All the five appellants have been convicted under Section 396 of I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life thereunder for committing dacoity with murder at the house of Dharam Pal Singh of village Dakauli, and at the houses of Mule Singh, Daljeet Singh, Vijay Shanker and Nanhey Singh of nearby village Ataisua, in the intervening night of June 21st and 22nd of 1979. 2. Out of the five appellants, four namely, Chhedi @ Master Ram Swaroop, Brahamdeo and Babu Lal have already died during pendency of this appeal. Only Sant Kumar is surviving. 3. It is said that on 21-6-1979 at about 8. 30 p. m. while the first informant, Dharam Pal Singh accompanied by his brother, Veer Pal Singh and the deceased Mule Singh was sitting at his door, that the five named accused-appellants alongwith 14-15 unknown dacoits reached there. It was further stated that Chhedi fired at Mule Singh. The victim and those sitting with him, started running away for their safety, but the culprits succeeded in overpowering Mule Singh in a nearby pit or pond and there they fired two shots more at him. The story went on to say that after killing Mule Singh, the dacoits committed dacoity at the house of Dharam Pal Singh. On seeing no other alternative to save his house from being looted, Dharam Pal Singh set-fire to a heap of straw (Phoos ). On realising mounting pressure of the villagers, the dacoits started decamping with the looted property, but also took with them the dead-body of Mule Singh by tying the legs and dragging the same. It was claimed that the same dacoits committed dacoity at the houses of Mule Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh and Nanhey Singh in a nearby village Ataisua. It was claimed that these five persons were identified amongst the dacoits. 4. On F. I. R. being lodged on the next morning at 6. 50 a. m. , the police investigated into the matter. The unknown dacoits could not be located. Only the named dacoits were put on trial. 5. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Dharam Pal, Veer Pal and Nankau (P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5) respectively deposed about incident of village Dakauli in which Mule Singh was killed and house of Dharam Pal was looted. The unknown dacoits could not be located. Only the named dacoits were put on trial. 5. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Dharam Pal, Veer Pal and Nankau (P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5) respectively deposed about incident of village Dakauli in which Mule Singh was killed and house of Dharam Pal was looted. Rajole Singh (P. W. 6), son of the deceased, Mule Singh stated about the commission of the dacoity in village Ataisua. The learned Sessions fudge believed them and recorded a finding of guilt against the five named accused- appellants. 6. Sri J. N. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sant Kumar has contended that evidence of these four witnesses of fact is not believable for the simple reason that they are highly partisan and inimical and their version of occurrence is not believable. Sri Chaudhary says that the story which P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 have given, is totally absurd and funny and a man of ordinary prudence will not believe the same. He has also pointed out several contradictions, which according to him, are material one. Doubt has also been created about the presence of artificial light. Sri Rana M. P. Singh, the learned Counsel for the State has tried to support the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Dharam Pal (P. W. 1) concedes in para 7 that he was prosecuted more than once for committing murder of one or the other. He also concedes that his brother, Veer Pal (P. W. 2), was also prosecuted alongwith him for committing an offence punishable under Section 307 of I. P. C. He has admitted that the witness Nankau Lodh (P. W. 5) was an accused with him in that case. 8. Rajole Singh (P. W. 6) is admittedly son of the deceased, Mule Singh. He deposed in para 1 that in the murder case of his cousin Godhan Singh, accused Chhedi was an accused and was also sentenced to death, but was acquitted by the High Court. P. W. 1 admits that Mule Singh was his friend. So it appears to be a fact that all the four witnesses of fact namely, Dharam Pal, Veer Pal, Nankau and Rajole belong to one group of the village. Accused Ram Swaroop was the Pradhan of the village for about 10 years and Nankau was his rival. The witnesses are, therefore, not independent. So it appears to be a fact that all the four witnesses of fact namely, Dharam Pal, Veer Pal, Nankau and Rajole belong to one group of the village. Accused Ram Swaroop was the Pradhan of the village for about 10 years and Nankau was his rival. The witnesses are, therefore, not independent. 9. Sri Chaudhary submits that it is never the case of the prosecution that these accused were covering their faces so as to conceal their identity. The learned Counsel argues that the circumstance that these persons were not covering their faces, creates a reasonable doubt whether they participated in the commission of the crime in question. Sri Rana M. P. Singh says that this circumstance does not create any doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. He says that it was not necessary for these accused to have covered their faces. We are of the view that there is sufficient force in the submission of Sri Chaudhary. The accused were not known or proved criminals so as not to care for being identified. Except Chhedi, none was earlier involved in any case. Had they really participated in the commission of the crime in question, they would have certainly made attempt to conceal their identity by covering their faces. 10. The second submission of Sri Chaudhary is that none of the witnesses has been able to tell as to what weapon Sant Kumar was having at the time of the commission of the crime in question and what role he played in this incident. In other words, the submission of Sri Chaudhary is that no overt act or specific act of appellant, Sant Kumar has been specified either in F. I. R. or in the statements of these witnesses. Sri Rana M. P. Singh has not been able to satisfy the Court on this point. In case Sant Kumar was seen committing the crime in question for one or two hours and in case there was sufficient light as claimed by the witnesses, then why the witnesses could not specify the weapon with which Sant Kumar was armed or why the witnesses could not tell as to what specific role Sant Kumar was playing during the commission of the crime in question. We are of the view that had the witnesses identified Sant Kumar amongst the dacoits, they would have certainly given in his weapon and would have also given his specific role. 11. Dharam Pal and Veer Pal have stated that Chhedi fired from some distance at Mule Singh. Both of them were sitting close to Mule Singh, but surprisingly enough that they escaped unhurt. There non- receiving any injury as result of fire opened by Chhedi, creates a serious doubt whether they really saw any such incident when Mule Singh was injured. 12. Rajole (P. W. 6) says that it was with great difficulty that he could search the dead-body of his father, Mule Singh. This statement of Rajole falsifies the claim of Dharam Pal, Veer Pal and Nankau that the dacoits were seen taking away the dead-body of Mule Singh towards village Ataisua and were chased. If that was so, where was the occasion for searching the dead-body for whole of the night. 13. The evidence of Dharam Pal and his brother Veer Pal that after committing the murder of Mule Singh, the culprits took the dead-body to the Neem Tree near the house of Dharam Pal and thereafter started committing dacoity, appears to be funny and unbelievable. 14. Even if it assumed for the sake of argument that a dacoity was committed at the house of Dharam Pal and these witnesses were present in the village, we have serious doubt whether they could see the faces and features of the dacoits. All the 20 dacoits were having fire-arms and were frequently using the same. We are of the view that none of these witnesses could have risked his life by coming within the firing range. So, we have grave doubt that these witnesses had opportunity to see the facts and features of the dacoits. 15. If the purpose was to kill Mule Singh, where was the point in committing dacoity at the house of Dharam Pal after killing Mule Singh. It appears to us that the occurrence took place in some other manner, but none of these witnesses could see as to how Mule Singh was killed. 16. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been successful in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt against appellant, Sant Kumar. The finding of guilt recorded against him deserves to be set-aside. 16. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been successful in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt against appellant, Sant Kumar. The finding of guilt recorded against him deserves to be set-aside. 17. The appeal of Sant Kumar is allowed. His conviction under Section 396 of I. P. C. and the sentence thereunder are set aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 18. Let the record received from the trial Court be sent back to it alongwith a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed. .