GOPAL PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant ha been convicted under Section 395 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of rupees five thousand and for non-payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that at about 09.00 p.m. about 15-16 criminals with torch in their hands and two persons pointed gun on the informant and tied his hands and legs by towel and dhoti and, thereafter, they asked where he (the informant) has kept money and ransacked the house and looted the articles. It has, further, been alleged that 6-7 remained inside out of which he has identified Hulas Rai, Parikchan Singh, Dhanpat Das and Gita Rai. It is alleged that Hulas Rai and Prakchan Singh pointed gun on him and, thereafter the dacoits looted the articles of the house and decamped and when the dacoits were decamping an alarm was raised and villagers came and chased the dacoits, but, none was apprehended. 4. On the fardbeyan, the first information report lodged, investigation taken place, charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and the case committed to the Court of sessions and during trial seven witnesses examined by the prosecution. 5. The trial Court taken into consideration the fact that the only witness, who identified the appellant, is the informant, but, no test identification parade has been held. The evidence of this informant, who claimed to have identified the appellant, with specific act pointing the gun on the informant at the time of dacoity. Hence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 6. The defence of the accused person that he has falsely been implicated in the case. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, challenged the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that this is a case of single identification and there is neither any corroboration nor any witness has supported the prosecution case regarding the implication of the appellant and others who have been named have also been acquitted in separate trial. 8. The learned counsel for the State, however, opposed and supported the order of conviction, recorded by the trial Court. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the State, however, opposed and supported the order of conviction, recorded by the trial Court. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that it is not disputed that seven witnesses have been examined in this case, but, none supported the prosecution case with regard to the dacoity, except the informant who has named the appellant and identified the appellant. However, out of seven witnesses, witnesses 1 to 5 have been declared hostile as has not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 7 is a formal witness and, hence, the only witness, who has come to support the prosecution case, is P.W. 6, the informant. However, the informant, in his evidence, has stated that he identified Hulas Rai, who was armed with gun and as pointed gun to him. He has, further, stated that Hulas Rai had not covered his face. It has, further, been stated that Hulas Rai is co-villager, but, has stated that his house is five kilometer away from the house of the informant. He has, further, stated that Hulas Rai was not known to him since before the occurrence. In his, further, evidence, in paragraph 18 of the deposition, he has stated that at the time when the occurrence took place, the informant identified Hulas Rai. He has, further, stated that at the time of occurrence when he was making hulla in captivity of dacoits, another dacoit stated “Hulas” what are you doing, why he (informant) is crying or shouting” on this disclosure of the name, the informant identified the appellant. However, from the evidence of the informant, it is apparent that the appellant, Hulas Rai, was not known to the informant since before and he identified the appellant at the time of occurrence on the disclosure by another co-accused (dacoits), disclosing his name as “Hulas”. Further, it is strange that in the first information report not only the name of this appellant but even the parentage and the address has been mentioned. However, the informant has disclosed his name and village as Chaita, Tola Bastari, P.S. Angar Ghat, district Samastipur mentioning the name of the appellant as Hulas Rai, son of late Babu Lal Rai. Further, it is strange that in the first information report not only the name of this appellant but even the parentage and the address has been mentioned. However, the informant has disclosed his name and village as Chaita, Tola Bastari, P.S. Angar Ghat, district Samastipur mentioning the name of the appellant as Hulas Rai, son of late Babu Lal Rai. Hence, from the evidence of this informant that the appellant was not known to him since before and he identified him on the disclosure of the co-accused (dacoit) his name as Hulas, then, how could he know the parentage of the appellant ? More over, having regard to the fact that it is a case of single identification and there is neither any corroboration nor any one has supported the prosecution case about identification nor means of identification, the evidence of the informant does not inspire confidence, hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. Hence, it is hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the order of conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. ?