R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of the judgement passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir. In Sessions Case No. 60/30 of 1992 whereby he convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') under Sections 395 and 457, IPC and Section 9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 10 days for the offence under Section 395, IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 days for the offence under Section 457, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act, and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Therefore, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgement. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 3/4-11-1991 at about 10 p. m. the informant Rajkishore Panigrahi P. W. 29 and his family members having taken their supper, went to sleep. At about 2 a. m. in the night eight culprits being armed with bhujali, knife, etc. came to the house of the informant, exploded bumbs and having made forcible entry into the house assaulted some of the inmates, recovered ornaments and cash and decamped with the booties. On a written report being lodged, a case under Section 457 and 395, IPC and Section 9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act was registered, whereupon investigation was, taken up in course of which these accused persons and some others were arrested and put to a test identification parade. Some gold ornaments and cash were also seized and on close of investigation, charge sheet was laid against eight accused persons to stand their trial for the offences as aforesaid. Since two of the accused persons could not be apprehended, the ease against them was split up. Therefore, six accused persons faced trial and the learned Court below on consideration of the evidence while convicting these accused persons, acquitted accused Surendra Senapati. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was denial simpliciter. Since two of the accused persons could not be apprehended, the ease against them was split up. Therefore, six accused persons faced trial and the learned Court below on consideration of the evidence while convicting these accused persons, acquitted accused Surendra Senapati. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was denial simpliciter. ( 4 ) THE prosecution, in order to bring home the charge examined 41 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the doctor. ( 5 ) FROM the testimony of the inmates of the house coupled with the evidence of the doctor and the I. O. it is well proved that in the night of occurrence there was a decoity in the house of the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons in course of argument did not seriously challenge this part of the prosecution case. They, however, argued that from the available evidence involvement of these accused persons in the incident cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They have seriously challenged the fairness of the T. I. parade in which some of the inmates are said to have identified the accused persons to be the culprits. So far as accused Biswajit Patnaik is concerned, it is urged that some ornaments were alleged to have been seized from his possession and the some having not been put to T. I. parade, the evidence of their identification for the first time by P. W. 5 wife of P. W. 2 in the Court should not have weighed with the trial Court a record a finding of conviction against him. ( 6 ) IN order to bring home the charge, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of identification of persons and properties. For sake of convenience I shall first deal with the evidence of identification of persons. Some of the accused persons were apprehended on 27-11-91 and the rest on 10-11-91 by the police. They were kept in the police station till 6-12-91 and on the next day they were forwarded to Court. On the prayer of the I. O. P. W. 41, T. I. Parade was held on 12-12-91 by the Judicial Magistrate P. W. 40. Some of the accused persons were apprehended on 27-11-91 and the rest on 10-11-91 by the police. They were kept in the police station till 6-12-91 and on the next day they were forwarded to Court. On the prayer of the I. O. P. W. 41, T. I. Parade was held on 12-12-91 by the Judicial Magistrate P. W. 40. There were as many as 12 witnesses to such Parade, but we are concerned with the evidence of the informant P. W. 29 and the inmates of his house, namely, Sujit Panijrahi P. W. 2, Ajit Panigrahi P. W. 3 and Debaki Panigrahi P. W. 4. Before referring to their evidence, it is necessary to have a bird's eye view of the evidence of the I. O. P. W. 41. In his chief examination he did not state as to when he apprehended the accused persons. Only on being cross-examined he disclosed that on 27th and 30th November, 1991 he apprehended them and kept them in the police station for interrogation and at last arrested them on 6-12-91. For appreciation of his evidence and to test veracity, his relevant statement of is reproduced below. ". . . MOHENDRA, Surendra and Biswajit were apprehended by 27-11-91. I did not arrest them immediately after their apprehension. . . . I arrested them on 6-12-91. The movements of those 3 persons were under watch during this period, but they were going to outside to take their meals etc. I do not remember where they were staying during the night hours. They might be remaining present in the P. S. premises. During the said period the outsiders might have seen them. They were taking their meals in a hotel situated about one furlong away from the P. S. and they were going through public road to the hotel. They used to go to the hotel twice in a day. xx xx xx Accused Raghunath was apprehended on 10-11-91. He was in the P. S. for the purpose of interrogation during the period from 30-11-91 to 6-12-91. xx xx xx On 30-11-91 I apprehended the accused Naraseen Malai. He was in the P. S. for the purposes as interrogation. . . ( 7 ) THE above being his statement, the question arises whether he is a witness of truth and his evidence inspires confidence. xx xx xx On 30-11-91 I apprehended the accused Naraseen Malai. He was in the P. S. for the purposes as interrogation. . . ( 7 ) THE above being his statement, the question arises whether he is a witness of truth and his evidence inspires confidence. When the accused persons were apprehended on 27/30-11-91, they could have been interrogated on the very day or on the next day and then forwarded to court if sufficient materials were forthcoming regarding their involvement in the alleged crime. The learned trial court should have taken pains to scrutinise the case diary to ascertain as to whether the accused persons were in fact interrogated in all these days for which their detention in the police station was necessary till the date of their arrest. I scrutinised the case diary and found that on the date of their apprehension the accused persons were interrogated by P. W. 41. If that was so, there was no reason why they were detained for so many days in the police station and it was because of this, the defence version that they were so detained with a view to show them to the identifying witnesses before they were put in T. I. parade cannot be brushed aside. This plea of the defence as suggested to the I. O. P. W. 41 again support from the evidence of Sujit Panigrahi P. W. 2. Ajit Panigrahi P. W. 3 and Rusia @ Pramod Biswal P. W. 20. As stated by P. Ws. 2 and 3 their father (P. W. 29) on coming to know about apprehension of the accused persons had been to the police station. P. W. 20 though a hostile witness, stated in the same manner that the police detained the accused persons in the police station and showed them to P. W. 29 and other inmates of his house. This evidence coming from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses casts a serious doubt about fairness of the investigation, inasmuch as after having apprehended the accused persons, the I. O. P. W. 41 with oblique motive detained them for 7 to 10 days so that the informant and other witnesses could get sufficient opportunity to see them prior to identifying them in the T. I. parade. He (P. W. 41) was expected to be fair both to the prosecution and the accused persons. He (P. W. 41) was expected to be fair both to the prosecution and the accused persons. But instead he made an unabashed attempt to rope the accused persons in the crime and so, in a serious offence of this nature it would be hazardous to rely upon his testimony and to act upon it. His statement that he detained the accused persons for so many days in the police station for the purpose of interrogation is too big a pill to be swallowed, the reason being that, as case diary reveals, he interrogated the accused persons on the same day they were approached and further he having seized some ornaments from the house of accused Biswajit Patnaik on 17-11-91 was satisfied that he was involved in the incident and therefore, he had no justifiable reason to keep them in the police station for so many days. In this view of the matter, test identification parade loses its evidentiary value and if the same is excluded from consideration, there remains the evidence of identification of the accused persons in court. It is the well settled law that if there has been no prior test identification parade. It will be wholly unsafe to rely upon the bare testimony of the witnesses regarding the identification of the accused for the first time in court. Added to that, the evidence of P. W. s. 2 and 3 regarding identity of the accused persons does not inspire confidence. They in their earlier statement to the police stated to have been able to identify only one culprit each, but when attended the T. I. parade as witnesses, P. W. 2 identified 5 accused persons and P. W. 3, four accused persons. This shows that they had no clear imprint of the culprits in their mind when they had seen the crime being committed and that is the person why they at the earliest point of time disclosed to the police that they could be able to identify only one of them. But later they identified most of the accused persons in the T. I. parade and this could be possible since they had the opportunity to see them while they were in the police station. But later they identified most of the accused persons in the T. I. parade and this could be possible since they had the opportunity to see them while they were in the police station. Having given my anxious consideration to the evidence as discussed above, if would, in my opinion, be risky to rely upon the evidence of identification and uphold the conviction recorded against the accused persons. ( 8 ) COMING to the evidence of identification of ornaments allegedly seized from the house of accused Biswajit, it may be stated that no prior T. I. parade was held and only for the first time some of the inmates of the informant's house got them identified in the court. As stated by P. W. 4, the ornament either belonging to female inmates or pledged by others had been kept in the iron safe which were stolen away by the culprits in the site of occurrence. So those being not the daily used ornaments, the I. O. ought to have held a prior test identification parade to ascertain their ownership. That having not been done, their identification for the first time in court cannot be relied upon to fasten accused Biswajit with the offence with which he stood charged. ( 9 ) IN view of my discussions made above, there being no acceptable evidence regarding involvement of the accused persons in the incident, benefit of doubt should be given to them. Consequentially all the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused persons are set aside. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeals allowed. .