The present State Appeal arise out of the judgment and order dated 1-1-1979 passed by Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge Baharaich, acquitting accused Bhagawati from the charges under Sections 394,302/34 and 411 I. P. C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that (P. W. 2) complainant Jamuna Prasad is the father of Salik deceased and lives in village Tamolipurwa hamlet of Sablapur Police Station Kotwali (Dehat) District Baharaich. It is said that in the night intervening 9/10-6-1978 at about mid-night 3 or 4 bandits reached at the door of Bharat who lives in the same village and assaulted Bharat and his son Ori. Bharat and Ori raised an alarm and hearing the alarm Salik deceased ran to that place but it is said that one of the bandits fired his pistol causing injuries to Salik deceased. (PW. 2) Jamuna Prasad also reached there and found Salik Ram in an injured condition. The complainant thereafter brought his son Salik on bullock cart to the Hospital where he died due to those injuries after six days. It is said that Dr. S. K. Srivastava Sadar Hospital, Baharaich examined the injuries of Bharat, Salik and Ori on 10-6-1978 at about 8-35 A. M. The Doctor also sent a report (Ext. ka-9) to the Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Dehat informing him that some bandits had fired at Salik Ram and also assaulted Ori and Bharat and all these persons are present in the Hospital in injured condition. On receipt of this information (P. W. 10) Sheo Kailash Tewari, Head Constable prepared a chik report and registered a case in the General Diary Ext. ka-11 at 9-15 A. M. After some time at 10-30 AM. Bharat lodged another report Ext. ka-8 at the same Police Station. (P. W. 12) S. I. Ram Raj Yadav was present at the time of lodging of the First Information Report, therefore, the investigation was entrusted to him. He recorded the statement of Bharat at the Police Station itself and thereafter went to Sadar Hospital and examined Salik Ram, Jamuna Prasad, Ori Lal & Ors. Thereafter he reached theplace of incident and recorded the statements of other witnesses and prepared a site-plan Ext. ka-18. It is said that Salik died in the Hospital on 15-6-1978 and on receipt of this information Sheo Kailash Tewari made an entry in the General Diary and converted the case under Section 302i. Thereafter he reached theplace of incident and recorded the statements of other witnesses and prepared a site-plan Ext. ka-18. It is said that Salik died in the Hospital on 15-6-1978 and on receipt of this information Sheo Kailash Tewari made an entry in the General Diary and converted the case under Section 302i. P. C. (P. W.)12 S. I. Ram Raj Yadav prepared an inquest report and other relevant papers post-mortem examination. He thereafter again went to the place of incident and inspected the torches and prepared Fard of the torches of the witnesses. 3. The autopsy on the dead body of the Salik Ram was conducted by Dr. R. K. Srivastava who found fire arm wounds on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem report is Ext. ka-7. The investigation thereafter was handed over to P. W. 13 S. H. O. Ram Asrey Singh who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against ac cused Bharat. 4. Dr. S. K. Srivastava examined the injuries of Bharat and Ori Lal on 16-6-1978 at about 8. 35 A. M. and found lacerated contusions and abrasions on the body of Bharat and Ori Lal. He also examined Salik Ram when he was alive and the injury reports are Ext. ka-4 to ka-6. 5. On 1-7-1978 Jamuna Prasad lodged another report about the theft of hand pipe from his filed. On 3-7- 1978 Jamuna Prasad informed the Police that the hand pipe which has been stolen from his field is being operated in the house of accused Bhagwati who is son-in-law of Piarey Kahar resident of Kaharanpurwa. On receipt of this information the Police recovered the said hand pipe from the house of Bhagwati accused and challaned him in this case. 6. The accused denied the prosecution case and stated that the hand pipe alleged to be recovered from his house belongs to him. He denied the prosecution case in respect of the incident alleged to have taken place in the night between 9/10-6-1978. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. Out of them (P. W. 3) Waris Ali and (P. W. 4) Deota are the witnesses of fact. (P. W. 2) Jamuna Prasad stated that the incident took place in the night and thereafter proved the recovery of the hand pipe from the house of Bhagwati. 7. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. Out of them (P. W. 3) Waris Ali and (P. W. 4) Deota are the witnesses of fact. (P. W. 2) Jamuna Prasad stated that the incident took place in the night and thereafter proved the recovery of the hand pipe from the house of Bhagwati. He further stated that some dispute took place in between the daughter of Piarey Kahar and the son of Jamuna Prasad in which the daughter of Piarey Kahar threatened his son. (P. W. I) Shri Ganga Prasad Misra is the Executive Magistrate who conducted the identification parade in this case. He proved the identification memo and stated that Bhagawati was identified by all the four persons, namely Waris Ali (P. W. 3), Panchu son of Paragi (not examined) Deota (P. W. 4) son of Ballu and Sunder son of Sheodin (not examined ). (P. W. 5) Gauhar Khan proved the recovery of hand pipe from the house of Bahagwati. (P. W. 6) S. I. Ram Nagina made an entry in the General Diary on the basis of report of theft of hand pipe. He also recovered the hand pipe from the house of Bhagwati. (P. W. 7) Daya Shanker is the Shop Keeper of Mohalla Qazipura Bharaich who stated that Jamuna Prasad had purchased the hand pipe about 10 months ago. (P. W. 8) Ganga Ram is the scribe of the report which was alleged to be lodged by Bharat. (P. W. 9) Bipat had his field near the field of Jamuna Prasad and he informed Jamuna Prasad about the theft of hand pipe. (P. W. 10) Sheo Kailash Tewari is the Head Constable Police Station Kotwali and he registered the case on the receipt on the information from Dr. S. K. Srivastava. (P. W. ll) Constable Daya Ram Yadav brought the accused to District Jail in Bapardah condition. (P. W. 12) S. I. , Ram Raj Yadav con ducted the intital investigation in this case. (P. W. 13) Ram Asrey Singh is the second Investigating Officer who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of respondent Bhagwati beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he acquitted the accused giving him benefit of doubt. (P. W. 13) Ram Asrey Singh is the second Investigating Officer who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of respondent Bhagwati beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, he acquitted the accused giving him benefit of doubt. State of U. P. aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed this appeal. 9. We have the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the Counsel for the respondent Dr. L. P. Misra as well as Shri Paresh Tripathi, Advocate. Learned Addi tional Government Advocate tried to show that there was ample evidence against the appellant and the learned Court below committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of identification but, in our opinion, the said contention has no force. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the witnesses as well as evidence of identification in great detail and thereafter recorded a finding that the same is not worth to be believable. We find not illegality in the same. In fact, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the charge under Section 302 I. P. C. According to the prosecution case the incident took place in the intervening night be tween 9/10-6-1978 and it is said that 3 to 4 unknown bandits committed this offence. The case has been registered on the basis of information sent by Dr. S. K. Srivastava to Police Station Kotwali (Dehat) District Bahraich but after some time Bharat also lodged a report (Ext. ka-8) at Police Station Kotwali (Dehat ). In the said report Bharat clearly stated that night was dark and due to darkness the accused persons could not be arrested. In the said report, nothing has been said about the light or the fact that the bandits were identified. In the absence of any light it cannot be said that the witnesses had any oppor tunity to see the faces of bandits at the time of incident and if they failed to see the faces of the bandits then they could not identify the bandits h: the identification parade. In these circumstances, the identification parade becomes useless and no reliance can be placed on the identification of the accused by the witnesses. Secondly, it is not disputed that Bhagwati is son-in-law of Piarey Kahar. In these circumstances, the identification parade becomes useless and no reliance can be placed on the identification of the accused by the witnesses. Secondly, it is not disputed that Bhagwati is son-in-law of Piarey Kahar. Piarey Kahar is resident of village Kaharan-purwa hamlet of Jadavpur which is situate at a distance of one or one and a half miles from the place of incident. Jamuna Prasad further stated that just one week before the incident there was an altercation between the daughter of Piarey Kahar and his son and in which the daughter of Piarey Kahar threatened the son of Jamuna Prasad with dire consequences. The above statement shows that Piarey Kahar as well as his daughter knew Jamuna Prasad as well as other villagers of the place of incident. The accused is son-in- law of Piarey Kahar, therefore, possibility of the fact that he was also known to the witnesses cannot be ruled out. This theory of knowing the accused further finds support from the fact that four persons were sent to Jail for identification of the accused Bhag wati and all of them without committing any mistake identified Bhagwati. In any case, a doubt arose and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of identification. If the evidence of identification goes then there remains nothing against the respondent and, therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a valid order. 10. As regards the recovery of hand pipe is concerned the same has also not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also admitted by (P. W. 7) Daya Shanker that the other persons also sell hand pipes. In fact, there is no special mark on the hand pipe and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be the same hand pipe which was alleged to be purchased by Jamuna Prasad. The accused Bhagwati himself claimed the said hand pipe and, therefore, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the said hand pipe was the stolen property. 11. Apart from this, names of (P. W. 3) Waris Ali and (P. W. 4) Deota were not even mentioned in the F. I. R. (Ext. ka-8) or in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section l61 Cr. 11. Apart from this, names of (P. W. 3) Waris Ali and (P. W. 4) Deota were not even mentioned in the F. I. R. (Ext. ka-8) or in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section l61 Cr. P. C. (P. W. 12) S. I. Ram Raj Yadav admits that he recorded the statement of the injured as well as other on the next day but no-one informed that these witnesses saw the incident. According to him after about a week when he again visited the spot then Waris & Ors. came there and stated that they had also recognized the bandits. The above mentioned facts themselves show that these witnesses are got up witnesses and were introducede later on in order to prove the prosecution case. At the initial stage the prosecution case is that the night was pitch dark and, therefore, the bandits could not be apprehended but later on before the Sessions Judge they changed their statement and stated that they had torches and in the light of the torches they recognized the miscreants. In these circumstances no reliance can be placed on their statements. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned. Trial Judge and noticed that he has considered the various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has correctly assessed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. We think that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Judge has been done correctly and the findings recorded by him about the non-guilt of the appellant are well supported and must be upheld. 12. In these circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed. The personal bond and the surety bonds executed by the respondent are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed. .