JUDGMENT SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. — This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2002 pre¬ferred by the petitioners Balia alias Balaram Patra and Jadua alias Jadu Pradhan against the judgment dated 10.5.2002 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Puri in S.T. No.125/201 of 1999 convicting both the petitioners under Sections 457/395 I.P.C. and sentencing them thereunder to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months in respect of their conviction under Section 457 I.P.C and also to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year in respect of their conviction under Section 395 I.P.C. 2. Petitioners were prosecuted to face trial on charges under Sections 457/395 I.P.C. It is the prosecution case that the petitioners along with four others in the midnight of 24.1.1999 entered into the shop room of the informant Sabitri Patra, (P.W.8) by breaking open the door. They also assaulted the in¬formant with fist blows, kicks and at the point of knife and gun etc., they looted gold ornaments, silver ornaments, grocery arti¬cles, a cash of Rs.7500/- and other articles and fled away from the place of occurrence in a tractor. On the basis of the afore¬said allegation, an F.I.R. being Sadar P.S.Case No.11 dated 25.1.1999 was registered on a complaint lodged by P.W.8, Sabitri Patra. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the two petitioners only under the aforesaid penal provi¬sions. In course of time, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and upon transfer the case was tried before the learned trial Court. 3. In this case in all 12 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none was examined on behalf of the accused-petitioners. Prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.8, Sabitri Patra. She is the only eye witness in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate both have taken me through the evidence on record. It is true that the victim P.W.8 suffered some minor injuries. Prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.8, Sabitri Patra. She is the only eye witness in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate both have taken me through the evidence on record. It is true that the victim P.W.8 suffered some minor injuries. Though there is no medical evidence to show tha her teeth were broken, it is her case that she was given blows with knife on her face and for this reason she lost three teeth. In the trial Court, she claimed that an amount of Rs.45,000/- apart from other articles and ornaments were looted from her residence in course of the alleged dacoity. But from her statement recorded by the police, it appears that a cash amount of Rs.7500/- was only looted. This is indeed a serious contradiction. It is also her case that soon after the occurrence P.W.1, Purna Chandra Jena reached her house in the very night of occurrence. But surpris¬ingly the victim P.W.8 Sabitri Patra never divulged the name of the accused-petitioners to Purna Chandra Jena. P.W.4, Manoj Kumar Ghaturay and P.W.3, Deepak Kumar Sahu turned hostile and therefore, they did not support the prosecution case at all. 5. In these circumstances, I am little doubtful as to why P.W.8, Sabitri Patra did not divulge the name of the miscreants to P.W.1, Purna Chandra Jena, who arrived at the scene of occur¬rence immediately after the miscreants fled away from that place. Out of the miscreants involved in the alleged dacoity, she could only name these two petitioners. She also stated in her evidence that some arson was committed in her house. But the Investigating Officer did not state anything about such arson having been committed in her house nor did he seize any burnt articles from the scene of occurrence. Though I hold that there was some inci¬dent in the house of P.W.8, yet it is doubtful as to whether the petitioners were involved in any such incident. Therefore, as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioners was not justified on the basis of the evidence on record. 6. Therefore, as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioners was not justified on the basis of the evidence on record. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and that of appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence, and direct that the petitioners be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. Revision allowed.