V. P. MATHUR, J. The two appellants came up against the judgment and order passed by Mr. R. P. Jain, the then Sessions Judge of Etawah on 19-10-1978 while he was disposing of Sessions Trial No. A-81 of 1977 and who convicted both Ramji Lal and Jagdish on a charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each on of them to imprisonment for life. 2. Three persons stood trial before the learned Judge. One Satta alias Satya Narain, who was not named in the first information report, was put up for identification and the identification evidence was furnished. On identifica tion evidence, the prosecution case was not accepted by the learned Judges who held that it did not warrant conviction of batta alias Satya Narain and hence Satta alias Satya Narain was acquitted. 3. The prosecution case is that a dacoity took place in Nagla Banjara Farm which is hamlet of village Kunwarpur within the area of police station-Ekdil at the houses of two persons, namely, Bahadur Singh and Kishan Singh. Between 8 to 10 armed dacoits took part in this dacoity and looted properties from these two houses. They were variously armed with Kattas, guns, lathis and kulhari. It is said that out of these culprits, two, namely, Ramjilal and Jagdish, who are interse connected as cousin brothers and belonged to Nagla Pooth, which lies within the hamlet of Berari at a distance of about two furlongs from the scene of occurrence, were already known to the witnesses from before and hence were recognised on the spot. Ramjilal is said to have been armed with a katta (country made pistol) and Jagdish with a gun. Neighbouring witnesses indudiag Parikshit (P. W. 1), Chandan Singh (Chandra Singh) (P. W. 2) Bahadur Singh (P. W. 4) and some others, namely, Sube Singh, Sahab Singh and Kishan Singh also collected near the scene of occurrence. During the course of the dacoity these two persons, namely, appellants Ramjilal and Jagdish with their arms were allegedly standing on the chabutara in front of the chhappar of Bahadur Singh and they were firing from that place obvious ly to scare away the witnesses. During the course of the dacoity these two persons, namely, appellants Ramjilal and Jagdish with their arms were allegedly standing on the chabutara in front of the chhappar of Bahadur Singh and they were firing from that place obvious ly to scare away the witnesses. Parikshit along with his father came to the door of his Aangan, which is very close to the place where these culprits were standing and it has been show by figure T in the site plan prepared by tho Investigating Officer. Bahadur Singh along with his fathers elder brother and his own mother was sleeping inside the chhappar, which is towards the south of the chabutra and he woke up and came out of the chhappar and during the course of the dacoity allegedly continued going in and coming out of the chhappar. A lighted lantern was present, the place of which has been shown in the site plan at point a and it has been variously described by the witnesses including the Investigating Officer as a Khoonti in the wall or the Baderi (rafter on which the chhappar was resting and it was placed on a pillar. It is in evidence that this chhappar was supported by five pillars and there were referred from the eastern wall up to those pillars to support the chhappar. At point (2) shown in the site plan is the place where according to the Investigating Officer, Bahadur Singh was present. This is on the open chabutara. At point 3 which is towards the north western corner of the chabutara, is the place where Kishan Singh remained standing and from where he saw the occurrence. He is one of the victims of this dacoity. His son Sahab Singh, who also came out along-with his father, however, managed to come in the Gali intervening the Aangan of Parikshit and the chabutra of Bahadur Singh and was standing, at the point shown by letter x in the site plan where he received injuries and died in con sequence thereof. Another witness Chander Singh or Chandan Singh was also present nearby in the same Gali. He also received injuries in this occurrence. 4. The prosecution had examined in all nine witnesses in this case. Three of them, namely, P. W. 1 Parikshit, P. W. 2 Chander Singh (Chandran Singh) and P. W. 4 Bahadur Singh are the eye-witnesses. All others are formal. He also received injuries in this occurrence. 4. The prosecution had examined in all nine witnesses in this case. Three of them, namely, P. W. 1 Parikshit, P. W. 2 Chander Singh (Chandran Singh) and P. W. 4 Bahadur Singh are the eye-witnesses. All others are formal. Dr. B. K. Gupta (P. W. 3) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sahab Singh. P. W 5 Satya Prakash Saxena is the Assistant Jailor who came to prove the date of admission of Satta alias Satya Narain in the Jail. This accused was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, P. W. 6 is Shravan Kumar, who took down the first information report. P. W. 7 is Dr. Chandra Prakash, who examined by the injuries of Chander Singh on 4-7-1975 at 9. 30 A. M. P. W. 8 is Sri Allauddin, Sub-Inspector, who was the Investigating Officer of this case. P. W. 9 is Sri Manmohan Singh, who was the Executive Magistrate and who conducted the identification proceedings with respect to Satta alias Satya Narayan. 5. The defence was complete denial of the prosecution version and the two appellants gave out that they have been falsely implicated in this case because ranjish. They also admitted the fact that they were on bail in a murder case, when this occurrence took place and because some dispute between their Phoopha Chhoteylal Jatav and Bahadur Singh and Chander Singh, they have been falsely implicated in this case. Ext. Kha-2 was placed on the record to prove the fact of the lodging of the report under Section 506, I. P. C. by Chhoteylal Jatav as against four persons including Chander Singh and Bahadur Singh. 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses in this case, namely, Mulaim Singh (D. W. 1), R. S. Agarwal (D. W. 2) and Sri Bhudeo Prasad (D. W. 3), all in connection with the attempt to prove Ext. Kha- 2, 7. The post-striking facture of this case, so far as Ramjilal and Jagdish are concerned, is that they residing within a distance of a few furlongs (two furlongs) from the scene of occurrence and are already wellknown to the wit nesses, who have been examined in this case and inspire of that there is not a whisper in evidence to show that they even attempted to conceal their identity in any manner whatsoever. It is of course true that facts and circumstances of each case will have to be looked into and a general law cannot be laid down to say that unless known persons try to conceal their identity, they can never be expected to take part in a dacoity in their own village or in the neighbouring village. Generally when a dacoity takes place either in the same village or in the neighbouring village, the persons of the neighbourhood who take part in it, take every precaution. to conceal their identity so that they may not be identified and implicated in the case afterwards. In the case of Chcmdmbhan and another v. State, 1981 Cr LJ 196, the observation was that out of enmity names of two persons were introduced, who would ordinarily not go to commit dacoity without taking care of concealing their faces and the Court considered the fact that there is no such hard and fast rule that known persons would not go to commit dacoity without taking care of concealing their faces. It depends upon the temperament of a person. They can be hardened criminals. When a known person is desperate and very much inimical, he can go to commit dacoity without taking the usual precaution of covering his face. It was so held in the case of Siyaram v. State of Bihar by the Supreme Court, reported in 1973 Cr LJ 155. 8. In the case of State of U. P. v. Gokaran, 1984 (Supp) SCC 182, a similar poir,t was again considered by the Supreme Court and the ques tion before it was whether under the circumstances the prosecution case can be said to have been discredited. It was observed that it depends upon the frame of mind in which the participants are at the time of the incident, where the object of dacoity was to wreck vengeance and not to loot the property and the accused acted in a dare devil manner, it was held that the mere fact that none of the accused had covered his face in order to conceal his presence cannot cast any doubt on the prosecution case. 9. In the present case the circumstances show that there was no great enmity between the accused- appellants on the one hand and the victims of this dacoity on the other. At the most a police report had been lodged against. 9. In the present case the circumstances show that there was no great enmity between the accused- appellants on the one hand and the victims of this dacoity on the other. At the most a police report had been lodged against. Chander Singh and Bahadur Singh under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and we do not know whether these two persons were in the know of this report. The facts mentioned in the report. The facts mentioned in the report show that there was small quarrel between Chhoteylal on the one hand and Bahadur Singh on the other and Chander Singh was supporting Bahadur Singh and there was some sort of Panchayat. One witness P. W. 1 Mulayam Singh Yadav has been examined in support of this contention. It is admitted that Chhotey Lal is the Phoopha of accused Ramji Lal and Jagdish. This report was lodged so far back as on 5-6-1975 almost one month before the present occurrence of the decoity. It will be too much to say that it was only a fake report and tried to make up a case in preparation of this dacoity. With this background it cannot be said that Ramjilal and Jagdish had gone on the spot to wreck vengeance against those persons, whose houses they had looted. Obviously, if they at all took part in this dacoity, they had gone on the spot just to loot the property. They did not act in any dare devil manner. Under these circumstances, the natural course of conduct would have been that they should have tried to conceal their identity by covering their faces. This has not happened in this case and it is one circumstance which goes against the prosecution. 10. In all cases in which an occurrence takes place during the night, the question of light is of prime importance. In the present case, two sources of light are shown to have been present. It is said that a lighted lantern was present in the chhappar of Bahadur Singh and its light was coming out on the chabutra also and was sufficient to help the witnesses to see the faces of the dacoits and to recognise those who were already well known. It is said that a lighted lantern was present in the chhappar of Bahadur Singh and its light was coming out on the chabutra also and was sufficient to help the witnesses to see the faces of the dacoits and to recognise those who were already well known. The second source of light is said to be the torch-light, which Kishan Singh Bahadur Singh and Parikshit Singh were flashing taking the question of the light of the lantern, the witnesses have given differing versions regarding the place where this lantern was. According to Chander Singh, the lantern was hanging inside the Chhappar on the wooden rafter. According to Bahadur Singh also, the lantern was hanging by the middle Baderi (rafter) and on the two sides of it were pillars. Above the lantern, there was the chhappar itself and this baderi (rafter) was supported by the pillars. In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this witness Bahadur Singh, however, gave out that as usual the lantern was lighted inside the room. He now tries to explain this statement by saying that the area covered by the chhappar is also a room. In his view, the only difference is that it has not a pucca roof but only a Chhappar. Even if, that is taken to be a correct statement, then also, the lantern was inside the chhappar and not outside it and we are not prepared to accept that the light of this lantern could have been of any use to the witnesses is in seeing the faces of the dacoits. 11. The torches are said to be with three persons, namely, Kishan Singh, Bahadur Singh and Parikshit Singh Kishan Singh was standing at point 3 of the site plan which is below the north western corner of the Chabutra of Bahadur Singh. Out of the other two witnesses, namely, Bahadur Singh and Parikshit Singh, the former was sometimes entering his Chhappar and sometimes coming out and it is said that he was flashing his torch and all along Parikshit Singh was standing close to the door of his aangan, which is separated from the chabutara by a lane. Out of the other two witnesses, namely, Bahadur Singh and Parikshit Singh, the former was sometimes entering his Chhappar and sometimes coming out and it is said that he was flashing his torch and all along Parikshit Singh was standing close to the door of his aangan, which is separated from the chabutara by a lane. It is really very strange that although Ramji Lal and Jagdish were armed with firearms and they had been using them during the course of the dacoity and even fired with the same at two persons, namely, Sahab Singh and Chander Singh and even fatally injured Sahab Singh, they did not take any similar action against those persons who were throwing beams of their torch lights direct on their faces, although they were so close to them Sahab Singh was killed because he allegedly gave out that he had already recognised the culprits. There may be a reason behind it, but Chander Singh was injured for no reason whatsoever, merely because he tried to come a little close to help Sahab Singh. The injuries of Chander Singh show that there has been a great dispersal of the pellets and these injuries were not caused from a close range. Naturally Chander Singh was not anywhere very near to the culprits. He was injured from a distance. No attempt was made to fire at Parikshit Singh although he had also a torch and was flashing it and no attempt was simlarly made to fire at Bahadur Singh, although there is something on the record to show that with him and Chander Singh there can be some enmity of the named accused-appellants Ramjilal and Jagdish on account of the dispute with Chhoteylal. In our opinion, it appears that the light of torches which the witnesses had flashed did not disclose the presence of Ramjilal and Jagdish Singh we will not say that the witnesses were not possessed of torches. It is very common now in the villages that people are possessed of torches and they use them during the night as and when need arises, but the question remains whether in the circumstances available on the record in this case and from the evidence on the record, the presence of Ramjilal and Jagdish amongst the daco its stands established. Incur opinion, it does not. Incur opinion, it does not. Hence the torches of the witnesses would be of no avail in the present case. 12. This being the position we are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the guilt of these two accused-appellants under Section 396 pf the Indian Penal Code was satisfactorily brought home to them. Their conviction therefore cannot be upheld and has got to be set aside alongwith the sentence awarded to them. 13. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellants Ramji Lal and Jagdish under Section 396 of the Indian. Penal Code as returned by Sri R. P. Jain, Sessions Judge of Etawah and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them are both set aside. They are found not guilty, of the offences with which they have been charged and are acquitted. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. .