JUDGMENT B.R. James, J. - Dhani Ram, Murli, Bhupal, Mihi Lal, Hodal, Ram Singh and Nain Sukh have come up in appeal against their conviction and sentences of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- fine each for an offence u/s 395, IPC. 2. It is important to note that with the exception of Hodal, the Appellants are residents of village Parora, police circle Baila, district Aligarh, while Hodall belongs to Ramnagar, a village which adjoins Parora. On the other hand the dacoity was committed in village Mudesi, police circle Kotwali district Mathura. 3. The crime has been described by the victim Sohan Lal and a large number of eyewitnesses. On the night between the 18 and 19-3-1956 Sohan Lal was sleeping in his shop adjoining his residential house, when soon after midnight the place was raided by ten or eleven dacoits, three of whom were armed with pistols. They fired a number of shots. They plundered the house and appropriated gold and silver ornaments and clothes worth about Rs 4,300/-. When pressed by the village people they came out of the house and departed in a body. An important find by the villagers on the spot was a misfired cartridge left behind by one of the bandits. The faces of the robbers were clearly seen in the light of a lantern burning in the shop, an earthen lamp burning in the house and a number of torches flashed about by the village people. The miscreants themselves carried several electric torches. They were total strangers hence in the report which Sohan Lal made next morning to the Kotwali police no names could be mentioned. The factum of the crime is not denied, hence the question before me is whether or not the participation of the Appellants in it has been established beyond reasonable doubt. 4. It is necessary to give an account of a most important incident, for it was this incident which led to the tracing out of the criminals. Raya is a police station in district Mathura situated on the Mathura Hathras highway. 4. It is necessary to give an account of a most important incident, for it was this incident which led to the tracing out of the criminals. Raya is a police station in district Mathura situated on the Mathura Hathras highway. Hoshiar Singh, the Station Officer of Raya, on the morning of the 19th March (i.e., the morning following the night of the dacoity, while the Kotwali police were still at the stage of the preliminary investigation and had no idea of the identity of the culprits) received information that some bad characters would be passing that way. Accordingly he took his stand at a convenient place on the road, intending to check suspicious persons. In a tonga coming from the direction of Mathura were two strangers holding bags. They were the Appellants Dhani Ram and Murali. On their bags being searched, both were found to contain clothes which appeared suspiciously like stolen goods. In addition, Dhani Ram carried an unlicensed country made pistol. Both men were accordingly arrested and interrogated. They were immediately placed in purdah and sent to the District Jail with due precautions. As a result of their interrogation SO Hoshiar Singh sent a written note to the Kotwali police informing them of the persons suspected to have taken part in the present dacoity. Arrest of the other Appellants speedily followed. * * * * 5. In assessing the evidence of identification I must draw attention to a remarkable feature of the identification parades of these four Appellants. The faces of each one of them had large number of marks and the Magistrate who was conducting the parade covered up each mark with a slip of paper, similarly pasting slips of paper on the faces ' of other men in the parade. But the number of these slips was so large that what each witness saw was not a human face but a mask. Nevertheless, the identification of the Appellants has been good. I am most reluctant to believe that any genuine identification could be possible with the numerous slips of paper covering the faces. Nor is it possible to eliminate the possibility of the Appellants having been shown to the witneses after their arrest. It is common ground that on arrest these four Appellants were brought to Mathura. I am most reluctant to believe that any genuine identification could be possible with the numerous slips of paper covering the faces. Nor is it possible to eliminate the possibility of the Appellants having been shown to the witneses after their arrest. It is common ground that on arrest these four Appellants were brought to Mathura. This being so there was nothing to prevent interested police officials from' sending for the eye-witnesses from village Mundesi and showing the arrested men to them prior to escorting them to the jail at Mathura. 6. I should here like to emphasise that my observations should not be construed as a reflection on the integrity of the eye-witnesses and for all that I know their identification of these four Appellants might have been authentic. Nevertheless I cannot uphold the authenticity of the identification because of the marks covering the faces of the Appellants. For this the blame should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade. The object of covering the marks with slips of paper is only to ensure that the marks in question are not described by interested police officials to the witnesses waiting outside the jail gate. From this it necessarily follows that only such marks should be concealed which are so prominent that a description of them can be given in words--faint marks or marks which are commonly found on faces of persons hailing from the rural area cannot be described in words and consequently do not require to be concealed under slips of paper. I have examined the identification memos in respect of the present four Appellants and find that for the most part their marks were ordinary scars or small pox marks, which would commonly be found on the faces of most undertrial prisoners. Had the learned Magistrate confined the concealment only to prominent or out of the common marks, the evidentiary value of the identification would conceivably have been different. 7. For these reasons I am not satisfied that the persona) identification of Bhupal, Mihi Lal, Ram Singh and Nain Sukh has been such as to justify the upholding of the charge against them. Since there is no other evidence upholding their guilt, I am compelled to hold that the charge against them has not been proved. 8. 7. For these reasons I am not satisfied that the persona) identification of Bhupal, Mihi Lal, Ram Singh and Nain Sukh has been such as to justify the upholding of the charge against them. Since there is no other evidence upholding their guilt, I am compelled to hold that the charge against them has not been proved. 8. As a result of the discussion attempted above I had the charge doubtful in respect of Bhupal, Mihi Lal, Ram Singh and Nain Sukh. Their appeal is therefore allowed and their conviction and sentences set aside. They shall be released from custody forthwith unless required for some other charge. The conviction of Dhani Ram, Murali and Hodal is correct. The sentences passed on them are in consonance with the decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. State 1956 AWR (HC) and do not call for any modification on my part. The appeal of these three men is therefore dismissed.