Judgment These two criminal appeals have been filed by the two appellants assailing the judgment/order dated 28.02.2007/02.03.2007, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Case No. 468/1997/Trial No. 215/2004 whereunder out of the four accused persons put on trial accused nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted for the offence under Section 396 of the Penal Code and directed to suffer imprisonment for life. The aforesaid Cr. Revision No. 726 of 2007 has been filed to secure the conviction of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 who have been acquitted of the aforesaid charge under the impugned judgment. 2. Prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan of Girija Shankar Singh (not examined) recorded at his house in village Kanhau on 25.06.1996 at 3:00 A.M. by Sub-Inspector Narendra Paswan Officer-in-Charge Sheo Sagar P.S. is that the informant having taken dinner was sleeping at his house along with his family members. Around 12:45 hours the door of his house was bolted by someone from outside. Informant made enquiry from the person outside who asked him not to speak, failing which he will be killed. Having heard such reply informant became alert peeped out from the hole available in the door, saw in the bulb lighted in the courtyard two (dark complexioned) barefooted persons standing in courtyard. Others were also standing outside the house. After sometime neighbour of the informant Radhe Shyam Sharma (P.W. 5), son of Hari Mistri (not examined) raised alarm asking the informant that thieves have entered his house. On the alarm raised by P.W. 5 Radhe Shyam Sharma, cousin of the informant Suresh Singh asked from his rooftop about the well being of the informant. Soon thereafter, informant heard gun shot being fired as also heard cries coming from the house of his cousin. Hearing the cry informant attempted to break open the door meanwhile his daughter came from the other room and opened the bolted door from outside. Informant came out from his room and saw two unknown robbers standing in his courtyard who took away three Steel Boxes from the eastern room of his house. The two miscreants who fired from the rooftop of his house were also dark complexioned wearing half pant, banyan jumped down and fled away. Informant came out from his room and saw two unknown robbers standing in his courtyard who took away three Steel Boxes from the eastern room of his house. The two miscreants who fired from the rooftop of his house were also dark complexioned wearing half pant, banyan jumped down and fled away. Many villagers also came to the house of the informant hearing firing sound raising alarm and chased the dacoits. One of the dacoit armed with single barrel gun jumped down from the rear portion of the house of the informant also managed to escape. According to the fardbeyan there were five dacoits who were chased by the villagers towards western boundary area of the village. One of the dacoits threw his single barrel loaded gun while making good his escape which the informant picked up and brought to his house. The five dacoits, however, managed to run away towards south of his house. According to the informant the dacoits were of dark complexion, between 20-25 years of age, were speaking Hindi as also the local dialect. In the concluding portion of the fardbeyan, informant has given the details of his belonging taken away by the miscreant and claimed that he can identify the dacoits. Agnate of the informant having suffered grievous gun shot injury was taken to Sasaram Sadar Hospital for treatment where he died. 3. Having recorded the aforesaid fardbeyan Officer-in-Charge took up the investigation of the case and seized the firearms and ammunition which was thrown by the miscreants while escaping from the place of occurrence and recovered, produced by the informant along with one empty cartridge of 8 mm which was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. The production-cum-seizure list was prepared in presence of witnesses Gopal Singh P.W. 1 and Sanjay Kumar Singh P.W. 4. Informant also put his signature over the seizure list (Ext. 1). After having seized the firearm Officer-in-Charge forwarded the fardbeyan to the Police Station on the basis of which Sheo Sagar P.S. Case No. 57 of 1996 was registered by Sri Baban Prasad Choudhary, A.S.I. of Sheo Sagar Police Station against five unknown. During the investigation of the aforesaid Sheo Sagar Police Station Case, the Investigating Officer collected the inquest report of the deceased Suresh Singh prepared by Sub Inspector Sasaram Police Station (Ext. A). Perusal of Ext. During the investigation of the aforesaid Sheo Sagar Police Station Case, the Investigating Officer collected the inquest report of the deceased Suresh Singh prepared by Sub Inspector Sasaram Police Station (Ext. A). Perusal of Ext. A indicates that the same was drawn at Sasaram Sadar Hospital and Rajeshwar Singh (Accused No. 4) is also a witness to the inquest report. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Shambhu Nath Jha P.W. 12 vide report (Ext. 8). Investigating Officer having recorded the further statement of the informant, recorded the statement of the widow of deceased Sharda Kunwar (P.W. 2), Mritunjay Kr. Sharma (P.W. 3) son of Radhe Shyam Sharma (P.W. 5), Sanjay Kr. Singh (P.W. 4) witness on the production-cum-seizure list, Radhe Shyam Sharma (P.W. 5) another villager, Sunil Kumar (P.W. 6) cousin of the deceased and also son of P.W. 7 Radho Ram Singh @ Radho Singh, P.W. 8 Neetu Singh daughter of the deceased. In the light of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses submitted charge sheet dated 23.09.1996 only against Accused No. 1 Vijay Kumar Singh @ Dhanji Singh. In the light of charge sheet cognizance was taken and after commitment Accused No. 1 was summoned to face the trial. The trial of Accused No. 1 proceeded witnesses examined. In the light of the evidence of the witnesses on record the trial court under order dated 06.04.1999 summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Accused No. 2 Ramji Singh, Accused No. 3 Sudama Singh and Accused No. 4 Rajeshwar Singh to face trial. After appearance of aforesaid three accused fresh charges were framed against all the four accused vide order dated 06.12.1999. 4. In support of the charges framed, prosecution examined P.W. 1 Gopal Singh in whose presence informant Girija Shankar Singh produced the arms and ammunition thrown by the accused persons before the Investigating Officer who seized the same as also one empty cartridge recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. The witness has supported the production and seizure of the arms and ammunition by the informant and the Investigating Officer. In court he has also become the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Sharda Kunwar is the widow of the deceased Suresh Singh who in her police statement has named Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 as the miscreants who participated in the occurrence. In court he has also become the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Sharda Kunwar is the widow of the deceased Suresh Singh who in her police statement has named Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 as the miscreants who participated in the occurrence. In court P.W. 2 has further improved her version as she has included amongst miscreants Accused No. 3, 4. According to the version given by P.W. 2 in court Accused No. 1 was standing behind the house of the informant armed with a gun and Accused No. 2 shot her husband from the roof of informant. Accused No. 4, 5 were also amongst the miscreants. P.W. 3 Mritunjay Kr. Sharma, son of P.W. 5 Radhe Shyam Sharma co-villager of the informant claims to have not only seen the occurrence but also to have chased the miscreants. The witness has categorically stated that he could not identify any of the miscreants either during the occurrence or during the chase. P.W. 3 has further stated that after chase he came to the house of the informant where P.W. 2 and her other family members were also present but they did not tell him that they identified any of the miscreants. P.W. 4 Sanjay Kr. Singh is the witness on the production-cum-seizure list. In paragraph-1 of his evidence the witness stated that he did not identify any of the miscreants and was declared hostile. P.W. 5 Radhe Shyam Sharma is father of P.W. 3. He also saw the occurrence and chased the miscreants with his son. He further stated that after the chase he along with his son came to the house of the informant where the family members of deceased Suresh Singh were present but they did not claim before him that they identified any of the miscreants. P.W. 6 Sunil Kumar is also cousin of deceased Suresh Singh. In court P.W. 6 has claimed that he identified amongst the miscreants Accused No. 1 and learnt from P.W. 2 that Accused No. 2 Ramji Singh shot Suresh Singh from the roof of the informant Girija Shankar Singh. P.W. 7 Ragho Ram Singh @ Ragho Singh claimed in his evidence that he identified three miscreants who were on the roof i.e. Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4. P.W. 7 Ragho Ram Singh @ Ragho Singh claimed in his evidence that he identified three miscreants who were on the roof i.e. Accused No. 2, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4. P.W. 8 Neetu Singh is the daughter of the deceased, she named two miscreants i.e. Accused No.1 and Accused No. 2 in her police statement. In court she like her mother has named all the four accused persons put on trial as the miscreants who participated in the occurrence and further clarified that it was Accused No. 2 Ramji Singh who shot her father Suresh Singh from the rooftop of informant after her father came to his own roof and was asking about the well being of the informant. She also saw Accused No. 1 standing in the rear of the house of the informant armed with a gun. The Investigating Officer has examined himself as P.W. 10 and has narrated about the manner in which he conducted the investigation of the case. When the witness was asked to prove the previous police statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 then he candidly admitted and disclosed in paragraph 14-17, 30, 26-27, 28-29 respectively that these witnesses did not record the same version as has been deposed by them in court by disclosing the names of all the accused persons in their police statement. P.W. 12 Dr. Shambhu Nath Jha has stood by his post-mortem report and has deposed that Suresh Singh suffered homicidal death after being inflicted by a gun shot injury. 5. Trial court having appraised the prosecution evidence acquitted Accused Nos. 3 and 4 as P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 have not named them in their police statement. The accusation made against them in court was not accepted as they were not named as miscreants by the same witnesses in their police statement and thereby the trial court concluded that the evidence of these witnesses is only an attempt to improve their version about the occurrence by naming even those who were not named by them in their police statement. The view taken by the trial court in ignoring the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses implicating Accused Nos. 3 and 4 during evidence in court though they were not named by the witnesses in their police statement is nothing but endeavor by the prosecution to improve its case. The view taken by the trial court in ignoring the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses implicating Accused Nos. 3 and 4 during evidence in court though they were not named by the witnesses in their police statement is nothing but endeavor by the prosecution to improve its case. By acquitting Accused No. 3, Accused No. 4 the trial court has rejected the attempt of the prosecution to further improve its case which is a sound exercise of discretion by it and does not call for any interference by us. Accordingly, we dismiss the Criminal Revision filed for securing conviction of Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4. 6. Having dismissed the Criminal Revision, now we proceed to examine the evidence of prosecution witnesses which has been relied upon by the trial court to convict Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2. It appears, trial court placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2, 8 the widow, daughter of the deceased, has convicted Accused No. 1 and 2. Before proceeding to appraise the evidence of P.W. 2, 8 it is necessary to notice the submission of learned counsel for the two appellants. It is submitted by them with reference to the evidence of P.W. 2 that her evidence implicating Accused No. 2 as the assailant of her husband is required to be considered with caution in view of her own evidence noted in paragraph – 13 of her deposition that after one hour of the occurrence her husband was being taken to the hospital by the villagers on a tractor. She was also present on the tractor along with Accused No. 2 Ramji Singh. It is submitted that in case Accused No. 2 was the assailant of her husband and had participated in the dacoity committed in the house of the informant he would not have been present on the tractor along with P.W. 2, 8 to carry the injured to the hospital along with the other villagers including P.W. 6. They further submitted that according to P.W. 2, 8 the source of their identification of the miscreants is the lighted bulb on the roof of the house of Hari Mistri father and grand-father of P.W. 5, 3 respectively. According to P.Ws. They further submitted that according to P.W. 2, 8 the source of their identification of the miscreants is the lighted bulb on the roof of the house of Hari Mistri father and grand-father of P.W. 5, 3 respectively. According to P.Ws. 5, 3 the lighted bulb on roof of the house of Hari Mistri was at a distance of 250 yards away from the place of occurrence (P.W. 3 paragraph 3 of his evidence). In this connection, evidence of Investigating Officer P.W. 10 in paragraph 24 is also relevant. Learned counsel for Accused No. 1, 2 also referred to the same evidence of P.W. 3 and submitted in view of distance of the place of occurrence from the house of Hari Mistri being 250 yards that it may not have been possible for P.W. 2, 8 to have identified Accused No. 1, 2 amongst the miscreants. Both the counsel further assailed the evidence of daughter P.W. 8 on the ground that in her police statement she has stated before the Investigating Officer that she had seen a shadow on the roof of the informant which was mistaken by her father as that of the informant from whom her father asked about his well being. No sooner he asked about well being shot was fired from the roof causing injury to her father. In the court she improved her aforesaid version and stated that it was Ramji Singh who shot from the roof of the informant and Dhanji Singh was standing on the ground in the rear portion of the house of the informant and Sanjay Singh. It is also submitted that from her deposition it is clear that she accompanied her father to the hospital on the same tractor on which Accused No. 2 Ramji Singh was also present and it is submitted that had Ramji Singh been the assailant of the deceased could not have been present on the tractor along with P.W. 2, 8. That apart source of identification as claimed by P.W. 2 and 8 is at a distance of 250 yards from the place where both were standing it may be difficult for them to have identified the miscreants in the night from such distance. 7. That apart source of identification as claimed by P.W. 2 and 8 is at a distance of 250 yards from the place where both were standing it may be difficult for them to have identified the miscreants in the night from such distance. 7. Counsel for the State opposed the aforesaid submission and submits that true it is that there has been improvement in the prosecution version as P.W. 2 and 8 the widow and daughter of the deceased had only named Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 before the police but in court they have implicated even Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4 but thereby the version given by them about the complicity of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 does not become doubtful and their conviction should be maintained. 8. In view of the rival submissions, now we proceed to consider the merit of the rival submissions. It appears, the occurrence of dacoity and murder took place on 25.06.1996 at about 12:45 hours. The fardbeyan was registered in the same morning at 3:00 A.M. Time at which injured Suresh Singh was taken to Sasaram Sadar Hospital is however not known. Inquest report of the deceased indicates that his inquest was conducted at the hospital at 5: 30 A.M. on 25.06.1996. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W. 2, 8 and others that Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 4 were present on the tractor while taking the injured to the hospital. The police statement of P.W. 2 and 8 was also recorded on the same day on which the fardbeyan was recorded. In the police statement these two ladies have named Accused No. 1, 2 not the others i.e. Accused No. 3, 4 amongst the miscreants. The informant in his fardbeyan has categorically stated that the miscreants were unknown and he could not identify them. Other (s) namely P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have not only seen the occurrence but also chased the miscreants have deposed in their evidence that after the chase they came to the house of the informant and found P.W. 2, 8 present in the house of the informant but none of them named Accused No.1, 2 as the miscreants. Other (s) namely P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have not only seen the occurrence but also chased the miscreants have deposed in their evidence that after the chase they came to the house of the informant and found P.W. 2, 8 present in the house of the informant but none of them named Accused No.1, 2 as the miscreants. P.W. 2, 8 went on the tractor to Sasaram Sadar Hospital along with the injured where even after the death of Suresh Singh, they did not report about the complicity of Accused No. 1, 2 in the occurrence to A.S.I. of Sasarama Police Station who prepared the inquest report of deceased. From the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 it is not in dispute that these appellants and other villagers were present at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence and remained present throughout until death of the injured in Sasaram Hospital yet were not named as the miscreants by the aforesaid witnesses. In view of such evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 it appears P.W. 2, 8 have chosen to name Accused No. 1, 2 in their police statement as an afterthought. Had they been involved in the occurrence along with Accused No. 3, 4 and the two being present at the hospital there was no reason for P.W. 2, 8 not to have disclosed their names in the police statement along with Accused No. 1, 2. It is therefore evident that Accused No. 1, 2 have also been named in the police statement of P.W. 2, 8 as afterthought. 9. In view of our aforesaid appraisal of the evidence of P.W. 2 and 8 a reasonable doubt is entertained by us even about the involvement of Accused No. 1, 2 in the occurrence. Having entertained the reasonable doubt, we have no option but to grant them the benefit of doubt. 10. Having granted the two appellants the benefit of doubt, we set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against Accused No. 1, 2 and direct that they be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 11. The appeals are allowed. Appeal allowed.