A case of dacoity was committed at the residence of Ram Gopal, and two constables were sent to protect his family members and his property. However, Ram Gopal himself has not been examined, which would have clarified whether the police party had indeed visited the site and arrested the accused after using a very light gun. Withholding the testimony of witnesses like Ram Gopal raises adverse implications against the prosecution.

In this case, only two eyewitnesses have been examined, both of whom are police witnesses. They claim to have been present at the scene. Although it is said that three public witnesses were called to participate in apprehending the suspects, none of these three witnesses has been examined by the prosecution. If the information was indeed given to the Station Officer, who proceeded to the spot with the police party and called for three public witnesses, the examination of at least one or two of these witnesses would have corroborated the statement of the police witnesses.

The defense counsel for the appellant has argued that when the Station Officer used a very light gun, the accused were running away in the light of torches. However, it seems unnatural that the police officials, who were chasing the miscreants and focused on apprehending them, would simultaneously be attentive enough to recognize the accused individuals who were fleeing. Therefore, based on the statements of the police officials, it cannot be believed that they arrested all four appellants while also successfully identifying the remaining two appellants who were running away.

Considering the infirmities in the prosecution's evidence, as mentioned above, the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants under sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained. The prosecution's narrative, as presented in court, lacks credibility, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.