Short Note : 1. There is no witness other than Lalan singh to prove the assault alleged to have been made on him on the evening of 3-12-1974 while he was working in the liquor shop. According to this witness, he went straightway to the Khaliyan of Jaldhar (P.W 3) after the assault had been made on him. It is reasonable to expect that the witness would have disclosed the details of the incident including the name of his assailants at least to Jaldhar. However, Jaldhar (P.W. 3) says that Lalansingh only told him that there was some quarrel with him on account of which he had closed the shop early that evening but he did not give any particulars of the incident and also did not disclose the names of the persons involved in the incident. It is significant that neither the names of the so called assailants were disclosed to Jaldhar nor did Lalansingh tell him that he had been assaulted, The conviction for the assault made on him, therefore, rests on his sole testimony. Therefore, this Court considers it highly unsafe to rely on his uncorroborated testimony to hold the conviction for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. Appeal allowed.