JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.1992 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Purnia by which he has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioners passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnia. The petitioners were convicted under Section 3(a) R.P.(U.P.) Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Shri Kanchan Kumar Sen, S.I.P.E.C.I.B, N.E. Railway alongwith R.P.F. constables Vanu Ranjan Das, Shivnath Deca was conducting an inquiry at Kishanganj into certain cases as per the order of the Deputy I.G.R.P.F. N.F. Railway. On 17.5.1986 at about 1 hour while 348A down passenger train was standing on Kishanganj station the engine crew of Engine No. 9583 W.G. of the said train was found loading coal in a bag and one person was found standing on the ground at the station side of the engine door. While the said person was about to run away with the said bag of coal the informant and his associates charged him and he was arrested alongwith the said bag of coal on his head near the engine, who disclosed his name as Sitaram Soren working as box porter. No satisfactory reply was made by him about said 30 Kg. of coal. The informant Kanchan Kumar Sen gave his written report (Ext.3). On the basis of the written report the R.P.F. instituted a case and after investigation submitted prosecution report vide Ext.5 for offence under section 3(a) R.P. (U.P.) Act against the petitioners. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial was concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The prosecution to prove its case has examined five witnesses out of whom P.W.4 and P.W.5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 is the informant who claims to have seen the petitioners taking coal in the gunny bag and also seen helping the co-accused putting the gunny bag on his head. He chased the co-accused Sita Ram Soran and recovered about 30 Kg. of coal from his possession. He prepared a seizure list in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 5. P.W.5 is constable. He has stated that he saw the petitioner (crewmen) filling the coal in a gunny bag and putting the coal on the head of the co-accused Sita Ram Soren who was chased and 30 Kg. of coal from his possession. He prepared a seizure list in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 5. P.W.5 is constable. He has stated that he saw the petitioner (crewmen) filling the coal in a gunny bag and putting the coal on the head of the co-accused Sita Ram Soren who was chased and 30 Kg. of coal was recovered from his possession. P.W. 8 is a fuel Inspector who tested the coal in question after its seizure and reported vide Ext. 4 that the said coal was used in locomotives. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are two Investigating Officers of the case. They have investigated the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is no independent witness in this case and according to the prosecution case all the three petitioners were found putting gunny bag on the head at the co-accused, Sita Ram Soren which was only 30 Kg. which is highly improbable. It has also been submitted that P.W. 4, the informant in his deposition has stated that it was a dark night, therefore, it was not possible to identify the petitioners. Although both the courts have come to the concurrent findings that the occurrence took place. In the manner as alleged by the prosecution but both the courts have overlooked two relevant features of the case. Firstly that the weight of coal was only about 30 Kg. there was no probability that all the three petitioners will be putting the gunny bag on the head of the co-accused Sita Ram Soren rather. It appears to be Inherently Improbable. Secondly that It was dark night as stated by P.W. 4 the Informant and occurrence took place at 1 a.m.. It was not possible to Identify the petitioners from a distance & Sita Ram Soren (Co-accused) did not name them. 5. In view of above and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly the conviction and sentence passed by the court below is set aside and this revision petition is allowed.