Judgment OM.PRAKASH, J. 1. The appellant in each of the three appeals has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on the 19th October, 1979, informant Ajay Kumar Singh (P.W. 19), along with his Bahnoi (brother-in-law) Shyamnandan Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Sharif, was travelling from Rajgir to Bihar Sharif in private bus No. BHP 6511. Shyam Nandan Singh was occupying a front single seat just by the side of the driver. Ajay Kumar Singh was on the seat just behind the seat of his Bahnoi. At about 7.45 P.M. the bus reached near Dalda factory when it stopped as the road was blocked by two bullock carts. As soon as the bus stopped, three armed dacoits entered into the bus from the door meant for the bus driver, switched on the body light of the bus and fired at the right arm of the driver. These dacoits immediately reached near D.S.P. Shyamnandan Singh. The D.S.P. scolded them for committing such crime and turned his head towards back to seck support from other passengers. One worker of the Communist Party occupying the last seat in the bus, also protested against such commission of crime. It was then that the daeoit wielding a revolver shot at Shyamnandan Singh in his chest and the gun shot passed through his chest. The dacoits removed his writ watch and money from his person Shyamnandan Singh made an attempt to catch hold the dacoit. But the dacoit pushed him aside and shot dead the protesting Communist Party worker also. The daeoit along with his associates numbering 6 to 7, looted the bus passengers including the informant and escaped towards the west. 3. Eventually the injured were removed to Bilhar Sharif Hospital Injured Shyamnandan Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way. Later on,, the other two injureds also succumbed to their injuries. Informants fardbeyan was recorded at Bihar Sharif Sadar Hospital at 9 P.M. on the same date. 4. After instituting a case against unknown, police started investigation and arrested a number of suspects who were put on T.I. Parades. The three appellants, besides some others, were identified at the T.I.Parades as dacoits participating in the occurrence. All the three appellants were identified at T.I. parades by informant Ajay Kumar Singh (P.W. 19). 4. After instituting a case against unknown, police started investigation and arrested a number of suspects who were put on T.I. Parades. The three appellants, besides some others, were identified at the T.I.Parades as dacoits participating in the occurrence. All the three appellants were identified at T.I. parades by informant Ajay Kumar Singh (P.W. 19). Appellant Bhubneshwar Gope was identified at a T.I. parade by a co-passenger Rajendra Singh (P.W. 22) also. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the three appellants and five others. In due course all the eight were put on trial. 5. The trial began before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, who without examining informant Ajay Kumar Singht Rajendra Singh and some other witnesses, concluded the hearing and delivered judgment on 10th March, 1981 acquitting all the accused. The State of Bihar preferred an appeal, Govt. Appeal No. 55/81. This Court allowed such appeal and remanded the case for hearing in accordance with law. Then the Additional Sessions Judge examined the remaining P.Ws. and concluded the trial. He acquitted five of the eight accused and convicted the three appellants as above. 6. In their examinations under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the appellants have denied the allegation against them. Their case as put to the informant, P.W. 19 Ajay Kumar Singh, is that after their arrest, they and their photos were shown to him and thereafter they were, put on T.I. parade to be identified by him. Appellant Samsad has taken the plea of alibi also. 7. The occurrence of dacoity has not been challenged on behalf of any of the appellants in this Court. What has been challenged by them is the legality and reliability of their identilcation. 8. In Court, Samsad Mian alias Md. Samsad the appellant in Cr.Appeal 425/88 and Bhuneshwar Gope, the appellant in Cr. Appeal 437/88, have been identified by P.W. 19 Ajay Kumar Singh alone. P.W. 22 Rajendra Smgh has not identified Bhuneshwar Gope in Court. Ramdeo Gope, appellant in Cr. Appeal 444/88 has not been identified by P.W. 19, Ajay Kumar Singh, in Court. 9. Shri Chitranjan Sinha, learned counsel for appellants Samsad and Bhuneshwar, has contended that the identification of the above two appellants in dark night by P.W. 19 with vaccum in mind at that time is wholly unreliable and undependable. Ramdeo Gope, appellant in Cr. Appeal 444/88 has not been identified by P.W. 19, Ajay Kumar Singh, in Court. 9. Shri Chitranjan Sinha, learned counsel for appellants Samsad and Bhuneshwar, has contended that the identification of the above two appellants in dark night by P.W. 19 with vaccum in mind at that time is wholly unreliable and undependable. He has referred to the mental condition of the informant at the time of the occurrence as given by himself in his evidence and also to the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 12, 15, 20 and 22 on the point of light in the bus at such time. 10. Evidence of P.W. 19 Ajay Kumar Singh is that his Bahnoi Shyamnandan Singh was occupying the front seat to the left of the bus driver. He himself was occupying a seat behind it. As soon as the bus stopped on account of the blockade of the road by Bullock Carts, three dacoits entered into the bus opening the door meant for the driver and switched on the light. The bus driver was shot at and they started looting the bus passengers. 11. But evidence of P.W. 5, his co-passenger, is that there was no light in the bus. Evidence of P.W. 12 Sachidanand Sharma, the conductor of the bus, is that the dacoits who entered into the bus, switched off the bus light P.W. 15 Basant Kumar Singh, another passenger, also speaks of switching off the body light and says that he could identify none due to dark in the bus. P.Ws. 20 Baleshwar Singh and P.Ws. 22 Rajendra Singh two other passengers of the bus, say in the first paragraph of their cross-examinations that when the dacoits entered into the bus the body light of the bus was off. 12. The above evidence on the point of light is inconsistent and: contradictory. Evidence of P.W. 19, Ajay Kumar Singh in para 32 is that the occurrence took place on the night of Chhoti Diwali which falls one day before the Diwali day i.e. Amawasa dark night. Evidence of P.W. 1 Ramdin Gope is that at the time of occurrence night had fallen dark. Evidence of P.W. 2 Nawal Singh is that it had become dark near the Dalda factory i.e. the place of occurrence. In such circumstances it is difficult to hold that there was sufficient or adequate light rendering identification possible. Evidence of P.W. 1 Ramdin Gope is that at the time of occurrence night had fallen dark. Evidence of P.W. 2 Nawal Singh is that it had become dark near the Dalda factory i.e. the place of occurrence. In such circumstances it is difficult to hold that there was sufficient or adequate light rendering identification possible. It is doubtful. In view of it. I am of the view that identification in such situation is neither safely reliable nor reasonably dependable. 13. With regard to his mental condition P.W. 19 Ajay Kumar Singh says that having a look at the injuries on the person of his Bahnoi, he became very nervous and speechless. He continued to be in such condition for about 2 to 4 hours. During such period he was in position to move only. He cannot say as to how long after his arrival in the hospital, his fardbeyan was recorded or whether it was recorded at mid night or at what hour ("Mai Apne Bahnoi D. S. P. Ke Shark Per Jakhm Dekh Kar Ghabra Gaya Tha Hatha amok Tha. Main Us Awastha Mai Karib Do Char Ghanta Tak Raha. Main Us Awadhi Mai Kewal Chalne Pherne Kee Sthiti Mai Hi Tha." "Main Nahi Kah Sakta Ki Aspatal Pahunchne Ke Keetni Der Bad Merit Fard Bayan Leekha Gaya. Mai Nahi Kah Sakta Ki Us Samay Adhi Rat Thee Ya Keetna Baja Tha.") 14. In Court P.W. 19, Ajay Kumar Singh, besides identifying appellants Bhuneshvyar Gope and Md. Shamshad, has identified one Munna also as dacoit by putting his hand on their persons. There is no evidence on the record to show that he identified Munna at any T. I. Parade. Evidence of P.W. 10, B. Narayan Sinha, a Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the T. I. parade on 21-12-79, shows that P.W. 19 had identified appellant Ramdeo Gope at the T. I. parade. Further evidence of P.W. 10 shows that at such T. I. parade, informant Ajay Kumar Singh, had also identified a wrong person as a dacoit. Evidence of P.W. 10, B. Narayan Sinha, a Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the T. I. parade on 21-12-79, shows that P.W. 19 had identified appellant Ramdeo Gope at the T. I. parade. Further evidence of P.W. 10 shows that at such T. I. parade, informant Ajay Kumar Singh, had also identified a wrong person as a dacoit. Such repeated mistakes in identification of dacoits participating in the occurrence committed by the informant on 21-12-79 at the time of holding of T. I. parade in jail and on 5-1-1987 in Court, assume great significance when viewed in the light of his mental condition at the time of the occurrence, as disclosed by himself and the doubtful adequate light at the time of occurrence on a dark night. 15. It is also significant to note that P.W. 19 does not say that any of the appellants looted or assaulted him or struggled with him or shot at his bahnoi or the driver seated near him. Thus, there is nothing to show that the informant had any particular reasonably good opportunity for observing the physiognomy of any of the above two appellants. His evidence shows that at the time of the occurrence when he had an opportunity to identify the dacoits, he was terror striken and horrified, incapable of doing any thing other than moving and this appears to be the reason as why he identified wrong persons at the T.I. parade and also in the Court. It strongly suggests that no clear impression of the physical features of the dacoits at the time of occurrence was made on his mind which appears to have frozen by horror caused. 16. It is worth mention here that in Court on 5th January, 1987, P.W. 19, Ajay Kumar Singh, has also identified to accused Md. Mokhtar Kapil Gope and Parmeshwar Prasad (since acquitted by the trial Court) by putting his hand on their persons. His evidence in para 12 is that he has identified them for the first time in the dock. He never received any notice to attend any T. I. parade held for their identification. P.W. 19 admits in para 9 of his evidence recorded on 5th January, 1988, that he had visited the Court on the preceding day i.e. 4th January, at about 12.30 to 1.00 P.M. (when evidence of P.W. 18 Basdeo Thakur was recorded). But. He never received any notice to attend any T. I. parade held for their identification. P.W. 19 admits in para 9 of his evidence recorded on 5th January, 1988, that he had visited the Court on the preceding day i.e. 4th January, at about 12.30 to 1.00 P.M. (when evidence of P.W. 18 Basdeo Thakur was recorded). But. he did not give evidence that day. Though he denies a suggestion that he remained seated in the Court on 4th January, 1988, throughout the day to identify the accused standing in the dock and when he became confident that he would be able to identify the accused, he has come to. the witness box, but one thing is distinctly clear from his such evidence that he had an opportunity to see the accused standing in the dock one day before he appeared in the witness box to depose against them and to identify them in the Court. P.W. 19 appears to be a witness who can claim to have identified any person as dacoit on seeing him for the first time even after more than 8 years of the occurrence though he committed mistakes in identifying dacoits on 21-12-1977 i.e. just two months after the occurrence. Such a witness can hardly be considered to be wholly reliable without some corroboration. 17. In view of the above evidence and circumstances, I consider it dangerous, unsafe and unreasonable to rely on the identification of any of the above two appellants by P.W. 19, alone without any corroboration which is wanting in this case. 18. True, as has been held in the case of Nabi Dusadh V/s. The State, 1955 BLJR 428 , evidence of identification by a witness, who is terrorised, should not be discarded on the sole ground that the witness was. terror striken and entertained fear of his safety. It is to be examined as to whether the witness was a victim of terror and his state of mind was wholly unsettled and unbalanced. The testimony of a single witness if believed is sufficient to establish any fact. But when his evidence, however, is open to doubt or suspicion, the judge should ask for corroboration. Otherwise, if the judge is in a position to hold definitely that a certain person is guilty he can convict him on the sole testimony of one identifying witness. The testimony of a single witness if believed is sufficient to establish any fact. But when his evidence, however, is open to doubt or suspicion, the judge should ask for corroboration. Otherwise, if the judge is in a position to hold definitely that a certain person is guilty he can convict him on the sole testimony of one identifying witness. But in view of the above discussion, I am not in a position to hold reasonably, safely and definitely that any of Samsad and Bhuneshwar actually committed the crime in question. I entertain serious doubt about their identification. 19. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ekbal V/s. State of Bihar, 1986 PLJR 33 NOC (AH), that an accused not named in the F.I.R. and identified by only one witness during T.I.parade is entitled to benefit of doubt. It has been held in the case of Emperor V/s. Irjan, AIR 1927 Cal 820, that identification made at night during the occurrence, such as dacoity. when blows are struck and the people are terrorised, is generally of very little value. 20. As regards, appellant Ramdeo Gope, P.W. 19 Ajay Kumar Singh who alone identified him at a T. I. parade, has not identified him in the Court as dacoit participating in the occurrence. Thus there is no substantive evidence of P.W. 19 against appellant Ramdeo Gope. Evidence of identification at T.I. parade is not substantive evidence. P.W. 22 Rajendra Singh has identified appellant Ramdeo Gope in Court on 6th February. 1988. But there is no evidence to show that he had identified this appellant at any T.I. parade held earlier. In the circumstances no reliance can safely and reasonably be placed on such identification made in the Court for the first time over 8 years after of the occurrence. No other P.W. has claimed to have identified appellant Ramdeo Gope among the dacoits. In view of the above. I am of the opinion that his conviction cannot legally and reasonably be sustained. 21. It is worth mention here that in course of his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. each of the appellant has been questioned with regard to a dacoity with murders committed on 19th October, 1969. Samsad Mian alias Md. Samsad, has replied that he knows nothing as on that date he was at Raniganj. 21. It is worth mention here that in course of his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. each of the appellant has been questioned with regard to a dacoity with murders committed on 19th October, 1969. Samsad Mian alias Md. Samsad, has replied that he knows nothing as on that date he was at Raniganj. No question with regard to occurrence on 19-10-79 has been put to him or to any of the other two appellants in his such examination. Thus none of them has been afforded an opportunity to have his say with regard to his involvement in the occurrence which took place on 19th October, 1979. Thus each of them has been deprived of his such valuable right. 22. No one can legally and reasonably be punished until and unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case the prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of any of the three appellants beyond reasonable doubt as discussed above. 23. In the result, all the three appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. All the three appellants are acquittal of the charge levelled against them. Ramdeo Gope is discharged of the liability of his bail bond. Md. Samad and Bhuneshwar Gope who appear to be in custody, be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. B.N.Sinha, J. 24 I agree.