Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya & Lakshman Uraon, JJ.-These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment dated 26th September, 1991, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 71/84, whereby and whereunder, they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as per F.I.R. (Ext. 1) is that on 26th August, 1982 at about 7 P.M. (evening), when the informant Bharat Kishore Omat (P.w. 3) along with his family members was taking meal, four to five persons entered his house. Surrounded all the doors, caught hold of his elder brother Dasrath Omat (P.W. 4) and asked him whereabouts of household articles. The elder brother on the pretext that he will tell it after washing' his hands, escaped from their clutches and fled away. Thereafter, one person caught hold the informant's hands but the informant also managed to escape. They went to village raising alarm to save them from dacoits, but as the dacoits exploded crackers, the villagers because of fear did not turn up. Thereafter, the dacoits entered their house and injured the servant Santosh Kalo by dagger and also gave dagger to informant's Bhagna, Niranjan Pradhan, who also became panicky. The dacoits also gave dagger blow to Bhanu Devi, sister-in law of informant. The other four to five dacoits who were outside the house and were keeping watch at the door, were threatening the villagers with dire consequences if came to save the members of the family. It is also alleged that the dacoits who entered inside the house after injuring the aforesaid persons, took away the household including ornaments valuation of which shown to be about Rs. 3000/- in F.I.R. The age of dacoits were stated to be between 30 to 32 years, except one who was about 40-45 years of age and were speaking Oriya, Mahto, Mundari, Ho and Hindi amongst themselves. The further case of the informant was that he and his elder brother Dasrath Omat have seen all the dacoits in the light of lantern of the house and the flash of the torch-light of dacoits by hiding themselves in a bush near their southern Bari. The further case of the informant was that he and his elder brother Dasrath Omat have seen all the dacoits in the light of lantern of the house and the flash of the torch-light of dacoits by hiding themselves in a bush near their southern Bari. The dacoits were stated to be armed with Lathi, dagger (Chhura), crackers, torch and one of them was carrying bow and arrow in his hands. Further case of the informant was that when he along with others was going to Manoharpur Police Station, some of the villagers of Kashijora informed that the dacoits were earlier seen in their villages, describing themselves as Jharkhandis and were telling that they had come from Porahat to cut the forests of the area. While the dacoits were going away with stolen articles, they stated to have abused one of the dacoits, he having not brought them in a better house, as they could not get valuable articles in the dacoity. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next date at about 1 P.M. on 27th August, 1982. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 4th July, 1983 against appellants Tunu Raut @ Tuna Raut and Mangal Singh Mundari for the offence under Section 395, I.P.C. After taking cognizance, the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur committed the case to the court of sessions who, on the basis of the statement of the witnesses and T.1. parade, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C. 4. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of court below is bad, there being no evidence to hold that the appellants were present in the house of informant during the dacoity or that the appellants have committed dacoity. The T.1. parade report was also assailed on the ground that none of the witnesses made statement that they recognised the appellants having seen in the house of informant or were committing dacoity. So far as T.1. parade report in respect to informant Bharat Kishore Omat (P.w. 3) and his elder brother Dasrath Omat (P.w.4) are concerned, it was submitted that the informant was knowing one of the appellant Tunu Raut and the elder brother Dasrath Omat (PW. 4) having seen both the appellants in police station much prior b T.I. parade, such report of T.I. parade has no value. 4) having seen both the appellants in police station much prior b T.I. parade, such report of T.I. parade has no value. According to the counsel for the appellants, the T.I. parade having conducted after long delay i.e. more than a month, such report cannot be relied upon. 5. The counsel for the State submitted that one or other witnesses having recognised the appellants, the court below rightly convicted them. 6. The main issue to be determined as to whether the accused-appellants were seen in the house of the informant at the time of dacoity or committing dacoity or not. 6A. There were altogether six prosecution witnesses, out of which G. Tanti (Pw. 5) was the Officer-in-Charge, who partly investigated the case and the other William Minz (Pw. 6), the Magistrate, -in whose presence, the T.I. Parade was held. Out of the rest four witnesses, the informant Bharat Kishore Omat (PW. 3) and his elder brother Dasrath Omat (RW. 4) are relevant who stated to have seen the dacoity. The rest two Gulapi Devi (PW. 1) and Lambu Naik (PW. 2) are co-villagers. 7. As regards Gulapi Devi (PW. 1), she made no specific averments to have seen the accused in the house of the informant or committing dacoity. She recognised accused-appellant Tunu Raut having seen in a liquor shop asking for liquor. She has categorically stated that she had not seen the dacoity. Similarly, Lambu Naik (PW. 2), the other co-villager has not stated that he had seen the accused in the house of informant or committing dacoity. He merely stated that he had seen appellant Tunu Raut in the village on the same date along with others in a liquor shop and nothing specific in respect to accused appellant Mangal Singh Mundari. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn against accused either on the basis of the statement of P.W 1 or P.W. 2, nor such adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of T.I. parade report. Bharat Kishore Omat (P.W 3) is the informant. At paragraph No.3 of his statement, he has admitted that he was knowing appellant Tunu Raut, as the informant was a labourer in the inlaws' house of Tunu Raut. Curiously, in the F.I.R., he has not disclosed the name of Tunu Raut. Bharat Kishore Omat (P.W 3) is the informant. At paragraph No.3 of his statement, he has admitted that he was knowing appellant Tunu Raut, as the informant was a labourer in the inlaws' house of Tunu Raut. Curiously, in the F.I.R., he has not disclosed the name of Tunu Raut. In T.I. parade, he could recognise the accused Tunu Raut, which is but possible as informant was knowing him previously, but could not recognise the other accused-appellant Mangal Singh Mundari. Further from the cross-examination of informant Bharat Kishore Omat (P.W. 3), at paragraph 3', it will be evident that he has made clear that if the appellants are brought behind the custody (jail), the informant will plough the land of the in-laws of accused-appellant Tunu Raut and will feed them. In the aforesaid background, it can be inferred that the informant Bharat Kishore Omat (P.W 3) was knowing the accused Tunu Raut. Inspite of this fact, non-disclosure of the name• of accused Tunu Raut in the F.I.R. and the other statement made by informant, can be doubted, as also his T.I. parade report. 8. So far as Dasrath Omat (P.W 4), is concerned, he is the elder brother of informant. In his cross-examination, at paragraph 3', he has stated that he could come to know that the appellant Mangal Singh Mundari was a driver by profession only after the dacoity. The Daroga called him (P.W 4) after two accused were caught for their recognition after about one month of the incident. Thus, prior to T.I. parade, as Dasrath Omat (P.W. 4) was shown both the accused in the Thana the T.I. parade repor of Dasrath Omat (P.w. 4) cannot be relied as a sole evidence to convict the accused in absence of other corroborating evidence. 9. From the F.I.R. and statement of informant Bharat Kishore Omat (P.W. 3) and his elder brother Dasrath Omat (P.w. 4) it will be evident that both of them fled away prior to dacoity. In fact, they have not stated that one or other accused were committing dacoity. It is stated to have been seen by other members of the family or the servant, namely, sister-in-law (Bhabi) of the informant, nephew (Bhagna) Niranjan Pradhan and the servant Santosh Kalo who were stated to have been injured by dacoits. In fact, they have not stated that one or other accused were committing dacoity. It is stated to have been seen by other members of the family or the servant, namely, sister-in-law (Bhabi) of the informant, nephew (Bhagna) Niranjan Pradhan and the servant Santosh Kalo who were stated to have been injured by dacoits. Curiously, none of them were produced as prosecution witnesses, nor any injury report in respect to any of such member of the family were produced as evidence. The aforesaid facts raise doubt on the case of prosecution and in absence of other evidence, it can be stated that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26th September, 1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 71/84 by the Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa is set aside. The appellants Tunu Raut @ Tuna Raut (Criminal Appeal No. 229/91) and Mangal Singh Mundari (Criminal Appeal No. 240/91), are held not guilty of the charges and they are, accordingly, acquitted of the charges. The appeals are allowed. 11. Since both the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.