Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of the common judgment passed by the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 1989 whereby and whereunder both these appellants have been convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case, in brief, is that on 17.11.1989 at about 6 p.m., a dacoity was committed at the shop house and residential rooms of PW 1 Machendra Sao, situated at Village Jalim about 8 km. away from Latehar Police Station. As per the allegations made in the First Information Report submitted by PW 3 Sharda Devi, wife of PW 1 Machendra Sao to the effect that on the date and time of occurrence, Machendra Sao was in his cloth shop in the outer room of his house and his son Sujit Kumar (PW 2) and daughter Sandhya Kumari (not examined) were inside the house when PW 3 Sharda Devi went to the shop of her husband to serve tea, the informant kept the ter. on the gaddi of the shop house as her husband was arranging cloths. While she was looking at the shawl in the shop, one person entered into the shop while another was standing at the door. Considering the person to be customer, the husband of the informant asked him as to what he wanted. Then the miscreants started abusing her husband and pointed pistol at him and caught hold of him. In the meantime, the other person who was standing at the door, also entered inside the shop and caught hold of the hands of the informant and asked her to stop. The informant cleverly introduced herself to be a customer and tried to flee-away from the clutches of the miscreants. But a person standing in the verandah who could be identified as neighbour Bihari Giri stated that she was not the customer but the wife of the owner of the shop. In the meantime, Rajmani Choubey, a master who lived in the house of the informant, reached at the place and tried to pacify the miscreants but then the miscreants who were standing outside, come down and caught hold of Rajmani Choubey. In the meantime, Rajmani Choubey, a master who lived in the house of the informant, reached at the place and tried to pacify the miscreants but then the miscreants who were standing outside, come down and caught hold of Rajmani Choubey. The informant somehow fled away and went to the road and raised alarm that a dacoity was being committed in their house. She further stated that during the dacoity, the husband of the informant was tied up with clothes and he along with master Rajmani Choubey were assaulted by the dacoits. They broke open the almirah, shelf and took away valuables inch including cash. They also entered into the adjacent residential room of the informant and also ransacked the articles and took away valuables including Rs. 1,000/- kept concealed inside the container of a Pressure Cooker. It was further alleged that cash amount were also looted from the shop room. On her bulla, the villagers rushed towards the place and her brother-in-law namely PW 8 Girija Prasad started resortings to firing. There was cross-firing from the side of the dacoits also and they exploded bombs as a result of which one Chhedi Singh who was coming on a bullock cart along with the articles for the shop house of PW 1, died nearby the shop house on road itself. As the dacoits were firing and were exploding bombs, the villagers could not go near and chased them to catch hold of. Immediately, after the occurrence police came to the place of occurrence and at about 7.15 p.m., the first information report was lodged by PW 3 at the place of occurrence itself. In her fardbeyan, she gave a vivid description about the whole of the occurrence including identification of one of the miscreants as Bihari Singh. She also gave physical features of some of the dacoits whom she had seen at the shop house just before her fleeing away in the light of the lantern which was burr ing in the shop house itself. It was also mentioned that on that date at the relevant time, there was no electricity and so such, lantern was burning in the shop house. 3. The police, after registering a case, took up the investigation then and there, held inquest over the dead body of Chhedi Singh and sent the same for post mortem examination. It was also mentioned that on that date at the relevant time, there was no electricity and so such, lantern was burning in the shop house. 3. The police, after registering a case, took up the investigation then and there, held inquest over the dead body of Chhedi Singh and sent the same for post mortem examination. The two injured persons, namely, PW 1 Machendra Saw and Master Rajmani Choubey were also sent for medical examination. During the course of investigation, from secret information, several accused persons were apprehend d including the accused appellants and Bihari Singh build to charge-sheet was submitted against Bihari Singh as materials could not be found against him and there was plea of alibi to the effect that at the relevant date and time of occurrence, Bihari Singh was suffering from ailment and was under treatment at Bhurkunda Primary Health Centre as an in-door patient. Anil Paswan and other who were also arrested, were not sent up for trial as no identification could be made regarding them but the accused appellants during the course of investigation were identified in the test identification parade by both PWs 1 and 2. Although no booties could be recovered of the dacoit, charge-sheet has been submitted against both these accused appellants under Section 396, IPC. On being committed to the sessions, charge was framed under Section 396, IPC against both the accused appellants vide order dated 30.5.1989 and when the charge was read over and explained to the accused appellants they pleaded not guilty. Then the evidence started and while examining the witnesses, the name of Bihari Singh to be involved in the occurrence, was revealed and as such, he was also brought as contemplated under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr PC) to face the trial along with the accused appellants. Against him also charge was framed under Section 396, IPC to which he also pleaded not guilty. 4. Defence case is complete denial of the prosecution case. Against him also charge was framed under Section 396, IPC to which he also pleaded not guilty. 4. Defence case is complete denial of the prosecution case. It is the further case of the accused appellants that the identification on the basis of which they have been entangled with the alleged crime, is nothing but a creation of the Investigating Agency as the Test Identification Parade was held at a very belated date and before such identification, the accused appellants were shown to the witnesses and so such, there is no sanctity of the test identification parade itself. 5. For and on behalf of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses have been examined, out of them PW 1 Machendra Saw is the owner of the shop and the house where the dacoity was committed and he was injured in the commission of dacoity. PW 2 Sujit Kumar is the son of PW 1 who was also present as per the prosecution case at the shop house at the relevant time of occurrence. Both PWs 1 and 2 have attended the Test Identification Parade which was held according to the prosecution thrice (but only two TIP charts have been proved). PW 3 Sharda Devi is the informant and star witness of the prosecution. All these three witnesses have supported the prosecution case. PW 4 Nakul Prasad is a neighbour and a villager who rushed to the place of occurrence after hearing hulla raised by PW 3 but according to him, he could not identify any of the dacoits and that there was firing and cross-firing from both the sides for which he could not go near the place of occurrence. PW 5 Dig Vijay Narain Singh is a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who had held that Test Identification Parade on 17.2.1988 in which PW 2 had identified both the accused appellants, the T.I. chart has been exhibited as Ext. 2, PW 6 Mangru Singh is the brother of the deceased Chhedi Singh who was also coming to the place of occurrence on a bicycle just behind the bullock cart being driven by the deceased Chhedi Singh with articles for shop of PW 1. He supported about the dacoity but he also could not identify anybody as he could not go near the place of occurrence for reasons as stated by PW 4 himself. He supported about the dacoity but he also could not identify anybody as he could not go near the place of occurrence for reasons as stated by PW 4 himself. PW 7 Laxmi Singh is a farmer and villager who also came to the place of occurrence on hearing India but he could not identify anybody. PW 8 Girija Prasad is the brother of PW 1 Machendra Saw having his residence just by the residence of PW 1. He has been tendered but on cross-examination, he stated that on hearing hulla raised by his Bhabhi (PW 3), he came out and having seen the dacoity being committed, indulged in firing but there was cross-firing also from the side of the dacoits and there was hurling of bombs by the dacoits and as such, smoke was evolved. He did not say about the identification of any of the dacoits. PW 9 Suresh Chandra Srivastava is another Judicial Magistrate who held Test Identification Parade of accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap on 18.12.1987 wherein the said accused appellant is alleged to be identified by PW 1 Machendra Saw. The Test Identification Parade chart has been exhibited as Ext. 2/1. PW 10 Marendra Kumar Mishra is the doctor who held post mortem over the dead body of Chhedi Singh and it could be found by him that the death was caused due to the explosion of bombs when several injuries of by such explosion could be detected on the dead body which were the direct cause for the instantaneous death of Chhedi Singh. PW 11 Sachidanand Dev is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who held investigation in the case. 6. For and on behalf of the accused appellants, no defence witnesses have been examined but for and on behalf of the other accused Bihari Singh, three PWs have been examined regarding the plea of alibi of the accused Bihari Singh. 7. On scrutiny of the evidence on record and after considering the defence evidence and also the prosecution evidence and the points of law, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the prosecution could not be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts about the involvement of accused Bihari Singh, with the crime and as such, acquitted him on benefit of doubt. But relying on the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 regarding the manner of occurrence and the identification of the accused appellants in the test identification parade, the learned Court below came to the finding that the charge against the accused appellants have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, recorded conviction including the sentence as mentioned above. 8. The said judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed by the accused appellants in these two appeals. That there was a dacoity at the house and shop of PW 1 Machendra Saw could be established from the side of the prosecution and on this point there is no much argument or challenge from the side of the accused appellants. Their only grievance is that the learned Court below has committed not only error of law but also error of records and came to a wrong finding regarding the involvement of accused appellants in the crime solely basing on the identification parade which according to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, are sainted with all illegalities and not worth to be relied on. Some other discrepancies in the prosecution case have also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. If the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are formulated, then they may come in the following form : (i) No independent witnesses have been examined in the case. Although Master Rajmani Choubey was the vital witness who is not partisan and alleged to be injured in the occurrence has not been examined then same creates grave doubt about the prosecution story itself. (ii) The alleged identification of the accused appellants by PWs 1 and 2 on subsequent dates are tainted and colourable/ concocted evidence created which cannot be relied on as the same parade was never conducted in the mandatory form as required under Rule 236 of the Bihar Police Manual and the same was conducted admittedly with inordinate delay. (ii) The alleged identification of the accused appellants by PWs 1 and 2 on subsequent dates are tainted and colourable/ concocted evidence created which cannot be relied on as the same parade was never conducted in the mandatory form as required under Rule 236 of the Bihar Police Manual and the same was conducted admittedly with inordinate delay. (iii) Admittedly, there was darkness at the time of occurrence and although there was a mention of a lantern being burning at the shop house at the relevant time in the first information report, but the same has not been supported by any witness during the course of trial and no such means of recognition could be seized by the Investigating Agency, although the investigation started almost instantaneously just after the occurrence; and (iv) Section 396, IPC cannot be attracted in the case as it could not be proved from the side of the prosecution that death of Chhedi Singh was caused during the course of commission of dacoity. 9. The strenuous argument of Mr. Kashyap appearing for and on behalf of the appellants have been controverted by Mr. Rajgarhiya appearing for and on behalf of the State by referring to the evidence and materials on record and also by submission of different rulings of the Apex Court and other High Courts. According to him, the conviction awarded is proper and just and the same is required to be maintained by this Court also. 10. Before going into the merit of the case, it is to be considered whether the prosecution case as made out, can attract the penal provisions of Section 396, IPC or not. It is the argument of Mr. Kashyap appearing for and on behalf of the appellants that the death of Chhedi Singh (his death by bomb explosion and the post mortem thereof has not been challenged), has got no direct nexus with the alleged commission of dacoity. According to Mr. Kashyap, Chhedi Singh the deceased is not a member of the family where the dacoity was committed rather he was outsider and a passer-by and even if he has been killed while the dacoits were allegedly fleeing away then the same cannot be said to be in the same transaction of dacoity. His further submission is that the subsequent incident of firing and cross-firing and bomb explosion is not connected with the commission of dacoity. His further submission is that the subsequent incident of firing and cross-firing and bomb explosion is not connected with the commission of dacoity. On the other hand, Mr. Rajgarhiya, learned APP has submitted that such bomb explosion was made while the villagers had assembled on the cries being raised by PW 3 and there was every possibility of the dacoits being chased and caught red-handed and hence, at the time of retreating the dacoits had exploded bomb as a result of which Chhedi Singh who was coming to the shop of PW 1 with the articles of the shop, had met with death. So, according to him, the incidence of death is in the same transaction and having direct nexus with the commission of dacoity. 11. In this connection, he has referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court as State of Maharashtra V/s. Binayak Tukaram, 1997 CrLJ 3988 . In that case, the accused snatched away gold buttons from the shirt and ran away and while running away, he was caught by the informant to whom the accused gave a knife blow. It was held that the case comes within the purview of Section 395, IPC. Although the deceased was not within the premises where the dacoity was committed, but he met with his death unfortunately when the villagers assembled on hearing cries of PW 3, near the place of occurrence and the dacoits on the apprehension of being caught red handed, exploded bomb as a result of which the deceased died. The death has got direct nexus with the commission of dacoity and in the same transaction and as such, I am of the firm opinion that the case comes within the purview of Section 396 of the IPC. 12. The infirmity in the prosecution case has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants to the effect that except the partisan witnesses, no independent witness has been examined in the case although the same was very much available on the face of it. Master Rajmuni Choubey was present at the site of the occurrence and he took active part in resisting the dacoits and in the process, he was injured. He is not directly related with the family in whose house dacoity was committed. Master Rajmuni Choubey was present at the site of the occurrence and he took active part in resisting the dacoits and in the process, he was injured. He is not directly related with the family in whose house dacoity was committed. But this Rajmuni Choubey who was injured in the occurrence, had not been cited as a witness from the side of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer simply said that due to inadvertence, his name was not included in the charge-sheet but the Public Prosecutor who was prosecuting the case, had the duty to bring Rajmuni Choubey on the dock for the purpose of establishing the prosecution case by independent witnesses but the same has not been done and during the argument before this appellate Court also, Mr. Rajgarhiya had to admit such infirmity in the prosecution case. Sandhya Kumari, daughter of PWs 1 and 3 was also a direct witness to the occurrence but she has also not been examined. Non-examination of Sandhya Kumari may not be of much vital importance as she might be giving a plurality of evidence adduced by the other family members but non-examination of the independent and injured witness Rajmuni Choubey definitely shatters the prosecution case. Not only he has not been examined in the Court but he has also not been taken for the purpose of Test Identification Parade. 13. Another infirmity in the prosecution case is with regard to non-seizure of means of recognition. Admittedly the occurrence took place at about 6 p.m. in the winter season and as per evidence of PWs 1 and 3, darkness had already surfaced the area at the time of occurrence. According to PW 3, a lantern was burning as there was no electricity at the time of occurrence in the house. But such lantern has never been seized nor there is any iota of evidence regarding the means of recognition by any of the witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 3 during the course of trial before the Court below. In non-mentioning of means of recognition and non-seizure, would definitely shatters the prosecution case and such discrepancy and infirmity in the prosecution very much weakens the so-called identification of the dacoits at the place of occurrence. 14. The conviction of the two accused appellants only pivots round the identification by the witnesses. In non-mentioning of means of recognition and non-seizure, would definitely shatters the prosecution case and such discrepancy and infirmity in the prosecution very much weakens the so-called identification of the dacoits at the place of occurrence. 14. The conviction of the two accused appellants only pivots round the identification by the witnesses. In such sort of case much importance is laid on the Test Identification Parade as both the accused appellants were unknown to the family inmates where the dacoity was committed. According to the prosecution, one Bihari Giri co-accused, who happened to be the neighbour of the vital prosecution witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3, was recognised at the place of occurrence itself but his recognition was considered as doubtful by the learned Sessions Judge. Together there was enmity between the parties and that there was believable plea of alibi by Bihari Giri, he had been granted acquittal on benefit of doubt. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that acquittal of Bihari Giri completely shakens the prosecution case when it could be found that the prosecutors had from the very beginning tried to falsely implicate their enemies. But it has rightly been pointed out by Mr. Rajgarhiya, appearing for and on behalf of the State that acquittal of Bihari Giri cannot have any bearing in respect of the case of accused appellants. That there was dacoity at the house of PW 1, has not been denied and the signs of dacoity could be found by the Investigating Officer just after the occurrence when he visited the place of occurrence. Moreover, these accused appellants were totally unknown to the prosecution party and as such, there was no question of any false implication of the accused appellants by the prosecution party. Otherwise, as like that of Bihari Giri, they could have also named these two accused appellants of being identified at the time of commission of offence. 15. The conviction against the accused appellants is solely based on their identification in the Test Identification Parade by two of the witnesses, namely, PWs 1 and 2. If such identification is established beyond all reasonable doubt, then the conviction can be upheld. But if there remains any doubt regarding such identification in the Test Identification Parade, then the accused appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. If such identification is established beyond all reasonable doubt, then the conviction can be upheld. But if there remains any doubt regarding such identification in the Test Identification Parade, then the accused appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap was arrested in the night of 7.12.1987 and he was brought to Latehar Police Station at 8 a.m. on 8.12.1987 and on the same date, he was produced before the Court. There is evidence on the record that there is no Hajat in Latehar Court and the under trial prisoners were brought on foot before the Court in presence of all in the Court premises itself. The Test Identification Parade was held on 18.12.1987 conducted by PW 9. Test identification parade chart has been exhibited as Ext. 2/1. During the course of test identification parade, besides the accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap, eight others prisoners had been inter mingled in the parade in the jail premises and then PW 1 had identified him stating that this accused appellant had tied him up by clothes at the shop house and also gave him knife blow. Regarding his identification, very many questions had been raised from the side of the accused appellant. Their case is that the accused appellant was shown to the witness at the police station itself by the Investigating Agency. But according to PW 1, he was brought to Court by the Investigating Officer from his house and then he was accompanied to jail premises by the Investigating Officer and the Magistrate (PW 9) who conducted the Test Identification Parade but the Investigating Officer had remained outside when identification was being made. From these circumstances at least, this doubt could not be brushed aside that there was possibility of giving hints to the witness by the Investigating Officer regarding the physical features of the accused appellant for the purpose of identification. Moreover, the accused-appellant is a tribal and tribals of this region have got some special features. It is not there in the evidence of PW 9 or in the Test Identification Parade chart, Ext. 2/1 that the persons who had been mixed with accused-appellant Masih Charan Kachhap, some of whom were tribals of same nature of physical features. The identification parade was also made after ten days. This delay has not been explained. It also appears that while conducting the Test Identification Parade. 2/1 that the persons who had been mixed with accused-appellant Masih Charan Kachhap, some of whom were tribals of same nature of physical features. The identification parade was also made after ten days. This delay has not been explained. It also appears that while conducting the Test Identification Parade. Rule 236 of the Bihar Police Manual had not been adverted to its proper perspective by the learned Magistrate concerned Thus, there had been crested some doubt regarding the validity of identification. Moreover, this PW 1 had never stated in his evidence regarding the description of physical features of any of the dacoits by which he could be able to identify the dacoits afterwards in the Test Identification Parade. Moreover, there was no means of recognition stated by the witness during the course of dacoity. Bihari Giri, the acquitted co-accused was said to be identified by voice and perception only. Regarding the physical features of the dacoits, some description has been given by PW 3, in her first information report. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she had not been taken to the Test Identification Parade for the purpose of identification. In that way, identification of accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap remains doubtful. 16. According to the prosecution witnesses, mainly of PW 1 that he had also identified the other accused appellant Michael Masih on 12.1.1988, after his arrest/remand on 8.1.1988. But that Test Identification Parade chart has not been brought on record and no questions have been put to PW 9 to that effect. On going through the records it could be found that such a Test Identification Parade chart is there in the records itself but the same has not been proved, for the reasons best known to the prosecution and in that circumstances, it must be held that some has been with held by the prosecution. The reasons for with holding has been stated from the side of the accused appellants that this Michael Masih was arrested in connection with another case and he was at Ranchi Jail and he was shown to arrested in connection with the present case and remanded on 8.1.1988 and he was brought from Ranchi on that very date and produced before the Court on the next date and then when he was put on Test Identification Parade through PW 1 on 12.1.1988. But on that very date, he filed an application before the Court that he was already shown to the witness before the Test Identification Parade was held and to get rid of such embarrassing position, this Test Identification Parade has not been proved from the side of the prosecution. So the identification of the accused appellant Michael Masih by PW 1 remains unproved. 17. Regarding the accused appellant Michael Masih, the first question raised is about the impossibility of his involvement in the crime. Admittedly, he was arrested from Ranchi Railway Station in connection with another case. When he was arrested, has not been disclosed by the prosecution nor it could be found from the records itself. So, it cannot be established that on the date of occurrence, that is, on 17.11.1987, he was outside the custody or inside. He was put on Test Identification Parade on 17.2.1988 and the witness for identification was PW 2 Sujit Kumar, who was minor at the relevant time as per the evidence of prosecution itself. So, his Test Identification Parade was held after 39 days from the date of his arrest. In the same Test Identification Parade, PW 2 has said to have identified Michael Masih Charan Kachhap also as in respect of Masih Charan Kachhap, this Test Identification Parade has been held after 69 days. No explanation is there as to why such delay has been caused. The Test Identification Parade chart dated 17.2.1988 conducted by PW 5 has been exhibited as Ext. 2. Regarding Michael Masih in that Test Identification Parade chart, the witness PW 2 has not stated about the overt act of this accused appellant. Regarding Masih Charan Kachhap, he has said about his overt act regarding tieing of his father by clothes by this accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap. Identification without giving a specific overt act, is a doubtful identification. Moreover, about the presence of PW 2 at the shop house at the relevant time of occurrence, is also doubtful as there is contradictory evidence to that effect. According to PW 3, as per her evidence and fardbeyan, this PW 2 Sujit Kumar was inside the house, i.e. in the residential portion. According to PW 1, he was at the other shop, that is grocery shop just by the side of the cloth shop. According to PW 3, as per her evidence and fardbeyan, this PW 2 Sujit Kumar was inside the house, i.e. in the residential portion. According to PW 1, he was at the other shop, that is grocery shop just by the side of the cloth shop. But according to PW 2, he was sitting at the cloth shop at the time of occurrence but the same has not been supported by PWs 1 and 3. This accused appellant Michael Masih is also a tribal and the same doubt regarding the mixing and intermingling with respect to other accused Masih Charan Kachhap is also applicable in his case. Moreover, about the identification of Masih Charan Kachhap by this witness PW 2, has become very much doubtful as according to this witness, he was accompanied by his father to the jail on the date of identification but his father remained outside the jail premises where the Test Identification Parade was held but according to PW 1, PW 2 had not been accompanied by him. If his father has accompanied him, then there was every possibility of giving well physical features of the accused Masih Charan Kachhap and also that of Michael Masih to PW 2, as they were identified by this PW 1 on earlier occasion. So, the identification of PW 2 of this accused appellant and of Michael Masih Charan Kachhap remains totally doubtful. 18. In respect of accused appellant Masih Charan Kachhap although it is said to be an identification by PWs 1 and 2, but practically, the second identification by PW 2, is not at all believable. So, both the accused appellants stand on the same footing that they were prosecuted and convicted on single identification alone and such single identification is also doubtful on the face of it as already discussed above. The involvement of accused appellant Michael Masih regarding his being inside the custody, is doubtful when there is no evidence to the effect that he was outside the custody on the date of occurrence. The identifications by single witnesses are also doubtful in the attending circumstances as stated above. It is true that conviction can be based on single identification also. There are judgments both in favour and against regarding the single identification. Where conviction can be based on single identification, depends on the circumstances of each case. The identifications by single witnesses are also doubtful in the attending circumstances as stated above. It is true that conviction can be based on single identification also. There are judgments both in favour and against regarding the single identification. Where conviction can be based on single identification, depends on the circumstances of each case. In the present case, there is doubt regarding the means of recognition, there is doubt regarding the presence of one of the accused appellant Michael Masih at the time of occurrence as there is chance of being inside the custody in connection with another case. The second identification of PW 2 is more doubtful as there was every possibility of PW 2 is having got hints of physical features of the accused appellants from his father. There was no description given by these two witnesses about the physical features in their evidence or their statements before the police and as how they could be identified, could not be explained. Moreover, the most reliable witness PW 3 had not been brought for identification. The reasons have not been explained. The independent witness Master Rajmuni Choubey could have been the best person to inspire confidence for the purpose of identification but he has not been cited as a witness and also not brought for identification in parade. The process of Test Identification Parade also suffers from infirmity for not following the mandates of Rule 236 of the Bihar Police Manual. With all these discrepancies, I hold and find that the accused appellants cannot be convicted as the evidence against them suffer from discrepancies and identification itself is doubtful. 19. Thus, the appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the accused appellants are acquitted on benefit of doubt. They should be set free immediately, if they are not involved in any other case. ASHOK KUMAR PRASAD, J. 20 I agree.