JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.12.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 1984/68 of 1990, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga held the appellants guilty under Sections 395 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 8th June, 1983 the informant Khadia Bhagat, PW 3, was resting In his house situated in village Rorad Chhapartoli, P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga, when at about 7 PM he found some miscreants inside his house having gun and armed variously. It is further stated that the miscreants caught hold of him and tied his hand and threatened him to kill if he did not disclose where the money was concealed. He identified one of the miscreants as Fulchand as other miscreants were concealing their face. Thereafter his father and mother were also threatened and were forced to disclose whereabout of the money. The miscreants looted away Rs. 1000/-from the house of the informant. According to the informant, accused Fulchand also threatened him to kill and left the house after taking away clothes, ornaments and utensils. The house inmates did not raise any alarm out of fear. However, when the miscreants left the house, after half an hour they raised alarm, on which villagers assembled. The informant could not report the matter immediately because of treatment of his father. 3. This matter was reported to Kisko police on 11th June, 1983 in which he named accused Fulchand Minz and other unknown to have committed dacoity in his house. The police investigated the case and finally submitted chargesheet against 8 accused persons, out of which records of two accused were split up and six were put on trial after being charged under Section 395 IPC. Accused Rajmohan Bhagat further charged under Section 412 IPC for the alleged recovery of Fulpant belonging to the informant. The trial court after examining the witnesses found and held three of the accused facing trial not guilty but convicted the appellants along with Fulchand Minz @ Lachhu Bhagat guilty under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for five years. The trial court after examining the witnesses found and held three of the accused facing trial not guilty but convicted the appellants along with Fulchand Minz @ Lachhu Bhagat guilty under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for five years. The said Fulchand Minz @ Lachhu Bhagat has not preferred any appeal and he seems to have remained in custody during the trial itself. 4. This appeal has been preferred by these two appellants on the ground that the learned lower court has not considered properly the evidences available on record. It is further asserted that the entire prosecution story appears to be false, as it has been lodged after three days of the occurrence. It is further submitted that they were not named in the FIR and have been implicated in this case falsely. It is further submitted that even on the confessional statement of co-accused, nothing has been recovered from their possession except one Fulpant, which is a common article for every house. It is further asserted that when the informant himself has disclosed after three days that other miscreants were concealing their faces, the identification made in the police lock up, should not have been relied upon. The conviction is further assailed on the point that the trial proceeded for about 17 years and belated identification has been accepted by the trial court. It is further asserted that the learned lower court should not have relied upon the statements of the family members alone. The memo of appeal further mentions that I.O. of the case has not been examined, which resulted in prejudice to the defence. 5. All these points were argued strenuously before me by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that the appellants were identified to have participated in the dacoity. 6. On careful consideration of the materials available in the case records and the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it appears that the FIR was lodged after three days and did not disclose names of these two appellants in the FIR. It is also found that the appellants Raj Mohan Bhagat and Birsu Bhagat are of village Semardih, who were arrested later on and put on TIP. The TIP was conducted by PW 8. It is also found that the appellants Raj Mohan Bhagat and Birsu Bhagat are of village Semardih, who were arrested later on and put on TIP. The TIP was conducted by PW 8. This witness has mentioned that the appellants along with two others were put on TIP and the informant as well as Etwa Bhagat, father of the informant, has identified them, vide Ext.1. From this Ext.1, It appears that no overt act has been asserted against these two appellants by the informant and his father. 7. When Identification is further verified with the statement of the informant, PW 3 and his father, PW 1, Etwa Bhagat, it becomes very difficult, to rely upon their testimony on this point. PW 1 claims in para 1 of his examination in chief that he could see faces of two accused but he could not name them. He further asserted, vide para 2, that he identified four persons and named them, out of which only appellant Raj Mohan Bhagat stands named. This witness during cross examination admitted that he could not see which of the miscreants tied his hands. He further admitted that due to darkness he could not identify any of the miscreants. 8. PW 3 asserted, vide para 5, that he identified four persons including the appellants during TIP inside the jail. This witness, during cross examination, admitted, vide para 9, that he has not handedover the lantern, which was burning at the time of occurrence. He admitted, vide para 11, that accused persons identified by him in TIP were not seen by him earlier. It is further admitted, vide para 19 that he did not inform regarding the incident to the village, Choukidar, Sarpanch and Mukhia. He has admitted that village Semardih was situated within 8 kms of his house but he refused to know the appellants, though he admitted, vide para 21, that one of his village girls was married in the village Semardih, In such view of the fact, the TIP, which is admittedly held within a week after lodging of the FIR, cannot be made the sole ground for conviction of the appellants. 9. The prosecution further examined PW 2, Longi Orain, an hearsay witness of the occurrence. 9. The prosecution further examined PW 2, Longi Orain, an hearsay witness of the occurrence. PW 4 Jamal San, PW 5, Ibrahim Sah have been declared hostile because they did not support the story of recovery of wrist watch and clothes from the house of Fulchand. PW 6 has been tendered. PW 7 further was declared hostile because he did not support the story of recovery of Fulpant from the house of appellant Rajmohan Bhagat. PW 9 is a formal witness, who proved the signature of the I.O. 10. The trial of the accused appellants took time for about 17 years to conclud. In such view of the fact, where there is no positive evidence that appellants also participated in the alleged dacoity, I find and hold that their conviction by the lower court cannot be maintained. 11. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the prosecution could not prove the involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts in the alleged occurrence. Accordingly, they are found not guilty and acquitted from the charges under Section 395 IPC. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.12.2000 is set aside. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.