JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Gurbux, Sri Pal, Harihar, Ram Murat, Mihi Lal Vishram alias Sadhu, Radhey Lal, Ram Lal, Rashid and Zaheer have preferred their appeals against their conviction and sentences recorded by Sri I. N. Thakral, 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions trial No. 644 of 1981 connected with D.S.T. No. 536 of 1981 vide his judgment and order dated 24-8-1982. 2. Sri Pal and Ram Murat were convicted under S. 396, Cr.P.C. read with S. 397, I.P.C. and both of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo R.I. two years each. 3. Mihi Lal was convicted under S. 396, I.P.C. and he was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. I0 years -. The appellant was also convicted under S. 412, I.P.C., but no sentence was passed by the trial Court against the appellant under S. 412, I.P.C. 4. The remaining appellants namely Harihar Vishram alias Sadhu, Ram Lal, Rashid, Zaheer, Mihilal and Gur Bux were convicted under S. 396, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 5. Gur Bux has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 1982 whereas Sri Pal, Harihar, Ram Murat and Mihilal have filed their Criminal appeal No. 654 of 1982. The remaining appellants, namely, Vishram alias Sadhu, Radhey Lal, Ram Lal, Rasheed and Zaheer have filed Appeal No. 668 of 1982. All these connected appeals have been heard together by this Court today. 6. Out of the appellants, Sri Pal, Harihar and Ram Murat are nominated in the First Information Report by the complainant Ram Larete - whereas the evidence against rest of the appellants is that of identification alone excepting as against Radhey Lal appellant from whose possession, one dhoti Ex. 2 is alleged to have been recovered as looted property. 7. Radhey Lal and Mihi Lal were arrested on 17-2-1981 and they were sent and lodged in the District Jail, Hardoi on 18-2-1981. They were put to test identification parade on 11-5-1981. Radhey Lal appellant was correctly identified by five witnesses out of eight who had gone to identification parade. 2 is alleged to have been recovered as looted property. 7. Radhey Lal and Mihi Lal were arrested on 17-2-1981 and they were sent and lodged in the District Jail, Hardoi on 18-2-1981. They were put to test identification parade on 11-5-1981. Radhey Lal appellant was correctly identified by five witnesses out of eight who had gone to identification parade. However, only three witnesses, namely, Ram Larete, Naurang and Phul Singh, who were produced in the Court, could correctly pick up the appellant. 8. Ram Lal appellant was correctly picked up by Ram Larete and Phul Singh before the trial Court. Both these witnesses had also identified the appellant correctly during Test Identification Parade in Jail. 9. Mihi Lal, thereafter, was arrested on 27th Feb., 1981 and he was sent to Jail on 28th Feb., 1981, where he was put to identification proceedings on 11-5-1981. He was correctly identified by five witnesses in the test identification proceedings out of eight sent for identification. In Court, the appellant was correctly identified by two witnesses, namely, Ram Larete and Phul Singh. 10. Vishram alias Sadhu was arrested on 11-3-1981 and he was also put to identification proceedings in Jail where five witnesses out of eight sent for identification, correctly picked up him. He was correctly identified by witnesses Ram Larete, Naurang S ingh and Phul Singh. 11. Gur Bux appellant was arrested on 28th June, 1981 and he was also put to identification proceedings in Jail on 11-5-1981. He was correctly identified before the Court by two witnesses, namely Ram Larete and Phool Singh. However, in the absence of identification proceedings on record, it could not be ascertained as to how many witnesses had correctly identified the appellant in Jail. Even the Magistrate, who had conducted the identification parade was also not examined to vouch for the (sic) parade having been held by him. 12. Rashid and Zaheer appellant surrendered before the Court on 23-2-1981 and 3-4-1981 respectively. Appellant Zaheer surrendered himself before the Court only after proceedings under Sections 87/88 were resorted to against him whereas so far as Rasheed appellant is concerned, only issue of warrants against had yielded his surrender in the Court. 13. 12. Rashid and Zaheer appellant surrendered before the Court on 23-2-1981 and 3-4-1981 respectively. Appellant Zaheer surrendered himself before the Court only after proceedings under Sections 87/88 were resorted to against him whereas so far as Rasheed appellant is concerned, only issue of warrants against had yielded his surrender in the Court. 13. Now embarking upon the prosecution case, in the night intervening 11/12th of Feb., 1981 at about midnight, a dacoity was committed at the house of Ram Larete, P.W. 1, whose father Hans Ram, one Ganpati, Kandhai and Bhikari, sustained gun-shot injuries during the course of dacoity. Hans Raj, father of Ram Larete, succumbed to his, injuries shortly after the occurrence while being taken to the Police Station by the village people. It is alleged that animosity existed between Sripal and deceased Hans Raj and informant Ram Larete from before the occurrence. It was given in the First Information Report by Ram Larete - which was registered on 12-2-1981 at 8 a.m. at P. S. Pihani, District Hardoi that at about midnight while complainant Ram Larete was asleep in his house, four dacoits descended from the roof of Sri Pal's house and they started firing. 10 or 12 more dacoits followed and joined the aforesaid dacoits and then all the dacoits started plundering of the house and in that melee, Hans Raj, father of Ram Larete delivered a lathi blow to one of the dacoits whereupon Hans Raj was fired at and he got fatally injured. A hue and cry followed and a number of witnesses were attracted to the scene of occurrence and out of them Ganpati, Kandhai and Bhikhari sustained injuries of gunshot fire. It is also disclosed in the First Information Report that Sri Pal was at feud with Ram Larete from before the occurrence and complainant Ram Larete had identified Sri Pal, Harihar, Ram Murat from amongst the dacoits in the light of torches flashed by witnesses and also from the light emanating from the burning of the Pual-set a fire by Naurang Singh witness. The First Information Report is conspicuously silent about any other source of light other than the aforesaid. 14. After the occurrence, Ram Larete went to the Police Station Pihani and a written report was lodged there by Ram Larete P.W. 1. The First Information Report is conspicuously silent about any other source of light other than the aforesaid. 14. After the occurrence, Ram Larete went to the Police Station Pihani and a written report was lodged there by Ram Larete P.W. 1. On the basis of the aforesaid written report given by Ram Larete at Police Station Pihani at 8 am. on 12-2-1981, a case under S. 396 was registered against 10 to 15 dacoits including Sri Pal, Hans Raj and Ram Murat. Thereafter, investigation followed and K. P. Singh Sub-Inspector took up the investigation of the case in his own hands. During the course of investigation, the appellants except Gur Bux were arrested or surrendered as stated above and they were sent to Jail. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer K. P. Singh recovered one Dhoti belonging to the wife of Naurang Singh from the possession of Radhey Lal at the time of his arrest. The said Dhoti was also put to identification (sic) proceed and it was correctly identified by Ram Larete, Naurang Singh and Phul Singh. Thereafter, investigation of the case changed hands and was taken over by Shiv Murat Singh who arrested accused Gur Bux on 28-6-81. Gur Bux Singh was made Baparda and in the same condition, he was brought at the Police Station and thereafter he was sent to Jail when he was put to identification proceedings subsequently as stated above. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court against all the appellants. 15. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and they attributed their false implication in the case to enmity with the complainant or with the Police. 16. The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses in support of its case and out of them, Ram Larete, P.W. 1, Naurang Singh, P.W. 2, Phul Singh, P.W. 3, and Kanhai, P.W. 4 were examined as witnesses of the occurrence. 17. The learned trial Court upon a consideration of the evidence on record and also upon consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused and he accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 18. First of all I propose to deal with the evidence of Ram Larete who has embarked upon the prosecution case in detail. 18. First of all I propose to deal with the evidence of Ram Larete who has embarked upon the prosecution case in detail. He deposed that during the night of occurrence at about midnight, while he was asleep in his house along with his father and other family members, four dacoits descended in his house from the roof of Sri Pal appellant and they started firing. After a short-while another set of dacoits comprising 10-15 dacoits also arrived and joined them. Meanwhile, the witness and his father and other members of the family got awakened and resisted the attempts to plunder and in the process, his father delivered a Lathi blow to one of the: dacoits whereupon he was fired at by one of the dacoits causing injuries to him. There was hue and cry and a number of village people were attracted to the scene of occurrence and in the melee, Kanhai P.W. 4, Ganpati and Bhikhari sustained gun-shot injuries. It is further deposed by the witness that he had identified appellants Sri Pal Harihar and Ram Murat present in the court out of the dacoits whereas the remaining appellants were seen by him and they were identified correctly by him during the course of Test Identification Parade in Jail as well as in the trial Court. It is further deposed by Ram Larete that he had recognised the appellants in the light of lantern, torches and the light from the burning of the Pual set afire by Naurang P.W. 2. 19. In the gruelling cross-examination, Ram Larete admitted that he was at feud with, Sri Pal from before the occurrence and that Harihar and Ram Murat appellants belong to his family. It is also admitted by him that Naurang P.W. 2, Phul Singh P.W. 3 and Kanhai P.W. 4 are his collaterals. 20. The evidence of Ram Larete is fully lend corroboration (sic) by the evidence of Naurang, Phul Singh and Kanhai in all material particulars. However, a cumulative scrutiny of his evidence before the Court on oath and his statement before the Investigating Officer soon after the occurrence under S. 161, CR.P.C. brings forth a striking feature. 20. The evidence of Ram Larete is fully lend corroboration (sic) by the evidence of Naurang, Phul Singh and Kanhai in all material particulars. However, a cumulative scrutiny of his evidence before the Court on oath and his statement before the Investigating Officer soon after the occurrence under S. 161, CR.P.C. brings forth a striking feature. In his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer, Ram Larete had deposed that he had recognised the dacoits in the light of torches and Pual, while in his deposition before the Court he had stated that he had recognised the Bandits in the 1 light of torches, a lantern and also in the light from burning of Pual set afire by Naurang P.W. 2. 21. The learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Virendra Bhatia contended vehemently that the case against Sri Pal, Harihar and Ram Murat appellants raises grave doubt inasmuch as there existed bad blood between Sri Pal and complainant Ram Larete from before the occurrence. It is further contended by the learned Counsel that the prosecution case also suffers from lack of independent corroboration from independent and disinterested source pointing out that as is apparent from the First Information Report, a number of persons of the village had arrived at the scene of occurrence following hue and cry, but none of them, who could be independent and disinterested witnesses, were produced or examined by the prosecution to lend corroboration to the statement of the complainant (P.W. 1). Admittedly, Naurang, Phul Singh and Kanhai are very closely related to the complainant Ram Larete and, therefore, difficulty is too obvious to act upon their testimony for the conviction of Sri Pual, Harihar and Ram Murat in the absence of independent corroboration and under the circumstances, the case as set up against Sri Pal, Harihar and Ram Murat is tainted with doubt and resultantly, they are liable to be set at liberty. 22. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the occurrence had taken place during night and the dacoits were recognised in the artificial light. 22. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the occurrence had taken place during night and the dacoits were recognised in the artificial light. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel' that in his statement before the Court, complainant Ram Larete had deposed that he had recognised the bandits in the light of torches and also from the light from the burning of the pual set a fire by Naurang P.W. 2, while in his statement before the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C. he had stated that he had recognised the appellants in the light of lantern. On the other hand, adverting to First Information Report, he contended that First Information Report makes no mention of lantern. This contention of the learned Counsel is buttressed from the fact that during the course of investigation, no lantern was taken possession of by the Investigating Officer. There appears to be substance in the contention of the learned Counsel and it seems that' lantern' has been introduced in the statement by the witness as an after-thought. The other source of light is said to be from the burning of Pual set afire by Naurang P.W. 2. The statement of the complainant on this point is that during the course of dacoity, heap of Pual was set on fire by Naurang P.W. 2 near the house of Chheda which situates in front of the house of the complainant which also helped the village people to recognise the dacoits. The learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the Identification Memo Ex. Ka.22, which was proved by B. B. Singh, Extra Executive Magistrate who had conducted the identification parade. It is mentioned therein by the learned Magistrate that Naurang P.W. 2 had stated before him during the course of identification proceedings on his enquiry that he had recognised the bandits in the light of lantern. The contention of the learned Counsel is that if Naurang was the person who had set of ire the heap of pual, he would have made it a point to state before the Magistrate about the source of light from burning of pual which helped him in recognising the dacoits. The contention of the learned Counsel is that if Naurang was the person who had set of ire the heap of pual, he would have made it a point to state before the Magistrate about the source of light from burning of pual which helped him in recognising the dacoits. In the light of the above, it is difficult to hold that the heap of Pual set afire by Naurang Singh during the course of dacoity had at all been set on fire by him in front of the house of Chheda which had helped the witnesses to see the faces and features of the dacoits. 23. Now there remains the light from the torches. As far as light available from the torches is concerned, I may advert to the statement of Ram Larete who stated that Naurang P.W. 2 and one Paras Ram had torches in their hands. Paras Ram has not been examined in this case before the Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution and the only evidence which remains, is that of Naurang P.W. 2 which does not radiate confidence as to the fact that he had a torch at the time of occurrence and he had flashed the torch at all. Another handicap in relying upon his evidence is the fact that he is the nephew of Ram Larete P. W. 1 and the fact of his being the nephew of the complainant coupled with other attending circumstances and his conduct as well, arouses grave doubt about his giving a true account of the version of the occurrence and the presence of torch light at the time of dacoity is subject to grave doubts. 24. In view of the above discussions regarding the source of light, it makes difficult for this Court to hold that the witnesses had any opportunity of recognising the bandits at the time of occurrence. Moreover, there is another striking facet of the matter, which hears much significance for the just decision of the appeal. Gur Bux appellant was correctly identified by Ram Larete P.W. 1 and Phul Singh P.W. 3 as enumerated above. He was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 28th of June, 1981 and at 2.05 P.M. he was brought to the Police Station, Pihani and was put behind the bar but he was sent to the District Jail, Hardoi only on 29-6-1981. He was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 28th of June, 1981 and at 2.05 P.M. he was brought to the Police Station, Pihani and was put behind the bar but he was sent to the District Jail, Hardoi only on 29-6-1981. The witnesses have no doubt identified him correctly before the Court, but the prosecution has failed to produce the memo of identification of the appellants in order to vouch for the fact that the accused was put to identification proceedings during the course of investigation. Under the circumstances, the evidence of identification by Ram Larete and Phul Singh before Court cannot be given any weight in the absence of corroborative evidence of identification memo which was not produced in this case. Under the above circumstances, Gur Bux appellant also is liable to be acquitted. 25. Now I turn to the case against' appellant Rashid. Appellant Rashid surrendered in the Court on 3-4-1981 after attachment proceedings were resorted to and he was correctly identified by four witnesses out of eight witnesses during identification proceedings in Jail. Even in the Court, the appellant was correctly identified by Naurang, Phool Singh and Kanhai. 26. Likewise appellant Zaheer was arrested on 23-2-81 and he was subjected to identification proceedings in Jailwherein two witnesses out of eight sent for identifying the appellant, had correctly identified him and the same witnesses namely Ram Larete and Kanhai had also correctly identified him in the Court as well. 27. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Zaheer and Rashid appellants, though they surrendered before the Court were correctly picked up in identification parade by prosecution witnesses, the evidence of identification cannot be given any credence inasmuch as specific precautions were wanting from being taken by the learned Magistrate, who had conducted the identification proceedings. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the identification memo Ex. Ka 22, wherein the learned Magistrate conducting the identification proceedings, had made a note that the faces of these two appellants were pock-marked but it was nowhere specified by the learned Magistrate that the persons paraded with the appellant had also pockmarks on their faces and in view of this infirmity the learned Counsel submitted that the Test Identification proceedings were defective and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of identification by these witnesses. I have bestowed my thoughtful considerations to this aspect of the matter and I also feel that the learned Magistrate had not taken proper precautions in conducting identification proceedings of the appellant in Jail. The learned Magistrate should have specified in the identification memo Ex. Ka 22 that the persons paraded with the under trials had also pock-marks on their faces. Under the foregoing reasons, appellants Rashid and Zaheer are also liable to be acquitted. 28. As regards the conviction and sentences passed against appellant Ram Lal, the learned Counsel submitted that the appellant was arrested on 17th Feb., 1981 at 8.30 P.M. by Constables Munawwar Hussain, Sukh Ram and another and a country-made pistol was also alleged to have been recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest. The appellant aforesaid was brought to the Police Station on 17th Feb., 1981 at 9.35 A.M. However, he was sent to District Jail, Hardoi from Police Station, Pihani only on 18th Feb., 1981 at 9.35 A.M. He was put to Test Identification Parade in Jail on 11-5-1981 and was correctly identified by Ram Larete and Phul Singh out of eight witnesses sent for identification in Jail. The same witnesses namely Ram Larete and Phul Singh also identified him correctly in the Court. 29. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant was brought to Police Station, Pihani at9.35 A.M. on 17th Feb., 1981 but he was sent to Jail next day at 9.35 A.M. i.e. on 18-2-1981. It was contended by the learned Counsel that no reason has been offered by the prosecution as to why Ram Lal was detained at the Police Station for the whole day and subsequent night on 17-2-1981 when he had been put behind the lock-up at the Police Station at 9.35 A.M. on 17-2-1981. There appears to be substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that delay in sending the appellant to District Jail, Hardoi, creates a lot of suspicion about the genuineness of the identification evidence in Jail. The possibility that the witnesses were enabled by the prosecution to identify the appellant in Jail through some external aid, cannot thus be ruled out. The possibility that the witnesses were enabled by the prosecution to identify the appellant in Jail through some external aid, cannot thus be ruled out. It is worthy to observe here that a duty is cast on the prosecution to send the accused-suspects from the Lock-up of Police Station to the district Jail as early as possible in order to eliminate any aspersion or doubt and in case the detention of the accused is indispensable or is warranted for further investigation or interrogation, the prosecution must come with a plausible explanation as to why and under what circumstances, the suspect or the accused had been detained in the Police Lock-up and sent to jail next day though he was brought at the Police Station in the morning of the proceeding day. Here in the instant case, no plausible explanation with regard to the detention of the appellant at the Police Station is forthcoming and consequently, it makes the prosecution and fairness of the investigation tainted and it also arouses a lot of suspicion even regarding the investigation conducted by the same Investigating Agency against the remaining accused. The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the case against the appellant Ram Lal under S. 25, Arms Act was tried by a Magistrate separately and the learned Counsel (Magistrate?) after consideration of the evidence on record had convicted and sentenced the appellant but later on the appellant preferred Crl Appeal No. 12 of 1981 before the learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi who by his judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1981, acquitted the appellant on the charge under S. 25 of the Arms Act holding that the arrest of the appellant was not proved in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted pointing to the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge being final with reference to the recovery of pistol from him and the said recovery being the outcome of the arrest of the appellant connected with the instant case, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of identification in this case. I am in complete agreement with what the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri V. Bhatia has submitted that the evidence of identification against Ram Lal has lost its evidentiary value and as such conviction against the appellant cannot be sustained. 30. I am in complete agreement with what the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri V. Bhatia has submitted that the evidence of identification against Ram Lal has lost its evidentiary value and as such conviction against the appellant cannot be sustained. 30. As to the case against Radhey Lal, appellant, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he was arrested on 17-2-1981 and was sent to Jail on 18-2-1981 at 9.35 A.M. He was put to identification proceedings in Jail wherein he was correctly identified by two witnesses out of eight, namely, Ram Larete and Naurang. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the doubt aroused about the presence of light on the spot during the course of dacoity, it will not be safe at all to the convict appellant Radhey Lal in this case. There is force in the contention of the learned .Counsel for the appellants as investigation in this case also does not appear to be above board. I may observe that in cases where the conviction of the appellant hinges on the evidence of identification alone, the prosecution is under a duty to satisfy the Court that the evidence of identification is worthy of reliance and it is free from any doubt with reference to the investigation in the case. Under the circumstances, even appellant Radhey Lal also is liable to be acquitted on the charge under S. 396, Cr.P.C. As to the conviction of the appellant under S. 412, I.P.C., the learned Counsel submitted that the alleged recovered Dhoti Ex. 2 is of common use and as such it will not be safe to convict the appellant under S. 412, I.P.C. I am in complete agreement with the learned Counsel and I also set aside his conviction under S. 412, I.P.C. 31. Now coming to the case against appellant Vishram, it is submitted that Vishram alias Sadhu appellant was arrested on 11th March, 1981 at about 9 A.M. and he was brought to the Police Station and put behind the lock-up at 3.30 P.M. the same day. He was however sent to District Jail, Hardoi from the Police Station, Pihani on 12th March, 1981 through Constables Banwari Lal and Vijai Narain. He was put to identification proceedings in Jail on 11-5-1981 and he was correctly identified by five witnesses out of eight in Jail. He was however sent to District Jail, Hardoi from the Police Station, Pihani on 12th March, 1981 through Constables Banwari Lal and Vijai Narain. He was put to identification proceedings in Jail on 11-5-1981 and he was correctly identified by five witnesses out of eight in Jail. However before the Court, only two witnesses namely Ram Larete and Naurang had correctly identified the appellant. 32. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in this case, the Head Constable who is said to have sent the appellant to District Jail on 12th March, 1981, was not examined to prove G.D. entry concerning departure of Vishram to Jail through Banwari Lal and Vijai Narain, Constables. The learned Counsel submitted that Constable Banwari Lal (sic) this case. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the affidavit of Banwari Lal wherein it was stated by him that he along with Vijai Narain had escorted the appellant Vishram ' Baparda' on 12th March, 1981 from Police Station to the district Jail, Hardoi. It is worthy to mention here that even G.D. number was not mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit through which the appellant had been sent to District Jail. The affidavit even does not show that any G.D. entry was prepared at the Police Station before sending the accused/ appellant to Jail. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to hold as to when the appellant had been sent from Police Station, Pihani to District Jail, Hardoi. The learned Counsel also submitted that in view of the absence of G.D. entry being proved, the possibility that the witnesses had been enabled by the prosecution through external aid to identify the appellant cannot be ruled out. I have also given my anxious considerations to this aspect of the matter and I also entertain grave doubts regarding the veracity of identification evidence of the witnesses against appellant Vishram and consequently, appellant V ishram alias Sadhu is also liable to be acquitted. 33. Next comes the case against the appellant Mihi Lal He was arrested on 27-2-1981 and was brought to the Police Station at 9.25 A.M. the same day. However, he was detained at the Police Station and was sent to District Jail, Hardoi on 28-2-1981 as is evident from the affidavit of Constable Satya Narain filed in this case. 33. Next comes the case against the appellant Mihi Lal He was arrested on 27-2-1981 and was brought to the Police Station at 9.25 A.M. the same day. However, he was detained at the Police Station and was sent to District Jail, Hardoi on 28-2-1981 as is evident from the affidavit of Constable Satya Narain filed in this case. Appellant Mihi Lal was also put up for identification in Jail on 11-5-1981 and he was correctly identified by five witnesses out of eight. However, in Court only Ram Laret and Phul Singh correctly identified the appellant. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that though the appellant after his arrest was brought to the Police Station at 9.25 A.M. which is apparent from G.D. entry 51 Ex. Ka 27. there is no explanation from the prosecution as to why he was not sent to District Jail the same and why he was sent to District Jail on 28-2-1981 vide affidavit of Satya Narain Constable who is alleged to have escorted him from the Police Station, Pihani to the District Jail, Hardoi. The learned Counsel further submitted that even G.D. entry regarding the departure of the appellant has not been proved in this case. There is also no mention in the aforesaid affidavit whether G.D. entry was prepared before sending the accused to the District Jail, and as such it is difficult to say as to when the appellant had actually been sent to the district Jail from the Police Station, Pihani, and as such the evidentiary value of identification evidence has lost its credibility inasmuch as the possibility is imminent that the witnesses had been enabled by the prosecution to identify the appellants by showing the appellants to the witnesses. This contention of the learned Counsel also carries force and I also entertain grave doubt regarding the genuineness of the identification evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case against the appellant. Consequently, appellant Mihi Lal is also liable to be acquitted. 34. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against all the appellants are set aside. All the appellants excepting Vishram alias Sadhu and Gur Bux who are in jail, are on bail Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not surrender. As stated above, appellants Gur Bux and Vishram alias Sadhu are in jail. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against all the appellants are set aside. All the appellants excepting Vishram alias Sadhu and Gur Bux who are in jail, are on bail Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not surrender. As stated above, appellants Gur Bux and Vishram alias Sadhu are in jail. They shall be released forthwith from Jail, if not wanted in any other case. 35. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi for compliance within 10 days from today. 36. Before parting with this appeal, I record my appreciation for Mr. V. Bhatia, Advocate, who has painstakingly argued the case on behalf of appellant Gur Bux under the scheme of free legal aid. It is shocking to judicial conscience that appellant Gur Bux who has been languishing in jail for the last 8 years, was not given free legal aid earlier which he very much deserved and it was likely that his rigours in Jail would have been cut short by such free legal aid.