JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - This judgment shall govern all these appeals as they arise out of the same incident. 2. Mohd. Yaqoob, Ram Dhani, Chhedi Lal, Ram Kripal, Mukhtar, Matiullah, Bashir Ahmad, Baijnath, Haneef and Noor Mohammad have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order, dated September 23, 1970, of Sri S.D.N. Singh, Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, convicting all the appellants under sections 399, 402 and 325 read with section 149 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to four year's and one year's R.I. respectively, and, also convicting Mohd. Yaqoob, Baijnath, Haneef and Noor Mohd., appellants under section 25 (1) (a), Arms Act, and sentencing each of them to two year's R.I. the sentences of all the appellants, how- ever to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Sri Ram Singh Tewari, S.I. Dhumar.gan j, got an information through an informer on May 28, 1968 at 1 1.30 O'clock in the morning that three persons were sitting near the temple at Ganga Ghat Ghiyasuddinpur in suspicious circumstances, one of them having a gun with him He, accordingly, in the company of Harbansh Singh, S.I. and several constables proceeded to that place and arrested Zulfikar Haider alias Achchhan and Hukum Ali from near the said temple. It was disclosed by them that they had decided to commit a dacoity on the following night within police circle Soraon. They also dis- closed that one Atar Singh, who happened to know the name of the village where the dacoity was to be committed, was to meet them at about 6 O'clock in the evening. From the possession of Zulfikar Haider a 32 bore rifle and five cartridges were recovered. Both these arrested persons were then taken to P.S. Dhumanganj where the necessary entry in the general diary was made. According to the prosecution, Sri Tewari, S. I., then arrested Atar Singh from near the temple of Ganga Ghat Ghiyasuddinpur the same evening at about 6 O'clock and on the basis of an information given by Atar Singh also captured one truck No. 3116 along with its driver, Noor Mohammad, appellant. Both Atar Singh and Noor Mohd. were also taken to P.S. Dhurrranganj where an entry in regard to them was made in the general diary. Both Atar Singh and Noor Mohd. were also taken to P.S. Dhurrranganj where an entry in regard to them was made in the general diary. It was disclosed by Atar Singh that he along with several others had planned to commit a dacoity at the house of one Babu Lal in village Deoria, P.S. Soraon and that the miscreants were to collect, before the commission of the dacoity, at the well of a grove situated to the east village Deoria. Sri Tewari then sent Harbansh Singh, S.I. in the company of five constables to P.S. Soraon with the direction that they should apprehend the miscreants with the assistance of Sri Mushir Abbas, S.I., P. S. Soraon. Sri Harbansh Singh, accordingly, contacted Sri Mushir Abbas S.I. at Phaphamau and gave out to him the information he had received. After collecting some more constables from there, the police party proceed. ed to P.S. Soraon on a truck Sri Mushir Abbas also took with him certain constables who were on patrol duty near the railway line to check the wire cutting. He had also given directions to bring Lalta Prasad and Jamuna Prasad, gun licence holders and public witnesses. Thereafter, as usual, the force was divided into four parties. The first party consisting of Head Constable Mahabir Prasad Sharma and the members of the arm- ed police was deputed at the house of Babu Lal to keep a watch over it. The rest of the parties headed by S.I. Mushir Abbas, S.I. Harbansh Singh and the Head Constable Kamlapal Singh respectively were posted to the south west, north and west of the well situated in the grove belonging to Ram Kripl at a distance of about 1 furlongs in village Deoria. The prosecution story further is that after waiting in ambush for about half an hour about 16-17 miscreants came to the grove and sat near the well. One of them was overhead saying that Atar Singh, their chief man, who had planned the dacoity, had net arrived there till then, and it appeared that he had deceived them. Then another miscreant was heard saying that the house of Babulal was known to him and that he would not go without committing the dacoity. Thereafter, it is alleged, the miscreants started moving towards west. Then another miscreant was heard saying that the house of Babulal was known to him and that he would not go without committing the dacoity. Thereafter, it is alleged, the miscreants started moving towards west. At that very time Sri Mushir Abbas fired a shot from' his V.L.P. as a result of which sufficient light was created. Soon after he fired a second shot. Then some of the miscreants tried to run away and while they were being apprehended by the police party they gave lathi blows to Mushir Abbas and Jhagru, Chaukidar, as a result of which they were injured. Ultimately the police party succeeded in arresting eleven persons at the spot and they were the ten appellants and one Shambhu, who did not file any appeal and also died after the trial. 4. A search of all the appellants was taken which led to the following recoveries: Mohd. Yaqoob : D.B.B.L. Gun No. 6135. 10 live carridges and torch Exs. 1, 2 and 3. Rain Dhani: Spear and match box, Exts. 17 and 18. Chhedi Lal : Lathi and Bidi bundle, Exts. 15 and 16. Ram Kripal : Speartonc and packet of cigarette, Exts 19 20 and 21. Mohd. Hanif: Spear and axe, Exts. 22 and 23. Mukhtar: Bag and hammer, Exts. 28, arid 29. Matiullah : Lathi and jhola Exis. 25 and 26. Bashir Ahmad : Lathi stained with blood. Ex. 24. Baijnath : S.B.B.L gun No. 540, 12 live cartridges, torch and match box, Exts. 4, 5, 6 and 7. Noor Mohd. Country-made pistol, 3 live cartridges, a bag and a match box, Exts. 8 to 11. It is material to note that some burnt biris and cigarettes, match sticks and a pair of shoes were also recovered from the spot where the miscreants had collected. After arresting the aforesaid appellants the S- I, suspected that they might also be involved in certain other cases of dacoity and it may be considered necessary to put them up for identification and, therefore, they were made Bapardah immediately. 5. Mushlr Abbas. S.I. lodged the F.I.R. Ex. Ka 10, at P.S. Soraon, at a distance of about 2 miles front the place of occurrence on May 29, 1968, at 2.55 O'clock in the morning. 6. 5. Mushlr Abbas. S.I. lodged the F.I.R. Ex. Ka 10, at P.S. Soraon, at a distance of about 2 miles front the place of occurrence on May 29, 1968, at 2.55 O'clock in the morning. 6. Sri Raghubir Singh, S.I., P.S. Mau Aima, started the investigation of the case and after completing it and having obtained the sanction of the D. M. for the prosecution of Mohd. Yaqoob; Baijnath, Noor Mohd. and Hanif, submitted a chargesheet against the appellants. 7. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and denied to have either been arrested in the manner as stated by the prosecution or that the said incriminating articles were recovered from their possession. Their main defence was that they were arrested from different places and in different circumstances. Their further defence was that they were tried in several dacoity eases earlier and were acquitted in all of them with the result that they had been falsely implicated by the police in this case. Certain judgments were filed in support of the defence although no oral defence evidence was adduced on their behalf.. 8. The prosecution in order to establish its case relied upon the statements of Sri Ram Singh Tewari PWI, Sri Mushir Abbas PW2. Sri Harbansh Singh PW4, all S. Is Head Constable Kamla Pati Singh PW5 and Lalta Prasad public witness PW6, as the witnesses or fact and recovery. It is material to note that Lalta Prasad PW6, the only public witness examined in the case, did riot support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It is also material to note that in inspite of the fact that about 7-8 public witnesses had signed on the recovery memo in respect of the recoveries made at the spot, not one except Lalta Prasad, who also did not support the prosecution case, was examined and no reason was given by the prosecution as to why this was not done. It also appears from the record that on March 1. 1969, and January 10, 1969, Mohd. Yaqoob and Mukhtar appellants respectively gave applications for their identification by the public witnesses but no identification proceedings in respect of them was held although the Magistrate concerned had passed an order to that effect. 9. It also appears from the record that on March 1. 1969, and January 10, 1969, Mohd. Yaqoob and Mukhtar appellants respectively gave applications for their identification by the public witnesses but no identification proceedings in respect of them was held although the Magistrate concerned had passed an order to that effect. 9. The learned Sessions judge after considering the evidence on record and placing reliance upon the statements of the said eye-witnesses of the occurrence including the statement of Lalta Prasad before the committing Magistrate tendered under section 288 Cr.P.C. arrived at the finding that the appellants being residents of different villages having been arrested along with these incriminating articles and they not having ex- plained as to how and why they had assembled at that odd hour at such a lung distance from their villages, the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond any reasonable doubt that they had assembled there for commit- ting a dacoity at the house of Babu Lal and that before they could succeed in their mission they were arrested near the well. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 10. Chhedi Lal, appellant No. 3. in Cr.A. No. 2098 of 1970 died during the pendency of the appeal and hence his appeal abates. 11. Mohd Yaqoob and Muktar appellants, were admittedly not put up for identification inspite of the fact that they made applications for that purpose and the Magistrate had passed an order to that effect. This was definitely a lacuna in the prosecution case. It is true that if an accused person is well known to the witnesses an identification parade would be only a waste of time, but in cases where the witnesses claim to have known the accused previously. while the accused himself denies this, it is difficult to see how the claim made by the witnesses can be used as are as on for refusing to allow their claim to be put to toe only practical test. Even if the denial of the accused if false, no harm is done, and the value of the evidence given by the witnesses may be increased. It is well settled now that when a particular accused claims identification, it should normally be allowed in order to lend assurance to the statements of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and in order to corroborate their statements from the result of the identification proceedings. It is well settled now that when a particular accused claims identification, it should normally be allowed in order to lend assurance to the statements of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and in order to corroborate their statements from the result of the identification proceedings. The other possibility can also not he included that the stand taken by the accused may be correct and that- he might not be known to the witnesses from before and hence their testimony could be put to a scrutiny as a result of the identification parade being held and its result being obtained. Thus, it could not be seriously disputed that an adverse inference can be drawn against the. prosecution so far as these two appellants, Mohd. Yaqoob and Mukhtar are concerned and its benefit will have to be given to them. 12. So far as the other appellants are concerned, there two different versions are given one by the prosecution which claims that the appellants were arrested at the spot along with the said incriminating article, and the other by the appellants that nothing was recovered from their possession and they were arrested from different places and in different circumstances. This fact could only be judged from the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as to whether the stand taken by it is correct or not and whether it succeeded in proving that the appellants were arrested in the manner as stated by it along with the said articles. Unfortunately in this case when no less than 7-8 witnesses of the public were present at the time of the recoveries being made and they actually signed the recovery memo, not one except Lalta Prasad who too was declared hostile, was produced. In these circumstances, no reliance could, safely be placed upon the uncorroborated statements of the said police witnesses who were highly interested ones with the result that it could not be said to be established beyond any reasonable doubt that in fact these appellants were arrested in the manner as stated by the prosecution and that the said incriminating articles were actually recovered from their possession. Be that as it may, for the reasons given above, the other appellants are also at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. 13. Be that as it may, for the reasons given above, the other appellants are also at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. 13. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the conviction and the sentences of all the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.