Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction recorded in S. T. No.353/83 by 7th addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi thereby and thereunder the sole appellant was found guilty under Sec.395 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo r. I. for 5 years and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of same to undergo R. I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that in the night of 26/27-5-80 the informant bhola Singh who is the night guard of a dairy firm situates at Namkum, was doing duty alongwith one charan Munda, another employee and two other employees Ramu and Ramchander Yadav were sleeping in the pump house. It has been alleged at about 2.30 a. m. in the night first of all two persons came and one of them was armed with revolver and they apprehended them and tied their legs and hands then 8-10 persons again came and began to threaten the informant and charan Das Munda and also apprehended Ramu and Ramchandra yadav and tied their hands and legs and they were asking where the store is situated but they did not disclose the same then the miscreants took the wrist watch from the informant and Ramchandra Yadav and also took away torch and some utensils. Then the miscreants escaped away and on the way they had also made an attempt to commit theft in the house of Maharaj Singh, Surendar sing and Indrapal Singh who were clerical staffs of the firm house but they were not successful and escaped away. In the meantime the informant and others were able to untie their hands and legs and then raised alarm and then several persons and other employees assembled and Charan Munda disclosed that he had been able to identify this appellant, Bharthan Kurmi of his village and one Fagu Kurmi. In the morning i. e. on 27-5-1980 this written report was submitted to Namkum police and the informant and other witnesses claimed that they could identify the other dacoits. So this case was instituted. During investigation some suspects were apprehended and those two suspects and this appellant were put on tip but only Charan Munda, P. W.2 could identify this very appellant in the tip. So this case was instituted. During investigation some suspects were apprehended and those two suspects and this appellant were put on tip but only Charan Munda, P. W.2 could identify this very appellant in the tip. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet only against this appellant and some other suspects were not sent up for trial. 3. In the Court below the appellant claimed himself innocent and denied to have participated in this dacoity and it is his defence that Charan Das Munda who is co-villager implicated him falsely out of enmity. However, the trial Court believed the prosecution story and found this appellant guilty under Sec.395 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. 4. To prove the case on behalf of prosecution as many as 5 witnesses were examined out of them PW.1, Ram chandra, P. W.2, Charan Munda, P. W.3, ramu Oraon, P. W.4, Bhola Singh, informant and are witnesses of the occurrence and P. W.5 Judicial Magistrate who conducted the TIP of the suspects. In this case the factum of dacoity which took place in the dairy firm of Namkum in the night of 26/27-5-80 had not been specifically denied rather the appellant had simply denied his participation. Moreover from the evidence of P. W.1 to 4 this fact is well proved that on the relevant night they were in the dairy firm of Namkum and PWs.2 and 4 were doing night duty to guard the firm whereas RWs.1 and 3 were sleeping in the pump house. Then several dacoits came and apprehended them and also tied their hands and legs and took away the wrist watch belonging to P. W.4 and that of P. W.1 Ram Chandra and some utensils. So the factum of dacoity is well proved. So far as identification is concerned from the FIR i. e. Ext.3 it can be said that after dacoity P. W.2, Charan munda disclosed that he had identified this appellant and one Fagu Kurmi. Naturally P. W.2 is the most important witness. This witness on the point of identification has claimed that at the time of dacoity he had identified this appellant who is his co-villager. Naturally P. W.2 is the most important witness. This witness on the point of identification has claimed that at the time of dacoity he had identified this appellant who is his co-villager. The interesting part is that though the appellant had been identified on the spot and named in the FIR, TIP was also arranged and P. W.5 conducted the TIP but the informant and Ram Chandra who were other witnesses of the occurrence could not identify this appellant and only P. W.2, Charan Munda identified this appellant. The identification in the TIP by P. W.2 is throughly immaterial as the appellant is co-villager of P. W.2 and known to him from before and P. W.2 also disclosed his name immediately after the occurrence to the witness. So identification by P. W.2 in the TIP is throughly irrelevant. 5. Now only question for consideration if P. W.2 actually identified the appellant at the time of dacoity. P. W.2 has claimed that he identified this appellant but the appellant is the co-villager of P. W.2 and from the cross-examination of P. W.2 itself clear that he has not been able to remember about the details of the occurrence and the other employees who assembled at the P. O. immediately after the occurrence and he also made a fatal statement that no clerical staffs had come to p. O. immediately after the occurrence and so he had not disclosed about the identification to them. This fact is apparently wrong because in the FIR it has been disclosed that immediately after the occurrence when the alarm was raised the clerical employees also came to P. O. and the P. W.4 has stated in his evidence that P. W.2 disclosed the name of the appellant to the clerical staffs. So evidence of P. W.2 is throughly otherwise on the point of disclosure of the name of the appellant to the other witnesses. On the other hand, P. W.3 one of the witnesses of the occurrence has clearly staled that P. W.2 has not disclosed the name of this appellant to him after the occurrence. Similarly the in-formant has also said that he has not heard after the occurrence if the P. W.2 disclosed the name of appellant. So the other witness on the point of occurrence had not supported the P. W.2 that he disclosed the name of the appellant immediately after the occurrence. Similarly the in-formant has also said that he has not heard after the occurrence if the P. W.2 disclosed the name of appellant. So the other witness on the point of occurrence had not supported the P. W.2 that he disclosed the name of the appellant immediately after the occurrence. In that view of the matter, the claim of the P. W.2 that he identified the appellant at the time of occurrence appears to be doubtful. Moreover the appellant is the co-villager of P. W.2 and in view of inconsistent evidence of the other witnesses it is throughly unsafe to rely upon the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. So this fact has not been proved beyond doubt that this appellant had taken part in this dacoity and he had been properly identified by the P. W. 6. In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction as recorded by 7th Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in ST No.353/83 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is also discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appeal Allowed.