8. Now coming to the status of remaining appellant Radhe Shyam Dharhi, from the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned lower court was very much apprehensive having single identification against him. It is further evident that appellant Radhe Shyam Dharhi has been identified only by the PW.3, informant. From the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned lower court had put emphasis by referring so many decisions that even on the basis of single identification conviction could be recorded but, subject to authenticity, reliability and the learned lower court swayed on that very score without perceiving the fact that the evidence of PW.3 relating to identification of appellant needs in depth scrutiny in the background of the fact that he along with his brother Nuri Mahto have slept at the same place, both of them were overpowered by the dacoits, both of them were tied, although, during course of evidence PW.2 Nuri Mahto and PW.3 Ganesh Mahto have not stated with regard to part played by the miscreant but, from the evidence of PW.5, the Magistrate who had exhibited the T.I. chart has categorically stated that during course of identification of both the accused, both the witnesses have disclosed that both the accused were engaged in tying them with the lungi and assaulted that means to say, there was close proximity in between and in the aforesaid background, non identification by the PW.2 against the appellant Radhe Shyam Dharhi is a circumstance whereupon, the
