ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 20-05-2004, passed, in Sessions Case No. 15(DM) of 2002, arising out of GR Case No. 423/97, by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, convicting the four accused-appellants under Section 395 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described thus: Around midnight on 08-09-1997, some persons, masquerading themselves as army personnel, appeared at the house of Tarani Kalita (PW 1) and asked the inmates of the house to open the door by claiming that they were army personnel, whereupon the informant opened the door and as soon as he opened the door, the persons, who had claimed themselves to be army personnel, entered into the room, tied up the inmates of the house, blind folded them by pointing pistol at them and took away cash, ornaments, etc. Similar dacoity was also committed in some other houses of the village concerned. A First Information Report was lodged, in this regard, on the following day, i.e. on 09-09-1997, at Udalguri Police Station. Based on the FIR, so lodged, Udalguri Police Station Case No. 133 of 1997, under Section 395 IPC, was registered and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet accordingly. 3. While two of the accused, named in the charge-sheet, were discharged, a charge, under Section 395, IPC, was framed against all the four accused-appellants. To the charge, so framed, the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether, six witnesses. The accused-appellants were, then, examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in their examination aforementioned, they denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held the accused-appellants guilty of the offence as indicated above. The learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentence against them as mentioned above. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court held the accused-appellants guilty of the offence as indicated above. The learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentence against them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against them, this appeal, as already indicated above, has been preferred by the accused-appellants. 5. I have heard Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, and Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the fact dacoity had taken place in the house of PW 1 (Tarani Kalita) and PW 2 (Ganesh Kalita), has not been disputed; what has been in dispute is the complicity of the accused-appellants in the said dacoity. 7. Bearing the above aspect of the appeal in mind, when one considers the evidence of PW 1, his evidence discloses that on the night of the occurrence, when he was sleeping along with other members of his family, some persons came to the door of the house and called the inmates of the house in Hindi language and, identifying themselves as army personnel, they asked the inmates of the house to open the door. The door of the house was accordingly opened by PW 1, who was, immediately, blind folded and also tied at the point of pistol and, then, the other inmates of the house were also tied up and the persons, who had so entered into the house of PW 1, took away valuables including cash and ornaments, whereupon he lodged a First Information Report. 8. In no uncertain words, deposed PW 1, that he could not identify any of those persons, who had entered into his house, because he was blindfolded. 9. Broadly in tune with the above evidence of PW 1 (Tarani Kalita), PW 2 (Ganesh Kalita) has also deposed that when the dacoits entered into his house, they blindfolded him and took away cash, ornaments, etc. 10. It is the categorical evidence of PW 2, too, that he could not identify the dacoits as he was blindfolded. 11. Same as PW 1 and PW 2, PW 3 (Lalit Kalita) has deposed that the dacoits had entered into his house and took away cash ornaments etc, but he could not identify the dacoits nor could his son identify the dacoits. 12. 11. Same as PW 1 and PW 2, PW 3 (Lalit Kalita) has deposed that the dacoits had entered into his house and took away cash ornaments etc, but he could not identify the dacoits nor could his son identify the dacoits. 12. From the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, it is clear that in their houses, dacoity did take place, but none of the inmates of the house could identify the dacoits. 13. The question, therefore, which naturally arises is as to how the present accused-appellants came to be implicated in the occurrence of dacoity. In this regard, the evidence of PW 3 has some relevance. His evidence is to the effect that his co-villagers made some inquiry and came to know that Ramlal Chauhan (i.e., the accused-appellant No. 1), Ram Prasad Chauhan (i.e., the accused-appellant No. 2) and about five other persons were involved in the dacoity, a panchayat (i.e., the sitting of the villagers) was accordingly held at Udalguri Primary School and in the said Panchayat, the accused persons confessed their guilty by admitting that they had committed the dacoity and that they also confessed that the looted articles were kept in the house of some other dacoits. 14. In his cross-examination, PW 3 clarified that the Panchayat was convened after about a week of the dacoity. What is, however, extremely important to note, in the evidence of PW 3, is that according to him, the dacoits were brought by their co-villagers by tying them up and there were as many as 250 persons present in the Panchayat and they all demanded that the accused shall confess. 15. From the above facts, as narrated by PW 3, it becomes clear that none of the dacoits came to the place of meeting voluntarily, they did not confess voluntarily and that their confession, if any, was in consequence of the demand for confession, which had been raised, in the said Panchayat, by as large a number of people as 250. 16. PW 4 (Nabin Kalita) was one of the persons in whose house dacoity took place; but he too accepts that he could not identify the dacoits. This witness, too, has deposed about the said Panchayat and the fact that the accused had confessed. 17. 16. PW 4 (Nabin Kalita) was one of the persons in whose house dacoity took place; but he too accepts that he could not identify the dacoits. This witness, too, has deposed about the said Panchayat and the fact that the accused had confessed. 17. However, most vital evidence is of PW 5 (Shri Khargeswar Basumatary), who admits that he had presided over the meeting of the Panchayat; what is important, in his evidence, to note is that according to his evidence, the persons, who were suspected to be involved in the dacoity, were called, they confessed to have committed dacoity and they were beaten up by the people present there. It is also, in the cross-examination of PW 5, that the persons, who confessed, had been threatened by their co-villagers. 18. What emerges from the discussion of the evidence on record is that at the time of dacoity, no one, in whose house dacoity was committed, could identify the dacoits. However, subsequent inquiry made by the villagers led to the calling of the Panchayat and the accused-appellants were tied up and brought to the place of Panchayat they were threatened, beaten and made to confess that they were involved in the dacoity. In the face of these admitted facts, it cannot be held that the confessions, made by the accused-appellants, were voluntary in nature. Far from this, the evidence on record eloquently speak that the confessions, which the accused-appellants had allegedly made, were wholly involuntary in nature. A confession, which is involuntary, cannot, in law, be treated as a confession at all inasmuch as Section 24 of the Evidence Act makes a confession, made by an accused person as a result of threat or coercion, inducement, irrelevant and inadmissible in law. If the confession, alleged to have been made by the accused-appellants are kept excluded from consideration, as these confessions must be so kept excluded, there remains really nothing, in the evidence, on record to fasten the present appellants with the incident of dacoity. The learned trial Court committed serious error in accepting the confessions as voluntary and true. This finding, in the face of the evidence on record, is nothing, but perverse and ought not to be accepted. 19. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The learned trial Court committed serious error in accepting the confessions as voluntary and true. This finding, in the face of the evidence on record, is nothing, but perverse and ought not to be accepted. 19. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 395, IPC and the sentences passed against them are hereby set aside. All the accused-appellants are held not guilty of the charge framed against them and they are acquitted of the same. 20. The accused appellants are hereby directed to be set at liberty unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. The bail bonds of the accused-appellants shall stand cancelled and their sureties shall stand discharged. Send back the LCR.