Judgment G. M. LODHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the trial court, whereby is acquitted all the accused respondents, Sona, and Lukka alias Lokman and Ramsingh whose name has been deleted vide order dated 2. 8. 82 from the array of the respondents, because according to the Public Prosecutor appeared on that day he has expired on account of an encounter with the police. The charges were framed against the accused for the offences under sections 365, 347, 148, 307, and 307/149, I. P. C. ( 2 ) SINCE no one has appeared on behalf of the accused- Respondent, Sona and. Lukka, I have appointed Miss Rajesh Kandwal as Amicus curiae. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record referred to before me. ( 3 ) THE principal question in. controversy is whether the respondent-accused were present in the encounter and where they have kidnapped boy, Satishchandra. Obviously no name was mentioned in the FIR. even after the recovery of Satishchandra. According to the FIR. Chhabil and Ramvesh saw the accused running and none of them could recognize the dacoits. ( 4 ) TWO constables (P. W. 2 and 3) who claimed that they have identified the accused have been held to be not of much trustworthy by the trial court on the basis of the judgment of Allahabad High Court because senior officers have not identified them. All the witnesses admitted that there was heavy rains at the time of the encounter and the entire atmosphere and climate was cloudy in the evening at 7 p. m. making visibility very poor. ( 5 ) IN my opinion, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the prosecution case on record that it has not been possible to identify the accused at that time of the occurrence or the earlier. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, since neither the names of any of the accused has been mentioned in the FIR. nor any identification parade was held, the identification in the court by Satishchandra becomes of very doubtful veracity. It is also significant that Satishchandra has stated that a day earlier to his examination in court, he has gone to the lock up and seen the accused to whom he has identified in the court. nor any identification parade was held, the identification in the court by Satishchandra becomes of very doubtful veracity. It is also significant that Satishchandra has stated that a day earlier to his examination in court, he has gone to the lock up and seen the accused to whom he has identified in the court. Although be bas denied that it was done at the instance of the police yet, the basic feature that be went to lock up to see the accused before the identification of the accused in the court, volumes about the veracity and trustworthiness of this witness. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the crime. I am, therefore in agreement with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution bas miserably failed to prove any offence against the accused. ( 8 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused respondents are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed.