JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri convicting him u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and passing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Facts. In the night between 29th and 30th of December, 198 a dacoity took place in the house of the informant (P.W. 1). In courses of the dacoity bombs were exploded and several inmates of the haul were threatened with assault. The villagers offered resistence, but not before the dacoits decamped with cash of about Rs. 15, 000/-and several Tolas of gold ornaments kept inside the Thakurghar of the house. As a result of explosion of bombs one of the inmates of the house (P.W. 5) received several injuries. It is also alleged that on account of explosion of bombs to detract the pursuing villagers, one of the dacoits sustained severe injuries and died. The Appellant was arrested at Khurda Hospital on 24.1.1982 while he was under treatment for an injury on the left big toe. Two other accused persons were also subsequently arrested and all of them were put to trial after submission of charge sheet. 3. The Appellant pleaded innocence. With regard to the injury on his left big toe he explained that while cutting wood, the axe accidentally hit that part of the body. 4. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case that a dacoity had been committed and cash and gold ornaments had been stolen from the house of the informant (P.W. 1). He further believed that the Appellant was one of the dacoits. He did not accept the prosecution case involving the other two accused persons, Therefore, while convicting the Appellant, he acquitted the other two. 5. I have been taken through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, particularly, those of the inmates of the house, P.Ws.1 to 5 and a neighbour (P.W. 6). On consideration of their evidence it is apparent that a dacoity had taken place in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and cash and gold ornaments had been stolen. 6. Miss Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that conviction has been based solely on the evidence of identification without any other corroborating evidence. On consideration of their evidence it is apparent that a dacoity had taken place in the house of the informant (P.W. 1) and cash and gold ornaments had been stolen. 6. Miss Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that conviction has been based solely on the evidence of identification without any other corroborating evidence. The test identification parade having taken place more than four months after the occurrence, no reliance, can be placed on such evidence and consequently the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted. In support of her, contention, she has placed reliance on Wakil Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Sidha Dehury and Others Vs. State of Orissa, . 7. It is in deed correct that except the evidence of identification there is no other evidence to corroborate the fact that the Appellant had participated in the dacoity. No incriminating article, much less any Stolen article, had been recovered from his possession. The Medical Officer (P.W. 7), who had examined the Appellant on 30.12.1981, reported in the injury report (Ext. 7) that the injury on the left big toe could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as an axe. Obviously he did not notice that the injuries could have been caused by explosion of bomb being hit by splinters. Thus, save and except Identification evidence, there are no incriminating materials on record showing implication of the Appellant in the dacoity. 8. Now turning to the evidence of identification the informant (P.W. 1) stated truthfully that he was not sure that the accused persons in the dock had committed dacoity in his house. He could not identify any of the culprits at the time of commission of dacoity. P.W. 2 is the younger brother of P.W. 1. He did not participate in the test identification parade, but identified the Appellant for the first time In the Court as one of the culprits whom he has seen at the time of commission of the dacoity, So the question for consideration is whether the evidence of P.W. 2 with regard to indentification of the Appellant for the first time in Court can be believed. It is to be remembered that the dacoity took place, in the night between 29th and 30th December, 1981 and P.W. 2 gave evidence on 7.2.1983. It is to be remembered that the dacoity took place, in the night between 29th and 30th December, 1981 and P.W. 2 gave evidence on 7.2.1983. After long lapse of time it will be difficult to accept the version of the witness that he could still identify the Appellant. The factual aspect apart, there is a clear embargo in law not to place reliance on evidence of identification for first time in Court. In the case of Sidha Dehuri (supra) this Court held as follows: ...When a dacoity is committed the victims and the inmates of the house are normally and naturally in a state of extreme excitement with a heavy sense of fear. The evidence of identification of such persons requires close scrutiny before the same is accepted. The substantive evidence of a witness, as regards identification is a statement made in the Court. The evidence of mere identification of an accused person at the trial for the first time is, from its very nature, inherently of a weak character. In order to carry conviction, the evidence should ordinarily show as to how and under what circumstances, the witness came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused had played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The purpose of a test identification parade seems to be test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the evidence given in the Court. As a safe rule of prudence, it is considered necessary to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of a witness in the Court as regards the identify of an accused who is a stranger to him in the form of an earlier test identification proceeding. This being the caution and as there is no corroborative evidence it is difficult to believe identification evidence of P.W 2. 9. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were two other inmates of the house at the time of the dacoity. According to their evidence, they could identify the Appellant in the night of occurrence and subsequently they identified him in a test identification parade held on 8.5.1982 by P.W. 13, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri. It is to be considered whether the evidence of test identification undertaken more than four months after the occurrence can be accepted to sustain the conviction. It is to be considered whether the evidence of test identification undertaken more than four months after the occurrence can be accepted to sustain the conviction. In this connection it is, necessary to refer to the case of Wakil Singh and Ors. (supra). In that case the dacoity had taken place oh 24.5.1965 and the test identification parade was held on 4.9.1965. Amongst other observations, their Lordships gave importance to the delay is holding the test identification parade and held: ...The High Court also ignored the, fact that the identification was made at the T.I. parade about 3 months after the dacoity and in view of such a long lapse of time it is not possible for any human being to remember, the features of the accused and he is, therefore, very likely to commit mistakes. This view regarding delay in holding test identification parades has also consistently followed by this Court in many judgments one of which is reported in 1983 C.L.R. 240, Rajkishore Sahu and Jogindrai Pradhan v. State. From the above it appears that there was long delay in holding the test identification parade and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, there is scope to entertain doubt that, the identifying witnesses might not have correctly identified the Appellant with reasonable certainty. 10. In consideration of the above facts and the principle of law with regard to identification evidence, I am of the view that there is scope to entertain doubt as to whether the identification evidence is sufficient to uphold the Appellant's conviction. The Appellant, is therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Allowed