 426, IPC. 20. This criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants Narendra Bahadur, Harisli Chandra, Juggi Lal and Vishram by the learned Court below are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the of fences punishable under Sections 147 and 426, IPC. Appeal allowed .