Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. There are four appellants in this appeal who stand convicted under Sec. 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. 2. In the night between July 20 and 21, 1980 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant Lakhmuna Devi PW 4 by 10-12 miscreants. She herself did not identify any of the accused but her nephew Saryug Prasad Singh, PW I-A and son Tej Narayan Singh, PW 3 (who also received gun shot injuries during commission of the dacoity) and another nephew Jamuna Prasad Singh, PW 2 claimed to have identified the appellants among the dacoits. The trial Court has founded its judgment convicting the appellants on the testimonies of the aforesaid three prosecution witnesses. 3. Mr. Prakash Narayan Pandey learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that he had no quarrel with the prosecution case that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant in the night of July 20/21, 1980 in course of which some of the inmates of the house received gun shot injuries. He, however, seriously questioned and assailed the identification of the appellants as being among the dacoits. 4. The prosecution case was in situted on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of Lakhmuna Devi, PW 4 recorded by the Sub-Inspector B.L. Singh of Sahar P.S. Camp Kolo dehri at the informants house on 21-7 -1980 at 6.30 a.m. The fardbeyan was incorporated in the formal first information report (Ext. 4) which, gave rise to Sahar P.S. case no. 8(7) of 1980. 5. According to the informants statement in the night of the occurrence she was sleeping on a cot in the Aangan of her house. After mid-night she heard her nephew Saryug Singh, PW 1-A who was in the north facing room on the western side of the house calling out to his brother exclaiming that there were some persons on the roof of the house. On this Jamuna Prasad Singh, PW2 who was sleeping on another cot by the side of the informants cot got up and saw 2-3 persons on the roof and said that there were thieves. At this point one of the dacoits on the roof fired a shot hitting Saryug who cried out that he had received gun shots. On this Jamuna Prasad Singh, PW2 who was sleeping on another cot by the side of the informants cot got up and saw 2-3 persons on the roof and said that there were thieves. At this point one of the dacoits on the roof fired a shot hitting Saryug who cried out that he had received gun shots. In the meanwhile the informants son Tej Narayan PW 3 also came out in the Aangan and another dacoit fired at him felling him on the ground. Thereafter one of the dacoits came down in the Aangan and opened the outer door whereupon 8-10 dacoits entered into the house. They took away a number of boxes and various house-hold articles the description and value of which are given in the fardbeyan. What is significant of note in the fardbeyan is the informants statement that Saryug Singh who was reading in the light of lantern in a room on the western side of the house and her son Tej Narayan had identified some of the dacoits and they were naming them too. But as they had received gun shot injuries, the villagers had taken them for treatment to the Arrah hospital and they would say about their identification of the dacoits. It was further stated in the fardbeyan that a certain Ram Bachan Singh, one of the informants relatives was also say ing that Saryug and Tej Narayan had identified some of the dacoits and they were mentioning their names also. Having said this much the fardbeyan stops short of naming the appellants or anyone else among the dacoits. 6. In other words, according to the informant she heard Saryug, PW 1A and Tej Narayan, PW 3 saying that they had identified some of the dacoits and they actually named them; she also heard Ram Bachan Singh one of her relatives saying that Saryug and Tej Narain had identified some of the dacoits and had named them but still no names were stated by her in the fardbeyan and she presumably left it to Saryug and Tej Narain to give their own statements before the police. 7. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. PW 1 is a formal witness who proved the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext. 1. PWs 1-A, 2 and 3 are Saryug Prasad Singh. 7. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. PW 1 is a formal witness who proved the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext. 1. PWs 1-A, 2 and 3 are Saryug Prasad Singh. Jamuna Singh and Tej Narain Singh the two nephews and son respectively of the informant. They claimed to have identified the appellants as being among the dacoits. PW 4 is the informant. She deposed about the commission of dacoity in her house and stated that in the night Saryug and other members of the family had told her the names of the dacoits but she failed to remember them. PW 5 again a formal witness who proved the two injury reports and two supplementary injury reports of Saryug and Tej Narain which were marked as Exts. 2. 2/1, 3 and 3/1 respectively. He also proved the formal first information report which was marked as Ext. 4. 8. It is significant to note that neither the Investigating Officer nor Ram Bachan Singh or any other villager(s) who came to the informants house immediately after occurrence was examined by the prosecution as witness. 9. The defence also examined two witnesses DWs 1 and 2 and got an informatory petition marked as Ext. B. This informatory petition was filed by appellant No. 4 before the Sub-divisional officer, Sadar, Arrah on 5-7-1980 against PWs 1-A. 2 and 3. In this petition it was stated that on 4-7-1980 their the buffalo was grazing his field. He caught it and was taking it to the pound when they (PWs 1-A, 2 and 3) came there and surrounded him. They abused him and forcibly took away their buffalo. They also threatened him with dire consequences. The informatory petition was accordingly filed expressing apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of those prosecution witnesses. 10. Proceeding now to examine the prosecution evidence one finds that out of the three prosecution witnesses on whose testimonies the conviction of the appellants is founded, the weakest appears to be Jamuna Singh. PW 2. 11. It may be noted that in the informants fardbeyan it is repeatedly stated that it was Saryug Singh, PW 1 A and Tej Narain Singh, PW 3 who had identified some of the dacoits and had named them. The FIR does not mention the name of Jamuna Singh as identifying witness. PW 2. 11. It may be noted that in the informants fardbeyan it is repeatedly stated that it was Saryug Singh, PW 1 A and Tej Narain Singh, PW 3 who had identified some of the dacoits and had named them. The FIR does not mention the name of Jamuna Singh as identifying witness. It may further be noted that accordingly to PW 1-A (See paragraph 25 of his deposition) Jamuna Singh had not come to the (Arrah) hospital with them and he had stayed at the village; PWs 1-A and 3 were brought to the hospital by Ram Praut Singh and Habban Singh (the uncle and father respectively of PW1-A) and some others. Although PW 2 himself stated before the court that he had taken the injured PWs 1-A and 3 to the hospital, there appears to be some controversy on this point in view of the statement of PW1-A. The point that is sought to be made is this; in case Jamuna Singh had stayed back at the village as stated by PW1-A then normally the names of the appellant should have been disclosed in the fardbeyan or at least he too along with PWs 1-A and 3 should have been mentioned as the identifying witness; further his statement would have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the case diary shortly after the statement of the informant. On the other hand had he come to the hospital with the two injured witnesses his statement would have been taken by the police on 21-7-1980 at 10 a.m. when the statements of the other two witnesses were recorded. In actual fact however, his statement finds place in paragraph 93 of the case diary and it appears that he was examined by the investigating Officer more than two months after the occurrence. Further, although the Investigating Officer was not examined in this case, a perusal of his statement before the Investigating Officer and his deposition in court clearly indicates that there was an attempt to develop the case and there were material additions and all alterations in the two statements. The defence was, however, denied the opportunity to show to the court the alterations and additions made by PW 2 in his deposition in the absence of the Investigating Officer being examined. 12. The defence was, however, denied the opportunity to show to the court the alterations and additions made by PW 2 in his deposition in the absence of the Investigating Officer being examined. 12. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not consider it wholly safe to rely upon the evidence of PW2. 13. This leaves P.Ws 1-A and 3. In their respect Mr. Pandey raised a very simple and short point. Learned counsel submitted that PWs 1-A and 3 might or might not have identified the appellants as accused but there was no evidence in this case to corroborate the testimony of these two witnesses Mr. Pandey submitted that had it been said in the First Information Report that these two witnesses had actually named the appellants as being among the dacoits, there would have been sufficient contemporaneous corroboration and in that event their evidence would have carried for more conviction. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the appellants names were not mentioned in the FIR, and Ram Bachan Singh the person named in the FIR or any other villager (s) would have come forward to depose before the court that the two witnesses had in fact named the appellants shortly after the occurrence there would have been sufficient corroboration and this point would not have been available to him. 15. Learned counsel submitted that coupled with the want of corroboration the non-examination of the Investigating Officer had denied the defence the opportunity to derive any benefit from the omissions, additions or contradictions made by these two witnesses in their deposition before the court. He also submitted that from the informatory petition which was filed about a fortnight prior to the dacoity it appeared that the appellants and the members of the prosecution party were not only well known to each other but some bad blood had also started developing between them. 16. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances it may not be entirely judicious to accept the uncorroborated testimonies of PWs 1-A and 3 for maintaining the conviction of the appellants for such a serious offence. 17. In my view the submissions made by Mr. Pandey are well founded and I am inclined to accept them. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances it may not be entirely judicious to accept the uncorroborated testimonies of PWs 1-A and 3 for maintaining the conviction of the appellants for such a serious offence. 17. In my view the submissions made by Mr. Pandey are well founded and I am inclined to accept them. I would only wish to say that the investigation of the case and the conduct of the trial have left much to be desired but the benefit of the prosecution lacunae has to go to the accused, the appellants in this case. I, therefore, find and hold that it will not be entirely safe to maintain the appellants conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of PWs 1-A and 3 and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt. Extending to them this benefit, I set aside the judgment and order of the trial court and acquit the appellants of the charge under Sec. 395 of the Penal Code. 18. In the result this appeal is allowed and the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.