"10. Turning now to the case of
appellant Mohd.Anis, it may be stated that
his conviction is based upon the solitary
evidence of his identification by Ranjan
Singh (PW 7) in Court as well as in the
test identification parade. Even according
to prosecution case as disclosed in the
first information report as well as the
evidence of RAnjan Singh (PW 7), this
appellant was sitting on rear seatof the
scooter which came from left side of the
car and fired at the victims. In the first
information report, it has been
specifically stated that the associates of
the informant who were in the Car could
identify this appellant, who fired from the
scooter, on seeing him and the informant
could identify the person who was driving
the motor cycle onseeing him and on which
motor cycle accused Surendra Singh Rautela
was sitting on the rear seat and fired at
the victims. From the aforesaid statement
of the informant in the first information
report, it would appear that he could not
identify appellant Mohd. Anis even by face
and for the first time in the Sessions
Court, the witness identified him. In view
of the aforesaid statement in the first
information report, the identification of
the appellant Mohd. Anis by Ranjan singh
(PW 7) in the test identification parade
becomes farce and no reliance can be placed
upon his identification in Court. This
being the position, we have no option but
