JUDGMENT H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present appellant is accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 20/2012 disposed of by the learned III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) by Judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2014 and Order on sentence dated 22.02.2014, whereunder, the present appellant as accused No. 1 and another accused Hyderali who was accused No. 5 were convicted for the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC and were sentenced accordingly. However, the other three accused i.e. accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted from the alleged offence. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 29.08.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., within the limits of respondent - KRS Police Station Brundavan Garden Park, accused Nos. 1 to 5 with an intention to commit dacoity went to CW-1 Mehabub Peer, driver of Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03/TV-0299 and took away the said vehicle along with CW-1 and snatched his Nokia make cell phone and one Zen cell phone and by pushing CW-1 from the vehicle on the way, took away Tata Sumo vehicle also and thereby have committed offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC. Since the accused did not plead guilty, in order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14, got some documents marked at Exs. P1 to P17(a). Material Objects as per MO-1 to MO-5 were marked. After hearing both side, the Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment of conviction on 21.02.2014 and order on sentence on 22.02.2014 convicting the present appellant and accused No. 5 for the offence punishable under S. 395 IPC. It is challenging the said Judgment of conviction, accused No. 1 has preferred this appeal. 3. The respondent - State is being represented by learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 5. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned Judgment and the records from the trial Court. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 7. The records from the trial Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 5. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned Judgment and the records from the trial Court. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 7. Even though the present appellant was being represented by his counsel, however, considering the absence of said learned counsel when the matter was taken up for final hearing, this Court, by its order dated 04.03.2020, proceeded to appoint amicus curiae for the appellant in this matter. Said learned counsel Sri Rakshith R. the amicus curiae, in his arguments, though does not dispute the alleged occurrence of the incident of robbing of the complainant of a cell phone and some cash amount, however, seriously disputes the alleged involvement of the present appellant in the said crime. He submits at the outset, that in view of the fact that accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 among the five charge-sheeted accused having been acquitted from the charge, the present appellant and accused No. 5 alone cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under S. 395 IPC. He further submitted that even though the identity of the accused was not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint, still no test identification parade was conducted by the I.O. As such, the very identity of the present appellant/accused and his involvement in the alleged commission of crime is doubtful. He also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle alleged to have been taken over by the accused from CW-1 was being recovered by the police during the investigation. He further submits that the alleged recovery of the cell phone was at the instance of accused No. 5 and not accused No. 1. With this, he submitted that in view of the existence of serious doubts in the case of the prosecution, the Judgment of conviction is required to be set aside. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that even though test identification parade has not been conducted but the identity of accused No. 1 was made in the Court during the course of trial. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that even though test identification parade has not been conducted but the identity of accused No. 1 was made in the Court during the course of trial. He further submitted that it is based on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, the involvement of five accused in the commission of crime was established and it is based upon the said voluntary statement made before PW-4, the recoveries, more particularly, a knife and a cell phone was made at the instance of the accused. As such, the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The evidence of PW-2 (CW-1) S. Mehabub Peer and PW-13 (CW-4) Shivaramegowda have remained not specifically denied or disputed with regard to the alleged incident of PW-13 Shivaramegowda joined by his family members hiring the services of a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03/TV-0299 to visit Mysuru on 29.08.2010. Accordingly, PW-2 (CW-1) S. Mehabub Peer as a driver of the said vehicle taking PW-13 Shivaramegowda and his family members from Madanapalli of Andhra Pradesh to Mysuru in the afternoon of the very same day, in the said vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03/TV-0299, further the evidence of those two witnesses to the effect that at about 6.30 p.m. all of them reached near Mysuru are all not denied. 10. Further it is the evidence of PW-2 that when said Shivaramegowda and his family members went to see KRS park, he had parked the said vehicle in a parking place there and was taking rest. However at 8 o clock in the night, he had been to attend nature call and while coming back towards his vehicle, two persons attempted to make him to fall. By that time, one more person sat in the driving seat of the vehicle, those people at the point of knife made him to sit in the back seat of the vehicle and started the vehicle and took it away from the said place. After about two kilometers, they threw him from the moving vehicle. In the meantime, they had robbed him of a Nokia cell phone with contact No. 9490507419. However, he, taking the help of the passers-by, came back to KRS park and informed the owner about the incident. After about two kilometers, they threw him from the moving vehicle. In the meantime, they had robbed him of a Nokia cell phone with contact No. 9490507419. However, he, taking the help of the passers-by, came back to KRS park and informed the owner about the incident. He has also stated that he was admitted to the hospital where he has given a statement to the police as per Ex. P3. The witness has further stated that the police drew the scene of offence panchanama at the place shown by him as per Ex. P1. He further stated that the police also drew a scene of offence panchanama where he was thrown out of the vehicle by the accused which panchanama was identified by him as Ex. P2. The witness identified accused No. 1 and has stated that he has noticed him and that he was one among the culprits who committed the alleged act. This witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination wherein he adhered to his original version. 11. PW-13 Shivaramegowda also in his evidence supported the case of PW-2 that the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03/TV-0299 was engaged by him to visit Mysure and KRS on 29.08.2010 and PW-2 was the driver of the said vehicle. He has stated that after getting down from the vehicle they entered the park leaving the vehicle along with its driver in the parking area. However, after them came back, none of them noticed the vehicle near the driver. But within five minutes thereafter, the driver came there with bleeding injuries and narrated them about the incident. PW-13 has stated about the incident as narrated by PW-2 in his evidence that three persons at the point of knife robbed the cell phone from him and took the vehicle along with PW-2 to a distant place and pushed PW-2 the driver from the vehicle. This witness adhered to his version even in his cross-examination. Thus, the occurrence of the incident of alleged robbing of the vehicle by three persons and robbing of a cell phone which was stated to be in possession of PW-2 has been clearly narrated by PW-2 and PW-13. 12. This witness adhered to his version even in his cross-examination. Thus, the occurrence of the incident of alleged robbing of the vehicle by three persons and robbing of a cell phone which was stated to be in possession of PW-2 has been clearly narrated by PW-2 and PW-13. 12. The owner of the vehicle Satyanarayan was examined as PW-3 who has supported the version of PW-2 about the incident and has stated in his evidence about PW-13 hiring the Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03/TV-0299 from Madanapalli of Andhra Pradesh to Mysuru Brindavan Gardens, on the date of incident. He has also stated that on the same night, at about 9.00 on the next day, he received details about the incident through phone by the driver (PW-2) and at the request of the driver, he reached to Mysuru and found that the driver was injured on his chest and other parts of the body. The witness has stated that subsequently, on 09.09.2010, at the instance of the police, he went to the Police Station and identified his Tata Sumo vehicle which was parked in the premises of the Police Station and he got released the said vehicle for his interim custody as per the order of the Court dated 06.10.2010. Even though the said witness was cross-examined from the accused side, but his statement regarding the occurrence of incident of robbing of his vehicle could not be shaken even in his cross-examination also. 13. About the place of the alleged offence, it is once again the evidence of PW-2, PW-13 and the evidence of PW-1 gives details about the same. As already observed, PW-2 victim has stated that vehicle was robbed from the parking place at KRS Garden at Mysuru and he was pushed from the car at a distance of about two kilometers from the said place and in that regard the scene of occurrence panchanamas as per Exs. P1 and P2 were drawn. 14. PW-2 victim has stated that those two exhibits were drawn in his presence by the police and the places were shown by PW-2 the robbed victim. Therefore the alleged spot of the offence is also shown to have been proved by the prosecution. However the question that remains is about the alleged involvement of the present accused in the said alleged commission of crime. Therefore the alleged spot of the offence is also shown to have been proved by the prosecution. However the question that remains is about the alleged involvement of the present accused in the said alleged commission of crime. It is in that regard the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses are required to be analysed. 15. PW-4 - Shivananjashetty, PSI of Saligrama Police Station has stated that based on telephonic information received by him on 29.08.2010, that a Tata Sumo vehicle in abandoned state was found stationed near Doddavaddaragudi, he proceeded there and noticed that a Tata Sumo vehicle with registration No. KA-25/M-3609 was found parked on the side of the road. When inspected, a jerkin, tee-shirt, half pant and a photo and a slip containing two cell phone numbers were found inside the vehicle. He seized the said vehicle after taking its photographs and returned to the Police Station and registered a crime in Station Crime No. 161/2010. This witness has identified the FIR and panchanama at Exs. P6 and P7. The witness has further stated that on 07.09.2010, after getting credible information about the accused he went to Ramanagara and arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5, he recorded the voluntary statement given by them wherein accused No. 5 Hyderali has stated about he committing several of the crimes including the one in the present case. The witness has stated that, accused No. 5 stated that apart from him, other four persons also were involved in the crime and they too had traveled in the same Tata Sumo vehicle when it was robbed. The witness has further stated that accused No. 1 also gave his voluntary statement stating that he would produce the knife used in the commission of crime if he is taken along with them and the said statement was marked as Ex. P10. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the Circle Police Inspector, K.R. Nagar. The witness further stated that on 09.09.2010, the CPI summoned him along with staff and two panchas to his police station and joined by the accused and as shown by accused No. 5, they went to his house from which house he produced a cell phone of Zen model stating that the same was robbed by them. The same was seized by drawing the seizure panchanama as per Ex. P11. The same was seized by drawing the seizure panchanama as per Ex. P11. This witness has further stated that thereafter accused No. 1 took these people near a bridge at Chikkarahalli on KRS-Pandavapura road and from going near a gutter/drain, he brought a knife and produced the same. The said knife was seized by drawing seizure panchanama as per Ex. P12. 16. PW-5 - Kumara has stated that Sub Inspector of Saligrama Police Station had summoned him to the station and he was shown with accused No. 5. The said accused took these people to his house at Kyathamaranahalli Near Mysuru and from his house produced a cell phone which the police seized by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P11. The witness identified the said cell phone as MO-5. The witness has also stated that accused took them near Chikkarahalli and accused No. 1 produced a knife from the said place which was also seized by the police by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P12. 17. PW-6 - Zamir Ahmad has stated that one Innova vehicle and another Tata Sumo vehicle were seized by Hennur Police Station police, in his presence by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P13. However he has stated that he has put his signature to the said panchanama in the police station. 18. PW-7 - Preetam Datta Shreyakar has stated that between the period July 2010 to July 2012 while working as PSI of respondent - police station, on 29.08.2010, based on a telephonic information that injured Mehabub Peer was taking treatment in Primary Health Centre of KRS, he proceeded there and recorded the statement of the injured which he registered in his Station Crime No. 181/2010 and prepared the FIR and submitted the same to the Court. He also stated that as per the place of the alleged incident shown by the said complainant/ victim, he drew scene of offence panchanama as per Ex. P2 and also prepared the sketch. He further stated that during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of several of people and also seized the shirt of the injured which he identified as MO-1. 19. PW-8 - Dr. P2 and also prepared the sketch. He further stated that during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of several of people and also seized the shirt of the injured which he identified as MO-1. 19. PW-8 - Dr. Parthasarathi has stated that he has served as a doctor at Primary Health Centre of KRS from April, 1998 till 2011 and that on 29.08.2010, he has medically examined PW-2 who was brought to his Health Centre of an alleged offence of assaulting him by the people who robbed him as well as the motor vehicle. The witness has stated that he noticed injuries in the form of incise wound, abrasion on the body of the injured in which regard, he had issued a wound certificate at Ex. P15. 20. PW-9 Sandesh Kumar has stated that while acting as the Circle Police Inspector of K.R. Nagar, he has handed over the case from PSI of Saligrama Police Station (PW-4) on 08.09.2010 and conducted further investigation in the case. On the same day, he took up the custody of the accused by the permission of the Court. On 09.09.2010, based on the voluntary statement given by the accused, he proceeded to the house of accused No. 5 where the said accused produced a cell phone before him which he seized by drawing of seizure panchanama as per Ex. P11. Thereafter accused No. 1 took them to a place at Chikkarahalli village on KRS-Pandavapura road and produced a knife from inside the drain and he seized the same by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P12. He has stated that accused No. 5 has produced the said cell phone and accused No. 1 produced the knife, whom the witness identified in the court. 21. PW-10 - K.S. Srinivasa Murthy, then Head Constable of Hennur Police Station and PW-11 - Ravi S. then constable of Hennur Police Station, in their evidence have stated that based on the directions of their superior on 04.09.2010, they were on the patrolling duty, in the afternoon they received an information from the informer that behind forest office on the road, two persons were changing the number plates of Tata Sumo vehicle and Innova car. On the said information, they went to the spot and noticing that two persons were changing the name plate, attempted to catch hold of those two persons, however they could not. On the said information, they went to the spot and noticing that two persons were changing the name plate, attempted to catch hold of those two persons, however they could not. In the evening, after bringing the said vehicles to the police station, they reported the matter to their superior along with report at Ex. P16. Both these witnesses have identified accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 in the court stating that they were the ones who were changing the number plate of the vehicle on the said day. Even in their cross-examination, they adhered to their original version. 22. PW-12 - Prabhakra Rao Shindhe has stated that after completing the investigation, it is he who has filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Court. 23. PW-14 - Ajay Sarathi, then PSI at Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru has stated that on 04.09.2010, PW-9 and PW-10 who were his supporting staff produced Innova Car and Tata Sumo vehicle along with their report before him. Accordingly, he registered a case in Crime No. 321/2010 in his Station and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex. P17. He has also stated that he conducted further investigation in the matter, during the course of which investigation, on 09.09.2010, the CPI - Sandesh Kumar had brought five accused to his Police Station, among whom, PW-9 and PW-10 identified accused No. 1 Asif and another accused Arif as the ones who had ran away from the spot on the other day when the said witnesses had gone to the spot based on the information of changing the number plates of two vehicles. This witness has also stated that based on the order of the Court, he has released the Tata Sumo vehicle in favour of Satyanarayan. 24. The above evidences of these prosecution witnesses though speak about the occurrence of the incident and conducting investigation including the alleged seizure of the knife and seizure of a cell phone and also a vehicle, but by the alleged said seizure of the knife, vehicle and the cell phones itself, it cannot be concluded that the present accused was one among the culprits who had committed the alleged offence. In that regard, the evidence of each of the witnesses regarding the alleged involvement of the present accused in the alleged commission of crime is required to be analysed. 25. In that regard, the evidence of each of the witnesses regarding the alleged involvement of the present accused in the alleged commission of crime is required to be analysed. 25. The first question in that regard would be as to how and when the present accused was shown to have been involved in the alleged commission of crime. In that regard, it is the evidence of PW-4 then PSI of Saligrama Police Station alone throws some light. As already observed above, the said witness has stated that on 29.08.2010, based upon a credible information about an abandoned Tata Sumo vehicle near Doddavaddaragudi he proceeded to the spot and seized the said vehicle. However, the said witness nowhere in his evidence has stated as to how the said vehicle with Registration No. KA-25/M-3609 was connected or linked to the present case. The said witness further stated in his evidence that on 07.09.2010, based on an information about the accused, he went to Ramanagara, arrested all the five accused and recorded the voluntary statement given by accused Nos. 1 to 4. Nowhere the witness has stated as to what was the information received by him and how he suspected the involvement of the accused in the present commission of crime. Though he says that accused No. 5 and accused No. 1 had given voluntary statement before him and which voluntary statement of those two accused he has marked as Exs. P9 and P10, but his evidence is bereft of the material to show that how he suspected the involvement of the accused which led him to go to Ramanagara and apprehend them. As such, his evidence does not support the link about the alleged abandonment of the Tata Sumo vehicle near Doddavaddaragudi with different registration number and the alleged arrest of the present accused by him. Therefore though he speaks about the alleged voluntary statement said to have been given by accused Nos. 1 to 5, but his evidence has totally left a gap unfilled as to what made him to apprehend accused Nos. 1 to 5 and what was the credible information he received in that regard. The said gap or lacuna in the case of prosecution appears to have not filled even by other I.Os. also in the matter including CPI (PW-9) who is said to have conducted some important acts of investigation in the matter. 1 to 5 and what was the credible information he received in that regard. The said gap or lacuna in the case of prosecution appears to have not filled even by other I.Os. also in the matter including CPI (PW-9) who is said to have conducted some important acts of investigation in the matter. As such, at the outset, a doubt remains as to what made PW-4 to apprehend accused Nos. 1 to 5 on 07.09.2010. 26. Secondly the witness who can state about the participation of the accused in the commission of crime in the instant case is only PW-2 the victim. As already stated above, the said victim in his complaint as well in his evidence as PW-2 has only stated about the participation of three of the accused in the commission of crime and he is totally silent about the alleged involvement of other two accused in the commission of the crime. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that there was involvement of five accused in the alleged commission of crime except relying upon the voluntary statement said to have been given by accused Nos. 5 and 1 as per Exs. P9 and P10 respectively. Admittedly, the said voluntary statement has not been recorded by the I.O. in the present case. The alleged voluntary statement of those two accused are stated to have been recorded by another I.O. in another case of his Police Station (Saligrama Police Station) in Crime No. 161/2010. 27. Though the said voluntary statement could have been considered and relied upon by the present I.O. in the present case, still the said I.O. of the present case who is PW-9 has nowhere stated about he coming to know through the voluntary statement of the accused said to have been given before PW-4 about the involvement of any of the accused much less accused No. 1 and accused No. 5. Therefore the prosecution case suffers with another major gap in the linking of the evidence in the commission of the crime about the involvement of the five accused in the alleged commission of the crime. 28. As already observed above, it is PW-4 who is the I.O. in a different crime of a different police station is stated to have recorded the said voluntary statement. 28. As already observed above, it is PW-4 who is the I.O. in a different crime of a different police station is stated to have recorded the said voluntary statement. However, the evidence of PW-9 the CPI who is the I.O. in this case would go to show that he took the custody of accused Nos. 1 to 5 from the order of the Court on 08.09.2010 itself and on 09.09.2010, upon the voluntary statement given by the accused, he proceeded to make recovery in the present case. Thus, a reading of his evidence carefully would go to reveal that the accused are stated to have given a voluntary statement before him on 09.09.2010. Admittedly the said voluntary statement has not been produced before the Court, as such not marked as an exhibit. Nowhere, PW-9 has stated that it is based upon the voluntary statement of those accused given before PW-4 on 07.09.2010, he had proceeded to make recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused. Therefore, when according to PW-9 it was based on voluntary statement dated 09.09.2010, without producing the said voluntary statement and marking the relevant portion, the alleged further act of recovery creates and retains a major lacuna in the case of the prosecution. 29. Apart from the above, even with respect to the alleged recovery of robbed cell phone and robbed knife which was stated to be at the instance of accused No. 5 and accused No. 1 respectively, the following discrepancies can be noticed: (i) The two police officers who stated about the recovery of the knife at the instance of two witnesses is once again PW-4 and PW-9. PW-4 in his evidence has stated that accused No. 1 led the PSI and his team members to KRS-Pandavapura road and made them to stop near a bridge at Chikkarahalli and getting down from the vehicle, he proceeded towards a drain near the bridge and brought a knife and produced the same before them which was seized by drawing a seizure panchanama as per Ex. P12. He has identified the said knife at MO-4. However, PW-9 the I.O. in the present case has stated that production of the said knife by accused No. 1 was from inside the drain. Thus, there is difference in the places of the alleged placing of the knife itself in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-9. P12. He has identified the said knife at MO-4. However, PW-9 the I.O. in the present case has stated that production of the said knife by accused No. 1 was from inside the drain. Thus, there is difference in the places of the alleged placing of the knife itself in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-9. As observed above, according to one police officer PW-4, it was near a drain whereas as per PW-9 the I.O., it was from inside the drain. As such, even among the two police officers, there is great variation with respect to the exact place where the said knife was said to have been placed or thrown by accused No. 1. Added to the above, the only independent pancha who has supported the case of the prosecution about seizure of the knife is CW-5 - Kumar who has stated that production of the said knife by accused No. 1 was from a nala (halla) at Chikkarahalli. Neither this witness has mentioned anything about bridge or the drain in the place. Therefore the evidence of this independent witness about the alleged recovery of the knife varies from the evidence of PW-4 and PW-9. As such, in the absence of any accurate place of alleged recovery of knife at the instance of accused No. 1, the very alleged recovery of knife at the instance of accused No. 1 creates a major doubt in the case of the prosecution. (ii) According to the prosecution, apart from the knife at MO-4, even the cell phone at MO-5 was also recovered, however, at the instance of accused No. 5. A perusal of the charge-sheet materials as well the evidence of prosecution witnesses would go to show that PW-2 in his complaint at Ex. P3 mentions that the cell phone said to have been robbed from him by the accused was cell phone of Nokia make. In his evidence as PW-2 also, he has stated that cell phone was of Nokia make. But, PW-13, the hirer of the vehicle in his evidence has stated that the driver (PW-2) was using the cell phones belonging to Samsung company and Nokia company. On the contrary, in his evidence has stated that the accused in their voluntary statement have stated before him that the cell phone that was robbed from the complainant was a Zen model. On the contrary, in his evidence has stated that the accused in their voluntary statement have stated before him that the cell phone that was robbed from the complainant was a Zen model. He is silent about the alleged Nokia cell phone. But according to him it is Zen cell phone. The seizure panchanama at Ex. P11 describes the model of the cell phone which is said to have been recovered at the instance of accused No. 5 is Zen X 390. Thus, with respect to the cell phone which is said to have been recovered at the instance of accused at their voluntary statement, there is great variation from one prosecution witness to another prosecution witness which also does not tally with the alleged seizure panchanama at Ex. P11. 30. Added to the above, in his evidence, PW-9 - the I.O. has stated that when he seized the said mobile at the instance of accused No. 1, it did not bear sim card in it, however, he admitted that the alleged very cell phone which is identified at MO-5 possessed a sim card in it. The prosecution nowhere has given any reason as to when and how a sim card appeared in the cell phone when it did not possess the same at the time of its seizure which further strengthens the difference which has already crept in the case of the prosecution. 31. Lastly the case of the prosecution is that vehicle that was said to have been robbed by the accused from the possession of PW-2 (complainant) is a Tata Sumo vehicle with registration No. AP-03/TV-0299. The complainant both in his complaint and in his evidence as PW-2 has reiterated the same. Similarly, the owner of the vehicle PW-3 has also given a very same description of the said vehicle with the same registration Number. According to the prosecution, the said vehicle was seized and subsequently by the order of the Magistrate, the same was released in favour of PW-3. Further, there are no materials to show as to when the said vehicle with the said registration number was seized by the police. 32. It is PW-10 and PW-11 who are Head Constable and Police Constable respectively of Hennur Police Station who have spoken about the seizure of two vehicles by them. Further, there are no materials to show as to when the said vehicle with the said registration number was seized by the police. 32. It is PW-10 and PW-11 who are Head Constable and Police Constable respectively of Hennur Police Station who have spoken about the seizure of two vehicles by them. Earlier to them, as observed above, it was PW-4 then PSI of Saligrama Police Station who has stated about an abandoned Tata Sumo vehicle. However, even according to said PW-4, the said vehicle was bearing registration No. KA-25/M-3609. As such, that vehicle is not the one shown to have been involved in the present case. Though PW-10 and PW-11 have stated that based on the credible information on 04.09.2010, when they went near forest office and noticed two persons changing the number plates of two vehicles whom they have identified as accused Nos. 1 and 5 in the Court and that even according to these two witnesses, one was a Tata Sumo vehicle and another was an Innova car. According to them, the said Tata Sumo vehicle was bearing a number plate as KA-01/N-5216 and the Innova car was bearing no. KA-02/A-3505. 33. As already observed, the vehicle said to have been robbed in the instant case is with a registration No. AP-03/TV-0299, as such, though PW-4, PW-10 and PW-11 mentioned about three vehicles, among which two vehicles are Tata Sumo vehicles, but admittedly even according to them neither of those two Tata Sumo vehicles were bearing No. No. AP-03/TV-0299. 34. Though learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that based upon the engine numbers and chasi numbers, the I.O. was satisfied that one of those two Tata Sumos was actually with the registration No. AP-03/TV-0299, but I have to only say that it is an assumption of the learned HCGP without there being any evidence in that regard much less in the evidence of I.Os. and another police officer i.e. PW-4. Therefore what is not placed by the prosecution before the Court either in the form of oral or documentary evidence regarding the seizure of the Tata Sumo vehicle with registration No. AP-03/TV-0299, merely because the said registered vehicle was said to have been delivered to the interim custody of PW-3, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that the said vehicle was the one robbed by the accused in the commission of crime. 35. 35. From the above, it clearly goes to show that there exist several serious laches and lacunae in the case of the prosecution commencing from the alleged involvement of the present accused No. 1-appellant in the case, up to the alleged recoveries said to have been made at the instance of accused by the I.Os. 36. As already observed above, the very introduction of the present appellant in the commission of the crime itself has not been properly established by the prosecution with cogent evidence. The mere say of PW-4 that based upon credible information he arrested accused No. 1 to 5 is without any details as to in connection with which crime he arrested them and under what circumstances. Therefore from the introduction of the accused in the prosecution case till the alleged recovery of the incriminating articles including the vehicles involved in the crime throws light on the serious lacunae in the prosecution case. The Trial Court, merely because certain prosecution witnesses are stated to have supported the case of the prosecution and more particularly PW-4 and PW-9 are said to have recorded voluntary statement of accused, proceeded to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against accused Nos. 1 and 5 and more particularly against the present appellant. In the said process, the Trial Court did not even notice that when the very complaint was bereft of any particular evidence or description as to the identity of the accused and when PW-4 is stated to have arrested accused Nos. 1 to 5, no test identification parade was conducted by PW-4 or by the I.O. in the present case who is PW-9 and said aspect further weakens the case of prosecution further widening the sphere of doubt existing in the case of prosecution. Since the said finding of the Trial Court now proves to be erroneous and now it is established that prosecution has failed to prove the alleged involvement of the present accused No. 1/appellant in the alleged commission of the rime, I am of the view that the impugned Judgment deserves interference at the hands of this Court and present appellant deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2014 and the Order on sentence dated 22.02.2014 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, Sitting at Srirangapatna, in S.C. No. 20/2012 holding the present appellant/accused No. 1 guilty of the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC is set aside, however, confining it to the present appellant. The appellant - Asif, S/o Shafi Ulla is acquitted from the offence punishable under S. 395 of IPC. The bail bonds executed by him stand cancelled. The fine amount deposited by the accused if any in this case be refunded to him after the period of appeal is over and if no appeal is preferred. The Court while acknowledging the service rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Rakshith R., recommends honorarium of Rs. 5000/- to him payable by the Registry, forthwith.