JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Roshan Lal was tried alongwith two others in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur for an offence of murder on the allegation that he along with two others with a common intention murdered one Lal Singh, Constable on Juno 7, 1975 at about 9.00 p. m., in front of the country liquor shop, near Mavli Station in district Udaipur. 2. The prosecution case was that Roshan Lal alongwith two other accused had gone to country liquor shop of Ratan Lal (P. W. 11) that evening and there they took the liquor. After sometime they sat outside the shop and continued to rake liquor. At about 9.00 p. m., Lal Singh (deceased) and his brother Ratan Singh (P. W.l) came there and asked these three persons, who were sitting outside the liquor shop, about the Bus going to Sadri, on which they appeared to have said that they do not know and that they were not their father's servant to give any information. There upon one of the persons asked Lal Singh (deceased) to have a smoke with them. He joined them. These three persons offered drinks to Lal Singh and his brother but they refused, it is said that one of the persons told that it was better to give drink to dogs rather than to a police constable. There upon a quarrel arose between all these and during the course of the quarrel it is said that two of the accused caught Lal Singh and the present accused Roshan Lal inflicted blows with Danda which he took from Bamboo fence, as a result of this Lal Singh fell down with a bleeding injury on the head. He was then taken to the hospital, where he died on 9th June, 1975 at about 12.15 p. m. 3. In the meanwhile the brother of Lal Singh, Ratan Singh (P. W. 1) lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) at Mavli Police Station at 3.30 p. m. on the basis of which the case was registered. 4. The accused were arrested on June 10, 1975 and they remained in judicial custody till 14th June, 1975. Identification parade was held on 25. 6. 75 in which Ratan Singh (P. W. 1) identified Roshanlal as the person who identified the injury on the head of his brother. 4. The accused were arrested on June 10, 1975 and they remained in judicial custody till 14th June, 1975. Identification parade was held on 25. 6. 75 in which Ratan Singh (P. W. 1) identified Roshanlal as the person who identified the injury on the head of his brother. However, be was not able to identify the two other accused in the parade. On these facts the prosecution alleged that Roshanlal committed the murder of Lal Singh. 5. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the solitary testimony of Ratan Singh Singh (P. W. 1). In the First Information Report he did not give the description of the assailants or their names. 6. Ratanlal (P. W. 11) who was the vendor at the liquor shop gave evidence that on that night Roshanlal and other two accused and some others came to his shop and took liquor. According to him Roshanlal and two other accused came to his shop and took liquor and went away. Sometime later he heard the noise outside the shop. When he came out, he saw Lal Singh lying injured. He does not say that Roshanlal and two other accused were there. The two other witnesses who were in the liquor shop viz. Bhanwarlal (P. W. 2) and Madanlal (P. W. 3) have not supported the case of the prosecution. They do not say that Roshanlal and two other accused persons were outside the liquor shop, taking liquor. Ratan Singh and six other witnessess have said, it was a dark night and at that time they were not in a position to see anything what was happening outside. 7. Ratan Singh, however has identified Roshanlal in the identification parade. It was 14 days after be was arrested. At the time of the identification parade Roshanlal said to Laxmi Dutt Sharma (P. W. 14) that he was shown to the witnesses at the Police Station. Accordingly the Magistrate appended a note in Ex. P. 2, memo of identification parade. 8. It is significant to note that Ratan Singh even said that he came to know the name of Roshanlal as one of the assailants of his brother soon after the incident but even then he did not mentioned his name in the F. I. R. This circumstance goes to show that before Ratan Singh identified, Roshanlal somehow he had came to know the name of Roshanlal. 9. 9. In a case where the case depends upon identification if there is no evidence of clinching nature in regard to the identification, it is dangerous to base conviction. It was a dark night. Roshanlal was not known to Ratan Singh. The incident happened in quick succession and even by the time Roshanlal came out of his shop, the assailants were not the there. 10. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of Ratan Singh to base a conviction. 11. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur and direct that appellant Roshan Lal be released forthwith. *******