JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Sulekhan has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, under section 395/397 and section 396 I. P. C. and sentenced respectively to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- or, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution may be shortly stated here. Dacoits 9 or 10 in number raided the house of Basanta, resident of village Dingli, District Alwar, on the night between February 2 and 3, 1974, at about 11 p. m. They woke up Basanta and told him that he was required to be taken to the police station as he wanted by the police. Mean while Basanta's son Matadin also woke up and came there. Basanta became suspicious and expressed his apprehension that the intruders were dacoits. Basanta's other son namely Rati Ram, who was sleeping nearby, also woke up. Matadin and Rati Ram offered resistance to the intruders. The dacoits shot dead both Matadin and Rati Ram. In the resulting confusion, they also shot dead one of their own companions and left the dead body behind. They ran away without being able to remove any property from the house of Basanta. 3. Appellant Sulekhan was arrested by the Laxmaogarh police in some other case on November 25, 1977. He was taken into custody by Kotkasim police who were incharge of the present investigation on November 28, 1977. He was sent to the judicial lock-up on December 2, 1977. The test identification parade was held in Jail premises on December 7, 1977. It is alleged that P Ws Basanta and Prabhati correctly identified Sulekhan as one of the dacoits in the course of the said parade. 4. During that trial, the prosecution examined, among others, Prabhati and Basanta in support of its case. Moharli w/o Basanta, who sustained some injuries in the course of the commission of this crime was also examined as a witness by the prosecution. Both Basanta and Prabhati identified Sulekhan in the trial as one of the dacoits who participated in the commission of this crime. Moharli w/o Basanta, who sustained some injuries in the course of the commission of this crime was also examined as a witness by the prosecution. Both Basanta and Prabhati identified Sulekhan in the trial as one of the dacoits who participated in the commission of this crime. PW Moharli was, however, not questioned by the Public Prosecutor in the trial as to whether Sulekhan was present in her house along with the culprits on the fateful night or not. 5. Relying on the evidence of identification by PWs Basanta and Prabhati in the trial, as corroborated by such evidence of identification in the test identification parade in the course of investigation, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the charges under section 395/397 and Section 396 framed against Sulekhan were proved. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 6. We have carefully examined the statements of PWs Basanta and Prabhati in the trial, for it is only on the basis of their statements that the impugned order of conviction and sentence was passed by the Court below. In our considered opinion, three witnesses could not have possibly seen the face of Sulekhan if he was present among the dacoits that night, so as to be able to identify him subsequently during the investigation and the trial. Basanta admitted that most of the culprits were having their faces muffled. He was unable to recall if Sulekhan, whom he claims to have seen among the dacoits, was having his face covered or not. He was unable to say if Sulekhan was wearing a turban or a cap. If so, one cannot possibly give him the credit of having seen Sulekhan so carefully as to be able to identify him later. 7. PW Prabhati frankly admitted that all the dacoits had been covering their faces either with 'DHATTAS' or 'DHOTIS'. He further stated that the culprits had pushed him inside the room and kept the door chained from outside. 8. It will be seen that Sulekhan was arrested by the police on November 25,1977. He was kept in police custody for a number of days before he was sent to Judicial lockup on December 2, 1977. The possibility of Sulekhan having been seen by the witnesses concerned during this long interval cannot be ruled out. 9. 8. It will be seen that Sulekhan was arrested by the police on November 25,1977. He was kept in police custody for a number of days before he was sent to Judicial lockup on December 2, 1977. The possibility of Sulekhan having been seen by the witnesses concerned during this long interval cannot be ruled out. 9. For all these reasons, the evidence of identification is too weak to connect the accused appellant with the crime. There is no other evidence on record to prove the charges framed against the appellant. 10. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence and instead acquit the appellant. He is in Jail. He is ordered to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.Appeal Allowed and conviction and sentences set aside. *******