Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.2001, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 5/145 of 1983/1999. The sole appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. 2. The prosecution case originated on the FIR of the informant (PW 3) alleging therein that in the night between 12-13th August, 1982 at about mid-night, the informant woke up at the cracking sound of tiles of the roof of his house. The informant found that two persons were lifting certain articles inside his house. The informant and his father along with his brother Murahu Ram caught hold of these two persons who were identified as Ram Narain Nonia and Swami Nonia. In the meantime, the informants brother Kanhaiya also came there and identified these two arrested persons. These two arrested persons were subsequently rescued by the other thieves who had not been named in the FIR. The informant gave a life of articles carried away from his house and it was alleged that the persons who rescued the informant carried away the articles listed in the FIR from his house. 3. The accused-appellant took the defence that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity with the Dafadar and at his instance. 4. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. PW 9 was a formal witness, PW 7 was tendered and PWs 8, 6, 5 and 4 were the so-called seizure list witnesses. The alleged seizure was made from the house of co-accused Phurai Nonia. However, the Court disbelieved the evidence regarding the seizure and acquitted the co-accused Phurai Nonia, so the evidence of these seizure list witnesses is not relevant for proving the case against the appellant. PW 3 is the informant of the case. PWs 1 and 2 are his brothers. The evidence of these three witnesses, so far as the alleged occurrence is concerned, is almost similar in chief and they speak of the alleged arrest of the appellant and one Swami Nonia and their subsequent rescue by other thieves, out of whom some were not charge- sheeted and those who were charge sheeted were acquitted by the trial Court. The evidence of these three witnesses, so far as the alleged occurrence is concerned, is almost similar in chief and they speak of the alleged arrest of the appellant and one Swami Nonia and their subsequent rescue by other thieves, out of whom some were not charge- sheeted and those who were charge sheeted were acquitted by the trial Court. So it is the evidence of PW 3 which requires a deep analysis to find out whether the case of dacoity was proved against the appellant. Admittedly, in paragraph 22 the informant said that none of the culprits assaulted any member of the family. PWs 1 and 2 had said that the dacoits had assaulted the mother and sister- in-law of these witnesses. The FIR also did not refer to any assault on the family members of the informant. So there was a vital contradiction in the evidence of PWs inter se regarding the manner of occurrence and this contradiction is also connected with the FIR. At paragraph 16, the informant said that he went to the police station on the 3rd day of the alleged occurrence. From the aforesaid statement of this informant, it would transpire that he went to the police on the 15th of August, 1982 whereas the FIR (Ext. 1) shows that the FIR was registered on 13th August, 1982 at 4 p.m. The informant at paragraph 31 itself had said that he had reached the police station at 9.10 a.m. If it was so, then recording of the statement of the informant which figured on the formal FIR itself should have been at 10 a.m. of 15.8.1982, whereas the FIR shows that it was registered on 13.8.1982 at 4 p.m. Moreover, it appears from the endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that this FIR was sent to the Court on 16th August, 1982. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that either there was delay in lodging the FIR or there was registration of the FIR by antedating the same. The witness (PW 2), further stated at paragraph 28, that the police officer had recovered certain articles and brought the same to his darwaja and he identified these articles to be his which were alleged as stolen, but the articles recovered from the house of Phurai Nonia were not the articles figuring in the list of thieved articles. The witness (PW 2), further stated at paragraph 28, that the police officer had recovered certain articles and brought the same to his darwaja and he identified these articles to be his which were alleged as stolen, but the articles recovered from the house of Phurai Nonia were not the articles figuring in the list of thieved articles. The aforesaid statement of the witness, therefore, also reflects adversely on the allegation of dacoity from the house of the informant. The PW 2 at paragraph 26 said that all the four accused persons were arrested from their houses by the police officer. It does not stand to reason that the appellant or his accomplices shall remain in their house after committing dacoity just to fall a prey into the hands of the police and to be easily arrested. At paragraph 34, the informant (PW 3) said that he had told the police that the looted articles were kept in the house of Shiv Murat Ram. It is admitted fact that Shiv Murat was not charge-sheeted. This aspect of the case will therefore be a retrograde circumstance adding to the already negative circumstances which I have stated above. PW 4, the brother of the informant, further gave a death blow to his own case by stating at paragraph 34 that he did not see any culprit carrying away the stolen articles because the culprits had forced them to lower down their eyes at the point of fire arms. This statement of this PW is in conflict with the statement in the FIR that they had seen two persons taking away articles and then they with the help of their father and brother caught hold of these two persons, out of whom, one is the appellant before this Court. 5. Admittedly, the appellant was known to the informant and that is why he was named in the FIR. It does not stand to reason that a known person would enter into the house of any body without concealing his identity. The circumstances unleashed by the aforesaid statements of the PWs would indicate that neither the manner of occurrence was proved nor the informant had come to the Court with clean hands. The infirmity attaching to the FIR which I have referred to above also shroud the whole prosecution case with serious doubts. 6. The circumstances unleashed by the aforesaid statements of the PWs would indicate that neither the manner of occurrence was proved nor the informant had come to the Court with clean hands. The infirmity attaching to the FIR which I have referred to above also shroud the whole prosecution case with serious doubts. 6. In the result, I am of the opinion that there was no sufficient, unimpeachable, and conclusive proof of the alleged dacoity in the house of the informant, which would warrant the conviction of the appellant. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty immediately if not wanted in any other case.