SANKAR BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) THE subject matter of this appeal is the judgment and order dated 14-1-1-85 passed by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge Howrah, convicting the appellant under section 395 I. P. C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for nine years. ( 2 ) BEREFT of details, the prosecution was as under:the informant Nishikanta Banerjee (P. W. 15) has his house at Chowdhurypara of Village Makardah where be lives with his family and his brothers Krishnakanta Banerjee and Kartick Banerjee and their families. ( 3 ) ON March 21, 1982, at or about 11. 45 p. m. while Nishikanta and his wife Nilima (P. W. 7) were sleeping in a room of the house, some persons from outside announced that they had come from the police station. Hearing this, Nilima opened the window to see who they were when one them inserted the barrel of a gun through the window and pointing it at her husband ordered her to open the door. When she opened the door to save her husband 8/10 miscreants, some of them in police uniform, entered the room. They were armed with guns, axes and other deadly weapons. One of them pressed her throat and compelled her to part with her ornaments. ( 4 ) THE miscreants also raided the rooms where Nishikanta's sons, daughters and his brothers with the members of their families were sleeping. They forced their entry into these rooms by breaking open the doors with axes and decamped with gold ornaments and other valuables which they could Jay their hands upon. While retreating, two of the dacoits sustained severe injuries as a result of accidental explosion of bombs which they were carrying. ( 5 ) RECEIVING an annonimous telephone message at the Bomjur Police Station that sounds of explosion and cries were being heard from village Makardah, some police officers with force rushed to the village in a jeep and chased the dacoits along with the villagers. On the way they found the injured dacoits who had been abandoned by their coborts. They were brought to die local doctor (P. W. 1) for treatment but died shortly. Before their death, they made confessional statements implicating themselves and certain others, including the appellant in the dacoity in question. On the way they found the injured dacoits who had been abandoned by their coborts. They were brought to die local doctor (P. W. 1) for treatment but died shortly. Before their death, they made confessional statements implicating themselves and certain others, including the appellant in the dacoity in question. ( 6 ) NISHIKANTA narrated the incident to the police, which was reduced into writing and treated as the first information report. On the basis of the first information report a case under sections 395/397 I. P. C. was registered and investigation was taken up. ( 7 ) THE appellant was arrested by the Diamond Harbour, Police in connection with another case and at the instance of the Investigating Officer, was shown as arrested in the instant case on 24. 8. 83. He was placed at a test identification parade on 2-11-83 where he was identified by Nilima (P. W. 7), wife of Nishikanta and his brothers wife Bela (P. W. 6 ). On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant which, in the usual course, ended in committal of the case to the court of sessions. ( 8 ) THE points arising for our determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant Nishikanta on the night of 21. 3. 82 as alleged? And (2) If so, whether the appellant took part in the dacoity in question. ? the factum of dacoity is not challenged before us and has been overwhelmingly proved by the evidence of Maya (P. W. 5), Bela (P. W. 6), Nalima (P. W. 7), Jyotiprasad (P. W. 9) and Nishikanta (P. W. 15) all of whom are the inmates of the house which was raided by the dacoits on the night of 21-8-82. Their evidence finds corroboration from Maya Chowdhury (P. W. 8 ). Debidas Chowdhury, (P. W. 10) and Abhoy Ghosh (P. W. 11) who are close neighbours of Nishikanta. The seizure of broken door leaves, boxes etc. (vide Exts. 2, 3 and 6) by the first investigating officer (P. W. 16) on the very night of occurrence in presence of witnesses also lends support to the dacoity. ( 9 ) THE injury and death of the two dacoits while retreating as a result of bomb explosion has also been abunduntly proved by Dr. (vide Exts. 2, 3 and 6) by the first investigating officer (P. W. 16) on the very night of occurrence in presence of witnesses also lends support to the dacoity. ( 9 ) THE injury and death of the two dacoits while retreating as a result of bomb explosion has also been abunduntly proved by Dr. S. N. Banerjee (P. W. 3), Debidas Chowdhury (P. W. 10), Nishikanta (P. W. 15) and the Investigating Officer (P. W. 16 ). S. I. T. Chakraborty (P. W. 2) held inquest over the dead body and Dr. R. K. Das (P. W. 1) conducted autopsy on the dead body. In view of the evidence discussed above, the factum of dacoity stands clearly established. ( 10 ) THE next question and the most crucial one is whether the appellant took part in the dacoity in question. Evidence was led before the trial court to the effect that the two captured dacoits made confessional statements before Dr. Banerjee (P. W. 3) implicating themes elves and certain others, including the appellant in the dacoity in question. Since, however, they died shortly after they were taken to the doctor the confessional statements allegedly made by them do not come within the purview of section 30 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used against the appellant as the confession of a co-accused. We, therefore, exclude it from our consideration altogether and leave the matter at that. ( 11 ) THE only evidence against the appellant is his identification parade as well as in Court by Bela (P. W. 6) and Nilima (P. W. 7) We may however, safely ignore the evidence of identification by Nilima because, though in her examination in chief she identified the appellant as one of the dacoits who took; part in the dacoity, in cross examination she candidly conceded that she was not sure whether the appellant was the person whom she identified in the test identification parade which necessarily means that she was not sure whether she saw the appellant among the miscreants who/entered her room. ( 12 ) BELA (P. W. 6) identified the appellant in Court as one of the dacoits who committed dacoity in their house. As stated already, she identified the appellant also at the test identification parade. The question is whether conviction of the appellant may safely be based upon her sole testimony. ( 12 ) BELA (P. W. 6) identified the appellant in Court as one of the dacoits who committed dacoity in their house. As stated already, she identified the appellant also at the test identification parade. The question is whether conviction of the appellant may safely be based upon her sole testimony. ( 13 ) HER evidence goes to show that some of the dacoits were outside her room, while some entered inside her room and relieved her of gold ornaments. She, however, did not hand over her ornaments to the appellant. According to her, in the flashes of the electric torches used by the dacoits she could see the faces of some of them while the dacoity was being committed. Strangely, however she did not disclose either to the inmates of the house or to the neighbours who came immediately after the retreat of the dacoits that the dacoits used electric torches and that in the flashes of the electric torches she could see the faces of some of the dacoits and would be able to identify them, if seen again. Also while identifying the appellant in Court who did not describe the role played by him during the commission of the dacoity but simply made the emnibus statement that he was one of the dacoits. She did also disclose in her evidence whether she saw the appellant outside or inside her room. ( 14 ) THE dacoity took place on the night of 21/3/1982, while the test identification parade was held as late as on 2/11/1983 that is, about one year and 8 months after the incident. Bela's evidence is that when the dacoits entered her room she was stricken with terror, and quite understandably. Therefore, even if she saw the faces of some of the dacoits in the occasional flashes of their electric torches, it is difficult for us to accept the position that the impression of the dacoits seen by her would still remain fresh in her memory after such a long lapse of time especially when, she was in a highly excited state of mind when the dacoits entered her room. The view taken by us is reinforced the fact that her husband, son and other members of the family who deposed in this case failed to identify the appellant. The view taken by us is reinforced the fact that her husband, son and other members of the family who deposed in this case failed to identify the appellant. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reasons; we think it unsafe to convict the appellant on the evidence of identification of the solitary witness Bela. In our opinion, the appellant was at least entitled to the benefit of doubt, which was wrongly denied to him. ( 16 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .