JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under each count and also under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua, in Sessions Trial No. 109/74 of 1984/1990 by a judgment dated 15.1.1994 and further Appellant No. 1 under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on the night of 27.11.1983, about 10-15 miscreants committed dacoity in his house in which the Appellants were identified by the Informant. 3. The prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses out of whom P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 are formal witnesses whereas P.W. 3 is the Magistrate who held the Test Identification Parade and P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 are seizure list witnesses whereas P.W. 9 is the Informant and P.W. 7 and 8 are the son and daughter of the Informant respectively. P.W. 4 was the Circle Officer who conducted Test Identification Parade of the articles. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 are employees of the Informant have supported the factum of occurrence as also that he identified the present Appellants. P.W. 5 is the Doctor who examined the Informant and found gun shot injuries on him. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. Evidently, the factum of occurrence was not denied by the Appellants but it was their participation which was called to question. 5. On behalf of the Defence three witnesses were examined. D.W. 1 is on the point that Harihar Singh had wished to implicate the Appellant No. 1 and he had taped such a conversation. D.W. 2 is on the point that when he went to the house of the Informant after the occurrence, no names were disclosed by him. D.W. 3 was a Advocate Clerk and he had proved a plaint of Suit No. 65 of 1979 which is Exbt. A. It transpired that the gun of the Informant was seized from one Basgit Mushar for which a separate case was instituted and the gun was identified by the Informant and handed over to him. It also appears that there was long standing hostility between P.W. 9 and Appellant No. 1 and he had instituted a case against the Informant earlier which ended in acquittal. It also appears that there was long standing hostility between P.W. 9 and Appellant No. 1 and he had instituted a case against the Informant earlier which ended in acquittal. In this background, it is difficult to accept that the Appellants would have dared to enter the house of the Informant without concealing their identity. 6. In the result on this score alone, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 109/74 of 1984/1990 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabua, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.