JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Jai Ram has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi under sections 324, 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, respectively, to rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month, and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, the three substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on January 5,1977 at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. five culprits described in the first information report as Bhil by caste went to the shop of PW Biradhamal and demanded Bidi from him. It is alleged that one of the culprits who was armed with sickle attacked Birdhamal and caused a number of incised wounds to him with that weapon. The report of the occurrence was lodged with the police station next morning at 8 a. m. by PW Cyan Chand, Chijandas and Ramesh Chand, had witnessed the occurrence. 3. The police was not able to establish the identity of the culprits in spite of investigation extending over a period of several weeks. It is alleged that on February 18, 1977 PW Chijandas saw the appellant Jai Ram, who is a Bhil by caste, passing through the market. Chijandas caught hold of the appellant alleging that he was the person who had inflicted injuries to PW Biradhmal. Appellant Jai Ram was handed over to the custody of the police. Thereafter one Fattu Bhil was also arrested and put up for trial along with Jai Ram. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined, among others, Gyan Chand, Chijandas, Sehaj Ram, Biradhmal, Asudamal and Ramesh Chand as witnesses of the occurrence. The learned trial Judge rejected the testimony of PWs Gyan Chand, Sehaj Ram and Asudamal, holding that they could not have possibly witnessed the occurrence. Relying on the testimony of PW Biradhmal, Ramesh Chand and Chijandas, he recorded the finding that appellant Jai Ram had inflicted injuries to PW 1 Biradhmal in the latters shop on January 5, 1977 at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Relying on the testimony of PW Biradhmal, Ramesh Chand and Chijandas, he recorded the finding that appellant Jai Ram had inflicted injuries to PW 1 Biradhmal in the latters shop on January 5, 1977 at about 8 or 8.30 p. m. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. The other accused, namely, Fattu was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. 5. In this appeal by Jai Ram, I have been taken through the statement of PWs Biradhmal, Ramesh Chand and Chijandas. It is my considered opinion that it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the basis of their testimony. There is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses as to the manner and circumstances under which the appellant was arrested. PW Chijandas has testified that on February 18, 1977 he saw the appellant Jai Ram passing through the market and identified him to be one of the culprits and therefore caught bold of him. According to Chijandas, one Siraj Bahi and a Thekedar came to his help and caught hold of appellant Jai Ram by his arm. 6. If we read the testimony of PW Ramesh Chand, he too has laid a claim to identifying and catching hold of the appellant Jai Ram. He would have us believed that he was all alone when he spotted the appellant and therefore got him arrested by the police. This is a very serious discrepancy indicating that appellant Jai Ram was not arrested in the circumstances disclosed by these witnesses. It is clear that either Chijandas or Ramesh Chand or both were telling a lie. 7. I am thus left with the statement of PW Biradhmal alone who has, of course, stated that among the Bhils who committed criminal trespass into his shop the appellant Jai Ram was also present and that he had inflicted injuries to him with the sickle. I am not prepared to convict the appellant on the testimony of Biradhmal alone, for the possibility of Biradhmal having identified him merely on suspicion cannot be ruled out. It is significant to note that the test identification In this case was held after a very long delay. Appellant Jai Ram was alleged to have been arrested on February 18, 1971. It is significant to note that the test identification In this case was held after a very long delay. Appellant Jai Ram was alleged to have been arrested on February 18, 1971. Chijandas and Ramesh Chand who had in the meantime seen the appellant must have fully briefed Biradhmal about his features and the like. 8. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the charges framed against the appellant have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Giving the appellant the benefit of doubt I would allow this appeal, set aside his conviction and sentences and instead acquit him of all the charges. He shall be released forthwithAppeal allowed. *******