JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 2, 1987 of Sessions Judge, Kota in sessions case No. 81/84 whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: (i) Under Section 302/149 I.P.C.-Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (In default of payment of fine three months R.I.) (ii) Under section 307/149 I.P.C.-Seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/(In default of payment of fine three months R.I.) (iii) Under section 326/149 I.P.C.- Five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-(In default of payment of fine three months R.I.) (iv) Under section-148 I.P.C.-Two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (In default of payment of fine one month R.I.). (v) Under section-147 I.P.C.-One year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- (In default of payment of fine one month R.I.). The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on December 23, 1983, P.W.-3 Badri Lal, P.W.-18 Gopal alongwith Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal, P.W.-1 Ganshyam, and P.W.-2 Bherulal were coming in bus No. 280 from village Anta to attend the hearing in a murder case at Kota. They started from village Anta at 8 or 8.30 A.M. in bus No. 280. When the bus reached village Simaliya and was stopped at the bus stand, the passengers of the bus got down to take refreshment and tea. In the meantime all the accused appellants are alleged to have climbed in the bus with deadly weapons like sword and dharia and assaulted Badri Lal. They also assaulted P.W.-18 Gopal, Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal. Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal were assaulted in the bus and, thereafter, outside the bus. Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by them.The prosecution case further is that the then D.I.G. of Kota Region, namely, Shanker Sharan was on tour in the area and P.W.- 11 Ram Kumar was also with him. They reached on the spot and found that Phool Chand and Dwarkalal were murdered by some persons. They made enquiries from the persons. They were informed by the persons on the spot that the miscreants had proceeded towards village Meera in a bullock cart after committing murder. They reached on the spot and found that Phool Chand and Dwarkalal were murdered by some persons. They made enquiries from the persons. They were informed by the persons on the spot that the miscreants had proceeded towards village Meera in a bullock cart after committing murder. Thereupon, D.I.G. Shanker Sharan and P.W.-11 Ram Kumar chased the accused-persons and found them going in a bullock-cart on the road by the side of the canal. However, they could not be arrested by them. At village Mora, the miscreants were also chased, but they went away to village Bhalampura. The prosecution case then is that D.I.G. sent wireless message to the concerned police stations. The S.H.O Asu Singh of police station Sultanpur on getting a wireless message, came on the spot and recorded the statement of the injured Badrilal at 9.25 A.M. on the same day. The said parcha-bayan is Ex. P-4. On the basis of this statement, crime was registered against the accused persons. 3. The post-mortem of the dead-bodies of Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal was conducted by P.W.-9 Dr. Shiv Chandra Mishra. As per the post-mortem report, Phool Chand-deceased had sustained 18 incised wounds on the varius parts of his body and there was one abrasion also. The post-mortem report of Phool Chand is Ex. P-12. The doctor had opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased- Phool Chand were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. The deceased Dwarka Lal had also sustained 13 incised wounds on the various parts of his body. The post-mortem report of Dwarka Lal is Ex. P-11. The inuries sustained by Dwarka Lal were opined to be sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature.Dr. Shiv Chandra Mishra also examined the injury of P.W.-18 Gopal vide M.L.R. Ex. P-12. The examination of Gopal was made on 24-12-1983 and as per the report, he had sustained one incised wound 1"x⅛" on his left thumb. The injury was simple in nature. Similarly, Dr. Chandra Mohan Srivastava examined the injuries of P.W.-3 Badri Lal on 23/12/1983 at Maharao Bhimsingh Hospital, Kota at 4.30 P.M. The M.L.R. is Ex. P-19. The X-ray report is Ex. P-20. Badri Lal had sustained six injuries, which were incised wounds, out of which injury No. 2 and 3 were opined to be grievous in nature. 4. Similarly, Dr. Chandra Mohan Srivastava examined the injuries of P.W.-3 Badri Lal on 23/12/1983 at Maharao Bhimsingh Hospital, Kota at 4.30 P.M. The M.L.R. is Ex. P-19. The X-ray report is Ex. P-20. Badri Lal had sustained six injuries, which were incised wounds, out of which injury No. 2 and 3 were opined to be grievous in nature. 4. The police also conducted the investigation in other aspects. The accused appellants were arrested on 26-12-1983. Some recoveries were made on the informations given by them under section-27 of the Evidence Act. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against all the six accusedappellants in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Kota. The learned Magistrate committed the accused appellants to the court of Sessions Judge, Kota where they were tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses. Out of these witnesses, the following witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses : (i) P.W.-1 Ganshyam A passenger who was travelling in the bus. (ii) P.W.-2 Bherulal He was travelling in the bus alongwith the deceased persons. (iii) P.W-3 Badrilal Injured. He was travelling in the bus alongwith the deceased persons. (iv) P.W.-4 Chittarlal He runs a hotel at bus stand Simaliya where the incident took place. (v) P.W.-5 Jai Kishan He was the driver of the bus. (vi) P.W.-6 Babulal He was taking tea at the bus stand Simaliya where the occurrence took place. (vii) P.W.-7 Balkishandar He runs a Halwai shop at the bus stand Simaliya where the occurrence took place. (viii) P.W.-8 Jagnath He was Chowkidar in the Irrigation Department and was present at the bus stand Simaliya at the time of the occurrence. (ix) P.W.-15 Madanlal He runs a shop at the bus stand Simaliya where the occurrence took place. (x) P.W.-18 Gopal He was travelling in the bus at the time of the incident. (xi) P.W.-19 Hazarilal He was conductor of the bus in which the deceased persons were travelling. (xii) P.W.-20 Ram Kalyan He was also travelling in the bus alongwith the complainant party. (xiii) P.W.-23 Ram Kumar He also runs a Halwai shop at the bus stand Simaliya where the incident took place. (xiv) P.W.-24 Abdul Rahim He runs a hotel at the bus stand Simaliya where the incident took place. (xii) P.W.-20 Ram Kalyan He was also travelling in the bus alongwith the complainant party. (xiii) P.W.-23 Ram Kumar He also runs a Halwai shop at the bus stand Simaliya where the incident took place. (xiv) P.W.-24 Abdul Rahim He runs a hotel at the bus stand Simaliya where the incident took place. It is noteworthy that out of the aforesaid eye witnesses, none except P.W.-3 Badri Lal and P.W.-18 Gopal have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-9 is Dr. Shiv Chandra Mishra, who had conducted the postmortem of the dead bodies of Phool Chand and Dwarka Lal and had also examined P.W.-18 Gopal. P.W.-10 is the witness of the recoveries of the shoes and dharias vide Ex. P-13 to P-16. However, this witness has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.-11 Ram Kumar is the Staff Officer, who was also alongwith D.I.G. Sh. Shanker Sharan and had reached on the spot just after the occurrence. P.W.-12 is Ajay Kumar Jain, Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade. P.W.-13 is Dr. Chandra Mohan Srivastava, who had examined the injuries of Badrilal. P.W.-14 is Devi Lal. He is a witness of Inquest Reports Ex. P-20 to P-22. P.W.-16 is Chandra Ram. He was incharge of Malkana at police station Sultanpur at the relevant time. P.W.-17 Banshilal is head constable in whose presence the informations are said to have been given by the accused persons. He is also a witness of the recoveries vide Ex. P-13 to P-16. P.W.-22 is S.H.O. Asu Singh. He had investigated the case and also recorded 'parcha bayan' of Badri Lal Ex. P-4. In Defence, 4 witnesses have been examined. D.W.-1 is Prahlad. He has testified that a procession of the accused-persons was taken through the village from bus stand Simaliya and their faces were uncovered. D.W.-2 is Badrilal. He is also a witness of the same facts. D.W.-3 is Ramratan, who has testified that the accused-persons were taken by the police while they were working in their fields. D.W.-4 is D.I.G. Shanker Sharan. 6. The learned trial court placed reliance on the testimony of the eye witnesses P.W. 3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal. The learned trial court also placed reliance on the testimony of P.W: 11 Ram Kumar and P.W. 22 Asu Singh and the recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. D.W.-4 is D.I.G. Shanker Sharan. 6. The learned trial court placed reliance on the testimony of the eye witnesses P.W. 3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal. The learned trial court also placed reliance on the testimony of P.W: 11 Ram Kumar and P.W. 22 Asu Singh and the recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. After placing reliance, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the whole approach of the learned trial court in appreciation of the evidence was erroneous resulting in erroneous findings. They also argued that the 'parcha-bayan' of P.W.3 Badrilal (Ex.P-4) was not recorded at 9.25 A.M. as claimed by the prosecution and it must have been recorded sometime in the evening. The learned counsel argued that the first version about the incident has been suppressed by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the D.I.G. of the area and the Collector had arrived at the spot and they had also enquired from the persons about the incident, as such, they must have come to know about the facts of the incident, therefore, it is was expected from them to have lodged the report about the occurrence. The learned counsel also argued that as per the prosecution case, wirless messages were sent both by the D.I.G., as well as, the Collector, but the same have been suppressed by the prosecution. It was argued by the learned counsel that the statements of he eye witnesses P.W.-3 Badri Lal and P.W. 18 Gopal are not reliable and the trial court committed serious error in placing reliance on the same. The learned counsel further submitted that so far the test identification parade is concerned, it has no evidential value as the accused persons were shown to the witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the incident had taken place but the miscreants were having covered faces, as such, they could not be recognised by any person and subsequently, the names of the appellants were introduced on account of enmity.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecuter supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 8. We have considered the rival submissins. We have also minutely perused the entire material on the record, including the statements of the witnesses, as well as, the judgment under appeal. 9. 8. We have considered the rival submissins. We have also minutely perused the entire material on the record, including the statements of the witnesses, as well as, the judgment under appeal. 9. From the facts narrated in the earlier part of this judgment, it is clear that the prosecution had examined as many as 14 eye-witnesses of the incident. These persons include the bus driver, the bus conductor, the passengers of the bus, as well as, the persons who were present at the bus stand at the time of the occurrence. It is also clear that the incident took place in the day time and, therefore, a number of persons were in a position to see the occurrence and identify the miscreants as the incident took place at the bus stand where a number of persons were present and a large number of shops were open. It is also noteworthy that there were a number of passengers in the bus also. In spite of the fact that the incident took place in a broad day light and there could have been a number of witnesses to identify the miscreants, only two witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal have supported the prosecution case. Even P.W.-1 Ganshyam and P.W.-2 Bheru Lal, who were the companions of the deceased persons have not supported the prosecution version. The driver of the bus and the conductor of the bus have also not supported the prosecution version. It is also not disputed that both Badrilal and Gopal are interested witnesses, as such, their evidence has to be examined carefully.Another important feature of the case is that just after the incident, D.I.G. Shanker Sharan and the Collector of the district had arrived at the place of the incident. They also enquired about the incident from the persons, who were present there, but none of them made any report to the police giving out the details about the manner in which the incident took place and the persons who had participated in the said incident. Dy. Inspector General is No. 2 in the hierarchy of the police department and he was legally bound to give the information about the incident to the nearest Magistrate or to the Officer Incharge of the nearest police station. Dy. Inspector General is No. 2 in the hierarchy of the police department and he was legally bound to give the information about the incident to the nearest Magistrate or to the Officer Incharge of the nearest police station. There is no dispute about this fact that he had arrived at the spot just after the incident and also made enquiries about the incident, but still no report was made by him. As per the prosecution case, a wireless message was sent by him, but unfortunately, the wireless message has been also suppressed by the prosecution. The wireless message could have thrown some light as to whether the miscreants were identified by the witnesses or not and whether they were having muffled faces or not. Similarly, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate had also arrived at the spot and the wireless messages sent by him has also been suppressed by the prosecution.There is one more important fact on this point that P.W.-18 Gopal has also stated in cross-examination that he had gone to police station Sultanpur where he made a report on which his thumb impression was obtained. However, the said report has also been suppressed by the prosectuion.In this background we have to examine the prosecution case and the various submissins made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. The first and the foremost submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that 'parcha-bayan' of Badrilal Ex.P-4 was not recorded at 9.25 A.M. on 23/12/1983 as claimed by the prosecution. In this connection, the learned counsel has read over the statement of Badri Lal, as well as, the statement of P.W.-22 Asu Singh.P.W.-22 Asu Singh has stated that on December 23,1983 he was posted as S.H.O. at police station, Sultanpur. On that day, he received a wireless information at 9.00 A.M. from Anti- Decoity Force to the effect that two persons were murdered in village Simaliya. Thereafter, he went at the spot after making an entry in the Rojnamcha. At the spot he recorded the statement of Badrilal which is Ex. P-4 and on the basis of this statement, FIR was chalked out. Thereafter, he went at the spot after making an entry in the Rojnamcha. At the spot he recorded the statement of Badrilal which is Ex. P-4 and on the basis of this statement, FIR was chalked out. It is noteworthy that neither the wireless message has been produced nor the General Diary was produced by the prosecution to show the time when the wireless message was received by this witness and what were the contents of the message and similarly, when did he start to the place of the occurrence.P.W.-3 Badrilal has stated that he became unconscious at the place of the occurrence and thereafter, he was lifted by the police and taken to the hospital at Kota where his statement Ex. P-4 was recorded. Then, in cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was a little conscious, but after coming at the hospital, he became unconscious and he again gained consciousness in the hospital in evening. Then, he stated that he was unable to say that his statement was recorded in the evening on in the morning, but his statement was recorded after he had gained consciousness. This witness has further stated that when the police arrived at the place of occurrence the accused-persons were going in a bullock cart and they were going in the presence of the police but they were not arrested by the police and that he was lifted by the police after half an hour of the occurrence and taken in another bus. The distance of the place of the occurrence from the Police Station Sultanpur is 22 Km. as per F.I.R. Ex.P-59. From the statement of P.W.-3 Badrilal, it transpires that his 'parcha- bayan' was recorded in the hospital at Kota and it was recorded in the evening time. Contrary to this, P.W. -22 Asu Singh, S.H.O. police station, Sultanpur has stated that 'parcha-bayan' of Badri Lal was recorded at 9.25 A.M. at the place of the occurrence. Thus, there is a serious inconsistency between the two statements. From the statement of P.W.-11 Ram Kumar also, it does not appear that Sh. Asu Singh, S.H.O. could have recorded the statement of Badrilal at 9.25. Thus, there is a serious inconsistency between the two statements. From the statement of P.W.-11 Ram Kumar also, it does not appear that Sh. Asu Singh, S.H.O. could have recorded the statement of Badrilal at 9.25. In our view, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has force that 'parcha bayan' of Badrilal was not recorded at 9.25 A.M. and this wrong time has been deliberately given to suppress the delay in lodging the report.With regard to the FIR we may also examine other submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. PW-11 Ram Kumar was Staff Officer in the office of D.I.G. Kota on 23/12/1983. He was in the car of D.I.G. in which D.I.G. was also travelling. They reached village Simaliya at 8.30 A.M. There they came to know that two persons were murdered and one was injured seriously. They came at the spot and made enquiries from the persons, who were present there. They intimated that the miscreants had ran away to village Mohara with their weapons. He has also stated that the D.I.G. was also intimated about the facts and he gave wireless messages to the control room, Kota, police station, Anta and police station, Sultanpur. The D.I.G., Kota, though cited as a prosecution witness was examined as a defence witness. He admitted that wireless messages were sent to the police station Anta and police stations Sultanpur and Kota. However, none of the wireless messages has been brought on the record to throw some light about the manner in which the incident took place and the persons who committed the offence. It was also expected from a police officer of the rank of D.I.G. to have lodged the report at the nearest police station and informed the nearest Magistrate. It was a part of his duty, but he failed to perform the same. The conduct of D.I.G. in facing the situation and doing the needful is not worth appreciation, as he failed to do his duties as a police officer.After going through the entire evidence and the material on the record, we have no hesitatin in holding that the 'parcha-bayan' of Badrilal, Ex.P-4, was not recorded at 9.25 A.M. as stated by the S.H.O. Ashu Singh. We also hold that the non-production of wireless messages by the prosecution also calls for an inference against the prosecution. We also hold that the non-production of wireless messages by the prosecution also calls for an inference against the prosecution. On account of these infirmities, the entire prosecution case is rendered doubtful. 11. Now let us examine the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses P.W.-3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal.We have already stated earlier that alongwith the deceased-Dwarka Lal and Phool Chand, P.W.-1 Ganshyam, P.W.-2 Bherulal, P.W.-3 Badrilal, P.W. 18 Gopal and P.W.-20 Ram Kalyan were travelling in the bus and they had witnessed the incident. Out of these witnesses, three companions of the deceased, namely, P.W. 1 Ghanshyam, P.W.-2 Bherulal and P.W.-20 Ram Kalyan have not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile.P.W.-3 Badrilal is the real brother of the deceased-Dwarka Lal. He has stated that he was also an accused in the case of the murder of one Hamid and was going to Kota to attend the hearing in the case. When the bus reached at bus stand Simaliya some passengers of the bus had got down for taking refreshment and tea etc. Then, the accused-Gudu, Gani, Babu, Salia and Ani climbed in the bus and one person remained standing near the bus with a Dharia. He also stated that Ani gave a blow with a sword on the head of Dwarkalal while Gudu-accused gave a blow with a sword on his head. Dwarkalal and Phool Chand were dragged out from the bus and he remained sitting in the bus. He further stated that he became unconscious and was lifted by the police and taken to a hospital at Kota where his statement Ex. P-4 was recorded by the police. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of the incident, he was having some consciousness but after reaching at the hospital he became completely unconscious and re-gained consciousness in the evening. He also stated that the statement Ex, P4 was given by him after he had gained consciousness. According to this witness, he was taken at the hospital in the noon time. He has also stated that the bus was full to the capacity with the passengers and one Jamil was known to him, who was also sitting in the bus at the time of the incident. As per this witness, the witnesses Ganshyam and Bherulal were in the bus. He has also stated that the bus was full to the capacity with the passengers and one Jamil was known to him, who was also sitting in the bus at the time of the incident. As per this witness, the witnesses Ganshyam and Bherulal were in the bus. Then, he stated that the persons who had climbed in the bus were having covered faces and first of all Gudu accused inflicted a sword blow on the head of Dwarkalal. He gave a second blow on his head. According to this witness, after getting the sword blow, he fell down. Then, this witness has stated that when the accused persons were going in a bullock cart from the place of the incident, the police had arrived but no attempt was made to catch hold the miscreants. When this witness was emphatically asked as to whether the assailants were having covered faces, as such, he could not have identified them, the witness admitted that the assailants were having overed faces and then stated that only Gudu had climbed in the bus and he alone had given beating. Though, this witness has tried to give an explanation on a question by the Court that Nizam was having covered face and the assailants, who had climbed in the bus were not having covered faces, and he made the earlier statement in Court on account of inadvertance thinking that he was to tell about Nizam. He also admitted that in his 'Parcha-bayan', there is no mention about Nizam and similar is the position with regard to his statement Ex. D-1 recorded by the police under section-161 Cr. P.C.Another eye-witness P.W.-18 Gopal has stated that he is the resident of village Gumanpura in District Bundi, and deceased- Phool Chand was his nephew. According to this witness, he was in the village alongwith his nephew Phool Chand and had gone alongwith him on his asking. He has also stated that from village Khane-Ki-jhopri he, the deceased Phool Chand and Dwarkalal and the witnesses Ganshyam, Ram Kalyan, Badrilal and Bheru etc. had started. When they reached at Anta, the train had already left, as such, they came at bus stand of Anta at 7.00 A.M. and started for Kota. Then, this witness has stated that when the bus stopped at the bus stand then six miscreants climbed in the bus. had started. When they reached at Anta, the train had already left, as such, they came at bus stand of Anta at 7.00 A.M. and started for Kota. Then, this witness has stated that when the bus stopped at the bus stand then six miscreants climbed in the bus. The miscreants first assaulted Dwarkalal, then Phool Chand and Badrilal and none else was assaulted by them. He further stated that all these three persons were dragged out from the bus by the miscreants. The witness has also stated that the accused- persons were not got identified in the identification parade. Then, he stated that identification parade was conducted in jail. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was called by Phool Chand from his village by giving a letter. He admitted that the deceased-Phool Chand was the son of the sister of his grand-father's uncle. This witness further stated that he knew Zamil, and Bherulal had informed him that one person with a covered face was coming on foot. This witness then denied portion A to B, C to D and E to F of Ex. D-2- police statement. This witness also stated that the first blow was given by Hanif which struck on the palm of Dwarka Lal.P.W. -12 is Ajay Kumar Jain, who was Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate at Kota on 12/l/1984. He had conducted the identification parade of the accused persons and the witnesses Gopal and Ram Kumar participated to identify the accused. According to this witness, there was a joint identification parade in which 34 other prisoners were mixed. He also stated that at the time of the identification parade, the accused persons had made a complaint that they were already shown to the witnesses at the police station and a note to this effect was made by him in the identification memos Ex. P-17 and 18. The witness then stated that he did not think it proper to hold a separate identification parade of each accused.On making a critical analysis of the statements of the eye-witnesses P.W -3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal, we have no hesitation in holding that none of them is reliable. Both these witnesses are not only close relatives of the deceased having interest in the prosecution, they have contradicted on each and every material points with each other. As per Badrilal, all the miscreants were having covered faces. Both these witnesses are not only close relatives of the deceased having interest in the prosecution, they have contradicted on each and every material points with each other. As per Badrilal, all the miscreants were having covered faces. Though, this witness had subsequently tried to give explanation that he had given this statement by inadvertance thinking to be with regard to one Zamil, but in our view, this explanation is false one. Zamil was nowhere in the picture either in the 'parcha-bayan' Ex.P-4 or in the statement Ex. D-1 recorded by the police. Then, there was hardly any occasion for Jamil to have covered face when he was travelling in the bus alongwith the deceased and the witnesses and was known to them and was also identified by them. How the incident took place and who caused the injuries are also important facts on which both the aforesaid witnesses are at variance. It appears that the statement of P.W.-3 Badrilal to the effect that the assailants were having covered faces is true, as such, no immediate report was made by any person giving out the names of the assailants. When D.I.G. came on the spot and had enquired from the persons, who were present at the place of the incident, then in the normal course, the name of the assailants would have been disclosed to him if they were identified by the witnesses. In that case, we would have expected from the D.I.G. to have lodged the report giving out the names of the assailants. From the statement of P.W.-11 Ram Kumar also, it does not appear that the names of the assailants were disclosed when he and the D.I.G. had arrived at the spot.It is no doubt true that the presence of P.W.-3 Badrilal at the time of the incident cannot be disputed looking to the nature and number of the injuries sustained by him and the fact that he was immediately shifted to the hospital at Kota from the place of the occurrence, But, simply on account of this fact alone, his testimony cannot be accepted which is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities. At two places in his cross- examination, this witness has stated that the assailants were having covered faces, as such, they could not be identified. At two places in his cross- examination, this witness has stated that the assailants were having covered faces, as such, they could not be identified. But, subsequently, on a Court question he has tried to give explanation, but the said explanation is not believable at all. This witness has also contradicted as to who caused the injuries to whom and the manner in which the incident took place.P.W. 18-Gopal was examined as an eye witness, but in our view, it is highly doubtful that in fact he had witnessed the incident. He was a close relative of both the deceased and if he was present and had witnessed the occurrence, he would have immediately taken steps to lodge the report. His injury was examined on 24th of Dec, 1983 and the injury has been described as 1"x⅛" skin deep on the root of left-hand thumb. The injury was superficial in nature and can also be self-inflicted one. Admittedly, he did not know the assailants prior to the incident. The identification parade was held on 13th of Jan, though the accused persons were arrested on 23-12-1983. The delay of 24 days in holding the identification parade, especially keeping in view that during most of the said period the accused persons were in the custody of the police, the test identification parade has very little evidential value. The accused persons had also made a complaint that they were shown to the witnesses. Further, from the statements of the witnesses D.W.-1 and D.W.-2, it appears that the accused-persons, after their arrest, were taken in a procession with un covered faces in the town, Further, in the normal course, the presence of this witness was not expected at the place of the occurrence as he was not required to attend the Court at Kota. His name also does not find place in parcha bayan Ex. P-4, on the basis of which FIR has been chalkedout. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, we are hesitant in placing reliance on his testimony to convict all the six accused-persons. 12. If the statements of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal are excluded from consideration, then there remains hardly any evidence to connect the accused-appellants with the crime. Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, we are hesitant in placing reliance on his testimony to convict all the six accused-persons. 12. If the statements of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-3 Badrilal and P.W.-18 Gopal are excluded from consideration, then there remains hardly any evidence to connect the accused-appellants with the crime. The evidence of recovery of some articles at the instance of the accused-appellants can hardly connect them with the crime, and the said evidence could at the most be of some corroborative piece of evidence. 13. The net result of the above discussion is that the conviction of the appellants and the sentences passed against them by the trial court cannot be sustained and they deserve to be acquitted.Consequently, this appeal is allowed, The conviction and sentences of the appellants in all the offences are hereby set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges. They are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******