C. P. MISHRA, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-12-1984 passed by Sri V. C. Jain, Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1983 affirming the order and judgment dated 5-12-83 passed by Sri R. S. Rathi, IIIrd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad convicting and sentencing the applicants-revisionists under Section 332 I. P. C. to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 in default of fine further R. I. for two months. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the conviction and prosecution of the appellants proceeded on a report lodged by Ram Mohan Gupta, the Manager of Cinema Hall at Thakurdwara run by the Uttar Pradesh Chalchitra Nigam on 6-7-81 at 11. 50 p. m. at Police Station Thakurdwara to the effect that the same day at 10 p. m. while he was on duty at the cinema hall three or four persons out of whom two were carrying Dandas arrived and demanded passes for the show and when he expressed his inability since no passes are issued in cinema hall run by Chalchitra Nigam, they abused and assaulted him and left the place advancing threats to shoot him. No one was named in F. I. R. as accused but it was mentioned that he would be able to recognize them. Ram Mohan Gupta was subjected to medical examination at Primary Health Center Thakurdwara the same night at 00. 15 hours and a reddish contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on front of head, a reddish contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of right index finger and reddish bruise 4 cm x 3 cm on the outer aspect of the right thigh were found and he also complained of pain in the abdomen on left side. The injuries were reported to be simple, fresh in duration and caused by blunt weapon. During the course of investigation which followed Jungi Khan and Puttan Khan were put up for test identification on 28-8-81 at which both of them were correctly identified by Ram Mohan Gupta the victim of the incident and Shiv Charan, one of the gate keepers on duty at the cinema hall. During the course of investigation which followed Jungi Khan and Puttan Khan were put up for test identification on 28-8-81 at which both of them were correctly identified by Ram Mohan Gupta the victim of the incident and Shiv Charan, one of the gate keepers on duty at the cinema hall. While Ram Bhool Singh another gate keeper correctly identified Jungi Khan and committed mistake in identifying Puttan and Intzar Husain, head operator correctly identified Puttan but committed mistake in identification of Jungi Khan. On the basis of the result of test identification both Jungi Khan and Puttan Khan were challaned. At the trial, besides Ram Mohan Gupta, the identifying witnesses Shiv Charan, Ram Bhool Singh and Intzar Husain were examined as witnesses of fact, besides Dr. Akhlesh Kumar who had conducted the medical examination of Ram Mohan Gupta. Sri R. S. Gupta, S. D. M. who had conducted the test identification. Constable Shanti Sarup who had drawn up the F. I. R. on the basis of the written report lodged by Ram Mohan Gupta at Police Station, Thakurdwara and had registered the case and Sub-Inspector Shiv Dhyan Singh who had investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet. Shiv Charan Singh, Ram Bhool Singh and Intzar Husain were declared hostile by the prosecution but the learned Magistrate relying mainly on the testimony of Ram Mohan Gupta as corroborated by the medical evidence regarding the injuries caused to him has recorded the conviction and sentenced the appellants and aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, appellants have preferred an appeal in the Appellate Court. 3. The appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record of the case and the evidence adduced in support of the prosecution version of the incident found that the testimony of Ram Mohan Gupta is itself sufficient to hold the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and it finds corroboration also in some measure from the statements made by P. W. 1 Ram Bhool Singh in his examination in chief from which he had attempted to resile during cross examination and he had agreed with the view of the learned Magistrate that the prosecution case was satisfactorily made out against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and their conviction was upheld. 4. 4. Hence, this criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 10-12- 1984 passed by the Appellate Court. 5. Heard Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record which has also been summoned. 6. It is evident that there is a single testimony of Ram Mohan Gupta against the revisionists for the alleged offence committed by them under Section 332 I. P. C. for the alleged assault given to the complainant-Ram Mohan Gupta in the night of 6-7-81 at 10 p. m. while he was on duty as Manager of Cinema Hall on the said date of occurrence. Three witnesses who have also identified the accused- revisionists, however, did not support the prosecution case regarding their involvement and participation to have caused any such injury. They also stated that both accused-revisionists were personally known to them prior to this occurrence. However, they were not so named in the F. I. R. Exb. 1. The statement given by a sole witness-Ram Mohan Gupta-P. W. 1 also goes to show that he had come to know about the name of these accused persons after one or two days of the occurrence and his identification as such during the course of identification proceedings after one and half month becomes highly doubtful and moreover, it was a sole identification made by him which cannot be sufficient for conviction of the accused persons as it was so held in the case law ALJ 1955 page 112, Drigpal Singh v. The State, that: "in a case of dacoity only one good identification cannot be considered sufficient for conviction of the accused. " 7. Besides the above conviction of the accused persons is also vitiated since they were not represented by any counsel during the trial and no Legal Aid was provided to defend themselves in this regard. In Suk Das and another v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 991 , it has clearly been held by Hon. Supreme Court that a person accused of offence involving jeopardy to his life or personal liberty is entitled to free legal aid and its entitlement does not depend on his making application and the conviction reached without giving any such information is vitiated. It was observed therein that: "free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right to a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty. This fundamental right is implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed by. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. The exercise of this fundamental right is not conditional upon the accused applying for free legal assistance so that if he does not make any application for free legal assistance the trial may lawfully proceed without adequate legal representation being afforded to him. On the other hand the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears is under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the costs of the State. The conviction reached without informing the accused that they were entitled to free legal assistance and inquiring from them whether they wanted a lawyer to be provided to them at State cost which resulted in the accused remaining unrepresented by a lawyer in the trial is clearly a violation of the fundamental right of the accused under. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21 and the trial must be held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity. " 8. It is evident that every accused has got a constitutional right to be provided a lawyer in case he is unable to engage the lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicable situation. It is the duty of the State to provide a lawyer to him if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so required provided of course the accused does not object to the provision of such lawyer. This mandate has been well recognized by Honble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 , 105 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40, 45. This mandate has been well recognized by Honble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 , 105 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40, 45. See also Madhav Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544 , 557 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 466, 481; Khatri (III) v. State of Bihar, 1981 SCC (Cri) 235 : (1981) 1 SCC 635 . 9. In view of the above, the revision deserves to be allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the revisionists-accused persons is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds and sureties are discharged. The fine, if any, already paid, shall be refunded to them accordingly. Revision allowed. .