Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.9.1986 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah convicting the appellant for the offence under section 25A and 26 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count. However, sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that on confidential information a raid was conducted on 31.8.1981 at about mid night. The culprits on seeing the raiding party tried to escape but on chase two accused persons were caught. They disclosed their names as Chandan Ahir and Basudeo Raut. On search one country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from the possession of Chandan Ahir and one cartridge was recovered from the possession of Basudeo Raut, the appellant. 3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against 12 persons including the appellant for the offence under sections 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25A and 26 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted all the accused persons facing trial for the offence under sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant and one Chandan Ahir have been convicted for the offence under sections 25A and 26 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one and half year respectively under each count. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 proved letter of sanction of the prosecution, Ext. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 were declared hostile. P.W. 3 tested country made pistol and cartridges and proved his report. P.W. 4 produced country made gun and cartridges in the court and also proved seizure list. P.W. 6 is witness on the point of arrest of Chandan and recovery of pistol and cartridges from his possession and also proved his signature on the seizure list. P.W. 7 is also witness on the point of arrest of Chandan Ahir and recovery of pistol and cartridges from his possession and also arrest of one more person from whom one cartridge was recovered but he could not identify him. P.W. 9 is a Chaukidar. P.W. 7 is also witness on the point of arrest of Chandan Ahir and recovery of pistol and cartridges from his possession and also arrest of one more person from whom one cartridge was recovered but he could not identify him. P.W. 9 is a Chaukidar. He is also witness on the point of arrest of Chandan Ahir and one more person whom he did not know. P.W. 10 is Havaldar. His evidence is on the point of arrest/recovery and identification of those persons including the appellant. P.W. 11 appears to be formal witness who proved Exts. 5 and 6. 6. It is manifest from the materials on record that charge was framed for the offence under section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 25A and 26 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons including the appellant were acquitted for the offence under section 399/402 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant and one Chandan were convicted for the offence under sections 25A and 26 of the Arms Act. In this case the informant and investigating officer were not examined. P.W. 6 stated in his evidence with regard to arrest of Chandan Ahir and recovery of pistol and cartridges from his possession. He did not say about the arrest of the appellant. P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 also supported the arrest of Chandan and also recovery of arms and ammunition from his possession, but they did not claim to identify the appellant. P.W. 10 is the only witness who stated that two persons were arrested and they disclosed their names as Chandan Ahir and Basudeo Raut, the appellant. However, it is evident from the first information report which has been quoted in the judgment that names of the raiding party have been mentioned but the name of P.W. 10 is not mentioned in the first information report. Learned counsel for the respondent-State pointed out that it is not necessary that all those things should be mentioned in the first information report but submission, in my view, has no substance because of the fact that when the names of the raiding party have been mentioned there was no occasion to leave the name of P.W. 10. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 10 is not free from doubt. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 10 is not free from doubt. Moreover, P.W. 3 is an expert, who stated in his evidence that he tested one country made pistol and two cartridges and they were found to be effective. It is specific case of the prosecution that from the possession of the appellant one cartridge was recovered but there is nothing on the record that the same was sent to the expert for examination. Therefore, on this count also it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant. Furthermore, it is only P.W. 10, who claimed to have identified the appellant. There is no doubt that conviction can be maintained on the evidence of sole witness but the evidence of such witness must be fully trustworthy. However, on consideration as indicated above, it appears that his evidence is not even trustworthy. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant deserves acquittal. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence so far this appellant is concerned are hereby set aside. 8. The appellant is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.