Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants, namely, Lal Singh and Tuntun Singh have been convicted under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 21.8.1980 the informant Mukhlal Ram was sleeping at his darwaja alongwith his son, brother, nephew and also with some other persons. It has been alleged that at about 11.00 P.M. his son Jay Mangal Ram woke up to urinate and he saw accused Awadhesh Singh, Tuntun Singh alongwith another unknown persons moving on the road in front of Darwaja of informant. He informed his father about them upon this his father told him that they might be moving on the road with some other work. It has further been stated that at about 12.00 in the night Awadhesh Singh and Tuntun Singh came near alleged Mukhlal Ram and they started assaulting him with lathi. He woke up and sat there. In the meantime, about 25 persons suddenly came at his Darwaja and they started assaulting all the persons who were sleeping at the Darwaja of the house of Mukhlal Ram. They started exploding bombs there and they also started firing with gun. The informant Mukhlal sustained injury on account of explosion of bomb in his abdomen. Dewan Ram sustained a pellet injury of gun firing. It has been stated that the miscreants were having lathi, bhala. torch and gun etc. in their hands. The miscreants were also threatening the villagers not to raise bulla. It has been stated that when the inmates of house of Mukhlal Ram and the villagers tried to encounter with the dacoits. The dacoits fired with the guns and also exploded bombs to scare villagers so that nobody could dare to face the dacoits. Hearing the hulla of the dacoits, the lady inmates of the house came outside the house after opening the main gate of the house. The dacoits entered into the house from this door and they committed dacoity in the alleged house of Mukhlal Ram. It has been stated that in the light of torch the informant Mukhlal Ram identified two dacoits, namely, Awadhesh Singh and Tuntun Singh who were the residents of the same village. Jay Mangal Ram, son of the informant also identified the dacoits, namely, Lal Singh and Hare Ram Singh. It has been stated that in the light of torch the informant Mukhlal Ram identified two dacoits, namely, Awadhesh Singh and Tuntun Singh who were the residents of the same village. Jay Mangal Ram, son of the informant also identified the dacoits, namely, Lal Singh and Hare Ram Singh. It has also been stated that the dacoits used to utter the local language when they were talking themselves. They committed dacoity for about half an hour. They also assaulted his family members and they had sustained injury. Thereafter Musaphir Ram and Dewan Ram were taken to Hajipur Sadar Hospital for their treatment. The Police Officer came in the hospital and fardbeyan of Mukhlal Ram was recorded by A.S.I, in Hajipur Sadar Hospital on 22.8.80 at about 7.30 a.m. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered. The police started investigation and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have slated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether six witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is Dewan Ram, the servant of the informant. P.W. 2 is Jay Mangal Ram, son of the informant. P.W. 3 Musaphir Ram is also a son of the informant, P.W. 4 is Kesho Prasad, he is a formal witness and he has proved the fardbeyan of Mukhlal Ram, marked as Ext.1. P.W. 5 is Dr. Rameshwar Nath Upadhyay. He has examined the injured Mukhlal Ram, Dewan Ram and also Musaphir Ram and RW. 6 is Rama Shankar Singh. He is a formal witness who has proved the writings of the case diary, Ext. 2 and also the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext. 3. 6. P.W. 1 Dewan Ram has stated that on the date of occurrence he was working as domestic servant of Mukhlal Ram in the village Baijalpur within Police Station Spnepur of district Saran. According to him, in the night of occurrence he was sleeping at Darwaja of informant-Mukhlal Ram. When he heard hulla he woke up and he wanted to run away from there. In the meantime, he sustained injury from a gun fire in his left thigh. He has stated that dacoity was committed in the house of Mukhlal Ram. According to him, in the night of occurrence he was sleeping at Darwaja of informant-Mukhlal Ram. When he heard hulla he woke up and he wanted to run away from there. In the meantime, he sustained injury from a gun fire in his left thigh. He has stated that dacoity was committed in the house of Mukhlal Ram. He sustained peliet injury of gun in his thigh and after sustaining injury he Decame unconscious. 7. P.W. 2 is Jay Mangal Ram, the son of the informant Mukhlal Ram. He has fully supported the case of prosecution. According to him, in the night of 21.8.80 he was sleeping at a Machan which was situated near his house. He saw three persons moving on the road. He identified them as Awadhesh Singh and Tuntun Singh and he did not identify the other person. He identified them in the light of his torch. He has stated that it was a moonlit night. He has also stated that his father was sleeping at Darwaja of his house and he went there and told him that three persons were moving on the road near his Darwaja. Thereafter he came out from the Machan and he heard the noise of Mar-Peet at his Darwaja. He also felt that some persons were assaulting his father and he came out from his Machan and started shouting from there, concealing himself behind a tree near his Darwaja. According to him, he saw about 20-25 persons assembled at his Darwaja armed with bomb. Patakha, gun etc. He has also stated that the dacoits were flashing their torch at that time and in the light of torch he identified accused Awadhesh Singh, Tuntun Singh and Lal Singh. He has also stated that wnen his father was assaulted by the dacoits the ladies inmates of his house came outside and they opened the Darwaja ana the dacoits entered into the house by that door and they committed dacoity of valuables from the house of informant Mukhlal Ram. He has also stated that his brother Musaphir Ram sustained injury at that time from the explosion of bomb which was exploded by the dacoits. He has also stated that one dacoit had given a bhala blow to his father and his servant Dewan Ram haa sustained pellet injury in his leg. The dacoits who were committing dacoity. ran away towards east. He has also stated that one dacoit had given a bhala blow to his father and his servant Dewan Ram haa sustained pellet injury in his leg. The dacoits who were committing dacoity. ran away towards east. The injured persons were taken to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur where they were treated and examined. He has also stated that the Police Officer of Hajipur Police Station came in the hospital on 22.8.80 and recorded the fardbeyan of his father at 7.30 A.M. 8. P.W. 3 Musaphir Ram is the son of the informant. According to him. on the date of occurrence he was sleeping in the Sehan of. Osara of his house. Hearing hulla he woke up and saw that dacoits were assembled at his Darwaja. According to him, the dacoits threw a bomb on him and he sustained injuries and became unconscious. He regained his consciousness when the dacoits ran away. 9. P.W. 4 Kesho Prasad is a formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan of Mukhlal Ram marked as Ext.1. 10. P.W. 5 is Dr. Rameshwar Nath Upadhyay. According to him, on 22.8.80 he was posed at Sadar Hospital. Hajipur and examined Mukhlal Ram and found the following injuries on his possons;- I. one punctured wound of the size 1/2" x 1/4" x 1 1/4" deep on right frontal region. II. one abrasion of the size 1/8" x 1/8" on right upper eye lid upper part. III. one swelling of the size 2" x 2". 11. On the same day he also examined Musaphir Ram and found the following injuries on his person:- I. one superficial burn 11" x 6" on the left tower of abdomen and upper and another parts of frontal region. II. one swelling 2" x 1" on the left forearm, upper and lower part. 12. Both the injuries were simple in nature. Injury No. 1 was caused by explosion material. Injury No. 2 was caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. 13. On the same day he examined the injured Dewan Ram and found the following injuries on his person:- I. multiple pellets wounds on left thigh, front, inner and back part. II. 8 pellets wound on right frontal region, 5 pellets were removed from the injury nos. 1 and 4 pellets were taken out frorh injury no. 2. 14. 13. On the same day he examined the injured Dewan Ram and found the following injuries on his person:- I. multiple pellets wounds on left thigh, front, inner and back part. II. 8 pellets wound on right frontal region, 5 pellets were removed from the injury nos. 1 and 4 pellets were taken out frorh injury no. 2. 14. Both the injury were simple in nature and caused by firearm, such as countrymade gun. 15. P.W. 6 is Rama Shankar Singh. He is a formal witness who has proved the writings of case diary marked Ext. 2 and also the formal F.I.R. marked Ext. 3. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that after the dacoits fled away, the villagers have assembled and the informant has disclosed the name of the dacoits to them but none of them has been examined to corroborate the statement of the informant and P.W. 2. It has further been stated that the evidence of P.W. 2 has not been supported by other witnesses as the I.O. who recorded the fardbeyan has not been examined and even the informant has not been examined as he died during the course of trial. 17. However, only on this ground that the evidence of P.W. 2 has not been corroborated either by I.O. or informant who died during the course of trial, his evidence cannot be discarded outrightly. The Court has to see whether his evidence is consistent or not or whether it is trust inspiring. It is true that I.O. of this case and informant both have not been examined which has caused the prejudice to the appellants. But it appears from the record that the appellants were named in the F.I.R. which was recorded in the morning soon after the occurrence. It has also been submitted that the prosecution even did not choose to get any of the villagers examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W. 2 who has disclosed the name of the appellants to them after the occurrence. 18. I find force in the aforesaid sub-mission of learned counsel lor the appellants. 19. It is a case of single identification and that apart the appellants are co-villagers and they were not concealing their face, as alleged. None of the villagers have been examined to say that the witnesses had named the appellants after the occurrence. 20. 18. I find force in the aforesaid sub-mission of learned counsel lor the appellants. 19. It is a case of single identification and that apart the appellants are co-villagers and they were not concealing their face, as alleged. None of the villagers have been examined to say that the witnesses had named the appellants after the occurrence. 20. I find that the prosecution has not conducted the case properly. 21. In view of above, it would not be proper to convict the appellants particularly on the identification of single witness which has not been corroborated even by any other witnesses. Thus, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. 22. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are directed to be set at liberty. 23. Since learned counsel Mrs. Reena Sinha has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, she will be paid her remuneration by the Patna High Court, Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee, in accordance with law.