JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.- This appeal at the instance of the appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1992 I 98 of 1992 by Shri am Prakash Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext.2) of P.W.1 Abdul Bari, the informant recorded on 3.4.1990 at 4.00 hours by S.1. Dinanath Ram, OIC, Pakur Muffasil P.S. at the house of the informant situate at village Janki Nagar, P.S.-Pakur Muffasil, District Sahibganj regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between 2nd and 3rd of April, 1990 at about 2.20 hours in his house aforesaid. On the basis of the said Fardbeyan, a case was instituted against he appellants along with others under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext.3) on 3.4.1990 at 9.30 hours, which was received in the Court on 5.4.1990 empowered to take cognizance. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant along with his family members was sleeping in his house in the night of the occurrence and he got up at about 2 A' clock in the night between 2nd and 3rd April, 1990 and he came out of his house to ease himself and thereafter he returned to his room and took out rupees eighteen thousand from his box and kept the same on his bed as he was to go to purchase some parts of his truck which had broken and at about 2.30 hours he heard rattling sound at the door of his house caused by Dhan (a heavy iron hammer) and his wife came in the verandah and found the dacoits breaking the door of the said house and she reported about it to the informant and at this the informant closed the door of his room from inside. It is alleged that the dacoits thereafter started breaking the door of this room as a result of which the latch of his door broke and 15 to 20 dacoits entered in his room in which there were two lamps burning. It is alleged that the dacoits thereafter started breaking the door of this room as a result of which the latch of his door broke and 15 to 20 dacoits entered in his room in which there were two lamps burning. The prosecution case further is that he identified the aforesaid four appellants in the light of the lamp besides co-accused Majibur Rahman, Maikul Sheikh, Solha Sheikh, Hanif Sheikh, Jaikul Sheikh, Sahjahan Sheikh, all residents of village-Manirampur, Salam Seikh, Sakudi and Haibool Sheikh., all residents of village-Narayankhol. It is alleged that appellant Lutuful Sheikh is the resident of village Manirampur and other three appellants are residents of village Sitesh Nagar. It is alleged that the dacoits asked him as to where is the money, failing which he shall be done to death by pistol and out of fear he pointed them the said amount of Rs. 18,000/- kept at the Palang which the dacoits had taken away. It is also alleged that the dacoits started looting articles kept in the said room and in the meantime he escaped from there and came in the courtyard where he caught a dacoit and there was a scuffle between him and the said dacoit and at this one of the dacoits gave two or three blows by rod on his left leg and he fled away from there outside his house and raised alarms. It is alleged that the dacoits who were outside from his house started exploding 14 or 16 bombs and he has also sustained injuries by explosive substance on his left arm. The prosecution case further is that the co-villagers also raised alarms and the dacoits thereafter fled away to the north of the village and they were also chased by the villagers and in course of chase, the dacoits have also exploded bombs. The prosecution case further is that the dacoits had taken away Rs. 18,000/- besides two clock, one HMT Kanchan wrist watch, one Anglo switch wrist watch of his brother-in-law besides one gold ornament of nose of his wife. It is also alleged that Majibur' Rahman, one of the dacoits was apprehended by the villagers and the said dacoit had also received some injuries on his person in course of his apprehension. 4. 18,000/- besides two clock, one HMT Kanchan wrist watch, one Anglo switch wrist watch of his brother-in-law besides one gold ornament of nose of his wife. It is also alleged that Majibur' Rahman, one of the dacoits was apprehended by the villagers and the said dacoit had also received some injuries on his person in course of his apprehension. 4. The appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry and enmity as well as to save the informant and his camp-men for commission of the murder of Majibur Rahman. 5. The prosecution has, in all, examined seven witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Abdul Barik is the informant of this case and his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext.2) is Ext.1. P.W.2 Zakir Hussain is a witness on the production-cum-seizure list (Ext.,4) in respect of Dhan and one Ajanta clock produced by P.W.5 Sirajul Sheikh, the brother of the informant, to the I.O. and the signature of P.W.2 thereon is Ext. 1/1. P.WA Abdul Subhan Sheikh and P.W.5 Sirajul Sheikh have turned hostile and they do not at all support the prosecution case. P.W.3 Sattar Sheikh has been tendered in this case. P.W.6 Shyam Charan Kewat and P.W.7 Subodh Kumar Banerjee are formal witnesses, who have proved the Fardbeyan (Ext.2), formal first information report (Ext.3), production-cum-seizure list (Ext.4) and seizure list (Ext.5) of the remnants of the explosive substance respectively. Ext.6 is the test identification chart regarding the identification of Ajanta clock. Md. Sabiruddin has figured as defence witness in this case. Ext. A is the charge sheet in Pakur P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990 filed by D.W.1 Sabiruddin against P.W.5 Sirajul Sheikh and Asraful Sheikh. the son of P.W.1 Abdul Barik and Ext. B is the petition of complaint of P.C.R. Case No. 58 of 1990 filed by Jainal Abedin Sheikh, against the informant and others regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very night in which his brother Majibur Rahman was done to death. 6. the son of P.W.1 Abdul Barik and Ext. B is the petition of complaint of P.C.R. Case No. 58 of 1990 filed by Jainal Abedin Sheikh, against the informant and others regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very night in which his brother Majibur Rahman was done to death. 6. The learned court below relied upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1 Abdul Barik, the informant and found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that dacoity as alleged was never committed in the house of the informant in the night of the occurrence and the informant along with his camp-men has committed the murder of Majibur Rahman and with a view to save themselves they have falsely implicated the appellants along with other co-accused persons in this got up case of dacoity due to enmity existing and alive and also due to political rivalry. It has also been submitted that the solitary testimony of the informant is unreliable and untrustworthy and the same does not stand corroborated by any legal and reliable evidence on the record and the solitary testimony of PW.1, the informant, is replete with inherent improbabilities and his evidence regarding the identification of the appellants as alleged is higly improbable and equally unacceptable. Elucidating further it has been submitted that the informant has admitted that he was neither known nor acquainted with the appellants or other named coaccused persons from before and the informant has also not stated before the villagers who had assembled at his house prior to the recording of the Fardbeyan regarding the naming of the appellants and other co-accused persons as the participant in the occurrence in question and in view of his evidence aforesaid, the testimony of PW.1, the informant is fit to be brushed aside regarding the identification of the appellants as the participant in the dacoity in question. It has further been submitted that according to the prosecution case, the means of identification is the two lamps in the room of the informant but these lamps have neither been seized by the I.O. nor produced before him by the informant and also not brought before the Court and in the absence of any legal evidence regarding the means of identification the entire texture of the prosecution case of the identification of the appellants in the alleged dacoity in question is highly improbable and unacceptable. It has also been submitted that the I.O. and the doctor have not taken oath in support of the prosecution case which has caused serious prejudice to these appellants as they stand debarred from eliciting facts in the cross-examination of the I.O. and the doctor showing their innocence. It has been contended that the wife of the informant as well as Jarjesh Sheikh and other inmates of his house have not taken oath in this case in support of the prosecution case and PW.5 Sirajul Sheikh, the brother of the informant is also not supporting the prosecution case. Lastly, it has been contended that the learned court below did not at all meticulously consider the evidence on the record with care and caution in view of the admitted enmity between the parties and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. In support of his contention reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the ratio of the cases of Babuli Narayan Behera Vrs. State of Orissa (1974 BBCJ 282), Anil Phukan Vrs. State of Assam [1993(2) PLJR (SC) 140J, Kathi Odhabhai Bhimabhai and others Vrs. State of Gujarat (1993 Cr. L.J. 187), Karunakaran Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu (1976 S.C. Cr. R.52), Mashi Das Minz and others Vrs. State of Bihar [ 2000 (1) PLJR 86 ] and Bhuneshwar Singh and another Vrs. State of Bihar (2003 Cr. L.J. 1008). 8. State of Assam [1993(2) PLJR (SC) 140J, Kathi Odhabhai Bhimabhai and others Vrs. State of Gujarat (1993 Cr. L.J. 187), Karunakaran Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu (1976 S.C. Cr. R.52), Mashi Das Minz and others Vrs. State of Bihar [ 2000 (1) PLJR 86 ] and Bhuneshwar Singh and another Vrs. State of Bihar (2003 Cr. L.J. 1008). 8. The learned A.P.P has Submitted that the learned court below has rightly relied upon the testimony' of P.W.1 the informant regarding the identification of the appellants as the participants in the dacoity and the informant had the occasion to identify the dacoits including the appellants in the light of the lamp as none of the dacoits had concealed their face and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 9. It is essential to mention at the very outset that there is enmity existing and alive between the informant on the one hand and the appellants on the other hand and the said enmity is due to political rivalry and there were criminal cases sub judice between them. Ext. B is the complaint petition of P.C.R. Case No. 58 of 1990 filed by Jainal Abedin Sheikh against the informant and others regarding the commission of murder of Majibur Rahman in the night between 2.4.1990 and 3.4.1990 and the assault on Majibur Rahman was made near Dighi Pokhar as well as at the house of the informant. P.W.2 in para-3 of his cross-examination has• admitted the fact that the villagers had apprehended Majibur Rahman on the day of the occurrence and he was brought at the house of the informant where he was assaulted as a result of which he had died. The evidence of P.W.2 referred to above lends support to the averments made in the petition of complaint (Ext. B). Ext. A is the charge sheet of Pakur P.S. Case NO.7 of 1990 filed by Sabaruddin against P.W.5 Sirajul Sheikh and one Asraful Sheikh and others and P.W.2 Sirajul Sheikh is the brother of the informant whereas Asraful Sheikh is the son of the informant. Sabaruddin aforesaid is the member of C.P.M. and the appellants are also the members of the said party. Appellant Morjam Sheikh is the maternal uncle of Sabaruddin aforesaid. Majibur Rahman aforesaid is the uncle of appellant Lutuful Sheikh. Sabaruddin aforesaid is the member of C.P.M. and the appellants are also the members of the said party. Appellant Morjam Sheikh is the maternal uncle of Sabaruddin aforesaid. Majibur Rahman aforesaid is the uncle of appellant Lutuful Sheikh. Safi Sheikh is also a member of C.P.M. and appellants Buddu Sheikh and Azizul Sheikh are his relatives. One Manual Haque was found in the court at the time when P.W.1, the informant, was deposing in this case. P.W.1 has deposed that Manual Haque is a member of Congress Party and his brother P.W.5 Sirajul Sheikh is also a member of Congress party but he himself is not a member of any political party. It, therefore, appears that there is a political rivalry between the appellants on the one hand and the informant and his campmen on the other hand and they were on litigating terms. Majibur Rahman has been assaulted by the informant and his campmen in the night of the occurrence as a result of which he has died. The informant in his Fardbeyan has suppressed the fact of the assault of Majibur Rahman resulting his death for the reasons best known to him. It therefore, appears that the informant is deliberately suppressing the true version of the occurrence. However, the solitary evidence of the informant is to be scanned and scrutinized with due care and caution in view of the existence of enmity existing and alive between the parties. The informant has deposed to have identified the appellants along with others as participants in the dacoity in the light of the lamp. He has also deposed that the latch of his door was broken due to blows given on the door by the dacoits. The I.O. has not come to support the prosecution case and there is no objective finding of the I.O. on the record regarding any dacoi1y having been committed in the house of the appellant as alleged. The broken latch of the door as well as two lamps have also not been seized in the course of investigation and brought before the Court. Therefore, the prosecution case suffers with legal infirmities due to the non-production of the two lamps, which are the alleged means of identification as well as the broken latch of the door and no explanation is also forthcoming on the record for the same. Therefore, the prosecution case suffers with legal infirmities due to the non-production of the two lamps, which are the alleged means of identification as well as the broken latch of the door and no explanation is also forthcoming on the record for the same. 'Dhan' and some remnant of explosive substance were also seized and the said 'Dhan' and remnant of the explosive substance have also not been brought before the Court by the prosecution. The informant has deposed to have sustained injuries on his leg caused by rod and he has also sustained injuries by explosive substance on his left arm. There is no evidence of any doctor to support the evidence of the informant in respect thereof. It appears that the prosecution has deliberately withheld the investigating officer and the medical witness in this case and in absence of their evidence it cannot be said that a dacoity has been committed in the house of the informant in the manner as alleged in which he has sustained injuries as alleged. P.W.1, the informant has deposed that he has identified appellants besides other co-accused persons of this case in course of the commission of the dacoity and the dacoits had not concealed their face in course of the commission of the dacoity. The informant in his Fardbeyan as well as his evidence on oath has identified them by their names. P.W.1, the informant in para-12 of his evidence has deposed in the most clear and unequivocal terms that he was not known or acquainted with the dacoits whom he has identified in the occurrence in question. Therefore, the identification of the dacoits including the appellants by the informant by their names with parentage along with their village appears highly improbable and the same cannot be accepted and it appears that the informant is lying on the most material aspect of the prosecution case regarding the identification of the appellants and other co-accused persons in this case. According to the prosecution case, a large number of villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence and they have also chased the dacoits, but the informant has not disclosed to them regarding the names of the dacoits who have been identified by him as participants in the dacoity. According to the prosecution case, a large number of villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence and they have also chased the dacoits, but the informant has not disclosed to them regarding the names of the dacoits who have been identified by him as participants in the dacoity. P.W.1, the informant in para-10 of this evidence has deposed that he has not disclosed the names of the dacoits whom he has identified as participants in the dacoity to the villagers who has assembled at his house. There is no other evidence on the record to corroborate the testimony of the informant regarding the identification of the appellants along with other co-accused persons as participants in the dacoity. Therefore, the solitary testimony of the informant is highly improbable and equally unreliable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It, therefore, appears queer enough as to how P.W.1, the informant came to know the names of the dacoits along with their parentage and address when as per his evidence he was not known and acquainted with them prior to the occurrence. It, therefore, appears that the Fardbeyan of the informant was not immediately recorded by the 1.0. and it is the result of afterthought, consultation and deliberation by the informant and his camp-men and political friends with the sole idea to implicate the appellants and others to save himself as well as his camp-men for committing the murder of Majibur Rahman and the first information report along with the Fardbeyan has not been received in the court forthwith and this aspect of the matter also lends support that the Fardbeyan of the informant is the result of embellishment. The said first information report and Fardbeyan has been received in the Court after two days of the occurrence when the court is situated hardly at a distance of three kilometres as per Ext. 3. In view of the enmity, existing and alive, between the parties and being on Jitigating terms it appears highly improbable that the appellant along with other co-accused person will commit dacoity in the house of the informant without concealing their face. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the solitary testimony of P.W.1, the informant is unworthy of credit and fit to be brushed aside. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the solitary testimony of P.W.1, the informant is unworthy of credit and fit to be brushed aside. Therefore, the solitary testimony, of the informant not disclosing the names of the appellants and other co-accused person as participants in the dacoity to the co-villagers immediately soon after the occurrence renders it unreliable. There is no evidence of any other ocular witness of the occurrence to corroborate the prosecution case as well as the testimony of the informant who has animus to depose falsely in this case to save himself for committing the murder of Majibur Rahman. And last but not the least, the appellants stand seriously prejudiced due to the non-examination of the I.O. as well as the medical witness in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, see substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the ratio of the cases referred to above. The solitary testimony of the informant is replete with inherent improbabilities and is also uncorroborated in material particulars by any other evidence of independent, natural and competent witness of the occurrence and thus his evidence is not at all reliable. The defence version in the facts and circumstances of this case appears to be natural and probable and the false implication of the appellants in this case cannot be totally ruled out. The learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has gravely erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and viewed thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 10. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned court below is set aside. The appellants are found not guilty and they are, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.