JUDGMENT M.M. Husain, J. -Daya Ram and Habib appellants have been held guilty under Section 395, I. P. C. by the Second Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge, Sitapur. The learned Judge has sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for five years. Two other persons namely, Mewa Lal and Jia Ram alias Jia Lal, were also facing their trial in the court below. Their participation in the occurrence was not believed by the learned trial Judge and they have been acquitted. 2. It has not been disputed before me that at about midnight in the night intervening 1st and 2nd February, 1973 an armed dacoity was committed by 15 or 16 unknown dacoit's at the house of Gur Dayal (Since dead) in village Ramuwapur, P.S. Laharapur District Sitapur. Valuables worth about Rs. 850/- were looted by the dacoit's from complainants house. Four persons, including Gur Dayal, received injuries at the hands of the dacoit's. When the dacoit's were decamping the village people chased them up to some distance but none could be apprehended. 3. To prove the factum of dacoity the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the injuries of Gur Dayal and others, upon the testimony of Radhay Shaym, Shatruhan, Maiku Manijar and Mahabir P. Ws. and also upon the observations and recoveries made on the spot by the investigating Officer, S.N. Trivedi (P.W. 14) since the factum of dacoity has not been disputed, by the learned counsel for appellants, I need not enter into the details of the said evidence. Suffice it to say that the factum of the alleged dacoity is fully established by the material on record. 4. The main point agitated before me in this appeal is that the participation of the appellants in the alleged dacoity was not established. Evidence against them comprises of identification alone. Daya Ram appellant was arrested on 12-4-1974 and was put up for identification on 1-5-1974. Habib appellant was arrested on 30-10-1974 and was put up for identification on 18-11-1974. Out of the witnesses, who identified the two appellants in jail only three were examined at the trial. They are Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1), Shatruhan (P.W. 3) and Maiku (P.W. 4). Daya Ram was correctly identified by Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1) and Maiku (P. W. 4) whereas Habib was correctly identified by Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1) and Shatruhan (P.W. 3). Out of the witnesses, who identified the two appellants in jail only three were examined at the trial. They are Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1), Shatruhan (P.W. 3) and Maiku (P.W. 4). Daya Ram was correctly identified by Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1) and Maiku (P. W. 4) whereas Habib was correctly identified by Radhey Shyam (P.W. 1) and Shatruhan (P.W. 3). The learned Sessions Judge has held that evidence to be reliable. 5. The first infirmity pointed out in the identification of Daya Ram by his learned counsel is that his identification having been held more than nine months after the occurrence cannot be said to be a reliable piece of evidence. 6. The legal worth of the test identification of a suspect of dacoity held long after the event has been the subject-matter of discussion in a large number of reported decisions of this court, viz., Dhaja Rai v. Emperor (1947 All LJ 687), Darya Singh v. State ( AIR 1952 All 59 ), Lachhman v. State (1956 All LJ 718) (LB), Asharfi v. State (1960 All LJ 595), Anwar v. State ( AIR 1961 All 50 ), and Sheo Nandan v. State ( AIR 1964 All 139 ). The consistent view expressed in these decisions is that the evidence of identification is, at its best, a weak type of evidence because it depends entirely upon the capacity of a witness to register in his mind the true impressions of those strangers whom he sees committing the alleged crime and also upon the power of his memory to retain their image. He picks up a suspect at the test parade on account of the honest belief that he resembled the person whom he had seen committing the crime. The chances of a mistake in such picking up are far greater than where the witness states about facts within his personal knowledge. There is always room for error in evidence of identification due to defective perception or imperfect recollection. Since human memory is apt to get dulled with the passage of time it is desirable both in the interest of an honest witness and of the suspect himself that the latter be put up for identification without delay. There is always room for error in evidence of identification due to defective perception or imperfect recollection. Since human memory is apt to get dulled with the passage of time it is desirable both in the interest of an honest witness and of the suspect himself that the latter be put up for identification without delay. To lay down a hard and fast rule with regard to the period of time which may elapse between the commission of a crime and the identification of the culprits would be, to impose an arbitrary rule which neither common sense nor statute of law of evidence can or would justify. If there was such a rule, it would be the easiest thing for a culprit to avoid his arrest for a certain period of time and then turn up with confidence that he can go with impunity because of the lapse of the requisite period of time. If the accused cannot be put up for identification for some time after the occurrence the prosecution obviously suffers inasmuch as it becomes more and more difficult for the witnesses to identify persons who were not known to them at all and who were seen by them for the first time at the time of occurrence. If in spite of fading memory and the effect of seeing the accused in a different appearance and the long gap between the time of occurrence and the holding of identification proceedings the witnesses do identify the accused there should be no justification whatsoever for discarding their evidence on the ground of delay alone. Like any other piece of evidence the identification has also to be tested by the Court with prudence and can be accepted only when it is so highly probable that its truth can be safely accepted. The performance shown by a witness in correctly identifying a suspect at a test parade held so much after the occurrence that it may reasonably be said to be a delayed one, will certainly put the court on guard. It will justifiably require some plausible reason for that marvellous performance of the witness. If such a reason can be found from the material on record the evidence of identification can be accepted without any legal difficulty. It will justifiably require some plausible reason for that marvellous performance of the witness. If such a reason can be found from the material on record the evidence of identification can be accepted without any legal difficulty. If, on the other hand, no such reason is available the long interval between the occurrence and test identification cannot be altogether ignored and it will be a sound exercise of judicial discretion if the evidence of such identification, uncorroborated by any other evidence, if rejected. 7. In the present case, no such particular features of any dacoit are mentioned in the F.I. R. which may correspond to the features of Habib. The identifying witnesses of Habib also disclosed no such features of any dacoit in their statements made before the investigating officer. Even after placing their hand upon Habib at the time of test identification in jail they did not tell anything before the Magistrate, who held test identification, whereby it may be inferred that Habib had played such a prominent role in the dacoity which left an indelible impression of his features upon the mind of the witnesses. Thus, no plausible reason is available in the present case which could, in the normal Course, enable the picking up of Habib by his identifying witnesses about nine months after the dacoity, which is undoubtedly a fairly long period. 8. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of both the appellants to discard the evidence of identification is that Radhey Shyam (P. W. 1) is not a dependable identifying witness because he had identified an acquitted accused, viz., Jia Ram and his identification of that accused was held to be unreliable by the learned Sessions Judge himself. While rejecting Radhey Shyams identification of Jia Ram the trial Judge observed as follows:- "Consequently both the identifying witnesses, namely, Radhey Shyam and Mahabir residents of the same village Ramuwapur must have had occasions to see this accused from before the occurrence and so their identification evidence tended to become farcical. Any way on this score the identification evidence against him could not be treated as reliable so as to establish his involvement in this dacoity." 9. Any way on this score the identification evidence against him could not be treated as reliable so as to establish his involvement in this dacoity." 9. The above condemnation of Radhey Shyam made by the learned Sessions Judge indicates that in spite of having prior acquaintance with Jia Ram this witness suppressed that fact and falsely attempted to prove his participation in the occurrence by identifying him at the test parade. When Radhey Shyam is such an unscrupulous witness, implicit reliance cannot be placed upon his identification of the two appellants. Both of them have pleaded that they were shown to the witnesses at the police station. There is no reason to reject that suggestion when, according to the trial Judge himself, Radhey Shyam is an unreliable witness. Once the identification of Radhey Shyam is excluded, there remains only one identification of each appellant which, taken by itself, cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to prove their guilt. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the two appellants on the basis of the evidence which was tendered before him. 10. This appeal is, consequently, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the two appellants ordered by the trial court are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.