JUDGMENT Shiv Dayal, J. Both these appeals can be conveniently decided by a common judgment. Prema, Prahlad, Kanhiya, Kumersingh Hakim and Rupalaya Appellants have been convicted of the offence under Section 395 of the Penal Code and each one has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Bahadorya and Mungjiya Appellants have been convicted of the offences under section 395/397 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to 7 years and 8 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Deokaran has been convicted of the offence under Section 395/109, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment, A dacoity was committed in village Ronsala where property worth Rs. 9,217 was looted. Ramprasad chowkidar lodged the first information report in police station Awanti Barodia on the 11th February at 9 p. m., the distance being 25 miles. No dacoit is named but it is mentioned that 15 or 16 persons committed the dacoity. The convictions of the Appellants in Appeal No. 75 (i.e. all convicts except Deokaran) are based on three pieces of evidence: (1) Identification of the accused, (2) The evidence of the approver (Rustom P. W. 8), (3) Recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused on information given by them. Except Mungjiya all the accused had been arrested on the 1st, the 2nd, the 5th and the 7th March. A test identification parade was held on the 1st April when all the arrested accused were put up for identification. Mungjiya was arrested on the 7th April. Two more test identification parades were held on the 17th April, one for Mungjiya alone and the other for all the accused. It is at once striking that a separate parade was held for Mungjiya when he was included in the parade held for all the accused on the 17th April. In all cases of dacoity the evidence of identification is practically the sole evidence against suspected persons. It is, therefore, essential that test identification parades must be conducted in a manner which must ensure fairness. The whole object behind an identification proceeding is to find out whether the suspect is the real offender or not. If such parades are not held promptly after the arrest of the accused and there is unnecessary delay, reasonable doubts are created. It is, therefore, essential that test identification parades must be conducted in a manner which must ensure fairness. The whole object behind an identification proceeding is to find out whether the suspect is the real offender or not. If such parades are not held promptly after the arrest of the accused and there is unnecessary delay, reasonable doubts are created. In this case the investigating officer owed an explanation to the Court when the arrested accused (except Mungjiya and Rustom) were not put up for test identification parade between the 5th and the 17th of March, when all the other accused had been arrested by the 5th of March. Then Rustom too had been arrested on the 17th March. Even so, why no test identification parade was held between the 17th March and the 1st April. And lastly, after the arrest of Mungjiya on the 7th April, why a parade was not sought between the 7th April and the 17th April ? The investigating officer did not care to explain this delay, and the learned Deputy Government Advocate is unable to explain it today before me It is also conceded that no description of the persons to be identified was given by the identifying witnesses before identification. For these laches of the prosecution, the accused must be given benefit of doubt. Shri Shukla invites my attention to the statement of Shri Pachand P. W. 36 where he stated to the Court that at the time of the test identification parade Mungjiya alone had fetters. Not only does this fact completely destroy the value of a test identification so far as Mungjiya is concerned, but it also creates an impression that the learned Magistrate failed to discharge his duty properly while conducting the test identification parade. He should have taken care that fetters were removed or several other accused with fetters were mixed up with Mungjiya. Rustom P. W. 8 was arrested at a late stage of investigation. The learned trial Judge has not relied on the first part of the story which related to earlier incidents. It is remarkable that he did not assign any act to himself. Nothing was recovered from him, but he produced Rs. 600 as his own share, but he could say nothing about the distribution of the booty. He said nothing about the ornaments. Credence cannot be attached to such an approver. It is remarkable that he did not assign any act to himself. Nothing was recovered from him, but he produced Rs. 600 as his own share, but he could say nothing about the distribution of the booty. He said nothing about the ornaments. Credence cannot be attached to such an approver. In my opinion conviction under Section 393 could not be based on Rustom's testimony and the evidence of identification being defective 3nd doubtful, all the Appellants must be acquitted of the offence under Section 393 or one under Section 395/197, as the case may be. As regards the recovery of the stolen articles at the instance of the Appellants, Shri Shukla's objections are these: The ornaments which were identified bad chits bearing numbers while those which were mixed with them had chits without any marks or numbers; two identification parades were held for the properties also and the second one was worthless because the identifying witnesses of the first parade had an opportunity to contact the other identifying witnesses; no identifying marks had been given prior to identification by the identifying witnesses; and in the first parade (26th March) only three articles could be identified by Daryao Singh, I have carefully considered these objections but in my opinion they do not carry weight. The identifying witnesses namely Santoshilal, Chhatarsingh, Chunnilal, Kanchanbai appear to be illiterate persons, they could not identify just because there were numbers written on the chits. It is true that two identification parades should not have been held with respect to stolen articles, but if all the witnesses could not be summoned together to identify the articles because many of them were pledges who had pledged ornaments with Daryao Singh, it is difficult to hold that just because two parades were held the evidence of all the witnesses should be discarded. The articles could not be identified correctly whether there were two or three parades unless the witnesses identifying had some concern with those articles. In the case of ornaments it is difficult to give any particular mark. There are so many factors on which a person is able to identify his ornaments. The articles could not be identified correctly whether there were two or three parades unless the witnesses identifying had some concern with those articles. In the case of ornaments it is difficult to give any particular mark. There are so many factors on which a person is able to identify his ornaments. Shri Shukla candidly concedes that if for this general criticism the evidence of identification of articles is not rejected, he is unable to satisfy me that the stolen articles alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the Appellants were not stolen properties or were not recovered from their possession, as elaborately discussed by the trial Judge. I find that the conclusions reached by the trial Judge in this behalf are sound and must be upheld. Since the stolen articles were found in the possession of the Appellants, they must be presumed to have either stolen those articles or to have received and retained them knowing or having reason to believe that they were stolen articles. An offence under Section 411 is thus clearly made out. For these reasons, Appeal number 75 is partly allowed. The convictions of all the Appellants of the offence of dacoity (whether under Section 395 or under Section 395/397) are altered to one of the offence under Section 411 of the Penal Code. The sentences awarded to them are reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment each. The rest of the directions contained in the judgment of the trial Judge are maintained. As regards Deokaran accused he was not identified by anybody to be one of the dacoits. In fact, the learned trial Judge has himself found that he was absent from that place, Deokaran has been convicted under Section 395 with the aid of Section 109, Indian Penal Code on the ground that there bad been a partition several years ago between Deokaran and Daryao Singh P. W. 3 and Onkar Singh, but then on growing older Deokaran realised that the partition had been unfair. The only evidence against Deokaran is that of the approver and certain suspicious circumstances have been pointed out by the trial Judge in order to hold his complicity in the crime. The only evidence against Deokaran is that of the approver and certain suspicious circumstances have been pointed out by the trial Judge in order to hold his complicity in the crime. The entry of the dacoits through his courtyard, escape of Deokaran from his house through a window at the critical time, the departure of Onkar Singh and his son Kishansingh in the evening for Shujalpur, omission to make any report about his almirah having been tampered with, the mode of access of the dacoits- to the complainant's house, Lila's return to her house at the call of Deokaran are the circumstances which are mentioned by the trial Judge as supporting the approver's testimony. It is remarkable that originally a charge was framed by the committing Court against Deokaran under Section 395/109 of the Penal Code but the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself struck off the charge of abetment and modified it as one for the principal offence under Section 395. I am surprised how in the judgment the same Judge could fall back upon Section 395 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code and convict Deokaran of it. The so called corroborating circumstances in my opinion are wholly insufficient to make out a case of abetment. Merely his absence for the fear of dacoits does not constitute abetment. No person can be convicted merely on suspicion. No property has been recovered from Deokaran. The appeal of Deokaran Appellant is allowed and he is acquitted. Appeal allowed