JUDGMENT : M.S. Parikh, J. Accused no. 1 Chandraprakash Abhayraj Kahar, accused no. 2 Shyamsundar Trilokiprasad Tiwari and accused no. 3 Bhavesh alias Mahesh Chhaganlal Patel came to be charged with the offences punishable u/Ss. 392/34, 394, 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as per charge exh. 3 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1994 before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge at Vadodara. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, at the conclusion of trial acquitted accused no. 3 - Bhavesh alias Mahesh Chhaganlal Patel of the offences with which he was charged. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Chandraprakash and Shyamsundar Tiwari were convicted of the offences punishable u/S. 392 read with section 34 of the IPC, section 394 and section 397 read with section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo RI for a period of 6 months for the offences punishable u/Ss. 394 and 397 read with section 34 of the IPC. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable u/S. 392 read with section 34 of the IPC, since sentence was imposed under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC. It is this judgment and order dated 25/3/1996 of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge which has been subjected to challenge before this Court. 2. I have heard Mr. N.K. Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.P. Dave, Ld. APP for the State. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that no medical evidence has been adduced by the prosecution with regard to the injured witnesses (victims of the offence) and even the driver and conductor have not been examined and their statements were also not recorded by the prosecution. Hence, the very incident which has been described by the prosecution during the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. For the purpose of appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the appellants the facts of the prosecution case might first be noted and then the evidence adduced by the prosecution might be referred to. One Luxury Bus bearing No. ARC 209 of M/s. T.K. Travels commenced its journey from Surat to Ahmedabad at about 11.15 O'clock at night on 22/10/1991. One Luxury Bus bearing No. ARC 209 of M/s. T.K. Travels commenced its journey from Surat to Ahmedabad at about 11.15 O'clock at night on 22/10/1991. There were number of passengers in the bus and they included complainant Pravinbhai Nathabhai Patel, P.S.I. Ashrafkhan Alamkhan Chauhan and Mr. Karmasinh Laljibhai Gajjar. At about 2.00 O'clock at night the driver of the bus stopped the bus for enabling the passengers to have tea. At about 2.15 O'clock in the mid-night the bus resumed its onward journey towards Vadodara. After about 15 minutes one passenger reached the place near driver and at the point of revolver he made the driver to stop the bus. That passenger was Shyamsundar - accused no.2. Three of the other passengers had taken their place respectively in the middle and in the rear side of the bus and informed the passengers to give away whatever money and clothes they had with them. They accordingly collected the money, clothes and ornaments from the passengers. They in the process drew the suit-case of the complainant Pravinkumar; that suit-case contained cash amount of Rs.5,000/-, golden ring, clothes and other articles. When they were alighting the bus P.S.I. Mr. Chauhan who was sitting in the front row of seats caught hold of accused Shyamsundar with both his hands that resulted in the accused Shyamsundar and P.S.I. Mr. Chauhan being thrown out of the bus; at that time one of the accused had got out of the bus and inflicted a blow of knife on the thigh of Mr. Chauhan. When Mr. Karamsinh got down to save Mr. Chauhan he was also injured on his thigh with a blow of knife. In the meantime one of the accused fired and, therefore, all the passengers once again went inside the bus and the robbers had escaped. Mr. Karamsinh was taken inside the bus and the driver had taken the bus to the Highway Police Chowky, which was at a short distance from the place of incident and from there Mr. Karamsinh and Mr. Chauhan were taken to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara. The police party went to the place of incident, made a search of the robbers without any immediate result and recorded complaint of Pravinkumar (Pravinsinh) before the P.S.I. of Karjan. The offence was registered at Karjan Police Station C.R. No. I 396/1991. Initially the investigation was conducted by P.S.I. Mr. Karamsinh and Mr. Chauhan were taken to S.S.G. Hospital, Vadodara. The police party went to the place of incident, made a search of the robbers without any immediate result and recorded complaint of Pravinkumar (Pravinsinh) before the P.S.I. of Karjan. The offence was registered at Karjan Police Station C.R. No. I 396/1991. Initially the investigation was conducted by P.S.I. Mr. H.G. Baria, Panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn and statements of the passengers travelling by the bus were recorded. 3. During the course of investigation accused no.1 Chandraprakash Abhayraj Kahar was apprehended at Palanpur and upon receipt of such an information a transfer warrant was obtained and he was taken in custody. The investigation was thereafter resumed by P.S.I. Mr. S.L. Bhatt, who immediately entrusted the investigation to P.S.I. Mr. R.B. Patil, who had resumed the investigation on 2/12/1992. He ultimately arrested accused no. 2-Shyamsundar Tiwari and accused no. 3 Bhavesh and seized revolvers. He also seized small gold ingot by way of Muddamal article. The identification parade was held before the concerned Executive Magistrate and accused Chandraprakash was identified in that parade. In the meantime witnesses Messers Chauhan and Karamsinh Gajjar had identified the accused persons. This resulted in submission of the charge-sheet and ultimate trial before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge. 4. The prosecution examined Mr. Pravinkumar Nathabhai Patel, the complainant as P.W. No. 1 at exh. 9, Mr. Asrafkhan Alamkhan Chauhan, the P.S.I. who was travelling by the bus in question at the relevant point of time, has been examined as P.W. No. 2 at exh. 13. Panch witness - Vikrambhai Ravjibhai has been examined as P.W. No. 3 at exh. 14. Mr. Karamsinhbhai Laljibhai Gajjar has been exmined as P.W. No. 4 at exh. 15. First Investigating Officer Mr. Himmatsinh Gamabhai Baria P.W. No.5 has been examined at exh. 16. Second Investigating Officer Mr. Rameshchandra Baliram Patil has been examined as P.W. No. 6 at exh. 17. 5. The prosecution has also placed on record the complaint at exh. 10 and the Panchnamas at exhs. 11 ans 12. Having gone through the aforesaid pieces of evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has clearly established the occurrence of the incident as deposed to by the witnesses, who were the passengers in the bus at the relevant point of time. 10 and the Panchnamas at exhs. 11 ans 12. Having gone through the aforesaid pieces of evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has clearly established the occurrence of the incident as deposed to by the witnesses, who were the passengers in the bus at the relevant point of time. It is true that the prosecution placed on record list of documents at exh. 8 and the same includes the injury certificate also. However, simply because the prosecution has failed to adduce medical evidence in proof of the certificate of injuries, it can hardly be said that the witnesses who were travelling in the bus at the relevant point of time and who were injured in the course of incident as described herein-above, have been telling lies before the Court. There is no reason for them to do so. This can be seen from the narration of the incident and the manner in which they had an occasion to offer resistance at the time of incident. Even if corroboration is to be had to their ocular account, the same can be had from the Panchnamas exh. 11 and 12. These Panchnamas refer to find of blood at the scene of offence. They refer to the clothes stained with blood produced by the injured victims, who have been examined before the Court. They have also referred to find of pellet from the scene of offence. These unimpeachable pieces of evidence clearly corroborated the ocular account given by Pravinbhai Nathabhai Patel, complainant exh. 9, the injured witness Mr. Asrafkhan Chauhan exh. 13 and other witness Mr. Karamsinh Lalji Gajjar exh. 15. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has narrated the evidence of all three witnesses at length and has given cogent reasons for accepting their evidence. Simply because the investigation has failed to produce the medical evidence of S.S.G. Hospital where the injured witnesses were taken soon after the incident, it cannot be inferred that the whole incident has been a tell tale story set out by the witnesses. All the three witnesses are not related or connected with each other except that they were the co-passengers in the bus in question at the relevant point of time. They have no axe to grind against the accused persons. They are not in any manner shown to be so concerned as to tell any imaginary story. All the three witnesses are not related or connected with each other except that they were the co-passengers in the bus in question at the relevant point of time. They have no axe to grind against the accused persons. They are not in any manner shown to be so concerned as to tell any imaginary story. Under such circumstances, their evidence being primary and substantive piece of evidence can hardly be discarded, simply because the investigation has failed to place on record the medical evidence which was very much available to the investigation. It is expected that the prosecuting agency does not commit such basic errors hereafter and it takes care of producing such important evidence in the concerned cases. Same reasonings would apply with regard to non-examination of the driver and the conductor of the bus in question. It may be noted that statements of other passengers in the bus were in fact recorded, but it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. Non-examination of these witnesses will have no adverse effect on the evidence which has been placed on record, particularly the oral evidence of the aforesaid three passenger witnesses, two of whom were injured during the course of incident. 6. Mr. S.P. Dave, Ld. A.P.P. for the State has rightly referred to Panchnamas exhs. 11 and 12 and the evidence of the Investigating Officers for the purpose of gaining support to the evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses for the aforesaid reasons and the reasons set-out by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge. It has been beyond any manner of doubt established that the incident in question as described by the aforesaid three witnesses has in fact occurred and the result was occurrence of the offences of robbery as stated above during the course of which two of the aforesaid witnesses sustained injuries. 7. Whereas there is some substance in the submission of Mr. Pahwa that the evidence with regard to test identification parade is deficient in the present case, even that will have hardly any impact upon the conclusion reached by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, who has been careful to scrutinise the evidence while convicting two of the accused persons and acquitting one of the accused persons. The Ld. Addl. Pahwa that the evidence with regard to test identification parade is deficient in the present case, even that will have hardly any impact upon the conclusion reached by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, who has been careful to scrutinise the evidence while convicting two of the accused persons and acquitting one of the accused persons. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has narrated all the circumstances revolving round the occurrence of the incident in which the aforesaid three passenger witnesses were concerned while finding out how the concerned accused persons could be connected with the offences. 8. The first ground on which Mr. Pahwa has sought to assail the judgment of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge is that photographs of the accused persons were shown to the concerned witnesses prior to the identification parade having been held. Hence, according to his submission, the test identification parade could not be said to be reliable. In support of this submission Mr. Pahwa has firstly placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy reported in AIR 1989 SC 1410 . He first read the following observations appearing in para. 3 of the citation :- "3............ The accused no. 6 stated that he was falsely implicated. So far as the test identification is concerned, the accused contend that it was a mere farce since the photographs of the accused had appeared in the local dailies of 23rd and 24th Dec. 1972 and they were also shown to the witnesses while in police custody before the actual identification parade was held." Mr. Pahwa then read further observations appearing in the concluding part of para. 4. They would read :- "4............ As far as the identification parades are concerned both the courts accepted the defence plea that they were a mere farce firstly because the photographs of the accused had appeared in the newspapers before the identification parades were held and secondly because the possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses before the parades could not be ruled out. On this line of reasoning the accused came to be acquitted by both the Courts. The original complainants, PWs 1 and 2 have therefore come in appeal by special leave." He finally read following observations appearing in para. 10 of the citation :- "10. Two identification parades were held in the course of investigation. On this line of reasoning the accused came to be acquitted by both the Courts. The original complainants, PWs 1 and 2 have therefore come in appeal by special leave." He finally read following observations appearing in para. 10 of the citation :- "10. Two identification parades were held in the course of investigation. At the first identification parade PW 1 identified all the seven accused persons whereas PW 2 identified three of them, namely, accused Nos. 2, 6 and 7 alone. It is, however, in evidence that before the identification parades were held the photographs of the accused persons had appeared in the local daily newspapers. Besides, the accused persons were in the lock-up for a few days before the identification parades were held and therefore the possibility of their having been shown to the witnesses cannot be ruled out altogether. We do not, therefore, attach much importance to the identification made at the identification parades. However, it must be realised that the number of accused No.1 was mentioned in the complaint Exh. P-1 and accused Nos. 4 and 7 were already known to PW 1. The find of money from these three accused persons lends corroboration to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. We do not convict the other accused not because we doubt the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 but because we adopt a cautious approach and look for corroboration having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case." (Emphasis supplied). 9. Now in the present case facts disclosed from the evidence are quite distinct. It is not that the concerned accused was to be brought for being identified at the test identification parade and that his photograph was shown to the concerned witness before he would actually identify such accused. Here P.W. 1 Pravinkumar Nathalal Patel in the very initial stage and soon after the incident, had an occasion to go to some police stations at Vadodara and Surat to see the photographs of suspects/criminals maintained at such police stations. In the process he was able to point at the two photographs, one of which was of accused Shyamsundar. All that happened even before the concerned accused came to be apprehended. A brief resume of the evidence of the concerned witnesses may now be made. In the process he was able to point at the two photographs, one of which was of accused Shyamsundar. All that happened even before the concerned accused came to be apprehended. A brief resume of the evidence of the concerned witnesses may now be made. P.W. 1 Pravinkumar Nathabhai Patel has identified accused Chandraprakash in the Court as the person who was armed with knife at the time of incident, two of the persons who had revolvers with them and out of them one went near the driver and he identified accused Bhavesh alias Mahesh as the person going near the driver. When one other bus of Teraiya Travels was passing by the bus, when the driver of the bus in question was taking it on one side, the driver of the bus of Teraiya Travels applied a brake and at that time one of the three accused informed the driver of that bus that nothing had happened and he should proceed ahead. The person who was addressing the driver of bus of Teraiya Travels was identified as accused - Shyamsundar by the complainant Pravinkumar Nathabhai Patel. He has then deposed to the manner in which the accused persons had looted him. He has deposed that his suit-case contained cash amount of Rs.5,000/-, golden ring and clothes. They were taken away by the accused persons. They had taken away money and other articles from the other passengers also. One lady passenger refused to give golden chain, but on such refusal she was beaten by the accused persons. He has also described about the altercation between passenger Mr. Chauhan (PSI) and accused Shyamsundar. The witness has also described that accused Chandraprakash inflicted a blow of knife on the thigh of that person (PSI) Mr. Chauhan. He had also got down from the bus. Accused Shyamsundar had also fired one round from his revolver. He has also narrated the facts with regard to what happened thereafter. Ultimately he had an occasion to go back to Karjan Police Station in the evening by the said luxury bus. On the next day he was taken to one of the police stations at Vadodara and he was shown some photographs, but he stated that none of the photographs contained the photographs of the accused persons. In the afternoon he had gone to Surat and in one of the police stations he was shown the photographs. On the next day he was taken to one of the police stations at Vadodara and he was shown some photographs, but he stated that none of the photographs contained the photographs of the accused persons. In the afternoon he had gone to Surat and in one of the police stations he was shown the photographs. He identified two photographs that of accused Shyamsundar and accused Bhavesh. He also referred to his complaint exh. 10 and Muddamal knife and two revolvers held by the concerned accused persons. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not know why the bus was taken on the side. He, however, admitted that he was read over the complaint which he had given and he was also informed that accused persons were sitting inside the Court. He admitted that he was called for identification parade, but he could not reach on the day fixed for that purpose and on the next day he reached the police station, but no identification parade was held and, therefore, he had returned. At first he deposed that he did not know whether there were four robbers in the bus, but he confirmed that what was stated in the complaint about four robbers was true. He admitted that he did not state in his complaint with regard to lady passenger refusing to give golden chain and consequently getting beaten by the accused persons. It would, therefore, clearly appear from the evidence of the complainant that he had positively identified Chandraprakash and Shyamsundar, the first one (Chandraprakash in the Court) without any error and Shyamsundar by way of pointing at his photograph out of several photographs at one of the police stations at Surat. Therefore, it cannot be said from the evidence of this witness that he was briefed by showing a photograph of accused Shyamsundar before test identification parade. His identification of the two accused who have been convicted by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge is an independent identification arising from his having been present at the time of incident both inside the bus as well as outside the bus. He had an opportunity of observing the two accused persons, who were in actual action at the time of incident. It is no-doubt true that he has faulted with regard to accused Bhavesh alias Mahesh, but then the Ld. Addl. He had an opportunity of observing the two accused persons, who were in actual action at the time of incident. It is no-doubt true that he has faulted with regard to accused Bhavesh alias Mahesh, but then the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has been careful to acquit accused Bhavesh alias Mahesh upon weighing the evidence as a whole including evidence of this witness. 10. Next is the evidence of Mr. Asrafkhan Alemkhan Chauhan P.W.2 exh. 13, who as a matter of co-incidence was Police Sub-Inspector travelling in the bus in question at the relevant point of time. He was in the company of his friend Karamsinh Lalji Gajjar. He was sleeping in his seat in the front row of the bus when his friend Karamsinh woke him up and had shown the person standing nearby the driver and holding a country revolver/Tamancha; that person was asking the driver to stop the bus by pointing at him the Tamancha. The driver stopped the bus by taking it on the side of the road. One person was also standing on the rear side of the bus holding in his hand a Tamancha and in the middle portion of the bus two persons were standing with knives in their hands. The person standing nearby the driver was asking all the passengers to give whatever they had. The persons who were standing in the middle and the rear side were slowly asking the passengers and were also slapping them when required. One Karamsinh was also made to give away money which he had. The person standing nearby the driver occupied the place near the gear box and stood pointing the revolver. The three other persons who were inside the bus reached that place for the purpose of alighting the bus from the door which was in the front side of the bus. One of the persons asked to check the suit cases and three persons went back for checking the suit-cases. In the meantime the main person, who was in the front side of the bus moved nearby the witness Asrafkhan, who therefore attempted to catch hold of that person and in the process they were thrown out of the bus from the door. Other three persons hearing the noise of the Tamancha falling on to the ground also stepped out of the bus from the door. Other three persons hearing the noise of the Tamancha falling on to the ground also stepped out of the bus from the door. One who was caught hold of by the witness shouted to kill him (the witness). Hence, one of the persons had struck something on the head of the witness, but he did not leave the person who was caught hold of by him. One of the persons inflicted three blows of knife on the thigh of the witnesses. Karamsinh, the friend of the witness was getting down to save the witness and, therefore, one of the three persons had also inflicted knife blows on the thigh of Karamsinhbhai. By the time the witness tried to seek help from other vehicles passing by, all the four robbers had escaped. The witness has then narratted the story with regard to how they were taken to the Karjan Traffic Head Post in the first instance and thereafter at the S.S.G. Hospital at Vadodara by ambulance. The witness has then deposed that on 6/12/1991 he was called by the I.O. at Karjan Police Station. He was informed that he was called for identifying the robbers by test identification parade. He was taken in the office of the Mamlatdar for that purpose and there he identified one of the robbers from the persons who were present there. He then pointed accused Chandraprakash in the Court and deposed that he was the person who was identified by him in the Mamlatdar's office. He thereafter identified accused Shyamsundar as the person holding revolver and standing nearby the driver and ultimately caught hold of by him and both of them having been thrown out of the bus. He also identified Bhavesh as the accused standing on the rear side of the bus holding Tamancha. He identified his Muddamal clothes and the Muddamal big Tamancha which was held by accused Shyamsundar who was standing nearby the driver. He also identified the two Muddamal knives. In his cross-examination he admitted that although the lights in the bus were switched off, zero bulb lights were on. He admited that he could quite clearly identify the robber who was standing near the driver, but not other persons who were inside the bus. With regard to identification parade held in the office of the Mamlatdar, he has denied the suggestion that the accused persons were brought there subsequently. He admited that he could quite clearly identify the robber who was standing near the driver, but not other persons who were inside the bus. With regard to identification parade held in the office of the Mamlatdar, he has denied the suggestion that the accused persons were brought there subsequently. He has then been referred to some minor omissions. 11. It can be seen from the aforesaid evidence of this eye witness that he has positively identified accused Chandraprakash and Shyamsundar, accused Chandraprakash because he had an occasion to inflict knife blow and accused Shyamsundar because he had an occasion to observe him for considerable time while catching hold of him and even when both of them were thrown out while catching hold of him. Therefore, this witness comes out with a substantive piece of evidence with regard to positive identification of the two of the accused, one of whom was also identified by him at the test identification parade, which was held in the office of Mamlatdar. It is true that the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the parade was held has not been examined. However, the evidence with regard to holding of test identification parade by the Investigating Officer both in the evidence of this witness as well as in the evidence of Investigating Officer Rameshchandra Baliram Patil, P.W. 6 exh. 17 further lends support to the ocular account of this witness. Thus, from the evidence of this witness accused Chandraprakash and accused Shyamsundar clearly appeared as connected with the offence in question. Panch witness Vikrambhai Ravjibhai, P.W. 3 exh. 14 also supports evidence of this witness with regard to test identification parade. The cross-examination of the Panch witness to the effect that accused persons were brought in a tied condition (with rope) makes no difference in as much as no question was asked with regard to such a separate identity at the time of actual identification parade. 12. Karmasinh Laljibhai, P.W. 4 exh. 15 also lend support to the prosecution story as stated above. He has also identified accused Shyamsundar as one who was standing with revolver near the driver. He has also deposed to the altercation with P.S.I. Mr. Chaudhary had with accused Shyamsundar. He has narrated the story with regard to how he was assaulted and injured with a knife blow. 15 also lend support to the prosecution story as stated above. He has also identified accused Shyamsundar as one who was standing with revolver near the driver. He has also deposed to the altercation with P.S.I. Mr. Chaudhary had with accused Shyamsundar. He has narrated the story with regard to how he was assaulted and injured with a knife blow. He has also referred to the identification parade held on 6/12/1991 and having identified accused Shyamsundar in such identification parade. There is not much of a variance in the evidence which has been given by this witness. 13. On a true and correct appreciation of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it would appear that they had quite sufficient time to spot out the persons out of the 4 persons, who had robbed the bus. The facts emerging from the incident as had happened clearly indicate that it was quite possible for all the 3 witnesses to identify Shyamsundar, whereas for Mr. Asrafkhan and complainant to identify Chandraprakash. In that view of the matter, the observations which have been emphasised from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court would aptly apply to the facts of the present case. Under such circumstances, non-examination of the Executive Magistrate would not make any difference with regard to the test identification parade held on 6/12/1991. 14. Mr. Pahwa referred to a decision of this Court contained in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ahmad Alibhai Tharani rendered by a Division Bench and reported in 1993 (2) G.L.H. (U.J.) 8. Following observations in the background of the facts before the Division Bench will hardly have any application to the facts of the present case as stated above. The observations which have been read before this Court then are :- "It has to be borne in mind that the case is not proved by direct evidence or on eye-witnesses. It has to be proved from circumstances and, therefore, the identity of the accused to connect him with the crime has to be definitely proved by the prosecution. Learned Judge, while dealing with the evidence of the witnesses who are said to have seen the accused, has shown that none of them know the respondent. He was an unknown person to them. Learned Judge, while dealing with the evidence of the witnesses who are said to have seen the accused, has shown that none of them know the respondent. He was an unknown person to them. The only connecting link in the identification parade and as has been elaborately discussed by the learned Trial Judge in his judgment, the identification parade has been held to create prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the same cannot be made use of much less to be used in order to convert the acquittal into a conviction. We are in agreement with the learned Trial Judge that at the time of identification, the necessary care has not been taken by the authorities that there is every possibility of the identity of the accused being leaked to the witnesses or at least the accused was in such a position as to be identified on mere asking. One strong reason that was considered by the learned Judge was that at the time of the identification parade, the accused was brought with open face so as to expose him to the public and the possibility of the witnesses identifying the accused at the identification parade is not ruled out. The other strong argument against the prosecution is that the other persons who were brought for identification were all Hindus as against the lone Muslim respondent. With respect to some of the witnesses, it is shown that they were shown the photographs of the accused before they came to the identification parade. In this state of affairs, it is not at all safe to hold against the respondent about his identity particularly so as to connect him with the crime." 15. Mr. S.P. Dave, Ld. A.P.P. for the State has referred to a recent decision rendered by this Court in Shanubhai Hemabhai Vedava Vaghari v. State of Gujarat on 18/2/1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1997 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 441 of 1998. While referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harnath Singh v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 1619 , this Court noticed following propositions :- "........ during investigation of crime the police has to hold identification parades for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned therein. during investigation of crime the police has to hold identification parades for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned therein. They have thus a two fold object : first to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime or particular property was the subject of the crime and it is also designed to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court." Referring to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Budhsen v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 1321 , this Court has noticed the following propositions flowing from the said decision :- ".......... as a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement in the Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character and hence the purpose of a prior test identification is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding." Reference was also made to two of the decisions of the Apex Court in Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1958 S.C. 350 and Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 3 for the propositions that failure to hold prior test identification parade would not make inadmissible evidence of identification in the Court. It is a matter of weight to be attached to such identification depending upon facts of each case. 16. In above view of the matter submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant in respect of prior test identification parade being not reliable and, therefore, the evidence of the witnesses before the Court deserve rejection cannot be accepted bearing in mind the facts of the case as set-out herein-above. In the result, this appeal fails. The same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.