KUNDAN SINGH, J. The appellants Prakash, Natthu and Ram Sanehi have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 9-4-1979, passed by Sri J. N. Tandon, the then IHrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in S. T. No. 233 of 1978, whereby he convicted the appellants tor the offence punish able under Section 395, I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that a dacoity was committed by 10 or 11 armed bandits at about 1-00 a. m. on 18/19-5-1977 at the house of Ram Deen in village Gigaura of Police Station Bhaugaon, district Mainpuri. In the incident informant Ram Deen, Shiv Charan, Om Devi and Jag Ram sustained injuries at the hands of bandits and the dacoits looted gold, silver ornaments and clothes of the informant and his family members. Madbav and Natthu, licence holders of fire-arms. , residents of the same village, opened fires towards the dacoits and some of them sustained injuries. In the light of a lantern, burning inside the houseand the burning pyal the witnesses identi fied the appellants and Chhotey and Daroga alias Prem Das out of the dacoits, who committed the dacoity at the house of the informant. An F. I. R. was lodged by Ram Deen at 7-45 a. m. on 19-5-1977 at Police Station Bhaugaon, district Mainpuri. 3. The investigation was entrusted to Narain Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW 4), who recorded statements of the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared a site plan and also completed certain other formalities in relation to the investigation. Thereafter, Mahesh Kumar Singh, Station Officer, took over the investigation in his own hand on the transfer of Narain Singh (PW 4) and after completing remaining investigation submitted charge-sheet agaiust the accused persons in court. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of them, Ram Deen (PW 1), Tilak Singh (PW 2) and Phulwari (PW 3) are the witnesses of the factum of incident, while rest are of formal nature. 5. The appellants denied the prosecution version and stated in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that they have been falsely implicated due to party-faction in the village and pressure of the police. 5. The appellants denied the prosecution version and stated in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that they have been falsely implicated due to party-faction in the village and pressure of the police. Prakash appellant examined one Ram Babu Misra as DW 1 to prove that except him there is no other person Ram Prakash son of Itwari in the village. 6. The learned trial Judge after going through the evidence on record, held the above named three appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395, I. P. C. but he acquitted them of the charge under Section 397, I. P. G. However, the co-accused Daroga and Chhotey were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted on the ground that the eye-witnesses had not named them in their statements recorded in court. It is true that PWs 2 and 3 did not name both Daroga and Chhotey accused. PW 1 Ram Deen also stated in court that he did not know assumed name of accused Prem Das but in the F. I. R. he named as Daroga alias Prem Das. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the prosecution case mainly on the three counts, namely:- (1) According to the prosecution witnesses, some of the accused were putting on dhatas at the time of incident but they were identified by the witnesses when their dhatas fell down. (2) There was paucity of light on the spot and therefore, the witnesses were not in a position to identify the dacoits. (3) The appellants are innocent and they have been raped in the present case for an ulterior motive. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record and also read the Judgment of the Session Judge carefully. 9. PW 1 Ram Deed admitted in his statement that some of the dacoits were with muffled faces while others were naked face and he could not say as to which of the dacoits have or have not the Dhata. In that context it is worthwhile to be mentioned that Ram Deen (P W 1) is the maker of the report but in the F. I. R. there is no mention about the Dhatas. In that context it is worthwhile to be mentioned that Ram Deen (P W 1) is the maker of the report but in the F. I. R. there is no mention about the Dhatas. However, when he was in the witness box he developed the theory of Dhatas and when he was confronted with the F. I. R. lodged by him, he offered an explanation that though the fact of Dhata was mentioned by him in the F. I. R. but he could not say why it was not written in the first information report. He also deposed that he had stated before the Investigating Officer also that some of the dacoits were putting on Dhatas but he could not say why he did not mention about it in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. 10. Similarly, PW 2 Tilak Singh stated in his examination-in-Chief that some of the dacoits were wearing Dnatas while others unmasked and he recognized the dacoits when their Dhatas fell down. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had disclosed to Ram Deen that some of the dacoits were having Dhatas and those Dhatas had fallen down. The F. I. R. was written by Shiv Charan himself. It was not written at the dictation of Ram Deen informant but this fact does not find place in the statement of Ram Deen. On the other hand, Ram Deen deposed before the court that the report was written on his dictation. 11. PW 3 Phulwari deposed that some of the dacoits had mufflers on their faces which fell down and the dacoits were 10 or 11 in number. 12. None of the witnesses stated that how the Dhatas of the dacoits fell down. There is nothing on record to show that any of the witnesses grappled with the dacoits and during that scuffle their dhatas fell down. I am in disagreement with the learned counsel for the State that some of the dacoits were masked their faces with dhatas and when they entered the house of the informant, they removed their dhatas and committed dacoity with bare faces and therefore the informant was in a position to recognize the dacoits. In case Ram Deen had deposed that he did not see faces of the dacoits who were with muffled faces, then the statement could have been considered. In case Ram Deen had deposed that he did not see faces of the dacoits who were with muffled faces, then the statement could have been considered. But in the instant case, Kam Deen had admitted in his statement that some of the dacoiis had mufflers on their faces which fell down and then he recognised them. He also stated that he had mentioned in the F. I. R. that some of the dacoits were with muffled faces and their dhatas fell down. He also gave statement to the I. O. to that effect but he could not say why he omitted that fact in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. There three appel lants are residents of Dwarkapur which is at a distance of only 4 Furlongs from the village of occurrence and it is not expected of the accused persons to commit dacoity at the house of known persons without concealing their identity. In the absence of any explanation as to how the Dhatas fell down the theory of recognizing the dacoits after falling down their mufflers does not inspire confidence especially when the witness could not depose as to which of the dacoits have or have not the mask. Secondly, incase, any of the dacoits muffled his face during the course of dacoity and ho was identified when his dhata fell down, the witnesses should have specified the dacoits who had muffled their faces during the course of dacoity. Admittedly the accused persons are previously known who are residents of neighbouring village. The witnesses could have assigned their specific role about looting of the various articles and causing injuries to the inmates of the house and also the weapons and their use during commission of dacoity. In absence of those details, I am unable to accept the prosecution version as true. 13. The witnesses could have assigned their specific role about looting of the various articles and causing injuries to the inmates of the house and also the weapons and their use during commission of dacoity. In absence of those details, I am unable to accept the prosecution version as true. 13. So far as the source of light is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the testimony of PW 1 Ram Deen who staled that the dacoits were testimony of PW 1 Ram Deen who stated that the dacoits were flashing torches during the course of dacoity but he admitted that he did not make mention about that in the F I. R. He also gave state ment to the I. O. But neither in the F. I. R. nor in his statement before the I. O. , there is mention about flashing of torches by the dacoits during the course of dacoity. He also deposed that as soon as the dacoits entered the house of the informant, they have found a lantern burning but they had broken it. Learned counsel contended that the light of torches of the accused persons and the light of lantern and even the light of pyal was not sufficient to identify the accused persons by the witnesses. 14. I have analysed the above evidence in the light of the above sub mission of the learned counsel for the appellants. A careful reading of the F. I. R. and the statement of Ram Deen PW 1 recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. makes it abundantly clear that the theory of flashing the torches and presence of a burning lantern inside the house has been developed by the prosecution at the trial stage inasmuch as there is no mention about either of them in the F. I. R. or the statement of Ram Deen recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. On the own showing of witnesses, no source of light was there inside the house during commission of dacoity because the dacoits had broken the lantern immediately on their entry in the house. Therefore, when there was no light inside the house, the inmates were not in a position to recognize the faces of the culprits. 15. P. C. On the own showing of witnesses, no source of light was there inside the house during commission of dacoity because the dacoits had broken the lantern immediately on their entry in the house. Therefore, when there was no light inside the house, the inmates were not in a position to recognize the faces of the culprits. 15. So far as light emanated from burning pyal is concerned, the state ment of Tilak Singh PW 2 is that on hearing the alarm of the inmates of the house of Ram Deen he and the villagers had attracted to the scene of occurrence and on reaching there he set fire to a heap of pyal stored near the door of the house of Ram Deen and the emanating flames created light on the spot for 4-5 minutes. If that statement is taken on its face value as correct, then villagers had no opportunity to see the faces of the dacoits because the process of spoliation lasted for about 35 minutes and when the dacoits retreated or come out of the house the pyal flames had already set down and there was no light out side the house for enabling the villagers to recognize the faces of the dacoits. The theory of the dacoits going in and corning out of the house during the course of dacoity also does not appeal to reasons when the Pyal was inflames. Why the dacoits had come out of the house during the course of dacoity when the Pyal was burning is something strange and unbelievable. At the most the purpose of coming out could be to see that no villagers may enter the house and have clash with them but I have never come across any case of dacoity where all the dacoits might have entered the house with the purpose of loot and no armed dacoit has remained posted at the points of entry to the house but here there is no evidence at all that any armed dacoit remained posted at or near door of Ram Deen during the course of dacoity to resist the entry of the villagers in the house. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that there was no light available inside the house or outside the house when the dacoits retreated after commission of dacoity and, therefore, witnesses were not in a position to recognize the faces of the dacoits. 16. In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and hence the appellants are entitled to their acquittal. 17. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The con viction and sentence as awarded by court below are set aside and the appel lants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties dis charged. Appeal allowed. .