JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to seven years RI by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur by judgment dated 03.12.1994 in S.Tr. No. 236/129 of 1993/1993. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the night between 15/16.02.1993 a dacoity was committed in the house of the informant P.W. 2 and in the flash of torch-light he identified the Appellant and others. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are formal whereas P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are corroborative but only on the point of dacoity having been committed in the house of P.W. 2. P.W. 2, informant is the sole identifying witness. The Investigating Officer has not been examined during trial nor has the torch from which the identification was made by P.W. 2 been brought on record by the prosecution. 4. In view of the fact that there is sole identification against the Appellant and the means of identification has not been proved by the prosecution, I am inclined to allow the appeal giving the Appellant benefit of doubt. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 03.12.1994 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.Tr. No. 236/129 of 1993/1993 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.