Judgment U.N.SINHA, J. 1. There are four appellants in this appeal, who have been convicted under Sec.396 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. The appellants have filed the appeal from jail, and we have heard Shri Sanat Kumar Chattopadhya as amicus curiae. 2. In substance, the appellants have been convicted for an occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between the 16th and 17th of October, 1965 when one Singrai Manjhi of village Pandana within police station Gandey in the district of Hazaribagh was killed in course of a dacoity. The first information report was lodged at the Police Station by Lakhiram Manjhi (P.W. 4), the brother of the deceased, at about 1 p.m. on the 17th October. In the first information report, three out of the four appellants had been specifically, named that is to say appellant Horila Chamar had not been named therein. Two other persons, namely, Tulsi Chamar and the person described as son of Tulsi Chamar, had also been mentioned in the first information report, but they were not put upon trial. At the stage of commitment, there were six accused persons including the four appellants, and the other two were named Niroo Rana and Ghanshyam Rana. These two persons had also been committed to the Court of Session for taking trial under Sec.396 of the Indian Penal Code, but they died after the commitment proceedings. It may be stated at this stage that the accused persons denied their complicity in the alleged crime, and they stated before the learned trial Judge that they had been falsely implicated. 3. According to the prosecution case, there were two eye-witnesses to the occurrence who were Gudi Manjhiain (P.W. 11) and Paran Manjhi (P.W. 15). Gudi is the daughter of the deceased and Paran is the son of another daughter of the deceased, and it appears that Paras mother is dead. The prosecution case given by Gudi (P.W. 11) was as follows. In the night of the occurrence she had heard some sound of a cot being broken, while, she was sleeping inside her room, along with Paran a young boy. On hearing the sound she opened the door of her room and saw appellant Bodhia Chamar sitting on the chest of her father. In the night of the occurrence she had heard some sound of a cot being broken, while, she was sleeping inside her room, along with Paran a young boy. On hearing the sound she opened the door of her room and saw appellant Bodhia Chamar sitting on the chest of her father. She also saw the other three appellants, amongst others, inside the house. Appellant Horila had lighted a masal after sprinkling kerosene oil on it, and, according to Gudis evidence, the dacoits brought out some articles from the house, namely. Marua, utensils chicken, bamboo boxes and a sum of Rs. 200 in cash and removed them. According to her, Singrai was assaulted by appellants Bodhia, Nakul and Chutaria and others. (It appears that Chutaria had died while the case against him was pending before the committing Court). According to Gudi, she had identified all the dacoits, and after the dacoits had left the house she went to the house of Charku Manjhi (P.W. 14) along with Paran and gave him all the details of the occurrence. Dasrath Manjhi (P.W. 1) Somra Manjhi (P.W. 3). Lakhiram Manjhi (P.W. 4). Charku Manjhi (P.W. 14) and others had then gone to her house and she narrated to all of them the details of the occurrence. Then. Lakhiram (P.W. 4) was sent to the police station for lodging information of the occurrence. The substance of the evidence given by Paran (P.W. 15), who was aged about 12 years at the time when he was deposing in November 1968 was to the following effect. He was also roused from his sleep on hearing the sound of the breaking of a cot, and when Gudi opened the door of the room he had also come out and had found Singrai dead. According to this witness, he had identified the dacoits in the light of a Masal. He had identified the four appellants and others as taking part in the dacoity. Paran has deposed that the dacoits had removed Marua and other crops and of Rs. 200 in cash, etc. Then, he has stated that he had gone to the house of Charku (P.W. 14) and had given him all the details of the occurrence, of the various witnesses named by Gudi, apart from P.Ws. Paran has deposed that the dacoits had removed Marua and other crops and of Rs. 200 in cash, etc. Then, he has stated that he had gone to the house of Charku (P.W. 14) and had given him all the details of the occurrence, of the various witnesses named by Gudi, apart from P.Ws. 4 and 14, only Dasrath Manjhi (P.W. 1) has been examined in court and Somra Manjhi and many other persons have been tendered. 4. The questions which arise for decision are whether it has been proved that a dacoity has been committed in the house of Singrai Manjhi in the night between the 16th and 17th of October 1965 and whether the appellants had taken part or not. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged, although some what faintly, that the prosecution case that a dacoity had been committed in the house of Singrai Manjhi has not been fully established. It is difficult to accept this contention as there is sufficient evidence on record for a conclusion that an occurrence must have taken place, as alleged by the prosecution, in the night in question, in which Singrai Manjhi had been done to death. According to Lakhiram (P.W. 4), when he had reached the house of Singrai Manjhi the house was in a state of disorder and different articles lay scattered in the house. This evidence has been supported by Charku (P.W. 14), who has also stated that when he reached Singrais house, the house was in a state of disorder, various articles having been thrown all over the place. Both these witnesses had found Singrai Manjhi dead and this fact has been corroborated by Dasrath (P.W. 1) who had also found Singrai Manjhi dead, when he had gone to Singrais house in the night in question. All the three witnesses had found injuries on Singrais person. Therefore, it must be held that there was an occurrence in the house of Singrai in the night between the 16th and 17th October, 1965, in which Singrai had been killed. 5. On the question of the identification of the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the evidence of Gudi and Paran should not be accepted and that this evidence of participation by the appellants has not been corroborated by any other witness examined in the case. As already indicated. 5. On the question of the identification of the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the evidence of Gudi and Paran should not be accepted and that this evidence of participation by the appellants has not been corroborated by any other witness examined in the case. As already indicated. Paran was really a child, even at the time that he was deposing before the trial Court, and at the time of the occurrence he was much younger. It is difficult to conceive that in the actual perpetration of any dacoity taking place in his presence, he could have positively identified such a large number of persons in the light of a masal, as stated by him. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a statement made by the witness that he had not been examined before the Police. Shri Uday Sinha appearing for the Stale mentions that in fact Paran had been examined by the Police. Be that as it may, it would be risky to accept the evidence of such child as Paran that he had identified a large number of dacoits at the time of the occurrence. The evidence of Gudi (P.W. 11) is also not of such a nature that it can be accepted without any corroboration. For instance, she has attributed specific part to appellant Bodhia Chamar in her examination-in-chief, when she stated that she had found Bodhia sitting on her fathers chest. On this matter, she was cross-examined with respect to her statement made to the committing Magistrate, and she insisted that she had deposed before the Magistrate also that she had seen Bodhia Chamar sitting on Singrais chest. The statement made by Gudi before the committing Court has been brought on record, and it dues not appear that she had made such a statement before the committing Court. According to learned counsel for the appellants. Gudi stated in her cross-examination that she had not deposed before the committing Magistrate that there was any litigation between Meghlall Ram Sarpanch on one side and the father of Ghanshyam Chamar and Niroo Chamar on the other, whereas in fact she had made such a statement before the committing court. According to learned counsel for the appellants. Gudi stated in her cross-examination that she had not deposed before the committing Magistrate that there was any litigation between Meghlall Ram Sarpanch on one side and the father of Ghanshyam Chamar and Niroo Chamar on the other, whereas in fact she had made such a statement before the committing court. Shri Uday Sinha has urged in this context that even if there be any contradiction in this context, that does not go to the root of the matter, as no indication is obtained that Meghlall Ram Sarpanch was inimically disposed towards the appellants who are at present before the Court. It is correct that Gudi has been contradicted by her statement before the committing Court, but Shri Sinha is also right to the extent that nothing has been brought on record why Meghlall Ram Sarpanch would have falsely implicated the four appellants, and therefore, this aspect of the matter may be left out of consideration. But the peculiar feature of Gudis evidence is that according to her when she went to the house of Charku (P.W. 14) she had narrated to him all the details of the occurrence and she does not state in Court as to what she had said to him. According to her, when P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and Charku had come to her place she had again narrated to all of them the datails of the occurrence, and here also she does not say as to what she told the witnesses. Dasrath (P.W. 1) states in his evidence that when he went to Singrais house on hearing about the occurrence Gudi narrated to him the details of the occurrence.This witness also does not state what Gudi told him. Coming to the informant. Lakhiram Manjhi (P.W. 4), his evidence is that, he heard from Charku (P.W. 14) all the details of the occurrence, and when he went to Singrais house Gudi told him the details of the occurrence. Such an important witness as the informant also does not give out the details of what Charku told him or what Gudi told him. Apparently, the first person who heard about the occurrence from Gudi was Charku (P.W. 14) and he has also stated in a bare way that Gudi gave him the details of the occurrence. He also does not say what Gudi told him. Apparently, the first person who heard about the occurrence from Gudi was Charku (P.W. 14) and he has also stated in a bare way that Gudi gave him the details of the occurrence. He also does not say what Gudi told him. According to Charku, he called Dasrath (P.W. 1), Sakal Manjhi (P.W. 2), Somra Manjhi (P.W. 3), Lakhiram Manjhi (P.W. 4) and others and all of them went to the house of Singrai. The witness does not say that when all of them reached Singrais house Gudi told them anything. Therefore, it is clear that no part of the evidence of Gudi (P.W. 11), is fully corroborated by any witness. There is no doubt that Lakhiram (P.W. 4) and Charku (P.W. 14) were near relations of Gudi, and, in the absence of any corroboration from these relations or other neighbours, it will not be safe to accept the evidence of Gudi (P.W. 11) only on the question of identification. Moreover according to Gudi, the four appellants used to come to her house for work, and, therefore, they were well-known to her. According to Gudi, she had seen the dacoits assaulting her father, as a result of which he died, and the dacoits had terrorised her also. If this evidence is true that the dacoits had threatened and terrorised Gudi and they were well-known to her it is hardly likely that the known dacoits would have left her untouched, while they had assaulted her father to death in her presence. Therefore, on a consideration of the evidence of Gudi, the main witness in the case, the conviction of the appellants can hardly be maintained. If the evidence given in Court by Gudi (P.W. 11) and Paran (P.W. 15) cannot be accepted, then the appellants must be acquitted. On the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offence charged against them and the benefit of doubt must accrue to them. The conviction and the sentence passed on the appellants are, therefore, set aside and they must be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 6 I agree.