JUDGMENT Mr. M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 29, 1978, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, convicting the appellant under Section 396, of the Indian Penal code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. Bereft of details the case for the prosecution is as under : "On August 8, 1976, at or about 10.30 p.m. when U.P. Roadways Bus No. U.T.W. 968 was proceeding along Hamirpur Rath Road and had reached a place in between villages Pauthia and Ujneri, six or seven armed miscreants way-laid and stopped it by firing on its front wheel. Consequently, the tyre burst and the bus went beyond control. Shamin Khan (P.W. 1) who was the driver of the bus, however, succeeded in stopping it within a short distance. The miscreants then started firing upon the passengers who were inside the bus. Basant Ram and Raghuraj Prasad, two constables, who were on guard duty inside the bus also fired from their rifles to scare away the miscreants. Unfortunately however owing to the firing by the miscreants Constable Basant Ram sustained gun-shot injuries and succumbed to his death instantaneously. Constable Raghuraj Prasad was also injured in the firing as also Shamim and Om Prakash, other passengers in the bus. The miscreants asked the passengers to got down from the bus and after looting the properties they had with them, the miscreants fled away." 3. After the incident Shamim Khan went to the Rath Police Station and lodged and information about the incident. On the information a case was registered and Station Officer; Shambhu Nath Kharey (P.W. 10) took up the investigation of the case. He had inquest upon the dead body of Basant Ram and then sent it for post-mortem examination. 4. In course of the investigation the appellant was arrested on 1.10.76 and thereafter he was placed in Test Identification Parade which was held by R.N. Misra (P.W. 4) an Executive Magistrate of Hamirpur. In that parade the appellant was identified by three witnesses, viz., Shamin Khan (P.W. 1), Sher Mohammad (P.W. 3) the conductor of the bus and Brindaban (P.W. 5) another passenger of the bus. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant only and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. In that parade the appellant was identified by three witnesses, viz., Shamin Khan (P.W. 1), Sher Mohammad (P.W. 3) the conductor of the bus and Brindaban (P.W. 5) another passenger of the bus. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant only and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 5. That 6 or 7 miscreants committed dacoity in the manner alleged by the prosecution stands amply proved by overwhelming evidence on record. Infact, this part of the prosecution case was not challenged by the appellant also. The evidence in this regard has been furnished by Shamim Khan (P.W. 1) Sher Mohammad (P.W. 3) and Brindaban (P.W. 5). Being the driver and the conductor respectively of the ill-fated bus. P.M. 1 and P.W. 3 were the most probable witnesses. P.W. 1 narrated the entire prosecution case in detail and his evidence about the commission of the dacoity was fully corroborated by P.W. 3. The death of Constable Basant Ram inside the bus and injuries sustained by Constable Raghuraj Prasad and P.W. 1 and 3 also go a long way to corroborate the prosecution case in this regard. 6. The next and most crucial question is as to whether the re-prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant was involved in the commission of the dacoity in question. As already indicated, to prove this part of the case the prosecution relied upon the identification in Court by the P.W s.1, 3 and 5 and their identification earlier in the parade held by Sri R.N. Misra (P.W. 4) on 22.11.76. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 in the light of the testimony of the Magistrate who held the test identification parade and on perusal thereof we are unable to safely rely upon the same to hold beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of the miscreants. From the testimony of Sri R.N. Misra, the Magistrate (P.W. 4) we find that he admitted in the cross-examination that all the three identifying witnesses, viz., P. Ws.1, 3 and 5 admitted before him before the felt identification parade was held that they had come to identify Ram Sahai (the appellant before us). This significant statement made by the P.W. 4 unmistakable proves that the appellant was known to the identifying witnesses from before. This significant statement made by the P.W. 4 unmistakable proves that the appellant was known to the identifying witnesses from before. That necessarily means that the test identification. Parade held in the instant case has no value whatsoever. The contemoraneous report prepared by the learned Magistrate in the test identification parade also indicates that the identifying witnesses had stated before him that they were brought to identify Ram Sahai. To put it differently the report does not indicate that they were brought to identify any of the miscreants who was involved in the commission of the dacoity in question. 7. There are other infirmities also relating to the identification which cannot be lost sight of Shamim Khan (P.W. 1) admitted in his cross-examination that he had identified two persons wrongly in the test identification parade. Similarly P.W. 3 stated that he had identified one person wrongly in the test identification parade. Such wrong identification also impairs the evidence of identification. So as far Brindaban (P.W. 5) is concerned we find that he is in the pocket of the police inasmuch as he has had been figuring as a witness for the police in a number of charge-sheet. In fact, a number of documents were exhibited on behalf of the appellants to show his inclusion as a witness in a number of charge sheets submitted by the police on the conclusion as above, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the appellant in the dacoity in question. In any case, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 8. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed against the appellant is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail and surety bonds are discharged.