JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - Applicant Swami Dayal was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri for an offence u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1980 against that conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Kheri. 2. According to the prosecution case, victim Ganga Ram was sitting in front of his house alongwith Gur Dayal on 3-11-1978 at about 7.00 p.m. in village Piparia where a lantern was burning. Four unknown persons are said to have arrived and to have committed robbery at the house of Ganga Ram. One of the culprits caught hold of Ganga Ram; others inflicted injuries to Gur Dayal and in the meantime Ganga Ram's wife Srimati Roop Rani also arrived. It is said that one Ram Prasad also recognised the culprits. Ultimately, all the culprits made their escape after looting the property. 3. Applicant Swami Dayal was arrested on 6-2-1979; who is a resident of village Lahagarh, Police Station Mitauli, district Lakhimpur Kheri, after usual precaution of making him baparda from the place of arrest was sent to jail. Identification proceeding was held on 8-3-1979 by the Executive Magistrate Sri Rakesh Kumar. One Ram Ratan, a resident of Saeedapur, district, Hardoi was also arrested alongwith Swami Dayal by S.I. A.K. Srivastava and Ram Ratan also was put up for identification. Ganga Ram PW 1, his wife Srimati Roop Rani PW 2 correctly identified both Swami Dayal and Ram Ratan. 4. Both the accused denied the prosecution case. 5. The learned Magistrate did not place reliance upon the testimony of PW 3 Ram Prasad because he was not present at the house of Ganga Ram but claim to have seen the occurrence from some distance in his torch light. He relied upon the testimony of other two witnesses and held that the lantern light was adequate for enabling the witnesses to recognise the culprits. He considered the evidence of Srimati Raj Shri DW 1 who was the cousin sister of accused Ram Ratan residing in village Piparia where the robbery was committed and held that Srimati Ram Shri used to live in a house in village Piparia, hardly 50 steps from the house of Ganga Ram. He considered the evidence of Srimati Raj Shri DW 1 who was the cousin sister of accused Ram Ratan residing in village Piparia where the robbery was committed and held that Srimati Ram Shri used to live in a house in village Piparia, hardly 50 steps from the house of Ganga Ram. He noticed that both Ganga Kara PW 1 and his wife Srimati Roop Rani PW 2 could not say whether Smt. Ram Shri was married to Sunder Bhuraji. He, therefore, held that it was not improbable that Ram Ratan might have visited the house of Smt. Ram Shri in village Piparia and in that situation the witnesses might have seen Ram Ratan prior to the commission of the robbery. For this reason, he gave benefit of doubt to Ram Ratan and acquitted him. He did not find any such infirmity in the testimony of the two witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 in respect of Swami Dayal and therefore found him guilty. 6. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contends that if Ram Ratan was acquitted on the finding that he might have been visiting the village of robbery, namely village Piparia, and therefore might have been known to Ganga Ram PW 1 and Srimati Roop Rani PW 2, the revisionist Swami Dayal may also have been known to the witnesses and therefore was identified by them. It is urged that in this situation the value of Ganga Ram PW 1 and Srimati Roop Rani PW 2 as witnesses of identification is greatly reduced and the revisionist is entitled to benefit of doubt. He has referred to the cases of State of U.P. v. Jagne 1971 AWR 163 (H.C.) and Piarey v. State 1956 AWR 683 . 7. In both these cases, some of the accused persons were known persons of the village of the offence and others were unknown persons. In Jagne's case (Supra) the persons who belonged to the village where the dacoity itself took place, had not been named in the FIR, yet in the witness box all the eye witnesses named those persons. It was mainly for this infirmity, coupled with some other features, that the testimony of the eye witnesses was disbelieved by the trial Court regarding the persons who were named at trial. It was mainly for this infirmity, coupled with some other features, that the testimony of the eye witnesses was disbelieved by the trial Court regarding the persons who were named at trial. It was also noticed that one of the unnamed accused namely Jagne was a leper with most of his fingers and those having abnormal condition, due to which he could not have participated in the commission of the crime. Thus, the evidence clearly indicated that known persons of the same village had not been named in the FIR and of the persons who were unknown, at least one Jagne, had been falsely implicated. The High Court observed that in these circumstances of the case, it was difficult to attach value to the identification of the unknown culprits done by the witnesses. It will be seen that the facts of that case were peculiar in their own way and that all the witnesses who had identified some of the unknown dacoits were found to have given false evidence against all the known culprits and at least one of the unknown culprits. It cannot, therefore, be said that the decision lays down any principle of law that if the evidence of one witness is disbelieved in respect of known culprits, it must be disbelieved in respect of unknown culprits. 8. In the case of Piarey (supra), the case was u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which some of the accused belonged to the same village and had been named in the FIR while 7 others were unknown persons of another village who were identified by the witnesses. The Sessions Judge acquitted 5 out of 7 unknown persons on the ground that they were prooably known to the witnesses. The High Court noticed that out of the two remaining unknown accused one, namely Hori Lal, had been named in the FIR and therefore proceedings for his identification was in force. Dealing with the case of other person, Sibba, the High Court observed that Sibba was entitled to benefit of doubt because he resided in the same village in which the other unknown acquitted accused resided and had been acquitted on the ground that they were probably known to those identifying witnesses who had also identified Sibba. Dealing with the case of other person, Sibba, the High Court observed that Sibba was entitled to benefit of doubt because he resided in the same village in which the other unknown acquitted accused resided and had been acquitted on the ground that they were probably known to those identifying witnesses who had also identified Sibba. In that case, two features are remarkable; firstly, it was proved that one of the persons, whom the prosecution witnesses treated to be unknown, and therefore identified him, was actually a known person and had been named in the FIR. Secondly, Sibba accused was a resident of the same village in which the other co-accused resided who had been acquitted on the finding that probably they were known to the witnesses. The upshot is that inference of probable acquaintance of Sibba was drawn from the fact that he belonged to the same village to which the other unknown co-accused belonged and had been acquitted on the ground of acquaintance. The decision, therefore, cannot be said to lay down a general law that simply because the identification witnesses are found to have known some of the accused, they must also be held to have known the other unknown accused even if they belonged to different localities. 9. In the present case, Ram Ratan who had been acquitted belonged to village Saeedpur, district Hardoi and his cousin sister was married in village Piparia where the robbery was committed, but accused Swami Dayal belongs to village Lahagarh, P.S. Mitauli, district Lakhimpur Kheri. It is not shown that he has any relationship in village Piparia where he might have had an opportunity to visit and therefore, like Ram Ratan, might have been seen by the witnesses. The appraisal of evidence in every case (sic) upon all facts and circumstances of that case concerning every individual accused. It is well settled that if a witness is found not to be reliable in respect of one part of the case, he is not necessarily to be disbelieved for that reason alone in respect of the other part of the case. It is well settled that if a witness is found not to be reliable in respect of one part of the case, he is not necessarily to be disbelieved for that reason alone in respect of the other part of the case. If in the circumstances indicated above, the trial Court felt that one of the accused Ram Ratan might have been known to the identifying witnesses, it cannot be said to have committed any error of judgment or illegality in refusing to draw the same conclusion in respect of applicant Swami Dayal, nor the Court below can be said to have committed any illegality in refusing to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant also urged that in consequence of the arrest on 6-2-1979, the applicant had also been separately prosecuted for an offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act and under Sections 395/397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and has been acquitted thereof He, however, admits that the applicant had been acquitted of those offences, subsequently, and therefore the finding in those cases does not affect the finding on merits of this case. 11. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the applicant says that the sentence awarded by the lower Court may be reduced because the case is of the year 1979 and the applicant has been on bail. 12. The revision is dismissed and the conviction of the applicant for offence u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed, but the sentence is reduced to a period of two years. The revisionist is on bail. He shall surrender and will be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled. The C.J.M. concerned shall report compliance within 6 weeks. Revision dismissed.