JUDGMENT : A.K. Trivedi, J.- Petitioner who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 392, IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for three years vide judgment dated 5.9.1994 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah in G.R. Case No. 1722/1986 which has been found concurred vide order dated 3.7.2002 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cr. Appeal No. 75 of 1994 by way of dismissing the appeal, however, modified the sentences by reducing it to two years, has challenged the same under present petition. 2. Shiv Narain Singh (PW 3) gave his fard-e-beyan on 17.8.1986 at about 10:30 p.m. alleging inter alia that in usual course he got down from Tiwari Bus along with his son Gopal Jee, Nand Lal and a co-villager, Ram Bachan Singh near village-Budhawal where four unknown persons also got down in a way to their home after attending market. Just after starting of bus all of them (unknown four persons) caught hold of him and one of them took out fire-arm, pointed it towards him and took away Rs. 5500/-. the sale proceed, wrist watch, one bucket full of fruits, empty jute bags, wrist watch belonging to Ram Bachan Singh and then thereafter, escaped therefrom. They raised alarm as well as also chased the miscreants but none of them was caught. He further disclosed physical feature of the miscreants and had so claimed identification. 3. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against unknown and investigation proceeded during course thereof, apprehension of petitioner as well as one Mathura Singh was effected who were put on TIP and was identified thereunder leading to submission of charge-sheet followed with trial which ultimately resulted in conviction. 4. From the L.C. record, it is evident that I.O. has not been examined. The Magistrate who had conducted TIP was also not examined. T.I. Chart has not been exhibited. Nand Lal was not produced. Having the aforesaid deficiency persisting on the record, it is• found that prosecution had produced five witnesses to support its case out of whom PW 1 as well as PW 5 are formal in nature. Therefore, their evidences are not at all relevant with regard to occurrence so alleged. 5. Nand Lal was not produced. Having the aforesaid deficiency persisting on the record, it is• found that prosecution had produced five witnesses to support its case out of whom PW 1 as well as PW 5 are formal in nature. Therefore, their evidences are not at all relevant with regard to occurrence so alleged. 5. Now remains the evidence of PW 2, Ram Bachan Singh, one of the victims, PW 3, Shiv Narain Singh the informant as well as victim and PW 4, Gopal Jee Singh, son of informant who was along with informant as well as PW 2 during course of occurrence with Nand Lal (not examined). 6. Before coming to discussion, the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 on its merit, it is also apparent from the prosecution evidence that no source of identification has been disclosed by them either at the initial version or during course of trial. PW 4 had not participated in TIP to identify the accused, however identified him in the Court for the first time. The most crucial aspect of the present case appears from the order-sheet of L.C. record which shows that petitioner was bailed out on 20.9.1986 and then on a prayer made by the Investigating Authority, he was directed to appear before the Court for the purpose of TIP and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.10.1986. Petitioner appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.10.86. At that very time, the I.O. was present and on his prayer Sri. D.D. Verma was requested to hold TIP. From the record it is evident that on the same day T.I. Chart was received by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, having been bailed out, the petitioner had access in the locality as well as on the date of TIP itself in and around Court where TIP was conducted (as is evident though not exhibited). Because of non-examination of I.O., the intermediary event could not come out and in likewise manner the sanctity of the TIP because of the fact that from the T.I. Chart, it is evident that the same was conducted in the Court room itself for want of examination of learned J.M. 7. Now having the aforesaid additional fact as disclosed above, the evidences are to be seen. Now having the aforesaid additional fact as disclosed above, the evidences are to be seen. PW 2 had stated that on 17.8.86 at about 9:30 p.m. he got down from Tiwari Bus along with Gopal Jee and co-villager, Shiv Narain Singh (informant). One child had also got down from the bus. Four unknown persons also got down. As soon as the vehicle proceeded, all the four unknown persons caught hold of them, took out pistol and further directed that in case of resistance they would be murdered. They snatched away his wrist watch, cash, bucket from Shiv Narain Singh. Shiv Narain had disclosed the amount as Rs. 5500/- which he was carrying after sale of rice. He had identified the face of the miscreants. He had identified one of the miscreants during TIP whom he also identified in the dock having name Raj Kumar Choudhry. He further disclosed that this Raj Kumar Choudhry had snatched away his wrist watch. During cross-examination, he had denied suggestion that I.O. had shown the accused to him since before TIP. He had further disclosed that he along with Shiv Narain had come for TIP. At the time of TIP only both of them were present and none else. 8. PW 3 is the informant. During his examination-in-chief, he had reiterated the version whatever stated by him during course of recording of fard-e-beyan save and except claiming that it was a moonlit night. He had further stated in para-3 that during course of TIP, he had identified Mathura Prasad and Raj Kumar Choudhary. At that very time, Raj Kumar Choudhry was armed with pistol. He had exhibited his signature over fard-e-beyan. During cross-examination, he had stated that he was noticed to participate in the TIP after two months of the occurrence. In para-6, he had stated that he had got no occasion to meet with Darogaji on the date of TIP. 9. PW 4 is Gopal Jee. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated the prosecution version in the same manner as was stated by PWs 2 and 3. He had also identified both of the accused whereunder Raj Kumar Choudhry was identified carrying pistol. During cross-examination, he had admitted that he had not participated during course of TIP. No cross-examination is available with regard to his identification. During his examination-in-chief, he had stated the prosecution version in the same manner as was stated by PWs 2 and 3. He had also identified both of the accused whereunder Raj Kumar Choudhry was identified carrying pistol. During cross-examination, he had admitted that he had not participated during course of TIP. No cross-examination is available with regard to his identification. This witness was examined on 24.6.1988 that means to say, about approximately two years after the occurrence wherein he had identified both the accused for the first time. 10. Now coming to the fard-e-beyan, it is evident that the informant had disclosed that one person who was lean and thin, long and of dark complexion and was wearing brown coloured full pant and Churidaar Kameez, took out pistol, pointed it towards him and took away Rs. 5500/- from him, wrist watch, one bucket containing fruits, jute bags as well as wrist watch of Ram Bachan Singh by all the four miscreants. Although, PW 2 had disclosed that petitioner had snatched away his wrist watch but neither PW 3 nor PW 4 had spoken even a single word against the petitioner save and except that he was carrying pistol at the time of occurrence. Therefore, there is inconsistency amongst the evidences of all the material PWs relating to part played by the petitioner during course of occurrence. 11. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal v. Republic of India, as reported in AIR 2011 SC 1436 in para-11 it has been held :- "....1t is well settled principle that in the absence of any independent corroboration like TIP held by Judicial Magistrate, the evidence of eye-witnesses as to the identification of the appellants/accused for the first time before the trial Court generally cannot be accepted. As explained in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 case, that if the case is supported by other materials, identification of the accused in the dock for the first time would be permissible subject to confirmation by other corroborative evidence, which are lacking in the case on hand except for A1 and A3." 12. As explained in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 case, that if the case is supported by other materials, identification of the accused in the dock for the first time would be permissible subject to confirmation by other corroborative evidence, which are lacking in the case on hand except for A1 and A3." 12. Now coming to the deficiencies as pointed out earlier certainly has got bearing that too in the background of the fact that on 31.10.86, it is apparent from the order-sheet itself that there was presence of police official in the Court supported with the evidence of PW 2, Ram Bachan Singh. However, the aforesaid disclosure has intentionally been withheld by PW 3, Shiv Narain Singh the informant. Apart from this, neither PW 3 nor PW 4 has spoken about the moonlit night which fard-e-beyan also lacks. However, during course of evidence of PW 3 on his own volunteered that it was moonlit night and that is the purpose of claiming identification. The aforesaid event, on account of non-examination of I.O. remained unexplained. Hence, it looks unsafe to accept the factum of identification, the manner of identification so claimed by the prosecution. 13. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner is found entitled for benefit of doubt. The successive judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned lower Court are set aside. The petition is allowed. 14. Since petitioner is oil bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Petition allowed.