JUDGMENT S.K. Verma, J. - Eight accused namely appellants Fazru, Phirru, Babu, and Azmair alongwith Gulzar, Raddu, Abbas and Mukanda were tried for offences under section 395 IPC by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. A 324 of 1977. The learned sessions Judge Acquitted Gulzar, Raddu, Abbas and Mukanda, but convicted the four appellants namely Fazru, Phirru, Babu and Azmair under Section 395 IPC vide Judgment dated 23. 2. 1979 and sentenced them to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellants have therefore filed this appeal against their conviction. 2. The prosecution story was that on 23. 2. 1977 at about mid-night 12 or 13 miscreants entered the house of PW-1 Banwari in village Vimlana, police station Kotwali, of district Muzaffarnagar and committed dacoity armed with lathis, guns, revolvers etc. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 24.2.77 at 11.00 a. m. after covering a distance of 3 km. Five of the alleged culprits namely Fazru, Phirru, Gulzar, Raddu and Abbas who are residents of village Vimlana where the dacoity was committed were named in the FIR but Mukanda, Babu and Azmair were not named. Appellant Azmair was arrested on 16.4.1977 appellant Babu was arrested on 10.5.1977 and appellant Mukanda was also arrested on 10.5.1977. All the three afore- mentioned persons were put up for identification on 4.6.1977. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against all the eight accused and they were charged under Section 395 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and alleged false implication due to enmity and party-bandi. The prosecution examined four eye witnesses namely Banwari PW-1, Manga PW-2, Amar Singh PW-4 and Ghasita PW-6. Learned Sessions judge after considering the evidence led by prosecution, acquitted Raddu, Abbas, Gulzar and Mukanda but convicted the four appellants Fazru, Phirru, Babu and Azmair. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and the learned A. G. A. Sri Mahesh Chand Joshi and have gone through the record carefully. So far as the factum of dacoity is concerned there is overwhelming evidence to prove the same and therefore the finding of the trial court regarding the factum of dacoity is correct. 4. So far as the factum of dacoity is concerned there is overwhelming evidence to prove the same and therefore the finding of the trial court regarding the factum of dacoity is correct. 4. The learned trial court also found that there was sufficient light in the house of the complainant at the time of occurrence because there had been marriage in the family only one day before the occurrence and the Barat had returned to the house of Banwari and therefore the presence of petromax light and lantern light was quite natural and the trial court rightly believed the same. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that out of the four appellants two have been named in the F. I. R. they are Fazru, and Phirru. The learned Sessions Judge committed an error in acquitting the other three named accused namely Raddu, Abbas and Gulzar on the same evidence while convicting Fazru and Phirru. The' argument of the learned counsel for the appellants appears to be reasonable. It is to be noted that all the four eye witnesses namely PW-1 Banwari, PW-2 Manga, PW-4 Amar Singh, PW-6 Ghasita have named the five accused persons who were known and who were residents of village Vimlana. The learned Sessions Judge found that Raddu, Abbas and Gulzar cannot be convicted because there is evidence of false implication regarding them. The learned Sessions Judge correctly came to the conclusion that because Jamil Ahmad the Pradhan of the village who was on inimical terms with Gulzar and Abbas was present throughout when the FIR was lodged, there was every possibility of three persons having been falsely implicated by Jamil Ahmad because of his influence with the complainant Banwari. The conviction of Fazru and Phirru on the basis of the evidence of these eye withnesses is bad because of two reasons. The conviction of Fazru and Phirru on the basis of the evidence of these eye withnesses is bad because of two reasons. Firstly Fazru and Phirru had also suggested in defence that they have been roped in because of party-bandi and enmity of the Pradhan of the village, the same reason applied in the case of Raddu, Abbas and Gulzar, secondly when it has been found that there is possibility of false implication with regard to the three accused person who were residents of the same village it will be difficult for the court to place reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses who were found to be falsely implicating three persons of the village because of the instigation of the Gram Pradhan namely Jamil Ahmad. In other words if they were falsely implicating three accused persons they could have also falsely implicated the other two named accused. Atleast their evidence could not be said to be reliable and trustworthy regarding named accused. 5. 1 am, therefore, of the view that the appellants fazru and Phirru are also entitled for acquittal. 6. So far as the cases of Babu and Azmair are concerned Babu has been identified by only two witnesses namely Manga PW-2 and Banwari PW-1. The performance of Banwari PW-1 is only 50% because he has committed one mistake in the Identification Parade of Mukanda accused. Thus there is of only one good identification witness against Babu which is not sufficient for conviction. It is important to note that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Mukanda accused on the basis that there was only single identification against him. For the same reason accused babu is also entitled to the benefit of doubt because of insufficiency of evidence against him. 7. Regarding Azmair there are two witnesses namely Manga PW-2 and Amar Singh PW-4 who had correctly identified him. It is important to note that Manga is the neighbour of the complainant and he was outside the house of the complainant when the dacoity took place. Manga PW-2 has stated that he saw the faces of the culprits when they were going out from the main door of the house of Banwari PW-1. The site-plan Ex. Ka. It is important to note that Manga is the neighbour of the complainant and he was outside the house of the complainant when the dacoity took place. Manga PW-2 has stated that he saw the faces of the culprits when they were going out from the main door of the house of Banwari PW-1. The site-plan Ex. Ka. 5 shows that there was no source of light outside the house of complainant, when one petromax was burning inside the court yard of Banwari's house and one lantern was hanging in the Dahleej. This would be clear from the site plan that very little light would come out from the main door if the lantern is hanging at point 6 shown in the site-plan Ex. ka-5. The site-plan shows that most probably Manga PW-2 was standing at the place shown by figure 8 towards the south of the houses of Banwari after a lane. The distance from this lane to the main door of house of Banwari according to Manga is about 25 steps. It is also important to note that there is a Neem tree in front of the house of Banwari and there must have been darkness under the Neem tree. 8. I am, therefore, of the view that it was very difficult for Manga to see the faces of the dacoits while they were coming outside the door of Banwari's house. Hence it is not safe to rely on the statement of Manga regarding identification of the culprits. 9. It is also important to note that Manga has stated in his cross-examination that accused Azmair had a big cut mark of injury below his left eye. This mark of identification had not been stated by Manga either before the Investigating Officer or before Banwari when he lodged the FIR. Hence also it is not safe to rely on the statement of Manga regarding identification of the accused who were unknown. Thus even Azmair appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal. 10. For all these reasons the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of all the four appellants are set aside. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.