JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.:---This is an appeal against an acquittal. The two respondents Namdeo and Pundalik were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 395 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 19-4-1973 at about 11.45 p.m. they committed dacoity along with 5 or 6 others in the Railway yard. The other persons were not identified and were not put up for trial. According to complainant Gayakwad, P.W. 3, who was a R.P.F. watchman these two persons were involved in the commission of the offence, viz. removing coal from the railway yard. In the first information report he had stated that one Nenaya and Pandalaya were the two persons whom he identified amongst these 7 or 8 persons, who had been there. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused on the ground that they were not proved by the prosecution to be amongst the culprits and also for the other reasons. 3. This appeal can be disposed of on a very short ground. In order to hold the accused guilty, it must be show that they were the persons amongst the group of persons who had committed a dacoity, assuming that a dacoity was committed. The only two witnesses who contend the two accused were amongst the group of people are P.W. 3 Gayakwad and P.W. 4 Dharwad. Gayakwad, P.W. 3, has stated that he was knowing the two accused from about a year prior to his statement. However, in the evidence he has given the names of the two persons whom he had identified at the time of the incident. P.W. 4 Dharwad also has not given the names of the persons who he had identified. In fact even in the Court it has not been stated by either of them as to whom they saw i.e., what was the name of accused No. 1 and what was the name of accused No. 2 . No evidence has been led to show that the name of one of the accused was Namdeo and his nickname was Nenaya, or that the name of the accused was Pundalik and his nickname was Pandalaya. It has not been established that the two accused Namdeo and Pundalik were present and were identified from amongst that group of culprits and their alias names were Nenaya and Pandalaya respectively. It has not been established that the two accused Namdeo and Pundalik were present and were identified from amongst that group of culprits and their alias names were Nenaya and Pandalaya respectively. In the absence of any such evidence, it is difficult to hold that the present accused before the Court, viz. Namdeo and Pundalik, were the persons, who were named in the first information report by the informant Gayakwad. Since the identify of these persons is not established, it cannot be held that these two persons were amongst others who had committed dacoity. 4. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has failed to establish that these two persons were amongst the dacoits on that day. In view of this the respondents could not be convicted and the Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish that the two accused persons were involved in the crime. We see no merits in this appeal. Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed. 5. Accused No. 1 who is said to be arrested in pursuance of the action under section 427 Cri. P.C. should be released forthwith unless he is required in some other matter. Accused No. 2 is said to be on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. ------