JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. Naresh, appellant, resident of village Jalalpur, Police Station Bisauli, district Budaun, has been convicted under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for having participated in a dacoity committed by a gang of about a dozen bad characters in the houses of Ram Prakash (P.W. 3) and Ram Swarup, father of Maharaj Singh ,(P.W. 2) in village Karanpur within police station Bisauli, district Budaun on the night intervening January 11 and 12, 1973 at about 1011 P.M. The appellant was arrested on April 5, 1973 by Adya Prasad Tiwari S.I. (P. W. 8) from his village and taken to police station Bisauli. From police station Bisauli, Dalchand constable escorted the appellant on that day to District Jail Budaun. On May 31, 1973, the appellant was put up for test identification. The identification proceeding was conducted by Sri N. N. Varma, Magistrate (P.W. 6). The appellant was identified by Shyam Lal (P. W. 1), father of Ram Ptrakash, Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash. There was a lantern burning at the verandah inside the house of Ram Prakash. Shyam Lal (P.W. 1) was sleeping in the verandah. He was, therefore, able to see the dacoits very well. Ram Prakash ran out of his house and Maharaj Singh also ran from his house. They stood in a narrow street to the west of the house of Brijpal which is to the south of the house of Shyam Lal and Ram Prakash, with a narrow street in between and to the south each of the house of Ram Swarup. The house of Ram Swarup is to the west of the house of Ram Prakash. Some open land is between these two houses. The house of Ram Prakash faces east. After having committed dacoity in the house of Ram Prakash, the dacoits went towards south and then towards west through the street which is between the houses of Ram Prakash and Brijpal and thereby reached the house of Ram Swarup and after having committed dacoity in the house of Ram Swarup, the bad character bolted away towards north. The light of lantern which was burning inside the house of Ram Prakash was not available to Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash. At the place where Ram Prakash and Maharaj Singh were standing at the time of dacoity, there were other village people. The light of lantern which was burning inside the house of Ram Prakash was not available to Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash. At the place where Ram Prakash and Maharaj Singh were standing at the time of dacoity, there were other village people. These village people had two torches, one was with Maharaj Singh and the other with Hira Lal. At the northeastern corner of the house of Brijpal some straw was burnt. According to Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash they saw the dacoits in the light of torches and the fire of burning straw. It is obvious that Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash could not see the dacoits when; they were committing dacoity in the house of Ram Swarup and when they were bolting away from the house of Ram Swarup towards north. The III Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun who tried the case did not accept the identification of Shyam Lal. On the date on which the appellant was put up for test identification three other suspects were also put up. Shyam Lal picked up three persons correctly and committed one mistake. On this ground the Additional Sessions Judge did not accept his (testimony. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, believed the evidence of Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash and convicted the appellant. At the outset it has to be remarked that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in not accepting the identification of the appellant by Shyam Lal. His performance was 75 per cent, correct. This performance on the very face is a good one. It is not expected that a witness should be able to identify all the suspects and then only his identification could be characterised as good. Besides, in the instant case Shyam Lal had every occasion and time to mark the features of the dacoits because he was inside the house and a lantern was burning quite close to him. Therefore, identification by Shyam Lal so far as the appellant is concerned, should have been accepted by the court below. The main question is whether Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash had sufficient light and opportunity to mark the faces of the dacoits to enable them to pick up in the test identification proceeding. In this connection it has to be assessed from what distance they had seen the dacoits. The main question is whether Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash had sufficient light and opportunity to mark the faces of the dacoits to enable them to pick up in the test identification proceeding. In this connection it has to be assessed from what distance they had seen the dacoits. Facts relevant for consideration are as follows: (1) Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash both have stated that the dacoits were going in and coming out of the house of Ram Prakash. It means that the dacoits were not standing outside the house of Ram Prakash throughout the dacoity. Therefore, it may easily be presumed that the appellant must also be going in and coming out of the house of Ram Prakash throughout the period of dacoity a the house of Ram Prakash. sons concerned in the offence, who not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in Court. Identification proceedings, in their legal effect amount simply to this, that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerted in the crime. They do net constitute substantive evidence. These parades are essentially governed by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Cede. It is for this reason that the identification parades in this case seem to have been held under the supervision if a Magistrate. Keeping in view the purpose of identification parades the Magistrate holding them are expected to take all possible precautions to eliminate any suspicion of unfairness and to reduce the chance of testimonial error. ... The power to identify. it may be kept in view., varies according to the power of observation and memory of the person identifying and each case depends on its own facts, hut there are two factors which seem to be of basic importance in the evaluation of identification. The per sons required to identify an accused should have had no opportunity of. seeing him after the commission of the crime and before identification and secondly that no mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay. The per sons required to identify an accused should have had no opportunity of. seeing him after the commission of the crime and before identification and secondly that no mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed up with the accused behold be reasonably large and 'their bearing and general appearance not glaringly dissimilar. The evidence as to identification deserves, therefore, to be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny by the Court.' There is no dispute to the above observations. The learned counsel for the State has particularly relied on the last portion of the above observation. He has contended that the appellant was sent to jail from another police station on the very day of his arrest and there was nothing to show that the identification proceeding was in any way tainted. He urges that the identification of the appellant by the two witnesses should be accepted as a piece of corroborative evidence to the testimony of the witnesses given in Court. The evidence of the witnesses in Court is substantive evidence,. If the witnesses make such statements in Court which render their evidence less probable or unbelievable, the corroborattive evidence will not carry that weight which it is supposed to. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that they were at a distance from which it is not easily probable for a witness to mark an unknown persons features to enable him to recognise in a test parade. In this connection definition of the word 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act has to be kept in mind. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. In the present case, the witnesses saw the dacoits from a distance of 100 feet. Therefore, it is not probable that they were in a position to mark the faces or the features of the dacoits who were going in and coming out so as to enable them in a test parade held four months after the occurrence to identify. In the present case, the witnesses saw the dacoits from a distance of 100 feet. Therefore, it is not probable that they were in a position to mark the faces or the features of the dacoits who were going in and coming out so as to enable them in a test parade held four months after the occurrence to identify. Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, reliance cannot safely be placed on the identification of the appellant by Maharaj Singh and Ram Prakash. In the result the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 395, I.P.C. recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The appellant is on bail. He will not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.