JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions raise, for consideration, the question as to whether in a case where a witness claims to know the accused from before, the accused is entitled to ask for a test identification to establish that the claim of the witness that he/she knows the accused from before is not true and that the witness does not know the accused from before and, therefore, could not have identified the accused at the time of the occurrence. 2. In criminal revision No. 232/1982, the petitioners are Darga, Pomaram and Dhanaram. They are being prosecuted in respect of charges under sections 148, 302/149, 302/34 and 460 I.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, in connection with an incident which is alleged to have taken place on the night intervening January 2, and 3, 1980; in village Bijova at the house of the Kenaram wherein six persons viz. Lakbaram, Mst Kakku, Pakaram, Mst. Aski, Amra and Darga were killed. In the said case after investigation the police filed the challan against the petitioners in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, and the petitioners have been committed for trial to the court of Sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, has framed the charges in respect of the offences stated above on February 11, 1981. The case of the prosecution is than Kum. Sukali, aged 11 years, who was sleeping in the house when the incident had taken place, had seen petitioners Daya and Dhanaram passing by her bed soon after the incident. On March 19, 1982, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby it was prayed that Kum. Sukali, the alleged eyewitness, has falsely named the petitioners and that she neither knows the petitioners from before nor can she identify them. In the application aforesaid the petitioners prayed that identification proceeding may he held for the identification of the petitioners by the said witness and till the identification proceedings were held, the petitioners should not be taken out from the Jail. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge by bis order dated June 2, 1982. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,the petitioners have filed the revision before this Court under sections 397 and 401 Cr. P. C. 3. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge by bis order dated June 2, 1982. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,the petitioners have filed the revision before this Court under sections 397 and 401 Cr. P. C. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 241/1982 the petitioners are Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh, Narpatsingh, Paniya and Gena.The aforesaid petitioners, alongwith six others, are being prosecuted in respect of offences under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 I. P. C. in connection with an incident which is alleged to have taken place on November 22, 1980, at about 5.15 p.m. in village Sevtalab. In the said incident two persons namely, Harilal and Kapura were killed. After completing the investigation, the police has filed the challan against the accused persons in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri, and the accused persons have been committed for trial to the court of Sessions and the matter is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. While the matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, the petitioners in this revision petition moved an application dated March 3, 1982, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi where it was stated that the witnesses have falsely named the petitioners as being present at the time of the petitioners as being present at the time of occurence and that the witnesses neither know the petitioners from before nor can they identify them. By the application aforesaid, the petitioners prayed that identification proceedings may be held for having the petitioners identified by the witnesses and till the said identification proceeding are held, the petitioners should not be removed from Jail. The said application was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by his order dated March 2, 1982, and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the said petitioners have filed this revision petition. 4. I have heard Shri P.L. Choudhary the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these revision petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor I have also heard Shri S.R. Singhi, the learned counsel for the complainant in criminal revision No. 232/1982 and Shri K.S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the complainant in criminal revision No. 241/82. 5. 4. I have heard Shri P.L. Choudhary the learned counsel for the petitioner in both these revision petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor I have also heard Shri S.R. Singhi, the learned counsel for the complainant in criminal revision No. 232/1982 and Shri K.S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the complainant in criminal revision No. 241/82. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the revision petitions on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are interlocutory orders and that no revisions lies against the said orders. To get over the said objection Shri Choudhary has submitted that the revision petitions that have been filed by the petitioners may be treated as petitions filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. In view of the aforesaid prayer of Shri Choudhary, these applications are being treated as applications moved under section 482 Cr. P.C. and they are being disposed of on that basis. 6. Shri Choudhary has submitted that in a case where the accused is named by a witness and the witness asserts that he/she had seen the accused at the scene of the occurrence, the accused is entitled to show that the assertion of the witness that he/she knows the accused from before and had seen the accused at the scene of the occurrence is false. The submission of Shri Choudhary was that in order to establish his aforesaid case, the accused is entitled to ask for a test identification by the witness to demonstrate the falsity of the assertion by the witness that he/she knows the accused from before and that the accused was present at the scene of occurrence. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Choudhary has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 SC 363 , Shri Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 175 , Mr. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1976 SCC (Cr.) 527 and Mahendera Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1982, D/d. 11.1.1982 . Shri Choudhary has also placed reliance on the decisions of the High Courts of Lahore, Allahabad and Punjab and Haryana in Amar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Lahore 303 , Sajjan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lahore 48 , Lajja Ram v. State, AIR 1955 All. Shri Choudhary has also placed reliance on the decisions of the High Courts of Lahore, Allahabad and Punjab and Haryana in Amar Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Lahore 303 , Sajjan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lahore 48 , Lajja Ram v. State, AIR 1955 All. 671 .) , Ashrafi v. State, AIR 1961 All. 153 , State v. Jagnoo, AIR 1968 All. 333 and Jogender Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974 Cr. L.J. 240 . 7. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainants have submitted that an accused has no right to ask for a test identification by the witness and that the trial Court is not competent to pass an order for test identification during the course of trial and the order of the trial Court refusing the request of an accused for test identification cannot be challenged before this Court in a proceeding under section 482 Cr. P.C. In support of their aforesaid submission the learned counsel have relied upon the decision of a learned counsel have relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in In re. Sangiah, AIR 1648 Madras 113 and the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Ghulam Mohiuddin, AIR 1951, All. 475 . 8. In Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) the accused persons, after their arrest, had submitted an application wherein it was stated that the witnesses were strangers and that there should he an identification parade. The said application was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate on the ground that charge sheet had already been received and the accused had been named by the prosecution witnesses. In the said case the Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of the accused persons against their conviction have considered the decisions of the various Courts on the point and have observed:- "It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witnesses did not know him previously. It may be that there is no express provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist on an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, as pointed out above, the prosecution will, unless there is some other evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point." 9. In the said case the Supreme Court have also observed that the reason given by the Additional District Magistrate, for refusing to hold the identification parade was not valid and have also observed that the fact that a charge sheet had been received and the accused had been named by the prosecution witnesses was no justification for not having ordered the test identification. In the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that one witness (PW 2) at least knew the accused from before and, thereof, the trial was not vitiated because the accused persons were denied identification. 10. In Shri Rani vs. State of U.P. , (supra) Shri Ram accused alongwith Ram Chandra had moved an application before the committal Court wherein it was stated that he was not known to the witnesses and therefore, he should be put up for identification. The said application of the accused was rejected and the Supreme Court, while dealing with this aspect of the case have observed:- "The circumstance that Shri Ram had voluntarily accepted the risk of being identified in a parade but was denied that opportunity was an important point in his favour. The High Court rejected it as inconsequential by observing that the oral testimony of witnesses, even if not tested by holding an identification parade, can be made the basis of conviction if the request made by the accused is groundless and the witnesses knew the accused prior to the occurrence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact, evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact, evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. But the point of the matter is that the Court which acquitted Shri Ram was justifiable influenced by the consideration that though at the earliest stage he had asked that an identification parade he held, the demand opposed by the prosecution and the parade was there-fore not held." 11. Similarly in Dalbirkaur v. State of Punjab (supra), Ajit Singh one of the accused, at the time of surrendering,had given an application wherein he categorically prayed that he should be put at the test identification parade for identification by all the eye witnesses who did not know him from before. On the said application the Magistrate had passed an order that accused Ajit Singh should be identified at the test identification parade and a test identification parade was held but unfortunately one of the eye witnesses, Jaswant Kaur, was not asked to identify him there. The Supreme Court have observed that : "At any rate, either Ajit Singh was known to the witness Jaswant Kaur or he was not known. In any case, in view of the stand taken by Ajit Singh the prosecution should in all fairness, have put Jaswant Kaur also at the test identification parade to identify Ajit Singh. If Ajit Singh was not known to Jaswant Kaur as he said, then she would not have been able to identify him. If Ajit Singh was known to her, then also the prosecution was not to lose anything. In view of these circumstances, therefore, I feel it unsafe to rely on the single testimony of Jaswant Kaur, so far as the Appellant Ajit Singh is concerned." 12. From the aforesaid of the Supreme Court it is clear that if the accused asks for a test identification by the witness who claims to know him from before and such an identification is not granted, then the said circumstances can be taken into consideration by the court while dealing with the credibility of the witness in so far as he implicates the accused. The aforesaid decisions proceed on the assumption that the Court is competent to pass an order for a test identification by the witness if a request for the same is made by the accused. The aforesaid decisions also show that the request for seeking the test identification need not be made during the course of investigation and that it can also be made subsequent to filing of the charge sheet. 13. The question whether the court is competent to pass an order for test identification by a witness at the request of the accused has come up for consideration before the High Courts and it would be relevant to take note of some of those decisions. 14. In Amarsingh v. Emperor (supra) a revision petition had been filed against the order passed by the Magistrate refusing to direct that a parade be held in jail for the identification of the accused petitioner by the witnesses for the crown. A teamed Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed the said revision petition and directed that before the witnesses were examined in the court in presence of the accused, an identification parade should be held in jail where the petitioner was confined. In that case it has been observed : "It seems to me that Whenever an accused person disputes the ability of the prosecution witnesses to identify him, the Court should direct an identification parade to be held save in the most exceptional circumstances." 15. In Sajjansingh v. Emperor (supra) a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court was dealing with a case where the application moved by the accused for identification by the witnesses more than a week before the proceedings came up for trial, had been rejected by the Magistrate and the High Court depreciated the practice for the police to oppose applications of this nature and for the Magistrates to reject them. 16. 16. In Asharfi v. State of of U.P. a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has considered the various aspects of the law of identification and, while dealing with the identification at the instance of the accused, the learned Judges have observed "It therefore appears to us that if the Court reasonably comes to the conclusion that there may be force in what the accused contends, it should direct the holding of a regular test identification in order that the witnesses varacity may be tested. We have no doubt that the Court has ample power under section 540 Cr. PC to secure this evidence." 17. In Awadhsingh v. State, AIR 1954 Patna 483 it has been 1aid down that the accused persons may or may not have the legal right to claim for test identification may or may not be a rule of law but it is a rule of prudence and that test identification parade should be held specially when the accused persons definitely assert that they were known to prosecution witnesses either by name or by face and they requested the authorites concerned to have the test identification parade held. 18. In Jogindra Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dealing with a revision petition against the order of the Magistrate refusing to hold a test identification parade at the instance of the accused. The High Court while allowing the said revision petition and directing the trial Magistrate to have the identification parade of the accused conducted expeditiouly and further directing that till the time of identification parade, the accused should not be taken out of the jail, has observed:- "I fail to understand how a request made on behalf of the accused person can be declined on a ground like this. Had it been within the powers of the police and the magistracy, to control the defence evidence which the accused wanted to lead, then perhaps no person standing trial in a Criminal Court could get justice. This is a case in which the accused says that he has been wrongly involved in the case and the eye,witnesses cannot possibly identify him. This is a case in which the accused says that he has been wrongly involved in the case and the eye,witnesses cannot possibly identify him. The prosecution has come forth with the plea that identification need not be held because the prosecution witnesses already knew the petitioner and they were unable to identify him in an identification parade, then there would be greater reason for discarding the testimony of such witnesses. Denial of this right to the petitioner tentamounts to stopping him from setting up a defence which he wants to set up in a Criminal Code. It is against the elementary principles of Cr. Law. The order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be allowed to stand." 19. As against the aforesaid decisions there is a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in In re Sangiah (supra) wherein it has been held that : "I am unable to find any provision in the Code which entitles an accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or before the enquiry or the trial. An identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court. If a witness has not identified the accused at a parade or otherwise during the investigation the fact may be relied on by the accused, but I find nothing in the provisions of the Code which confers a right on the accused to demand that the investigation should be conducted in a particular way." 20. If a witness has not identified the accused at a parade or otherwise during the investigation the fact may be relied on by the accused, but I find nothing in the provisions of the Code which confers a right on the accused to demand that the investigation should be conducted in a particular way." 20. The aforesaid observations have been relied upon by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Gulam Mohiuddin (supra) wherein the learned Judge upheld the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting the application of the accused for the identification by the witnesses on the view that when at the commencement of or during the course of the trial, the accused informs the Court that the prosecution witnesses bad never seen him committing the crime and he was not even known to them, the court may, in its discretion, satisfy itself by asking the accused to stand among other persons present in Court and then call upon the witnesses who appear before the Court to identify the accused and make a note of the result on the record, but the court cannot make an order for the holding of a regular identification parade at the instance of an accused before the witnesses were examined in Court, there being no provision in the Criminal P.C. authorising the Court to do so. 21. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge in State v. Gulam Mohiuddin (supra) has been considered in the Division Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Lajjarant v. State , Asharfi v. State and State v. Jagnoo (supra). 22. In Lajjaram v. State (supra) after referring to the omission on the part of the prosecution to hold an identification parade after an application to that effect had been made by the accused, the Court has observed that if the prosecution failed in their duty the Magistrate should have ordered the holding of identification proceedings when the accused's application was put up before him. 23. In Asharfi v. State, (supra) it has been held that if the court reasonably comes to the conclusion that there may be force in what the accused contends, it should direct the holding of a regular test identification in order that the witness's varacity may be tested and the court has ample power under section 540 Criminal Procedure Code to secure this evidence. 24. 24. In State vs. Jagnoo (supra), it has been reiterated that provided it is not too late to do so the accused can challenge the prosecution to an identification parade to falsify the claim of the eye-witnesses who profess to have known him and although there is no law which could be said either to confer any right upon the accused to throw such a challenge or to impose any duly upon the prosecution to take up the challenge, the prosecution that ignores that challenge without justification would be doing it at its peril and further that even if the prosecution has failed in its duty to hold t he identification at the request of the accused, the court concerned should order the holding of it if the accused persists before it. In the said case it has been observed that identification test is a check upon the vara,city of the eye-witness and the accused can apply to the court for holding of a test identification to check up the varacity of the witnesses who claim to know him from before. 25. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the various High Courts shows that the general consensus of judicial opinion is that in a case where the accused wants test identification by the witness who claims to have known him from before, in order to show that the said claim of the witness is not true and that the witness does not know the accused from before, the court should order the holding of a test identification, provided the said request is not made at a very late stage. 26. According to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Asharfi v. State (supra) such an order for holding a test identification can be passed by the Court in exercise of its powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). In my opinion every Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, has the power to pass an order which it considers necessary for doing justice between the parties and there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the Court from passing an order for holding a test identification at the instance of the accused. In my opinion every Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, has the power to pass an order which it considers necessary for doing justice between the parties and there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the Court from passing an order for holding a test identification at the instance of the accused. The accused has a right to establish that the claim of the witness that he/she knows the accused from before and that he/she saw the accused can cut the scene of the occurrence is false, the accused do so by cross-examining the witness himself. But another mode by which the accused can demonstrate the falsity of the assertion of the witness is by seeking a test identification by the witness because a test identification is a check on the varacity of the witness. The denial of the power of test identification to the court would mean that the accused as well as the court would be prevented from applying a surer mode of checking the veracity of the witness examined by the prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the Court is competent to pass an order for holding a test identification of the accused by a witness if so requested by the accused provided such a request is not made at too late a stage and the evidence of such test identification can be brought on the record by either of the parties or by the Court itself under section 311 Cr.P.C. Once it is held that the Court has the power to pass such an order, this Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can pass a similar order if it finds that the lower court has wrongly refused to pass such an order. 27. In this context reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra). The facts of that case are not contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court but since the said appeal was filed against the judgment of this Court dated November 13, 1981, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 774/ of 1981, the facts can be gathered from the record of the said application. The facts of that case are not contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court but since the said appeal was filed against the judgment of this Court dated November 13, 1981, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 774/ of 1981, the facts can be gathered from the record of the said application. In that case some of the accused persons soon after their arrest had moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein it was prayed that a test identification parade he held'for the purpose of identification of the said accused persons by witnesses who had named them. The said application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the application filed by the said accused persons under section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court. The Supreme Court, in appeal, directed that a test identification parade for the identification of the appellants before the Supreme Court, should be held in Jail premises with all eye-witnesses in the case being made to take part in it. Shri P.L. Choudhary states that he had appeared in the aforesaid case and that the date the Supreme Court passed the aforesaid order in the appeal the charge sheet had already been filed by the police. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) lends support to the proposition that an order for holding test identification by witnesses who have named the accused can be passed at the request of the accused. 28. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainants that neither the trial nor this Court is competent to pass an order for holding a test identification of the accused by the witnesses who have.named the accused at the request of the accused. 29. The question which next arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of both these cases, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, has committed an error in rejecting the applications, submitted by the petitioners for test identification and this Court, in exercise of its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., should interfere with the aforesaid orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 30. 30. In this regard the submission of the learned counsel for the complainants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor was that the applications for test identification were submitted by the petitioner at a very late stage i.e. after the committed proceedings were over and the matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge. It was submitted that such an application ought to have been made at the earliest opportunity i.e., soon after the arrest of the petitioners and during the course of investigation. 31. It is true that no application for test identification was submitted by the petitioners during the course of investigation and the said application had been submitted in both the cases only after the case had been committed for trial to the court of Sessions. In Darga & Others v. State (supra) the application was submitted after the charge had been framed but before Kumari Sukali, the witness from whom test identification is sought, had been examined. In Madan Singh & Others v. State (supra) the application for test identification was submitted after the papers had been received but before the Additional Sessions Judge had framed the charge. 32. In Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) the application for test identification had been submitted by the accused persons after the filing of the charge sheet and it had been rejected on the ground that it was belated. The Supreme Court, however, held that the fact that a charge sheet had been received and the accused had been named by the prosecution witnesses was no justification for not having ordered the test identification. In Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Supreme Court passed an order for test identification even though the charge sheet had been filed. 33. The aforesaid decisions thus show that a prayer for test identification cannot be refused merely on the ground that it was not submitted during the course of investigation and that it was submitted after the filing of the charge sheet. In the present case it is difficult to understand how the prosecution would he prejudiced by the delay in the filing of the application by the petitioners because the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge is only at the initial stages. In the present case it is difficult to understand how the prosecution would he prejudiced by the delay in the filing of the application by the petitioners because the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge is only at the initial stages. The said delay might operate to the prejudice of the petitioners in the sense that during the intervening period the petitioners might have been seen by the witnesses but if the petitioners do not mind this delay and wish to take the risk of having a test identification there should be no reason why the said request of the petitioners should not be allowed. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor against passing an order for holding a test identification cannot, therefore, be sustained. 34. Now coming to the facts of case in Darga and Other v. State , I find that Kum. Sukali, aged 11 years is the only eye-witness who has claimed to have seen and identified the accused persons and in her statement under section 161 Cr. PC she has stated that she was sleeping in the Tor of the house and that she saw petitioners Darga and Dhanna Ram going past her. In her statement aforesaid the said witness has not stated that she knew these accused persons from before. The incident is alleged to have taken place at midnight inside a house. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that a test identification of the two accused persons, viz. Darga and Dhanna Ram by the aforesaid witness Kum. Sukali should be held because the petitioners have asserted in their application dated March 19, 1982, that the said witness does not know the petitioners either by name or by face. 35. Criminal Revision Petition No. 232/82 has, however, been filed by three petitioners viz. Darga, Pomaram and Dhanna. Since the name of Pomaram has not been mentioned by Kum. Sukali in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr. PC there can be no question of Pomaram seeking a test identification by Kum. Sukali. But test identification of petitioners Darqa and Dharma by Kum. Sukali should have been ordered and the Additional Sessions Judge was in error in rejecting the application of the aforesaid petitioners for test identification. 36. Sukali in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr. PC there can be no question of Pomaram seeking a test identification by Kum. Sukali. But test identification of petitioners Darqa and Dharma by Kum. Sukali should have been ordered and the Additional Sessions Judge was in error in rejecting the application of the aforesaid petitioners for test identification. 36. In Madan Singh & Others v. State there are in all 11 accused persons out of whom test identification has been sought by 5 accused viz. Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh, Narpat Singh, Paniya and Gena. Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh and Narpat Singh are residents of Sewatlao. Paniya is resident of Mundara and Gena is resident of Sadri. The prosecution case relates to the murder of two persons, Harilal and Kapoora, at two different places in village Sewatlao and the witnesses who have named the accused persons, belong to village Sewatlao. The case of the petitioners is that there has been a long previous enmity between the family of petitioners Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh and Narpat Singh on the one hand and deceased Harilal and Kapoora on the other and that the aforesaid petitioners have been falsely implicated. In this regard the case of the petitioners is further that petitioners Madan Singh, Yashpal Singh and Narpat Singh do not normally stay in their village and that Yashpal Singh is a regular student at Jodhpur Since IX class and at the time of the incident he was studying for law at Jodhpur, Madan Singh remains away in connection with his business and Narpat Singh lives with his father-in-law in village Peethi in Ajmer District and cultivates the land there. As regards petitioners Paniya and Gena it has been submitted that they belong to different villages and the witnesses had no occasion to meet them. In view of the assertions of the petitioners that they do not normally reside in the village and that the witnesses who named them do not know them either by name or by face, the application submitted by the petitioners for the test identification by the witnesses who named them ought to have been allowed and the Additional Sessions Judge was in error in rejecting the said application. 37. 37. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 232/82 is partly allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Darga and Dhanna Ram should be put up for test identification by Kum. Sukali. 38. Similarly Criminal Petition No. 241/82 is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Madan Singh, Narpat Singh, Paniya and Gena may be put up for test identificat on by the witnesses who have named, these persons amongst the participants in the alleged incident. 39. The test identification in both the cases will be held in District Jail Sirohi, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, or by a Judicial Magistrate nominated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. Both the test identifications should be held in the presence of the counsel for the accused petitioners as well as the Public Prosecutor, if he so chooses. The petitioners will not make any effect to alter their appearances and the Magistrate conducting the test identification may take the necessary precautions in that regard while conducting the test identification in both the cases may be held within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and care should be taken that the concerned accused persons are not removed from the jail till the test identification are heldRevision partly allowed *******