Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. All the accused appellants in all the three criminal appeals referred to above were convicted under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, except Md. Khalil Mian, who was convicted under Sec. 412, IPC besides Sec. 395, IPC. All of them were sentenced to go RI for ten years under Sec. 395, IPC and Khalil Mian was sentenced to go RI for ten years under Sec. 412, IPC. All the accused-appellants were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each and in default to undergo SI for sixmonths. 2. The case of the prosecution was that in between the night of 18th 19th October, 1998, the informant. Narmadeshwar Pandey (PW 2) was travelling by train from Narkatiyaganj to Sikata and when the train reached near Harjadawa railway outer signal some dacoits started looting the passengers who were relieved of their personal belongings including clothes. Thereafter these, dacoits alighted from the train at the outer signal and fled away. The informant went home and subsequently, learnt that one person namely. Munna, was admitted in Mainatar Hospital. Informant went there and learnt from Munna that he along with seven others had committed loot and plunder in the concerned train on the concerned night. Subsequently. Police arrested Munna and on his confessional statement arrested other accused persons including Haider and on the confessional statement of Haider, the house of Khalil was raided and from the house of Khalil looted articles were recovered for which seizure list was prepared. Thereafter the accused-appellants were put on trial which ended in their conviction and sentence as stated above. 3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants on the basis of the evidence of eight witnesses examined in the case. PW 1 was the person who had seen the accused Munna lying in a field in injured condition. He carried Munna to hospital in the company of some other villagers namely. Prabhu Kushwaha. Bhushan Baitha and Bandhu Mahto. Munna told the persons that when the train stopped at the railway platform, some criminals entered into the compartment and looted the passengers and this Munna was the victim of the loot and he was pushed out from the train, which caused him alleged injury. This witness denied the allegation that Munna had confessed his guilt and named his accomplices. PW 2 was informant himself. He spoke about the alleged dacoity. This witness denied the allegation that Munna had confessed his guilt and named his accomplices. PW 2 was informant himself. He spoke about the alleged dacoity. He further said that he went to hospital and Munna told him that he alongwith others had committed the alleged occurrence, but in cross-examination, this witness admitted that after the occurrence, he had gone to Mainatar Hospital and a man who was in the hospital had disclosed the names of his accomplices but who gave the information to this witness, he did not remember. That means that this witness was informed about the confessional statement of Munna by some other person. So he denied the confessional statement of Munna in his presence. 4. PW 3 was another passenger in the concerned train who was also subjected to alleged loot and plunder but this witness failed to identify any of the accused in dock. This witness has also been declared hostile and he had not told the police that he had identified Munila in the hospital and the latter had confessed his guilt in his presence and had named his accomplices. PW 4 denied to have seen the occurrence and he was also declared hostile. PW 5 is seizure list witness. He denied any seizure from the house of Khalil in his presence although he admitted his signature of the seizure list (exhibit 1/2). He also said that the police obtained his signature on the plain paper. PW 6 was another seizure list witness who also denied any seizure in his presence. However, he admitted his signature on the seizure list. In cross-examination by the prosecution, although he earlier denied that he put his signature on the seizure list, in cross-examination by the accused, this witness said that he signed on the seizure list at the instance of the police officer. PW 7 was Arun Kumar who also denied the alleged occurrence and he was declared hostile and when his attention was drawn towards his purported statement to the police he denied to have made their statement. PW 8 was the I.O. He spoke about the arrest of Munna in the hospital, his confessional statement and the confessional statement of co-accused Haider on the basis of which, he recovered certain articles. 5. PW 8 was the I.O. He spoke about the arrest of Munna in the hospital, his confessional statement and the confessional statement of co-accused Haider on the basis of which, he recovered certain articles. 5. The above resume of the evidence suggests that the entire materials on the basis of which accusedappellants were put on trial were based on so-called confessional statement of Munna. Haider and Khalil. Confessional statement of accused is not admissible under the law. So far confessional statement of Munna or Haider or Khalil before the witnesses is concerned neither the informant nor any other witness supports that any of the accused made any confessional statement before them. So extra judicial confession is also not there on record to implicate the accused. So far recovery is concerned, it was at the instance of accused, Haider that recovery was made, but seizure list witnesses have denied seizure in their presence. The articles recovered were neither exhibited in the Court nor confronted to the informant or any of the victim of the loot in order to fix the liability upon the accused Khalil that he was in possession of any looted article. Besides above, none of the witnesses identified any of the accused in the dock. The officer who conducted the TI Parade of the looted articles was also not examined to bring some evidence on record regarding identification of the looted articles by the informant or any other passengers to show that the articles which were recovered from the house of Khalil were looted articles. 6. It also transpires from the evidence of the 10 that none of the accused-appellants was put on T.I. Parade in order to gather some evidence regarding participation of the alleged offence. The fact that the witnesses failed to turn up in T.I. Parade is, of course, there but that will not exonerate the IO from responsibility to put the accused-appellants in T.I. Parade even by forcing the alleged Victims to turn up in T.I. Parade. 7. So on the record, there is no material to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime. Explanation is that it was a dark night. Hence victims failed to identify the accused-appellants. So I have no option but to allow these appeals Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the appellants above named stand acquitted. Appellants shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any case.