S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 680 of 1983 (Sunder and another v. State of M. P.) ( 2 ) THESE four accused were tried before Judicial Magistrate, First Class Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1976 for an offence under section, 392 Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate found them guilty for that offence and sentenced each of them to R. I. for two years and the of Rs. 500/-, in default three months R. I. Against that conviction and sentence all the four accused preferred Cr. A. No. 62 of 1981. That appeal has been dismissed by Sessions Judge; Tikamgarh on 5-9-1983. Against that the present the relations have been filed by these accused. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story is that Rattu (P. W. 7), Thandu (P. W. 8) and Ramdas (P. W. 11) were going in a bullock cart in the night intervening 3rd and 4th March, 1976 from village Bombauri Kala to village Simna Khurd. The bullock-cart was being driven by, Thandu (P. W. 8) while Ramdas (P. W. 11) and Rattu (P. W. 7) were lying in it: When the bullock-cart reached near a culvert between villages Khargpura and Pratapnagar, these four applicants who were armed with sticks, axe and torch way laid them. , The cart was first stopped and after talking with Thandu and others allowed it to go ahead. After some distance the miscreants again stopped the out lock cart and after threatening these occupants robbed them of the money which each had with him. They robbed Rattu (P. W. 7) of Rs. 118/-, (P. W. 5) Thandu of Rs. 7/- and Ramdas (P. W, 11) of Rs. 341/ -. A woolen coat which Ramdast was wearing had also been taken away. This incident took place at about 4 a. m. ( 4 ) FIRST information report was lodged by Ramdas (P. W. 11) on 4-3-1916 in the evening at 14. 30 P. M. in Police Station Jatara which is at a distance about 12 kms. The investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector Pande P. W. 6 ). On an alleged information given by applicant Bhadua on 7-3- 1976, the Court belonging to Ramdas was seized from a Nala. He had prepared the information memo as also the consequent seizure memo. 30 P. M. in Police Station Jatara which is at a distance about 12 kms. The investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector Pande P. W. 6 ). On an alleged information given by applicant Bhadua on 7-3- 1976, the Court belonging to Ramdas was seized from a Nala. He had prepared the information memo as also the consequent seizure memo. A torch was seized from the house of applicant Sunder. Some other seizures were also effected from these accused. Identification proceedings of the said Court was conducted by Sarpanch Malkhan Singh (P. W. 4 ). In those proceedings the witnesses are said to have identified that court. Identification proceedings, in respect to the accused were also conducted. ( 5 ) THE applicants plead false implications out of enmity. Applicants Bhadua and Sunder have also given reasons for enmity. One Ramku (D. W. 1) was examined in defence. She is the mother of applicant Bhadua, who as she states is also known as Raghunandan. Her husband is dead and the property is, being looked after by the 800. ( 6 ) IT is on the evidence of Rattu (P. W. 7), Thandu (P. W. 8) and Ramdas (P. W. 11) that the identification of the applicant depends. The Naib Tehsildar who had conducted the identification proceedings has not been examined by the prosecution. Ramdas in his first information report Ex. P. 9 gave out the name of applicant Bhadua and stated the would be able to identify the others. In his evidence he stated that the bullock cart was first stopped and after making certain enquiry, all the culprits went away. Thereafter the bullockcart was again stopped at a distance of about 200 yards, where this robbery was done by them. In his report Ex. P. 1 there is no mention about the bullock-cart having first been stopped and they having been allowed, to go ahead and then they having robbed after some distance. When. he was asked about it in the cross-examination, his version was that he had given out that, fact is the report but cannot say as to why it is not mentioned in that report. In his evidence he further stated that it was a moonlit night, which also he had stated at ,the time of making the report but cannot say an to why that fact has not been mentioned. In his evidence he further stated that it was a moonlit night, which also he had stated at ,the time of making the report but cannot say an to why that fact has not been mentioned. ( 7 ) RATTU (P. W. 7) has stated that he did not know the culprits from before either by name or by face. (P. W. 8) states that the culprits were about six to seven in number. He did not support the prosecution and, therefore was cross-examined by the public prosecutor with the permission of the Court. ( 8 ) THE identification proceedings of the accused as it appears from the identification memo Ex. P/20 was conducted on 18-3-1976. There is nothing on record to show as to bow these accused were kept till the date of their identification proceedings. There is no evidence either to show that necessary precautions were observed. The prosecution in the instant case should have, examined the officer, who conducted the identification proceedings. The identification proceeding. Which otherwise could be used as corroborative piece of evidence cannot in the circumstances be so used and deserves to be ignored. ( 9 ) THUS, so far as the evidence of Rattu (P. W. 7) and Thandu (P. W. 8) is concerned, that is of no avail on the question of identity of the applicants the dock identification by Rattu (P. W. 7) and Ramdas (P. W. 11) of the three applicant and other than Bhadua is of no avail to the prosecution. The recovery of the coat bas been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Ex. P/12 is a memo by applicant Bhadua saying that the coat has been handed over to Sunder. Ex. P/13 is the memo of applicant Sunder saying that he bas hid the coat in the Nalat. It was thereafter that the coat was seized vide memo Ex. P/14. This has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, there is no corroboration to the oral testimony of Rattu (P. W. 7) and Ramdas (P. W. 11) so far as the three applicants other than applicant Bhadua are concerned. Without any corroboration I do not think it safe to uphold the conviction of these applicants other than Bhadua, only on the said testimony. Thus, there is no corroboration to the oral testimony of Rattu (P. W. 7) and Ramdas (P. W. 11) so far as the three applicants other than applicant Bhadua are concerned. Without any corroboration I do not think it safe to uphold the conviction of these applicants other than Bhadua, only on the said testimony. ( 10 ) SO far as the applicant, Bhadua is concerned, corroboration was sought to be made out from the fact that Ramdas had given out his name in the first information report. Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has mentioned that Ramdas had no axe to grind against any of the applicants. Learned judge has completely ignored the plea taken by the accused and the cross- examination done on Ramdas on the question of enmity. This question apart, the claim of the witnesses was that they could see and identify the culprits in the moonlit night. This was not the case put up in the first information report wherein it was claimed that the culprits were identify in the torch light. There is an undue delay even in lodging the first information report. According to Ramdas he had lodged the report in the morning it self but that is apparently a false statement. Ramdas had ample time to think over and give out the name of Bhadua which he may have felt to be a possible person amongst the culprits. ( 11 ) IN view of the discrepancies and the circumstances, the application of applicant Bhadua cannot also be upheld and all the applicants are entitled to a benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY; these revisions are allowed the conviction and sentence of the applicants are set aside. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby discharged. Conviction arid sentence set aside. .