Short Note : 1. The material facts are that during the night intervening between 29th and 30th December, 1976 at about 3 a.m., three miscreants of whom one was armed with a gun and was dressed in black trousers, black jacket and yellow cap, the second of whom who was armed with a 'Katarna' and he was dressed in true trousers, black jacket and a towel tied on his head entered into the hut of Tulsi (P.W.2) and his wife Sumatrani (P.W.3) situated near their village Dhura. They persuaded Tulsi (P.W.2) to put down his 'Katarna' and snatching it from him relieved him (Tulsi) of his gold 'Taveej' worth about Rs. 100/- and Sumatrani (P.W.3) of her pair of silver 'Todal' worth about Rs 700/- Held : The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant has been rightly found guilty of offence punishable under section 379 I.P.C. 2. The only evidence against appellant is about his having been identified at the identification parade arranged before Mr. P.K. Shroti (P.W.1), by Tulsi (P.W.2). The first information report does not contain any peculiarities like voice, gait, height and the like associated with the appellant. Two of the miscreants described in the first information report are alleged to have been of 40 years of age; whereas the age of the appellant is 30 years. To me also he did not appear to be more than 30 years of age. It was clearly night time and the whole event had not occupied much time. The evidence of Tulsi (P.W.2) and his wife Sumatrani (P.W.3) to the effect that they had identified the appellant (and his companions), in either the flash lights or in the kerosene lamp, is not believable because there is no reference to these artificial devices in the first information report Ex, P-1. Similarly, their evidence to the effect that the miscreants after having once departed had returned over again to their hut in search of their missing wrist watch, is also to be disbelieved. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Tulsi (P.W.2) had identified the appellant, particularly when we take into account the fact that Sumatrani (P.W.3) had not been able to identify him. The identification proceedings are contained in the document Ex. P-10. That document does not disclose any reason because of which Tulsi (P.W.2) had teen able to identify the appellant. The identification proceedings are contained in the document Ex. P-10. That document does not disclose any reason because of which Tulsi (P.W.2) had teen able to identify the appellant. The number of persons mixed was only 18. Considering that there were three persons to be identified the number was low. The document Ex. P-10 fails to record the names of persons who were mixed, particularly their ages. It is, therefore, not ascertainable whether the persons mixed were of the same age and complexion of which the persons to be identified were. From the evidence of Mr. P.K. Shroti (P.W.1) it appears that the witnesses after identifying the persons to be identified bad been made to sit is close proximity, though with their backs turned to where the identification parade was going on. In these circumstances, the identification of the appellant in the identification parade uninfluenced by the appellants earlier possible identification at Sanodha Police Station, becomes doubtful. This doubt is aggravated because Sumatrani (P.W.3) who had identical opportunity of seeing the appellant had not identified him as one of the miscreants during the night in question. We have already seen that there is no circumstance against the appellant except his identification at the identification parade by Tulsi (P.W.2) and that too after about two months of the event. 3. For the foregoing reasons, it being doubtful that the appellant was one of the miscreants responsible for stealing either the "Katarna" or the ornaments of Tulsi (P.W.2) or Sumatrani (P.W.3) during the night in question, the appellant has been wrongly found guilty of offence punishable under section 379 I.P.C. and wrongly sentenced thereunder. Appeal allowed.