JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 1994 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro at Chas has dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner along with co-convict- Akbar @ Ali Immam Ansari. 3. It is stated that the revision petitioner has been convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 379 of India Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years, by the trial court, being the First Assistant Sessions Judge, Bokaro. This criminal revision has been filed only on behalf of the convict- Chhotu @ Salimuddin Ansari. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 17.12.85 when the informant who was a constable of C.I.S.F. saw two persons in a black colour Yezdi motorcycle coming out through gate No.V of Bokaro Steel Plant with great speed, the informant out of suspicion signalled the motorcycle to stop but the motorcycle pushed the informant and went out of the gate but because of the imbalance of the motorcycle, two pieces of copper weighing 50 kg each which the pillion rider had concealed in his shawl, fell down on the ground. The informant caught hold of the pillion rider and gave him to the custody of P.W.4- another personnel of C.I.S.F. but somehow that person get himself extricated from the P.W.4 and wanted to escape on the motorcycle. The informant gave two blows of stick to the motorcyclist and the motorcyclist escaped leaving the motorcycle. The informant chased them and one of them fired from fire arm causing gunshot injury to the informant. The workers assembled there, identified the person who fired at the informant to be Akbar and the petitioner is stated to be driving the motorcycle as Chotu. 5. On the basis of the fard beyan of the informant, police registered the case and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the revision petitioner and the co-accused. The trial was conducted by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Chas. During the trial, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses. 6. P.W.9- Bhim Prasad Mahato is the formal witness who has proved the formal FIR marked Ext.6 and the fardbeyan marked Ext. 7. 7. P.W.8- Arbind Kumar Sinha is the Malkhana In-charge of Balidih Police Station and he produced the material exhibits of the case which were marked Ext. During the trial, the prosecution altogether examined nine witnesses. 6. P.W.9- Bhim Prasad Mahato is the formal witness who has proved the formal FIR marked Ext.6 and the fardbeyan marked Ext. 7. 7. P.W.8- Arbind Kumar Sinha is the Malkhana In-charge of Balidih Police Station and he produced the material exhibits of the case which were marked Ext. I to V and the concerned paper in which entry of the material exhibit was made, was marked Ext. 5. 8. P.W.3- Fahiruddin Ansari and P.W.2- Gulam Ansari have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. 9. P.W.1- Laxmi Kant Kamath has been examined to identify the two pieces of copper being taken by this revision petitioner and the co-accused to be the property of B.S.L. and the certificate granted has been proved by him which has been marked Ext. 1. 10. P.W.5 is the doctor whose testimony is not relevant so far as this revision petition is concerned, as this revision petitioner has only been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. 11. P.W.7- Brijendra Singh is the informant of the case. He has stated having seen two persons going out of the plant in a motorcycle at a high speed and the pillion rider was covering himself with a shawl. He asked the motorcycle to stop but they pushed the informant and went out of the gate. The pillion rider fell down from the motorcycle. The P.W.7 gave lathi blow to person who was driving the motorcycle. Two pieces of copper each weighing 50 kg fell down on the ground which is the articles they were carrying after committing theft of the same from the plant. P.W.7 handed over the custody of pillion rider to P.W.4 however the pillion rider got himself freed from the P.W.4 and boarded the motorcycle. P.W.7 gave a blow with a stick at which the co-convict- Ali Immam Ansari fired shot at the P.W.7 which hit in his abdomen and left hand. The informant became senseless and he was taken to B.G.H. in ambulance. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.7 has not disclosed the name of this petitioner. He has only identified the accused that was present in the court on the date of his examination as a witness in court and claimed to identify the accused that was not present. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.7 has not disclosed the name of this petitioner. He has only identified the accused that was present in the court on the date of his examination as a witness in court and claimed to identify the accused that was not present. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no Test Identification Parade was done as the accused did not turn up in the Test Identification Parade on two occasions. 12. P.W.4- T. Raj Shekharan has also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 has neither taken the name of the petitioner nor identified him during his deposition in court. 13. P.W.6- Anam Nayak is also a constable in C.I.S.F. He has also supported the case of the prosecution. He is a post occurrence witness. 14. On the basis of evidences, the learned trial court convicted inter-alia the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code only and sentenced him as already indicated above. 15. Learned appellate court in the impugned judgment has narrated the evidence in the record and the prosecution case and without noting down the submissions made on behalf of the appellant or the respondents has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal finding no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned trial court. 16. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the learned trial court erred by failing to take into consideration the fact that none of the witnesses of the prosecution have identified the revision petitioner to be the person who has committed any offence. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has been convicted solely on the testimony of P.W.7. It is then submitted that the P.W.7 during his deposition in court has not named the revision petitioner nor has he stated as to the accused who was present was the revision petitioner or the other man nor he has attributed any role to the accused who was present in court. It is then submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the learned appellate court failed to take into consideration the fact that nothing has been seized from the possession of the revision petitioner. It is then submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the learned appellate court failed to take into consideration the fact that nothing has been seized from the possession of the revision petitioner. It is then submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that there is no evidence as to from whose possession the alleged stolen property was stolen. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that keeping in view the fact that it is undisputed that P.W.7 was not knowing the revision petitioner prior to the occurrence, in the absence of any Test Identification Parade, the learned courts below ought not to have convicted the revision petitioner on the basis of the first time identification of the revision petitioner and the co-accused in court by P.W.7. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the learned appellate court has failed to take into consideration the fact that non-examination of the I.O. by the prosecution in this case has prejudiced the revision petitioner as in the absence of any Test Identification Parade, the revision petitioner has been prejudiced by his first time identification in court by the P.W.7. It is lastly submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that this is a fit case where the revision petitioner be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law be set aside and the revision petitioner be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 17. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts below and submits that P.W. 7 has categorically stated about the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner and the learned appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal. Hence, it is submitted that, this criminal revision being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner and the learned appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal. Hence, it is submitted that, this criminal revision being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of mere identification of the accused persons at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently is of a weak character as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahabir vs. State of Delhi reported in (2008) 16 SCC 481 . In the absence of the examination of the investigating Officer of the case, without any plausible reason, it is not forthcoming as to under what circumstances the investigating Officer of the case was not examined as a witness of the prosecution during the trial. 19. Now coming to the facts of this case without doubt, only the P.W.7 has identified the revision petitioner in court but he has neither taken his name nor attributed any specific role played by him during the occurrence. He has just stated that he identifies the person who was present in the court at the time of his examination as a witness in the court and he can identify the person who was not present. None of the witnesses have deposed that the seized article being two pieces of copper weighing 50 kg each was carried by the revision-petitioner. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is certainly insufficient to establish the charges of the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the revision-petitioner and this is a fit case where the revision-petitioner be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code by giving him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment and order of sentence passed by both the courts below being not sustainable in law are set aside and the revision-petitioner is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code in G.R. No.1209B of 1985 arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No.122 of 1985, by giving him the benefit of doubt. 21. Perusal of the record reveals that the revision petitioner is in custody. In view of his acquittal in G.R. No.1209B of 1985 arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No.122 of 1985, the revision petitioner- Chhotu @ Salimuddin Ansari is directed to be released from custody unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. 22. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed. 23. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith.