AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–The solitary appellant, convicted for offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, on 16.3.1992 in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 1985 arising out of Chandi P.S. Case no. 60 of 1984, has preferred this appeal. 2. In this case of house dacoity instituted against unknown, appellant’s name emerged during investigation and on T.I.P. he was identified by P.W.3 Rambali Prasad and P.W.4 Upendra Prasad. A T.I.P. chart is on record as exhibit-3 proved by P.W. 10 Ram Lakhan Prasad, the then Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa. Having regard to the narrow scope in this case, there is no necessity to state much more details. 3. Undisputedly, the appellant stood charged for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code along with one Jogeshwar Ravidas, who subsequently died during trial. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though out of three witnesses participating in T.I.P., only two have claimed to identify this appellant but their statements neither corroborate each other nor are consistent with exhibit-3. 5. P.W. 3 Rambali Prasad comes to state that one of the miscreants during occurrence demanded wrist watch from him which was not available, however, it was snatched from the wrist of Surendra Prasad (P.W.5). In para-4 of his statement he claims to identify three dacoits, out of whom one Jogeshwar Ravidas (now dead) was available in dock and another was represented. In entire examination-in-chief he is silent about the means of identification and during cross-examination he admits in paras-5 and 10 that it was a darken night. 6. P.W.4 Upendra Prasad introducing a lantern giving sufficient light to identify the miscreants during which he claims to identify two of them but he also is silent about the activities of the miscreants identified by him whereas as per P.W. 10 and exhibit -3 this Upendra Prasad claimed to identify the appellant as he was there with a gun standing near another miscreant Mohar Paswan 7. Whereas P.W. 3 also claims to identify the appellant at same place and time but without any gun and P.W. 5 Surendra Prasad, from whose wrist watch was snatched, in para-3 claims to identify only the deceased miscreant Jogeshwar Ravidas whereas from exhibit -3 and statement of P.W. 10 it appears that during T.I.P. he identified only Mohar Paswan as a person snatching the wrist watch from him. Similar was the statement of P.W. 4 Upendra Prasad with regard to said Mohar Paswan who was claimed and identified as a person demanding wrist watch from P.W. 4 having pistol in his hand and P.W. 3 also claims to identify during T.I.P. Mohar Paswan in same manner but during trial these witnesses have come out with changed statement and P.W.5 identifying Jogeshwar Ravidas (now dead) who was not put on T.I.P. as is evident from exhibit-3 and P.W. 10. 8. Thus, the entire identification of the appellant by the witnesses comes under dark cloud and there is no other material to show the complicity of the appellant inspite of the undisputed fact that the dacoity was committed at the relevant time and place. From the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable and is set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and the appellant is set free from the liability of the bail bonds.