JUDGMENT 1. - The State has come up in appeal against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated February 19, 1975, whereby the accused respondent Sokat has been acquitted of the offence under ss, 323, 323/149, 326, 307 and 148 IPC. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are: that on January 14, 1973, complainant Banshilal alongwith his two friends Shayamlal (PW 5) and Dinesh Chandra (PW 7) went to see a first show picture in Swapanlok Taikies which started at 6 P.W. It is alleged that they were sitting in the Stall. After sometime, some students case there and asked Bansilal to vacate the seat. He told them that there are number of other seats vacant and so, they should sit there. It is alleged that on this, one of the students gave a kick to him. On this, he and his companions left that seat and occupied a seat in the rear portion of the stall. After the picture was over, they came out 9 P.M. Some 10-15 boys out of whom two were accused Puroshattam and Sokat when they knew them from came and encircled Banshilal. At that time, Shyamlal was with him but Dinesh Chandra had gone to take back his cycle from the Cycle Stand. After encircling him, those boys started beating Banshilal. At that point of them, his brother Madanlal also came there to leave one of his friends Inder, who wanted to see the second show in that Talkies. When he waw Banshilal being beaten by these persons, he intervened. It is alleged that accused Manzoor caught hold of his arras from behind and accused Solcat took out a knife from his pocket and started inflicting blows to Madanlal with the knife. The other persons engaged themselves in beating Bansilal and his companion Shyamlal. When they cried for help, one Laxman Cobbler came there and he intervened and rescued them. Several persons saw this occurrence. Madanlal who was seriously injured was removed to his house and then to the Hospital where his injuries were medically examined. A report of the incident was lodged by PW 4 Banshilal at Police Station, Hatipole, which has been marked Ex. P. 3. The site was inspected and the site inspectionmemo alongwith site plan (Ex P. 8) was prepared. Accused Puroshottam and Manzoor were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P 9 and 10 respectively. A report of the incident was lodged by PW 4 Banshilal at Police Station, Hatipole, which has been marked Ex. P. 3. The site was inspected and the site inspectionmemo alongwith site plan (Ex P. 8) was prepared. Accused Puroshottam and Manzoor were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P 9 and 10 respectively. The injuries of Madanlal were examined and his injury memo has been marked Ex. P I and his X-Ray report has been marked Ex. P 2. The knife was recovered from the possession of accused Sokat vide memo Ex. P 4. The blood stained clothes of Madanlal were seized vide memo Ex. P 5. Accused Sokat and Manzoor were put for identification on January, 29 1973. Their identification memo has been marked Ex. P 6. Accused Shyamlal was also put for identification on March 15, 1973 and his identification memo has been marked Ex P 7. After usual investigation, the case against four accused persons viz, Manzoor, Shyamlal, Puroshttam and Sokat was challenged in the court of learned Addl, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Udaipur under sections 307, 326 and 323/149 1PC. Thereafter, the case of all these four accused persons was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur where all these four accused persons faced the trial. Accused Sokat was charged with the offence under sections 307, 326, 323 and 323/149 IPC. Accused Puroshttam and Shyamlal were charged with the offences under section 323, 323/149, 307 and 147 IPC. Whereas accused Manzoor was charged with the offence under section 147, 307 307/114 and 323/149 IPC. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial whereupon the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused Puroshttam examined D.W. 1 Laxman in his defence. No other accused led any defence. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court has acquitted all the four accused-persons of all the offences with which they were charged. 3. The State has, however, filed its leave to appeal only against accused Sokat, which was granted by this Court and, therefore, in this appeal, we have only to consider the case of accused Sokat alone. 4. We have heard Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent. 5. The State has, however, filed its leave to appeal only against accused Sokat, which was granted by this Court and, therefore, in this appeal, we have only to consider the case of accused Sokat alone. 4. We have heard Mr. B.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent. 5. Non we have to decide whether the findings of the learned lower court regarding accused Sokat can be sustained on the basis of the record or not. 6. The learned lower court has held that the prosecution examined four eye witnesses of the occurrence, they are PW 4 Banshilal, PW 5 Shyamlal, PW 6 Madanlal and PW 7 Dinesh Chandra. Out of these four witnesses, only Shyamlal has identified the accused Sokat in the Jail. Rest of the three witnesses have identified wrong persons in place of Sokat in the identification parade and, therefore, under these circumstances, all these three witnesses except Shyamlal have been disbelieved by the learned lower court. So far as the identification by Shyamlal is concerned, the learned lower court has held that firstly he gave differing versions about the identification of accused Sokat and secondly, it has held that identification of the accused by a single witness is notjsufficient to fasten the guilt the accused and, therefore, it has acquitted the accused reepondent Sokat. 7. In this case, PW 4 Banshilal is the first informant with whom the incident inside the cinema took place. It is strange that although he has alleged that he was kicked in the cinema hall and was availed by 15 accused-persons outside the cinema but he received no injury. Be that as it may, he is the first informant in the case. He got it recorded in the FIR Ex. P 3 that he knew accused Sokat and Puroshottam from before. Even in his examination-in-chief, he has ascribed specific acts to accused Sokat. He has stated that accused Sokat took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries to his brother Madanlal with the help of that Knife. He got it recorded in the FIR Ex. P 3 that he knew accused Sokat and Puroshottam from before. Even in his examination-in-chief, he has ascribed specific acts to accused Sokat. He has stated that accused Sokat took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries to his brother Madanlal with the help of that Knife. However, when he was cross-examined, he has admitted that he did not know any of the accused persons from before, but when accused Sokat was inflicting blows withe the knife of his brother, accused Manzoor asked Sokat not to inflict injury with the knife and, therefore, he came to know about his name. He has also stated that he did not know the name of Puroshottam. However, he got it recorded in the FIR Ex. P 3 that he knew Sokat and Puroshottam from before whereas now his statement at the trial is that he did now them from before and he came to know about the name of Sokat only when Manzoor by taking his name asked him not to use the knife in the incident. When this witness was asked to identify the accused Sokat during the identification parade, he failed to identify the accused Sokat and, therefore, his testimony regarding participation of accused Sokat becomes totally doubtful. 8. PW- 5 Shaymlal has, of course, identified the accused Sokat during identification parade. He has also identified the accused Sokat in the court. He has stated that when Madan Lal tired to intervene, accused Sokat took out a knife from his pocket and he started inflicting blows with it to Madanlal. He has further stated that he has identified the accused Sokat in the Jail but he did not know him from before. Some persons told at the spot; 'Sokat run away Sokat run away' and, therefore, he came to know about his name. Later, during the cross-examination, he has stated that he knew only accused Manzoor from before but he did not know any of his companions from before the incident. In the later part of his cross-examination, he has however admitted that he know accused Sokat also from before because he was coming to the house of Manzoor whom he know from before. In the later part of his cross-examination, he has however admitted that he know accused Sokat also from before because he was coming to the house of Manzoor whom he know from before. The learned lower court has rightly observed that if Shyamlal was knowing the accused Sokat from before then the identification of the accused Sokat in the identification parade loses all its importance. It is not the case of PW 5 Shyamlal that he was informed by PW 5 Shaymlal that it was accused Sokat who was holding the knife and inflicted injuries to Madanlal, with it and therefore, this witness was rightly disbelieved by the learned lower court. This witness has given conflicting evidence about the identify of accused Sokat. When his attention was drawn to his conflicting statement made in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, he has stated that it was true that he did not know accused Sokat either by name or by face from before, and he knew his name only because certain persons took his name at the time of the occurrence. It is, therefore, clear that this witness has given differing versions about the identify of this accused Sokat i.e. whether he knew him from before or whether he could only know his name at the time of the occurrence. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned lower court was justified in rejecting his testimony regarding identification of accused Sokat. 9. PW -6 Madanlal has also stated that accused Sokat was armed with a knife and he inflicted blows to him with the knife. In cross-examination he has admitted that he did not know the accused Sokat from before. He even did not see him before the incident, and he has not been able to identify him in the identification parade because he was inte-mingled with number of persons in the identification parade. If accused Sokat could not be identified by PW 6 Madanlal in the identification parade then the identification of accused Sokat during the course of the trial cannot be held as sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences with which he was charged. 10. Similar is the fact of the testimony of PW 7 Dinesh Chandra. If accused Sokat could not be identified by PW 6 Madanlal in the identification parade then the identification of accused Sokat during the course of the trial cannot be held as sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences with which he was charged. 10. Similar is the fact of the testimony of PW 7 Dinesh Chandra. He too has stated that he did not know accused Sokat from before but he came to know his name when accused Manzoor asked Sokat not to inflict blows with the knife to Madanlal but he failed to identify him during the identificatian parade and so, his identification of accused in the court cannot be given much credence. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the lower court was perfectly justified in rejecting the testimony of these witnesses regarding participation of accused Sokat in the incident. 11. In the result, we find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******