Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in between the night of 26/27th October 1981 at about 1.15 in the right when the informant Dr. Amar Nath Jha along with his wife and son was sleeping, the appellant along with other miscreants forcibly entered in his house. It has been alleged that one of the miscreants was armed with a small gun. The dacoits were flashing torch light and were taking false pretext to take injury report from the informant. It has been stated that when the informant did not open the door they tried to forcibly open the same and one of them jumped in his courtyard and unbolted the door and the remaining dacoits also entered in his house and took the key of the Godrej almirah and after opening the same took away ornaments and cash. They also looted Philips transistor, wrist watch and other articles worth several thousand rupees. When the informant raised alarm witnesses came there and having seen them the dacoits fled away. The informant and inmates of the house did not identify any of the dacoits. The police officer when received information about the occurrence came to the house of the informant, his Fardbeyan was recorded on the basis of which F.I.R. was drawn up against unknown. The police started investigation and after completion of the same submitted charge sheet against the sole appellant. Accordingly, on receipt of charge sheet congnizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses, P.W. 1 is Abdul Zabar. He is a formal witness. P.W. 2 is Balmukund Pandey. He is also a formal witness. P.W. 3 is Dr. Amar Nath Jha, informant P.W. 4 is Amit Kumar Jha, son of the informant. P.W. 5 is R.N. Thakur, investigating Officer and P.W. 6 is Prithibi Chand Sah, Railway Judicial Magistrate. He had conducted T.I. Parade of the appellant. 4. P.W. 3, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, on 26.1.81 he along with his son and wife was sleeping in his house. P.W. 5 is R.N. Thakur, investigating Officer and P.W. 6 is Prithibi Chand Sah, Railway Judicial Magistrate. He had conducted T.I. Parade of the appellant. 4. P.W. 3, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, on 26.1.81 he along with his son and wife was sleeping in his house. He woke up when her wife told him that some persons were flashing torch light. He heard that the miscreants were asking to open the door of his room. According to him the dacoits were armed with gun. They entered in the courtyard and opened the main door of the house. Thereafter 5 to 7 dacoits entered in his room and demanded key of the almirah. He accordingly handed over the same. Thereafter the dacoits opened the Godrej almirah and looted cash of Rs. 950/- along with watch and other valuable articles. He has further stated that he identified the dacoit roaming on the verandah as there was light of bulb and also in the light of torch. He also identified the appellant in T.I. Parade. 5. P.W. 4 son of the informant has stated that he woke up on hearing taik of his father and mother. According to him he saw the dacoits and some of them had covered their faces. He identified the appellant in T.I. Parade. He has also stated that a bulb was lightening at the time of commission of dacoity but in his cross examination he has stated that he did not remember whether he identified the same person in T.I. Parade or not. P.W. 5 I.O. has stated that on 26/27th October, 1981 he was posted at Chakiya P.S. where he got information from the local Chaukidar that dacoity had been committed in the house of P.W. 3, informant. Thereafter he went there and recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant. After completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellant. He also visited the place of occurrence. He has given full description of the place of occurrence. He found one Godrej almirah in the room of the informant and the other articles were scattered there. P.W. 6, Rly. Judicial Magistrate had conducted the T.I. Parade. According to him P.W. 3 the informant and P.W. 4 identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade. He has also proved the original T.I. Parade chart, Ext. 3. 6. He found one Godrej almirah in the room of the informant and the other articles were scattered there. P.W. 6, Rly. Judicial Magistrate had conducted the T.I. Parade. According to him P.W. 3 the informant and P.W. 4 identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade. He has also proved the original T.I. Parade chart, Ext. 3. 6. From the deposition of the witnesses it appears that the factum of dacoity has been established but the identification of the appellant has been doubted as P.W. 4 the son of the informant has stated in his evidence that he did not remember whether he identified this appellant in the T.I. Parade and he did not identify the appellant in the dock. Similarly P.W. 3 has also stated in his cross examination that he cannot say with certainty whether he had identified this appellant in T.I. Parade or not. As such, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 creates doubt with regard to identification of the appellant. Therefore, it will not be safe to convict this appellant on such weak identification. Accordingly, he deserves benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is set at liberty. In the result, this appeal is allowed.