JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - All these nine appeals arise out of Sessions Trials Nos. 49 and 66 of 1962 and Sessions trials Nos. 48A and 66A of 1962 of the court of the . learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnore. Appeals Nos. 1913 and 1914 of 1862 are by Virendra, appeals Nos. 2002 and 2003 are by Bansi, appeals Nos. 2009 and 2010 of 1962 are by Harkesh and Dallu, appeal No. 2146 of 1962 is by Jagram and appeals Nos. 2157 and 2204 have been filed by Nathu appellant. Except Jagram all the appellants have been convicted in both the sessions trials referred to above. Jagram was acquitted in sessions trials Nos. 49A and 66A of 1962 but had been convicted in sessions trials Nos. 49 and 66 of 1962. The prosecution evidence in the case had also been common in both the trials. 2. The occurrence, which had given rise to the above mentioned sessions trials before the court of the additional Sessions Judge, had taken place on February 26127, 1962, at about midnight in village Allahmehadi police station Nagina district Bijnore wherein the houses of five persons were ransacked by the dacoits. Sessions trials Nos. 49 and 66 which had given rise to appeal Nos. 1914, 2002, 2009, 2146 and 2004 of 1962 are in respect of dacoity committed at the houses of Lallu Singh, Baldeo Singh and Nanhey, while sessions trials Nos. 49A and 66A giving rise to appeals Nos. 1913, 2003, 2010 and 2157 of 1962 relating to the dacoity committed at the houses of Gulab Singh and Buddhu by the same set of miscreants in the aforesaid village at about same time. All the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The prosecution case in short is as follows :- There is a village pathway running from east to west in the village and the houses of Lallu Singh, Baldeo Singh, Nanhey, Gulab Singh and Buddhu are situate on either side of the path. On the night of the incident about 18 to 19 dacoits armed with guns, pistols and lathis raided the house of Lallu Singh. They caught hold of Lallu Singh and his son Tikam Singh and tied their hands. They got the door opened from inside and entered the house and carried Lallu Singh and his son inside. On the night of the incident about 18 to 19 dacoits armed with guns, pistols and lathis raided the house of Lallu Singh. They caught hold of Lallu Singh and his son Tikam Singh and tied their hands. They got the door opened from inside and entered the house and carried Lallu Singh and his son inside. Lallu Singhs son Tikam, however, managed to escape outside and raised an alarm in the village. The dacoits tied down Lallu Singh to a cot and started questioning him to disclose the hidden property. One of them even placed his pistol on his chest and threatened to shoot him. They also started burning him to extort information about the hidden moveables. Lallu Singh and his wife, to avoid torture, gave the required information and the dacoits with the help of the torch looted the moveables. Meanwhile the villagers had assembled and one of them had put fire to the dry leaves and phoos which had been stored at the chabutra The dacoits then left that house and directed their attention to the house of Nanhey. They plundered that house as well and then looted the houses of Gulab and Buddhu, all of which are situated within a close distance. The dacoity had continued for more than one and a half hours and a large amount of moveables including ornaments and cash were looted by the miscreants from the various houses. The features of the dacoits had been noticed by the victims and the villagers who had assembled at the scene in the light of lantern, torches and the fire which was produced by the phoos and dry leaves and also in the moon light. 4. A report of the incident was lodged by Lallu Singh at the police station Nagina on February 27, 1962 at 10.15 A.M. In this report he gave a detailed description of the occurrence and the properties which had been carried away by the dacoits. On the basis of this report a case was registered and investigation followed. 5. Lallu Singh was medically examined by Dr. Hari Mohan Singh (P.W. 5) who found two contused wounds, three contusions, three abrasions and burn injuries on his person. The duration of the injuries synchronised with the time of the incident. 6. Appellant Jagram was arrested by Sub-Inspector Harbhajan Sharma (P.W. 20) on March 19, 1962. 5. Lallu Singh was medically examined by Dr. Hari Mohan Singh (P.W. 5) who found two contused wounds, three contusions, three abrasions and burn injuries on his person. The duration of the injuries synchronised with the time of the incident. 6. Appellant Jagram was arrested by Sub-Inspector Harbhajan Sharma (P.W. 20) on March 19, 1962. On that very date he came to know about the participation of the other appellants in the dacoity. Consequently Harkesh and Lallu were arrested on March 21, 1962 and Natthu on March 24, 1962. Virendra was arrested on June 21 and Bansi on 22, 1962. All of them were put up for test identification and on the receipt of the result were sent up for trial. The property alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Jagram was also put up for identification. 7. All the appellants denied about I their complicity in the crime and each of them had asserted that they had been shown to the witnesses by the appellants. Jagram had further denied the recovery of any property from his possession. Some of them have also led defence evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the factum of dacoity. Moreover the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which have been corroborated by the medical evidence and the burn injuries received by Lallu Singh, go to establish that a dacoity had been committed in the village in which Lallu Singh was put to torture by the miscreants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants have also not challenged the prosecution case regarding the sufficiency of light and opportunity to the witnesses to have identified the dacoits at the scene. The incident had taken place on the 7th night after the full moon when the moon rises before midnight and continues throughout the night. In moonlit night it is easy to identify even an unknown person. The other sources of light were a burning lantern in the house of Lallu Singh and the light finch emanated by the burning of 'phoos and dry leaves at the Chabutra of Karan Singh. The trial court has found the evidence regarding the presence of these sources of light reliable and I have no reason to differ with it. It must be held, therefore, that there was sufficient light at the scene to enable the witnesses to have identified the miscreants. 10. The trial court has found the evidence regarding the presence of these sources of light reliable and I have no reason to differ with it. It must be held, therefore, that there was sufficient light at the scene to enable the witnesses to have identified the miscreants. 10. The dacoits had ransacked a number of houses and the dacoity had continued for a considerable length of time. 11. It must have created a commotion in the village and the villagers must have assembled near about to see what was happening to their properties. Some of I these villagers like Lallu Singh and his family members were actually put to torture by the dacoits. They thus came in close contact with them. The other eye-witnesses are either victims of the occurrence or their close neighbours. They are all natural witnesses. I hold, therefore, that there was sufficient opportunity for them to have seen the dacoits. 12. It has come in evidence that all these appellants were arrested on different dates and put in purdah. The police witnesses, who had arrested them or had kept them at the police station and then had escorted them to the jail, have stated that they were not shown to the witnesses. The trial court has believed their testimony and has held that none of these appellants had been shown to the prosecution witnesses by the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the appellants have not pointed out anything in the prosecution evidence which may persuade me to differ from the trial court on this point. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants have, however, contended that the quantum and quality of the identification evidence is not such on the basis of which a conviction can be recorded. The only question to be determined, therefore, is whether the evidence of identification is sufficient and reliable to warrant a conviction of the appellants. I, therefore, now proceed to consider cases of the appellants individually. Virendra 14. This appellant was put up for identification on July 13, 1962 about five months after the date of the incident. . He was identified by Sukhram, Swarup and Gulab in connection with Sessions Trials Nos. 49 and 66 of 1962 and by Sukhram, Chhuttan and Gulab in connection with sessions trials Nos. 49A and 66A of 1962. Virendra 14. This appellant was put up for identification on July 13, 1962 about five months after the date of the incident. . He was identified by Sukhram, Swarup and Gulab in connection with Sessions Trials Nos. 49 and 66 of 1962 and by Sukhram, Chhuttan and Gulab in connection with sessions trials Nos. 49A and 66A of 1962. At the various identification parades, which were held on April 5, 1962, April 10, 1962, May 24, 1962 and July 13, 1962 the performance of Sukhram has been 3 correct and 2 wrong, but he could not identify Harkesh whom he had picked up at the parade of April 10, 1962, before the court of the committing magistrate. Thus he cannot be considered as a good witness. The performance of Swarup and Gulab at the various parades when taken into account shows that they had picked 1 right and 1 wrong. In fact Gulab had picked 1 right and 2 wrong because he picked a wrong person before the court of the committing magistrate in place of Jagram whom he had identified correctly at the parade of April 5, 1962. Thus it is obvious that both these witnesses are also not good witnesses. The result is that there is no satisfactory evidence against this appellant on the basis of which his conviction can be maintained and his appeal No. 1914 must be allowed. As regards his appeal No. 1913 he was identified by Sukhram, Gulab and Chhattau, I have already held Sukhram and Gulab to be unsatisfactory witnesses. Thus appeal No. 1913 of 1962 also succeeds. Bansi 15. This appellant was also put up for identification on July 13, 1962, and was identified by Lallu Singh and Sukhram in connection with sessions trials Nos. 49 and 66 of 1962 and by Sukhram, Chhuttan and Lallu Singh in sessions trials Nos. 49A and 66A of 1962. Lallu Singh is a good witness but I have already shown that Sukhram and Chhuttan are wholly unsatisfactory witnesses and on the basis of one good identification alone conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained and both of his appeals, therefore, must succeed. Harkesh, Dallu and Natthu 16. These three appellants were put up for test identification on April 10, 1962. Harkesh was identified by Lallu Singh, Buddhu and Thani (P.Ws. 3, 9 and 16). Harkesh, Dallu and Natthu 16. These three appellants were put up for test identification on April 10, 1962. Harkesh was identified by Lallu Singh, Buddhu and Thani (P.Ws. 3, 9 and 16). Lallu Singh is a good witness having committed no wrongs at any of the various parades. The performance of Buddhu and Thani at the various parades when taken into account shows that they had picked 3 right and one wrong. They too are, therefore, good witnesses. Thus the identification evidence against this appellant is sufficient to warrant his conviction, and I see no reason to differ with the trial court in his case. 17. Dallu was identified by Lallu Singh, Nathu Singh and Thani (P.Ws. 3, 8 and 16). Nathu Singh is not a good witness as his performance at parade comes out to one correct and one wrong. Thus we are left with bare two identification witnesses against this appellant. This appellant is about 16 years of age. The identification memo shows that persons of similar features were not available in the jail and, therefore, outsiders were mixed in his parade. It appears that a large number of paper chits were pasted on him to conceal his special marks. In the circumstances the bare identification of two witnesses, one of whom cannot be held to be absolutely good, is not sufficient to warrant his conviction and he must be given the benefit of doubt. 18. Natthu had been identified by Lallu Singh and Buddhu Singh out of whom Buddhu Singh had picked 3 correct and 1 wrong at the various parades. Lallu Singh (P.W. 3) ascribed a specific part to this appellant and had alleged that he held the pistol and placed it several times on his chest threatening to shoot him dead if he did not tell about the concealed property. I, therefore, hold that the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. Jumma Khan (D.W. 4) had stated that accused Nathu at the time of entry in the jail had a paijama, a baniyayan an underwear and a shirt on his person and had no other cloth which could cover his face. I, therefore, hold that the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. Jumma Khan (D.W. 4) had stated that accused Nathu at the time of entry in the jail had a paijama, a baniyayan an underwear and a shirt on his person and had no other cloth which could cover his face. When cross-examined he admitted that the entries in the register were made by him on the second gate which is at a distance from the first gate of the jail and that a Jamadar brings the undertrials from the first gate to him near the second gate. He stated that he did not know if the accused had any Chadar at the time of the entry at the first gate. In view of this the trial court rejected his testimony and held that his conduct was highly suspicious and that it may be that the appellant had the Chadar with him when he was admitted in jail and with which his face was covered by the police but he passed on the same to the other suspect Manna who was admitted along with him. I agree with the findings of the trial court. The police witnesses who arrested and escorted him to jail have testified to his having been covered with his own Chadar and I believe them. Jagram 19. Jagram was put up for identification on April 5, 1962, and out of 14 witnesses, who were sent for identification, he was identified by Lallu Singh alone. He has been convicted by the trial court on the basis of the identification evidence of Lallu Singh which had been corroborated by the recovery of certain items of stolen property. He was said to have been arrested on March 19, 1962 and on his search 6 pieces of cloth were recovered from his possession and a recovery memo (Ex. Ka 14) was prepared. As three of the items, viz., Lahga, saree and blouse, appeared to have been stolen from the house of Lallu Singh they were put up for identification and were identified by Lallu Singh (P.W. 3), his wife Smt. Chaman Devi (P.W. 15) and his daughter Kranti (P. W. 20) as their property which had been [stolen in the dacoity. Item No. 3 is a blouse and in the first information report there is no mention that any blouse was also stolen. Item No. 3 is a blouse and in the first information report there is no mention that any blouse was also stolen. It has, therefore, to go out of the consideration. As regards items Nos. 1 and 2 lahga and saree their description in the first information report does not tally with the specifications of the properties recovered and fiven in the recovery memo. The lahga which was recovered was silken, red in colour and studded with yellow stars. The 30 lahgas mentioned at item No. 27 in the first information report are described an red, black, blue made of jeen, gabroon and striped poplin. It would be noticed that the word silken and being studded with stars is missing from their description in the first information report. I am, therefore, satisfied that the lahga which is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of this appellant is not one which was stolen from the house of Lallu Singh. The saree recovered was also silken having stars studded on it and of green colour. The description of the saree, as given at item No. 24 of the first information report, does not show that any one of them had stars studded on them. No doubt it had been stated that they had phooldar kaneej which means that they had flowery border. But flowery border is clearly distinguishable from false stars studded on the front portion of the saree. In any case it is highly doubtful whether this saree is one of the stolen properties. In my opinion, there-' fore, it is not possible to convict this appellant on the basis of one identification only as the corroborative piece of evidence in the shape of recovered properties is not conclusive. He should, therefore, be given benefit of doubt. 20. In the result the appeals of Virendra, Bansi, Dallu and Jagram are allowed. Their convictions and sentences are set aside, The conviction and sentences of Harkesh and Natthu as awarded by the trial court in both the sessions cases are affirmed and their appeals dismissed.