S.K. SHARMA, J.:–Both the appeals have arisen out one judgment as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.7.1993 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Session Trial No. 157 of 1989 whereby the appellants have been found guilty for committing offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and further R.I. for 5 years under Section 25(A) of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Informant Rajeshwar Singh (PW 1) has recorded his written statement on 29.9.1987 alleging therein that just after preceding night he got confidential information that absconder of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 73 of 1987 under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code Deo Narain Singh @ Khaderan Singh was available in village Pawat and was preparing to commit serious offence. A raiding party was constituted consisting the informant as well as A.S.I. Devender Prasad, Constable No. 682 Ram Pratap Upadhay, Constable Ramdev Singh, Home Guard 8811 Jalandhar Singh, Home Guard 3490 Baban Sah, Home Guard 9263 Ram Gahan Singh and Home Guard 930 Jawahar Singh. When the raiding party reached at village Pawat then it was just passed mid-night. Some sound was heard inside the hut of Khaderan Singh. Six to Seven persons were found there. The informant wanted to know about the Khaderan Singh but the persons present there tried to escape. Two persons, namely the appellants were apprehended but others escaped. From Khaderan Singh one DBBL gun bearing no. A/2 5070Y-85 was seized and from appellant Arjun Singh six empty cartridges and six live cartridges of 12 bore were seized. Arrah Muffassil P.S. Case No.103 of 1986 was registered under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25A of the Arms Act was registered. The fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.-2 whereas the formal FIR has been marked as Ext.-3. Signature of PW 2 Ram Shankar Yadav and PW 3 Nandjee Yadav have been marked as Exts.-4 and 4/1, 5 and 5/1 respectively. The seizure list has been marked as Exts.-1 and 1/1. The fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.-2 whereas the formal FIR has been marked as Ext.-3. Signature of PW 2 Ram Shankar Yadav and PW 3 Nandjee Yadav have been marked as Exts.-4 and 4/1, 5 and 5/1 respectively. The seizure list has been marked as Exts.-1 and 1/1. A copy of seizure list was given to both the appellants. The matter was investigated and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The accused persons pleaded their innocence and also that they have been implicated on account of enmity. Denial of the occurrence was also made. 4. In order to prove the case prosecution has examined altogether 4 witnesses. They are PW 1 Rajeshwar Singh the informant, PW 2 Rama Shankar Yadav, PW 3 Nandjee Yadav have been brought by the prosecution as seizure witnesses. PW 4 is a formal witness who has produced seized materials before the Court. 5. PW 2 has denied that any seizure was made in his presence though he has identified his signature on the seizure list. In cross-examination he stated that he was made to sign by the Officer In-Charge on a plain paper. Similar is the evidence of the PW 3 who has stated that nothing was seized in his presence. 6. PW 4 has proved the alleged seized articles which have been marked as the material Exts.1, 2 series and 3 series. 7. PW 1 has stated that on 29 9.1987 he was posted at Arrah Muffassil Police Station and he got information that the accused Deo Narain Singh @ Khaderan Singh along-with some other persons were trying to commit serious offence. After receiving this information a raiding party consisting of a number of police men was constituted. The raiding party went and heard some humming sound. The informant noticed six persons sitting and the informant wanted to know from those persons where about of Khaderan Singh. All the persons present there were trying to escape but the appellants were caught arid from possession of Deo Narain Singh @ Khaderan Singh a DBBL gun bearing no. A/2 5070Y-85 was seized. From Arjun Singh six live and six empty cartridges were seized. No license for possessing the aforesaid articles were produced. The case was registered and was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. A/2 5070Y-85 was seized. From Arjun Singh six live and six empty cartridges were seized. No license for possessing the aforesaid articles were produced. The case was registered and was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. This witness has identified Arjun Singh in the dock, but in cross-examination the person present in the dock has stated that he was not Arjun Singh rather he is Deo Narain Singh. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence at all the assemblage was for the purpose of committing dacoity. Further submission is that there is no explanation as to why independent witnesses have been withheld though the prosecution case is that a number of persons were present at time of occurrence. The sanction report for prosecution for the offence under the Arms Act has not been proved or brought on the record. So entire prosecution appears to be tainted and intended to harass the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that even on a single witness accused can be convicted. When the seizure list witnesses have identified their signature on the seizure list then it can be relied. 10. The case is based on evidence of a single witness. Though the case of the informant is that a number of persons have participated in the raid. There is no reason as to why other members who were present in course of raid have not been examined. The occurrence is of a village and it is expected that a number of persons were present. Not even one person has been brought to support the prosecution case. On the other hand two witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have completely denied that there was any seizure in their presence. 11. The informant in para one of his evidence has identified one of the accused and stated that he was Arjun Singh but it was incorrect identification because Arjun Singh was represented on 2nd January, 1993. When the evidence of PW 1 was recorded the person who was present in the dock was another accused Deo Narain Yadav. It becomes doubtful as to whether the raid was conducted by the informant and as to whether he has apprehended the accused person or not. 12. In a case based on a single evidence, the entire evidence must remain intact if the order of conviction is to be sustained. It becomes doubtful as to whether the raid was conducted by the informant and as to whether he has apprehended the accused person or not. 12. In a case based on a single evidence, the entire evidence must remain intact if the order of conviction is to be sustained. If a doubt is created with regard to truthfulness in the evidence of single witness then such evidence should be read with caution and it cannot be relied in its entirety. The definite case of the prosecution states about the presence of a number of witnesses but the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case. If the entire evidence is scrutinized then it comes that the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of sole witness who has also not made correct identification in the court. Other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case, therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.