Short Note : 1. The brief facts were that on 18-1-1972 at about 4-30 P.M. Superintendent of Police, Narain Singh with his police force, was proceeding in a jeep from village Basai to village Moroli in connection with anti-dacoity operations. His party consisted of constable Sheshram (PW1), Line Officer Rijalsingh (PW2), Platoon Commander Shardulsingh (PW4), Additional Superintendent of Police, R.N. Gour (PW5), Prooranchand (PW 6) Station Officer, Basaj, Lakhusingh, Assistant Platoon Commandant, Constable Harisingh and Constable Ratansingh. When they reached near Mata-ka Mandir at village Moroli, on the way, they were fired at from Mata-ka Mandir side. The jeep was stopped and the police-men took position. They returned the fire shooting towards the direction from which the gun fire was coming. This exchange of gun fire went on for about 10-15 minutes. Thereafter the miscreants disappeared in the nearby ravines and the forest. It was alleged that the police tried to chase the dacoits but none of the members of the dacoits gang could be arrested. Held: Rijalsing (PW 2) admitted that he did not know the appellant from before but claimed to have seen him at the time of the incident, firing towards the police-party and also identified him in Court. His testimony was tested in cross-examination. In para 8 of his deposition he admitted that the miscreants were firing from a distance of about 300 yards He further states that this firing they were doing from behind mounds ( Vhys ) which were quite high, practically of man's height. In these circumstances it is difficult to believe him (PW 21 that he could see the appellant from such a long distance and could identify him after five years in Court. Shatdulsingh (PW 4) also claims to have seen the appellant in the incident and then identified him in Court. Here it may be mentioned that there was no test identification held by the prosecution. According to this witness (PW 4), the miscreants were firing from a distance of about 400-500 yards. That was quite a long distance from which a person could not be identified He also states in para 10 of his deposition that the miscreants were firing from behind mounds. 2. It is also worthy of note that it was evening time in the month of January when the Sun was setting. That was quite a long distance from which a person could not be identified He also states in para 10 of his deposition that the miscreants were firing from behind mounds. 2. It is also worthy of note that it was evening time in the month of January when the Sun was setting. Pappu (PW 3) in para 17 of his statement has made it further clear that it had become dark. In all these circumstances it becomes more or less impossible for the aforesaid witnesses to identify the appellant at the time of the incident. 3. So far as the child witness Pappu (PW 3) is concerned, admittedly, he was barely 5 or 6 years of age at the time of the Incident (PW1) Shesharam in para 5 of his statement, has clearly stated that on the way the police found this child lying inside arhar field where the arhar trees were of 4 feet high. In this position, it becomes rather difficult to appreciate that this child witness could have seen the appellant actually firing towards the police. It is then worthy of note that his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not recorded. As has been held in the case of Param v. State of M.P., ( 1970 JLJ 203 ) that when the prosecution has not recorded the statement of the only relevant eye-witness under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, it would not be safe to rely on his testimony In our case, even the investigating officer pooranchand (PW6) has not stated if the statement of this witness was recorded by him. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the statement of such a material eye-witness was not recorded. There is a list of eye-witness (Ex. P-4) on record. In that the name of (PW 3) Pappu is mentioned but he has not been shown as eye-witness. Para 15 of the testimony of the investigating officer pooranchand (PW 6) and the spot map (Ex. P-2) would show that this child witness was about 150 or 200 yards away from the place from which the miscreants were firing. In view of the above material infirmities and there being no independent corroboration, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this child witness Pappu (PW 3). 4. Thus, after reappraisal of the evidence on record. P-2) would show that this child witness was about 150 or 200 yards away from the place from which the miscreants were firing. In view of the above material infirmities and there being no independent corroboration, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this child witness Pappu (PW 3). 4. Thus, after reappraisal of the evidence on record. I am not satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded to bring borne the charge under section 307, or section 148 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 1970 JLJ 203 relied on. Appeal allowed.