JUDGMENT (ORAL) Per Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.— Above noted appeals have arisen out of common judgment, so they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants named above have preferred the instant appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th and 6th September, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2004/ 10 of 2005 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Aurangabad whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 395, 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 395 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code each and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Kangress Singh and Mangal Singh were also put on trial alongwith the appellants but they were not found guilty and they were acquitted. 4. Informant (PW 9) Suresh Sao had his permanent board at village Kushi Karma P.S.-Mufassil. District-Aurangabad but since last preceding three years he has settled himself in his own house at Jineriya More where he was trading in rice. In the fateful night of 14.7.2003 at 11.00 p.m. the informant had to give his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) after the dacoits looted and abducted his son. On 14.7.2003 the informant has sold one truck rice for Rs. 52,000/- in favour of Ramayodhya Sao (PW 2 hostile). After loading of the rice at 7.00 p.m. the informant was discussing about the sale proceed of the day with Suba Lal Singh (PW 7), Bindeshwar Singh (not examined) and Bijay Singh (not examined). Satyendra Singh (not examined) had also there to get his money. Anantu Sao (PW 5) had been there for exchanging the currency. The lantern and earthen lamp were burning. At 10.00 p.m., 4-5 criminals came there Dularchand Yadav (appellant), Manoj Singh, Shiv Yadav (appellant) were identified. They were armed with pistol. On the threat of pistol the informant and others were compelled to take shelter in their houses. Shiv Yadav snatched the earrings from the informant's wife. The accused persons later on forced the informant and others to go inside the house. Manoj Singh gave a lathi blow to the informant. Subsequently the accused persons took away rupees fifty two thousand. On the threat of pistol the informant and others were compelled to take shelter in their houses. Shiv Yadav snatched the earrings from the informant's wife. The accused persons later on forced the informant and others to go inside the house. Manoj Singh gave a lathi blow to the informant. Subsequently the accused persons took away rupees fifty two thousand. One of the accused was being named as Prem Yadav of black complexion. Firing was resorted by Dularchand Yadav. Again Dularcharid Yadav tried to load and aimed at the informant but the informant jumped himself out. On cry of the informant, Sudarsan Sao (PW 4) came but he was assaulted by the accused Shiv Yadav. At the time of leaving the place of occurrence the informant's son Sudhir Kumar aged 15 years was taken away. The informant claimed identification in the light of lantern, earthen light and torch light. Motive of the occurrence was that Kamlesh Yadav another rice dealer was not liking the informant to carry on similar business. Ramayodhya Sao (PW 2) earlier was the customer of Kamlesh but he shifted to the side of the informant. The aforesaid fardbeyan of PW 9 witnessed by Sudarshan Sao (PW 4) which resulted into formal FIR (Ext. 5) and case vide Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 130 of 2003 under Sections 395, 364/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In course of investigation, the letters written by Sudhir Kumar were exhibited as Ext. 1/1 and cartridge was seized for which seizure list (Ext. 4) was prepared. Third letter to the informant by the accused was marked as Ext. 2/2. Statement of Sudhir Kumar under Section 164 Cr PC was marked as Ext. 6. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed and explained to the accused to which they pleaded their innocence and the trial proceeded. 5. The defence of the accused is of false implication at the behest of prosecution party due to business rivalry. 6. The trial Court after considering• the defence and after hearing the statements of the witnesses; came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellants, whereas, two other accused persons were let off. 7. The defence of the accused is of false implication at the behest of prosecution party due to business rivalry. 6. The trial Court after considering• the defence and after hearing the statements of the witnesses; came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellants, whereas, two other accused persons were let off. 7. Now this Court is required to see as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its charge, has examined Malti Devi the wife of the informant (PW 1), Ramayodhya Prasad rice dealer whose presence has been claimed by the informant himself (PW 2). Rambineshwar Singh (PW 3), Sudarshan Sao (PW 4), Anantu Sao (PW 5), Shailesh Kumar Chauhan (PW 6), Subalal Singh (PW 7), Sudhir Singh the victim (PW 8). Suresh Sao the informant (PW 9) and Ram Bachan Singh the Chowkidar (PW 10). 9. Sudarshan Sao (PW 4) is an Advocate by profession. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. PW 2 is the person with whom the informant was dealing with at the time of arrival of the criminals but he has not even supported the prosecution case. 10. PW 3 has supported the occurrence but has not identified anybody. PW 7 has supported the factum of dacoity but has not identified the accused. PW 10 has produced one cartridge (Material Ext. 1). 11. The evidence of the victim (PW 8) is that at 10.00 p.m. on 14.7.2003 he was awakened by the criminals from his sleep. They carried him away and was forced to roam from one place to another. Naresh Sarpach was identified by him in the way. Subsequently he rescued himself and succeeded in escaping in absence of the accused persons; The victim has identified Ramgovind and Jalendra Paswan in the Court and he was released after 30 days. He has stated that he was made to write letters through which demand of ransom was made at different places. The victim has stated that he remained confined by the criminals for 35-37 days whereas at some places he says that he was confined for 29 days. 12. The informant (PW 9) has stated that the accused persons entered into his house, looted the money and they carried away his son. The victim has stated that he remained confined by the criminals for 35-37 days whereas at some places he says that he was confined for 29 days. 12. The informant (PW 9) has stated that the accused persons entered into his house, looted the money and they carried away his son. The informant has been supported by his wife (PW 1) and PW 4 Sudarshan Singh. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the implication is on account of enmity which has been detailed in the first version of the informant itself. It has also been submitted that the prosecution case was demolished by non-else rather by the wife of the informant and mother of the victim while deposing in chief itself when she has stated that the robbed money was in numbers 24 of denomination of Rs. 500/- meaning thereby that robbed money was of Rs. 12,000/- and not Rs. 52,000/- as alleged. Further submission is that in view of this difference, it was enough for arriving at the conclusion that the present case was fabricated on account of enmity. 14. Some glaring circumstances which are appearing on the record is that the victim at different places has given different period of his captivity. The period was one and there was no occasion for the victim to tell different dates of captivity when he was being examined and cross-examined. The identification of the accused is for the first time in the Court. Some of the accused were not named. There is no explanation as to why they were not put on test identification parade when the informant has claimed that he could have identified them when opportunities were made available. It has also been submitted that though the accused Kangress Singh and Mangal Singh were also put on trial but they were let off and on the basis of sketchy evidence the appellants were convicted. 15. The informant and witnesses have claimed identification when the opportunities were made available. In the present case, no such opportunity at all to identify the accused was made available. Not named accused persons were not put on test identification parade. The identification for the first time in Court after long period cannot be accepted. 15. The informant and witnesses have claimed identification when the opportunities were made available. In the present case, no such opportunity at all to identify the accused was made available. Not named accused persons were not put on test identification parade. The identification for the first time in Court after long period cannot be accepted. PW 8 while deposing has stated that he was confined at the house of Jalendra Paswan and his father Govind Ram but he has not stated that as to what role was being played by them in committing dacoity. It has also been submitted that the recovery was not by the Police and it is very abnormal to conceive that if a victim is kept in the house, then he will be allowed to run away. No doubt the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164, Cr PC but there also sketchy narration of the occurrence was stated. The victim though was present throughout but has not named all the accused. 16. PW 7 has stated that the miscreants were in mask. Therefore, question of identification was of much consequence and it was must for the prosecution to establish that the offence was committed by the persons. That was not done. It has come that Dularchand Yadav is working as Poldar and his plea is that he had dues and that is why he has been framed. It was not possible that a Poldar will rob his owner without making any effort to conceal his identification. Though the prosecution case is that besides money certain articles were also recovered but nothing was seized. 17. Considering the circumstances available on the record, it is apparent that in commission of dacoity six persons, who have been named, have not tried to conceal their identity. It is also apparent from the evidences that the identification has been claimed by the informant in his fardbeyan itself but the accused persons were not put on test identification parade. The business rivalry is' apparent from the record. The narration of different period of captivity by the victim itself goes to show that he had something to hide. PW 1 while deposing has not stated that Rs. 52,000/- was looted rather her evidence completely demolishes the other version and amount of loot has been drastically reduced by PW 1 or the version of other persons. The narration of different period of captivity by the victim itself goes to show that he had something to hide. PW 1 while deposing has not stated that Rs. 52,000/- was looted rather her evidence completely demolishes the other version and amount of loot has been drastically reduced by PW 1 or the version of other persons. The accused persons were apprehended but no looted articles were seized and the same has not been brought on record. The identification of the accused persons for the first time cannot be accepted. These were enough ground upon which the prosecution case should have been doubted. The prosecution charge cannot be accepted unless it is substantiated by tangible evidence. For proving the charge the prosecution is required to produce the quality evidence by which the accused persons could be linked properly. The circumstances narrated even goes to show that the prosecution has not adduced the evidence which was required and the evidences adduced are not enough to believe the prosecution case. 18. In the result, a doubt is created with regard to prosecution version and the offence. So the accused persons may be granted benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appellants are set at liberty and the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. These appeals are allowed. One of the appellants, namely, Jalendra Paswan is reported to be in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Other appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appeals allowed.