G.M. LODHA, J. — This is an appeal of the State against the acquittal of Jeeta Singh, who was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for offences under sections 302 and 397 IPC for the alleged murder of Ramniwas and dacoity at his residence. 2. The prosecution story was that on 2nd August, 1971 at about 9 p.m. four accused including Jeetasingh came to the house of the complainant and demanded some flour. Two of the accused thereafter entered into the flour mill of the complainant and committed the murder of Ramniwas by a pistol. The complainant Motiram, father of the deceased Ramniwas escaped though he was also fired at. The accused then took two trunks and one attache containing some ornaments, cash and clothes of the complainant. However, after taking the valuable articles, the attache and the trunks were left near the village pond. 3. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Motiram father of Ramniwas and S.H.O. Rameshwarsingh registered a case on 3rd August, 1971 and commenced investigation. 4. During the course of investigation, the police authorities got clue about Jeetasingh from two witnesses Tulchha and Mukhasingh and on getting full information about the address and whereabouts of the accused Jeeta Singh, the police went to apprehend him. The accused Jeetasingh was then arrested and according to the prosecution, recovery was made on his information of a chaddar, a pair of shoes and a pistol. Identification parade has held in which he was identified as one of the four accused persons who has participated in the dacoity and who had a pistol in his hand and who fired at Ramniwas. 5. The commitment proceedings were taken by the Magistrate and then the Additional Sessions Judge tried the case after the accused had claimed trial and pleaded not guilty. The charges under sections 302 and 397 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. The accused denied the allegations and he examined three witnesses in his support. The case of the accused was that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity with the S.H.O. Balbirsingh P.W. 13. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the recovery of the Chaddar, pair of shoe and pistol and held that these recoveries have not been made from the accused. The case of the accused was that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity with the S.H.O. Balbirsingh P.W. 13. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the recovery of the Chaddar, pair of shoe and pistol and held that these recoveries have not been made from the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has further held that the accused was arrested on 14th of August, 1971 and the identification parade was held on 23rd August, 1971 and during this period the possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The Additional Sessions Judge further held that the story put up by the prosecution that the accused was not arrested on 14th August, 1971 and he was arrested only on 21st August, 1971 is false and demolished by the defence evidence consisting of the A.S.I. Gurucharan Singh of police station Mukatsar and the Sarpanch of Luhanawali and wife of the accused, whose presence at the time of the arrest cannot be doubted. 7. Having disbelieved the entire evidence of recovery as well as identification, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and while doing so further held that the investigation was very unfair in this case as the S.H.O. Balbir Singh himself was interested in falsely implicating the accused because there was some dispute between his brother and the in - laws of the accused, in respect of the agricultural land. Mr. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the evidence on record and he has submitted that so far as the test identification parade is concerned, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard it. According to Mr. Bhati the test identification parade was held after taking all precautions and by a Magistrate competent for holding the same. Mr. Bhati submitted that P.W. 1 Motiram, P.W.2 Mala Singh, P.W. 6 Surat Singh, PW 8 Dungar Singh and PW. 9 Laduram are all trustworthy witnesses who have identified the accused in the test identification parade. It was argued that Motiram and Mala Singh are father and grandfather of the deceased Ramniwas who was killed by the accused and his party and they had earlier also seen the accused in the day time and, therefore, there was no reason to doubt their identification. It was argued that Motiram and Mala Singh are father and grandfather of the deceased Ramniwas who was killed by the accused and his party and they had earlier also seen the accused in the day time and, therefore, there was no reason to doubt their identification. Similarly it was pointed out that Suratsingh, Dungar Singh and Laduram have seen the accused in the day time before the incident of dacoity happened in the night and they have identified the accused in the rest identification parade. It was pointed out that in the statements during the trial, they have identified the accused and their testimony has not been shaken in the cross examination. Nothing has been shown to infer that they have falsely implicated or at any reason to falsely implicate the present accused. Mr. Bhati further submitted that so far as the question of enmity between the S.H.O. Balbirsingh and the in-laws of the accused on account of some dispute of land is concerned, the S.H.O. Balbirsingh came in picture much later on 2lst only and, therefore, it was the A.S.I. Rameshwarsingh who recorded the F.I.R., started investigation and went to apprehend the arrest of accused and ultimately arrested him. 8. Evidence of all these witnesses was read before us. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has vehemently opposed the contention of Mr. Bhati According to him the present one is a case where the police officers are guilty of fabricating evidence recovering the chaddar, shoe and pistol and concealing the arrest of the accused with the malafide motive to conceal that the accused remained in their custody for about a week during which time the witnesses were free to see the accused so that they could identify him in the identification parade. 9. Mr. Garg then argued that in any way, as per the reasons which have been given by the Additional Sessions Judge and which are based on thorough discussion of the evidence and correct appreciation of all facts of this case, it cannot be said that the present case is one which should be interfered against the acquittal of the accused, 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We would first like to deal with the evidence of identification. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We would first like to deal with the evidence of identification. It is our considered opinion that if the identification evidence inspires confidence and can be believed, then since it is the direct evidence it would have great implications in the decision of the case. 11. The first thing is to be noticed is that in the F.I.R. the features and the description of the accused in respect of their physique have been given as none of the accused was previously known to the witnesses. The identification parade assumes great importance unless we are convinced that the accused was identified by the witnesses after all necessary precautions was taken by the investigation not to show the accused to the witnesses, identification would lose its value. In this respect it would be important to notice here the principles laid down in Hasin v. State of Bihar(l) wherein their Lordships observed as under:- "But much more vital factor in determining the value of such identification parades is the effectiveness of the precautions taken by those responsible for holding them against the identifying witnesses having an opportunity of seeing the persons to be identified by them before they are paraded with other persons and also against the identifying witnesses being provided by the investigating authority with other unfair aid or assistance so as to facilitate the identification of the accused concerned." 12. In the instant case at the very threshold of the evidence about identification we must mention that on a thorough story of the entire evidence that the accused was arrested on 14th and not 20th as shown by the Investigating Officer. The story of the Investigating Officer that when he went for the arrest, the accused on 14th, the accused was not available at his house appears to be an effort to conceal the arrest. It is not without significance that the defence has produced three witnesses and one of them is non else but the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Gurcharansingh. In his statement, he has stated that in August, 1971, Sub Inspector of Bhadra came to Muksar police station and took him to village Lohanawali alongwith one police constable from the police station. He called the Sarpanch Santa Singh and then he went to the house of Jeeta Singh. In his statement, he has stated that in August, 1971, Sub Inspector of Bhadra came to Muksar police station and took him to village Lohanawali alongwith one police constable from the police station. He called the Sarpanch Santa Singh and then he went to the house of Jeeta Singh. Jeetasingh and his wife were present in the house and the Sub Inspector of Bhadra took Jeeta Singh with him mentioning that he is required for investigation in some case and then he came to the house of Karnailsingh and returned to Muksar. All stayed in the police station for fifteen minutes and the S.I. Bhadra took Jeeta Singh in his jeep and left the place. He is corroborated by Santa Singh who is also a responsible person being the Sarpanch or village Panchayat Lohanawali. According to him the Sub Inspector took Jeetasingh and left the place from Muksar. Surjit Kaur D.W. 3 is the wife of the accused and normally her evidence would not have been of not much value as she is interested. We would, therefore, like to rely upon the evidence of the Assistant Sub Inspector Gurcharan Singh and the Sarpanch Santa Singh. If is not without significance that the S.H.O. Rameshwar Singh has admitted in his statement that when he went to the village of the accused Jeetasingh he took with him Gurcharansingh find called the Sarpanch. He has stated that he went on 14th August and first he reached the Thana, took Gurcharansingh and a constable with him and reached Lohanawali village in the morning and called the Sarpanch. He also admits that all of them went to the house of the accused Jeeta Singh but the accused was not available and, therefore, he returned back. 13. It is obvious that the story of defence witnesses Gurcharansingh and the Sarpanch Santa Singh is correct and we have got no reason to reject their testimony. Reliance placed by the trial court on their testimony to hold that Jeeta Singh was arrested on 14th is based on cogent, truthful, reliable and convincing evidence and calls for no interference. 14. The next question is what is the effect of this. Assuming that the arrest was made on 14th and the identification parade was held on 23rd. Reliance placed by the trial court on their testimony to hold that Jeeta Singh was arrested on 14th is based on cogent, truthful, reliable and convincing evidence and calls for no interference. 14. The next question is what is the effect of this. Assuming that the arrest was made on 14th and the identification parade was held on 23rd. It is true that if the Sub Inspector would have come with a clean version of all the facts why he did not show arrest, where he kept the accused and the precaution he took to ensure that the witnesses cannot see the accused before identification, then merely because the arrest was made on 14th we would not have reject the prosecution case as a whole. However, in the instant case, the prosecution insists that it was only on 20th that the arrest was made. Curiously enough, the two motbirs have not been produced and the learned Sessions Judge has taken pains in his judgment to show that if the arrest was made outside Rajasthan, it was incumbent on the Sub Inspector to obtain permission of the Magistrate concerned to take him outside the State. The non-production of the two motbirs of the arrest made on 20th at Sirsa shows that it faked devise to conceal the real arrest which was made on 14th in the village of the accused itself. 15. This all assumes great importance because, when the entire case hinges upon the identification parade, we must first ensure that all precautions were taken by the police and there was no possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses. In the instant case the accused when he was produced for identification parade before the Magistrate immediately reveal and made a complaint that he was taken from village to village. Effective cross examination has been made of all these witnesses on this point and suggestion has been made that before the identification parade, the accused was shown to them. Although the witnesses have denied the suggestion, circumstance speak for itself and bare denial by the prosecution witnesses of the suggestion that the accused has been shown to them cannot wipe out the effect of the circumstances which certainly proved of various opportunities of the accused having been shown to the witnesses. 16. Although the witnesses have denied the suggestion, circumstance speak for itself and bare denial by the prosecution witnesses of the suggestion that the accused has been shown to them cannot wipe out the effect of the circumstances which certainly proved of various opportunities of the accused having been shown to the witnesses. 16. Obviously when the accused was arrested on 14th and he was brought to P. S. Bhadra on 20th night and was sent in the judicial lock up on 21st, the submission of Mr. Garg was that all the opportunities was taken by the police to make sure that the witnesses became familiar with the accused and see him before he is put to test identification in the jail, cannot be brushed aside. In our considered opinion it is very fair and reasonable inference which can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. It is more so because it has come in the statement of Balbir Singh S.H.O. that he owns land in the very village where the accused in-laws has got the agricultural land. It is not without significance that the Sub Inspector has not denied the suggestion put in the cross examination there was litigation between the brother of the S.H.O. Balbir Singh and the in-laws of the accused. The evasive answers which he has given certainly points out that he was not in a position to deny the same. On this foundation the finding of the trial court and the submission of Mr. Garg in support of it that it was on account of this enmity that Jeeta Singh has been falsely implicated and evidence of false recovery had been created cannot be brushed aside and held as untenable. 18. The S.H.O. Balbir Singh who was examined as P. W. 13 has not been straight forward in giving his statement. He tried to show in the beginning that he came as S.H.O. police station, Bhadra only on 21st August, 1971 but during the cross - examination he said that he is not remembering whether he took the charge of the police station before ten days of August 21, 1971. He tried to show in the beginning that he came as S.H.O. police station, Bhadra only on 21st August, 1971 but during the cross - examination he said that he is not remembering whether he took the charge of the police station before ten days of August 21, 1971. From his statement, in which he has admitted that the in-laws of the accused have got agricultural land, where he has got the land and then he tried to change his version by saying that the land of his brother, goes to show that he has been shifting and changing the versions one after the other in order to show his independence and to conceal his bias. He denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested 5-6 days before 20th August, 1971. We have already held on this point that the theory that he was arrested on 20th August is incorrect and the accused was in fact arrested on 14th when Rameshwar Singh for the first time went to his village. It would thus be seen that the S. H. O. Balbir Singh has obviously given a false statement on this vital aspect of the case regarding the arrest of the accused and keeping him in custody. Thus in such circumstances, we have got no hesitation in accepting the finding of the trial court in respect of rejection of the evidence regarding the test identification parade and the identification of the accused by the witnesses. 19. Once we disbelieve the identification and hold that a test identification parade is of no value in the instant case, then nothing remains on the record to connect the accused with the crime. 20. Even then we have considered the evidence regarding the alleged recovery of chaddar, shoe and the pistol. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dealt in details and given cogent reasons for holding that these recoveries are not true. So far as the pistol is concerned, it has not been held to be the one which was used in the crime according to the ballistic expert also, and therefore, it is true that the prosecution falsely implicated the accused in this case. 21. So far as the pistol is concerned, it has not been held to be the one which was used in the crime according to the ballistic expert also, and therefore, it is true that the prosecution falsely implicated the accused in this case. 21. We are, therefore, of the opinion that by discarding the evidence regarding the recovery of chaddar, shoe and pistol which has been rightly disbelieved by the Sessions court, and we cannot rely upon it in this appeal and on account of all these, the appeal fails. 22. In the result, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.