LAW FOR ALL

none of the witnesses had disclosed any features for identification which would lend some corroboration. The identification parade itself was held 25 days after the arrest. Their chance meeting was also in the night without there being any special occasion for them to notice the features of any of the accused which would then register in their minds so as to enable them to identify them on a future date. The chance meeting was also for few minutes. In the circumstances, in our considered view such identification simplicitor cannot form the basis or be taken as the fulcrum for the entire case of prosecution. The suspicion expressed by PW 8 Saraswati Singh was also not enough to record the finding of guilt against the appellant. We therefore grant benefit of doubt to the appellant and hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant.= In Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar[6], this court observed that if on evaluation of the case, a conclusion is reached that no conviction of any accused was possible the benefit of that decision must be extended to the similarly situated co-accused even though he had not challenged the order by way of the appeal. To similar effect was the dictum of this court in Suresh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar[7] and in Pawan Kumar . State of Haryana[8]and in Mohinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others.[9] In the circumstances we allow the present appeal, set aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below against the appellant and acquit him of all the charges leveled against him. We further direct that the benefit of this acquittal and our decision will also enure to the advantage of the non- appealing accused namely Sk. Sahid @Bablu.