Short Note : 1. This is a revision petition against the order of conviction recorded by Magistrate First Class, Gohad in Criminal Original case No. 42 of 1970, convicting the petitioners under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine pf Rs. 500 each through judgment dated 3-1-1974, which is confirmed in appeal by the Sessions judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1974 through judgment dated 18-5-1974. Held : I will first take the case of Badami. His name is neither in the first information report, nor Roopsingh Rambir or Katori say anything against him. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that Badami in fact, did not take part in the alleged commission of the offence. In para 2, Roopsingh has stated to the effect that excepting Badami, accused Mangalsingh and Maharajsingh could be identified. So, in the Court also, he has not identified Badmasha as accused. Therefore the conviction passed against him under section 365 IPC will have to be set aside. His revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed against him is set aside. The amount of fine ii already deposited, be refunded to him. 2. The learned counsel's objection was that in the first information report there is no mention of Mangalsingh and Maharajsingh, even though Rupsingh knew them from before. It is not disputed that in the first information report, there is no mention of the names of Maharajsingh and Mangalsingh, which is lodged by Rupsingh. The accused were arrested on 30-9-1969, and the police statement of Rupsingh was recorded on 1-10-1969. When he was asked as to why he did not mention the name of the accused persons in the first information report the reply was that he was afraid that the applicants will kill his boy who was in their custody and out of that fear, he did not mention the names of these two applicants in the first information report. This explanation is accepted by the learned Session Judge. But on 30-9-1969 when the applicants were arrested by police there was no question of any fear in the mind of Rupsingh and, therefore, in the police statement given on 1-10-1969, he should have mentioned the names of the present applicants in it. But he has not done so. This explanation is accepted by the learned Session Judge. But on 30-9-1969 when the applicants were arrested by police there was no question of any fear in the mind of Rupsingh and, therefore, in the police statement given on 1-10-1969, he should have mentioned the names of the present applicants in it. But he has not done so. This is a serious infirmity and it casts a doubt in my mind whether these two applicants were at all present when the incident took place. 3. Looking to their statement to the police and the statement given before the Court. I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is an improvement in their statement so as to include Maharajsingh and Mangalsingh in the incident. Katori (PW 3) was knowing the applicants since long. Therefore, there was no reason why their names should not have been mentioned to the police. Rambir (PW 2) also states in his statement that he disclosed the names of these two applicants to others, but his statement is falsified by Dinanath (PW4). He states in his statement that nobody told him the name of any Badmash at that time. No one disclosed the names of persons who kidnapped the boy to villagers. Rambir (PW2) in his statement in para 6 has stated to the effect that his statement was recorded by police in presence of his father. His father did not disclose the name of persons who abducted the boy. His father did not mention the names of Mangalsingh and Maharajsingh at that time. Then he has resiled from certain important information given in the statement to police. He has stated also that his family members and Maharajsingh and Mangalsingh are on inimical terms because of the cultivation of the fields belonging to Bhago. 4. In this case, the identification took place as stated by Rambir after three or four months after his going back. The incident is dated 25-9-1969 and the applicant were arrested on 30-9-1969. Adding three or four months to this, it comes to that the identification parade was held in the month of December, 1969 or January, 1970. Therefore, such an identification parade will surely not help the prosecution. AIR 1976 SC 924 , AIR 1974 SC 1978 , 1977 (1) MPWN 261, and 1971 JLJ-SN 44 relied on. Revision allowed.