JUDGEMENT L.M. Ghosh, J. : - The appellant and 3 others were placed on trial on various charges, but ultimately, the Learned Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, convicted the appellant under Section 392 read with sections 34 and 397 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to R. I. for seven years. The rest of the accused were acquitted by the Ld. Sessions Judge. 2. The prosecution case has been that this appellant along with others committed robbery in respect of the money carried by PW 1, Kenai Lal. As per prosecution version, on 12-7-80, PW 1 and PW 3 reached Calcutta with money carried by them - Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs,2,02,000/- respectively. They came from Patna to purchase silver and silver ornaments in Calcutta. It is stated that the money was kept in a cotton bag which was wrapped around the waist of PW 1 and PW 3 also carried the money in the same fashion. On going to Calcutta, they reached the Gaddi of PW 8 and PW 1 made over his packet, containing the money, to Sarda Rai, PW 8. But PW 3 did not make over his money to Sarda Rai. The further narration of the prosecution case has been that as the price of silver had gone up and as the same was not readily available, on instruction from the Patna Office, the persons, i.e. PW 1 and PW 3, decided to come back to Patna without purchasing the articles. Accordingly, on 12-7-80, PW 1 and PW 3 started for Patna, intending to avail of the train, Delhi Express, which was to depart at 9 p.m. For going to the station they hired a pull-rickshaw and PW 1 and PW 3 as well as the Durwan of the Calcutta Office, PW 2, started by the same rickshaw. PW 2 was sent to escort PWs 1 and 3. Then, it is stated, when the rickshaw reached the approach to the Howrah Bridge, four persons stopped the rickshaw, coming from both sides of the vehicle. The ricksawalla stopped the rickshaw and one amongst those four persons threatened Mahabir (PW 3) by a katari. The katari was placed on the neck of Mahabir, so it is stated. After that, the katati was taken off Mahabir. Then they took out the bag from the waist of PW 1, by cutting through the tie. The ricksawalla stopped the rickshaw and one amongst those four persons threatened Mahabir (PW 3) by a katari. The katari was placed on the neck of Mahabir, so it is stated. After that, the katati was taken off Mahabir. Then they took out the bag from the waist of PW 1, by cutting through the tie. The man took away the money from PW 1. as per the statement of PW 1, one of the four men also held a revolver. The Durwan and Mahabir escaped. The rickshaw-puller also fled away. After the money was snatched away from PW 1, he returned to the Gaddi. He did not find Mahabir at the Gaddi. PW 1 narrated the incident to Sharda Rai (PW 8). Then Ram Prasad (Durwan) and the Munimji took him to the police station where he lodged information. PW 1 was able to identify the accused and two others as the persons who were involved in the incident. The police took up the investigation of the case. In the meantime, Mahabir Lal, PW 3, went back to Patna and reported the incident to his employer. After taking up the investigation of the case, the police raided the shop of one goldsmith and seized there from some lump of gold. It was gathered from the goldsmith (PW 21) that the accused had made over some lump of gold to him for preparing certain ornaments. After preparing ornaments - some churis, earrings, etc., - gold weighing about 6 annas was left out. The police seized that gold from the shop of PW 21. a similar raid was conducted at the residence of the accused wherefrom certain ornaments and cash worth Rs.14,000/- were seized by the police. T.I. parade, in respect of the appellant, was held on 16-1-81, when PW 1 identified this accused-appellant. After completing investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant and others. The defence of the appellant has been that he is completely innocent and that he has been falsely implicated. It was suggested that while in police custody, the photograph of the accused was taken and it was shown to the identifying witness. 3. After charges were framed, the accused and others were placed on trial. 31 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused did not examine any witness. 4. Inthis appeal, Mr. It was suggested that while in police custody, the photograph of the accused was taken and it was shown to the identifying witness. 3. After charges were framed, the accused and others were placed on trial. 31 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused did not examine any witness. 4. Inthis appeal, Mr. Bose, appearing for the appellant, has argued that the prosecution case is improbable as the incident could not have taken place in such a crowded spot. He has next argued that no other independent witness apart from the PWs examined, has come forward to support the prosecution version about the incident. Then Mr. Bose has commented upon the delay in holding the T.I. Parade. 5. Mr. Hazra, the learned advocate appearing for the State, has argued that Kanai Lal and others would be the only competent persons to speak about the incident relating to the money, as the same was not likely to be disclosed to others. He has further argued that the incident has been proved by so many witnesses and there would be no reason for disbelieving them. Lastly, he has argued that the identification evidence concerning this accused appellant cannot be rejected, because PW 1 appears to be a trustworthy witness. 6. At the outset, we would point out that there is no reason to disbelieve that the incident of snatching took place. PWs 1, 2 and 3 have proved the incident of snatching PW 1 himself carried the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. PW3, accompanying PW 1, carried another sum or Rs.2,02,000/-. That they were carrying so much money for purchasing silver, is supported by the evidence of PW 7, Lalan Prasad, a partner of the firm concerned at Patna. He affirms that a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was given to Kanai Lal and Rs.2,02,000/- was made over to Mahabir Lal. Then PW 8 and PW 9 also support the prosecution version that some money was being carried by the persons, PWs 1 and 3. PW 8 confirms that PW 1 handed over to him the bag containing money. Of course, he had not counted the money, but this much he has made clear that the bag containing money was made over by PW 1. PW 9, Kirhsna Chandra Shukla, also confirms that the money was made over to Sharda Rai, PW 8. PW 8 confirms that PW 1 handed over to him the bag containing money. Of course, he had not counted the money, but this much he has made clear that the bag containing money was made over by PW 1. PW 9, Kirhsna Chandra Shukla, also confirms that the money was made over to Sharda Rai, PW 8. He did not count the money himself, but as per his version PW 1 said that the bag contained Rs.1,70,000/-. It is this person who kept the bag containing the cash inside the almirah. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that PWs 1 and 3 were carrying the amount stated and that PW 1 had made over the bag containing the money to PW 8. It is impossible to accept the version that PW 1 along with PW 2 and PW 3 could concoct a case of robbery, if in fact there was no snatching incident. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW s 1, 2 and 3 that in fact, the bag containing the money, was snatched away from PW 1. The incident has been clearly proved by these three witnesses and the other circumstances relating to the carriage of the money have been proved by the other witnesses, namely, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9. Undoubtedly, there was a robbery. That will also be evident from the fact that on that very day PW 1 was taken to the police station where he lodged the information. This fact is also supported by the evidence of PW 3 who says that he went back to Patna and reported the matter to PW 7. PW 7 confirms not only that the money was initially made over to PW 1 and PW 3, but also that PW 3 came back with the money made over to him and reported that Kanai Lal was intercepted by the miscreants on the way to Howrah Station. Therefore, the incident of snatching is supported by direct evidence as also by evidence relating to the antecedents and the subsequent happenings. We conclude that there was a case of robbery in course of which PW 1 was robbed of the amount carried by him. The only other point for consideration is whether the appellant can be held to be guilty for the offence of robbery. 7. We conclude that there was a case of robbery in course of which PW 1 was robbed of the amount carried by him. The only other point for consideration is whether the appellant can be held to be guilty for the offence of robbery. 7. As to the involvement of the accused appellant, we have practically the only evidence of PW 1. This PW 1 has come to prove that the accused appellant was amongst the miscreants, when he was robbed of the bag containing the money. This PW 1 also identified the accused appellant at the time of the T. I. Parade. This is the sole identification evidence against the appellant. There is no rule of law, nor even rule of prudence, laying down that the proof furnished by a lone witness cannot form the basis of a conviction. Each case has to be judged on its own merits, but ordinarily, plurality is better than the evidence of a single witness. Here, the evidence of PW 1 appears to be infirm in certain respects. This witness has narrated that one of the miscreants had a revolver in his hand. The other witnesses never mentioned that any miscreant had any revolver or pistol. In the FIR also there is no reference to any firearm. If PW 1 now refers to a firearm, it must be either subsequent embellishment, or that he could not observe properly. In any case, the statement of PW 1 becomes shaken, because of the discrepancy as to the integral part of the case. Then it has been noted that the T. I. Parade in respect of this acused appellant was conducted very late. The incident took place on 12-7-80. The appellant was arrested on 29/30th September, 1980. The T. I. Parade was conducted on 16-1-81. Thus there was also a lapse of about 3-1/2 months after the accused appellant was arrested and before he was placed on the T. I. Parade. This delay is not explained. Apart from the factor that long delay may have the effect of removing the impression from the mind of the identifying witness, there remains another aspect, viz. unexplained delay may give rise to suspicion that the accd. Might have been shown earlier. In fact, we get from the evidence of the Ld. This delay is not explained. Apart from the factor that long delay may have the effect of removing the impression from the mind of the identifying witness, there remains another aspect, viz. unexplained delay may give rise to suspicion that the accd. Might have been shown earlier. In fact, we get from the evidence of the Ld. Magistrate, who held the T. I. Parade (PW 12), that the accused made grievance that his photograph was taken at Lal Bazar and he ws also identified to the witnesses by the police at the same place. Mere raising some grievance may not be enough, but if there is unexplained delay, the same cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, we decline to act on the sole testimony of PW 1. 8. Then the prosecution has led evidence, intended to show some incriminating circumstances, but as a matter of fact, they have got no bearing at all. PWs 21 and 22 are the witnesses regarding placement of orders by the accused for preparing some gold ornaments. PW 21 is a goldsmith, who has a shop at 15A Ratan Sarkar Garden Street. He has identified the appellant as the person who gave 7 tolas and 15-1/2 annas of gold for making 8 pieces of churies, etc. He has also answered that for the first time the appellant placed order for making ornaments. He has identified the ornaments. Then his evidence is that after making the ornaments, gold weighing 6 annas was saved and that was seized by the police from the shop. We do not understand of what materiality it is if the appellant placed orders for preparing some gold ornaments and had made over some gold for the purpose. We get also the information from PW 21 that the appellant's parents were his old customers. Therefore, if the appellant placed orders for certain ornaments, that would not be surprising, if we get that his parents were old customers. Even if the appellant's parents were not in the habit of placing orders, the fact that the appellant placed orders cannot have any link with the incident in question. Assuming that the appellant had amassed wealth by some unlawful means, we cannot readily infer that the same must have been acquired in course of this incident, fair or foul. Even if the appellant's parents were not in the habit of placing orders, the fact that the appellant placed orders cannot have any link with the incident in question. Assuming that the appellant had amassed wealth by some unlawful means, we cannot readily infer that the same must have been acquired in course of this incident, fair or foul. Therefore, the recovery of the gold from PW 21 does not lead to anything and so also the factum that order for preparing gold ornaments was placed is of no consequence, having no nexus to the incident in question. PW 22 is the son of PW 21 and he has proved something which leads to nothing. 9. Then there remains the recovery of some ornaments from the house of the appellant. PW 29, Nagendra Kumar Das, the S. I. , conducted raid on 29/30 September, 1980. Then, after the raid, he seized a bundle of 90 pieces of Rs.100/- currency notes and some other notes of other denominations. The total amount seized was R.14,000/-. At the same time, he seized a steel trunk. He also seized a Lactogen Tin and some gold ornaments contained in the same. We are of the view that the said seizure also does not point to anything. The seizure has not been proved by the seizure list witnesses, although the names of PWs 19 and 20 appears in seizure list witnesses. Similarly, the name of PW 23 also appears. None of these witnesses has affirmed that the seizure was conducted in his presence. Therefore, there is some valid doubt as to the manner in which the seizure was conducted. Moreover, the seizure list, Ext. 13/3, does not tally with the version of the PW 29. PW 29 has given us that he seized a bundle of 90 pieces of Rs.100/- notes and other notes of different denominations. But in the seizure list, it is described that one bundle containing 90 notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- and another bundle of 50 notes of the same denomination, were seized. From these circumstances, we cannot be satisfied as to the manner in which the seizure was conducted. But in any case, we can take that the amount worth so much was seized from the residence of the appellant. From these circumstances, we cannot be satisfied as to the manner in which the seizure was conducted. But in any case, we can take that the amount worth so much was seized from the residence of the appellant. Even then, the factum of seizure of the gold ornaments and the currency notes from the residence of the appellant, cannot have any direct bearing upon the incident itself. If so much of money was seized from the house of the appellant and ornaments numbering so many, were also recovered, we do not see how it can have direct link. The money, once again, could have been acquired by legal or illegal means, but that by itself cannot have any link with the incident. Similarly, the recovery of the ornaments from the house of the appellant cannot have any bearing. We think that the recovery of the cash and ornaments from the residence of the appellant and the recovery of unused lump of gold from the shop of PW 21 must be a neutral factor. 10. Therefore, the prosecution remains where it was. Except the testimony of PW 1 there is no other evidence about identification. We have already given our reasons why in this case we refuse to act on the sole testimony of PW 1. If the evidence of PW 1 is not accepted as it is, the accused appellant must be given the benefit of doubt. 11. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The Judgment and order of the Ld. Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, convicting the appellant u/s 392 react with Sections 34 and 397 of the IPC and sentencing him to R. I. for 7 years are hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the charge u/s 392 of the IPC read with Secion 34 and 397 of the same Code and is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant be released at once (if not already released) if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. 12. The trunk (Mat. Ext. IV), the Lactogen Tin (Mat. Ext. VI) and the ornaments (Mat. Ext. VII collectively) be returned to the appellant, from whose house the same were seized. The lump of gold seized under Seizure List dated 6-10-80 from the shop of PW 21, be returned to him. 12. The trunk (Mat. Ext. IV), the Lactogen Tin (Mat. Ext. VI) and the ornaments (Mat. Ext. VII collectively) be returned to the appellant, from whose house the same were seized. The lump of gold seized under Seizure List dated 6-10-80 from the shop of PW 21, be returned to him. That is, the articles seized be returned to those persons from whom they were seized. 13. AMARABHA SENGUPTA, J. :- . I agree. Appeal allowed.