By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 8th January, 2002 and order of sentence dated 9th January, 2002 passed by Sri Ramanuj Narayan, learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 1990, by which judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant Pradeep Ram guilty under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary stating therein that in the night of 6.8.1989 at about 3:00 A.M. some dacoits entered his house by breaking door and started demanding money at the point of pistol. Thereafter, more persons entered in the house and after breaking upon almira of his wife took out money, golden ornaments and other things. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that they had taken cash of Rs. 2,500/- (Twenty five hundred), gold ornaments and other articles worth Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand). In his F.I.R. he has stated that he had identified some of the dacoits in the light of torch being used by dacoit. On the basis of said F.I.R., police had started the case against eight unknown persons under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, since the appellant was arrested alongwith other co-accused persons, T.I.P. was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted against him. 3. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the Court of Sessions and finally the case was tried by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Daltonganj, who found the accused guilty and convicted him as aforesaid. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since other two accused persons Ramchandra Bhuiyan and Wakil Choudhary absconded during trial hence the case of this petitioner Pradeep Ram was separated and during trial he was found guilty. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it appears from the record of Trial Court that only five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and out of those five witnesses only P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary has identified appellant Pradeep Ram in the T.I.P. Such identification is itself doubtful since no source of light was given in the First Information Report in Court. During his examination-in-chief he proved the case stating that lantern was burning in the house and he identified appellant in the light of lantern. 6. He further submitted that even the wife of the informant failed to identify the appellant in the T.I.P. and as such the identification is doubtful, moreover, since the I.O. was not examined in the case. The appellant was prejudiced as it appears from the record that the appellant was arrested and kept in Hazat for about twelve days and he was remanded thereafter. It is submitted by the appellant that it (sic he?) was shown to the witness P.W.1 before the T.I.P. and T.I.P. is doubtful. 7. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the case admits that there is only single identification by P.W. 1. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, I find that in order to prove the charges prosecution has examined only five witnesses. P.W.1 is Rajmani Tiwary who is the informant while P.W.2 is Chandradev Lal, a neighbour who has stated that dacoity was committed in the night. 9. P.W. 3 is Dr. Krishna Murari Shah who found injuries on the persons of P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary and P.W. 4 is Hemlata Sinha wife of P.W. 2 Chandradev Lal. PW. 5 Asha Devi is wife of P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary. It is important to note that P.W. 2 is Chandradev Lal who could not identify any of the dacoits. He stated that all the dacoits had put galmocha on their face and hence he could not identify any of the dacoits. His wife P.W. 4 Smt. Hemlata Sinha stated that she did not identify any of the dacoits because electric light was disconnected at the time of occurrence and the night was dark night. P.W. 5 stated that she had not identified the accused Pradeep Ram during T.I.P. However, she stated in the T.I.P. that only one dacoit assaulted her husband but he was not present in Court. 10. Thus, only one witness P.W.1 identified the appellant. P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary stated in the Court that during investigation on 28.8.1989 he was called in the District Jail, Daltonganj for T.I.P. where he identified one dacoit Ramchandra Bhuiyan who assaulted him at the time of dacoity. 10. Thus, only one witness P.W.1 identified the appellant. P.W. 1 Rajmani Tiwary stated in the Court that during investigation on 28.8.1989 he was called in the District Jail, Daltonganj for T.I.P. where he identified one dacoit Ramchandra Bhuiyan who assaulted him at the time of dacoity. Again he had gone for T.I.P. on 10.11.1989 and he identified two dacoits namely Wakil Choudhary and Pradeep Ram. He had stated that at the time of occurrence lantern was burning in his house. He also stated that after committing dacoity in his house dacoit also committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 2 Chandradev Lal. He further stated that he had forgotten to inform that the lantern was burning in the house at the time of occurrence. At Para 22 he denied that the appellant was shown to him from (sic before ?) T.I.P. 11. Thus, after going through the evidence of P.W. 1, I find that the informant claims to have identified the appellant in the light of torch. In the F.I.R. and in Court he proved his case that he identified in the light of lantern, which he forgot to mention in the F.I.R., while his neighbour in whose house also dacoity was committed stated that there was no light and all the dacoits had galmocha and it was impossible to identify anybody. Moreover since the I.O. has not been examined, defence was prejudiced since they have not got any opportunity of cross-examination on the point as to when the appellant was arrested, and when he was produced in Court and T.I.P. was held. 12 Thus, as discussed above, I find that the single identification by P.W. 1 is doubtful in nature and not corroborating by any other evidence. The appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges levelled against him. In the result the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8th January, 2002 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 1990 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant was on bail and he is released from the bondage of his bail bond.