Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by Sri M.P. Tiwary, IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 110/86 where by and whereunder all these six appellants were found guilty under Section 395, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. 2. The prosecution case, in short is that, in the night of 6/7.12.1985. the informant was sleeping in his residential house situate in village Chhotagobindpur within Gobindpur P.S. and he and his wife got up due to beating sound on the door. Then the informant suspected that dacoits had arrived and so he and his family members raised alarm of chor-chor and the informant was trying to hold the door from inside and his wife had entered into another room and got herself bolted from inside. However due to continuous beating and pressure, the bolt of the door had broken and as many as four dacoits first of all entered in the house and one of them was holding a pistol and they apprehended the informant and the other dacoits were also variously armed and he was threatened on the point of pistol to ask his wife to open the doors otherwise he will be killed. Then the informant asked his wife to open the doors and so the doors of the other room were also opened. Then again three dacoits entered and they searched a box and took it out and also took utensil, clothes, earring from under the cot and a uniform of the informant containing Rs. 500/- in cash in the pocket. After that the dacoits escaped away but the informant and his wife had identified the dacoits in the light of lantern which was burning inside the room. 3. On the same night at about 2.15 a.m. or so, that is, on 7.2.1985, the informant recorded fardbayan in the P.S. and on that basis this case was instituted. During investigation, the suspects were apprehended and they were put on T.I. Parade on 2.1.1986 and several suspects were identified by the informant and his wife and further the stolen articles were also recovered from the possession of the suspects and they were seized and put on T.I. Parade and identified by the informant and his wife. During investigation, the suspects were apprehended and they were put on T.I. Parade on 2.1.1986 and several suspects were identified by the informant and his wife and further the stolen articles were also recovered from the possession of the suspects and they were seized and put on T.I. Parade and identified by the informant and his wife. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet as against 8 accused persons and one Boro Lohar was declared as absconder. During trial, one Dhiren Bhumij also absconded. So his trial was separated and after conclusion of the trial, Bhadro Ho was acquitted of the charges and remaining six accused persons were simply convicted under Section 395, IPC and they were acquitted of the charges under Section 412, IPC. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, all these convicts preferred as many as four appeals which had arisen out of common judgment of conviction. In Criminal Appeal No. 110/91(R), Narayan Mahto and Bijoy Kumar Gope are the appellants; in Criminal Appeal No. 113/91(R) Niranjan Gope is the appellant; in Criminal Appeal No. 116/91(R) Abani Gope is the appellant and in Criminal Appeal No. 118/91(R) Santosh Minz and Somai Manjhi are the appellants and this common judgment will dispose of all the four appeals. 5. All the appellants claimed themselves innocent and denied to have committed dacoity in the house of the informant and their only defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The factum of dacoity which took place in the night of 6/7.12.1985 in the dwelling house of the informant situate in Chhotagobindpur in which several dacoits came and took away ornaments, utensils, box containing clothes and cash amount had not been specifically denied by the defence and the defence simply denied their participation. Moreover from the evidence of PW 6, the informant and his wife and also that of the evidence of PW 1 Awadhesh Tiwary, the neighbour of the informant, the factum of dacoity as alleged by the prosecution is well proved. Similarly PW 12 Rakesh Mohan Sinha, I.O. of the case had immediately after the occurrence visited the P.O. that is, the dwelling house of the informant and found mark of violence on the door and articles were scattered and so the evidence of I.O. also proved the dacoity as claimed by the informant. 6. Similarly PW 12 Rakesh Mohan Sinha, I.O. of the case had immediately after the occurrence visited the P.O. that is, the dwelling house of the informant and found mark of violence on the door and articles were scattered and so the evidence of I.O. also proved the dacoity as claimed by the informant. 6. Now the only question for consideration is if at all these six appellants had taken part in this dacoity as alleged? 7. Admittedly the case was instituted as against unknown and at the time of occurrence, PW 6 Bijay Bahadur Singh, the informant and his wife, PW 15 were inside the house and they had an opportunity to see all the dacoits. So far participation of the appellants is concerned, the only evidence which has come against them is that they were apprehended during investigation and were put on TIP and were identified by PW 6 and his wife. 8. PW 6 Bijay Bahadur Singh had claimed that he had identified all these appellants in the TIP and he had also identified the appellants in Court. Similarly his wife PW 12 also claimed that he identified all the appellants in the T.I. Parade. But from the evidence of PW 16 Sheo Balak Choudhary who conducted the T.I. Parade it appears that T.I. Parade was held on 2.1.1986 and also from T.I. Parade chart this fact is well proved that the informant, that is, PW 6 had identified the appellants Somai, Narayan. Niranjan. Dhiren Bhumij, who is absconding, and Bijay and Abani Gope, whereas Pran Sundari Devi, wife of the informant had identified Narayan Dhiren, Santosh Minz and Abani Gope. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the identification is doubtful for the reason that PW 6 had claimed that he learnt that some dacoits were apprehended on 7.12.1985 and had visited the Police Station. Thus it can be said that he had seen these appellants and then subsequently identified them in the T.I. Parade. From the entire evidence of PW 6 only this much can be said that he learnt casually that some dacoits were apprehended so for verification of this fact, lie had gone to police station, but actually he had not seen any dacoits in the police station. In that view of the matter. PW 6 had not seen the dacoits prior to the T.I. Parade. 9. In that view of the matter. PW 6 had not seen the dacoits prior to the T.I. Parade. 9. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that PW 15, the wife of the informant had admitted before the T.I. Magistrate that he had seen the appellant Narayan Mahto in the police station, but that statement is merely a stray statement. At the same time it has not been taken from the Magistrate who conducted the T.I. Parade that actually such statement was made by PW 15. Thus, it has not been proved that PW 15 had seen one of the appellants, Narayan, in the P.S. Prior to the T.I. parade. 10. On the other hand, admittedly there is no enmity between the informant and his family members with these appellants. In such a situation, the false implication can be ruled out and moreover these two witnesses were only witnesses in the house and they had seen the dacoits while removing the articles not only in the light of the lantern which was burning but also in the light of torch which the dacoits were flashing. So there was also sufficient light for identification. However, this must was submitted on behalf of the appellants that so far appellant Narayan Mahto and Abani Gope are concerned there are two identification that is identification of PW 6 and his wife PW 15 and so far the other appellants are concerned that is appellants Somai, Niranjan Bijay and Santosh Minz there is single identification and it is thoroughly unsafe to rely upon a single identification in view of the fact that both the identifying witnesses had identified them when they were under extreme pressure and tension and further there is no other material which lends corroboration to the participation of the appellants because no doubt the appellants were also charged under Section 412. IPC but all the witnesses on the point of recovery were declared hostile and also for the reason that the witnesses were not cross-examined after framing of the charges under Section 412. IPC. So the trial Court acquitted all the appellants under Section 412 IPC 11. So from the evidence on the record this fact is well proved that Narayan Mahto and Abani Gope who are appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 110/91(R) and that of Criminal Appeal No. 116/91(R) were identified by two competent witnesses that too. IPC. So the trial Court acquitted all the appellants under Section 412 IPC 11. So from the evidence on the record this fact is well proved that Narayan Mahto and Abani Gope who are appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 110/91(R) and that of Criminal Appeal No. 116/91(R) were identified by two competent witnesses that too. immediately after the occurrence because these appellants were apprehended on 17.12.1985 and they were identified by both the witnesses in presence of T.I. Magistrate on 2.1.1986. So this fact is well proved that the appellants Narayan Mahto and Abani Gope had taken part in this dacoity which took place in the night of 6/7.12.1985. So far appellants Sumai Manjhi. Niranjan Gope. Bijay Gope and Santosh Minz. there is single identification as against them and it is thoroughtly unsafe to rely upon single identification to convict them under Section 395. IPC. So at least they are entitled for benefit of doubt. 12. In the result this appeal as against Narayan Mahto of Criminal Appeal No. 110/91 (R) and Abani Gope who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 116/81(R) arc hereby dismissed and their sentence of 10 years as awarded by the trial Court under Section 395. IPC is hereby confirmed and maintained. The bail bonds of these two appellants are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court for undergoing remaining part of the imprisonment failing which the trial Court will take steps for their apprehension. 13. In view of the findings made above, the Criminal Appeal No. 113/91(R) preferred by Niranjan Gope; Criminal Appeal No. 110/91(R) preferred by Bijoy Kumar Gope: and Criminal Appeal No. 118/91(R) preferred by Santosh Minz and Somai Manjhi are hereby allowed and conviction and sentence of these four appellants as recorded by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge. Jamshedpur in S. Tr. No. 110/86 is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges and also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.