JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Heard. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by a judgment dated 17.7.1995 and passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 3.4.1992, about 10-15 miscreants entered into the house of the Informant and committed dacoity in which the Appellant was identified along with another co-accused Bhupendra Tiwary. 4. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 has been declared hostile. P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have been tendered. P.W. 3 is only on the point of the occurrence whereas P.W. 6 and 7 are eye witnesses. Out of whom P.W. 7 is the Informant, P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 9 examined the injuries on the Informant. The defence of the Appellants was that there was active land dispute between the parties and in fact, there was a title suit pending between the uncle of the Informant and the Appellant. It also transpired from the evidence of P.W. 7 that he had named the Appellant on the statement of his family members and witness who had come after the occurrence. It is also in admitted position that the Appellant was well known to the Informant and, therefore, it does not stand to reason that as to how he would commit such an occurrence without taking pains to conceal his identity more so because there was an active land dispute between the two families. 5. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1993 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.