R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 427/89 filed by Shiv Singh, Hallu Singh and Ghappu Singh. ( 2 ) ALL the appellants have been convicted by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge/special Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 53/84 be the judgment dated 27. 4. 89, under Section 395 read with Section 397, IPC and have been sentenced to go R. I. for seven years. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and judgment, the appellants have preferred these two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 768/89 was filed by the accused from jail. It appears that Mr. K. Z. Khan appeared for the accused but on the date of hearing none appeared for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 768/ 89, therefore, Mr. Sanjay Sharma was appointed as a defence Counsel by this Court. He has also argued Criminal Appeal No. 427/ 89. Mr. Manoj Naidu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State is also heard. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on night intervening 16th and 17th July, 1984, certain persons armed with deadly weapons forced their entry in the house of complainant PW 2 Swami Prasad, they fired the guns and after causing injury to Swami Prasad PW 2, Ranjor Singh PW 6 and Kusturi Bai PW 8-, looted them all their valuables. It is not in dispute that Ranjor Singh PW 6 is father of PW 2 Swami Prasad. Kusturi Bai (PW 8) is mother of said Swami Prasad and Ausab Bai PW 10 is wife of PW 2 Swami Prasad. ( 4 ) ON the night intervening 16th 17th July, 1984, when the complainants were sleeping in their house, after removing tiles from the roof the accused entered in the house, two of them tied Ranjor Singh PW 6 and PW 8 Kusturibai. They caused certain injuries to PW 2 Swami Prasad. They also burnt Swami Prasad and Ranjor Singh while making the enquiries about the ornaments, etc. In the said incident, silver articles like Channi Murra Chura, Chutaki, silver Dora, case, Lota (Utensil), a gold Tabiz, silver Gajra, Silver Kangans were looted. Ex. P 2 Dehati Nalish was lodged by PW 2 Swami Prasad. The police after registering the offence, prepared the pane/mamas, seized certain articles and recorded the statements of certain persons. In the said incident, silver articles like Channi Murra Chura, Chutaki, silver Dora, case, Lota (Utensil), a gold Tabiz, silver Gajra, Silver Kangans were looted. Ex. P 2 Dehati Nalish was lodged by PW 2 Swami Prasad. The police after registering the offence, prepared the pane/mamas, seized certain articles and recorded the statements of certain persons. The injured Ranjor Singh and Kasturibai were sent for their medical check up. Dr. R. C Jam, PW 9 examined the said persons and gave his medical reports at Exs. P 15 and P 16 mentioning the injuries in the said certificates. Dr. . t\. K. Mishra, PW 1 medically checked up PW 2 Swami Prasad on 17. 784, and submitted his report at Ex. P 1. On 27. 8. 84, under Ex. P 25, Ghappu Singh was arrested. Certain informations were given by him which were recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and a panch name to that effect was prepared. On the information of accused Ghappu, under Ex. P 24 Channi, Murra, six pairs of Chutaki and a Lota were recovered on the same day under Ex. P 26, a gun was also recovered. Accused Ghappu was put for identification on 14. 9. 1984. The identification parade was held and memo to that effect Ex. P-6 was prepared. Accused Ghappu was properly indentified. Certain articles recovered from Ghappu were put for identification and the witnesses identified the said ornaments, except the said small Chutakis. ( 5 ) ACCUSED Shivpal Singh, Shiv singh and Hallu Singh were arrested on 1. 10. 84. On certain informations given by the accused Shiv singh, on 24. 11. 84 under Ex. p 19 silver Gajras were recovered. On the information of Hallu, given on 24. 11. 84, on the same day under Ex. p 21 silver Gajras were recovered Shivpal is said to have given the information which was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Ex. p 20, on 25. 11. 1984 silver Kangans were recovered. The said articles were put for identification and were rightly identified by the complainant side. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the challan. ( 6 ) ACCUSED denied commission of the offence therefore, they were put to trial. p 20, on 25. 11. 1984 silver Kangans were recovered. The said articles were put for identification and were rightly identified by the complainant side. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the challan. ( 6 ) ACCUSED denied commission of the offence therefore, they were put to trial. After recording the complete evidence and hearing the accused, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving that the accused persons did force their entry in the house of the complainant, caused injuries to certain persons, fired guns and looted the complainant of his valuables which were recovered at the instance of the accused persons and were rightly identified The learned trial court convicted the accused persons and awarded the sentence as referred to above. ( 7 ) MR. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the accused persons have not been named in the First Information Report, therefore, the prosecution must prove its case on basis of the identification parade and recovery of the articles. According to him, the evidence of identification parade is not trustworthy and at the same time the recoveries are not properly proved. He submits that accused Ghappu was shown to the prosecution witness PW 8 Kusturibai before he was put to identification and as there was 17 days delay in a conduction of his identification parade, the Court must reject the said identification parade. According to him, the order three accused were arrested on 1. 10. 84, but were not put for their identification upto 1. 12. 84 and as there is no explanation forth-coming from the prosecution side regarding the unnecessary delay occasioned in conduction of the identification parade, the accused must get the benefit. Regarding the recoveries, he submits that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case therefore, the recovery of the articles which was almost after about four months of the incident must loose its importance and significance. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Naidu, learned Penal Lawyer for the State submits that there is no evidence of a foul play by the prosecution agency or police, therefore, even if there was some delay in conducting the identification parade of the person and/or property, no benefit of the same can be given to the accused persons. According to him, the witnesses have rightly identified the person and the property. According to him, the witnesses have rightly identified the person and the property. He submits that even if the independent witnesses do not support the seizure and recovery of the property, then too, there is nothing on record to show or suggest that statements of PW 16 Surendra Jam and PW 21 J. P. Pathak are not reliable. ( 8 ) THE evidence on record clearly shows that accused Ghappu was arrested on 27. 8. 84 under Ex, P 25, almost about40 days of the incident. According to the prosecution, on the same duly certain articles were recovered from him. If the accused was in custody on 27. 8. 84 and the articles were also recovered from him on the same day, then there was no good reason for the prosecution not to put him for identification parade or not to place the articles for identification. The accused was put for identification on 17. 9. 84, almost after 20 days of his arrest. Ordinarily delay of 20 days may/not be of extra importance, but when the accused had already been shown to the witnesses before conduction of identification parade, the delay would certainly assume importance and the statement made by the prosecution witness (PW 8 Kusturibai, para 3 of her statement) that the accused were shown to the prosecution witnesses, then the identification parade would loose its importance. Under these circumstances, I am unable to rely upon the identification parade in relation to accused Ghappu Singh. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that accused Shivpal Singh, Shiv Singh and Hallu Singh were arrested on 1. 10. 84. There is nothing on record to show or suggest that either on 1. 10. 84 or upto 24. 11. 84 police had any material against them. The accused who were in custody for more than seven weeks, suddenly started giving the information to the police. As observed above on the information given by Shiv Singh and Hallu Singh certain articles were recovered on 24. 11. 84 and on the information of Shivpal Singh certain articles were recovered on 25. 11. 84. They were put for identification on 1. 12. 84. The prosecution has nowhere stated as to why these accused could not be put for identification for a period of two months. 11. 84 and on the information of Shivpal Singh certain articles were recovered on 25. 11. 84. They were put for identification on 1. 12. 84. The prosecution has nowhere stated as to why these accused could not be put for identification for a period of two months. If there is no material against then, then they could not be kept in custody, but if the prosecution nursed any doubt against them or if the prosecution had any material against them to connect them with the alleged crime, then the identification parade ought to have been held within a reasonable period. ( 10 ) MR. Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Harinath and Anr, v. State of U. P. , contended that if there is inordinate delay in conduction of the test identification, the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test. Also placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Soni v. State of U. P. , it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that if there is inordinate and unexplained delay, then the identification parade loses its importance and cannot be taken assistance of for convicting the accused persons. In the matter of Soni (supra), the Supreme Court considering the lapse of 42 days in conduction of the identification parade of the accused held that the benefit of the regrettable and wholly unexplained lack of promptitude in holding the test identification, ensures to the appellants. The Supreme Court was clear in its opinion that if there is unexplained delay, the benefit must go to the accused. In the matter of Harinath (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly observed that if there is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution, in putting up the suspected culprit for a test identification and there is no explanation at all for the delay, the benefit must go to the accused. The record is conspicuously silent about the explanation. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the delay. In view of the said judgments of the Supreme Court and the positive lapses on the part of the prosecution in conduction of the identification parade, the benefit must go to the accused. The record is conspicuously silent about the explanation. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the delay. In view of the said judgments of the Supreme Court and the positive lapses on the part of the prosecution in conduction of the identification parade, the benefit must go to the accused. I refuse to rely upon the identification parade and the evidence in relation to the same as it suffers the death blow because of the unexplained delay. ( 11 ) SO far as the recovery of the articles are concerned the prosecution has sought to rely upon the statements of PW 16 Surendra Jam and PW 21 J. P. Pathak. Ordinarily, if the evidence of the prosecution witness is reliable then there is no need for the corroboration, but in case where the matter relates to recovery of certain articles from possession of the accused, the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses especially the Investigating Officer must be supported by the statements of the independent witnesses. In the instant case, the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The witnesses have admitted that they had signed the documents, but according to their statements the ornaments were not recovered or seized in their presence. ( 12 ) IN the matter of State of Kerala v. Thomas, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that absence of the examination of Panch witnesses who were otherwise independent, it would not be prudent to rely upon the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer. In the said case, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the statement made by the accused was said to have been made by him leading to such discovery as well as the recovery in presence of two independent panch witnesses, but the said witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, in absence of such independent evidence which could have been placed before the Court in support of the alleged discovery, it would be difficult to accept the said discovery merely relying upon the evidence of the police officer. In the instant case, the prosecution did examine the Panch witnesses, but unfortunately they did not support the prosecution case. In the instant case, the prosecution did examine the Panch witnesses, but unfortunately they did not support the prosecution case. In absence of any corroborative evidence which supports the statements of PW 16 S. K. Jam and PW 21 J. P. Pathak, in my opinion, it would not be safe to rely upon the statements of these two witnesses regarding the said recoveries. Even otherwise, it is to be seen from the record that articles recovered from Ghappu on 27. 8. 84 were put for identification on 4. 9. 84 and there is no explanation for delay. Similarly, the other articles which were recovered on 24th and 25th November, 1984. were put for identification on 1. 12. 84. It does rot appear logical that the prosecution, after arresting the accused persons and making the recoveries would wait for long time for conducting the identification parade of person and property. ( 13 ) THE Court below was influenced by the fact that the statement of PW 16 S. K. Jam and PW 21 J. P. Pathak are worth reliance. In the opinion of this Court, when the positive evidence does not support the circumstantial evidence, the chain which leads to the guilt of the accused would not stand concluded. In absence of a complete chain which proves the guilt of the accused, every benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused were the authors of the crime, beyond [he shadow of doubt. ( 14 ) IN view of the discussion above, the appeals deserve to be allowed. The same are allowed. Conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the accused are set aside. The accused persons are said to be on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. ( 15 ) THE Registry is directed to make the payment of the fees to Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate who was appointed by this Court as Counsel for the defence. Appeal allowed. .