ORDER : Kuldip Singh, J. - The appellant was charged, tried and convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court and as such the conviction and sentence was upheld. 2. According to the prosecution case, on March 8, 1969 at about 7.30 p.m. 11/12 dacoits came with guns and other weapons and committed dacoity at the business premises and residence of the complainants. In the process two persons were killed and four were injured. The dacoits escaped after looting jewellery and various other articles. 3. The appellant Chotey Lal was arrested on April 4, 1969. No other person could be arrested by the police in connection with the dacoity. The trial court convicted the appellant on the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. These two witnesses identified the appellant at the test identification parade held on June 24, 1969 in the jail premises. The witnesses also identified the appellant in the court. Apart from simply stating that the appellant committed the dacoity the witnesses have not imputed any overt act to the appellant. There is no other evidence against the appellant except the testimony of these two witnesses. 4. We have heard Mr U.R. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant. He has challenged the veracity of the test identification parade on the ground that it was held two months and twenty days after the appellant's arrest. As mentioned above the appellant was arrested on April 4, 1969 and the test identification parade was held on June 24, 1969. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the prosecution could not hold the test identification parade immediately after the arrest of the appellant. In the absence of any other evidence the gross delay in holding the test identification parade makes the prosecution case doubtful. We have carefully and searchingly gone into the statement of witnesses including the Investigating Officer and other material on the record to find out any corroboration to the identification evidence but without any success. The proceedings of the test identification parade showing that the face of the appellant was covered with patches at various places does not inspire confidence. PW 1 and PW 2 made bare omnibus statements that they saw the appellant committing the dacoity. The proceedings of the test identification parade showing that the face of the appellant was covered with patches at various places does not inspire confidence. PW 1 and PW 2 made bare omnibus statements that they saw the appellant committing the dacoity. They do not associate their memory with any overt act or weapon in the hands of the appellant. Taking overall view of the evidence we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to take the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him. 5. We allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He is already on bail, his bail bond is cancelled. Appeal allowed.