Judgment Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-Both the appeals aforesaid have been directed by the appellants named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.1990 passed in Sessions Case No. 377 of 1988 of Shri Ram Vyas Ram, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal paraganas, Dumka whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years each. Both the appeals aforesaid are hereby disposed of by this judgment. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of P.W. 3, Santlal Thakur, the informant recorded by S.I. Chitranjan Shit of Boriyo P.S. on 29.6.1982 at 10.00 hours in village Rakso regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between 28.6.1982 and 29.6.1982 in his house situate in village-Rakso P.S. - Boriyo, District - Dumka (now Sahibganj) and the case was instituted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by drawing of the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 9) on 29.6.1982 at 20.00 hours which was received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 30.6.1982. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant with his family members was sleeping in the night between 28.6.1982 and 29.6.1982 in the Western Dhaba of his house and he awoke in the mid night on the cry of his mother, PW. 2, Fulki Devi and he also heard the dacoits abusing her in course of assault on her and out of fear the informant did not open the southern door of his room. It is alleged that immediately thereafter he heard the sound of pushing the door of his room as a result of which the wooden hook of the door of his room broke and the door was opened and two persons with lantern entered into the said room and the informant attempted to flee away from there but one of them assaulted him by Lathi and the dacoits armed with Lathi enquired from him as to where he has kept money. It is alleged that the informant saw their face in the light of the lantern. It is alleged that the informant saw their face in the light of the lantern. It is also alleged that as a result of the assault on his head by Lathi he fell down and after sometime when the dacoits fled away from his house he came out of his room and ran to the house of Mahendra Pandit and called him and Mahendra Pandit and others came out of his house and they provided him water and also necessary aid and thereafter he felt that blood is oozing from his head. It is also alleged that thereafter he went to his house from there and enquired from his family members and learnt that the dacoits have assaulted his father, mother and Bhabhi and they have taken away the household affects from his house. The prosecution case further is that the dacoits have also entered in the house of PW. 6, Anant Lal Thakur and have taken away nose pin (Nakphool) from Sumitra Devi, the wife of Anant Lal Thakur and she has also seen the face of dacoits in the flash of the torch of the dacoits. It is further alleged that PW. 2, Fulki Devi told the informant that the dacoits have removed her nose pin and when the dacoits were removing her nose pin she had started crying and at this stage the dacoits gave her two or three blows by Lathi and they were asking for the key of the boxes and one of dacoits lighted the lantern kept by the side of her bed and in the light of the lantern she has seen four dacoits and she has thrown the key of her boxes on intimidation of the dacoits and thereafter dacoits entered in the other rooms of the said house. It is also alleged that the father of the informant P.W. 1, Puran Thakur has stated that the dacoits have also assaulted him causing injury on his mouth as a result of which his tooth fell down and he identified appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur besides Shim Pandit who were standing by his side and they were asking for the money from him and he told them to go to P.W. 2, Fulki Devi to demand money. It is also alleged that the wife of his younger brother came out of her room and she saw a dacoit in the courtyard and he gave three or four blows from the Lathi on her person and in course of commission of dacoity she fled away from the house. It is further alleged that the informant has also enquired from three Paharias who were sleeping in his house under intoxication and they have also seen the dacoits while the dacoits were removing their money after assaulting them. The prosecution case further is that he heard, the sound of explosion when the villagers were assembling at the place of the occurrence and the dacoits fled away from there. The details of the household affects taken by the dacoits have also been mentioned in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2). 4. In course of investigation some of the dacoits were apprehended and they were put on test identification parade conducted by P.W. 10, Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha, the then Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj on 27.8.1982 in which appellants, Jai Prakash Singh and Tara Chand Singh were identified by P.W. 3, the informant whereas P.W. 2 Fulki Devi also identified appellant, Tarachand Singh as participants in the commission of the dacoity. 5. 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 they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The prosecution has in all examined eleven witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W. 3, Shantlal Thakur is the informant of this case and P.W. 2, Fulki Devi and P.W. 1, Puran Thakur are his mother and father respectively and all the three witnesses aforesaid claim themselves to be the ocular witnesses of the occurrence and to have sustained injuries in the course of the commission of the dacoity and to have seen the dacoits by their face. P.W. 6, Anant Lal Thakur and P.W. 9, Naresh Thakur are not the ocular witnesses of the occurrence in question. P.W. 10, Santosh Kumar. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, then posted at Sahibganj had conducted the test identification parade of the dacoits and the test identification parade chart per his pen is Ext. 1 in this case. P.W. 11, Chitranjan Shit is the• investigating officer of this case. P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 8 have been tendered. P.W. 10, Santosh Kumar. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, then posted at Sahibganj had conducted the test identification parade of the dacoits and the test identification parade chart per his pen is Ext. 1 in this case. P.W. 11, Chitranjan Shit is the• investigating officer of this case. P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 8 have been tendered. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellants. 7. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record, the learned court below has found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 8. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they do not dispute the factum of dacoity having been committed in the house of P.W. 3, the informant but they seriously dispute the factum of the identification of appellants, Krishan Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur as the participants in the commission of the dacoity by P.W. 1, Puran Thakur as well as the identification of appellants, Jai Prakash Singh and Tara Chand Singh in the test identification parade conducted by P.W. 10. Elucidating further it has been submitted that there was no means of identification where P.W. 1, Puran Thakur was sleeping and furthermore, appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur are the residents of the P.O. village and it is highly improbable that they will participate in the dacoity without concealing their face so as to facilitate their identification. It has also been submitted that admittedly there is enmity existing and alive between the informant on the one hand and these appellants on the other hand and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to the said enmity. It has further been submitted that appellants, Jai Prakash Singh and Tara Chand Singh have been put on test identification parade conducted by P.W. 10, Santosh Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate on 27.8.1982 i.e. after two months of the occurrence and the delay in conduction of the test identification parade casts a cloud of suspicion to the very identification of these appellants in the test identification parade. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the cases of Kedar Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1987 BBCJ - 565), Basudeo Yadav & others VS. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the cases of Kedar Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1987 BBCJ - 565), Basudeo Yadav & others VS. State of Bihar (1987 BBCJ 787), Gyani Paswan and another vs. Laxman Rai and others (1988 BBCJ 261) and State of Utter Pradesh VS. Jageshwar and others ( AIR 1983 SC 349 ). It has also been submitted that P.W. 3 and P.W. 2 claim to have seen the faces of appellants in the light of the lantern and the said lantern has neither been shown to the I.O. nor seized by the I.O. and produced before the Court and in this view of the matter the very existence of the lantern burning in the house of the informant is doubtful and in view of the admitted enmity the false implication of all the appellants cannot be totally ruled out in this case. It has further been contended that according to the prosecution case, P.W. 3, the informant besides his mother P.W. 2, and his father, P.W. 1 has been assaulted by the dacoits and bleeding injury have been caused on the head of the informant and tooth of P.W. 1 had broken and P.W. 2 was also assaulted but there is no legal evidence on the record about the existence of injuries on their person which casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the appellants having assaulted them. It has also been contended that there is inconsistency and contradictions regarding the means of identification in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as between the evidence on the record and the averments made in the Fardbeyan which casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of the prosecution case. Lastly it has been contended that the learned court below did not at all meticulously scrutinize and scan the evidence on the record 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. 9. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that here in this case appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Thakur have been identified by P.W. 1 in course of the commission of the dacoity and appellant Tara Chand Singh was identified in the test identification parade by P.Ws. 9. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that here in this case appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Thakur have been identified by P.W. 1 in course of the commission of the dacoity and appellant Tara Chand Singh was identified in the test identification parade by P.Ws. 3 and 2 whereas appellant, Jai Prakash Singh was identified by P.W. 3, in the test identification parade and the aforesaid appellants have been seen in the course of the commission of the dacoity in the light of the lantern and in this view of the matter it becomes an established fact that all the appellants have participated in the commission of the dacoity in question and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 10. It will admit of no doubt that a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant in the night between 28.6.1982 and 29.6.1982 in which the households affects of his house were taken away by the dacoits. P.W. 2, Fulki Devi, the mother of the informant has very categorically deposed in para-6 of her evidence that there had been a quarrel between appellant, Krishna Kant Thakur and the members of her family over the issue of a Drum and appellant Chhaku Lal Thakur had intimidated her son to be done to death and this quarrel had taken place prior to the occurrence in question. P.W. 6, Anant Lal Thakur who is the full brother of the informant has also admitted in para-4 of his testimony regarding the enmity existing and alive between appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur on the one hand and the informant and others on the other hand prior to the occurrence in question. In the backdrop of existence of admitted enmity, let us now scan the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 1 and 2. In this case, the means of identification of the appellants is the light of the lantern. P.W. 1 in para-6 of his evidence has deposed that there was only one lantern in his house and the said lantern is still in existence in his house and after fleeing of the dacoits he had lighted the said lantern. In this case, the means of identification of the appellants is the light of the lantern. P.W. 1 in para-6 of his evidence has deposed that there was only one lantern in his house and the said lantern is still in existence in his house and after fleeing of the dacoits he had lighted the said lantern. P.W. 2, Fulki Devi has deposed that a lantern was burning in the room in which she was sleeping and the dacoits increased the grow of the said lantern in the course of the commission of the dacoity. She has further deposed to have identified appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur in the light of the said lantern. P.W. 1 has deposed that there was sufficient light in the courtyard of his house and he had identified both the appellants, namely, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur. He has also deposed that appellant, Chhaku Lal Thakur has assaulted him by Lath; causing breaking of his tooth and also blood oozed from his mouth. P.W. 1, Fulki Devi in her evidence on oath has, however, not deposed that the dacoits took the lantern from there and proceeded to the room of the informant with the said lantern. P.W. 2 has deposed to have identified appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur while they were present in her room but there is no averment to that effect in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant. PW. 2 has not deposed to have stated before the I.O. regarding the identification of appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur while they were assaulting her husband, Puran Thakur as the room of Puran Thakur, was not visible from her room. PW. 3, the informant has deposed that dacoits pushed the door of his room forcibly and broke open it and they entered in his room with the lighted lantern and he attempted to flee away from there but he was assaulted by one of the dacoits by Lathi and he identified appellant, Krishna Kant Thakur who was with lighted lantern. He has .further deposed to have identified appellant, Chhaku Lal Thakur who was armed with Lathi. He has .further deposed to have identified appellant, Chhaku Lal Thakur who was armed with Lathi. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant has not averred in his Fardbeyan regarding the identification of appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur by him in his room in the light of the lantern. The evidence of PW. 3, the informant in respect thereof is unreliable in view of the fact that there is no occasion for the appellants aforesaid to carry the lantern from the room of Fulki Devi to the room of the informant. There is no evidence on the record that the lantern from the room of P.W. 1, Puran Thakur was taken away by the appellants in the course of the commission of the dacoity. Therefore, the evidence in respect thereof is replete with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions and inconsistencies in respect thereof and thus it becomes crystal clear that the dacoits did not carry any lantern with them either from the room of P.W. 2, Fulki Devi or P.W. 1, Puran Thakur to the room of the informant. Therefore, there is total absence of any means of identification during the course of commission of the dacoity in question. P.W. 3, the informant and P.W. 2, Fulki Devi are lying on the most material aspect regarding the identification of appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur and Chhaku Lal Thakur and their evidence in respect there of is fit to be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, these two appellants are resident of the village of the informant and they are well acquainted with the informant and his family members. They have not concealed their faces during the course of the commission of the dacoity. It, therefore, appears highly improbable that these appellants will commit the dacoity in the house of the informant without concealing their faces so as to facilitate their identification. This aspect of the matter equally casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of their participation in the dacoity in question. Therefore, the false implication of these two appellants in this case cannot be totally ruled out due to the enmity existing and alive between the parties prior to the occurrence. This aspect of the matter equally casts a cloud of suspicion to the very credibility of their participation in the dacoity in question. Therefore, the false implication of these two appellants in this case cannot be totally ruled out due to the enmity existing and alive between the parties prior to the occurrence. Appellants, Tara Chand Singh and Jai Prakash Singh have stated in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they had participated in the marriage of the family of appellant, Krishna Kant Thakur and they were well acquainted with the informant and his family members. They have also not been named in the Fardbeyan as the participants in the occurrence. There is no evidence on the record to show that they were also seen by P.W. 2, Fulki Devi in the course of the commission of the occurrence as well as by P.W. 3, the informant in course of commission of the dacoity. According to the prosecution case coupled with the evidence on the record two dacoits i.e. appellants, Krishna Kant Thakur arid Chhaku Lal Thakur had entered in the room of the informant. Therefore, the informant has definitely no occasion to see appellants, Jai Prakash Singh and Tara Chand Singh as the participants in the commission of the dacoity in question. Therefore, the identification of appellants, Jai Prakash Singh and Tara Chand Singh in the test identification parade by P.Ws. 3 and 2 becomes questionable and is equally unworthy of credit. Furthermore, the test identification parade was held on 27.8.1982 i.e. after two months of the commission of the dacoity conducted by P.W.10 and in view of such long lapse of time it is not possible for any human being to remember the features of the dacoits and there is every possibility of the mistakes being committed by the witnesses in identifying the dacoits in the test identification parade. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 2 identifying the appellants in the test identification parade conducted after two months of the occurrence suffers from legal infirmities and the said evidence cannot be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the case. And last but not the least, the lantern has not been seized by the I.O. in course of investigation and it has also not been brought before the Court, which is definitely a lacuna of prosecution case. And last but not the least, the lantern has not been seized by the I.O. in course of investigation and it has also not been brought before the Court, which is definitely a lacuna of prosecution case. Viewed thus, the evidence on the record of identifying all the appellants as the participants in the commission of dacoity in question is unworthy of credit and is fit to be brushed aside. I, therefore, see substance in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the learned court below did not meticulously scrutinize the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants and viewed thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 11. There is merit in these appeals and they succeed. Both the appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned court below is hereby set aside. The appellants are found not guilty and they are, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.