C.A.V. JUDGMENT All the four appellants stand convicted for the offences under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to further under rigorous imprisonment for one year as awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – V, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 258/87 arising out of Piro P.S. Case No. 15 dated 26.01.1981. 2. The prosecution case in short as revealed from Exhibit – 3 the fard-e-beyan of P.W. 2 namely Durga Prasad Singh recorded on 26.01.1981 at 4.30 P.M. is that in the previous evening i.e. on 25.01.1981, he had gone out in connection with negotiation for marriage of his daughter, 25 – 30 miscreants armed with fire-arms entered into the house and committed dacoity taken away several articles and on his return his brother and family members intimated about the named accused including the four appellants. 3. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and on taking cognizance case was committed to the court of session. During trial only four witnesses could be examined including the investigating officer besides producing exhibits which is as follows: Ext. 1 – Signature of P.W.2 with fardbeyan Ext. 2 – List of Looted properties Ext. 3 – Statement of the informant recorded by P.W.4 Ext. 4 – Formal F.I.R. Ext. 5 – Seizure List Ext. 6 – Para 1 to 142 of the case diary. 4. The trial court on the basis of materials available passed order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. While the appellants preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5463/2012 against refusal of bail by this court. The Apex Court disposing of the matter requested the court to dispose of the appeal preferably within six months vide order dated 27.07.2012. Consequently, the appeal was listed for Admission, but on repeated calls none turned up on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal. 5. The Apex Court disposing of the matter requested the court to dispose of the appeal preferably within six months vide order dated 27.07.2012. Consequently, the appeal was listed for Admission, but on repeated calls none turned up on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal. 5. Under the circumstances, this court left with no other option but either to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the appellants, but there is general experience that such process takes much time and the court’s burden are not reduced or to proceed without any such representation, taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276 (SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor represent the State to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit. 6. From the judgment of the court below also it appears that except P.W. 3 there appears no eye witness to the occurrence examined during trial, and the trial court relying on the statement of such solitary witness passed order of conviction. 7. P.W.1 Ganesh Shankar Singh is admittedly not an eye witness but got information of the occurrence through letters sent by his family members and on getting leave from his job came to the village. He speaks about disclosure of name of the miscreants by P.W.2 and another younger brother (not named). So, on the point of occurrence his evidence cannot be relied upon. P.W.2 namely, Durga Prasad is the informant contrary to his own fard-e-beyan he tried to make himself as an eye witness to the occurrence while saying that at the relevant time he was also at his door and stated about the occurrence and taking away the articles by miscreants claiming to identify the named persons including the appellants. He also said in para – 3 that some of the witnesses of the occurrence including his younger brother are now dead, and this also cannot make the statement of P.W.1 as regard to names of miscreants admissible on the ground of deriving such information through the dead persons. At the same time attempts made by P.W.2 to become an eye witness of the occurrence contrary to his own earlier statement makes his entire testimony doubtful. 8. At the same time attempts made by P.W.2 to become an eye witness of the occurrence contrary to his own earlier statement makes his entire testimony doubtful. 8. P.W. 3 namely, Raju Singh @ Raj Shekhar Singh examined on 25.10.2010 at the age of 42 years (as claimed) about the occurrence taking place in the year 1981 i.e. the time when he could have been aged about 12 years, is the only claimed eye witness but in paras 3 and 4 of the cross-examination he states about recording of his statements besides statement of a few more witnesses putting their signatures on the statements so recorded on different sheets. Had it been true, there is no explanation under what circumstances such separately recorded statements under signatures of the deponents were obtained or if obtained what happened therewith. Further, in para 8 also he states about recording of the statement of few dead persons in same manner. In para 9 also he states about inability to say about the wearing of miscreants who according to him had been with open face, normally the known persons while committing such offences conceals their faces. Statement of this witness appears not so trustworthy to uphold the conviction especially taking into consideration that senior members of the family specially informant also has tried his level best to ensure conviction of the appellants by unsuccessfully claiming himself as an eye witness. 9. The facts and circumstances emerging from the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that prosecution has not been able to remove the clouds against his case. Hence, appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed and conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. They are at once ordered to be released, if not at all required in any other case.