Judgment M.M. Gupta, J. 1. THESE are the (three appeals in which the appellants have been convicted by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Among them Bhai Lal appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 2948 of 1973 is stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal. 2. THESE appeals high-light the insecurity of our rural life. Lal Bahadur first informant of this case resides in village Kashipur within the Police circle of Nawabganj. His house faces south. To the west and south-west of his house there are a number of bamboo clumps and to the east and south of his house there is an abandoned brick-kiln. On 24-6-1968 at about 11 P. M. the male members of the house were sitting outside the house and were having a sanoke. They were talking about the sale of bullocks with Ganga Varma and his guest. After taking his meals Lal Bahadur came out of the house to give morsel to the dog. They noticed 14 or 15 dacoits had come. They surrounded the house and asked them to sit silently otherwise they would be shot. One of them deprived his mother of the Han- suli. His brothers Baij Nath Singh and Bindesari Singh tried to rush inside the house and close the doors but they were prevented from doing so by the bad characters. However his sister-in-law succeeded in chaining the door from inside. The dacoits thereafter broke open the door by axing it. The dacoits thereafter plundered the house. Lal Bahadur Singh succeeded in escaping through the western door. He raised an alarm in the village which attracted to the scene of occurrence a large number of villagers including Ram Nath, Bhajan Lal, Murli, Baijnath, Ram Shanker, Chotey Lal and others. The villagers had with them torches, lathis, ballam, pharsa and other weapons. They set fire to the Patai and Sarsenta lying to the east and also to the west of the house of Lal Bahadur. The dacoits continued their indiscriminate firing. However, to the great relief of the villagers Armed Police on hearing the news of the dacoity came on the scene. They took their position behind the bamboo clumps which are to south west of the house of Lal Bahadur. The dacoits continued their indiscriminate firing. However, to the great relief of the villagers Armed Police on hearing the news of the dacoity came on the scene. They took their position behind the bamboo clumps which are to south west of the house of Lal Bahadur. They also shouted to the villagers that they should not worry much as they had come. They also asked the dacoits to surrender otherwise they would be shot. The dacoits did not pay any heed to it and returned fire. The Police party also fired at the dacoits. Result was that one of the dacoits received fatal shot in consequence whereof the dacoits took to their heels and escaped towards the north with the booty that they could get as a result of plundering the house of Lal Bahadur. They had to leave behind them the dead body of one of their companions and a double barrel gun. It was also claimed that at the time of dacoity a lantern was burning outside the house when the dacoits came and a kerosene oil lamp was burning inside the house. After the dacoits had gone Lal Bahadur proceeded to the police station Nawabganj where he lodged the report the next morning at 5.30 A. M. on 25-6-1968. 3. SRI Harinandan Singh S. O. Nawabganj was present at the police station at the time of lodging of the report. He left for the place of occurrence at 6.15 A. M. He commenced the investigation by recording the statement of Lal Bahadur. He found the dead body of an unidentified dacoit lying at the scene of occurrence. He also recovered a gun left by the dacoits. He got the panchayatnama prepared of the dead body and also its diagram. The dead body was duly sealed and sent for postmortem. The recovered firearm and the fired cartridges were also sealed. He found injuries on the person of Baijnath, Bindesari Singh, Ramnath, Murli, Bechu, Ram Shanker, Ramnath, Ram Kumar, Maharanidin, Shukroo, Chhotey Lal son of Ram Prasad, Ram Sajiwan and Raghunath. They were all sent for medical examination and were examined on 25-6-1968 by Dr. P. L. Nigam, Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Holagarh. Excepting Raghunath rest of the injured had fire arm injuries. All these injuries at the time of their examination were caused 12 to 18 hours. They were all sent for medical examination and were examined on 25-6-1968 by Dr. P. L. Nigam, Incharge Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Holagarh. Excepting Raghunath rest of the injured had fire arm injuries. All these injuries at the time of their examination were caused 12 to 18 hours. The injuries received by each one of them were simple in nature. 4. THE autopsy on the body of the unidentified dead body of the dacoit found on the scene of occurrence was performed on 26-6-1968 at 3 P. M. by Dr. B. D. Barat, Medical Officer of the Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. According to him, the deceased was aged about 30 years and the duration of the death was less than two days. He had found one gun shot wound on his left palm with exit wound on the back of the left palm and a second gun-shot wound 1/4" x 1/4" x abdominal cavity on the left lumber region. It was a wound of entry with an exit wound on 4"x3 1/2" with everted margins on the left side of the abdomen and lower part left side chest, passing obliquely upwards from behind forwards loop of intestine protruding out from the exit wound. On internal examination the abdominal wall was found torn on the left side front of abdomen upper part. Stomach was badlly torn, THE death, in the opinion of Dr. Barat, was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the stomach, small intestines and large intestines. Sri Harinandan Singh continued his investigation on 25-6-1968. He found the main door of the house axed and found broken pieces etc. which were the evidence of the fact of the dacoity having been committed at the house of Lal Bahadur. He also recovered fired cartridges. He also found burnt ashes to the west and east of the house of Lal Bahadur Singh. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the pendency of the investigation the complicity of Chhotai and Bhai Lal came to be known. On 28th July, 1968 the information about the arrest of Bhai Lal and Chhotai came to be known that they were arrested by the Kunda Police in district Pratapgarh. A report for holding their identification in Pratapgarh jail was sent. They were put to identification in Pratapgarh jail on 7-9-1968. On 28th July, 1968 the information about the arrest of Bhai Lal and Chhotai came to be known that they were arrested by the Kunda Police in district Pratapgarh. A report for holding their identification in Pratapgarh jail was sent. They were put to identification in Pratapgarh jail on 7-9-1968. On 29-10-1968 he came to know about the arrest of Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants in Mohalla Ram Bagh by a police party headed by Sri D. V. Mehta, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. Their identification was conducted in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad on 19-11-1968. The firearms recovered were sent for comparison to expert with the empties recovered on the scene of occurrence. 5. AFTER completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against appellants and others. 6. CHHOTAI appellant denied having committed the dacoity at the house of Lal Bahadur between the night of 24th and 25th June, 1968. He also denied the other incriminating circumstances brought in evidence and put to him. He claimed that he along with Bhai Lal deceased appellant had gone to Singrauri for a bath. When they were returning from there they were arrested at Sakar-daha at 8 or 10 A. M. Mahadeo Mali appellant denied having committed the dacoity in question. He also denied the other allegations. He denied his arrest from Ram Bagh by Sri D. V. Mehta. He further claimed that after his arrest he was taken to various Police Stations and shown to witnesses. He was also shown to the witnesses at the Kotwali. Defence of Lal Bahadur Singh appellant is also the same. The defence of Bhai Lal deceased appellant was the same as that of CHHOTAI. The prosecution examined among the eye-witnesses Lal Bahadur (PW 26), Baijnath (PW), Murli (PW 9), Ram Nath (PW 10), Bindesari (PW 12), Ram Kumar (PW 13), Ram Shanker (PW 17) and Chhotey Lal (PW 19). They had identified the appellants in jail. I have left out those eye-witnesses who had not identified the appellants earlier in jail. PW 22 Chhotey Lal is the police constable who was in the police party who had fired at the dacoits at the time of the dacoity. He had also identified Mahadeo Mali appellant and Lal Bahadur appellant in jail. PW 55 Ajijur Rahman was the Headmoharrir of Police Station Nawabganj. PW 22 Chhotey Lal is the police constable who was in the police party who had fired at the dacoits at the time of the dacoity. He had also identified Mahadeo Mali appellant and Lal Bahadur appellant in jail. PW 55 Ajijur Rahman was the Headmoharrir of Police Station Nawabganj. He is the scribe of the first information report lodged at the Police Station Nawabganj by Lal Bahadur. Sri Jagat Mohan Singh (PW 6) and PW 23 V. S. Rai were in the police party headed by D. V. Mehta who arrested Lal Bahadur and Mahadeo Mali appellants on 26-10-1968. Besides the above witnesses the prosecution has also examined the Head Moharrir of Police Station Kotwali and sub-Inspector Ram Shanker Shukla (PW 37) who had escorted appellants Lal Bahadur and Mahadeo Mali from Kotwali to jail on 27-10-1968. The witnesses have been examined to prove the arrest of Chhotai and Bhai Lal and their escort from their respective Police Stations and to jail. PW 73 Sharda Prasad is the Magistrate who had conducted the identification proceedings relating to Chhotai and Bhai Lal in District Jail, Pratapgarh. Mahendra Singh (PW 27) is the Magistrate who had conducted the identification proceedings relating to Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur Singh in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad. Dr. P.N. Nigam (PW 39) who examined the injuries of the injured in this case and the accused Sukroo, Chhotai, Indrajeet Singh, Raghunath, Jha garoo and Ram Sajiwan ; Dr. D. B. Barat (PW 31) who had performed autopsy on the body of the unidentified dacoit were also examined. Besides the Investigating Officer a large number of witnesses were also examined concerning the other accused who have been acquitted by the court below. 7. BEFORE the court below Billi, Raja Ram, Sanda, Bairagi, Jangali, Ram Autar and Tirsa were also accused in this case but they have been acquitted by the court below. 8. THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence against the four appellants. He did not find the case proved against the rest of the accused. THE appellants therefore have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge have been assailed in the appeal before me. 9. 8. THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence against the four appellants. He did not find the case proved against the rest of the accused. THE appellants therefore have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge have been assailed in the appeal before me. 9. SO far as the factum of dacoity is concerned, there can be no doubt about it as a very serious dacoity was committed in which the house of Lal Bahadur was ransacked and a large number of moveables were taken by the dacoits as their booty. 10. THE testimony of the eyewitnesses including Lal Bahadur and the testimony of PW 22 Chhotey Lal constable do not leave any room for doubt that at the time of the dacoity the Armed Police had also arrived and there was exchange of fire between the dacoits and the Police party. One of the dacoits was also killed as a result of the firing by the Armed Police. THE burning of the Patai and Sarsenta to the east and west of the house of Lal Bahadur also finds corroboration from the statement of the Investigating Officer PW 54 Har Nandan Singh. He had found ashes at two places and the door of the house axed and a number of moveables lying scattered inside the house. THE fact that a large number of villagers received fire arm injuries shows that the villagers had also assembled and they made efforts to frighten away the dacoits. I, therefore, find it amply established that the house of Lal Bahadur was ransacked on the night between 24th and 25th June, 1968 by a large number of dacoits. The fact that the light was burning and the witnesses had also received fire arm injuries also go to dhow that the witnesses had opportunity to come within a range from which they could see faces of the dacoits in the lights that were produced by burning lantern, the Patai and Sarsenta. The learned Sessions Judge has also found this fact proved and I do not see any reason for not agreeing with these findings. 11. SRI V. S. Rai (PW 23) claims that on 27-7-1968 there was an encounter with the dacoits in village Sakardiha within the Police Circle of Bagrai at 6 A. M. Chhotai appellant and Bhai Lal were arrested by him. 11. SRI V. S. Rai (PW 23) claims that on 27-7-1968 there was an encounter with the dacoits in village Sakardiha within the Police Circle of Bagrai at 6 A. M. Chhotai appellant and Bhai Lal were arrested by him. They had also received injuries in the course of encounter as a result of firing by the police party. Both of them were taken by him Bapardah to Police Station Kunda at 8-30 A.M. It is also claimed by him that they were made Bapardah after their arrest. He has also explained for the reasons for not taking appellants to Police Station Bagrai because there was no arrangement for their treatment at Bagrai while there was a government hospital at Kunda. PW 42 Lal Dhar Singh Clerk Constable has stated that Chhotai appellant and Bhai Lal were brought Bapardah by SRI V. S. Rai at 8-30 A.M. and an entry in the GD was made by SRIpal Singh Headmoharrir in his presence. He has proved the entry in the GD Ex. Ka-42. Both of them were injured and were taken out of the Lock-up Bapardah at 12-05 P. M. on the same date for taking them to the District Jail Pratapgarh by Mohd. Hanif (PW 4) and claims that he had Waken them out for taking them to Prtapgarh Jail but since there was much rush in the bus and no seats were available he brought them back to the Police Station and admitted them in the Police Lock-up at 130 P. M. They were again given in his custody at 2-45 P. M. for taking them to Pratapgarh. Since they reached Pratapgarh late he had taken them to Kotwali Pratapgarh and an entry in the G. D. was made at 8.05 P. M. but since they were injured they were sent to the district Hospital for treatment. All these three witnesses, namely SRI V. S. Rai (PW 23), Lal Dhar Singh (PW 42) and Mohd. Hanif (PW 4) claimed that so long as the appellant, remained in their custody they remained Bapardah. On 29-7-1968 (PW 11) Police Constable Chandrika Singh claimed that he was deputed by the authorities off Police Lines Pratapgarh to remain "or duty at District Hospital Pratapgarh to take over the appellants Chhotai and, Bhai Lal (deceased). Hanif (PW 4) claimed that so long as the appellant, remained in their custody they remained Bapardah. On 29-7-1968 (PW 11) Police Constable Chandrika Singh claimed that he was deputed by the authorities off Police Lines Pratapgarh to remain "or duty at District Hospital Pratapgarh to take over the appellants Chhotai and, Bhai Lal (deceased). They were discharged from the Hospital on 29-7-1968 at 10.30 A. M. From there they were taken by him on 29-7-1968 to the District Jail, Pratapgarh, where they were admitted there the same day. 12. DR. B. R. Singh (P. W. 38) claims that he was the Medical Officer Incharge District, Hospital, Pratapgarh. He had examined the injuries of Bhai Lal and Chhotai on 27-7-1968. He: has asserted that when the appellants; Bhai Lal and Chhotai were brought: before him they were brought Bapardah. and since they were persons to be identified a screen was put near' their beds so that they may not be able: to be seen by anyone. It has been contended that the fact that the appellants were not taken to Bagrai P. S. within which Police Circle they were arrested and the fact that they were taken to the bus-stand and were brought back again shows that the time was utilised in showing them to the witnesses. In view, however, of the categorical statement on oath of all these witnesses no other inference can be drawn than that they were kept Bapardah and they were not shown to the witnesses. The learned Sess. Judge has discussed their testimony in great detail and I have no hesitation in agreeing with his conclusions. 13. SO far as the case against Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants is concerned, P. W. 6 Jagat Mohan Singh and P. W. 23 V. S. Rai and P. W. 33 Ranvir Singh S.O. Puramufti claimed that they were in the police party headed by Sri D. V. Mehta, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, which arrested Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants. AH these three witnesses claim that from possession of Mahadeo Mali fire arms were recovered at the time of their arrest. Sri Ranvir Singh has further stated that from possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant a S. B. B. L. gun Ex. 2 with 60 live cartridges and another D. B. B. L. gun Ex. 5 along with 60 cartridges were recovered. Sri Ranvir Singh has further stated that from possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant a S. B. B. L. gun Ex. 2 with 60 live cartridges and another D. B. B. L. gun Ex. 5 along with 60 cartridges were recovered. From his possession besides the above articles a pistol was also recovered. These articles were duly sealed in his presence. Along with the appellants the sealed bundles of the articles recovered from the possession of other persons arrested on the spot in Mohalla Rambagh, Allahabad on 26-10- 1968 at 8.30 P.M. were brought to the police station Kot- wali the same night. The appellants were made Baparda till they were in their custody. Hira Lal (P. W. 2) claims that when the appellants were brought to the police station Kotwali on the night at 8.30 P.M. on 26-10-1968 he was on sentry duty and he had locked them in the lockup Bapardah. P. W. 15 Bhurey Lal and P. W. 14 Mohd. Yahia were on sentry duty and they claim that they did not allow anyone to see the appellants during the period they were on duty in the Kotwali. Sri Rama Shanker Shukla (P. W. 37) took out appellants Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants from Police Station Kotwali at 11 A. M. He took them to Jail via Civil Courts Allahabad to Jail. He claimed that they remained Bapardah till their admission in Jail. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that there was great delay in taking out the appellants from the police lock up in Kotwali Allahabad and their admission in Naini Central Jail Allahabad. He also contends that it was improbable that the appellants, who were known to be desparate dacoits and for the arrest of one of them there was also an award, would have been permitted to be sent on foot through Rama Shanker Shukla to Civil Courts which is at a distance of about two miles through the heart of the city. The witnesses have categorically stated that no unfair means were used so far as these appellants I am not prepared to hold that Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants were concerned. In view of the testimony of these witnesses 1 am not prepared to hold that Mahadeo Mali and Lal bahadur appellants were taken after their arrest to various police stations and were shown to the witnesses. 14. In view of the testimony of these witnesses 1 am not prepared to hold that Mahadeo Mali and Lal bahadur appellants were taken after their arrest to various police stations and were shown to the witnesses. 14. IT has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that if these two appellants were wanted for such a long time some steps for attachment of their properties u/Ss. 87 and 88 Cr. P.C. 1898 would have been taken by the Police. There is ample evidence on the record to show that the Police were making great efforts to arrest these appellants. As already mentioned above, there was an award over the head of one of them. Ample testimony has been given by the police officers of different police stations that they were continuously making efforts to arrest the appellants. The police officers who have been put in evidence include all those who were in charge of Police Stations in Pratapgarh district also. IT would have, therefore, been an exercise in futility if proceedings u/Ss. 87 and 88 Cr. P.C., 1898 would have been taken. I now proceed to consider corroborative evidence of identification by the witnesses in respect of the appellants in jail. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the result of performance of each witness in different parades should be taken into account and the witness should be judged from it. I do not think that this rule is to be followed universally. There are limitations with which the performance of a witness in different parades is to be taken into account. The result of only those identification parades can be taken into account which are held simultaneously or within a few days of each other. That generally gives the idea of the power of observation of a particular witness but there is no such rule or observation made in any ruling that where a parade is held early, the result of that parade is to be rejected on account of the witness having made mistakes in parades held several months after. However, the performance in the earlier parades by the same witness can be taken into account when the witness gives a much improved performance in subsequent parades held afterwards. However, the performance in the earlier parades by the same witness can be taken into account when the witness gives a much improved performance in subsequent parades held afterwards. The reason is that at the time of the earlier parade the memory of the witness is fresh and he can put up the best performance at that time. However, if the witness makes poor performance in earlier parade and gives better performance in a subsequent parade his performance cannot create confidence. The memory with the passage of time gets dimmer and the courts with good performance in the subsequent parades look upon such a witness with suspicion. Keeping these criteria into view I proceed to determine the performance of the individual witness. 15. THE identification parades against Chhotai and Bhai Lal appellants were held in District Jail, Pratapgarh on 7-9-1968 by P. W. 73 Sharda Prasad Magistrate 1st Class. He has stated that to; took all the precautions which were necessary for fair identification. According to him he had taken precautions to cover up the identifying marks. According to Ex. Kha. 84, the identification memo of Chhotai appellant, there were ten identifying marks on the person of Chhotai appellant. THE witness took necessary precautions to cover them up. THE cross examination of Sri Sharda Prasad (P.W.73) does not indicate that he had not taken any necessary precaution. THE only fact worth mentioning which was elicited from him is that no entry was made in column no. 10 of the identification memo, by him (P. W. 73). Most of the Executive Magistrates have not realised the importance or the relevance of recording the statements of witnesses after they had identified a particular suspect the interrogation of the Magistrate should be in order to elicit about the actual act which the suspect performed at the time of the dacoity. This, however, is the ignorance of the Magistrate and I do not think that the testimony of the witness should be rejected outright merely because of the failure of the Magistrate to record the statement of the witness in column no. 10 of the identification memo. THE evidence of identification is only for the corroboration of the statement of a witness before the court. 16. 10 of the identification memo. THE evidence of identification is only for the corroboration of the statement of a witness before the court. 16. SO far as the witnesses are concerned Chhotai appellant was identified in jail by P. W. 8 Baijnath but he failed to pick him up at the trial court. Similarly, P. W. 9 Murli had identified him at the identification parade in jail but he failed to pick him up in court. Similar is the case with Chhotey Lal son of Ram Prasad (P. W. 19). He identified him in jail but failed to pickup him in court. Similarly P. W. 12 Binde- sari had identified Chhotai appellant in jail but failed to pick him up in court. The testimony of aforementioned witnesses is therefore of no help to the prosecution. P. W. 10 Ram Nath correctly identified Chhotai appellant and also Bhai Lal. His performance was two correct identifications against no mistake committed by him in any parade even held subsequently. P. W. 13 Ram Kumar had identified Chhotai appellant correctly in the parade held in jail on that date. His result was two good identifications against no wrong identification. In the parades held on 19-11-1968, about two and a half months later, he identified Mahadeo Mali appellant correctly and made one mistake in the parade of Lal Bahadur appellant. However, the results of the parade held on 19-11 -1968 cannot be taken into account and have to be ignored. P. W. 17 Ram Shanker correctly identified Chhotai appellant and also Bhai Lal in parades held on 7-9 - 1968. In these parades he made no mistakes. He, however, made one mistake in parades held on 19-11-1968 and correctly identified Mahadeo Mali appellant. The result of parades held on 19-11-1968 has also therefore to be ignored. Lal Bahadur (P. W. 24) had correctly identified Chhotai appellant and Bhai Lal in jail. He has also picked them up before the trial court. The witness so far as the parades of 7-9-1968 are concerned correctly identified Chhotai appellant and Bhai Lal and he can be regarded as a good witness so far as those identification proceedings are concerned. In subsequent parades held on 15-3-1968 this witness had committed two mistakes and in respect of the suspect identified by him in those parades he committed some mistakes against those suspects. In subsequent parades held on 15-3-1968 this witness had committed two mistakes and in respect of the suspect identified by him in those parades he committed some mistakes against those suspects. Those parades were held long after the present parade. Their results have to be ignored and the performance regarding those suspects in courts should not be allowed to influence this identification. Thus I am of the opinion that P. W. 13 Ram Kumar, P. W. 17 Ram Shanker and P. W. 24 Lal Bahadur are good witnesses of identification against Chhotai appellant. All these witnesses had full opportunity of being present at the time of the dacoity. There were enough sources of light and they had ample opportunity to see the faces of the dacoits. They are, therefore, reliable witnesses. The prosecution in my opinion, has succeeded in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt against Chhotai appellant. The identification parades against Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants were held on 19- 11-1968 by P. W. 27 Mahendra Singh Magistrate 1st Class in Naini Central Prison, Allahabad. He had also taken all necessary precaution of covering their identying marks. In cross-examination his statement is not challenged that any necessary precaution which might have affected the identification parades of the appellants had been taken. While considering the results of the identification parades against these two appellants the performances of the witnesses in the identification parades held on 19-1 1-1968 and 25-11-1968 which were held only six days after, will have to be taken into account. The parade in question was held on 19-11 -1968. P. W. 8 Baijnath had correctly identified both the appellants, but he had not picked up Chhotai appellant in court whom he had identified in jail on 7-9-1968 and in the parade held on 25-11-1968 he committed three mistakes. Thus he cannot be treated as a good witness of identification. P. W. 9 Murli had also correctly identified Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants. Although he had identified Chhotai appellant in jail in the parades held on 7-9-1968 but he failed to pick him up in court. Much importance therefore cannot be given to his testimony either. P. W. 12 Bindesari had also identified correctly Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants in jail on 19- 11-1968 but he failed to pick up Chhotai appellant in court whom he had identified earlier in jail on 7-9-1968. Much importance therefore cannot be given to his testimony either. P. W. 12 Bindesari had also identified correctly Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants in jail on 19- 11-1968 but he failed to pick up Chhotai appellant in court whom he had identified earlier in jail on 7-9-1968. While making his statement he wrongly picked up four accused before the court below. He too therefore cannot be treated as a witness credited with good power of observance.. His testimony will therefore, have also to be rejected. P. W. 13 Ram Kumar correctly identified Mahadeo Mali appellant in the parade held on 19-11-1968 and also picked him up in court but in jail he had wrongly picked up a person in the parade of Lal Bahadur. Thus his performance in the parades held on 19 - 11 -1968 was one good identification against one wrong identification. His testimony against Mahadeo Mali appellant has therefore no value. Similarly, the performance of P. W. 17 Ram Shan- ker was one correct identification of Mahadeo Mali appellant as against one wrong identification against Lal Bahadur appellant. He also committed one mistake in the parade held on 25-11 - 1968 as against three good identifications. He is, therefore, a bad witness so far as Mahadeo Mali appellant is concerned. P. W. 22 constable Chhotey Lal who belonged to the armed police and had been on the scene of dacoity at the time of dacoity and there was also an exchange of fire between the police and the dacoits, had correctly identified Mahadeo Mali appellant in the parade held on 19-11-1968 committed no mistake in any subsequent parades. He is, therefore, a single good witness of identification against Mahadeo Mali appellant. 17. THE prosecution also claims that the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant is the same gun from which the fired cartridges recovered from the scene of occurrence were fired. THE witnesses of arrest of Mahadeo Mali appellant are Jagat Mohan Singh P. W. 6, V. S. Rai P. W. 23 and Ranvir Singh P. W. 33. Among them Jagat Mohan Singh P. W. 6 and V. S. Rai P. W. 23 made no attempt to identify the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo appellant. However, P. W. 33 Ranvir Singh stated that he was in the party which arrested the two Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants. Among them Jagat Mohan Singh P. W. 6 and V. S. Rai P. W. 23 made no attempt to identify the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo appellant. However, P. W. 33 Ranvir Singh stated that he was in the party which arrested the two Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants. He has stated that Ex. 5 was the D. B. B. L. gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant. He has proved the other recoveries from his possession but we are not concerned with them in this case. THE Investigating Officer has stated that the five fired cartridges which were recovered from 1:he scene of occurrence were taken into possession by him. They were duly sealed and their recovery memo was prepared. They were brought to the Police Station and deposited in its Malkhana on 25-6-1968. On his report these fired cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert to find out if they were fired from the arms recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant. After his report in sealed condition these articles were sent to the Scientific Section of the Criminal Investigation Department. Sri R. P. Rastogi (P.W. 48) is the fire-arm expert who had fired a number of cartridges from both the barrels of the gun (Ex. 5). He compared the firing pin marks on the cartridges fired by him with the gun Ex. 5 and the firing pin marks found by him on the cartridges recovered from the scene of the dacoity. After comparing them he was of the opinion that the cartridges recovered from the scene of occurrence were fired from the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant. 18. P. W. 55 Ajijur Rahman was the Head Moharrir of the Police Station on 25-6-1968 when the fired recovered cartridges duly sealed were brought to the Police Station but this bundle of fired cartridges remained in the Police Station Malkhana till 17-12-1968. It is stated by him that they were taken from Police Station to Malkhana Sadar on 17-12-1968. This entry is also made in the General Diary and it is Ex. 61. There is no explanation why these articles remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station for nearly three months. The gun in question was recovered on 26-10-1968, from possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant and it was deposited in the Kotwali Malkhana the same day. This entry is also made in the General Diary and it is Ex. 61. There is no explanation why these articles remained in the Malkhana of the Police Station for nearly three months. The gun in question was recovered on 26-10-1968, from possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant and it was deposited in the Kotwali Malkhana the same day. According to P. W. 29 Yadram Varma this property remained in the Malkhana when it was taken on 9 -12-1968 from the Kotwali to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, for obtaining his sanction for prosecution under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The witness was recalled and after his recall he stated that he had also taken the same property on 5-12-1968 from Kotwali to the District Magistrate for his sanction. On that date the District Magistrate was not available. He, therefore, took them back to Kotwali and he again brought the same articles on 9-12-1968 for obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate. He has admitted that in the General Diary of 5-12-1968 it was noted that the District Magistrate was not available. P. W. 30 Ramji Singh Clerk Constable of Police Station Kotwali, has stated that these bundles were sent to Malkhana Sadar on 21-12-1968. With the manner in which the recovered gun from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant and the cartridges recovered from the scene of occurrence were retained in the Police Stations for such a long duration a great suspicion arises about the intentions of the investigating agency. No satisfactory explanation or reason has been given for retaining these articles in the Police Stations for such a long time. In view of this long delay the testimony of the Ballistic Expert that the fired cartridges recovered from the scene of occurrence were the cartridges fired from the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant loses all importance and no credence can be attached to such results. Even if it be assumed that the recovered cartridges from the scene of occurrence were the same cartridges which were fired from the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant, this fact alone will not be sufficient to connect Mahadeo Mali appellant with the fact that he was a participator in the dacoity. Even if it be assumed that the recovered cartridges from the scene of occurrence were the same cartridges which were fired from the gun recovered from the possession of Mahadeo Mali appellant, this fact alone will not be sufficient to connect Mahadeo Mali appellant with the fact that he was a participator in the dacoity. As a result of the discussions and conclusions arrived at by me I am of the opinion that the appeal of Chhotai appellant deserves to be dismissed while the appeals of Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur appellants succeed. The sentence of seven years R. I. imposed against Chhotai appellant does not call for any interference. 19. THE appeal of Chhotai is dismissed. THE conviction and sentence imposed against him are hereby confirmed. Chhotai is on bail. THE court concerned will take immediate steps to take him into custody. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled only after he is taken into custody or he surrenders in court. THE appeals of Mahadeo Mali and Lal Bahadur are allowed. Their conviction and sentences are hereby set aside. Mahadeo Mali appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with some other case. Lal Bahadur is wanted in connection with some other case. Lal Bahadur appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. 20. BHAI Lal appellant is stated to be dead. His appeal abates. K.J.C.