J. P. DESAI, J. :-, J.

( 1 ) ON 8-5-1985 this incident took place at about 5 A. M. between Nainpur and Kanij Railway Stations on Ahmedabad-Baroda railway track. Bakulkumar raval and some others were travelling by this train. We are not concerned with the other persons travelling by this train and who were examined as prosecution witness at the trial because the present petitioner is convicted only on the evidence of bakulkukar Raval as regards his identity. At about 5. 30 am. this Bakulkumar Raval awoke on hearing the shouts and found a person standing there with a knife in his hand and he had pointed the knife at his body. There were 6 to 7 persons. The wrist watch which he had put on was snatched away by one of them. The person who snatched away the wrist watch was having fairly white skin, was able-bodied and was about 5-8" tall and he had put on a blue jersey and black pant. The person who had taken away the wrist watch was single- bodied person and had put on white pant and bush shirt and his height was about 5"- 4" and he had moustaches and was also having fairly white skin. The person who committed robbery went away after committing the offence. About four months thereafter the present petitioner was arrested and one month thereafter he was identified by this Bakulkumar at the identification parade. He was tried along with others before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. The learned assistant Sessions Judge convicted this petitioner of the offence punishable under section 395 I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigirous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The matter was carried in appeal before the same Court and the learned addl. Sessions Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the order of conviction and sentence so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Being dissatisfied with the same this Revision Application has been filed before this court.

( 2 ) MR. Kartikeya Raval appointed for the petitioner has been heard. Mr. G. D. Bhatt, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has also been heard. I have also gone through the judgment of the learned addl. Sessions Judge delivered in appeal and also through the material evidence on record. It is true that the Courts below have reached a concurrent finding of fact, relying on the evidence of Bakulkumar Raval that the identity of the present petitioner as one of the decoits is established. This court will be slow in interfering with such a finding recorded by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal. But here is a case which depends solely on the identification by a single witness. I do not propose to lay down that no conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of a single witness based on identification at an identification parade, but there are peculiar features of this case. The incident took place on 8-5- 1985. The statement of this Bakulkumar was recorded about four months thereafter. This accused was arrested about two days after the statement of Bakulkumar was recorded. Then after a month identification parade was held. Some explanations are given in this regard, but the fact remains that the incident took place in the early hours of 8-5-1985 and the statement of bakulkumar was recorded for the first time by the police officer about four months thereafter and the identification parade was held one month after the arrest of the petitioner. These facts have to be borne in mind while considering the case against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that in the substantive evidence bakulkumar Raval has stated that he had identified one person at the identification parade. He identified before the Court the accused-petitioner as the person whom he had identified at the identification parade. It is pertinent to note that the present petitioner was accused No. 4 before the Court and not accused No. 3 before the Court. But it appears that the original accused no. 2 e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document