Dharnidhar Jha, J.- The appellants were found guilty by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.I, Buxar, on conclusion of the trial of Sessions Trial No. 315 of 2006 by judgment dated 17.6.2006 of committing the offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and after being heard on the sentence on the same day, they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Sections 395 and 397 of the Penal Code. The appellants have brought into question the findings on the basis of which their conviction was recorded and the sentence against them was passed.

2. Undisputedly, a dacoity was committed in the house of P.W. 1, the informant of the case, in which firearms and other dangerous weapons were used as a result of which the informant and his wife were badly injured. The informant was taking his wife to Govt. Hospital, Buxar for treatment on 4.6.2006 when he met P.W. 4 S.I. Sakaldeo Paswan who enquired from the informant about the reasons of his and his wife being injured and on being told that it was on account of being assaulted by the dacoits and further that he had two dacoits in his custody along with the recovered booties and, as such, both P.W1 and his wife P.W. 2 Chandrawati Devi were asked to accompany him up to the Police Station where they were shown the two appellants and as per the informant, his wife and P.W. 3 the articles were identified as belonging to the informant which were taken away by the dacoits during the course of commission of the offence.

3. This is how the whole trial was taken up by framing charges under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The witnesses, nine in number, were examined out of whom P.W. 9 was a formal witness who has proved the writing of the F.I.R. to be that of Shri Ramand Singh, the Officer-in-charge of Buxar Police Station. P.W. 8 Dr.Anil Kumar Singh had examined the injureds and issued the injury reports Exts. 4 and 4/1 which were the injury reports of the informant and his wife, P.Ws. 1 and 2. The other witnesses including the informant and his wife testified to the factum of commission of dacoity in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the assault wielded by the dacoits on P.Ws. 1 and 2 so as to causing injuries to them and plundering of the house for taking away the belongings of the couple. There does not appear any doubt that a dacoity had really been committed in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. But, that could not be the sole finding upon which the accused who had been put on trial could be convicted and sentenced to any term of imprisonment. There has always to be a definite finding based on acceptable, admissible evidence regarding identification of the participants in the occurrence of dacoity besides the clear evidence of identification of the booties that those were plundered during the commission of the same occurrence.

4. Except the evidence of P.W. 4 that he had arrested the two persons ho were coming from the railway station on a rickshaw carrying certain luggages which, ultimately, were found to conceal inside them some articles or clothes which were subsequently identified by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to be belonging to them, there is no evidence that the informant or any material witness, like, P.W.2 and others had identified the appellants while participating in commission of the offence on account of their having committed any particular act. What I mean to say is that there is complete lack of evidence as to in what connection the appellants were identified, whether they were seen while assaulting the injureds, whether they were seen frightening the villagers or whether they were flashing torch light or whether they were picking up articles so as to be removed. The evidence on these aspects of the occurrence regarding identification of the culprits in a particular connection is completely absent. It is true that P.W. 4 and other witnesses have stated that the two appellants were in the police lock up and they w