Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. These three criminal appeals have been preferred by in all nine appellants, having been convicted for an offence punishable under Section-396 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, against the judgment of conviction dated 14.07.1992 and order of sentence dated 17.07.1992 passed by the 4thAdditional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.179 of 1988/8 of 1991. It may be noticed here that originally 14 persons were put on trial, out of whom the Trial Court has acquitted three persons, i.e., Arun Kumar Pandey, Binod Das and Nirdhan Paswan. The remaining 11 accused persons are now before this Court as appellants. 2. In order to establish the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Out of which P.W.1-Mahesh Tripathy, P.W.6-Madan Sah, P.W.7-Dr. Ram Gopal Munka, P.W.9-Kameshwar Singh are formal/official witnesses. P.W.1-Mahesh Tripathy is an advocate’s clerk who is brought to prove the fardbeyan as recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of the Deshri Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge, who was also the Investigating Officer for substantial period, is P.W.8-Baidyanath Prasad Sinha. P.W.6-Madan Sah is the Compounder in Mahnar Primary Health Centre who was present when injury reports were drawn up by the doctor who has since died, which injury reports are in relation to P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam, P.W.4-Md. Ismail the informant and P.W.5 is Md. Muslim. P.W.7 is Dr. Ram Gopal Munka who has performed the postmortem and submitted the postmortem reports in respect of the two deceased, being grandfather and grandmother of the informant-Md. Ismail (P.W.4). P.W.9-Kameshwar Singh is a constable of Deshri Police Station, District Vaishali who has merely come to prove virtually the entire case diary which has been marked as exhibit, even though this was clearly impermissible in terms of Section-172 (2) Cr.P.C. That leaves us with P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam, P.W.4-Md. Ismail, the informant and P.W.5-Md. Muslim, all are the alleged eye-witnesses. The deceased, Noor Mohamad and his wife Wasiran are grandfather and grandmother of the informant Md. Ismail (P.W.4) and Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3). Hasina Khatoon (P.W.2) and Md. Muslim (P.W.5) are uncle and aunt of the informant, Md. Ismail (P.W.4). Md. Muslim (P.W.5) is the son of the victim and grandfather and grandmother of the informant, Md. Ismail (P.W.4). They all admittedly lived in the same house. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3). Hasina Khatoon (P.W.2) and Md. Muslim (P.W.5) are uncle and aunt of the informant, Md. Ismail (P.W.4). Md. Muslim (P.W.5) is the son of the victim and grandfather and grandmother of the informant, Md. Ismail (P.W.4). They all admittedly lived in the same house. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Md. Ismail (P.W.4) as recorded by P.W.8-Baidyanath Prasad Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of the Deshri Police Station at the Primary Health Centre, Mahnar in the early hours of 20.01.1983. The informant, who is a literate person and who has signed the fardbeyan in English, states that in night/morning of 20.01.1983, when they all were sleeping in their house in different rooms, he heard at about midnight shouts and screams of his grandfather and grandmother. He came out and found that about 20 dacoits were present there and beating his grandparents. He asked them why they were beating his grandparents then they pounced upon him. He grappled with one of them and also managed to injure one of the dacoits. He was also attacked. Thereafter, his uncle Md. Muslim (P.W.5) also came out as well as his cousin, Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3) with a knife. All the dacoits had covered their faces to conceal their identity but, in the light of lantern hanging in the verandah and in the torch light from the torches of the dacoits, he was able to identify four of the appellants, Md. Qayum alias Eqyum, Jaleshwar Singh and Ram Bilas Bind. His cousin, Shah Alam (P.W.3) disclosed that he was able to identify one appellant, Ramchandra Gareri. The dacoits then ransacked the house and then left. As the cousin and his uncle were injured and their grandparents dead by merciless assaults by the dacoits, they were taken to Mahnar Primary Health Centre where the Officer-in-Charge of Deshri Police Station came and this statement was recorded. He read the fardbeyan and signed the same being correct. It was witnessed by Rajeshwar Rai and Samshad Khan, both of whom had not been examined. Upon this fardbeyan being recorded at about 2:45 am a formal case was then registered at about 6 pm. In the meantime, at about 3 am the Officer-in-Charge of Deshri Police Station, Baidyanath Prasad Sinha (P.W.8) returned to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report and sent the two bodies for postmortem to Hajipur where P.W.7-Dr. Upon this fardbeyan being recorded at about 2:45 am a formal case was then registered at about 6 pm. In the meantime, at about 3 am the Officer-in-Charge of Deshri Police Station, Baidyanath Prasad Sinha (P.W.8) returned to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report and sent the two bodies for postmortem to Hajipur where P.W.7-Dr. Ram Gopal Munka conducted the postmortem and submitted two reports, which have been brought on record. Thereafter, it appears that P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam, the cousin of the informant Md. Ismail (P.W.4), appeared before the Magistrate on 07.02.1983 and a statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, which is Ext.2. In this statement from amongst the appellants, he has named appellants, Madan Choudhary alias Madan Pasi and Badu Mian, as having been identified by him. Upon investigation being completed in between which the Investigating Officer was changed, the charge-sheet was submitted against 14 persons who were put on trial. As noted above, three persons have been acquitted and the rest 11 persons as accused/appellants are before this Court in these three appeals. 4. Learned counsels for the appellants first submit that the prosecution case starting from the fardbeyan through to the evidence of four alleged eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam, P.W.4-Md. Ismail (informant) and P.W.5-Md. Muslim is consistent that having heard the shouts of the two deceased, they came out of their houses and saw the dacoits mercilessly beating the two victims who succumbed to their injury but, when we come to the two postmortem reports, i.e., Exts.7 & 8, we would find a different story. So far as the deceased Noor Mohamad, the grandfather of the informant is concerned, he had only one stab wound on the chest breaking the second rib on the right hand side and punctured lungs. Therefore, the story of being mercilessly beaten is false and concocted. When we come to Wasiran, the other deceased being grandmother of the informant, our attention is drawn to the postmortem report Ext.8 from which it is clear that she had been shot at from the left side near the face at a very close range. Nine pellets were extracted from her face, eye and brain matter. At all entry points there was distinct charring. There was no other injury. Nine pellets were extracted from her face, eye and brain matter. At all entry points there was distinct charring. There was no other injury. Learned counsels for the appellants further submit that if both these two postmortem reports are seen, it falsify the prosecution case. No where no witness has stated anything consistent with these ante-mortem injuries found much less about the lady being shot dead. The prosecution is unable to explain why there is no mention by anyone about gun shot being fired from a very close range on the lady resulting in death. The prosecution tried to conceal these facts for obvious reason. If they admitted gun shot being fired then all of them ought to have got up upon hearing the shot. Not only they but the entire neighbourhood which consists of 100 to 150 houses would have heard it at the dead of the night but not one person other than inmates ever came to the house, which is quite unnatural. 5. Having considered the matter, in our view, this fact alone clearly establishes that the prosecution has deliberately tried to conceal the true event and project a false story. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. points out that it is incorrect to state that no one came inasmuch as in the fardbeyan itself the name of three neighbours of the village have been given who had come and seen the occurrence. On behalf of appellants, it is rightly pointed out that none of them have been produced in Court and further the evidence of P.W.5-Md. Muslim, the uncle of the informant, is categorical that having been beaten, when he ran out from the house along with his wife P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, they kept shouting for help but no one came. No neighbour or villagers came. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution is trying to conceal the true incident and project a different story altogether. Surely, the benefit must go to the appellants. 7. Now, keeping this in mind, we would now examine the evidence of the four eye-witnesses in the Court, keeping in mind that the incident took place on 20.01.1983, the fardbeyan being recorded at about 2:45 am, which was followed by the statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.1983 by Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3), the cousin of the informant and then we have the deposition of the four witnesses. Shah Alam (P.W.3), the cousin of the informant and then we have the deposition of the four witnesses. P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, the daughter-in-law of the deceased and the aunt of the informant was examined in Court on 13.02.1992, i.e., 9 years after the incident. P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam, who had given the statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.1983, was examined in the Court on 24.02.1992. The informant, P.W.4-Md. Ismail was examined on 25.02.1992 and his uncle, P.W.5-Md. Muslim on 27.02.1992, all more than 9 years after the incident. As we have noted earlier that in the fardbeyan P.W.4-Md. Ismail disclosed the name of only three persons, i.e., appellants, Md. Qayum alias Eqyum, Jaleshwar Singh and Ram Bilash Bind. He has also disclosed the name of Ramchandra Gareri as disclosed to him by P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam his cousin. 8. When we come to the first witness to the incident in Court, i.e., P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, in her evidence, she clearly states that she got up on hearing the shouts of her father-in-law and mother-in-law being beaten, though there was a lantern burning outside and the dacoits had torches they had all covered their faces to conceal their identity, she could not recognize any person much less identify but she was later told by her son Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3) at the Primary Health Centre, Mahnar that he was able to identify four persons, i.e., appellants, Binda Chamar, Madan Choudhary, Ramchandra Gareri and the Badu Mian. At this stage, we must record that the fardbeyan was recorded at the Primary Health Centre, Mahnar and in the fardbeyan itself the informant has given out the names of persons as disclosed by P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam but there is no mention of the appellants, Binda Chamar, Madan Choudhary, Ramchandra Gareri and the Badu Mian. From the evidence of P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon, it is clear that she supports the prosecution case that the victims were mercilessly beaten to death but she fails to state that her father-in-law had only one stabbed wound and her mother-in-law shot on the face from the close range. Further from her evidence, it is clear that all the dacoits had successfully covered their faces to conceal their identity. Further from her evidence, it is clear that all the dacoits had successfully covered their faces to conceal their identity. In the end of her cross-examination, she has given a suggestion that appellant-Nasruddin had, in fact, helped in carrying the injured persons to the Primary Health Center, she denies having seen him but admits having heard this fact from others. Thus, the prosecution does not deny the fact that the appellant-Nasruddin was very much present when the injured were taken to the Primary Health Center and yet he was neither named nor apprehended. Even in the statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. he has not been named. 9. Then, we come to the evidence of P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam. He is the grandson of the two victims and the cousin of the informant, P.W.4-Md. Ismail. The incident having taken place on 02.01.1983 and on 07.02.1983 his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate. If we refer to the same, we find that from amongst the appellants he has only named two appellants, Madan Choudhary and Badu Mian, even after two weeks he does not name any other appellants. He is said to have struggled with dacoits and when he managed to injure one of them, allegedly, bomb was thrown on him severely damaging his right hand. He then comes to the Court and on 24.02.1992, i.e., more than 9 years thereafter, deposed and again repeats the same story. He grappled with some of the dacoits and got injured by a bomb thrown on him. With the help of lantern and the torch lights of the dacoits, he was able to identify appellants, Binda Chamar, Ramchandra Gareri and Badu Mian. He has now added two names to the statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. A suggestion is made to him that as the father of the appellant-Nasaruddin had filed a case against his grandfather, the victim and he had been falsely named in the case. He denies the same. A suggestion was given that up to that stage appellant-Nasaruddin has not been named in the fardbeyan nor by P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam in his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 10. Then, we come to P.W.4-Md. Ismail, the informant. In his chief, he admits that he is literate. He denies the same. A suggestion was given that up to that stage appellant-Nasaruddin has not been named in the fardbeyan nor by P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam in his statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 10. Then, we come to P.W.4-Md. Ismail, the informant. In his chief, he admits that he is literate. He had given his fardbeyan at the Primary Health Centre, Mahnar, which was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of the Deshri Police Station, Baidya Nath Prasad Sinha (P.W.8). He read the fardbeyan and finding it to be correct signed it. In the fardbeyan, he has named only three persons, i.e., appellants, Md. Qayum alias Eqyum Mian, Jaleshwar Singh and Ram Bilas Bind. But, in course of his police statement, he states that he had given the name and identify 7 appellants and further in the Court now he names 8 appellants, as having been identified, i.e., with the exception of Baddu Mian, Madan Choudhary and Binda Chamar he now names everyone. He admits that all the miscreants were covering their faces and identity but still he was able to identify these persons. He admits that all the persons identified were his immediate neighbours. Some were persons who had given evidence against his grandfather in some cases. He, like other prosecution witnesses, maintains that he had got up upon hearing the shouts of his grandparents who were mercilessly being beaten. He was also beaten. He managed to injure one of the dacoits otherwise there is nothing more significant in his evidence. He does not disclose as to how actually his grandparents died which, as noted above, was caused because of stab injury and a point blank gun shot injury on the face. 11. We then come to the last witness of the incident, i.e., P.W.5-Md. Muslim. He is the husband of P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon and the son of the two victims, the father of Md. Shah Alam (P.W.3) and, therefore, the uncle of P.W.4-Md. Ismail. He is examined in the Court on 22.02.1992. He also maintains that as his wife, P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon had maintains earlier, that all the dacoits had covered their faces and concealed identity successively, he could not identify even one of them but the identity and involvement of all the 11 appellants was disclosed to him later by either his nephew, P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam or his other nephew, P.W.4-Md. He also maintains that as his wife, P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon had maintains earlier, that all the dacoits had covered their faces and concealed identity successively, he could not identify even one of them but the identity and involvement of all the 11 appellants was disclosed to him later by either his nephew, P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam or his other nephew, P.W.4-Md. Ismail, informant but he had not identified anyone in that respect. He is completely a hearsay witness but one thing is clear that he could not identify even a single person and secondly that even though he, having been beaten, managed to rush out from the house and shouted for help no one from the neighbourhood came to rescue or help, which is extremely extraneous. 12. Thus seen, first we have the prosecution changing the manner in which the incident took place. The evidence being brought on record was brutal assault of two victims leading to their death, whereas the fact is that there was one fatally stabbed wound on the grandfather and one point blank shot killing the grandmother. Neither of which have been mentioned by the prosecution. All the persons, who have said to have been identified, are immediate neighbours or immediate neighbouring landholders. Some of them had stood as witnesses against the prosecution family. The prosecution admits that they had all tried to conceal their faces but two of the witnesses did manage to see the faces of some of the appellants. We have, thus, evidence of P.W.2-Hasina Khatoon and P.W.5-Md. Muslim that all the dacoits had successfully concealed their identity and both of them were disclosed that though they were present there the identity of the dacoits was identified by other two witnesses, i.e., P.W.3-Md. Shah Alam and P.W.4-Md. Ismail who also have kept adding the names at different stages. 13. In such a situation, we do not find it safe to rely upon the identification or disclosure of the identity by the witnesses about the involvement of the appellants, as aforesaid. If all the dacoits consciously tried to conceal their identity, why would these 11 appellants, who were neighbours and well known, would not take same care and would expose themselves is not understood. If all the dacoits consciously tried to conceal their identity, why would these 11 appellants, who were neighbours and well known, would not take same care and would expose themselves is not understood. Further, the manner in which at different stages the names were added, though all of them were available at the very instance when the fardbeyan was recorded, clearly show that in a planned manner names were added. Even so far as fardbeyan is concerned, the witnesses have admitted that before the statement of P.W.4-Md. Ismail, the informant, was recorded as the fardbeyan, they all had ample time and they all had discussed about the event. Thus, false implication cannot be doubted, though an unfortunate incident had taken place wherein two old couple were brutally killed, one by a singular stabbed wound on the chest and the other by a point blank gun shot wound on the face. The incident, as had actually happened, has been consciously withheld and changed by the prosecution. Appellants have been roped either because they were in litigating terms with the family of the victims or they had cases against the family and for other reasons. So much so the appellant-Nasaruddin is concerned, two of the witnesses have accepted that they had heard that he was present and helped in carrying the injured at the Primary Health Centre, Mahnar. If he was one of the dacoits then why he would do so. 14. Thus, we have no option but to hold that the prosecution has indeed failed to establish and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The benefit of which must go to the appellants. That being so, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. All the appellants in the three appeals are, thus, entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are freed from their liabilities of bail bonds. Appeals allowed.