JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgement dated February 8, 1979 of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in sessions trial no. 341 of 1977. 2. ON the night between September 20 and 21, 1976 a dacoity was committed at the house of Babu Lal son of Bhupal Singh of village Kalupur Imloth lying within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jawan in district Aligarh. A large number of persons are said to have committed this dacoity which they are said to have caused injuries to some of the inmates of the house and have carried away some properties. The village where the dacoity took place is at a distance of about 5 miles from police station Jawan where a report about the dacoity was lodged at 6.20 p. m. on September 21, 1976 by PW 1 Babu Lal. In this report he mentioned that Ram Lal, Soran, Jai Singh of his village appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 1979 were amongst the dacoits, In regard to the others, it was mentioned that they could be recognised by him if seen later. The names of various persons of the village, including those of PW: 5 Kunwar Pal and PW 6 Shiv Charan, were mentioned amongst those who had arrived at the scene and had witnessed the commission of the dacoity. 3. SUB-Inspector Tej Pal Sharrma (PW 8), who has investigated the case, arrested appellants Ram Lal and Soran on September 22, 1976. It is said that during their interrogation he learnt about the complicity of Sheodan who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 1979. Sheodan was arrested by the Investigating Officer on September 25, 1976 at about 9.00 p. m. and made baparda. He was eventually lodged in the District Jail, Aligarh on September 26, 1976. During this period, according to the prosecution, he was through out under cover and no one had any opportunity of seeing him. 4. PW 10 Sri B. P. Mathur was Executive Magistrate at Aligarh on November 18, 1976. On that date he conducted the test indentification proceeding in respect of Sheodan in the District Jail, Aligarh. Sheodan was put up for indentification along with ten similar under trials and with due precautions. 4. PW 10 Sri B. P. Mathur was Executive Magistrate at Aligarh on November 18, 1976. On that date he conducted the test indentification proceeding in respect of Sheodan in the District Jail, Aligarh. Sheodan was put up for indentification along with ten similar under trials and with due precautions. He was correctly indentifled by ten persons which included PW 1 Babu Lal, PW 4 Kaliyan Singh, PW 5 Kunwar Pal and PW 6 Sheo Charan. Other six persons who correctly identified him, namely, Bhudeo, Ram Chandra, Makkhan Singh, Chhatra Pal, Doji Ram and Siya Ram have, however, not been produced as witnesses in the case. None of these ten persons committed any mistake. At the trial, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in support of its case Four of them, namely, Babu Lal, Kaliyan Singh, Kunwar Pal and Sheo Charan gave eye witness account of the occurrence and also identified appellant Sheodan as one of the decocts. They named the three appellants in criminal appeal No. 616 of 1979 as participants in the dacoity. Relying upon the evidence so produced, the trial Judge convicted these four persons under section 395 IPC and sentenced them each to a term of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, all the four persons have come up to this Court by way of these appeals. 5. IT is in the evidence of PW 4 Kaliyan Singh, who is real brother of PW 1 Babu Lal and who also claimed to be sleeping near Babu Lal on the night of the dacoity outside their house, that appellants, Soran and Jai Singh are Khandani brothers and appellants Ram Lal is related to them as their 'phupha'. IT is also clear from his evidence that the house of appellants Soran and Jai Singh are near the baithak of the complainant. The house of Ram Lal is to the east of their house but cattle are tied near thereto. IT is further clear from his evidence that during the commission of dacoity the traces of the dacoits were not covered and none of them had taken any precaution to conceal their identity. 6. The house of Ram Lal is to the east of their house but cattle are tied near thereto. IT is further clear from his evidence that during the commission of dacoity the traces of the dacoits were not covered and none of them had taken any precaution to conceal their identity. 6. HAVING regard to the admitted position that these three appellants are residents of the same village in which the dacoity took place and their houses are in the vicinity of the house where the dacoity took place and having regard also to the undisputed position that none of the dacoits made any effort to take any precaution to conceal their identity, it appears improbable, having regard to the normal human conduct, for them to have participated in the commission of the dacoity at the house of Babu Lal. It is true, as observed by the trial judge, that these three appellants have not been able to establish any direct enmity between them and the victim of the dacoity and the two persons of the village who have come forward as witnesses against them in the case, yet the fact that there was possibility of the inclusion of their names amongst the dacoits on account of ill will with Gram Pradhan which appears from the documents brought on the record, makes their participation in the crime doubtful. The two documents filed on their behalf, namely, the certified copy of the order dated October 31, 1975 passed by the Assistant Collector, Aligarh in case No. 25 under section 209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (Ext. Kha 1) and the certified copy of the decree prepared in that case (Ext. Kha 2) would suggest that on the objection filed by Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti of Gram Samaj Imloth; through its Chairman Siya Ram, who was Pradhan, it was held by the Assistant Collector that the name of appellant Babu Lal, father of appellant Jai Singh, was incorrectly entered in the revenue records on some plots. The other grounds of enmity suggested on behalf of these appellants were not affirmatively established. The other grounds of enmity suggested on behalf of these appellants were not affirmatively established. However, in view of the fact that one is not normally expected to commit dacoity at a place where he is well-known without taking any precaution to conceal his identity, the case against these appellants becomes doubtful in these circumstances even though they have not been able to establish any direct enmity with the witnesses who have named them as the dacoits. A perusal of the statement of the: four eye witnesses during trial would show that they cannot, even otherwise, be treated to be absolutely reliable witnesses in the sense that implicit reliance may not be placed upon their evidence for convicting these appellants. These persons are, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. As far as appellant Sheodan is concerned, it has been noticed earlier that his conviction rests on identification evidence. As many as ten persons, including the four eye witnesses produced at the trial by the prosecution, identified him correctly without making any mistake. Such identification appears too good to be true. Neither in the first information report nor in the evidence of the eye witnesses at the trial, has it been brought out that this appellant had any peculiar feature or had any outstanding or leading role during the commission of the dacoity to make his recognition by so many persons, without mistake, possible. In the absence of any peculiar circumstances which may have contributed to his recognition by such large number of persons during the dacoity, his identification by all the four eye witnesses and several others without any mistake whatsoever makes the case against him extremely doubtful. It does appear in these circumstances that the possibility of some outside agency coming to the aid of the identifying witnesses for picking him out, cannot be ruled out. He also is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. IN the result, both these appeals are allowed. The conviction of the appellants under section 395 IPC and the sentences of seven years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to them are set aside. Appellants Soran, Jai Singh and Ram Lal are on bail. They need not surrender thereto. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appellant Sheodan is in jail He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with some other case. Appeals allowed.