JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. These Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2003 passed in S.T No. 41 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Seraikella whereby the appellants above named have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine they will undergo imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, according to the Fardbeyan of Shanti Devi (P.W 4) in brief is that on the night of 13th/14th February, 1999 the informant along with her children were sleeping in her house at Dhirajgunj, Adityapur. At about 12 A.M at night she heard sounds of breaking near the door of the house, she raised alarm. It is further alleged that the informant and her children tried to keep the door closed to prevent the entrance of the culprits but the unknown culprits broke open the door and entered the house. The four culprits who entered into the house were armed with dagger (Chhura), two accused were standing near the door of which one was armed with dagger and other accused was armed with pistol and had detained her tenants near the door. The informant identified one of the culprits to be elder son of one Janki Singh of same village Dhirajgunjj, who had earlier come to her house to demand chanda of Saraswati Puja and other culprits were also residents of Dhirajgunj. It is further alleged that culprits assaulted the daughter of the informant, her son and informant by means of slaps (lappar thappar) and chhura and one of the accused put dagger to the neck of her daughter and pressed her neck and informant also sustained injury on her stomach and hand. It is further alleged that two culprits also entered into the house of her tenant Rajukumar Mukhi and started assaulting him. It is alleged that the person who assaulted the informant was elder son of Janki Singh. It is further alleged that the culprits wanted to know the whereabout of the husband of informant. It is further alleged that the culprits looted away a box in which a sum of Rs. 2200/- along with gold earrings measuring 8 aana, two pairs of Chandi payal was kept. It is further alleged that the culprits wanted to know the whereabout of the husband of informant. It is further alleged that the culprits looted away a box in which a sum of Rs. 2200/- along with gold earrings measuring 8 aana, two pairs of Chandi payal was kept. It is alleged that the culprits also looted away two suitcase and a watch belonging to tenant Rajkumar Mukhi and there after they fled away. The motive of the occurrence as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant is that on the last Saraswati Puja the son of Janki Singh came to demand chanda for Sraswati Puja which was denied by the husband of informant therefore they committed the alleged offence. 3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant Shanti Devi (P.W.4) Adityaapur P.S Case No. 21 of 1999 corresponding to G.R case No. 76 of 1999 was registered against the accused persons under sections 147/148/149/380/452/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Penal Code. The police investigated the case and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including these appellants under sections 147/148/149/380/452/323/324/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of sessions and charge was framed against the accused persons including the appellants to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses to make out the prosecution case which is as follows:- P.W.1 Dr. L.B.P Singh who examined the injured. P.W 2 Raj Kumar Mukhi who was said to be sustained injury. P.W.3 Dhiren Mandal who has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W4 Shanti Devi-the informant. P.W 5 Lal Prasad Singh, Dewar of the informant. P.W.6 Raj Nandan Ram the I.O Trial was held and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial judge convicted the appellants for the offence under section 395 of the India Penal Code and consequently sentenced them for the offence under the aforesaid section for R.I seven year and fine of Rs 5000/- each and in default of find they will under go imprisonment for one year. Hence, this Criminal Appeal. 5. Now I shall deal with the depositions of the P.Ws 6. P.W.4 is Shanti Devi who is the informant in this case. Hence, this Criminal Appeal. 5. Now I shall deal with the depositions of the P.Ws 6. P.W.4 is Shanti Devi who is the informant in this case. She deposed that at about 12.30-12.45 a.m while she was sleeping along with her daughter Puspha and son in the room, she heard noise at the door and when she resisted opening the door the accused persons forcibly opened it with help of “Sabal” and three persons entered into the room and started assaulting her and her daughter. She also deposed that three accused persons looted ornaments and cash of Rs. 2200/-. In para-5 she deposed that she identified Pappu, Manoj and Anuj by name but does not know the other accused. In para-6 she deposed that she had gone to the police station along with her husband's younger brother but she did not tell the name of Pappu and others and rather her brother-in-law (Dewar) told the police their names. She further further deposed that her husband had filed a case against Anuj, Manoj and others under section 107 Cr.P.C 7. P.W 5 Lal Prasad Singh is the brother-in-law (dewar) of the informant. He deposed that he knew about the incident on alarm made by the villagers. He went to the house of the informant and saw the injuries on his sister-in-law and niece. He also deposed that his brother had lodged a case under section 107 Cr.P.C against Bhagwan Singh, the father of the appellant no.1. He also deposed that his Bhabi informed him about the looted items and she also informed him that she recognized three persons. He deposed that tenants had filed no case. Blood was oozing from wound of his Bhabi and his niece which wet the clothes. He also deposed that when the incident took place, it was dark night. He did not go to the police station and Darogaji came after one day. However, no seizure was done by the police nor blood stained clothes was given to him. The police talked to his Bhabi and his niece and thereafter went away. In para-5 he deposed that he used to work in the International Auto Service and he was working in the night shift starting from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He also deposed that he got information regarding the incident in the company. The police talked to his Bhabi and his niece and thereafter went away. In para-5 he deposed that he used to work in the International Auto Service and he was working in the night shift starting from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He also deposed that he got information regarding the incident in the company. He further deposed in para-8 that after finishing the duty in the morning he met his Bhabi. 8. P.W.1 is Doctor L.B.P Singh. He deposed in the following manner :- (1) On 16.2.199 he was posted as M.O in PHC Gamharia and on that day at 11.15 a.m examined Shanti Devi R/o Dhiraajganj Jamshedpur P.S Adityapur Seraikela and found the following injuries :- (I) Abrasion on right palm. (II) Abrasion on left eye. (III) Abrasion on abdomen. (IV) Abrasion on right knee joint. All injuries were simple caused by blunt substance and within 49 hours. This injury report was in his pen and signature and it is marked as Ext-1. (2) On same day at 11.30 a.m. he examined Puspa Kumari D/O Surjadayal Prasad, P.S Adityapur and found the following injuries :- (I) Sear mark on neck (ii) Headache. Injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Her injury report was marked as Ext 1/1. (3) On same day he examined at 11.15 a.m Raj Kumar Mukhi s/o Jagpati Mukhi R/o Dhiraj Ganj Jamsehdpur Adityuapur and fond the following injuries :- (I). Pain in right forearm (II). Pain in right thigh (III). Pain in left side of head The injuries were simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt weapon. The injury report was marked as Ext 1/2. 9. P.W 2 is Raj Kumar Mukhi. He is the tenant of the informant. He deposed that in the night of 13th/14th February, 1999, there was a knock on the door made by someone and when he asked, some one abused from outside and thereafter six persons forcibly entered in his room and assaulted him and also took away a wrist watch and Rs.1400/-. He further stated that he did not recognize any of the accused and Pushpa did not tell him any ones name. 10. P.W.3 is Dhiren Mandal and he is the another tenant of the informant. He further stated that he did not recognize any of the accused and Pushpa did not tell him any ones name. 10. P.W.3 is Dhiren Mandal and he is the another tenant of the informant. He deposed that the instant incident is of the year 1999 around 12-1 a.m. and he was sleeping in his room and that on alarm he awakened. He wanted to go out and tried to open his door but found it locked. He has been declared hostile 11. P.W.6, Raj Nandan Ram is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 15.2.1999 he recorded the fardbeyan of Shanti Devi who is the informant of the instant case. He proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. He has also proved the formal FIR marked, as Ext.3. He has also proved the injury requisition of Shanti Devi, Puspa Kumari and Raj Kumar Mukhi which has been marked as Ext.4,4/1 and 4/2. He deposed that injury requisition bears his signature. He also inspected the place of occurrence. ARGUMENTS 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the culprits assaulted the informant by means of chhura, lappar and thappar but injury of chhura was not found on the person of informant and all the injuries were found to be simple in nature caused by blunt substance as will appear from the evidence of P.W.1 Dr. L.B.P. Singh and injury report Ext. 1 and as such allegation of the informant made in the F.I.R does not find corroboration from the evidence of Doctor P W-1. It is alleged in the FIR that the tenant of the informant Raj kumar Mukhi (PW2) was also assaulted but injury report Ext. 1/2 does not corroborate the assault and similar is the finding of doctor. So far as injury of Pushpa Kumari is concerned all the injuries found on the persons of injured were simple in nature. It is important to mention here that alleged occurrence took place inn the night of 13th/14th Feb 1999 but injured were produced for medical examination on 16.02.1999. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW-2 Raj Kumar Mukhi though supported the alleged occurrence but did not identify the culprits and he also stated in his evidence that Pushpa did not disclose the names of culprits. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW-2 Raj Kumar Mukhi though supported the alleged occurrence but did not identify the culprits and he also stated in his evidence that Pushpa did not disclose the names of culprits. PW-3 Dhiren Mandal who was also a tenant of informant has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-4 Shanti Devi, informant in para 1 of her examination in chief deposed that the occurrence took place in the night. She also deposed that the door was broken away by means of Sabbal (Iron Rod) and she and her daughter was assaulted by knife. But no injury of knife was found by Doctor or PW-1 and ininjury Report Ext 1 series. She also deposed that neighbours came after the occurrence but no neighbours were examined. In para 4 of her cross examination she deposed that she disclosed about the occurrence to her Dever only. In para 5 of cross examination she deposed that she was knowing Pappu, Manoj and Anuj earlier to the occurrence and has also deposed in para 6 that she did not disclose the name of Pappu, Manoj and Anuj to Police rather her devar disclosed their names to police. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW-5 Lal Prasad Singh (Devar of Informant) in para 2 of his examination in chief stated that the incident took place in his Bhabhi's place and he came to know about it from the alarm made after the accused fled. He went to his Bhabhi's place and saw the wounds of his Bhabhi and niece. His Bhabhi informed that some items were taken and a box with Rs.2250/- was looted. She also informed that she recognized three persons and that she can recognize the other three if she sees them. She identified Pappu, Manoj and Anuj. She informed that theft had taken place also at two tenants place. In para 3 of his cross examination he stated that his house is at a distance of 50 yards from his Bhabhi's house and in between the house of Bimlesh Choudhary, Pandeyji and Murty. He heard alarm and he did not see anyone from the neighborhood, no one was there. He went there after 15-20 minutes after the alarm. No one called him. He heard alarm and he did not see anyone from the neighborhood, no one was there. He went there after 15-20 minutes after the alarm. No one called him. In para 4 he deposed that he did not go to the police station. He does not know who went to the Police. When the policeman came he was already at his Bhabhi's house. The policeman came one day later. The police did not seize anything. Neither Bhabhi or his niece gave any blood stained clothes to the police. The police questioned his Bhabhi and niece and went away. In para 5 he deposed that as he works in International Auto he was in the night shift from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. at the time of incident. In para 6 he deposed that he received the information in the company. Surya Dayal is his brother. Suraya Dayal had lodged a Section 107 case against Bhagwan Singh and other long time ago.In para 7 of his cross examination he stated that Pappu lives adjacent to his house and Manoj and Anuj live mere 15 to 20 yards away. Pappu had a quarrel with Bhabhi regarding drainage. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW.6 Rajnandan Ram (IO) deposed in para 7 of his cross examination that there was previous enmity between the parties prior to occurrence. He has not stated in his examination in chief that either he searched the house of the Appellants or tried to recover the looted property. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants summarized that from the perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses the followings are the admitted facts:- (i.) There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that the accused entered the house of the Informant after concealing their face and it has been admitted in the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 that they were knowing the appellants prior to the occurrence even then they have not been named in the F.I.R. and only a vague statements was given in the fardbyan that one of the culprits was elder son of Janki Singh. (ii.) No T.I. Parade was held nor any recovery from possession of the appellants were made. (iii). (ii.) No T.I. Parade was held nor any recovery from possession of the appellants were made. (iii). The Eye witness and injured Pushpa Kumari who was the most important witness to throw light on the prosecution story has not been examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to the prosecution. (iv). There is vital contradiction in the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 as PW 4 in para 6 of her cross examination states that she went to police with her Devar whereas PW-5 in his cross examination in para 4 states that he did not go to thana. The next contradiction is that the PW-5 in para 3 of his cross examination states that he reached the house of his Bhabhi within 15-20 minutes of occurrence where as in para 5 of his cross examination he states that on the day of occurrence he was in night duty from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. in International Auto and he could know about the occurrence only when he returned from the duty. The PW 4 in her fardbyan and also in her evidence has stated that accused entered the house after breaking the door where as PW-6 found the door intact and as such the story given in the F.I.R. appears to be doubtful and not corroborated by any of the evidence of prosecution and as such Appellant are entitled to benefit of doubt because of such vital contradiction. (v) In this case all together six persons were tried out of which 3 persons were acquitted only 3 persons were convicted u/s 395 IPC and on this ground alone the judgement of conviction u/s 395 IPC is liable to be set aside. (vi) In this case no persons have been named in the FIR and in spite of the fact the accused persons were not put on test identification parade the accused were apprehended but no looted property were recovered and as such it is glaring circumstances upon which prosecution case can be doubted in this case. Charges are not substantiated by tangible evidence and evidence adduced are not sufficient to believe the prosecution case and as such the appellants are entitled of benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed in a case reported in 2013(2) East Cr. C. Page 67(Patna) at paras 14, 15, 16 and 17. (vii) In this case enmity is admitted. Charges are not substantiated by tangible evidence and evidence adduced are not sufficient to believe the prosecution case and as such the appellants are entitled of benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed in a case reported in 2013(2) East Cr. C. Page 67(Patna) at paras 14, 15, 16 and 17. (vii) In this case enmity is admitted. The husband of the informant instituted a case u/s 107 Cr.PC against the father of the Appellant No. 1 Fardbyan was recorded after 24 hours of the occurrence by improving it to implicate the accused. There is no sign of damage of door as alleged by the informant in her fardbyan and as such prosecution case suffers from reliable credit-worthiness and as such conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on 2006(4) East Cr. C. Page 356(Jhr.)at paras 9 to 13 (viii) No independent witness was examined in this case. Even the tenant in whose house also alleged dacoity was committed failed to identify the accused and as such judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. Reliance was placed in a case reported in 2005(2) East Cr. C. page 205 (Patna) at para 13. In this case also only two related witness namely PW 4 and PW 5 have been examined. From the discussion made here in above it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case and as such Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. The learned A.P.P on behalf of the State has argued that there was no need for T.I.Parade since the accused persons were known to the informant and her daughter as well as the tenants. More so, when occurrence took place in the campus or inside the house or in the vicinity of the house, so only witnesses are internal inmates of the house which will be the family of the informant as well as tenants. He has further argued that door was said to have been pushed open, not broken. In any way whole door was not broken only latch. He has further stated that medical report of the Doctor corroborates the ocular evidence of the informant. He has further argued that door was said to have been pushed open, not broken. In any way whole door was not broken only latch. He has further stated that medical report of the Doctor corroborates the ocular evidence of the informant. Further injury on the person of the informant, her daughter and the tenant are also substantiated by the requisition made by the Investigating Officer for sending the injury report to the Doctor or to the hospital, so it is also proved that on the next date i.e 15th February, 1999 when the Investigating Officer had gone to investigate the case he had seen the injury which was inflicted on the night of 13th February and 14th February,1999. Injuries were examined by the Doctor and he found that all the injuries were simple in nature and were caused within 47 hours. His description of timing of injury correspondence with the time and the date of occurrence. From evidence of the P.W 2 it is clear that he is reliable and believable witness. He has also further argued that according to the P.W 4, she has supported the prosecution case and also identified and recognized the appellants and her daughter Puspa Kumari was not made witness because she was married and living elsewhere with her husband. He has further argued that P.W5 Lal Prasad Singh is the brother-in-law of the informant. He has also said after coming to know about the occurrence he went at the residence of informant and saw the injuries of his sister-in-law and niece and his sister-in-law told about the occurrence and also named accused Pappu, Manoj and Anuj. The learned A.P.P further stated that brother-in-law of the informant had seen the injuries on the three injured persons and he has also supported the fact of enmity between the parties by deposing that there was one case between his brother Suraj Dayal and Bhagwan Singh father of the appellant no.1 under section 107 Cr.P.C. He has also admitted that there was some dispute between his brother and Pappu Singh regarding drainage. Referring the to the deposition of the I.O the learned A.P.P has stated that I.O had also seen the injuries on the informant and her daughter and he had made a requisition report so injuries are not cooked up and manufactured by the informant. 18. Referring the to the deposition of the I.O the learned A.P.P has stated that I.O had also seen the injuries on the informant and her daughter and he had made a requisition report so injuries are not cooked up and manufactured by the informant. 18. Learned A.P.P further submitted that P.W.4 Shanti Devi is the informant. In her Fardbeyan she also stated that she was able to identify only the elder son of one Janki Singh, though not by name. In her deposition she also deposed or added Manoj and Anuj. In her deposition she also deposed that tenants were also looted. She further deposed that motive for incident was that during last Swarsati Puja they had not given any Chanda or donation to the Pappu Singh and that is why incident took place. She further deposed that her husband had also filed a case under section 107 Cr.P.C against accused Anuj which would be the motive for incident. FINDINGS 19. The deposition of P.W. 5, Lal Prasad Singh, brother of the husband of the informant or dewar is full of contradiction. First and foremost he says he came to know about the incident on alarm made by the villagers but in para 5 of his deposition he says that he was working in the night shift from 10.P.M. to 6.A.M. in the International Auto. As per the deposition of the informant or his bhabhi the incident occurred at 12.30 – 12.45 A.M. So obviously he is lying. In para 8 he further deposed that after finishing duty, he met his bhabhi in the morning. He also deposed that his brother (the husband of the informant) had lodged a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against Bhagwan Singh, the father of appellant no. 1 (Pappu Singh), this is slightly different from the deposition of P.W.4, who had deposed that the case was filed against Manoj Kumar Singh and others. P.W. 1 is Doctor L.B.P. Singh, he examined Shanti Devi, Pushpa Kumari and Raj Kumar Mukhi. All four injuries found on Shanti Devi were simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. The two injuries of Pushpa Kumari were also simple and caused by blunt weapon. Regarding the three injuries of Raj Kumar Mukhi he observed that they were in the nature of pain, but no injuries were there. All four injuries found on Shanti Devi were simple and caused by hard and blunt substance. The two injuries of Pushpa Kumari were also simple and caused by blunt weapon. Regarding the three injuries of Raj Kumar Mukhi he observed that they were in the nature of pain, but no injuries were there. About Pushpa also he has said that there was scar mark but no injury. P.W.2 or Raj Kumar Mukhi, is a tenant of the informant may be considered as independent witness. He deposed that six persons entered his room assaulted him and looted his wrist watch and Rs. 1400/-. This corroborates P.W.4, the informant who deposed that the tenant was also looted. However, he says he did not recognize any one and niece of informant did not tell him the names of any of the miscreants. On this point of identification there is some doubts because there is a possibility he could have recognized the accused since he was living there. More so the failure of the niece to recognize is also an issue. Regarding the evidence of the P.W.6, or Raj Nandan Ram the I.O what is significant in his injury requisition marked as Ext. 4, 4/1 and 4/2, which indicates the injury of Shanti Devi, Pushpa Kumari and Raj Kumar Mukhi. So apparently something did take place and three persons were definitely injured even though injuries were simple in nature. 20. Regarding the identification of the accused or the appellants by the informant, P.W. 4, Shanti Devi is not reliable and trustworthy. In her fardbeyan she simply says that she recognized the elder son of Janki Singh but in her deposition she adds two more persons, that is Manoj and Anuj. A question that is raised is when she knew all three from before, why did she not name all the three appellants in her fardbeyan. 21. Further there are two significant delays, one is in the lodging of the F.I.R and the other is in taking of medical treatment. The incident is of the night between the 13th /14th February, 1999 however, F.I.R. was registered on the 15th February, 1999. The treatment for injuries were also taken by all three persons on the 16th February, 1999. Even if one admits that F.I.R. is not unreasonably delayed, at least medical treatment should be immediate. Hence, both these delays are not explained raising doubt about allegations. The treatment for injuries were also taken by all three persons on the 16th February, 1999. Even if one admits that F.I.R. is not unreasonably delayed, at least medical treatment should be immediate. Hence, both these delays are not explained raising doubt about allegations. 22. In the evidence it has come that there was dispute or enmity between the parties from before and so the possibility is that the allegations are thus concocted and motivated and so there has been delay in lodging of the F.I.R and medical treatment. The delay was because a story was being manufactured. It is seen that a case under Section 107 Cr. P.C. was registered against Anuj Kumar Singh and others as per the deposition of P.W. 4 or informant. Her dewar, P.W.5 says his brother had lodged case of Section 107 Cr. P.C. against Bhawan Singh the father of the appellant no.1. In para 7 of the deposition of P.W.5, he deposed that that his Bhabhi had dispute with Pappu regarding water in the drain or the sewerage. Even the I.O. has noted or deposed that there was enmity between the parties from before. One more point of enmity though appearing small, but has been mentioned in the fardbeyan is that due to non giving of Chanda during Saraswati Puja there was dispute. So apparently, it seems the parties were constantly it seems at odds with one another. 23. In the evidence it has come that earrings, payal and a wrist watch were looted from the informant's house and a wrist watch was looted from the tenant's house, but the question then arises that if the appellants were really the dacoits, surely the items would have been recovered from them. Another reason for creating some doubt is the non-examination of Pushpa. She was an adult and should have given her evidence. May be, her injuries were minor and she was married and no longer staying at her parental home, but her non examination suggests that she or her parents were not bothered about this. 24. Also, there is no examination of independent witness, it has come on record and evidence that on alarm some village persons reached the place of occurrence. Then why some of these independent witnesses have not been examined. This raises some doubts. 24. Also, there is no examination of independent witness, it has come on record and evidence that on alarm some village persons reached the place of occurrence. Then why some of these independent witnesses have not been examined. This raises some doubts. Counsels argument that inspite of not being named in the F.I.R., no T.I.P. was conducted may be an added factor to take into account while deciding the case. 25. Finally, appellant’s counsel's argument that six persons were tried, but three were acquitted and only three were convicted, may nullify the charge under Section 395 of the I.P.C. 26. Counsels for the appellant cited Govind Ram and Another Vs. State of Bihar, 2013 (2) East Cr. C. page 67 (Pat.) in support of his grounds for no test identification parade being held, and though accused were apprehended but no looted articles were brought on record. It seems these grounds are parallel or similar to the case in hand. Appellant’s counsel also cited Raghubir Tiwari and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand 2006 (4) East Cr. C. page 356 (Jhr). Appellant’s counsel also cited Sokhi Bhuiyan Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 (2) East Cr.C. page 205 (Pat.), Maini @ Manager Das Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2005 (3) East Cr.C. page 554 (Jhr) and Md. Abdul Wahood Khan Vs. Wajid Khan and Others 2006 (4) East Cr. C. page 360 (Pat.)to further buttress his grounds and defence, and they add to the weight of reasoning presented for the appellants. 27. Hence for the aforesaid grounds raised by the counsel for the appellants and the judgments he has cited which gives parallels for their defence, a reasonable doubt is created in favour of the appellants. I am inclined to hold that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2003 passed by the learned court below for the offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable and is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. 28. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.