Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. In the intervening nights of 16/17th May, 1986, unidentified miscreants holding lethal weapons, having ransacked house of Upendra Narain Singh (RW. 2), gained their access, and coercing house inmates, relieved female members of their ornaments and also removed house belongings which included ornaments, cash, wearing apparel, etc. and while retreating, also lobbed bombs and took recourse to firing. After judicial process was set in motion on behest of Upendra Narain Singh, investigation commenced, in course of which Investigating Officer entrusted with onerous task of investigation, took necessary steps for apprehension of the suspects and also for recovery of the booty. The Police Officer visited place of occurrence, arranged test identification parade of the suspects, effected, recovery of booty from the houses of some suspects, who are not the appellants, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. Though others too along with the appellants were put on trial, as they jumped bail, it were the appellants alone, who continued to be on trial. 2. In the eventual trial that commenced, State examined altogether nine witnesses, who were house inmates, Police Officer and also the doctor. Upendra Narain Singh (P.W. 2) who was maker of fardbeyan, while reiterating his early version, would state at trial about commission of dacoity in the house in the night of incident, when unidentified miscreants who were not less than 20/25 in numbers having ransacked the house, relieved Shiv Kumari Devi and Rajkumari Devi of their ornaments and in the process of removal, Rajkumari Devi suffered injury on her person. The witness states about removal of boxes, cash, wrist watches and ornaments by the miscreants and also about Mahendra Singh sustaining gun shot injury at his lands by miscreants, when he rushed to his house on alarm raised by him. 3. The other house inmate examined at trial was Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) and similar narrations about commission of dacoity in the house, were made by this witness also, when the miscreants removed ornaments, cash, wearing apparel, etc.from the house. The witness states to have participated in the test identification parade for identification of the suspects when he claimed to have identified among the appellants, only appellant no.1.The witness also identified appellant no. 1, in the dock of the Court at trial. The witness states to have participated in the test identification parade for identification of the suspects when he claimed to have identified among the appellants, only appellant no.1.The witness also identified appellant no. 1, in the dock of the Court at trial. Upendra Narain Singh about whom reference has been given earlier, claims to have identified during the test identification parade, both the appellants, attributing explicit role they played during the incident. This witness too had identified both the appellants in dock of the court. The other material witness on whom reliance was placed by the court below was Mahendra Singh (P.W. 5). His evidence was confined to the fact that he rushed to the house of Upendra Narain Singh on alarm raised by him. He suffered gun shot injuries at the hands of the miscreants. Kamta Singh (P.W. 3) was also one of the house inmates who was residing in the same courtyard, and this witness too states about plunder committed by the miscreants in the house, when they removed wearing apparel, cash and boxes. This witness too claims to have participated in the test identification parade when Identification of only appellant no.1 was made by him. 4. Notice can be taken of the evidence of the two Judicial Magistrates who conducted two test identification proceedings and one of them was Ravi Kumar Sahay (P.W. 6) who stated to have conducted test identification parade on 3rd June, 1986 when RW. 3 identified appellant no.1 besides others. The witness states about identification of appellant no. 2 also by Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) but the latter as has been stated earlier, did not claim in his evidence identification of appellant no. 2. On 21st July, 1986, another test identification parade was arranged and the witness says that Upendra Narain Singh had identified others including Ganesh Kumar. Another test identification parade was conducted by Shri Mahboob Hasan, Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 4) on 20th June, 1986 in which both the appellants were identified by Upendra Narain Singh. 5. 2. On 21st July, 1986, another test identification parade was arranged and the witness says that Upendra Narain Singh had identified others including Ganesh Kumar. Another test identification parade was conducted by Shri Mahboob Hasan, Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 4) on 20th June, 1986 in which both the appellants were identified by Upendra Narain Singh. 5. Two fold contentions were raised at bar on behalf of the appellants ostensibly to assail the finding recorded by the court below and it is sought to be urged that from the narrations made by the witnesses, it would be apparent that the court below had placed reliance on the testimony of witnesses who were none else but only family members of Upendra Narain Singh. It is urged that even though villagers were suggested to have rushed to the place of occurrence, prosecution had not taken pain for their examination at trial and hence there has been evidence of only interested witnesses entirely to the exclusion of those who could have been independent witnesses. Other limb of argument pressed on behalf of the appellants was that also from suggestions given to Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) and also the notice (Exhibit A) issued by the office of the Labour Inspector, it would appear that preceding the incident, a proceeding with regard to not paying minimum wages to Sri Paswan, who was employed under him, has been instituted by appellant no. 1 against Ram Nandan Singh and if this proceeding is given due consideration, then false implication of appellant no. 1 cannot be ruled out on account of some feud persisting between them. About appellant no. 2 it is urged that since he happens to be the brother-in-law of appellant no. 1, he too was falsely roped in, due to dispute pending with Ramnandan Singh, (P.W. 1).Yet it is urged that though Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) claimed identification of appellant no. About appellant no. 2 it is urged that since he happens to be the brother-in-law of appellant no. 1, he too was falsely roped in, due to dispute pending with Ramnandan Singh, (P.W. 1).Yet it is urged that though Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) claimed identification of appellant no. 1 in the test identification parade that was arranged on 3rd June, 1986, he turned volte face to the prosecution about identification of this appellant even though he too was put as suspect during test identification parade, that was arranged also on 20th June, 1986, and on this score it is urged that credibility of Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1) about identification of appellant no.1 lost all its significance, and the last argument was that since appellants have remained in custody for a considerable period that mitigating circumstance too deserves consideration in awarding sentence to them in case finding of guilt recorded by the court below is upheld by this Court. 6. Facts of this case, as has been stated, are tell-e-tell. In the dacoity that was committed in the house of Upendra Narain Singh in the night of incident unidentified miscreants were suggested to have removed house belongings which included cash, boxes, wrist watches wearing apparels etc. Though recovery of some part of booty was also suggested from possession of some of the suspects, admittedly they are not at trial. As for the appellants, there has been no attribution against them about possessing booty. However, from the narrations made the witnesses and also from evidence of the Investigating Officer who happens to be P.W. 7, it would appear that while appellant no. 1 was identified during test identification parade by Ram Nandan Singh (P.W. 1), Upendra Narain Singh (P.W.2) and Kamta Singh (P.W. 3), there has been solitary identification of appellant no.2 made by Upendra Narain Singh (P.W.2). Though some sort of proceeding was shown to be pending in the office of the Labour Inspector, in view of clinching evidence placed on the record about identification of appellant no. 1, entire prosecution version cannot be thrown over board, as it is well known maxim that while hostility may be cause for false implication, it may also be a reason for commission of offence. Since there has been solitary identification against appellant no. 1, entire prosecution version cannot be thrown over board, as it is well known maxim that while hostility may be cause for false implication, it may also be a reason for commission of offence. Since there has been solitary identification against appellant no. 2 for which there has been no corroboration by the house inmates, I consider it proper to extend benefit of doubt to him. 7. In conclusion, Rajendra Paswan appellant no. 2 having been given benefit of doubt is acquitted of the charges and as he is shown to be in custody, shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Finding of guilt in respect of appellant no. 1 Shri Paswan is affirmed but his sentence is reduced to six years. Accordingly this appeal succeeds in part.