Short Note : 1. Appellants had been convicted under section 394 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years each. Held : The question is whether appellant Rupsingh's conviction can be affirmed on the evidence of identification furnished by Komal (PW5), Savitribai (PW4) and Pratap Singh (PW1). It appears from the evidence of Brijrani (PW2), who is daughter-in-law of Pratap Singh (PW1) as also from the evidence of Komal (PW5) that appellant Rupsingh was known to complainant Pratap Singh (PW1) and his family members. It was expected that his name would be mentioned in the First Information Report in case be was identified during the robbery, there is no such mention in the First Information Report of the name of Rupsingh. The identification evidence is of no significance in view of the fact that Rupsingh was known to Pratap Singh and his family members. The conviction of Rupsingh cannot be sustained. 2. As regards the appellant Bhagwan Singh, the evidence against him consists of identification made by Balram (PW6), Brijrani (PW2) and Komal (PW5). These persons identified him in an identification parade. The evidence of recovery of property was discarded by the trial Court. The plea of the appellant was that he was shown to the witnesses after his arrest in the village before the test identification. The plea finds support from the evidence of Pratap Singh (PW1) and Brijrani (PW2). Both these witnesses admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant Bhagwan Singh was brought by the police party in the village before the identification. The test identification thus becomes suspect. Bhagwan Singh cannot, therefore, be convicted on the basis of the evidence of identification. Conviction quashed. Appeal allowed.