JUDGMENT S.P. SHARMA J.:- The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the two appellants, namely, Kanhaiya Yadav and Triyogi Singh who have been convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah by the judgment dated 29th February, 1992 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the same by an order of the same date. There were altogether six persons facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 286/81 on the charges under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 412 I.P.C. However, four of them were acquitted by the trial court and two appellants have been convicted under section 396 I.P.C. only. 2. It appears that the case was registered on the basis of a Fardbeyan of Most. Dasia Devi (P.W.2) by a Police Officer of Dumraon P.S. on 7th November, 1977 at 6 A.M. in the morning at her residence in village Amshari within the P.S. Dumraon, in the District of Bhojpur. According to the informant, she was sleeping in her house alongwith her husband and children in the night preceding and at about mid-night while she was still awake, about 4-5 persons came near the Chachar of her house which was virtually a hut and they asked her to open Chachar and when she refused to do so, they pushed open the Chachar which was like a gate and about six persons entered inside the house and some others remained outside. Some of the dacoits picked up valuables from inside her house including utensils, cloths and ornaments and also untied she-buffalo which was tied inside the house and started taking it out. The informant identified three persons in the light of a Dhibri (lamp) burning inside the house and also in the light of torch which were being flashed by the dacoits. Among those whom he identified she named two appellants and one Sahdeo who was subsequently described as Samardeo Ahir. According to the informant some dacoits were all along covering her husband in the Angan of the house and when the dacoits started going away one of them was standing near him and he wanted to push him and the husband of .1e informant started scuffling with him and he was shot at by the appellant Triyogi Singh and the husband of the informant sustained injury, fell down and died. The dacoits also picked up the children and threw them away in the ridge of the sugarcane field nearby. However, her son Alagu Bhar (P.W.3) escaped and raised alarm on which the villagers started assembling and the dacoits fled away towards the west. According to the informant, in the process of the commission of dacoity her husband was shot dead and she was also assaulted with lathi. Later, the police was informed and Police Officer arrived at the P.O. 3. The accused persons denied the charges against them and the appellants claimed that they were falsely implicated in the case because of enmity between the family of the informant and them and they were innocent and did not commit any offence. 4. For proving the charges against the accused persons in the trial the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. However, it is significant to note that the doctor who held the Postmortem Examination of the deceased in this case was not examined by the prosecution and the Investigating Officer was also not examined and among the rest witnesses P.W. 7 is a formal witness who proved various documents including F.I.R and postmortem report. This witness was examined in order to prove these documents, because neither the I.O. nor the doctor was examined. Out of the documents proved by him, Fardbeyan happens to be Ext. 2. Inquest report is Ext.3 and the post mortem report is Ext.4. All these documents have been formally proved by the P.W.7, who is an Advocate's clerk. Out of rest witnesses, P.W.6 Tabarak Hussain happened to be the Judicial Magistrate, who held T.1.P. of some of the suspects arrested in this case and also of the articles. However, since none of the accused other than those who were named in the F.I.R. have been convicted by the trial court, the evidence of P.W.6 becomes irrelevant. The rest five witnesses are on the point of occurrence. 5. P.W.2 Dasia Devi is the informant herself. She has tried to support the prosecution story in her evidence in court by giving out the details of the occurrence. She has stated in her cross-examination that there are several houses in the village near her house and many persons had also arrived on hearing hulla and she had narrated the incident to them and had also disclosed the names of the dacoits whom she identified. She has stated in her cross-examination that there are several houses in the village near her house and many persons had also arrived on hearing hulla and she had narrated the incident to them and had also disclosed the names of the dacoits whom she identified. ' She has also stated in her cross-examination that she did not send the Chaukidar to the Police Station and one Durga had gone to the Police Station and she also stated that she did not disclose the names of the dacoits whom she had identified when Durga was going to the P.S.. But subsequently she stated that she had disclosed tile names of the accused who had shot dead her husband. If it was so that Durga who had gone to the Police Station was knowing the entire details of the occurrence including the names of the persons identified by the informant on his statement, the F.I.R. should have been recorded in the Police Station as required under section 154 Cr. P.C., but it has not been done, rather a Police Officer came to the P.O. village and recorded Fardbeyan of the informant which became the basis of the F.I.R. and because the statement of the informant in the Fardbeyan was taken after the first information was lodged in the P.S., the Fardbeyan of the informant loses its value as F.I.R.. She has also stated that she had named altogether six accused before the Police Officer, but in the Fardbeyan there are only three names disclosed by her. Ii has, therefore, been suggested to her that because of some enmity she has falsely implicated the accused persons in this case. This Durga about whom the informant has stated in her evidence is P.W.1 . He has stated in his evidence in court that when he heard hulla of dacoity in the alleged night of occurrence, he went to the house of the informant where he saw the dead body of the husband of the informant lying and he c" had sustained fire-arm injury. He has stated in his evidence in court that when he heard hulla of dacoity in the alleged night of occurrence, he went to the house of the informant where he saw the dead body of the husband of the informant lying and he c" had sustained fire-arm injury. He stated that the informant Dasia was weeping, but she did not disclose the name of any accused to him, He was also declared hostile by the prosecution and his attention was drawn, towards the statements said to have been made by him before the I.O. but he denied and he stated that he did not make any statement at all. As the Investigating Officer could not be examined by the prosecution, the contradiction of the witness could not be taken for the present. 6. P.W. 3 Alagu Bhar happens to be the son of the informant. He has stated that in the alleged night of occurrence while he was sleeping in the house he woke up on hearing some sound and 15-20 persons entered in his house and he saw the faces of some of them and identified them in the light of torch flashed by them. According to him the dacoits has also captured and covered him, but at a point of time he got an opportunity to escape and ran away and raised alarm. Thereafter he saw that the dacoits were going away with his she-buffalo. He had also heard the sound of firing from inside the house and when he came to his house he saw his father dead. He also stated that many villagers have assembled and the mother had disclosed the names of two appellants to them. However, none of the villagers has come forward to support this claim of the informant and her son. He himself did not identify anyone and whatever he gathered regarding the accused he learnt if from his mother. He also stated in his evidence that the appellant. Triyogi Singh had earlier threatened his father in presence of some witnesses, but none of the villagers has come forward to support this part of the story. He himself did not identify anyone and whatever he gathered regarding the accused he learnt if from his mother. He also stated in his evidence that the appellant. Triyogi Singh had earlier threatened his father in presence of some witnesses, but none of the villagers has come forward to support this part of the story. He also stated in his cross-examination that the village Chaukidar had arrived at 1 A.M. in the night and she had made enquiries from his mother and she had narrated the incident and has also disclosed that her husband was shot at by the appellant Triyogi Singh. Thereafter the Chaukidar had gone to the P.S. So according to him also one village Chaukidar had gone to the Police Station after gathering the entire information about the details of the occurrence but his statement was not recorded in the Fardbeyan. that contravenes the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. in this case loses its value. 7. The other two witnesses P.W.4 Dhupan Singh Yadav and P.W. 5 Dhanraj Yadav have also not supported the prosecution story. P.W. 4 failed to support the prosecution story and he was declared hostile and his attention was also drawn towards the statements said to have been made by him before the I.O. but he denied it. The I.O. of this case has not been examined. P.W. 5 Dhanraj Yadav is a tendered witness. 8. It is, therefore, clear that actual cause of death and the weapon used in causing injury to the victim deceased have not been disclosed on account of non-examination of the doctor, who held the Postmortem Examination. However, the postmortem report has been formally proved by P.W. 7 and has been marked Ext. 4. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned A.P.P. for the State that this document is admissible under section 294 Cr. P.C., but it is not correct. The document has not been admitted into evidence in the manner as prescribed under Section 294 Cr P.C. Neither the document was tendered before the court nor defence was asked option whether the defence objects to the admission of the document as required. Therefore, the document cannot be treated as legally admissible document according to law. 9. The document has not been admitted into evidence in the manner as prescribed under Section 294 Cr P.C. Neither the document was tendered before the court nor defence was asked option whether the defence objects to the admission of the document as required. Therefore, the document cannot be treated as legally admissible document according to law. 9. It is also obvious that because the I.O. could not be examined in this case, the objective evidence collected by him during investigation could not be brought on the record. The attention of the witnesses also could not be brought to the notice of the I.O. because of his non-examination and the details of the investigation remained a mystery. Therefore, the defence has also been prejudiced because of non-examination of the I.O. In this view of the ratter it has rightly been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in this case there is no document on the record which has been admitted according to law. 10. So far as oral evidence is concerned, the only evidence available is the evidence of the informant herself and though her son, P.W. 3, has supported her on the point of occurrence, he did not identify anyone by himself and he claims to have learnt the names of the appellants from his mother (P.W. 2), the informant. In this view of the matter, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is no material to corroborate the evidence of the informant (PW 2) in this case and as it is admitted that there was enmity between the parties the possibility of false implication of the appellants in this case cannot be ruled out. It has been submitted that, the entire prosecution story appears to be un-natural and unbelievable. It has been submitted that no independent witness has come forward to support even the fact that they were told the names of the appellants by the informant after the occurrence and it has to be considered that two appellants are none else than co-villagers of the informant and therefore, they were not supposed to enter Into the house of the informant without taking any precaution to hide their faces to prevent identification. The enmity is admitted and if enmity can be cause of the commission of the offence, it can also be a reason for false implication. The enmity is admitted and if enmity can be cause of the commission of the offence, it can also be a reason for false implication. The evidence led by the prosecution in this case before the trial court appears to be very scanty and not properly convincing. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the version of the informant, the only eye witness, to hold the appellants guilty of offence under section 396 I.P.C. for which they have been convicted in this case. 11. Considering the circumstance, the appellants were at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court is, hereby, set aside and the two appellants, who have remained in custody since after the judgment on 29th of February, 1992, are ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.