( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Islam Molla against the judgement and order dated 29-4-1994 passed by an Additional Session Judge, 9th City Sessions Court, Calcutta convicting him and two others viz. , Batul Biswas and Dulal Saha under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 3-7-1990 at about 7. 20 P. M. a group of dacoits numbering six entered into the jewellery shop of Gobinda Ram Soni at 41 Shibtala Street, Police Station Burrabazar. Four of them were carrying revolvers in their hands, one had a pipe gun and the other was carrying a Nepala and after entering the shop they closed both the entrance doors from inside. Two of them showing their revolvers directed the informant P. W. 3 Om Prakash Soni not to shout or else he would be shot at. They at first took 3 sets of gold ornaments. Then they demanded key of the iron chest from P. W. 8 the father of the informant and assaulted him by the blunt side of the Nepala on his neck and was forced by the dacoits to open the lock of the iron chest. The dacoits picked away various valuable articles such as 50 silver coins, various gold ornaments, silver pots, cash 10,000/- wrist watches etc. from the iron chest, and thereafter they left the place closing the door from outside. P. W. 6 Bijoy Joshi, son of one Dr. Joshi who was in the chamber at 41, Shibtala Street and P. W. 7 Ghanashyam Soni, brother of the informant who came to their jewellery shop were detained by some of the dacoits in the dispensary located on the opposite side of the jewellery shop. Police came after receiving a telephone call and on the basis of statement of the informant started the case. ( 3 ) CHARGES were framed against accused Paresh Halder, Batul Biswas, Dulal Saha and Islam Molla under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and after trial Paresh was acquitted and others were convicted on the basis of identification evidence and evidence of recovery of the ornaments. ( 3 ) CHARGES were framed against accused Paresh Halder, Batul Biswas, Dulal Saha and Islam Molla under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and after trial Paresh was acquitted and others were convicted on the basis of identification evidence and evidence of recovery of the ornaments. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant submitted before us that the learned judge has not considered the various infirmities in the prosecution case and evidence and arrived at a wrong conclusion and on the basis of the materials on record the accused appellant ought not to have been convicted. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the State could not support the impugned order of the Court below. ( 6 ) IT is to be seen as to whether the Court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. ( 7 ) WE have gone through the materials on record carefully. We are afraid, we are unable to support the order of conviction and sentence passed in this case. ( 8 ) THE question of identification of the accused appellants is taken up first for consideration. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 Omprakash Soni - the informant of this case, his brother P. W. 4 Anand Swarup Soni, P. W. 5 Barun Adak and artisan who came to supply gold ornaments manufactured by him as per order given by P. W. 8 Gobinda Ram Soni were present in the shop at the time of dacoity. P. W. 3, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 identified the accused appellants at the T. I. Parade held on 6-3-1991 at Presidency Jail, Alipore. P. W. 8 Gobinda Ram Soni, owner of the shop, who was also very much present in the shop at the time of dacoity was not, however, cited as an identifying witness, though he had all the opportunities to see the dacoits who assaulted him and forced him to open the iron chest. P. W. 16 Birendranath Das, a Metropolitan Magistrate held the T. I. Parade. According to him, the suspect at the time of T. I. Parade, told that he was introduced to the witnesses by showing his scar mark near the left eye and he asked the Magistrate to note that. P. W. 16 Birendranath Das, a Metropolitan Magistrate held the T. I. Parade. According to him, the suspect at the time of T. I. Parade, told that he was introduced to the witnesses by showing his scar mark near the left eye and he asked the Magistrate to note that. The Magistrate admitted in his evidence that he noticed such a scar mark on the accused but he did not agree. When it was suggested to him from the defence that this scar mark facilitated identification by witnesses. ( 10 ) WE are, however, constrained to think that existence of such scar mark by the side of left eye renders the identification suspicious. It is well settled that T. I. Parade should be held at the earliest possible opportunity. In this case the occurrence took place as early as on 3-7-90 and the accused appellant, was placed in T. I. Parade on 6-3-91 which long after 8 months from date of occurrence, though the other accused of the same case were placed in T. I. Parade on 14-9-90. It appears from the evidence of the I. O. P. W. 21, Samir Kumar Kar that the accused while in custody of police at Lal Bazar in connection with Section 'd' Case No. 239 dated 6-6-90 under Section 392 I. P. C. made a statement involving him in this case and accordingly he was shown arrested in this case. He at first stated that on 4-2-90 this accused made a statement while in police custody at Lal Bazar. This officer then stated that on 15-2-91 this accused made a statement that he had some stolen articles in his possession, but that is not correct as is seen from the remand petition filed before the Magistrate on 4-2-1991 that this accused was in police custody from before that date and on 4-2-1991 he made a statement regarding his possession of a portion of the booty and whereabouts of other culprits. The case of the appellant is that he was arrested by police in October 1990 and tagged first in a case of Beniapukar Police Station and thereafter tagged in many cases of Calcutta and South 24-Paraganas District and taken into custody in all cases numbering not less than 20. The case of the appellant is that he was arrested by police in October 1990 and tagged first in a case of Beniapukar Police Station and thereafter tagged in many cases of Calcutta and South 24-Paraganas District and taken into custody in all cases numbering not less than 20. It appears from the evidence of P. W. 21 that on 22-8-90 receiving information that dacoits will assemble, he arrested Batul, Paresh and Dulal, the other accused of this case, near Beck Bagan crossing along Circus Avenue and after examining them while in custody came to know about this case, but the appellant was then absconding. We have, however, already seen that this accused was in police custody in connection with case No. 239 dated 6-6-1990. It is in evidence that P. W. 3 met the I. O. after the occurrence in connection with this case when he gave the list of the ornaments taken away by the dacoits and also when he was called for identifying the ornaments and it is not unlikely that the appellant may be shown to this witness. P. W. 3 during identification before the Magistrate asserted that this accused abused him filthly and hurled shoe at him at the time of dacoity, but neither while giving first information nor in his evidence he did say so. From the evidence of the witnesses, from the First Information Report and their statement to the police it is also seen that the special features of the miscreants such as their stature, complexion and characteristic marks were not given. The accused was in police custody for a long time and he was not placed in T. I. Parade promptly and there is no explanation for not placing him in the Parade earlier. It is needless to say that memory of witnesses fades away with the passage of time and it is necessary that the suspects should be identified at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. Accordingly, considering all this we are unable to place any reliance upon such identification evidence. ( 11 ) AS regards the recovery of some gold ornaments from custody of the appellant, P. W. 18 Dharam Prakash Jaiswal claims to be the witness. Accordingly, considering all this we are unable to place any reliance upon such identification evidence. ( 11 ) AS regards the recovery of some gold ornaments from custody of the appellant, P. W. 18 Dharam Prakash Jaiswal claims to be the witness. He was a hawker at Manicktolla area, Calcutta and on 15-2-91 while he was standing at Bistupurmor, Jainagar he was taken by the police officers to the house of the accused at Lalpur which was 2/3 kms. off from the place and according to this witness the accused Islam started digging in the corner of the house and brought out one plastic bag containing two gold bangles, two pieces of golden churis, two golden earrings and also one golden locket and other gold looking ornaments. According to the I. O. he requisitioned for local police help but only one home guard was given to him. This is highly improper. There is no explanation by the I. O. as to why he did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not take respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses. It appears that out of the recovered ornaments two pieces of gold bangles bore the marking G. P. S. but this marking does not fit in either with the trade name of the jewellery shop or the name of the owner of the shop which is Gobinda Ram Soni. It is to be noted that neither in the first information nor in the statement of witnesses before police it was stated that the ornaments bore the marking G. P. S. In the petition before Magistrate for return of the ornaments as well as in the bond executed in that connection nowhere it was mentioned that the ornaments bore the mark G. P. S. No T. I. Parade was also held in respect of the recovered ornaments. In such circumstances it is not possible to say that the materials recovered from possession of this accused were those stolen from the jewellery shop at 41 Shibtala Street. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, we set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused appellant. The appellant, who is in jail in this case be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case. ( 13 ) R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. I agree. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, we set aside the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the accused appellant. The appellant, who is in jail in this case be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case. ( 13 ) R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.