A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal Appeal, presented under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgement dated 10. 12. 1987 delivered by Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S. T. No. 118/86, thereby holding the appellant guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and Sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The co-accused, at the time of judgement, was reported to be absconding. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 7. 3. 79, Kawasji (PW 5) closed his shop at Freeganj, Ratlam at about 9. 30 P. M. and proceeded to his residence along with Marzban (deceased) and Naval Shah (PW 5a ). Kawasji had a bag with him which contained a days income of the shop. When they came near the school in open place, two persons rushed towards them demanding them to shop. The appellant had a knife with him, while the co-accused had revolver with him. Kawasji (PW 5) questioned them as to what the matter was. On this, the accused persons asked Kawasji to handover the bag which was in his hand. They also threatened that if the bag was not handed over to them, they will shoot him. The other accused fired in the air to convey threat more effectively. Due to fear Kawasji fell down. Kawasji (PW 5) got up and shouted the words thief, thief. Merzban succeeded in snatching away the bag from hands of Kawasji Coaccused again fired, as a result of which Merzban sustained injuries and fell down. The accused persons ran away. Kawasji (PW 5) and Naval Shah (PW 5a) chased the accused persons to catch them but did not succeed. Naval Shah and Kewasji returned and took wounded Merzban to the hospital. FIR was lodged by Merzban (Ex. P/li) on the same day. On 28. 3. 1979, Merzban died due to bullet injuries sustained by him. The appellant was armed with knife. The investigation commenced on the report Ex. PIll and spot map (Exp. P/12) was prepared. Kawasji (PW 5) was got medically examined. Injury report is Exh. P/18. Injury report of M. A. Merchant s/c Ardeshir is Exh. P/17 and X-Ray Report/plate is Exh. P/6, P/7, P/8, P/9 and P/b. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by PW 11, Dr. Abhay Chopra. Post Mortem Report is Exh. P116. The witnesses were interrogated. P/12) was prepared. Kawasji (PW 5) was got medically examined. Injury report is Exh. P/18. Injury report of M. A. Merchant s/c Ardeshir is Exh. P/17 and X-Ray Report/plate is Exh. P/6, P/7, P/8, P/9 and P/b. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by PW 11, Dr. Abhay Chopra. Post Mortem Report is Exh. P116. The witnesses were interrogated. After completion of investigation, challan was failed against appellant and co-accused Rajesh Mathur. Accused Rajesh was declared as absconding by order dated 8. 8. 86 by the Committal Court. The case of the appellant was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The appellant was charged under Section 302/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noted above. He has fired this Appeal. ( 3 ) THE execution of sentence of imprisonment was suspended by this Court on 11. 1. 1988. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri Jaisingh learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Raghuwanshi leaned GA for the respondent and have perused the record. ( 5 ) THERE is sufficient material on record to show that deceased Merzban died homicidal death. This aspect of the case is not disputed before us today. ( 6 ) THE only question before us, whether the appellant is rightly convicted with the aid of Sec. 34 I PC. ( 7 ) FIR was lodged by PW 5 (Kawasji) on 7. 3. 1979 at G. R. P. Ratlam police Station under Section 307/393 IPC. The names are not stated in the FIR, but there is description of features. PW 1 (Fedric Narona) has stated about the statement made by the appellant and recovery of the Knife from the place near one tree. PW 2 (Dilip Kumar) was tied down by statement under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. but he did not support the prosecution story. PW 3 (Rajendra Gayakwad) also did not support the prosecution story. PW 5 (Kawadji) stated that accused persons were not known to him earlier and that the co-accused had fired and caused injuries by pistol (para 5, 7 and 14 ). PW5a (Naval Shah) also stated that he did not know the appellant before the date of alleged incident (para 11 ). PW 9 (Dr. M. R. Bhatia proved the post Mortem Report Ex. P/16. He opined that deceased died due to bullet injury. PW5a (Naval Shah) also stated that he did not know the appellant before the date of alleged incident (para 11 ). PW 9 (Dr. M. R. Bhatia proved the post Mortem Report Ex. P/16. He opined that deceased died due to bullet injury. Early, injury report of M. A. Merchant was prepared by PW 11 (Dr. Abhay Chopra ). He confirmed that injuries were caused by fire arm. ( 8 ) AS admitted by both the sides, fate of this case depends on the testimony of PW 5 (Kawasji) and PW 5a (Naval Shah ). ( 9 ) THEY admitted in their statement that the appellant was not known to them before the date of alleged incident. The incident took place at about 10. 00 at night. The prosecution made no attempt to have identity of the appellant fixed through identification parade. The trial Court dealt with this aspect in para 30 of the impugned judgement as under Now the question remains about the identification of the accused, after lapse of 8 years in the Court for the first time. It is a psychological truth that a deep impression is left in the mind of a man, when some extraordinary event, takes place and it is not surprising that these witnesses could identify the accused despite lapse of a long period. So far the question of test identification is concerned, It is not necessarily fetal to the case. ( 10 ) IN Kanan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, it is held as under:"it is not understandable as to how the witness gave the names of the appellant when he knew them only by face which indicates that names of the accused must have been supplied by someone else and this introduces an element of doubt in his testimony. Both the trial Court and the High Court have found that the mere fact that no. T. I. Parade was held would not destroy the evidence of P. W. 25. with due respect, we feel that the High Court erred in law in taking this view. It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not knowing to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. Parade to test his powers of observations. with due respect, we feel that the High Court erred in law in taking this view. It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not knowing to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T. I. Parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T. I. parade under S. 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. In the circumstances, therefore, we feel that it was incumbent on the prosecution in this case to have arranged T. I. parade and get the identification made before the witness was called upon to identify the appellant in the Court. On this ground alone, the testimony of PW 25 becomes unworthy of credence and must be excluded from consideration. "( 11 ) THE following facts and features tilt the balance in favour of the appellant: (a) Names are not mentioned in the FIR. (b) It is not clear as to who supplied the names to the maker of FIR i. e. PW 5 (Kawasji ). (c) When the description of features is given in FIR, the Investigator made no attempt to get this verified by this identification parade. (d) The identification in Court without test identification parade is worthless in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the factual matrix and legal position. It is luculent that the trial court erred in law in placing reliance on the aforesaid two witnesses so far as complicity of the appellant is concerned and as such went wrong in recording the conviction and sentence against the appellant. ( 12 ) THERE is no proper evidence about identity of the appellant and the role played by him. There is no proper material about the application of Sec. 34 IPC. ( 13 ) IN the result, we find that it is extremely unsafe to sustain conviction on the basis of ocular version of PW 5 (Kawasji) and PW 5a (Nava Shah ). There is no proper material about the application of Sec. 34 IPC. ( 13 ) IN the result, we find that it is extremely unsafe to sustain conviction on the basis of ocular version of PW 5 (Kawasji) and PW 5a (Nava Shah ). The appellant is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we allow this appeal and vacate conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and acquit him of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Record of the case shall be returned. Appeal Allowed. .