Judgment Udai Pratap Singh, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 83/78 (R) has been preferred by one of the accused, Gorachand Teli who bas been convicted under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years criminal Appeal No, 98 / 78 (R) has been preferred by accused Makhnu Nonia who has also been convicted under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Both of them were convicted along with 7 others by one common judgment passed by the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge Dhanbad in Session Trial No. 40/75. Since both the appears arise out of the same occurrence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Out of nine accused persons put on trial along with these two appellants, five were convicted under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code and the rest four. Were convicted under Sec. 412, Indian Penal Code. Those convicted under Sec. 412, Indian Penal Code were awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment each. 3. An occurrence took place in the night of 9/10th January, 1972 in the house of the informant, Ramji Prasad, P.W. 2, while he was sleeping inside the house with his family members. At about 11-30 he got up from the bed on account of barking sound of the dogs. He saw flash of torches coming inside his room from a hole he alleged to have seen 14-15 persons through a hole In the wall who were variously armed with lathi, bhala, sword etc. and were standing outside on the road. After that the dacoits broke open the doors and entered the house of the informant. One of the dacoits who was armed with a pistol asked for money from the informant. Two of them started removing articles from the house and it was stated that various articles such as clothes, radio woolen garments, grains and some ornaments were taken by them. When the dacoits left the house and the informant came out then he learnt from a covillager Janki Rajwar that the dacoits had assaulted him by stones causing injury. The informant narrated the story to the other witnesses who arrived there. First information report was lodged next day at about 11-30 a.m. After usual investigation they were put on trial on the charge mentioned above. 4. The informant narrated the story to the other witnesses who arrived there. First information report was lodged next day at about 11-30 a.m. After usual investigation they were put on trial on the charge mentioned above. 4. The conviction was based on the evidence of the identifying witness namely, P. Ws. 2, Sand 9. P.W. 2 is the informant who was a compounder by profession in some dispensary. Be alleged to have seen the dacoits through a hole in the wale admitted that the wife of the appellant was being ill-treated by him and later some quarrel had taken place between them. It was this enmity which was alleged to be the cause of false Implication of the appellant. Several points have been raised in order to show that the identification was fake and the false implication could be ruled out. P.W. 2 admitted in his deposition before the court that he knew the appellants from before. He stated that the appellants house is in the same village and further that he knew the brother of the appellant Kishan Teli from before. He admitted that he narrated the story to P.W. 9 and, therefore, obviously P.W. 9 could not be treated as an eyewitness of this occurrence he is a hear-say witness. P.W. 2 identified the appellant and others from the hole of the wall. His identification in the T.I. Parade is of no consequence because admittedly the parade was being held in an open verandah in presence of the B.D.O, the Magistrate who conducted the T.I Parade and in presence of the Investigating Officer. Presence of the Investigating Officer is created doubt as to whether the T.I. Parade was held in a detached atmosphere. Admittedly nothing was recovered from the house of the appellant except one Silken Sari. The alleged Sari was never produced. P.W 9 was informed by P W. 2 thus he is not an eye-witness. He admitted in his deposition before the Court that the appellant and one Qvamat were identified by him in the T I. Parade because he knew them from before. Further as to whether they were present at the time of dacoity or not, could not be established by him. In so far as P.W. 5 is concerned he was sleeping outside in the verandah of the house. He is an employee of P.W. 2 since last 10 years. Further as to whether they were present at the time of dacoity or not, could not be established by him. In so far as P.W. 5 is concerned he was sleeping outside in the verandah of the house. He is an employee of P.W. 2 since last 10 years. According to the allegation made by him some money was alleged to have been snatched by the dacoits but he could neither name the said dacoit nor identify him. If he could not identify his own robber of the money how he could be a reliable witness to be believed on the point of identification. 5. Under the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant of the charge under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The entire identification is fake and house of the witnesses are truthful in their statement in so far the identification is concerned. There could be no necessary of holding T.I. Parade when the accused persons were known to the witnesses from before. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is accordingly acquitted of the charge. 6. In so far as Criminal Appeal No. 98/97 (R) is concerned, there is only one identification by P.W. 8 which is alleged to have been made after one month. P.W. 8 has admitted in his deposition before the Court that this appellant, namely, Makhnu Nonia was working in a neighhouring colliery and therefore, he was known to him from before. In the circumstances, therefore, even the single identification is of no consequence. The alleged recovery of one Sari is another suspicious circumstance. The said Sari was never produced. It is stated that this appellant had served for above 8 years of imprisonment when he was released on bail by this Court. It is shocking that out of the 10 years imprisonment, the appellant served 8 years of his sentence and now he is being acquitted. 7. The reasonings in criminal given above Appeal No. 83/78 and the comments made on the statements of the witnesses therein are equally applicable to the appellant in this appeal. In the circumstances, therefore, this appellant is also acquitted of the charge under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code. 8. 7. The reasonings in criminal given above Appeal No. 83/78 and the comments made on the statements of the witnesses therein are equally applicable to the appellant in this appeal. In the circumstances, therefore, this appellant is also acquitted of the charge under Sec. 395, Indian Penal Code. 8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed in both the appeals are set aside and the appellants are hereby discharged from the liability of there bail bonds.