JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1995 by a judgment dated 24.2.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant PW-2 Firoz Alam is that he along with his wife was returning home on 15.9.1994, the Appellant armed with pistol, stopped the rickshaw of the Informant and on the point of pistol had robbed him of his personal possessions. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-1 Sahnaz Khatoon is the wife of the Informant whereas PW-2 Md. Firoz Alam is the Informant himself. PW-3 Nagendra Bhagat and PW-7 Bijli Sahni are witnesses on the point of search of the house of the Appellant. PW-4 Satya Narain Sah has been tendered whereas PW-5 Ayodhya Sah and PW-6 Md. Hussain are corroborated witnesses on the factum of occurrence. PW-8 Bindeshwar Pd. Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW-2 Md. Firoz Alam in his evidence has stated that on the alleged date and time when he was returning from Phulwarisharif along with his wife, the Appellant armed with pistol and another person armed with knife came there and forcibly took away their possessions. PW-1 Sahnaz Khatoon also stated likewise that they were robbed at the point of pistol and dager. PW-5 was declared hostile as also PW-6 who was a resident nearby place. 4. Apart from PW-1 and PW-2, no other witness has claimed to identify the miscreants. Both PW-2 and PW-7 who are search and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-1 Sahnaz Khatoon identified the Appellant in the dock and stated that they had learnt the name of the accused persons. Thus, the Court is left with the evidence only of PW-2. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew the accused from before but in his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the name of the accused from before. He had learnt the names from the person who had gathered at the place of occurrence. Thus, in absence of any corroborative material by way of support from independent witnesses that they had seen and disclosed the name of the Appellant to PW-2, the Informant, the story of their identification by the Informant becomes highly doubtful. He had learnt the names from the person who had gathered at the place of occurrence. Thus, in absence of any corroborative material by way of support from independent witnesses that they had seen and disclosed the name of the Appellant to PW-2, the Informant, the story of their identification by the Informant becomes highly doubtful. Further, the fact that the prosecution did not think it necessary to put the Appellant on Test Identification Parade which alone could have lent positive assurance to the prosecution case with regard to the identification, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the Appellant on the doubtful evidence of PW-2. 5. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1995 by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.