ORDER K. L. Shrivastava, J 1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 16-7-84 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, camp Jaora, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1980 whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 458 IPC and the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs 200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days and the conviction under section 323 IPC and the sentence of three months simple imprisonment have been maintained. 2. The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. The informant Shankarlal (P.W. 1) is resident of village Arnia. He holds agricultural land in the adjoining village Bagakheda, where the petitioner cultivates the agricultural land belonging to his father. 3. According to the prosecution story, during the night intervening 20th and 21st December, 1979, three unknown persons bad entered the informants residence and bad caused injuries to him and to his wife Lachhibai (P.W.3). The miscreants had taken away some silver ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 1000/-. 4. On the basis of a report of the occurrence, a crime was registered at police station Jaora, and investigation was set afoot. 5. At the conclusion of the investigation, the petitioner arid one. Amar Singh were prosecuted. 6. The learned trial Magistrate, at the conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated earlier. 7. The defence of the petitioner at the trial was one of denial. According to him he and the informant have adjoining lands and the latter knows him from child-hood. His version is that the informant is on visiting terms with one Leelabai petitioner's (co-villager) and as he objects, the latter bears ill will against him. 8. The petitioner has preferred an appeal with the result already stated. 9. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the first information Jeport Shankarlal (P.W. 1) had stated to the effect that out of the three miscreants he had identified one and he was a Bachada from village Bagakheda. However, at the trial, his evidence is that he had not so reported. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the first information Jeport Shankarlal (P.W. 1) had stated to the effect that out of the three miscreants he had identified one and he was a Bachada from village Bagakheda. However, at the trial, his evidence is that he had not so reported. He has also invited my attention to the evidence of this witness to the effect that when he had reached the police station about 20 to 25 persons were present and on being questioned by the Station Officer he had stated that out of them, Uttamsingh (the present petitioner) might be one of the miscreants. The evidence of Lachchhibai (P. W. 3) is to the effect that her husband bad told her during the night of occurrence that he had identified the two accused persons i.e. the petitioner and his associate Amarsingh. She had contradicted her statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. to the effect that her husband bad identified one of the miscreants and he was from Bagakheda. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that in the test identification parade the petitioner was duly identified by Shankarlal (P. W. 1) and therefore his conviction is on firm foundation. 12. True it is that while reporting the occurrence to the police station, the informant did not name the petitioner as one of the culprits. This, however, is no guarantee of the correctness of his subsequent version. It may be pointed out that there is no recovery from the petitioner and his convection solely rests on the evidence of test identification. According to this test identification Shankarlal had identified the petitioner and his wife had identified the co accused, Amarsingh. From the evidence of Shankarlal (P. W. 1) it is gathered that she had already seen the petitioner at the police station and, therefore, the test identification becomes worthless. 13. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has a limited scope and normally re-appreciating of evidence is not done. However, where the defect in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below results in miscarriage of justice, interference becomes the duty. 14. In the instant case, I am of the view that the learned lower Courts have entered conviction in a mechanical manner and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 15. However, where the defect in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below results in miscarriage of justice, interference becomes the duty. 14. In the instant case, I am of the view that the learned lower Courts have entered conviction in a mechanical manner and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 15. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 16. On a careful consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner's convictions and sentences are not sustainable on the material on record. The learned lower Courts have erred in convicting the petitioner 17 In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioner's conviction under sections 323 and 451 I.P.C. and the sentences passed there under are all set aside. He is acquitted of the said offences. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.