JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred against the judgment & order dated 4.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No.121/2009 under Section 395/397 of Indian Penal Code arising out of G.R. Case No.993/1998 convicting the appellants under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 3(three) months. 3. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that on 28.04.1998 at about 2 A.M. at night some unknown persons by covering their faces entered into the house of the complainant Sri Ram Babu Rabi Das by breaking door, tied the hands of his father and younger brother and looted Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only from the box and other things. When his father and brother raised hue and cry, the accused persons shot at his father and brother with the handmade gun that they were carrying with them and fled away. As a result, his father and brother sustained grievous injuries on chest and neck. During the time of the said incident, the complainant was hiding himself under the bed in fear of losing life. On the accused persons leaving the place, he came out and untied his father and brother and the co-villagers who arrived there took his wounded father and brother to the police station and the police took his injured father and brother to SMCH for treated and the doctor admitted them to SMCH. On the basis of the ejahar, a case was registered as Silchar P.S. Case No.512/1998 under Section 399 IPC and the police took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the I/O visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, drew up the sketch map of the place of occurrence and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 399 I.P.C. against the accused persons. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Silchar for trial. Accordingly, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.121/2009. 4. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Silchar for trial. Accordingly, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.121/2009. 4. On the charges being explained to the appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses whereas the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge find and hold the accused persons guilty under Section 397 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 5. That being aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Court below has committed serious errors of law in convicting the appellant under Section 397 IPC and the same is bad in law, perverse and is liable to be set aside and quashed as the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the matters on record in proper perspective of law and the fact that the appellants were not identified as per FIR and then how these persons are named in course of trial without holding any TIP is also not explained and proved and has convicted the accused appellants inspite of having several infirmities in the prosecution case. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to perverse findings relying on the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 5. It has been prayed to set aside the judgment. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully considered the evidence so recorded by the Court below. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that conviction and sentence of the accused appellant can in no way be sustained due to total lack of evidence and lack of identification. Whole case is developed and fabricated in course of trial which is not maintainable. 7. At the outset, let us examine the witnesses of the prosecution side. P.W.1 Smt. Lakhimoni Robidas in her evidence stated that the occurrence took place about 11 years back. At that time she was unmarried and living with her parents at village Gangapur. The occurrence took place at around 2 AM at night. At that time they were sleeping. 7. At the outset, let us examine the witnesses of the prosecution side. P.W.1 Smt. Lakhimoni Robidas in her evidence stated that the occurrence took place about 11 years back. At that time she was unmarried and living with her parents at village Gangapur. The occurrence took place at around 2 AM at night. At that time they were sleeping. Her father, Basanta Rabidas was sleeping in their cowshed to prevent theft of cows. Her father called them and accordingly her younger brother Prakash/P.W.4 opened the door. As soon as the door was opened 3/4 persons entered into the room and caught hold of her younger brother Prakash and tied his hand behind. Those persons threatened her father and asked him to call his other sons and demanded to give money. They threatened them not to raise hulla and they assaulted her mother Radhika and Prakash Rabidas. Being frightened they remained silent. They dragged them to the Verandah and compelled them to sit there. In the mean time her brother Shyamlal/P.W.3 opened the door of his room. Then, 4/5 persons entered into his room and assaulted her brothers Shyambabu and Rambabu. One of those persons opened fire. In the mean time her brother Prakash could manage to escape from there and raised alarm to draw the attention of the nearby people. Alarm being raised by them the neighbouring people came to their house and then those persons fled away. Thereafter, they entered into the room and found that her father and brother Shyamlal were injured as a result of the gun shot. The neighbouring people rushed with them to the police station and police sent them to hospital for medical examination. A three battery torch was snatched away from her father and a cash amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only was looted in a trunk in their house by those persons. After recovery her brother Shyambabu @ Shyamlal disclosed that among those persons the accused persons namely, Janmejoy Koiri, Putul Bhor, Madan Singh & Jaharlal Bin could be recognized by him who did the occurrence. During investigation police seized one Bhojali, two nos. of small iron ball and some other articles from the P.O. house. Ext -1 is the seizure list and Ext. -1 (1) is her signature. In her cross examination she stated that the P.O. house is surrounded by 8/10 nearby houses. During investigation police seized one Bhojali, two nos. of small iron ball and some other articles from the P.O. house. Ext -1 is the seizure list and Ext. -1 (1) is her signature. In her cross examination she stated that the P.O. house is surrounded by 8/10 nearby houses. Those houses belonged to Bahadur Rabidas, Lala Rabidas, Tulsi Rabidas, Chunilal Rabidas, Sanat Kr. Rabidas. They are their neighbours. About 20/25 persons were gathered at the P.O. including the above named neighbours and some of the persons among the aforesaid neighbours took her injured father and brother to the P.S. On the following morning at about 7.30 AM police came to their house. Police took statements of some of the neighbours including Bahadur and Hiralal who told the police that they took the injured persons to the P.S. She did not see the face of the persons who came to their house in the night. There was no electrical connection in their house. She had stated before police that she could not recognize any of the persons as there was no light. 8. P.W.2 Ram Babu Robidas in his evidence stated that the currence took Place on 28.04.1998 at about 2 AM (night). Himself, his father, brother were sleeping and all of a sudden a gang of dacoit entered into their house and came to the room of his father and tied him up with a rope and brought him to his room on gun point. They also tied up his younger brother Prokash. His father used to sleep at cow -shed as because there is apprehension of theft of cattles. They brought his father and compelled His father to ask to open the door. On opening the door by his brother Shyam Babu, the dacoit entered into his room. On hearing sound of scuffling in between his brother and ¾ dacoits, he out of fear concealed himself under his cot. Thereafter, he heard gun shot. After, a little while he went out and saw his brother Shyam Babu was lying injured condition in his room. He also saw the injury on the person of his father. He could not Recognize the dacoits but his father and his brother Shyam Babu told him that they recognized a few dacoit namely, Putul Bhor, Madan, Jaharlal & Motilal Das. He also saw the injury on the person of his father. He could not Recognize the dacoits but his father and his brother Shyam Babu told him that they recognized a few dacoit namely, Putul Bhor, Madan, Jaharlal & Motilal Das. After the occurrence immediately his brother and father were taken to Silchar P.S. wherefrom they sent to the SMCH. After, 10/12 days later his brother & father told him the name of the aforesaid accused persons . Before taking the injured to SMCH he informed the police about the incident orally and on the next day he lodged the written FIR vide Ext. 2 is the FIR and Ext.2(1) is his signature. Police interrogated him and also seized one Bhujali and some round small balls from the P.O. In his cross-examination he stated that there are three rooms in their house. In one room his mother resides, his younger brother & sister lives in the middle room and in the last room himself and his brother, Shyambabu reside. He has two younger brothers. The house of Bahadur, Sricharan and Ram Bahadur are situated contiguous to their house and a little distance the house of Lala and 7/8 persons house are situated. The alleged incident continued for about 20/25 minutes. They had no enmity with their neighbours and on hearing cry the neighbouring people namely Sricharan came and a bit later Bahadur also came and about 50/60 persons were assembled there after the alleged occurrence. All the accused persons who are facing trial are of his same village and they are cultivators & labourers by profession. 9. P.W.3 Sri. Shyambabu Rabidas in his evidence stated that the occurrence took place on 28.04.1998 at night at about 1 and ½ /2 AM. On that night he was sleeping. On hearing sound outside their house he woke up. Then he opened the door of his room and in the focus of torch light he saw accused Putul Bhor, Janmejoy Koiri, Madan Singh, Jaharlal Bin, Matilal Rabidas. They were armed with weapons. Accused Putul had a gun in his hand, accused Madan Singh had a dagger in his hand and other accused having lathis in their hands. Then accused pushed him and forcibly entered into his room. They started scuffling with him and Madan Singh tried to assault him with bhujali. They were armed with weapons. Accused Putul had a gun in his hand, accused Madan Singh had a dagger in his hand and other accused having lathis in their hands. Then accused pushed him and forcibly entered into his room. They started scuffling with him and Madan Singh tried to assault him with bhujali. In the mean time, Putul Bhor shot at him and as a result he sustained gunshot injury in the neck and chest. Then he lost his senses. He regained his senses at SMCH, Silchar on the following morning at about 10 AM. After, 2/3 days of his regaining senses his elder brother Rambabu Rabidas also told him that accused caused injuries to his father. His elder brother Rambabu accordingly lodged FIR with the police. During investigation police interrogated him. He was under medical treatment for 20 to 25 days at SMCH. In his cross examination he stated that their village Gangapur is a thickly populated having about 100 families. Till he lost his senses scuffling was continued 5/10 minutes. When he regained his sense at hospital he first met his brother Rambabu who talked with him. Then other family members went to SMCH, and met him. Though they talked with him he could not speak but he gave response by gesture. He did not utter name of any of the accused to his brother. Police went to hospital 10/12 days later. Police also recorded his statement at hospital. After 2/3 days of the occurrence he had talked with him at hospital. His father came to his bed and they had conversation. The accused persons are their co-Villagers and had no enmity with them. 10. P.W.4 Prakash Rabidas in his evidence stated that the occurrence took place on 28.04.1998 at about 2 AM, night. He was sleeping on that night. He was awaken by his father from sleep. Then he opened the door of their house. Then 3/4 persons forcibly entered into their house and demanded money to them and looted an amount of Rs. 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand) only by opening box. Then those persons brought out him to Varandah and tied his hands with rope. Accused persons first entered into his room. When they went to the room of Shyambabu (P.W.3) Shyambabu opened the door and focused his torch light. 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand) only by opening box. Then those persons brought out him to Varandah and tied his hands with rope. Accused persons first entered into his room. When they went to the room of Shyambabu (P.W.3) Shyambabu opened the door and focused his torch light. Then, he recognized those persons in the light of torch, namely, Madan Singh, Putul Bhor, Janmejoy Koiri, Jaharlal Bin, Matilal Rabidas. They were naked face. Subsequently, he heard sound of firing. Then out of fear he escaped and took shelter in the house of Srisaran Rabidas. Then he returned along with Sri saran Rabidas and saw that his elder brother Shyambabu and his father in injured condition. Then the injured persons were brought to Silchar P.S. by his elder brother Rambabu Rabidas and others. Police were informed and they came to their residence at about 6 AM next morning. Police interrogated him. In his cross examination he stated that Rambabu, Naren Rabidas, Rampati Rabidas accompanied the injured to police station. 11. Father of the informant -P.W.5 Sri. Basanta Rabidas in his evidence stated that on the night of occurrence he resided in the cowshed apprehending theft of cattle. On that night at about 2 AM he heard sound of persons in the verandah of the cowshed. After a little while somebody called him by his name Basanta, Basanta. When he enquired upon their identify they told that they are police personnels. Then he came out from the cowshed and threw focus of the torch -light and saw accused Putul Bhor, Madan Singh, Jahrarlal Bin, Jonmejoy Koiri and Matilal Rabidas standing in his court-yard. Then they immediately captured him and snatched away his torch-light from his hand. Accused Jaharlal Bin tied up his hands taking his hands in the back side. Then these accused persons threatened him saying that they would kill him if he raised alarm and asked him to call his son Prakash. Accordingly, he called his wife Smti. Radhkia Rabidas. Then his son opened the door of dwelling house. His wife and Prakash and another sons were sleeping in the dwelling house. Then accused persons entered into their dwelling room and tied up his son Prakash. Seeing this wife and another son raised hulla. Accordingly, he called his wife Smti. Radhkia Rabidas. Then his son opened the door of dwelling house. His wife and Prakash and another sons were sleeping in the dwelling house. Then accused persons entered into their dwelling room and tied up his son Prakash. Seeing this wife and another son raised hulla. Accused persons assaulted his son Prakash and his daughters, his mother Asrofia (now deceased) and his wife were brought by them to verandah and compelled them to sit in the verandah. As a result of marpit his son Prakash sustained injuries. Then his another son Shyamababu came out from the room with torch light in his hand. Then accused persons assaulted him entering into his room. He heard sound of marpit in the room. Then accused Putul Bhor fired a gunshot to Shyamababu. As a result, Shyambabu sustained injuries on his neck and chest and a bullet hit left side of his chest. Then the accused persons snatched away some money and a torch of his. When the accused persons left, they threatened them not to inform the police otherwise they would kill them. The police was informed. Police sent injured to hospital for treatment. During investigation police interrogated him. 12. P.W.6 Dr.P. K. Roy in his evidence stated that on 28.04.1998 he was attached to S.M. Deb Civil Hospital as Sr. Medical & Health Officer. On that day he examined one Prakash Rabidas being escorted by Homeguard Karim Uddin and found the following injuries:- “There was deformity and swelling present on the both elbow joints and the patient was referred to Orthopadeics Deptt of S.M.C.H. On the same day he also examined Smti. Radhika Rabidas on being escorted by same Home guard and on examination found as follows:- Tenderness present on the left lower part of the chest wall extending upto left oxalate. Others normal. In his opinion, the above injuries on the person of Radhika is simple in nature.” Ext. 3 is the medical report and Ext.3(1) is his signature. In his cross examination he stated that injury on the person of Prakash Rabidas may be caused on fall on hard substance. He did not mention the age of injury as patient was referred to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital. He also did not mention the measurement of the injury. As regard injured Smti. Radhika Rabidas the tenderness may be caused on fall. He did not mention the age of injury as patient was referred to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital. He also did not mention the measurement of the injury. As regard injured Smti. Radhika Rabidas the tenderness may be caused on fall. The age and measurement of the injuries also not mentioned in his report. 13. There is no mention that he examined the injured persons either on police requisition or any police case. P.W.7 Dr. Prabhati Purkayastha in her evidence stated that on 28.04.1998 she was attached to S.M.C.H. in the Deptt of ENT. On that she examined Shyambabu Rabidas being escorted by Ajit Das Constable No. 463 (Hospital MRD No. 3902/1998 (34532) registration No. 278/1998 & on examination found as follows:- “Multiple puncture wound caused by fire arms present on the neck and upper part of the chest. Only the wounds of entry are present but no wound of exit present anywhere on the body of the patient. The wounds of entry are approximately .5 X.5 cm in size. Type of weapons of fire arm, nature of injury are grievous. X-Ray shows multiple pallet in the neck and chest. Ext.4 is the report and Ext.4(1) is her signature.” In her cross examination she stated that she examined the injured on being escorted by constable Ajit Das. There is no reference of any case Number of police requisition. She was not also related to surgery deptt. The injured was admitted in their hospital. She examined the injured on the day of admission and x-ray was done. The x-ray plate and report are not available in the record. The patient was in full sense. She did not know the follow up treatment of the patient and there is no burn injury in her report Ext.4. 14. Mother of the informant, P.W.8 Smti. Radhika Rabidas in her evidence has stated that Rambabu is her son. About 12 years ago the occurrence took place at about 1/1.30 AM in their house. On that night her husband was sleeping in their cowshed to look after the cattle to prevent theft. On that night she heard altercation took place in between her husband and few persons. Hearing the sound she woke up from sleep. At that time her husband called her from outside. Her son Prakash woke up and opened the door. On that night her husband was sleeping in their cowshed to look after the cattle to prevent theft. On that night she heard altercation took place in between her husband and few persons. Hearing the sound she woke up from sleep. At that time her husband called her from outside. Her son Prakash woke up and opened the door. At that time four persons entered into their room and fastened her son -Prakash in his hands. She raised alarm and they demanded them to hand over money to them and also assaulted her son. All the inmates of their house woke up and those persons assaulted all of them and led them into veranda and ordered not to raise any sound. At that time her another son Sam Babu came out and focused a torch and on the focus of torch she could recognize the dacoits who are Jonmojoy Koiri, Madan Singh, Putul Bhor, Jwaharlal Been and Motilal Rabidas. They also assaulted Shaymbabu. Accused Putul Bhor opened fire targeting her son-Shyambabu as a result the bullet hit the person of Shyambabu in neck. The bullet also hit her husband-Basanta resulting injuries on his chest. Her son-Prakash also rushed to her neighbouring house namely Sri.Charan and raised hue and cry. The neighbouring people namely Sri. Charan Rabidas, Naresh Rabidas, Ramjoti Rabidas came to their house. In the mean time the dacoits left the P.O. The dacoits looted an amount of Rs.3,000.00 and also took away 3 battery torch light of her husband. Sricharan Rabidas already expired. Thereafter her son went to the P.S. and from there her husband and Shyambabu was sent to S.M.C.H. 15. P.W.9 Dr.Debabrato Singha in his evidence stated that on 28.04.1998 he was working as Registrar of Surgery at Silchar Medical College & Hospital. On that day at around 7 A.M. he examined injured Basanta Rabidas on police requisition being escorted by Constable No. 463 Ajit Das and referred by M.O. Silchar Civil Hospital under Hospital No.SMCH/C 3988/1998 and MRD No.393492 and found the following injuries:- “(1) Single circular wound with black discolouration of the margin on left side of chest wall in the enterior oxilary line active bleeding present in a very small quantity. (2) Chest -x-ray shows radio opaque metallic foreign body in left chest. No Evidence of pneumothorax or haemothoraz seen. No injury in the lungs or Hurt seen. (2) Chest -x-ray shows radio opaque metallic foreign body in left chest. No Evidence of pneumothorax or haemothoraz seen. No injury in the lungs or Hurt seen. In his opinion, weapon used to be fire arm. Nature of injury appears simple. Age of injury –fresh. Ext.5 is the injury report and Ext.5(1) is his signature.” In his cross examination he stated that there is no mention of police requisition of Ext.5 injury report. 16. Investigating Officer- P.W.10 Bhairab Bora in his evidence stated that on 20.04.1998 he was O.C. Silchar P.S. On that day of occurrence, at 3.10 AM. One Basanta Rabidas and Shyambabu Rabidas came to the P.S. and informed verbally that last night at about 2 AM a gang of dacoits entered into their house and injured his brother and father Basanta Rabidas by gun fire and looted money. Accordingly S.I. B.B. Choudhury made a G.D. Entry vide No.1298 at 28.04.1998. The injured were immediately sent to SMCH for medical examination. (S.I.B.B. Choudhury already expired). B.B. Choudhury immediately proceeded to the P.O. As it appears from the C/D S.I. B.B. Choudhury prepared a sketch map of the P.O. Thereafter, he lodged a written ejahar from Shyambabu Rabidas and registered a case vide Silchar P.S. Case No.512/1998. Ext.2 is the FIR. Ext.2(2) is his signature with note. On receipt of FIR. Ext.2 he endorsed S.I. S.H. Choudhury for further investigation of the case. During investigation S.I. S.H. Chourdhury visited the P.O. seized one bhojali, two old iron balls and old threat from the P.O. house vide Ext.1-seizure list. He also seized bhojali vide M.Ext.1 and M. Ext.2 is the old iron boll and half burnt threat. S. I. S.H.Choudhury also recorded the statement of the witnesses. Though large number of local people arrived, buy no such people independent witness was examined by the prosecution. 17. Having regard to the statements so made by the learned counsel for the appellants, let us start with the FIR so filed in this case vide Ext.1, wherein the informant Ram Babu Rabidas (PW-2) has stated that about 3/4 unidentified persons covering their face with black cloths entered into their house and tied up his father and younger brother with rope and had taken away Rs.30,000/- and some articles. Though the matter of dacoity with injuries to his father and brother has been reported to the police, but he never reveals that he knows the assailants nor he can identify such persons if he happens to see them again. At the time of such reporting, immediately after the occurrence, the informant never implicated any person, so the question of identification was not there till filing of FIR. There is also no any prayer from the I.O. to identify the accused assailants through the T.I.P. With such background, if we appreciate the evidence on record as has been mentioned above, It will be found that while adducing evidence in the year 2010, the witnesses all above started their evidence as if they all knew the accused person since earlier and they have identified the accused persons. 18. Let us further scrutinize the evidence of the other witnesses on the matter of identification. P.W. 1 is the daughter of one of the injured Sri Basanta Rabidas (P.W.5) who also happens to be present at the time of occurrence and in her cross-examination, she stated that they did not see the face of the persons who had entered their house in the night as there was no electricity connection. Similarly, the informant P.W. 2 Ram Babu Rabidas also admitted that he could not recognize any of the accused persons, but his brother/Sri Shyambabu Rabidas (P.W.3) and his father Sri Basanta Rabidas could identify the accused persons. If that be so, then why the informant did not mention the names of the accused persons at the time of filing of the FIR on the next date. The question of identification is more and more clouded by the shadow of doubt as and when P.W. 2 again stated that after 10/20 days of the occurrence, he was reported by his father and brother about the names of the accused persons. Further, if the accused persons were known earlier to the witnesses – P.W.3 and P.W. 5, then why they did not disclosed their names to P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence while they were residing together in the same house at the time of occurrence. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that his brother/P.W.2 lodged the FIR after consulting him about the occurrence and if that be so, why the names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the FIR. 19. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that his brother/P.W.2 lodged the FIR after consulting him about the occurrence and if that be so, why the names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the FIR. 19. The stand taken by P.Ws 3, 4, 5 and 8 about committing of robbery by the accused persons in their house and that they recognize the accused persons in the light of torch and the same was disclosed to the I.O. is confronted with the statement given before the I.O. But, it is to be noted that the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) in his evidence (cross-examination) has categorically denied all the assertion so made by the witnesses. It has been stated that immediately after the occurrence, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 (who claim to have recognised the accused persons) have reported to the police that a gang of dacoits has committed dacoity in their house, but no any name was referred. In this regard, a G.D. entry was made which reflects no name of accused. The evidence of I.O. given in cross-examination is most important wherein he has specifically disclosed that there is no mention of any culprit while reporting the G.D. entry, nor there is any statement given by the witnesses that they have identified the assailants in the light of the torch. The witnesses P.W. 3 Sri Shyambabu Rabidas did not stated before him that he could identify the accused in the light of the torch nor has specifically stated that accused Madan Singh assaulted with dagger. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 4 (Prakash Rabidas) and P.W. 5 (Sri Basanta Rabidas) (who were the victims of the case) never stated before him that they had recognized the accused persons in the light of the torch nor P.W. 5 made any mention about the accused Jaharlal and Putrul Bhor etc. who have tied his hands and threatened him etc. These witnesses did not specifically uttered the word accused but it is the said “miscreants”/ “attackers” and, at the same time, it is stated that they suspect the accused persons. 20. Thus, the evidence of I.O. has belied the story of identification given by the witnesses. who have tied his hands and threatened him etc. These witnesses did not specifically uttered the word accused but it is the said “miscreants”/ “attackers” and, at the same time, it is stated that they suspect the accused persons. 20. Thus, the evidence of I.O. has belied the story of identification given by the witnesses. Though a serious occurrence of dacoity with injuries to the family of the informant has occurred, which is a matter of serious concern, but as we find there is a lack of identification of the accused persons in this case. The evidence of the material witnesses which has been fully contradicted by the I.O. regarding the point of identification makes the whole case doubtful and it is a settled principles of law that let hundred persons be allowed to go scot free, but an innocent person should not be convicted. Being a Court of Law, specific legal evidence is required to be prove the offence inspiring confidence as to the authenticity of allegation and the complicity of the accused with the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the given case, the prosecution has developed its case in all the stages, like that at the initial stage of filing of the case, there was no mention of the names of the assailants in the FIR, subsequently some of the witnesses raised doubt upon the involvement of the accused persons and some of the witnesses tried to say confidently that the accused persons were known to them and they have identified the assailants at the time of occurrence. It is their evidence that there was no electricity at the time of occurrence and no torch etc. has been shown to the I.O. nor it was seized to prove that they could identify the accused persons in the light of torch. Admittedly, in F.I.R., assailants were under cover of black cloth, then how they can identify, is not explained. So the question of identification is not at all proved, as has been discussed above. 20. The very basis of the prosecution is the FIR on the basis of which the whole prosecution case started and ended to a conclusion. So the basis of prosecution is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and lack of which makes a case more and more doubtful. 20. The very basis of the prosecution is the FIR on the basis of which the whole prosecution case started and ended to a conclusion. So the basis of prosecution is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and lack of which makes a case more and more doubtful. In the given case, even though all the witnesses (apart from M.O./I.O.) belong to the same family and their evidence, as discussed above are self contradictory and, hence, no explicit reliance can be given upon such evidence to hold the accused persons guilty with the offence charged. 21. I find sufficient substance in the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and it is found that the learned Court below has not appreciated the above aspects while discussing the matters on record and goes to believe whatever the witnesses stated before the Court without considering the aspects that the I.O. has contradicted the statements of all the material witnesses and the fact that there is no mention of the assailants in the FIR, G.D. Entry, etc. 22. In view of the discussions and findings above, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 397 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and, hence, acquit the accused appellants on benefit of doubt. The seized articles, if any, be destroyed. Appeal is allowed accordingly. Return the LCR with a copy of the judgment.