D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THERE was an incident of dacoity in a running train on 9/9/1983, in which, the complainants, who were Passengers, were looted. The dacoits snatched from them then belonging and cash money. The present appellant was taken into custody on 17/9/1983. A pistol was recovered from him vide seizure memo Ex. P. 13. His house was searched and vide memo Ex. P-23 several articles and clothes of daily use, said to be belonging to the passengers, were seized. The Tahsildar Shri B. S. Bains (PW -12) conducted an identification Parade on 6/10/1983. Complainant Raj Kumar Rajput (P. W. 12) could only identify the appellant vide identification memo Ex, P-3. ( 2 ) THE learned judge of the trial court in paragraph 13 of his judgment under appeal held that the pistol recovered vide Ex. P-13, from the appellant is not proved to have been used in the commission of dacoity. He also held that the articles seized (Ex. P-23) from his house, were not found to be stolen property as it was never identified and claimed as their property by the complainant The learned Trialludge, however, convicted the accused for the offences under Section 395/397 of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to R. I. for 10 years only on the basist of the testimony of P. W. 2 Raj Kumar Rajput and the identification memo Ex. P-3. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant assails the conviction and submits that, in the circumstance, it is un-safe to convict the accused on the identification by a single witness, which may be a chance factor. It is also argued that there has been about 18 day's delay in holding the identification parade from the date of the arrest of the accused and that the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution. It is further argued that the normal ratio between the under trials and the persons to be mixed should be in the proportion of 1:5, which is not maintained in this case. The ratio was on 1:3. For the all above reasons, according to the learned Counsel, conviction could not be based on the basis of identification of a single witness. Reliance is placed on Wakil Singh and others v. State of Bihar, Bali Ahir and Ors. v. State of Bihar, Anwar and Anr. The ratio was on 1:3. For the all above reasons, according to the learned Counsel, conviction could not be based on the basis of identification of a single witness. Reliance is placed on Wakil Singh and others v. State of Bihar, Bali Ahir and Ors. v. State of Bihar, Anwar and Anr. v. State, Bankey Lal v. Kishan Lal and Anr. ( 4 ) IN the case in hand in the First Information Report (Ex. P-2) lodged by the Complainant - Raj Kumar Rajput (P. W. 2), one of the 5 accused persons is described as fair slim with short beard and clad in Kurta. He has not given description of the appearance of the other dacoits. In the identification parade, the above witness identified the appellant. None of the other complainants identified him in the test identification parade. Neither the Tahsildar (P. W. 12) nor the complainant Raj Kumar Rajput (P. W. 2) states that the description of the appearance of the appellant, identified in the parade, tallied with the one given in the F. I. R. There is no other corroborative evidence to Courtect the appellant with the crime. As has been stated above the recovery of pistol and articles from the appellant have not been found by the Trial Court as incriminating evidence against him. ( 5 ) THE Allahabad High Court in the case of Anwar and another v. State (supra) has elaborately discussed the nature of the evidence in an identification parade and the principles to be applied in accepting the same for basing conviction. The observation of the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court are: The evidence of identification at its best is a weak type of proof for the chances of mistake are far greater in this type of evidence than where the witness deposes about facts within his knowledge. ( 6 ) IN this case, excepting the identification of a single witness, there is no corroborative evidence or circumstantial evidence against the appellant. ( 7 ) IN the case of Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar (supra), it has been held that other circumstances are not incriminating it is un-safe to convict an accused for such a serious offence on the testimony of a single witness. (See the passage from the, aforesaid decision, at page 1393 ). ( 8 ) FOR the reasons, mentioned above, the appeal-is allowed. (See the passage from the, aforesaid decision, at page 1393 ). ( 8 ) FOR the reasons, mentioned above, the appeal-is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 395/397 of the I. P. C. and the sentence imposed is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges on benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed. .