Judgment G.S.N. Tripathi, J. (1) THE then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi held the accused Jairam guilty on a charge under Section 395, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 5 years' R.I. in S.T. No. 369/78, State v. Bachcha Lal and another. (2) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that in the night of 15/16-11-77, a dacoity was committed at the house of the complainant Sobh Nath. The dacoits were more than five. There were torches with the witnesses. A Madai was also burnt, which provided adequate light and in that light, the witnesses identified the accused. In the next morning, an F.I.R. was lodged. (3) THE I.O. after usual investigation, submitted a charge sheet. (4) ACCUSED Bachcha Lal and Jairam were tried together in the aforesaid Sessions Trial. Bachcha Lal has been acquitted whereas, Jairam has been convicted as noted above on the basis of eye-witness testimony of the identification witness. Apart from it, other evidence is formal in nature. (5) P.W. 2 Daya Shanker and P.W. 3, Bechan identified the accused Jairam in district Jail. (6) AFTER appraisal of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come to this court. (7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I find that there is much force in this appeal and it deserves to be allowed. (8) THE main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused was arrested on or before 18.11.77. Constable Raj Deo Yadav, P.W.4 states that he lodged the accused Jairam in Baparda condition on 18.11.77. P.W. 6, Kripa Shanker Srivastava, Executive Magistrate held the identification parade on 17.1.78, i.e. more than two months after the arrest of the accused. (9) MY attention has been invited to a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soni v. State of U. P., (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1), decided on March 6, 1981. The main contention before their Lordships was that the identification parade had taken place after 42 days from the date of arrest of the appellant. (9) MY attention has been invited to a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soni v. State of U. P., (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1), decided on March 6, 1981. The main contention before their Lordships was that the identification parade had taken place after 42 days from the date of arrest of the appellant. The Court observed as follows:- "This delay in holding the identification parade throws a doubt on the genuineness thereof, apart from the fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time the witnesses would be remembering the facial expressions of the appellant. If this evidence cannot be relied upon, there is no other evidence which can sustain the conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, allow the appeal and acquit the appellant." (10) THE aforesaid ruling applies with full force to the facts of the present case. Rather, the present case is worst than the one before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Taking the legal position as it is, it is not essential to delve deeper into the other parts of the evidence on the record. Suffice it to say that the conviction of the accused has been based solely on identification evidence given by the aforesaid witnesses, namely, Bechan and Daya Shanker. P.W.3 and P.W.2 respectively. Once this premise is knocked down, there remains no other evidence to connect the accused, with the crime. The result is that the appeal deserves to be allowed. (11) THE appeal is allowed. THE judgment and order dated 31.8,79 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in S.T. No. 369 of 1978 are quashed. THE accused is still on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. (12) THE order dated 4.8.95 ordering the arrest of the accused is recalled. Appeal allowed.