JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - Appellants Sheo Narain Singh, Jauki Singh, Bhoora, Chunni Singh and Kuber Singh, all residents of village Chhilolar, police station Kamasin have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 395, I. P. C. recorded by the learned 1st Temporary Sessions Judge of Banda. 2. The prosecution, case, in short, is as follows :- Hanuman Prasad Agarwal lives with his wife Smt. Kalawati in village Deh which is at a distance of about three miles from the village Chhilolar. Man Bodihan Sirigh, Ram Ratan and Gava Prasad are his servants who live at his house. A few days before the 11th of March, 1962 Hanuman Prasal had come to Allahabad in connection with a marriage and. had not returned till the date of the incident. In the night between. 11th and 12th of March, 1962 Smt. Kalawati, wife of Hanuman Prasad and Smt. Shyamkali, wife of Ram Ratan were sleeping inside the house. The main door of the house was chained from inside. In the outer "chaupal" Man Bodhan Singh was lying on. a cot, and Ram Ratan was lying on the ground. Gava Prasad was inside the nearby cattleshed to keep a watch over a young one of a cow which had been horn in that night. Manhddjharu Singh and Ram Ratan were talking to each. It was a bright moonlight night. At about 10 p.m. 17 or 1.8 dacoits came from southern side and began belabouring Man Bodhan Singh and Ram Ratan with lathis. Three of the dacoits climbed over the tiled roof and jumped inside the courtyard. They opened the main door of the house, and then their colleagues entered therein. Some f of the dacoits tied Man Bodhan Singh ; and Ram Ratan With ropes. Some of them dragged out Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Shyamkali and began to belabouring them for extorting clues to their properties. They deprived the ladies of the ornaments which they were wearing at at that time. One of the dacoits set fire to the dhoti of Smt. Kalawati to make her give the clue to her hidden properties. The other dacoits, however, extinguished the fire by throwing water on her dhoti saying that if she was killed, there ; would be none to give the clue about her properties. One of the dacoits set fire to the dhoti of Smt. Kalawati to make her give the clue to her hidden properties. The other dacoits, however, extinguished the fire by throwing water on her dhoti saying that if she was killed, there ; would be none to give the clue about her properties. The dacoits used to go inside and come out of the house every now and then. Seven of the dacoits were armed with guns, two had pharasas and the rest had lathis. After ransacking the house, the dacoits left the scene with all the booty that they could capture. Man Bodhan Singh had recognised four of the dacoits, namely, Sheo Narain Singh, Janki Singr, Bhoora and Kuber Singh. as he knew them from before. The other witnesses, namely, Smt. Kalawati. Smt. Shyamkali. Ram Ratan and Gaya Prasad did not known any of the dacoits but had seen their faces clearly in the moonlight, the light, provided by the lantern which. was burning in the outer "chaupal',' inti the flash of the torches of the dacoits and in the light which was produced by the paddy plants which Were put on fire by the dacoits to torture Smt. Kalawati. Man Bodhan Sihgh got his report scribed by his brother Chhatrapal Singh and sent it to the police station Kamasin thrond 8 the village Chankidar which was lodged there on the same night at 1.30 a.m. On the basis of this report, a case was registered and investigation followed. 3. Man Bodhan Singh (P. W. 1), Smt. Shyamkali (P. W. 9), Smt. Kalawati (P. W. 10) and Barn Ratan (P. W. 12) had received injuries at the hands of the dacoits. They were medically examined by Dr. Radha Krishna Dwivedi (P. W. 2) Medical Officer Incharge, Baberu Hospital on March 12, 1962 between 9 and 10 p.m. Man Bodhan Singh, Bam Ratan and Smt. Shyamkali had four, one and one contusion each respectively on their person, all of which had been caused by some blunt weapon like lathi and were about a day old. Smt. Kalawati had four contusions, one second degree burn, and one first degree burn on her person. Her injuries were also of the same duration. 4. Smt. Kalawati had four contusions, one second degree burn, and one first degree burn on her person. Her injuries were also of the same duration. 4. Sri Mohammad Murtaza, Investigating Officer (P. W. 16) had reached the scene of occurrence immediately afterwards and had recovered discharged pellets and tiklis from the place and had found the locks of the boxes open and the household effects scattered here and there. 5. After the completion of the investigation, the appellants along with two others, namely, Sheo Mangal Singh and Rameshwar who had been acquitted by the trial court, were sent up for trial. 6. At the trial, all the appellants denied their connection with the crime and had asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case on account of their enmity either with the police or with the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution witnesses knew them from before and that they had also been shown to them at the police station. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the factum of dacoity. He has, however, contended that the prosecution evidence against the appellants does not inspire confidence; that there are circumstances on the record which indicate that the investigation of the case has not been above board and that the appellants had been shown to 'the prosecution witnesses. I, however, do not find any force in these contentions. 8. There can be no doubt .that a serious dacoity was committed at the house of Hanuman Prasad as suggested by the prosecution, in Which his wife Smt. Kalawati was tortured and ins servants were belaboured by the dacoits. The only question, which remains for consideration; is' whether on the basis of the prosecution evidence it can be affirmatively held that the appellants were amongst those dacoits who had raided the house of Hanuman Prasad. Appellants Sheo Narain Singh and Janki Singh were arrested by Head Constable Udit Narain (P.W. 15) at about 1 p.m. on March 12, 1962 and were consigned to the lock up at the police station at 5 p.m. They were sent bapardah on March 13, 1962 to Banda Jail through Constable Jai Raj Singh (P. W. 6). These witnesses have stated that they were kept, in purdah go long they had been in their custody or of the police station. These witnesses have stated that they were kept, in purdah go long they had been in their custody or of the police station. Appellant Bhoora jwas brought at the police station, on March 14, 1962 by certain villagers and the Chaukidar of the village, as he was alleged to have been arrested red handed while committing theft. He was put in cover and locked in. the police lock up. On March 15, 1962 he was sent in cover to Banda Jail. Appellant Kuber Singh surrendered himself before the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) on June 27, 1962. Appellant Chunni Singh was arrested on April 15, 1962 by Sri Abdul Naim Siddiqui, Sub-Inspector (P. W. 3) and was brought in cover to the police station and was sent therefrom on the same date in the same condition to Banda Jail. 9. Appellants Janki Singh, Bhoora and Sheo Narain Singh were put up for test identification in the Distinct Jail, Banda on April 9, 1962. The identification proceedings in respect of appellants Janki, Singh, Bhoora and Sheo Narain Singh were conducted by Sri Binda Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class (P. W. 17) in the District Jail, Banda, on April 9, 1962 who has proved' tire identification memo (Ex. Ka-34). Janki Singh and Sheo Narain Singh had been correctly identified by Smt. Kalawati, Ram Ratan and Gaya Prasad. Smt. Kalawati and Gaya Prasad did not commit any mistake, while Ram Ratan had committed one mistake, Bhoora was identified by Smt. Kalawati and Gaya Prasad who committed no mistakes. He was also identified by Smt. Shyamkali, but she picked one right and one wrong. Chunni Singh was put up for identification on May 7, 1962 arid was identified by Man Bodhan Singh (P. W. 1) and Smt. Kalawati (P. W. 10). Man Bodhan Singh picked four correct and one wrong. Kuber Singh was put up for identification in jail on July 12, 1962, but; none of the prosecution witnesses, who were sent there, could identify him. The identification parades on May 7, 1962 and July 12, 1962 had also been conducted by Sri Binda Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, who has proved the identification memos (Exs. Ka-35 and Ka-36) which are on the record. 10. The identification parades on May 7, 1962 and July 12, 1962 had also been conducted by Sri Binda Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, who has proved the identification memos (Exs. Ka-35 and Ka-36) which are on the record. 10. The prosecution story rests on the testimony of four injured witnesses, Man Bodhan Singh, Smt. Shyam Kali, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Ratan, and Gava Prasad who have been examined as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The other evidence produced in the case -was only of a formal character. 11. The dacoity had continued for about art hour, and the dacoits had put some of these witnesses to torture. It was a moonlight night, and there was sufficient; light produced by the burning of payal which was put on fire by the decoite themselves for torturing the inmates of the house. Thus there was sufficient light and opportunity for these witnesses who had come in close contact with the dacoits, to have marked their features. Appellants Janki Singh, Sheo Narain Singh and Bhoora 'were put up for identification within, a month, and Chunni Singh was put up for identification within two months of the occurrence. Kuber Singh alone was put up for identification after three months of the incident. This may, have been a reason for the correct identification of most of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses. 12. Appellants Sheo Narain Singh, Janki Singh, Bhoora and Kuber Singh are named in the first information report, and Man Bodhan Singh in his deposition had also named them as the culprits whom he had recognised amongst the dacoits at the scene. Janki Singh and Sheo Narain Singh had been correctly identified by Smt. Kalawati, Ram Ratan and Gaya Prasad at the identification parade and in court. They are all good witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Janki Singh and Sheo Narain Singh, being residents of a village situate at a distance of three miles only, must have been known to these identifying witnesses. It is not possible to accept this contention, as it cannot be presumed that a person living in a village at a distance of three miles must necessarily be known to all those who live in another villages at that distance. Smt. Kalawati is a purdanasliin lady belonging to a good family. It is not possible to accept this contention, as it cannot be presumed that a person living in a village at a distance of three miles must necessarily be known to all those who live in another villages at that distance. Smt. Kalawati is a purdanasliin lady belonging to a good family. It is inconceivable that she would have known these persons from before or would have identified them at the behest of the police. These appellants had failed to show any reason as to why Man Bodhan Singh rtamed them a amongst the dacoits. Man Bodhan Singh is known, to these appellants. I have read the statement of Man Bodhan Singh with care. I do not find any blemish in his deposition which may detract its value, I agree with the trial court that the evidence of the identification furnished by Smt. Kalawati, Earn Ratan and Gaya. Prasad and the evidence of Man Bodhan Singh against these two appellants inspires confidence, and the offence charged has been brought home against) them. 13. Appellant Bhoora was named by Man Bodhan Singh in his deposition and had been identified by Smt. Kalawati and Gaya Prasad, both of whom are good witnesses. It hag been contended on his behalf that he and his mother had made applications against the police and that this may be one of the reasons for false implication of appellant in the case. I do not find any force in, this contention. I am not prepared to believe that Smt . Kalawati, who had been put to torture by the dacoits, would have identified Bhoora because of the influence of police. Gaya Prasad too had no particular animus against Bhoora or any affinity with the local police to act at their behest. I am satisfied that the identification, evidence furnished against this appellant, and his naming by Man Bodhan Singh in his deposition is sufficient to warrant his conviction. 14. Appellant Kuber Singh lias been named by Man Bodhan Singh as one of the dacoits. At the identification parade however, he could not be identified by anyone of the other eye-witnesses. Thus the only evidence against him is that of .Man Bodhan Singh. There is no legal bar in convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness who is held to be wholly reliable. At the identification parade however, he could not be identified by anyone of the other eye-witnesses. Thus the only evidence against him is that of .Man Bodhan Singh. There is no legal bar in convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness who is held to be wholly reliable. In this case, however, Kuber Singh had suggested some enmity with Mari Bodhan Singh which lie had failed to establish. Even then I think that the rule of prudence requires that he should he given, benefit of doubt. 15. The only evidence against appellant Chunni Singh is that of identification furnished by Man Bodhari Singh (P. W. 1) who picked four right and one wrong and Smt. Kalawati (P. W. 10) who picked two correct and one wrong. Both of them on the basis of the authorities of this Court, can be held to be good witnesses. But there is one circumstance which renders the prosecution case against Chunni Singh also doubtful. Chunni Singh is also a resident of village Chhilolar, the village, to which the four appellants also belong. But unlike the other appellants his name does not find place in the first information report which was lodged by Man Bodhan Singh. In view of this circumstance, I think he too should be given benefit of doubt. 16. Before parting with this appeal, I must observe that the trial court has awarded a wholly inadequate sentence in the case. In cases of dacoity unless it is of a technical or trivial nature, seven years rigorous imprisonment is the normal sentence. This dacoity was attended with violence and ladies of the house were put to in human torture. The culprits, therefore, richly deserved a higher sentence. But as the required notice of enhancement has not been issued to the appellants, their sentences cannot be enhanced at this stage. 17. The appeal, so far as it relates to Kuber Singh and Chunni Singh, is allowed arid their conviction and sentences are set aside. They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case. 18. The conviction and sentences of Sheo Narain Singh, Janki Sirigh and Bhoora are affirmed, and their appeal is dismissed.