JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, by a Judgment dated 2.3.1996 passed in Sessions Case No. 313 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.3.1985 while the Informant and others were going on a Jeep on election duty, they were intercepted by some miscreants and their articles were looted away. However, the miscreants were chased out of whom present Appellant and another accused were caught. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom PW-5 is a formal witness whereas PW-2 and PW-3 even though have supported the case of the prosecution but did not identify the Appellant in Court. PW-4 is a tendered witness. The prosecution case relies on a sole evidence of PW-1 who supported the case of the prosecution as well as identified the 2 Appellant in Court. The Informant has neither been examined by the prosecution nor has the Investigating Officer been examined in the present case. 4. I find from the evidence of PW-1 that even though he has supported the fact that the Appellant was caught and chased but there was no recovery from his possession nor has the exact distance where the Appellant was arrested from the place of occurrence, been given. 5. In the result, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the Appellant on the sole testimony of PW-1 which is not corroborated by any independent source. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Case No. 313 of 1990 by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.