V. P. MATHUR, J,, J. ( 1 ) MR. Ikramul Ban, the then VIlith Additional Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area, Kanpur, had vide his order dated 29. 4. 1978 convicted Genda Lal on a. charge under Section 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced, him to 6 yearst rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story was that at about midnight on 19/20. 2. 1975 Bhikari Lal complainant, (P. W. 2) was sleeping under a Chhappar infront of the door of his room. His nephew, Ram Swarup was sleeping in the western room in which the engine of the tubewell was fixed and a lighted lantern was hanging on a peg in the wall under the Chhappar. Suddenly the complainants dog started barking and, therefore, he got up. He saw 7 or 8 persons standing near him. They rebuked him by saying that he was not stopping the dog from barking and when Bhikari Lat said that the dog was meant to bark these persons started giving him Danda and Hockey blows and asked him to surrender the key of the look of the room. Ram Swarup also got up and came at the spot. Promptly 4 or 5 room persons fell upon him and started giving him beating with sticks and Dandas. Then the culprits, who were 7 or 8 in number entered, the room and busied themselves in searching the room for valuables. Meanwhile, alarm was raised by both the injured victims and as a result thereof Ram Swarup. Balak Ram, Asharfi Lal, Ajoahya Prasad, Ram Autar and Soney Lal come crying and flashing the torches. Sugarcane leaves were lying in a heap towards the east of the engine room and Soney Lal put them on fire and this created sufficient light on the spot. Property from the premises was looted by the ddcoits and during the course of their movement from place to place they were very well seen in the light of the lantern, torches of the witnesses and the burning fire and amongst them Genda Lal the present appellant, who is resident of a neighbouring village, was clearly seen and recognized. The features of other culprits were also seen. The features of other culprits were also seen. The dacoits ultimately left with the looted property, of which details have been given in the F. I. R. Ext. Ka. 3. which was scribed by Soney Lal at, the dictation of Bhikari Lal and it was handed over in the police station at 10. 30 a. m. on 20. 2. 1975. (seven miles from the place of occurrence ). A case was registered and Bhikari Lal and Ram Swarup both were sent for medical examination to Dr. S. R. D. Lakhyani (P. W. 1 ). Investigation was made. Atriz, Siddiq and Mumtaz were also arrested. Genda Lal was arrested on 28. 6. 1975. Atrfz, Siddiq and Mumtaz were put up for identification and after completing the investigation, charge-sheets were submitted against all the accused. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examination Bhikari Lal, Balak Ram. Ram Autar and Soney Lal. P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. Sand P. W. 6, respectively as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The other witnesses were all formal including the Investigating Officers, Medical Officer and the Magistrate, who conducted the identification proceedings. ( 4 ) THE accused, against whom the evidence was of identification, were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, who held that the witnesses had no opportunity to see their faces in such a way as to be able to identify them subsequently; but since Genda Lal was already known from before, the evidence of the witnesses was accepted against him and by the impugned order he was convicted and sentenced. ( 5 ) THE first point, which the learned counsel raised during the arguments before me, was that in the, F. I. R. DO specific role was assigned to. Genda Lal and the only allegation against him was that he was recognized on the spot as he was already known from before. This defect was, however, got removed by the defence itself when Bhikari Lal, complainant, (P. W. 2) entered the witness box. During cross-examination, persistent questioning was made to him, and it was elicited that Genoa Lal was the man who had demanded the key from the complainant, and with whom the complainant had entered into arguments. It was also elicited from him that be did not raise any cry taking the name of Genda Lal because he was afraid that if be did so, he would be beaten. It was also elicited from him that be did not raise any cry taking the name of Genda Lal because he was afraid that if be did so, he would be beaten. He also says that Genda Lal was putting a cloth round his head but his face was open. This defect of absence of any allegation regarding the role, which Genda Lal played on the spot, in the F. I. R. has thus been made good, and the prosecution should be thankful to the counsel who conducted the case on behalf of the accused, for bringing about this evidence on record. It is undoubted that Genda Lal belongs to a neighbouring village and it is also not disputed, that be was already known from before to Bhikari Lal and others. His own statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is also of significance. In reply to a question why witnesses had deposed against him, he gave out that he had obtained from Bhikari Lal grains worth Rs. 400/. on credit and in lieu thereof he had executed a pronote. Subsequently he paid off the dues and demanded the receipt back but Bhikari Lal did not oblige, and has falsely Implicated him in this case. Atleast from this statement it is well made out that Genda Lal was already very well known to Bhikari Lal and if it is to be believed that there was business transaction between the two, then it is also clear that there was no previous enmity between them. The defence further helped the prosecution in this case by examining a defence witness namely Buddha, as D. W. 1. The intention to produce this witness was to prove the business transaction between Bhikari Lal and Genda Lal but Buddha came with a different story. He said that it was Manna, who had obtained Rs. 500. 00 by way of loan from Bhikari Lal and subsequently he had returned it back after selling his Lahi in the month of Phagun. He then corrected himself by saying that the cash sum of Rs. 500. 00 was not taken, but grains worth that amount were taken from Bhikari Lal and pronote and receipt for that amount were written and when the amount was repaid, Bhikari Lal did not return the pronote and receipt and hence there was a quarrel. He then corrected himself by saying that the cash sum of Rs. 500. 00 was not taken, but grains worth that amount were taken from Bhikari Lal and pronote and receipt for that amount were written and when the amount was repaid, Bhikari Lal did not return the pronote and receipt and hence there was a quarrel. During cross-examination this witness has been exposed as being a liar and in any view of the matter he does not support the defence version because be contradicts Geoda Lal on all the material points. It means, therefore, that there was no previous enmity between the parties. There was no business transaction between them and yet Genda Lal was very well known to the complainant and the witnesses from before. This is an important circumstance to be considered In appraising the entire evidence on record inasmuch as there should be a reason for false implication, and when it is established beyond doubt that there was no enmity between the parties, the story regarding false implication becomes highly improbable. ( 6 ) A perusal of the testimony of the witnesses examined in this case will clearly show that Genda Lal was dearly seen by the witnesses amongst the culprits. The learned Judge has not believed the indentification evidence of the witnesses and rightly so, because the other dacoits were not known to the witnesses from before and naturally a glimpse of them at the time of dacoity from a distance, in view of the position that the witnesses had taken on the spot, would not help them to correctly see their faces in such a manner as to identify them subsequently, but so far as Genda Lal is concerned, since he was known from before, a mere glimpse of that man would have satisfied the witnesses about his presence. Therefore, a distinction will have to be made between the case of Genda Lat, and the other accused. Moreover, as I have already mentioned above, during the cross, examination of Bhikari Lal the defence has elicited that it was Genda Lal who demanded the key from Bhikari Lal and Bhikari Lal refused to oblige saying that he had no key. Therefore, a distinction will have to be made between the case of Genda Lat, and the other accused. Moreover, as I have already mentioned above, during the cross, examination of Bhikari Lal the defence has elicited that it was Genda Lal who demanded the key from Bhikari Lal and Bhikari Lal refused to oblige saying that he had no key. It has further been elicited that Genda Lal told Bhikari Lal to open the lock as they wanted to loot the goods from inside and Bhikari Lal told him that there was no property inside the room. After all this exchange of words between the two persons, it cannot now be said that the identity of Genda Lal accused remained in doubt. The learned Judge has, therefore been perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that Genda Lal did take part in this dacoity. He has been specifically named in the F. I. R. which was promptly made. He had no enimity with the complainant. He was known to Bhikari lal and other witnesses and his presence on the spot amongst the dacoits was clearly established by the testimony of the witnesses. ( 7 ) THIS being the situation, a case under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code was very we made out against Genda Lal and he was rightly convicted. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has awarded to the accused-appellant Genda Lal six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. This cannot be said to be harsh by any stretch of imagination. ( 9 ) THERE is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender and be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. His bail bond and sureties shall stand cancelled. Steps shall be taken to realise the amount of fine. Appeal dismissed. .