JUDGMENT The appellant alongwith four others were prosecuted for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 before the Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 5/84 on the allegation of committing train dacoity in 506 Katni Bina Passenger, bogey No. 3975 in the intervening night of 16-17th May 1983 and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years while other co-accused persons were acquitted. On a report lodged by Guruwachan Singh (PW-20), a victim co-passenger of ill-fated Bogey, FIR (Ex. P-9) was drawn up at the CRP Sagar and investigated proceeded. On the memorandum of the appellant a HMT wrist watch was recovered from the possession of Badri Prasad (PW-10) on 30.5.83, vide Ex. P-9 which was identified in test identification parade by Gurucharan Khatri (PW -4), brother of Ashok Khatri (PW -22) who claimed that the watch belonged to him. The appellant was identified by Murlidhar (PW-19) while he was getting down from the train at Ganeshganj railway station. The learned trial Court relying upon the testimony of Badri Prasad.(PW -10), Ashok Khatri (PW-22) and Murlidhar (PW-19) convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned aforesaid. Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the testimony of Murlidhar (PW-19) and Ashok Khatri (PW-22) on the point of identification of the appellant is not worth credence. Ashok Khatri (PW-22) had not identified the appellant in the test identification parade, he identified the appellant for the first time in the Court. The identification of the accused for the first time in the Court is a very weak piece of evidence. As regards the identification by Murlidhar (PW-19) it is not possible to identify the passenger getting down the train in the tiny light by a person standing at a railways plateform. Shri R.K. Khare, Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has contended that Ashok Khatri (PW-22) deposed that the watch belonged to him. On perusal of the evidence, it, however, appears that Ashok Khatri (PW -22), who claimed that the watch belonged to him had not identified the watch in the test identification parade. Badri Prasad (PW -10) had deposed that the watch was sold to him by the appellant a month ago. On perusal of the evidence, it, however, appears that Ashok Khatri (PW -22), who claimed that the watch belonged to him had not identified the watch in the test identification parade. Badri Prasad (PW -10) had deposed that the watch was sold to him by the appellant a month ago. There is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of Badri Prasad (PW-10) that the wrist watch was sold to him by the appellant. The dacoity was committed in the running train at about 10.00 p.m., therefore, it was not possible to identify the miscreant in the light of the train and in the light of the plateform. Therefore, the mistaken identification in the dim light cannot be ruled out. On the evidence available on record, it is not safe to upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and in the result the appeal is allowed.