Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THE appeal is by Hanuman Singh who has been convicted under sec. 394 I. P. C. THE reference is by the Judge who convicted him. It appears that the Judge applied sec. 562 to the case of Hanumansingh, and bound him over for good behaviour. Later the learned Judge discovered that sec. 562 Cr. P. C. could not be used in favour of a person who has been convicted under sec. 394, and he has, therefore, made this reference to correct that mistake.
(2.) THE prosecution story was briefly this. One Luna jat of village Sadasar was in his field on the afternoon of the 14th October, 1951. Two persons came on a camel and forcibly took away the camel of Luna jat from the field. THEreupon Luna pursued them on another camel and also raised an alaram. His story is that he overtook them, and gave a lathi blow to the man who was riding on his camel with the result that that man fell down and; Luna recovered his camel. That man got on the camel on which his associate was. Before however they could get way, Labhu met them and tried to intercept them, THEreupon, the other man shot at Labhu who was injured. THE first man, who was Hanuman Singh accused, then took away the camel of Labhu. THEse persons were chased I for some more time, but they managed to escape. On the 29th of October, information is said to have been given to the Superintendent of Police, Churu, that Hanuman Singh and Moha-nia, who is said to be a notorious outlaw, were concerned in this incident, and that they were in village Rajpuria. Thereupon, there was a raid in that village, but nobody was captured. The police followed the tracks of these persons who were said to have escaped from Rajpuria, and succeeded in arresting Hanuman Singh. Mohania has not been found up till now. Thereupon Hanuman Singh was put for identification, and was prosecuted under sec. 394. Haunman Singh pleaded "not guilty", and said that he had been arrested by the police while he was going from village Shekhisar to his own village. He made some vague allegations against the Superintendent of Police. Finally he added that he had been shown to the witnesses except Labhu at the Police station before he was sent to the judicial lock-up. The evidence in this case may be divided into two parts. There are firstly statements of certain witnesses who say that they saw Mohania and the accused together sometime before the incident or soon after the incident. Then there is the evidence of three witnesses, namely Luna, Badri and Labhu who actually saw the accused running away after the incident and had taken part in the chase to some extent or the other. We shall first examine the evidence of Luna, Labhu and Badri. Of these three only Luna had identified the accused. Badri said in the court that he did not see the robbers clearly and would not be able to identify them. Labhu certainly said in his statement in the sessions court that the man who took away his camel was the accused present in the dock; but he had failed to identify him at the identification parade which was held on the 20th of December, 1951. We are left only with the statement of Luna who says that he identified the accused as one of the two men. We, however, find it difficult to rely on the testimony of Luna in this case. His examination-in-chief seems to show that he did not know either of the two persons who had robbed him of his camel. The prosecution case seems to be that the robber was Mohania, a notorious outlaw. Only on that assumption, can the evidence of the witnesses of the first set, who said that the accused was seen with Mohania, be of any value; but Luna admitted in his cross-examination that he knew Mohania from before. If that was so, we should have expected that Mohana's name would be given to the police when the report was made. The statement of Luna shows that he had met Nandram before Nandram went away to report at the Thana. If, therefore, the other robber was Mohania and Luna failed to recognise him, it is hardly likely that he could have seen this accused well enough to be able to identify him a month later. In any case, in this state of affairs we are not prepared to rely on the solitary testimony of Luna and his identification of accused. As for the other set of witnesses, their evidence is only of value as corroborating the statement of Luna. Once the statement of Luna is open to doubt, not much value can be attached to this evidence of corroboration. Besides, if Luna's evidence is to be accepted, he did not know the other robber. Therefore, the other robber could not be Mohania, and all this evidence of the association of the accused with Mohania is, in our view, not true. Dhanna P. W. says that he saw the accused and Mohania together at a time which would be shortly after the incident. They had Labhu's camel with them. But this camel was found a few days later in a cattle pound. We therefore doubt the evidence of this witness also for there is no reason why the robbers who had secured the camel should let it loose. On a careful consideration, therefore, of the evidence of the prosecution, we have come to the conclusion that the case against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. We must therefore give him the benefit of the doubt, and order his acquittal. Under these circumstances, the reference has become infructuous and will have to be dismissed. We, therefore, allow the appeal of Hanuman Singh and giving him the benefit of the doubt order his acquittal. He has already entered into a bond with a surety under sec. 562 Cr. P. C. , and this will now stand cancelled. The reference is rejected. .;