JUDGMENT B. N. Katju, J. - Soorajpal, Ganga,Ram have filed this appeal aganmthe judgment of the Civil judge, Budaun dated May 5, 1972, passed in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 1972, convicting them under section 395 I. P. C. and sentencing them to seven years R. I. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants akmg with seven or eight other persons committed dacoity in the houses of Ram Chandra (P. W. 1), Hira Lal and Man Singh in village Mandhian at about midnight between 26th and 27th April, 1971 in which property was looted. 3. The first information report was lodged by Ram Chandra (P. W. 1) at police station Qadarchown on 2641971 at 6.20 a.m. None of the appellants was named in this report as they were not known to the informant and other witnesses before the occurrence. 4. The appellants were arrested on 1891971, by Sheoraj Singh, S. O., Qadar chowk (P.W. 10) in village Nibia, where they resided. They were made 'baparda' and brought to Police Station Gaudungwara on the same day. They were kept 'baparda' at PoliceStation Gaudungwara and were taken 'baparda' from PoliceStation Gaudungwara and admitted in District Jail, Etah on 1991971. They were taken from District Jail, Etah 'baparda' on 6101971 and were admitted in District Jail, Budaun on 7101971. 5. The identification proceedings were held on 25101971 and all the appellants were correctly identified by Ram Chandra (P.W. 1), Gopal (P.W. 3) and Gauri Sahai (P. W. 9). 6. The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they were shown to the prosecution witnesses, while they were being brought from District Jail, Etah to District Jail, Budaun. Budra (D. W. 1) and Net Ram (D. W. 2) were examined in defence. 7. The Trial court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. 8. Prahlad Singh (P. W. 6) stated that, on 8101971, he was posted at Police Lines Etah. On that day, he took the appellants from Etah Jail 'baparda' at about 12.00 noon and brought them by bus to Budaun at 5.45 p.m. He first took the appellants from the bus stand to the court for obtaining warrant but f ound that the court had already risen. On that day, he took the appellants from Etah Jail 'baparda' at about 12.00 noon and brought them by bus to Budaun at 5.45 p.m. He first took the appellants from the bus stand to the court for obtaining warrant but f ound that the court had already risen. After spending about an hour in the court compound where he and the appellants drank water he took the appellants to the Kotwali. The distance of the court from the bus stand is about three fourth of a mile and the distance o f the Kotwali from the court is about a mile. It has been stated by Badri Prasad (P. W. 8), who was posted at the Kot wali, fiudaun on 8101971, that the appellants were brought to the Kotwali by Prahlad Singh at 9.10 p.m. out at day(610197I). It is difficult to believe that about threeandahalf hours were taken by Prahlad Singh in taking the appellants from the bus stand to the court and frotn the court to the Kotwali at Budaun. The possibility of the appellants being shown to the witnesses before being lodged at PoliceStation Kotwali, Budaun, as suggested by the defence, cannot, therefore, be ruled out. The evidence of identification is, therefore, of no value. Further Ram Chandra (P. W. 1) and Gopal (P. W. 3) identified three appellants correctly, but committed one mistake. Both these witnesses are, therefore, not good witnesses. Gauri Sahai identified the three appellants correctly without committing any mistake. He is, therefore, a good witness. There .is, therefore, only one good witness of identification against the appellants which is insufficient for basing a conviction. 9. The result, therefore, is that the prosecution has failedto establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 10. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside. They are on bail. They need no surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed