ORAL JUDGMENT Deshmukh, J. - The appellants-accused are tried-for committing dacoity in the houses of three prosecution witnesses, P.W. 2, Vasant, P.W. 3, Pradip, P.Ws. 4, Suryakant. All of them are residing in the same locality and it is alleged that on 24th November, 1989 in the mid-night these accused persons went to the houses in that locality and committed dacoity in the three houses one after another. 2. The prosecution has led evidence of P.Ws. 2 Vasant, P.Ws. 3 Pradip, P.Ws. 4 Suryakant, and P.Ws. 7 Anjali, wife of P.Ws. 2 Vasant. As the dacoity was committed by unknown thieves the prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of Special Executive Magistrate, P.Ws. 10, regarding the identification parade, and two Panchanamas, Exhibits 39 and 41 in this respect. 3. The complaint is filed by the complainant Vasant, P.Ws. 2. It is stated in the complaint that unknown thieves committed dacoity in his house by taking away ornaments, silver articles and cash amount totalling worth Rs. 24,900/- It is further stated in the complaint that these unknown thieves have further committed dacoity in the neighbouring houses of Suryakant and Pradip by breaking their doors with stones and taken away gold ornaments and Cash account from their houses. It may be mentioned at-the outset that though the complaint purports to relate to an offence of dacoity committed in three different houses of the complainant as well as Suryakant and Pradip, except mentioning the commission of' dacoity in the neighbouring houses, the details of stolen property are not give for the manner in which the dacoity is committed in the houses of Suryakant and Pradip is mentioned in the complaint. The prosecution for that purpose has relied upon the Panchanama made of the scene of the offence and the evidence of P.Ws. 3 Pradip and P.Ws. 4 Suryakant. 4. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record had convicted all the accused persons for offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced each one of P.Ws. 1. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. They are further convicted for offence under Section 457 of the IPC and sentenced each one of for one year with fine of Rs. 1. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. They are further convicted for offence under Section 457 of the IPC and sentenced each one of for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The substantive, sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. The conviction and sentence awarded to these appellants-accused is challenged in this appeal. The learned Counsel for the accused persons challenged the conviction mainly on two grounds. Firstly according to the prosecution, the dacoity is said to have been committed by unknown persons. The only evidence produced by the prosecution to connect these appellants with the offence of dacoity is the identification parade. The identification parade is challenged on several grounds mainly because adequate precaution, as required to be taken, in holding the identification parade, is not taken and also there is enormous delay in holding the identification parade in respect of these accused persons from the date of the commission of the offence or even from the date of their arrest. It is further contended that the evidence regarding the identification parade is not reliable and trust-worthy. The second challenge is based on the fact that the prosecution has not disclosed in its evidence regarding the involvement of accused Nos. 2105 or their complicity in the commission of the offence. 7. Shri Patil, the learned APP for the State, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that the findings are recorded after careful consideration of the evidence. No fault can be found with regard to the holding of the identification parade. 8. We have gone through the evidence on record. It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal to deal with the aspect of the complaint, more particularly, regarding the absence of any statement made in the complain it in respect of the offence of dacoity committed in the houses of Pradip and Suryakant as, in our opinion, the appeal must succeed on the consideration of evidence regarding the holding of identification parade in this case. There are several circumstances appearing in the evidence itself which indicate that care and caution, which is required to be taken for holding identification parade, is not taken in this case. There is evidence of P.Ws. There are several circumstances appearing in the evidence itself which indicate that care and caution, which is required to be taken for holding identification parade, is not taken in this case. There is evidence of P.Ws. 2 Vasant on record, in connection with the identification parade. What he has stated is that on 3rd May, 1990 he was called in the office of Tahsildar Junnar. Accordingly he went there. In the beginning he was asked to sit in the room adjacent to the Chamber of Tahasildar. After sometime he was called In the Chamber of Tahsildar i.e. in the room where Tahasildar sits. In all there were 20 to 25 persons standing in queue. All these persons were found of the same age group and of the same stature (physique). Out of those he had identified two persons. The persons whom he had identified care present in the court hall, and he has identified accused No. 3 Sunil and accused No. 1 Prasadya Kanjarbhat stating that these are the same accused who were being identified by him at the time of identification parade. In the cross-examination he has stated that on 7.2.1990 neither he nor his wife were present in the house in the afternoon. Thereafter he was told that the Police had come in ,the company of some accused in connection with the dacoity committed in the house on 24th November, 1989. He has further admitted that it was his second time to see accused Nos. 1 and 3 at the time of identification parade. 9. P.Ws. 3, Pradip, has stated regarding the identification parade in his evidence that he was asked to sit in the room. In all there were 20/25 persons standing in the queue. The persons, who were standing in the queue, were found wearing different clothes and were all different in heights. He has further stated that he cannot say on what particulars he could identify the accused persons. It may also be noted at this stage that he has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not told the Police that he switched on the lights of his house at the time of commission of dacoity. He has further stated that there were some persons who had Covered their faces by scarf. 10. P.Ws. It may also be noted at this stage that he has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not told the Police that he switched on the lights of his house at the time of commission of dacoity. He has further stated that there were some persons who had Covered their faces by scarf. 10. P.Ws. 4, Suryakant, has stated that on 5th May, 1990 he was called to identify the accused in Tahasil and he went there and identified two accused persons namely accused No. 4 Mahindra and accused No. 6 Ambadas. He has not given any particulars as to how he was able to identify these two accused persons. He has also further admitted that there were some persons whose faces were covered by means of cloth. The other witness Anjali, P.Ws. 7, is examined regarding identification parade. She claims to have identified accused No. 1, Prasadya, who is alleged to have snatched bangles from her person. She has stated in this connection that on 3rd May, 1990 she, accompanied with her husband, went to-attend the identification parade and she identified accused No. 1 as the person who has snatched gold bangles from her person. In her cross-examination she has stated that she cannot remember whether her husband was present in the hall when she was called there. In all there were 20 to 25 persons, who were standing in the queue, at the time of identification. She has further stated that she does not remember as to whether besides herself and Tahsildar other persons were present there. She has also stated that it is quite impossible for her to state that those 20 to 25 persons care of particular skin colour or were of a particular face etc. The person to whom she identified wore Paijama and shirt. The others wore different dress like pant, bush shirt etc. 10. There is one more witness, whose evidence requires consideration on this point of identification, is that of Special Executive Magistrate, Shrikant, (P.Ws. 10). He has stated that he had directed his peons to procure me abundance of 20 to 25 persons who are similar in appearance, stature, physique and age group with that of the accused. Accordingly, those peons procured 20 to 22 such persons. Out of those persons 20 persons were selected to be included in me identification parade. 10). He has stated that he had directed his peons to procure me abundance of 20 to 25 persons who are similar in appearance, stature, physique and age group with that of the accused. Accordingly, those peons procured 20 to 22 such persons. Out of those persons 20 persons were selected to be included in me identification parade. He had obtained the service of the peons for calling the witness to identify the accused persons. He has also stated that the identification parades were held on two different dates regarding different accused persons, i.e. on 3rd May, 1990 Clod 5th May, 1990. According to him, the Panchanamas Exhibits 39 and 34 were drawn thereafter. 11. Apart from the fact that there is discrepancy between the witness and Special Executive Magistrate regarding the manner in which the persons were selected to form the queue at the relevant time, if we compare the contents of the Panchanama Exhibit-39 with Exhibit-38 we find there is discrepancy on major points also. Though it is stated that P.W. 2 Vasant has identified some accused persons, there is no mention to that effect in the Panchanama Exhibit-39 at all. However, in a subsequent document, Exhibit-40 his name is mentioned. There is no explanation coming forward as to why the name of P.Ws. 2 Vasant does not appear in the Panchanama Exhibit-39 as having identified some of the accused persons. Similarly is the case with the panchanama, Exhibit-41, regarding the identification. The name of one of the accused persons is missing from the list of the identified persons by the witness. We find there are certain erasures made but care is not taken even to initial P.Ws. 1. The requirements of identification parade are not followed. Not even the list of the dummies is maintained to verify the truthfulness of the selection of the persons at the time of identification parade as dummies. The panchas to the panchanamas Exhibits 39 and 41 are not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has, therefore, placed sole reliance for these panchanamas on the evidence of the Special Executive Magistrate P.Ws. 10. Ali these discrepancies remained unexplained. 12. There is no doubt that the identification parades are held after a long period not only from the date of the commission of that offence but even from the arrest of the accused persons. The offence has taken place on 24th November, 1989. 10. Ali these discrepancies remained unexplained. 12. There is no doubt that the identification parades are held after a long period not only from the date of the commission of that offence but even from the arrest of the accused persons. The offence has taken place on 24th November, 1989. Though the accused was taken to the locality for identifying the place of the occurrence at various houses he was arrested on 19th February, 1990 along with other two accused. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were arrested on 15th March, 1990 while accused No. 6 was arrested on 3rd May, 1990. Having regard to the dates of the commissar n of the crime and the dates of the arrest of different accused persons, it cannot be disputed that the identification parades are held beyond reasonable period i.e. on 3rd May, 1990 and 5th May, 1990. There is no explanation coming forward as to why the identification parade could not be held earlier. 13. Apart from this, there is one more circumstance, which renders the identification parade either meaningless or mere farce. From the prosecution evidence, it can be gathered that accused No. 1 was taken to the locality on 7th February, 1990 much earlier than the identification parade. All the prosecution witnesses are residing in the locality where accused No. 1 was taken on 7th February, 1990. The possibility of seeing accused No. 1 at that time along with police cannot be ruled out. If at all the prosecution wanted to take accused No. 1 for the purpose of investigation to the locality, it was possible for them to take accused No. 1 to the locality after holding the identification parade atleast in respect of that accused only. Having taken accused No. 1 through the said locality, there was no necessity for holding parade to identify accused No. 1, at any rate, along with other two accused persons. 14. We, therefore, find much substance in the contention that the accused persons cannot be convicted for the alleged offences on the basis of the sole evidence regarding the identification parade in these circumstances mentioned above. 15. 14. We, therefore, find much substance in the contention that the accused persons cannot be convicted for the alleged offences on the basis of the sole evidence regarding the identification parade in these circumstances mentioned above. 15. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases reported in Wakil Singh and others v. State of Bihar1; Budhsen and another v. State of U.P. and another2; Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh3; and Habal Shaikh and another v. The State4. The ratio laid down in these cases squarely applies in the present case also as the identification parade is not held in accordance with law and also not held by taking care and precaution, more particularly so, as there is no other evidence to connect the accused persons for commission of the crime. 15. We have considered the evidence of the prosecution regarding the in volvement of accused Nos. 2 to 6. There is no iota of evidence to indicate the involvement or complicity of accused Nos. 2 to 6 in the commission of offence. The prosecution evidence therefore, cannot be relied upon for holding these accused persons guilty of any offence. 16. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution regarding the purchase of gold ornaments and other articles from accused No. 1 by P.Ws. 8, Bherulal and P.Ws. 9 Gautam is of no assistance and cannot be relied upon, more particularly so, in view of the fact that not only the ornaments from the house of P.Ws. 2 Vasant were stolen but the ornaments from the houses of other witnesses Pradip, P.Ws. 3 and Suryakant P.Ws. 4 were also supine. In view of the fact that there is no evidence directly connecting accused No. 1 in the complicity it is very difficult to place any reliance on this evidence to hold even accused No. 1 in the commission of any offence. 17. In the result the order of conviction and sentence passed against each of the appellants accused is set aside. All the appellants-accused are acquitted of the charges levelled against P.Ws. 1. They shall be set free if they are not required in any other offence. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1392. 2. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1321. 3. A.I.R. 1982 (3) S.C.C. 368 . 4. 1991 Cr. L.J. 1258.