JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 year and also a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 94/ 7 of 94 by the judgment dated 12.7.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night between 19/20-2.1993 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant in which he identified the present appellants by voice. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, 8, 9 & 10 had been tendered whereas P.W. 2 is merely on the factum of dacoity, P.W. 1 who is a inmate of the house was declared hostile since he did not support the prosecution that he identified the appellants. P.W. 6 stated in court that he did not identify any dacoits similarly P.W. 7 also stated like wise, P.W. 4 is the informant who has stated that he identified the appellants by voice but has admitted the factum of enmity between them, P.W. 5 is the wife of the informant who also stated that she identified the appellants by voice. 4. The defence on its behalf brought on record certain documents to show the factum of enmity between the parties. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W. 4 and 5, I find that they have deposed that they identified the appellants by voice which is a very weak form of identification, and thus I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the appellants on this score alone. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 94/ 7 of 94 by the judgment dated 12.7.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.