K. K. ADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 392 of the Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE incident is alleged to be of 21-5-1977, at about 8-30 p. m. , in the country liquor/shop at Chandameta. The report of the incident was lodged vide Ex. P-18 by Sami ullah (P. W. 7) the same night, at about 9-15 p. m. , at police station Parasia, which is about 4 kilometers from the place of incident. ( 3 ) INITIALLY eight persons, including the appellants, were prosecuted for the offence under Section 395 of the Penal Code. On evaluation of the prosecution evidence, the learned Judge acquitted five accused persons. The present appeal is by two of the convicted accused. Accused Raju, it appears, has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has examined Tikaram; (P. W. 4), Chhedilal (P. W. 5), Samiullah (P. W. 7) and Shatrughan singh (P. W. 8) as eye-witnesses to the incident. All these witnesses were working in the country liquor shop. It also appears in the evidence that the appellants and the other accused as well as the witnesses belong to the same place and are also known to each other. It is in view of this, the names of the accused persons, including the present appellants, find place in the first information report (Ex. P-18 ). ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Samiullah (P. W. 7) who had lodged the first information report (Ex. P-18) contradicted the report, inasmuch as, this witness does net state the presence of the appellant Akram at the time of incident. And the prosecution having failed to cross-examine him, no reliance can be placed on the first information report. A peruse I of the testimony of Samiullah (P. W. 7) does show that he is trying to save the appellant Akram. It is seen that while this witness remembers the part played by the appellant Dayaram and the convicted accused Raju, he conveniently forgets an the acts of the appellant Akram. But the report lodged by him immediately after the incident cannot be ignored. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab. 1 for the proposition that conviction cannot be based on the first information report only. But the report lodged by him immediately after the incident cannot be ignored. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab. 1 for the proposition that conviction cannot be based on the first information report only. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court cannot be disputed be the perusal of the testimony of Chhedilal (P. W. 6), whose presence in the country liquor shop has not been disputed at the time of incident, deposes about the presence of the appellant Akram on the spot. His testimony could not be shaken in the cross-examination wherein he is candid to depose that even though one of the three persons had worn a veil, he had identified him. It is to be kept in mind that the accused and the witnesses belonged to the same place. It is also seen that Samiullah (P. W. 7) bad introduced the factum of wearing of veilt for the first time in his deposition, cannot be given credence. Tikaram (P. W. 4) who is another witness to the incident has also deposed to the part placed by the appellant Akram, though he had known his name through Chhedilal (P. W. 6) which does not make the testimony of Tikaram (P. W. 4) unreliable. In my opinion, taking into consideration of the prosecution evidence, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Akram was one of the persons involved in the commission of the offence and is accordingly held guilty for the offence under section 392 of the Penal Code. This is not the case where the conviction is dependent solely on the first information report. ( 6 ) THERE is no sufficient prosecution evidence on record to come to a reasonable conclusion beyond doubt about the involvement of the appellant Dayaram. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the test identification conducted by Kallu (P. W. 13) is wholly illegal inasmuch as, according to his testimony, the identification has been conducted as per instructions received by him from the Station Officer. In my opinion, the test identification is, therefore, of no value to the prosecution. A perusal of the testimony of Tikaram (P. W. 4) does not disclose any act done by the appellant Dayaram. The appellant Dayaram has not been implicated by Chhedilal (P. W. 5) and Shatrughansingh (P. W. 8 ). In my opinion, the test identification is, therefore, of no value to the prosecution. A perusal of the testimony of Tikaram (P. W. 4) does not disclose any act done by the appellant Dayaram. The appellant Dayaram has not been implicated by Chhedilal (P. W. 5) and Shatrughansingh (P. W. 8 ). However, the testimony of Samiullah (P. W. 7) shows that the appellant Dayaram was one of the persons who were involved in the crime. Samiullah (P. W. 7), who has lodged the first information report (Ex. P-18), however, has not named the appellant Dayaram in the first information report (Ex. P-18 ). Under these circumstances, it is not possible to convict the appellant Dayaram on the sole testimony of Samiullah (P. W. 7) who has not supported the prosecution. The appellant Dayaram is, therefore, entitled to a benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal partly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant Akram under Section 392 of the Penal Code is maintained. The appellant Akram, who is on bail, is directed to surrender to his bail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. He shall be entitled to set off, if any, for the period spent in custody. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant Dayaram under Section 392 of the Penal Code are set aside and he is acquitted the appellant Dayaram, who is on bail, need not surrender to his bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. .