JUDGMENT R.B. Mishra, J. - The two appellants Munni Lal and Dularey who are brothers have been convicted by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur under Section 495, Indian Penal Code and each has been sentenced to seven year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. At about mid night in the night between 29/30th May, 1965 a dacoity was committed by some 10, 20 persons at the house of Sarju Prasad and Doodhnath in village Rasauli, 3. Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur. A report about it was lodged at the thana by Sarju Prasad on 30th May, 1965 at about mid day. The appellant Dularey was arrested on 11th October, 1965 and the appellant Munni Lal surrendered in Court on 13th December, 1965. The test identification of both the appellants was conducted on 20th December, 1965. Then after completing the investigation the police challenged both the appellants. 4. Both the appellants denied to have taken part in the dacoity. They alleged that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the S.I. Shri Sarju Singh of Police Station Karchna as Munni Lal had beaten him. 5. The evidence against the appellants consists of identification only. The identification proceedings were conducted by the Magistrate Smt. Usha Kansal (P.W.11). The identification memo is Ext. Ka. 11. Both the appellants were correctly identified by two witnesses namely, Sadhu (P.W. 12) and Sangam Lal (P.W. 14). On behalf of the appellants it was contended that no weight should be attached to the identification made by the above witnesses because they had committed mistakes as a result of which the value of their identification was minimised. The identification memo (Ext. Ka. 11) shows that both Sadhu and Sangam Lal had correctly identified both the appellants and that each had made one mistake. In other words, each of the two witnesses had correctly identified two persons and had made one mistake. It has been the consistent view of this Court that no value could be attached to such a kind of identification. See Emperor v. Debi Charon and others, 1943 Cr LJ 867 and Munshi v. State, 1968 All 345. 6. It would thus appear that the evidence of identification adduced by the prosecution against both the appellants is of a very weak character and it would not be safe to base a conviction on it. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. 6. It would thus appear that the evidence of identification adduced by the prosecution against both the appellants is of a very weak character and it would not be safe to base a conviction on it. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants are set aside. They have been on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.