Judgment Narbdeshwar Pandey, J. 1. All the above-mentioned appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Short facts of the case of prosecution is that on 22.6.1976 while the informant Hare Krishna Singh was going to case from his house, he saw about 15-20 criminals entering the house through the main gate. When the informant flashed torch, five of the criminals caught him and dragged to the Courtyard. They were also searching the mukhiya and the gun of the family. The informant thereafter disclosed the place where the gun was placed. In the meantime, female inmates of the house tried to save him but the accused-persons did not listen the request and continued assaulting the informant with firsts and slaps. It has been further alleged that some of the dacoits entered the house and took five of the boxes. When the accused-persons were coming out of the house, the informant heard the sound of gun firing due to which Surajnath Singh died at the door. The informant also claimed to have identified the accused Sital Singh who was armed with double-barrel gun, Kimat Singh armed with pistol, Laxman Ahir armed with country-made pistol, Deoraj Ahir, Rajendra Ahir and Dukhi Ahir, all armed with daggers. He also identified Sital who was present and heading the dacoits. 3. On the basis of the above-mentioned facts, the Police registered a regular case under Sec. 396, I.P.C. on the next day and took up investigation. Ultimately, on receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused-persons were called upon to face trial. The defence of the accused-persons was total denial and it was further stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 1 Singhashani Devi is the wife of the informant. As per her evidence, at the time of the occurrence, she was outside of her house in a field of Subhan Mian to attend the call of nature. She saw 15-16 persons going towards the house. She also flashed torch and had identified three dacoits namely, Jagdish Singh, Kameshwar Singh alias Budha and Deoraj Singh. This witness had seen the accused-persons taking away the household properties from her house. She saw 15-16 persons going towards the house. She also flashed torch and had identified three dacoits namely, Jagdish Singh, Kameshwar Singh alias Budha and Deoraj Singh. This witness had seen the accused-persons taking away the household properties from her house. Defence has also cross-examined this witness but nothing positive could be brought on the basis of which her testimony can be doubted. 5. P.W. 2 is Tetar Devi, another female member of the informants house. At the time of occurrence, she was providing food to her mother-in-law. She has also claimed to have identified accused Kameshwar Singh, Ram Prasad Singh, Dukhi and Deoraj in the light of electric bulbs. On behalf of the defence, it was pointed out that the story advanced by the witnesses regarding burning of electric bulbs was not supported by any other witness. Because all other witnesses have claimed to have identified the accused-persons with the help of torch-light. That apart, this witness had not disclosed before the Police that she had identified the accused in the light of electric bulbs. But unfortunately, in this case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined. Therefore, the defence could not get the opportunity to cross-examine him on this aspect. 6. P.W. 3 Mahendra Singh alias Maheshwar Singh at the relevant time was sleeping in a room. He had also seen 10-15 dacoits at the place of occurrence but could not identify any of them. P.W. 4 Hare Krishna as stated above is the informant in this case. From his evidence, it would appear that he has fully supported the prosecution version. He has also identified appellant Kimat Singh armed with pistol, Lakhan Singh with pistol, Sital Singh with double-barrel gun, Deoraj, Dukhi and Rajendra armed with dagger. He has also supported his statement as was made in the First Information Report that the dacoits had caught him and took inside the house for taking out the properties. The last witness P.W. 5 is Sheonarain Singh. According to this witness, in the night, at the time of occurrence, Mukhiya Surajnath Singh was sleeping on a cot and by the side of his cot, this witness was also sleeping. This witness has further said that the moment he along with Suraj Nath Singh arrived at the door of the house, accused Jagdish Singh opened fire which hit Mukhiyaji. 7. From a close analysis of the above facts. This witness has further said that the moment he along with Suraj Nath Singh arrived at the door of the house, accused Jagdish Singh opened fire which hit Mukhiyaji. 7. From a close analysis of the above facts. It would, therefore, appear that appellant Ram Prasad was identified by P.W. 2 Tetar Devi, appellant Kimat Singh was identified by P.W. 4 Hare Krishna and P.W. 5 Sheonarain, appellant Deoraj Singh was identified by P.W. 1 Singhasani Devi, P.W. 2 Tetar Devi and P.W. 4 Hare Krishna appellant Dukhi Singh was identified by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, appellant Sital Singh was identified by P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, appellant Jagdish Singh was identified by P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, appellant Shobh Nath Singh was not identified whereas appellant Rajendra Singh was identified by the informant Hare Krishna Singh. In other words, appellants Ram Prasad Singh and Rajendra Singh have been identified by only single prosecution witness and appellants Kimat Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sheetal Singh and Dukhi have been identified by two witnesses. Appellant Deoraj Singh was identified by three witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 but there is no identification against appellant Shobh Nath Singh. It has also been noticed that specific allegation of firing at Surajnath Singh is on appellant Jagdish Singh. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that as would appear from the materials on record, all the accused-persons are residents of the same village. This is not the case of the prosecution that any attempt was made by these appellants to conceal their identity. In normal course, an accused of the same village, who is known to the prosecution party, will not dare participate in a dacoity without concealing the face. Therefore, this part of improbability certainly raises a doubt whether the appellants had taken a part in the occurrence. In my view, it all depends upon the character of the accused. If the accused-persons are desperate and dare-devil, they may not take such precaution. It would not be out of place to take a judicial notice that now-a-days, robbery and dacoities are committed even at busy places during day hours. Therefore, simply because the accused-persons had not concealed their identity, it would be difficult to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses who had identified. 9. It would not be out of place to take a judicial notice that now-a-days, robbery and dacoities are committed even at busy places during day hours. Therefore, simply because the accused-persons had not concealed their identity, it would be difficult to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses who had identified. 9. He next contended that the prosecution witnesses have also accepted that the parties were on litigation terms due to certain previous incidents. Therefore, it was quite probable for the prosecution to implicate the accused-persons falsely. True, it is from the evidence on record it appears that undisputedly, the accused-persons are on inimical terms with the prosecution party. The trial Court has also noticed this aspect in the impugned Judgment and has rightly held that enmity cuts both ways. According to him, it was on account of such enmity and litigation, the dacoity was committed in the house of the informant/But undisputedly where parties are on inimical terms, no conviction can base on insufficient and shaky evidence. I am, therefore, of the view that appellants against whom there is no identification of those who have been identified by single witness should be given benefit of doubt. No doubt, in appropriate cases, conviction can base even on single identification but in a case of this nature, it appears not safe to convict such accused who has been identified by single witness. 10. For the reasons stated above, appellant Ram Prasad Singh (Cr. Appeal No. 148 of 1993), appellant Rajendra Singh alias Rajendra Ahir against whom there is single identification and appellant Shobh Nath Singh alias Shobh Nath Ahir (Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 1993) who has not been identified by any witness are given benefit of doubt and as such the order of their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. They are discharged from the liability of the bail-bonds. However, the conviction and sentence of the remaining appellants, namely, Shital Singh, Deo Raj Singh, Dukhi Singh, Kimat Singh and Jagdish Singh of Criminal Appeal Nos. 132, 148, 199 and 200 of 1993, respectively who have been identified by two or more witnesses are confirmed. Appellants Shital Singh, Dukhi Singh, Kimat Singh and Jagdish Singh are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve the remaining sentences. 132, 148, 199 and 200 of 1993, respectively who have been identified by two or more witnesses are confirmed. Appellants Shital Singh, Dukhi Singh, Kimat Singh and Jagdish Singh are on bail. Their bail-bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve the remaining sentences. The trial Court is also directed to take steps to arrest them forthwith. 11. In the result, Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 1993 is allowed, Cr. Appeal Nos. 132, 199 and 200 of 1993, are dismissed but Cr. Appeal No. 148 of 1993 partly succeeds, as indicated above. 12. Ashok Kumar Verma, J. I agree.