Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur and S.H.S.Abidi JJ. 1. An armed dacoity took place in the house of Kailash Mahto (P.W. 4) on 5th March, 1978, at about 7 to 7.30 P.M. in which a bomb was also exploded due to which one of the villagers received injuries and died. P.W. 5 was the officer-in-charge of Nawadah police station during the relevant period. On receipt of some information he came to the house of the informant and recorded the fordbeyan of the informant Kailash Mahto (P.W. 4) at 11 P.M. in the same night and took up investigation. In course of investigation these two appellants were arrested hand they were put on test identification parade. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against these two appellants and they were ultimately put on trial. 2. In the trying court as many as nil1e witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appel1ants denied the allegation and in support of their innocence, two witnesses were also examined on their behalf. Their further case appears to be that they were known to the prosecution party from before and due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated subsequently. 3. The factum of dacoity has not been challenged by the defence. Even before this Court it has not been challenged. The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses. coupled with the evidence of the investigating officer clearly goes to prove that a dacoity did take place in the house of the informant in which one person received injuries by a bomb explosion resulting in his death. 4. The question now remains as to whether these appellants participated in the dacoity. Admittedly, P.W. 4 is the only eyewitness who identified these two appellants in the trying court. So the conviction of the appellants squarely on the evidence of P.W. 4 alone. There is no hard and fast rule rests that the conviction of an accused cannot be maintained on the solitary evidence of one witness. But in such a case, the law of prudence requires that the evidence of that solitary witness has to be judged and scrutinised with great caution. If the evidence of P.W. 4 is tested in that light, we do not find it to be above board to maintain the conviction. 5. It has come in evidence that the village of the appellants and the village of the informant are in the boundary. If the evidence of P.W. 4 is tested in that light, we do not find it to be above board to maintain the conviction. 5. It has come in evidence that the village of the appellants and the village of the informant are in the boundary. It has also come in evidence that some persons of the village of the informant have some lands in the village of the appellants. The evidence of the informant discloses that the village to which these appellants belong is visible from the village of the informant. P.W. 3 had identified appellant No.1 Gopi Beldar in the test identification parade but he did not identify him in the trying court. According to the fardbeyan, Dhibri was burning and in that light identification has been claimed. Dhibri is a small earthen lamp. 6. Taking into consideration all these facts, we do not feel it safe to maintain the conviction of these two appellants on the solitary evidence of the informant and they are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside and they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in some other case.