ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - These are two connected criminal appeals. Cr. A. No. 2888 of 1963 is by Man Singh while Cr. A. No 508 of 1964 by Majnoo. Both thes appeals are directed against the Appellants conviction and sentence of years' R. I. each u/s 395, IPC Eight other persons were tried alon 2. It is an undisputed fact that on the night between the 27th and the 28th April 1963 an armed dacoity was committed at the house of Pati Ram in village Nilkhanthpur, lying within the circle of Police Station Ghiror, in the district of Mainpuri. A report of this incident was lodged at Police Station Ghiror 10 miles away at about 4.30 p.m. on 8.4.1963 by P.W. 1 Karan Singh. In this report 4 culprits were nominated, while as for the others it was stated that they had been seen in the light of torches and a lantern and the light thrown by the burning 'toori' outside the house, and could be identified if produced. 3. After the report was lodged investigation was started by P.W. 25 Hari Dutt Sharma, S. I. Majnoo Appellant was arrested on 24.5.1963 by P.W. 24 B.B. Pandey from the house of P.W. 13 Suknj where the Appellant was apprehended in connection with a dacoity which had taken place there. He was made baparda and sents to Police Station Kotwali, from where he was sent baparda to the District Jail, Mainpuri and lodged there on the same day. Man Singh Appellant was arrested by P.W. 24 B.B. Pandey on 27.5.1963 in village Sansarpur at about 1O in the morning. After his arrest he was made baparda and taken to P.S. Kotwali from where he was sent baparda to the District Jail, Mainpuri and lodged there the same day. The test identification of Majnoo was conducted in Jail on 4.6.1963 and he was identified by three witnesses. The test identification of Man Singh took place in jail on 13.6.1963, and he was also identified by three witnesses. On receipt of the identification reports and after completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the Appellants and eight other persons and they were in the course committed to the court of sessions where they were tried with the results mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. The Appellants denied their complicity in the dacoity in question. The Appellants denied their complicity in the dacoity in question. As for their identification they stated that they had been shown to the witnesses after their arrests. The learned trial Judge, however, found two good identifications against each of the Appellants, and, accordingly held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against them. 4. Sri. R.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for Majnoo, and Sri. Bhagwati Prasad Gupta, learned Counsel for Man Singh contended, that on the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge himself, both the Appellants were entitled to acquittal. After perusing the judgment and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, T am satisfied that this contention is well founded. 5. Now, it appears that P.W. 1 Karan Singh was one of the witnesses who identified these two Appellants, as two of the dacoits whom he saw participating in the present dacoity. In regard to this witness the trial Judge has recorded a categorical finding that he was not in the village on the night of the dacoity. He, therefore, rejected his identification evidence, but accepting that of P.W. 3 Puttu Lal and P.W. 7 Komal against Majnoo and P.W. 3 Puttu Lal and P.W. 4 Hundi Lal against Man Singh, he ordered their convictions. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge, having rejected the evidence of P.W. 1 Karan Singh, was in error in accepting the identification evidence of any of the remaining identifying witnesses. He seems to have overlooked the fact that if P.W. 1 Karan Singh was able to identify the Appellants, though he was not in the village on the material night, then it could only be because they were shown to him after their arrests. In any case the Appellants must be held to have raised a strong suspicion to that effect; and, of course, once that suspicion is created, there is no guarantee that the identification by the other witnesses was also not due to the same cause. In such circumstances the evidence of identification becomes extremely doubtful, and it would be most unsafe to base any conviction on it. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in sukhan and Anr. v. State (Cr. A. No. 232 of 1953 decided by Desai and Sahai, JJ. On 19.10.1955). In such circumstances the evidence of identification becomes extremely doubtful, and it would be most unsafe to base any conviction on it. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in sukhan and Anr. v. State (Cr. A. No. 232 of 1953 decided by Desai and Sahai, JJ. On 19.10.1955). It was held in that case that, ...if the outside witnesses identified the accused on account of having seen him elsewhere such as at Police Station there is no guarantee that the inside witnesses also did not identify them on account of their having seen them at the Police Station or elsewhere. 6. The result, therefore, is that the conviction and sentences of both the Appellants cannot be sustained. I accordingly set them aside, and allow their appeals. Both the Appellants are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in some other connection.