Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.5.1993 passed by Sri Surya Kant Mishra, Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Case No. 44/88 whereby he convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that on 15.12.1983 at about 3.00 PM the informant Kewal Chand Sethia was going with a sum of Rs. 34,000/- on his Hero Magestic (Moped) and when he reached near the firm (Satya Narain Trading) his motorcycle was stopped by one of the miscreants by catching handle and another miscreant demanded bag by showing revolver. The informant started fleeing carrying the bag and raised alarm of Chor Chor. On his alarm some person started coming to the place of occurrence and on seeing them the miscreants started running towards village Mohanpur. The villagers chased them and caught hold one of them. On interrogation the thief disclosed his name as Ganga Mandal (one of the accused of this case). It is further said that this accused had stopped the informants Moped by holding its handle. It has been alleged that one of the miscreants died in course of chase. The informant filed written report at Bihariganj Police Station on the same day which was registered as Kishanganj (Bihariganj) P.S. Case No. 258/83 dated 15.12.1983 under Sections 392/511 of the Penal Code. The Police after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against accused Ganga Mandal and Subodh Mandal and cognizance was accordingly taken. The case was committed to the Court of Session and after trial the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura by the impugned judgment acquitted accused Subodh Mandal and convicted appellant Ganga Mandal and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Sections 392/511 of the Penal Code. Against the said conviction, the appellant Ganga Mandal has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 3. It has been submitted that in all seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution but on the basis of their evidence no case against the appellant has been made out. It has further been submitted that during trial none of the witnesses identified the appellant in the court room and, therefore, the participation of the appellant in the occurrence is doubtful. It has further been submitted that during trial none of the witnesses identified the appellant in the court room and, therefore, the participation of the appellant in the occurrence is doubtful. It has further been submitted that the judgment and order of conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. 4. It appears that during trial prosecution examined in all seven witnesses who are P.W.1 Mohan Lal Agrawal, P.W. 2 Niraj Mahto, P.W. 3 Kewal Chand Sethia, P.W. 4 Ashok Jaiswal, P.W. 5 Lal Mohan Choudhary, P.W. 6 Rameshwar Lal Jhavar and P.W. 7 Udai Narain Choudhary. Out of them P.Ws 4 and 7 have simple been tendered for evidence by the prosecution. P.W. 1 has said that he saw Kewal Chand Sethia going towards his home on a Moped. At a distance of 20 to 25 feet from his shop he saw the Moped lying on the ground. A crowd had assembled and he learnt that the miscreants have managed to run away. This witness has been declared hostile and has been examined by the prosecution but there is nothing more in his evidence to support the prosecution case. P.W. 2 has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. He also did not see any of the dacoits. 5. P.W. 3 is the informant of this case. He has said that on 15.12.1983 at 3.00 PM after drawing Rs. 34,000/- from S.B.I., Bihariganj Branch he was going to his house on Moped and when he reached near Ashok Trading he was intercepted by two criminals. One of the criminals pointed a pistol towards him. The other criminal tried to snatch the bag from him but he managed to escape. He raised alarm of dacoit dacoit. In the meantime some villagers chased the criminals and one of them was caught. He has further said that the criminal who was caught was the person who had stopped his Moped by holding it and who had tried to snatch the bag from him in which he had kept the money. He has further said in his evidence that due to lapse of 8 and 9 years at present he cannot identify whether the accused present in dock was the same criminal who had tried to snatch the bag from him. Thereafter he alongwith villagers and the apprehended accused went to Bihariganj Police Station and handed over the accused to the Police. Thereafter he alongwith villagers and the apprehended accused went to Bihariganj Police Station and handed over the accused to the Police. He also lodged a written report (Exhibit-1) before the police. 6. This witness thus failed to identify the appellant in the court room. 7. P.W. 5 has said that on 15.12.1983 at about 6.00 PM the police had seized some blood stained earth from a place situated at a distance of about 400 and 500 yards west from village Belahi. A seizure list was prepared upon which his signature is 1/1. P.W. 6 has said that on 15.8.1982 or 1983 at about 3.00 PM he was in the shop of Sri Niwas Agarwal. He saw the informant going on a Moped. Thereafter there was a Halla of dacoit dacoit. The informant came to the shop of Sriniwas raising Halla of dacoit dacoit. A big mob had assembled there. The informant told that Ganga Mandal was threatening him and trying to snatch the money. This witness, however, could not identify accused Ganga Mandal. This is all the evidence adduced in this case on behalf of prosecution. It appears that the Investigating Officer of this case was not examined during trial by the prosecution. 8. As mentioned aboveit is the prosecution case that after some chase accused/ appellant Ganga Mandal was apprehended by the public. He was then taken to police station with the informant where F.I.R. was lodged and the accused was handed over to the police. Now the position is that informant P.W. 3 in court could not identify the appellant on the ground that after lapse of 8 to 9 years he is not in a position to identify him. The witnesses examined in this case have said that the accused was chased and caught by the public. Admittedly there is no recovery from the appellant. The law is well settled that identification of an accused in court is the substantive evidence of the person identifying and his earlier identification in any form corroborate the same. In the present case as said above the investigating officer before whom the accused was produced with the F.I.R. has not been examined. P.W. 5 also could not identify the appellant in court room. There is no rule of thumb that after lapse of a long period the witness in no case be able to identify the thief. In the present case as said above the investigating officer before whom the accused was produced with the F.I.R. has not been examined. P.W. 5 also could not identify the appellant in court room. There is no rule of thumb that after lapse of a long period the witness in no case be able to identify the thief. In face of the aforesaid evidence the participation of the appellant in the occurrence of this case becomes doubtful. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. 10. The appellant is accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of bail bond.