Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the state.
(2.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.02.1999 and order of sentence dated 27.02.1999 respectively passed in S.T. No. 24 of 1979 by Shri Dhruv Narayan Upadhyay, 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Section 394 of the IPC. and sentenced him to undergo R.I for seven years and also a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer one month simple imprisonment. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant is based on evidence of P.W. 2. Except the evidence of P.W.2, nobody identified this appellant. Even identification of P.W. 2 is contradicted by himself in his cross -examination. Moreover, he submitted that he identified the accused in the light of lantern, which was burning outside the shop, but the said lantern was not produced in the Court. Other witnesses and Investigating Officer have not been examined. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and submitted that the solitary eye -witness P.W.2 is reliable witness and trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of single identification of a witness.;