GHANSHYAM PRASAD, J.:-All the above three appeals preferred by the appellants arise out of one and the same case bearing Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1998 disposed of by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad through two judgments dated 21st January, 2003 and 14th February, 2003. Appeal No. 56 of 2003 arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.1.2003 and 23.1.2003 and rest two appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 14.2.2003 and 17.2.2003. However all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Prosecution story briefly stated as mentioned in fardbeyan (Ext.1) is that in the night on 4/5th January, 1997, the informant Mangal Singh (P.W.5) alongwith his cousin Deolal Singh and relative Sunil Kumar was sleeping in front of his house. In the midnight, he woke up on hearing hulla coming from the house of his Gotia Doman Singh and Subedar Singh. In the meantime, five miscreants came to him out of whom he identified Mohi Mian, son of one Madhusudan Dubey of village Babhna Bigha and Tuntun Chamar, who is one of the appellants. Tuntun Chamar had pistol in his hand and he was pointing the same upon the informant. About 10-12 dacoits came out from the house of Doman Singh and out of them a few scaled in the courtyard of the house of informant and opened main entrance of the house from inside. Thereafter, all dacoits entered in the house and looted the articles of the informant. They took away four boxes from the house of Doman Singh and two boxes of the informant. Apart from it they also took away several articles from other boxes. After commiting dacoity. they all fled away after firing shots in air. 3. It has further been alleged that when the informant went in the house of Doman Singh he saw that Doman Singh was laying in the courtyard and his legs and hands had been tied with ropes. Subedar Singh told that he identified two dacoits, namely, Sokhi Bhuiyan and Teny Paswan, who had entered in their house. It has further been alleged that about 6-7 dacoits had torch and pistol in their hands and in torch light of the dacoits the informant identified dacoits from their faces. 4. Subedar Singh told that he identified two dacoits, namely, Sokhi Bhuiyan and Teny Paswan, who had entered in their house. It has further been alleged that about 6-7 dacoits had torch and pistol in their hands and in torch light of the dacoits the informant identified dacoits from their faces. 4. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses out of whom P.W.5 Mangal Singh is the informant. P.W.1 Lallan Singh is grand son and P.W.2 Krishna Singh and P.W Laxman Yadav are sons of the informant. P.W.4 Doman Singh is neighbour and Gotia of the informant and P.W. 6 Birja Yadav is a formal witness. 5. The defence of the appellants is total denial of the occurrence. According to them they have been falsely implicated in this case as they refused to work in the field of the informant as labourers. 6. In course of the argument, the learned lawyer for the appellants has challenged the judgment in question mainly on two grounds. It is urged that the evidence on point of identification of the appellants is not reliable and it is unsafe to convict a person in a case like dacoity mere on single identification. For which they have relied upon a decision reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 62, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1392 and 1973 P.L.J.R. 373. It is further submitted that occurrence of dacoity has also not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the I.O. of the case has not been examined. 7. Out of the five material witnesses examined by the prosecution only two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Lallan Singh and P.W.5 Mangal Singh have claimed to identify the accused-appellants. P.W. 1 has claimed to identify Sokhi Bhuiyan and P.W.5 has claimed to identify accused appellant Tuntun Paswan and Mohi Miyan. Other three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have not claimed to identify any of the accused-appellants. They have stated in their evidence that they did not identify any dacoits at the spot. 8. P.W.1 Lallan Singh is the grand son of the informant Mangal Singh Yadav. He has stated in his examination-in-chief, para-1 that he identified appellant Sokhi Bhuiyan at the spot in the torch light flashed by the dacoits. They have stated in their evidence that they did not identify any dacoits at the spot. 8. P.W.1 Lallan Singh is the grand son of the informant Mangal Singh Yadav. He has stated in his examination-in-chief, para-1 that he identified appellant Sokhi Bhuiyan at the spot in the torch light flashed by the dacoits. The cross-examination, paragraphs 3 and 4 shows that accused Sokhi Bhuiyan was well known to this witness prior to the• alleged occurrence but there is no material to show that Sokhi Bhuiyan had covered his face at the time of commission of dacoity. P.W.5 Mangal Singh, who is the informant of the case, has stated in his examination-in-chief, paragraph-2 that he identified Tuntun Paswan at the spot who had pistol in his hand and had pointed the same upon him. In paragraph-3, he has stated that he identified the dacoits in torch light flashed by the dacoits themselves. In chief he has not claimed to identify accused appellant Mohi Miyan but in cross-examination, paragraph-18 he has stated only that he knew Mohi Miyan and Tuntun Miyan since before the alleged occurrence who had their village at a distance of about half kilometre. He has further stated in the same paragraph that both the appellants used to visit his village regularly. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the cross-examination would go to show that the claim of identification of. Tuntun Ram and Mahi Miyan is full of doubt. He has stated in the above paragraphs that on threat given by the dacoits he downed his head and remained as such till they left the spot. It further appears from paragraph-20 of the cross-examination that appellant Tuntun Ram had not covered his face though he was well known to him. 9. Apart from the above two witnesses, no other witness has come to claim that he identified the accused-appellants at the spot. On perusal of fardbeyan, it appears that most important witness on point of identification of Sokhi Miyan was Subedar Singh in whose house also the dacoity was committed but he has not turned up to support the fact that Sokhi Bhuiyan committed dacoity in his house. 10. On perusal of fardbeyan, it appears that most important witness on point of identification of Sokhi Miyan was Subedar Singh in whose house also the dacoity was committed but he has not turned up to support the fact that Sokhi Bhuiyan committed dacoity in his house. 10. It is urged on behalf of the accused-appellants that no conviction can be recorded on the basis of single identification and particularly in face of the fact that the testimony of the witnesses who have claimed to identify the accused-appellants are not fully reliable. In this regard, he has relied upon the above decision reported in 1973 P.L.J.R. 373. The ratio decided is not wholly applicable in these case. However, it gets some support from paragraph-8 of the decision in which it has been held that it is not safe to convict the appellants at the solitary statement of P.W.14 who was chance witness. Other two decisions cited by the learned lawyer for the appellants have no bearing on the point of single identification. However, the fact remains that the testimony of the witnesses who have claimed to identify the appellants is not free from doubt. In this view of the matter, no much reliance can be placed on their evidence on the point of identification of the appellants. 11. The other important point which has been raised by the learned lawyer for the appellants is that the prosecution has also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that dacoity was committed in the house of the informant or his 'Gotia' Doman Singh. Almost all witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have stated in their evidence that dacoits looted articles from the house of Doman Singh and the informant and took away boxes from their houses. However, no list of looted articles has been mentioned in the fardbeyan or brought on record during the trial or investigation. There is also no material on the record that any looted article was recovered from possession of any of the appellants. 12. There are other circumstances also which cast serious doubt upon commission of dacoity as alleged. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have stated in their evidence that they were assaulted by dacoits but neither any doctor has been examined nor any injury report has been brought on the record to prove this fact. 12. There are other circumstances also which cast serious doubt upon commission of dacoity as alleged. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have stated in their evidence that they were assaulted by dacoits but neither any doctor has been examined nor any injury report has been brought on the record to prove this fact. Further in case of dacoity, I.O. happens to be an important witness to prove commission of dacoity as his evidence bases upon objective findings. He visits the spot and collects material from the spot to show commission of dacoity. He has not been examined, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. No explanation, worth the name has been given for non-examination of the I.O. Apparently, non-examination of I.O. goes to the root of the prosecution story and casts serious doubt on the case of the prosecution as alleged. 13. It has come in the evidence of the P.W.3 vide para-5 as well as in fardbeyan that the dacoits were chased by more than 50 villagers but they fled away after opening fire in the air. However, not even a single independent witness/villager has turned up to support the story of commission of dacoity in the house of the informant and his gotia. All witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution belong to one and the same family i.e. informant. 14. Thus, from the above discussions of oral evidence as well as circumstances, it is quite clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its story of commission of dacoity beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. As said about, it has also failed to prove complicity of the appellants in the alleged dacoity beyond all reasonable doubt. It appears that the learned lower Court has not properly considered the above lacunae and infirmities in the evidence of prosecution. 15. Accordingly, I find that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside. 16. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appellant Sokhi Bhuiyan is in jail. He is directed to be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case.