JUDGMENT Randhir Singh, J. - The four Appellants in this case have been convicted u/s 395 of the IPC by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Sitapur and each of them has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. 2. The case for the prosecution was that a dacoity was committed at the house of one Mangli on the night between 20th and 21-4-1953. Mangli was sleeping in his house when 15 or 20 dacoits are said to have raided his house. He raised an alarm and some villagers came up. Some dried Bajra plants were set fire to and it was also a moonlight night though it was about the middle of the bright half of the month. In this light it was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that the witnesses and Mangli were able to see the faces of the dacoits. The dacoits, however, decamped after looting some property. The villagers chased the dacoits and succeeded in capturing one of them after he had been given a thorough beating. This person who was arrested was one Sohan of village Bajehra. He, however, died on the following day. First information report was lodged at police station Pisawan on 21-4-1953 at about 10 a.m. No names of dacoits were mentioned in the first information report but the names of witnesses who, had come up and had seen the dacoits were mentioned. After investigation, in all twelve persons were sent up for trial. One of them, namely, Ghasoo was sent up after the other persons had been challenged, but by the time the case came up before the court of Sessions both cases were ripe and the learned Sessions Judge has tried all the twelve accused together. 3. The defence of the accused was that they had been implicated on account of enmity with the witnesses or the police. 4. The main evidence against the accused was that of identifying witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted eight out of the twelve persons sent up for trial but found the four Appellants guilty and convicted them. They have now come up in' appeal. 5. The case originally came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court. 4. The main evidence against the accused was that of identifying witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted eight out of the twelve persons sent up for trial but found the four Appellants guilty and convicted them. They have now come up in' appeal. 5. The case originally came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court. It was argued before him that the evidence of identification which was produced on behalf of the prosecution in this case was not sufficient and should not be relied upon in view of the fact that the complainant did not in the first information report mention any peculiarities or identification marks of any of the dacoits whom he had seen nor was any such peculiarity mentioned by the witnesses in their statements made before the investigating officer. Certain remarks, it appears, have been made in the course of some judgments of this Court in which it has been observed that some such peculiarities should be mentioned in the first information report before the evidence of identification could be accepted and the learned Judge, therefore, thought, it fit that this case may come up before a Division Bench so that the observations referred to by the learned Judge may be considered and an opinion expressed on that point. We will therefore refer to value which should be attached to the evidence of identification of witnesses when no peculiarities or details of the dacoits are mentioned in the first information report. 6. It may be mentioned at the very outset that in criminal cases particularly, each case has to be considered on its own facts and merits. It is impossible to lay down a rule of thumb for appraising the evidence on matters of fact in criminal cases which could be taken as a firm guide in all cases. No doubt, if there are amongst the dacoits certain persons who have outstanding features of peculiarities which can be noticeable to all those who happen to see a particular dacoit or a number of such dacoits and no mention of that peculiarity is made in the first information report, it would be difficult to place any great reliance on the evidence of identifying witnesses in such cases. We might, for instance, take the case of a person who has a long beard or who happens to be one eyed or is unusually tall and if no mention of such details is made in the first information report, this absence of the details would affect the value of the evidence of identification. In a large majority of cases, however, there are no such marked peculiarities in the features of dacoits and a description of a general nature, such as some of the dacoits were tall and some were short or that some had a sallow complexion while others had a fair or dark complexion, would not be of any great avail even if such details are mentioned in the first information report. As mentioned above, it is difficult, therefore, to suggest any particular yardstick with which the value of the evidence of identifying witnesses can be measured or to lay down any hard and fast rule in this matter. 7. Coming to the facts of the case there is hardly any dispute that a dacoity was committed at the house of Mangli. Mangli had received injuries at the hands of the dacoits and he lodged a report at the police station. The evidence against all the four Appellants is that of identifying witnesses and there is no evidence of recovery of any stolen property from the possession of any of these Appellants. Evidence of identification is in its very nature a weak type of evidence and should therefore be scrutinised carefully before any reliance can be placed upon it. It would be convenient to deal with the case against each of the Appellants separately. 8. Lachhman.--He had been identified by a number of persons and the evidence of identification of some of these witnesses cannot be said to be bad. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has, however, pointed out that this Appellant was without moustaches and beard although he had long attained the age when these should have appeared. One of the witnesses, viz. Mohan admitted in his statement made in the court of session that there was no other person who was mixed up with Lachhman at the identification parade who had no moustaches or beard. This circumstance was evidently such as could have facilitated the identification of Lachhman by witnesses even though they were otherwise unable to identify him. Mohan admitted in his statement made in the court of session that there was no other person who was mixed up with Lachhman at the identification parade who had no moustaches or beard. This circumstance was evidently such as could have facilitated the identification of Lachhman by witnesses even though they were otherwise unable to identify him. The evidence of identification so far as this Appellant is concerned has therefore no value. There is yet another circumstance which throws doubt about the complicity of this Appellant in the dacoity. He had ill-will against one Abdul Aziz Constable who was in the Pisawan police station till after the dacoity was committed This Constable Addul Aziz was prosecuted for bribery and Lachhman Appellant was a witnesses. It was alleged on behalf of Lachhman that he had been threatened by Abdul Aziz with dire consequences if he appeared as a witness. Ordinarily such a plea may not be acceptable but in this particular case we find that Lachhman made an application to the court a copy of which has been exhibited in this case vide Ex. D23 dated 20-3-1953, pointing out to the court the threat held out by Abdul Aziz to him. The police of Pisawan had therefore an animus against this Appellant and it is not beyond the range of possibility that he might have been dragged into this case because of that animosity. At any rate, there is a reasonable doubt in the case of this Appellant and he is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. 9. Ganpat.--This Appellant has been identified by five witnesses, viz. Natthu (P.W.7), Manohar(P.W. 10), Gokul (P.W. 11), Ram Lal (P.W. 15)and Sumer (P.W. 18). Of these five witnesses Natthu, Manohar and Sumer were not mentioned as witnesses in the first information report. Mere omission of the names of witnesses in the first information report, in a case of dacoity may not in itself be a strong ground for rejecting the testimony of such witnesses but in this particular case we find that this Appellant was known to Natthu and probably Ram Lal also. Ram Lal stated that Natthu used to visit village Bajehra where the Appellant had bean living for some time. Natthu does not admit that he visits Bajehra but he admits that his father's sister's son is married at Bajehra and that he is indirectly related to Ganpat also. Ram Lal stated that Natthu used to visit village Bajehra where the Appellant had bean living for some time. Natthu does not admit that he visits Bajehra but he admits that his father's sister's son is married at Bajehra and that he is indirectly related to Ganpat also. Under these circumstances it is difficult to believe that Natthu and Ram Lal who know all about Ganpat and his relations did not know Ganpat. The value of identification therefore disappears in the case of these witnesses. Of the remaining three, Manohar and Sumer were not mentioned in the first information report as witnesses. He was not identified by Mohan who had received injuries or by Mangli who was an inmate of the house. We are unable, under these circumstances, to rely on the evidence of identification produced against this Appellant and he is also entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. Baiju.--This Appellant was arrested on 27-5-53, and was put up for identification on 2-6-53, vide Ex. P-16. He was identified by as many as 13 witnesses most of whom are good witnesses. It has been argued on behalf of this Appellant that the evidence of identification as against this Appellant is much too good to be believed. It appears from the statement of the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings as also from the identification memo, that in all 20 witnesses had been called to identify three suspects who were mixed up with 26 other (sic) prisoners. Of these five persons were unable to identify any of the suspects. Some of the witnesses were able to identify only one of the suspects while some identified two and the rest identified three persons. Three of them committed mistakes. It cannot therefore be said that the evidence of identification is such that it should be rejected on the ground that it is too good to be believed. It has been argued that one Raghunath who was also a co-accused with the Appellants has been acquitted although he had been identified by quite a large number of witnesses. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that there were good grounds for rejecting the evidence of identifying witnesses inasmuch as it had been admitted by some witnesses and it was also clear to the learned Judge that most of the witnesses who had come forward to identify Raghunath had known him from before. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that there were good grounds for rejecting the evidence of identifying witnesses inasmuch as it had been admitted by some witnesses and it was also clear to the learned Judge that most of the witnesses who had come forward to identify Raghunath had known him from before. No such circumstance was to be found in the case of Baiju and the case of Baiju derives no support from the acquittal of Raghunath. The case has been established satisfactorily against this Appellant and his conviction cannot therefore be set aside. 11. Ghasoo.--This Appellant was arrested on 4-11-1953, and was put up for identification on 17-12-1953, about eight months after the dacoity had been committed. He was identified by six witnesses; but it has been argued that the identification having been made about eight months after the occurrence no reliance should be placed on such evidence. While no hard and fast rule can be laid down for accepting the testimony of identifying witnesses who have been able to identify a particular person after a long period, we feel that in this particular case the evidence of identification will not be a safe criterion for holding the Appellant Ghasoo guilty. There is no other evidence of a corroborative nature against this Appellant. No stolen property has been recovered from his possession and in view of the circumstances mentioned above he should also be given the benefit of doubt. 12. As a result the appeals of Lachhman, Ganpat and Ghasoo are allowed and their conviction and sentence is set aside. They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. The conviction and sentence of Baiju is maintained and his appeal stands dismissed.