S.N. Deedwania, J.
1. Appellants Mardana and Amar Singh have preferred his appeal against their conviction under Sections 353, and 379/34 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur vide his judgment dated January 25, 1975.
2. Briefly stated the facts are these On the night of 16 9.72, police constables Man Singh, Murarilal and Sohan Lal were on 'Gusht' duty in the own of Balina. At about 3 a m. they saw four persons carrying two she buffaloes. Constable Man Singh saw them neer the Irrigation Dak Bungalow He flashed the torch light at them and also challenged. One of the four persons escaped in the Bajara crop with the buffaloes and the three other persons came and attacked Man Singh who was at that time all alone because Murarilal and Sohaulal had remained behind to attend the call of pature. All the three assailants were armed with lathis. Man Singh recognised two of the appellants as Mardana and Amar Singh. Man Singh was hit on his left hand, his belt was broken and also his watch fell down. Man Singh raised a hue and cry. thereafter Murarilal, Sohanlal and Bhagwan Singh, police constables came near him. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence -and convicted the appellants in the aforesaid manner while acquitting them of the offence under Sections 383 and 325 I.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. and perused the record of the case.
4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that it was not safe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of constable Man Singh P. W. 3 Man Singh no doubt stated that he could recognise the appellants with the help of torch light. However, he has admitted that as soon as he flashed the torch and challenged the appellant one of them gave him a lathi blow which struck his left hand. Thereafter the appellants ran away. Thus this witness had a few seconds at his disposal to recognise the appellants and that too with the help of a torch light. In the circumstances, in my opinion it is not safe to rely on the sole restimony of this witness on the point of identification in the absence of any other evidence, direct of circumstantial. This witness has no where stated that when the other police constables came, he told them the names of the appellants. I need not discuss the evidence of P. W. 5 Sohan Singh because he had been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge for cogent person. The other witness who arrived at the scene of the incident soon after was P.W. 1 Murarilal. He stated that Man Singh told him that he had recognised the two appellants. In my opinion no credence can be attached to the testimony on this witness because of the fact that he and not state so in his earlier police statement. The witness admitted that it was dark night. Another infirmity which can be noticed in the testimony Man Sinah is that he stated that when he raised the alarm murarilal and Sohansingh cane and thereafter the S.H.O. Veerendra Singh and two other constables. However, such is not the statement of P.W.7 Veerendra Singh. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases the solitary testimony of a witness about the identification of the culprits in such circumstances should not be believed in the absence of corroboration from any other evidence, direct or circumstantial. In this view of the matter the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
5. I therefore, accept the appeal and acquit the appellants of the offence under Sections 353 and 379/34 IPC The appellants are on bail and used not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled.