JUDGMENT Mohammad Hamid Hussain, J. - This is an appeal by Het Ram and Ram Prasad who were tried in sessions trial No. 249 of 1971. This sessions trial was connected with another sessions trial No. 207 of 1971 in which Hari Singh stood trial. Both the connected sessions trials resulted in the conviction of the two Appellants Het Ram and Ram Prasad as well as Hari Singh. All the three convicted persons preferred appeals to this Court. The appeal filed by Hari Singh namely Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 1972 was connected with the present appeal of Het Ram and Ram Prasad. Hari Singh filed his appeal through his counsel Sri Ramesh Sharma who has died. Notices have been issued to Hari Singh to engage another counsel, but those notices have not been served on him. Therefore in Criminal Appeal No. 606 of 1972, orders have been passed for the appearance of Hari Singh and this appeal is being separately heard and decided in order to avoid delay in its disposal. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 4th February, 1972, convicted Appellants Het Ram and Ram Prasad u/s 395, IPC and sentenced them each to five years' R. I. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 28th February, 1971 at about 11 P.M., Appellants Het Ram and Ram Prasad along with seven or eight other miscreants committed an armed dacoity at the house of Siya Ram (PW 1) in village Deopura and in the course of commission of the dacoity shots were fired causing injuries to Dulare (PW 4) and one Baji Lal. After committing dacoity at the house of Siya Ram in village Deopura, the miscreants went towards Nagla Sawaj lying at a distance of between half a mile and one mile from Deopura and there also they committed dacoity at the houses of Rati Bhan (PW 6) and Raghunath (PW 7). 4. Siya Ram (PW 1) went to Police Station Kurawali which was at a distance of 12 miles and lodged an oral report of the two dacoities committed in village Deopura and Nagla Sawaj. On the basis of the oral report, a case u/s 395/397 IPC was registered at Police Station Kurawali on 1-3-1971 at 12.15 P.M. The Station Officer Birbal Sharma (PW 22) took up the investigation. On the basis of the oral report, a case u/s 395/397 IPC was registered at Police Station Kurawali on 1-3-1971 at 12.15 P.M. The Station Officer Birbal Sharma (PW 22) took up the investigation. He visited the two scenes of occurrence and prepared respective site-plans (Exts. K.a-24 and Ka-30). He arrested Appellant Ram Prasad from his house in village Jal Naga-ria on the night between 15th and 16th June, 1971 and made him Bapardah. Appellant Het Ram surrendered in Court on 8-7-1971. Both these Appellants were put up for identification in a test indentification parade on 17-7- 1971 in district Jail Mainpuri. Sri R. C. Misra (PW 18) was the Magistrate under whose supervision the test identification parade was held. On the result of the test identification parade, charge-sheet was submitted against the two Appellants as well as other co-accused by the investigating officer on 18-7-1971. 5. In the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the Appellants pleaded not guilty and contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case. It was also asserted that after the arrest, the Appellants were shown to the witnesses by the Police. The Appellants were, how ever, committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial. In the trial Court also, they pleaded not guilty and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Both the Appellants also asserted that they were known to the persons who identified them. They also stated that they would give evidence in support of the above assertion. Smt. Raclha Devi (DW 1) daughter of Tej Pal was produced in defence. She stated that her parental house was in village Deopura and Tota Ram was her brother. She further stated that appel lants Ram Prasad and Het Ram used to visit the house of Tota Ram in village Deopura. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven eye-witnesses, namely, the complainant Siya Ram (PW 1), Badan Singh (PW 3), Dulare (PW 4) and Baburam (PW 5) of village Deopura and Ratibhan (PW 6), Raghu nath (PW 7) and Malkhan Singh (PW 8) of Nagla Sawaj, besides adducing link evidence with regard to the two Appellants having remained Bapardah from the time of their arrest till they were lodged in jail. The trial Court relying on the testimony of some of the eye-witnesses found the two Appellants as well as Hari Singh guilty and accordingly convicted them u/s 395 IPC and sentenced each of them to five years' R. I. 7. Sri Virendra Saran, learned Counsel appearing for Appellants Het Ram and Ram Prasad has contended that the convictions of the two Appellants recorded by the trial Court are based on identification by two witnesses namely Badan Singh (PW3) and Rati Bhan (PW 6) one of whom is resident of village Deopura while the other belongs to Nagla Sawaj, and both these witnesses claimed to have seen in their respective village the two Appellants participating in the dacoities. In other words, Badan Singh (PW 3) saw the two Appellants participating in the dacoity committed at the house of Siya Ram in village Deopura and Rati Bhan (PW 6) saw the Appellants participating in the dacoity committed at his and the house of Raghunath in Nagla Sawaj. Learned defence counsel contends that since the dacoities were committed in two separate villages and the distance between the two villages is between half a mile and one mile, it would not be a case of one docoity but two separate dacoities and there is only one identification of each of the two Appellants with regard to each of two dacoities. 8. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Appellants has placed the evidence of the two witnesses of idnetification namely Badan Singh (PW 3) and Rati Bhan (PW 6). From a perusal of the statement of these two witnesses, it is apparent that Badan Singh (PW 3) claims to have seen the two Appellants participating in the dacoity at the house of Siya Ram in village Deopura, while Rati Bhan (PW 6) claims to have seen the two Appellants participating in the dacoity committed at his own house and that of Raghunath in Nagla Sawaj. The distance between these two places is between half a mile and one mile. The dacoities committed at these two places cannot be said to be one transaction but separate transactions. Therefore, the evidence of the two witnesses, namely Badan Singh (PW 3) and Rati Bhan (PW 6) cannot be said to corroborate each other with regard to the participation of the two Appellants at either of the two villages. The dacoities committed at these two places cannot be said to be one transaction but separate transactions. Therefore, the evidence of the two witnesses, namely Badan Singh (PW 3) and Rati Bhan (PW 6) cannot be said to corroborate each other with regard to the participation of the two Appellants at either of the two villages. In this view, there would be only one good identification against each of the two Appellants with regard to each of the two dacoities. The Courts, as a matter of abundant caution, do not normally act upon the evidence of single identification for holding a person guilty of an offence of dacoity. The evidence of identification has always been held to be a weak type of evidence and the Courts are normally reluctant to act upon identification by a single witness. The trial Court has held that the identification evidence of Siya Ram (PW 1), Babu Ram (PW 5) of village Deopura and Malkhan Singh (PW 8) of Nagla Sawaj do not inspire confidence. Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned Deputy Government Advocate, has conceded that in view of the reasons given by the trial Court for not acting upon the identification evidence of Siya Ram (PW 1), Babu Ram (PW 5) and Malkhan Singh (PW 8), it would not be possible for him to say that the trial Court had unnecessarily declined to rely on the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses. In view of the inability of the learned Deputy Government Advocate to point out from the record any material which could corroborate the evidence of Badan Singh (PW 3) and Rati Bhan (PW 6) there remains the testimony of only one witness against each of the two Appellants with regard to each of the two dacoities committed at two different places and it would not be safe to act on the single identification for upholding the conviction of the two Appellants. 9. The appeal is allowed. The respective convictions of the two Appellants u/s 395 IPC and the sentence of five years' R. 1. awarded to each of them are set aside. The two Appellants Het Ram and Ram Prasad are acquitted of the charge for which they were tried. The two Appellants are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.