JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal D.B. Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated December 14, 19%8 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dholpur (Court No. 2) by which the accused respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 399/402 IPC. 2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that Chhed alal Devakar, S.H.O., Jagner on August 15, 1976 lodged an FIR. (Ex. P. 9) stating that on receiving secret information through the informant he alongwith his other companions went to the town of Jagner situated at Agra Road Out post where some other police officials also met him. They divided themselves into two groups and made a raid at Mukundi-Dharamshlla wherein a group of dacoits was staying at that material time. On hearing the conversation amongst the dacoits it was confirmed that the group was getting prepared for committing a dacoity they were challenged by sudden entry into the room and arrested 5 of the dacoits while two of them fled away but were identified in the light of torch and the fire of the gun. 5 dacoits were arrested who also disclosed the name of the two of their companions who had fled away. After completing necessary investigation in the matter challan was put up under Section 379, 397/402 IPC. The case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Dholpur who after completing the process of trial acquitted the respondent of the charge under Sections 399/402 IPC as stated above. 3. This appeal has been listed for hearing since several days but none has appeared on behalf of the State. The counsel for the respondents is also absent and an effort si as made to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the respondent but on account of non availability of any lawyer this since about one month also could not be done. 4. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court as also the documents on record and statements of the witnesses on the file. I have also gone through carefully the memo of appeal filed by the appellant. 5. In the appeal the important grounds raised are that the trial court has erred in drawing adverse inference against the appellant for non production of certain witnesses. I have also gone through carefully the memo of appeal filed by the appellant. 5. In the appeal the important grounds raised are that the trial court has erred in drawing adverse inference against the appellant for non production of certain witnesses. It has also been stated that the names of the two accused persons who were successful in running away from the site of occurrence were disclosed by those who arrested on the spot and these two names viz. respondents Tej Singh and Lakhan Singh were mentioned in the FIR. It is also stated that the eye-witnesses could identify these two accused-persons as there was enough light at the spot. Further ground has been raised that the trial court erred in not relying on the proceedings of test identification parade on the ground that it was held late. It is urged that the delay had been explained and therefore, reliance should have been placed on the proceedings of identification parade. It is also stated that the trial court had wrongly held that the witnesses had chance to see the accused-respondent earlier then the identification parade was held. Lastly it has been stated that when the trial court has held that the prosecution story regarding 5 persons arrested on spot by S.H.O. Chheda Lal Devakar (PW 4) has been held to be correct, there was no reasons to disbelieve the other part of the prosecution story regarding running-away of the respondent from the spot. 6. Taking the last ground of she appellant first, it could not be said that merely because the trial court accepted the prosecution story regarding the 5 persons arrested on spot, therefore, necessarily it should have been also accepted the version of the prosecution regarding the accused respondent also. The case of the prosecution has to be scrutinised carefully regarding each accused and the conviction has to be given to each of the persons only when the prosecution succeeds in bringing ho me the guilt to the particular accused person. I do not find this ground to have any force and the trial court was well within its right to have discarded the story of prosecution so far as the accused respondents is concerned and acquitted him. 7. I do not find this ground to have any force and the trial court was well within its right to have discarded the story of prosecution so far as the accused respondents is concerned and acquitted him. 7. The next contention of the appellant is that no adverse inference under Section 114 of Evidence Act should have been drawn against the prosecution for non production of certain witnesses. The scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution shows that only 3 witnesses have been produced regarding the occurrence and all these 3 witnesses are police officials. Three independent witnesses namely, Rain Nath, Lal and Doogar Singh were also mentioned in the list of witnesses who have been not produced. It was necessary for the prosecution to have produced these 3 independent eye witnesses alongwith the above 3 eye-witnesses who are police employees, who have inspired confidence in the court regarding the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. When a case hinges on the testimony of police officials alone, the Court has to be very cautious and careful to minutely scrutinise the evidence. In such cases the courts usually required corroboration of the prosecution version by independent eye-witnesses before accepting the testimony of the police officials. i am, therefore, of the opinion that adverse inference was rightly drawn under the provisions of Section 114 Evidence Act against the prosecution for non-production of independent eye-witnesses. 8. The next ground of the appellant is that the names of the two accused-persons including that of appellant was disclosed by the other arrested accused persons on the spot which was immediately mentioned in the FIR lodged soon after the incident. Chhedalal (PW 4), SHO, in his statement has clearly stated that he came to know the names of appellant Tej Singh and Lakhan Singh from the other arrested accused persons on the spot itself. However, he did not mentioned these two names in any of the documents prepared on the spot. The name of these two accused persons appeared only in FIR (Ex. P9) which was prepared at the police station after the police party returned back from the spot. However, he did not mentioned these two names in any of the documents prepared on the spot. The name of these two accused persons appeared only in FIR (Ex. P9) which was prepared at the police station after the police party returned back from the spot. However, Chokhelal (PW 5) has stated in his cross-examination that the names of these two accused-persons were disclosed by the arrested 5 accused persons after they were brought at police station, and that these two names, were not disclosed by them at the place of occurrence. It therefore, can not be said from the evidence on record that the venison of the prosecution that the respondent and another accused-person Lakhan Singh were present at the time police party made a raid at Dharmahala and were successful in running away from the spot, is fully proved. 9. The next ground raised by the appellant is that the running away accused-persons could be identified in the light of torch and from the fire of the gun. Two gun shots are said to have been fired in air by Chhavi Ram Singh who however, has not been produced as a witness in Court. It is rather strange that when the police party found to all the accused-person trying to run away from the spot, no firing was done even towards the feet of the accused-persons to stop them from running away from the hands of the police. When the accused persons who had gathered to commit a dacoity who were raided, the police party is not expected to fire gun shot in air only when some of the accused-persons were trying to run away from their hands. There is no reason why even Chhavi Ram Singh who is said to have fired two gun shots in air was also not produced in Court to verify to this effect. It therefore, can not be said that whether any gun shots were fired in air in the light of which the two accused-persons could have been identified. The incident took place at about 1.00 a.m. Chheda Lal (PW 4) has stated in his statement that light of torch was on the accused-persons on account of with the two running away accused-persons could be identified. However, Chokhelal (PW 5) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) do not supported this version of Chhedalal (PW 4). The incident took place at about 1.00 a.m. Chheda Lal (PW 4) has stated in his statement that light of torch was on the accused-persons on account of with the two running away accused-persons could be identified. However, Chokhelal (PW 5) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) do not supported this version of Chhedalal (PW 4). Therefore, the statement of Chhedalal (PW 4) alone does not inspire confidence to come to the conclusion that the two accused-persons who ran away from the spot were identified on account of light of torch thrown upon them. A further ground has been raised regarding placing reliance on identification parade. The incident took place on night of August 5, 1976. The accused-respondent surrendered on September 13, 1976 and the test identification parade was held as late as April 22, 1977. The above dates show that the test identification parade was held after the period of nearly 7 months. The explanation given by the prosecution is that since the accused person was in jail in Rajasthan, they came to know late, on account of whit the identification parade could not be held earlier. The Investigating Officer has also not given any explanation regarding holding the identification parade as late as nearly 7 months. From the statements of Suraj Mal (I'W 3) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7), it is clear that they had been visiting Dholpur, number of times earlier also than the identification parade was held. The trial court has drawn inference that they had chance to see the accused respondents earlier than the identification parade was held. It has also not come in the statement of the Investigating Officer that the accused-appellant was sent covered from police custody to jail and was further instructed to keep himself covered as he had to appear in test identification parade. When the identification parade is held after as long delay as nearly 7 months it does not inspire any confidence in the same. The explanation given by the prosecution is not convincing enough to wipe of the inordinate delay in holding the identification parade. The trial Court, therefore, rightly did not rely upon the same. 10. There are important contradictions between the statement of eye witnesses Chokhelal (PW 5) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) also. The explanation given by the prosecution is not convincing enough to wipe of the inordinate delay in holding the identification parade. The trial Court, therefore, rightly did not rely upon the same. 10. There are important contradictions between the statement of eye witnesses Chokhelal (PW 5) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) also. Chhedalal (PW 4), Chokhalal (PW 5) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) when enquired in cross examination, even could not state what actually did each of them do on the spot at the time of occurrence. None of them could say whether he caught hold of any accused person. Even the place of sitting of the accused-person has not been established properly by the prosecution. It is also strange that a joint statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer Bhagwati Prasad (PW 7) for 9 witnesses. It is clearly laid down under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. that the police officer may reduce the statement of any witness to writing which may be shown to him in the course of examination and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement is recorded. However, in this case no separate statement of witnesses were recorded and one omnibus joint statement of 9 witnesses was recorded by Investigating Officer which is in flagrant violation of the provisions of section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Since no separate statement was recorded, the accused could not show the statement to each witnesses to point out the contradiction in the same. 11. The judgment of the trial court is in details in which the statements of all the witnesses have been fully discussed, therefore, I do not find it necessary to burden the judgment with further discussion of the statements and documents on file. 12. In the result, I find no force in the appeal which is dismissed. The accused respondent is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds.Appeal dismissed. *******