Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant had challenged the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by Shri P.N. Yadav, Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 433 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in a nut-shell is that in the night between 15/15-1-1995 at about 15-20, mis-creants variously armed with pistols, Garasa, Lathis, Chain etc. entered into the Benedih Colliery Godown and thereafter 4-5 miscreants assaulted Sheoji Singh, night guard and he also sustained fire-arm injury and thereafter he fell down. It is further alleged that some of the miscreants entered into the godown premises after scaling over the boundary wall. Another night guard Hari Nandan Singh arrived at the godown from the Colliery Office. Other night guards were also on duty at the relevant time. The night guard Ganesh Singh (PW-5) was assaulted with dagger. The miscreants looted away the welding rod, bruss buses, fans, etc. from the godown. The Project Manager of the Colliery Mohan Khaitan was also informed about the incident on telephone who along with others rushed to the spot and visited the place of occurrence. The Fardbayan of Project Manager, Shri Mohan Khaitan was recorded on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against 15/20 unknown persons. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the sole appellant Raju Hadi. The appellant appeared before the trial Court. The charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was framed to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to under go in the manner as stated above by the impugned judgment dated 10-3-1998 and 17-3-1998. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant preferrd this appeal claiming therein that the learned Court below committed error in passing the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant without legal evidence and the single identification also suffers from material infermities and illegalities. 4. Obviously, the sole appellant have been facing trial in the lower Court and admittedly he is not named in the FIR nor any thing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. 4. Obviously, the sole appellant have been facing trial in the lower Court and admittedly he is not named in the FIR nor any thing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. However, there is a single identification against him. PW-1, the storekeeper, PW-2 Additional General Manager and PW-3 the Colliery Manager have not identified the petitioner as they are hearsay witnesses on the point of occurrence. All the above witnesses reached the place of occurrence after getting information about the incident. They are hearsay witnesses. PW-4 Sheoji Singh claimed to be the night guard of the said godown at the relevant time. According to him, Karan Bahadur and Ganesh Singh, PW-7 and PW-5 respectively were also the night guards of the said godown at the relevant time. PW-4 stated that he was assaulted by the miscreants by lathis as well as by fire-arm and he claimed to have identified him in the light of electric bulb but he admitted in clear terms in his cross-examination that he fell down after assaults and after 7 to 8 minutes, he was taken to a room by the miscreants and kept confined and the door of the said small godown was boalted from outside and thereafter, he became unconscious. According to him, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and he was hospitalised for about 1-1/2 months. He claimed to have identified the appellant being standing near the Godown gate. He does not identify the appellant as being the assailant to this witness nor any overt act attributes to the appellant. 5. PW-5 Ganesh Singh, night guard also attended the T.I. Parade along with PW-4 but he did not identify the appellant PW-6 is another night guard who was on duty but admittedly he has not identify any of the dacoits though he was assaulted with knife. 6. PW-7 claimed to have attended the T.I. Parade along with PW-4 and PW-5 but he has not identified the appellant. 7. PW-8 is the doctor who examined Sheoji Singh PW-4 and found injury on his person. Both injury reports are the photo copies which have not been duly marked exhibit. However, there is no denial about the injury caused to Sheoji Singh and Ganesh Singh. PW-9 Rajdeo Singh is the Investigating Officer who investigated the place of occurrence and he also recorded the evidence of the witnesses. Both injury reports are the photo copies which have not been duly marked exhibit. However, there is no denial about the injury caused to Sheoji Singh and Ganesh Singh. PW-9 Rajdeo Singh is the Investigating Officer who investigated the place of occurrence and he also recorded the evidence of the witnesses. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was informed on the telephone about the incident but he has not made any S.D. entry on this score. He further deposed that the appellant Raju Hadi was kept in the police station on 21-1-1995 on which day the appellant was arrested and the T.I. Parade was held on 15-2-1993. 8. PW-10 is the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the T.I Parade and proved the T.I. Chart, Ext. 4. No any other witness was a examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr PC and he denied the allegation. 9. Obviously,. none of the night guards already on duty at the time of occurrence, except PW-4 identified the sole appellant. PW-4 also admitted in his deposition that he became unconscious after the assault and he was also kept confined in a room and the door of the room was closed from outside by the miscreants. Such statements gives much suspicion about the proper identification of the sole appellant who is said to be present near the gate. This witness does not say anything against the appellant as to the overt act committed by the appellant at the relevant time. The appellant cannot be said to be the assailant to PW-4 at the relevant time as this witness is also silent on this score. There is no corroboration of the evidence of PW-4 about participation of this appellant in the said crime. It is also clear from the record that the appellant was apprehended on 21-1-1995 and thereafter he was brought to the police station and he was remanded to jail custody on 22-1-1995 whereas the T.I. Parade was held on 15-2-1995 and as such the T.I. Parade was held after 25 days of arrest. of the appellant and there is no cogent explanation about such long delay in holding the T.I. Parade. 10. of the appellant and there is no cogent explanation about such long delay in holding the T.I. Parade. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW-4, single identifying witness is not reliable and his identification also becomes very suspicious who he himself admitted to be unconscious after assault and also to be confined in the room which was locked from outside. The learned Counsel relied upon a case of Narayan Mahto and others V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1998(1) Eastern Cr C page 158 Patna, in which it is observed that it is thoroughly unsafe to relied upon single, identification to convict the apellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, there is also single identification by PW-4 whose evidence does not appear to be consistant and corroborative about the identification which suffers from suspicion and doubt and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. Having regard to the discussions made above, coupled with the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has fail to establish the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, I find merit in the appeal which is accordingly allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the lower Court is hereby setaside. The appellant is in custody. Hence, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.