JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—By this judgment I dispose of two Criminal Appeals, namely Cr. A. No 55 and 66 of 1994. These two appeals have been filed by accused Hardev Singh and Ashok Singh against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una dated 23-5-1994 passed in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1991 Before the learned trial Court, three accused, namely, Jasbir Singh, Ashok Singh and Hardev Singh were booked for trial under sections 392/397 read with section 34, I. P C They were also charged under section 25 of the Arms Act It appears from the judgment that accused Jasbir Singh was earlier acquitted The learned trial Court found both the present accused appellants guilty under sections 392 and 397 read with section 34, L R C. and they were convicted and sentenced under each section to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, in default to undergo farther rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Accused persons were not found guilty under section 25 of the Arms Act. Hence the present appeals filed by both the accused persons separately, and the appeals were heard together. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31-1-1991 at about 105 p.m. two Sikh persons entered into the UCO Bank at Thathal branch Both the accused persons have been subsequently identified as accused Ashok Singh and accused Hardev Singh Accused lardev Singh stood at the gate of the Bank while accused Ashok Singh asked the counter clerk as to who was the cashier of the Bank. The counter clerk identified himself as the cashier and accused Ashok Singh took out a pistol and thereafter came to the table of the Branch Manager Harbans Lal (PW 1) and kept a polythene bag on the table stating that it was a remote control bomb and if PW 1 raised alarm the same would be used. Thereafter the accused went to the cashier Ashwani Kumar (PW 2) and demanded the cash. At that time there were three customers in the bank and they were asked to stand near the wall with their faces towards the wall which they complied with. Thereafter the accused went to the cashier Ashwani Kumar (PW 2) and demanded the cash. At that time there were three customers in the bank and they were asked to stand near the wall with their faces towards the wall which they complied with. As per the direction of accused Ashok Singh, the cashier took out cash from the drawer and kept it on the counter and accused saw a raxine bag lying on the table of the cashier and on enquiry cashier PW 2 informed him that it was his personal bag. Accused Ashok Singh directed the cashier Ashwani Kumar (PW 2) to put the money in the said bag and thereafter accused Ashok Singh went to the table of the Manager Harbaas Lal (PW 1) and informed him that the remote control bomb could be used even from a distance of one Kilometer and if PW 1 wanted the same can be left on the table. PW 1 Harbans Lal asked the accused Ashok Singh to take the same which the accused did. While going the accused closed the flexible door of the Bank informing the personnel of the bank not to raise any alarm. Immediately after the departure of both the accused persons Manager Harbans Lal (PW 1) switched on the siren. According to the prosecution another clerk of the Bank Gursharan Singh went to inform the police and police came to the spot It is the case of the prosecution that while both the accused were running they were caught hold of by the villagers and in support two witnesses have been examined, namely, Vinod Kumar (PW 7) and Purshotam Dass (PW 8). The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 3. The plea of the accused is totally denial. Accused Ashok Singh in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. has stated that he was already arrested by Amb Police on 27 12-1990 on the allegation that he was involved in a bomb blast in a bus at Chintpurni and thereafter he was handed over to the Punjab Police after 4/5 days Accused Ashwani Kumar has stated that the police had taken him from a shop in a vehicle. Accused Jasbir Singh has stated that he was coming back after offering his prayers at Baba Badbhag Singh Gurdwara and the villagers apprehended him when he alongwith other passengers got down from the bus on seeing people as to what had happened He has further stated that since he was a Punjabi speaking person, villagers caught hold of him. Accused Hardev Singh has stated that he has been implicated falsely by the police and all the witnesses have deposed falsely. 4. Heard Mr. M. S. Chandel, learned Counsel for both the appellants and Mrs. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Mohan Lai Chauhan, learned Asstt. Advocate General, for the respondent. 5. PW 1, Harbans Lal was the Manager at the relevant time of the UCO Bank at Thathal branch. He has deposed regarding the occurrence and according to him on 31-1-1991 at about 1.05 p.m. while he was working in the bank alongwith his staff, namely, Ashwani Kumar (PW 2) Chief Cashier, Gursharan Rai, Clerk and Shri Subhash Chand peon, two Sikh gentlemen entered into the bank and one person was posted at the main gate and the second one went to the counter of the bank. The cashier was sitting and the Sikh gentleman asked the counter clerk as to who was the cashier of the bank. The counter clerk asked his work and then the said Sikh gentleman came to the seat of PW 1, took out a revolver and also kept a polythene bag containing something on the table of PW 1. According to PW I this accused person informed him that there was a remote control bomb and that if he raised alarm it will be used. Thereafter he went to the cashier alongwith the revolver and asked all the other three customers who were present to move with their faces towards the wall. The said three customers did as directed and the accused showed the revolver to the cashier and demanded cash. Thereafter he went to the cashier alongwith the revolver and asked all the other three customers who were present to move with their faces towards the wall. The said three customers did as directed and the accused showed the revolver to the cashier and demanded cash. Thereafter the accused asked the cashier to put the cash from the counter in the personal bag of the cashier PW 2 According to this witness PW I, the accused took the bag and ran away after taking the bag containing the alleged time bomb with remote control and while leaving the accused proclaimed that nobody should raise alarm for half an hour and while leaving the bank he also closed the flexible door of the bank Immediately after their departure the siren which was fixed to the bank was switched on by PW 1 and alarm was raised and more persons gathered at the bank. Police came to the spot subsequently and recorded the statement of PW J. His statement has been proved as Ex. PA. In cross-examination of this witness it has been brought out that the other clerk of the bank Shri Gursharan Rai was sent to inform the police at Police Station Amb and he went there on his motorcycle to call the police, but this witness has not been examined by the prosecution. This witness was cross-examined for accused Hardev Singh and he has stated that he did not know the accused prior to the occurrence and had not seen him also earlier It has also been brought out that after the incident many persons gathered at the bank. 6. PW 2 was the cashier of the bank on the date of occurrence. According to him the Manager (PW 1) another clerk Gursharan Rai and Subhash Chand Peon (PW 3) were present in the bank on the date of occurrence At about 1.05 p m. while he was sitting at his cash counter, three customers, namely Subhash Chand, Budhi Parkash and Rattan Chand, were also present. At that point of time two Sikh persons entered into the bank and one of them came inside the bank. In the Court he pointed out to Ashok Singh and Hardev Singh as those persons. At that point of time two Sikh persons entered into the bank and one of them came inside the bank. In the Court he pointed out to Ashok Singh and Hardev Singh as those persons. He has further stated that accused Ashok Singh came to his counter and asked him who was the cashier and in reply he asked him what work he had with the cashier. Thereafter the accused took out a pistol and went to the seat of the Manager (PW 1). Accused Ashok Singh kept some round thing wrapped in a paper on the table and stated that it was a remote control bomb and if anybody raised any alarm, he will switch on ,the bomb. Thereafter the accused came with the pistol to the cashier (PW 2) and demanded the cash from him. All the three customers were asked to stand near the wall with their faces towards the wall and they complied with this direction given by the accused. This witness has stated that he took out cash on the direction of Ashok Singh accused from the drawer and kept it on the counter and accused Ashok Singh saw a bag lying on his table and on enquiry this witness informed that the bag belonged to him. Thereafter accused Ashok Singh asked him to put the cash in the said bag, After that Ashok Singh accused went to the seat of the Manager and stated that the remote control bomb can be used even from a distance of two kilometers and if the Manager PW 1 wanted the same can be left on the table of the Manager, but the Manager asked him to take away the bomb which the accused did According to this witness (PW 2) after the accused persons left the Manager (PW I) switched on the siren and he got up from his seat, opened the door and raised alarm. On hearing the noise some teachers of the Primary School nearby also raised alarm and the villagers followed the accused. On calculation he found that a sum of Rs. On hearing the noise some teachers of the Primary School nearby also raised alarm and the villagers followed the accused. On calculation he found that a sum of Rs. 19,772 was taken away by the accused persons He has also stated that other clerk Gursharan Rai went to inform the police According to this witness the police came to the spot and by that time the people caught hold of the accused When the police came the villagers brought the accused and this witness noticed that the accused Ashok Singh and Hardev Singh had been apprehended. Apart from the other accused persons another accused Jasbir Singh was also apprehended by the villagers, This witness has made a statement that in his presence his bag containing the amount taken from the bank in addition to Rs. 108 one pistol with a used cartridge was recovered. The police also recovered from accused Hardev Singh one pistol and live cartridge. The police also recovered other articles. This witness identified all the articles in the Court. In cross-examination this witness stated that he did not see accused Ashok Singh at any time prior to occurrence. In his cross-examination this witness stated that neither he nor any employee of the bank followed the teachers and that no teacher came to the bank after the occurrence. He has stated that the police came 20 to 25 minutes after the departure of bank clerk Gursharan Rai. He has further stated that all the above recoveries were made from the accused persons outside the bank premises and the entire members of the staff of the bank were present there including the Manager PW 1 at the time of recovery. In cross-examination he also admitted that he did not know wherefrom the accused were apprehended and at what distance from the bank. In cross-examination this witness has given out a different story regarding the arrival of the police. According to him the police came to the bank at about 1.30 p.m and the police was told that the villagers were following the accused The police also went in search of the accused. Thereafter the police came back to the bank after 30 or 45 minutes. According to this witness when the articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons all the villagers numbering about 300 were present. 7. Thereafter the police came back to the bank after 30 or 45 minutes. According to this witness when the articles were recovered from the possession of the accused persons all the villagers numbering about 300 were present. 7. PW 3 Subhash Chand was the peon of the Bank and he deposed in the same line as PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence which took place on 31-1-1991. In cross-examination he has stated that he did not know accused Ashok Singh prior to occurrence. In cross-examination he stated that some police personnel came to the bank and some other police personnel went to the Khud. He has also stated that the Superintendent of Police also came after some time. He has further stated that the police came to the bank after 20/25 minutes of the occurrence and he could not say how many police officials remained in the bank and how many left to the Khud to apprehend the accused. This witness also stated in his cross- examination that there were many villagers who came after the accused persons were apprehended, but he did not see the accused after they were apprehended. He also stated that he was inside the bank after the accused were brought to the bank. 8. PW 4 Ranjeet Singh is the witness to the recovery of the fiat car bearing registration No PJL-4675 and Ex. PH is the said recovery memo. PW 5 Budhi Prakash was one of the customers who was present at the time of occurrence. He has stated about the occurrence, but he could not recognise the accused persons as he was standing facing the wall. He has also stated that the accused left with the cash and siren was switched on by the Manager PW 1. He has also deposed that other employees as alleged by the prosecution were present at the bank at the time of occurrence. From the statement of the Public Prosecutor it appears that prosecution witnesses Girdhari Lal, Ranbir Singh, Rattan Chand and Gursharan Rai were not examined on the ground that they were won over by the accused persons. 9. PW 6 Sudarshan Kumar is the driver of the taxi bearing registration No. PJL 4675. According to him three days prior to the occurrence accused (he pointed out towards Ashok Singh) took his taxi on hire. 9. PW 6 Sudarshan Kumar is the driver of the taxi bearing registration No. PJL 4675. According to him three days prior to the occurrence accused (he pointed out towards Ashok Singh) took his taxi on hire. According to him there were 2/3 persons alongwith accused Ashok Singh and they came upto Chururu. The other persons who were with him on that day were not present in the Court at the time when he gave his evidence. He further stated that these persons left the taxi at Chururu and paid him Rs. 80. Further accused Ashok Singh asked him that they were to go to a marriage and accordingly they wanted him to bring the taxi on 31-1-1991, and that he should meet them at Amb, and also paid Rs. 20 as advance. This witness has further stated that he waited for the accused at Amb on 31-1-1991 upto 10 a.m. and when he did not come he went to Mubarikpur to have petrol There the accused Ashok Singh met him alongwith 2-3 other persons but he could not say if the other persons were present in the Court. This witness further stated that accused Ashok Singh asked this witness PW 6 that since he is a Chela he has to look after some patients and would go locally and would pay him petrol charges per kilometer and waiting charges but this witness stated that he would not take waiting charges but would charge only per kilometer as he could not wait for long. Accused Ashok Singh and other persons took his taxi to a place called Guglehar and there accused also stated that his patient was not available and he asked this witness PW 6 to go, to Nandpur, that is, the place of occurrence. He has further stated that he told them that he will go via main road i.e. Mubarikpur, Amb and not through the Khud as desired by the accused. He proceeded to Nandpur. Thereafter he took the taxi to Thathal and parked the vehicle on the road. He has further stated that he told them that he will go via main road i.e. Mubarikpur, Amb and not through the Khud as desired by the accused. He proceeded to Nandpur. Thereafter he took the taxi to Thathal and parked the vehicle on the road. According to him accused Ashok Singh also told him that he would come within five minutes after seeing his patient, From his evidence J find that the accused Ashok Singh and other person who was in the taxileft the taxi but the third person remained with this witness and he has further stated that even this third person cannot be identified by him as he left the taxi for "easing out" as told by this third person. Thereafter this witness left the taxi and went to a contractor nearby to meet him. When he reached the said contractors work and was just to start talking to the labourers, he heard a noise of something like siren and he ran towards his taxi. At that time accused Ashok Singh came and he was accompanied by the other person who went with accused Ashok Singh in his taxi and they asked him to start the vehicle and at that time the third person also joined them. In reply he stated that since there was some noise it was not possible for him to start the vehicle without finding out as to what had happened. Thereafter he locked the taxi and went towards the contractor. According to him the labourers and villagers stated that "from where these thieves have come." Thereafter he pointed out the side towards which Ashok Singh and other persons had run away and the villagers ran away to the said side alongwith some other persons. According to him some persons of the village beat him. According to him after 15/20 minutes the villagers caught hold of accused Ashok Singh and two other persons accompanying him, and this witness was also made to sit there by the villagers This witness has further stated that when accused Ashok Singh came to him and asked him to start the vehicle, he was having a revolver in his hand and this witness ran away seeing the same. It may be stated here that at this stage the prosecution sought permission of the Court to declare him as a hostile witness which was allowed by the Court. It may be stated here that at this stage the prosecution sought permission of the Court to declare him as a hostile witness which was allowed by the Court. In cross-examination by the prosecution it was brought out that at Nandpur accused Ashok Singh got out from the vehicle asking this witness to stop the vehicle at the place alongwith one person accompanying him. Thereafter they went to a shop at a distance but this witness could not say for what purpose and also which shop was visited by these persons. He has denied the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that the third person who was sitting in the taxi remained sitting with him for 10/15 minutes. This witness has also denied the statement made to the investigating agency. He has also denied the suggestion that the same persons who travelled in his taxi on 27-1-1991 also travelled with him on 31-1-1991, He has made a categorical statement that except accused Ashok Singh he could not identify the other accused persons as he saw them only for 10/15 minutes, In cross-examination he has further stated that he did not know accused Ashok Singh and had not seen him prior to 27-1-J991 and that he did not know the name of Ashok Singh on 27-1-1991 or even on 51-1-1991. Though according to hi n the barrier tax was paid on the road he could not produce the receipt either to the investigating officer or to the Court. PW 7 Vinod Kumar has stated that on the date of occurrence, that is, 31-1-1991, he had gone to the flour mill and while he was returning from the mill he heard noise that the bank was being looted. He saw the villagers running and he also followed them and two Sikh gentlemen were running being followed by the villagers and himself. These two Sikh persons were identified by the witness in the Court as Ashok Singh and Hardev Singh. According to him one Sita Ram was also running with him alongwith a rifle and when accused Ashok Singh fired from the pistol, Sita Ram also fired twice from the gun. Thereafter they caught hold accused Ashok Singh Accused Ashok Siugh was having a small knife by his side and a pistol. According to him one Sita Ram was also running with him alongwith a rifle and when accused Ashok Singh fired from the pistol, Sita Ram also fired twice from the gun. Thereafter they caught hold accused Ashok Singh Accused Ashok Siugh was having a small knife by his side and a pistol. Many persons gathered (here and police also came According to him accused Hardev Singh was caught hold by Sita Ram and others but Sita Ram was not produced by the prosecution on the ground that he was won over by the accused persons He has identified the articles in the Court which were seized by the police. In cross-examination he has stated that the persons who were apprehended were running at a distance of one kilometer from him and it took 45 minutes for running before, apprehending the accused persons He has further stated that 300/400 other people were running at the same time to apprehend the accused persons According to him the police had not come before these accused persons were apprehended tie has further stated that in their village there are other Sikh persons who are known to them but the accused persons are not from the area and therefore, these accused persons were not known to him He has admitted that many Sikh persons visit Baba Badbhag Singh Gurudwara by road from Naridpur to Nehrian. He has admitted that for apprehending these accused persons he was awarded Rs. 5,000 and a certificate. 10. PW 8 Purshotam Dass has stated that he alongwith another person apprehended accused Jasbir Singh who was sitting under a tree. His evidence, is not necessary to be considered inasmuch as Jasbir Singh has already been acquitted. 11. PW 13 Haripal has deposed regarding th; recovery of the bag from the shop of Ashwani Kumar who was initially shown as an accused. His evidence also need not be considered as Ashwani Kumar was acquitted. 12. PW 20 ShriBalwan Singh SI/S.HO. of Police Station Amb was the investigating officer. According to him on 31-1-1991 a decoity took place in the bank and he went to Thathal and reached there at about 1.1.5 p.m. alongwith Head Constable and other officials. His evidence also need not be considered as Ashwani Kumar was acquitted. 12. PW 20 ShriBalwan Singh SI/S.HO. of Police Station Amb was the investigating officer. According to him on 31-1-1991 a decoity took place in the bank and he went to Thathal and reached there at about 1.1.5 p.m. alongwith Head Constable and other officials. He has further stated that all the three accused persons, namely, Ashok Singh, Hardev Singh and Jasbir Singh were already apprehended by the villagers near the spot and the accused were made to sit and thereafter he recorded the statement of Harbans Lal PW L He sent the said statement to the Police Station for registration of a case. He has deposed regarding the recoveiy of articles including the money alleged to have been taken from the bank and also pistols and other articles. In cross-examination he has stated that the report regarding the dacoity was received at the Police Station by the Munshi over the phone and he immediately went to the place on his motorcycle He went directly to the village where the villagers had apprehended the accused persons. He found 200/300 persons present at the place who according to him apprehended the three accused persons. He has further stated that he took the accused persons into custody and went to near the bank with the accused persons. The bank is at a distance of 200/300 yards from the place where the accused persons were apprehended by the villagers and handed over to him. According to him he called the Manager out from the bank and recorded his statement at about 2 pm. He has stated that he cannot remember if in the endorsement on the F. I. R he recorded that the accused persons were apprehended by the villagers and produced before him. After seeing the original F. I. R. he stated that it was not so recorded. He has also stated from Ex PA/1 that he was present in the area during investigation of another case and then he learnt about the bank dacoity. After seeing the original F. I. R. he stated that it was not so recorded. He has also stated from Ex PA/1 that he was present in the area during investigation of another case and then he learnt about the bank dacoity. He admitted that his earlier statement that the telephonic message was received in the Police Station is incorrect He also stated that the portion recorded in Ex PA/1 that the accused had run away towards Nehrian and were being followed by villagers is incorrect and his statement before the Court that the accused had already been apprehended by the villagers is correct. He admitted that the road where the accused were produced goes to Badbhag Singh Gurudwara and people go to the said Gurudwara on foot by that road. 13. From the statements of Harbans Lal (PW 1), Ashwani Kumar (PW 2), and Subhash Chand (PW 3), there cannot be any doubt that a dacoity took place in the bank on 31-1-1991 at about 1 05 p ra. as alleged by the prosecution. This fact is also not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. According to the learned Counsel there was no proper identification that the accused persons actually committed the offence. He has further stated that at that time the Punjab militancy was at its peak and, therefore, as both the accused persons were not from the village and being from Sikh community have been falsely arrested by the villagers. 14. Regarding the identification, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on various decisions of the apex and other Courts. The apex Court in Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1972 SC 102 : 1972 Cr LJ 15, held that identification of the accused by the concerned witness where the accused is not previously known to the witness furnishes to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to (he furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in Court at the trial, and that from this point of view such identification is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused. 15. 15. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Bahadur v. State, 1977 Cr LJ 1788, has held that when the witness did not know the accused since before the occurrence, it is the duty of the investigating agency to arrange a test parade of the accused obviously because the object of holding test identification parades is two fold, namely, (1) to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person, not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime and the investigation was proceeding on correct lines, and (2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witnesses concerned tender before the Court at the trial. 16. The apex Court in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, 1982 Cr LJ 630 (2), has held that as the witness did not know the accused before the occurrence and no test identification parade was held to test his power of identification and he was also shown by the police to the witness before his identification in the Court/the evidence becomes absolutely meaningless on the question of identification. 17. The Bombay High Court in Sadashiv Bajrang Suiar v. The State of Maharashtra, 1982 Cr LJ 2056, has held that when the witness for the first time identifies the accused in the Court but there was no identification parade failure to hold such identification parade cuts at the very root of the evidence of the witness, It was further held that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to see that a person who is to be identified by the prosecution witnesses who had not seen the accused before must be kept m such circumstances that he would not be exposed to view of the persons who were going to identify him later in the trial. 18. In sum, I hold that if the accused is not known previously to the witnesses it is the duty of the investigating agency to arrange a test identification parade and in doing so the investigating agency has to ensure that the eye-witness did not get a chance to see the accused persons before such a test identification parade. 18. In sum, I hold that if the accused is not known previously to the witnesses it is the duty of the investigating agency to arrange a test identification parade and in doing so the investigating agency has to ensure that the eye-witness did not get a chance to see the accused persons before such a test identification parade. Identification parade is necessary to satisfy the investigating agency to ascertain that the person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime and also to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witnesses concerned give before the Court. If such identification parade is not held it cuts at the very root of the evidence of the witnesses. In other words the foundation of the prosecution story is demolished 19. It is not disputed that the eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2 and PVV 3 who were working in the bank did not know both the accused persons earlier PW 6 Sudarshan Kumar also claims that he could recognise accused Ashok Singh. PW 7 Vinod Kumar has also identified both the accused persons. I shall deal with the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 separately. Let me confine myself to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. 20. PWs 1 2 and 3 have stated that they did not kuow both the accused persons previously. The investigating agency has admitted that the accused persons were apprehended by the villagers at a distance from the bank and thereafter all the three accused were brought to the bank. In the bank they were recognised by the two witnesses namely, PWs 1 and 2. Subsequently these two witnesses identified the accused persons in the Court Admittedly, there was no test identification parade Therefore, the very fact that the accused after they were apprehended by the villagers were brought to the bank and the bank officials PWs 1 and 2 saw them. Therefore in the absence of a test identification parade the identification of the accused before identification in the Court is meaningless and ft cannot be accepted. No explanation is forth coming as to why instead of taking the Accused persons, after they were apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police, to the Police Station, they were brought to the bank and also why no test identification parade was held. No explanation is forth coming as to why instead of taking the Accused persons, after they were apprehended by the villagers and handed over to the police, to the Police Station, they were brought to the bank and also why no test identification parade was held. On this ground the identification by PWs 1 and 2 of the accused persons in the Court is absolutely meaningless and cannot be accepted. 21. According to PW 6 Sudarshan Kumar, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. PJL 4675, three days prior to the occurrence accused Ashok. Singh took his taxi on hire and according to him 2/3 persons were with accused Ashok Singh They went to a place known as Chururu. He has further stated that accused Ashok Singh also asked him that they were to go to a place and wanted him to bring the taxi on the date of occurrence, that is, 31-1 1991 and paid a sum of Rsu 20 in advance. If the intention of the accused persons was to commit the crime, they would not have definitely engaged the same driver to avoid recognition. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the accused persons who used this taxi earlier would again also ask PW 6 to come and report to them on the date of occurrence On this ground the evidence of PW 6 does not inspire confidence. That apart, it may be stated that this witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, the identification of accused Ashok Singh cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants have stated that this witness has stated that he took the taxi and paid the tax for crossing the barriers on the highway, but the receipts were not proved and. therefore, his evidence that he took the accused Ashok Singh and others in his taxi on 31-1-1991 cannot be accepted I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant 22. PW 7, Vinod Kumar, also identified both the accused persons in the Court. From the evidence of this witness it appears that he received a reward of Rs. 5,000 for this case. Therefore, he is highly interested witness He is also a chance witness inasmuch as he was returning from the flour mill and he heard noise He saw villagers running and he also followed them. From the evidence of this witness it appears that he received a reward of Rs. 5,000 for this case. Therefore, he is highly interested witness He is also a chance witness inasmuch as he was returning from the flour mill and he heard noise He saw villagers running and he also followed them. According to him Sita Ram caught hold of both the accused persons. As stated above, Sita Ram was not examined on the ground that he was won over by the accused persons In examination in chief he has stated above the recovery of the articles and sealing of the articles, but in cross-examination he has stated that the accused persons were taken to the bank but he did not know what happened thereafter. Though according to some of the prosecution witnesses recovery was made near the bank but from the evidence of this witness it appears that the recovery was made not at the bank but at the place where the accused were apprehended. Therefore, his evidence on this point contradicts the prosecution story. In cross-examination he has stated that it took about 5 minutes running before apprehending the accused persons and that 300/400 people were running for apprehending the accused persons The time of 45 minutes given by this witness does not tally with the time given by the Investigating Officer as well as other witnesses That apart, not a single person has been examined out of the above 300/400 persons of the village who were running after the accused persons. Therefore, I hold that the evidence of this witness PW 7 does not inspire confidence and the prosecution is not entitled to get any benefit to prove the story from this witness. 23. Evidence of PW 8 need not be considered as he was the witness for apprehending accused Jasbir Singh, who was acquitted by the trial Court. 24. The evidence of Investigating Officer, PW 20, Balwan Singh, is quite interesting. He has given two different Statements; one that he got the information about the dacoity on 31-l-1991 at the Police Station through the Munshi, but he has changed his statement and stated that he was present at that place in connection with the investigation of another case and on hearing the story of dacoity he immediately went to the place. He has given two different Statements; one that he got the information about the dacoity on 31-l-1991 at the Police Station through the Munshi, but he has changed his statement and stated that he was present at that place in connection with the investigation of another case and on hearing the story of dacoity he immediately went to the place. He has further stated that he went to the village where the villagers had apprehended the accused persons. Bat from the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 it appears that the police first went to the bank and when they were informed that the villagers were chasing the accused persons some of the officials went towards the place where the villagers were chasing the accused persons. But this witness contradicts the above statement of the prosecution witnesses as according to him he went straight to the place where the villagers apprehended the accused persons. He has admitted that he found 200/300 persons present at the place where the three accused persons were apprehended and he took the persons into custody and took them near the bank, which was at a distance of 200/300 yards from the place where the accused persons were apprehended by the villagers, I have perused this evidence and I find there is something fishy about the whole prosecution story and, therefore, I hold that the prosecution as conducted does not inspire confidence that the accused persons were culprits 25. The learned trial Court has accepted the identification by the witnesses of the prosecution but did not consider the fact that the accused persons were not known to the prosecution witnesses earlier and; therefore, it was necessary to hold a test identification parade. On this-point, the learned trial Court erred in law. Though the learned trial Court has held that merely because PW 7 Vinod Kumar got the prize money his evidence should not be discarded, but the learned trial Court failed to note that there was no proper identification of the accused persons even by PW 7. 26. For the reasons stated above, I find that the present appeals have got merit and accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, Una on 23-5-19.94 in Sessions Case No, 3 of 1991 are set aside and consequently conviction and sentence are also set aside. 26. For the reasons stated above, I find that the present appeals have got merit and accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl, Sessions Judge, Una on 23-5-19.94 in Sessions Case No, 3 of 1991 are set aside and consequently conviction and sentence are also set aside. The appeals are allowed and it is directed that both the accused appellants shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other case.