JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 17.2.94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, district Khandwa. By this judgment in Session Trial No. 68/92, the learned trial Court convicted all these appellants in 7 appeals for having committed the offences of dacoity punishable under section 395 read with section 397 of the I. P. C, as it was a case of use of dangerous weapons by the dacoit-appellants. All the appellants were sentenced to R. I. for 10 years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of fine, further R. I. for 2 months for offence under section 395 I.P.C. and separate sentence of R.I. for 7 years under section 397 I.P.C. 2. It is apparent that the trial court has committed a legal error in passing separate sentence under section 395 and 397 I.P.C. as section 397 I.P.C. is only an enabling section which provides for minimum sentence of 7 years in case it is attracted for an offender who committed an offence under section 395 I.P.C. But that will be a matter to be considered after deciding whether the appellants have committed offence. 3. The trial Court found that on 26.6.91, these appellants at about 7.30 P. M., on a road leading from Asirgarh to Nepa Nagar, in an area near Burhanpur, put a wire across the road so as to obstruct the unwarranted traffic in order to loot the passangers. They waited for the victim to get into trap. P. W. 1 Suresh riding on a motor cycle bearing No. MBM - 5759, along with his daughter Pushpa, P. W. 2, was proceeding on that road. His motor -cycle struck against the wire set light across road, as it was not visible due to darkness. Motor-cycle fell down and both of them also fell down and suffered injuries. These appellants and another (now absconding) pounced upon them and hit them with wooden sticks. Suresh was given five injuries -2 on head, one on the back, one on thigh and one more. Pushpa suffered a bruise injury, abrasion and contusion on elbow and arm. One pairs of tops, which Pushpa was wearing, was looted from her and one pair ear rings, which she was carrying in a purse, was also looted. Rs. 1,000/- in cash, which were with Suresh, were also looted. Pushpa suffered a bruise injury, abrasion and contusion on elbow and arm. One pairs of tops, which Pushpa was wearing, was looted from her and one pair ear rings, which she was carrying in a purse, was also looted. Rs. 1,000/- in cash, which were with Suresh, were also looted. Then the accused escaped, from there. 4. All these appellants were arrested on 24.10.91. They were interrogated. An attempt was made to find out the whereabouts of the looted property, but nothing could be recovered. It appears that no test-identification parade was arranged and on the basis of the statement of the two witnesses, they were sent up for trial. 5. Learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence of the two witnesses about identification of the dacoits in the dock and so they have been convicted. 6. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the identification in dock took place after a long period, after the event, and this is very feeble evidence and cannot be acted upon for conviction, without corroboration by an earlier test identification parade in which the witnesses might have identified the accused. Even such an identification parade has to be properly held after proper safeguard that the witnesses have no occasion to meet or see the accused after their arrest. It is argued that there is no other evidence whatsoever in this case to support the assertion of these witnesses that these appellant-accused committed dacoity, and so they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. Some evidence was produced that a purse was recovered from Annu and the test identification was held by the Sarpanch P. W. 6 Chhabildas in which, Suresh identified the purse as his purse which was looted at that time. However, in evidence in court, Suresh did not speak a word about the purse having been looted from him or that the recovered purse was his purse. This negligence should not have been adopted by the prosecution. A perusal of his statement clearly shows that no question was put about the purse by the prosecution itself. Thus, apart from the identification in dock by the two witnesses, there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the identity of the dacoits. This negligence should not have been adopted by the prosecution. A perusal of his statement clearly shows that no question was put about the purse by the prosecution itself. Thus, apart from the identification in dock by the two witnesses, there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the identity of the dacoits. It may also be noted that in court, Suresh specifically identified Ijlas, Ratiha, Tersingh and Nandla as the robers and said that others had also joined in robbing them. Pushpa did not identify any of the appellants. She had not spoken a word about identification. She says that she was not hit by the dacoits. Only her father was hit. 8. No further discussion is needed to accept these appeals. It is sufficient to remark that the dock identification by the witnesses, unless there is specific reason to identify any of the accused by any special deformity or by special circumstance, cannot be sufficient ground to convict the accused who are totally unknown to the witnesses. The evidence of dock identification needs corroboration which can come from the test identification parade or any other independent sources. None of the witness has named the accused-appellants in the F. I. R. and there is no corroboration of identification in dock by Suresh. The trial Court has committed an error in relying upon this evidence to base the conviction of the appellants. The conviction is set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. 9. Before parting with the appeals, it may be noted that, among the trial courts, a misconception is persistent about the true scope of section 397 I.P.C. as if it defines a separate offence. This is not so. This section lays down the minimum sentence for offence under section 392 or S. 395 in a particular circumstance of use of dangerous weapon or causing certain injury by a particular accused person. There cannot be a separate sentence under section 397 and separate sentence for transaction of robery or dacoity. Section 397 I.P.C. is in the following terms :- 397. There cannot be a separate sentence under section 397 and separate sentence for transaction of robery or dacoity. Section 397 I.P.C. is in the following terms :- 397. Robery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - If, at the time of committing robery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished should not be less that seven years. In this section, the words "imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished should not be less than seven years." are important. They suggest that it is not a separately punishable offence, but by mechanism of this section, the minimum sentence is prescribed for those robers or dacoits, who, in the course of robery or dacoity uses deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to a person or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Of course, charge has to be framed for that particular rober or dacoit. This section enumerates the acts of the type mentioned in the provision. But the punishment has to be for the main offence read with this provision. 10. With theese observations, the appeals are accepted. The appellants are acquitted of their charges. They are said to be in jail. A warrant of release shall be issued for these appellants. Appeal allowed