JUDGMENT M.H. Beg, J. - This is an appeal by six persons, namely, Bhagawane, Badlu, Bhagwati, Pearey, Lalta and Bersati, each of whom has been convicted under Section 395, I. P. C. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment by an Assistant Sessions Judge of Basti. 2. The appellants were alleged to have participated in a dacoity which took place between 8th and 9th September, 1961, at about midnight, in village Lalpur in district Basti at the house of Jokhu Lal and Chhotey Lal. the dacoits are alleged to have been armed with lathis, Pharsa and Spears, and to have looted the ornaments 6f Jokhu Lal's wife and have beaten Chhotey Lal. Some properties kept In a box were also carried away. Jokhu Lal ran out of the house and Chhotey Lal raised an alarm. This brought a large number of villagers in front of the house in which the dacoity was being committed. A few steps removed from that house, a heap of sugar-cane leaves is said to have been burnt. This heap was d to consist of about two cart ads of leaves and kept there since previous March. It is alleged t the burning heap emitted sufficient light. The identifying witnesses are said to have stood a few steps from this heap of burning sugar-cane leaves and to have watched the dacoit's bringing out the goods from the house looted and decamping. They are alleged to have, noticed the visages of the dacoits well. A first information report was lodged at 9-5 A.M. on 9-9-1962 at police station Parasrampur. 3. The evidence against each appellant is that of alleged identification witnesses who have identified the appellants and stated that they were participants in the dacoity. The first submission which has been made is at the light of the sugar-cane leaves as not there at all inasmuch as it d rained heavily fifteen days ear her and it had rained slightly two days before the occurrence. It was also pointed out that one of the prosecution witnesses stated that the two cart loads of Kharhi or sugarcane leaves was scattered over two biswas of land in front of the house of Chhotey Lal and Jokhu Lal. It was also pointed out that one of the prosecution witnesses stated that the two cart loads of Kharhi or sugarcane leaves was scattered over two biswas of land in front of the house of Chhotey Lal and Jokhu Lal. I do not think that these features are enough to discredit the evidence of witnesses who stated that the sugarcane leaves were burnt and that this lit up the whole place in such a way that the departing dacoits could be seen clearly in the light. Even if it had rained a fortnight earlier and again about two days before the occurrence, it was possible for the leaves to be sufficiently dry after two days in the heat of September to be capable of being burnt. The investigating officer found the ashes of the large quantity of sugar-cane leaves which had been burnt on the spot. 4. The next argument put forward was that the two appellants Bhagwane and Badlu lived quite close to the village in which the dacoity took place and were actually seen by Jokhu Lal and other prosecution witnesses at the time when they were arrested from their houses in village Kharowan on 23-10-1961. The Pradhan of village Kharowan, one Dukharan, was produced as a defence witness and stated that he was called at the time when the two appellants Bhagwane and Badlu were arrested from his village Kharowan in which they lived. He also stated that Jokhu Lal has relations living in village Kharowan, and he used to visit them for the previous fifteen years. He further stated that Jokhu Lal was present at the time when the two appellants Bhagwane and Badlu were arrested and that a number of other persons were also present at that time. He also stated that the village Lalpur is at a distance of two miles from village Kharowan in district Gonda. The evidence of this witness has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the alleged relationship of Jokhu Lal was distant with the respondent-wage Kharowan and that no questions were asked when the wife of Jokhu Lal came into the witness box although she was said to be a daughter of one of those residents. The evidence of this witness has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the alleged relationship of Jokhu Lal was distant with the respondent-wage Kharowan and that no questions were asked when the wife of Jokhu Lal came into the witness box although she was said to be a daughter of one of those residents. Even if the evidence of this witness is insufficient to prove the allegations made by these two appellants, there are other features in the cases of both these two appellants which make the evidence of identification against them of small value, and I shall now deal with this aspect of the case. 5. It was argued that the identification proceedings in the case of both these appellants were vitiated inasmuch as a large number of slips were pasted on their faces. A look at the identification memo (Ex. Ka. 11) prepared by the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings of the two appellants shows that, in the third column meant for marks which are likely to affect the identification, there are entered fourteen marks on the body of Bhagwane. In the next column, it is stated that all these marks were covered with paper slips. Among the marks of identification on the face, I find there are more than ten marks mentioned, each of which was presumably covered by a paper slip. The adoption of such a procedure at a test identification parade is bound to falsify the test identification. As I have pointed out several times recently, a correct identification consists in forming an accurate opinion as to identity after comparing the image which persists in the mind of a witness with the image actually seen at the time of the test identification. If the image which is presented at the time of identification is so unlike that, which was actually seen during an occurrence as to make it quite incorrect to say that the two images were so similar as to be those of the same person, the test identification is futile. Nevertheless, I find that it is the practice in this State to conceal the very marks on the faces of the suspects from which correct identifications could take place. 6. As has been pointed out by prof. Wigmore, in his Treatise on the Law if Evidence, 1940 Ed. (Vol. 2, at page 384 paras. Nevertheless, I find that it is the practice in this State to conceal the very marks on the faces of the suspects from which correct identifications could take place. 6. As has been pointed out by prof. Wigmore, in his Treatise on the Law if Evidence, 1940 Ed. (Vol. 2, at page 384 paras. 410 to 411), it is the association between the mind of the identifying witness and certain marks seen upon the object or face to be identified which enables a correct identification to be made. A test identification parade is, as I have already pointed out repeatedly, a scientific experiment conducted in order to ascertain whether the evidence of identity to be given in Court by a witness is sufficiently reliable to form a basis of conviction for offence. It should not be reduced to a farce or made to resemble a game which the capacity of a witness to mark out the suspect, in spite of every conceivable effort made to mislead him, is tested. 7. The practice of concealing the very marks which enable a correct identification to be made is resorted to in an attempt to meet the customary objection that the suspect was pointed out because his features had been described to the identifying witness by some body interested in getting the. suspect convicted. Such an objection proceeds on the assumption that the investigating authorities will necessarily resort to unfair means and dishonesty in obtaining convictions. In my opinion courts of law cannot proceed on such assumptions. If there are grounds for any such assumptions, the remedy lies elsewhere. It certainly does not lie in falsifying the test identification proceedings. 8. I am compelled to declare the identification of the appellant Bhagwane to be falsified to an extent which makes it impossible to rely upon it. A Division Bench of this Court (see: Asharfi v. State AIR 1961 Allahabad 153 at p. 161 : 1960 A.L.J. 595), which had conducted an experiment with paper slips pasted on the faces of persons to be identified recorded: "As a result we have, come to the conclusion that a maximum of ten slips of the size employed by Mr. Sharma would be sufficient to just preserve the contour of the face. In this case the slips used by Mr. Sharma were of the usual size of " *". 9. Sharma would be sufficient to just preserve the contour of the face. In this case the slips used by Mr. Sharma were of the usual size of " *". 9. Ever since the observations of their Lordships in the above mentioned Division Bench case, it has been the practice of this Court to acquit accused persons whose identification proceedings were falsified by pasting more than ten slips on their faces. It was also pointed out in that case that only very distinctive marks, which are likely to affect the identification, ought to be covered in order to meet the objection based upon a suspicion of the investigating authorities. It is, however, still not uncommon to find the observations made in Asharfi's case' ignored by Magistrates in this State who conduct identification proceedings. This happens presumably because they are ignorant of the correct principles upon which test identification parades should be conducted. 10. Coming next to the case of the appellant Badlu, I find that his test identification on 13-11-1961 also suffered from the same defect as in the case of the appellant Bhagwane. In column No. 3 of the identification memo, intended for distinctive marks of identification, there are no less than 16 items mentioned out of which more than ten marks are on the face excluding the ears and the neck, so that here also the test identification proceedings were substantially falsified and vitiated. 11. As regards Bhagwati appellant, I find that he has been identified correctly by no less then seven witnesses. But, here also, I find, from the identification memo (Ex. Ka. 13), that the extraordinary test identification parade conducted in his case vitiated the evidence of identification completely. At No. 9 in column No. 3, meant for 'distinctive mark' of identification, I find the blackening of both the cheeks mentioned. Indeed "blackening" of a cheek would presumably cover a substantial part of each cheek as to be described as "blackening of the cheek". Each of the two cheeks of the appellant was covered with a light mud paste to counteract the effect of the "blackening." The two cheeks of each ten under trials mixed in this parade with the appellant were similarly treated with a light mud paste. In addition, there were at least eight slips on his face. The precise number of slips is not mentioned. In addition, there were at least eight slips on his face. The precise number of slips is not mentioned. Parts of the neck and his chest had also slips pasted on them. The result of testing the face of each of the participants in the identification parade in the manner indicated above must have produced the appearance of a mask in the case of each participant. I find that the tip of the nose of each participant and another part of the nose and the right chin and both eyebrows of each participant were also pasted with slips. In the process of identification of a face, certain parts of the face, such as the nose, the chin, the mouth, the eyebrows, often serve to indicate and fix those characteristics upon the mind which distinguish the face from others and enable its correct identification. If these very characteristics are concealed or given a false appearance, I fail to understand how the identification can be reliable. What the witnesses identified was really a mask which they never saw during the dacoity. It is the extreme fastidiousness and ingenuity displayed in wrong directions by the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings, combined with his ignorance of the correct principles on which these proceedings should be conducted, which produced the appearance of the extraordinary mask which was then identified by the prosecution witnesses. It witnesses are prepared to identify such masks as having been actually seen by them during the dacoity whereas the dacoits are not alleged to have covered their faces with anything, the whole process of the alleged identifications is bound to appear so completely artificial and untruthful and farcical that it cannot possibly be relied upon. 12. In the case of the appellant Lalta, I find that his face was also presumably covered with more than eleven chits, excluding the neck and ears. Unfortunately, the identification memo prepared at the test identification parade does not mention the number of slips, but it merely indicates that all the marks given in column No. 3 were covered. 13. The presumption is that each mark was covered by one slip although sometimes a single item in column No. 3 consists of several marks given there. Magistrate conducting identification proceedings should also mention the total number of slips when these have to be used at all for some exceptional reason. 13. The presumption is that each mark was covered by one slip although sometimes a single item in column No. 3 consists of several marks given there. Magistrate conducting identification proceedings should also mention the total number of slips when these have to be used at all for some exceptional reason. However, in the case of this appellant, even if each item is counted as a separate mark which was covered, and the actual number of marks given in column No. 3 is ignored, there would still be more than ten slips on the face of this appellant. His identification proceedings are also vitiated. He was identified by Baleshwar and Badri and Chhotey. Out of them, Baleshwar was not examined before the Committing 'Magistrate and Badri made mistake and correctly identified one suspect on the same day on which Lalta was put up for identification, Chhotey identified one correctly and made one mistake. If, however, the total number of identification parades which the witnesses participated are taken into account, Badri and Chhotey could be classed as fair. Nevertheless, I am compelled to reject the evidence of identification against this appellant also because of the defective identification proceedings. I may also mention that there is, in addition to the evidence of identification of this accused, the statement of a witness, Nurul Nabi (P. W. 17), who saw the appellant Lalta amongst a gang of persons who were seen passing at night near a place where the witness was fishing and then returning after two hours carrying some property. The witness stated that the gang was of armed individuals. This would also have corroborated the evidence of identification against this appellant, if the evidence of identification had been reliable and not falsified and ruined beyond repair by what was done at the identification parade. 14. Taking up the case of appellant Pearey next, I find that he has been identified in court by Chhotey Lal son of Bhagwati and by Budhai and by Jokhu. Budhai was absent at the identification parade, and, therefore, his evidence of identification in court only has to be rejected. The results of witnesses Chhotey and Jokhu as identifying witnesses are very good if we take only one parade into account. Both Chhotey and Jokhu identified this appellant correctly, without any mistake, on 13-11-1962. Budhai was absent at the identification parade, and, therefore, his evidence of identification in court only has to be rejected. The results of witnesses Chhotey and Jokhu as identifying witnesses are very good if we take only one parade into account. Both Chhotey and Jokhu identified this appellant correctly, without any mistake, on 13-11-1962. In the case of identifying witnesses, however, the earlier parades with reference to the same occurrence ought also to be taken into consideration in testing the witnesses' powers of observation. It is only the results of later parades, held after too long an interval, which should be ignored because, as all know, the power of recollection fades with the passage of time. In fact, the identification proceedings of the appellant Pearey were held after such a long time that they cannot be relied upon without proof of some special feature in the appearance of the suspect for such a long time. No such special feature of this appellant was noticed by any prosecution witness. Indeed, no description appears to have been asked from them by the investigating officer. The investigating officers should attempt to get the descriptions of the participants in a dacoity from witnesses and should omit this description only if the witnesses are not able to give them. In the case of an identification made at a test parade nearly a year after' the occurrence, it is difficult to rely upon the identification unless the witnesses can give some reason which fixed the image of the accused so firmly on the minds of the identifying witnesses as to be remembered even after a year. Moreover, the evidence of these very identifying witnesses has been found to be artificial and unreliable in the cases of the other accused persons. This appellant will also, therefore, be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 15. Coming to the cases of Barsati, I find that he has been identified by no less than nine witnesses. He was arrested on 21-9-1961 and made bapurda immediately. He was kept at the police station on the night of in Gonda and sent to the Gonda District Jail on 22-9-1961. He was sent to Basti on 23-9-1961 and kept at the Kotwali there. On 24-9-61, he was sent to the District Jail in Basti. He was arrested on 21-9-1961 and made bapurda immediately. He was kept at the police station on the night of in Gonda and sent to the Gonda District Jail on 22-9-1961. He was sent to Basti on 23-9-1961 and kept at the Kotwali there. On 24-9-61, he was sent to the District Jail in Basti. It has been suggested that he could have been shown to the prosecution witnesses during this transit from Gonda to the Basti Jail and that the stay of this appellant at the Gonda Kotwali on the night of 21-9-1961 and again at the Basti Kotwali is suspicious. The appellant stated that he was shown to the witnesses at Shiv Dayal Ganj Police outpost. It is, however, not in evidence anywhere that this appellant was taken to Shiv Dayal Ganj police outpost at any time during the transit. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the appellant was kept 'bapurda' throughout, and their testimony has not been shown to be suspicious. It is true that, among the nine witnesses who identified Barsati, there are five, namely, Budhai, Chhotey Lal son of Bghawati, Chhotey Lal son of Deokali, Badri and Jokhu, who have taken part in proceedings which have been found by me to be falsified. But, there remain four witnesses, namely, Khadi, Sita Ram, Lakhan and Ram Bujharat who have not taken part in those proceedings. It is argued that the evidence of these four, together with the corroborative evidence of Nurul Nabi (P. W. 17), are enough to warrant the conviction of this appellant. 16. I find, from the identification of this appellant, that there are altogether ten items mentioned as distinctive marks in column No. 3. Items Nos. 7 and 8 could be excluded as they are marks on the neck. Item No. 9 will also have to be excluded as it is a mark on the collar bone. This reduces the number of items mentioned in column No. 3 to seven. There are, however, two doubtful items in this column. Item No. 3 is entered as consisting of five marks of a boil on the forehead. It is argued for the State that the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings treated each of the five marks as one for the purposes of pasting chits or as separate marks. Similarly, item no. 10 in column no. Item No. 3 is entered as consisting of five marks of a boil on the forehead. It is argued for the State that the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings treated each of the five marks as one for the purposes of pasting chits or as separate marks. Similarly, item no. 10 in column no. 3 is shown as consisting, of marks on the left side of both lips. Here again we do not know with certainty whether they were treated as separate marks for the pasting of chits or as one mark covered by a single chit. The Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings appeared in the witness box. But, no question was asked about the number of slips pasted upon the face of this appellant. Therefore, in the case of this appellant, the falsification of the identification proceedings does not appear to be so great as to vitiate, the identification proceedings. If it had gone to that extent, questions in cross-examination from the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings would have brought it out. In the case of the other appellants, the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the identification tests were falsified to such an extent that the evidence of identifying witnesses in Court became unreliable. Witnesses who succeed in falsified identification proceedings may not be necessarily false or dishonest, but their evidence is liable to be suspected. I have, therefore, examined the results of the four witnesses who did not succeed in the falsified' identification proceedings of the other appellants. Applying the further test of acceptability of an identifying witness as one who has identified less than fifty per cent incorrectly, I find that the witnesses Lakhan and Ram Bujharat pass this test. In addition, there is the evidence, already mentioned, of Nurul Nabi (P. W. 17) who knew the appellant from before, and who saw him moving with an armed gang towards the place of occurrence and returning, two hours after, with an armed gang loaded with goods presumably looted. This witness used his torch to this gang. No reason has been brought out, from the cross-examination of this witness, to show why he could be deposing falsely against this appellant. I, therefore, consider the evidence against this appellant to be sufficient to warrant his conviction. 17. This witness used his torch to this gang. No reason has been brought out, from the cross-examination of this witness, to show why he could be deposing falsely against this appellant. I, therefore, consider the evidence against this appellant to be sufficient to warrant his conviction. 17. In the result, I set aside the convictions and sentences of Bhagwati, Badlu, Bhagwane, Lalta and Pearey appellants and allow their appeals, but I maintain the conviction and sentence of Barsati appellant. All the appellants are in jail. All of them, except, Barsati, will be released forthwith unless wanted in some otter connection. Barsati appeal Ant will serve out the remaining period of his sentence.