JUDGMENT H. C. Mital, J. 1. Sheoji Ojha has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment while Sri Kishun has been convicted and sentenced under section 323 IPC to nine months, RI by Sri D. R. Singh, II Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia by his judgment and order dated 12th January 1978. 2. There was marriage of the daughter of Tapasi Ahir in village Sihachaur PS Garwar district Ballia, with the son of Sri Kishun, appellant no. 2 in the night between 8th and 9th June, 1974. Late in the mid-night the Baratis and Gharatis were enjoying dance in a camp outside the house of Tapasi Ahir. Sheoji Ojha, appellant no. 1, besides Ramdutta and Kapil were also members of the marriage party. According to the prosecution Sheoji Ojha was armed with a licenced gun and was thus clearly distinguished from other Baratis. It is alleged that when the dance was going on some persons started making noise, whereupon Bal Govind, deceased, father of Nandji PW 1 the informant shouted to quieten them. Thereupon on the instigation of accused Ram Dutta, Kapil and Ramjanam accused Sheoji Ojha fired at Bal Govind, who fell down seriously injured. Nandji PW 1 swooped to catch hold of Sheojj Ojha, but was beaten by a lathi by accused Sri Kishun Ahir, appellant no. 2 Nandji was injured but he carried his injured father to the police station with the help of the villagers on a cot. In the way Bal Govind succumbed to his injuries. Nandji PW 1 reached the police station Garwar at 4.05 a. m. on 9-6-1974 about four miles from the place of occurrence. There he submitted his report Ex.ka. 1, which was scribed by Shivanand Singh PW 5. Kanhaiya Singh PW 4 Head Constable, received the written report at the police station acid on its basis prepared the chick report Ex. ka. 2 and made entries in the General Diary registering the case under sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC against Ram Dutt, Kapil, Ramjanam, Sheoji and Shri Kishun. 3. 1, which was scribed by Shivanand Singh PW 5. Kanhaiya Singh PW 4 Head Constable, received the written report at the police station acid on its basis prepared the chick report Ex. ka. 2 and made entries in the General Diary registering the case under sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC against Ram Dutt, Kapil, Ramjanam, Sheoji and Shri Kishun. 3. The investigation was taken up by Station Officer of PS Garwar Sri Udai Pratap Singh PW 6 who immediately recorded the statement of Nandji, prepared the inquest report of the dead body at the police station and sent it in sealed condition for post mortem examination with necessary papers Thereafter on completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and at the trial the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, of whom Nandji PW 1, Baleshwar Ahir FW 2 and Gauri PW 3 are the eye witnesses. 4. PW 7 Dr. D. Misra had done the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He noted the following anae mortem injuries : On internal examination there was about six ounce of undigested food in the stomach. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to synoope. 5. Injuries of Nandji PW 1 were examined by Dr. O. P. Sahu, who had left the service and was not traceable. The injury report Ex. ka 14 has been proved by Badri Narain, Pharmacist PW 8, who worked under Dr. Sahu. Dr. Sahu had noted the following injuries an the person of Nandji on 9th June 1974 at 10.30 A. M. 6. Accused Sheoji Ojha had surrendered in court and had claimed identification from the prosecution eye witnesses alleging that he was not known to the prosecution witnesses. The identification proceedings took place on 25-8-1974 wherein Nandji PW 1 and Baleshwar Ahir PW 2 could not identify him but Gauri PW 3 correctly identified him. The Investigating Officer deposed about the various steps taken by him in the course of investigation and he further deposed that on reaching the scene of occurrence he found that the accused had bolted away and the camp of the marriage party had also been removed. The version of accused Sheoji Ojha has been of complete denial. He had even denied to have participated in the marriage party. The version of accused Sheoji Ojha has been of complete denial. He had even denied to have participated in the marriage party. He has further stated that he used to take Theka of Jabbi Ghat and Sarju Singh, Constable of Police Station Haldi used to pressurise him to give up the Theka at the instance of Chaubeys with whom he had enmity. Therefore, at the instigation of Sarju Singh, constable, he has been falsely implicated. 7. Shri Kishun, appellant no. 2,, admitted that there was marriage of his son with the daughter of Tapasi Ahir in the night between 8th and 9th June 1974 and he bad also admitted the presence of other co-accused besides Sheoji Ojha. He also admitted that dance party was going on and there were three petromaxes burning at that time. He also admitted that noise was created at that time but he did not know who tried to pacify. 8. In defence Basdeo Sharma DW 1 Record Keeeper of S. P. Office Ballia was examined. He had brought, the record but he could not prove it. Sri Ram DW 2 resident of Rajpur Police Station Haldi deposed that Gauri PW 3 used to ply Rikshaw and he knew the people of the village, Shivji had taken a theka of the Ghat about five years back from 9th January 1978 i.e. sometime in the year 1972 and prior to that some Kamaichha Chaubey had taken the Theka of the Ghat. The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence, and disbelieved the defence version, hence convicted and sentenced the appellants as above, and acquitted the remaining accused viz. Ram Dutta, Kapil and Ram Janam. 9. On being aggrieved this appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. It has been strenuously urged that the evidence on record was insufficient and unreliable to base conviction of the appellants. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that against Sheoji Ojha appellant no. 1 there is single identification evidence of Gauri PW 3 and the oral testimony of Nandji PW 1 and Baleshwar Ahir PW 3 could not be believed as both of them had failed to identify the appellant at the test parade. Regarding Sri KishuB, appellant no. 1 there is single identification evidence of Gauri PW 3 and the oral testimony of Nandji PW 1 and Baleshwar Ahir PW 3 could not be believed as both of them had failed to identify the appellant at the test parade. Regarding Sri KishuB, appellant no. 2, it was urged that he being the father of the bridegroom would not have indulged in beating with lathi and, therefore, evidence of the eye witnesses against him was also not free from suspicion. The fact that the marriage party of son of Sri Kishun had come in the village and the marriage was to be performed with the daughter of Tapasi is not disputed and the same is also proved from the testimony of the three eye witnesses, viz. Nandji PW 1, Baleshwar PW 2 and Gauri PW 3 from their testimony it is further proved and the same has also been admitted by Sri Kishun that dance was taking place after midnight and some noise was created therein. Sri Kishun, however, could not say as to who was responsible for it. He has not denied that at that time someone: fired the shot which killed Bal Govind and somebody caused injury to Nandji with lathi. 11. We now take up the case of appellant Sri Kishun. He has alleged false implication on the ground that relations of the complainant with Tapasi were strained. The allegation prima facie is without any basis. All the three eye witnesses have specifically deposed that they were entertaining the baraties. There is nothing in the cross-examination of either of these witnesses to indicate that the relations of Tapasi with these prosecution witnesses were strained. Appellant no. 2, Sri Kishun also did not examine Tapasi his own Samdhi in support of his allegation that these prosecution witnesses had an axe to grind with him. Hence in the absence of any circumstance or evidence we do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the three eye witnesses, namely, Nandji PW 1 Baleshwar PW 2 and Gauri PW 3 that Sui Kishun appellant no. 2 had inflicted lathi blows on Nandji when he tried to catch hold of Shivji Ojha after he had fired at his father. 12. As against Sheoji Ojha also there is evidence of all these three eye witnesses that he had fired a shot. 2 had inflicted lathi blows on Nandji when he tried to catch hold of Shivji Ojha after he had fired at his father. 12. As against Sheoji Ojha also there is evidence of all these three eye witnesses that he had fired a shot. It is true that both Nandji PW 1 and Baleshwar Ahir PW 2 could not identify at the test parade and only Gauri PW 3 could identify him. As regards the identification testimony it was alleged on behalf of the appellants that single identification testimony of Gauri PW 3 could not be held sufficient to base conviction of appellant Sheoji Ojha. The identification is the process of establishing the identity of a person, or in other words, the determination of his individuality by proving that he is the man he purports to be, or if he is pretending to be some one else, the man he really is, or in case of dispute, that he is the man he is alleged to be. 13. The culprits may be recognised and later identified by their Physical peculiarities such as hairs, beards, moustaches, deformaties, stature, structure, moles, pimples, warts, scars, tatoo marks, gait and voice etc. 14. The object of holding identification proceeding is to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person, not previously known to the witnesses, was involved in the commission of the crime and to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witness in the court and for the object of placing a suspect along with others for identification to find out whether he is the perpetrator of the crime. The need for identification arises only when culprits are not previously known. Identification proceedings are not necessary where the accused is named in the first information report. However, if an accused claims that he was not known to the witnesses, then of course ends of justice require that the court should arrange for his identification through the witnesses who claimed to have seen him and named him for the commission of the offence. There is no hard and fast rule to fix up the number of witnesses identifying a suspect at the test identification parade. Hence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that where there is identification by only one witness that identification should never be acted upon. There is no hard and fast rule to fix up the number of witnesses identifying a suspect at the test identification parade. Hence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down that where there is identification by only one witness that identification should never be acted upon. In the case of Prithi v. State, 1966 CrLJ (E) in para 18 at p. 1375 Honourable M. H. Beg, J. (as he then was) observed as follows : "It is true that in exceptional cases evidence of identification by single witness may suffice. But, the general rule of practice and the prudence in dacoity cases of the type before me is that a single satisfactory identification should not be acted upon." 15. However, very recently in the case of Shiv Charan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 1 , it has been held that conviction could be made on the basis of single identification evidence. In that case dacoity was committed at night in the Bikaner Mail in an electric lit compartment. Although three of the witnesses were not able to identify the appellant and each one of the dacoits, the fourth witness Allah Baksh had recognised and identified all the accused. In his examination-in-chief on the first day be had, no doubt, stated that miscreants who shot Phool Khan, i.e. Ramesh put the nozzel of the pistol under his chin, but on the next day, during the continuance of the examination-in-chief the witness was further questioned. The accused were all in purdah and on their face being uncovered, this witness, Allah Baksh identified the appellant Shiv Charan as the man (who) put the nozzel under his chin. His testimony in court identifying the appellant was corroborated by his testimony of identification at the parade held by the Magistrate. Even then their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant on the single identification made by Allah Baksh could be accepted and they saw no reason to take a different view than was taken by the Honourable High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Their Lordships accordingly dismissed the appeal. 16. Even earlier their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Moinuddin Mazumdar v. State of Assam, 1972 SCC (Criminal) 521, which arose out of a dacoity which took place at mid night and wherein ornaments etc. Their Lordships accordingly dismissed the appeal. 16. Even earlier their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Moinuddin Mazumdar v. State of Assam, 1972 SCC (Criminal) 521, which arose out of a dacoity which took place at mid night and wherein ornaments etc. were stolen, the appellant had been identified by only one witness, PW 3 Charu Prabhunath as one of the dacoits. .But, the learned Judge did not choose to proceed on this evidence of identification and he observed that from the facts it could not be doubted that two witnesses, PW 2 Udai Shankar and Charu Prabhunath PW 3, could recognise the appellants; but the court in such cases generally without corroborative evidence and identification by single witness would decline to accept such evidence as sufficient for the purpose of connecting an accused if hot strongly supported by other attendant circumstances. Thereon, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "It is rather difficult to understand this kind of approach to the evidence. If the Court has no doubt that Charu Prabhunath was able to identify correctly the appellant as one of the dacoits, there was no necessity of any further corroboration." In view of the above two reported decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court it is clear that even in cases of dacoity and dacoity accompanied with murder conviction would not be bad on the basis of single identification evidence. 17. In the present case, so far as the prosecution case is concerned, it stands on a little better footing in the sense that it was not a case of dacoity. In case of dacoity normally only suspects are put up for identification to find that they were real perpetrators of the crime. However, as both PW 1 Nandji and PW 2 Baleshwar Ahir could not identify him in the test parade, their testimony having become doubtful has to be ignored. 18. Evidence of Gauri PW 3 was also, however, challenged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that he had known the appellant from before as he was a rickshaw puller and he used to ply rickshaw in the Mela of Jauhi Ghat. 18. Evidence of Gauri PW 3 was also, however, challenged on behalf of the appellant on the ground that he had known the appellant from before as he was a rickshaw puller and he used to ply rickshaw in the Mela of Jauhi Ghat. In the cross-examination the witness did admit that five years prior to his statement he was plying his rickshaw in Ballia, and he used to ply it from Ballia city to Phephna and in the evening he used to come back. The statement of the appellant, Shiv Ji Ojha, under section 313 CrPC has been that he had not attended the marriage and he was having the lease for collecting tax at Jauhi Ghat which earlier was with Kamachha Deen Chaube and Indrajeet Chaube, that constable Sarju Singh was friendly with them and therefore, he falsely got him implicated in the case. In defense he had also examined Sri Ram DW 2 who deposed that Shiv Muni, Bal Bachan and Shiv Badan were married in his family and he knew Gauri PW 3 who was their Behnoi and that in the marriages of Bal Bachan and Shiv bachan and in the Gauna of Shiv Muni, Gauri PW 3 had come to Rajpur about three years prior to the occurrence and that Gauri PW 3 had been plying Rickshaw for the last twelve years, that a Mela used to be held at Brahmpur at a distance of two miles from Jauhi Ghat; that Shivji Ojha. accused had taken a Theka at Jauhi Ghat for two years and prior to him Kamaccha Chaube was a Thekedar. He also stated that Gauri had gone in the Mela of Brahmpur. PW 3 Gauri also admitted that Shiv Muni, Shiv Bachan and Bal Bachan were brothers in law and they were married in viilage Rajpur. However, he has denied to have attended the marriage of Bal Bachan which had taken place two years prior to the occurrence and stated that marriage of Shiv Bachan had taken place after the occurrence. PW 3 Gauri also admitted that Shiv Muni, Shiv Bachan and Bal Bachan were brothers in law and they were married in viilage Rajpur. However, he has denied to have attended the marriage of Bal Bachan which had taken place two years prior to the occurrence and stated that marriage of Shiv Bachan had taken place after the occurrence. After having considered the testimony of Gauri PW 3 and Sri Ram DW 2 it is apparent that Gauri PW 3 leing Behnoi of Sri Ram DW 2 must be visiting Rajpur and being a rickshaw puller must also be plying it during Melas where appellant Shivji Ojha had a theka on the river hence the possibility that he should have seen him there and might have also known him cannot be totally ruled out. That apart, in the above referred two Supreme Court cases single testimony of identification comprised of one of the victims himself while in the present case Gauri PW 3 is not a victim and PW 1 Nandji the victim could not identify appellant Sheoji Ojha it would be safe to give benefit of doubt to him and not to maintain conviction on the single identification testimony of PW 3 Gauri without any other circumstance to corroborate it, particularly when the possibility that PW 3 Gauri might have earlier seen and known the appellant cannot be totally ruled out. 19. The conclusion, therefore, is that the prosecution has not succeeded in bringing home the guilt to appellant, Shivji Ojha beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the murder of Bal Govind, hence his conviction and sentence are liable to be quashed. 20. Evidence against appellant, Shri Kishun, has already been discussed above holding that the prosecution has established beyond doubt that he had inflicted lathi blows on Nandji PW 1 when he tried to catch hold of Shivji Ojha after he had fired at his father, and thus committed the offence under section 323 IPC. As regards the sentence on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants it was urged that Shri Kishun has been sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment under section 323 IPC. As regards the sentence on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants it was urged that Shri Kishun has been sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment under section 323 IPC. The occurrence had taken place in June, 1974 and the conviction had taken place in January 1978 and now after ten years of conviction and almost thirteen and a half years of the occurrence it would not be just and expedient to ask him to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and this court may impose some fine on him. We have considered this aspect of the matter and considering the long gap and the fact that he had only inflicted simple lathi injures to Nandji ends of justice may amply meet by awarding the sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- only instead of nine months' rigorous imprisonment. 21. The appeal of Shivji Ojha is, therefore, allowed. His conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence oil life imprisonment are quashed. He is on bail, he need not surrender, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 22. Appeal of Ram Kishun is partly allowed. His conviction under section 323 IPC is maintained but instead of sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment, he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default six months rigorous imprisonment. He is allowed two months' time to pay the fine. If the fine is deposited or realised, Rs. 1000/- out of it shall be paid to the complainant, Nandji PW 1.