JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants and as such, Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants to assist this Court. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th December, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1999 (arising out of Jagdishpur Police Station Case no. 243 of 1997, G.R. No. 2912/1997) by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. The First Information Report has been instituted by P.W.5 Md. Naushad Quraishi son of Asraf Quraishi. According to the First Information Report, when the informant along with his brothers Abbas Quraishi and his cousin, Mustaque Quraishi were returning home on their bicycles, they were intercepted by 3 or 4 miscreants near the National Highwary-28. These miscreants allegedly snatched away the money of the informant. They also intercepted one Siddhi Mistri, P.W.3, who was also returning home. The miscreants were variously armed with weapons and on alarm being raised the miscreants ran away. According to the informant, he was able to identify the two appellants. 4. Five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove this case. P.W.1 Guddu Quraishi has supported the case to the extent that he has stated that he saw four miscreants, who stopped the informant and snatched his articles and money. In the cross-examination, he supports this occurrence by stating that there was robbery, but he had not been able to identify the two appellants. On the aforesaid ground, this witness has been declared hostile. 5. P.W.2 and P.W.3 namely, Mustaque Quraishi and Siddhi Mistri similarly support the case of robbery. However, both these witnesses do not identify the miscreants, as it was a dark night, at the time when the occurrence took place. It may be noted that P.Ws. 3 and 4 namely Siddhi Mistri and Asraf Quraishi are amongst those who were detained at the time of occurrence. All four witnesses have been declared hostile. Apart from which, P.W.4 Asraf Quraishi was also supposedly an eye witness to the occurrence as per the First Information Report, has turned hostile. It may be noted that P.Ws. 3 and 4 namely Siddhi Mistri and Asraf Quraishi are amongst those who were detained at the time of occurrence. All four witnesses have been declared hostile. Apart from which, P.W.4 Asraf Quraishi was also supposedly an eye witness to the occurrence as per the First Information Report, has turned hostile. Thus, this Court has to examine the evidence of the sole witness Naushad Quraishi the informant. 6. P.W.5. Md. Naushad Quraishi the informant of the case supports the allegation that the appellants stole Rs. 1115/-from him. It is also stated that two of the miscreants ran away with his bicycle. Thereafter the villagers came to the place of occurrence. The informant identified the two accused persons in dock. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that, it was quite dark at the time when the occurrence took place and that he could not see the occurrence due to fog. He also states that he was not examined subsequently by the Investigating Officer. 7. This Court after considering the evidence of P.W.5 Md. Naushad Quraishi comes to the conclusion that the informant has not been able to prove his case that he was able to identify the two appellants as the persons who had participated in the occurrence. The reason is obvious as P.W.5 Md. Naushad Quraishi says that it was too dark at the time when the occurrence took place and he was not able to see the miscreants. 8. In the result, this Court concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were involved in occurrence as such this appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. Appeal allowed.