Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. 1. Both the appellants have been found guilty for the offences punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and each has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. 2. The prosecution case, briefly Stated, is that in between the night of 23rd and 24th August, 1981 about, 11-12 dacoits had raided the house of the informant and had committed various overt acts. The properties had been looted and thereafter the informant and other family members were bolted inside the room. The dacoits went to the house of Premchand Yadav and there, it appears that Premchand had been assaulted. Necessary information had been given to the police next day and the two appellants had been named along with several others. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the evidence of identification directed against the applicants. 4. According to the informant and the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5, they had identified the two appellants. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the identification was not possible. In the First Information Report itself it has been mentioned that all dacoits had painted their faces excepting appellant Nanu Singh, who had concealed his face by wrapping a Gamchha. If that be the position naturally the identification was not possible. In case of a few others, the informant has said that he had identified them by their voices. The identification by voice cannot be said to be sound and acceptable. When all the dacoits had painted their faces, naturally the identification was not possible in the case of Mathura Mahto also. 5. The means of identification is stated to be the lantern but on close examination of the evidence on the question of identification, the identification, by the lantern has to be rejected. It appears from the evidence of the informant that the dacoits were at different places and naturally a single burning lantern will not make the witnesses possible to identify the dacoits at different places. Therefore the lantern has been introduced later to give strength to the identification of the appellants by the witnesses, but that is not acceptable. 6. In that view of the weak evidence, the appellants have become entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Therefore the lantern has been introduced later to give strength to the identification of the appellants by the witnesses, but that is not acceptable. 6. In that view of the weak evidence, the appellants have become entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the trial court is hereby set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond forthwith.