JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - Appellants Karam Singh Ram Kumar son of Sadhari and Banwari have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Sections 399, 402, I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao by his order dated 15.1.1982. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 399, I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under Section 402, I.P.C. Appellant Karam Singh has further been sentenced to R.I. for two years under Section 25 Arms Act while appellants Ram Kumar and Banwari have been sentenced to R.I. for six months each for the said offence. All the sentences were made to run concurrently. 2. The police came with the stereo-typed story that on receiving secret information that a gang of dacoits would commit dacoity at the house of Surya Bux Singh in village Sarra Saddiqpur, police station Bangarmau District Unnao and that the gang would assemble in the grove of Babu Singh. The police party after procuring six independent witnesses from the village divided itself into three parties and one party each took cover towards the West, South and East of the grove leaving the northern side, from which the dacoits were expected to enter. The three parties took position at about 10.30 P.M. and at about midnight the miscreants started arriving. When nine of them had assembled one of them said that it was now time that they should go to commit the dacoity at the house of Surya Bux Singh whereupon they were challenged by the police party which fired V.L.P. light in the area and when the miscreants tried to run, they were over-powered and seven of them were arrested while two succeeded in escaping. On their search various arms were recovered from their possession. The recovery memoes were prepared and after investigation all the seven were sent up for trial. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined S.I. Jagjiwan Ram (P.W.1) and S.I. R.P.Shukla (P.W.4) besides independent witnesses Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) and Kewal (P.W. 3). The learned Sessions Judge discarded the testimony of Kewal (P.W.3) and relying upon the testimony of two police officers and Mahendra Singh, he found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge discarded the testimony of Kewal (P.W.3) and relying upon the testimony of two police officers and Mahendra Singh, he found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He, however allowed benefit of doubt to accused Jai Pal Singh and Yusuf on the ground that their recovery memoes were not signed by Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) and he felt that it was doubt that these recovery memoes and other recovery memoes were prepared at the spot. Accordingly he acquitted accused Jai Pal Singh and Yusuf and convicted the remaining, five accused, out of whom this appeal has, been preferred by only three appellants. It appears that no appeal was preferred by the remaining two accused viz. Bhangar and Ram Kumar son of Bhulai who had also been convicted by the Sessions Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that it was not possible to place reliance on the testimony of (P.W.2) Mahendra Singh and that his testimony should also have been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge, especially when he had already appeared as a police witness in certain other cases, which indicated that he was the pocket witness of the police. He also drew my attention to certain decisions of this court, in which it was observed that it was difficult to believe that the dacoits would unnecessarily enter into a conversation as to where they had to commit dacoity and that too in such a loud voice that the police party hiding at a considerable distance would be able to hear them. Even if they discussed the details of what they have to do and also take the name of the person where the dacoity was to be committed, they would discuss such matters in whispers. My attention was also drawn to the fact that the recovery memoes of accused Jai Pal Singh and Banwari (Ex. Ka. 2 and Ka. 6)did not bear the signatures of P.W. Mahendra Singh, but instead of acquitting accused Jai Pal Singh and Banwari the learned Sessions Judge had actually acquitted accused Jai Pal Singh and Yusuf. My attention was also drawn to the fact that the recovery memoes of accused Jai Pal Singh and Banwari (Ex. Ka. 2 and Ka. 6)did not bear the signatures of P.W. Mahendra Singh, but instead of acquitting accused Jai Pal Singh and Banwari the learned Sessions Judge had actually acquitted accused Jai Pal Singh and Yusuf. If benefits of doubt for this reason was to be extended to jai Pal Singh, it was necessary to extend the same benefit to accused Banwari but for reasons best known to the learned Sessions Judge he did not extend that benefit to Banwari but instead acquitted Yusuf. P.W. 1 S.I. Jagjiwan Ram stated that Lathi Ex. 9 was recovered from the possession of accused Yusuf. No recovery memo regarding the recovery of any lathi from Yusuf is on the record and the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 8 is only with respect to the recovery of a torch from his possession. This indicates that the prosecution did not take proper care while adducing evidence and the learned Sessions Judge did not take proper care and precaution to verify from the file as to which, accused persons were entitled to be given the benefit of doubt on the ground that their recovery memoes did not bear the signatures of Mahendra Singh. 5. I agree with the observations of the learned Sessions Judge that the testimony of P.W. 3 Kewal was not such on which implicit reliance could be placed and he rightly discredited his testimony. I, however, find that the testimony of P.W. 2 Mahendra Singh was also not such which inspired confidence and on which implicit reliance could be placed. He admitted in paragraph 14 of his statement that he had already given evidence for the police in two or three cases. When he was asked as to whether he had given evidence for the police in five or six cases, he could not deny the same but stated that he had not counted that he had appeared as a witness for the police in five or six cases. The learned defence counsel rightly contended that Mahendra Singh was a pocket witness of the police and should not have been believed. This witness stated that only seven miscreants had assembled in the grove and all the seven persons had been arrested. The learned defence counsel rightly contended that Mahendra Singh was a pocket witness of the police and should not have been believed. This witness stated that only seven miscreants had assembled in the grove and all the seven persons had been arrested. According to the prosecution version, however, nine persons had assembled in the grove and seven accused persons were arrested while the remaining two succeeded in escaping. It appears that as only seven accused persons were standing trial, this witness merely played upon his imagination and stated that only seven miscreants had assembled in the grove and all of them had been arrested. This makes his testimony very doubtful and goes to show that in all probability he was not present at the spot. If both the independent witnesses are disbelieved and their testimony is discarded, it is not possible to convict the accused persons merely on the testimony of police witnesses in a case of this nature. All the accused persons are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 399, 402 I.P.C. and Sections 25 Arms Act and the sentences awarded to them are set aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. All of them are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.